Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission adopts three land-use ordinances, denies wedding-venue rezone
Summary
The commission adopted ordinances amending planning-commission attendance rules (Ordinance 600), removing the A-1/2 zone from future applications (Ordinance 601), and vacated a historic Riverside alley (Ordinance 602); it denied a rezone request to allow a wedding venue on 2 acres of an 8-acre parcel due to inadequate services and incompatibility.
Scott Lyons of the Community Development Department presented four land-use items Sept. 4, including three ordinances and a rezone request.
Ordinance 600 amends Section 2-1-050 of the land-use code to establish a minimum attendance requirement for planning commissioners—8 of 12 annual meetings—subject to annual review. Commissioners approved the ordinance on a motion.
Ordinance 601 removes the A-1/2 zone as an available zone for future applications; existing parcels zoned A-1/2 would remain until rezoned by owners or the commission. The planning commission had held a public hearing with no public comment and recommended approval; the county commission adopted the ordinance.
Ordinance 602 implements a planning-commission-directed vacation of an historic alley in the Riverside area after neighbors jointly requested the alley be vacated; the attorney's office reviewed the ordinance and staff presented it for adoption. The commission adopted the ordinance on motion.
Separately, a landowner requested rezoning 2 acres of an 8-acre parcel from RR-20 to the Commercial Neighborhood zone to locate an event center, primarily for weddings. Community Development summarized public hearing input showing both support and opposition; concerns included vandalism risk in an agricultural area, parking, lighting, and lack of nearby culinary water (estimated roughly 1 mile away). The planning commission recommended denial under approval standards B and D (compatibility with character of area and adequacy of facilities and services), and the county commission approved the planning commission's recommendation and denied the rezone on a motion.
All three ordinances were adopted with votes recorded as 'Aye' in the meeting; the rezone denial followed the planning commission’s recommendation. Commissioners did not specify further administrative changes to the zones or additional mitigation beyond what was recorded in the motions.
