|
176
<br />
<br />ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - B-1 SPECIAL PERMIT
<br />USES
<br />
<br /> Mr. Ron Higgins, Acting Director of Community Development, explained that the
<br />original request for rezoning the site was made in September, but that request was withdrawn
<br />after concern was expressed that such zoning was too severe for that area. Alternatives to
<br />rezoning were explored to allow the pharmacy to expand. The proposal to allow up to
<br />10,000 square feet gross, 7,500 square feet net retail in a B-1 zone with a special permit was
<br />considered by the Planning Commission, but they recommended denial of this proposal. Mr.
<br />Higgins noted that folIowing additional meetings, the applicant suggested that 7,500 square
<br />feet gross, 5,500 square feet net retail be permitted. Mr. Higgins noted that an office building
<br />up to 20,000 square feet gross space could be built on the site by right.
<br />
<br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney,
<br />outlined options available to Council: vote the proposed text amendment up or down;
<br />fashion a variation of the text amendment as long as the square footage is not increased; or
<br />ask the Planning Commission to take a fresh look at a variation.
<br />
<br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Daugherty, Mr. Higgins said that there is no space
<br />limit in B-3 zones, and B-2 zones allow 3,000 square feet gross retail by right, and up to
<br />20,000 square feet gross, 15,000 square feet net retail by special Permit.
<br />
<br /> Ms. Richards asked if there are models elsewhere with pharmacies in transition zones,
<br />and Mr. Higgins said that there are only incidental pharmacies in office buildings.
<br />
<br /> h/Ir. Cox asked why square footages for retail are so low in B-1 zones, and Mr. Higgins
<br />said that the original intent was to allow no retail at all, but it was felt that small pharmacy
<br />space should be allowed as an incidental use.
<br />
<br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Mr. Gouldman explained that spot zoning, as
<br />defined by Virginia courts, is where zoning looks different from anything else around it and
<br />that the only benefit derived from the zoning is private, not public. Mr. Gouldman said he
<br />does not think this proposal would qualify as spot zoning.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Toscano said that he is concerned about the size and height of a building, parking
<br />lot or parking deck that would be allowed by right on the site.
<br />
<br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Higgins said that property within 100
<br />feet of the right-of-way on an entrance corridor is subject to design control.
<br />
<br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Higgins explained that medical
<br />offices generate similar traffic counts as retail.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Toscano said he feels this traffic information should be shared with the
<br />neighborhood.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Toscano said he feels that the answers to the questions about what, could.be-built
<br />by right should concern the Council and the neighborhood, and this is part ofthereason why
<br />he initially thought a special permit might be better and would provide more control. Mr.
<br />Toscano said that he could not agree to the original text amendment, and made a motion to
<br />send.the issue back to the Planning Commission to see if any other alternatives .make sense?~
<br />especially in light of the new traffic data and new square footage request. ~-~: - -- .~,~:: ~...,~,
<br />
<br /> Mr. Toscano's motion died for lack of a second. .:.~, :~: ,, ,'.
<br />
<br /> Msi.:Daugherty, said.she believes it is ~not :proper:retail space for B, liand she madea.
<br />motion to deny the request. Ms: Daugherty said. she appreciatesthe time,pu.t; into trying:to ,-
<br />reach a compromise and she is sorry something could not be worked out. Mr. Cox seconded
<br />the motion to,deny the request. ~. .... .~ · ~- ::.,~:.~v.':~ ...'~ ~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|