HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 10 81 PC MinutesM
November 10, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 10, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 7, Main Lobby, Second Floor, Albemarle
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Richard Cogan; and
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of April 6 were deferred.
ZTA-81-1 Crutchfield Corporation - Request to amend Section 27.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance, Light Industry, LI, to permit retail sales in conjunction with warehousing
as a use by right.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any statement from the applicant at this time.
When there was not, she asked for public comment. 'There was no public comment, and
Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was now before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked how this amendment might affect the parking available at the Crutch-
field site. He remarked that when he had visited Crutchfield's, all the existing
spaces had been filled.
Mr. Keeler responded that this amendment would not change the manner in which the
question of parking spaces was currently covered. He said that the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation had found the existing entrance to be
adequate. He added that a re-evaluation of the parking would take place when part
of the building was converted to retail sales.
Mrs. Diehl asked how this re-evaluation would take place, although someone having an
industrial use would have to go through a permit procedure in order to establish
part of his building for retail sales.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed the business license would thereby have to be
amended, which would mean that the Zoning Administrator would determine any change
in the parking needs. Mr. Keeler added that no business license can be issued
without clearance from the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Davis remarked that there were a lot of uses permitted under Light Industrial
zoning. He said that this change would be a broad brush and that he preferred to
see such proposed use controlled by the special use permit process. He also mentioned
that decisions by the Zoning Administrator in the past had at times differed from his
own opinion. Mr. Davis said that he would be more comfortable making an exception
to a rule through use of the special use permit.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he tended to agree with Mr. Davis. He observed that the
impact from retail sales might in some cases be insignificant but in others be of
consequence. He mentioned the issues of parking, fire protection, lighting, security.
Mr. Davis added that treffic flow might change with more traffic being generated.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether language existed at present in the Ordinance, so that
someone could receive a special use permit in order to have retail sales in the
light industrial district.
Mr. Keeler replied that such lanquaae did not exist.
Mr. Davis asked whether the ordinance could be amended to allow such use under light
industrial. Mr. Keeler replied that it could. Mr. Kindrick voiced his agreement
with this approach, which would allow Commission review under the special use permit
process.
Mr. Skove asked whether many cases such as this one had arisen. Mr. Keeler replied
that offhand, he could not recall any others, but that another petition on the
agenda tonight, Flowers Bakery, was in a similar situation.
Mr. Davis stated that he would rather see a specific piece of land rezoned than
to amend the definitions of zoning districts.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne what uses were already allowed by special use permit in
the Light Industrial district. Mr. Payne responded that there were eight,
including laboratories, medical and pharmaceutical.
Mr. Cogan said that he would be inclined to add retail sales to this list.
Mrs. Diehl asked about including the language under a) and b) of 5.1.24.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that they should be combined, and Mrs. Diehl concurred.
She asked Mr. Payne for some wording.
Mr. Payne said that an additional use to the list could be made, being 27.2.2.9
subordinate retail sales operation by special use permit, with reference to 5.1.24,
as prepared by Staff. Mrs. Diehl determined that there was a concensus among the
Commissioners to proceed in this fashion.
Mr. Payne pointed out that Mr. Crutchfield had requested this use by right. He said
that it would be necessary for the Commission to recommend this use by special use
permit, if so desired, in the form of a motion.
Mr. Skove made a motion to recommend to the Board that subordinate retail sales
be allowed as a ninth use permitted by special use permit in the Liaht Industrial
district, with reference to section 5.1.24 as prepared by Staff. Mr. Davis seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
R
SO
ZMA-81-27 Flowers Baking Company of Lynchburg, Inc. - Request to rezone 2.4+ acres
(approximately 105,250 square feet) from C-1 Commercial to HC Highway Commercial
WITH PROFFER of limitation of use. Property is located on the northeast side of
Greenbrier Drive across from the access road to Stromberg Carlson. County Tax Map
61-W, Section 1, Parcel A6, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and then passed out photographs of the site. He
pointed out to the Commission that at this time there was only a rezoning request
before the Commission. However, Mr. Keeler continued, there were specifically three
areas of concern to Staff .regarding the submitted site plan: (1) the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation had recommended some changes to the plan
which had not been made and had expressed concern about the method chosen to handle
stormwater and the location of the entrance; (2) the Engineering Department had
indicated that the applicant's proposed finished slopes (one to one) were not
acceptable and that retaining walls would be required; Mr. Keeler indicated that one
retaining wall of 250 feet in length would cost $25,000 approximately. Mr. Keeler
suggested that perhaps the applicant might want to investigate acquiring some
additional land adjoining this site in order to work out something more economical.
(3) Mr. Keeler said that this area of concern could be addressed by the Commission;
he described the stormwater detention proposed by the applicant, which would be
located in the asphalt loading area of the site. Mr. Keeler mentioned that this
method had been approved by the Commission on another occasion, on Pantops, but not
to this degree.
In completing his presentation, Mr. Keeler again stated that Staff had no problem
with the rezoning petition but believed that the applicant should be put on notice
regarding the issues raised in the site plan. Mr. Keeler said that there was a lot
of building surface on this site, making it more difficult to meet various site plan
requirements.
Mr. Payne asked to state to the Commission that he represents a party currently
interested in property in the City where Flowers Baking Company was presently
located. Mr. Payne did not indicate that he would have a conflict of interest for
any reason; he stated that he did not intend to disqualify himself.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Bill Rice, representing the applicant, stated that he had met with Tom Trevillian
of the Engineering Department and Byron Coburn of the Highway Department. Mr. Rice
said that a new stormwater detention plan had been drawn up and submitted. He
added that the entrance directly across from the entrance to Stromberg Carlson was
no longer endorsed by the Highway Department. Mr. Rice said that the Highway
Department now suggested removing a curb section and making the driveway closer to
Route 29. He indicated that these changes were being taken care of now and would
be made prior to the November 17 meeting.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Rice if he had any concerns pertaining to this rezoning
application or any statement to make. He did not, and Mrs. Diehl asked whether there
was public comment. There was not, and she announced that the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove observed that he saw no real problems with the rezoning and noted that
the uses in the proffer were quite limited.
(04Z.
Mr. Gloeckner concurred with Mr. Skove; he added that he did not believe this
rezoning would change the character of the area or be of detriment to the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Diehl agreed, saying that the concerns pertained to the site plan and had
been well expressed.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to recommend approval of this rezoning request, subject to
the applicant's proffer:
"September 29, 1981
Zoning Department
County of Albemarle
LETTER OF PROFFER
This is a proposal. to open a wholesale distribution center of baked goods along
with a retail sales center for baked goods and a retail gas sales outlet. The
retail sales of baked goods and gas are permitted on C-1 which is the current
zoning however the wholesale distribution center for baked goods is not permitted
in C-1 but is permitted in Highway Commercial. Therefore, we are applying for H-C
which does allow wholesale distribution by right and we would want to proffer and
limit the use to the following:
One wholesale distribution center for baked goods
One retail outlet for baked goods
One retail gas sales outlet
We hope that this meets with your approval and attached find a plat, photographs
showing like building and copy of tax mao. We look forward to moving our entire
operation from the city into the county where we can receive better exposure of
our product and gain better access for our buying public.
(SIGNED)
Herb Dailey, President
Flowers Baking Company of Lynchburg, Inc.
P.S. The hours of operation for the distribution depot will basically be between
12 midnight and 5 am in the morning."
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
ZMA-81-28 William A. Lynch, Jr. - Request to rezone 3.1 acres from R-4 Residential to
C-1 Commercial WITH PROFFER, including a general development plan. Property is
located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 240.
County Tax Map 56, Parcel 32D, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler announced that the applicant requests deferral. Mr. Kindrick moved
to defer ZMA-81-28. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously
with no discussion.
f� .
SP-81-51 Harry M. Land and Myles J. Goger - Request to allow a commercial recreation
establishment (game room) on 1.01 acres zoned C-1 Commercial District, in accordance
with Section 22.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is located on the eastern
side of Rio Road (Route 631), approximately 1,200 feet north of the Southern Railroad
overpass. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 146A, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, adding a fourth condition to Staff recommended
conditions of approval: 4) Limit area of recreation establishment to that of former
washette.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Goger, one of the applicants, asked that the Commission allow the game room to
stay open until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. He added that he was
agreeable to restricting Sunday hours.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time.
Mrs. Booth identified herself as immediately adjacent to the applicant's site. She
said that this was her home and had been for forty-one years. She objected that there
was already a problem with noise which this proposed use would increase. Mrs. Booth
objected to the increased traffic also on Rio Road, which she stated was already very
dangerous. She pointed out that there was no light to accommodate traffic in and out
of the site.
Mr. Mac Moyer identified himself as living across Rio Road from the applicant's site.
Mr. Moyer objected to the proposed use, saying that he could live with the current
food store and service station, but that the proposed use would attract increased
traffic, litter and noise. Mr. Moyer added that it would be detrimental to the
neighborhood, which he stated was primarily a residential area. Mr. Moyer also
strenuously objected to the bad influence game rooms had on the health of youth.
Mr. Moyer added that he was also speaking for a neighbor who had not been able to
attend. Mr. Moyer also referred to a class action suit presently before the Supreme
Court, initiated by several of the states, to determine that game rooms are in fact
detrimental to the mental and physical health of the nation's youth.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment.
Mr. Traves Callahan identified himself as having the operation directly under the
applicant's site, which he said he wished to have the public record show was Callahan
Mining, not North American Exploration. Mr. Callahan said that he would have no
comment on the petition before the Commission.
Mr. Booth stated that he would like to add to his wife's earlier comments. Mr. Booth
stated that the right-of-way road between his home and the applicant's site was only
twelve or fifteen feet from his bedroom. Mr. Booth said that he was 81 years old and
under a doctor's care. He stated that he and his wife feared that alcohol and dope
would turn up on the premises and they worried about crime. Mr. Booth read a letter
into the record (included in the SP-81-51 file) which contained these voiced concerns.
He also objected to the appropriateness of having a "pool hall" next to a one hundred
year old Episcopal church and graveyard.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment.
ONE
Mr. Lee Jennings said that he noticed that the applicants did not intend to sell
liquor on or off site. However, he added, the convenience store on this property
was one wall away and that this store sold beer and wine. Mr. Jennings said that 1400
even if the intent was not to have alcoholic beverages in the recreation area, he
could certainly foresee problems with youth and predicted that the convenience store
could easily lose its liquor license at some point in the future. Mr. Jennings
said that he could see this site drawing children from the area, not only just from
Greenbrier. He objected that it would become a place where young people would
congregate. Mr. Jennings said that such a place would ruin a good neighborhood and
he strongly objected to the petition.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicants wished to address some of the issues raised.
Mr. Harry Land said that he would like to set the record straight. He stated that
his proposal was not a pool hall. He explained that his recreation room would contain
video games identical to those Sear's had just put in at the Mall. Mr. Land said
that Sear's was a family store as was his. Mr. Land stated that they had run the
convenience store for three years without ever a write-up from the A.B.C. board. He
said that the former owner had received numerous write-ups over violations.
Mr. Land said that a strong light that Mrs. Booth had objected to had been removed.
Also, Mr. Land stated that the road between the two properties also was used by
Associated Steel as its access. He added that Associated Steel had large trucks.
Mr. Land said that children would not drink on the lot, because such activity would
be a violation. He stated that the attendant in the recreation room would see that
no such activity took place - no sitting in cars drinking or in front of the game
room. Mr. Land said that he had a twelve year old and he saw no problem with the
new video games. He said that they were not comparable to the old pin ball machines
or pool; he added that a game room was preferable to having your child out somewhere
running around getting in trouble.
Mr. Land said that these objections were not from adjacent owners, except for the
Booths. He added that two other adjacent owners, Mrs. Johnstone and Mr. Herndon
had given their approval and he had their signatures. He pointed out that Exxon was
located on one side of the property and Associated Steel in the back and the Booths
were the only adjacent owners. Mr. Land said that he did not know where all of the
other people lived, although he guessed down in Greenbrier somewhere. Mr. Land voiced
no objection to .restricted hours on Sunday.
Mr. Goger remarked that their primary business establishment was the convenience store
and that they could not afford to have game room customers running off their regular
customers who come for groceries, beer, cigarettes. Mr. Goger stated that they would
not permit any activity that would provoke an A.B.C. violation. He stressed that the
attendant in the recreation room would ; prevent any such problem from arising and
that customers arriving on the site would go either to the convenience store or to the
recreation room and would not loiter in the parking lot.
Mrs. Diehl declared the public hearing closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked how many parking spaces were on the site.
Mr. Keeler said that the Zoning Administrator had requested a parking plan from the
applicant and had determined that it was satisfactory. He said that the available
parking included spaces in the rear.
C�6j<-
Pars. Diehl asked whether there was a written report from the Zoning Administrator
indicating his approval of the parking, since there was no such statement in the
Commissioners' packets.
Mr. Keeler replied that the Zoning Administrator had told him that the parking was
adequate.
Mrs. Diehl asked about what information Mr. Keeler might have on the bathroom/toilet
facilities in question. She asked whether there would be a permit procedure.
Mr. Keeler replied that the BOCA regulations were never clear to him when a change of
use took place on a site.
Mr. Land remarked that he had spoken to Mr. Evans of the Zoning Department and that
he had indicated to Mr. Evans his willingness to install bathrooms at their expense
rather than the owner's.
Mr. Davis observed that he had some problem with the location of the game room on
Rio Road. He indicated that an additional use was under consideration that was going
to be a nuisance to residents of long-standing. He said that with so much opposition
he would not be able to support this petition.
Mr_. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler specifically how many parking spaces were provided for
on this property.
Mr. Keeler replied 22 in the rear and 16 in front.
Mr. Kindrick asked how many video machines were contemplated for the game room.
Mr. Goger replied approximately fifteen.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicants if they intended to line the front of the property
with parking spaces. He observed that when he had visited this site parking was a
problem.
Mr. Land responded that sometimes there is congestion when students at noon came
from the tech. school. Mr. Goger said that if it were a problem, they would line the
parking spaces.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not have a problem with the type of games going in,
but that he was concerned that no alcohol or drugs be consumed in the game room. He
continued that it concerned him that it was a residential neighborhood with churches
and he questioned further commercial development adjacent to such an area. Mr. Bowerman
observed that it would probably attract children both on foot and on bicycles, as
well as generate more traffic. Mr. Bowerman said that although he did not believe
the recreation room in the Dart Shopping Center (Shoppers' World) had caused a
problem, he did not believe that he could support one on this site for three reasons:
(1) potential problem with alcohol, (2) the traffic on Rio Road and (3) the incompa-
tibility of the proposed use next to a residential area.
Mr. Gloeckner said that his concern would be drawing children from across Rio Road
in Greenbrier, pedestrian traffic. He added that the site was on the wrong side of
the road.
*4rr
Mr. Cogan stated that his primary concern was not to intensify the existing
commercial use in the area. He said that the recreation room would not be far
enough removed from residents and churches. He added that the game room at Sear's
that had been previously referred to did not disturb neighborhood residents.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commissioners had any further comments or questions or
whether they were ready to take action.
Mr. Bowerman moved for denial of SP-81-51; Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl observed that she had reservations
about the parking and thought that this proposed use would induce increased pedestrian
traffic.
SP-81-55 Nettie Marie Jones - Request to amend conditions of SP-81-1, in accordance
with Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, to increase the number of lots
permitted from sixteen (16) to thirty-three (33) lots with an average lot size of
4.73 acres, leaving a residue of 518.72 acres. Property, consisting of 674.67
acres zoned RA Rural Areas, is located south of Ivy at the intersection of Routes
637 and 786. County Tax Map 58, Parcels 95 and 96, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself and left the room.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Will Rieley, representing Miss Jones, made a slide presentation which gave
an aerial survey of the property.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time.
An unidentified speaker asked whether this property was all within Ivy village. He
was told that most of it was. He then expressed concern about what impact could be
expected from increased traffic on Route 637.
Mrs. Diehl responded that Highway Department comment indicated that the entrance
would not need to be improved and that the road was already non -tolerable. She
said that when all 17 lots were occupied, there would be an estimated 120 vehicle
trips per day.
Mrs. Diehl announced that if there was no further public comment, the matter was now
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove clarified that it had been difficult to map Ivy village because tax maps
that were used in determining distinct zones did not reflect natural boundaries of
vegetation.
Mr. Keeler concurred, saying that the southern boundary of Ivy had presented a problem.
He said that the Comprehensive Plan called for a greater area of village residential
for Ivy than had been reflected on the zoning map, due to the fact that wooded and clear
areas had determined boundaries in the Comprehensive Plan but these topographical
distinctions were not reflected on tax maps and had therefore prevented the tax
map from indicating a larger village residential area.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether he was saying that the property in the earlier
request as well as in this request was included within that village residential growth
(A-7
area but the remainder of the property not included in this request would come under
the stringent RA criteria in any possible future subdivision. Mr. Keeler concurred
with Mrs. Diehl's statement.
Mr. Rieley asked if he could interject with one remark. Mr. Rieley pointed out that
there was a part of the property not currently under consideration that did lie outside
the village residential growth area, which he believed was suitable for development to
a more intense degree than the current request. He explained that for the record he
wished to make this known now, although plans for developing it were not being
contemplated at the present. Mr. Rieley described the location of this property as
being well secluded from view, at the bottom of a swale behind the existing house.
Mr. Skove confirmed that any development of this segment would require a special use
permit as well.
Mr. Davis observed that it looked like a good plan with less density than permitted
by zoning; he moved for approval of this special use permit, subject to the two
conditions recommended by Staff:
1) Further division of the residue acreage shall require amendment of
this special use permit;
2) Subdivision development shall be limited to a total of 33 lots
exclusive of the residue. Such development shall be in general
accord with "Subdivision Plan -Spring Hall" dated November, 1980,
marked Received "Oct. 7, 1981, Janice Wills."
Mr. Skove said that he agreed it was a well done plan and he seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Gloeckner re-entered
the room, having abstained from discussion of this item or voting.
Under OLD BUSINESS, Mrs. Diehl proceeded to further consideration of the proposed
church amendments to the zoning Ordinance. She observed that the public hearing on
these amendments had been closed at the October 6, 1981, meeting.
Mr. Keeler gave a brief history of the sequence of events leading up to this point.
He explained that back in February the Commission had discussed that churches were
permitted by right in all residential zones and by special use permit in the RA
district. He added that while the Commission was debating whether to allow churches
by right in all districts or by special use permit or whether to add additional
controls through supplementary regulations, the Board went ahead to amend the zoning
Ordinance to permit churches only by special use permit in all districts.
Mr. Keeler explained that when he informed those Commissioners present on October 6
of the Board action, they did net withdraw the proposed amendments with supplementary
regulations, but neither did a motion to go forward with the amendments as proposed
pass. Mr. Keeler added that Staff had rewritten one supplementary regulation based
on counsel from County Attorney, George St. John, who believed that the regulation
concerning traffic generation was unenforceable.
Mrs. Diehl said that since the public hearing had already been closed, the matter was
before the Commission for further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl said that the new language on this traffic regulation was simply a guideline.
Mr. Keeler concurred. Mrs. Diehl asked about whether the buffer requirement and
lighting regulation, which would lessen the impact of a church on adjacent property,
ll41?>
were also to be considered guidelines and not enforceable„
14
Mr. Keeler responded that most of these regulations were already in the site plan
ordinance. He said that the requirement of additional setback in residential
districts was not.
Mr. Payne explained that the problem with the original wording was that it could
have allowed denial based on traffic generation, which would not have been enforceable.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler about the background on regulation "e" requiring Health
Department approval of location of septic fields or replacement of septic fields where
public sewer was not available.
Mr. Keeler explained that this regulation was intended to cover peak uses of a church
for other than once a week meetings. He said that this provision would cover
accessory or subordinate uses.
Mrs. Diehl asked again whether the only change in the regulations was that a church
could not be denied due to health, safety and welfare concerns related to traffic.
Mr. Payne responded that in his mind the regulation still said the same thing, but
that it had to be established that a danger existed as relating to the traffic.
Mr. Bowerman observed that it put the burden of proof on the Commission.
Mr. Payne agreed and said that such was the way he had read the original regulation
and that was the only lawful interpretation of either the original regulation or
the revised one.
Mr. Gloeckner observed that the Board had sort of taken the wind out of the Commission's
sail by acting on the matter while the Commission was still debating how best to
address the issue. He remarked that most of these supplementary regulations were
what an applicant would go through in the special use permit process and that it would
be helpful to put churches on notice of what sorts of conditions to expect when
applying.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the Commission's options were at this point.
Mr. Keeler said that his understanding was that the Commission wished to make churches
by right and control them by supplementary regulations. He added that if the Commission
found the supplementary regulations to be inadequate, it could withdraw all of the
amendments. Mr. Keeler also said that the supplementary regulations could be retained
even while allowing churches by special use permit.
Mr. Payne cautioned that if the Commission did that, there should be additional wording
in the supplementary regulations indicating that other concerns could be addressed,
that the regulations given were not the only concerns. He added that he did not
think these supplementary regulations should be included if churches were allowed by
special use permit. Mr. Payne said that when a half a page of conditions exists, it
is difficult to deny a request, if the applicant says that out of all the conditions he
met every one except for one. Mr. Keeler added that it would make review too restrictive
to have supplementary regulations under the special use permit process. He added
that they had been developed to control churches if allowed by right.
Mr. Cogan remarked that some of the Commissioners had objected to putting churches
1*40e under the restraints of a special use permit. He added that the supplementary
regulations were designed to treat all applicants equally with no ambiguity. He
said that even though the Board had already acted to make churches by special use
permit, he was still very much in favor of allowing them by right with the supplementary
regulations, which he said would protect the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commission if it were ready to take action.
Mr. Davis moved to recommend adopticn of the proposed amendments as given in the
Staff Report. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether this recommendation automatically suggested elimination
of the special use permit amendment. It was ascertained that this action was in
lieu of recommending churches by special use permit and as such was clear without
separate action.
Mrs. Diehl voiced her concern over the new language; she said that she believed a
lot of control over the impact traffic might make on the area had been lost.
Mrs. Diehl also expressed reluctance over the futility of taking action after the
Board's decision. She said that for this reason she would not support the motion.
Mr. Bowerman said the exercise in futility aside, he had been in favor of allowing
churches by right with supplementary regulations initially. However, he said that
in thinking over the size and scope of certain churches, he was now thinking that
they could be better controlled by the special use permit requirement in all zones.
He said, therefore, he would not support this motion. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that
the supplementary regulations would not lawfully allow denial of a church if the
Commission deemed it incompatible to an area based on topography or road conditions.
Mr. Skove said that he liked the special use permit approach.
Mr. Davis said that he favored use by right with non-discriminatory regulations
which allowed the Commission remedial action if the health, safety and welfare of
the community was threatened. Mr. Davis said that regulating churchs by the special
use permit process was a departure from the past and he believed the supplementary
regulations approach with use by right was a better solution.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he tended to agree with Mr. Davis. He said that the history
of churches was a by -right feeling and that with supplementary regulations there was
enough control without being arbitrary or discriminatory.
Mrs. Diehl asked about Mr. Gloeckner's reference to the history of churches. It was
determined that they had always been permitted by right in residential districts and
the agricultural district, in the old ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick observed that he was very much in favor of allowing them by right,
especially if there were sufficient regulations to protect adjoining property owners.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion. When there was not, a vote was
taken. Messers. Kindrick, Cogan, Davis and Gloeckner voted aye and Mrs. Diehl and
Messrs. Bowerman and Skove voted against the motion. The motion thereby passed, 4 - 3.
(.0,5c)
y (l
1
II
JI
i, !)
In J
I '1
U
r 1 '
V
0
�U
In 11 O ,J ,] ;
w
:III U e
b I «f
1 (
ti , 1 V.
1 J 1 tl N V
} O an t H UI
•r U1
N ,a .
'�
N ) J tU
rt7 IJ N
(j
0
'
r l (uf)` 1 a,
U •y 01 (D
JJ
N 1 11 S,
N r1 r+
v a, N S r7
"I NI
41
[ •1 'I.I n1
'() +, •I?. .i1 v
b`W a, L1r
In 'I G
.� o W •r1 G
rti ,] •L7 U O
tl .C: u ] v
}I l� O
11 In In!) �1
1+ Inr-1 JS W O
` f
N W I'7 OI v 1]
:7
o u: In
W .
A
G Ci r W
:)
41 W
1) O ii
v 0
In
o
W In u, In In
rtl > O N 1,
+, N JJ ,-1 O In
.I:
(D In
ri N 1.1 G O N c
O tP fI U1
W
In U1 a a) .N ,�
7 tl v U
al •O C: u
W .I CL r ro H
,r
i3 I, r U
}I rV .1 w
a, r; W
7 H tJ IH
U O
,) In 'o a Itl O
O S, r+ N
W 0, G 41
O r? H 11 3N
V, :7
«7
S, .I
.i \ W r
r-I '0 u) tr
W .rl ro U �
.� H
W •-1 > Inn
G
.1
u
w W U J U
a
A r }, m
T v r 7 G
H 4, N
o
_l m r-1 N .1
'U
N
m W W
> �rf c o
E '-1 O rIn 11
a r: b+ ro u
(9-1
rC^ N r
a7
u .., i; t: [)I W
G,
U1
u W>
- }I 7 U c 'U
In r4 W
[.
Cl .v
N S; r: S, C,
W O O JU
s�
m A- N r
L4 :1 'U Id
4 N
W S, ff a
1, >,o 4.4 304
W r
O
N
}, 4 U V-, ro
iV W ro
I tT W
, T o)WHrl
G
In U o
ri o W
W A
iT tl 13 1, In N
f-I \
S' O E
E C
O r 'U N FI rI
c
m G> O
o o A 17
z
G
0
N S+ 'U U
1 E ro
W u u o u
v m P, SI UOM
8 a,
E+
�� .0 O G u
(' O C :11, O
Ea U rl N w I
G W W o U 7 m
r S, Itl V, U, N x
.. G
C.I W
la � 4
U
r+y
W
a c
Wy U
14 y :7 0
vl U M
a
N N
✓ W J,
N U
T
A
G
O
.H
4 T V If a., �' I N .I H
N .G
ri U e] c F• c) W w
n r-1 r W ✓-, a, +J
'c W
v N
m a� W
m �]
N >F 1 ro
.* •�1 W I m
(D
,-1
m
0
W J
II
N
O a N N J@ in
'� Y ,- N .N .,1 b
}, a) ,s:
N W
fE W .•It A: W m 1
SN tC It AVM N
•H
N
v ..
1�
G
l: _ �, 4/ lr Ti U, U V
Q, U
J
N r }, �i
N N r
;.
v 1 11 I '"I ,N ,V
W I I 'a: a) W A
'1 N
In
F G o H ,-;
r .^"1, O •. U^ S: i, a ^• U
un W III
�i G •G
W HI 2 i• U 9r W N
'a1 m FN N W y1 m AI
U^
N
>
O (n
}I N
rll
CL
N , U N W N
r� N S1 N H S, '
W W w ri .� :>, 1
w N N
rU In W
H .H T
I rP I It JI1 1 W W
4 Ir. I I I 1^ 1 N -01
rN B N N N W U 1 C.
W
W
J> W JJ a` O J
In
O i� +�
t
Ip 'N U A, W N .4, .H .dl
sx N N rtl D WI N 1
o >,
O
N
N v N C 41 N O r
ti -.i
+, >
I
SI:
N W Ai JV N 1 Vll •M W
U
}, SI
W
•-1
11
a SI Q c .a w t'3 W
W E o o A
�i m
a,
I I Itl o m ..N z ,V X
,C -W I v It 11 r. :N
f�
v
In I
+• W
R.
In ) 1 r,O
+ Ill 1, a, " cn InW U
:`. N U
m, ,-I N
"
m m v V ,V 1) I
•N tiF .T I v of 1 'Q1 JN
rui N
G
., .1 N - 1
S: }I u r ", In r N O r
1. W
O A _c
N .ir 1 N N A. 'C N m
H U
H
D O W ;., c lI C
A U
N (i
,G D V, Al m 4)IRI
1 1 M Al A
In
•i },
N
=, F': F..C: () ..� .1
W m O N
In L W N
& j: 1 I m 'v -V I p
AI 41 v m 9r N
M o
w
W
tT
., W .� U x U u .0
N F. ') W W rU N In
•, !-. O
In'O O ;:
(L 'm -IY v 1 W 11 rll 1
1 v "' 1w .N U v .4,m
u1
1
G
u O J •C r-
In , G
. o
W I <r
.y a
+] a
N W v �41 1) AI rFl AI 41
_•!. N "C N 1, v 1 o I
W v,H N N ^U IliIq
r4' .H
U
rt, U J C u] f:
W
1 rN N m I N NAM .p
v v v N N N A, .44
'U o
U .� -rl c C: H 14 N
[: ,J Itl , o o)
'U 1, rl N
V v c I
'o IN A, I .1: I ,D fu v
v, I I
O
C,
.H
�O
.-i
N U "1 ;J W
.. .-1 C �I N �3 •-I N
U .ti.. 1 � T
•��
U 11 ', O
r] o ti O
.-1 r+.1 „
3, m *,
N m 1)
'H AI �I. I AI C 1) 1 .H
rl
U]
r--I
O
u c .� .0 (i
Q
7 .7 .r', .. �� :3 G9 o
s o W r: m
CU U
as W •m v 1 1 I N I
^+ Ip in �41 N 1 N N N
1 ti
0: r
H
O
W
N O In U In U '-1, S UrI
I w s10
1 O O
I w
W U (>, 'U
17 v NA1 3 'U '[' 01 ,V
m N v� V .*
rtJ
3
N
N
fl, rJ -, ) -i W W
m m' m A },
1
.r1 G W S, :tl
m �.+ ❑I
V •I A, 9% N 1, I U N
N I 1, �II 11 N rN Y I
rV 1,
N
W •- 1� C: 11 W J O+ a+
S, .,
-1 E
"I N t t . J) U - v: ,W
N, •G m ffl V 'I., l-AI W
tP
O
'T.
✓ . + rti .: S! , 41
SyI O
'r1 N rtt
JJ -r P•
I W J, AI W I N
tl, I 1 (ll 41 ti P m 9
},
•d'H
N 'J�
M
F
.> O tJ S, 1 . '
.i ,L N O ai �n .-1 ^J N
-' a r, ,�
,I 7 r-I r: c?
VV N 1 {] I V W 14
v N .N W N 11 1 m
U
F: A
^1 W
✓�
U 41 1-. r.. 1)
U N •..;i T7 1^, .I_ ^ 'U C
•O .: •Cj
I W ^' C, .4 -H 'V i+
4'I N 1 41 1 7L
G
1 >,
')
N N :n 'rU rJ N W
O lI .•-1 .,
m N '¢I -41 1
IV
G
i
N
N W
1 N
U
,H U
�.:
W (11
C� ':
W 'A. Itl -•i
.I 0
't7 F] rC l- d' U) • N S:
.- U `� N J IU 1• W
N (1 c'i .-I
4 N
W JJ S. C:
•H A' v I� U •14 TI U N
N 1 I Ir N yl N i• II
Y 'Il] N 1, 11 I mJ N
'U
N
Iu
tL' 7
In
ro r-1
I
IV 1]
O
H,i
N .t In U N
U 1 [: ',1 [ r
V , G
a. la,i u
.I A .I
1 Y, N
m ,-1 -� c '�
W
rll v ,V -4' 11 V F 3: I L
Ti 91 N 1'M L .6:
J N 'a, o v, u 1 W D
i N
v
v N ,It I U .: .1! A 'v
(, .1
0.'i e
W
i i W
L I1 O
7.• :]
W C7
- rl} fn 'AJ ^.J :l �' , 'U
I UI N A: N �l 1. (? [
`C1 1: N r^ A
1, N
-1. 11 i J: 'll ], F I W L
Y% '1n '1. • t, I I ]`i i1 S,
o
Cd
n: N
. • r
F+
[�� W
S. '.: U
`. •• (•J
%1 nr
4J
\ v •- 7 m O U 1 ,0 q
a.1 v r. 1 0
O ,' :J ). u n u t„ •,
O 'r1
m"%i
is ] �S'
I I c iU ]. a' ,11 D
N v N -11-
rY 1
v a1/]
q
J
, ALl I , i, :7 .•^
.a]
: 1'A
1II !:
1 17 A4
a- •n
ID
i
1 J 1r t:
I) c rl 1: 1.' N 4;p] I 1
II N tt 1 4. AI ! Ai N U
U rU
41
11 AJ:
r1
U 1 L V V, c'111:
J: J
_ 7 ),r7 O
tq N U
A, A J A a, 1: - •L .u; .0
" IY,
I7 O -,.1 O•1 UI
, r,,
-r1
•<1
'ty
I,, J�
S,
.1 u
,c: f1r C}
N
,q
U
Cl
SI nl
_
1
7�I
11
i
m 1. n,
(051
M
C
Under NEW BUSINESS, Mrs. Diehl announced that a request for amendment of a site plan
by Reliance Oil Corporation would be heard.
Mr. Keeler said that in 1977 the Planning Commission approved a site plan that
showed two phases. He said that the original approval was for phase one only, which
did not include a 120 square feet structure housing a computer and storage of files.
Mr. Keeler said that this addition did not occasion any additional parking or any
other change in the site plan. He said that it could have been approved administratively
but that provision was not in the ordinance at the time of the site plan approval.
Mr. Keeler added that the addition was being used but that no certificate of
occupancy had been issued.
Mrs. Diehl asked how this matter had come to the attention of Staff, whether it was
at the time Reliance Oil applied for a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Keeler replied that he was not certain and that he was presenting the request on
the part of someone else.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether a representative of Reliance Oil was present. It was
determined that no representative was in attendance.
11r. Keeler apologized for not having more information on hand.
It was determined that Ms. Caperton would be the appropriate Staff person to answer
the questions concerning the sequence of events, if not the Zoning Administrator, who
could inform the Commission if a certificate of occupancy had already been issued.
There was a concurrence among the Commissioners to place this item on Ms. Caperton's
meeting of November 17. Mr. Bowerman asked that the Zoning Administrator prepare
something in writing for that meeting.
Mrs. Diehl announced that the next item on the agenda under NEW BUSINESS was a
request for a Resolution of Intent to amend Zoning Ordinance with regard to height
of parapet walls.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and explained that four (4) feet was consistent
with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. He passed out copies of Mr. Jesse R.
Hurt, Deputy Director of Inspections' memo, which brought this discrepancy to Staff
attention.
Mr. Keeler said that the BOCA code requirement, according to what he understood from
Mr. Hurt, was thirty (30) inches. He further explained that the use of four and three
feet had originally appeared in the KDA draft and was an error in inconsistency
between different sections.
Mr. Bowerman moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance
with the language prepared by Staff and contained in Mr. Ronald S. Keeler's memo to
Mr. Jesse R. Hurt, dated November 2, 1981. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously with no further discussion.
(05Z
Mrs. Diehl announced that the next item on the agenda under NEW BUSINESS was a
request for a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to amend the
interstate interchange text.
Mr. Keeler explained that when amendments were earlier recommended to the Board
by the Commission., the Board had removed references to highway commercial uses at
certain rural interchanges but left some language in the amendment in another section
inadvertently. Mr. Keeler said that Staff was not empowered to edit the adopted
amendments and that the process had to be repeated from the adopting of a Resolution
of Intent through public hearing and formal adoption in order to correct this error.
Mr. Payne said that this was an example of the Board taking a Staff -prepared
amendment, making a policy decision, changing the text to reflect that policy
decision but not having Staff make a thorough review of the textual change and
thereby adopting a text that did not fully reflect the policy intended.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to bring the text. in line with the policy determined by the Board. Mr. Kindrick
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Davis asked to make a few remarks about a mobile home that had been administratively
approved and later advertised for sale, then advertised for rent. Mr. Davis asked
whether a mobile home could only be approved if it were a permanent house, the
primary residence.
Mrs. Diehl observed that sometimes special use permits have been conditioned to
be occupied by the applicant, in the case of mobile homes.
Mr. Payne said that this was so in a small minority of cases, one example being
one in Northfields.
Mr. Davis said that he questioned establishing mobile homes for rental; he said that
the way he read the Zoning Ordinance, this practice was not permitted.
Mr. Keeler said that the provisions in the old zoning ordinance had attempted to
prohibit this practice but had been unenforceable and on recommendation from the
County Attorney's office these provisions were not included in the new ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether all of the Commissioners could receive complete sets of
the new location maps being used as attachments to the Staff Reports. He observed
that they were a tremendous improvement over the old tax maps.
Mr. Bowerman said that another item under NEW BUSINESS he would like to bring up
was the matter of Rio Road. He said that two weeks ago a petition had come up on
a subdivision out there, and he was interested in seeing whether any other Commissioners
would be interested in having a study done on that segment of Rio between the Park
Street Bridge and Route 29. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the traffic problem on Rio
Road was not going to go away and there was a lot of undeveloped land along Rio.
Personally, he wondered why guard rails had not been installed.
Mr. Skove said that he wondered what the CATS study had come up with. He said that
he would like to see something on traffic patterns along Rio.
CoS�.
Mr. Bowerman said that he did not know what the priorities were on roads in the County,
but he for one would like to be on firm ground when a subdivision is denied based on
road conditions, and Rio Road was a concern to him.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what had become of the McIntire Road extended proposal in the CATS
study.
Mr. Bowerman said that to him there were certain economical improvements that could
be made to parts of Rio. He said that the Commission should really have a factual
report on which to base zoning or subdivision decisions as relating to roads.
Mr. Skove said that he would also like to know what improvements might be scheduled
when funds became available.
Mrs. Diehl said that maybe an in-house review was in order and then determine how to
proceed specifically. She asked Mr. Keeler if he could take care of this collecting
of information. He replied that he would certainly attempt to do so.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the CATS presentation was scheduled for November 18 and
that all of the Commissioners were invited.
Mr. Keeler said that he could provide the Commission with a status report by Thursday,
on McIntire Extended, Rio Road improvements and the CATS Study,
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any pending applications on Rio Road that might
come before the Commission in the next six to eight weeks. It did not appear that
there were.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Keeler for obtaining this information for the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Bowerman whether this took care of his concern. He responded
that he had just wanted to get the issue on the table to see whether other Commissioners
shared his concern and wanted to examine just how much of a problem existed.
Mrs. Diehl observed that the Commission had been given traffic figures at some point,
Mr. Bowerman asked how old those figures might be. Mr. Keeler said that they were
from last year and that the Highway Department took traffic figures every two years.
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commission of the work session scheduled for Thursday,
November 12, 1981.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.
b 54