01/07/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I i I I I I ! I I ! I CASE # 1 PROPOSE~:REZONINGS FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO RURAL INDUSTRIAL (R]D A~ND B-1 BUSINESS (B.1) TO RURAL BUSINESS (RB) ? ~i~ By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background; As you recall, ~tt.. your, December meeting you conducted a public hearing regarding rezoning certain properties out~idg thc urban area from Industrial to Rural Industrial and B-1 Business to Rural Business. Th~pu~ose of the rezoning is to eliminate any conflict between the City's zoning map and the City C6deid~efinition of those zoning districts outside the urban area. At the public ~he ,,a~.ng, comments were submitted which indicate that property owners feel that zoning from~-I '~t6 RB and I to RI is downzoning and accordingly, property values should also decrease BefOre t~king any further action on the rezonings, the Planning and Zoning Commission directed me to,eEl with the City Assessor to determine if property values would' be reviewed and adjusted in co~ju~&ion with the rezoning to rural status. Observations: I met with Ci~tv P~ssessor John Keefe and he indicates that he reviews a parcel based on its development ~6te~tial. In going from Industrial to Rural Industrial, the minimum lot size is the same (1 acre) ~o there would not be a loss of development potential. As for business property, the minimum 1°t ~iz~ ~or RB is one acre and one-half acre for B-1. Therefore, the unplatted B-1 parcels south ~f ~wy. #10 proposed to be rezoned from B-1 to RB would have to be reviewed because the~+¢!W~ld be a decrease in the development potential. All other B-1 property to be rezoned to R]~ i~ already platted. Mr. Keefe also stated that he already values business and industrial pro~er~ west of Ramsey Blvd. lower than that east of Ramsey Blvd. because of its distance from ~_uo~cipal services. He also places a lesser value on business and industrial property that does not[!fr~,r~t on Hwy. #10. Therefore, the industrial and business property west of Armstrong Bl~d. !a!ready has a lesser value than other business and industrial property because of its proximity t6 m~nicipal services and the lack of frontage on Hwy. #10. The issue of i~pa~t to marketability associated with rezoning from B-1 to Rural Business and Industrial to t~. ra~llIndustrial is subjective. The marketability of a property depends on what the buyer is in the m ,arket for -- sewered or unsewered commercial property. The other c°n,:ern!raised at the public heating is the loss of Athletic/Fitness Centers and Supply Yards, espeCi4illY[,iasv;; permitted uses when rezoning from Industrial to Rural Industrial. If the feeling is that ;Ul!~ly Yards is a reasonable principal use of Rural Industrial property, then we have to consider art endilng the permitted uses section of the Rural Industrial zone. If we do so, then we should also in '.lu~¢ some performance standards for supply yards. We should also go back to the Industrial dial ~ict~and incorporate those same performance standards for supply yards there also. We also need: to fl~fine Supply Yards and clarify the difference between them and open/outdoor storage if we ~ar~oing to retain the regulations for when open/outdoor storage is allowed as a principal use ~ mi!accessory use of property. !, With regard to/re?ning B-1 Business property to Rural Business, those parcels would lose funeral homes as a perilled use and animal clinics would be restricted to those without kennels. From the comments m.,~de at the public hearing, I believe there is more concern with losing the designation B¢i th~n there is with the loss of funeral homes as a permitted use. With the rezoning, these parcels WoUi~ gain open and outdoor storage as a permitted accessory use.