Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1992

Home

CASE # 1 PROPOSED~ REZONINGS FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO RURAL INDUSTRIAL (~RI~ AND B-1 BUSINESS (B-l) TO RURAL BUSINESS (RB) ~ By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: As you recall, a[your December meeting you conducted a public hearing regarding rezoning certain properties ~D~utsige the urban area from Industrial to Rural Industrial and B-1 Busi,ness to Rural Business. The ~urpose of the rezoning is to eliminate any conflict between the City s zoning map and the City !Co4te definition of those zoning districts outside the urban area. At the public h~aring, comments were submitted which indicate that property owners feel that zoning from B-I to RB and I to RI is downzoning and accordingly, property values should also decrease. ~fon~ taking any further action on the rezonings, the Planning and Zoning Commission directed m~ to m'eet with the City Assessor to determine if property values would be reviewed and adjusted in C~Onj~nction with the rezoning to rural status. ObservatlOns:~ I met withICity~ Assessor John Keefe and he indicates that he reviews a parcel based on its developme,nt potential. In going from Industrial to Rural Industrial, the minimum lot size is the same (1 acre.) so,there would not be a loss of development potential. As for business property, the minimum lO.i si:~e for RB is one acre and one-half acre for B-1. Therefore, the unplatted B-1 parcels sout~ of?Hwy, gl0 proposed to be rezoned from B-1 to RB would have to be reviewed because thOr¢ would be a decrease in the development potential. All other B-1 property to be rezoned to IRB is already platted. Mr. Keefe also stated that he already values business and industrial property west of Ramsey Blvd. lower than that east of Ramsey Blvd. because of its distance from m~nicipal services. He also places a lesser value on business and industrial property that does not. f~ont on Hwy. #10. Therefore, the industrial and business property west of Armstrong Btvdi already has a lesser value than other business and industrial property because of its proximity!to ~unicipal services and the lack of frontage on Hwy. #10. The issue °f'.imlPaet to marketability associated with rezoning from B-1 to Rural Business and Industrial to'Rural Industrial is subjective. The marketability of a property depends on what the buyer is in the m.hrket for -- sewered or unsewered commercial property. The other concern raised at the public hearing is the loss of Athletic/Fitness Centers and Supply Yards, espeC~iall~, as permitted uses when rezoning from Industrial to Rural Industrial. If the feeling is that- Supply Yards is a reasonable principal use of Rural Industrial property, then we have to consider amending the permitted uses section of the Rural Industrial zone. If we do so, then we should also inclu~le some performance standards for supply yards. We should also go back to the Industrial distric[ and incorporate those same performance standards for supply yards there also. We also ne ~e!d to define Supply Yards and clarify the difference between them and open/outdoor storage if 'a;e~ar~. going to retain the regulations for when open/outdoor storage is allowed as a principal use or ,ag accessory use of property. With regard!m re~:oning B-1 Business property to Rural Business, those parcels would lose funeral homes as a ~)¢rmttted use and animal clinics would be restricted to those without kennels. From the commet~ts ~ade at the public hearing, I believe there is more concern with losing the designation B,1 than there is with the loss of funeral homes as a permitted use. With the rezoning, these parcel~ world gain open and outdoor storage as a permitted accessory, use.