Laserfiche WebLink
116 <br /> <br /> Andrew Schaffer, 386 Division Street, agreed with Ms. Enger's <br /> comments. He indicated this block of Division Street was proposed <br /> to be commercial, but it is not. There is only one other multi- <br /> unit housing on Division Street. He asked that Council consider <br /> the density and design issues. <br /> <br /> Jan Batcheller, 644 St Marys Street, spoke in opposition to <br /> this item. She felt that the project would be taking away the <br /> downtown atmosphere of the neighborhood. She asked that senior <br /> housing be placed at locations zoned for this type of facility and <br /> leave downtown's character intact. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked Mr. Madden if one of the units were <br /> removed, would he want it to be one of the "very low income" units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden answered yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner said although the Downtown Task Force has been <br /> looking at the commercial concerns, there were also concerns with <br /> the residential areas. She felt that this project was too dense. <br /> She would support reducing the first units on the ends of the <br /> project to one story so that there would be a setback effect and <br /> felt that more woodsiding to the design should be added. This <br /> would help the project blend in better with the neighborhood. She <br /> agreed that senior housing was necessary and would be good for the <br /> downtown area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver was also concerned with the design of the project. <br /> He felt that more very low income units could be obtained out of <br /> this project. He was not satisfied with having only 5 low income <br /> units. He asked the wording for this project reflect an increase <br /> in the number of low income units and give flexibility for the <br /> applicant to work with staff and then bring it back to Council if <br /> that could not be achieved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed with Mr. Tarver's comments. He intended to <br /> support the project with the conditions as they had been <br /> established at the Planning Commission if there was a guarantee for <br /> better affordability. Mr. Butler did not support Condition 6 as <br /> proposed tonight. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr believed that the end units should be one-story. She <br /> felt the architectural integrity of the neighborhoods was <br /> important. The monies that would be spent in planting trees to <br /> camouflage the parking lot should be spent to improve the carports. <br /> She was satisfied with the image of the building. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt the project should be referred to the Design <br /> Review Board and then to Council. This would enable the Board to <br /> add any suggestions. <br /> <br /> 313192 <br /> <br /> <br />