Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 30 85 PC MinutesM April 30, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, April 30, 1985, Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Tim Michel. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. ZMA 85-8 - Riverbend Limited Partnership - Proposal to rezone approximately .3374 acres from C-1, Commercial to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Tax Map 78, parcels 17D (part of) and 17D1 (part of). Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, located on the south side of Rt. 250W just east of South Pantops Drive. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He reminded the Commission that staff had recommended that no action be taken on this application until the agreements of the original zoning petition were carried out. He indicated no progress has taken place since this was first reviewed on April 16, 1985. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Don Wagner, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the owner of the A,B and C properties has been consulted and he has stated he still has no definite plans for the development of the area. Regarding the storm - water issue, he indicated that the applicant would be proceeding with those measures shortly since the County has received a grant to study the use of grass filters and level spreaders. Mr. Wagner confirmed that Dr. Hurt is a minority member of the Riverbend Partnership (and the owner if properties A, B and C). Mr. Bowerman stated he had seen two site plans which the applicant has submitted for the PD-SC and it seems as if those impinge upon this area in question. Mr. Wagner stated that the site plan which is going to be considered at this meeting is next to area C. He explained that at the time the boundaries were drawn for area C, at the time of the PD-SC, it was thought that they had been ... drawn at the limit of land that was reasonably useable. After having done a more complete survey, it was discovered there was some more useable area, as is shown now. He said the partnership has reached an agreement to buy that parcel )�X6 April 30, 1985 Page 2 from Dr. Hurt. Mr. Bowerman stated he was concerned about the fact that Dr. Hurt, in his letter, had agreed to do as staff had requested, i.e. include as much of those out parcels as he could as part of the PD-SC, and the original approval of the PD-SC included those conditions. He stated the Commission had done this in order to allow work to get underway at South Pantops. (The shopping center was called Riverbend at that time, but has been changed to South Pantops). Mr. Bowerman stated that it was now his understanding that it is unclear when those conditions are going to be met, though they were part of the original PD-SC approval. Mr. Wagner confirmed this; however, he pointed out that no time limit had been set because there had been a question about the ability to set any kind of time limit. He recalled that Dr. Hurt had said he would meet the requests when he had a use for the property. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman asked for comments from Mr. Payne regarding Mr. Wagner's statements. Mr. Payne responded that he had not been able to hear Mr. Wagner. Mr. Wagner briefly reviewed his comments. NNO Mr. Payne indicated he could not recall the time limit issue. He added that he felt this situation was different because Dr. Hurt is also a partner in the partnership and not a stranger. Mr. Bowerman quoted from the Rezoning Petition, A.(1): "The Planned Development -Shopping Center designation should be expanded to incorporate additional developable land (Areas A, B and C, on plan entitled "Planning Staff Proposed Modification of ZMA 83-2")". He asked what the term "should be" meant in this modification as well as in A. (3) and A. (4) . Mr. Payne stated that was difficult to construe and suggested that Mr. Keeler might be able to explain since he had probably written the provision. Mr. Keeler explained that in the review of the Planned Develop- ment, it is provided that the Planning Commission will recommend to the Board modifications. He stated he felt the term was used here because it had been used in the staff's report to the Commission. He confirmed that the text included in the Board's Memo of June 16, 1983, was what had been incorporated by the Board. Mr. Bowerman stated it was clear the applicant was not going to be able to address the concerns of staff, and he felt the the matter should not be deferred again, but should be approved or denied. April 30, 1985 Page 3 Ms. Diehl asked for clarification of what was being ask of the ' applicant. Mr. Keeler explained that the staff had recommended that the useable areas that are zoned C-1, and could logically be developed as part of the shopping center, be added to the shopping center, and that the strip areas that are outside the floodplain and could not reasonably be developed, as well as the floodplain, be designated as open space. Ms. Diehl indicated she did not understand why it seemed to be so difficult to meet this request. Mr. Skove stated the issue seemed to lie with the ownership. Referring to Dr. Hurt's letter to Mr. Keeler dated June 2, 1983, Mr. Bowerman stated he makes it clear he intends to meet these requirements, but offers no schedule. He recalled that it had not been required at the time because of the pressure that was on the applicant at that time. He said things had been pushed through at that time, almost two years ago. He indicated he felt there had been adequate time to accomplish these things, particularly since Dr. Hurt is a partner in the limited partnership. Mr. Cogan asked for the County Engineer's comments on the stormwater detention issue. Mr. Elrod stated the plans have been approved, but nothing has been constructed. He stated the work is bonded and the bond expires in July. He stated if the measures have not been constructed by the time the bond expires, the County will call the bond and do the construction, unless the Commission or Board should amend the condition and allow the applicant not to meet this requirement. Mr. Elrod indicated he was not aware of any connection between the delay of this construction and the County waiting to receive a grant to study grass filters and level spreaders. Ms. Diehl asked if there were any way the areas in question could be added to the PD-SC without an expensive survey being done. Mr. Keeler stated that the current topographic map seems to indicate that a great deal of surveying would not be necessary; however, he stated that map is not up-to-date and that may no longer be the case. Mr. Elrod indicated he felt the bond is sufficient to do the work. Mr. Cogan indicated he was opposed to the idea of the County having to get into the position of having to call bonds. He also stated he was reluctant to match this application against the other problems in the entire center and felt this could be dealt with on its own merit. I8 April 30, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Bowerman agreed, but pointed out that three of the items involved are not bonded and the staff has no mechanism to see that they are complied with other than when future projects such as this one come up. Mr. Keeler indicated the only guarantee that these things will be done is Dr. Hurt's letter and if the property should change hands that letter would no longer have any bearing on the issue. Mr. Payne stated that this probably should have been readvertised to cover this whole parcel and some general uses described for it. Technically it remains C-1 rather than PD-SC. Mr. Skove stated there has been no progress since this was first presented on April 16. Mr. Wagner indicated the applicant was not in favor of deferral. In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Wagner addressed the stormwater issue. He stated the applicants had met with the County Engineer last spring and stated they did not think the originally proposed wetlands -type system was going to work. (The County had been waiting for funds to study this type of system.) However, the County has received their funds, and even though the applicant does not think the system will be effective, they plan to build the system, beginning this spring. Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-8 for Riverbend Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Mr. Skove stated this type of issue seems to come up often and indicated if developments were built as originally planned, these things might not happen. Mr. Cogan stated he was weighing this application on its own merits, apart from the other problems with the development. Mr. Bowerman stated that though this was a suggestion by staff, the applicant had agreed to include it in his approval, and once it was made a part of the original PD-SC approval, the applicant must accept it, otherwise there is no mechanism to get compliance with approvals. The above stated motion for denial was approved (5:1) with Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Skove, Ms. Diehl, Mr. Gould and Mr. Wilkerson voting in favor and Mr. Cogan voting against. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on May 1, 1985. April 30, 1985 Page 5 South Pantops Out Parcel Retail Site Plan - Proposal to locate three (3) one-story buildings of 11,200, 8,000 and 4,800 square feet for a total of 24,000 square feet (8,240 square feet retail). Buildings to be served by 117 parking spaces. Property is located on the south side of South Pantops Drive at its intersection with Riverbend Drive, and adjacent to the Rivanna River. Tax Map 78, part of parcel 17G. Zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Don Wagner, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated there had been some confusion about the deadline for submission on this request and staff had agreed to move this ahead. He indicated some of the concerns of staff have already been met, including those relating to the entrance on South Pantops Drive, and the entrance of Riverbend Drive. Regarding staff's concern about excessive pavement west of Phase III parking area, he stated the reason for this was to allow trucks turnaround room. Regarding staff's condition l.f.l.--Drainage modifications not complying with approved plans. --He explained the plan was for a storm drainage pipe which passes through the site and this conforms to previously approved VDH&T plans. After the plans were drawn it was discovered that "elbows" for large diameter storm pipes are now available and he suggested that the applicant would like to use this rather than a manhole which would normally be used. He asked if the words "or bonding" could be added to this condition (l.f.l.). He also requested that the words "Phases II and III" be added at the end of condition 1.f.2. and that l.g.be changed to read "County Engineer approval of drainage plans (including Riverbend Drive extension for Phases II and III)." He stated he hoped Phase I was going to be built very quickly and the road is being built very quickly. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Patterson stated she would have no objections to the applicant's proposed changes in wording, provided the County Engineer had no objections. Mr. Elrod stated he did not see any problems with attaching Phases II and III for the road construction. Regarding the applicant's suggestion for using an "elbow" instead of a manhole, Mr. Elrod indicated he would like for this issue to be determined before the parking lot was built because it would be difficult to put in a manhole after the parking ' lot was built. -,/So April 30, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Cogan indicated he had some changes and all the conditions He indicated he felt it was too short period and that there had proper review. problems with the last minute and changes tc those conditions. much to be absorbed in such a not been enough time for Mr. Wagner confirmed that this had come about as a result of the applicant's request for an expedited review of this plan. He added that everything that is on the plan was a direct result of the site review committee meeting, and the applicant had made all the changes that had been requested. Mr. Wagner explained this had happened because he had not been aware the submittal deadline had changed from Tuesday to Monday. Regarding staff's statement that "this proposal may allow development beyond the capacity of the site," Ms. Patterson explained that staff feels there may be too much building, and therefore too much parking, on the site given the shape of the site and the easements and thus the design may not work well in terms of circulation. Mr. Gould agreed with Mr. Cogan in relation to the haste with which this application has been presented and stated he felt this was a "messy" approach. Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned about the internal circulation and she felt staff should have time to review it further. Mr. Cogan stated he would like to see a cleaner package presented, including placing the conditions in good order. He suggested deferral would allow time for staff to address their concerns. Mr. Cogan moved that the South Pantops Out Parcel Retail Site Plan be deferred until May 14. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Skove asked if the applicant understood staff's objection to the plan. Though Ms. Patterson indicated she felt the applicant understood, Mr. Wagner stated the applicant did not understand. Mr. Wagner further stated that the conditions of approval that are on the application will be the same in two weeks as they are now. He said VDH&T approval can not be secured until the applicant has something they can submit to VDH&T. He stated the applicant has done everything they have been asked to do, and he did not feel they should have to wait two weeks for an answer. However, he stated the staff wants the applicant to redesign the entire interior area of the site, and he stated that was not the Planning Commission's function. He emphasized the plan meets the requirements of the Ordinance. w y3/ April 30, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Wagner stated the internal circulation pattern had been revised subsequent to meetings with staff. Ms. Patterson confirmed that the proposal meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Wagner explained that the applicant is only planning to build Phase I at this time. He said the other parts had been shown so that the Commission would know what is being planned for those areas. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Payne confirmed that the the Commission could approve Phase I only, if the site plan for Phase I can stand on its own. He said if that course is followed, then some action (denial or deferral) should be taken on the rest of the plan. Mr. Wagner stated Phase I includes the appropriate parking for the furniture store and the appropriate entrance. Mr. Bowerman asked the rear area would be served. Mr. Wagner indicated an area on the drawing that would be temporarily paved. He confirmed that there is adequate space for a truck to turn. Mr. Cogan amended his previously stated motion and moved that ,%N" the South Pantops Out Parcel Retail Site Plan - Phase I be approved subject to the following conditions, with Phases II and III deferred indefinitely: OR 1. A building permit will not be issued for any phase until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit. b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. C. Recordation of grading and/or drainage easements. d. Fire Officer approval. e. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of: 1. Drainage modifications not complying with approved plans; 2. Entrance to the site for that phase of development, including modifications to entrance on S. Pantops Drive on sketch (attachment #1). f. County Engineer approval of drainage plans. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: �131� April 30, 1985 Page 8 a. Fire Officer final approval. b. Staff approval of landscape plan. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was approved (5:1) with Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Skove, Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Cogan and Ms. Diehl voting in favor and Mr. Gould voting against. South Pantops Hecks Revised Site Plan - This item was dropped from the agenda. ZMA 84-20 Keswick Country Club - Proposal to rezone 490.94 acres from RA, Rural Areas to PUD, Planned Unit Development. A total of 145 units is proposed. With clustering total gross density proposed is one dwelling per 2.2 acres. Tax Map 80, parcel 8, 8B, 8B-1, 8C, 8I, 8J, 8K, 8N, 8N-1, 8P, 8Q, 8U, 8V, 8W-1, 8X, 8Z, 9, 31, 60A, 61, 61F, 61J, 62 part, 70 part, 97 and on Tax Map 94 parcel 42, part of. Rivanna Magisterial District. Property located south of Keswick, bordered by I-64 on the south, Route 616 on the east, and Route 731 on the west. Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report and stated staff was recommend- ing denial. Mr. Gould asked Mr. Donnelly to review the roads. He also asked at what point the extra vehicles would trigger a gate crossing being required at the railway crossing if this were to develop by -right. Mr. Donnelly responded that approximately 420 vehicles would be generated with by -right development but he was unsure at what point a gate crossing would be required. He added that the development as proposed would generate 600 vehicles which would require a gate crossing. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that the schools would be impacted by either type of development (by -right or as proposed) but the PUD would cause a greater impact. It was pointed out the elementary school is already at capacity. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Curtis, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He pointed out the different roads and the various areas of the proposal on the drawing. He offered the following comments: --There are currently 15 residences in the vicinity of the golf course with an additional 26 lots plated. --PUD is being requested in order to have control of what develops in the area. --After looking at Rts. 22, 731 and 744, it had been decided the country club was more accessible from the Rt. 616 and Rt. 64 bypass, primarily because of the congestion on Rt. 22 and the Free Bridge area. IWO 41133 April 30, 1985 Page 9 --The elementary school had been at capacity at the time he moved to the Keswick area. --The PUD would not be creating overcrowding at the school since it already exists, and the school is going to have to be expanded in any case. --The land is unacceptable for agricultural use. --Regarding the adequacy of the groundwater, he explained that a geology firm had been hired to make tests and locate areas where water might be located. A limestone belt had been discovered in the eastern tip of the property and a well had been drilled which yielded 50-60 gpm. He said the flow had been tested and had remained steady. A pilot well drilled 250 yards away had had no effect on the flow rate of the master well. He stated C.R. Moore Drilling Company could substantiate these findings, as well as the Snovel Engineering Firm from Richmond. The PUD would need 73 gpm (1/2 gallon for each residence) and with the existing wells on the golf course (17 gpm, 36 gpm and 5 gpm), adequate water was available. Placing the water in a collecting system and pumping it to 90,000 gallons of storage at the highest point of the property would be sufficient to supply not only the residences but would meet fire protection requirements as well. --If the land were developed by right, this type of system would be unaffordable. --A permit has been issued for the distribution of water on this property and that permit has been footnoted in the Comprehensive Plan. --Regarding sewerage plans, septic systems do not have long life in the area because of the geological ground formations. At some time in the future the County is going to have to deal with a septic system. The PUD proposes a sewage treatment plantlocated at the lowest point on the property at the outfall of Carroll Creek. He stated it would be an uphill push and would require lift stations to go to the Moores Creek plant. Cost estimates are One to Two Million Dollars. He indicated the plant would be given to the County (at no cost) to be operated by the county service authority. --He felt the wells would not effect current wells in the area and the PUD wells and sewerage system would be available for others in the area to tie into. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the Highway Department's analysis of traffic figures had dealt only with the residential development and had not included the traffic that would be generated by the Club. He stated this traffic (Club traffic) was a large factor in the design of the subdivision. Regarding staff's statement that "...less than 20% of the land within one mile of the boundary of the proposed PUD is in parcels of five acres or less....", VS4 April 30, 1985 Page 10 he explained that there are lots within Keswick which already exist which should have been taken into consideration when this determination was made. He felt it would be difficult to find any property in Albemarle County which that criteria would apply to unless it is in the urban area. The one mile boundary includes a lot of small parcels (average 2.2 acres) and the average lot size of the PUD is 3.3 acres. Mr. Vernon, an engineer with Snovel Engineering Co., addressed the Commission. He explained the procedure that had been followed for locating and drilling the wells for the applicant. He said information had been secured, from various sources, on wells within a one to two mile radius of the site. The site selection had been based on the presence of the limestone formation and the fact that it was 9,000 feet away from Keswick community proper and it was felt the site would have the least impact on existing wells due to recharge in the area. The first test well had stabalized at 50 gpm and the pilot well had stabalized at 10 gpm. The wells were test wells and have not been constructed in final form. The current drought has had little effect on the water levels in the two test wells. Mr. Roudabush stated Mr. Gilbert O'Niel was present to answer any questions about the treatment facilities. iir. Curtis stated that by -right development would have more 4004 of an impact on the area than would the PUD. He indicated this would assure that the Club were preserved and private use of the Club would generate much less traffic than would public use. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Gordon Wheeler, a Keswick resident, addressed the Commission and stated that he and several of his neighbors were present and wished to voice their opposition to the proposal. Mr. Archibald Craigg addressed the Commission and asked that the petition which had been signed by 500 Keswick residents in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this area, be made a part of this record. (Said petition was received in the Department of Planning and Community Development on September 26, 1985 and was as follows:) ��5 April 30, 1985 Page 11 TOs The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors That whereas Thomas Curtis of Texas and Goorge O'Brien of New Jersey are seeking permission to bui14l 153 houses and establish•15 acres of cowniercia.l development on the Keswick Country Club grounds, and reopen said Club ,in a commercial club open to the general public, which may r-1;jire rezoning the Keswick area on the Master Plan from "1111•11' (highest restrictions against development) to a "village" or a "community' in both of which classifications the County encotiroyes growth, and l;liereas, the undersigned taxpayers of thtr Feswick area believe that Keswick is one of the few unspoiled sections of the County, that the impact of the Country Club growth (253 Louses and 15 acres commercial) alone, plus•the additional growth brought about by such rezoning from "rural" to "village" or "commercial" zoning would not be compatible to a rural area,'would'change the character and charm of the area, would render it less attractive to the persons who live there and to the tourists who now visit, would crowd the present school system, create traffic congestion, with atteodaut expense, adversely affect the water table and the environment (wells are aready drying up in some cases where new wells are dug), add to the necessary services and expenses such as police and fire protection, and trash disposal and crtaLe a sewage problem, as the area does not perk (the proposed waste water treatment only covers part of the Club groundsj none of the development outsido of the C(nh). Now, Therefore.,_ we petition the Albemarlo County Board to deny the request of Messrs. Curtis and of Supervisors O'Brien and particularly to continue the pr-.1;ont 'rural" zoning as prescribed by the Master Plan and to (l,:ny any "village," 'community,' or other category of zoning designEd to encourage growth in the Keswick area. (Note: This petition had approximately 500 signatures. The original can be found in the Keswick -CPA file and a copy is in the Keswick Village file, both located in the Department of Planning and Community Development.) The following residents of Keswick addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the rezoning: Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Mr. Archibald Craige, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Bernath, Ms. Janet Ingram, Mr. Peadar Little, Mr. William Orr, Mr. Don Kopke, Mr. James Butler, Ms. Pat Napoleon, and Ms. Caroline Gayman. Their reasons for opposition included the following: --Negative impact on _groundwater levels which are already inadequate. �&4 April 30, 1985 Page 12 --Would ruin the rural character of the area. --Proposal is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan which the Commission has an obligation to uphold. --Roads are inadequate to support this type of development. --Density is too intense. --Negative impact on already overcrowded schools. --Set a precedent for changing other rural zoning. The following people addressed the Commission and indicated they were in favor of the proposal being given further consideration: ME Jack Dillard, Mr. Hans Higganbotham, Mr. Roger Stephens (not a Keswick resident),Mr. Robert Musselman, Mr. Harvey Hoke, Ms. Fran Collier, and Mr. Bill Bailey. Their reasons for favoring further considera- tion of the plan were as follows: --In favor of this type of orderly, planned development for the area. --Felt the club should not be allowed to go to ruin and felt this proposal would control the use of the club. --Felt the PUD criteria should not apply because the facilities are already existing. The Chairman invited closing comments from the applicant. Mr. Curtis stated there were as many people present who were in favor of the PUD as were opposed. He concluded that this type of controlled development was preferable to what could develop on the property by right. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Service Authority boundary must be extended before the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority can accept a treatment plant or a central well system. Mr. Payne responded that it would be the Albemarle County Service Authority who would operate the treatment plant. He added that the Service Authority can only operate where it has a project approved by the State Board and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority, agreed with this. He added that there are treatment plants operating in the County that are similar to the proposed one. He stated some of these are operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and some by private property owners. In response to i�ir. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Brent stated that if this development were not approved, there would be no plans to extend the water line to the Keswick area. However, if Keswick were developed with a central water system to be a public utility operated by the Service Authority, he stated that "it would be the ultimate goal of the Service Authority to plan for the extension of the water main there." Mr. Brent was unable to offer a time frame for when such work might be done. He stated the County Service Authority is prohibited from operating the plants, that being solely the function of the Rivanna Authority. He explained that all persons using the utility would be customers of the County 1-1.3 1 April 30, 1985 Page 13 Service Authority, but the County would contract with the Rivanna Authority to treat the water and the waste water. He stated further that the Service Authority's responsibility would be to deliver the water through the lines to the customers and also to take the sewage to the treatment plant, and the Rivanna Authority is limited just to treatment. It was determined no cost estimate was available for the extension of the water line. Mr. Bowerman indicated he was concerned about the fact that the new well that had been drilled would not be able to supply all the water for the development, but existing wells on the club grounds would also be used. He was concerned that these existing wells appear to be in an aquifer that supplies other private wells in the area, and this would aggravate the already existing problems with these wells. Mr. Skove stated he felt this was the main problem, i.e. the lack of utilities. He was concerned that this could set a precedent for scattering package plants throughout the County. Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed with Mr. Skove and stated Keswick had not been considered a viable village area because of the problems with the facilities. She stated she felt the water and sewerage issue were of primary concern since roads can be rebuilt, but water cannot be replaced. She stated she could not support an increase in density without accommodations for the water supply. Mr. Skove stated he felt the plan was generally sensitive to the area and he hoped some solution could be found for the clubhouse and other facilities. Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt too many questions were unanswered regarding the roads and the water and sewer problems. He stated he could not support the proposal at this time, but he would not be opposed to deferral. Mr. Bowerman stated that of the nine criteria for reviewing such proposals, this meets only three. He asked that the Commission be mindful of the intent of the Ordinance, i.e. that PUDb aid more intensive development in the rural areas must meet certain criteria before a change in zoning could be contemplated. Mr. Cogan agreed that the plan but stated he was reluctant to guarantees, such as: --The bulk of the traffic --The future of the water --Many concerns should not of the Club. was sensitive to the area, favor it without certain would use I64. supply could be more definite. be sacrificed for the salvation April 30, 1985 Page 14 Mr. Gould stated that he, too, had concerns about the proposal but he was not in favor of denial. He stated he did not agree with some of staff's reasons for denial since he felt some of the problems would be the same whether the property develops as a PUD or by right. However, he felt further work was needed on the proposal before he could support it. He indicated he was in favor of deferral. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Gould stated he was not opposed to the proposed density of the development. Ms. Diehl stated she could not support deferral because she felt the increase in density was not appropriate at this time. Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-84-20 for the Keswick Country Club be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Skove indicated his opposition to the proposed treatment plant could not be overcome; Mr. Bowerman agreed and added his concern about ground water resources. Mr. Cogan stated that the applicant had presented a good plan and it was his hope that if the Board of Supervisors does deny the plan, any development that may occur by right will follow this same good sense approach. The above stated motion for denial was approved (4:2) with Ms. Diehl, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Cogan and Mr. Skove voting in favor, and Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Gould voting against. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1985. The meeting recessed at 10:35; reconvened at 10:48. Crossroads Wrecker Service and Garage Site Plan - Proposal to locate a one story building of 1,920 square feet for an auto and truck repair shop to be served by 11 parking spaces on a 29,882 square foot parcel. Tax Map 99, parcel 1A. Zoned C-1 Commercial. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She stated that the staff supports the County Engineer's position that the site has not stabilized and thus requested that the item be deferred until May 14. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the property is zoned correctly for this use and an existing commercial entrance is in place and was previously approved by the Highway Department. He stated there is no connection to Rt. 29 and the location meets all the setback requirements and all the provisions of the Ordinance. He explained that prior to the submission of the site plan, the applicant had given the Highway Department April 30, 1985 Page 15 permission to dispose of several loads of dirt on the property, liftwl since he knew that the site plan was going to be submitted shortly. After the dirt had been dumped, it had been spread out and a pipeline had also been extended across the property. He stated the applicant had not been aware of any permit that was required for these actions. He had subsequently been made aware of a grading violation and had then submitted an erosion control plan as requested by the County Engineer. He had also posted a bond to go along with the grading plan. He explained the applicant has reseeded the site and grass has started to grow and other erosion control measures have been taken., thus complying with the provisions to correct the violation of zoning. He also stated five letters of support have been received in the Planning Department office. The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer. Mr. Elrod stated that although grass has started coming up, a heavy rain could still cause erosion, and no rain could cause the grass to die since it is still very sparse. Mr. Roudabush indicated the site had practically been bare to begin with, and now it seems like wasted effort to reseed, fertilize, etc. and then come back in with bulldozers to execute the site plan. He indicated it would be preferable to apply the same effort to executing the site plan which will include erosion control measures and landscaping. Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel the mistake had been purposely made and he indicated he was in favor of approving the site plan, provided a condition would be included which would protect against further soil erosion. Ms. Diehl stated she was hesitant to approve the site plan since the staff and County Engineer have recommended deferral; however, she suggested that the Commission review the site plan under an administrative approval. This would allow staff time to re -check it and evaluate it, but it would not have to come before the Commission again. Mr. Cogan and Mr. Bowerman felt this was a good suggestion. Ms. Joseph stated there were some concerns about additional screening between adjacent properties. She stated the applicant will be repairing trucks and cars and selling tires. She stated the proposed conditions were approval are as follows: 1. A building permit will not be issued until: a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans. b. Issuance of erosion control permit. C. Watershed Management official approval of waste disposal. d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance. �D April 30, 1985 Page 16 e. Health Department approval of septic location; f. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement. g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan. h. Fire official approval of tire storage. It was determined condition g would include screening. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Eleanor May and Mr. Ron Cutwright addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: --There is already a similar garage in the community. --Objectional appearance of a wrecking service. --Storage of wrecked vehicles in view of adjacent properties. --Drainage problems on Rt. 692. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wright, the applicant, attempted to clarify some points for Ms. Diehl: The existing garage and the store are two separate buildings; Old Rt. 29 shown on the plan is a state road, some parts of which have been closed and discontinued from state maintenance; The applicant owns property on all sides of the road; The welding shop is not in the road, as mistakenly shown on a previous staff report. *404 Ms. Diehl indicated she felt the metal building should be sited closer to the commercial lot so as to be farther away from the adjacent residence. She felt an effort should have been made to contain the commercial buildings within a smaller area. Mr. Wright pointed out that he owned the residence about which Ms. Diehl was concerned also. Ms. Joseph confirmed she had been concerned about the screening between the proposed building and the residence. She stated the applicant has proposed a fence between the building and Rt. 29. It was determined the Commission could limit the number of vehicles that could be stored on the property as well as determining where they were allowed to be stored. Mr. Cutwright, a resident, asked what would prevent the applicant from using the lot behind the property for storage of vehicles, since there are vehicles stored there already. Mr. Keeler stated the applicant could not use the adjoining property for storage because there is no site plan on the property, and it cannot be used in conjunction with this proposal. He stated if vehicles are currently being stored there, it is an issue that should be taken up with the Zoning Administrator. *174/ April 30, 1985 Page 17 Mr. Bowerman stated the concerns of the Commission were as follows: --Number of vehicles to be stored on the property. --Screening from Rt. 29 and adjacent property. --Landscaping plans. It was determined the applicant was not contemplating body work, but only mechanical repair and wrecker service. Mr. Keeler stated that the current ordinance would allow body work, but that type of use is in the process of being removed from this district and the new definition of automobile service station will cover the applicant's proposed type of activity, i.e. strictly mechanical repair, inspection, etc. Mr. Payne stated that this was originally proffer zoned and it was clearly intended that body work be excluded. Mr. Wright stated that all that was planned was a garage and wrecker service. Mr. Payne indicated there were no problems with the proposal since Mr. Wright agreed with his understanding of the issue. It was determined that the Commission would deal with the proposal now, granting staff final approval after the soil erosion violations have been cleared. Regarding the storage of wrecked vehicles, it was determined that 8 of the 11 parking spaces could be used for customer vehicles. Mr. Payne confirmed that a condition to exclude body work was not necessary since the proffer had taken care of that. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Crossroads Wrecker Service and Garage Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions including staff approval of final plat, and subject to the County Engineer's satisfaction that the soil erosion violation has been cleared: 1. A building permit will not be issued until: a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans; b. Issuance of erosion control permit; C. Watershed Management Official approval of waste disposal; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance; e. Health Department approval of septic location; f. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; h. Fire official approval of tire storage; i. No more that eight customer vehicles shall be stored outside the building. 41�4402- April 30, 1985 Page 18 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Willoughby Section 4 Final Plat - Proposal to create 33 lots with an average lot size of 9,326 square feet to be served by proposed State roads Fielding, Drive, Chandler Court and Tyler Place. Property is located off the east side of Harris Road at the end, across from Quince Lane (Section 3 Willoughby). Tax Map 76M2, parcels 63, 64, and 65. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated there were no problems with the proposed conditions of approval. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, he stated the detention pond would drain within a few hours after a storm and would be dry most of the time. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission that there were no problems with the application. Mr. Cogan moved that the Willoughby Section 4 Final 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 and 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 and screening of pond if deemed necessary; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of sidewalks and paths to recreation area; f. Fire Officer final approval; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; h. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer approval of plans for upgrading of Harris Road, if necessary; i. County Attorney approval of homeowner's documents. j. Planning staff approval of technical items. 2. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA-84-27. April 30, 1985 Page 19 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Colston Subdivision - Request for administrative approval of the creation of one lot and redivision of another lot. Property granted Special Use Permit 85-7. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She stated staff was opposed to this request for the following reasons: 1. The final subdivision plat has not yet been reviewed by the Site Review Committee. 2. The requested subdivision creating lot 2 will not comply with the approved Special Use Permit, which shows lots 2-7 on a new public road. 3. The southern property line for the lot is the edge of right-of-way for the new public road. This alignment has not yet been approved by the County Engineer. 4. This administrative approval would set a precedent for other developments and this developer, who might wish to do the project in a piecemeal fashion. The entire subdivision plat should be approved by the Commission prior to approvals of individual lots. Mr. Payne agreed with staff. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Rick Thompson, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated this request was being made primarily for economic reasons and because the owners of lot 2 are anxious to begin building. (He corrected that the owners haze actually contracted to purchase the lot.) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission was in agreement with staff's concerns. Mr. Bowerman stated this was contrary to usual procedure. Mr. Payne stated a formal motion was not required. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff not be granted administrative approval and it was encouraged that the Commission review the preliminary plat which should be in compliance with the special use permit. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. &"A 0 n.A.- It James R. bonyrellA, Secretary DS 174�