02/23/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Councilwoman Shirey was not sure how the property was divided, how much C-I was there now, and what could be done with it if the residential portion was not re- zoned. Mr. Saul explained that the east portion, 7S'xI20', was C-I and could be developed to any use permitted in that zone; the west 75'xI20' was R-l. He said that sctbncks requircd on both 19th and .Jefferson as well <1S the sidcyard setbacks because of abutting residcntial zoning would reduce the usable portion of the prop- erty. In addition, meeting parking requirements, etc., would make commercial de- velopment of the C-l portion difficult. Neither portion, he said, would lend itself to any kind of development as now zoned. One alternative, he added, might be to rezone the C-l portion to residential use. Councilman Bradley said he would oppose the rezoning because of the lack of a specific definition in the General Plan for neighborhood commercial areas. Also, there was some question that expanding the present use could be considered spot zoning and would set precedent. He said the proximity of other commercial areas precluded the need for further commercial zoning in this area. Mr. Bradley con- tinued that every small commercial use in the city, if this property was rezoned, could be expanded on the premise that it would fit into the '~eighborhood com- mercial" definition. He thought decisions of this nature would really be estab- lishing a definition for neighborhood commercial centers. This request, he said, did not fit the guidelines now contained in the 1990 Plan and did not meet the public need. e Vote was taken on the motion to refer the issue to the Planning Commission for review in joint meeting with the Council. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Williams, Hamel, Shirey, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Haws, Beal, Murray, and Bradley voting no. In breaking the tie, Mayor Anderson explained his "aye" vote was because of the apparent conflicting philosophy resulting in the tie vote in the Planning Commis- sion. He felt conference with the Commission would be beneficial with regard to definition of neighborhood commercial centers and the questions raised at this meeting. Referral, he said, did not necessarily mean that the rezoning request was being upheld at this time. Later in the meeting, in the absence of objections, the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council to review the issue was scheduled for Monday, March 29, 1976, at noon at the Thunderbird Motel. - 2. Chase Street, north of Cross Street - From RA to M-2 (Frosland)(Z 75-19) Jim Saul, planner, explained that a similar request was denied in 1973 primarily because it was felt there was no need for the change to light industrial. The re- quest, resubmitted and considered by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1976, was recommended for denial again because in the Commission's judgment the applicant had failed to demonstrate public need for the change. Mr. Saul explained that the request covered vacant property, about 31,000 square feet, in an area of very low level of services - primarily residential use on M-2 property to the south and RA property to the north, and sma_l warehouse on the northeast corner of Chase and Cross. Residences exist to the rear of the subject property. In response to Councilman Haws, Mr. Saul said the request was before the Planning Commission the second time, but it was his belief that in the previous denial the decision had not been appealed to the Council. However, later in the discussion, he corrected his statement, saying the denial was upheld by the Council at that time on an appeal. He didn't think any zone change reuqest had been considered before the 1973 applica- tion. 1J 2/23/76 - 5