Minutes 03/28/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

385 March 28, 1978 You will note in the attached Planning Commission information that the present applicatioI seeks to secure, through zoning, what had been provided in 1971 to the applicant via a use per. mit. Not withstanding Council's prior approval of seven years ago, I do not consider the pre- vious acticn as necessarily conclusive that the subject application should be approved auto- matically. This matter should be reviewed and a decision made based on 1978 factors and polic and not those existing in 1971. The applicant's case for rezoning lies mainly with the present condition of the land, its poor subsoil makeup and the fact that it is presently the best e~ample in the City of an legal dump, and that the applicant has attempted to market tbs property as an industrial site for sometime without success. While I do not wish to quarrel with the applicant's reasoning, I am sure that he will agree that the poor subsoil conditions and litter would not prevent industrial development, although it would certainly affect the economics related to it. As to the lack of an industrial market, I would point out that efforts to date have been made largel) independent of City organizations available to assist in such efforts. As a result, the site has not had the full benefit of this City's industrial marketing capability. The site ~n question has locational attributes which lend credence to its industrial classification. The site is located on a ma~o~ four lane north/south highway, with rail access, and easy connectmons to both 1-264 and U.S.17. It is also just minutes away from Chesapeake:'sCavalier Industrial Park. Utilities and drainage are also available and are sufficient in capacity to accept most forms of industrial development without significant provements. In view of the above significant economic factors, the serious situation in which we pre- sently find ourselves relative to developing a stable economic base, the apparent adequacy of site in question for industrial purposes, and the lack of rec~nt marketing assistance by City organizations, it would be my recommendation that rezoning application Z-78-2 be referred back to the Planning Commission or denied. I make the referral recommendation so that the Planning Com]nission will have the opportunity to review the application in light of the economic analysi which was prepared at Council's request. This would also give the applicant a forum.to prove through documented engineering studies whether or not this site is physically capable of sup- porting industrial development and to what extent the applicant has marketed said property as an industrial site since 1971. Further, it would provide the Commission the opportunity to consider trailsr parks in general in light of an overall housing plan for the City which will be presented to tbs Planning Commission in the near future." Motion of Mr. Hlliott and seconded by Mr. Oast, to suspend the rules for Donald C. Kilgore Attorney, representing Construction Associates, Inc., to speak, was adopted by unanimous vote. Mr. Kilgore spoke and requested the matter to be deferred for thirty (30) days. Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. of April 25, 1978, and the City Manager meet and was adopted by unanimous vote. Barnes, the matter to be deferred to the meeting with parties petitioning prior to the that date, 78-63(g) Zoning Petition Z 78-7 Petition of F. Gordon Griffin, et al, by Attorney Dean W. Sword, Jr., deferred f~om Public Hearing meeting of February 13, 1978. The following report was received from the City Manager: "During the discussion of Agenda Item Z-78-7 at your public hearing on zoning, you request ed a report from this office on the traffic impact which would result from a change mn zoning at the ~eferenced location to OR-75 or C-1 from R-75. My staff has analyzed this situation and finds that either rezoning alternative willsignificantly affect the orderly flow of traffic through this intersection during peak hours and will create an immediate need for at Least one new storage lane to be built eastbound on Churchland Boulevard. The intersection at present hand~sapproximately 9,800 per day with approximately 8,100 cars per day arriving at the intersection from the west. Therefore, the majority of traffic approaching the site inquestion would be forced to make a left ~rn-across on coming traffic from both Churchland Boulevard and West Norfolk Road. It is our estimate that an average development for a property of this size used as OR-75 would generate approximately 250 new left turn movements at this location per day. It should be noted that most of these will take place during peak hours. The above figure for C-1 use woul~ be significantly higher. It is my opinion that due to the unusual configuration of this intersection and the al- ready high volume of traffic which it currently handles that the site inquestion be limited to uses of minimal traffic impact. Therefore, I would concur with the Planning Commission that for residential and traffic related reasons that the site in question be zoned no higher density than OR-75. It is my opinion that to do otherwise would severly hamper the traffic movement capability of a unique and limited street system." Dean W. Sword, Jr., Attorney, representing the petitioner, spoke. Motion of Mr. Holleyf~B$o~nded by Mr. Barnes, to concur in the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the/or~inanc% was approved on first reading for 0R-75, and was adopted by 6~t (nay-Wentz) vote: "ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANC~ Z 78-7" he