03-12-84 Zoning & Vacation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Qlnmrntflrn Erpul t • E tilt tdnmmnn eounril of tfp (Mg of Onutff iirnb: ZONING AND VACATION COMMITTEE The March 12, 1984 meeting of the Zoning and Vacation Committee was called to order at 4 : 00 p.m. by its Chairman Councilman John Voorde in the Council informal meeting room. Persons in attendance included: Councilmen Beck, Zakrzewski, Paszek, Puzzello, Crone, Braboy, Voorde, Serge; Citizen Douglas Carpenter, Rich Hill, Jim Wensits, Dick Maginot, and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. Councilman Voorde noted the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Bill No. 19-84 which would re-zone approximately 31 acres near State Route 23 . Councilman Voorde noted that the Area Plan Commission gave a favorable recommendation to the bill. He then called upon a City Attorney to update the Committee. Mr. Hill then reviewed his letter dated March 8, 1984 (copy attached) which outlines the history of the area in question from 1980 through the present. He noted that the attorney for the Area Plan Commission and the City Attorney 's office were in agreement that the proposed bill was the best approach to use in order to _remove "any cloud" over existing businesses who wish to convey title-.or who wish to expand as a Cam-Commercial use. Councilman Puzzello, the District Councilman for the area noted that the residents and businesses are in favor of the re-zoning. She made reference to her letter of March 8th and the map of the area (copies attached) which she had recently- sent, She also noted that according to her information the project may not be a Hilton. Douglas Carpenter pointed out various items on the map of the proposed site and expressed concern over the proposed re-zoning. Councilman Crone questioned several areas as to the effect the proposed re-zoning would have on a project like the Hilton. She questioned whether the agreement of • August of 1981 had dny legal effect, and whether the construction which had started meets the agreement language. Mr. Hill explained that "inverse condemnation" applies when an owner relies on the existing zoning to their detriment. Mr. 'Hill noted that in his opinion the proposed developer does not have an existing non-conforming use. The initial site plan of April, 1981 was extended for one year. In his opinion the beginning of construction did not constitute a non-conforming use. The County permit was issued in March of 1982 and the last contact by the City to Mr. Miller was in September, 1983. It was noted that the County restrict- ions were not as restrictive as the City and that agreement to comply with • the City' s parking requirements any maximum of 810 feet above sea level had been agreed. Mr. Hill noted that the 1981 agreement presumed that the C- Commercial, A height in area was in existence and that the re-zoning would not place the developer in a difference position that he was in 1980 . • Mr. Carpenter noted that he had been involved with the project for approximately five years. Many of the problems experienced by the developer were inherent to getting financing during the difficult time of high interest rates. He noted that the Area Plan Commission acted on a preliminary site plan and such areas as screening and engineering for drainage had been •..e ..e.. � .v■t.r.w,H• co.