Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />247 <br />September 27] 2982 <br />Mr. Schumacher requested Mr. Hawkins to put this in a formal Resolution <br />form. <br />PLANNING AND ZONING ACTIONS <br />Nathe Rezone - Mr. Kluegel reviewed the action to date on this rezone. <br />The Planning and Zoning had reviewed this as reqlkecsted by the Council and <br />had recommended that basically, if the 4 -plex is to be allowed, then no <br />parking from the 49 Club be allowed on that lot and if parking is to be <br />allowed, then the building should be turned into a motel. <br />Mr. Reinert asked what this does to the parking of this is turned into <br />a motel and Mr. Kluegel said there needs to be 10 units to be classified <br />as a motel. Mr. Reinert felt this would only compound the problem and <br />this did nothing to solve this problem. <br />Mr. Marier asked where the figure of 10 came from and Mr. Kluegel said <br />Ordinance #56 does not have a motel classification but does limit hotels <br />to 10 units. He said qunderthe State Building Code a motel is referenced <br />back to a hotel and this requires 6 units. <br />Mr. Reinert disagreed with this concept - this solves nothing and only <br />compounds the existing problems. <br />Mr. Worth, Mr. Nathe's Attorney, said Mr. Nathe had abandonded the idea <br />of the extra parking. He just wanted the rezoning so he can get the <br />building finished and recoup some of his investment. <br />Mr. Reinert asked what the required parking for a business such as the <br />49 Club was - is there adequate parking? <br />1 <br />Mr. Kluegel said this is an old existing business and the growth in the <br />number of patrons has exceeded the parking available. <br />Mr. Reinert felt that parking is a problem that Mr. Nathe must solve and <br />if he is to have parking, then he cannot have the 4 —plex - if he wants <br />the 4 -p1ex, then he cannot have the parking. These are conflicting land <br />uses. He felt that the Council can allow either the 4 -plex or the park- <br />ing and if the 4 -plex is allowed, then Mr. Nathe must come in with some <br />additional parking someplace else. <br />Mrs. Elsenpeter said she was trying to get ttb straight in her mind why <br />both operations cannot be allowed - is it because of parking? Is is <br />because of the zoning? She was told it was because of the zoning. <br />Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out that the Ordinance does not say that you . <br />can:fltr; have a parking lot in an R3 zone. If it does, she can't find it. <br />Mr. Hawkins said he could not find anyplace were commercial parking in <br />an R3 zone is not allowed. He felt that a parking problem exists and <br />this is a way of solving that problem. <br />Mr. Schumacher pointed out that one of Mr. McLean's major concers was <br />the limited frontage on the street. This lot only has some 54' of <br />frontage and if that is used as a parking lot, then the frontage becomes <br />the width of the driveway. <br />Mr. Worth pointed out that required frontage usually is established to <br />