01-25-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission January 12, 1989 l DeLonais stated that he voted against because he does not believe the additional equipment is needed to serve the area. Costa stated that he voted against because the land is not zoned properly and the building would not meet setback requirements. Schweizer stated that she is familiar with the industry and agrees with the comments of the representatives of Cellular One. Charles Mr. Gerald Brandenhoff, Attorney representing Charles Weber, appeared Weber before the commission regarding Weber's request to rezone his property Rezoning on Rice Street from General Business to Light Industrial. Brandenhoff pointed out that the Weber property was recently rezoned by the City from Light Industrial to General Business due to the City's desire to upgrade the quality of development on Rice Street. Brandenhoff stated that Mr. Weber shares the concerns of Mr. Frattalone and Mr. Peterson outlined earlier in the meeting regarding the resale value of his property under a B -3 zoning. Brandenhoff pointed out that the Weber property is 71 feet wide by 650 feet deep and has a house and two manufacturing buildings on the lot. Brandenhoff reported that the property immediately to the north is the same size as the Weber property. At one time, both parcels were one, however, the City agreed to divide the property into two lots. The result is two narrow lots that will be difficult to develop. Brandenhoff reported that his client purchased the property in 1969 and lived in the residence until the summer of 1988. Brandenhoff reported that the use of the property has not been abandoned for six months as reported by the City Planner, and Mr. Weber is prepared to re- establish the use of the property before the 6 month lapses, if that is what is necessary, in order to sell the property to a buyer who wants to conform to the prior use of the property. Brandenhoff reported that Mr. Weber never received a notice of the Public Hearing of the rezoning. Weber has had the property up for sale since June of 1988 and believed he had I -1 property for sale. There was a potential purchaser of the site who wished to purchase I -1 property in order to operate an auto body shop. That use would be permitted under I -1. However, the potential buyer checked on the zoning of the property and was informed that the property was B -3. This is when Mr. Weber became aware that his property had been rezoned. Brandenhoff reported that when the Weber property was sold, Mr. Weber moved from the site and purchased another home. Now Mr. Weber is left with two mortgages to support and cannot enter into a purchase agreement with the potential purchaser due to the rezoning of his property. Brandenhoff pointed out that the City Planner's memo indicated that the residence on the site is non - conforming and both the home and businesses Page -10-