My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-24-2002 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
04-24-2002 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/15/2012 8:18:43 AM
Creation date
5/15/2012 8:11:01 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL. <br />DECEMBER 19, 2001 <br />Gosman indicated that they would like some assistance from the <br />putting access through to Rice Street, whether that assistance comes in the <br />f of tax abatement City with <br />form o property. , or assistance with the purchase of the Anderson <br />Scalze pointed out that once the City gets involved in <br />providing <br />assistance, then all the taxpayers are involved. <br />Gosman pointed out that if the Anderson property could be ac and <br />combined with this site, the development <br />Gosman re p potential substantially crincreases. <br />ported that the Anderson property is for sale, however, the asking <br />price <br />Gosman <br />quite high. <br />Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public interested in <br />commenting on this matter <br />Torn Duray reported that he has discussed this development proposal with <br />Messrs. Rustad, I- Iarstad, and Anderson and they all agree that this is a good <br />transitional use for the area The area of concern, however, is access. It is <br />their feeling that access should be via Rice Street. Dura y re ported that given <br />the hill on Park Street, additional traffic on that road would not be in the <br />interests of public safety. <br />A Park Street resident expressed concern with additional traffic on Park <br />from this development. He also asked when the property was <br />commercial Street <br />suggested that it be rezoned to accommodate residential to <br />development rather than commercial Scalze reported that the property <br />priorbeen zoned commercial for over 30 years and this zonin<, <br />prior to the existence of p P pertY has <br />to the property ark Street. The commercial zoning likely is mace <br />y abuts Rice Street. o likely carne to be <br />Fahey pointed out that the <br />Fahey poi development ut th and itysenior housing bresented with concepts <br />on this ssite. The <br />property owner is now proposing the townoffice concept. <br />the Council supported the development of townhomes on the site, and <br />indicated that he would support Fahey reported that <br />Street. PPort the townoffice concept if access were via Rice <br />The property owner indicated that he favored a residential development on the <br />site and indicated that traffic from a residential development onto Park Street <br />was acceptable to him, but traffic from a townoffice development was not <br />Fahey indicated that the issue at this point is whether or not the W <br />allow pond relocation to provide for access to Rice Sheet. Fahey felt that if <br />not, the City should consider rezoning, atershed will <br />townhome development g the property to residential to allow <br />hard to get pnment on the site. Fahey suggested that the developer for <br />met access via Rice Street for the townoffice development, because his <br />per work <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.