Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNION PACIFIC SOUTH THIRD NO. 2 ANNEXATION & ZONING - 16-88, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Minutes March 28, 1988 0 • Mr. Smith asked about businesses that will occupy Parcel T having hazardous waste. He was assured that the owner would not rent to anyone having hazardous waste by City Council. In a market-driven/client relationship, it may be that part of those businesses may involve hazardous waste and, if so, would there be separate plumbing and sewer facilities for these busi- nesses. Mr. Shepard stated that before a building permit can be finaled and a cer- tificate of occupancy can be issued, any hazardous material would have to be approved either by the Fire Authority or the industrial pre-treatment department of Water and Sewer, if any hazardous waste is to be put into the sanitary sewer system. Member Brown moved for approval of Items 5. Member Strom seconded. Motion was approved 6-0. Member Brown moved for approval of Item 4. Member Strom seconded. Motion was approved 4-0. Member Kern moved for approval of Items 6 and 7. Member Crews seconded. Motion was approved 5-0. Item 15 - #15-88,A - UNION PACIFIC SOUTH THIRD NO. 1 ANNEXATION AND ZONING Item 16 - #16-88,A - UNION PACIFIC SOUTH THIRD NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING C Ken Waido stated that these two items deal with the same property. He gave a description of these two items and stated that staff is recommending approval of both annexation and zoning requests. Robert Kopitzke, 1917 Harmony Drive, asked if the decision had already been made to annex this area or is this a formality. Chairwoman O'Dell replied that this is a recommendation to City Council to annex this property. Mr. Waido stated that the City follows the annexation policies in the Intergovernmental Agreement with the County. These policies indicate that the City will annex any and all properties either when they petition for annexation as a voluntary petition or become eligible for annexation as an enclave. This particular petition is a voluntary petition by the Union Pacific Railroad. This meeting is a required public hearing in order to annex a piece of property. Mr. Kopitzke stated that he felt the City has been less than forthright in informing people affected by this change. He questioned the T-Transition zoning and stated that after talking with Mr. Waido, understood that the City initiated this annexation for the purpose of straightening out some boundaries and getting in the tax base. Mr. Waido replied that there are five annexations at this meeting and not all of them are to be zoned the same. He further explained why these par- ticular zonings were requested. -3- Planning and Zoning Minutes March 28, 1988 0 . CMr. Kopitzke stated he felt that certain issues were not answered, such as pollution and noise level, and asked who will enforce these concerns. Chairwoman O'Dell reminded Mr. Kopitzke that the Board will only be making recommendations to City Council on annexation and zoning issues. It is not within the power of this Board to close down existing companies if they are violating air quality standards. Mr. Kopitzke stated that he has telephoned several times on these concerns but nothing has been done about it. Mr. Waido stated that the I-L zone is a limited industrial zoning district and it allows light industrial uses. Member Kern stated that he felt Mr. Kopitzke does not want the Board to get rid of the existing problem but questioned the I-L zoning if it will pre- sent a further problem for him and is the existing activity undergoing I-L types of activities. Mr. Waido stated that the present use of the property is a warehouse but that is not the property that is polluting. There are three options for handling the pollution problems but apparently only two were completed. If no response was given from the other two departments, then the third option would be to contact the City Manager. C Member Brown asked if it would be worthwhile for the Board to place a PUD condition on these annexations. Mr. Waido replied no because the PUD condition is only a site planning process and there is already a site planning provision in the I-L zone. Member Klataske asked if the property of the existing company is currently in the city. Mr. Waido stated that it is inside the city and zone I-P. Leonard Ewy, 4413 Timberline, stated that the entire proposed area is not currently zoned for industrial. Thd only part that is zoned for industrial is the existing warehouse and this goes only about 20 feet behind the existing warehouse. He stated that this will be a definite change in land use and will increase train and truck traffic. He stated that he inquired about the proposed landscaping and was told that, so far, there was none proposed. He felt that the neighborhood would become more powerless and property values would decline. He felt this would degrade the neighborhood if these concerns were not addressed and that this proposal is not compa- tible with the neighborhood. Virgil Kline, surrounding resident, stated that he had no problem with the annexation but the concern is what is proposed before it is annexed. He suggested that prior to annexation, plans should be submitted and the neighborhood advised and notified before it is done. He stated he did have a concern with the noise pollution. -4- Planning and Zoning Minutes March 28, 1988 0 • Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the existing warehouse has submitted plans for expansion of their building. Mr. Waido replied that they have not, at this time. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that it is understood that this will happen in the future. She asked if it would possible to allow the affected property own- ers to have some input into the site plan. Mr. Waido stated that, under the I-L zone, the Planning Director has the responsibility and authority to approve the site plan. Mr. Peterson suggested that there be an administrative public hearing so the neighborhood can address their concerns. He stated that this hearing would be very similar to the PR meeting, which would include neighborhood notification, and would be held with staff. Mr. Kline agreed to the public hearing suggestion. He stated that he would like input prior to the expansion happening. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that the affected property owners, within 500 feet of the proposed use, would be notified prior to the expansion of the build- ing. Mr. Smith stated he felt that it is C zoning at the applicant's request. required to go through the LDGS. not encumbent on the City to grant a He felt that applicants should be Mr. Waido stated that there is not always the option to go through the LDGS. Member Kern asked what the difference is if this comes in for any plans as a PUD or under the I-L. f Mr. Waido stated that the most substantial differences would be in the timing of the review of the request and who makes the final decision. Depending upon the concerns and what staff felt was applicable to be placed as a condition of approval through the staff review process in the I-L or through the PUD, there would be no difference. The I-L site plan is approved by staff and the PUD is approved by the Board. Member Strom asked what the difference is between I-P and I-L zones. Mr. Waido replied that the only difference between the two is what the districts are designed for. The I-P zone is like an industrial park setting and the I-L is a more case -by -case basis. They both have the same perfor- mance standards. There is no requirement for a public hearing under the I-P zone. Member Strom asked if there was any way, under an I-L zone, to establish a requirement for an administrative hearing. -5- Planning and Zoning tes • March 28, 1988 Mr. Peterson stated that there is no absolute requirement for a public hearing for an I-L and I-P site plan. Based upon the Vested Rights legisla- tion, a vested rights hearing is required which, by its nature, a public action. He stated that even though the ordinance does not spell it out, there is a public meeting required. He felt that it would be appropriate to have a meeting with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated that he felt these items warrant a complete use of the LDGS. He felt that approval of the zoning by request of the applicant is inappropriate. He suggested that the Board make a PUD requirement on these items. Mr. Ewy concurred with Mr. Smith. He stated that the Board does not have enough authority and there should be some guarantee that a hearing will be held. Member Kern moved to approve Item 15, amended to: 1) change the I-L, Lim- ited Industrial to have a PUD condition; and 2) that a further recommend- ation that a neighborhood meeting be held prior to any consideration before the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Strom seconded. Motion to approve with conditions carried 6-0. Member Kern moved to approve Item 16, amended to: 1) change the I-L, Lim- ited Industrial to have a PUD condition; and 2) that a further recommend- ation that a neighborhood meeting be held prior to any consideration before the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Brown seconded. Motion to approve with conditions carried 6-0. ITEM 20 - #11-88 - DOWNTOWN DISTRICT Mr. Peterson gave a description of the downtown zoning request. He stated that staff's recommendation, after reviewing the Downtown Development Authority's concerns on the adoption of the amendment, is to table this amendment at this time. Components of the Downtown Plan will be presented before the Board at a worksession in May. A set of recommendations of ordi- nance changes will probably be available in Fall of '88. Member Crews asked why the Board is being asked to table this for six or seven months and why it wasn't withdrawn. Mr. Peterson replied that it is the Board's prerogative to decide whether they want to withdraw or table this item. However, at Friday's worksession, the Board did decide to table this item. Craig Howe, representing himself and some partnership interest in the down- town area, stated that he supported either tabling or withdrawing it. He added that from an ownership standpoint, he felt that it was arbitrary and not in the best interest of the downtown area to require a PUD on uses -by - right of certain size when it is not required in other areas. If that approach is going to be adopted, then it should be done on an overall basis. He stated he does not support the recommendation as it exists. -6-