City of Oak Creek

Common Council Report

 

Meeting Date:  September 18, 2007

 

Item No.:          

(reprinted from August 6, 2007)

 

Recommendation:  That the Council not adopt Ordinance No. 2465 rezoning the property at 904 E. Rawson Avenue from B-4, Highway Business to M-1, Manufacturing and that a Conditional Use permit for a contractor’s yard with outdoor storage and outdoor storage of limousines not be granted.

 

Background:  At the April 24, 2007 meeting Sancha Landscaping came before the Plan Commission requesting a rezoning and the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow for outdoor storage of landscaping materials and business related vehicles along with outdoor storage of limousines for the limousine service business already located on the property at 904 E. Rawson Avenue.  The City’s zoning ordinance requires a rezoning to M-1, Manufacturing District, with a conditional use to accommodate the contractor’s yard with outdoor storage. The limousine service also requires rezoning to M-1 and a conditional use permit for outdoor storage of business related vehicles unless they choose to build a storage facility for the limousines. The limousine service could also operate an office out of this property as long as the limos were stored off-site.

 

In 2004 Planning staff was alerted to the fact that a limousine service had opened up on this property.  The applicants applied for a conditional use permit to allow for the outside storage of the limousines.  After reviewing the submitted application materials staff sent a letter to the applicant outlining the submittal deficiencies and listed what else the applicant needed to submit.  The items were not submitted and the item was placed on hold.  At the time of the original submittal there was no landscaping business located on the premises nor was there any indication from the applicants that a landscaping business was envisioned for this property.

 

In 2006 the City’s Zoning Administrator observed zoning code violations on this property when enforcing a code violation on an adjacent property.  As the Zoning Administrator was researching the complaint he discovered that a landscaping business was operating on this site.  A review of City files as well as discussions among staff revealed that there have been no approvals for these businesses.  In fact, neither of these businesses is allowed to operate on this site under the current B-4, Highway Business zoning ordinance. Also, a review of Inspection Department files revealed that the limousine and landscaping businesses have been operating without an occupancy permit or any other City approvals.  Upon receiving notice from the Zoning Administrator that the use of the property was not allowed under the current zoning and without site plan approval, the applicant applied for the rezoning and conditional use permit.

 

According to zoning ordinance, M-1 zoned parcels need to have a minimum lot area of one acre and a width of 200 feet. The parcel in question does not meet these requirements as the parcel is 0.8 acres in size and is 150 feet wide.  The City Attorney has laid out three options that the Plan Commission and Common Council have in dealing with this request:

 

  1. If the Plan Commission is interested in working with one (or both) of the businesses the Plan Commission could recommend that the Common Council deny the application to rezone the property because it does not meet the dimensional and lot area requirements of the M-1, Manufacturing District.  Once the Common Council denied the request the applicants could apply for a variance before the Board of Zoning Appeals.  The applicant could then come back and request approval of the conditional use permits.

 

  1. The property owners could request a zoning text amendment whereby they would ask the Plan Commission and Common Council to change the language of the B-4, Highway Business district to allow for either of the businesses.

 

  1. If the Plan Commission does not wish to see either of these uses on this property they could recommend against the rezoning and conditional use permit request on the basis that they don’t feel that these businesses are compatible with the surrounding land uses or the future land use map for this area which calls for “Planned Office.”  If this route is taken the applicants could not request a variance because the Board of Appeals cannot issue use variances.

 

The City Attorney also addressed concerns that the Plan Commission had regarding whether the fact that the City had not acted on the Conditional Use permit application which was submitted in 2004 had any bearing on whether we could start enforcement of the ordinance violations.  It is his opinion that the business has no standing since they initially chose to open up without obtaining any of the required permits.  He also indicates that the fact that the City did not enforce ordinance violation immediately does not prevent enforcement in the future.

 

At the April 24, 2007 meeting the Mayor directed Mr. Sancha to remove all of the landscape equipment and materials from the property.  Since the April 24, 2007 meeting, Sancha Landscaping has vacated the premises and did not intend on returning to the site.  At that meeting staff also recommended that Four Star Celebrity Limousines find an alternative site to store their fleet.  They have not found another site for storage so the rezoning by Four Star Celebrity Limousine is still pending.

 

The Plan Commission has reviewed this request and recommended that the Common Council not approve the rezoning and conditional use.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated September 12, 2007

 

If the Council decides to rescind the action (see previous agenda item) they took on August 6th to not approve this ordinance, they will need to take additional action on this request.  The options are to:

 

  1. approve the rezoning and conditional use
  2. refer the request back to the Plan Commission for preparation of conditions and restrictions
  3. file the ordinance

 

 

Fiscal Impact:  There is no fiscal impact associated with this change.

 

Prepared by:

 

 

 

Doug Seymour, AICP

Director of Community Development

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patrick DeGrave

City Administrator

 

Fiscal Review by:

 

 

 

Beverly A. Buretta, CMC

City Clerk