Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 05 85 PC MinutesMarch 5, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, March 5, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; 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 February 14, 1985 meeting were approved as written. SP-85-4 HCMF Development Corporation - Request to locate a 120 bed nursing home on 11.640 acres, zoned R-6, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 26, is located on the south side of Rio Road West near its intersection with State Route 659 (SPCA Road). Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked if the remainder of the land that is undevel- oped is under common ownership. Mr. Keeler replied that he thought the seller owns at least one other tract. He recalled that at one time this had been a family estate. Mr. Keeler added that it appears that the other two parcels may also have problems establishing a commercial entrance to Rio Road. He pointed out that staff has recommended that the buyer and seller attempt to establish one access. Mr. Bowerman stated he was interested in determining if the seller has another possible access that could serve this site. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Carroll Mason, representing HCMF Corporation, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant's local engineer and surveyor have been asked to establish a corridor that meets both horizontal and vertical requirements of the Highway Department so the entranceway of the pipestem will be adjusted. He stated the applicant was amenable to staff's conditions of approval. It was determined Mr. Callahan, the seller of the property, had no additional comments to make, though he confirmed that he felt an alternative entrance location could be arrived at that will meet Highway Department requirements. 119G March 5, 1985 Page 2 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Michael Merriam, a Berkeley resident, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the possibility of cars in the parking area creating a nuisance for the Berkeley residents. He asked where the parking area would be located and he also asked if the 50 foot recommended buffer would be undisturbed buffer or could the parking area be considered a part of that buffer. Mr. Bowerman explained that if this were approved, the 50 foot buffer area would be a condition that would have to be met on the site plan and that it would be undisturbed buffer from the property line. Ms. Jeanne Stovall, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission. She stated that basically the residents of Berkeley were not opposed to the proposal, since they felt this was a benign use of the property. She stated the residents' reservations were based on a lack of information and were mainly concerned about matters like dumpster placement, lighting, access roads, etc. Mr. Frazier Fall, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about possible run-off problems. Mr. Vahan Ghazarian, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission. He stated he too was concerned about run-off since the water could possibly run into his back yard. Mr. Bowerman explained that this issue would be more specifically addressed at the site review stage when the County Engineer will play a role in determining whether or not the applicant's plans are acceptable. He further explained there would be a more detailed site plan, etc. at that time. Ms. Stovall asked Mr. Bowerman to explain the approval process. Mr. Bowerman explained the process stating that applications (for special use permits and re -zonings) come first before the Commission which makes a recommendation for approval or denial to the Board of Supervisors. He pointed out that the Commission's recommendations are advisory, while the Board's are binding. He stated the Board of Supervisors' meeting serves as a second public hearing for the same item. At that time the Board will either approve, deny, modify or defer the issue. If approved, the applicant then comes back to the County with a site plan for the proposed use showing all required details. The site plan then will be represented to the Commission for review at another public hearing. He explained the specifics of the building arrangement, the drainage, parking, lighting, etc. will be addressed at that time. By that point, the applicant, hopefully, will have worked with staff, and mindful of citizen concerns, will have taken care of any problems. He stated the Commission then either approves or denies the site plan, and that is the end of the process, unless it is appealed to the Board of Supervisors. .0p7 March 5, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman confirmed that adjacent property owners are notified of site plan hearings. Mr. Merriam once again addressed the Commission and indicated the Berkeley residents were against any access being opened through Berkeley as an alternative access to the property. Mr. Keeler stated there were still other rights -of -way in Berkeley that have not been vacated. He suggested that the residents of Berkeley might wish to bring all the other public rights -of -way that still exist (they are not actual roads) before the Board of Supervisors at one time. He added that the applicant has not indicated that he wishes to have access through Berkeley and suggested that the following be added as a condition to the special use permit: • No access to be allowed through Berkeley or Four Seasons subdivisions. Mr. Ghazarian stated he felt there was no real objection to the rezoning for a nursing home. Mr. Bowerman read a letter he had received from the Four Seasons Townhouse Association: Dear Mr. Bowerman: VAW On March 5, 1985, the Planning Commission will consider a request for Health Care Medical Facilities, Inc. for a special use permit to construct and operate a nursing home on Rio Road. As noted in the January and March issues of the newsletter published by this association, the proposal is of interest to area residents. On January 15, 1985, a meeting of the Board of Directors of this association, representa- tives of HCMF and area residents discussed the proposal and the impact it will have on the Four Seasons and Berkeley Subdivisions. Attendees are listed on the attached sheets. HCMF shared with us views of nursing homes that they are presently operating and explained their management policies (practices). In the course of showing the plans for the proposed nursing home, which is the subject of special permit 85-4, HCMF stated that they have received a certificate of need for such a facility from the Virginia Department of Health. Because the plans presented by HCMF were preliminary in nature, HCMF encouraged the residents to voice their concerns and suggestions and gave every indication that the comments made would be incorporated in their plans to the maximum extent possible. Since a scheduling conflict prevents my attendance at the Planning Commission Meeting on March 5, 1985, I '001 March 5, 1985 Page 4 respectfully request that you read this letter into the record, noting in particular that the fi consensus of the residents who attended the meeting on January 15, 1985, that the proposed nursing home is both an acceptable and desirable development of the property and that they would support favorably consideration of the request for the special use permit. Gregory A. Johnson, President Four Seasons Townhouse Association A member of the public pointed out that Four Seasons does not adjoin the property in question. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked if this area would drain into the proposed detention basin on Berkmar Drive, or if it would go through Four Seasons. Mr. Keeler responded that it would go through Four Seasons. He stated he had spoken with the County Engineer about this and this is an area where the County has a program for stormwater management. He stated the developer generally has the option to either contribute to an off -site regional facility, or to provide for stormwater detention on site. He said this particular case would depend upon the adequacy of the stormwater system between this property and the proposed detention basin at Four Seasons and the applicant may have to have an on -site stormwater detention facility. In view of the apparent support for this facility from the neighboring property owners, Mr. Michel stated he saw no major objections. He added that he did wish to add Mr. Keeler's suggested condition of approval regarding the entrance as follows: • VDH&T approval of commercial entrance location prior to Planning Commission review of site plan. Mr. Skove stated he was in agreement with Mr. Michel. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-4 HCi14F Development Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Nursing home facility limited to 120 beds. Future expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit. nw01b March 5, 1985 Page 5 2. Approvals of appropriate state and local agencies; 3. Maintenance of an undisturbed buffer area at least 50 feet in depth along all common boundaries of Four Seasons PUD and Berkeley subdivision; 4. Additional buffering/screening may be required by the Planning Commission at time of site plan review, as well as measures for maintenance of existing cemetery; 5. Fire Official approval of method of fire protection prior to site plan review by Planning Commission. 6. VDH&T approval of commercial entrance location prior to Planning Commission review of site plan. 7. No access to be allowed through Berkeley or Four Seasons subdivisions. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 20, 1985. Mr. Keeler explained the procedure for vacating a right-of-way, as had been referred to previously. He stated it was necessary to write a letter to the Board of Supervisors, addressed to Estelle Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, who will place the matter on the agenda. He explained that generally when a 50 foot right-of-way is vacated, 25 feet will revert to the lot of either side. He stated he felt several such rights -of -way still exist in Berkeley and he felt it would be preferable to present them all at once. SP-85-6 William Stevenson/Alton Martin - Request to locate a retail business (video and music) with a drive-in window on .985 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcel 40, is located on the east side of Hydraulic Road at its intersection with Georgetown Road. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. It was determined the use would be walk-in as well as drive-in. It was determined the building would be approximately 100 sq. ft. Mr. Keeler stated that four or five parking spaces would be provided, though only two were actually needed because of the small size of the building. He stated that most of the business would be drive -through. March 5, 1985 Page 6 The applicant offered no comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. James Quarrels, representing adjoining property owners to the south, addressed the Commission. Mr. Quarrels stated the proposed building is on a grade level which will allow automobile lights to shine into his clients' bedroom. He also stated this proposal would be injurious to the marketability of the adjoining property, unless it is rezoned to C-1. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the traffic light at the intersection of Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads, the applicant stated the Highway Department's District Engineer had informed him that the traffic light at the intersection would be "corrected to serve this property." It was determined the site plan showed 4 or 5 white pines along the parking area. It was also determined the residence Mr. Quarrels had referred to was approximately 75 feet from the applicant's property. It was ascertained the type of business being proposed was a drive-in operation for the sale and rental of video tapes. Mr. Bowerman asked if any other uses would be allowed under this special permit, other than what was being proposed. Mr. Skove stated the property is already zoned Commercial, and Mr. Cogan added that it is the drive-in window aspect that requires the special use permit. Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff was recommending a closing time no later than 10:00 p.m., though the Commission could limit the 10:00 closing to two nights a week (8:00 p.m. on weeknights), as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Keeler explained staff felt that a closing of 10:00 p.m. would not make it necessary to require further screening. Mr. Cogan stated he was not opposed to allowing the 10:00 closing time, but he was in favor of additional screening. Mr. Keeler stated he had spoken with Mr. Quarrels about the possibility of rezoning the adjacent property to C-1, but no application has been made. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-6 for William Stevenson/Alton Martin be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions, including the addition of condition 3: .eAi March 5, 1985 Page 7 1. Development in general accordance with site plan submitted on February 19, 1985. 2. Hours of operation limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3. Adequate screening to be planted and/or erected to block lights from residence on adjoining property to the south. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 20, 1985. It was determined the issue of the traffic signal would be taken up at the time of site review, after comments had been received from the County Engineer and the Highway Department. Lots 13A and 13B Terrell Subdivision - Proposal to create two 5+ acre lots from existing Lot 13 Terrell Subdivision and 9.75 acres of Tax Map 60, parcel 77. The Planning Staff has declined to approve this plat administratively without consent of the Planning Commission due to: a) additional subdivision involving Commission approved subdivision; b) only a small portion of new lots would be within Albemarle County Service Authority service area for public water. Terrell Subdivision is located on the west side of Georgetown Road. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He emphasized that this was before the Commission for the two reasons explained above, but if the Commission had no problems with the proposal, they could grant staff authority to approve the subdivision administra- tively. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Payne explained the the question of litigation was whether the Subdivision Ordinance required the developer of Terrell Subdivision to provide vehicular access to the adjacent property, (i.e. should the developer be required to push the road through Lot 13 to connect with the adjacent property, part of which is included in this subdivision. The litigation was settled with the adjacent property owner buying Lot 13 with the right to extend the road. He further explained the two issues in the case were:(1) Whether the Ordinance absolutely required a connection through to the adjacent property and whether it was improper for the Commission not to have exercised its discretion to require such a connection. The Commission had construed the Ordinance as not requiring a connection and the Court had agreed; and (2) Whether the Com- mission had abused its discretion in not requiring the connection. That question had not been finally resolved, but the case was settled in the meantime. Mr. Payne added that he did not feel Now, it was this issue about which Mr. Keeler was concerned, but he felt Mr. Keeler did not wish to approve the matter admin- istratively since the Commission had dealt with it in such detail. -M March 5, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Keeler stated he would have felt better about the situation if the applicant had requested that the Service Authority line be extended, but he had not done so. As it is now, if the applicant requests service to Lot 13, the Service Authority is obligated to set a meter since the front of the lot is within the service area, and Mr. Keeler said he thought that meant that once a meter is set, the developer can then take the line anyplace he pleases. He added the map the Board of Supervisors had adopted, showing where they wanted public water service provided, did not include this additional nine acres. Mr. Michel asked if it was only the nine acres, or if the entire 77 acres was involved. Mr. Keeler stated he doubted if a situation would occur where more than one lot could be served from one meter. Mr. Skove stated he was not sure this would require an extension of the Service Authority boundaries if the lot is "half in and half out." Mr. Keeler explained he felt the applicant had chosen this course because of the considerable time involved in requesting the Board of Supervisors to include an area in the Service Authority boundaries. Mr. Keeler emphasized that this is not an issue of the Subdi- vision Ordinance. In response to Mr. Michel's concern, Mr. Payne stated he did not feel this would be precedent setting as far as the Com- mission is concerned, since these are 5, acre lots and do not actually require public water; however, he did feel that it was a significant question as to whether or not the Service Authority serves the lots. The Chairman invited applicant comment: Mr. Larry McElwain, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated his client, Dr. Abbott, was the contract purchaser of Lot 13 and was not involved in the litigation. He stated he felt the current proposal was the best use of the land. He explained that all that is before the Commission at this time is whether or not Lot 13 can be divided into two lots, both part in and part out of the Service Authority, and each entitled to a Service Authority hook-up. He stated he felt that legally, in lots such as these, the lots are entitled to service up to the rear boundary. Regarding the suggestion that at some time someone might tap into that water line illegally, he stated he could not foresee that happening, especially in view of the fact that any proposals for new subdivions must be approved by the Commission. He said the applicant's intent was clearly to serve only the two properties. March 5, 1985 Page 9 Mr. McElwain indicated his applicant would have no objections to a condition that the water line would serve only these two lots. Dr. Abbott, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the possibility that development might occur behind this property, he explained that there is an 85 foot cliff only 100 feet behind the property. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Payne if any additional condition was necessary. Mr. Payne stated he did not think it was appropriate because he did not feel this was the Commission's problem, and they should be mindful not to make it their problem. He stated he felt the Commission needed to deal only with the subdivision (or allow staff administrative authority to deal with it) and leave the water question up to the Service Authority. He pointed out that at the point at which the public water stops, there will be a private water distribution system, and more than two connections will be subject to County approval. Messrs. Cogan, Skove and Michel indicated they were in agreement with Mr. Payne. Mr. Skove moved that staff be granted administrative approval of Lots 13A and 13B Terrell Subdivision. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Earlysville Green Grocery Store Site Plan - Administrative change in landscaping. Ms. Scala reminded the Commission that a revised site plan for this applicant had recently been approved subject to very specific requirements for landscaping and screening. She stated the applicant is requesting that the requirement for ornamental plantings on the bank be deleted. She explained that the applicant, Mr. Whyte, had met with Ms. Zimmerman, the property owner who has been most affected, and it was agreed that Mr. Whyte would plant some large, instant -shade type pine trees in Ms. Zimmerman's yard. As a result, Ms. Zimmerman has stated she would not object to the proposed ornamentals being deleted from the bank area. Ms. Scala added that Mr. Whyte would prefer that they not be required since they would make the bank more difficult to care for. It is the applicant's desire that additional white pines be substituted for the ornamentals. March 5, 1985 Page 10 Ms. Scala explained she had not wanted to approve this change administratively because the Commission's requirements had been so specific. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be allowed to amend the condition. (No vote was taken.) The meetinq recessed at 8:30; reconvened at 8:40. WORK SESSION CIP (Capital Improvements Program) Work Schedule - FY 85-86 - Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She presented a schedule of dates and asked for Commission comments as to whether or not this schedule was acceptable. She reminded the Commission that several Comprehensive Plan Amendments would be coming up in May. It was determined the work session scheduled for April 4 would be changed to April 3. It was determined the three scheduled work sessions (March 21, 28 and April 3) were acceptable. Planning Division Special Projects - Mr. Keeler presented a schedule of dates. Iie stated that once the Commission has endorsed a work program, a time chart will be prepared, including a tentative public hearing schedule. He requested that the Commission be prepared to comment on the proposed schedule on Tuesday, March 12. He also indicated staff would like some guidance as to what the Commission would like to do with bonuses, and requested that some sort of vote be taken on the issue at the March 12 meeting. It was determined that a study of commercial zoning next to residential zoning would be included in landscape requirements. Ms. Scala pointed out that a provision for buffering between commercial districts and residential districts has been included in the landscape requirements. Mr. Michel asked if it might be possible to deal with the historic districts issue through landscaping and buffering. Ms. Scala indicated this might be possible and stated that anything that might be accomplished along these lines would be better than what exists now, which is nothing. Mr. Michel also asked if mountaintop development (clear cutting) could also be studied. Mr. Keeler stated it seemed to be the Commission's desire that the issue of a historic not be pursued, but instead to try to provide protection to historic sites by other means. Mr. Payne explained that nothing had been accomplished with the historic district idea because there was never a clear consensus of what the objective of the ordinance was. He pointed out that that was not a function of staff. Mr. Keeler explained the suggestion for a study of the historic district had come from a member of the Board approximately one year ago, but because of a reorganization of the Planning Department, the matter had been "put on the back burner." March 5, 1985 Page 11 It was determined that it had been the consensus of the four Commissioners present at the February 26 meeting that they were not in favor of keeping bonuses, with the possible exception of the one for dedication of land for public use. Planning Commission Work Schedule - Mr. Keeler presented a tentative work schedule for the next seven Commission meetings. It was the consensus of the Commission that it was preferable to confine the meetings to Tuesday nights, even though they will be long meetings, rather than meet an additional night during the week. Treatment of Automobile - Related Uses in Zoning Ordinance - Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Regarding several different uses by service stations, Mr. Keeler stated each use would have to be shown on the site plan. He pointed out that the lack of a definition for these uses in the Ordinance makes it difficult for the Zoning Administrator to disallow certain uses as not being accessory to a service station. It was determined that this would have little effect on seafood trucks, etc., since that is mainly an enforcement problem. Mr. Michel pointed out that safety, as well as visual problems, are created by these uses. Mr. Keeler suggested that staff might have more control on things such as seafood trucks, seasonal sales, etc., if areas could be approved where this type of operation could occur on site. It was determined the Commission had no objections to any of the suggestions in the staff report. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the approach to follow would be to tighten up the requirements, add better definitions, and change the ordinances where necessary. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff would have authority to approve a change in use, unless the change were a major one. Mr. Keeler pointed out that it is not intended that the uses that may occur at a service station be restricted, but only that the uses will be specifically shown on the site plan and specifically approved. Mr. Bowerman suggested that work on this issue might be incorporated into the work schedule under Site Plan and Subdivision Ordinance Review scheduled for Summer 1985. Appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals - Re: Auto Body Shop - Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Planning Commission go into executive session on the appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals concerning auto body shops and possible litigation. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The Commission went into executive session at 9:28 p.m., lasting until 9:45 p.m. Mr. Skove moved that Mr. Bowerman represent the Commission at the meeting before the BZA. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS Meeting with Greene Co. Planning Commission - Mr. Bowerman stated the Greene County Planning Commission has asked 'V9( March 5, 1985 Page 12 for assistance from the Albemarle County Planning Commission in dealing with Rt. 29 North in their area. It was determined a meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 13, 4:30, in Stanardsville. Mr. Bowerman stated that he and Mr. Keeler would be attending the meeting and asked that any other Commissioners who could do so, join them. Annual Report - It was determined Mr. Cogan and Mr. Wilkerson would prepare the Commission's Annual Report. Mr. Bowerman requested that a draft of the report be ready in three weeks. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. DS James R. Donnelly, T retary -W7