Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Minutes <br />April 16, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mary Eberley, Planning Commission representative, stated that the <br />Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the zone change <br />request. She indicated that the Planning Commission felt that because <br />of the location they would like to see the entire area looked at, not <br />just one particular piece, and that one way to do this would be a PUD. <br /> <br />Mayor Tralle opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Barbara Maracle of 1234 6th Street stated that she would hate to see <br />the area go commercial where anything could go in the area and further <br />stated a commercial zone would negatively affect her property. She <br />stated she would prefer the Council consider the entire two block area <br />which would include her block. She stated that there are very few <br />houses left in that area and that with the one block going commercial <br />the values on the remaining homes would decrease. <br /> <br />Dick Enstad, representing Barthel Construction, stated his concern <br />regarding putting the property into a planned unit development. He <br />stated that one of the problems with a PUD project is that the land <br />must have common ownership. He stated that Parcels C, D and E have <br />common owners and are one acre in size; however, the remaining property <br />has different owners, therefore, they would not be in a position to <br />make the property a PUD. Mr. Enstad indicated that the plans for the <br />property would not create any more traffic in the area. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ken Beaudry, on behalf of Barthel Construction, stated that he would <br />like to see something happen on the west end of town commercially. He <br />stated that if the corner lot goes commercial it will bring other <br />businesses to the area and he did not feel that a PUD would work. <br /> <br />Dick Enstad of Barthel Construction indicated that Barthel would be <br />willing to address the drainage and would be willing to give up <br />property to widen the road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schuldt stated that he would not approve a site plan that <br />does not address the crossing of 6th Street, sidewalks for pedestrians <br />and drainage. However, he is in favor of rezoning the property to <br />commercial. Councilmember Kropuenske stated that he agreed a PUD would <br />be the best way to zone this particular piece of property but Bill <br />Weber, the City's planner, recommended that it should be zone changed <br />from R-3 to C-3. Councilmember Kropuenske further stated that if one <br />business is approved other requests will follow and also that he would <br />be willing to rezone the area to C-3 as long as site plans for new <br />businesses would address the other concerns regarding traffic, <br />drainage, etc. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mayor Tralle stated that the assessment cost for changing the traffic <br />pattern, storm sewer, and drainage would be borne by the developer. <br />Mr. Enstad responded by saying that he was under the impression that <br />the storm sewer would be installed regardless if the property was <br />sold. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, indicated that <br />the City has been working with the County regarding the drainage along <br />Proctor and the railroad tracks because Proctor is a County road. <br />Councilmember Holmgren stated that the highest and best use for this <br />