February 12, 2014

Commissioner Koenig

appointed Commissioner King as acting Secretary as Commissioner McCall is absent.

Commissioner Dolan

asks to be added as an attendee, as he was left off the minutes.

Commissioner King

motions to approve with changes, Seconded by Commissioner Earl.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are pulling item 9, moving item #15 to 9.1, Item #16 to 9.2, and #11 to 9.3

Commissioner Hafen

stated the first draft of the entire plan has been completed. Each section is in a final draft stage with one more review of the committee. There are funding issues for mapping but the text is in final draft stage.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report.

Commissioner King

asks if we should include a requirement that they have a minimum lot size of 5 acres regardless of the zoning for a commercial kennel.

Commissioner Dolan

states it could be a minimum 2.5 acre lots.

Commissioner King

withdrew his motion.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for clarification on Commissioner King. The motion was to remain as a use allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the RE-2 zone, and removing it only from the RE-1 zoning. Then stating it would only be allowed only on 5 acres.

Commissioner Hafen

clarifies that if someone owned 5 acres that is zoned RE-2 it could just be rezoned to R-4.5 and it would be a permissive use with a CUP.

Commissioner Dolan

asks for clarification on the motion. Are we approving the original one or the bill presented tonight?

Mr. Sutton

stated the one presented tonight is the original one presented before. It has already been recommended to the BOCC, we don’t need a new motion.

Ms. Lee

reviews her staff report; applicant is requesting a 90 day continuation on the item. Staff recommends the continuation to the May 14, 2014 RPC meeting.

Mr. Sutton

states anyone can come and speak at the next meeting.

Mr. Lauver

states that he owns the two properties right behind this applicant. The singlewide that is in the front of the property that has had the siding ripped off of. Two singlewides are in the back of the yard with two trusses and are not done to code. The dogs are living in singlewides with wood floors it is unsanitary conditions for the animals. He states there no significant positive impacts that are being created by this, such as jobs or taxes. There are potential negative impacts to this, for example, Fire and Animal control have already had to come to the property and, and lastly if you owned my properties would you want this right behind you. His problem is 50 dogs 50 feet from his property don’t have adequate structure, he understands that the board could pass for something else to be on the property. If he knew this would produce jobs here and that it was adequate structures that would be cleaned.

Commissioner Carbone

asks if a continuation will solve the problem. Does staff know if there will be any changes?

Ms. Lee

stated after speaking with Animal Control the majority of items brought up to the applicant they were unaware of. They have been supplied with the appropriate codes for reference. All the manufactured homes are illegal on the property; you can’t structurally modify a manufactured home without permits. Both the fire department and Animal Control have said the applicant and property owner are willing to comply but were unaware of the requirements.

Commissioner King

asks is there is an active code compliance case on the property.

Commissioner Carbone

asks if they are going to come back within that three month to show that there is some progress being done. Or do we want to send out Animal Control on a monthly basis to evaluate.

Ms. Lee

stated she has consulted with them all and the first step should be a meeting with the applicant to go over the rules and code. We can provide a status update in 30 to 60 days if that is what the board chooses to do.

Commissioner Koenig

stated Fire, Animal Control and staff recommend continuing it. Is there still electric to the building?

Ms. Lee

stated at the conclusion of the Fire Departments inspection they were told because the wiring didn’t meet international fire code they were to disconnect and cease all electrical supply to the manufactured buildings.

Commissioner Koenig

asks the applicant if there is power to any of the buildings.

Mr. Grubb

states no there isn’t.

Mr. Osborne

reviews staff report and recommends adoption.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Osborne to explain the difference in the County code for Hotel and Motel.

Mr. Osborne

stated there isn’t currently anything different.

Commissioner King

isn’t comfortable allowing these in the NC zoning.

Commissioner Koenig

states he doesn’t believe we should allow people to put hotels or motels any where they want.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Commissioner King to know if General commercial was a concern also.

Commissioner King

stated just NC, GC is mostly on Hwy 160 or major arterials.

Commissioner Carbone

asks staff if they wouldn’t see an issue until it comes before the RPC.

Mr. Lewis

states this is for permissive uses, generally permissive uses don’t come before the RPC, and they normally would have to go through a development review process. They would have to meet development standards that would have to be complied with. It isn’t as if they would be coming in and doing what they want. This was brought up by looking at the permissive uses that are already allowed in the NC zoning.

Commissioner Dolan

doesn’t believe allowing at this time any hotel or motel coming in here without coming before this board is a good idea. We need more answers on the water situation in our valley first.

Commissioner Hafen

states for the record the family businesses he works for hold a CUP and have a development agreement that allows a hotel and he will be abstaining from voting on this matter. Item dies for lack of motion. Meeting went in to recess at 7:35 pm. Meeting reconvened at 7:44 pm.

Mr. Osborne

reviews the staff report and staff recommends adoption of the bill.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the purpose of Grandfathering was to have it eventually go away and the existing zoning takes over, this seems to preclude that and say it can stay grandfathered. Why wouldn’t we just rezone the property then? Page 5 of 10

Commissioner King

voices his concerns regarding already vacant properties in these zoning districts.

Mr. Osborne

reviews the staff report.

Commissioner Koenig

asks who the Zoning Administrator is and who would be in charge if they are on leave.

Mr. Lewis

states that it is him and it would be whomever he designates to be in charge when he is gone

Mr. Osborne

reviews the staff report. Staff recommends adoption of the bill based upon the findings in the staff report.

Commissioner Koenig

states VR-10 and VR-20 states minimum lot sizes can be reduced to 8,000 sq ft not subject to conditions. So does this mean a 10,000 sq ft lot can be 8,000 sq ft?

Mr. Osborne

stated yes if you have land that is VR-10 and you apply for a Planned Unit of Development overlay you could actually go to 8,000 sq ft lots if the overall density was the same.

Commissioner King

states the total number of square footage that could conceivably be permitted to be put onto a 10,000 sq ft residential lot seems to be a little much. Should we limit these zoning districts limit guest residences to 750 sq ft in VR-10 and 1,000 sq ft in VR-20?

Mr. Osborne

stated 1,500 sq ft is the maximum size for a quest residence in all the other zoning districts, but if it is something you want to change.

Commissioner Koenig

voiced the same concerns as Commissioner King. Page 6 of 10

Mr. Lewis

stated in other communities they use a percentage of the lot coverage. In this particular zoning we don’t show a percentage.

Commissioner Hafen

states he is concerned that we haven’t properly agendized the item by adding the 40% we are limiting the size of the primary structure as well as the guest residence. This was agendized to just add specifically the guest residence.

Mr. Sutton

states he doesn’t see it could be a problem, suggests that staff re-agendize the item after the change has been made.

Mr. Lewis

we can add a condition to the ordinance in the recommendation and we should not have to bring this back to the board.

Commissioner Koenig

asks if the DA’s office suggests withdrawing the motion.

Mr. Sutton

stated he believe it should be brought back.

Commissioner Earl

withdraws his second to the motion. Motion still stands.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for another motion to be brought back.

Mr. Sutton

states if we agendize something and add the amendment adds additional items, it is then a whole new agenda item. We should be okay if we recommend with the recommended change.

Commissioner Hafen

has concerns with a 40% cap, he lives in the VR-10 zoning and this would limit the size of the structures to 4,000 sq ft. He has neighbors that he doesn’t know, but does know that have over 5,000 sq ft that he wouldn’t be permitted under the 40% cap where he wouldn’t be allowed to have the structures and it doesn’t include his garages or sheds. Some others have large RV garages, 3,000 sq ft homes and have three car garages.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the bill would address the actual footprint; you can’t cover more that 40% of the land.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the homes he was referring to were single stories.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for another motion.

Mr. Lewis

asks the board what they would like to see changed.

Commissioner King

stated maybe we should look at using gross acreage instead of net acreage. We may not want to limit ourselves to 40%.

Ms. Lee

reviews the staff report and staff is in support of the waiver, based on the staff report and special conditions of approval.

Commissioner Koenig

asks why the code specifies 10 ft, and we continue to waive this. Why don’t we change the code to be 5 ft?

Ms. Lee

stated when two structures are facing each other with a window on one wall it has to be 10 ft. International residential code states when you have a solid wall facing a solid wall you can have a 0 ft separation, if you have one that isn’t fire rated facing each other there has to be a separation of 5 ft.

Commissioner Koenig

asks if the problem is the window.

Ms. Lee

stated she believes so.

Commissioner King

stated they are asking for a waiver for the separation, the guest house is not allowed in VR-10.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that is the additional condition that Ms. Lee wanted added was that this wouldn’t be approved unless the BOCC approved the Bill we just sent back to staff.

Commissioner Dolan

asks if there is something else they can apply for.

Ms. Lee

stated they have the option to apply for an at risk building permit.

Commissioner Koenig

stated if they apply for that permit and this gets denied they have to tear it down. Kevin Simpson Jr., applicant states they have been working with the VA and have the funding to build this now. It would be an area for his father to have his own independence and have a bathroom and recreation area for him. All the cooking and meals will be in the main home.

Commissioner Hafen

asks the applicant if he has read and understood the conditions of approval, including the additional conditions of approval that was added that the applicant must maintain the 6 ft utility easement along the rear property line free of obstruction and development, the building would have to be shifted forward 1 ft.

Commissioner Dolan

states the drawings with the 5 ft radius are the specifications that are set forth by the VA and this is the smallest you can go.

Ms. Lee

stated she has had several conversations with Top Rank Builders and Mr. Wilson regarding the set back. They have measured and are aware 5 ft between buildings will meet the 6ft easement requirement. They did send an updated site plan but it isn’t reproducible due to the font sizes.