AG 1994 08 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 21, 1994 Page 15 Residential (LDR) to General Commercial - Special Use (GC/SU), to construct a contractor's office and storage yard and in the future a nursery and landscape company. The Chair stated to the Board since this is a Special Use request, we have to have sworn and affirmed testimony. The Chair then swore in Mr. Jonathan Marshall, Planner II, Mr. Charles Kneeburg, Resident, and Mr. loc Crum, Petitioner. Mr. Jonathan Marshall, Staff Member, addressed tl~ Board presenting Petition 94-03 and the Staff Analysis stating in looking at this particular special use and analyzing it, we looked at the proposed uses in comparison to what is currently permitted under the Low Density Residential. We found that the requested uses are of the same scope of some the commercial uses that would be permitted under that zone (LDR), including the size, the proposed building as shown which is just over:;2,000 square feet which is permitted by-standards for some of the commercial uses under the (LDR) zoning. Mr. Marshall said the staff did find that it could possibly be a negative affect from the storage and movement of equipment and employees from this office. But, the petitioner has addressed that by proposing to retain a vegetative buffer on both property lines to the north and south side of this property. He has not shown any vegetation being retained in front of the property, and that may be something that the board may wish to address as well as getting an exact footage or width of those buffer zones. Mr. Marshall said a second major issue with this was looking at the overall zoning pattern. Recently we have rezoned the entire county with this new zoning ordinance. This is a larger area of Low Density Residential and this would be permitting or changing the zoning for a single area within it. Again, this is an area mixed with rural home occupation some non-residential uses and rural residential. We felt that the scope and type of the uses proposed fit within that existing pattern and could be compatible with the surrounding zoning. Staff recommendation was split because of those issues, but we do recommend that the rezoning be approved. One of the things we would suggest is that this rezoning be used as an example when we revisit the ordinance for our biennial review in looking at some possibilities for some other commercial uses that might be permitted in (LDR) or the possible permission of uses that would otherwise could be done as a rural home occupation. Had this use been proposed as a rural home occupation, had the petitioner come before the board and said that they were going to be building a dwelling on this property and wish to do this as a rural home occupation to the rear, they could haVe built a 2,000 square foot building on the property with their home and done this as a rural home occupation. These are some issues that should be explored when we revisit the ordinance.