Agenda - Council - 01/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I '1 i I il CASE PRopO$]~ R~ZONINGS FROM INDUSTRIAL (I)TO RURAL INDUSTRIAL (RI) A~ND B-1 BUSINESS (B-I) TO RURAL BUSINESS (RB) By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background As you may~ r ,,cal~, City Staff received direction from City Council to initiate action to rezone certain proper les 4~utside the urban area from Industrial to Rural Industrial and B-1 Business t.o Rural Busings ;: ~he purpose of the rezoning was to eliminate any conflict between the City s zoning map an :l:th¢ City Code definition of those zoning districts outside the urban area. Observati0n~: On December I~91, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the propos~t :zoning. At the public hearing, comments were submitted which indicate that property owO~ f~l that the rezoning from B-1 to KB and I to RI is downzoning and accordingly, property va!u Si~ould also decrease. Before taking any further action on the rezonings, the Planning an~ ~4ng Commission directed me to meet with the City Assessor to determine if property valise; w~uld be reviewed and adjusted in conjunction with the rezoning to rural status. The other c~0n~ :em'[raised at the public hearing on December 3 is the loss of Athletic/Fitness Centers and Supply~'~ ard4as permitted uses when rezoning from Industrial to Rural Industrial. With regard to r4zc ninig B-1 Business property to Rural Business, those parcels would lose funeral homes as a p nnitted use and animal clinics would be restricted to those without kennels. From the comment ima4e at the public hearing, I believe there is more concern with losing the title B-I than there i~' iith fl~e loss of funeral homes as a permitted use. On January~'~ 1992, I informed the Planning and Zoning Commission that City Assessor John Keefe indicSt~fl t~ me that he reviews a parcel based on its development potential. In going from Industrial td ltura~Industrial, the minimum lot size is the same (1 acre) so there would not be a loss of develop~t p~tential. As for business property, the minimum lot size for RB is one acre and one-half acy~ffor.[B-I. Therefore, the unplatted B-1 parcels south of Hwy. #10 proposed to be rezoned frd~B~t to RB would have to be reviewed because there would be a decrease in the developmer~t~bot~tial. All other B-1 property to be rezoned to RB is already platte,ct. Mr. Keefe also stated t,l~t h~ already values business and industrial property west of Rams% Blvd. lower than that e~of lSamsey Blvd. because of its distance from municipal services. He also places a lesser valu~ ~n b~siness and industrial property that does not front on Hwy. #10. Therefore, the industrial anal business property west of Armstrong Blvd. already have a lesser value than other business ani:l industrial property in the community. At the Plan:n~ng a~d Zoning meeting on January 7, 1992, I offered an alternative to the proposed rezonings th~ wduld achieve the same end result. It involves merging the Rural Industrial district with the In&[stri~ district and Rural Business with the B-1 Business district. This way, property owners woOl~ nO feel like their property was downzoned to a rural status and we could simplify our zoningi~aP by eliminating two zoning districts to be depicted. The permitted uses and developm~tiista ~dards for properties within these districts would then be qualified based on whether or'~, ': th property is served by sanitary sewer and municipal water. When merging these four district w. would also have the opportunity to review the issue of supply yards and open/ou, tdd0 sto ~ge and make the much needed adjustments accordingly. Another advantage to this opuonS~, :ha~ the City would not have to rezone property from rural to urban status each time the urban t/o~ ~d~ 5' is amended.