Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 02 85 PC MinutesApril 2, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. James Skove. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the March 19, 1985 meeting were approved as written. ZMA-85-03 Douglas White - Proposal to rezone 3.190 acres from VR, Village Residential to CO, Commercial Office. Tax Map 130A(l), parcel 49. Scottsville Magisterial District. Property, located north of Scottsville on the west side of Route 20 across Rt. 726 from Scottsville Shopping Center. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission could limit the commercial usage to the existing dwelling, and limit access to Rt. 726. Mr. Payne responded that staff is indicating that a proffer might be appropriate. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Douglas White addressed the Commission. He stated the Com- prehensive Plan calls for this to be commercial property, thus he questioned why all these conditions of approval were being attached to this application. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Paul Coleman, the contract purchaser of the property, addressed the Commission. He indicated he had no objections to the condi- tions of approval. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined no formal proffer was stated the applicant's "Plan of Use" was proffer. It was determined the Plan of Mr. Coleman, the contract purchaser, and not meant to be a proffer. being offered. Mr. Payne not intended to be a Use had been submitted by he confirmed that it was ' 347 April 2, 1985 Page 2 Ms. Diehl ascertained that, without a proffer, staff is recommending that additional study is needed, and a deferral , VAO would be indicated. Mr. Cogan determined that an acceptable proffer would (1) limit access to Rt. 726 and (2) limit the use of the building to those uses which would create no septic system problems. Mr. Bowerman stated that because of soil limitations and possible septic problems, staff is recommending that commercial usage be limited to the existing dwelling, and if these concerns are addressed, staff feels that a more detailed plan would not be necessary. Mr. Keeler stated the present septic system has not been determined to be adequate for commercial usage at this time, but, generally, sewer demands are less for office usage than for a single-family dwelling. Mr. Cogan suggested the possibility of denying the application with the understanding that if the applicant offered a proffer which meets the Commission's concerns by the time the matter comes before the Board of Supervisors, the Commission would be in favor of the petition. Mr. Bowerman stated he did not feel it was proper to use the word proffer, but simply to make the applicant understand what is needed. Ms. Diehl stated she feels it is not the Commission's purpose to suggest proffers for applicants. She stated this should be the applicant's responsibility, based on his application and conferences with staff. Mr. Keeler stated that proffers are intended to be voluntary on the part of the applicant, and staff has no authority to negotiate a proffer. He added that staff concerns are included in the staff reports and he felt the appropriate time to address these concerns is at the public hearing. Mr. Payne emphasized that no County representative should get into the position of "strong arming" an applicant into making a proffer. He added that he did not feel it was inappropriate to handle such situations as Mr. Bowerman has suggested, i.e. to make the applicant understand what is needed, but it is not necessary for the Commission to do this since the Board will be able to determine from the Commission's minutes what their wishes are. Ms. Diehl stated she was not comfortable with the way the Com- mission's role has evolved in dealing with proffers. Mr. Cogan indicated he understood Ms. Diehl's point, but he still felt the Commission has an obligation to communicate with the applicant and the question seems to be when should this communi- cation take place. April 2, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan. Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-03 be deferred until April 9 in order to allow the applicant to address concerns of staff and to submit a more detailed plan. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. SP-85-09 Debbie Foster - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.36 to locate an antique craft and gift shop in a proposed structure measuring 900-1000 square feet of finished space on a 15.028 acre parcel; the present use includes two dwelling units. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 45, Parcel 59L. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property, located on the east side of Rt. 743 just north of its intersection with Route 844. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Referring to condition No. 5--Planning Commission may require maintenance agreement and upgrading of existing road --Mr. Keeler explained this is a case where there is a commercial usage proposed where there is an access easement. He stated that staff has historically been concerned about mixing residential and commercial usages. He stated the Highway Department feels sight distance can be obtained by grading . along the front of the property adjacent to Rt. 743. It was determined staff is proposing that one of the existing buildings be used. Mr. Keeler explained the factor which makes this application different from similar ones in the past is that it proposes the construction of a new building for this purpose, and staff has concerns about this aspect of the proposal. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Debbie Foster addressed the Commission. She stated her primary concern was that she did not understand why a new construction would not be acceptable. Of the two current available structures, she explained that the barn is much too large for this purpose and is currently used as a rental unit, and the garage is also in use. Ms. Foster's husband stated that the proposed new structure would resemble a house. Ms. Foster stated that if the current proposal for a gift shop was discontinued, the building would be used as a rental unit. Mr. Bowerman asked if the conversion of a new structure at a later time would present any problems. Mr. Keeler explained that the acreage shown on the plat does not total 15 acres (actually 14.74 acres). He explained that to locate a third unit on the property which could be converted to a dwelling, it would have to be located in such a fashion April 2, 1985 Page 4 to allow the property to be subdivided into minimum lot size is five acres on a private not be able to be subdivided in the future less than 15 acres. He stated this is one in addition to the fact that the structure a commercial use and what will happen to it proposed use is discontinued at some future The Chairman invited public comment. three lots, and since road, it may or may if it is, in fact, of staff's concerns would be built for if the current time. Mr. Marvin Rosenblum, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He was concerned about increased traffic on a very dangerous, high-speed road (Rt. 743). He also felt a commerical establishment should not be allowed in a residential area. Mr. Elmo May, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He felt the proposal would be damaging to the property in the area. Mr. Fred Trew, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the proposal since he felt allowing a commercial use in a residential area was "spot zoning". He also expressed concern about possible future uses for the structure and about the added traffic on an already dangerous road. Mr. Trew stated if the application were approved, deceleration lanes should be required. Mr. Stephen Heim, a property owner in the area, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the application. He stated he felt the County has an obligation to uphold the current zoning. He also expressed concerns about the dangerousness of the road. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould indicated he was in agreement with the public's concerns and he could not support this application. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Keeler stated he did not know if the Highway Department would require a turn lane. However, Mr. Keeler stated he did not think the right-of-way would allow a decel lane at the southern entrance, so the southern entrance would have to be closed and the northern entrance used. Mr. Bowerman stated he would not be opposed to the application subject to staff's conditions, with an existing structure being used. Ms. Diehl stated she would not be in favor of a new structure being built. �C� April 2, 1985 Page 5 r.r Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Diehl. It was determined the Commission would review the site plan. It was determined the Highway Department has stated that grading will be required at both entrances to obtain adequate sight distances. It was determined the amount of traffic generated by this use would depend upon the type of merchandise sold. Mr. Michel stated that while he was not bothered by the proposed use, he was concerned about there being new construction which would not be readily subdividable. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that staff's recommendation is that an existing structure be used. Mr. Michel indicated he would not be opposed in that case. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-09 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than 1,000 square feet of an existing building to be used as a gift/craft/antique shop; *r 2. Site plan approval; 3. No outside storage or display. No auctions. Limited to one sign not to exceed four (4) square feet; 4. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance(s) prior to Planning Commission review of the site plan; 5. Planning Commission may require maintenance agreement and upgrading of existing road. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was approved with Messrs. Wilkerson, Cogan, Bowerman and Michel and Ms. Diehl voting for, and Mr. Gould voting against. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on May 1, 1985. SP-85-13 Pentecostal Church - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(35) to locate a church in an existing structure (formerly Lloyds Carriage Emporium) on a 2.215 acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 80, parcel 57A, Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, located on the south side of Route 250E approximately .2 mile east of its intersection with Route 744. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. J�-6'/ April 2, 1985 Page 6 The applicant offered no additional comments. It was determined the existing building has not been in use for approximately 12 - 2 years. Mr. Keeler stated he has not received any comments on this application from the Health Department. However, Mr. Bill Carswell, representing the applicant, stated he had been in touch with the Health Department and it has been suggested that the drain field will have to be enlarged somewhat. He stated they were not very specific with their comments. He added that the well water does meet state standards. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson stated he was very familiar with this site and because of the abundance of sight distance, he did not feel that a taper and turn lane were warranted. Mr. Keeler explained that because this is an existing entrance, if the Commission does not require Highway Department approval, the Highway Department cannot require a taper and turn lane. (Mr. Keeler explained that this requirement had been carried over from a previous permit on this parcel for a 3-4 lot subdivision.) Mr. Gould indicated he too was familiar with the site and was in agreement with Mr. Wilkerson. It was determined staff's conditions of approval would require a parking lot scheme which would require that something be done along the frontage area to control the access. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-85-13 for the Pentecostal Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Building and Fire Official approvals; 2. Health Department approval; 3. Expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit. 4. County Engineer approval of patching/repaving of parking area; 5. Staff approval of plan showing parking scheme and entrance controls. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on May 1, 1985. April 2, 1985 Page 7 ZMA-85-5 The Jordan Development Corporation - Proposal to amend the approved PRD to increase the number of dwellings from 27 units to 58 units on a 27.8 acre parcel. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. Tax Map 56, parcels 14C and 14B. White Hall Magisterial District. Property, located on the west side of Route 240 approximately 1,000 feet north of its intersection with Route 25OW and adjacent to the Brownsville Elementary and Junior High School parcel. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Regarding the Section 8.5.1(i) requirement for a report identifying all property owners and stating agreement to proceed with the proposed development according to regulations existing when the map amendment creating the PD district is approved, etc., Mr. Keeler explained the property owners have been identified by virtue of the rezoning petition and it is staff's suggestion that the recommended conditions of approval serve as the "agreement to proceed" document. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Forrest Kerns, Chairman of the Jordan Development Board, was present but offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Nicholas Munger, Treasurer of Jordan Development Corporation, addressed the Commission. Regarding staff's condition No. 3-- Review and approval by the County Attorney of all agreements, contracts, requirements and other transactions among the Jordan Development Corporation and other entities involved to insure that the County of Albemarle shall bear no responsibility for the development or future operation and maintenance of this project -- Mr. Munger stated this was carried over from the original approval because the Meadows Community Center was a county building, However, he felt this condition was not appropriate at this stage since that building is not involved. Mr. Roy Patterson addressed the Commission and expressed he was very much in favor of the application since he felt this develop- ment was an asset to the community. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on condition No. 3, as stated above. Mr. Payne stated he felt it was not that significant an item and he felt Mr. Munger's recollection of the situation was correct. Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of following Mr. Keeler's suggestion that a statement be added to the end of condition No. 3 as follows: County Attorney may rescind this condition at his option prior to Board action. 45 April 2, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Cogan stated that this has been a successful project and serves a very good purpose. Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-5 for the Jordan Development Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 58 dwelling units located in general accordance with the Application Plan; 2. Final site plan approval by the Planning staff after submittal to the Site Review Committee, including but not limited to: a. County Engineer approval of method of compliance with runoff control ordinance; b. Fire Official approval of fire flows and fire lanes; C. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; d. Purchase of adequate sewer connections prior to issuance of a building permit; e. Only those areas where a structure, street, utility or other such improvements are approved shall be dis- turbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 3. Review and approval by the County Attorney of all agree- ments, contracts, requirements and other transactions among the Jordan Development Corporation and other enti- ties involved to insure that the County of Albemarle shall bear no responsibility for the development or future operation and maintenance of this project. County Attorney may rescind this condition at his option prior to Board action. 4. Occupancy shall be limited to persons age 62 years or older. For the purpose of this condition, if one spouse is aged 62 years or older, the other spouse shall be considered 62 years of age. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on April 17, 1985. The meeting recessed at 8:45; reconvened at 8:53. ZMA-84-28 Crozet Kiln Drying Company, Inc. - Request to rezone 5.37 acres (woodyard) from C-1, Commercial to HI, Heavy Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 56A2, parcel 71 and 71B, is located on the south side of Route 240 in Crozet (Barnes Lumber Company). White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Bowerman explained that the applicant is requesting a deferral on this item. However, he stated staff would proceed with the staff report and public comment would be accepted. gS4 April 2, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated he would prefer to postpone his comments until the applicant has had time to finalize a proffer. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Edward Bain, representing Ms. Milton, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He questioned how the Com- mission could justify such a re -zoning in the heart of Crozet, i.e. putting a five -acre tract of Heavy Industrial property in the middle of town. Mr. Bain agreed with staff that the request was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated his client was opposed to the proposal. Mr. John Dezio, representing Ms. Edwinna Harris, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated his client endorses heartily the report of staff. He stated he was in agreement with Mr. Bain and that his client is opposed to the re -zoning. Mr. Roy Patterson, a Crozet citizen, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Bain and Mr. Dezio and was opposed to the re -zoning. Ms. Charlotte Dammann, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. She stated she did not feel the lumberyard has been a detriment to her property and any future improvements to the yard would be an improvement to the downtown Crozet area. However, she stated she was opposed to any other uses that might be permitted under HI zoning. She suggested that the lumberyard be allowed to proceed with their plans, but under the condition that no other HI uses be allowed in the future. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated the traffic patterns at the existing yard are frightening. He felt it would be a mistake to intensify that use to any degree. He indicated he would be opposed to a change to HI zoning. Mr. Michel agreed with Mr. Cogan. Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-84-28 for the Crozet Kiln Drying Company, Inc. be deferred until April 9, 1985. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. �� 5 April 2, 1985 Page 10 SP-85-15 APCO - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 locate an electrical substation on .232 acres part of a 452.90 acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 128, to parcel 13. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 6 just west of its intersection with Route 715. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He further explained that if work that is required for the entrances encroaches on the flood plain, a special use permit may be required. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Paul Keyes, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the entrance requirements, he explained the applicant intends to comply either by moving into the floodplain and applying for a special use permit, or by grading off of Rt. 6 towards Rt. 29. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Commenting that this proposal was an improvement, Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-15 for APCO be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Dismantling and removal of existing substation within 90 days of placing new substation in service to be Vol accomplished to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; 2. Staff approval of site plan; 3. Substation to be located as shown on "Appalachian Power Company Proposed Esmont Station" dated October 2, 1984, and revised November 5, 1984. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on May 1, 1985. OLD BUSINESS Resolution of Intent - Landscaping and Screening Requirements Mr. Keeler explained that Ms. Scala is in the process of incor- porating the changes discussed at the March 26 meeting into the proposed amendments. He said that a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance was needed. April 2, 1985 Page 11 Mr. Gould moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include requirements for minimum landscaping, buffer- ing, yard and screening requirements in the site development plan, commercial districts and industrial districts be adopted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. April 3 Meeting with Board - Mr. Bowerman briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting and determined who would speak to each item. Annual Report - Mr. Cogan presented a draft of the annual report and asked that the Commissioners review it before the April 9 meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. DS L�LA/ James R. D nnelly, Secretary _:�6 7