|
..., ? ' - ". _
<br />• _('? . .
<br />PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 . PAGE 3
<br />Assembly was explained to Mr. Pfaff, an adjacent neighbor. He had
<br />no problem with proposal. B. Gorris moved to_approvethe combining
<br />of permanent parcels 236-3-9, 236-3-10, and 236-3-11 into one parcel,
<br />seconded by J. Brown, and unanimously approved.
<br />3) Halleen Chevrolet Rezoning Request, located on the east side of East
<br />Park Drive, north of Halleen Chevrolet.
<br />Proposal is to re-align the Retail Business, General, zone line so
<br />that parcel 232-8-4 be rezoned to retail business, General, and apart of parcel 232-8-5, which fronts on East Park Dr. be rezoned to
<br />Class "B" Residence, Single.
<br />Mr. C. Haleen and his-attorney, W. Geiser,explained that they would
<br />like to rezone parcel 232-8-5, which fronts East Park Dr, and is
<br />zoned General Retail (use is now residential) to residential; and
<br />then rezone parcel 232-8-5 which is back property (residential lot.
<br />was subdivided off in 1979) and abuts Mr. Halleens Retail property
<br />on the south, to General Retail. This property abuts Residential
<br />on the north_ also: Property will be used for the storage of ve-
<br />hicles at this time. Mr. and Mrs. W. Leonard,who live next door to
<br />this property, reminded the Commission of the fact that when the
<br />property was originally subdivided, Mr. Halleen advised that this.
<br />property would be used as a buffer between residential property
<br />and his commercial property (as stated in the Planning Commission
<br />Minutes of June 26, 1979). Mr. Leonard objects because this would
<br />put approximately 200 feet of parked cars against his property line.
<br />He was reminded that Mr. Halleen would have the right to use parcel
<br />232-8-5 (facing East Park) for any permitted use."for General Retail
<br />property. Mr. Leonard questioned if some kind of barrier would be
<br />required between Residential and Retail Business property. Some
<br />type of barrier could be requested, or required as part of the
<br />approval. Chairman Morgan stated the Cominission has in many other
<br />instances rejected the encroachment of commercial property into
<br />residential areas. Mrs. Brown believes that rezoning the East
<br />Park lot to Residential would be advantageous to the residents of
<br />East Park. It was pointed out that even if Planning Commission
<br />approves this, the final approval would be with the City Council.
<br />Mr. Burns stated that a commercial zoning line was established
<br />and lots have been subsequently purchased with the expectation that
<br />this line would remain unchanged. T. Morgan moved that the proposal
<br />to re-align the Retail Business, General zone line so that parcel
<br />232-8-4 be rezoned to Retail Business, General be disallowed and
<br />that the proposal that a part of parcel 232-8-5, which fronts on
<br />East Park Dr. be rezoned to Class "B'' Residence, Single be dis-
<br />allowed, and both are to remairi as presently zoned, seconded by J.
<br />Burns. Roll call on motion: Morgan, Burns, Gorris, Traczyk, and
<br />Wixted, Aye. Mrs. Brown, Nay. Motion passed. Mr. Halleen was
<br />advised-that he aould still request_this .rezani'ng throuQh Council.
<br />V. COMMUNICATIONS:
<br />Report from Captain Brow of the Police Department regarding the Standard
<br />?-? ,: , ,. . ,..,?..;: -.: ,. . ..: _.,?, •. . _,? . .,. _. _ . - - ,_ _ . -. . -?. _ _ _ . . , .
|