Laserfiche WebLink
U <br />PDATE <br />14 <br />At the March 11, 2013, City Council meeting, Councilmember McGehee <br />15 <br />indicated that she was not completely supportive of having limited production and <br />16 <br />processing as an outright permitted use or conditional use in the Regional <br />17 <br />Business District and asked staff to look into options. <br />18 <br />Since most of these light manufacturing/processing uses require a specific type of <br />19 <br />building and few exist, the Planning Division does not envision such a use <br />20 <br />increasing its presence in the Regional Business District given the limited <br />21 <br />availability of such structures. We realize, however, that once a use is permitted <br />22 <br />in a District, there is a chance that it could locate in an area less desirable for the <br />23 <br />use. <br />24 <br />In talking to the City Attorney, there are only few legal tools to use when <br />25 <br />permitting or limiting a specific use within a given zoning district. Since the <br />26 <br />interim use process is not appropriate because it is a tool for temporary uses, the <br />27 <br />two remaining options are permitting with standards or permitting as conditional <br />28 <br />use. <br />29 <br />The Planning Division, which does not see legally allowing limited production <br />30 <br />and processing in the Regional Business District as problematic since such uses <br />31 <br />are already present and have not had an adverse impact, would recommend that <br />32 <br />limited production and processing be permitted with some standards to address <br />33 <br />City Council concerns. <br />34 <br />B <br />ACKGROUND <br />35 <br />In 2009 the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan that included modified land <br />36 <br />use designations throughout the City. Although the Stakeholder process did <br />37 <br />discuss certain changes in land use and expansion of existing land use <br />38 <br />areas/boundaries, not all modifications and/or corrections were discussed and/or <br />39 <br />analyzed. <br />40 <br />Likewise, when the City adopted the new Zoning Ordinance in December 2010 to <br />41 <br />be consistent with the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, there was <br />42 <br />very limited discussion regarding these changes, such as those areas that <br />43 <br />were/have been transitioning in use over time were changed to acknowledge this <br />44 <br />activity. <br />45 <br />During the discussions regarding zoning classification and design requirements, it <br />46 <br />was understood that most of the changes being made would create some form of <br />47 <br />non-conformity. However, this was seen as appropriate or beneficial to the City, <br />48 <br />since the focus and direction of our needs and desires have changed. <br />49 <br />Fast forward to the present and a number of non-conformity issues that property <br />50 <br />owners are experiencing since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Although <br />51 <br />non-conformity is not limited to a single area, the specific area targeted by this <br />52 <br />amendment is the Regional Business District north and west of Rosedale Mall. <br />53 <br />Within the area are a number of long-time business and buildings, including <br />54 <br />Caterpillar at 1901 County Road B2, multi-tenant buildings at 1975 and 1995 <br />55 <br />County Road B2, and UV Color at 2452 Prior Avenue. What makes this area <br />56 <br />Amdt6_RCA_032513.doc <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />