pm_701202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e3e Mr. Kellett acknowledged the strong neighborhood objections but felt that the architects h done a fine job and that the building would be compatible with the neighborhood. He expre concern over the placement of Marion Street and proposed that the problem should be solved the Village. Mr. ~iembrez indicated that historically the Commission has had a philosophy not approving rezonings for apartments on lakeshore property. He also stated that the Com ission had a responsibility to uphold the previously mentioned committment. Recommendation Mrs. Demos Moved and Mr. Johnson Seconded, that the Commission recommend denial of the req for rezoning from R.I to R-3A and special use permit at 210 South McCarrons Boulevard. Roll Call, Ayes: Johnson, Demos, Pope and Membrez. Nays: Kellett, Edlund and Ea~les. Planning File 601-70 - Jack Willis division of a lot at 1270 Lake Josephine Road J Presentation ~1r. Willis was not present but the individual interested in purchasing the 13 feet stated that he needed the additional property in order to build an attached gara~e on the side of his house. Discussion Mr. Membrez pointed out that the proposed division would result in a corner lot width 12 f under the ordinance requirements. Mr. Pope indicated that the reason for the request was that an attached garage could be built rather than a detached garage on the rear of the property. Mr. Pope stated that the basic question was if the Commission wanted to create sub-standard lot size. Recommendation ~1r. Kellett Moved and Mr. Pope Seconded, that the Commission recommend denial of the reque for division of a lot at 1270 Lake Josephine Road. The Commission suggests that the individual desiring the attached garage apply for a side yard variance. Roll Call, Ayes: Kellett, Johnson, Demos, Pope, Edlund, Eagles and Membrez. Nays~ None. PlanninE File 602.70 . Michels Construction Company preliminary plat Michels Rosedale Addition, 2135 West Roselawn Presentation Mr. ~fichels stated that homes in the $60,000 to $70,000 range were planned for development on the lots. He indicated that 81 feet, although below code requirements by 4 feet, was sufficient width to build the type of home he waS planning. ~1r. Michels preferred a cuI d sac of Hythe Street rather than connecting Hythe with Draper but that the Village had requ ted the latter. Discussion ~1r. Fornell, Westwood Circle, felt that 81 feet was wide enough but hoped the developer we construct a variety of home styles and not just one type. Mrs. Miley was concerned about the overall drainage in the area and felt the development of this area would only intensif an already serious drainage problem. Mr. Membrez stated that Michels Construction had always done a good job in the past. Mr. Johnson was concerned about the 81 foot lots and \<Jould prefer to see four lots on bod sides of Hythe instead of the proposed five.