City Council Minutes 1993 01 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Leach: Sisk: Leach: Sisk: Leach: Sisk: you proposed nine lots. So, in fact you had even smaller lots before you appeared before the Commission. Yes, this sketch has the nine lots on it, but we are going to eight. But, what you are looking at is the Outlot that's being proposed would be an on-site detention, which is what you need to have for the property anyway. I mean that's not something you really have any other way to.go with, right? It's such a small piece of ground and there isn't detention facilities accessible to it. I like the back entrance idea. One of the criticisms that we keep hearing is that we're getting homes too close to one another. My concern really goes to the density issue, as far as the number of sites you are requesting. Even if you add back the 2,500 square feet, you're still short of the 12,000 square feet and really if you look at that and factor that back in you're talking about seven, maybe six lots, as opposed to the eight lots you're now requesting. The most sufficient way to develop this land would be to cut it into six or seven lots right on Pine Street and not fuss with the alleys and the back access. We don't think that would be nearly as attractive. From pure economics, as a developer, I could go either way with it. But, the trade off here is that we've got an extra unit, probably about what we could get, if we were forced to have every lot be 12,000 square feet, but we're giving back to the City what we think is going to be a lot more attractive entry into the old part of town. It's costing us more to develop it this way. Are you suggesting to me that if you went down to say seven lots, that you couldn't use the alley approach, that it would not be feasible for you to use an alley approach? 35