01-25-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission lJanuary 12, 1989 width the use of the property is very limited. The Planner replied that there are no setback requirements in the B -3 District. The Planner also pointed out that the dimensions of the lot are not the problem of the City, even though the City may have granted the subdivision. The Planner reported that in his opinion, the zoning of the property does not effect its saleability. Brandenhoff pointed out that an industrial use can work better with the 650 foot depth, although a commercial business will be looking for visibility along Rice Street. The Planner felt that there were plenty of permitted uses under B -3 zoning that could operate on this parcel. The Planner did not feel that the City was in any way taking the Weber property and felt the development goals of the City in this area were proper. The Planner pointed out that the City is merely acting on its Comprehensive Plan for land use goals when the property was rezoned. The Planner also stated that if the use of the Weber property has not been abandoned for 6 months, then Mr. Weber is still entitled to this use. If not, then the City's position is that a B -3 use must be established on the property. The Planner again pointed out that there are zero setback requirements in the 8-3 District. The Planner reported that the request to rezone to I -1 is not in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planner also stated that configura- tion of the property would be a legitimate hardship that would warrant variance consideration. The Planner stated that he recommended that the City not rezone the Weber property back to I -1. The Planner stated that he preferred to see the B -3 zoning remain and the applicant would be allowed to use the property as it has currently been used, or the applicant can sell the property as 8 -3. DeLonais suggested that the matter be tabled for further study. DeLonais pointed out that the City has to determine whether or not Mr. Weber was informed of the public hearing to consider the rezoning. The City also has to determine whether the previous use of the property has lapsed for six months. DeLonais felt that the City Attorney's opinion was needed. Bendel pointed out that the Planner has recommended that the second alternative offered by Mr. Brandenhoff be accepted. Brandenhoff reported that Mr. Weber's preference is that the property be rezoned back to I -1 since he has a buyer for an I -1 parcel. However, if the City is unwilling to consider this alternative, then Mr. Weber is asking that the City declare the lot as legally conforming under B -3 zoning and place no restrictions on it because of the 71 foot width. The Planner replied that the lot is developable as B -3 property with a 71 foot width. Page -12-