Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />ri <br />• <br />6) The project has been proposed as market rate housing for the elderly <br />without benefit of subsidy and the city shall not be obligated to <br />hear or approve any petition on behalf of the owner or developer <br />requesting financing or rent subsidies from Local, State or <br />Federal agencies or units of government. <br />7) These covenant and recitals shall remain in effect in the event <br />of destruction of the original structure and shall prevail to a <br />rebuilt or repaired facility in whole or in part. Such repair or <br />restoration shall proceed on a timely basis on the part of the <br />owner to be accompanied with plans and specifications subject to <br />approval by the appropriate City staff. If the repair or restoration <br />cannot be completed within one year from date of damage, the <br />building or its remains shall be raised at the expense of the owner, <br />and the land shall revert to the City to be used as park land and <br />open space. <br />8) These covenants and recitals shall remain in effect in perpetuity <br />and shall be binding upon the owner, its successors or assigns. <br />-If you have authority to change zoning, it follows you also have the <br />,authority to attach certain conditions to insure the project is, and <br />...will remain, as proposed fdr its intended purpose. <br />While the council does not owil the land and therefore cannot attach the <br />title, you can attach condition- as a part of the resolution approving <br />the,zoning. The resolution offered at the April 9, 1984 meeting to alter <br />the structure has merit and if accomplished could be an accepted compromise. <br />However, the Planning Commission instructed both parties at its March <br />1984 meeting to work together and present in April any or all workable <br />alternatives: At the April Planning Commission meeting the same plan <br />returned and ultimately to the Council on April 9 for 130 units, etc. <br />The proposed was to stand on its merits as presented by both sides. The <br />time for change had passed. I feel quite strongly that it was particularly <br />unfair to the proposer who could not possibly make a qualified judgement <br />regarding cost escalation or economic feasability at that juncture and <br />he had no chance but to agree and was in effect offered up for sacrifice. <br />In any event, I remain opposed based on the issues I have publicly stated. <br />Thank you for your kind attention and I trust you will take my suggestions <br />and request in the spirit of cooperation and give them due consideration. <br />cc: City Manager (2) <br />Members, Planning <br />M. L. Mueller (1) <br />Commission (7) V/1 _ V <br />