10-13-86 Zoning & Vacation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2. Zoning and Vacation Committee the developer, Mr. Don Jankowski, of Portage Realty that the street be vacated. He then passed out a letter dated October 3rd where Portage Realty noted that they had plans to complete Georgian Drive within the next 1 to 2 year period. He also noted that City sewer and water was available on Georgian Drive. He then made reference to a zoning case which addressed the constitutional protections involving churches and zoning requirements. He additionally noted that the parking lot would not be visible and that the Church planned to provide a landscaped area. He acknowledged that the Church was aware of the traffic concerns raised by the residents. He noted that the Church would be built whether or not the vacation was granted or not. He stated that the building would be a one-story structure of low profile. Members of the public then present their remarks. Mr. Joe Schrocko then narrated a video tape showing the area of the southeast estates. He highlighted the streets and the fact that there were limited sidewalks in the area, the problem of snow conditions with regard to narrow streets, the fact that Georgian Drive was not improved, the fact that 61 children live in the area under 12 years of age and that 41 chidren over the age of 12 live in the area. He also noted that the Church had not contacted any of the residents with regard to the proposed vacation. Mr. Robert Stevens then noted that there were certain deed restrictions involved which prohibited anything but residential in these areas. The Council Attorney then noted that the Council should refer to her memo dated October 10, 1986 which highlighted the four areas which the remonstrators would have to prove in order for a vacation to be turned down. Councilman Tom Zakrzewski noted his concern and stated that the basic issue which the Council must decide is whether Chalet Court should be vacated. He stated that he was opposed to the vacation because he believed that it would impede the growth of the area. Following further discussion by the Committee, Councilman Zakrzewski made a motion seconded by Councilman Beck that Bill No. 100-86 go to Council with unfavorable recommendation. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Beck then noted that she opposed the vacation because she believed that it would disrupt the orderly development of the growth of this particular neighborhood. She also noted that there are currently traffic concerns and with the vacation they would be increased. Mr. Doug Carpenter, the citizen member of the Committee then questioned if the vacation was turned down whether the Church would have to provide a cul-de-sac. T'he Church noted that they would.