Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 24, 2002 <br />POOLSIDE <br />(CONT.) <br />take the appropriate easements for utilities in the event that some time in <br />the future the City would take over these streets. <br />Anderson asked about tree preservation. Sherman reported that they will <br />be doing a tree identification survey and would preserve as rnany trees as <br />possible and comply with the City's 'free Preservation Ordinance. <br />'T'here was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Sherman indicated that he is hoping to have the Venetian building <br />demolished in mid - September and have construction start on the senior <br />building by mid to late October. There are still some site issues that are in <br />the process of being resolved. <br />Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Scalze, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -7 -175 — APPROVING THE PLANNED <br />UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP MIXED RESIDENTIAL <br />AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF <br />79 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS AND 14,000 SQUARE FEET OF <br />RETAIL SPACE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, ARCHITECTURAL <br />REVIEW,, ND CONCEPT PUD FOR 51 TOWNHOME UNITS FOR <br />VILLAGE SQUARE Al' LITTLE CANADA AS PRESENTED IN THE <br />REVISED DRAWING PRESENTED BY SHERMAN ASSOCIATES <br />SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE IVITI - -1 RECOMMENDATIONS MADE <br />BY THE CITY PLANNER AND THE CITY ENGINEER <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Montour, Scalze, Anderson, Fahey, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Fahey asked Anderson how critical the continued use of Jackson Street <br />to the Poolside business. .Anderson replied that they have always used <br />Jackson Street for access, and pointed out that the elimination of the <br />Jackson Street access would result in semis backing onto County Road C. <br />A resident of the area pointed out that Poolside has a County Road C <br />address and that the residential housing existed before Poolside did. The <br />resident was also concerned that the Poolside proposal calls for the <br />