Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 04 86 PC MinutesFebruary 4, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 4, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building. 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. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney (entered the meeting at 7:30 p.m.). The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the January 21, 1986 meeting were approved as written. CPA-86-1 Urban District Park - Request to amend Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Map 9, with respect to a park consisting of approximately 100 acres. This proposed park is located west of Route 20 North and north of Rt. 1421 (Elk Drive) and bordered on the west by the Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan currently recommends low density residential development, a change to public use -recreational is requested. Tax Map 78, parcel 1, Tax Map 62, parcel 23. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She added that the following should be added under the "Staff Recommendations" section of the report: To amend Map 9: Urban Land Use Plan, to show a change in usage from low density/residential to public use/ recreation. Mr. Gould asked what advantage this site has,in terms of allowing phase development, that the other sites do not have. Ms. Imhoff responded that the primary problem with the other three sites is the lack of public utility availability. asked Mr. Stark/if there were any future plans for the development of the other sites. Ms. Imhoff indicated that Biscuit Run might possibly be a mini -park in the future. She added that a problem has been that the park element of the Comprehensive Plan is outdated and thus provided very little information. She explained this was the reason a parks element had been included in the Athletic Needs Study Review. Mr. Cogan asked how crucial public utilities are to a facility of this nature. Ms. Imhoff responded that it would depend on the intensity of the types of recreation, e.g, a sports complex would be more intensive than more passive types of recreation, and the anticipated volume of use. .1/,Y,? February 4, 1986 Page 2 Ms. Imhoff pointed out that, at this time, there are no specific uses decided upon for the site. Ms. Diehl stated that the only issue under consideration at this time is the feasibility of changing this region to a park area, excluding any other specifics. Ms. Imhoff confirmed this was correct. Mr. Gould asked if it was the site, or the size (100 acres) which limits the possibility of long-term softball. Ms. Imhoff stated she thought the 100 acres would be too small for anything other than tournament softball. Mr. Gould asked if that was the case with the other sites. Ms. Imhoff responded that the Biscuit Run site was almost 400 acres. Ms. Imhoff further explained that currently the County has only "league" softball, whereas "tournament" softball will draw teams from other regions. She stated this site could accommodate four softball fields, which would take care of local needs. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question as to when construction would begin if the petition were approved "tonight," Ms. Imhoff responded that the establishment of a committee would probably be the next step and the matter would also have to go through the CIP (Capital Improvements Program) process. Mr. Wilkerson asked if the needed improvements to schools would be completed before any work on the park was begun. Ms. Imhoff responded that decision would be made by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission through the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Stark asked if the Commission should be considering the purchase price of the property, or the zoning, at this time. Ms. Imhoff responded the only issue at this time is the Comp Plan recommended land use and the zoning. She confirmed, however, that the County must act within a certain period of time or the option to purchase the land will be lost, i.e. February 17, 1986. It was determined the total price of the land is $725,000, the County's share being one-half of that amount. Mr. Horne explained that many of the figures included in the consultant's report were purely to give the Board and City Council a relative idea of the cost of developing the site. He emphasized that the cost estimates are not final. He also pointed out that the decision to purchase the property is separate from the decision to develop the property. He stated that though the property can be purchased without changing the Comp Plan, it would not be possible to develop it as a park without changing the Plan. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was concerned about making such a decision without knowing what the actual cost of the land will be. 13 February 4, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Horne again stressed that all that was before the Commission was a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cogan indicated the Commission understood this was only the first step of several, but they also understood why the Plan is being changed and the long-range implications of such a change. He stated it was very difficult to separate the two issues. Mr. Wilkerson asked for a explanation of the term "long-term" in relation to the future needs of softball play. Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Pat Mullaney (Parks and Recreation) to address that question. Mr. Mullaney stated there was a way the site could meet the long-term future needs for softball, but that would involve lighting of the site which is not being proposed at this time. He stated if you attempted to meet all the softball needs, that one activity would totally monopolize the site. He stated "we" are trying to develop a park that will serve several different activities, a family -use park. He emphasized that the joint committee has decided that there will be no lighting on the park at all, except what is needed for security purposes. He stated there was no lighting purposed for the park through 1994. Ms. Diehl stated she did not fee this was relavent to the current issue. Mr. Bowerman agreed although he added that the two issues are very closely intertwined. He stressed that the Commission should be mindful of the role they would like to play in the planning process for the park, in the event the Plan is amended. He suggested that the Commission might wish to make some recommendations to the Board which would accompany the Commission's action on the proposed amendment. Mr. Michel again asked Mr. Mullaney his definition of "long-term." Mr. Mullaney replied this means through the year 2000 and beyond. The Chairman invited public comment and emphasized that the issue before the Commission was a change in the Comprehensive Plan and not the specifics of the total use of the site. Ms. Marie Reel, President of the Key West -Cedar Hills Community Association, addressed the Commission. She presented a packet of 104 letters (containing 179 signatures) which indicated support of a "daytime" park. She also read the following statement: Key West -Cedar Hills Community Association urges that you consider converting certain areas of McIntire Park into additional lighted softball fields. We further urge that if the Mahanes site is acquired that it be used for multi -purpose, daytime activities with a permanent injunction against night lighting for any sport or other activities. A0,11 February 4, 1986 Page 4 Mr. David Snyder, a resident of Key West, addressed the Commission. He stated he had not signed the letter which most of the Key West residents had signed. He was in favor of lighted tennis courts being included in the facility and he also stated he felt it was "silly" to destroy part of McIntire Park and duplicate it elsewhere. Though Mr. Snyder had some reservations about increased traffic, he indicated he was in favor of the proposed park usage. Mr. Roger Flint, President of the Charlottesville Tennis Players Association, addressed the Commission and supported the proposal. He also suggested that the tennis courts be included in phase No. 1 of the park development, for daytime use. Ms. Judy Vermillion, a resident of Franklin, addressed the Commission and expressed her support for the proposal. She also commended staff for their cooperation in working with the public on this issue. Mr. Blake Hurt, an adjacent property owner and builder, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was in favor of the proposal but he had the following questions: (1) If the master plan is altered, is the County committed to buying the property? He stated he was concerned to see the County ammending the Comp Plan without a committment to follow through. (2) If the County does not purchase this property, does this change in the master plan make this property more difficult to develop for housing? (3) What consideration has the County given to additional areas in the County land that would be made available for community housing if this piece of property is "taken out?" Mr. Glenn Brown, adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the proposed park because of the increase in traffic and because he felt it would devalue surrounding property values. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman addressed Mr. Hurt's questions to Mr. Payne for response. (1) Mr. Payne confirmed that the County is not committed to purchasing the property if the Comp Plan is amended. (2) Mr. Payne confirmed that the property would be more difficult to later develop for housing if the master plan is changed, and the property is not subsequently purchased by the County. (3) No consideration has been given to adding additional areas if this low -density piece of property is taken out of the master plan. (4) Mr. Bowerman indicated it is not possible to answer where housing could go that might have been located on this property. February 4, 1986 Page 5 1�mw Mr. Stark asked if it were possible for the Commission, if it recommends approval of the amendment, to also recommend purchase of the property. Mr. Payne responded, "There's a statute that requires before any property is acquired for a public purpose or before any public activity is commenced on a property, that the determination be made either that the use contemplated is shown as a designated feature on the Plan or it's determined by the Planning Commission to be in substantial accordance with the Plan. The idea here is you can't really establish a park until you establish that the Plan contemplates it, either specifically, or at least generally. The idea here is that if this is an appropriate place to have a park, and the Board of Supervisors so determines, then I think it naturally follows that it probably will be a park. (Therefore) I think that those two actions that you suggest are consistent, but I think the second one is almost contemplated in the first one." Mr. Stark stated he had visited the site and felt it was a beautiful park site. He indicated he was in favor of recommending approval of the amendment. Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed with Mr. Stark. However, she added there are still a lot of questions to be answered and stated she was not interested in a softball complex, but rather a park that will meet the needs of many people. Mr. Cogan indicated he was in favor of the expressed the following reservations: (1) is served by public utilities may lead to more commercial than is desired; and (2) venture of the City and County means that as to final development. amendment but The fact that the site it becoming This being a joint views may differ Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with those views already expressed and added the following concerns: (1) It should be a multi -use facility; (2) There should be no access to Elk Drive from Rt. 250 (as an entrance to the site) until Free Bridge has been improved. Mr. Bowerman stated he would like to see this included in the recommendation to the Board, i.e. that access to the site be from Rt. 20 onto Elk Drive. Ms. Diehl indicated she shared Mr. Bowerman's concerns about the use of Free Bridge. However, she stated she did not understand how the conditions that had been suggested could accompany approval of the CPA. Mr. Bowerman stated this would not be a condition, but rather a concern, and would be an accompanying document to the approval. Mr. Michel stated he would like to see the recommendation that it be a multi -use park included in such a document. IY41- February 4, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman suggested that it also be included in the document that the Commission would like to be included "at the basement level" in the planning process for the park. Mr. Gould stated he was leery of conditions that might hinder the joint effort of the City and the County. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it was the Commission's function to be involved in this type of planning. Mr. Gould agreed. Mr. Stark suggested "keeping it clean" at this stage and then making recommendations later on in the process. Mr. Bowerman indicated he did not feel he could support the amendment under those circumstances. Ms. Diehl stated she felt this would stand by itself and any separate recommendations could be in the form of a separate motion. Ms. Diehl moved that CPA-86-1 relating to an Urban District Park be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows: • Amend Map 6: Community Facilities, to show the new park location (page 93); • Amend the text of page 96 to describe the new park and its future utilization plans; • Amend the text of page 247 to describe the new park in Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan; • Amend Map 9: To show a change of usage from low density/ residential to public use/recreation. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Wilkerson stated he was not opposed to changing the land use at this time; however he would be opposed to any park construction until such a time as all County schools have been brought up to standard. of Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor/the Commission having a periodic review of the plans as they proceed, rather than being presented with one elaborate plan at the end. In order to address the concerns of the Commission, Mr. Horne suggested that he draft a memo which would accompany the Commission's action to the Board which would list those concerns as follows: If 7 February 4, 1986 Page 7 • No access onto Rt. 250 from the southern end of Elk Drive; • Commission desires to be involved in the early planning process for the park; • Commission prefers that it be a multi -use park. Mr. Payne agreed this was an advisable way to handle the issue. The Commission indicated this was acceptable. The previously -stated motion for approval of CPA-86-1 passed unanimously. Regarding the Commission's desire to be involved in the planning process for the park, Mr. Keeler stated that historically such issues have been treated as site plans and the Commission wishes to to be involved in those issues which effect the public. Mr. Bowerman confirmed this. Mr. Gould stated this also focuses on the need for a very highly coordinated effort to lobby for Free Bridge in order to get it elevated in the priorities. SP-85-95 John B. Moon, Estate - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a landfill in the floodplain for purposes of road construction on part of 462.20 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, with NR, Natural Resource overlay on parts. Parcel 16A is used for residential and parcel 16 is vacant. Property, described as Tax Map 62, parcel 16, 16A, is located on the east side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) adjacent to the Rivanna River and is part of the Dunlora Estate. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Morris Foster was present to represent the applicant but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked if there are any restrictions on the content of the fill material. Mr. Payne responded, "The Ordinance speaks to that specifically; the Ordinance speaks to what you can put in a landfill in the floodplain." Mr. Keeler added that the County Engineer is very sensitive to the question of character of the fill material. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-95 for John B. Moon, Estate be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. February 4, 1986 E Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. (No Board date was noted.) SP-85-91 Cardinal Industries - Request in accordance with Section 22.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a motel on 3.749 acres currently used as residential. Property, described as Tax Map 61M-01, parcel 6 and 7, is located on the west side of Rt. 29 north of Westfield Road. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He also called the Commission's attention to the problem with screening which had surfaced at the time of a previous approval for a motel on this property. Those lots involved with the screening issue are Lots 17 and 18, owners West and Gorman. Mr. Keeler stated that issue was to have been worked out between the applicant and the property owners. In addition, Mr. Keeler presented a letter from Mr. Ragland, a neighboring property owner, and attempted to address some of Mr. Ragland's concerns as follows: (1) Ragland property is being flooded - Mr. Keeler stated part of this problem is caused by a pipe which pre -dates the subdivision of this property, though the pipe comes "off of Ms. Brown's property." Mr. Keeler stated he felt this was not relevant to the current motel application. The additional drainage problem mentioned in the Ragland's letter also seems to have existed before the subdivision and deals with drainage which comes off of the mobile home park. Mr. Keeler stated the County Engineer has indicated he will have that problem corrected at the time of approval of the site plan. (2) Replacement of trees that were removed on the Ragland property line - (Removal of the trees allows both automobile headlights and the motel sign light to shine into the Ragland 'home.) - Mr. Keeler stated that staff has recommended in the text of the staff report (though it is not reflected in the conditions) that the double row of white pines be continued on down to commercial lot No. 1. Mr. Keeler clarified that the double row of white pines was recommended in the text, but was not specifically outlined in the conditions. He added, however, "But if we approve the plan administratively, that is what we'll be looking for." He stated that the Commission could stipulate that in the conditions if deemed necessary. Regarding the problem of the light from the existing motel sign, Mr. Keeler explained there is a condition on site plans which stipulates that exterior lighting be directed away from adjoining properties and the public road. He recommended that the Raglands contact the Zoning Administrator on this issue. �f February 4, 1986 Page 9 Mr. Keeler also stated that the Ragland's have had some problems with "foreign soil" on the property and the County Engineer has indicated he is going to require correction of that matter in one fashion or another. Mr. Keeler also presented a letter from Mr. McClure, attorney for Ms. Brown (owner of the property). Mr. McClure's letter indicated he is working on the screening issue. Mr. Keeler explained the problems with screening were a result of the following: "The road plans that were approved for the internal road showed initial construction of a rural cross section, 24-foot width, to be increased to 36 feet width and curb and gutter, at final development. Apparently, with that width of road, there would not be room for two rows of trees." Mr. Keeler questioned whether there was room for two rows even if the road width is not increased. He stated Mr. McClure wants to discuss with the staff the possibility of reducing the pavement width so that there will be room for the double row of trees. In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to why the road was being increased from 24 feet to 36 feet, Mr. Keeler responded, "I am baffled by that. It was the way the plan was approved originally, i.e. that the initial road construction would be a 24-foot rural section, and as development occurred it would be enlarged to a 36-foot width pavement with curb and gutter. I think a 24-foot width would be better for the Berkeley community because a 36-foot width would probably permit on -street parking." Mr. Cogan questioned the necessity of the wider road since it is serving only a few businesses. Mr. Keeler agreed. Regarding the possibility of planting the two rows of trees, Mr. Keeler stated he was unsure as to whether the two rows could be planted at the grade level of the road or if one row would have to be down slope somewhat. He emphasized that he was not making an endorsement of a solution at this time, but was merely informing the Commission of the status of the screening issue. He added that he was recommending that if the screening issue was not resolved, the site plan would be brought back to the Commission for review. He pointed out that it was his intent that the issue be resolved "all the way down to commercial lot No. l." He stated that Mr. McClure has indicated this screening plan is acceptable, provided there is room for it. Mr. Bowerman asked if the property (the entire subdivision) was still owned by one owner. Mr. Keeler explained that Lot No. 1 has been sold though no site plan has been approved. Plans have been approved on lots 3, 4 and 5. The current application is for lots 6 and 7, though the applicant (Cardinal) has not yet purchased the property. He was unsure as to the status of Lot 2. February 4, 1986 Page 10 Mr. Bowerman recalled that the buffering between this property and the Berkeley lots had been an important issue at the time of the original subdivision. He indicated he was concerned that the screening problems still have not been resolved even though several applications have already been reviewed. He stated he was concerned because the safeguards which the Commission felt were adequate in relation to allowing commercial next to residential development apparently have not worked. He stated the Commission keeps hearing about "what's going to be done instead of what has been done." He emphasized that the original intent, with the original approval, was to protect the Berkeley property owners. He stated that "clearly has not happened." Ms. Diehl asked the following question of Mr. Payne: "Have we not, on at least one occasion, conditioned a permit before us on the completion of conditions on a previous permit by the same owner, making sure those previous conditions were accomplished before the other one is valid?" Mr. Payne responded, "I think I recall the instance you are talking about; I don't remember whether that was exactly the same context as this." He asked Ms. Diehl what was her intent. Ms. Diehl indicated she was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman, i.e. she would like to see the screening issue resolved. Mr. Horne stated he felt it was within the Commission's power to put a direct condition on this special use approval, i.e. that the screening be'bxtended down to commercial lot No. 1 prior to issue of a certificate of occupancy, or whatever." Mr. Payne pointed out that this is a little different problem in that "you are wanting to deal with a problem that really relates much more directly to this development." Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it was all "part and parcel" of the same thing and though some of the property has been sold off, it goes back to the original approval. Mr. Payne responded, "It's really a little more intimately related to this than that, because the road that serves this property is one of the things that you want to screen. If there's no traffic generated on that road, then it doesn't matter if you screen it or not. This development will generate traffic, which causes the problem. That being the case, I think you have a direct relationship between this problem that you're seeking to address in this permit." Mr. Gould indicated he agreed with Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Diehl. *40 February 4, 1986 Page 11 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. J.R. Copper, land surveyor representing Cardinal Industries, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --The applicant has already taken into consideration the items that have been discussed along lots 6 and 7, as shown on the applicant's proposal. --The "rendering" of the proposal shows the screening along the lot line. --Landscaping is very important to the applicant and is a critical part of their development scheme. --It was his understanding that the screening problems are being addressed by the present owners of the property. Mr. McClure, attorney for Ms. Mary Brown (owner of the property), addressed the Commission. He stated he had met with two of the property owners at the time of the original subdivision approval and it was agreed that the applicant would provide screening. Regarding the "foreign soil" on the Ragland property, he stated that had occurred with the construction of the road and the applicant has posted a $5,000 bond for correction of that problem. He added that $97,500 (of an original $197,000 bond) is still posted with the county to "cover these problems." Mr. McClure stated he had not been present at the time the Premier site plan was before the Commission and he had not been aware of the pressing concern about screening. He stated that as soon as he had become aware of the concern, he had met with landowners and assured them that the planning would be done as soon as it is determined if there is need for a slope easement or a retaining wall. He emphasized that his client (Ms. Brown) has every intention of providing the necessary screening. Mr. McClure added that the current applicant had indicated he would be agreeable to that being made a condition of his site plan. Mr. Ron Davis, representing Cardinal Industries, confirmed that the applicant was willing to have the screening condition on their site plan. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. William West, owner of neighboring property Lot 17, addressed. the Commission. His comments included the following: --There exists a 25 foot ravine at the boundary of the property; consequently the neighboring property lines are approximately 4 feet down from the top of the bank. --"The planning board's elevation, as agreed to by the contractor who put the road in, do not properly specify the grades, etc. that are actually out there." The conditions that exist are hard to evaluate because they are not of record. --Several of the trees screening Lots 17, 18 and 19 are now dying because they have been surrounded by fill dirt. February 4, 1986 Page 12 --The road, as it currently exists, is poorly defined and is within 20 feet of the line. --The property owners involved have not had a forum to exercise their frustrations in the last 3-5 years; nothing has gotten done. --He did not have time to prepare a presentation for tonight's meeting because he has not been notified of the last two meetings. (Mr. West is a surrounding, but not adjoining, property owner.) He suggested that at least until this issue is resolved, all property owners involved should receive notification of meetings and not just adjacent owners. --The property owners want a screen that will be effective now, not 10 years from now. --An "integrated" plan is needed for the screening since it was never intended that small trees planted now would be sufficient since they will not provide an effective screen for many years to come. Ms. Ragland addressed the Commission and indicated support for Mr. West's comments. She added that she and her husband are extremely concerned about the drainage problem since it is causing excessive erosion. In response to the drainage concerns, Mr. Copper stated, "We aren't prepared tonight to submit or make recommendations of specifics, but we do have to submit our final site plan to the Engineering Department staff. Erosion control measures will be taken; on -site detention, if required, will be provided." He also indicated that the existing road which comes out of the mobile home park, which may be causing a large part of the drainage, will be eliminated and landscaping will be installed and, if necessary, a berm may be put in to divert the drainage back into this road. He stated he felt 90% of the water from the property could be diverted across Rt. 29, via the storm sewer. He stated he felt a lot of the conditions which exist are "pre-existing" conditions. Mr. Bill Leech, a representative of Cardinal, addressed the Commission. He stated he had worked with adjoining property owners and feels they are very supportive of the overall proposal. Mr. Leon Gorman, owner of Lot 18, addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the road should not be widened since any further widening of the road would not only reduce the space available for planting necessary screening, but would also kill existing trees. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. February 4, 1986 Page 13 In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff supports a 24-foot pavement width rather than a 36-foot width. Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Gorman and Mr. West, "In your opinion, is there adequate area adjacent to the road now for two staggered rows of trees?" Mr. West responded that, depending on the curb and drain location, there was probably room on lots 17 and 18 but not on lot 19. Ms. Ragland (owner of lot 19) stated there was not enough room on her lot. Mr. Keeler concluded that even if the roadway were reduced there still might not be enough room. Mr. McClure stated that the plan that was submitted to the County Engineer shows enough space on lot 19. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the screening issue should be resolved before anything further is done. Both Mr. Gould and Mr. Stark indicated agreement. Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in favor of deferral. Mr. Bowerman explained that if the item is deferred, it goes no further until it has been re -heard by the Commission. It was determined there is no 60-day time requirement on special use permits. Mr. Bowerman stated that "within the limitations that staff would put on it, any resolution that the property owner, the applicant and the adjacent property owners can agree to is acceptable to me." Ms. Diehl asked if this would give the Commission more leverage than postponing approval at the site plan stage. Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in favor of whichever way would insure the best control over getting the issue settled. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if it were possible to approve the special use permit with a condition that would say that the site plan will not be considered until this issue has been resolved. Mr. Payne responded, "You can't say that literally; no." Mr. Cogan agreed that the screening issue was a problem that should be taken care of; however, he stated he felt the applicant's proposed use was much preferred over possible more intense uses. He felt the Commission's desires relating to the screening and drainage issue were clear," i.e. that the matter better be resolved before the site plan comes in. "loud and February 4, 1986 Page 14 Ms. Diehl indicated she was not comfortable with deferral because it was penalizing the current applicant for a problem that they did not originate. Mr. Cogan agreed. Mr. Michel agreed also and stated this was really Ms. Brown's problem. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the applicant even offered to condition his approval on the screening being done on the properties that are not even connected with his application. Mr. Gould stated he felt the motivation was there and thus he was in favor of deferral. Mr. Horne assured the Commission that if staff were given approval of the site plan, they would not sign a site plan until the issue was completely resolved. Likewise, if the Commission wishes to see the site plan, staff will not schedule it for Commission review until the issue has been resolved. Mr. Cogan indicated he was concerned that deferral might invite the applicant to withdraw his application and thus some other much more intensive use might be proposed for the property. Mr. Michel indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan and, based on Mr. Horne's statement, he felt this could be dealt with at the site plan stage. Based on the applicant's willingness to have the approval conditioned on the issue being resolved, the following change in staff's condition No. 1 was suggested by Mr. Keeler: Staff approval of site plan to include a staggered double row of 5'-6' white pines planted 10 feet on centers along the Berkeley boundary from the western corner of Berkeley Lot 24 to the eastern corner of Berkeley Lot 17. In his review of the site plan, the County Engineer shall be particularly mindful of drainage from the motel site to Berkeley subdivision. It was determined the Commission wished to see the site plan, thus the first part of Mr. Keeler's suggested condition was changed to read "Site plan approval to include a ...." February 4, 1986 Page 15 Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-91 for Cardinal Industries be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval to include staggered double row of 5'-6' white pines planted 10 feet on center along the Berkeley boundary from the western corner of Berkeley Lot 24 to the eastern corner of Berkeley Lot 17. In his review of the site plan, the County Engineer shall be particularly mindful of drainage from the motel site to Berkeley subdivision. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance for the swimming pool. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Horne confirmed that the site plan was to be reviewed by the Commission and that it would not be scheduled for the agenda until screening and drainage issues have been resolved. The motion for approval passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 19, 1986. The meeting recessed at 8:55; reconvened at 9:10 SP-85-93 Brass, Inc. - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(22) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for the continued operation of a non -conforming commercial use for a general store at the Keene Market building. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 121, parcel 91, is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersections of State Route 20, 712, and 715 at Keene. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. James Murray, Jr. addressed the Commission. He explained that issuance of the special use permit would allow him to exercise more control over the activities for the property since he would not be forced into allowing odd uses just to maintain the non -conforming use to keep the value of the property. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of the Health Department approval of the septic system. She was concerned because she was under the impression the septic system had not been in use for some time. February 4, 1986 Page 16 Mr. Murray explained the septic system has been in constant use and has never had any problems. He further indicated if an intensive use were ever contemplated for the property the septic system would probably be discontinued and the issue could be dealt with at that time, with the approval of a site plan. Mr. Michel moved that SP-85-93 for Brass, Inc. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Country store approval is for the ground floor of the existing Keene market building. The second floor may be used for accessory uses to the country store including storage but shall not be open to the general public. The second floor may be used for a dwelling in accordance with Section 5.1.21 of the Zoning Ordinance: 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access and staff approval of parking in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments of January 17, 1986; 3. Should gasoline pumps be installed the same will require staff approval of circulation/access and Fire Official approval. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 1986. Note: Since the applicant for SP-85-92 (Tapscott) was not present, the Commission moved on to the next agenda item. ZMA-85-34 Crutchfield and SP-85-97 Crutchfield - Request to rezone a vacant 13.25 acre parcel from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry. SP-85-97 - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a warehouse on a vacant 7.61 acre parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parts of parcels 9C and 10, is located on the east side of Rt. 606 near the northern end of the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Airport runway. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff's report included the following statement: "During review, staff advised the applicant that a conventional rezoning would not meet all criteria set forth in the statement of the intent of the LI district and the Industrial Land Use Standards of the Comprehen- sive plan. To overcome these issues the applicant has proffered limitation of uses as follows: 1. Warehousing; 2. Mail order operations." The report stated further: "Staff opinion is that the applicant's proffers overcome negative aspects of the rezoning. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-85-34 with acceptance February 4, 1986 Page 17 of the applicant's proffer. Staff recommends approval of SP-85-97 with no conditions." Mr. Keeler's report stated that under the applicant's proffer, sewer demand would involve only domestic waste as opposed to industrial waste. He also stated that the Highway Department had commented that they had no problem with the request since the use would involve low range traffic generation. Ms. Diehl pointed out that the limitation of domestic waste only was not specifically stated in the applicant's proffer. Mr. Keeler explained that he had viewed this as basically an electronics warehouse which doesn't have any industrial waste generation. Ms. Diehl stated she was in favor of this being spelled out in the proffer. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Crutchfield addressed the Commission. He indicated he would have no problem with addressing Ms. Diehl's concerns in his proffer. The Chairman explained that, if the applicant so chooses, he can make this change before the matter goes before the Board. It was determined this is a mail order operation and the primary traffic generated is delivery trucks. Mr. Crutchfield explained there is no plan to expand the retail operation. He added that the long-range plan for the company is to move it closer to town. He explained that the the new building will involve a "relocation of present resources." Mr. Bowerman indicated he was unsure how to address the concern about the restriction on waste materials. Mr. Keeler suggested that a condition could be placed on the special use permit as follows: No industrial waste generation from the site. Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-85-34 for Crutchfield be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the applicant's proffer. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Regarding SP-85-97, Mr. Horne suggested that Mr. Keeler's suggested condition be changed to read: Domestic strength sewage waste only shall be generated from the site. /?y February 4, 1986 Page 18 He explained that sometimes it is difficult to define industrial waste. It was determined this would be attached to the special permit. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-97 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Domestic strength sewage waste only shall be generated from the site. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Both these items were scheduled to be heard by the Board on February 19, 1986. SP-85-92 Harvey Hill & Barbara Tapscott - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(22) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a country store on 6+ acres, existing use as a single family residence. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 135, parcel 15B, is located on the south side of St. Rt. 726 approximately 1/2 mile east of the intersection with Rt. 627 near Warren. Scottsville Magisterial District. It was determined the applicant was not present at the meeting. Ms. Diehl moved that the item be deferred until February 11, 1986. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. (Note: No vote was called for on this motion.) Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-92 for Harvey and Barbara Tapscott be deferred until February 11, 1986. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Meeting with Board - Mr. Bowerman presented an agenda for this meeting, scheduled for February 5, 4:00 p.m. Items to be discussed included: Commission's Role in the Six -Year Road Plan; Criteria for Southern Regional Park; Special Use Permit Activity in Rural Areas; and Commission's Annual Report. Annual Report - The following changes were noted: --Mr. Bowerman is to be referred to as "Chairman" rather than "Chairperson." --A sentence was missing at the bottom of page 1. --The word "committee" in the last sentence of the report should be changed to "Commission." --The word "implemenation" in the next to last paragraph of the report was misspelled. --Add a "general" statement about Commission's involvement in various other committees. MPO- Staff was asked to look into the possibility of the Commission being represented on the MPO. February 4, 1986 Page 19 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ohn Horne, S cretary DS