OCR Text |
Show Commissioners Hear Views on Rezoning Issue Strong opinions concerning a proposal of the Iron County Planning Plan-ning and Zoning Commission for a change in zoning along U. S. Highway 91 north of Cedar City, were expressed at a public hear Ing held by the Iron County Commission Saturday evening. The court room of the City and County Building was filled for the hearing and statements opposing op-posing the proposed change, and those In favor of the change as indicated, were heard by the commission. Ivan Matheson, commissioner assttrneri to tho Pl&nninsr and Zoning CoiTimission opened the1 session explaining the proposed change. He indicated that at the present pre-sent time the zoning on either side of the highway north from Cedar City Is currently designated designat-ed as agricultural. Proposal Defined The proposed changed would rezone an area 500 feet on either side of the highway from the city limits north to 500 feet north of the Maverick Station, as highway high-way service. The rezoning would designate! highway service zone to within 1500 feet of proposed interstate Highway 15 interchange. Math-1 eson further explained that highway high-way service zoning is allowed only to within 1000 feet of interchanges inter-changes on the Interstate .system to allow for acceleration and deed de-ed leration from the system. During the course of the hearing hear-ing James Sanclberg, chairman of tho County Planning and Zoning Commission, Indicated that the rezoning, which was recommended unanimously by the members of the commission, was considered following an application ap-plication received from Clinton Hunt of Cedar City to allow him to construct a motM unit and to make improvements on his existing ex-isting service station located just north of Cedar City. Recommendation Explained Sandberg indicated that the commission had recommended the change of zoning beyond the original application because they didn't feel that spot zoning was appropriate and that consideration considera-tion should be given other businesses busi-nesses already located In that 1 area. Individual testimonies, becoming becom-ing somewhat heated and personal per-sonal In many instances, was taken by the commission at the hearing. However, no testimony was hoard representing any organized or-ganized group either for or against the proposed change. Testimonies In some Instances were general to planning and zoning either for or against and In some instances was far afield from the issue at hand, it was observed. The Iron County Commission now has the responsibility of making the final decision on the Issue Recommendations of the I planning and zoning commission I In addition to testimony taken at the hearing are expected to be I considered before action is taken. |