Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables proposed rezoning for Ideal Aerosmith; requests clearer description of operations
Summary
A proposed rezoning to allow manufacturing/assembly at 3001 S. Washington St. was tabled so staff can present a narrowly worded 'fitting and compatible' description and notify neighbors ahead of a future hearing.
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled a rezoning request that would convert the B‑3 General Business parcel at 3001 S. Washington St. into a planned unit development to list manufacturing/assembly as an allowed use for an existing tenant, identified in the packet as Ideal Aerosmith.
Mr. Brooks described the site and the tenant’s operations as assembly and light manufacturing of parts within an existing commercial building, and he said the tenant has been operating under an informal arrangement that allowed up to 30% of a building’s footprint for assembly uses. The company seeks expansion that would exceed that 30% threshold and so requires an explicit allowance. Brooks said he had visited the building and the activity inside was "not loud at all." Several commissioners expressed support for the business but concern about setting a long‑term land‑use precedent in a commercial corridor that abuts housing.
Commissioners debated two regulatory routes: (1) a PUD rezoning that would explicitly list the tenant’s assembly/manufacturing use; or (2) using the existing catchall "fitting and compatible" provision in the B‑3 district to permit the use without a rezoning. Several commissioners asked for clearer, written descriptions of what the business does (noise levels, types of equipment) to evaluate whether it is truly "fitting and compatible" with adjacent residences.
A motion to deny the rezoning was made but received no second. Commissioners ultimately moved to table the item to the October agenda and directed staff to notify neighbors and provide tighter written descriptions of the proposed operations so the commission can determine whether the use fits the B‑3 standard or requires rezoning.
Staff noted the tenant has discussed long‑term plans to build in an industrial park but the applicant is pursuing an on‑site expansion in the near term. The commission agreed that if louder, heavier manufacturing activities were later introduced and complaints followed, existing noise ordinances and code enforcement would apply; commissioners requested guidance from the city attorney on how to define assembly versus manufacturing in city code.
