Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 03 85 PC MinutesSeptember 3, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 3, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; 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 August 20, 1985 meeting were approved as corrected by Mr. Bowerman. U.S. Post Office, Keene, Virginia, Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 678 square foot building to be used as a past office served by 8 parking spaces. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 712 directly west of its intersection with Rt. 20. Tax Map 121, parcel 91. Scottsville Magisterial District. Site plan deferred from August 20, 1985 Commission meeting at request of applicant. It was determined the applicant was again requesting deferral until September 10, 1985. Ms. Diehl moved that the applicant's request for deferral be approved. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. SP-85-56 Andrew J. & Silvia Mills - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(7) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a child day care center. Existing use is residential and related out buildings. Acreage of site is 12.382 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, located on the south side of Rt. 53 near Simeon. Property, described as Tax Map 92, parcel 54, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He noted the following corrections to the recommended conditions of approval: --No. 5 should be changed to read: Planning Commission approval of the site plan. --No. 7 should be changed to read: Enrollment shall not exceed 30 children. He also noted the applicant is planning to expand the existing building. It was determined there were no letters of opposition to the application. 1.11,j September 3, 1985 Page 2 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. and Mrs. Mills addressed the Commission and offered the following comments: --The structure is a cinderblock building, and renovations will be completed after all requirements have been determined. --Mr. Mills stated that though he was willing to do whatever is required to obtain the required sight distance, he felt this should be the state's responsibility since the end of his driveway is a schoolbus stop and the current conditions have been in existence for several years. Mr. Bowerman explained that, generally, it is the responsibility of the applicant to improve the sight distance, and such issues are not usually dealt with until an application is made to change an existing use. Regarding the requirement for a paved driveway, Mr. Mills stated he felt a gravel driveway was preferable since it is safer for winter travel. He also stated the drainage would present no problems, since the lot "drops off." Mr. Bowerman stated there did not seem to be any mention of paving the driveway in the staff report. He asked Mr. Keeler to explain. Mr. Keeler stated Mr. Mills was referring to the revised Highway Department comments which recommend a paved commercial entrance (the normal requirement). Regarding the clearing that would be necessary to obtain the sight distance, Mr. Keeler pointed out to the applicant that they should first make sure they will get cooperation from neighbors in terms of easements, because if they cannot get adequate sight distance the Highway Department will not issue the commercial entrance permit and, assuming the permit is approved with that condition, the special use permit could go no farther. Mr. Mills indicated there would be no problems with neighbors. It was determined the other buildings would be used for storage (lawn equipment, etc.), and the mobile home is occupied by the applicants' daughter. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove indicated he had no problems with the application and asked if the Commission wished to see the site plan. JJ September 3, 1985 Page 3 It was determined the Commission was infavor of reviewing the site plan in order to give the applicants and neighbors another opportunity to address the issue. It was determined Health Department approval of septic system will be required. It was determined that condition No. 1--Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance --will require approval of the State Welfare Department in order to obtain a state license. Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-56 for Andrew J. & Silvia Mills be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance including a minimum of 550 feet of sight distance; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Building and Fire Official; 5. Planning Commission approval of site plan; 6. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non- transferrable; 7. Enrollment shall not exceed 30 children. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. (Mr. Skove's original motion included omitting staff's original condition 5. (Staff approval of site plan), thus requiring that the Commission review the site plan; however, it was determined that condition 5. should remain and be amended as stated above. Mr. Skove amended his motion to reflect this.) The above -stated motion for approval was unanimously approved and scheduled to be heard by the Board on September 18, 1985. SP-85-58 Lesco, Inc. - Request in accordance with Section 22.2.2(10) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the addition of dry cleaning and plant/pick-up to the existing Lesco Laundromat facility. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, parcel 3-32 is located on the north side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) approximately 2,000 feet west of intersection with U.S. Rt. 29. Zoned C-1 Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained the permit was before the Commission because it involves a drive-in window. a lT September 3, 1985 Page 4 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. David Ripley, representing the applicant, was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-58 for Lesco, Inc. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions and including staff approval of the site plan: 1. Staff approval of revised site plan (submit five copies) showing: a) Additional concrete bumpers as recommended by staff on Plan B as well as method of securing the same in place; b) "As -built" features of the site including curbing as it exists, location and number of fuel dispensers, parking layout, and other features not shown or improperly shown on Plan A; 2. No building permit shall be issued until staff has approved a site plan in accordance with Condition 1. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the drive-in window addition until concrete bumpers are secured in place and directional arrows provided as shown on Plan B. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved and scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 18, 1985. SP-85-60 Nettie Marie Jones - Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to subdivide parts of three existing parcels into twelve lots, average size of 2.42 acres. Located on the east side of St. Rt. 677 approximately one mile north of its intersection with Rt. 250W. Tax Map 59, parcels 7B1, 20 and 28 (part of). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. It was determined the applicant had requested deferral until September 10, 1985. Mr. Skove moved, and Mr. Gould seconded, that the applicant's request for deferral be approved. The motion was unanimously approved. Since the meeting was running ahead of scheduled agenda times, the Chairman asked Mr. Keeler to present a brief item which was not scheduled. oZ/5 September 3, 1985 Page 5 Gleco Mills - Request for Site Plan Extension - Mr. Keeler stated the applicant has requested an extension until December 31, 1985; however, Mr. Keeler suggested that the extension be for six months. Mr. Skoved moved that the Gleco Mills Site Plan be granted a six-month extension. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Still ahead of agenda time, the Chairman asked Mr. Keeler to make his report on the new sidewalk issue which has recently arisen. Sidewalks in Willoughby, Raintree, Willow Lake - Mr. Keeler presented a report on a new problem that has arisen. He explained that Section 15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia requires that "any governing body... requiring curbs along its streets, shall require that there be constructed not less than two ramps per lineal block leading to the crosswalks at inter- sections for use of handicapped persons." The Virginia Depart- ment of Highways & Transportation has taken the position that such ramps may not be located within the right-of-way without a con- tinuous bond insuring perpetual maintenance by others. Mr. Keeler stated that neither a developer nor a homeowner's association would be able to obtain such bonding. Mr. Keeler stated that the three projects currently under development which are affected are Willoughby, Raintree and Willowlake. He further stated the developer of Willoughby is prepared to begin construction of curbing in the immediate future and has requested the County's "help in bonding the proposed sidewalks or the elimination of the sidewalks in this subdivision." Mr. Keeler's report further explained that on September 11, 1985 Ms. Imhoff will present to the Board of Supervisors an overview of the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation policy, proposed County policy and the Pedestrian Obstacle Study. Following this presentation, the County Engineer will request that the Board authorize the County Engineer's department to make permit application to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation for the sidewalks in Willoughby, Raintree and Willow Lake. Should the Board decline to grant this authorization, staff is recommending that sidewalk requirements be deleted for all three projects, and should the Commission concur with staff recommendation, the sidewalks would be deleted administratively and no further action by the Commission would be necessary. Mr. Keeler explained that in order to cross the street, a short section of sidewalk must enter into the right-of-way at intersections, and the Highway Department will not permit these short sections. z i6 September 3, 1985 Page 6 It was the consensus that this was an absurd situation. Mr. Keeler explained the matter is complicated by the fact that the Code of Virginia requires handicapped access at the intersections. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Elrod's request to the Board would be for the County to guarantee maintenance of the sidewalks. The decision would be the Board's to make. It was the consensus of the Commission to follow staff's recommendation, i.e. to await the Board's action, and if the County Engineer's request is not granted, then to delete the requirement for sidewalks in the three subdivisions in question. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the County has some recourse to the state. Mr. Payne agreed that the situation was absurd and stated that the result is going to be no sidewalk will be allowed which intersects a road at any point. Ms. Diehl asked if it was possible to challenge the Highway Department's intrepretation in view of the state code requirement. Mr. Payne stated he has already suggested that possibility be taken up with Mr. Tucker. Mr. Bowerman indicated he would follow the matter up with Mr. Tucker and inform the Commission. (Later in the meeting Ms. Imhoff stated staff has learned there is a procedure for an initial appeal of Highway Department policy, before court action takes place. She said the necessary forms have been sent for, but have not yet been received.) ZMA-85-21 Percy H. Faulconer, Estate (HEC, Inc.) - Request to rezone 28.29 acres from R-1, Residential to R-15, Residential with proffer. Property is located on the east side of 250 Bypass, accessed from Old Ivy Road. Tax Map 60, part of parcel 24. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and stated that staff is recommending acceptance the applicant's proffer as submitted. Mr. Keeler added that he had received a request from the University asking that action on this application be delayed. (Mr. Keeler read a letter from Mr. Warner Sensbach which stated the University has not had sufficient time to study the issue and to comment.) .? /y September 3, 1985 Page 7 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roudabush, representing the Faulconer Estate, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant feels the staff report accurately reflects the background and desires of the applicant for future planning for the use of the property. It was felt orderly development could proceed as a result of the rezoning and the proffer combined. He stated that approval of this application would allow the owners to proceed to plan some development of the property with a known allowable density. In addition, it would give the opportunity to determine what improvements are feasible for Rt. 601. He stated that as long as the zoning remains R-1, no planning for substantial improvements to Rt. 601 can be made. He stated utilities are readily available to the property, and the use, as proposed, is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roudabush indicated the applicant was not aware of the University's most recent com- murication to the County, but pointed out that the matter has been pending for some time and the University has been aware of the application during this time. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Werner Sensbach, Director of Facilities, Planning and Admin- istration for the University of Virginia, addressed the Commission. He indicated notice of this public hearing had been received only a few days before, and there has not been sufficient time for consideration of the proposal. He requested that the issued be deferred to allow time for the University to study the impact the rezoning would have on the University. Mr. Bill Heischman addressed the Commission and indicated he was in favor of the rezoning being approved. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if all three improvements to Rt. 601 which staff listed as "necessary" would have to be made to allow the 27-41 units which the proffer could allow, or could only part of the improvements be made. Mr. Keeler stated it would be up to the Board to determine who will make the decisions as to the adequacy of Old Ivy Road. Mr. Keeler stated he had met with Mr. Echols of the Highway Department and they had viewed the issue as if the entire property were going to be developed. He explained that development of the property under R-15 zoning would put the road right at the 7,500 vehicle trip limit. Mr. Bowerman expressed concern about the possibility that another applicant might make the same proffer at a future date, and the road might be improved (either by the County 2/y September 3, 1985 Page 8 or a developer), but not to the point where it would accommodate both parcels of property. He asked how it would then be decided "which or in what proportion" future development would be allowed up to the existing conditions of the roadway. He stated he could foresee mechanical problems. Ms. Diehl asked how it would be treated if it were sewer or septic capacity. Mr. Bowerman responded, "First come, firstserved." Mr. Skove asked if Mr. Bowerman's question was "How is it determined when the road has been improved satisfactorily?" Mr. Bowerman responded that is one of his main questions, but added he was also concerned about how to handle more than one proffer, i.e. a couple of pieces of property which have been rezoned allowing limited development, how then to allow future development. Ms. Diehl stated that this initial development was not likely to be a problem, but after the road has been improved to some point,thus-inviting future development activity, problems will occur. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt this was a well -thought out concept and is consistent which what has been done previously, i.e. limiting traffic to what would be generated by current zoning. He added he was simply trying to figure out a way to make it work in the future. He asked for comments from Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne responded he did not see much difference in the road issue and that of septic capacity, i.e. first come, first served. Mr. Bowerman asked "What if applicant A makes the improvements, and applicant Y gets the application in first?" He asked if there were not a direct relation between who makes improvements, and who can develop what. Mr. Payne stated that "if it were done right" an applicant who made the improvements could get the full benefit of those improvements. He explained that what an applicant could do would be to enter into a contract with the County agreeing to perform the improvements in consideration of the County's approving his subdivision plat. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, he stated this would probably not be in violation of the Hilton case. Quoting from the staff report, Mr. Bowerman read the following: "The off -site road improvement prohibitions have not been violated since the locality has not required the applicant to improve the road and the applicant has not offered to improve the road. The applicant has simply restricted development until the road is improved." 2/4 September 3, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Payne pointed out that an important aspect of the Hilton case was that the applicant never agreed to the improvements. Mr. Payne stated that in this case, the agreement would be for the benefit of the applicant, not the benefit of the County. He said the County can take the position "You go out and build it, and then we'll approve your plat." He added the difference here is the applicant is saying "I don't mind doing that, but I want to make sure that someone doesn't sneak in ahead of me." Mr. Roudabush asked if there was a distinction between the proposal to make the improvements at the time of the application for rezoning, as either an offer or a condition of approval, or an offer made at the time of site plan improvements where an applicant says (a) "I want to develop this site plan; and (b) I want to make these road improvements as a part of my site plan application (a voluntary application at that time)." Mr. Payne responded there is a very material distinction between the two. He explained that the theory of the proffers is that the developer can go ahead and develop without ever making any improvement, and that is the idea. He added that, in fact, what is being done with many of these is that the developer can go ahead and develop to the maximum on a portion of the site and that may make a very significant difference as far as building type is concerned. He stated that the proffer does not in any way necessarily require this improvement. He explained that the difference with the agreement at the time of the subdivision plat is that such an agreement would be for the benefit of the developer because it would allow him to have his plan approved (an3be sure of this approval) before he did the improvement. He stated this would prevent the developer fmngetting in a situation where he might go ahead and make the improvements and then someone else "beat him to the site review committee." Mr. Payne again stated he felt there was a way it could be managed by a developer and would probably be done on a "first come, first served" basis. He pointed out, however, that this does not consider one significant possibility, i.e. that the road would be completed all at once to a degree where it would accommodate everyone, and depending on what is required, this is entirely possible. Mr. Keeler stated he had failed to mention in the report that the Board had included a bonus provision for road improvements to where the extent of the bonus would be determined by the Planning Commission upon evaluation of the type of improvement, etc. Mr. Keeler also stated that, in the opinion of future Commissioners, improving a development and increasing traffic on a road may be preferable to continuing on with an existing condition. ,120 September 3, 1985 Page 10 It was determined the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this area is high density, a maximum of 20 units/acre. (Ms. Diehl added this was 20, with bonuses.) Mr. Skove asked if access from that parcel to the University grounds would reduce the necessity for upgrading Old Ivy Road. Mr. Keeler responded "Yes." He stated several possibilities had been discussed and added that the University currently has a boulevard that runs back to Barracks Road Shopping Center, but it is not open to public use. He stated the applicant has approached the University about the possibility of opening that road. He offered further that Mr. Heischman had, at one point, reached an agreement with the University regarding realigning the road under the railroad underpass, but all the issues of the Hilton case had come forward and put an end to those negotiations. Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problem with the rezoning and the proffer, since he felt it was a reasonable way to develop the property presently while also allowing for the possibility of eventual development in accordance with Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Regarding the University's request that the item be deferred, he stated the Commission, historically, has not deferred items at the request of anyone other than the applicant, unless enough information is presented at the time of Commission review to raise questions in the minds of the Commissioners. It was determined the matter was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on September 18. Both Mr. Skove and Mr. Gould indicated they would not be opposed to deferral since they would be interested in hearing the University's comments, particularly in regard to some of the connector roads. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Sensbach if the University might be planning to offer some positive suggestions for improving the traffic flow in that area, thus the reason for requesting deferral. Mr. Sensbach indicated only that the University had not had time to contemplate the issue. He confirmed that the two - week interval before the Board hearing date, would allow the necessary time for response at that level. Both Mr. Skove and Ms. Diehl indicated they agreed with Mr. Bowerman that this was a reasonable proposal, and the University would have the opportunity to respond at the Board level. Mr. Skove moved that the proffer of the applicant be accepted and that ZMA 85-21 for Percy H. Faulconer Estate be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The proffer is as follows: .2 V September 3, 1985 Page 11 "The property's development under the proposed R-15 �%We zoning be limited to the number of units currently allowable under the present R-1 zoning until Old Ivy Road is im- proved to the satisfaction of the County of Albemarle." Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved, and was scheduled to be heard by the Board on September 18, 1985. Rezonings on Rt. 29N (Comments from Mr. Payne) - Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on the options of the Commission in dealing with rezoning requests on Rt. 29 in view of the traffic problems and the current Comprehensive Plan recom- mendations. Mr. Payne offered the following comments: --The ideal circumstance, in the abstract, is to have a rational plan which reflects the County's planning desires and objectives, and to have that plan reflected in the zoning map. That is an ideal that is not always met. Both the reality and the guilding principle of this should be taken into account. --The Plan is rarely "black and white." --The Comprehensive Plan is not necessarily the Land Use Plan and the Plan can be read in several different ways depending on the circumstances. --When dealing with commercial rezonings, the following factors should be considered: 1. Does the Plan, in aggregate, recommend it or not? It may be that the Plan recommends it so con - conditionally that if the conditions are not satisfied, then it really doesn't recommend it. 2. The Plan may recommend the rezoning, but the the Commission recognizes that the Plan is either obsolete or in error. It is not necessarily the case that zoning has to follow the Plan. The Plan is a guide and the zoning will never follow it exactly. If it is determined that an error exists, the error need not be perpetuated on the zoning map. --Before making a determination that the Plan is in error, the Commission must be prepared to say the Plan is in error or obsolete and needs to be changed to reflect the current state of affairs. The reasons for determining the Plan is in error must be stated and then the Commission can proceed to amend the Plan. It is not improper to defer an action on a rezoning in order to consider the effect on the Plan and whether or not it is correct. A moratorium cannot be placed on applications September 3, 1985 Page 12 since they must be considered, but it is not improper to study the matter further before action is taken on it. It is not unreasonable to defer an item, nor to deny an item after going through a thorough analysis. --The outside limit for acting on a rezoning is one year, as stated in the statute, and within that limit, to use reasonable dispatch under the circumstances. There is no time limit on Comp Plan amendments. Mr. Bowerman stated these decisions should be based on actual rezoning requests before the Commission and the effects of that rezoning on the concerns of the Commission in terms of the overall problems seen by the Commission. Mr. Payne agreed.. He added that it is important to par- ticularize the Commission review. It was determined denial of a rezoning does not have to be given specific reasons. Mr. Bowerman stated that how the Commission would view a particular rezoning (on 29N) would be determined by the specifics of that application, i.e. what advantages to the area might be derived as a result. He stated also that a current re- zoning might not be inconsistent with future anticipated changes in the Comp Plan. Mr. Bowerman concluded, after hearing Mr. Payne's comments, that each application would just have to be "taken as it comes in." Mr. Payne added that the "put up or shut up" principle is important in this issue, i.e. if t1a- Commission feels there is a problem with the Plan, it must move with reasonable dispatch to evaluate that problem and either change the Plan or disregard their concern and "go back to where you were." Ms. Imhoff indicated work on the Comprehensive Plan could possibly be completed within a year, beginning now. This would mean moving the study up four months earlier than was intended. She stated that most other work seemed to be hinging on this issue also. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the staff is planning on undertaking the study beginning in January, it is possible some information will be available in March or April, which he felt was "reasonable dispatch," considering the magnitude of the issue. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Imhoff stated an outside consultant might speed up the process somewhat, but because of the number of community work sessions involved, it could only be speeded up so much. Mr. Bowerman again concluded that each application would have to be dealt with one at a time. There being no further business, the,,-Teting Pdjourned at :00 P.M. DS J9