Laserfiche WebLink
front of the people's house and they <br />are going to park on Pine Street. I <br />think Plan A, if it had larger lots <br />and if the density was smaller, it <br />would be okay. If you took away <br />that one (1) lot, you might be able <br />to widen the private drive back <br />there. If this plan is used, then <br />there needs to be some signage at <br />the beginning that says "Private <br />Drive", along with the covenants <br />saying that the City does not <br />maintain that, so that the people <br />that move in know it. <br /> <br />Silver: <br /> <br />We're happy to provide the necessary <br />signage at the parking areas and at <br />the entrances to accommodate the <br />needs. <br /> <br />Hedding: <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />I favor the original plan, which is <br />more or less like Plan A. I visited <br />the site. There are some advantages <br />to Plan B, but as I weigh all of <br />these factors, I still favor Plan A. <br /> <br />It's a difficult piece of property <br />and I think Plan A is the best that <br />can be done there. Pine Street <br />would have to be posted as "No <br />Parking" prior to people actually <br />buying the units. <br /> <br />Ho%~ard: <br /> <br />I would much rather see single <br />family housing on this site, than <br />multi-family. I favor Plan A. <br /> <br />Susan Griffiths, City Attorney. <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />For the record, as I understand it, <br />the final subdivision plat and PUD <br />development plan for this project <br />were denied by the Council in its <br />January 19 meeting, so there is not <br />currently any application formally <br />pending before the Council on this <br />project, so the comments of the <br />Council should be considered <br />informal comments, I'm assuming, and <br />not binding on the Council in any <br />way. As I understand it, if you <br />come back with a specific plat and <br /> <br /> <br />