Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-4- <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren stated that he had not computed the size of the building which would be <br />pennitted but it looked like approximately a 5,000 square foot buildinS <;;gkLld be <br />constructed . <br /> <br />Mr 0 V. Johnson asked if the rezoning to B-I could be limited to the eastern portion of <br />the property from Iexington Avenue to the east side of the house. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated that it could and that that would make it m::>re difficult to <br />construct an office building on the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Da.ubney indicated they had no objection to the rezoning line being placed on the <br />easte:rn edge of the house because they had no desire or intention to expand. <br /> <br />Mr 0 Tom Anderson, 1042 Ruggles, indicated that ,,' he was opposed to the rezoning. He <br />submitted a petition to the Cornnission which he' stated contained over 65% of the property <br />owners within 350 feet of the property, opposing the rezoning. He stated that the <br />neighbors are afraid that this would trigger m::>re spot zoning up and dawn Iexington Avenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson comrented that the applicants had indicated that the law office would be a <br />good transitional use for the residential area. He felt that the bank was enough trans- <br />i tional use. <br /> <br />Mr. V. Johnson asked if Mr. Anderson would be opposed to a law office as proposed. <br /> <br />Mr 0 Anderson responded that he was not opposed specifically to the law office as long <br />as the property remained zoned residential. He indicated he was opposed to rezoning <br />the property to B-1. <br /> <br />Mrs. Cushing asked if instead of rezoning the property, the special uses in the re- <br />sidential zone could include the proposed law office use. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren responded that in general the City should stay away from tampering with the <br />single family residential zone. He stated it was not a good approach and should be <br />avoided. However, it was a legal possibility. <br /> <br />Mr. V. Johnson comrrented that there had been an offer by the applicant to continue the <br />application and that the applicant would prepare the docurrent to be considered by the <br />Comnission which would restrict the use of the property. Hawever, he stated that if <br />the Corrmission was opposed to the rezoning it would not be appropriate to continue and <br />require them to prepare the dOCUITent. <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina indicated that as a rrenber who had voted against the proposed rezoning <br />last titre, he felt there were indications from the applicant that they are willing to <br />restrict the use and he favored the continuance. <br /> <br />Mr. Mastel comrented that he was not opposed to the use as proposed. <br /> <br />Mrs. Cushing indicated that she has reservations about the proposal, particularly with <br />parking in front of the building. <br /> <br />Mrs. Dressler indicated that if the property was rezoned and the house burned down she <br />was concerned about what would be built. <br />