My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 10251988
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1988
>
CC PACKET 10251988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 4:33:02 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 4:32:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
18
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 1987-1989
SP Name
CC PACKET 10251988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
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
1 Mr. Rogers was told copies of the Preliminary Plat would be made <br /> 2 available for any residents who wanted one and Mr. Hoium told him the • <br /> 3 developers had been able to negotiate soil corrections costs down to <br /> 4 about $273 ,000.00 which was a lot less than first anticipated. The <br /> 5 questioner was again assured that the final rezoning of the property <br /> 6 would not be done until after the Redevelopers Agreement has been <br /> 7 signed and the final platting for the property had been submitted for <br /> 8 Planning Commission review. The property would only be rezoned for <br /> 9 townhomes after the Council had approved both documents. <br /> 10 Richard D. Oertwich, 3408 Silver Lane, was assured that at least a 15 <br /> 11 foot setback would be left between unit #1 and his property line which, <br /> 12 if his own residence was 12 or 13 feet from the lot line, would leave <br /> 13 about 30 feet between the two structures. Mr. Oertwich also wanted <br /> 14 assurance that some sort of screening would be provided between the two <br /> 15 properties. <br /> 16 The Chair reiterated that this was one of the conditions which had to <br /> 17 be met before the property would be rezoned and that setback would most <br /> 18 likely be included in the final plan which the City Manager expects to <br /> 19 have back for Commission review in about 30 days. <br /> 20 Mr. Childs indicated he would send out notices of not only the <br /> 21 Commission review of the final plan but also the meeting where the <br /> 22 Council would most likely be giving the third reading for adoption of <br /> 23 the ordinance which would rezone his property. <br /> 24 There was no response to the Chair's invitation for further comments. <br /> 25 Ms. Sheehy reported that many of the prospective buyers of the <br /> 26 townhomes had told her they had no objections to trains and since there <br /> 27 was a chance that line might be discontinued altogether, she wondered <br /> 28 why any screening of the tracks was necessary. She said one of the <br /> 29 persons who had reserved a unit had told her the railroad had replaced <br /> 30 the short tracks with long ones which left only the noise generated by <br /> 31 the engines to make that steep grade. Although the berming was no <br /> 32 longer considered necessary with the placement of the street between the <br /> 33 structures and the railroad tracks, the general consensus was that <br /> 34 screening should remain a condition for rezoning the property. <br /> 35 Sketches of the individual units were shown to the residents with the <br /> 36 proponents indicating the exterior would be of rough cedar appearing <br /> 37 vinyl. <br /> 38 The Chair closed the hearing at 8:13 P.M. but reopened it at 8:14 P.M. <br /> 39 when Mr. Mordahl requested he be given an opportunity of making a <br /> 40 formal statement of his concerns about the project. <br /> 41 His presentation included repetition of his position on the issue as <br /> 42 stated in his letter to the City Manager, copies of which had been <br /> 43 provided the Council before their April 26th meeting. That position <br /> 44 was that by allowing Lot 5 of the Villella addition to be developed <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.