Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />April 26, 1989 <br />Gloria Bjorklund, Iona Lane resident, was concerned that Boosalis would not <br />construct the larger retail building until he had it leased. Bjorklund asked <br />that the City require both buildings to be constructed at the same time. <br />Bjorklund also requested that the residential area be developed at the same <br />time as the commercial area. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City can withhold occupancy permits on one or both <br />of the commercial buildings until the road is improved in the residential <br />area. <br />Boosalis reported that he has a builder interested in the residential lots. <br />The only question at this time is whether or not the project is financially <br />feasible.. <br />The City Planner pointed out that the City can withhold TIF money until the <br />residential road is improved. <br />Bjorklund asked if a bond is required to ensure that landscaping is completed. <br />Scalze replied that this was correct. <br />Tim Townsley, Iona Lane resident, was concerned with the parking proposed on <br />the north side of the retail building and stated that this will generate noise. <br />Townsley stated that he would prefer to see the building closer to the north <br />and the parking eliminated. Townsley pointed out that the building would be <br />less noisy than a parking area. <br />The City Planner stated that the developer is proposing more parking area than <br />required under Code. The Planner stated that if the additional parking is not <br />necessary, he would prefer to see the area landscaped. <br />Townsley stated that he would like to see as many of the existing trees saved <br />as is possible_ <br />The Planner pointed out that moving the building further north will interfere <br />with the traffic circulation for the Rapid Oil building. <br />Boosalis reported that there is a parking shortage for his building to the <br />south, and it is felt that the additional parking is needed. Boosalis pointed <br />out that the parking on the north would be for overflow parking. <br />Council discussed this matter in detail and it was the concensus of the Council <br />that the parking area at the north side of the building be eliminated and the <br />area landscaped. Council was of the opinion that the retaining wall as proposed <br />by the developer remain where the developer is currently proposing it. This <br />would reserve the area for future parking if the need is proven in the future. <br />Bill Souchy, County Road C resident, felt that the area was overdeveloped, and <br />suggested that the development be denied, and the property retained as open <br />space. Souchy was also concerned with the trees that would be lost as a <br />result of this development. <br />Page 152 <br />