The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001 [01] Jan 08 -j /'- , ¡~//u ß L\ ~_. . ~ CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 21 First Avenue NW '.0. Box 668. )t. Joseph. MN 56374 )20) 363-7201 Fax: 363-0342 IGk -~ MAYOR St. Joseph Planning Commission Kenneth J. Hiemenz City Hall January 8, 2001 '":::LERKI 7:00 p.m. ADMINISTRATOR Cari Schmidt Call to Order COUNCILORS Bob Loso New Business: .~lert 7:00 P.M. Rezoning Public Hearing - Borresch/Schneider _ Wit Mary Niedenfuer R-1, Single Family to R-3, Multi Family 8:00 P.M. Northland Five Addition - Proposal Review 8:15 P.M. Election of 200 1 Officers Approval of Minutes: December 4, 2000 Adjourn . . CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 21 First Avenue NW MEMORANDUM P.O. Box 668, St. Joseph, MN 563'i"4 (320) 363-7201 To: Planning Commission Members Fax: 363-0342 From: Chad A. Carlson, Planning Commission Secretary Date: 1/3/01 Ilk RE: Planning Commission Meeting Info MAYOR Kenneth J. Hiemenz Borresch/Schneider Rezonin2 Request A petition has been submitted to the Planning Commission to rezone properties from an R-1 (Single Family) to an R-3 (Multi-Family) status. The current land use of the properties are CLERK! rental units and currently non-conforming in use since the property is zoned R-1 Single ADMINISTRATOR Family Residential. The adjacent properties to the east are zoned R-3 and the proposal Cari Schmidt doesn't promote spot zoning. The petitioners have met the requirements of the City and signatures have been submitted as follows: COUNCILORS 1) 50% of the property owners requesting the rezoning have signed the petition, and Bob Loso .~1ert 2) 50% of those property owners within 350 feet of the proposed change have signed the petition. wit Mary Niedenfuer I have enclosed a map of the proposed change and a current zoning map of the area. The Planning Commission must recommend denial or approval of the proposed change to the City Council for action. Northland Five Addition The developers ofthe Northland Addition are proposing to move forward with Phase five of the Northland Addition. Since the design has changed since the preliminary plat, the developers must go through the entire plat approval process. The is an information item only and no action is needed at this time. Election of2001 Officers The Planning Commission will need to elect the following officers for 2001: 1) Chair 2) Deputy Chair These offices are currently being held by Hub Klein (chair) and Sister Kathleen Kalinowski (deputy. chair). I apologize for the delay in the packets, but I was waiting to learn of the Mayor's appointments prior to sending out the packets. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you.. . . CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 21 First Avenue NW '.0. Box 668. 31. Joseph, MN 56374 City of St. Joseph )20) 363-7201 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Fax: 363-0342 Ilk The Plarming Commission for the City ofSt. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday January 8, 200 I at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider MAYOR a request to re-zone the properties described below from the current R-l - Single Family to R-3 - Kenneth J. Hiemenz Multi Family. The Properties are Legally Described as: CU:RK! A(}MINISTR,\TOR 1) Southerly 115 feet of Lot 8, Block 7 of Section 10, Township 124, Range 29 of the Townsite Cari Schmidt of St. Joseph; and ¡þl 2) Lot 9, Block 7 of Section 10, Township 129' Range 29 of the Townsite ofSt. Joseph; and COUNCILORS 3) Northerly 83 feet of Lot 8 and all of Lot 7, Block 7 of Section 10, Township 124, Range 29 of .so the Townsite of St. Joseph. hlert Ken Twit The request ofre-zoninghas been submitted by Tim Borresch 11 3rd Avenue NW, St. Joseph, MN Mary Niedenfuer 56374 and Dale Schneider 31164 115th Avenue, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Oral comments may be heard at the public hearing or written comments can be submitted to the City Clerks Office prior to the meeting. State Law requires a mailed notice to individual properties within 350 feet of are-zoning application. Judy Weyrens Clerk! Administrator . CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 21 First Avenue Northwest · PO Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 320-363-7201 .... DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION - hl't-,cANf;- A licant: ~ Address: Address: .~ .... d. H . . .. . __n .. ._.O_..h n _ __ _ Tele 19'?> - 1..\1.\.3:5' Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROWÆasements Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development xX Rezoning Sign Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ '$:250 Dafe fee received /""/»/P?9 I ¡;"' /...l Date application received · PETITIONER MUST PROVIDE THE FOllOWING · A list and mailing labels of all property owners within 350 feet of the boundaries of the property. (This information must be obtained from the Steams County Auditors Office) · Twenty-one full size folded copies of the plans. · Payment of all associated fees must be made in full when application is made. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clear1y printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of the application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. ~bA~~~ 1,,;( -:;¿lo -~ooe:> Si~nature of Applicant/.(£q oc...:>/76,2- _ Date · \DC~~~\~1J~J i "?- - L..~--~ ~~ Signature of Vm~ . ' Date Ap/-1~d' J::"é ~ ò/-Vp¿;/z PROJECT NAME: · LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT SIZE: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: REQUESTED LAND USE P1 V¿' 7/. - /-;¡"~/L . DESIGNATION: SETBAeK, REQUEST: 1-. .. - REASONS FOR REQUEST: ~ d-r- Z~O -/ .. ._-. . .- - . .... . ".". - - "."... ... .".. ... .~. - .. . . .. - . - . ~;£ /:1J~ ¿ 'é.ÇJ //599 AREA REQUIRED BY REQUESTED BY VARIANCE ORDINANCE PETITIONER REQUESTED Front Yard Side Yard I Rear Yard I ~ (' Open Yard if' 1/ ,/ I Parkinq I 1 I Accessory Bldq Size II r I · Lot Coveraqe I I STAFF NOTES: ¿&:~ ):k{''l,,{q7l. . 7 \) s~ +t..··_Jï ¡ (S- F -<....2-+ c1 ¿<:'+ ?) ð¿ cJC.:.-K '7 "Z) c:¡ -\- q \?~ L 0 C. ,<. rc \ -._- . 5) \(¡G'L+LL\ ~3 ~¿<?-f- <-7- Lafg' ~~ CLLlr:t é c .{.- 7 ß (. oc.i( "7 I Î-\LL W \ \" \+ \ \\J S~,-\t ()·N 10 \'-~ v,--'S,\-+\ P );tL1, \¿~ e. :1-.9 . \ I · " Petition For Lots 7,8, & 9 of Block 7 . We the undersigned have been introduced to the exceptance of rezoning lots 7,8, and 9 of Block 7 from R-l to R-3. We have been informed of the differences between R-l and R-3 and have no objections with the rezoning. Name Address Phone Number 1. 1. 3 (J '7 W /71/1/. .( I 1. 3..,¿':3,J92Y /t/ u/ 2..,u¿ ,4 v.£ 2. 3.¿,,3,L/92.lf 3..:!.¡ /VAl .] '"' ~1 A-v....e.. 3. 3G"3 - 4 1/1 4. '< ~ ( . . ., 4. ' ( , , 5. 7/5' ¿Y. ~ ¡J:}-, 5. 3¿'3-75'Z.C¡ 6.3/P Jfe.sí /fiJn 5/ 6. ¿? :s - ~Lf·/.:r- ~~~~~~~~~~ 7. JQ- ¿,13 ì- 8. ~~'Ç t 9~~ 9. <;.~" ~. 9. >... ' --- 10. ' . .. - 10. , , .... , 11. \. - , . "- II. , 'I ' 1 , 12. ) \ " .. " r 12. " . '--" - 13. 17 ~~ Â\la.--/I/./f/ .dI?-- 13. ? c;. 3 - g- ç-J I 14. lo:J ~~, 4J,- U 1711 b\ 14. -3 ¿.3. - ?\f""~7 15. !GO¡ ~ ~ 15. ?ó> - ~.¡ // 16.Q?,2.<I I ~f~ 16. 3b3- ,1}3 q i; 17. 3d-. ¡J fl»z. ¡t/¡,J 17. J bJ - Z-( ~ 8. -12- ¡Jir ¡¡..r~ ~ /AJ 18. t( J( 19.3ð¿Z W, iV . S'T, 19. .363 - 1S-7 éJ 20. 11 1- w./I1 }/- 20. 3'-J-e-3ð6 . Petition For Lots 7,8, & 9 of Block 7 . We the undersigned have been introduced to the exceptance of rezoning lots 7,8, and 9 of Block 7 from R-1 to R-3. We have been informed of the differences between R-l and R-3 and have no objections with the rezoning. Name Address Phone Number . 21. ~W ~ 21. J I\- ~ M~ S-,¡-. 21. 3(p 3 - I? )..1 22. (}IJttlÆlÞ-~ J;.J./µrh22. ~I? tJ (li}/J1?1f~ çj- 22. "/4:>"3 - 7<?ri 23. 23. 1 \ - -s~ c.\-.J-f ^ '-Û. 23. ~~ - '..hloC( 24. )24. p ~ 1d flo.l~^ ..,J, 24. "5lç~ - L.\ 1LPq 25. 25.32-~ (¡J'~~V--I 25. 3(;6 - -Y-Y30 26. 26. B2-'¿~ ,. 26. 363-7S~ 9 27/1 27. /3 ,:)¡;tf/ i?-tr N CJ 27. 3>C)--;7t;V0 , 28. , 28. /7 J l1-"~ tf':L. . ,Ill LJ 28.·------___ ----- 29. 29. 29. ~. - .. 30. 30. 30. 31. 31. 31. .2. 32. 32. 33. 33. 33. 34. - 34. 34. 35. 35. 35. 36. 36. 36. 37. 37. 37. 38. 38. 38. 39. 39. 39. 40. 40. 40. . . >-..) ~I...... ~ ~ : I ~~ I . n' "J I . . , I .roo :' .' / / ! ! j ! ! è:i: f f f J I i I ----- -- " " . 17 ,.... . ",... ". " " " I : ." ... .' - ./' ... I' i i ,.- .~ . I ~ . .,... I i i - : :ir.' ,., ~...' . i ! 2 I i i : j . I ~ i--!§: c.n . . -.,' 9. i !~i > : i 1 : I . I ¡ i.'" ¡ : ¡ ~ : I . / ---~-_: ; , ----------- ! " ... OOfFTH AVE. N.E. fOURTH ~ ! ~ en . 1,:-' . ,.. / . !. NORTH-NÐ DRIVE , / . . : I i I ¡ , I ¡ ,; I . . I " I . , I Ii, I . Ii' ! ! I c.:J 25 0 Z 0 o ~ N I l- V) "" ::> <.:> a. ::> ~ « . ~ ~ ~ ~ <ð) o ~ , ;l ¡ ~ · 0(5 0 w ~ 0 ¡ ¡:¡!,ì ::¡ . ~ "Pd, .. ~ ~¡¡¡¡~!~'Í ~~ . · , . 0 0 , ~ ~ O!!';!I!,!, Z LH.",.o rn ,,>>< .., ~ Ii! ~ ! CO - ~ , ~ o '7t ~/ \) I I / m · f -u . Unofficial Minutes - Planning Commission Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Plarming Commission met in regular session on Monday, December 4, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. Plannin2 Commission Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners Marge Lesnick, S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Gary Utsch, Cory Ehlert, Kurt Schneider, and Jim Graeve. Plarming Commission Secretary Chad A. Carlson. Others Present: Pete and Lisa Walz, Ellen Wahlstrom, Gregory Bechtold, Rick Heid, Larry Hosch, Bob Herges, and Gregg Stroeing. Walz Variance - Public Hearin2 The Walz's are requesting a variance to Ordinance 52.17, Subdivision 4 (e )(ii) which states that the combined area of a lot covered by the accessory buildings authorized in subparagraphs (i) above shall not exceed 10 percent of the total lot area. The Walz's are further requesting a variance to Ordinance 52. 14,Subdivision 16 (i) which states that residential lots shall have not more than a single curb cut providing access to the lot. The curb cut shall not be more than 24 feet in width. Lisa Walz stated that the additional access onto Minnesota Street would assist in the location of the new garage and would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Many properties have access to Minnesota Street including many of their neighbors. The request for an access to Minnesota Street in not unusual. The access would not impair the public health and welfare. Lisa Walz stated that the proposed garage size would exceed the allowable square footage as stated in the Ordinance. After measuring the existing garage, the new garage would exceed the Ordinance by 54 square feet. Walz stated that if they are not able to construct the new garage as proposed they will be forced to rent a storage . unit. Many other residents in the community have been granted a similar variance and it would not be detrimental to the community's health and welfare. Lesnick stated that the lot is simply too small for the type of garage they are proposing, without removing the existing garage. There are safety concerns with having an access on Minnesota Street and they would loose their entire front yard. Walz stated that they would only create a 12 foot curb cut and have a turn around on their property. Utsch stated that he doesn't want to set a pattern of granting access to Minnesota Street and more than one access to a lot. He suggests the Plarming Commission stay with the intent of the Ordinance. Walz stated that an alternative would be to reduce the garage size and use the same access onto IslA venue, Ehlert stated that he would prefer to have the face and have access to Minnesota Street. In his opinion, the property would like similar to the properties on Minnesota Street. Since there is enough room to create a turn around on the property, the safety issue is not that big of a concern. Graeve suggested sharing a driveway with the neighbor and just widening that existing driveway. Walz stated that may work, but they have never discussed the option with the neighbor. Ehlert stated that it is a good idea, but does create a problem at resale. Relationships change over time and it may not be a good situation in the future. Utsch made a motion to recommend that the City Council deny the variance request for an additional access to the lot from Minnesota Street and to deny the variance request to exceed the maximum lot coverage by accessory buildings; Seconded by Lesnick. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Klein, and Utsch Nays: Ehlert and Graeve Motion Passed . November 13,2000 Minutes . Graeve made a motion to recommend that the City Council make a variation, via Letter of Transmittal, to allow the plotting of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 5 of the Final Plat of Pond View Ridge Six Addition without meeting the 75 foot minimum width requirement of a lot stated in Section 54.7 Subdivision 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, provided that the access to Minnesota Street from Lot 1, Block 5 of the property is eliminated and the entrances to the lots on 12th A venue be place on the south property lines of each lot; Seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed unanimously by those present. Letter of Transmittal Pursuant to Section 54.5, Subdivision 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, whenever it is found that the land included in the subdivision plat, presented for approval, is of such size or shape or is subject to, or is affected by such topographical location or conditions, or is to be devoted to such usage that full conformity to the provisions of this Ordinance is impossible or impractical, the City Plarming Commission may recommend to the City Council by letter of transmittal that said Council authorize variations or conditional exceptions in the final plat so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured. In recommending such variations or conditional exceptions, the City Plarming Commission and City Council shall fmd the following: 1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property; 2) That the variation or exceptions is necessary for reasonable and acceptable development of the property in question; 3) That the granting of the variation or conditional exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the particular property is situated; and 4) The variation or exception does not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. . The Plarming Commission by this Letter of Transmittal is recommending following based on the fmdings above: A variation to allow the plotting of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 5 of the Final Plat of Pond View Ridge Six Addition without meeting the 75 foot minimum width requirement of a lot stated in Section 54.7 Subdivision 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Herges stated that the Plarming Commission and City Council has reservations regarding the wetland delineation preformed by WetTech and approved by the Stearns County Environmental Services. Herges had the Plarming Commission refer to the letters from the Board of Water and Natural Resources and Stearns County Environmental Services. The County approved the replacement of wetlands on a 2: I ratio and the advisory committee has signed off on the replacement. Greg Bechtold introduced himself as the new wetland compliance officer for Stearns County. He has taken the place of Melissa who is no longer with the County. Bechtold echoed Herges comments by stated that the County has approved the wetland taking and replacement requirement. Utsch stated that the wetlands that will be affected by the City's setback requirements are in Phase Two of the development and they will be dealt with at that time. Utsch questioned Outlot A. Herges stated that on the preliminary plat this area was platted for residential lots. After the wetland delineation, this area became an area of wetland that must be saved and remain a wetland. Bechtold explained the process of notifying agencies that regulate wetlands throughout the nation. Over twenty agencies have been contacted. The agencies have 30 days to respond or a no response is considered a "no comment". Generally, agencies won't respond to wetlands less than three acres, unless there is a great concern. Ellen Wahlstrom expressed her concern to the Plarming Commission, developers, and Stearns County regarding the process and monitoring of the wetlands. She requested that the plat not be approved until all the agencies have . responded and until the two lots in phase two are eliminated. She expressed concern to County regarding the monitoring of property owners adjacent to wetlands. November 13,2000 Minutes · Resolution of Finding The request of Lisa and Pete Walz for a variance came before the Plarming Commission at a public hearing held on December 4, 2000. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the issuance of a variance for to construct an accessory building, which exceeds the allowable lot coverage and a variance to allow a second access to the property from Minnesota Street. Section 52.17 Subdivision 4 ( e )(ii) states that the combined area of a lot covered by the accessory buildings authorized in subparagraphs i) above shall not exceed 10 percent of the total lot area. Section 52.14. Subdivision 16 (i) states that residential lots shall have no more than a single curb cut providing access to the lot. The curb cut shall not be more than 24 feet in width. The request has been submitted by Lisa and Pete Walz, 100 East Minnesota Street, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Notice of this matter was duly served and published. In consideration of the information presented to the Plarming Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City ofSt. Joseph, the Plarming Commission makes the following fmdings: The proposed variance is not consistent with the standards for a Variance stated in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 Subd. (a - e). Therefore, based on the findings above, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: · Deny the variance request for an additional access to the lot from Minnesota Street and to deny the variance request to exceed the maximum lot coverage by accessory buildings. Chair Klein closed the hearing at 7:25 p.m. Pond View Rid2e Six - Final Plat Carlson stated that the Plarming Commission needs to review the proposed options as presented by the developer for the three lots on the old Krestrieba Property. The developers are platting this area as a part of Pond View Ridge Six - Final Plat. With Option B, the developers meet all requirements as stated by Ordinance, but Option A is preferred by the developers for development purposes. The Planning Commission needs to decide with what option the developers should proceed, and make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the Final Plat to the City Council. Hied stated that they would like to avoid creating an easement for utility purposes with Option B. Hied stated that Option A creates the greatest setback distance from the existing property owners and utility access is at the property line for each lot. Utsch stated that if the Plarming Commission would approve Option A, would all the driveways be place on the south property line for each lot? Utsch recommend that the Plarming Commission approve the variance to the width requirement for lots 2 and 3 and approve Option A. Herges stated that the driveways for the lots would be place on the south property. Klein stated that there still is a safety issue with the property and the Plarming Commission will face a similar situation in the future with the property across 121h Avenue. · Graeve stated that there is a row of mature cedar trees on the property and would encourage the developers to save those trees during development. Graeve would like to have this be a part of the motion granting the variance. Hied stated that they will save the trees provided that they are not on the building pad. November 13,2000 Minutes . Bechtold stated that the Stearns County Environmental Services staff is not capable of monitoring every wetland in the County. Their method of response is compliant ba~ed. Wahlstrom stated that every development in the City of St. Joseph has destroyed wetlands and the City is paying a big price. A large wetland is being eliminated with this development and City is always considering variances when it comes to natural resources. Utsch stated that the developers are preserving ail the areas required by the County and mitigating the wetlands where the road is being constructed. Bechtold confirmed Utsch's statement. Wahlstrom stated that the developers should be responsible to notify the property owners that their lot contains a wetland and it carmot be damages. The Plarming Commission needs to say no to variance requests that will be coming phase two. Ehlert stated that the City has created a process where developers and homeowners must submit a grading a drainage plan for each lot. This will help identify and preserve wetlands in the this and all future developments. Graeve stated that drainage from lawns and gardens are the precise reason wetlands are being destroyed. Graeve questioned who will own the wetlands that are preserved. Herges stated that they are looking at the following three options: I) donate to adjacent property owners 2) city ownership, or 3) donate to DNR or other wetland agency. Wahlstrom stated that the City ofSt. Joseph has a setback for homes from wetlands to eliminate the contamination from filtering into the wetlands. Phase Two will need two variances in order for them plot two lots. The wetland needs to be flag on the property and variances should not be granted. . Hied stated that the conversation taking place tonight regarding wetlands with this plat is outside of the jurisdiction of the City. The County approved the wetland plan as submitted and the City has no right to second guess their decision. Herges again asked the Plarming Commission to review the approval letter from Stearns County Environmental Services. Lesnick moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Pond View Ridge Six Final Plat as presented with the variations to the minimum lot width requirement and the eliminate of the access to Minnesota Street from Lot, Block 5 as approved. The motion passed unanimously by those present. Approval of Minutes: Lesnick moved to approve the November 13, 2000 minutes as presented. Seconded by Dtsch. The motion passed unanimously by those present. Announcements: Ehlert informed the Plarming Commission regarding the rental license issue with Linda Sniezek. The City Council will be considering an extension of the special use permit due to the circumstances surrounding the family renting the home. Adjourn: The Plarming Commission meeting adjourned by consensus at 8:40 p.m. Chad A. Carlson . PI arming Commission Secretary November 13, 2000 Minutes --~ Co?' Y ~ðtJ:;r , t/ . ~tY1" January 8, :' ')01 · r Rezoning ReI. 'Jest Borresch/Sctileider From Rl to l ) Rezoning requests req, ¡.re serious consideration before t~ey are approved. 'f] i.s is especially true when ley may change the makeup and nature of the nei'Jhborhol i. I, as a corrmission me '¡er, oppose the rezoning of the above request br the following reasons: 1. I believe the rezoning of the small parcel of land under (¡uestion spot zoning. It is R1 now and the neighborhood to the south and to L ., west will continue to be Rl -- Single Family Dwellings. 'l'hi~ places in what is currently an Rl neighborhood.1 n___ 2. The rezoning violates the First Objective of the st. Jose, h Comprehensive Plan of July 22, 1~97, under Social Objectives "Keep n~ighborhoods intact and promote the growth of healthy and vJ.brant neighborhoeJs." '" 3. The rezoning would set a precedent for other single-family neighborhoods that have rental units which at present are grandparented in. : · 4. The rezoning does not serve a public interest, but is beneficial only to the property interest seeking it. 5. Under SecUon 52.7 of the city ordinances (p.:J8), Purpose and Intent of Ordinances, the following sub divisions: apply this request for rezoning. Subdivision 1: Promote and protect the general public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the C y of st. Joseph. Subdi '. sion 8: Prohibit use of buildings, structures, and land that ,_ ce incompatible with the intended use or development of lands1Ì thin the spec if ied zones. 6. It will 1 Jt reflect well on the new adm~nistration just elected. It will be divj ,ive. It will appear to the general citizenry that the new appointmenh favor a special interest group, that is, tht: landlords, if the first ac ':ion of the Planning Corrrnission opens the door to the rezoning of ~sidential districts. .-I /, (?r ?f7 yt o () I¥I ..e 5 - )J I' J(y/- J ~S",,¡1A/ /(/f ~ 1Courts ma' find this sort of spot zoning invalid unl!pr !Jb ) 7 Lf these condition: "1. a small parcel of land singled out tor special or priv~leged treatment; 2 . the singling out is not In · the public inte est but only for the benefit of the landowner; 3 . the action is n ,t in accord with a comprehensive plan. . . If spot zoning is nvalid, usually all three elements are present. " T. Willia; ¡ Patterson, Land Use Planninq Techniques Q.Í. . . Implementation, p. 71; see also p. 72. ;.1'. ,\ .. \ · City Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2001 For the official record, please PRINT your name and representation. Thank you. Name Representing · 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. · 21