08-04-1980 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 4, 1980 Page Two discuss the zone change and again express their opposition to the PUD zone along Highway 169 and the proposed R-4 zoned area. Mr. Antone Hipp expressed the concerns of the Citizen's Group that there is no assurance of one developer and one total plan for the PUD, and also expressed their concern of the citizen's involvement with the total planned unit development's projects. Mayor Madsen indicated that a PUD plan would involve citizens surrounding the development, whereas a commercial zoning would not have to involve the citizens. Council- man Duitsman indicated a PUD zOne allows for more citizen input than any other zoning district. Mr. Antone Hippagain expressed the Eastside Citizen's request tl:1at the area north of Main Street and west of the Nursing Home remain R.,..l zoning. General discussion was carried on regarding tne proposed R-4 zoning of the area immediately north of Main Street. The definitions of R~l. R-2 and R-4 zoning were discussed as was the language of the ordinance prohibiting single family dwellings in multi-family zoning districts. The question was also raised regarding the fifty-percent destruction rule of a non-conforming structure. Mr. Zack Johnson explained that if a single-family structure in an R-4 zone would be more than 50% destroved. the structure could not be rebuilt without a zone change. Mayor Madsen and Councilman Toth expressed their opposition to the fifty-percent rule and suggested that language to allow single-family dwellings to be reconstructed if damaged in R-4 zoning be deve1ed. The City Administrator indicated the fifty-percent rule could be eliminated as it pertains to single family dwellings in the zoning ordinance to satisfy the rebuilding problem. Further discussion was carried on regarding re-consideration of the,R-4 zoned area. Councilman Toth indicated that he was not in favor of the R-4 zoning and that he felt the area in question west of Evans Street and north of Main Street should be an R-2 zone as there are still many problems concerning traffic. the new bridge, and the possibi1itv of a railroad underpass unanswered. Council- man Tothfurther indicated that nothing was final but that some type of a traffic corridor was necessarv to connect the downtown area and the PUD area, and that necessary zone changes should be made when the change is necessary. COUNCILMAN TOTE MOVED TO AMMEND THE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP TO REFLECT AN R~4DISTRICT IN THE AREA NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND EAST OF EVANS STREET BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 169 AND THE GUARDIAN ANGELS NURSING HOME,ANDANR-2 DISTRICT WEST OF EVANS STREET AND NORTH OF MAIN STREE.T OVER THE REMAINDER OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE R-4. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 2. ' Proposed Zone Change Either Side of the NewCo1irtho1ise. Mayor Madsen indicated that these changes would involve both tne LRnd Use Map and the Zoning Map, specifically, the Land Use involves creating a small commercial strip on the south side of Highway 10 and west of Waco Street, and a 20 acre commercial strip on the souths ide of Highway 10 and the east side of Waco Street. Between"the County Courthouse site and the County Fairgrounds. the Land Use Map would propose a forty-acre parcel of property designated as Mixed Uses. Mayor Madsen further indicated that the Zoning Map proposed snecific zoning changes as follows: An eight~acre commercial strip on the south side of Highway 10 and west of Waco Street and a 20-acre commercial strip on the south side of Highway 10 and east of Waco Street. and, in addition two 20-acre PUDs immediately e.ast of the County Courthouse site with the remainder of the large parcel south of Hignwav 10 zoned R-1B. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP CHANGES AS PROPOSED FOR THE AREA ON EITHER SIDE OF THE COURT- HOUSE ON THE SOUTHSIDE OF HIGHWAY 10. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0.