Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 14 85 PC MinutesFebruary 14, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, February 14, 1985, in meeting room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner. Absent were: Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Richard Gould, Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Acting in Mr. Bowerman's absence, Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. ZMA 84-29 Grayrock P.R.D. (Robert and Ann Savage - Proposal to locate 29 townhouse units on 7J.q& acres for a gross density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre, to be served by State roads. Located on the north side of Route 691 (Jarman's Gap Road), south of Orchard Acres subdivision, east of Route 68 . Zonedels PRDdR-1, Planned Residential Development. Tax Map 55, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Referring to page 5 of the staff report, Mr. Cogan asked if the figures given for the traffic counts on the highways reflected the additional amount that Grayrock would add, or did they reflect a combination of the upper figure plus what Grayrock would generate. Mr. Keeler indicated the total figure was a combination of the two. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Ann Savage, the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that every effort had been made to develop a plan that was in keeping with the natural beauty of the area. She em- phasized that this was a long-term plan and would not take place over night. She also stated that nothing would start until the sewer line is in place (late 1986). She stated it was her desire that this development would set the tone for other quality developments of this type in Crozet. She also stated that any development in Crozet would require upgrading of the roads. M February 14, 1985.Pab,a 2 Mr. McKee, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Com- mission. He emphasized that it was understood that no devel- opment could begin until the sewer was in place. He stated that Rt. 684, which would serve Phase 1 of the development, is currently listed as tolerable by the Highway Department. He stated that water was available both on Jarman's Gap Road and on Rt. 684, although the pressure required to meet fire flow requirements is inadequate. However, he felt this could be handled through the provision of a booster pumping station. He agreed that Jarman's Gap Road is intolerable, but pointed out that decel lanes are proposed for that road. Mr. McKee quoted from a letter sent to Mr. Keeler: "Throughout the planning process we have worked in the context of the County Com- prehensive Plan which designates the Grayrock tract as a designated growth area with a density of up to four dwelling units/ acre. We have analyzed the property care- fully as evidenced by the documents which we have submitted. While many may feel that a project of this scale was simply too much for Crozet, an area which until now has not felt any significant develop- ment pressures,few would argue that a gross density of four dwelling units/acre is excessive for a targeted growth area. The Grayrock plan has, in fact, allocated more than 64% of the total site area to dedicated common open space. We have a conscious effort to maintain many of the existing orchards as buffers, landscape architectural elements in the parking area and as a means of articulating the playfields and pedestiran pathways. In short, we feel that this is a good plan and one that is certainly worthy of County acceptance for re -zoning. I hope that we will have your support so that Phase 1 construction can begin upon com- pletion of the sanitary sewer collection system." Mr. Cogan asked Mr. McKee to explain how the applicant plans to overcome the lack of water pressure necessary for adequate fire protection. Mr. McKee stated that a connection would be provided from the 6-inch water line along Rt. 684 to the 6-inch water line along Jarman's Gap Rd., and a booster pumping station would have to be provided. He confirmed that this would increase the gpm rate to what was required. a4r February 14, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Bill Norris of the Office of Watershed Management, addressed the Commission. He stated that because this is the first devel- opment of this type in the Crozet area he wanted to assure that no mistakes were made and that all bases are covered. He stated that he thought the plan was feasible if the measures for water quality protection are properly installed and properly maintained. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Highway Department, addressed the Com- mission. In answer to Mr. Cogan's question, he explained the difference between "non -tolerable" and "in -tolerable roads, i.e. "non -tolerable" is a clearly defined standard in relation to road width and amount of traffic, while "in -tolerable" refers more to the aesthetic aspects of the road. Regarding improve- ments to Jarman's Gap Road, Mr. Roosevelt indicated that because it was listed as non -tolerable, it is automatically in an improvement plan, but the only detailed improvement plans that the department has are 6-year secondary improvement plans, and Jarman's Gap Road is not in that plan. He stated there is no money for any improvements in the Crozet area in the next six years. In light of this, Mr. Wilkerson asked what would happen to the road and its maintenance if this P.R.B. were approved. Mr. Roosevelt stated the road would be more difficult and costly to maintain. In regard to the safety of the road, Mr. Roosevelt said he could not say that it would be unsafe, and he hoped that the Highway Department would be able to keep up with the main- tenance requirements by giving the road more attention. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Roosevelt if it was anticipated that the Jarman's Gap Road (or any of the other roads involved) would get on the 6-year plan within this decade. Mr. Roosevelt stated the 6-year plan is developed based on the priorities that the Board of Supervisors set. Giving Old Brook Road as an example of a previous similar situation, he indicated that if this plan is approved, and because of this approval the Board of Supervisors decides that this road needs improvement, they are in a position to get it into the 6-year plan. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Mr. Roosevelt stated that similar road situations had existed with Old Brook Road and with Rt. 688 off Rt. 635, south of Brownsville. He further stated there are no plans to increase the site distance and the safety of the intersection on Rt. 240 and Rt. 781. Mr. Roosevelt stated there is a detailed highway plan for the urban area around Charlottesville, i.e. the CAT Study, and the Highway Department makes its recommendations on rezonings based on this plan. However, in reality, he stated the roads in the Charlottesville area are no nearer this CAT Study transportation network than are the roads in the Crozet area near what is needed to serve the Crozet population. The difference is that we can , �p, February 14, 1985 Page 4 look at the CAT Study and see exactly what will be needed in the year 2000, but we cannot look at any plan and see what will be needed to serve the transportation needs in the Crozet area. Mr. Roosevelt indicated he felt this development closely follows what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan for that area. He said he was under the impression that state law does not allow Planning Commissions or Boards of Supervisors to dwell on high- way needs as a reason for turning down a rezoning. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dick Brandt, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission. He indicated his concern in the following areas: (1) Increased traffic on already very dangerous roads; (2) The impact of the proposed high density on "downtown Crozet." He stated the citizens are concerned that the maximum ceiling is being used which is out of character with the surrounding area; (3) Water and sewer lines. He suggested that the timing of this develop- ment might be premature since the services are not yet available to take care of it. He also questioned where the money will come from to connect up to the interceptor line. He asked if there would be sufficient controls to assure that if adequate services do not materalize, the development can be stopped. Mr. Mark Brandt, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission, and indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Dick Brandt's concerns. He indicated that though he was not excited about seeing the Crozet area turn into an urban area, he understood that this was called for in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated his primary concern was with the density and the impact on already non - tolerable roads. He stated that there does not seem to be any current plans to make the roads tolerable. He questioned Mr. Roosevelt's statement that the safety of available roads could not be taken into account when considering approval for this type of development. Referring to Mr. Norris' remarks, he questioned that proper maintenance could be assured for the various water management measures. Ms. Joanne Perkins, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission. She questioned the lack of adequate mapping for the Crozet area. She stated she felt the Planning Commission has an obligation to the citizens of Crozet to do "what is right" for that area. She referred to the already dangerous conditions of the roads and gave several examples of dangerous intersections and several situations that seem to exist because of poor engineering practices. She indicated these situations should be corrected before adding any new development. Ms. Cristine Baker, a Crozet resident, expressed her opposition to the proposal. Mr. Robert Armstrong, a Crozet resident, expressed his concern and opposition to the proposal. ,}5 February 14, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Charles Hitt, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission and expressed his concern about the impact this development would have on the schools. Mr. Cogan called Mr. Hitt's attention to the staff report which had addressed the school question. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. McKee, attorney for the applicant, stated he sympathizes with the citizens' concerns, but he stated that the Compre- hensive Plan calls for growth of this type in this area. He stated the applicant had submitted the entire plan at this time so the County could see the entire picture, but he emphasized the long-term build -out of the project (20 years). He also pointed out that the roads may never be upgraded unless this type of development occurs. He also stated he did not think the present sewer plans were economically sound without additional growth in the Crozet area. He stated that the developer would assume the financial responsibility for any on or off -site sewer that would be required to connect with the system. However, he stated the developer would not assume the responsibility for widening Jarman's Gap Road along the entire frontage to satisfy current Highway Department standards. He stated this would not help much anyway because it would only be upgraded along the frontage. Mr. Michel asked why 4 units/acre are proposed in this case when 22 - 3 units/acre is what is usually proposed in a devel- opment of this nature. Mr. Keeler stated this was a judgment of the Commission on a case -by -case basis. He said the Plan recommends a density range of 1-4 units/acre in large, low density areas. Mr. Keeler gave examples of Willow Lake and Hillcrest (yet to be reviewed by the Commission) as developments with 4 units/acre. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Keeler stated about 1,000 acres of the Crozet area are proposed for low -density residential development, and about 310 acres for medium density, for a total of about 7%. Mr. Michel stated he felt the applicant had done a very thoughtful and thorough job and his only concern is the density. Ms. Diehl asked if there was any specific language in the Plan which defines when the 4 unit/acre is recommended, or when a lower density would be preferable. Mr. Keeler indicated there was no such specific language. Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission has the authority to reduce the proposed density on any petition presented for approval. February 14, 1985 Referring to Section 1.5, so, provided properties in in like manner. Page 6 Mr. Keeler indicated this was a similar situation are treated Mr. Skove stated he felt the proposal was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled that one of the fears regarding the interceptor had been that development would occur along the interceptor. He felt this proposal puts development where it should go and commended the applicant for having done a good job. He agreed, however, that this would have a tremendous impact on the Crozet area. He stated he felt the Crozet area needed to be studied carefully when the Comprehensive Plan comes up for review. Ms. Diehl stated she felt a lower density would be more appropriate, but she said she could not apply any logical reason for a lower figure. Regarding the traffic problem, Mr. Skove asked why the CAT Study area could not be extended to include Crozet. Mr. Keeler stated he had asked the Highway Department if there were any funds available, or other resources, to develop a transportation plan for Crozet, along the lines of the CAT Study. He said the Highway Department was not optimistic about expanding the CAT Study area or the MPO study area at this time. Mr. Skove stated he felt it was theoretically possible and requested that staff explore the question of how Crozet might be included in the CAT Study. Mr. Michel stated he felt the County was going to have to start putting some major planning efforts into an area that is expected to develop at this degree. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the staff report calls for emphasis to be placed on planning for the infrastructure in the Crozet area in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review. In a brief review of the staff report, Mr. Cogan made reference to the following points: -"Review of the rezoning has amplified the need for additional planning for the Crozet community." He stated the Comprehensive Plan is a guide which extends to the year 2002 and it should be looked at in that light. -Regarding the roads, he stated he felt the estimated figures given in the staff report were low. He stated he disagreed with Mr. a February 14, 1985 Page 7 ti Roosevelt's opinion about the legality of considering road conditions as a factor in a rezoning request since he felt it was part of the Commission's duty to consider the public safety. He quoted the following from the Highway Department's comments: "The Department cannot endorse a rezoning request that would generate more traffic than is allowed under current approved zoning and that would increase traffic volumes on roads that are currently carrying more than their tolerable standards allowed. -Regarding the build -out time, he stated he felt this was speculative and would depend to a great extent on the success of the project. -Regarding the Watershed Management's comments that this was feasible "if everything goes right," Mr. Cogan stated everyone is aware that problems can arise and there are limita- tions as to how much the County can oversee these projects, especially after they are completed. -Regarding the intensity of the use, he stated he too felt this was too intense a use. He concluded by saying that he felt the applicant had pre- sented an excellent plan; however, he felt the project is premature since the services (sewers, water, roads) are not yet adequate. He stated he was hesitant to approve a plan that he could not foresee as workable. Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain why, if he feels the Commission cannot deny the plan based on the road situa- tion, does he state that the Highway Department cannot endorse the plan. Mr. Roosevelt stated the time to consider road and transpor- tation needs is the time that the map was drafted showing the proposed zoning in the Crozet area. Emphasizing that he was not a legal authority, he stated that it was his understanding that once the County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, roads cannot then be used as the reason for not rezoning property to a level in accordance with the Plan. He stated he did not know the reason for this, but that was what the courts had decided. He stated that water and sewer availability is specifically stated as an acceptable reason for denying a rezoning, but because roads are not specifically mentioned in the law, they cannot be considered. He once again emphasized this was his February 15, 1985 Page 8 understanding of the law, as an engineer, and the Commission needed the advice of their legal counsel. Mr. Roosevelt also stated that he agreed that the roads were going to be a problem but he said he could not say that they will be safe or unsafe since he does not use that terminology. He added that just because the law says that roads cannot be con- sidered in a. rezoning does not mean that he is forced to support a proposal that will make roads that are already non - tolerable even more so. Mr. Cogan stated if this was true he felt a lot of "coloring" needed to be done on the County map and he suggested that perhaps that law had come into being after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, but he re -stated that the Commission does concern itself with public safety. Mr. Keeler referred to Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which are taken from the Code of Virginia. Section 1.4 comes from the portion of the Code which deals with what the Zoning Ordinance is designed to do, i.e. "...to provide for convenience of access ... to reduce or prevent congestion of the public streets ... to facilitate provisions of trans- portation...to protect against one or more of the following: danger and congestion in travel and transportation...." Mr. Keeler stated he felt the Commission had latitude with a rezoning petition (it being a legislative decision), and he felt the Commission did not have to be unanimous in vote. He further stated he felt the Commission, if it is deterrained that it is hazardous to add any traffic to a road, clearly has the authority to deny a rezoning since a site plan or a subdivision can be denied under those circumstances. Ms. Diehl repeated that she felt the density was too intense for this particular site and area. She stated it did not seem to be compatible with the areas that have already been developed. However, she stated she could support a ZMA with a total density of 3 units/acre rather than 4. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA 84-29 Grayrock P.R.D. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with a density of 3 units/acre and subject to conditions of staff. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Skove asked Mr. McKee if he felt the project would be economically feasible at that reduced density. Mr. McKee indicated the applicant could agree to 3 units/acre or 1/3 acre lots, but he stated he felt this was not a very sensitive way to develop land. He stated he did not know February 14, 1985 Page 9 if it would be economically feasible or not, but he did not 1+`` feel this change would make much difference in the appropriate- ness (or lack of it) of the project. Ms. Diehl explained that she had suggested 3 units/acre for the following reasons: (1) It would be more compatible with the adjacent areas that have already been established; (2) It might reduce the need for, or aid in, the re -arrangement of the lots at a later time because of the slopes in some areas; and (3) If at a later time it is found that a higher density is appropriate, it could be changed at that time. She emphasized that she did not intend for the type of unit to be changed. Mr. Cogan ascertained that it was the intention of Ms. Diehl's motion that the cluster development remain intact, with at least the same percentage of open space being provided. He emphasized that it was not Ms. Diehl's intention that the development be changed to 1/3 acre lots, as had been suggested by Mr. McKee. Mr. Keeler stated it was his understanding that the motion was meant to approve not more than 220 units, as shown on the plan, with it being preferable that those that are more difficult to be served by gravity sewer be deleted. Ms. Diehl stated this would seem to be the most economically feasible for the developer as well as more environmentally sensitive. Regarding the comment that two of the areas were on excessive slopes, Mr. McKee stated he could see no difference, environmen- tally, in serving these areas with a gravity system or a pumping station. Mr. Skove indicated confusion as to what approval was being requested at this time. Mr. Keeler stated the Zoning Ordinance specifically permits the Planning Commission to recommend modifications of the plan to the Board of Supervisors. Regarding the sewer pumping station, he stated he thought the State Water Control Board would require a back-up station also, since this is in the reservoir watershed. He stated that once the developer has installed this and dedicated it to the Service Authority, it is up to the Authority to maintain it. Mr. Keeler stated some suggested language for Ms. Diehl's motion which might make the intent clearer: ...to reduce the development to not more than 220 dwelling units, all of which shall be served by gravity sewer. Ms. Diehl and Mr. Michel agreed to this re -wording of the previously -stated motion. _2�19 February 14, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Cogan stated he respected the motion and the intent, but he still felt that the project is premature and that both the developer and the County would benefit by waiting until the next step of the Comprehensive Plan has been completed. The Chairman called for a vote on Ms. Diehl's motion, re -worded by Mr. Keeler as follows: ...moved that ZMA 84-29 Grayrock P.R.D. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with the development reduced to not more than 220 dwelling units, all of which shall be served by gravity sewer, and subject to the conditions of staff. The motion was defeated with Ms. Diehl and Mr. Michel voting in favor and Messrs. Skove, Cogan and Wilkerson voting against. Mr. Cogan stated that ZMA 84-29 would not be recommended to the Board for approval. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the recommendation to the Board needed to be by positive vote, therefore, an alternative motion was called for. Mr. Skove moved that ZMA 84-29 Grayrock P.R.D. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as submitted, subject to the conditions of staff. This motion died for lack of a second. The Chairman called for another motion. Ms. Diehl restated her original motion and moved that ZMA 84-29 for Grayrock P.R.D. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with 3 dwelling units/acre, cluster development to remain intact, and all units to be served by gravity sewer, and subject to the following conditions: (1) Approval is for a maximum of three townhouse dwelling units per acre and cluster development to remain intact, with all units to be served by gravity sewer. Land uses and acreages shall be in general accord with the Land Use Summary depicted on the Application Plan provided that additional recreational facilities shall be provided as recommended by Planning staff under "Comprehensive Plan of this report. (2) Provision shall be made for internal access for emer- gency vehicles from clusters 1-3 to the remainder of the development, to be approved by the Fire Official and County Engineer. ,_�2 -41-7 February 14, 1985 Page 11 (3) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including evidence of acquisition of all necessary easements. Fire Official approval of method of fireflow provisions. The Planning Commission shall not review any final plat or site plan prior to compliance with this condition. (4) County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation System, including acquisition of any site distance easements which may be required. (5) Water quality Best Management Practices shall be employed as recommended by the Watershed Management Official and County Engineer. More specifically, the following shall apply: a. Preservation of the existing lakes in a manner that will provide detention and pollution removal. Minor alternations of the outflow structures may be required as approved by the County Engineer. b. Implementation of BMPs that are applicable to the site to control runoff and pollutants, to preserve the groundwater table, and to eliminate erosion. These BMPs may be grass filter strips, level spreaders, sediment traps in drop inlets, infil- tration trenches, and porous asphalt, as suitable to the site soils and the proposed development, as recommended by the County Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission. C. Developer cash contribution to off -site drainage and runoff control projects in accordance with the County Ordinances and policies effective at the time of approval of any site plans or subdi- vision plats. (6) Three copies of a revised Application Plan, reflecting: access relocation to Route 684; redesign of clusters 1-3; and conditions 1 and 2 contained herein, to be submitted to the Planning Division in accordance with Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved with Ms. Diehl and Messrs. Michel and Wilkerson voting in favor, and Messrs. Cogan and Skove voting against. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 20, 1985. SP-84-90 M.C. Partnership - Request to locate an office, warehouse, 10AW and self -storage units on 14.97 acres, zoned LI, Light Industry. Property described as Tax Map 77E(1), Parcel 1 and Tax Map 77E(2), 2.6 February 14, 1985 Page 12 Parcel 2, is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended; bounded on the northeast by Moores Creek and the Corporate City Limits. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler stated the apart- ment unit is not allowed at this time in the LI district (though it is allowed in certain other commercial districts). He stated staff feels that a similar provision allowing this type of dwelling in the LI district would be appropriate and that this would require a zoning text amendment initiated by the applicant or the County. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Chip Chandler, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated his business (Student Services, Inc.) needed a larger facility for its offices, thus this proposal. He stated his company was mainly involved in exterior house painting and household goods moving. He indicated the mini -warehouse would compliment the moving aspect of the operation. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the proposed apartment, Mr. Cogan stated he felt this would be an asset for security purposes and he stated he would be in favor of a zoning text amendment. Mr. Michel indicated his agreement with Mr. Cogan and moved that SP-84-90 for M.C. Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (1) Building area limited to 68,000 square feet; (2) Planning Commission approval of site plan to include method of screening light warehouses from Route 742; (3) All storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Skove moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow dwelling units in the LI zone similar to what is now allowed in commercial zones. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. February 14, 1985 Page 13 ZMA-84-31 Joseph W. and Mary Jane Teague - Request to rezone 0.900 acre from R-1, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial (existing funeral home). Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 37, is located on Ivy Road approximately 1200 feet west of the Cor- porate City Limits. Jack Jouette Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Joseph Teague, the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove stated that this seemed to be an administrative matter, and moved that ZMA-84-31 for Joseph and Mary Teague be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on February 20, 1985. Teague -Hawkins Funeral Site Plan (Additions and Alterations) - Proposal to increase existing floor area to 12,226 square feet with a 1,350 square foot addition and to increase paved area to create 12 new parking spaces. Located on the south side of U.S. Route 250 West adjacent to the access road to the Children's Rehabilitation Center. Zoned R-1, Residential. Tax Map 60, Parcel 37. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She stated that staff was asking for the Commission to grant administrative approval of the site plan. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Teague addressed the Commission. Using the map, he explained the proposed parking and traffic patterns. He also indicated he felt the Highway Department's recommendations were illogical and unreasonable. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt replied. He stated that the recommendations made for this site were based on what would be required if this were vacant and the proposal was for a new funeral operation, i.e. one entrance at the eastern property line; a right -turn lane; February 14, 1985 Page 14 no entrance where the current western entrance exists; an entrance on the side street (Rehab Center road), but pulled mod as far away from Rt. 250 as possible. However, he stated that since it is not a vacant site, the Highway Department must depend upon the Commission to require the applicant to get a permit from the Highway Department, and the Planning Commission must determine what the applicant is required to do. He indicated that unless the Commission requires these improve- ments, the Highway Department has very little chance of getting said improvements. Regarding the easternmost entrance, Mr. Roosevelt stated the Highway Department was recommending that it be narrowed. It was determined that part of this entrance was actually off the applicant's property, but that the applicant has an easement to use that entrance. It was ascertained that no history of accidents exists for this entrance. It was determined that the Highway Department feels the western entrance is too close to Rt. 302, and also has inadequate site distance attnd no decel lane. The applicant/thate he does have a recorded easement for the eastern entrance. He also stated his property line is right in the center of the entrance. , Regarding closing the western entrance, Mr. Teague stated this would be acceptable for funeral traffic, but not for visitor traffic. He also stated the County Engineer had visited the site and saw no problem with what exists. However, it was determined the County Engineer's comments were directed to drainage concerns. Mr. Keeler explained that the Highway Department could only require curb and gutter if it was determined that they were necessary to handle the drainage form the site, and the County Engineer has not recommended curb and gutter in this case. He stated the Highway Department would continue to recommend full frontage improvements, third lane improvements, etc, even though they are aware that it cannot be required, so that the record will show their recommendations. Therefore, Mr. Keeler recommended that the Commission ignore the full frontage and curb and gutter recommendation. He also stated that changing the eastern entrance would require quite a bit of re -grading. Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of leaving the eastern entrance as is and questioned whether or not any significant benefit would be derived from closing the western entrance, particularly since there have not been any problems with the entrance and there seems to be an organized flow of traffic. 1-:25 3 February 14, 1985 Page 15 Mr. Skove indicated he agreed with staff be authorized administrative plan for the Teague Hawkins Funeral subject to the following condition: Mr. Cogan, and approval of the Home Additions moved that final site and Alterations (1) Board of Supervisors approval of rezoning from R-1 to HC. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. ZMA-84-32 Frank Hereford - Request to rezone 4.34 acres from C-1, Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 01, Parcel A5, is located on Greenbrier Drive between Flowers Bakery and El Paso Rib Company. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Hereford addressed the Commission. He explained the type of building he envisioned was an office in front with storage in back. He gave as an example of a possible tenant a Sears distributorship. He stated he had contacted all adjoining pro- perty owners except two and had met no objection. Regarding the proffer, he stated he wanted to amend it to delete part of No. 6 (Eating establishments; fast food restaurants). He said he would like to remove the words "eating establishments" so as to be able to allow a tenant the possibility of having an employee, in-house snack bar or cafeteria; but he explained it was his intent that he would not rent to anyone whose sole purpose is a restaurant. In addition, he stated he would like to delete No. 3 (machinery and equipment sales, service and rental) from the proffer because, in retrospect, he felt this might be a viable market. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated the applicant did not actually need to present a proffer to the Commission since the requirement in the Code of Virginia is that the proffer be in writing before the public hearing before the governing body. The Commissioners indicated they were curious as to the uses permitted by right in the Highway Commercial district that were left out of the proffer. Mr. Keeler read the following: "...automobile laundries, automobile -truck repair shops, building material sales, churches, cemeteries, clubs, lodges, etc., convenience stores, educational, technical and trade schools, factory outlet sales, clothing and fabric, s7 February 14, 1985 Page 16 financial institutions, fire extinguisher and security products sales and service, furniture stores, food and grocery stores, home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning and exterminating, landscaping, hardware, hotels, motels and inns, light warehousing, new automotive parts, newspaper publishing, administrative and professional offices, office and business machines sales and service, retail nurseries and greenhouses, wholesale distribution and indoor theaters..." The applicant indicated he was agreeable to leaving No. 3 in his proffer since he felt one of the other uses (office and business machines sales and service) would cover the type of tenant he had in mind. Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned because this was a large piece of land and the use was not actually known at this time. Mr. Michel stated he did not like to see HC zoning getting off the highway. Mr. Cogan pointed out that everything around this site is zoned C-1. Regarding the possibility of a special use permit being requested for this property at a later time, Mr. Keeler read the following uses that are permitted by special use permit in the C-1 zone: "...commercial recreation establishments, hospitals, fast food restaurants, veterinary office and hopsital, residential uses, hotels, motels and inns, motor vehicle sales and rental..." It was pointed out that in the previous applications along this road the use was known at the time of application. Ms. Diehl stated she was uncomfortable with this application and moved that ZMA 84-32 for Frank Hereford be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. It was determined that denial was being recommended because it was felt the scope and possibility of uses was too broad, especially in view of the large size of the lot. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. The motion for denial was approved with Messrs. Cogan, Wilkerson and Michel and Ms. Diehl voting for, and Mr. Skove voting against. Mr. Cogan explained to the applicant that he could make amendments to his proffer (in an attempt to satisfy the concerns of the Commission) before the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 20, 1985 February 14, 1985 Page 17 Mr. Wilkerson further explained that the possibility of uses needs to be decreased in order to more clearly define what the applicant has in mind. NEW BUSINESS State Farm Blvd. - Request from Dr. Charles Hurt for approval of State Farm Boulevard as a private road. Mr. Keeler stated that as of 11:00 this morning (February 14, 1985), Dr. Hurt is no longer pursuing the request for a private road. He explained that plans for Riverbend Drive and South Pantops Drive have been approved and the only area of dispute is that which runs back from Rt. 250 back behind Worrell Newspapers. He stated that staff is proposing that Dr. Hurt be permitted to bond State Farm Blvd. from South Pantops Drive to the inter- section with the private road, and this would satisfy the condition of "Highway Department approval of the road plans" so that a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the McKusick Bldg. Mr. Keeler stated that staff is also requesting that the Commission authorize administrative approval of the subdivision plat for that lot (i.e. the McKusick Bldg. lot). He stated that with the bonding of this section of road public roads will have been approved and bonded all the way to the McKusick Bldg. (the Horticultural Concepts building), and this will satisfy the condition of approval. He confirmed that the Commission did not need to be concerned with the remainder of State Farm Blvd. out to Rt. 250 at this time. Mr. Keeler explained that the original request was for a private road, but Dr. Hurt has now changed that because everyone is in agreement on what this portion of the road ought to be and he is willing to bond this portion in order to get the C.O. He stated he was just advising the Commission of this aspect of the matter and all that is needed from the Commission is authorization for staff approval of the subdivision plat. The Commission indicated that if this road situation continues, any future development along this road will not be looked upon favorably. Mr. Skove moved that the staff be granted administrative approval of the subdivision plat for the McKusick Bldg. on State Farm Blvd. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. February 14, 1985 Page 18 OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Request for resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include provisions for Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Skove moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include provisions for Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that this would be returned to the Commission for a public hearing. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. James R. Donnel Secretary DS