Elkader rezoning ordinance prompted by shipping containers lacks votes
By Willis Patenaude | Times-Register
“I fear that this move is another in a long line of reactionary policy to deal with the imagined threat of shipping containers that has yet to manifest even though it has been ‘imminent’ for over three years.”
That is how Elkader council member Tony Hauber summarized Ordinance 2024-04, which would rezone property from C-1 to C-2 and incorporate the permitted uses from C-1 into C-2, with the exception of a boat sales and repair item.
Hauber is not alone in his general assessment regarding the logic behind the ordinance as it pertains to shipping containers, as even Mayor Josh Pope stated at the special meeting that this issue “goes back to storage containers.” Elkader City Administrator Jennifer Cowsert confirmed the overarching impetus behind the rezoning discussion stems from the council’s previous decision to prohibit shipping containers in C-2, the central business district, but at some point after that decision occurred, there was a realization that a small section of downtown was zoned for C-1.
“This started with the council prohibiting shipping containers in C-2, and as we looked at things, we wondered why there were two blocks that were C-1,” Cowsert said.
At issue are two blocks within C-1, which includes the Pit Stop, where shipping containers are currently allowed. Considered with the container ordinance and the fact two different zoning classifications covered downtown, it all seemed “inconsistent” to Cowsert.
This inconsistency, and despite the fact the shipping container ordinance was passed earlier this year, led the council to ask the planning and zoning commission (P&Z) to take a look at the problem and provide a recommendation. At a meeting Aug. 30, P&Z was tasked with “rezoning the section of C-1 zoning adjacent to C-2 to C-2. The zoning in the downtown business area would be more consistent. Also, shipping containers would be prohibited in all parts of downtown.”
P&Z settled on rezoning seven lots from 105 through 111 First St. and 104 First St., as well as 200 and 204 W. Bridge St., from C-1 to C-2, with the caveat that, if the current use of the property doesn’t fit the permitted use in the new zoning recommendations, it would be “grandfathered” in. According to P&Z’s recommendation, the lot could continue to be used in its current form, even if it was sold, but if the current use changed, then it should be used in a way that complies with the new zoning.
However, this gets into another area surrounding the stated intent of both districts, where Hauber sees a conflict of interests. Beyond that, there has been no justifiable rationale for even pursuing rezoning, in Hauber’s view.
“No one has addressed why the zones are being combined. If you look at the statement of intents for both zones, you see two distinct conflicting intents,” Hauber noted.
Explained by Hauber, C-2, or the “general office and retail district,” is intended to accommodate the central business district, where parking is severely limited, and the minimum required yard requirements are waived. C-1 is the “highway commercial district,” and is intended to accommodate uses which ordinarily serve the traveling public and commercial uses which generally require land area and access to a major traffic artery.
“How am I supposed to write zoning code that deals with a zone that is a shopping/walking district with a focus on capturing tourist foot traffic, and a thoroughfare driving district with a focus on capturing vehicular pass through traffic. They have wildly different intents,” Hauber said.
Cowsert also expressed reservations about some permitted uses that would suddenly be allowed in C-2, which currently aren’t under the rezoning ordinance, such as automotive, lumber yards and farming equipment, which she finds at odds with the stated intent.
“They are historic uses. Back in the day there was a lumber yard and several car dealerships, but I think now they would require more land than is available downtown. The stated intent of C-2 is intended to accommodate the central business district, so I don’t think some of those uses fit into the stated intent,” Cowsert said.
At a council meeting in late September, P&Z member Brian Hastings offered insight into the thought process behind P&Z’s decisions, and mostly respond to Hauber’s inquiry as to why both zones were being combined at all.
During the meeting, Hastings had difficulty recalling the exact conversations that took place, but offered that combining them was done for the “sake of simplicity.” As for the permitted uses, Hastings recalled the “primary driver” was based on the existing similarities between the zones and an unwillingness to constrain future uses by new owners. P&Z didn’t feel “it was that big of a stretch” to combine the uses between zones.
Council member Bob Garms suggested P&Z was “kind of cleaning up stuff that was done 20, 30 years ago. Because businesses have changed over the years, they’re just kind of bringing it to 2024.” However, when asked to clarify that statement for this article, Garms declined.
Additionally, Hastings did not respond to requests to expound on P&Zs decision, but Hauber did, stating the move to combine the zones “misses the purpose of zoning.”
“It’s not just arbitrary boundaries. It defines the city’s vision for development and maintenance. We should continue to develop a zone that captures traffic, and a zone that captures tourism and foot traffic, and they will require different permitted uses. Zone changes should coincide with actual city plans for development and not be arbitrarily changed for reasons that have yet to be strongly articulated,” Hauber said.
When the votes were tallied—with the exception of Deb Schmidt, who was not in attendance, and Hauber—the rest of council approved the ordinance, but without a super majority, it failed, meaning the “imminent” threat of shipping containers is still a possibility in C-1.
The failure prompted Garms to state, “I think members of council have to know what we’re dealing with.” Again, he declined requests to explain what that statement meant, and neither Garms, Daryl Bruxvoort or Randy Henning responded to requests explaining their vote on the issue.
Hauber remains adamant that, “until someone can address to me how we are supposed to have one zone that serves multiple conflicting intents, I will continue to vote ‘nay.’”
