pm_750903 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

- ~- Mr. Doyle~ Stanbridge Cour~. indicated that he was opposed ~V several duplexes in a row and that it was bad plarming, Therefore. he opposed this rezoning request. Mr. Walter Bauer. stated that almost 100% of the residents in the area feel they bought into a single family R-I area and they desire that it remain R-l. Mr. Bauer stated that in st.mll1lation the residents are opposed to this rezoning. Mr. V. Johnson inquired if Mr. Lewis Johnson would be willing to accept the rezoning of lots 1, 2 and 3 to R- 2 and leaving lots S. 6, 7 and 8 as R-l. Mr 0 Matson. Manager of the Paul's Place Inn. indicated that they had not examined this alternative but he did not feel that it would be economically feasible. Mr. Vo Johnson indicated that the lots located on the west side of Russell Court have some severe topographical problems. He inquired if there had been any topographical work completed on the lots. Mr. Michels indicated that no topographic work had been done. Mr. Vo Johnson indicated that the owner might find that walkout basements will be necessary on the west lots. Mr. Michels indicated that it could be possible. Mr. G. Johnson stated that had all eight lots on Russell Court been vacant, he would probably not have opposed the application. However, he felt the city did have a responsibility to the owner of the existing single family home on Russell Court. Mr. Rukavina stated that he agreed with Mr. G. Johnson. He felt that rezoning only the lots located on the east side of Russell Court would provide the barrier that Mr. Lewis Johnson is desirous of having. Mr. V. Johnson indicated that he was opposed to doing this development on a piece-meal basis and felt that there were several missing pieces including: 1. There is no information from the Rice Creek Water Shed District regarding their plans for the area. 2. There is insufficient topographical information regarding the lots located on the west side of Russell Court. 3. There is uncertainty as to how the applicant would react to rezoning only a portion of the lots. He stated that without this information he would oppose the request. ~. Kellett indicated that he felt that the application was submitted as a package and he would oppose a recommendation to approve the rezoning of only a portion of the propertyo ~. Dahlgren indicated that the City ordinances permit the construction of a double house in R-l zoning if the R-l zoned lot has a side yard contiguous to a commercial zone 0 He stated that lots 1 and 4 of the Russell Court subdivision meet this requirement. Lot 4 is occupied by the existing single family home andbt I is one of the bts requested to be re zoned 0 He stated that the applicant could construct a double house on lot I without the rezoning. Mr. Daubney stated that based on Mr. Dahlgren's comments that the applicant would request withdrawal of the rezoning of Lot 1 from R-I to R-2 since he would be pennitted to build a double home on the lot without a rezoning.