Laserfiche WebLink
P9INUTES <br />City Council <br />June l, 1988 <br />Fahey explained that a por~tion of the pr•oper•ty on County Road C is cur•r•ently <br />zoned commer•cial. However~, when the r~oad is impr~oved for• the r•esidential <br />development, the back half of these commer~cial lots which would fr•ont on the <br />r~esidential r•oad would be r•ezoned to single-family residential. <br />Mr•s. Gr•egor•y asked when the r•esidential homes would be developed. Gr•egor•y <br />also pointed out that portions of the pr~oper•ty ar~e rolling and asked if <br />the entir~e site would be leveled. <br />It was pointed out that once the r~esidential str•eet is impr•oved and the <br />cost of the str•eet is assessed, the developer• will have to sell the lots <br />and housing will be developed. <br />Boosalis r~epor•ted that details such as gr~ading plans for~ the site have not <br />been developed at this point. <br />Fahey pointed out that the gr•ading plan for~ the pr•oper•ty would have to be <br />compatible with the backyar~ds of the Iona Lane pr~oper•ties. <br />Mr•. Gr•egor•y stated that he was in favor~ of the r~esidential pr~oposal, however•, <br />did not feel residential should be put in at Tim Townsley's expense. Gr•egor~y <br />pointed out that when Townsley bought his proper•ty, the pr•oper~ty being <br />discussed this evening was zoned R-1 and the Townsley pr~oper~ty was pur•chased <br />with the assur•ance of r•esidential development adjacent to it on the south. <br />Gr•egor•y suggested that an office building development adjacent to the Townsley <br />home woul d be pr~efer•abl e. <br />Blesener• pointed out that the commer•cial development on Rice Str•eet would <br />be used to defr•ay the costs of the residential development thr~ough the <br />use of TIF to make the r~esidential development feasible. <br />Mr•. Gr•egor•y pointed out that the Iona Lane r~esidents to the nor~th got a <br />100 foot buffer• fr•om the apar•tment development adjacent to them. Gr~egor•y <br />felt that Townsley should get another 20 feet of buffer• ar•ea. <br />Council discussed the City's pr~ovision for• 5% of the TIF gener•ated to be <br />used for• other• City pur~poses, such as par~k acquisition and it was the <br />feeling of the Council to for•ego this 5% in the inter•est of getting <br />the residential development as pr•oposed. <br />Fahey agr•eed that the impact fr~om a site line per~spective fr~om the Townsley <br />pr•oper•ty to the commer•cial development was not as great as he might think, <br />but felt that, if possible, the setback on the nor•th should be incr•eased <br />to move the development fur•ther• away fr~om the Townsley pr•oper•ty. <br />Townsley stated that if the commer•cial development must go in, 20 feet of <br />additional setback would be alot better• than the 40 foot setback being <br />pr•oposed. Townsely stated that the 20 feet of additional setback would <br />save some lar•ger• tr•ees that would pr•ovide some scr~eening to his pr•oper~ty. <br />B1 esener• asked how much pr•oper•ty on the nor•th woul d have to be di stur•bed <br />dur~ing constr•uction of the str•ip center•. <br />Page -3- <br />