Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROCKY MOUNTAIN BATTERY & RECYCLING PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 51-89 - - LUC REQUIREMENTS• • MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Davis, Director of Development Services VIA: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning FROM: Ted Shepard, Project Planner DATE: February 7, 1990 RE: Response to Letter from Dean Hoag, Rocky Mountain Battery P.U.D. The thrust of Mr. Hoag's letter to the City Manager, dated January 29, 1990, is that the request to add a building for recycling of materials, on ground zoned M-M (Medium Density Mobile Home), was processed incorrectly as a P.U.D. It is Mr. Hoag's contention that the request should have been processed as a rezoning to a zone district that would have allowed the recycling operation as a "use by right", and then proceed through a typical building permit review process. Mr. Hoag further contends that the P.U.D. process cost time and money beyond which would have been required under the rezoning/building permit review process. A comment by a Planning and Zoning Board member at the public hearing that the request was more suitable to a rezoning than a P.U.D. apparently led Mr. Hoag to believe that he was treated unfairly. Staff Response: There are three issues raised by Mr. Hoag in this P.U.D. versus rezoning/building permit review conflict. These issues are the underlying rationale of the P.U.D. process, and the time and cost associated with both processes. 1. Rationale for the P.U.D.: It was Staff's recommendation that the request would be best served by the P.U.D. process rather than the rezoning process. A case could be made that the property in question more closely resembles H-B, Highway Business, since it gains access and is functionally a part of the property that fronts on College Avenue. A recycling facility is not a use by right in the H-B zone. By introducing the I-G zone, General Industrial, there would have been the potential of having three zone districts (M-M, H-B, I-G) on one property under single ownership. Since rezoning requests must be reviewed by both Planning and Zoning Board and City Council, there is no guarantee that a recommendation of I-G would not have been amended to H-B, or, perhaps even denied. Similarly, a request for I-G zoning left itself open for any member of the Planning and Zoning Board or City Council to add the condition that all development be reviewed as a P.U.D. This is referred to as the "P.U.D. condition" and is typically added to zone districts that are newly annexed into the City. Staff would have been challenged to defend why, in this case, the P.U.D condition was not added. A request to rezone approximately one acre of ground for one specific use challenges the integrity of the entire zoning in the general vicinity. Staff recognizes that there may be validity to the shifting of some of the zone district boundaries in the area but would prefer to look at this issue comprehensively rather than piecemeal. A piecemeal rezoning is also known as "spot zoning" and is vulnerable to the charge that the general public does not benefit, only the applicant. Staff believed that the P.U.D offered design flexibility that would not be afforded under a rezoning/building permit review process. Under use -by -right zoning, the strict application of the Zoning Code must be adhered to. Any deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Code would have to be processed as a variance and reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, Staff believed that the P.U.D. process benefits the public interest in that it discourages zone changes throughout the City on a site by site basis. It is a fundamental tenet of the L.D.G.S. that no land use is automatically excluded from a specific site. Rather, criteria are established which ensure that each land use will be compatible with adjacent land uses as well as foster a healthy growth pattern for the community as a whole. A site plan is required to evaluate the applicant's success or failure to address these criteria. If the criteria are met, the use may proceed. 2. Time: Eipht Weeks Versus Sixteen and One -Half: Rocky Mountain Battery and Recycling, 1475 North College Avenue, appeared before the Conceptual Review team on October 23, 1989. Since the request was not allowed as a "use by right", it was identified that the property had to be rezoned or application made for a P.U.D. It was explained that the P.U.D. process would take seven weeks. The next available submittal date was October 30, 1989 with a Planning and Zoning Board hearing on December 18, 1989. This is the process that Mr. Hoag elected to take. The total time expended from Conceptual Review to P & Z approval was eight weeks. It was also explained that the rezoning process would take the same seven weeks to receive merely a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board, plus an additional two readings by City Council before the rezoning became effective. Since City Council did not meet the first Tuesday in January, the first reading by Council would not have been until January 16, 1990. The second reading would have been on February 6, 1990. A rezoning ordinance does not become legally effective until 10 days after second reading, or February 16, 1990. The time from October 23, 1989 to February 16, 1990 equals sixteen and one-half weeks. This is slightly more than double the time it took to process the P.U.D. Based on Mr. Hoag's sense of urgency, Staff recommended the P.U.D. process as being more expedient with less layers of review. r 3. Costs: There are costs and submittal differences associated with a rezoning/building permit review versus a P.U.D. The following table helps illustrate these differences: Rezoning/ Cost: Building Permit P.U.D.: Application Fee $50 $170 Subdivision Plat $150 0 Submittal Requirements: Subdivision Plat Yes Yes Plot Plan Yes No Site Plan No Yes Landscape Plan Yes Yes Architectural Plan No Yes Drainage Report Yes Yes Drainage/Grading Plan Yes Yes Wood Fence on West Yes Yes Extra Landscaping Yes Yes As can be seen by the Table, the differences between the cost and submittal requirements of both processes are not substantial. It must be emphasized while the P.U.D. must culminate in formal, public hearing, a request for a building permit must also proceed through an administrative review process. It is regrettable that Mr. Hoag is suffering from "P.U.D. remorse" and that this feeling is compounded by the comment made at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing that a P.U.D. was an unnecessary procedure. Staff would like to suggest to Mr. Hoag, and all applicants, that opinions expressed by individual board members do not always coincide with interpretations made by Staff. The Board voted to approve the Hoag application as part of the consent agenda. Mr. Haog had a choice as to how he wanted his application to be processed. He chose the P.U.D. route.