Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 24, 1996 <br />constructed their homes fairly recently. Scalze stated <br />that she has never voted to upzone a property, and <br />would not in this case sinoe there is so much high- <br />density housing in the City. Scalze pointed out the <br />problems on Ruth Street with the duplexes and four- <br />plexes`which are not owner-occupied. Scalze commented <br />that the applicant may indicate that the twin home <br />would be owner-occupied. However, the situation could <br />change;at any given time. <br />John Gangl, 2560 Sylvan, stated that he was opposed to <br />the rezoning, and asked if there were any alternatives. <br />Gangl indicated he could see how it may not be feasible <br />to construct a single-family house on the property <br />given its soil problems. Gangl stated that he did not <br />support a twin home and pointed out that there is no <br />guarantee the twin home would remain owner-occupied. <br />LaValle pointed out that a single-family home could <br />become rental property. LaValle reported that <br />according to his estimates, rent on the twin home would <br />have to be between $1,300 and $1,500 per month. That <br />makes it unfeasible to rent. <br />Fahey pointed out it takes four affirmative votes the <br />CounciY to approve a rezoning. Fahey pointed out that <br />a rezoning is a very serious matter because of the <br />impact'it can have on a neighborhood. Fahey stated <br />that he was not persuaded there was any reason to <br />rezone the property from R-1 to R-2. <br />Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public <br />present wishing to comment further on this matter. <br />There was not. <br />Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by Scalze, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />Morelan stated that he can understand Mr. Fasciana's <br />desire to sell the property, and the difficulty in <br />doing so because of the poor soil conditions. However, <br />there are many single-family property owners in the <br />area who purchased their properties understanding that <br />this lot was R-1 as well. Morelan agreed there was no <br />compelling reason to rezone the lot. <br />Mr. Morelan introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 96-4-93 - DENYING THE FASCIANA REQUEST <br />FOR REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 WEST COUNTY ROAD C <br />4 <br />