08/15/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

August 15, 1979 t61''�1�1 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:09 p.m., August 15, 1979 by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: James Shearen, Jerome Heath, Vernon Reinert, Vi Schwankl, Bob Doocey and Council liaison John McLean for part of the meeting. Members absent: Lawrence Johnson. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes from the May 16, June 27, July 11 and July 18 meetings. In reference to the May 16 minutes, Mr. Reinert felt it would be appropriate for the typist to identify themselves because there were errors noted from time to time, and that way they would know who to go to if there was a need for clarification. The Commission requested that initials be put on the minutes in the future. Mr. Shearen moved to approve the minutes of the May 16, June 27, July 11, and July 18 meetings. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean was not present to give his report from the Council. In response to a request from the Council, the matter of the rezone for the duplex at 790 Vicky Lane was reviewed. Mr. and Mrs. Brunner, owners of the property in question, were present as well as several residents opposed to the rezone. The Planning and Zoning Commission had previously recommended approval of a rezone from R-1 to R-2 for this property; however, it had been brought back to the P & Z level from the public hearing because of an error in the rezone, which should have been commercial to R-2. The portions of the August 13 Council minutes that dealt with this were read by Mr. Heath, and the P & Z minutes from the May 29 and June 20 meetings were read by Mr. Gourley. Mr. Shearen raised the question of whether a rezone was necessary since the property was in a commercial zone, in which lesser uses were allowed. Mr. Gourley indicated that this area had been zoned as a commer- cial district under Ordinance No. 6, which Mr. Locher felt was concurrent with the general business district in Ordinance No. 56, which did not permit an R-2 use. Mr. Shearen noted that Mr. Locher had been going to research this, but there was no ans- wer on it yet. Mr. Reinert felt an interpretation was necessary before a decision could be made. Mr. Gourley said that in the past, residential had been permitted in a commercial zone without a rezone or special use permit; however, it was noted this had been only single family (R-1) and not multifamily (R-2). Mr. Reinert felt this was preferential zoning and asked what the rationale was for allowing R-1 but not R-2. Mr. Heath thought this could be because it had developed that way (R-1) and requiring a rezone for R-2 would be notice to the residents. He also felt the resi- dential areas along the strip zoning should be rezoned as such and traded for commer- cial in other areas. A statement signed by a number of residents who were not opposed to the property at 790 Vicky Lane being rezoned to R-2, dated August 14, 1979, was presented to the Commission. Mr. Gourley opened the meeting to discussion from the audience. A resident, Mr. Dick Paulsen, 789 Vicky Lane, said that the immediate property owners were adamantly against the zoning change on several grounds: (1) Homeowners tend to take care of their property better and were more concerned with the feelings of the neighborhood in regard to noise, traffic, and so on. Transient renters would affect the property values, the living style, and the general character of the neighborhood. (2) If there was a lot of on -street parking from the duplex, this could block visi- bility and be a potential hazard for the children. (3) If one change to R-2 was granted, there would be no reason to refuse others, and the nature of the whole block could be changed. (4) The house presently does not meet the minimum requirements for a duplex as it has only one well and septic system. Mr. Paulson said there had been trouble in the past with the poor septic system, and it could be a neighborhood problem if not taken care of. Mr. Paulson also felt that those opposed to the change