COM 0550.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

there was, in their view a preferred designation for this location including the existing designation? I mean, is there anything wrong with the way it's designated now? And then my follow up to that would be, if the MCX-20 is okay, why not just drop the conditions that are preventing the landowner from making use of the property? I would think either course would be okay, and it might be easier just to modify the zoning ordinance to drop the time limits on the conditions and just leave it the way it is. Please respond. KAY: Sure, so I can speak to the first question and then maybe defer the second question to the Director. When we did our research on the original rezone there was no specific project that was associated with the rezone. They mentioned that they wanted to put a mix of Light Industrial and Commercial Uses that may support the surrounding commercial and aviation related businesses associated with the airport. So, unlike today where generally there's a proposed project tied to a zoning request that wasn't the case back then. With their vision back then, the MCX would be the only way to get those types of uses that they were looking to utilize. So, I guess long story short there's no reason for it to be MCX at this point. The surroundings zoning that's ML and again the uses are largely similar, so we didn't see an issue with reverting it back. And so that's staff's opinion and the Director agreed with it, that either zoning would be appropriate in that area given the Industrial LUPAG designation and all the other factors. KERN: Well, guess I'll jump in there for part of the other side of it. This is the situation that we run into frequently with the way that you have time conditions on ordinances so, obviously it goes stale and in cases we've seen trying to get time extensions. In other cases, we've seen it repealed back to its original zoning and this request with it going back to its original zoning it was consistent with the entire area it seemed to make sense doing that. It was kind of the logical approach as it wasn't needed the additional uses in there. So, we fully support it and I think it makes sense. We have some other ones coming up on the other side that are a bit more challenging, but this is the case we get into when we have this kind of limbo status, and somebody can't really do anything with their property because they went through that process. So, I think request to repeal was fair, reasonable, so it seems to be the most logical route to go. CLARKSON: Well, I just like to either respond to my point that the only reason for the request was that they couldn't use their property for any of the uses that were permitted because of the expired time limits. KAY: I'm so sorry to interrupt. They couldn't do anything on the property until the ordinance was brought current. Because the zoning was MCX-20, and they were out of compliance unbeknownst to them based on representations from the applicant's representative at the time they purchased the property. So yes, the process at that point would have to be an amendment in order to bring the ordinance current which would be a time extension for those time conditions that have yet to be complied with or to come in and request the reversion. So those are essentially the two options at that point to allow for something to happen on the properties. CLARKSON: So, there were two options and I'm just still trying to figure out why the one option was preferred over the other from the Planning Department's point of view. When— KAY: Sorry, go ahead. 4 EXHIBIT C(DRAFT)