HomeMy WebLinkAboutGALATIA REZONING - 36 90B - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (2)I'Ted Sheaard - Galatia rezonina and adiaago[annexatiuon/zonino ` Page 1
From: Ken Waido
To: Advance Planning Dept Advance Planning Dept, Curr...
Date: Thu, Jul 20, 2000 2:29 PM
Subject: Galatia rezoning and adjacent annexatiuon/zoning
I have given the Galatia Rezoning (Case #19-00) and Prospect -East Frontage Road Annexation & Zoning
(Case #20-00) submitted materials a quick read through and have the following comments and concerns.
If you are not interested in these items, stop reading and delete the message, however, I can see this
being the next major "hot spot" land use issue the City has to deal with.
According to the LUC, rezonings must (MANDATORY) be justified by either:
a) consistency with City Plan, or
b) changed conditions.
An "Exhibit'B' Reason for Request" was submitted with the rezoning. Apparently a copying error has
been made because I only received page 1 of the narrative (the page ends in mid -sentence). There are
no references, so far, to any principles and/or policies of City Plan. Therefore, I have to assume the
rezoning request is intended to be justified on changed conditions (which, from what I've read, is mainly
based on PSD's purchase of a potential high school site on Prospect Road). While the narrative alludes
to this, it does not directly state, "This rezoning request is being made, as required by the City's LUC,
based on changed conditions......"
There is an attached Concept Plan showing zoning district boundaries and typical bubble diagrams for
land uses. This plan is referred to in both the rezoning and annexation materials.
Enough of background. My questions are:
Since the submittals are obviously (at least I think so) incomplete, do we have to process them at all?
Is there a grace period whereby applicants can submit additional materials to justify their request, or fix
submittal deficiencies?
Because the key words "changed conditions" don't appear in the submitted "Exhibit B", how much
obligation is staff under to "interpret" what was submitted and determine "this is what they really meant to
say"?
The re- and zoning requests are obviously not supported by the current Structure Plan map, yet there is
nothing that I can find asking for a Structure Plan map amendment to be consistent with the submitted
Concept Plan. Am I being too technical and/or bureaucratic?
Other items/issues:
The Concept Plan's land use pattern basically asks for a down zoning from I to LMN and MMN
The MMN site is not in support of a "red dot' or community commercial activity center.
If I just put what's above on the Project Comment Sheets, what will that get us?