Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 06 83 PC MinutesSeptember 6, 1983 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan; Mr. Mike Davis; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Allen Kendrick; Mr. Jim Skove; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Mr. Maynard Elrod,County Engineer, presented a report on Urban Stormwater Management. His report included a description of the Meadow Creek Drainage Program and possible methods of financing improvements. (See Attachment A to these minutes.) No action was required of the Commission. SP-83-52 Peggy Foster - Request to locate a day nursery on ±0.38 acre zoned R-2 Residential, County Tax Map 56D, Parcel OC-3 (Lot 3), White Hall Magisterial District. Property is located at 17 Jamestown Road in Brookwood Subdivision, Crozet. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Keeler added that the Health Department had found no evidence of malfunction in the septic system. Mr. Foster represented the applicant. He offered no significant comment. The being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl expressed concern because the Health Department's comments had not addressed increased usage. Mr. Keeler stated he would have this clarified before the Board hearing. Ms. Diehl stated she was not satisfied with the Health Department's response. Mr. Cogan and Mr. Davis stated they felt condition No. 6 would address Ms. Diehl's concerns. They agreed that the comments received thus far from the Health Department were meaningless. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-83-52 for Peggy Foster be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Enrollment shall be limited to 8 children per day; 2. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; 3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations; 10 September 6, 1983 Page 2 4. Staff approval of outdoor fenced play area; 5. County Engineer approval of driveway improvements in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways and 'Transportation comments of August 12, 1983; 6. Health Department verification that existing septic facilities are adequate for increased usage. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-83-61 Larry Wyant - Request to locate an antique and gifts store on ±2 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, County Tax Map 41, Parcel 24, White Hall Magisterial District. Property is located in southeast quadrant of the intersection of Routes 810 and 614 in White Hall. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Wyant. He briefly explained his proposal and noted that the grease pit would be adequately covered. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-83-61 for Larry Wyant be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval; 2. Fire Official and Building Official approval of building and of safety provisions for existing grease rack; 3. Virginia Department of Highways anal Transportation approval of one or more commercial entrances; 4. No outdoor storage or display; 5. No auctions. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-83-12 G. Benton Patterson - Request to rezone ±17,500 square feet out of 6.543 acres from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial, County Tax Map 45, part of Parcel 22, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property is located at the intersection of Routes 743 and 631, east of Route 743 and west of Route 631. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. 3/d September 6, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman noted the comment in the staff report relating to the four access points and ascertained that the Commission could discuss the issue of safety access without additional input from the Highway Department. (COMMENT FROM STAFF REPORT: Currently access to Routes 631 and 743 is uncontrolled. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation intends to construct four access pointes to the two commercial buildings. While these entrances meet Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards, four accesses may be excessive in view of the amount of traffic at this intersection.) Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment. Mr. W. S. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that the existing buildings, particularly the Rock Store, have been in existance for many years. He pointed out that they felt that commercial use was appropriate for this tract of land, noting that it is in keeping with the existing structures and the present pattern of usage. Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the primary access to this property is from Rt. 743 rather than Rt. 631 and would be inaccessible from Rt. 631 except for the entrance on the corner. He noted that the property, at one time, consisted of two tracts of land separated by a road that ran across this property to the reservoir. He also noted that there is a retaining wall located along the rear property line. Mr. Roudabush noted that the existing buildings, configurations, size and access to this parcel of land, lend themselves to commercial rather than industrial uses. He noted that the value of improvements on this property rules out the demolition or conversion of the buildings to industrial use. He also noted that allowing the use of this parcel as commercial, the residue can be better planned and developed for appropriate light industry, industrial uses without altering the existing structures. Mr. Roudabush stated that a site plan would not be required for this property as the buildings already exist. He noted that this application does not contemplate any changes in the buildings (size,). He noted that this application is a request to allow the owner to continue the present uses on the property, that are not comptabile with the light industry zoning. Mr. Roudabush stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. September 6, 1983 Page 4 Mr. Ed Bain, also representing the applicant, stated that this property was zoned commercial before the zoning changes made in December, 1980. He noted that this property is shown as industrial now because, at the time the zoning changes were made, the applicant had a tenant on this property whose business was a furniture shop. He noted that since this business expired, they have been unable to lease this property for industrial uses. Mr. Bain stated that with regard to the four access points to these buildings, this is a proposal made by the Highway Department. He noted that if an alternate plan allowing for a better flow through plan was suggested, they would not be opposed to this. Mr. Bain stated that they felt commercial zoning was appropriate for this area and stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment regarding this petition. Mr. Jim Skeen, representing the Church of Jesus Christ latter Day Saints, stated their concern that rezoning this property to highway commercial uses would allow, by right, uses that might be detrimental to the character of this area. He noted that the intended use of this property is for automobile and truck repairs, pointing out their objection to the visual impact of this use. He stated that for these reasons they are opposed to the rezoning of this property for commercial uses. With no further comment frcm the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the balance of the property (approximately six acres) is used for mobile homes. Mr. Bowerman questioned why the Highway Department is building four access entrances at this intersection. Mr. Keeler explained that this would be an improvement over the existing entrances and noted that each of the four access points meets the minimum requirements of the Highway Department. Mr. Payne stated that the four access points are being built by the Highway Department, therefore the Commission does not have to address this issue. Mr. Cogan stated that a letter outlining the concerns of the Commission could be sent to the Highway Department. Mr. Payne stated that the four access points is not directly related to this rezoning, therefore the rezoning petition cannot be conditoned upon this. He stated that the question of entrances could better be addressed when a site plan is submitted. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that signalization of this intersection is planned along with future development along Rio Road. �/a September 6, 1983 Page 5 M Mr. Bowerman noted that this entire tract of land was zoned light industry, and a plat was not submitted showing different uses on the site. He asked that in light of this, can the Commission review the entire tract of land versus the 0.4 acre portion submitted. Mr. Payne noted that the application before the Commission addresses only a portion of the 6+ acre parcel, therefore the Commission cannot address the remainder of the property at this time. He noted that the Planning Commission has the authority, if they deem it appropriate, to initiate a rezoning. Mr. Bowerman asked if this rezoning could be approved with a condition speaking to the use of petroleum in the garage. Mr. Payne stated that a rezoning can not be conditioned unless it is in the form of a proffer. Mr. Davis stated his concern with rezoning a portion of a parcel. Mr. Payne stated that the zoning lines do not have to follow the property lines and noted that the applicant has the right, assuming he meets all the criteria, to request rezoning without reference to property lines. He noted that this creates two issues: 1) approve rezoning from light industry to commercial use; 2) recommend a resolution of intent to the Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning map in this area. Mr. Davis stated that he felt a site plan should be sumitted showing the overall uses on this property. Mr. Davis stated that he felt it has been the position of the Commision in the past to require standards for the most intensive use in the zoning designation, until the exact use has been established. He noted that once this use has been established the requirments could be modified. Mr. Keeler stated that he would like to speak to the issue of zoning on the residue. He pointed out that, in this case, a map recommended by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors, showed this property zoned for commercial use. He pointed out that the Board addressed the map based on policy staements and tried to avoid looking at individual properties. This property at the time of the rezoning was zoned industrial uses, noting that the industrial use (furniture shop) was the only business that conformed to the zoning. Mr. Keeler explained the difference in highway commercial zoning and commercial zoning (i.e. highway commercial intended for major roads, difference in road frontage, etc.). Mr. Skove stated that he does not approve of highway commercial zoning for this area. Mr. Keeler pointed out on the map the location of the existing roadway. Mr. Bowerman reiterated his concern regarding the four access points to be built by the Highway Department. 313 September 6, 1983 Page 6 Mr. Keeler pointed out that both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors has encouraged the Highway Department to recommend the best solutions available with regard to traffic circulation. Mrs. Diehl noted the location of the gas pumps on the site and stated that by allowing two entrances to the site this would improve the traffic flow. Mr. Davis questioned if an applicant could proffer site plan approval contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Payne stated that this could be done if the applicant is willing and gave an example where this was done in the past. Mr. Davis stated that he could not support the rezoning application unless the applicant was willing to proffer the site plan thereby allowing for a more comprehensive review of this parcel. Mrs. Diehl stated that the entrance to the property from Rt. 743 would, in her _:pinion, better serve the site. Mr. Cogan stated his concern with the location of the entrances and noted that he felt a site plan should be submitted for this site. Mr. Michel stated that the number of parking spaces available would determine the appropriate use of the parcel. Mr. Bowerman stated that it is inconceivable, in his opinion, that a 17,000 square foot parcel should have four entrances, and noted that Mr. Roosevelt could explain the reasoning behind this. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Planning Commission should consider if a garage is appropiate in this location and address the disposal and containment of petroleum products. Mr. Roudabush pointed out on the map the location of the detention wall and noted the drop in elevation. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the mobile homes are not located close to the proposed zoning line. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the grease traps (in the garage) have been covered and will not be used. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this parcel is served by a septic system. Mr. Bowerman noted that the Commission has the following alternatives available with regard to this petition: • approval with highway commercial zoning; • approval with commercial zoning; • denial of the petition. .314 September 6, 1983 Page 7 Mr. Payne noted that the Commission can recommend rezoning to a less intensive use. He noted that C-1 zoning would address the needs of the applicant. Mr. Davis stated that he could not support the rezoning application, pointing out that he felt a site.plan should be submitted for this site. Mr. Cogan noted the following concerns with this application: o disposal of oil and grease products; o entrances; o parking; o intended uses. Mr. Skove stated that he felt a site plan is necessary in order for the Commission to make a valid decision. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this petition is scheduled to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors on September 21, 1983. Mr. Bowerman stated that he has no objection to the commercial designation, if the applicant submits a site plan for the second building. Mr. Keeler stated that the change in use occasions the need for a new entrance as recommended by the Highway Department. f%w Mr. Payne reiterated that the change in use is for an existing building. Mr. Keeler noted that this building was used as a cabinet shop, apparently the Zoning Administrator determined that adequate parking was available. Mr.. Bowerman asked the applicant if he would prefer the Commission to defer action on this petition for two weeks giving the applicant time to address the concerns of the Commission. Mr. Bain stated that they did not know what type of use would be established in this building and stated that he would prefer the Commission take action on this petition tonight. Mr. C. Davis moved for denial of this petition noting that highway commercial zoning is toointense a use for this property. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any further discussion. Mr. Michel inquired whether he could ask a quick question. (Tape silent...} Mr. Cogan stated that he tended to agree and as he had said before, if more appropriate information were available he might feel differently, but that this was just how he felt at this particular time. September 6, 1983 Page 8 Mr. Bowerman said that his general opinion was that he would defer to the Highway Department, based on what he had heard tonight, and their suggestions were the recommendations on what would be built at the entrances. He added that his concerns were those raised by Mr. Davis. Mr. Skove asked whether C-1 zoning might be better than Light Industrial. Mr. Kindrick remarked that he did not think so. Mr. Bowerman asked for a vote to be taken; the motion for denial passed unanimously. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain whether he had a good idea of the Commission's concerns, and Mr. Bain replied that he did. Rio 29 Complex, Phase III - Request for Site Plan Extension Mr. Keeler read a letter from Mr. Wyant explaining the reason for the requested extension. Ms. Diehl moved that a 60 day extension be granted. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioner Skove casting the dissenting vote. WORK SESSION Crozet Community - Further Discussion of Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained the major change was the deletion of that portion of Crozet north of Rt. 240 and the railroad and the deletion of most of the property on the south side of Rt. 250 west. He also noted that the existing development north of 240 and the railroad was not reflected in the plan. Mr. Keeler explained the changes in detail. He explained it was the Board's concept to maintain all the new development in Crozet within the Lickinghole Creek impoundment. Significant comments included: Cogan: He felt the boundaries should be left as they currently exist and if they create a problem with runoff into one of the reservoirs, then more than one detention pond could be built. He felt this was more economical and cheaper than what is being contemplated which does not coincide with utility and transportation changes. No action was taken by the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting Aclounred at 10:48 p.m. V. Way 4 Cilimb g, airman Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 6-90 -514 ATTACHMENT A September 6, 1983 Minutes of September 6, 1983 MEADOW CREEK DRAINAGE PROGRA1-4 POSSIBLE METHODS OF FINANCING IMPROVEMENTS A. "Watershed Improvement District" Section 21-112.1 1) Must be within a soil and water conservation district. 2) Requires petition by twenty-five landowners. 3) Requires referendum with 2/3 of landowners approval. 4) Governed by three trustees who are appointed by directors of Soil and Water Conservation District. 5) Trustees may finance by: a) Tax levy on all real estate or, b) Service charge on the increase in the fair market value of all real estate caused by the project. 6) The rate of the tax levy or service charge will be determined from year to year by the trustees. B. "Sanitary District" Section 21-122 1) Petition may be by governing body of 50 qualified voters of the district. 2) Bonds may be issued by governing body if majority of voters are in favor. 3) Amount of bonds may not exceed 18 percent of assessed value of all real estate in district. C. "General Drainage Improvement Program" Section 15.1-466J 1) Requires establishment of a program by the governing body. 2) Subdivider or developer can be required to pay only his "pro-rata" share of improvements located off of his lands. 3) Payments can be used only for those facilities for which payment was required. 4) Payments may be held in interest -bearing account for benefit of subdivider. 5) Governing body may accept posting of bond until funds are needed. D. General Fund Appropriation E. Proffered contributions in lieu of constructing on -site detention basins as required by section 18-22 of the county code. 09