HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-86 Zoning & Vacation Qinlnttttnn good
WA to cum= Qtounttl pf t1 014 off Snit: ZONING AND VACATION COMMITTEE
The October 13, 1986 meeting of the Zoning and Vacation Committee
was called to order by its Chairman, Councilman John Voorde at 4 : 30 p.m.
in the Council informal meeting room.
Persons in attendance included Councilmen Serge, Braboy, Puzzello,
Beck, Taylor, Zakrzewski, Barcome, Paszek, and Voorde; George Herendeen,
Doug Carpenter, John Peddycord, several members of the public, members
of the news media and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand.
Councilman Voorde noted that the purpose of the meeting was to
discuss Bill Nos. 93-86 which was incorrectly listed as 98-86 on the
agenda and 100-86. Mr. George Herendeen then briefly reviewed Bill No.
93-86 which would amend certain property just north of the corner of
Lafayette and Sample Street for the purpose of constructing a police
credit union. He noted that the improvement to the area would be between
$130 to $150,000. He additionally noted that the State Building Department
had recently approved the plans and that the construction would hopefully
begin yet this year.
In response to a question from the Council Attorney, it was noted
that the Substitute version of the bill included a new legal description
which was properly before the Area Plan Commission.
Following questions by the
a motion seconded By Councilman
Bill No. 93-86 go to Council favorably. The motion passed unanimously.
The Committee then reviewed Bill No. 100-86 which was a petition
to vacate certain property described as Chalet Court in the Fifth
District.
It was noted by the Council Council that she had been contacted
by Ken Fedder, an attorney hired by the remonstrators who informed her
that he would be unable to attend the Committee meeting but would be
present at the formal Council meeting.
Councilman Taylor was then called upon as the District Councilman
to give a brief presentation. He noted that the area in question is a
residential area which contains narrow residential streets with no
through thoroughfares. He hoped that the church would join other churches
in the Fifth District but in a different area. He cited several examples
of increased hazards related to the vacation as well as the increased
hazards in light of the many children that live in the area. He stated
that all of the other churches in the Fifth District are located on
main thoroughfares. He hoped that the "good neighbor policy" would
exist, but believed that it would be quite difficult in light of the
negative impact to the growth of the neighborhood which the church would do.
Mr. John Peddycord, the attorney for the petitioner, then
presented several pictures for the Council to review. He noted that the
street involved is an 80 foot stub street. He was asking on behalf of
vast ..... amez .+ PU.LI.NING Co.
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.
Page 3.
Zoning and Vacation Committee
There being no further business to come before the Committee
the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John Voorde, Chairman