pf_01482 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ e e Planning COll'l:lliSSIOn ~11nutcs February 1. 1984 .3- Bob Metz. 698 County Road C. indicated Mr. Borgstrom does not favo~ the road extension 3S 1ndicatcd by ~Ir. Kehr. Ho also cOllll1lented that Hr. Buss, owner of the adjacent prop~rty west of Mr. Kehrls, is in Arizona. but has expressed his opposltion to the proposed development. Mr. North indicated a letter had been received from Mrs. Buss expressing her opposition to the request for rezoning. She stated she was under tho impression that all tho bUlld1l1gS would be to the rear of the lot. M~. Dahlgren slated that If the roadway was not extended to the e~st, then a cuI-dc-sac should be built, and perhaps the number of units would need to be decreased. He stated the staff has stressed the importance of the agreement of the property owners to the road extension. Nr. Ed Salverda asked how much it would cost to extend the driveway, and if the City would assume maintenance. Mr. Ilonchell lndicated the cost would be approx1Mately $100 a running foot. He commented the City would not assume any respons1b111ty for the maintenance because it would be a private drlveway. Mr. Rukavina asked If a cuI-dc-sac were bUllt chang1ng the development proposal, what would happen to the planned unit development be1ng cons1dered by the Commission. Hr. Dahlgren indicated the planned un1t development would need to be changed to incorporate ony changes 1n the cuI-dc-sac. Margarat Lacke. real estate agent handlIng the sale of thIS property 1n the past. commented she had found the parcel too large to be sold for slngle-famlly use. Fred Booth. rcsldpnt at the southwest corner oi County Road C and Dale Street, indicated he had signed to approve the duplex adjacent to h1m several years ago. He ind1cated that was the worst decis10n lie ever made. He said a lot of p~om1ses were made, but were not kept. Jim Pau, 2883 Cohansey, asked a varIety of quest10ns for clarlficatlon of preV1o\ls points. He stated he was concerned about the development being compatlble with 3djacent property. He inU1cated the developI:I('nt looks good, appears quite simIlar to slngle-famJ.ly, and he would hope the Commlsslon would address all concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Wiskl commented the development looks like a townhouse plan. and asked why the townhouse :0'10 R-6 wasn't used for the rezoning. rather than R.2.