05-25-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council May 25, 1988 Boosalis a Plan E which was suggested by P1rs. Scalze and which Boosalis reviewed CUP for the Council. Plan E decr•eased the size of the commercial building (Cont.) and pr•ovided a ser~vice dr•iveway ar~ound to the back of the building. The plan also added r•esidential Lots 16 and 17, however•, Boosalis questioned the ability to develop two additional r•esidential lots and thought only one would be possible. Tim Townsley, Iona Lane resident, questioned the necessity for a ser~vice dr•ive in the back of the commer•cial building. Boosalis r•eplied that this access is needed for• deliver~ies to the occupants of the building and pointed out that there is a service walkway in the back of the fir~st commer•cial building alr•eady developed on the site. Boosalis pointed out that Plan E decr•eases the amount of par•king spaces and noted the necessity for~ having adequate, convenient par•king for• r•etail center•s. Fahey stated that he was not pleased with the tr•affic patter•n for• Plan E and agr~eed that par•king must be convenient to the r~etail businesses. Collova suggested that only substandar•d housing may be developed on Lots 16 and 17 pr•oposed i n Pl an E due to thei r• pr•oximi ty to the r~etai 1 center• pr•oposed. Blesener• felt that ther~e would be mor~e activity adjacent to the Townsley property under• Plan E than Plan A~ Fahey stated that he felt Boosalis did a good job of laying out the r~esidential development in Plan A and questioned the impact on the Townsley property. Townsley felt the impact would be significant and noted the noise pr~oblems fr•om the existing str~ip center• which would be escalated when a closer• str•i p center• i s devel oped. Townsl ey stated that he pr•efer•r•ed P1 an E to Plan A. Fahey stated that whatever• plan is developed will have to wor~k commer•cial1y for• the City to par•ticipate in Tax Incr~ement Financing for• the pr~oject. Fahey did not feel the City should deny a commer•cial development that made good common sense. Towns1ey stated that he would r~ather• see r~esidential development adjacent to his pr~oper•ty than commercial. Fahey noted that ther~e is not enough depth to develop the str~ip of land to the south of Iona Lane with r•esidential development. A r•oad would have to be built to access the pr~oper•ty, and Fahey felt a r•oad adjacent to the Townsley proper•ty would have mor~e impact than Plan A. Fahey stated that he has to evaluate whether• Townsley's objections wer~e r•easonable given the ar~ea that he lives in. Page -5-