Laserfiche WebLink
� r <br />Ceses No. 61-?1 (Meier) <br />G2-85 �tJerner and Maipr) <br />bl-8G (Barney Schmig) <br />Location: <br />Action Requested; <br />� <br />� <br />West of Ric� �[reeL and NorCh of Iligh�ray 36 <br />(ee� alcetch} <br />Ftezoning �f propert�e from "R-1" to "P.-3" <br />Planni.n� Consideration <br />1, As each of you is awgre, thete a�re three aeparate parcels �nd <br />th�re� separute re�eonin� petition� aff�cted by a single develop- <br />rn�nt pxoposed �or the areAs Ln qt�eeti �a . Rach r� t tt-.er�e pr�perties <br />1r3 ±n,+rcared ori the sker.cl� st tiie leli: and zrt� �onaidered as � <br />ein�le pl.anning is�ue in this repoxC, Tt ahould be noted that case <br />No. 61-86 (Barney Schmis) was not submitted at the requeat o€ the <br />proper�y ow�n�r but zeferr�d r_o t�e Pl�nnfn� Commiesioa by �he <br />Council in view of the earlier auggesti.on [hat aIl of the propestie� <br />in que8tion be �onsidered a single "spot" of eingle family reaideatiel <br />aurrounded by �iultiplo Reeideatial poning nnd developmen�. Thue, <br />the properCies in question as far as the dev�lopers are concerned are <br />the lnr�er propert�ea to the w�st and sou�h with Cha Schmig pxopertp <br />under considera�ion a� the la8t to be able to ac�omplish mor� logic�l <br />rezo�iing if any of the petitian� ere approved. <br />2. A previoue report on the M�ier (6I-71) ie appended Go thie report. <br />The latter rezoning petirion coveXed the �nitial de�elopment propoeal <br />and c�utl.ines the �enerel as�Pcts og the �que�tioa�. <br />3. We receive:d on Friday December 1, a reviaed copy of current propoa8l <br />cav�rning the Mai�r and ��era�.er properties with a tentative ide�t au�gest�d <br />(not propo�ed) developmen� of the Schmi� property, The following sre <br />our comments on the developmer�t plan� as subm'��ted� <br />,� � <br />a. Traffi.c .- rae have checked �itt� thE S tate Highwgy Depart� <br />ment wfth reRpe�c� to proposed changes for �he int�zaection <br />of Iiig:iway 36 and &i�e �tree� and p�L�iiient traf£ic volumea. <br />The inter�ecr�.on is to be expanded �to � typical diamo�d wlnic� <br />will iavalve conaiderable expaneion of land area used priuci- <br />pally to th� south of Yiighway 36. The pre8ent righL-af-waq <br />Iine �.0 the uor�hwest quadrant of the inCer$ection will not <br />be chn�.ged. The appro�imate position of tbe ne�r access ramp <br />(replacing the. existing ra�np) is ��ppx�osimately ae �ho�ru on <br />the developmant plan. The traf£ic volumes on Ric� 3treet in <br />1960 c�ere 10,800 vehicles (both directions) north of Highway <br />�6 and 12,709 vehicles $outh of Highway 36. Under these <br />conditi.ons it would be t�eore�ically advantageoue to loc�te <br />the ner�rest access to �fLce St�eer north of th� int�rchange at <br />a poin+. ��prox�mately 3�0' nor�h of th� turnin�g ramps . The <br />propoaed accegs road to the siCe in question is approxi.�t�l�► <br />220' north of the proposed new acce�s ramp. The highway <br />engineers stated, howevPr, that they rlid not fe�l ttaat this <br />waa a part�.cular probl�em with respec� to th� turning �aove- <br />menta at ehe interchangea <br />� <br />