The rezoning proposal for Billion Auto at 41st and Duluth is now online. Â Here is my analysis.
As I suspected would be required, the proposal is to rezone the block (excluding the dental office which Billion does not own) to C-4 commercial. Â This is the most intense commercial use (regional commercial). Â It needs to be repeated that the proposal is to rezone to C-4 commercial, the most intense commercial use there is, which will be across the street (literally) to single family residential uses. Â It also should be noted across the street is about 54 feet, a non-standard local right of way. Â We’re not even talking about across a collector (80 feet) or an arterial (100 feet). Â
Per the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, it does not mean you CANNOT do it, although you could. Â What it does mean though is that the buffering will have to be extensive and the most extreme to mitigate the incompatibility. Â The staff report indicates a compatibilty rating of 2 between this C-4 and the single family to the east and north. Â Based on what is really there (single family) it should be a 1 (the least compatible) but it is scored a 2 because the zoning districts next to each other determine the compatibility rating, and these homes have the bad luck of being zoned RD-1 (twin home) district. Â Remember the Twin Eagle Estates neighborhood at 85th and Audie? Â Anyway, based on what is really there, it really is a 1 for compatibility, but based on the compatibility chart, it is scored a 2. Â But we should look at what is really there, which makes it a 1. Â They then print the description of a compatibility of 2, instead of 1. Â That is correct based on what the chart says, but its too bad we don’t score it based on what is really there. Â A score of 1, which this really is, gets you this guidance from Shape Sioux Falls:
“High Incompatibility: The new zoning district is incompatible with adjacent land uses. Any development proposal requires a Planned Unit Development and extensive documentation to prove that external effects are fully mitigated. In general, proposed districts with this level of conflict should not be permitted. Examples include heavy industrial uses proposed on sites adjacent to low- or medium-density residential uses.”
Interesting to note that if it was scored a 1, the comprehensive plan says this generally should not be permitted. Â
There are 420 new parking spaces indicated for parking and display of cars for sale. Â Parking this large requires a C-4 designation, so C-4 is the appropriate proposal in that regard.
As I had stated a few weeks ago, a level D buffer yard is required on the north and west side of the development, the biggest buffer yard, because there is C-4 proposed to be next to single family. Â The Level D Buffer Yard is 45 feet of green space, landscaping, and berming/fencing. Â However, the buffer yard can be reduced by 50% if there is a right of way (ROW) between the incompatible uses (which is true here). Â So they could technically do a 22.5 foot buffer yard on the west and north side. Â They are proposing a 25 foot buffer yard with a 4 foot berm adjacent to the parking lot and a retaining wall to support it. Â I had indicated previously I did not think this buffer yard cut in half was enough. Â Staff indicates that they believe the default buffer yard is not sufficient as well:
“Although, the submitted landscape plan appears to meet the buffer yard requirements, with the Compatibility Chart as a guide staff feels a project of this magnitude within an established residential neighborhood warrants significant buffer yard, screening and landscaping plans. Therefore, staff feels an alternative site plan should be approved by the Planning Commission. This should allow more time for staff and the applicants to come up with a landscape and buffer yard plan that will address the neighborhood concerns.”
Staff makes the following recommendation:
“Because the subject application is consistent with the Shape Sioux Falls Comprehensive plan and potential incompatibilities can be minimized with the required buffer yard, staff recommends approval of this rezoning, with the following conditions;
1. An alternative site plan including detailed buffer yard plans, be approved by the Planning Commission;
2. The proposed 113 employee parking spaces (61 within the new parking lot and 52 behind the existing Billion Auto-Kia building) will be permanently marked and reserved for Billion employees only.”
My thoughts and concerns regarding the recommendation from staff:
1. Â I would add a third condition, that no structures be allowed on the newly rezoned portion. Â There is absolutely nothing stopping Billion from adding structures at any time in the future once it is rezoned. Â They could be quite large as well with C-4 zoning, as long as they could meet the parking and other standards.
2. Â Hopefully the required parking for employees is enough. Â This will only work though to the extent that the applicant actually enforces this and makes their employees use them, and/or the city enforces this condition. Â I’m not fully convinced about this.
3. Â The city indicates that they recommend approval based on requiring an alternative site plan. Â Shape Places allows a rezone with conditions – 160.650(e), and one of those (2) is conditioning an alternative site plan to mitigate incompatibility and transition to other zoning districts. Â They also indicate it would give staff more time to work on this. Â To explain this, mechanically there would be a rezone, which must be approved by the city council, which would have this stipulation (requires an alternative site plan). Â Next, the applicant, before they could proceed, would have to bring an alternative site plan to the Planning Commisison for approval, which would depict and outline an alternative buffer yard proposal, for example bigger berms, more green space, different fencing, whatever. Â The problem I forsee with this is that an alternative site plan goes to the Planning Commission who has final authority. Â It does not go to city council, nor is there an appeal to city council available like there is with a conditional use permit (an appeal procedure) or a rezone. Â Therefore, once the council approves the rezone with the stipulation that an alternative site plan has to be approved, they lose control of the details, because it won’t come back to them. Â They then have to trust that the Planning Commission and staff will bring something forward and approve something that they are satisfied with. Â They have no power once they rezone.
Personally, I wouldn’t have vacated Duluth. Â But we’re here now. Â If we go forward with this, I believe the buffering has to be extensive. Â Either it has to be an extremely large buffer yard, or, perhaps a portion to the west could be rezoned to something else to transition between Billion and the single family. Â I guess if I was going to approve it, I would require a 45 foot buffer yard, with a 6 foot berm, and extensive landscaping at a minimum. Â I think the major issue that the council will have to deal with is losing control of the details if they rezone it. Â I think they need to figure out how to stipulate what they desire in the rezone. Â Perhaps they will need to stipulate certain minimum requirements for the alternative site plan in the buffer yard in the rezone, for example “rezone to C-4 with the condition that the alternative site plan incorporate a buffer yard of 45 feet and a 6 foot berm” (as an example).
The council needs to ensure that if they approve the rezone, that they stipulate the conditions necessary before they lose control of the process. Â I believe that point is at the rezone itself. Â By agreeing to vacate Duluth Ave, they have a responsibility to the homeowners and neighbors. Â It is up to them to protect them and to ensure that sufficient conditions are in place to mitigate such an extreme incompatibility. Â Once they rezone, I believe they lose control.
Another option, which may be best, would be to defer final action until they can be shown an alternative site plan, which they could condition the rezone on the Planning Commission adopting that specific alternative site plan that they see (and get a chance to even modify) before it goes to the Planning Commission.
UPDATE: The neighborhood next door is zoned RD-1 (Twin home) even though they are single family, since they are zoned RD-1 they get scored as if they were twin homes on the compatibility matrix. Â That means they score a 2 which is medium incompatibility. Â A 1, if they were scored as what they really are, single famly homes, is high and the description says that in general this high of incompatibility should be denied.
They have the bad luck of having been zoned twin home district. Â If they were zoned RS or RT-1 (residential traditional single family) they would have a 1 score and have more protections per the comprehensive plan.
This proposal probably should not happen at all, and if it is going to the mitigation needs to be extreme.
l3wis