09/05/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Continued paragraph from page 4...(Mr. Locke felt that the public interest in termsof what was best for the City would be the strongest defense of any rezoning, and that in terms of a court case the issue would not be the fact that a property owner was losing some potential value by the rezone, but that there was still a viable use for that property.) Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1979 Mr. Short and Mr. Gotwald felt that it would be extremely difficult to get urban service for this area from Metro, and it could not be included in the present plans. Mr. Short said this would be contrary to the policy Metro has set up, as an industrial park here would compete with the urban centers. Mr. Gotwald indicated that this policy is reviewed every four years,and would have to be proven that it was going to develop that way. In summary, Mr. Short -felt that although sewer and City water could not now be pro- vided the other factors were favorable to potential development in that area. Another consideration was that there was limited room for industrial development in the 1'=35 W/ Highway 8 area, due to Sunset Oaks and other res- idential developments. Mr.Johnson asked how many acres, half of which was, developed. Mr. Johnson noted that this was about 5 percent of the City's developable land. Mr. Gotwald indicated that there were 01-12,000 acres of developable land in the City Out of the total 22,000; however, with the freeways and the open space this would be about 8,000 acres, so it would be about 35 percent. The areas being platted and developed, amounted to about 2,400 acres, which left about 5,000 acres. Mayor Karth noted that the City was running out of land rapidly without .building a tax base to support it, and that this would become crucial within the next two years. Mr. Gotwald pointed out that under the ordinance, land would be reverting to agricultural and there would be nothing to prevent residential from coming in unless measures were taken to prevent that. Mr. Short indicated this only applied to rezoning, and that situation in the ordinance would not apply to a zoning district map. Mayor Karth said that section 6.21 of the ordinance pertained to a rezoning from a zoning map, but there had never been a zoning map adopted, which could create problems. Mr. Gotwald noted that some of these areas had been bought and sold as commercial several times, and this could also cause a problem. However, the City, in the pro- cess of updating their zoning plan, would probably include that as a commer- cial use. ,Mr. Johnson asked if when it came to actual zoning whether the existing zoning and residence would have to be reviewed on site rather than by using maps. Mr. Short indicated that the immediate necessity was to define or identify general areas or patterns rather than specific properties, and suggested City start looking at this and recording existing land uses. Mr. Gourley indicated that as the rezoning process was done, there would be minor adjustments, but that now the general areas needed to be picked and confirmed by September 26; sometime between October and the first of the year, those adjustments would have to be made. Mr. Short indicated the land use plan or map was intended to be a guide, and is also accompanied by policies; there were certain things that couldn't be shown on a map, such as the policy of not allowing residential development in a commercial zone. Mr. Doocey asked if light industrial was compatible with commercial, and if there was a reason for more commercial and Tess industrial. Mr. Short in- dicated that commercial was generally intended as a service for residential areas and there were focal points and access points where it was most con- veient. Commercial was generally more consistant with residential use, whereas industrial was less so, and should be grouped or consolidated.