My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 8/29/2006
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 8/29/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:18:46 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:42:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
8/29/2006
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
8/29/2006
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 7 <br /> Mr.Tenney listed the following facts: <br /> • The Homestead would have 18,000 square foot lots. <br /> • There was no market for acre size lots. <br /> • The Homestead lot sizes were compatible with those around them <br /> and this was an infill project between two existing subdivisions. <br /> • The street layout provided connectivity. <br /> • The layout of the lots took into consideration the topography and <br /> the homes would be spread out on the property. <br /> • They could provide defensible space. <br /> • They would preserve 80 trees on the property. <br /> • It was an attractive alternative to residents in the Foothills <br /> Subdivision for access to Senator Highway. <br /> • There was ample open space in the neighborhood. <br /> • Senator Highway and Mt.Vernon Avenue were considered minor <br /> arterials,as was Gurley Street. <br /> • The traffic problems would exist whether the Tenney property <br /> were developed or not. <br /> • They were the first to own property in the area and the last to <br /> develop and the development would not make a significant <br /> difference to the traffic situation;maybe 1%. <br /> • The Water Allocation Committee had approved water to their <br /> subdivision and was on the agenda for approval. They would be <br /> capping four existing wells on the property. <br /> • The neighbors who would speak today drove on Mt.Vernon, used <br /> the water, built their homes on small lots and he wasn't asking for <br /> anything they hadn't already done. <br /> • They were only 1-1/2 miles from downtown and generally housing <br /> was denser close to town. <br /> Mayor Simmons asked if the subdivision would have Covenants <br /> Conditions and Restrictions and a Homeowners Association and <br /> Mr.Tenney replied probably CC&Rs. <br /> Mayor Simmons asked why the Tenney's opposed the Crystal Creek <br /> rezoning from SF-35 to SF-18 and Mr. Tenney replied his brother and <br /> sister went to the meetings and the developer wanted 9,000 square foot <br /> zoning and his sister wanted to keep the name Nathan Lane and they had <br /> agreed,but then didn't do it. <br /> Councilman Lamerson had a concern with increased traffic on Senator <br /> Highway and said he had trouble supporting the doubling in density on an <br /> already troubled road; he appreciated the opportunity and the Tenney's <br /> willingness in giving up their wells, so water wasn't an issue; it was the <br /> kk►r traffic that concerned him. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.