pm_790404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-7- Wendy ~Junkin, 1024 County Road B-2, asked hew the neighbors could make sure Oxford was not put through. She also corrm:mted that she had signed Mr. ~chae1s peti lion favoring the rezoning but had changed her mind and then signed the peti lion opposing the rezoning request. Mr. Sch10ter, 1046 County Road B-2, asked where the parking would be provided. Mr. Michaels indicaterl that each unit of the duplex would have a garage and that 2 cars for each unit could be parked in the driveway. Mr. V. Johnson presented the Corrmission a letter he had received from Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Abbott, 1024 Transit, opposing the rezoning application. Mr. Rukavina asked if the residents could explain exactly why they are opposed to.,.;d1lP1exes. Mrs. Winters, 1070 County Road B-2, stated they would prefer property owners, families and children, just like the other residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Mastel stated he felt there was a need for Oxford Street to be extended through to County Road B-2. Recomrendation Mrs. Dressler rroved and Mr. Sirrons Seconded, that the Corrmission recomrend denial of Michaels Brothers request for rezoning from R-1 to R- 2 and preliminary plat at 2416 Iexington. Mrs. Dressler indicated that she was aware of hew the people had to put up wi th the Markham property for nany years and comrented that the residents have been promised single family and felt thats what they should have. Mr. SiIrons stated that he would be opposed to the rezoning as proposed; hewever, he indicated he was not opposed to duplexes. He favored the idea of a planned unit deve10prrent which would provide IIDre control over the design of the develop- ment. Mr. Rukavina indicaterl that he was not sure why the residents opposed the duplexes. He felt that Roseville had so little vacant land that it had to be used wisely. He indicated that perhaps selling the individual duplex units would meet the con- cern of the neighbors, or perhaps a planned unit developrrent, as suggested by Mr. SiIrons. Mr. V. Johnson indicated there was an inp1icit promise that the 1an would remain R-I. He stated that he was sensitive to the 101 ~ple opposing the rezoning. Mrs. Cushing indicated that she thought the PeOple would be happier with duplexes than single family. She stated that she could not iIPagine a better guarantee that the developtEnt would be done well, than having Mr. Michaels 1i ve there. Mr. Mastel indicated that he agreed with Mr. Rukavina's comrents and felt that duplexes are as good as single family. Roll Call: Ayes: Dressler and V. Johnson. Nays: G. Johnson, Sirrons, Cushing, Mastel and Rukavina.