City Council Packet - Cornelius

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: None. Have any Commission members conducted a site visit? [Multiple negative responses heard.] Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, there's none. Do any members of the Commission have any potential conflicts with regard to the proposed action? [Multiple negative responses heard.] Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, there are no issues or conflicts. So, at this time, Staff, do you— Male Speaker: [#1 5:23] You need to ask the audience— Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Oh, okay. Oh, thank you. So would any member of the audience like to challenge the right of any Commission member to hear the matter before them for reason of conflict of interest, bias, or ex parte contact? [No response heard.] Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Okay, seeing none, now the Staff can present the report. Planning Manager Dick Reynolds: Thank you, members of the Planning Commission. Dick Reynolds, Planning Manager, here to present the Findings Report for appeal number AP-01-12. I'd like to enter into the Findings Report into the record at this time. You've identified the actual sections of the Code that are applicable to this request and review. And the location as you've mentioned is 1085 South Flax Plant Road, and you'll notice the map and tax lot number is TS1R3W4DC, Tax Lot 4600. It's located in the General Industrial (M-1) Zone. The Appellant is Ivan Orozco, and the property owner is Terry Emmert. I'd like to start out first of all by—before I get into the Findings Report specifically, kind of framing this issue, what we're looking at as identified in the instructions that were read [inaudible #1 6:52] nonconforming use issue. A nonconforming use is a pre-existing legal use that was in operation prior to annexing into the city, but which are now prohibited or are restricted under City Code. The situation that's here is that there's a commercial horse stable, equestrian arena, caretaker's residence that legally existed prior to annexation into the city. The City Zoning Code for the subject property is General Industrial. The zone does not permit equestrian or horse use currently and prohibits residential use. The Code states that if a nonconforming use ceases for a period over 12 months, all uses after that have to comply with the Code. I just wanted to point those framework issues out first. The property, like I mentioned, is zoned Industrial M-1, and I'll try to make this so people can see. Can you guys see this? Male Speaker: [Inaudible #1 8:09] Mr. Reynolds: Okay, so this is South 10 th Avenue, Flax Plant Road. The property conveniently is this area that's kind of brown looking. This is horse stables and the barn located on the side. This is a Google photograph from 2011 just as reference for where it's located at. The site's about 8 acres in size. As you can see, the development around it is urban in nature. We have residential to the south; residential to the west; a school located northwest; residential and industrial located to the north, and to the northeast, we have some more industrial uses. So the records that are before you indicate that when the property was annexed into R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC June 26 2012 Verbatim Transcript.doc
the city, it was brought in by Royland Farms, which at that time, there was a horse arena, a barn, and a mobile home located on the site. So it was brought in as a commercial horse stable and arena. The City has documented in Exhibit 2 of your Findings Report that there was a period of 18 consecutive months of no commercial horse stable, equestrian, or caretaker residential use on the property. The Applicant at that time submitted an application for the Community Development Director to interpret— make an interpretation to validate equestrian use and horse stable use as a legal nonconforming use on the subject property. Based on that application, Staff completed the report that's identified as File number CDI- 01-12. The application did not meet the applicable criteria for a legal nonconforming use. Based on those findings, the Community Development Director denied CDI-01-12 on April 27 th . The Applicant then submitted an appeal of that decision on May 11 th , 2012, and that's what we'll be moving forward with tonight. So there's three basic Finding sections in your report. The appeal issues are also identified in your report that were submitted by the Appellant, and I'd like to just briefly go through the City Findings before I get to the conclusion. I've broke them down in three areas. The first one is Historic Use. This is kind of a—I think an important portion of the Findings Report, and it goes back to 1968 when Washington County approved a onsite septic system and drain field for a commercial use, and that was for Apache Stables that had two employees on the subject site. In 1980, the property was still located in Washington County and was zoned exclusive farm use. The property owners at that time submitted a land use application for annexation into the city. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions of Ordinance 581 for the property to be annexed into the city. That ran into a little bit of problems in that the conditions were never satisfied. So that applicant, who was Milton Buehner, lived in 9480 North West Helvetia Road in Hillsboro, and at the time of annexation and their zone change request, they represented to the City that the use of the property was for equestrian use and for a horse show facility was not intended to continue. They intended to develop the property for industrial uses back in 1980. At the end of a two-year period, the Applicants failed to meet their conditions, like I said, and their zone change was voided. So, they came back in '84 with an application to partition the property, and they weren't allowed to do that because zone change wasn't recognized as valid. So in '85, the property owners resubmitted for a zone change application from Exclusive Farm Use to an industrial zone. At that time, the application stated that the property owners fully intended to develop the property with industrial uses, and also within that application, they stated that the subject use is a temporary pre-existing use, and that it didn't need to go through any further conditional use permit approval for it to be used as a—for its existing use. So, what I'd like to conclude, or the Finding that Staff makes about historical uses is that in the '60s and '70s, this property was developed as a commercial horse stable area known as Apache Stables with a caretaker's residence. The use of the property at the time of annexation in the city was still a commercial horse stable, equestrian business with a caretaker's residence operated by Royland Farms. When the City approved the annexation and the zone change to General Industrial, the applicant described the horse stable business as a temporary, pre-existing use. The applicant and property owners at that time also stated that they fully intended to develop the property with industrial uses. The City finds that the subject site was never intended to continue as a commercial horse stable or equestrian facility with a caretaker's residence. The property was annexed into the City for the purpose of developing the property with industrial businesses served by urban services. The second set of findings that I'd like to submit are—in the report, are about burden of proof. In the Development and Zoning Code in Chapter 18.135-030C, which is the nonconforming use section, it states that if any nonconforming use of the land ceases for any period of more than one year, any subsequent use of the land shall conform to the regulation specified by this title from the district in which such land is R:\Board and Commissions\Planning Commission\CPC June 26 2012 Verbatim Transcript.doc
Page 1 and 2: CITY OF CORNELIUS CORNELIUS CITY CO
Page 3 and 4: AGENDA REPORT September 17, 2012 To
Page 5 and 6: AGENDA REPORT September 17, 2012 To
Page 7 and 8: City of Cornelius Agenda Report To:
Page 9: C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. APPEAL: Appeal
Page 13 and 14: Zone and is prohibited by City Code
Page 15 and 16: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: Oh, okay. M
Page 17 and 18: chance to practice because we can't
Page 19 and 20: Mr. Stone: Not unlike the three peo
Page 21 and 22: so—but I think during that time t
Page 23 and 24: money that we received off of this
Page 25 and 26: espect, if you go back and look at
Page 27 and 28: The City is referring to a section
Page 29 and 30: Mr. Semm: Approximately 15 years ag
Page 31 and 32: flies, the loud music. When it goes
Page 33 and 34: usiness license for a horse stable
Page 35 and 36: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I think we'
Page 37 and 38: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: So the next
Page 39 and 40: [Off microphone comments] Vice Chai
Page 41 and 42: Ms. Heuer: This whole thing here, y
Page 43 and 44: CITY OF CORNELIUS PLANNING COMMISSI
Page 45 and 46: issued a Metro business license to
Page 47 and 48: there was no equestrian use of the
Page 49 and 50: Vice Chair Sheckla-Cox: I’m just
Page 51 and 52: you know, did—was the use continu
Page 53 and 54: Mr. Orozco: Correct. Commissioner B
Page 55 and 56: don’t know what the word would be
Page 57 and 58: as my involvement. And mostly it wa
Page 59 and 60: Mr. Reynolds: Well, the best I can
Page 61 and 62:
Commissioner Starrett [1:09:02]: I
Page 63 and 64:
Commissioner Ferrie Jr. [1:15:16]:
Page 65:
D. NEW BUSINESS - None Vice Preside
show all

City Council Packet - Cornelius

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?