Minutes-4/10/2002

Attorney Greenleaf said that the question could be placed for reconsideration by the person who made the motion to consider and that the decision for Johnston/Potterfield rezone request would require an extraordinary majority to be approved. Motion Bartels, second Gericke to reconsider a request from Joe Johnston and Amanda Potterfield for rezoning of 230 Main Street from R-1 (single family) to R 2.5 (four-plex) and give second reading to an Ordinance approving rezoning change to a property as described. Discussion: Question about whether a parcel smaller than than allowed by an ordinance for R 2.5 zoning could be zoned in that way. Attorney Greenleaf felt that the City could rezone the area of 230 Main to R 2.5 knowing that the area could not be allowed for R 2.5 use due to lack of square foot area. It would then become Mr. Johnston problem to know that his R 2.5 zoning was unusable with current factors and would become his problem to locate sufficiently more area to make the use of R 2.5 possible. Attorney Greenleaf volunteered that perhaps he could gain property from an abutting lot and in that way make his lot of sufficient size. Question about whether Mr. Johnston would then have a lot that was partially R 2.5 and partially R-1 and which zone would determine use. Would this require Mr. Johnston to request rezoning once again for the additional space? Building Inspector Greg Schott voiced that the council would really just need to consider what kind of dwellings or use they would like to see for this area. If the city were to allow a four-plex in this area that was profitable, it was certainly very possible that this would push this same kind of use in the entire neighborhood over time. Schott asked the council if this is what they wanted for the future of the community, and they would need to answer that question first. Dils once again reminded Mr. Johnson that she had at the outset requested a drawn plan of the entire area and had not yet seen this from Mr. Johnston or Mr. Stevens. Reihman asked if the Ordinance in question included or excluded the area that Mr. Johnston believed he owned and that the city also felt they owned. If the City is currently in litigation with Mr. Johnston on the ownership of the property it would appear that this causes a problem with providing Mr. Johnston a new zoning for the parcel. If the street is owned by the city then the city would not want an ordinance saying that the zone on the street is R-2.5. If the city provides an ordinance that provides a legal description of Mr. Johnston's property as in the street then the city by its own action may have agreed that the street (or property in question) belongs to Mr. Johnston. Approval to change zoning on the 15 feet of area (legally describe as Mr. Johnston's in ordinance) would be an admission by the city that Mr. Johnston was the proper owner of the 15 feet and that he could in the future use it for R 2.5 zoning. Did the city want to say that the street belongs to Mr. Johnston. If the street belongs to the city, the 15 feet described in the