CCMIN120683 - Laserfiche WebLink

381' Ms. Jacquie Oliverius, 3445 Beecham Court, representing the Park and Recreation Commission~ stated she was not speaking on the general plan amendment; that she is addressing only the issue of the park site. She strongly suggested that Council designate a parcel for the park site, stating there is a need for a play area for children in this area, there is need for an attractive area for senior citizens, and there is need for a rest area for people who work in the downtown area. She stated that either of the two suggested parcels would be acceptable but she favors the site at Division and Peters Streets because it is closer to the Historical Museum, and has more open space. Ms. Julie Lane, 4578 Augustine Street, stated she supports a part in the downtown area to accommodate children and senior citizens. 3he following persons spoke in opposition to the general plan amendments: Ms. Donna Buck!ey, 420 Division Street, stated she has lived on Division Street all of her life, and would like for the area to remain residential; she expressed concern that it would only be a matter of time until commercial spreads throughout the neighborhood and the residential will cease to exist. She asked Council to con- sider the feelings of those most affected by the proposed change. She added that there has never been any problems associated with the current high density residen- tial development in the area, and she would prefer that type of development rather than offices. Mr. Tom Schutter, 471 St. Marys Street, stated he moved here three years ago to his home on St. Mary Streets. He stated that at that time traffic was minimal but now it is impossible. He stated that additional commercial in the downtown would add to the traffic problem, and he was opposed to that. He stated the property west of Peters Street is zoned residential and he felt it should remain that way. Ms. Alice Mohr, 431 St. Marys Street, stated she opposes both items f and g, feeling that the area should remain residential, and that she preferred medium den- sity zoning. She added that development should not be allowed to go west of Peters Street in order to keep the heritage charm of the downtown area. Mr. Tom Nerton, 462 St. Marys Street, stated he would like to see a park in the downto~n area, and that he is opposed to commercial and office zoning. He stated he is not opposed to high density as he lives between two apartment houses and has never had any problem with them. Mr. Greg Buckley, 420 Division Street, stated he felt the area is better situated for high density residential rather than commercial and offices; that there has not been any problems associated with the current apartment projects in the area. He stated he favors the site at Division and Peters Streets for the proposed park. Ms. Dorothy Bronner, 426 Division Street, stated she was born in that house and she felt this residential area should be protected against any commercial development. She stated that commercial zoning would create traffic and parking problems and de- grade the neighborhood. She stated she favors the part site at Division and Peters Streets. Mr. Steve Hughes, 587 Touriga Court, stated he supports the neighbors; adding that to allow commercial and office zoning would be the start of gradually eroding the residential area. He stated he supports the park being located at Division and Peters Streets. 9. 12/6/83