05-22-95 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' f tommfttet 2t*port: Zoning and Annexation Committee go the Common touiuft of Os Qtitp of mouth 3*ttb: The May 22, 1995 meeting of the Zoning and Annexation Committee was called to order by its Chairperson, Council Member Lee Slavinskas at 3:53 P.M. in the Council informal meeting room. Persons in attendance included Council Members: Luecke, Kelly, Puzzello, Slavinskas, Zakrzewski, Coleman, Duda, and Ladewski; T. Brooks Bradamas, John Byorni, Mitch Heppenheimer, Ann Kolata, John McNamara, Cheryl Little, Eugena Schwartz,Don Porter, and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. Council Member Slavinskas noted that Resolution No. 95-40 which would adopt and approve a historic plan would be continued until the Council meting of June 12, 1995 to allow a separate meeting on that Resolution. He noted that he would be calling that meeting for June 6, 1995. The next item on the agenda was Bill No. 6-95 which is a rezoning request along Mayflower Road. Mr. John Byorni showed the site plan to the Committee.He noted that it comes to the Council without recommendation from the Area Plan Commission since there were not enough votes for such a recommendation. Mr. Mitch Heppenheimer, the attorney for the purchasers then made the presentation.He noted that the area in question is 1.6 acres with 51% for storage units and 48% for paving and driveway. He stated that there would be three phases with this being phase one of approximately $360,000.00 to $400,000.00. The hours would be 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and there would be perimeter fencing.He also noted that there would be a 36 inch evergreen hedge on the west side. There would be no utilities to the bays, there would be security lighting only,there would be no storage outside of the bays,and there would be no vehicle storage. He noted that the perspective purchasers namely Steve Tatay and Steve,Beiler own other businesses and are well respected within the community. He stressed that this the "best and highest use" in his opinion for the property. He stated that it would generate about$14,000.00 in real estate taxes and is within the second district. He stated that he has met with the neighbors and none of them are here today. Mr. John Byorni noted that the staff recommendation was unfavorable. He noted that it is not an intensive use but the staff's concern is over designating it as "D" light industrial in light of the adjacent residential properties. Council Member Coleman stated that he believes that this rezoning is distinguishable from the Sample Street and Portage Ave. rezoning since this property is currently is zoned "C" commerical. He sees this property as the "acid test". Council Member Luecke stated that he would need to review screening requirements in light of Council Member Slavinskas' suggestion that perhaps this type of use is better suited for a "C" commercial use as opposed to a "D" light industrial use. Council Member Luecke stated that he would need to review several other items further before he could make a commitment. He too is concerned about such uses as body shop, car sales, in "C" commercial.