Laserfiche WebLink
C: ,u,; 430 <br /> (( .4 <br /> i{4' <br /> September 17,1980 <br /> plI I Mr.Bakerthe f t gocon..aer any alternative development ] hood wouldp of <br /> a were <br /> e y interested in.2 developn.nti site. He said the projectcumulation system will provide roads that would not be used <br /> IIII!I <br />! property owners, <br /> et <br /> by permission. Public utilities 1 be <br /> undergrounded and c will occur.1 1B, the p be one-level, suave a <br /> mell- <br /> esigned homes which el requirements eh or <br /> dina <br /> , This PRO <br /> A neither atraditional rezone,but a <br /> tailor- <br /> IIma project for this piece of property. <br /> Y <br /> • I mr.Baker <br />� saidhis project has n misrepresented Y <br /> way and <br /> 1111" this property would developed <br /> y <br /> the <br /> proposedbe PROt eonsdeveloped. o <br /> in- <br /> stead this carefully plannedwould <br /> I (.l approve anaddi alcondition,if anto informed <br /> prospective buyers of <br /> upproximity et andwould <br /> also finance asae stdyand look buffer possibilities. <br /> a vee <br /> f1 y Mr.Bake spoke of the dying tdying <br /> 1 RI lack o nablprojects such as y prhis iced <br /> ar 9 d d <br /> 1 r I. sujlected. He defended condominium owner- <br /> ch <br /> sYhmentpofhof ansive regulations have been developed hu Y lenders <br /> Il ; { surance and improvements. Mr.Baker said <br /> an ld normal <br /> P O pr a would bdevelopment, <br /> would provide an average daily traffic un d y less <br /> 1 11- ' than h p prejected, <br /> Sound Service <br /> the <br /> pct,v <br /> i <br /> , ' 1 ewownemight no be bible <br /> or conscientious as <br /> Baker h <br /> 11 ' lI" growth the urban spr rt uld development within <br /> 1 the city b aopen spaceswould diminish and <br /> additional would have installed Y <br /> sa,when cr.PRO ordinance was d h <br /> was to be encouraged and if this project a e <br /> couldb <br /> had made <br /> I�r N amended <br /> fb ip aea y <br /> c develop eomes sin h <br /> e land <br /> area was <br /> less easnoian <br /> l <br /> fthe <br /> dat PRO Be felt <br /> eboa <br /> possible <br /> r <br /> M p h responsibledeveloper <br /> I BI IBI <br /> oject,designing the project to <br /> It't fer m eikuba <br /> rhetd. <br /> b " d 1 ° P.he would e <br /> em <br /> for son.direction as to ha they P 101t <br /> h wad intended ae"bait.. o pass <br /> thought o he <br /> surroundings. <br /> b " idem Overstreet asked if anyone else e k and no ne . <br /> 4 the p liehearing.an Michelson,seconded by Councilman <br /> ban close <br /> ry ( Moved Councilman <br /> In u c nealmen voting Ye except Councilman Baker. <br /> whol9I Roll <br /> lwwa ecallea a ou cept <br /> II ion Carried <br /> I{i <br /> YI <br />