Agenda - 02-02-2016 - 5-c - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Motor Vehicle Sales Rental Land Uses - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted)

Browse Search

3 12 1 Michael Harvey said this photo is just a snap shot in time and there may be several 2 options that could meet the requirements. He said the black line on the photo does not indicate 3 a set back. 4 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the cars in the red area would count towards the 25-car 5 limit. 6 Michael Harvey said no. 7 Commissioner Rich said the image on page 32 looks like a lot more than 25 cars. 8 Michael Harvey said yes that is significantly more than 25 cars, which would not be 9 allowed under the proposed text amendment. 10 Michael Harvey said the only zoning district that has a limit on the number of cars that 11 can be displayed is the neighborhood commercial district. He said the example on page 32 is 12 currently acceptable and the proposed amendment would seek to avoid such examples. 13 Commissioner Rich asked if the proprietor of the site shown on page 32 knows about the 14 proposed amendment. 15 Michael Harvey said yes. 16 Chair McKee asked if there is a reason that the limit of land covered by vehicles is set at 17 20 percent. He said it would make more sense to him to have five car lots with 30 or 40 percent 18 coverage, rather than 15 car lots with 20 percent coverage. He said if there is a demand for a 19 certain number of cars, the need could be met by increasing the number of lots or increasing the 20 density on a smaller number of lots. 21 Michael Harvey said there must be a distinction between zoning designations in the 22 predominantly rural areas of the County versus the predominantly urban areas. He noted that 23 45 cars per acre are permitted in the economic development districts in the general commercial 24 district. He said the proposed amendment is a compromise. 25 Chair McKee said there should be equity between the lots. He referred to the two 26 examples in the packet and said it would seem more reasonable to allow a bit more density in 27 the number of vehicles rather than forcing the owner to go through what he would assume is a 28 Class A special use permit process to change a business to a commercial zone. 29 Michael Harvey said a number limit had to be chosen and if the Board would like to see 30 a higher number, it should direct staff and the Planning Board accordingly. 31 Chair McKee asked if there is an existing commercial property designation. 32 Michael Harvey said yes and would require going through the rezoning process. 33 Chair McKee said this is to what he was referring. 34 Michael Harvey said this would require a property owner to petition for a legislative 35 hearing asking the Board to rezone their property as general commercial. 36 Commissioner Burroughs asked if there are challenges that exist with the lots having 37 excess cars, such as emergency vehicle access or parking cars over septic tanks. 38 Michael Harvey said concerns include access, use of required parking spaces for the 39 display of vehicles, adequate buffering and open space, quantity of impervious surfaces, etc. 40 He said it is a balancing act between allowing a business to flourish and insuring that there is 41 adequate area to support the business. 42 Commissioner Burroughs said the question is to find the right number of vehicles. 43 Michael Harvey said it is more about finding the right percentage of land usage for cars 44 that can allow for the business to safely operate. 45 Chair McKee referred to one of the properties in the PowerPoint presentation and asked 46 if the storage area would be screened. 47 Michael Harvey said yes. He said the cars in the screened area would be those that are 48 not yet ready for sale and would allow them to be screened from view. 49 Chair McKee said he accepted the rationale for the screening but does not necessarily 50 agree with it.