Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 29 85 PC MinutesJanuary 29, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, January 29, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the January 15, 1985 meeting were approved as written. SP-85-1 AStec - Request to locate a pharmaceutical laboratory and product facility in a 10,000 square foot building (presently under construction) on a 3.478 acre parcel. Zoned LI, Light Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 77E(1), Parcel 1 (part), is located at the intersection of Routes 1101 and 742 on the northwest corner. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Regarding staff's recommended condition of approval No. 3--All Virginia Department of Health requirements to be met, including approval of materials to be landfilled, and including report submittal to Bureau of Toxic Substances Information --Mr. Keeler stated UNOGEN had informed him that because of the nature of the solid wastes the Health Department does not require any special approval and because they are a research and development facility, they are not required to file a Toxic Substances Report with the Bureau of Toxic Substances Information. However, if they do go into production, this report will be required. Referring to condition 3 (as stated above), Mr. Bowerman stated he was under the impression one of the primary objectives of the company was to manufacture, but Mr. Keeler had just stated they are a research and development facility. He asked for clarification. Mr. Keeler, reading from a letter from the Health Department dated January 3, explained the Health Department considers UNOGEN a research facility whose primary intent is the develop- ment of a process or production, but not to produce the product for commercial sale. zi4 January 29, 1985 Page 2 The Chairman asked for applicant comment. Mr. Floyd Artrip, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that as the owner of the building he is required to make the application, but UNOGEN will be the tenant. He stated a representative of UNOGEN was present and could better answer the Commission's questions. Ms. Adele Creutz, representing UNOGEN, addressed the Commission. She explained UNOGEN is in the very early stage of product research and development which could continue for a year or longer. She stated that after a marketable product is achieved, plans are still indefinite at this point as to whether or not the company will go into production or will license the product to another firm. She stated that when this had been explained to the Bureau of Toxic Substances, it was their feeling that the company should be classified as a research and development facility until such time, if ever, as the company goes into production as a manufacturer. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler confirmed that condition 3. would still be apart of the conditions of approval. He explained he had something in writing from the Bureau of Toxic Wastes, but he does not have anything directly from the Health Department at this time regarding the materials to be landfilled. It was determined the floor plan shown in the report has been somewhat modified. While the number and nature of the rooms have not changed, the actual arrangement has. In response to Mr. Gould's question, Ms. Creutz stated that if the company did go into production larger facilities would not be needed for at least three years (the term of the lease with Mr. Artrip). Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problems with the application since it was a proper location with proper zoning. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-85-1 AStec be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This special use permit is issued to the applicant for UNOGEN, Inc. Any change in occupancy subject to Section 27.2.2.1 shall require amendment of this special use permit; 2. Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority approval prior to discharge to sanitary sewer system; lie" January 29, 1985 Page 3 3. All Virginia Department of Health requirements to be met, %4W including approval of materials to be landfilled, and including report submittal to Bureau of Toxic Substances Information; 4. All chemicals listed in Appendix No. 1 of the performance standards report shall be secured in a manner to prohibit vandalism; 5. Approval is based on compliance with performance standards as submitted by UNOGEN, Inc., prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., dated September 17, 1984 and amended by report of Pleasants Associates, Inc., dated November 15, 1984. Any changes or modifications governed by these standards shall be approved by the Country Engineer who at his discretion may defer such approval to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 6. OLD BUSINESS Infill Development - Mr. Keeler submitted a memo for the Commission's rrr consideration which outlined strategies intended to avoid con- troversies which often accompany townhouse development proposals which are on small acreages surrounded by primarily single family detached subdivisions. He pointed out that while staff had provided this memo for discussion purposes, staff does not endorse any of these alternatives presented. Ms. Diehl asked if there was any way language could be added to the statement of intent for the R-4 district which would give the Commission more discretion when requesting infilling in single- family detached areas. Mr. Keeler stated he did not believe so because it would either be a use by right or a use by special use permit. Mr. Payne explained the statement of intent will determine where the district is put or how the uses in the district are interpreted. He stated he did not feel either of those have much application here. He added the statement of intent does have application for rezoning. Mr. Payne stated another way to adcD:ess this problem is through the question of density, i.e. whether it is gross density or net density. He felt this was a way to deal with what he believed to be the most acute of these problems. However, this would not address the problem of someone wanting to put a duplex on a lot where it is surrounded by single-family dwellings. He emphasized that R-4 is a duplex zone. 71& January 29, 1985 Page 4 In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Payne confirmed that the problem he had referred to as having been solved, or at least a solution is being developed, is that of the drawing of the lot lines. In response to. Mr. Skove's request, Mr. Keeler read the intent of the R-4 zone: -Provides for compact, medium -density, single-family development in planned residential areas having a high degree of supporting public facilities and utilities within community areas and the urban area; -Permits a variety of housing types; -Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental, and development amenities. R-4 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations designated on the comprehensive plan in proximity to supporting facilities, and where water and sewerage utility services are available or to be available within two years of rezoning application date. Mr. Skove stated it would be difficult to keep townhouses out of that zone. Mr. Payne agreed. However, Mr. Payne added that with the proposed amendment on net density/gross density (drawing of the lot lines), townhouses would not be practical except in a cluster subdivision because very peculiarly -shaped lots would be necessary to provide 1/4 acre lots for townhouses. It was generally felt the disadvantages connected with the alternatives presented by staff outweighed the advantages. Mr. Payne stated he felt the solution to the problem was what Mr. Skove had referred to as the "lot lines", which the Commission is yet to act upon. Mr. Skove stated this still would not solve the problem of neighborhood opposition to these proposals. Mr. Payne pointed out that if the problem can be addressed in terms of. the lot lines so that compact 1/4 acre lots are possible, townhouses will be eliminated except in clusters or condominium settings. It was determined there were not many R-4 areas which would be impacted by this. Mr. Bowerman stated it appeared that a potential way to deal with these situations was available (i.e. the "lot -line solution") and it should be tried. It was determined this was the consensus of the Commission. -n NOT January 29, 1985 Page 5 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Mr. Donnelly presented a proposed policy for requesting consideration to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. It was determined this had already been reviewed by the Board. Mr. Donnelly explained this would entail an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and since the Board had indicated it should be made a part of some official document, it would appear that the amendment procedure for the Comprehensive Plan would, in itself, become a part of the Comprehensive Plan. It was determined the newspaper notification of the public hearing for proposed amendments to the Plan would follow the same time schedule as is currently followed. Mr. Donnelly stated these would be amendments which the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors might wish to initiate (rather than those initiated by the public). He confirmed that a public hearing would be held and all the amendments would be advertised at one time. He stated all the hearings for any Comprehensive Plan amendments would be held on May 14 and Novem- ber 12. Mr. Donnelly further explained that the first dates for public hearing (February 19 and August 27) were intended mainly for the Commission's general discussion, and any public groups or devel- opers would have the second dates (March 5 and September 3) as deadlines for requests for Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Skove stated he was very supportive of this policy. He added he felt there was a danger this would be reguarded as zoning text amendments or zoning map amendments. Mr. Payne agreed that Mr. Skove had a good point and stated the Commission should be mindful of this in order to avoid being seduced by such reasoning. He added he felt it was very dangerous to get the Plan so precise and "cast in concrete" that it looks like the zoning map. Mr. Donnelly stated this schedule would enable the Planning Department to review Comprehensive Plan amendments periodically rather than interrupting the schedule throughout the year. He noted there had been eleven such requests last year.(Mr. Bowerman pointed out most of those requests had come from either the Commission or the Board.) Ms. Diehl asked if staff has the authority to filter out those requests that are actually zoning matters. Mr. Payne stated he felt this was a little different because there is no provision in the statute for a change in the Comprehensive Plan being originated by members of the public. However, he added that he felt the public has the constitutional right to ;W1 January 29, 1985 Page 6 petition the governing body to amend the plan, but the same kind of procedural specifications do not exist as they do for a rezoning or a subdivision. He explained that staff is required to submit to the Commission a request for a subdivision, whether it is right or not. However, staff can explain to an applicant that his/her proposal is not a Comprehensive Plan amendment, but a rezoning. Mr. Payne stated that at some point, in some guise, an applicant will have the right to get to, at least, the Planning Commission, but that does not mean that it must be advertised and put to public hearing. Mr. Payne indicated that while the staff would have the authority to attempt to filter out some of the obvious requests, the applicant would still have the ultimate right to come before the Commission. Ms. Diehl indicated she was in favor of staff exercising such authority. Mr. Keeler stated that if this was the position the Commission wished to take (i.e. allowing staff authority to filter out requests), it would be helpful if a written resolution was adopted to that effect. Mr. Donnelly stated there is some criteria contained in the policy that could perhaps be developed into a policy statement, e.g. "parcel -specific requests for a change in the recommended use." Mr. Payne stated he could foresee problems for staff since he felt it is sometimes difficult to set a rule which does not involve a lot of discretion. He felt the staff would be very reluctant to tell an applicant, except in the most obvious cases, that a proposal could not be presented to the Commission. Mr. Bowerman, seeking clarification, aslcd if an application is filed by the deadline date is this the equivalent of the Commission and the Board adopting a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler responded that he did not believe the Code provides for that. He explained that this policy is intended to formalize this procedure in order to get the requests before the Commission, but the requests would still have to be initiated by the Commission. Mr. Payne explained that in the case of a rezoning, for example, the statute says the owner of a parcel of land has the right to initiate a rezoning and require the Planning Commission to hold public hearing, etc. However, no similar statute exists for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman then stated that at the time of the initial review, the Commission would not adopt a resolution if a request was not determined to be appropriate. 7 t9 January 29, 1985 Page 7 It was determined this review would take place before the public hearing (before May 14 and November 12), thus necessitating another step before the public hearing. Ms. Diehl asked how site review meetings fit into this. Mr. Donnelly gave the example of a large scale development such as a PUD. Referring to point D.under Criteria for the Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application --Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amend- ments shall be evaluated for general compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance... --Mr. Skove stated he felt this was backwards since the Zoning Ordinance and the Sub- division Ordinance depend upon the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Donnelly stated he thought this was intended to mean that the Comprehensive Plan would be examined for compliance with any existing county policies or standards, and perhaps those two ordinances should not have been included. Though Mr. Bowerman questioned the 6-month review schedule, Mr. Skove indicated he was in favor of it since it would make sure that the amendments that come in are internally consistent. Mr. Skove indicated he felt a lot of amendments that would be suggested by the public would be "map specific" and would not actually require Comprehensive Plan amendments. He also stated he felt D., under Criteria for Review, should state that any proposed amendments to the Plan should be internally consistent. Mr. Bowerman stated he was not sure what was meant by "internally consistent." Mr. Payne stated, for example, that it would not be possible for call for protection of the reservoir and then allow indis- criminate location of heavy industry west of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that what was meant was that amendments be internally consistent with the Plan itself. It was determined that D. should be changed to read to the effect that amendments to the Plan shall be internally consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan itself. Regarding the review schedule, it was determined the public hear- ings on the Resolution of Intent should be held after the site review meeting. Thus, there would be two public hearings in a row -- one at the time of adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the Plan, and the second at the time the amendment is actually reviewed, with the site review meeting preceding the first public hearing. January 29, 1985 Page 8 } It was the consensus of the Commission that, in general, the policy was a good one. It was determined that in order for this policy to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, it would be necessary to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan and staff confirmed that it would be brought back to the Commission for a public hearing. Planning Division Work Program - Ms. Scala presented the staff report which gave a list of special projects the Planning Division will be working on this spring and summer. She asked for the Commission's thoughts on the priority that had been given to the items and for suggestions as to any items which might be missing. She added that Mr. Michel had requested that a study be made of additional roads and streams for scenic designation. Referring to the fact that the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors had been changed from February 6 to April 3, Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible for the Submittal Procedures (streamlining update) to be moved up to March so that it could then be discussed at the joint meeting. Ms. Scala confirmed that this could be done. Regarding the work on the Historic District, it was determined that the desired result for this district should be more clearly defined. Mr. Skove stated that Historical Districts are very difficult to establish in rural areas where historic sites are widely scattered (unlike city sites). Mr. Bowerman stated the problems involved with the Historic District need to be defined and it should also be determined with what philosophy the matter should be handled. Mr. Skove stated he felt Ash Lawn and Monticello should be given consideration for some sort of special protection. Mr. Payne suggested the possibility of issuing plaques to designate historical houses (as has been done in another locality). Bonus Provisions - Ms. Scala gave the staff report and indicated the purpose of the report was to update the Commission on the current status of the Bonus issue. She stated staff has been considering comments from various groups, including the Commis- sion and the general public, and is continuing work on the specific language of the bonus provisions which shall be ready for presentation before the Commission on February 26. 2 2,l January 29, 1985 Paae 9 Ms. Scala asked that the Commission indicate disagreement, or agreement, with the ideas presented in the report. Ms. Diehl asked if the essence of deleting several of the bonuses is that more of the provisions would have to be used in order to get the 50% density increase. Ms. Scala indicated the answer to this question is not yet known, but she felt that it would balance out to being pretty much the same as it is now. Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission was in accord with staff's ideas. Swift -Air Delivery - Mr. Keeler stated staff had received a request for extension of a site plan at the Airport Center (industrial subdivision) for Swift -Air Delivery. He stated he did not feel there has been any change in the circumstances in that area in terms of development and there have been no changes in the ordinances that would require another review. Therefore, if the use to be made of the building is a use by right, and the Planning Commission does not object, he stated staff will authorize extension of the site plan for a period not to exceed six months. He stated if the use should require a special use permit, staff will not extend the site plan without review by the Commission. The Commission had no objections to staff extending the site plan for Swift -Air Delivery, under the conditions explained by Mr. Keeler. Joint Meeting with the Board - Mr. Bowerman stated the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors had been rescheduled to April 3, at 3:30. Mobile Home Assessments - Ms. Scala presented information that had been acquired regarding mobile home taxation. She stated that basically mobile homes are assessed in the manner that is currently being considered (and favored) by the General Assembly, i.e. individually rather than by Blue Book value, for both single -wide and double -wide units. She further explained that they are carried as personal property by state law, but they are taxed at the real estate rate and are appraised in the same manner as a conventional home. In answer to Mr. Skove's inquiry, Ms. Scala explained that double-wides are carried as real estate (i.e. the Real Estate Department sends out the bill), and the single-wides are carried zz7. January 29, 1985 Page 10 in the Finance office, though they are taxed at the real estate rate and are appraised in the same way as a double -wide. She stated whether or not a unit is on a permanent foundation is immaterial. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Am IA � AftAA a OVAA James R. Donnel , ecretary DS zz3