Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 26 85 PC MinutesFebruary 26, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 26, 1985, in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent were: Mr. David Bowerman and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. 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. The minutes of the February 12, 1985 meeting were approved as written. 1740 House Antique Shop Site Plan - Located on south side of Rt. 250 West, adjacent to Old Peking Tea House, west of Flordon. Proposal to locate an 812 square foot building to serve as an additional antique shop on a 3.02 acre site. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. TM 59, parcel 15A. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of the parking arrangements. Ms. McCulley pointed out the parking areas on the map. Ms. Diehl indicated surprise at the number of parking spaces that were shown (32). Ms. McCulley stated only eleven spaces were required. It was determined that the entire site was 3.02 acres and the piece on which the building would be located was one acre. Regarding condition 1. (a)--VDH&T approval of closing the western entrance and upgrading the eastern entrance to commercial standards. --Mr. Cogan asked if staff concurred with the Highway Department's recommendation for curb and gutter. Ms. McCulley stated staff was concerned with the width and material of the entrance only. She stated also that staff did not concur with the Highway Department's recommendation for a turn lane. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Stone, attorney for the Elders, the applicants, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicants were in agreement with the staff report. February 26, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Stone stated the applicants do not feel that a turn lane is needed, given the small amount of traffic that is expected, but they are agreeable to widening the eastern entrance. He stated an agreement had been reached with the adjoining property owner to close off the bridge and allow the adjoining property owner access to his property until the bridge can be repaired. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he concurred with staff that a right turn lane is not necessary. He added that the physical layout of the property would make a turn lane difficult. It was determined the conflict involving the marking of the parking spaces had been resolved. Ms. Diehl indicated she still questioned allowing 32 parking spaces when only 11 are required. It was determined, however, that most of the parking spaces are already in existence and the only ones being added are seven spaces at the front of the building, making a total of 32 spaces. After hearing this explanation, Ms. Diehl stated she no longer had a problem with the proposed parking. Mr. Michel moved that the 1740 House Antique Shop Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's approval of closing the western entrance and upgrad- ing the eastern entrance to commercial standards; b. Fire Officer's approval. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer's approval of parking space delinea- tion; 3. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA 84-26. 4. The number of employees for the new building may not exceed 3, without Health Department approval of septic field adequacy. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. It was determined the Health Department had given approval for three employees and a new septic field would be constructed at the new building. February 26, 1985 Page 3 M The motion for approval was unanimously approved. Willoughby Section Four Preliminary Plat - Located off the east side of Harris Road, across from Quince Lane (Section 3 Willoughby). Proposal to create 33 lots with an average lot size of 9,430 square feet, with 6.168 acres. Total area of 15.062 acres. These lots are to be served by proposed state roads Chandler Court, Fielding Drive and Tyler Place. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 76M2, parcels 6A, 6B and 7. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission, He stated the applicant had no objections to staff's conditions of approval. He stated the stormwater detention basin had been redesigned and is now much shallower than what was originally approved. He stated the applicant is in agreement with the County Engineer regarding the curbing, i.e. a roll -type design is preferable. However, he stated the Highway Department is not in favor of a roll curb. He indicated the applicant would appreciate any assistance the Commission can offer in helping to resolve this conflict. It was determined a Homeowners Association would maintain the sidewalks in the development and they would be outside of the Highway Department right-of-way. Mr. Foster explained that a roll -type curb is made of concrete and will allow the curb to be driven over. He felt this is a far more attractive design than the usual curb design. Mr. Foster further explained that the streets would be 30 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb. The Chairman invited public comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, explained that problems often occur with a roll curb because cars can get hung on them and drag. He also stated this type of curb allows cars to enter and exit at most any point, rather than only at drive- ways. Mr. Echols stated the roll curb could be accepted into the state system since it is included in the Highway Department's book of standards, but it is discouraged due to a history of problems associated with this type of curb. Mr. Cogan asked why Mr. Elrod was in favor of a roll curb. Mr. Foster explained there are several types of roll curbs and some of those the County Engineer does not favor, but this particular type of roll curb he does favor because it gives a more uniform curb and gutter section throughout as opposed to the irregular design that occurs with the conventional curb and driveways. February 26, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Foster stated he did not believe Mr. Elrod's preference for the roll curb was in any way connected to drainage benefits. Mr. Cogan stated he felt it would be better to leave the curb design up to the applicant, the County Engineer and the Highway Department. It was determined that driveways with steep grades would be required to be paved. It was determined the County Engineer's comments were based on the preliminary plan, not the revised plan. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry about the slopes within the lots, Ms. McCulley stated the applicant has indicated no con- struction will be done on slopes of 25% or greater. Ms. Diehl stated one of the stipulations of the re -zoning had been evidence of an adequate building site on each lot prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat. She asked staff how this would be accomplished. Ms. McCulley stated it would be up to the County Engineer at the time he reviews the final plat as to whether or not he will be able to sign off those conditions. It was determined 2,200 square feet is being provided for the recrea- tion area, which is more than is required. It was also determined two the exact location of the recreation area is yet to be decided. Ms. Diehl stated there still are a number of details that need to be worked out, and though she had no problem with approving the preliminary plat, she was in favor of Commission approval of the final plat. Mr. Cogan agreed. Ms. Diehl moved that the Willoughby Section Four Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations; b. County Engineer approval of road, drainage and grading plans; C. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of sidewalks; f. Planning staff approval of recreation plans and plans for landscaping the detention pond; , g. Fire Officer final approval; February 26, 1985 Page 5 h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; i. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer approval of plans for upgrading of Harris Road, if necessary; j. County Attorney approval of homeowner's documents. 2. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA-84-27. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Coaan reminded staff that the Commission would review the final plat. Mr. Cogan explained to the applicant that the final plat would be brought back to the Commission after the conditions have been met. Ms. McCulley pointed out that if there were major revisions, the plan would have to go through site review again. Greene Gardens Nursery Site Plan - Located on the east side of Route 29N just north of Albemarle Square Shopping Center. Pro- posal to expand existing retail area and proposal for an additional building to be used for storage. These will be served by 92 parking spaces. The parcel covers 6.37 acres. Zoned C-1 Commercial. Tax Map 45, parcels 104 and 104B. Charlottesville Magisterial District. It was determined that the applicant had requested deferral. Mr. Gould moved, and Ms. Diehl seconded, that the applicant's request for deferral be approved. The motion was unanimously approved. WORK SESSION Landscape Requirements - Discussion of staff recommendations which were developed with the assistance of a landscape committee. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Ms. Scala stated the addendum to the report talks about buffering requirements that are currently in the Ordinance. However, she stated they are not really buffers, but are actually setbacks which apply only to commercial and industrial districts. She explained that bonuses only apply to residential districts. She stated there are no current requirements for setbacks for parking, etc. in the residential district. Regarding the 50-foot buffer along major collectors, Ms. Scala stated she felt this would work in residential districts but not in commercial zones because of potential objection. ,19 '7a February 26, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Cogan stated he was mainly talking about a buffer between residential and commercial or between residential and industrial. Referring to page 8 of staff's report which stated that one of the objectives of landscaping and screening requirements is to "provide pervious area which helps to reduce runoff and to recharge ground water", Mr. Cogan stated that he felt offering a bonus for this would be self defeating since granting the bonus is really creating more impervious area since it allows more buildings, parking area, etc. Ms. Scala indicated she understood Mr. Cogan's point and stated this might cause a conflict. Mr. Michel commended staff for the work done on the landscaping report. Regarding the statement that street trees would be required along public roads but not along private roads, Ms. Diehl indicated she did not understand the thinking behind this recommendation. Ms. Scala stated that the staff had decided to cut off the requirement at the private roads, though she stated it was a very fine line distinction between the two. She stated staff had based their thinking on how much public benefit would be derived. She pointed out that trees would be required, but they would be part of the interior parking lot requirement rather than the street tree requirement. Regarding the 18 month bonding requirement, Ms. Diehl stated that it often takes longer than 18 months for a damaged tree to die, and asked it there might be a way to safeguard against that or perhaps to provide a substitute. Ms. Scala stated she felt that would probably be a special case, and she felt most trees would die within the 18 months. She stated if a large tree died, it was almost irreplaceable and would have to be replaced with a much smaller tree. Mr. Michel referred to the conservation plan as proposed by Ms. Van Yahres, in which the developer would draw up a plan showing which trees were to be saved and then follow that plan. Ms. Scala indicated that she felt the 18-month bond and the conservation plan were about all that could be done. Ms. Scala stated she felt it would be the job of the Soil Erosion Inspector to see that the conservation plan was being followed, though this is a detail that is yet to be worked out. Note: Mr. Skove left the meeting at 9:00. .-� o r, February 26, 1985 Page 7 Regarding the recommendation that bonuses be granted for "preserving a significant feature of the landscape" and for "excellence in landscaping design", Mr. Cogan stated he felt this could cause problems since it would be difficult to select "what is and what isn't". Ms. Scala agreed, but she stated this was a problem with any bonus provision which allows discretion, and it is difficult to write provisions which do not call for any discretion at all. Regarding the suggestion that some other sort of tree might often be substituted for white pines, Mr. Cogan pointed out that white pines grow quickly and he did not think it wise to substitute a tree that would take much longer to mature. He also stated the white pine is very hearty. Ms. Scala stated that after a while (approximately 20 years), white pines begin to "lift up" so that they do not provide screening on the lower level. Mr. Cogan suggested it might be a good idea to mix the white pines with other types, particularly in instances where a double staggered row is suggested. Ms. Scala stated she did not feel these requirements would involve a significant increase in expenditures on the part of the developer. Ms. Scala read the following list of names of individuals who contributed to the study: Jack Douglas, Blake Hurt, Tim Michel, Dave Myers, Lisa Sessoms, Craig Van de Castle and Peggy Van Yahres. Note: Ms. Cooke left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Craig Van de Castle addressed the Commission and expressed his appreciation for the work the Commission does. He indicated he felt this proposal was better than any others he had seen from other areas. Mr. Jack Douglas addressed the Commission. He stated he had recently helped a city in northern Virginia re -write their Landscape Ordinance and one of the ways conservation of trees had been handled was to draw a detailed conservation measure which was included in the ordinance. Mr. Payne stated this could not be done until the time comes to actually write the wording of the ordinance. Ms. Van Yahres stated a handbook already exists (Virginia Erosion and Sediment Handbook) which has a section on the preservation of trees and explains prevention measures. Mr. Cogan asked if it would be possible to require a plan for protecting landscape features similar to what is now required February 26, 1985 Page 8 for showing how a piece of land is going to be protected from soil erosion, etc. Mr. Payne said this already exists, because the Ordinance prohibits clearing land (except in the RA district) without an approved site plan, and an approved site plan would include landscaping. Referring to Ms. Van Yahres suggestion, Mr. Payne stated he did not feel it would be inappropriate to use some of the materials from the Soil Erosion Handbook. Ms. Van Yahres stated the handbook lists not only what should be put on the plan, but also explains what inspectors should look for. The meeting recessed at 9:15; reconvened at 9:25. In summary, the following points were made regarding the Land- scape Requirements Study: -That it was an excellent report with many good ideas; -That some measures regarding maintenance and conservation should be worked in; -Regarding the recommendation that staff would approve landscape plans for sites with 80% or less impervious cover, �_t was determined that this meant 80% of the total site), it was ascertained that if problems occured staff could require that a plan go through the site review process; -That the section dealing with bonus provisions should be omitted from the rest of the report. -That staff should now condense this into a rough draft that might be acceptable as an ordinance (omitting any references to bonuses). Bonus Provisions - Discussion of environmental standards and other bonuses. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She stated the Commission now must decide whether to go ahead with the bonus or handle downzoning in some other method. Mr. Cogan stated he was reluctant to pursue this issue at this time since only four Commissioners were present. He stated he felt there should be a review, especially in the urban area, of the different zones to find out those areas which could have a higher density or higher use placed upon them and those areas that are marginal and can only support the current density. Mr. Michel stated this would involve a great deal of staff effort. Mr. Cogan stated he felt if this were done there would be no downzoning, and some of the property would be upzoned, and some would be left as is without the possibility of higher density through bonuses. February 26, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Cogan also stated he felt this would insure that the higher densities would only occur in areas where the services are available (i.e. utilities, roads, etc.). Ms. Diehl recalled that when the Zoning Ordinance had been revised, one of the problems that had been discussed was the fact that in many areas there were properties that were zoned much more intensively than was realistic. She stated that it has been pointed out from time to time that there are just some sites which are not buildable at the density at which they are listed. She stated it was her understanding that bonus provisions had been one of the safety measures that the Commission tried to incorporate that would allow those properties that did have the potential to develop at that density. At the same time this would provide a safeguard for the County and the public in that if there was a property that was not capable of supporting that development, then the bonuses could not be met. She stated she did not remember that it had been intended that every piece of property within a subdivision would be able to develop at that maximum density. Mr. Cogan stated he recalled that bonuses had come in with the KDA report. Mr. Payne confirmed that KDA had originated the idea of bonuses. Ms. Diehl stated that the County had then incorporated the idea as one method of accomplishing higher densities on pieces of land that could support that density, yet allowing flexability as far as individual sites were concerned. Regarding the suggestion that a "promise" had been made, Mr. Payne stated he did not feel that had any legal significance. He explained that what was done in a number of cases was that there was development which was either in existence, or was permitted, and that land was allocated into a category that was basically the next one lower (e.g. 5.8 units/acre would have been zoned R-4 rather than R-6 because it would be possible to reach R-6 with bonuses). He stated that was the nature of the "promise." He added that a significant point of this issue is that the law is very clear that no land owner has a vested right to zoning; he only has the right to expect that he will not be treated arbitrarily and capriciously. Secondly, Mr. Payne stated there is nothing unlawful about "downzoninq" (i.e. "downing" the density). He stated that at all stages of discussion regarding the bonuses, it was understood that they were experimental in nature. He added that he did not feel it would be difficult to defend deleting a bonus if it has been found that it has not worked. He further stated that he felt this was an administrative decision, not a legislative one. Referring to the statement in the staff report that "...total bonus maximums should remain as they are now: 50o in VR through R-10 zones and 33% in R-15 zone", Mr. Michel asked if those percentages had to be maintained. �Q� February 26, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Payne responded negatively. Mr. Payne confirmed that there was no legal obligation to keep any of the bonuses if it was felt they were not working. Mr. Keeler stated his recollection of the issue, at the time the Zoning Map was done, was that the undeveloped, residential areas were generally done in a lower density than what the Comprehensive Plan called for, in view of having bonuses. He also recalled that the issue of bonuses was discussed in terms of downzoning. Mr. Payne indicated that deleting the bonuses may mean that some pieces of property will have to be rezoned. Mr. Cogan indicated he felt this was the more sensible approach. He also stated he was in favor of deleting bonuses except for dedication of public land. He indicated he would not be against including low -income, -but pointed out that that has never been requested. Mr. Payne pointed out there are two kinds of bonuses in terms of enforcement: front-end and continuing. Mr. Michel indicated he was in favor of re -doing the Zoning Map. Mr. Cogan stated he would like for this to be discussed before the full Commission, and preferably before the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on April 3. Mr. Michel stated that he felt the Commission has historically been extremely dissatisfied with bonuses, and this still seems to be the case. Ms. Diehl stated that the advantages that had been expected from bonuses have not materialized. Mr. Gould stated that the review that has taken place has gained nothing and has in no way altered his opinion. Ms. Joan Graves, a member of the public, stated the League of Women Voters had had some input into the bonus issue and she stated there were properties which were proffer -zoned which would be affected if there were no alternative other than to rezone them higher. NEW BUSINESS MPO Fiscal 85-86 - Mr. Keeler stated a memo was present in the Commissioners' packet from Ms. Imhoff regarding the MPO, and she had requested that the Commissioners make comments back to her by Thursday, February 28. He pointed out that staff was attempting to have Crozet added to the CAT Study area for this year. u� February 26, 1985 Page 11 PR Eastern Bypass - Mr. Keeler stated the State Highway Department was to present alternate routes by March 15. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Keeler reported a letter had been drafted to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the use of an auto -body shop in the C-1 and the Commissioners would receive a copy of the letter in the mail. Mr. Cogan attempted to determine whom Mr. Bowerman had asked to do the annual report, but was unable to do so, since no one could recall it having been discussed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15. James R. D r nelly, Secretary ds 'v5