Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 06 85 PC MinutesAugust 6, 1985 I�ft,,: The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 6, 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; Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex- Officio. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the July 2, 1985 and July 23, 1985 meetings were approved as written. ZMA-85-19 James E. Crenshaw - Request to rezone 1.3 acre parcel from C-1, Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial. Existing use Texaco Service Station. Property, described as Tax Map 79, parcel 4 is located on the northwest quadrant of Rt. 250 and New Rt. 20 intersection. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that staff is suggesting that the applicant consider relocating the facility slightly to provide greater stacking space and better circulation. He added that staff is not opposed to continued use of the well and septic system but stated that the Commission might wish to add a condition requiring connection to public water and sewer if the well and septic system should fail at some future date. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. E.B. Jordan, representing Texaco and the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained the applicant wishes to add an automated car wash service to his present business so as to be more competitive with the surrounding market. He explained that public water is not yet available on this site. He stated the well has been checked and has an adequate rate of flow to accommodate the car washing service. He explained that the system that will be used will reclaim 18 of 20 gallons of water used, thus only 2-3 gallons of water is used with each car. What water does drain off will go into a holding tank which will be disposed of (via Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority) from time to time. The location of the car wash facility (on the site) was determined by what would be the least disruptive to the applicant's existing business. However, he stated if the location is a problem, it is possible to relocate the facility. He pointed out that the property is in close proximity to a large amount of HC zoned property. He stated the car wash will operate only during the regular service station hours. He stated landscaping will be included with the construction of the facility. V1155 August 6, 1985 Page 2 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler how close the current water and sewer lines are to this site. Though Mr. Keeler responded that they are next door (the Wilco site), Mr. Jordan stated he did not believe they were on this side of the street at this time. Mr. Keeler stated that they should be at Wilco since that had been a condition of approval for the most recent Wilco application. Ms. Diehl stated that she would be in favor of seriously considering providing the site with public water and sewer at the time of the site plan review. Regarding surrounding zoning, Mr. Keeler stated he felt the zoning along Rt. 250 is not as a much of a concern as is the zoning on Rt. 20. He added that directly on Rt. 250 there is very little C-1 zoning, with HC being predominant. Regarding the 1/2 acre that is part of this rezoning, but does not have a current proposed use, Mr. Keeler explained the applicant uses that part of the parcel for parking the rental cars which are part of his business. He confirmed that it could be available for more building if the applicant were to do away with the rental service. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff feels HC would not be inappropriate for this area. Mr. Keeler confirmed that if another use which occasioned the need for additional parking is proposed, a site plan will be required. Mr. Jorden stated there are no additional plans for another use for the property in question (1/2 acre), unless the state should take the front of the property and thereby necessitate moving further back on the site. In response to Mr. Cogan's request, a representative of the applicant explained how the water re -cycling system would work. have Mr. Bowerman indicated he would/difficulty with not requiring public water and sewer for this application when it had been required for Wilco. He explained this is in the urban area; water and sewer is reasonably available; and there is a precedent for the requirement. He also pointed out that the major cost of getting the lines to the site are going to be borne by someone else. He stated this could be dealt with at the time of the site plan, or, possibly staff could deal with it. Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant has requested that the staff be granted authority to approve the site plan. / 7'0 August 6, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-19 for James E. Crenshaw be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval based on the site's frontage on Rt. 250, not on Rt. 20. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. It was determined the issue of staff approval of the site plan would be dealt with seperately. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Payne stated the question of public water and sewer requirements could not be dealt with at this level since the rezoning could not be conditioned on this issue. It was determined the matter would be addressed at the time of the site plan. The above -stated motion for approval was unanimously approved and scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 27, 1985. Regarding the public water and sewer issue, it was the consensus of the Commission that the site plan should be reviewed by the Commission. Thus, staff was not granted authority for administrative approval of the site plan. SP-85-51 Faith Mission Home - Request °err✓ 10.2.2 (15) of the Zoning Ordinance to mentally disabled persons. Property, parcel 6 and 6A, is located on Rt. 601 north of Rt. 604 and 810 intersection. Areas. Total acreage of site is 99.0 District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. in accordance with Section allow a home for develop - described as Tax Map 3, approximately .9 mile Existing zoning RA, Rural acres. White Hall Magisterial The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Reuben Yoder addressed the Commission. He asked for clarification regarding how many feet are required each way for the entrance to qualify as a commercial entrance. Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, responded and explained that a commercial entrance would be 30 feet wide at the property line and 80-100 feet at the edge of the road, depealding on how much flair exists where it is tied in to the edge of the pavement. Mr. Yoder further explained that the applicant intends to do some clearing to increase the sight distance for the road. He also corrected the total acreage is 94.05 acres rather than 99 acres. There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. 1H/ August 6, 1985 Page 4 In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the special permit applies to the entire parcel. Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant is proposing one more dwelling and staff quarters in the future and anything beyond that will require an amendment of the special use permit. It was determined the applicant's letter of July 3, 1985 to Mr. Keeler should be made a part of the approval. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-85-51 for Faith Mission Home be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, including future possible development as outlined by the applicant in his letter to Mr. Keeler dated July 3, 1985, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire and Building Official approvals; 2. Staff approval prior to issuance of each building permit to insure compliance with 5.1.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and construction of commercial entrance when deemed necessary. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved and scheduled to be heard by th e Board of Supervisors on August 21, 1985. ZMA-85-20 Hollymead Land Trust & Tri-Ton, Inc. - Request to rezone 37 acres from R-1, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcels 42 (part) and 36 (part) is located in the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Rt. 29N/Rt. 649 (Proffit Road) intersection. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained this current proposal is a joint application (Dr. Hurt and Tri-Ton) attempting to address the Commission's desire that the entire tract be looked at at one time so that access to Rt. 20 and transportation concerns could be dealt with. He also presented a proposed proffer from the two applicants (as yet unsigned). Mr. Keeler went over a letter, dated July 23, 1985, he had written to Mr. Robert Smith which dealt with the issues related to this proposed rezoning. He pointed out that staff's original rec- ommendation regarding the closing of crossovers has changed and now states that the Highway Department may require closing of existing crossovers as part of a commercial entrance permit. Mr. Keeler stated he felt the applicants' proffer was consistent with what had been discussed at the July 19 meeting. Mr. Keeler stated he believed the last sentence of Proffer #4 should have read: "Further, a road shall also be built, at a later date, extending east to connect AP2 to proposed Powell Creek Drive." C "" August 6, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Keeler stated that contrary to Mr. Roosevelt's statement that a public hearing would be required before a crossover could be closed, it has been discovered that that is not the case. Referring to the statement in Proffer #4 that "A road shall be constructed at a later date, size and exact location to be determined by the County....", Mr. Bowerman asked if that contemplates a private road. Mr. Keeler responded that would be a determination to be made by the Commission. He pointed out that it might not fit the criteria in the subdivision ordinance to be a private road. Mr. Keeler felt this would be a determination to be made by the County since it would be tied in to site plan and subdivision approvals. Regarding acceptance of the road into the state system, Mr. Keeler stated the Commission would simply require that it be built to Highway Department standards. Mr. Keeler recalled that this issue had been discussed at some length at the time of a VEPCO application and it had been staff's position that since the road would serve both residential and commercial it would be a public road. The Chairman invited applicant comment. r Mr. Bob Smith, a commercial real estate broker representing both applicants, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Compre- hensive Plan contemplates this zoning in this area or else this application would not have been made. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Mary Jo Lovelace, a resident of the Proffit Road area, addressed the Commission. She felt this rezoning is premature given the proximity to residential zoning and that the amount of property in the proposal is excessive. She was opposed to the application. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department. Mr. Echols confirmed that a public hearing is not required for closing a crossover. He stated that the Rt. 29 Corridor Study shows that both these crossovers will be closed sometime in the future (date uncertain). He stated a new crossover would be constructed in the vicinity of that shown by the applicant. He stated this proposal does, to some extent, limit access along Rt. 29, would provide for less entrances than are along some other sections of 29, contemplates closing of at least 2 of the crossovers at some future date. Y!2 August 6, 1985 Page 6 It was determined the two existing crossovers do not have adequate sight distance. Mr. Cogan pointed out that if Existing Crossover 2 (EC2) is closed, this would necessitate vehicles exiting the Tri-Ton site and desiring to go south, would have to turn right onto Rt. 29, go to the light at Proffit Road and make a U-turn. This would cause a real problem with tractor trailers. Mr. Echols agreed. Mr. Cogan suggested a solution might be some sort of easement to allow this traffic to use the new road that is proposed from AP2 to AP5 (internal connector road). Mr. Bowerman questioned whether it would be desirable to have tractor trailers on the internal road since it is not known at this time what will exist around the road. He stated he would not, however, be opposed to requiring an easement at this time to allow the possibility to remain open. Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Bowerman agreed tractor trailers exiting the site would create a hazard, though Mr. Cogan felt the hazard would be reduced if they are allowed to use the internal road. Mr. Kenneth Maupin, a business owner in this area, asked for clarification about the requirements for closing of a crossover. Mr. Echols again stated a public hearing is not necessary and that it is possible they could be closed as a result of this application due to safety factors, without any public input. Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff is recommending that the "leg" of about 2.5 acres,which would intrude into an area of R-1 zoning, not be rezoned at this time. He indicated the proposal for the 37 acres does include this piece (34 acres without the piece) but staff is recommending that it be excluded from the rezoning. It was determined the Tri-Ton application for 5 acres is still active. Regarding the suggested changes in the proffer, as presented by Mr. Keeler for Proffer #4 and regarding the possibility of showing an easement, Mr. Payne confirmed that changes in a proffer must be done by the applicant. He added that this proffer has not been perfected since it has not been signed. Mr. Keeler stated he felt it was the applicants' desire to present the proffer in order to hear the Commission's comments. He stated it is the applicants' intent to submit a perfected proffer at a later time which may or may not reflect the suggestions of the Commission. 1-1f.4/1 August 6, 1985 Page 7 Responding to Mr. Michel's question about a proffered approach vs. a planned development approach, Mr. Keeler stated a planned development approach would be difficult at this time since Mr. Hurt has no definitive proposal for the other 30 acres. He added that he felt the proffer addresses the concerns of both the staff and the Highway Department regarding access for Rt. 29. Mr. Keeler stated his interpretation of the Comp Plan is that commercial areas at Proffit and Airport Roads were intended to serve both the community and the travelling public. He stated the Highway Commercial district is intended to serve the travelling public and, thus he feels it is appropriate in this area. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Kee]Er if this area is shown as a "commercial area" in the Comp Plan but not necessarily Highway Commercial. Mr. Keeler indicated this was so. He confirmed that could also include C-1, CO, etc. Mr. Keeler further stated that at the time the Zoning Ordinance was being developed C-1 district was fairly limited. However, public hearings had resulted in more and more uses being added to the C-1 zone, moving it closer, in terms of density, to Highway Commercial. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler how he felt about the appropriateness of the amount of land being requested, i.e. 37 acres. Mr. Keeler responded that is substantially what the Land Use Plan shows. Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned about such a large piece of land being designated HC and would look more favorably on the proposal if at least that part of the land which adjoins residential property could be zoned Commercial Office, or some similar use. Mr. Skove stated he was not in favor of putting more development on Rt. 29 North which would generate more traffic. He felt it is necessary to restrict development on Rt. 29 until some solution is found to the traffic problems. Mr. Michel indicated he was in agreement with Ms. Diehl regarding the amount of land, and seeing more of a transition between this piece of property and the residential property. Mr. Wilkerson stated he was in agreement with Mr. Skove and could not support the proposal at this time. Mr. Bowerman stated the guidelines in effect at this time are the Comprehensive Plan and the Rt. 29North Corridor Study. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the Corridor Study had been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. August 6, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Keeler stated that though the CAT Study has been adopted, it does not include a Bypass, and the staff is still using the Corridor Study since staff feels it is still in effect . He added that the Commission needs to make their position regarding Rt. 29 development clear to the staff so they will know how to advise applicants. Mr. Keeler pointed out that he feels commercial development in this area of Rt. 29 North might relieve some of the congestion closer in since traffic coming from the north (Greene Co.) might not come all the way in. He stated if the Commission wants to take that position(i.e. to limit development) they should do so by means of a resolution. In response to Mr. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed the Commission can reduce the amount of land that is proposed for a rezoning, as well as reduce the intensity that is proposed. Ms. Diehl stated she would not be opposed to considering a smaller acreage for the HC request. Mr. Michel agreed. Mr. Skove stated the Technical Committee of the MPO is due to meet soon and a concrete recommendation for future land use should be made. He stated he would favor deferral of this proposal until the comments from the Technical Committee are known. He confirmed that he felt the recommendations would be definitive. Ms. Cooke stated that the Board has made known their feelings as to what is "not wanted," but no decisions have as yet been made as to what "is wanted." She stated she has suggested that the Board study the County Engineer's proposal and come up with some concrete recommendations as to 29 North development. She stated she thought this would be on the agenda later in the month. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Cooke felt the MPO would make any recommendations prior to receiving Board comments. Ms. Cooke stated it was her understanding that the MPO was looking for some direction from the Board. Mr. Payne stated the Commission must act on this matter within 12 months. Mr. Keeler stated the application had been submitted during July. Mr. Skove indicated he was in favor of hearing both MPO and Board comments before acting on this proposal. Ms. Diehl again stated she could support a lesser rezoning, i.e. smaller amount in HC and more in Commercial Office. She also stated she agreed with Mr. Keeler that this property could possibly alleviate some of the traffic closer to town. Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-20 for Hollymead Land Trust & Tri-Ton, Inc. be indefinitely deferred. 14104 August 6, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman commented that the applicant has been very respon- sive to the concerns of the Commission, but the issues are such that further information is needed. Mr. Bowerman also asked staff to look into the question of whether development in other areas, and this particular area, will actually pull traffic away from Rt. 29 North. He suggested that this information might exist from previous studies or come from other localities which have experienced similar situations. It was determined the original Tri-Ton application (for 5 acres) has already been acted on by the Commission and is now before the Board. It has been deferred to allow this application time to catch up. Another application (for the 32 acres) for Hollymead Land Trust is still before the Commission and was deferred indefinitely. Ms. Diehl asked if there was a time limit in relation to the other Hollymead application. Mr. Payne stated that should be of no concern to the Commission. The previously -stated motion for indefinite deferral of ZMA-85-20 was unanimously approved. Rio Woods Townhouses Site Plan - Request for extension of site plan approval. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that requests for approval extensions are reviewed by staff to determine if changes in circumstance warrant new review by the Planning Commission. In this case, two changes of circumstance have occurred which warrant amendments to conditions of approval. He stated the following two changes to the original conditions should be made, if the Commission grants the extension: Add Condition 1 (1.) The Community Development division has recommended location of a temporary asphalt pathway along the north side of Rio Road in this area. Prior to issuance of a building permit provision should be made in the Rio Woods Site Plan to connect to the proposed pathway with an internal walkway located along the east side of the entrance road. If no decision has been made as to the proposed pathway at such time as certificates of occupancy are sought staff may require such alternate pedestrian access to Rio Road as deemed appropriate. Amend Condition 1 (i) Planning staff approval of landscape in accordance with 32.8 Landscaping and Screening Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to reflect comments made at the Planning Commission meeting. 177 August 6, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Keeler added that the Commission might wish to consider granting a 12 month extension instead of a 6 month because of the large number of conditions that are attached. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. R.D. Wade addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant has been actively working on the project but changesin market conditions have created the need for the extension as well as the possibility that this land might be combined with some other parcels to make one planned project. He stated more time is needed to see if this prospect is feasible. He confirmed that he would prefer a 12 month extension. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wade confirmed if this parcel should be tied in with some others, this development will probably be abandoned, and something new proposed. Mr. Cogan moved that the Rio Woods Townhouses Site Plan extension be approved for 12 months subject to the original conditions of approval with amendments and additions as stated previously by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS - The Chairman asked Mr. Skove to give the Commission a. brief update on the progress of the LURC Committee at the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20. DS 19 /7A