10-26-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council October• 26, 1988 Announce- Scalze reported that the Nor•th Subur~ban Youth Association is making a ments donation of $15,770 towar•ds the reconstruction of the Kellogg Hockey rink. (Cont.l Public The Mayor• opened the public hearing to consider• the multiple r•ezonings Hear~ing as proposed by the City Planner~. The Mayor~ r~eported that this matter Multiple was tabled at the last Council meeting pending a r~ecommendation from Rezonings the Planning Commission which has now been received. Agenda Fahey felt the first order• of business was to decide the issue of the Item No. 5 limitation of 35% building cover~age in the I-P District. The City Planner~ reviewed his memo dated October 26, 1988 on this issue describing various scenar•ios which he put together~ compar~ing the effect of this limitation on various commer~cial and industr•ial uses. The Council reviewed the report and Fahey suggested that the Case 1 scenario of float~ng lot coverage was prefer•able to the 35% limitation currently in the Ordinance. Fahey pointed out that the City would benefit by the higher• valuation of a development, while still maintaining adequate landscaping r•equirements. Blesener agr•eed. Fahey pointed out that development in the I-P Distr•ict is more likely to be manufacturing than office space, ther•efor•e, the 35% land cover•age limitation limits the potential valuation of a pr•oject. Collova stated that he, too, was agreeable to the floating lot coverage r•ecommendation. Frank Frattalone infor•med the Council that he had some concer•ns with the pr•oposed rezoning of his proper•ty to I-P District. Fr•attalone pointed out that the I-P District limits the amount of outdoor storage to 75% of the building size. Frattalone r•epor•ted that such a limitation would have a major• impact on his business. Fahey pointed out that the idea of rezoning to the I-P Distr•ict is to upgrade the quality of development. Fr•attalone reported that he has a petition signed by 10 pr•operty owners in the ar•ea being considered for• r•ezoning who were not aware of the r~amifications of the r•ezoning to I-P Distr•ict. Frattalone reported that these pr•oper•ty owner~s are opposed to the r•ezoni ng. Fr~attal one stated that he believed the industrial park could use some impr•ovements, but was opposed to the limitation of outdoor• stor•age as contained in the I-P District. Frattalone also pointed out that the incr~ease to 25% landscaping for• a development is a big change from the standar•ds of the I-1 District. Fr~attalone was agreeable to increasing the percentage for building coverage. Page -2-