Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� � <br />ni�I�F SU?�.�L•�HY OF �SITIc;fh C�F �i�t }ZF,�I���:TS <br />�PPC?�ED TO TNE RF�QNItt�iG OF TNE �{i�IRa1:�-AI.'I��{�1h P��G?��TIES 0�1 S;1ELI,Z1vG CU�VE <br />�A:tT Z <br />��tJ�SYTS IN FAVOR OF RE`l{'�t�I��tG Atdp Rr�aPC�tv.�E GF RFSI�EI�T� <br />1. �r ument in Favor; the pro�c�ed apartment devel,�praent �ould serve as an <br />"�ttractive" buffer for the residential neighborhood. <br />�tesponse of Resident�: <br />(a) �he propased apartments are not "attr�active" when compared tivi�h <br />tk�e present residerices; and the plan is sub ject tq change �rh�c.h could ma�ke <br />them even less "attr�ctive". Since the financing of the p�opczsal has not <br />been finali�ed� changes cQuld be expected. The petition f�r rezon�.ng is <br />not contir�gent upa� the proposed plan. <br />(b) It is illcgical to tear drnrm two residences to create an apartment <br />buffer far the other residences. No buffer is needed �etween the existing . <br />residences arld the o�her resider�ces. <br />The existing apartmer�t a�ready serves as a buffer betsveen the in- <br />dustrial usage alang County Road ��C�� and the balance of the residential a�ea. <br />2. �ument in Favor: �hP proposed apartments ti�ould increase the tax base of <br />the property. <br />Res�anse of Residents: <br />(a) the taxes rEalized frocn the existing residE:nces �vould be lost. <br />� (b) the value of the su�^rounding residences wo��d be reduced. <br />(c) the increased population density Z'lll.l bl1Z'QP�1 the gresent facilities <br />serving the area, Tt is the under$tanding of the resider.ts tha�; the acreage <br />of the Village ponding area �ti�st of the proposed devel�pmp:�t v�ill ha�ve to be <br />taken a,nto cansideration as pax�t of the acr�age of the proposed development in <br />order to qual�fy the pr+�sent progosal under, the Village density i,ndexa not�vith-� ' <br />standing the fact th�t use of the panaing area is pre-empted by the Village. � <br />(d) the health,and r��elfar.•e, and safety of ine resiciants oi the area are of <br />equal or greater a.�portance than ar�y increased tax base whicYi may be r.ealized:. <br />;'ART I I <br />: _ ARGU�,'NTS �I� OPPOSITION TQ REZONIr.G ' ' <br />, le Current Multipl�-�se :�res��;� en iYil?� be Calpoundec• <br />(a) �urrent wres�ure:�: _ <br />i_ (i} r�isting Zr.� ,-:r • along CG�Y.t;; :t�_ :�a �';;�� _-,;:� its anullary,noise,. <br />burning, anc ope� sto:�_��e together ::,�Ln �;r,_ :iii'�c�_-. screening probTems .` <br />'s�f `' conirontea :_x: �rovicir::- 3 buffer bet�rre:: ine ir.e�,�s�,ria� use and the <br />,: <br />abutting residential �����u�e�rty. <br />r: <br />� ( ii � j�n r; . �e c�t' � raff ie Flcr;r ir: __ :rea �� e� ��.�s hazard, par-. <br />,,; ` � ticui4. �y in the park area off Pascal .. W �.; �rooks �-.�: .��se Place. <br />° ' (b} The Confirmed Closing of allingress _� �.a egress ::'rc��n �he zrea alon� <br />Snelling Avenue (see Layout No. �E, State Proj��:� ir�. 62I�-f.3, �a�ed rebruary <br />21� 1967) �ri13 compaund the present traffic �io�.; '„h.„oug�ou� �:�e arEa bounded <br />A ,�./ . . . . � . . . -� . . . . <br />= .. <br />:.: . ..�� ' ".. .. �_. , . . � . . ... . <br />:s - ' .. - ::. � ,I . . . .. . . � . . .. :. <br />.;., � .�, .:;�. . �-. -,�� .; � , ..:..� . � _ . . .. . . ..;:. ; ; .. <br />-- -- -- - � . . � . � � � � . . . � F .. . . <br />