Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> Dr. Brown said the issue is not do we want to see development there or keep it <br />green. He said the issue is by selling the land it is a better project. He said he has also <br />received e-mail from neighbors about the project. He noted that the proposal is to have <br />no development on the greenest part of the property. He said he intends to support the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br /> Ms. Edwards said she has heard divided views, but she sides with the neighbors <br />who do not want the property sold. She asked how we will find out about the family <br />cemetery. <br /> <br /> Mr. Engel said research has been done on that and there is no evidence of it now, <br />but it will be looked into more. <br /> <br /> Ms. Edwards asked if it would be possible for this development to take place on <br />the IGA property instead of this land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Engel said he cannot speak for the developer, and he does not know if it could <br />be done in conjunction with this project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Taliaferro said he is torn, but thinks he will support the ordinance as it will <br />lead to a better development given the property can be developed by-right. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja said that by-right the developer could build 64 units and demolish the <br />site. He said the PUD saves the most environmentally sensitive part of the property. He <br />said it will be subject to review by the Board of Architectural Review. He said given the <br />choices he will support the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris agreed with Mr. Huja, though he shares some of the concerns. He said <br />he believes selling the City property makes it a better project. He said some issues are <br />valid such as the possible existence of the cemetery. He said the owner will do an <br />architectural assessment and there is a requirement for a traffic study. He said there have <br />been many public meetings for years about this proposal. He said the neighborhood does <br />not speak with one voice. He said the question remains about the use of the proceeds of <br />the land sale. He said his original thought was to use it to rehabilitate homes in Fifeville, <br />but suggested a more overtly public use such as renovation of Tonsler Park, and later <br />seeking proffers from the developer for affordable housing. He said he does not think the <br />property is a good site for a police substation, but he has talked to the Police Chief about <br />the possibility of a substation at Tonsler Park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja agreed the property is not the best place for a police substation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Taliaferro agreed about the substation. He said the funds could be used for <br />home improvements or energy issues. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said he is happy to use the funds for affordable housing, but if we are <br />able to get funds later he would have no problem designating the proceeds from the sale <br />to neighborhood park improvements. He said the timing would work well for that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja said he is not aware of needs at Tonsler Park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mike Svetz, Director of Parks and Recreation, said there are concerns about <br />the playground and a major replacement would be beneficial. He said there is also <br />inadequate parking and needs at the basketball courts. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja said he would hate to see the money go to parking. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown suggested adding language to the effect that the proceeds will go to <br />other affordable housing funds or improvements to Tonsler Park at the discretion of the <br />City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that would be fine, but noted that it would not be binding on <br />future Councils. <br /> <br />