CC 01-11-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting January 11, 1983 Page Six . Hicks noted that one of the Council's determinations is whether or not the cluster units can be defined as "institutional hous- ing"; asked how a sky way link would be received to link the two levels of the site. Dave Shea eaid it would have to cross over the woods and garden area to connect to the lower site building; profile would be much greater than the ground profile connection; it would have to cross the parking lot, making it difficult to move cars through to uti- lize the parking areas. Mulcahy noted that the proposed northeast building seems to be of . moat concern; asked if the concern is one of a "broken agreement" or a viaual problem, impacting the properties on Shorewood Drive. Mr. Baker said he does not know what the purchase agreement was when Sutton Place was purchased; knows that they were told the townhousee would be placed on the Sutton Place property if the Sutton Place approval was given. Baker said his second iseue is the ~ mile of wall - we don't want this area walled in. Hagstrom explained that the school was purchased with no commit- mente relative to how it could be used; we hoped for it, but the purchase wae not contingent upon an agreement to renovate the school as Sutton Place. McAlliater said her concern is density - site is zoned R-2 and abuts R-1; feels the density needs to be minimized to not advereely impact on the adjacent R-1; suggeeted one large building may be more acceptable and certainly more efficient to operate, and would eliminate the need for links; suggested thie be considered. McAllieter said she feels pressured into making a decision when other alternatives could be considered. Mulcahy said he feele some action should be taken; some indication relative to the proposal and/or some direction should be given. Mulcahy moved, seconded by Christtansen, that Council approve the amendment of the Special Use Permits to approve the 44 unit Sutton Place multiple housing as proposed. Hicks said he feels the motion needs to be amended because of density concerns; noted thst the appropriate density should be determined; also said he feels there is a real need for corridors, which he feels could be centralized and not around the perimeter of the site. After further discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council set the density at 25 dwelling units. Motion did not carry (Hicks and McAllister voting in favor; Mulcahy, Christiansen, Woodburn voting in opposition. (2-3). McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that the 4-unit northeast building, plus one 8-unit building be eliminated, reducing the number of units to 32. Motion carried (McAllister, Hicks, Woodburn voting in ~avor of the motion, Christiansen and Mulcahy voting in Oppoeition) (3-2).. . Shea commented that the feasibility of the project at 44 units was considered doubtful; at 32 units, it would probably be impos- sib Ie. (Recess was requested by Applicant) Mr. Baker, speaking for his neighbors, said they can live with the density if the northeast building is eliminated and the links con- necting it to the main building. Shea said it may be poesible to remove the northeast building if it can be incorporated on the upper site; said that the link to the main building can be re-designed and landscaped; feels a con- necting link to the main building can be worked out in a different manner which will be compatible to the neighborhood. -6-