The city proposes to rezone a 12.4-acre tract of land for duplex housing units as part of the plan to construct a new Camp Street bridge over Busch Creek.
The property, north of East Rose Lane and south of the creek, includes 1520 E. Rose Lane and an adjacent tract.
The property, owned by the Otten family, currently is zoned R-1A, single-family residential. The city proposes to rezone it to R-1C, single-family attached.
During their meeting Monday night, planning and zoning commission members voted unanimously to recommend rezoning the tract. The city council will hold a public hearing on the matter Monday, Sept. 23.
Dan Boyce, city engineer, said the Otten family wants the property rezoned in order to build two-family units similar to those on the south side of East Rose Lane.
“The reason the city is the applicant is that city is negotiating with the Otten family for right of way for Camp Street and the bridge,” City Counselor Mark Piontek said.
He said as part of the right of way negotiations, the city agreed to apply for the rezoning.
That will save the family the cost of filing the application, Boyce noted.
Piontek said at this point, the family has no plans to subdivide the property for development.
Boyce said rezoning the property from R-1A to R-1C would not affect the street and bridge project.
Construction of a new bridge over Busch Creek and the extension of Camp Street are scheduled for next year in the new 2013-14 fiscal year budget.
The budget allocates $950,000 for the street and bridge project, including $10,000 for right of way acquisition this year, $50,000 for design work and $900,000 for construction in 2014.
Funding for the project will come from the half-cent transportation sales tax fund.
The city had engineering plans completed and awarded a construction contract, but the city council scuttled the project in 2008 after a heated debate that raged on for months.
The city ended up paying $4,000 to the company awarded the construction contract after the council stopped the project.
The city also had negotiated with property owners for right of way and easements, but those were good for only two years and had to be renegotiated.
Last year, the council voted to reverse the earlier decision and move forward with replacing the old bridge that was destroyed decades ago.