10/11/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

uses including professional offices, administrative offices, studios and similar uses as those currently being used. The city's goal is to have the zoning be compatible with the existing development and protect residential areas from intrusions that can develop with industrial growth. Upon the completion of the rezoning no existing use would be forced to change. All uses including those which would not be a permitted use under the new zoning would be grandfathered and subject to the non-conforming provisions in chapter 1165. She believes that the rezoning will have a positive impact on the proposed area and will protect the residential properties and character of the area while still allowing businesses to operate and thrive and provide buffers for single family neighborhoods. Mr. Lasko asked what is allowed under the current limited industrial use. Ms. Wenger reviewed that under the current zoning outdoor storage facilities, manufacturing and production facilities and other warehouse type businesses are allowed and residential homes are prohibited. Mr. O'Malley provided some zoning history. The first zoning case before the United States Supreme Court was Euclid vs. Ambler Realty in 1926. At that time the courts upheld that a city had a right to establish comprehensive zoning plans on a city wide basis. Under the law so long as a rezoning does not deprive a property owner of all economically feasible uses of the property then the zoning generally withstands the scrutiny under the Sth amendment takings analysis. Under the city charter the Planning & Design Commission has the role to provide recommendations to City Council pertaining to matters of rezoning. The City Charter requires the Planning & Design Commission to review and maintain the Master Plan and to work with City Council to bring about the Master Plan recommendations. Mr. Lasko asked if there were any developers or owners who have submitted development plans or proposals for development which has caused this rezoning. Ms. Wenger said that there was no development plans pending; the issue of rezoning the area was first looked at in 1992 and again in 2005 during the Master Plan updates. The request to rezone the area to more of a residential office use is based on recommendations made in the Master Plan. Neither she nor anyone in her department has received any form of development plans for any of the parcels in question. Mr. O'Malley clarified that the city is currently in litigation with the Elm Street property owners who requested a rezoning from limited industry to permit a proposed cluster development on one of the parcels recommended for rezoning. However this recommendation to rezone properties in this area is not in response to the law suit nor is it designed to accommodate the owners. Mr. Lasko asked what if any negative impacts could the rezoning create. Ms. Wenger believed that with any rezoning the greatest concern is the creation of non-conforming buildings, structures or uses. However the ordinance was designed to minimize the occurrences of non-conforming structures and that was accomplished through compromising between a pure residential district and recognizing that some office uses are inheritably compatible with residential dwellings. Therefore allowing some office type uses ensures that the existing uses of the area can continue to exist. In some incidents there could be lot lines or setbacks which are not met or some uses which are not compatible and would then be governed under non-conforming buildings and or structures chapter of the zoning codes. Mr. Lasko asked both the Planning Director and the Assistant Law Director their opinions as to whether or not the ordinance should receive a favorable recommendation from the Commission. Ms. Wenger said she recommended the commission recommend City Council 2