Planning Commission_1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 21, 1969 To I~layor ~tarkentein and Village Council Nembers Re: Application from Nor. Robert B. Fagenkopf to rezone if 79 Pd , Ham].ine (listed as Lot 7, Block-Larpenteur L~illas , South ,54 feet of Let 7, except the crest 100 feet thereof ) from ~2-1 to II-2. the Planning Crsmnissian held a public besting at the Village Hall. an Thursday. June 19, 19h9 at $:00 p.m, to consider rezoning of the above property. Present at th® meeting, in addition to Planning Commission members and Trustee P31ack, were ~`rs. Ungar of Springy Co. Realtors,. ~~r. Simon {i~i~•, F'agenkopf's son-in-late). Nr. Don Frozen. 1747 r~. Hanrline, ~" i~:~r. Harry F~runcke. P~. filbert, and three other persons from the immediate neighborhood. P'~rs. i3ilger stated that the house at 197 Ai. Hemline rasa originally built as a tea house and hence was not well. deai~,rned for a one faa:ily home. As a result of the style of the house and also oi` the noise and traffic in the area, Mr. P~genkopf has bean having trouble finding a buyer. He is interested in selling to Nr. and M.rs. Richard Ortt who would live in the house and operate atwo-operator beauty parlor there. The beauty parlor would be open from $ a.m. to 6 p.m. six days per week. Airs. Uil.ger estinw.ted that there wouldn't be more than four or five customers at one time and so there would never be over six cars parked, and they could be parked in the driveuaay. The lot is SO' by 200'. and the house is 2300 square feet in size. The five neighbors present indicated they mere opposed to the re-zoning. They want the area kept residential. Nx. Brown. the irnnediate neighbor to the north, felt that re-zon3.ng; would hurt the value of his property as residential property and that he would in all likelihood feel it necessary to request rezoning when he sold. He presented a, petition signed by 13 neighbors living taithin 304 feab of the affected property which opposed the rezoning. The Planning Conanission unanimously voted to recommend to the 'Ti11a~e Council that the request for rezoning the above property from g I to 8..2 be denied. The Co~nanission makes this recomdaendation for the follcmring reasons: 1. Such rezoning is not compatible with the intents and purposes of Ordinance Ro. (~ as stated in the introduction: "This Ordinance is adopted for thQ purpose of promoting orderly development of the residential, business, industrial. recreational and public areas." Spot rezoning of this lot could easily lead to requests for other spot rezoning. 2. If the property were rezoned to B-2, it would. not coaaply with the parking requirements or the side-lot requirements of a E~-2 zone. (Parking requirements era one space for each 204 sq. ft. of building, or about l2 spaces. The lot is only 50' wide. but the side-lot a~t~esime8t~s ~~ lt>a#~#sgfhfrK-1 zone is 40'.) set-back for B-2 then abutting an R-?. Sincerely yours, George Flant. Chairman