CCP 05-11-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, May 11, 1987 Page 2 . C.G. REIN (CONT'D) Miller also noted the following items opposing the proposed rezoning: 1. Increased traffic along Lexington Ave., 2. Commercial strip appearance, and 3. Some undesirable uses permitted in the B-2 district. Miller advised that some of the less desirable uses in the B-2 district were permitted by special use permit, allowing some control to be maintained by the Village, and reminded Council that site plan review would be required. The Planner stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the rezoning, based on the fact that the proposed rezoning would not be incompatible with other development along Lexington Avenue. William Sikora, architect for C. G. Rein, was present and reviewed the comprehensive plan statement submitted with the application. ,He advised the area can support development of this nature and there would be a combination of service/small retail use in the proposed facility. Counci1member Hansen asked Sikora for information which supported the need for this type of facility. Dennis Cavanaugh, President of C. G. Rein, stated the Arden Plaza Shopping Center is owned and managed by C. G. Rein and has had a 2% vacancy rate over the last 14 years. He further stated that the Shannon Square facility, on Lexington Avenue, is 70% occupied, and it is his opinion there is a demand for this type of facility. -- - Sikora stated that there are no gasoline pumps proposed for this facility; the stores would be more service oriented. Council also discussed the difference between this rezoning request and the proposed rezoning for Ham1ine Avenue and Highway 96; noted this site is not directly adjacent to residential zoning and the location on Lexington Ave.is not incompatible with the surrounding industrial zoning. Miller commented that Planning Commission members had discussed the increased traffic along Lexington Avenue and he noted that this type of facility will generate more traffic, however, traffic would be distributed throughout the day having less impact than concentration at peak hours. Council discussed the definitions of fast-food restaurants versus drive-in business, the separation requirement and also, the possible need for further definition of these uses in the zoning ordinance. Sather moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve Case No. 87-14, Rezoning from 1-2 to B-2, the Lexington Avenue Colestock site, North of Grey Fox Road, C. G. Rein Company. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) CASE NO. 87-11; Council was referred to Planner's report 4-10-87, MINOR SUBD. /VAR. Planning Commission minutes of 5-6-87, and Board of TRAMM, OAK AVENUE Appeals minutes 4-23-87. The Planner explained the subject property is an odd-shaped parcel .... approximately l.l acres in area. He noted that although the parcel exceeds area requirements, the front lot line width is only 75 ft. and a width variance of - 20 feet is being requested in conjunction with the minor subdivision. Miller explained the primary issue with this proposal is the impact of .... development of the lot on adjacent property. The house to the south has an -- adequate setback and is partially screened by mature shrubs along the shared property line. He identified the building envelope and the steepness of the slope on the front portion on the lot. He indicated the lot will require special treatment to achieve an acceptable driveway grade, and the applicant is working on a house plan which includes a tuck-under garage to reduce the driveway slope. Miller reviewed the Planning commission recommendation for approval, subject to the establishment of a minimum setback to be determined by the adjacent homes. Hansen moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Council approve Case No. 87-11, Minor Subdivision and Lot Width Variance, Lot 1, Block 4 of Shady Oaks Addition, based on the large lot area compensating for the narrow frontage, the flexible building envelope that exists on the proposed lot, and there would be no negative impact on the adjacent properties; furthermore, approval is subject to the front setback line of the proposed home not exceeding the front setback line of the two adjacent homes (the line drawn between the two adjacent homes at their closest point t~ th~ir front). Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) ---------