My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1985-05-07 Minutes
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
1985-05-07 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/4/2010 1:50:26 PM
Creation date
1/4/2010 1:50:25 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
!Pr -2- <br /> - Rezoning requires a 2/3 majority vote of the city <br /> council. In this case the vote was not recorded <br /> individually. <br /> -The hearing record provides little direct testimony <br /> on how the rezoning benefits the health, safety, <br /> and general welfare of the community. Nor does <br /> the comprehensive plan provide any substantial <br /> justification. In fact, the rezoning may contradict <br /> several planning objectives in the comprehensive <br /> plan. <br /> For example, the plan establishes a policy that <br /> growth shall be based on the extension of existing <br /> land use patterns and respect of natural system <br /> constraints. The rezoned parcel is entirely within <br /> the £loodplain and includes soils that have very <br /> severe limitations to urban development. The plan <br /> states that the city will discourage development <br /> of any sort in these soil types. <br /> The plan also encourages development within the <br /> urban service areas as the most efficient way <br /> to utilize all urban services (sewers, streets, <br /> parks, police, fire, etc.). It predicts that <br /> public services will be extended to the commercial <br /> and industrial districts along 20th Avenue last. <br /> This was due to the lack of development interest <br /> and the questionable suitability for more intensive <br /> development (due to severe soil wetness limitations). <br /> Because of the constraints and unpredictable <br /> development potential, the plan suggests consolidating <br /> urban development into practical geographic areas. <br /> The rezoning of 6805 - 20th Avenue disperses and <br /> intersperses uses rather than consolidating them <br /> into a planned development scheme. <br /> All in all, the benefits of rezoning this parcel <br /> from commercial to industrial appear limited and <br /> individual, rather than broad and comprehensive. <br /> As such, the rezoning might be judged as 'spot zoning'. <br /> Furthermore, if the rezoning stood, the city may have <br /> difficulty denying similar rezoning petitions from other <br /> property owners in the commercial district. Denial could <br /> be contested as unlawful discrimination. More fragmentation <br /> of the district would result. <br /> Discussion <br /> Neither the comprehensive plan, nor current land use <br /> patterns or trends provide a satisfactory rationale <br /> that justifies the existing zoning along 20th Avenue. <br /> This was obviously a problem in the Sunrise Plastics <br /> case. Presently there do not seem to be significant <br /> differences between the existing commercial uses along <br /> 20th Avenue (i.e. construction businesses) and the <br /> light industrial type of use. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.