03-14-88 Zoning & Vacation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t • noted that the area in question surrounding the proposed petition was residential. She then showed pictures from May, 1987 and November, 1987 when there were hearings before the Code Enforcement Officer. She noted that the shed is still located on the property and that there is a considerable amount metal as well as changing vehicles. She concluded by stating that the Building Department, Area Plan Commission, and her department, all were against the proposed rezoning. Kathy Baumgartner, the Director of the Bureau of Housing, stated that her office is involved in housing rehabilitation and that over $800, 000.00 has been infused into this area. Seventeen units have been renovated and one is directly next to the proposed rezoning. She requested that the Council turn down the proposed rezoning so that there would not be a "domino effect" with regard to further deterioration of the area. Councilman Luecke noted that there were many uses within the "D" Light Industrial classification which he believed were incompatible with the surrounding residential character of the neighborhood. He believed that if the Council would rezone the property that it may open the door to other potential trash hauling or tree removal businesses. Councilman Slavinskas stated that he had explored every possible alternative but could not support the proposed rezoning. Rita Marshall stated that there is a violator on Wenger Street who has a dump truck considerably larger than Mr. Lee's which is filled with rubbish and the Code Enforcement Department does not site that vehicle. Mrs. DeClercq stated that she would follow up with regard to this complaint. Following further discussion, Councilman Luecke made a motion seconded by Councilman Coleman that Bill No. 1-88 be recommended unfavorably to Council. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Slavinskas then noted that the last item on the agenda was review Bill No. 8-88 which would amend various sections of Article 5, Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code commonly known as "Procedures For Vacation of Public Ways and Public Places. " He noted that he was the Petitioner with regard to this Bill. He noted that the Bill would essentially change the fee from $100. 00 to a $150. 00 amount which would be non-refundable. He also noted that it would eliminate the requirement of notice by certified mail to property owners within 300 feet, and that only those directly abutting the property in question would be notified. He also noted that the proposed Bill would eliminate the written appraisal procedure. 3