Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-07 Minutes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regular meeting on May 7, 1985 in City Hall. Chairman Tourville called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. Present: Welk, Buesseler, Lindgren, Murray. Councilman Ayers present as liaison for May. Motion by Buesseler, second by Welk to approve the minutes of the April 2, 1985 meeting, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Recess to 6805 - 20th Ave. So. in order for P & Z Members to view the property in question. Discussion followed at the sight with Mr. and Mrs Brokke and Gordon Rehbein. Mr Rehbein wants his property to stay zoned Industrial &o he can add on to the present building in order for Sunrise Plastics to move back in. Mr. and Mrs Brokke want it rezoned back to Commercial because they feel Sunrise Plastics moved out and there is no guarantee they will come back and having an Industrial site so close devalues their property. Discussion on this matter was resumed at City Hall by P & Z Members. Peter Buesseler reviewed his anaylsis with the Committee. Motion by Welk, second by Buesseler to have the City Council review with their Attorney the rezoning of the property at 6805 - 20th Ave. S. from Commercial to Industrial to see if it was done in compliance with State Law and City Ordinances. Motion carried. Old business -- Motion to table animal ordinance. Other old business -- appearance by Lee Stevens. Discussion followed on vacation of 8th St. or the possibility of granting a variance to make his lot buildable. The P & Z recommends to the City Council that the original recommendations to vacate the street are still valid even in the light of the Almondinger easement. New Business Mr. Jerry Letendre appeared to ask for a variance to build a garage on his property at 1397 Mound Trail. He presented a Certificate of survey for members to look at. The Commission could find no problem with this request and asked Clerk to set up a Public Hearing and publish announcement. Correction Old Business, paragraph 6 to reads Motion by Welk, second by Buesseler to have the City Council review with the City Attorney the rezoning of the property at 6805 - 20th Avenue South from Commercial to Industrial to see if it was done in compliance with State Law and City Ordinances, motion carried unanimously. r r-- 1 1 r. Page two - Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 7, 1985 Other New Business Motion by Murray, second by Lindgren to appoint Peter Buesseler Assistant Chairman. -- Motion carried. Motion by Buesseler, second by Welk to adjourn meeting, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 P. M. Respectfully submitted, 1rn ote Mavis Solheid Deputy Clerk tl ! Fr ?Ds Planning and Zoning Committee Members FROM: Peter Buesseler RE: Rezoning of the property at 6805 - 20th Avenue South To facilitate the analysis of this rezoning matter, it may be helpful to examine the issue from two different perspectives: Case 1. Assume that the initial decision to rezone this property was sound and just... Are there any new conditions or circumstances that would justify the city in rezoning the property from industrial to commercial? Case 2. Evaluate whether the initial rezoning was sound and just... Were the rezoning proceedures followed correctly? Were the proper criteria used to justify the decision? Should other considerations and approaches been used to address this issue? Before answering any of these questions specifically, it is relevant to briefly review a city's authority for zoning. Zoning ordinances are one of the tools used to implement the general objectives of it's comprehensive plan. Cities have the authority to zone for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Zoning is generally unlawful when it is primarily designed to benefit a particular property owner and is not clearly beneficial to the city as a whole. This is "spot zoning ". Analysis Case 1. The only new condition since the initial rezoning is that Sunrise Plastics is not going to occupy the building as scheduled. If the property has a greater benefit to the general welfare of the city as industrial than commercial, then that benefit is not derived exclusively from Sunrise Plastics. Any industrial user would satisfy that purpose. The fact that a particular company is not occupying the property does not seem to be sufficient grounds to justify a rezoning. Case 2. There seem to be several points on which adjacent property owners affected by the initial rezoning from commercial to industrial, could contest that decision. - A petition to rezone, initiated by city residents, must have the signatures of 50% of the property owners affected by the rezoning and 50% of those property owners within 350 feet of the proposed change. There are at least 5 property owners within 350 feet of the rezoned parcel. Gordon Rehbein submitted the application to rezone without the signatures of any of the additional property owners. L__ !Pr -2- - Rezoning requires a 2/3 majority vote of the city council. In this case the vote was not recorded individually. -The hearing record provides little direct testimony on how the rezoning benefits the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Nor does the comprehensive plan provide any substantial justification. In fact, the rezoning may contradict several planning objectives in the comprehensive plan. For example, the plan establishes a policy that growth shall be based on the extension of existing land use patterns and respect of natural system constraints. The rezoned parcel is entirely within the £loodplain and includes soils that have very severe limitations to urban development. The plan states that the city will discourage development of any sort in these soil types. The plan also encourages development within the urban service areas as the most efficient way to utilize all urban services (sewers, streets, parks, police, fire, etc.). It predicts that public services will be extended to the commercial and industrial districts along 20th Avenue last. This was due to the lack of development interest and the questionable suitability for more intensive development (due to severe soil wetness limitations). Because of the constraints and unpredictable development potential, the plan suggests consolidating urban development into practical geographic areas. The rezoning of 6805 - 20th Avenue disperses and intersperses uses rather than consolidating them into a planned development scheme. All in all, the benefits of rezoning this parcel from commercial to industrial appear limited and individual, rather than broad and comprehensive. As such, the rezoning might be judged as 'spot zoning'. Furthermore, if the rezoning stood, the city may have difficulty denying similar rezoning petitions from other property owners in the commercial district. Denial could be contested as unlawful discrimination. More fragmentation of the district would result. Discussion Neither the comprehensive plan, nor current land use patterns or trends provide a satisfactory rationale that justifies the existing zoning along 20th Avenue. This was obviously a problem in the Sunrise Plastics case. Presently there do not seem to be significant differences between the existing commercial uses along 20th Avenue (i.e. construction businesses) and the light industrial type of use. -3- There are several general constraints common to both distrcts. Almost the entire area is within the floodplain. This imposes engineering problems and limits the amount of development that can take place. A large percentage of the soils are rated as having very severe limitations for urban development. The Sunrise Plastics rezoning matter may be representative of the indecisiveness in a city development goal for the area along 20th Avenue. An alternative approach to the rezoning could have been to define and establish a more coherent development plan, and then make the necessary zoning amendments for the entire area. Recommendations Alternative A: Recommend to the council that the city not initiate a rezoning of 6805 - 20th Avenue from industrial back to commercial due to lack of reasonable cause. Alternative B: Step 1. Review and amend the comprehensive plan as it relates to commercial and industrial development. Investigate the current and projected needs, limitations, and potential for these uses along 20th Avenue. Define goals and objectives. Step 2. Make any amendments to the ordinances to implement the revised comprehensive plan. This might involve redefining the permitted uses in commercial and industrial districts, dividing them into additional districts, creating overlay districts, or others? Step 3. Adopt an interim ordinance during steps 1 and 2 to protect the integrity of the planning process. This would give the city temporary control over site plans that might result of an objectionable use, further requests for rezoning the commercial district to industrial, and any other development which might result in a continuation of a pattern of land use and development that would be inconsistent with the plan, and proposed amendments there to (similar to ordinance #29 and #35).