Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 25, 1995 <br />Bienke did not feel the proposal was inappropriate for <br />the neighborhood. <br />The City Planner reported that the building coverage of <br />the site is actually low. However, the buildings are <br />proposed to be clustered as they are because of the <br />large amount of easement area on the site. The Planner <br />stated that because of the residential nature of the <br />development and the different facades, he did not feel <br />the building placement would have a negative look. <br />Scalze pointed out the institutional nature of the <br />buildings to the south and felt the proposal of Real <br />Estate Masters seems to break it up and add some design <br />to the area. <br />LaValle pointed out that given the value of the project <br />proposed, the developer would not propose something <br />detrimental to the area. <br />Scalze asked about locating the garages on the NSP <br />easement. <br />Bienke reported that they are discussing this proposal <br />with NSP. <br />Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public <br />present wishing to comment on this matter. There was <br />not. <br />Scalze noted the discussion of the Park & Recreation <br />Commission on this matter, and commented on the <br />powerline trail system in the area. <br />Fahey indicated that any approvals would be subject to <br />the recommendation of the Park & Recreation Commission. <br />Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Morelan, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />Pedersen reported that although he is an independent <br />contractor, his real estate license is held by Real <br />Estate Masters. Therefore, he would abstain from <br />voting on this matter. <br />Morelan reported that he was opposed to the PUD because <br />of concerns he had with the density of the development. <br />8 <br />