Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br /> <br /> <br />Zoning Text Amendment Condition(s): <br />Not suggested. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING: <br />A public hearing was sent to surrounding property owners on February 27th, 2024, and published <br />in the City’s official newspaper on March 1st, 2024. Below is a summary of the public comment <br />received: <br />Written Public Comment: <br />1. Mel and Jane Eder – Provided comments in opposition of the request citing concerns with <br />septic capacity, medical waste, water, traffic, and the remaining acreage. <br />2. Joyce Sullwold Kelch – Provided comments in opposition of the request citing concerns <br />with traffic, water, and medical waste. <br />3. Lisa Koll – Provided comments in opposition of the request citing concerns with buildings, <br />traffic, EMS access, waste facilities, pollution and aesthetics. <br />4. Joan and Steve Ziertman – Provided comments in opposition to the requests citing <br />concerns with the comprehensive plan and rural district intent. <br />5. George Crocker and Lea Foushee – Provided comments in opposition of the request citing <br />concerns with light pollution, surrounding acreage, toxic substances, medical waste, <br />disruption from EMS, impacts to wildlife. <br />6. Jane Chars – Provide comments in opposition of the request citing concerns compatibility <br />with the rural character, traffic, floodplain impacts, and environmental concerns. <br />7. Kirk and Callie Kenneally – Provided comments in opposition of the request citing <br />concerns with the compatibility with the rural character. <br />8. Robert and Marie Meyer – Provided written comments after the public hearing opposing <br />the request citing concerns with infrastructure, sewage treatment, future expansion, <br />ecosystem impacts, and cost to the City. <br />9. Bill and Cheryl Vogel – Provided written comments opposing the transitional care facility <br />citing concerns with zoning standards, repurposing the buildings, parking, traffic, utilities, <br />and security. <br />10. Karen Granovsky – Provided written comments after the public hearing in opposition of the <br />requests citing traffic and speed impacts in addition to agreeing with other public comment <br />concerns. <br />11. Joyce Kelch – Provided additional written comment in opposition on the request based on <br />similar items from the first comment. <br /> <br />Spoken Public Comment: <br />1. Mel Eder – 4980 Keats Ave – Provided comments supplementing their written statement <br />regarding the public hearing notice policy, citing concerns with the re-guidance and <br />possible future development of the remaining parcel, traffic concerns, and expressed that it <br />would not be beneficial to the rural area. <br />2. John Ames- 9799 51st St – Stated they support the mission of the applicant but are <br />concerned with the meaning/intent of zoning, the commercial nature of the proposal, future <br />expansion, increased traffic and increased traffic speed which may result in unsafe <br />conditions for residents. . <br />a. Mr. Ames spoke a second time regarding the concerns with the property not being <br />residential in nature. <br />3. Jane Chars – PO Box 769 - Provided comments supplementing their written statement <br />regarding flood zone and building footprints, water quality and wildlife impacts including <br />light pollution concerns. They outlined the history of the ag preserve, and expressed