Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 4 -- December 10, 1998 Z.B. one to remodel the facility and open a business that would employ city resi- dents. The company planned to renovate the building to house a cold-storage warehouse and then, after additional remodeling, lease part of the building for on-site meat processing. City officials encouraged the owner's plans. Within a year, the company finished the first phase of renovations and opened a cold-storage warehouse. It couldn't find a meat-processi, ng tenant but contin- ued with the renovations hoping to attract a tenant. The company spent about $650,000 on renovations. Meanwhile, the city was considering comprehensive zoning amendments affecting the entire city. It published a notice that the amendments would affect all property in the city and would reclassify parts of the city. The city never notified the company personally that its property would be reclassified. The city passed the amendments, which rezoned the owner's property to a class that didn't allow meat processing. The company asked the city to rezone its property to allow meat process- ing. The zoning commission recommended approving the rezoning, and the city council held a public hearing. At the hearing, residents complained about the type of workers they expected the meat-processing facility would hire. The city council denied the company's request, finding it would adversely affect neighboring properties. The council cited concerns, such as odor prob- lems, increased traffic, claims the rezoning would be illegal spot zoning, and increased demands on the city's sewage disposal plant. The company sued the city, seeking a determination that it could operate a meat-processing plant on its property. The company.cl.aimed the city's z?ning amendment was invalid because the ,city never notified il~. of the proposed changes and because it had a vested right to process meat on the property. The company also claimed the city's denial of its rezoning request was arbitrary bec. au..se it was done out of fear that a meat-Processing.plant w6uld bring racial and ethnic minorities into the coiiimunity. The court found the city's decision to change th"e Zoni'ri~ and its subseqUent refusal to rezone the property were ;~alid. The Company appeal.ed..' .. On appeal, the city didn't question that the company spent about $650,000 renovating its building to" attract a meat-processing tenant. Inste.ad, it argued the company didn't have a vested right in operating the plant because it never got building permits for the work it did, as required by the city's zoning laws. DECISION: Affirmed. The city's zoning amendment was valid, as was its refusal to rezone the company's property. The city didn't have to give the company personal notice of the proposed amendment. Though the company had a right to express its views on zoning amendments that would clearly affect its property, the zoning amendments af- fected the entire city. The city didn't have to provide personal notice to every property owner in the city. It was likely that notice by publication would give