Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br />I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Carson replied that he was worked with these types of developments before <br />and he has seen no indications of multiples decrease surrounding property <br />values. Mr. Carson also noted that owner/occupancy is planned for these units, <br />some rental may be used in Phase II of the development. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the County's plans for Cty. Rd. #116. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated he is concerned with 8-plexes backing up to a residential <br />area, numerous driveways coming out onto Thurston. <br /> <br />Mr. Carson stated that it was originally planned to have quads backing up to <br />the residential area but that involved so many driveways and~as an attempt <br />to lessen the number of driveways, plans were revised to have 8-plexes backing <br />up to the residential area. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg noted that the development is looking at a homeowners association <br />which should insure the area is maintained properly. <br /> <br />Mr. Stan Data - Made the following statements: <br /> <br />The Plan is unacceptable to Flintwood I residents bordering the Flintwood <br />II development. <br /> <br />A. Reduction in property value in Flintwood I. <br /> <br />1. Low cost/high density housing (row houses, very small quad homes, <br /> appartment buildings). <br /> <br />Flintwood II development incompatible with existing Flintwood I <br />development (the above structures border existing urban t acre <br />lots without any buffer zone or open space). <br /> <br />3. Many mature trees would have to be removed. <br /> <br />B. Loss of privacy/quality of life. <br /> <br />1. High population density on small lots immediately bordering existing <br /> Flintwood I lots without buffer. <br /> <br />a. Population density of Flintwood I is approximately 3 peoPle/acre. <br /> <br />b. Population density of bordering Flintwood II development would <br /> be approximately 36-50 people/acre, not counting the apartments. <br /> <br />2. Commercial and apartment property butting up against existing <br /> Flintwood I lots. <br /> <br />a. Parking lots bordering Flintwood I lots. <br /> <br />b. Increase in noise, strange people and general loss of serenity, <br /> as well as unpleasant view. <br /> <br />3. Many residents would feel compelled to move out. <br /> <br />C/November 22, 1983 <br /> Page 12 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />