Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
December 13, 1976 Page 7 <br />Councilmember Baumgartner reviewed several sections of the Comprehen- <br />sive Plan which indicated that residential neighborhoods must be <br />protected from commercial and multiple dwellings. <br />Mr. Gustafson stated that there was commercial and multiple property <br />all around those single family homes. <br />Mr. Rothgeber stated that they had gone before the Planning Commission <br />with double bungalows on those lots, but the Commission wanted it to <br />be under a P.U.U. so the rest of the property was included. <br />Mr. Gustafson stated that because this proposal has taken so long <br />and has still not been approved he will have to pay another $10,000 <br />for next year's taxes. <br />Mayor Pickar explained that the request was first denied because of <br />the high density, then the fourplexes were denied because of density <br />and now this proposal has an even higher density. <br />Mr. Rothgeber stated that houses cannot be built in that area because <br />mortgage companies will only give a commitment of 40% to 45 Usually <br />they will give an 85% commitment. <br />Helen Houley stated that she would like to see the minutes from the <br />hearing held in May on the double bungalows. Mayor Pickar stated that <br />the minutes were available at the City Hall. <br />Councilmember Shelquist stated that he was serving on the Planning <br />Commission when the comprehensive plan was being worked on and had <br />moved up to the Council when it was adopted. He stated that he felt <br />the City goofed on the plans for that property because they didn't <br />look enough in detail at the recommendations made by Midwest Planning. <br />Councilmember Shelquist stated that they did not consider the eight <br />single family units. That area should not have been designated for <br />multiple family. If it was all empty land it would be logical to <br />have it R -3. The Council is not in a position that, because of the <br />R -1 property, they would be creating a spot zone. <br />Councilmember Shelquist stated that he did not see anything in the <br />development plans being proposed that would entice someone to buy the <br />R -1 located owner- occupied townhouses. If these buildings are built <br />they would probably become renter- occupied because they will not be <br />sellable. There are no swimming pools or tennis courts being proposed. <br />These things probably cannot be developed either because of the density. <br />The petition was entirely signed by people in that area with multiple <br />or commercial property that had nothing to lose by the rezoning. None <br />of the people affected by a rezoning signed. <br />Councilmember Shelquist reviewed the approximate land valuations of <br />different zoning districts and stated that the Council would be increasing <br />the value of that land by 50% to 100% additional by rezoning to R -3. <br />He stated that this could be done it if was raw land but the Council <br />must consider the existing single family dwellings. Councilmember <br />Shelquist stated that he felt the existing home owners would accept <br />