pm_710901 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-4.. in the building, the fewer people in the area the better. Mr. Membrez felt it was not the best locaticn for the particular type of proposed operation. Mr4 R. L. Stevens, Vice President of Murphy Motor Freight, indicated that his firm is coocerned wi th the zoning in the area. He felt that if retail operations would get a foothold in the industrial area, that JOOre and more would open shop. Event- ually he felt there could be complaints about a trucking finn being in a retail area. Mr. Johnson stated that if the Village Council should decide to approve the proposal by SllUllberland that they should assure the change in the Code be made very narrow in its scope to provide tight control by the Village. RecCJJmi!ndation Mr. Eagles Moved and Mrs. DelOOs Seconded, that the Conmission recommend denial of Sltunberland's request for special use pennit at 2361 T.B. 36 and amendment to Secticn 10.290 of the Village Code. Roll Call, Ayes: Kellett, Edltmd, Eagles. Demos, Pope, and Membrez. Nays: Johnson. PlaIUling File 643-71 - Victor Michels preliminary plat for "Michels Roselawn" Presentaticn Mr. Jim Michels indicated that t~ Comrnissicn members had received copies of the proposed plat and asked if there were any questions. Discussion Mr. Membrez asked if there were any plans to remove the existing house on the comer lot bordering Roselawn. Mr. Michels replied that they intended to remodel and improve the existing home and that it was economically unfeasible for him to tear the house down. Mr. Membrez pointed out that lots 3 thru 7 on the plat are 80 feet wide and approximately 160 feet deep containing approximately 12 ,800 sq. ft. Lots 1 and 2 are oddly shaped lots consisting of l2,240 sq. ft. and 11,430 sq. ft. respectively. The Village ordinDnce for the R-l zoning district requires a lot width of 85 ft. for interior lots and 100 ft. for comer lots, and an area of 11,000 feet for interior lots with 12,500 feet for comer lots. Therefore, Lot 1 is short of the 12,500 sq. ft. minimum and Lots 3 thru 7 do not have the required 85 foot width. Mr. Membrez indicated that although all the lots did not rreet the requirements of the code, that the size and width of the proposed lots were in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Johnsen asked if perhaps it would be possible to reduce the number of lots by one and increase the front footage to 91 feet for each of the lots. Mr. Michels indicated that the cost of the assessments for the property would make it almost impossible to cut out one of the lots. Mr. Goldberg indicated that the proposed lots were larger than many of the lots in the neighborhood.