Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />June 1, 1988 <br />Boosalis estimated 10 to 15 feet, while his ar~chitect estimated 5 feet. <br />Boosalis also expr•essed concer•n with the Council shor~tening the length <br />of the building before all the costs ar~e known. Boosalis suggested that <br />he put together~ some estimates of costs, however•, noted that the costs <br />would be just estimates. <br />Scalze pointed out that at some point the City will need more than estimates. <br />Boosalis pointed out the constr•aints of the building season and felt that <br />if too much time was spent in the analysis of the project, it would be too <br />late to get the pr•oject going for• this year~. <br />LaValle asked what the or•ange stakes on the pr•oper•ty wer~e for•. <br />Boosalis r•eplied that the or~ange stakes show the location of the building <br />with a 40 foot setback. <br />P1r~. Gr•egor•y poi nted out probl ems wi th the commer•ci al devel opment al r•eady <br />existing adjacent to Iona Lane and stated that the City could not anticipate <br />what pr~oblems this development would cause Iona Lane. Gr•egor•y felt the 40 <br />foot setback was too small. <br />Fahey noted that the Council must consider• the alter~natives, one of which <br />was a r•oad dir•ectly adjacent to the Townsley pr•oper•ty to access the <br />r~esidential pr•oper~ty to the east. Fahey felt that the pr~oposal befor•e the <br />Council was much better• than that alter~native. <br />P9r•s. Gr•egor•y agr•eed but suggested that the setback be incr•eased a little <br />bit mor~e. <br />Townsley asked why the pr•oper•ty was ever~ zoned R-1 if it was not going <br />to be developed as R-1. <br />Fahey agr•eed that the zoning should have been changed since it is not <br />feasible to develop pr•oper•ty on Rice Str•eet as R-l. <br />Townsley pointed out the additional tr•affic that this pr•oject w911 gener~ate <br />and the difficulty Iona Lane r•esidents have getting onto Rice Str•eet. <br />Fahey pointed out that Rice Str~eet is a State Highway and that tr~affic <br />would not be a basis for tur•ning down the Boosalis pr~oposal. <br />Blesener• suggested that a 50 foot setback on the north be r•equir~ed which <br />would include 25 feet of undistur•bed setback adjacent to the Townsley <br />pr•oper•ty, a small ber~m with a fence on top and some ever•gr•eens. This <br />would allow Boosalis 95% of the building area he is pr~oposing which could <br />be made up in adding some additional depth to the building. <br />Townsley asked if the pr•oposal is appr~oved if sometime in the futur~e <br />the devel oper~ coul d r•equest a change i n the r•esi denti al por•ti on of the <br />development. <br />Page -4- <br />