pm_700701 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~3~ should be given to this. Some showed concern over traffic control in the area. A question also came about a higher density in the area than the first plan that was presented. No specific answer was given at this time. Several citizens spoke about wanting the rezoning to remain the same and not change for View Con. They felt that insufficient buffer zones were the major problem. They wanted (the citizens) to insure that trees of adequate size would be put in the area. Proper landscaping should be included and any other devices that could be used to block the view as much as possible of the View Con development that would be going into the area. The citizens wanted to protect the privacy of their land, a wall or fence, anything was de= sirable. They also felt that tall buildings change an area completely and gave a bad appearance. ~1r. Harlan Smith felt the traffic would be too great and that a high rise structure in the Rosedale area was out of character and would look terrible. He felt that the plan was not specific enough on its actual development. TI1e three phases might not come about, depending on what the general economic conditions were and it was still not certain as to what type of business would actually occupy these areas. Hr. Bob Mundt felt that a so called "downtown" area had a great possibility of expanding into an ugly conglommerate of varied businesses with absolutely no logical development to it~ with each business application be approved or denied as it came before the Commissiono Many of the so called downtown areas in other communities turned out to be quite ugly and unattractive. Mr. Johnson Moved, Mr. Edlund Seconded, that the View Con requests be approved subject to the receipt of acceptance of a suitable landscaping and buffer plan to the north and west side of the residential area, plantings and fencing, and that View Con must obtain from the Allied Stores an easement for the west 30 feet for lIerschel Street. Roll Call, Ayes: Johnson, Pope, Edlund, Membrez. Nays: Kellett, Demos and Eagles. Passed 4/3. Reasons for the vote are as follows: Mr. Kellett felt that the people in the area were very much against it at the present time. The two sides proposed for rezoning in their area and phase 3 was upsetting to them because of the uncertainty of its development. It was not an esthetic development and certainly the parking areas in the phase 3 aspect of the plan were not a good buffer and that they would radiate heat and probably reflect into the housing area and the citizens would not like it at all. Hr. Hembrez felt that the homes were there before the Village had a Planning Concept and this would not be a residential area today if the Planning Commission had an opportunity to do otherwise. There is an admittance that there was a mistake made in the past. He felt that phase 3 is years away; any changes to be made in phase 3 that View Con wishes to make has to come back again before the Planning Commission before phase 3 as accepted can be changed. He also felt that the land use may be costly for apartments at the present time. Mr. Edlund would rather see three high rise buildings as opposed to apartments in the area. He was also concerned about school property and all property that was east of the develop= menta Hr. Edlund desired to look at the area longer and view other possible alternatives to development. He was not really opposed to the idea, but he would like to wait and consider other possibilities. He felt in that area of development to devote one=fourth of the entire area to apartments was entirely too much. It was even a possibility that light industry would be a better consideration for the use of the area. "'Ir. Johnson felt that the landscaping and the trees to be put into the property were of vital concern and is a vital issue at stake here. The people in the residential area certainly had a right to be protected in their privacy and in their own esthetic view of thei r property.