PC Minutes 12/19/07

ITEM NO. 12:     AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-601, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)

TA-07-14-07:  Consider amendments to Section 20-601 of the Development Code to revise setbacks for the IG District when abutting residential zoning districts. 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item.

The IG (General Industrial) District is composed of three distinct zoning districts from the 1966 Zoning Code, the M-2, M-3 and M-4 districts. The M-3 and M-4 districts were the most intense of the industrial districts and therefore had greater setback requirements than the M-2 district.  In the 1966 Zoning Code, the M-2 District had lesser setback requirements than the M-3 and M-4 districts because it was considered to be a less-intense industrial district. When the Development Code was created, the M-2, M-3 and M-4 districts were combined to form the IG district, and most properties which had been zoned M-2, M-3 or M-4 converted to IG with the adoption of the Development Code.  As a result, some structures located on property zoned M-2 and developed under the 1966 code may be nonconforming with regard to setback requirements in the IG district.

Staff is continuing to review the issue and will propose amended text at a future Planning Commission meeting. Staff is attempting to determine the number of properties containing structures which may be nonconforming as a result and the extent to which they may be nonconforming. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss and provide feedback.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Eichhorn asked how many of the structures in North Lawrence were developed industrial.

Mr. Rexwinkle said that most of the properties he highlighted on the map in North Lawrence are not residential uses, he could not say definitely if they were industrial, just that they were not houses.

Commissioner Eichhorn said that on smaller lots with a 50’ setback there would not be room for a building.

Mr. Rexwinkle replied that was correct, they would have to apply for a variance for the use and setbacks. If we reduce the setbacks district wide it could possibly help but since the lots are so small we would have to reduce them a lot because typical side yards setback in a residential district is 5-10’ and we probably would not suggest reducing the I-G setbacks to that small.

Commissioner Moore inquired about the grandfather clause.

Mr. Rexwinkle said that would be on a property by property basis. He said it would state something like “if I-G property was previously zoned M-2 these are what the setbacks would be” and it would be the same setbacks as the former M-2 district. If the property is redeveloped then they would have to come into compliance.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if there was any thought about sending a letter to the property owners to voluntarily be rezoned.

Mr. Rexwinkle said if they are industrial uses then they probably could not rezone to residential. Some property owners believe that their property value would go down if it was rezoned to residential.

Commissioner Harris asked what the difference between grandfather clause and non-conforming was.

Mr. Rexwinkle said the grandfather clause would allow a possible expansion into the setback that is non-conforming if it did not exceed the certain standards that Commissioner Moore eluded to or if it did not constitute a significant development project we could attach language like that to it. A significant development project is in addition of over 1500 square feet. The non-conforming article in the Development Code regarding setbacks states you cannot extend the non-conformity. If the setback is supposed to be 50’ and the property is already at 40’ it cannot be expanded further.

Commissioner Harris asked if that was true for grandfathering as well.

Mr. Rexwinkle said that if it is an existing structure, no. The grandfather language would say that the setbacks are automatically 20’ for existing structures. If it is currently non-conforming then it would still be non-conforming. It would essentially reduce the setbacks for existing structures down to what they used to be when they were built.

Commissioner Blaser asked what would happen if they did nothing.

Mr. Rexwinkle said they would be dealing with this issue on a site plan basis. For instance if a property owner wanted to build a structure on a undeveloped property what would occur would the person may have purchased the property and platted it at a time when the setbacks were 20’ and now they are 50’ so they have less developable land on their property. They might have to seek a variance that will add different layers to a site plan project and complicate it more because they would not know if they can get a variance until BZA rules on it.

Commissioner Moore leaned toward the grandfather use because economically there is a need in North Lawrence to allow those uses to continue.

Commissioner Harris said she was not in favor of reducing the setbacks of all the districts. She would like for there to be a compromise. She wondered if it was possible to create another smaller district.

Mr. Rexwinkle said the M-2 district was folded in with the M-3 and M-4 districts and for some reason it always had a lesser setback than any of the industrial districts. The issue would create another zoning district but it might be a cleaner solution in the long run.

Commissioner Harris wondered if the reduced setback was wise and appropriate and do they want that to continue for new development in the future.

PUBLIC HEARING

Ms. Jane Eldredge, Barber Emerson, said that all of the M districts are in the older parts of town. They were all designed in a previous age to serve businesses. She was unaware that they needed to move away from the restrictions that are in place. She said that the parking setbacks have increased. In the M districts you could park to the property line and that is no longer the case. She suggested keeping all M designations for existing properties and retain the same rules of the old Development Code and use new I districts for new properties.

Mr. Duane Schwada showed a map of properties affected. He said that he may lose tenants that he has had for 15 years because they may want to expand the setbacks. He gave the example of having a 100’ deep lot and 50’ setback you would end up with something that is not useful. Gave the example of Van Go wanting to expand.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked what would happen if a site plan did not exist and Van Go wanted to remodel.

Mr. Rexwinkle said that Van Go did a site plan for a paved parking lot and sidewalk improvements.

They were not expanding into the setback. They could not expand.

NO ACTION TAKEN