Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Map topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ad hoc committee reviews Bussard zoning map, debates eliminating R2 and classifying civic sites as Special Use
Summary
At a July 16 special ad hoc committee meeting, Bussard officials reviewed proposed map boundary changes, discussed reclassifying schools and other government properties to Special Use (SU), weighed eliminating the R2 residential district, and asked staff to prepare overlay maps and handle required owner notifications.
Bussard’s City Council special ad hoc committee met July 16 to review proposed changes to the city’s zoning map and to discuss next steps for any rezonings.
The committee’s chair opened the meeting saying the group would “be looking over the map boundaries,” and members immediately focused on whether school and government-owned properties should be reclassified into Special Use (SU) districts rather than remain in residential zones. One member summarized the SU category as covering “school properties, cemeteries, hospitals,” and staff clarified SU typically also covers courthouses, city-owned properties and certain institutional uses.
Why it matters: Reclassifying those parcels as SU would change setback and review requirements for projects on those sites and, in some cases, trigger planning-commission review and development-plan submissions that the committee said could preserve oversight of proposed projects.
Committee members also debated whether to eliminate the R2 residential district. Supporters said consolidating designations could simplify the map; opponents warned a wholesale elimination could create unintended consequences for individual properties. Members cited specific setback differences as a practical concern: “R1 is 10 feet, R2 is 8 feet, R3 is 4 feet” for side-yard setbacks, and front/rear-yard requirements differ as well, a participant noted, meaning a rezoning could change how much a homeowner may build or rebuild on an existing lot.
The group discussed alternatives to blanket changes, including using parcel lines and parcel IDs rather than street centerlines to draw new boundaries, and handling problematic areas on a case-by-case basis so that existing nonconforming structures and rebuilding rights are not unduly affected. A member urged caution about switching SU designations “beforehand,” saying doing so could reduce the city’s ability to require a development plan and other oversight when a developer proposes a large project.
On process and timing, staff and members said rezoning requires formal public-notification steps, including mailing notices to owners within a 200-foot radius and posting signs; staff suggested also using public-access broadcasting to reach residents. Members recounted a past lost development opportunity when a proposal arrived too late for the mandatory state timeline; the committee recommended developers begin rezoning discussions many months in advance.
What’s next: The committee asked staff to prepare overlay maps showing proposed changes against the current map, produce larger printed maps for the group, and circulate prior ordinance text changes (definitions and subdivision regulation notes) so members can consider both map and code edits together. No formal rezoning vote was taken at the meeting; the committee approved the minutes for June 25, 2026, and adjourned at 04:51.
Quotes that capture debate: “Special use districts is what it's called,” a member said when describing the kinds of properties SU would include. “We're going to be looking over the map boundaries,” the chair said at the start of the discussion. “We have to be required to do the 200 foot radius,” a member said when describing the notification requirement for a rezoning.
The committee scheduled follow-up mapping work and asked staff to provide the maps and ordinance drafts for the next meeting so members can target the most obvious fixes first.
