HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 02 88 PC MinutesAugust 2, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 2, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim
Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy
Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Diehl.'
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of July 19, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA - Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on
State Routes 601, 671, and 668 near Free Union. It is comprised of Tax
Map 16, Parcels 15C, 26, 30, 36, 37, 52B and 54; and Tax Map 17, Parcels
8, 8B, 8C, 17C and contains 1,119.116 acres. Must be referred to the
Advisory Committee.
Mr. Stark moved that the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Michel seconded
the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-88-10 J.W. Sieg - J.W. Sieg petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone
3.44 acres from LI, Light Industrial to C-1, Commercial. Property, described
as Tax Map 59, parcels 23C, 23D, and 23F is located on the north side of
Route 250 West and is developed with the J.W. Sieg Distributing Company.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request
based on the following:
(1) Existing zoning provides reasonable usage,of the land. In terms
of access, utilities, and topography, the site is suited to
industrial usage. The Comprehensive Plan and the Hunter's Hall
decision indicate that industrial is a more appropriate designation
than commercial in the rural areas.
(2) Commercial zoning in this area is inconsistent with the recommenda-
tions of the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistent with the state-
ments of intent of 21.0 Commercial Districts generally and 22.0
Commercial C-1 District of the Zoning Ordinance. No speculative
rezonings or rezonings to allow establishment of wholly new
uses have been approved in the rural areas. Vacant commercial
zoning is more than adequate to accommodate future needs.
(3) Approval of this petition would make other industrial properties
in the area susceptible to commercial rezoning and establish
argument to increase intensity of zoning for existing commercial
properties. Approval would also rekindle past debate about
"convenient commercial shopping" in other areas such as Crozet.
r
August 2, 1988
Page 2
The staff report concluded:
"...Staff.recommends denial of ZMA-88--10 J.W. Sieg. While the
applicant's proffers have improved the posture of this petition and
do reflect matters of public interest, staff opinion is that these
policy issues cannot be overcome by zoning proffers. Should the Com-
mission and Board determine that the applicant's presentation and zoning
proffers overcome issues outlined in this report and look favorably
on this petition, staff would recommend that consideration be given
to adding to the urban area of.the Comprehensive Plan all properties
bounded by Old Ballard Road, U.S. Route 250 West and the railroad."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Keeler explained why these
properties are zoned as they are. He explained that when the Board of
Supervisors reviewed the zoning map in 1980 they had not wanted to
discuss individual properties because (1) there were 17,000 + properties
in the County at that time; and (2) they did not want to be in a position
of "inconsistent decision making.." He further.stated that the Board had
directed staff, for areas outside the designated growth areas, that
(a) had an approved site plan or.was developed; and (b) was zoned in
accordance with the development, then (c) the property was to be recognized
with a comparable zoning. Mr. Keeler added that in granting sewer
service to these properties,'it was the Board's intent that sewer be provided
to that portion of the property that drained away from the reservoir. He
stated he felt it was not the Board's intent to provide public sewer within
the reservoir watershed.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if his recommendation would change if this
property were within the urban area. -Mr. Keeler responded: "If this were
within the urban area then there would be a recommendation in the
Comprehensive Plan as.to the land use." He stated that the Comprehensive
Plan recommends Rural zoning for this area.
Mr. Keeler again explained staff's position: "It you think what the applicant
is proposing is appropriate on this property, include this in the urban
area and it's logical you will show it for a commercial designation."
Mr. Michel asked if staff had.given.any thought to not showing "that entire
crescent" as urban area, but only that portion that is clearly not in the
watershed but is served by sewer? Mr. Keeler indicated he did not want
to get into that issue because that would require that the Community
Development staff do. a complete analysis unrelated to this application,
i.e. they would have to make a recommendation as to whether to include
this whole area, or portions thereof, in the urban area.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Keeler if there was a chance that sewer would be
extended to this property. Mr. Keeler responded: "Given the Board's
current policy that they do not intend to make public sewer available
in the reservoir watershed, no Sir."
Mr. Keeler again stated that if the Commission were to agree with the
applicant's proposal, it would be logical to show the land as zoned
for what they are proposing. He stated that in staff's opinion, "that
would be the only reason for including this in the urban area."
at
August 2, 1988
The Chairman invited applicant comment..
Page 3
The following representatives of the applicant addressed the Commission:
Mr. Frank Kessler, Mr. Bob Fitz, Mr. Bill Daggett, and Ms. Denise Etheridge.
Mr. Kessler read a lengthy statement. He explained the reasoning behind
the request. He stated: "We saw this as an excellent opportunity to not
only maintain the beauty of Rt. 250, but as an active way to actually
beautify the road --by eliminating a relatively unsightly warehouse and
replacing it with a neighborhood service center that would be harmonious
with its environment. " He explained that a "boutique -type neighborhood
service center, comprised of small tenant bays" was envisioned.
He stated a neighborhood service center would serve several needs:
"(1) The possibility of a larger distribution facility, complete with
additional unattractive warehouse product and more semi -trailers, would
be eliminated; (2) A well -landscaped, attractively built neighborhood
service center would be more consistent with Rt. 250's designation
as a scenic highway; and (3) A neighborhood service center located on this
property would fulfill the service needs of the surrounding neighborhoods
of Farmington, Ednam, Flordon, Kearsarge and West Leigh." He felt a
deciding factor in the request was that "this property will not convert to
a rural designation if this request is denied (but) will remain a light
industrial use surrounded by existing commercial and industrial uses."
Mr. Kessler stated he had talked to surrounding neighbors and they are
in favor of a neighborhood service center on this property. He also
pointed out that the applicant has "heavily proffered the project in order
to ensure that development will be harmonious with the surrounding
neighborhoods."
Mr. Bob Fitz, land planner for the applicant, explained the land plan.
He explained that the applicant had several requirements in relation
to determining the best plan for the property: (1) A desire for C-1
zoning; (2) To provide a use more consistent with the existing
neighborhood and more compatible with adjacent development; and (3) To
maximize development potential while being sensitive to the scenic area
overlay district. Mr. Fitz pointed out that drainage on most of the property
flows from north to south away from the reservoir except for a small
corner which might flow to the reservoir. He stated that "any improve-
ments made would direct drainage away from the reservoir."
Mr. Bill Daggett, architect for the project, addressed the Commission.
He explained the building image and architectural style that is proposed.
Ms. Denise Etheridge addressed the Commission and discussed the specific
proffers of the applicant. Her comments included the following:
--The total gross square footage of the building has been restricted
to 32,000 square feet.
--The individual tenant bays are restricted to 9,000 square feet
maximum. In addition, Ms. Etheridge stated the applicant had authorized
that she amend the proffer and further restrict that the "bay on the
far left" be reduced to 6,000 square feet (from 8,200 square feet) and
"the next largest bay, located in the center of the strip" be reduced
to 4,000 square feet (from 5,000 square feet). She stated the extra
square footage resulting from this change would "be distributed into
smaller bays.
.1
August 2, 1988 Page 4
--The applicant has heavily restricted the type of tenants by
proffering out almost one-half of the by -right uses allowed, and
80% of the uses allowed by special permit.
---She emphasized this would not be a'typical"shopping center.
--In consideration of the highway's designation as a scenic
highway, the applicant has proffered that the building will not
exceed one story in height and he has also proffered to construct
"heavily landscaped berms along the road frontage" to further
restrict the view from Rt. 250. ..
--Regarding the issue of increased traffic, she explained
that a comparison of the existing J.W. Seig traffic with a retail
center such as the one proposed was made and it was determined
the center would generate only 6% more traffic. She stressed
that the J.W. Seig distributorship generates only about 50% as
much traffic as the usual LI use, so the traffic comparison is
very meaningful, because it indicates that the traffic on Rt.
250 will actually only increase 3%. She also stressed that
traffic on Rt. 250 might possibly be reduced since residents
would be able to shop at the proposed center and not have to make
as many trips into town.
--Regarding the precedent issue, she stated this situation is
"so unique that it cannot be relied upon by subsequent rezoning
applications in support of commercial rezoning in a rural area."
She listed the characteristics of this case as follows: (1) This
property is already zoned LI; (2) The property already has an existing
LI use on it --it's developed; (3) The property is surrounded by other
existing industrial and commercial uses; and (4) The subject property
and the other adjoining commercial LI uses. are surrounded by established
neighborhoods.
--She stated this case was substantially different than those
referred to in the staff report because an existing business is operating
on the land and a denial of the request would mean that the property would
continue to operate as a LI use --it will not revert to a rural designation.
--Ms. Etheridge compared the differences in this request with former
requests for the Western Albemarle Shopping Center and Hunter's Hall.
--Ms. Etheridge questioned what public benefit would be gained by
maintaining LI zoning in this case. She stressed that adjoining property
owners are opposed to an industr.ial.use for the property and were
in favor of a neighborhood -type shopping center. She felt this was
reason enough to "substitute one non -conforming use for another."
--She also pointedout that this proposal would not result in "undesired
population growth" because it is surrounded by well -established
neighborhoods.
--She stated that though this property is technically inthe rural area,
it is surrounded by an office building, an auto dealership, a publishing
house and a petroleum bulk storage and distributorship.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The following persons, either residents of neighboring subdivisions, or
neighboring property oimers, addressed the Commission and expressed their
support for the proposal: Mr. Bruce Kirtley; Mr. Tom Williams; Mr. Jason
Eckford; Mr. Andre Nesbin; Mr. Bill M-acllwaine; and his. Sanford Yarbrough.
August 2, 1988
Page 5
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman asked Mr. St. John to comment and to distinguish this request
from similar requests in terms of the watershed question.
Mr.. St. John stated he felt the applicant's argument was valid and .that
the staff had accurately stated the County's policy. He stated that it
was the Commission's decision as to whether the applicant's arguments
Justify a departure from the policy or possibly that the policy would
not be violated given the unique features of this piece of property.
He pointed out that an industrial use exists on the property and will remain
unless this use is approved. Regarding the issue of precedent Mr. St.
John stated: "Whatever precedent you set will be applicable only to another
situation exactly like this. Every decision you make sets a precedent, but
it sets a precedent as to other situations exactly like this. ... You are
not setting a precedent that will, open the gates, generally, to rezonings
to commercial properties in Comprehensive Plan designated rural areas."
Mr. Bowerman felt that it was clear that the reason the Board didn't
change the designated zoning was because of the fact that portions of the
property are in the watershed where there is a very defined policy"not
to extend commercial, and other types of rezonings, and water and sewer
to that area." He continued: "But they've already done that ..
on some of these properties with.a rationale that if it drained toward the
watershed, it was (preferable) that it be served by sewer."
Mr. Keeler disagreed. He stated he felt it was the Board's intent to
it provide sewer to that portion of the property that drained away from
the reservoir."
Mr. St. John added: "There were people who came in and said they could
develop that lot, in the crescent -shaped area between the tracks and the
highway ... and since most of the property was already developed and the
uses required water and sewer (and water and sewer lines were going right
along the highway there anyway) thea-they would allow them to connect to
it provided the land 'back here' was not developed in such a fashion
as to require a pumping -of sewage over and out of the watershed."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that was what the Northridge development had done,
i.e. they sank their sewer line down far enough so that they could connect
to --a manhole without needing a pump.
Mr. St. John added that "this was not done for any practical reason related
to these properties, but was done because of the theoretical precedent they
would set by allowing even a sliver of land to be served by sewer if it is
in the watershed."
Mr. St. John felt it was a practical judgment on the part of the Commission.
Addressing another issue, Mr. St. John pointed out that the drawings presented
by the applicant had not been proffered as an accurate representation of the
site plan. He felt that when attractive drawings such as these were used as
an inducement for a rezoning, it should be clarified as to how binding the
applicant intends for the drawings to be.
August 2, 1988
Page 6
Mx. Kessler responded that it was the Applicant1s intent that the drawings
be proffered. He stated: "We want toMund by this. That's the site
plan you'll get."
Mr. Bowerman noted that the record would show this clearly and the applicant
would need to add this proffer in writing to his existing proffer before
the Board hearing.
Mr. Michel expressed surprise that Mr. St. John indicated approval of
the application would not set a precedent while the staff report stated
the opposite.
Mr. St. John stated that though he did not like to disagree with staff, he
did not feel that "one rezoning mandates automatically a second or third
rezoning." He felt the Commission must use its judgment on each one and
that was the purpose of the Commission. He stated: "If you find that
there is compelling reason for this rezoning and if the facts for a second
request in a rezoning,, in your mind, are not compelling, then that in
itself is a distinction. ... If you find there are compelling reasons in
both, then why would you not grant the second?" He again stated this was
a judgment call on the part of the Commission and he did not feel "this
decision should turn on legal technicalities." He felt this was a practical
judgment call on the Commission's part.
Mr. Keeler stated he did not disagree that this was a "practical judgment
call." However, he stated: "If you are going to approve this zoning, you
should add that area to the urban area." Mr. Keeler made reference to
the "swiss cheese" commercial zoning in the Crozet area.
Mr. St. John pointed out that this was not like vacant land, i.e. something
already exists on the property, and that use is viewed as a "pig in a
parlor" by surrounding neighbors and the eliminationof this use will be
an improvement.
Mr. Keeler and Mr. St. John disputed the points of the issue.
Mr. Keeler stated: "I would prefer for the Commission and the Board to stay
with general policy and if you want to put a zoning on the map that the Plan
says should only be in growth areas, then simply add this to the growth area."
-Mr. Bowerman stated he would liketo poll the Commissioners to determine if
they were inclined to approve or deny the request. He suggested that if
the Commission was inclined to deny the request, it might be preferable
to defer the matter until the land use question could be addressed.
-Mr. Keeler stated he did not think this was such a unique situation. He
pointed out that this application might have five unique characteristics,
and the next one might have only four. He cautioned against the
possibility of "splitting hairs."
Mr. Michel asked if staff's concerns would be met if this property were
added to the urban area. Mr. Keeler replied: "It would be consistent
with the policy and it would be consistent with the rezoning actions that
the Planning Commission and the Board have taken in the past eight years."
4
August 2, 1988 Page 7
Mr. Michel asked if it would be possible to take that step tonight, i.e.
to add this to the urban area. Mr. Bowerman felt a presentation should first
be made by the Community Development staff as to existing policies and
the effects such a change would have in this area.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that if this was the Commission's intent, he assumed
it would be desirable to address other properties in the area in addition
to Sieg.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt staff's position was accurate, but that the
applicant had raised some very good points, though he was uncertain as to
whether or not he agreed with those points.
Mr. Keeler stressed that it was not his intent that his comments diminish
the comments made by the applicant or Mr. St. John. However, he pointed
out that he was very familiar -with the zoning map and he felt there
were places "where you could have problems if you go forward with this."
Mr. Stark referredY?he fact that only the northwest corner of the property
lies in the watershed. He asked if it might be possible to move the
footprint of the building somewhat to get it out of the watershed.
Mr. Keeler responded that there were two issues: (1) the watershed
issue: and (2) putting commercial property in an area outside the designated
growth area. He felt that if the building were shifted it would run into
setback problems and more grading might be required which would introduce
more runoff into the watershed. He questioned whether it would be possible
to build the size building proposed if only that portion that is not in
the watershed was rezoned.
Mr. Kessler stated he believed that the only part of the property that
runs into the watershed is that portion of the land that was excavated
when the present building was built. He explained that his land planner
has said that when the present building is torn down- "we will elevate
so that all that property would run from the rear to the front away from
the watershed." He stated the applicant would be glad to add this to
the proffer.
Regarding this issue, i.e.-diverting water that naturally runs to the
reservoir watershed, Mr. Keeler stated that staff and the Watershed
Management Official have been opposed to this in the past. However,
he stated that what Mr. Kessler was proposing was restoring the property
to its original state before excavation and that could probably be viewed
as a different matter.
Mr. Michel stated: "I would be willing -to look at this in terms of
including all or a portion of that area in the urban area because I
think we are faced with existing zoning. Particularly, I would be
interested in perhaps including the eastern side of that crescent,
perhaps alone, because I know there isn't too much watershed intrusion
there and I place great weight on this property having sewer to
it."
U
August 2, 1988 Page 8
Mr. Keeler expressed some confusion as to the Commission's intent.
He stated: "You want us to look at the whole crescent. I would assume
that Community Development would recommend to you fairly consistently
with the established policy --clearly established policy --through
litigation and two or three comprehensive changes to the zoning map
that the Board does not intend to introduce urban development in the
reservoir watershed. So I assume Community Development would be guided
by that."
Mr. Keeler.stated that urban zoningdoes exist in the reservoir watershed
all along Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads to recognize existing zonings,
and there are cases where there are small pieces of property zoned rural
areas that are surrounded by urban zonings.
Mr. Keeler stated he assumed Community Development staff would seek
information from the County Engineer department to determine where the
ridgeline lies, i.e. where the reservoir watershed exists in this area.
He pointed out that introducing urban area into the reservoir watershed
was an entirely different matter than what staff is suggesting here.
Mr. St. John asked'Mr. Keeler if it had been explained to the Commission
why staft reels that it this rezoning is approved the entire. property
should be changed to the urban area.
Mr. Bowerman responded that the staff report had made this very clear.
Mr. St. John stated that "what you are doing is jumping from one use that
is already contra to the Plan to another use that is no more contra."
Mr. Bowerman responded: "But the Board was very distinct when they looked
at the Comprehensive Plan and recognizing existing uses and having them
not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. I think there's a clear
distinction between recognizing that it exists and then changing that
designation through a rezoning." He confirmed that he felt there was
a distinction in changing from one non -conforming use to another.
Mr. St. John stated: "The only prejudicial distinction --prejudicial
to this application --is the fact that they felt and they stated that
whereas industrial uses didn't draw residential growth to surround it,
commercial uses, if you let these go out in the rural area, would draw
residential growth where it's not ti+anted. But that doesn't apply here
because it is already filled in."
Mr. Bowerman stated he viewed this the same as a non -conforming use which
might burn, i.e. you could rebuild the structure as it was and have the
same use by right but you can't change that use and you can't build it
larger. He stated: "This is the way I perceive the existing zonings that
we have in place in areas that aren't designated that way or are in-
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. St. John felt there was a fallacy in this reasoning, i.e. "when it
burns to the ground, you can't rebuild the use that burns, you've got to
build something that conforms."
Mr. Bowerman agreed that it would have to be built according to the
existing Code, but he was referring to the zoning. 'Ir. Bowerman asked if
he was making a distinction between those two issues.
N
August 2, 1988 Page 9
Mr. Keeler stated: "We're making analogies here tonight to former uses. There
is one aspect to a non —conforming use. You can always make a nonconforming
use more conforming. What we're talking about is zoning categories and general
changes in use. ... I'm not sure that I can tell you that commercial in this
particular case is any more conforming or consistent than industrial." In
response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler stated he felt commercial
would be less conforming "on its face by what the Zoning Ordinance says."
He explained that the Ordinance says that commercial districts are restricted
to designated growth areas and neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning
Ordinance specifically require that industrial uses be confined to.designated
growth areas. He continued: "In fact the Plan says that industrial
uses need not be confined to designated growth areas. So the way this report
is constructed, of the two, in a rural location, Light Industrial, in staff's
opinion, is a more appropriate zone."
Mr. Keeler again stated staff's position: "If you intend to give more favorable
consideration to this rezoning, because I don't think you should ever give
any promissory kind of thing:that 'we're going to approve this rezoning
once we take some other step (that is not your step to take --it is the Board's
step to amend the Comprehensive Plan)', in our opinion you would be a lot
more consistent with past actions, with the Comprehensive Plan, and with
what the Zoning Ordinance says, if this area were included in the designated growth
area." He added: "If Mr. St. John can distinguish in a legal fashion that
there is no danger here (in terms of the Commission's actions for the past
eight years), and by approving this you will not make the 13 or 14 petitions
that you have denied appear arbitrary and capricious, you can go right
ahead tonight and approve it."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "The only thing that gives me pause is the action the
Board took on Northridge. If the Board had denied the Northridge development
on the basis that it couldn't connect to sewer, that has significantly
muddied the waters because they said, in effect, that you can look at these
parcels as being in the watershed and out of the watershed. I don't think
that that was looked at when this was considered for the urban area designation
or the rural designation back eight years ago.... In my own mind, I think
that the Board's action on Northridge might have changed the way we view
those parcels."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Board never saw the Northridge plan because
it was a simple site plan approval under the existing light industrial zoning.
Mr. Bowerman stated he thought the Board did have a role in it because it
had to do with the jurisdictional area and was definitely a Board decision.
He added: "I think by the very fact that they looked at those parcels,
a portion of which were in the watershed and a portion of which were out,
might make it so that we ought to take a look at them again in terms of
what designation we want to give them or to look at them specifically in
terms of what portion was in the watershed and what portion was out. Clearly,
I believe that they all have been excluded from the urban area because
portions of them are in the water shed."
Mr.Bowerman felt it was first necessary to determine if this area was suitable
for inclusion in the urban area before taking action on the applicant's
proposal.
August 2, 1988 Page 10
-Mr. Benish, speaking for the Community Development staff., felt that they
would be able to present the information desired by the Commission in
a timely fashion, possibly in 4 to 5 weeks. It was determined that
staff would include in their study only those areas which were identical
to this property, or very similar, i.e. those properties which have portions
that are both in and out of the watershed. Mr. Keeler clarified that
the review should be of that portion of the properties that do not drain
to the reservoir naturally (rural properties that are not in a reservoir
watershed that have public utilities available to .them).
Hr. St. John stated: "If you are not talking about something that has an
industrial use on it, or some other other non -complying use, then I can
answer your question right now that I think there is absolutely no precedent
being set. The only precedent that you could set is something that has
an industrial use on it and wants to go to commercial and it is already
in non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. If you are talking about
vacant land, I don't think there is any precedent being set."
Mr. Bowerman asked the Commissioners for their preference in dealing with
this application at this time.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was very ":Huddled" and was in favor of receiving
more information on the issues that have been brought up.
Commissioners Wilkerson and Jerkins indicated they were in agreement with
Mr. Rittenhouse.
It was determined that the rezoning could be rescheduled for the same
meeting as the Community Development staf.f's presentation.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the applicant should amend his proffers as
had been indicated at this meeting.
It was clarified that the area to be considered for extension of the
urban area was that area between Rt. 250 and the railroad and from
the edge of Ednam Forest to Old Ballard Road and would not include
the nursery.
?1r. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-88-10 for J.W. Sieg be deferred to
September 6. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Stark moved that staff be requested to review those properties lying
between Rt. 250 west and the railroad and bounded on the west by Old
Ballard Road for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan urban area.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The motion was amended to include asking staff to include any other
identical or similar areas as are appropriate.
The meeting recessed from 9:23 to 9:33.
/10
August 2, 1988
Page 11
ZTA-88-2 - Amend Permitted Uses of 29.0 Planned Development -Industrial Park
to allow for uses as they may be established in 27.0 Light Industrial and
28.0 Heavy Industrial zones.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
The public purpose to be served by the amendment was to provide consistency
of uses among various zoning districts.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that ZTA-88-2 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval as follows:
1. Repeal 29.2 PERMITTED USES
2. Replace with:
29.2 PERMITTED USES
29.2.1 SY-RIGHT CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted in any
area designated as Category I on the approved
Application Plan:
1. Uses permitted by right shall include
uses permitted by right in the LI Light
Industry district.
29.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT -- CATEGORY I
I. Uses permitted by special use permit
shall include uses permitted by special
use permit in the LI Light Industry
district; provided that no separate
application shall be required for any
use included on the approved Application
Plan.
29.2.3 BY RIGHT- CATEGORY II
The following uses shall be permitted in any
area designated as Category II on the
approved Application Plan:
1. Use`s permitted by right shall include
uses permitted by right in the LI Light
Industry district and the HI, Heavy
Industry district.
August 2, 1988
Page 12
29.2.4 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY II
I. Uses by special use permit shall include
uses permitted by special use permit in
the LI Light Industry district and the
HI Heavy Industry district; provided
that no separate application shall be
required for any use included on the
approved Application Plan.
3_ NOTE: A clerical error exists in Section 29.5. Change
first sentence as follows:
In addition to requirements contained herein, the
requirements of Sections 6.0 and 2I:9 26.0 shall
apply to all PD-IP districts.
yfr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-88-60 Dr. Martin Schulman - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(17)
of;the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
a veterinary clinic to be located on a 21.523 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Asap 56, Parcel 67 is located on the
north side of Rt. 240 (Three Notched Road) across from Acne Visible
Records. White Hall !Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested indefinite deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by. -Mr. Stark, that the applicant's^'request
for deferral be. approved. The motion passed unanimously and SP-88-60 was
deferred indefinitely.
Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Benish le& a brief discussion of the first two
chapters of the Comprehensive Plan revision.
The Commission suggested the following changes:
--Chapter 1, page 1, 3rd paragraph: 'Mr. Bowerman felt this paragraph,
related to unemployment, was theory which was not supportable and should.
therefore be removed.
--Chapter 1, page 2: The figure for 1985 Employed differs from the
figure on page 4. If this is accurate, there should be a footnote explaining
the difference.
--Chapter 1, page 8, table 6: Projected dwelling units' figure
substantially lower than the number of dwelling units actually being built
currently. Air. Bowerman questioned the methodology.
--Chapter 1, page 21; Mr. Bowerman asked: "If we had an average
population growth of lk% from 1980-1986, who's filling all the dwelling
units?"
--Chapter 1, page 29: Number of dwelling units referred to in next
to last paragraph does not agree with the number stated in the Building
Activity Report. Mr. Bowerman felt the dwelling units were either under -
projected in the Plan or the population increases were underestimated.
--Chapter 1, page 44: Air. Stark felt it was difficult to find the
list of human services. On this same page, Air. Keeler pointed out
August 2, 1988 Page 13
that the words "in part" should be inserted, i.e. "...funded in part by the County...."
--Chapter 1, page 40, next to last paragraph: Mr. Rittenhouse felt
this did not read well. He suggested that the word "additional" be removed..
--Chapter 1, page 11: Mr. Jenkins felt there seemed to be a heading missing.
--Mr. Jenkins felt the referencesto 1980 census data seemed to indicate
that "old data" was being used for a basis.
--Chapter 2, page 3, next to last paragraph: Mr. Stark suggested that
the word "approximately" be substituted for "around," i.e. "...annual snowfall
is approximately 24 inches...."
--Chapter 2, page 11: Referring to land use conflicts, Mr. Stark asked
if it had been proven that "children" were the only ones responsible for
destruction of property. He suggested that the word "persons" be substituted
for "children."
It was determined there was no public comment.
Request for Resolution of Intent - Mr. Keeler stated that staff has been working
with the Zoning Administrator to identify portions of the ordinance that
may not be worded to insure the end result which the Commission and Board
intended when the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Keeler stated staff was recommending
repealer of 31.2.4.5 Prior Special Use Permits. He explained that as
presently interpreted it grants to non -conforming uses rights that exceed
provisions in the Non -Conforming Use section and that clearly is not what
was intended.
Mr. Keeler also explained that any development that occured, or any
subdivision that was approved, under the prior zoning ordinance would be
permitted to develop with the building setbacks and yard requirements that
existed at that time. Staff was recommending that a "date" be added to. the
Ordinance so that there can be no question about interpretation.
He summarized the purpose of the amendment would be to more clearly define
and confine these non -conforming provisions. He stressed that it would
extend to any development that occurred under the prior ordinance or any
subdivision plat that was approved.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend
the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to non -conforming uses.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Grading Permits - Mr. Keeler led a discussion about proposed changes in the
grading permit process. He stated that a previous discussion about this
issue had uncovered the following Commission concerns: (1)There must be
a valid and demonstrated need for grading; speculative or premature
grading should not be permitted; (2) Authorization for grading should be
made by the Planning Commission and not be an administrative function;
(3) Unless eligibility for consideration is limited the Planning
Commission may be overwhelmed with requests that would be contrary to recent
streamling efforts; and (4) Detailed criteria and regulations should be
applied to avoid past problems. Staff was recommending a formalized
/3
August 2, 1988
Page 14
procedure under which the applicant would submit a written justification
along with a grading plan for Planning Commission consideration.
Mr. Keeler gave some examples .
Mr. Keeler stated that the burden would be on the applicant to demonstrate
to the Commission that what he was proposing was not contrary to public
interest, and that there is a public interest to be served as opposed to
the applicant's proprietary interest.
The Commission was particularly concerned that the suggested procedure could
result in the Commission being overwhelmed with such requests. Mr. Keeler
did not think .this would happen because the applicant would have to
meet all criteria established before the request would even come to the
Commission. Mr. Bowerman expressed concern that very early grading might
not work for what a developer would eventually propose for the property.
It was determined that if the Commission approved the proposed procedure,
the Board would need to amend the Soil Erosion Ordinance accordingly.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt staff should have some power to disapprove an
applicant's proposal. Mr. Keeler confirmed that it was possible that
the Commission would be presented with requests that staff could not
recommend. He stated staff did not have the authority to disapprove
a request. fir. Rittenhouse felt that if the process was "that questionable"
that an applicant could appeal the staff's recommendation, "why even go
through this process?"
After further discussion, it was decided the Commission would study the
issue further before taking action on the proposal.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
DS
71
John Horne, Secretary
I�