HomeMy WebLinkAboutA036 - Request to Initiate Plan 2040 Land Use Designation Amendment for 300 Airport RoadITEM #:35
DATE:07-28-26
DEPT:P&H
SUBJECT:REQUEST TO INITIATE PLAN 2040 LAND USE DESIGNATION
AMENDMENT FOR 300 AIRPORT ROAD
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
City Council received a letter dated May 4 from Ron McMillen asking Council to initiate a land
use amendment process for a 14-acre property that was previously developed with an
industrial building, but is currently designated as commercial and zoned for commercial use.
The owner believes the site is best suited for reuse of the existing building by another
industrial user since the prior tenant (Danfoss) relocated to another facility. The site is located
between Lowe's and the Airport at 300 Airport Road. See Land Use Map excerpt below.
The site has been designated commercial and zoned Highway Oriented Commercial
(HOC) for over 25 years. The prior use of the site by Danfoss was considered legal
nonconforming as a warehouse facility. Continued use of the site as a warehouse is
permitted as a nonconforming use. If the site is not reoccupied within 12 months with
another nonconforming use, then only conforming use would be permitted. The owner
believes the current building would be difficult to re-tenant as a commercial building
and is best suited for industrial.
The 300 Airport Road site has traditionally been used for industrial purposes and is
situated in a location that has limited retail commercial visibility. If the land use
designation was changed to Employment, the site's zoning district could be either
Planned Industrial or General Industrial. Either zoning district would likely meet the
goals of the owner for reuse of the building, but GI has more permissive development
standards and a broader range of use options than PI.
It should be noted that GI zoning does allow for commercial uses whereas PI does not. PI is
more focused on large scale sites for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses has large
setbacks requirements compared to GI. Details on potential industrial uses could be
addressed in more detail with a future rezoning, including potentially a Master Plan to control
for specific site improvements or uses. In this circumstance with an existing building and
developed site, a concurrent review would be appropriate if the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is initiated by the City Council.
1
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Initiate a Plan 2040 Minor Amendment process for the owner to apply for a land use
change to Employment and require a concurrent rezoning application with a master plan
to describe the types of intended uses for the property (one step process).
This option is more comprehensive, but with a shorter timeline overall than Alternative
No. 2. Based upon a substantial number of other ongoing projects combined with current
staff limitations, the timeline to accept the combined applications for the amendment and
rezoning will need to be deferred until no sooner than September or October. Final
approval for both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning could still occur
before the end of the year. A final schedule would be determined based upon the
outcomes of other ongoing projects being completed in the next 8 weeks.
2. Initiate a Plan 2040 Minor Amendment process for the owner to apply for a land use
change to Employment and defer a rezoning application process until the Plan 2040
amendment is resolved (two-step process).
As a two step process, the applicant could proceed with the Comprehensive Plan
amendment application in August with possible hearings in September and October,
because the level of involvement is less than Alternative No.1. However, the rezoning
process as a second step would then delayed starting probably until late November or
December, again pending the outcome of ongoing applications.
3. Defer the request until a later time or for more information.
4. Take no action and decline the request.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff believes th at, due to the history of the use of the site as industrial, accommodating reuse
of the existing facility with a change to industrial uses would likely not be detrimental to the
City's land use plans for this area or for broader commercial needs of the City. T he City has
other large sites available for commercial use that may be situated in more desirable locations
along Hwy 30, SE 16th, and E 13 th Street. These sites did not exist when the area was zoned
commercial in 2000.
If the site was vacant or expected to be redeveloped in the near term, then potentially a
commercial use would be better option for the site as a neighboring site to other big box and
commercial uses in the area. However, this is not the case as represented by the owner.
Changing the use to Employment with industrial zoning may be desirable if the types of use
are compatible with the existing commercial uses abutting the site and the airport.
PI zoning is generally the more compatible zoning district with this type of area
compared to GI zoning. With commercial development essentially surrounding the
site, regardless of the base zoning, staff believes a rezoning with master plan is a better
choice than traditional straight zoning in order to understand the planned reuse of the
s i t e . Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, which allows for the combined review of the proposal and includes a master
plan for the site conditions and uses.
2
ATTACHMENT(S):
300 Airport Land Use Map.pdf
R. McMillen - Land Use Amendment (1).pdf
3
Subject
Site
N
4
5