Laserfiche WebLink
March 23, 1981 <br />274 <br />The Planning and Zoning Board actions were next on the Agenda. <br />SCHILLING - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING <br />Mr. Schumacher pointed out the portion of this area that will be <br />considered in this rezoning. A portion of the land abutting Lilac <br />has LI zoning at the present time. This would include the reaminder <br />of the lands. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval <br />and a public hearing be set. <br />Mr. McLean moved to set a public hearing for Lino Industrial Park <br />for April 13, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />REHBEIN - LOT SPLIT <br />This is concerned with Lots 28 4 29 in Equity Estates and each contain <br />5 acres. Mr. Schumacher pointed out the manner in which these lots <br />would be split. The Planning and Zoning had reviewed this and found <br />no hardship in the land and had recommended denial of this lot split. <br />Mr. Karth said there is no hardship to the land - just that the <br />smaller parcels would make this land available to more persons. The <br />cost of a five acre parcel of land is prohibitive to most people. Mr. <br />Karth said at the time this land was split (3 years ago) the general <br />concept of the market was that people wanted 21/2 to 5 acres, now this <br />marketing trend has reversed - people are looking for smaller parcels <br />of land. <br />Mr. Jaworski questioned the off balance split of one of the lots and <br />Mr. Karth explained that the one lot has a low area and this allows <br />for a one acre building site. <br />Mayor Gourley felt the consideration of whether a hardship of this <br />land exists is not the primary factor here - the major concern <br />should be the moratorium on the splitting of these lots in an area <br />where the Comprehensive Plan designates one unit per ten acres. This <br />is to ensure that City services are not needed in that area ahead of <br />the plan. <br />Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to deny this variance, in that it does not <br />conform to the Comprehensive Plan and there is no hardship of the <br />land. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. <br />FRANK MINAR - VARIANCE <br />Mr. Schumacher reported this is a five acre split from 20 acres, which <br />is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that there would be two <br />dwellings on 20 acres. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended <br />approval of this variance with money in leiu of land. Mayor Gourley - <br />on smaller parcel or the larger? Mr. Schumacher said in order to <br />stay consistent, it would have to be on the smaller parcel. <br />Mr. Minar objected to this procedure and asked why it was necessary <br />for him to pay to split a parcel of land to give to his daughter. <br />Mr. Minar understood that he could give land and Mayor Gourley ex- <br />plained that the recommendation had been for money in leiu of land. <br />In this case the amount would be $750.00, and would be payable before <br />the building permit is issued. <br />