11-03-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982 -12- 12. EMERSON REZONING: Continued --Whittaker there was a conscious decision to leave this property as a legal non -conforming use because the area was not considered appropriate for industry - no sewer no water - not near any other industry. --Folz - only one zone in the Ordinance where this operation fits. in fairness to Mr. Emerson - he is there and operating just the same as someone who has a house. Now wants to improve the operation by putting some equipment inside and he cannot do it without going through rezoning. He has operated this business for 20 years, wishes to continue operation and would like to get at least the property that E & H is on to within the new present Ordinance and make it conform. He's only one affected as he owns all the surrounding property. --Whittaker - critical question,going back on thislis that at the time he started this operation he was probably required to have commercial zoning or industrial zoning and he never sought it and never got it - it has always been a non -conforming use. --Fraser - asked for reasons not to rezone. --Whittaker - should not rezone because: 1. Comp Plan calls for General Rural Use at this location 2. The highways are not developed to serve an Industrial area at this time 3. This area is no better suited for industrial than the area along Highway 36. It is just as far from the fire station, just as far away from the population center and other commercial centers as is 36. Would have a hard time defending the Comp Plan in other General Rural Use areas if industrial were permitted in this General Rural Use area. Only difference is that this exists today. --.Mottaz - this is really spot zoning. The 9.5 A doesn't make a decent industrial property and there is no way it can grow� no way to get 160A industrial park - going to be stuck with a small 9A piece of industrial surrounded by park, school and RR. --Fraser - essentially doing nothing approach, the legal non- conforming use - stating the limit of the present non -conforming use appears the way to go. --Whittaker - has a significant number of buildings that have changed the character of the property. Has an investment in it and therefore it will probably remain in a similar use. Would be hard to tell someone else that they cannot operate at least to the extent Emerson is operating. --Mottaz - semi -permanent type of structures - nothing that will make this use infinite. Thinks this is the wrong place for Industrial property. --Novak - agrees -this is the wrong place for an industrial park - putting a clump in the middle of nowhere - not following any type'of planning .or.order Very enviromentally un- sound area to put industrial zoning in. Emerson uses it to store machinery - if sold it could be used for any type of industrial use. Would never want to see active industry next to Horseshoe Lake. --Mottaz - also have to consider West Lakeland and try to make our land usage compatible with theirs. Do not have an industrial park if West Lakeland has Single Family Residential across the road. --Eder - question of spot zoning is mute since just rezoned a small parcel up on Highway 12 for a glider business. Spot zoning is taking small pieces - 9 acres isn't spot zoning.