Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />fJ- <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />August 8, 1988 <br /> <br />Jim Andre ~~ <br /> <br />Craig A. waldrontl'~ <br /> <br />Summary of Saturday, August 6, <br />meeting. <br /> <br />On Saturday August 6, the following individuals met regarding a <br />potential Can American compromise. Howard Dahlgren, Bob Yorlt, <br />(Can-Am attorney) Bob Bell, Arnie Gregory, Bob Matson, three <br />neighbors, Dan Hu~t (Coldwell Banker), and myself. Can-Am~rican <br />has developed a compromise which would include a single family <br />component on tho site, and an overall red~ced multi-family <br />housing in the range of 224 units. Based on the addition of a <br />single tamlly development, the park component is eliminated and <br />thus, cash would be required from the developers. I ran a quick <br />analysis on this proposal, and it appears that a payout is <br />workable in 13.5 years. In addition, this co~promise requires a <br />.50 per sq. ft. reduction by Rieling. <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />198~ <br /> <br />Can Americ~n <br /> <br />The n~ighbors were informed by Mr. Dahlgren, who was gem"rally <br />t...upported by Mr. Bell, that it the neighbors R-l pot! tl.cn was <br />approved and a study by Dahlgren's firm was conducte~, it would <br />in 411 likelihood point out that multi.-familv use (excluding <br />.:l.:t\m:LL commercial on the corn~r) wou~d be the most aDDropriate. <br />Thus, the city could pot~ntially go through a major stUdy and/or <br />court challflnge and end lJ'? in virtu"Uy the same place that it is <br />today in tOrr:lS of the Can American type of proposaJ.. It was <br />therefore suggestEd by Hr. Bell that it would be appropriate to <br />pursue a compromise with the neighbors that would allow this <br />dev~lopmen~ to proceed and negate the need for a <br />moratorium/housing study, etc. It was my opinion that the <br />neighbors liked the study better than the previous proposals, <br />however, I would have 'Co say that it was also my opinion that <br />they were essenti~lly non-committal. <br /> <br />The issues before the Council are therefore as follows: <br /> <br />1. Should the moratorium be aDDr~~ <br /> <br />2. ~~ aDolication s~ould be re~rred to the Pl~ <br />CommIssIon - Can-Arnerlc,ln1s or the acjacent neighbor's? <br /> <br />Based on the information that I c~taincd from this meeting, the <br />most logical course appears to be as follows: <br /> <br />1. Do not approve the moratorium, based on the fact that the <br />city will probably be facing the same type of land use that <br />it is today - rnulti-farnlly. The City would in aLl liklihood <br />