pm_820203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 1982 -3- animal hospitals as a permitted or special use. Mr. Dahlgren responded that the land was currently zoned industrial and did not permit animal hospitals at this time. If the applicant did desire to build an animal hospital, he would have to apply for rezoning, whether the property is zoned industrial or B-4. Mr. Bob Morgan, property owner living south of Highway 36, indicated his concern for potential excessive noise and light from any development to the north of 36 which would affect his property values adversely. Mr. Johnson indicated the Planning Commission and the City Council were fully cognizant of this potential impact on the property owners, and had in the ordinance provided safeguards. These safeguards included increased setbacks for any development along the frontage road, plus the requirement that the Planning Commission and Council review any proposed development. Mr. John Wilson, representing Union Carbide, asked what the impact of the bridge would be on the Union Carbide property. Mr. Drown indicated due to the weather conditions, it was difficult to come up with an exact assessment, but that at worst there would be little impact and potentially no impact to the Union Carbide property. Mr. Wilson requested that any detailed information developed in the future be forwarded to him as soon as practical. Mr. Bill Elslow, representing a property owner in the area proposed for rezoning, questioned the justification for the bridge. He stated he had conducted a study of travel times, and he felt the bridge would not significantly impact on travel between the east and west sides of 35W. Mr. Dahlgren indicated that inspite of any lack of time saving, he felt the bridge would have a significant impact on access to the area. He stated the purpose of the bridge was to tie those two areas together, so there is a perception of' them being closely related. Mr. William Luther, attorney representing J. R. Johnson Supply Company, indicated his clients had requested he indicate their opposition to the rezoning of their property, and a request they be excepted from the rezoning action. Mr. Luther explained the property in question was that parcel located directly to the south of the railroad tracks at the north end of the overall rezoning proposal. He indicated his clients' reasons for requesting this action was they did not feel the property was particularly conducive to commercial-type development, and they found it difficult to conceive a business use on the land. He indicated further they felt that in the long-term, the rezoning would have a negative impact on their use of the land in that even though the ordinance specified they could continue to use the land as it was being used and could even expand the use of the land, they felt that any variances that would have been permitted under the industrial zoning would not be permitted under the 8-4 zoning. Mr. Luther indicated his clients had many other concerns, but primarily they did not feel it was appropriate for business use. He then asked the Commission what the rationale was for rezoning that particular piece of property. Mr. Dahlgren indicated the primary consideration in regard to that parcel as well as all the parcels was that their visibility to Highway 35W and Highway 36. This type of high visibility was certainly not of any benefit to industrial development, but was a great asset to commercial or business development. He further indicated he felt this was the key to the property, and that business development could be very successful. Mr. Harlan McGregor, representing Standard Oil, indicated his concern for the long-term use of his property to the west of the rezoned land. He drew the analogy to a , ~