Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />August 27, 1973 <br /> <br />on this property and wants Mr. Gustafson to go ahead and build the <br />development. He saId he feels confident that if there Is no resolu- <br />tion tonight, "Gustafson Is gone". <br /> <br />Mr. Healy requested the feelings of the Council on the specific <br />Issues. <br /> <br />CI"lchton: <br /> <br />don't bel ieve <br /> <br />can do this; I stili have concerns. <br /> <br />e. <br /> <br />Herrick said that Item No.4 (in this proposed resolution), in his <br />mInd, has been resolved; it was not a recommendation of the parks <br />committee to delete the recreation. buIlding. This was a decision <br />by the developer. <br /> <br />Olmeo: It is my understanding that roadways, other than Stonegate <br />Drive, would not be maintained by the Village, but would be prIvate <br />st re(..~s. <br /> <br />Crichton: Some of these streets should be collector streets, because <br />of traffic, and should be dedicet3d to the VIII~,.a. <br /> <br />Heely: If Village wants streets to ba dedicated, this would probably <br />be no problem to the developer If vari~nce5 are granted for widths <br />and grades, ate., so that street design would not need to be changed. <br />We would like to have ~n amicable decision made; there is no way <br />to pursue this with the applicant not being here. <br /> <br />Partrid~e asked the road widths of hard surfacing on Village streets. <br />.What wIdths are we talkJng about" You don't p~ve the entire road- <br />way" . <br /> <br />Mayor CreDeau advised that widths varied with the type of street. <br /> <br />H2lJenhors~ said that It Is not difficult for him to accept Point <br />No. i, density; it is close to ordlnElnce f'oQuirements; also, not <br />difficult to accap~ No.4, park dedication, but No.2 (length of <br />but Idings) and No.3 (long private streets)" are reasons for his <br />dlftlcllitv in CltHlrOvin'l the project; these describe a type of livinp <br />quite dlffersl'!t tor Al"dGfl 1:1' Is and he Is concerned. <br /> <br />Healv said that originally Gustafson had proDosed short CUl-de-sac <br />roads, but, at the request of the Vlllape planner (or Planning Com- <br />mission), changed these to thru streets. He said these narrower <br />streets are suitable to townhouse developm~nts and traffic can be <br />controlled oy adding signs, bumps or curves, If desired; these culs <br />could be replaced, If this is the Council's desire. <br /> <br />Herrick expressed concern regarding ordinance Interpretation con- <br />"usion.- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />H~: Most ordinances. were not designed for planned developml'lnts <br />and confusion has been apparent; the purpose of a PUD is to present <br />a picture as to what 15 proposed, Instead of requesting variances <br />for the possible narrow streets, steeper grades, setbac~ densIty <br />differences, which m~y be proposed for a pun development. <br /> <br />Herrick: Even If it is a pun,. it would be wise to have facts in <br />front of liS. <br /> <br />Crichton said he could not voto far the resolution, as submitted, <br />ahCi suggestod m..,eting \<lith Gustafson to resolve '~he matters, not <br />by resolution, but bv some other method. <br /> <br />!:l2_<U_'L: We don't 1(now why Gustafson has dec i ded not to pursue the <br />a p p! i cat I on . <br /> <br />Ql~: There ill"e 50 fOl, th I ngs -1.0 be wod~ed Ou"'". 1 sU9gest we <br />get together with Gustafson and work out tho variances. <br /> <br />-3- <br />