Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 11 80 PC MinutesM November 11, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, November 11, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Corwith Davis, Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Allan Kindrick, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles Vest. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Absent from the meeting were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 30, 1980 were approved with changes. Roger H. B. Davis, Jr., Final Plat - located off end of Route 661, east of Route 660, on Old Rays Ford Road; proposal to divide a 6.125 acre parcel, leaving 20+ acres residue. Charlottesville District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. There was no comment from the applicant, nor the public. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Col. Washington inquired if any of the Commissioners had any comment. Mrs. Diehl asked if the 10' road was within the 50' easement. Mr. Keeler replied, "no" the State Road (Rt. 661) has the 10 travelway with only 27 vehicle trips per day and because of travel width the Highway Department classified the road as non -tolerable. Mr. Vest moved for approval with the staff's recommendations: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: (a) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement. (b) Compliance with Section 15.1-482 of the Code for vacation of the previous plat. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SP-80-63 - Charles W. Hurt - Amendment to Branchlands Planned Unit Development. Proposal is on 86.2 acres with the following: 22.7 acres in net residential area for 345 dwelling units; 16.7 acres in net commercial area; 32.7 acres in open space, recreation, and buffer zones; and 11.2 acres in major street right- of-way. The property is located on the east side of Route 29 North, south of Charlottesville Fashion Square. Tax Map 61Z Parcels 2-1 and 1A, Charlottesville District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Col. Washington asked if there was any comment from the applicant. Dr. Charles Hurt stated that he has a contract to purchase the property from the Catholic Church subject to changes being made. The modifications shown here are an improvement to the old plan which is already approved. If the Planning Commission does not want to approve these changes, he asked that the Planning Commission advise him of what they would approve or whether the plan has to remain as it has already been approved. The land between the commercial area and near the highway is probably better suited for commercial use than residential use, according to Dr. Hurt, and since there was some feeling that there was too much traffic on 29N, Dr. Hurt said he reduced the number of residential units in the back from high density. He also stated that he would be willing to leave this area in the rear as high density, but thought it was a concession to give up traffic in the back so that there could be offices and stores out front. Dr. Hurt stated he was not aware of Dr. Langman's plans for this area when his plans were made up, so he asked for reactions to the new plan as submitted. Col. Washington asked if there were any comments from the public. Dr. Langman stated that he was planning to buy approximately 25 acres with the lake and house. He said he wants to build a community for the older generation, in the 65 to 90 age group, and he wants to keep as much a park -like setting as possible with the lake. The housing units will circle the lake and there will be parking underground. There will be approximately 12 units per acre, all with garage and elevators, and equipped for the handicapped. There will be in general 1 car per unit. Col. Washington asked if there were any other comments from the public. Tom Forloines, an adjacent owner, in Greenbrier Heights supported Dr. Hurt's proposal. Homer Kennermer, an adjacent owner supported Dr. Hurt's proposal over the previously approved plan; he did question if the buffer refered to in the old plan would remain the same. Dr. Hurt assured Mr. Kennermer that he would not do away with the buffer. Roy Clements, an adjacent owner, in Greenbirer Heights supported Dr. Hurt's proposal but questioned in either the existing plan or the proposed plan is there an access road out of the back end of the subdivision along Meadowcreek and into Brandywine Drive. Dr. Hurt replied "no". Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Col. Washington inquired if any of the Commissioners had any comment. OR The Planning Commission discussed the amount of commercial acreage in the approved and proposed plans. The staff noted the original 16 acres of commercial, the 10 acres of commercial lost to Fashion Square, and the commercial acreage under the current proposal. Mr. Skove expressed concern regarding the number, type, and location of the various housing types. Mrs. Diehl suggested that the Commission take no action until the concerns regarding the commercial acres and the number of housing units are addressed. Col. Washington asked Dr. Hurt what are the constraints under shich he is operationg. Dr. Hurt replied his contract with the Church expires November 15. Mrs. Diehl stated she felt there should be no problem with the Church's extension of the option. Mr. Davis said he has no objection to lowing the density. Col. Washington asked the relation of this property to the bank. Dr. Hurt replied that the property extends to the cliff. Dr. Hurt reituated that he is open to suggestions from the Planning Commission on the development of this property. Messrs Davis, Bowerman, and Skove stated their infamiliarity with the plan on record, and felt deferral was in order. Mr. Vest felt Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation concerns should be addressed in the plan. Mrs. Diehl moved for indefinite deferral until such time as the staff concerns are addressed, thus giving the applicant ample time. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Davis expressed concern for the high density in the rear and the potential traffic problems. The motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Davis dissenting. '31�3 SP-80-64. Joseph and Ellen Kelley have petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a Home Occupation Class B on 2.464 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on William Court, approximately 275 feet northeast of Route 787. Tax Map 57, Parcel 109, Samuel Miller District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Col. Washington asked the applicant what type of business he operated. Mr. Kelly replied he operated a small consulting business in the basement of his home and did not have any clients on the premises. There was no public comment. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Col. Washington inquired if any of the Commissioners had any comment. Mrs. Diehl established that the home occupation and the conditions attached go with the property. Mr. Davis moved for approval with the staff's recommendations: 1. Compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation: Class B of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. No clients on the premises. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously with no discussion. ZMA-80-20. Faulconer Construction Company has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 7.90 acres from R-2 Residential to M-1 Industrial. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 658, approximately 12 mile north- east of the intersection of Route 659 and 631 (Rio Road). Tax Map 45, parcels 85 and 84A, Charlottesville District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the various alternatives recommended. Mr. Bowerman asked if the property would retain its R-2 zoning if Faulconer Construction rezoning was denied. Mr. Keeler replied that change of ownership does not vacate non -conforming uses. Col. Washington asked if the applicant or his representative was present. The applicant stated he was going to lease one acre and put another building here. Col. Washington asked for comments from the public. Thomas Griffin an adjacent owner stated he was not sure of what would be allowed in M-1 zoning, but he favored the present zoning which is R-2. _3S-1- Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mrs. Diehl stated that when they reviewed plans for the urban -area along Woodburn Road, medium density was established because the the Planning Commission did not want the other side of the road to develop. She was relucant to change the zoning in this area, because it would be detrimental to the recent Planning Commission recommendations for the proposed zoning ordinance. She prefered that the SPCA and the present parcel continue as non -conforming. Mr. Davis and Mr. Skove agreed with Mrs. Diehl. Col. Washington asked the applicant how old his business is. The applicant replied that his business was established in 1963. He also stated that he did not want part of the acreage rezoned or any of the alternatives outlined by the staff. Mr. Davis moved for denial. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Kindrick dissenting. ZMA-80-21. River Heights Associates has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 11.5 acres from R-3 Residential to B-1 Business (increasing the depth of the existing B-1 from 300 feet to 650 feet). Property is located on the west side of Route 29 North, and abuts the Charlottesville Filter Plant on the Southeast. Tax Map 45, Parcels M(l) and 68D(3), Charlottesville District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Col. Washington asked Mr. Wood, the applicant, if he had any comments. Mr. Wood stated that they had requested commercial zoning, but were willing to accept Commercial Office, which would be a down zoning. He said they proposed to develop a 250 room hotel, with banquet facilities, also an office building where seminars would be held on an annual basis. The traffic count, in his opinion would not be as high as what was estimated. In regard to the staff's recommendations, he was willing to limit the property to two accesses on 1400 feet of road frontage, if this is what the Planning Commission thinks is proper. He then presented the Commission with a preliminary schemetic. Mr. Wood presented traffic generation figures from the Institute of Transporta- tion Engineers as follows: 911 trips per day per motel room and office space, and 11.69 trips per day per 1000 square feet of office area, both of which are below what the property would generate with straight development. He stated they are willing to proffer the entrances and accept the Co zoning, They are not willing to put in the crossover, until the Highway Department lowers the road. The Highway Department has purchase a strip of land intended for raising the bridge and lowering the highway to the same level as the north bound lane; when this is done Mr. Wood said he will be willing to put in the crossover. Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Diehl questioned the use of adjacent land on both sides of the road. Mr. Wood replied some would be left in commercial use with a "sit-down" restaurant and some would be left as part of the landscaping. There was no comments from the public. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Col. Washington noted that this request presented the Commission with a dilemmna: assuming Mr. Wood submitted a site plan under the present zoning, this would foreclose plans for a by-pass in this area. He also noted that if Mr. Wood moved the hotel back 300' the option of putting the by-pass in front of the hotel site would exist but this would not allow for landscaping around the by-pass. He and other members of the Commission supported the idea of a western by-pass and would like any suggestions to this problem. Mr. Davis established that this should be viewed as an conventional rezoning, and the Planning Commission should not dwell on the fact that it was a hotel and convention center. He also noted that he would like to see this submitted as a PUD. Mr. Wood replied that this is what he intended in the proffer. Mr. Davis asked if by limiting uses to hotel, convention center and office, could we limit a rezoning? Mr. Keeler explained that proffered zoning is where the applicant puts in writing the conditions which he is willing to comply with. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant could proffer this rezoning to limit development of this parcel to just the hotel -convention center and commercial office complex. Mr. Keeler replied "yes." Mr. Davis established that a proffered rezoning is not a conventional rezoning. Mr. Keeler explained that he has not fully expalined to Mr. Wood how to proffer. Mr. Davis asked if this would have to be resubmitted. Mr. Payne said "no" this could be supported with conditions: if the Planning Commission does approve the rezoning with a proffer the record should be 9 absolutely clear this was the applicant's choice, and that the Commission was only expressing as views not, imposing them on the applicant. Mr. Davis expressed concern that rezoning the land to a zone with a higher value would mean the County's having to condemn and purchase portions of this land at a higher price for the western by-pass. Mr. Wood stated he was willing to proffer that "if the land isn't broken with six (6) months then it could be converted back to the existing zoning." Mr. Bowerman questioned how close the hotel will be to the river. Mr. Wood replied that it will be very close to the bluff which overlooks the river. Mr. Bowerman asked if the hotel is sitting on the proposed location of the western by-pass. Col. Washington replied that under the current zoning it will be. Mr. Keeler presented a schemetic showing the existing commercial frontage of the property which the applicant has indicated he has no control of, and pointed out where the hotel could be set under existing or proposed zoning. Mrs. Diehl asked if this incorporated B-1 which is there presently, plus part of the original requested B-1 as Commercial Office. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if the traffic generation figures assumed conventional B-1 and Commercial Office. Mr. Keeler replied that the figures are based on hotel/convention center information. Mrs. Diehl established that if the zoning was accomplished and developed at the intensified zoning, there would be a traffic increase over these figures, and the hotel convention center would generate less traffic than if the same acreage were developed in other uses. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Wood if he planned an internal access road. Mr. Wood replied all lots would have access across the front to get to the entrances and exits. Mr. Davis stated that he could not support the amendment as it is; if there were a six month limitation for zoning for the hotel, two entrances, and some internal traffic patterns then he could support this petition. Mrs. Diehl questioned the sewer capacity. Mr. Keeler replied that sewerage capacity would be available in time for the hotel needs. N Mr. Davis stated that because of conditions the Commission felt should be applied to this request, the decision should be made by the Board of Supervisors. Col. Washington asked Mr. Payne what could be done about the question of zoning expiring in six or ten months. Mr. Payne replied he would have to look into this more thoroughly. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler what the staff's position would be if the proffers promised were incorporated. Mr. Keeler noted the benefits of proffers over conventional applications and stated it would be an improvement, however, if the Commission felt the cross- over was crucial then that question should be resolved prior to the zoning, since the applicant has already stated he had no intention to install the crossover. Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support this petition without a crossover. Mr. Wood reiterated that he could not install the crossover because of the difference in the height of the road from the north bound land and the raising of the bridge. Mr. Skove established that the Highway Department was waiting for the CAT Study to be completed before they could raise the bridge. Mr. Keeler stated that there was no definite date as to when the CAT Study would be completed and emphasized that if the Commission felt that the cross- over was crucial then this matter should be resolved prior to the zoning. Mrs. Diehl stated that prior to voting she would like to have information from the Highway Department regarding standards they consider in the location of crossovers. Col. Washington stated that the Highway Department should be able to determine whether or not it is feasible for a crossover, even though at a later date the crossover might have to be altered by the Highway Department. Col. Washington asked for a motion for deferral until December 2 in order to have the issue of the crossover resolved. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Payne if this were approved and in six months the proffer was not met if the Commission, on its won motion, could downzone the property and return to the orginial zoning. Mr. Payne replied that according to the proffer, as he understood it, the Commission would be on firm ground to rezone the property back to the original zoning. He also stated that the proffer has to originate with the applicant; if not, it is unlawful. IR -? IK �, Mr. Wood stated he was willing to proffer: (1) two entrances, (2) Commercial office zoning, (3) a site plan submitted within sixty (60) days and ground must be broken within six months after site plan approval. Mr. Wood also asked for a concensus from the Commission. Mr. Davis established that the Commission could not consider this as a proffered rezoning because the proffer has to be in writing. Mr. Wood replied he is willing to put this in writing now, if this is permitted by the Commission. Mr. Payne replied this would be legal. Col. Washington stated that the crossover issue will still be an issue when a site plan is submitted. Mr. Keeler stated that the Planning Commission could deny a site plan if it does not supply a safe and convenient access to a public road. Col. Washington called for a motion. Mr. Skove moved for denial. Mr. Bowerman seconded this motion, which failed to carry with a vote of 2-5. Col. Washington called for substitute motion. Mrs. Diehl moved for defferal unitl December 2 in order to receive comments from the Highway Department addressing the problem of the crossover and any other related information. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to include the Parks and Recreation Plan as an element of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Eckel briefly outlined the Parks Plan. Col. Washington asked if there were any public comments. Mrs. Marilyn Posten requested that the Planning Commission not take any action on the plan as it presently stood. She asked that they review the Plan in connection with a state wide program of Community Education. She then submitted for consideration the Virginia Plan for Community Education dated September, 1980. Mr. Davis stated that the current plan does indeed focus on getting Parks and Recreation and schools to work together, and that without some guidelines toward this goal, this could not be implemented. Mrs. Posten stated that she saw the present plan's top priority as the development of mini parks. Mr. Davis replied he saw the top priority as taking school and other under used property, and upgrading those sites, co-ordinating the Parks and Recreation Department's, the Education Department's effords in improving existing facilities. Mr. Eckel stated the highest priority was to postpone consideration of mini parks until the county had improved existing County owned land. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Col. Washington asked for a motion to forward this plan to the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Diehl made the motion to forward the plan. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.