Laserfiche WebLink
Chris Bulow, applicant, stated in early communication with the City they discussed density of 15 <br />units per acre which, initially, indicated about 180 apartment units. Last night they talked about <br />20 less than that number. He stated he needs to know what number would be acceptable or if the <br />Council wants to consider a maximum density per acre when the number is being averaged. He <br />stated they would tike to be allowed 140 units in two equal buildings of 70 units each. With <br />regard to commercial, he stated he has been involved in that type of development but he thinks <br />this is not a good commercial site due to the inadequate access, the median, plus the population is <br />not present to support it. He stated that the neighbors, Planning Commission, and Council <br />commented on traffic concerns but a commercial use (restaurant) would result in additional <br />traffic all day long. Also, if commercial, the community would lose park dedication fees. Mr. <br />Bulow stressed the high demolition costs and need to buy alternate properties for this project. He <br />pointed out this project requests no aid from the City even though high relocation costs are <br />involved. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated several meetings have been held on this application. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that last night the discussion was to go with commercial and <br />if that has changed, it should be further discussed. With regard to density, he stated he is unsure <br />what the density number should be to assure a good public image. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec asked about leaving it open to allow further study. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulow stated he would be willing to leave it as a lot at this time only if it is indicated what <br />they are allowed to put there. He noted that the new Comprehensive Plan identifies this for <br />higher density. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated it is not yet known what the Plan or those ordinances will <br />look like. He stated he regrets considering removing this property from the moratorium since the <br />Council does not have answers to the questions being asked and he feels the Council is being <br />punished for not having those answers. He stated he believes progress has been made and this <br />proposal is more acceptable to the neighborhood than the original plan but he does not believe <br />enough has been achieved to move forward. Councilmember Hendriksen stated many meetings <br />have been held and sometimes it just takes time to do things. He stated he knows Mr. Bulow is <br />working very hard on this project. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulow stated his main concern is if the lot is separated,, in the future, they do not lose the <br />benefit of averaging their site density. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson noted the application is for a PUD which can include a lot of different <br />uses and the lot, if separated, would still be part of the same PUD.. She stated 140 apartments <br />does sound better than the earlier stated numbers. <br /> <br />City Council/April 25, 2000 <br /> Page 20 of 29 <br /> <br /> <br />