Laserfiche WebLink
- 3 <br /> 1 neighbor or any one else. <br /> • 2 <br /> 3 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 At 8:40 p.m. , the Chairman opened the public hearing on the request to rezone <br /> 6 the property at 3631 Harding Street N.E. , from R-1 (single family residence) to <br /> 7 R-2 (two family residence) and for the lot size and width variances necessary <br /> 8 to construct the proposed duplex on that site. He read 'the notice of the <br /> 9 hearing which had gone out to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject <br /> 10 property and none of the 14 persons present reported failure to receive the <br /> 11 notice or objected "Co its content. The Manager indicated he had received only <br /> 12 two calls related to the proposal , both in opposition. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 The Commission had, at their last meeting, unanimously given conceptual approval <br /> 15 to.the Krueger proposal subject to the approval of the neighbors, perceiving <br /> 16 that the proposed structure had been so well designed that it would be hard to <br /> 17 distinguish from other single family dwellings and it would be built next to <br /> 18 another duplex. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 In his May 11 memorandum, the Manager had reiterated that, in addition to <br /> 21 rezoning the property a variance would be required, since the lot is 10,400 <br /> 2 2 square feet where the Ordinance requires 12,000 square feet, and is only 80 <br /> 23 feet wide, where a width of 85 is required. He had also informed the Commission <br /> 24 that the adjacent property owner, Harvey Herzog, 3627 Harding Street N.E. had <br /> 25 changed his mind about the proposal , which he now opposes. <br /> 26 <br /> 2 7 The eight people who spoke all indicated they were opposed to rezoning the <br /> 28 Krueger property for rental property, primarily because of the bad experiences <br /> 29 they had with the tenants and maintenance of a duplex in the neighborhood. <br /> 30 They told various stories of problems with the large number of cars parked <br /> 31 outside the duplex all the time, the transient tenants who showed little <br /> 32 consideration for the neighbors in their living habits which -made the residence ' <br /> 33 a general nuisance for the neighborhood, .and. downgraded the property of the <br /> 34 other residents. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Mae Gerard, 3621 Harding Street N.E., said when she had complained about the <br /> 37 uncut grass she had been told by the City it had to be ten inches tall before <br /> 38 they would do anything about it.. She and Carl Jarva, 3632 Harding Street N.E., <br /> 39 questioned why, if the zoning was wrong, the request had gotten to the point of <br /> 40 a public hearing. They were told every property owner has the right to make a <br /> 41 zoning proposal and the-hearing that evening was the second step in that process <br /> 42 which had been set up in the Zoning Ordinance. When Mr. Jarva asked why Mr. <br /> 43 Spellman's request for. a duplex a few years ago had gone no further than the <br /> 44 concept review, Commissioner Jones told him that, when that applicant for <br /> 45 rezoning realized there would be so much neighbor resistance, he had decided <br /> 46 not to pursue the matter further, since to do so, would involve. the payment of <br /> 47 an application fee for the public hearing which, in this instance, Mr.. Krueger <br /> 48 had paid in advance of this hearing. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Rick Werenicz, 3610 Harding Street N.E.., told Mr. Childs the reason he had gotten <br /> 51 so few calls about the proposal had been because Mr. Werenicz had canvassed the <br /> • 52 neighborhood and secured 80 signatures on a petition which "strongly opposed the <br /> 53 rezoning proposal which he then read to the Commission. Those signatures <br /> 54 represented 56 households along Belden, Coolidge, Edwards, and Harding and Mr. <br /> 55 Werenicz said, only four of the 60 he contacted had indicated they would be in <br />