CC PACKET 02241988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 commented that before the double bungalow across the • 2 street had gone up, she had a hard time visualizing 3 anyone living there or trying to exit from the pro- 4 perty - now there are people coming and going from 5 that property all the time. 6 Madden: indicated his first impression had been that the lot 7 certainly had the footprint for a single family dwell- 8 ing but not a double bungalow; however 9 he wasn' t ready to make a final decision yet. 10 Werenicz: said he didn' t doubt Mr. Anderson could have mustered 11 more support for his position if he had more time, 12 "having seen that happen many times before. " ; 13 said the fact that the neighbors who would be the 14 most impacted by the project were so strongly opposed 15- to rezoning -the property should have some bearing on 16 the decision since the Commission has always been 17 sensitive to the neighborhood reaction; 18 did not believe that by denying the change in zoning 19 the property would be unmarketable because he per- 20 ceived "there' s always a buyer out there somewhere. " ; 21 concluded that if the property remained R-1 , the City 22 would still benefit from the taxes . 23 Wagner: said he also opposed rezoning the property because the 24 neighbors don' t want it; 25 also indicated he didn' t perceive it would be wise to 26 add traffic from a two family dwelling onto that busy 27 intersection which is already very congested. 28 Hansen: pointed out that a large single family home could pose 29 just as much visual obstruction as a double bungalow 30 because it could be built just as big or bigger than a 31 double; 32 said he could show the opponents single family homes 33 with eight cars in the driveway and rental properties 34 with only two; 35 indicated there were many double bungalows he'd rather 36 live next door to than singles; 37 perceived the neighbors would really rather see nothing 38 built there and cautioned there could be "worse 39 things than doubles. " ; • 16