My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-27-1984 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
06-27-1984 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:12:20 PM
Creation date
6/24/2013 3:10:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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 />Planning Commission <br />June 14, 1984 <br />Centerville <br />Road Area <br />(Cont.) <br />Hanson stated that if they did obtain the Nadeau property, they would <br />be 'interested in turning over the property under the power lines to <br />the ark charge. The Planner stated that the City may not <br />want City assume p. <br />want to assume responsi.bi.li.ty for the maintenance of this prop <br />Mr. Herkenhoff stated that he would like to see but if that is not possible, this is an alternative. <br />a single family has. <br />home area first, apartments the City <br />llerkenhoff pointed out the high density of ap' <br />Mr. Hanson stated that the single family home market is dead and this <br />is an alternative. if the Nadeau <br />Mrs. Timmons felt that the use would be acceptable, <br />property were included. Timmons pointed out that then the property <br />would not be land- locked between commercial. <br />Mr. Hanson stated that he would not want approval tied into the purchase <br />because then he is tied to getting that <br />of pe y no property, what at hew. <br />property he has right property no matter wha the cost. Hanson stated that he would like <br />action on the proposal with the <br />pointed out that if the property develops and the units <br />Mrs. Timmons p the City <br />angry homeowners. Mr. Hanson stated <br />are sold and then commercial develops around this, t <br />have to deal. with a bunch of an„ y <br />that this is a chance they have to take. projects like this in other <br />Mr. Licht stated that he has processed <br />cities, and the units are 95% owner - occupied• pro ect. <br />Mr. Hanson asked for a vote of the Commission <br />Mrs. Timmons stated that she was not prepared to vote at this time• but felt it was spot-zoning. <br />Mr. French stated that he liked the project, <br />French pointed out that there could be industrial development o <br />both sides of the development• ositive feelings iE the <br />Mr. I)eLonais stated that `Jere�not would riesidentialp <br />property to the north <br />makes recommendations <br />package together <br />Mrs. stated that developers the Commission only <br />and stated that the developers will have to put the p <br />sooner or later. Timmons stated that this is one of the reasons <br />so that they can <br />the Commission tykandlth inkaaboutahead <br />proposal. <br />view the property <br />Page -8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.