Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes - Plan Commission <br />Page 4 <br />November 12, 1986 <br /> <br />from the site and was concerned about the increase in traffic volume and the <br />general compatibility of the proposed use with the surroundi~g single-family <br />uses. He stated that he was puzzled by any proposal to elifuinate a portion of a <br />single-family neighborhood that was not deteriorating; the neig~bors seemed <br />committed to its maintenance. <br /> <br />Mr. Sommers asked the Chairman for permission to respond to these concerns. Mr. <br />Sommers introduced Mr. Bob Presley of Hankins Construction Company who reviewed <br />some of the preliminary proposals considered by those involved in the project. <br />Mr. Presley stated that they had considered keeping the single-family homes and <br />developing a "cluster home community" with the increase in density permitted by <br />"PD" district regulations. He stated, in sum, that the proposal that had just <br />been presented was the one that was economically feasible. Mr. Sommers further <br />stated that his proposal was a response to the needs of people who are seeking <br />the convenience of condominium living; also, development of the project would <br />increase the tax base and raise revenue for the city. Mr. Schairer asked Mr. <br />Sommers if any appraisal had been completed to determine the economic effect of <br />the project on the predominately single-family neighborhood. Mr. Sommers replied <br />that such an appraisal had been made and the results indicated that the project <br />would enhance the value of the neighborhood homes. <br /> <br />Ms. Schuman expressed her concern about the economic feasibility of the project <br />considering the demolition costs of the 10 single-family homes and other site <br />preparation costs. Mr. McCauley stated that he would be interested in seeing an <br />elevation drawing taking into account grades and topography. Both members noted <br />the fifteen to twenty foot differential in grade from Warder Avenue east to North <br />and South Road. <br /> <br />After further discussion regarding neighborhood compatibility and economic <br />feasibility of the project, Mr. McCauley moved that the Plan Commission recommend <br />denial of the application to rezone the 10 properties* along North and South <br />Road, Donne Avenue and Warder Avenue from "SR" to "PD" with a specific invitation <br />that the applicant may return to the Plan Commission within ninety days with a <br />new request to rezone the same properties if additional information were then <br />available regarding site topography and financial feasibility of the project. <br />Ms. Schuman seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0 with 1 abstention. <br /> <br />CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FOR PLAN COMMISSION ADOPTION OF THE 1986 <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br /> <br />Chairman Hamilton noted that Mr. Goldman had submitted to Commission members the <br />last portions of a final draft of the Comprehensive Plan. The Chairman also <br />noted that Commission members had received a draft resolution for the Plan's <br /> <br />*Mr. Sommer's application requested rezoning the following properties from "SR" <br />to "PD": 515 North and South road, 509 North and South Road, 501 North and South <br />Road, 512 Warder Avenue, 506 Warder Avenue, 500 Warder Avenue, 507 Donne Avenue, <br />501 Donne Avenue, 502 Donne Avenue, 500 Donne Avenue. <br />