CC AGENDA 02161988 - 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. " ; 61 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