Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PAGE 9 <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br />MARCH 17. 1986 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2. THAT THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLAT AS PROPOSED NOT BE <br />ALLOWED. <br /> <br />3. THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET BE COMPLETED. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 86-20. A RESOLUTION <br />ORDERING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE DEERFIELD 3RD ADDITION <br />IMPROVEMENTS. TO INCLUDE STREETS. CURB AND GUTTERS. SANITARY SEWER AND <br />WATER AND ALSO. THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NORTHERN ACCESS IN ALIGNMENT <br />WITH HIGHWAY 201 (JACKSON AVENUE) ONTO HIGHWAY fJ169 BE INCLUDED IN THE <br />FEASIBILITY STUDY. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE <br />MOTION PASSED 5-0. <br /> <br />9. Ordinance Amendment to C-2 Zoning District <br /> <br />Mayor HInkle explained that the amendment was proposed to create a buffer <br />zone between commercial and residential areas. and also reviewed the <br />location of the existing C-2 zoned districts in the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Robert Dare. owner of Dare's Funeral Home. stated his concern that his <br />e business would become a non-conforming use. <br /> <br />Mr. Dan Anderson <br />amendment would <br />on Main Street. <br /> <br />expressed his concern that approval of the zoning <br />severely limit the uses of his property in the C-2 zone <br /> <br />Stephen <br />homes as <br />home". <br /> <br />Rohlf indicated that if the Council wished to include funeral <br />a principal use. it should be specifically listed as "funeral <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Counci1member Schuldt expressed his strong disapproval of the proposed <br />amendment. <br /> <br />Counci1member Gunkel explained that she had initiated the request for the <br />amendment. She continued that it was unavoidable in some areas of the <br />City for commercial areas to back up to residential areas. and that she <br />felt some commercial uses were more appropriate than others to be located <br />next to a single family residence. such as those proposed in the C-2 <br />ordinance amendment. As the ordinance now stood. there was little <br />distinction between the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. <br /> <br />e <br />