My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1986 09 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1986 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1986 09 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:26 PM
Creation date
7/15/2008 11:50:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/2/1986
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1986 09 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
commitments that have already been made by the <br />City. <br />Wanush explained that the proposal is to subdivide <br />the 12 acre site (including 5 acres acquired by <br />McStain in the fire station land transfer), <br />located near Owl Drive, West Mulberry Street and <br />the recreation center site. McStain is developing <br />the parcel into 31 single family units. <br />Planning Commission approved this with one <br />condition: 1) An all weather road, approved by <br />Public Works, should be constructed on the west <br />side of the subdivision to handle all construction <br />traffic and to provide emergency access when the <br />subdivision is completed. <br />Caroline Hoyt, of McStain Enterprises, suggested an <br />alternative to the construction route first <br />proposed. The alternate route coming off Owl <br />Drive from the north would be used for the entire <br />development and would be a better route rather <br />than building a longer and more convoluted path to <br />the site for construction traffic. <br />Wanush explained that the existing zoning is RE. <br />Anderson questioned the zoning with the 4500 s.f. <br />lot sizes proposed. Wanush stated that going back <br />to the original plans and the development of the <br />master plan process, past Councils and Commissions <br />allocated different densities to different pieces <br />of the plan and this parcel was approved at <br />approximately 4-6 single family units per acre. <br />Hundley stated that the last Council wanted to <br />ensure that the five acres was developed at the <br />approximate density of the surrounding <br />neighborhood. <br />Speaking to Anderson's concerns over the zoning <br />and the actual densities, Wanush stated that when <br />the master planning was done, that was the <br />perceived trade-off. Planning Commission and <br />Council approved the total number of units that <br />could be built on the entire piece of ground. How <br />those units now get allocated across that piece of <br />ground are the perceived trade-offs as the land is <br />being developed. <br />Jane Monson, 631 W. Aspen Ct., spoke to Council <br />regarding her concerns over construction traffic <br />stating that they have been dealing with <br />construction traffic in their neighborhood for a <br />long time. Designated routes don't always get <br />used and asked that the barricade at the end of <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.