03-22-1982 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1982 Page Seven Chairman Tracy stated that at every meeting it seems a zoning change is re- quested either for a small area or a larger area. He asked Zack Johnson to de- fine spot zoning. Mr. Johnson stated that spot zoning is considered a zoning change done primarily to benefit a specific land o\vner for a use which is not compatible with surrounding uses and not done for the purpose or effect of furthering comprehensive zoning plans; so, you are dropping a spot of some use in a larger whole or group of zon- ing uses which is different. For example, an area that is all R-l with a spot of R-3 in the middle is spot zoned. He explained that zoning is supposed to be used to expand from a previously classified zone; it is supposed to add to usages as opposed to leap-froging over it. He stated different states and courts argue whether or not spot zoning is illegal or not, but zoning is held invalid if the following three test rules apply: 1) A small parcel is singled out for privileged treatment; 2) The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the proposed o'\mer's benefit; 3) The action is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). He further added that these rules apply whether the land involved is residential, commercial, or industrial. With regard to Mr. Murphy's plan, both Commissioner Pearce and Gunkel believed the proposal would upgrade the araa. Chairman Tracy stated it complied with the Land Use Map. Mr. Johnson stated the proposal would be a density change, but that R-lc and R-2 overlap, so it would be hard to determine if this was spot zoning, but he did not think so. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BILL MURPHY PROPERTY BE REZONED FROM R-lc to R-2 BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITH ZACK JOHN- SON. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 8. Review Proposed Ordinance Language Regarding Accessory Structures Mr. Breezee explained that City ordinances do not have a clear definition of the '\vord "agricultural". He stated that there is a real need to have specific defini- tions because the law states that a city can adopt stronger definitions, but can- not adopt \veaker ones. He said that the definition for "agricultural" as it stands now is so weak that it could apply to anyone with a horse and a stack of hay. He explained that the State Statutes define this work in such an explicit way there is no way for it to be mis-construed. Commissioner Pearce asked how this would affect Green Acres laws. Mr. Breezee said the City Attorney could answer that. The Commissioners asked !vir. Breezee to redefine the \vord "agricultural" and get back to them, at which time they will adopt a motion for Council approval. Commissioner Gunkel pointed out that in Item 2(g)2, R-lb should be added to read: "No metal skinned structures shall be allowed in R-la and R-lb zoned areas except \vhen used specifically for agricultural purposes..."