Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Gamec stated if the City moves forward with the road they .will have the cost of doing it. <br />The best thing is to let the development occur. Currently smaller developments are having much <br />better luck developing than large parcels. He asked if apartments are allowed here, which the <br />owner of the middle parcel has expressed interest in. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik replied no, the property is zoned for four to <br />seven units per acre. The property would need to be rezoned to R-3 to allow apartmeI;l.ts. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ehrig expressed his disagreement with an apartment building being allowed on <br />the adjacent property. He indicated if that individual thinks that is what it ~i11 take to cash flow, <br />it will not happen. <br /> <br />Coul1cilmember Look commented the Council is being put in a difficult situation to approve a <br />project that could lead to a serious accident, or to acquire some property. He asked how these <br />properties can be assessed for the expense the City would incur if they are forced down the road <br />of acquiring property to avoid an accident. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that is the City's responsibility and that is a decision that would be made <br />based on accident rates. . The biggest accident rate happens to be on Alpine Drive and County <br />Road 5. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich indicated Mr. Boe is represented by legal counsel tonight. <br /> <br />.Mr. Gordon Jenson, Attorney representing the applicant Mr. Boe, stated he has gone through the <br />minutes. He has looked at the traffic reports and the City reports, and has seen the letter from the <br />City to the County one year after this was submitted. It seems to him the County letter drafted in <br />May of 2007 to the May 2006 request states that a temporary permit would be acceptable. It <br />does not say how long temporary would be. They are looking that it would not be the pennanent <br />access; ultimately development can occur. He believes the developer has met everything he <br />could meet or should meet for approval based on the trafficreports, the time that has gone into it, <br />and that the developer has agreed to participate in working with the property ov,7l1ers to the north, <br />as well as 1/3 to 1/2 of the site being taken for roads. They are here tonight not to be tabled <br />again; they would like this to come to a vote. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated last week the Council approved a day care with 100 children coming out on <br />County Road 5. That is approximately 200 trips per day. So looking at traffic counts, there is <br />more and more constantly going on County Road 5, and they know that. County Road 5 will <br />eventually need to be upgraded. Traffic is more of the City's concern than the County or anyone <br />else. His personal feeling is that to the north there are 400 plus homes coming out on County <br />Road 5 all on one exit. The traffic on County Road 5 will increase and he believes even if there <br />are 24 units in here it will not change it compared to Brookfield, or the daycare, or several <br />others. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated with respect to the last Council meeting, the Council approved apdeli, not a day care. He would not want to mislead the people that the Council is allmving .200 <br /> <br />City Council / August 14, 2007 <br />Page 13 of 32 <br /> <br />P29 <br />