PL MINUTES 01201976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pg. 2 the recommendations of the Sieffert Nursery would be presented before a building permit is. issued. Although the contractor named no specific tenants for the building he said he had two dentists who had an interest in renting a portion, of the- top floor and he and the investment company were confident they would be able -to quickly lease the remainder of the building. They were therefore -anxious to begin construction- in March. The traffic congestion now experienced in front of.- the bakery and butcher shop a.few doors away was mentioned and Mr.. Hiebel asked Mr. Ernst why he thought this development would be easy to lease when there was so much empty building space in the Shopping Center across Kenzie Terrace and another .just a short distance further south. The builder said he thought his location would prove more attractive to prospective lessees and it was his contention that the proposed development would greatly improve.-the appearance. of -the area which he felt was a justificati.on' for changing the zoning. He also mentioned the tax -revenues which would be collected by the City. The proposed building would only. be 22 feet high and would meet City requirements as well as .the 70 parking spaces which were provided. The residents said the proposal for the professional offices and retail shops would be acceptable to them butindicated that; if the change in zoning should result in the allowance of a restaurant, .they would be adamantly opposed to the project. Mr. Ernst assured them he had no such plans and. felt he would have difficulty renting the top floors of the building for professional office space if the lower portion were to be used for a restaurant. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:45 P.M. The Board members also expressed their approval of the proposal as presented by Mr. Ernst but were uncertain whether 'a restaurant or other uses of the building which they would consider objectionable for that area could be legally prohibited if the request to change the-zoning to the existing "Commercial." classification were granted, which uncertainities were the basis for. the following motions: Motion by Mr. Rymarchick, seconded . by Mr. Marks to recommend to the Council denial of the request from the Bryant Investment Company to rezone .Plat 63507 ; Parcel 7620 from R-1 (single family residential)to C (commercial) to permit the construction of 'a two story- professional offices-retail shops building because of the fear that by rezoning the property to the existing commercial classification the City- possibly.would be subjecting itself, to the acceptance of- an undesireable land use before the desired classification for such zoning had been established by the new zoning ordinance with such an undesirable use proving to be an in- compatible buffer between commercial and residential area involved to which the residents of the neighborhood have . indicated they are opposed.. Before voting on the above, reluctance to deny the specific proposal made by Mr. Ernst brought the following motion- to defer action: Motion by Mr. Cowan and seconded by Mr. Hiebel to table action on the Ernst proposal. until the Board ascertained whether specific uses could be legally prohibited under the existing zoning ordinance. Voting on the motion to table: Aye: None Nay: All seven members Motion to table not carried.