HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 04 86 PC MinutesMarch 4, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, March 4, 1986, 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. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning.
Absent: Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the February 18, 1986 meeting were approved as
submitted.
Resolution of Intent - Request to adopt a Resolution of Intent
to amend the Comprehensive Plan to show the location of
proposed roadways between the SPCA Road and Rt. 29N, between
Rio Road and the Hilton site.
Mr. Horne addressed the Commission and explained that in August,
1985, the County Engineer had presented a proposed series of
road improvements covering the urban area, including those
roads which are the subject of this proposed amendment.
However, since the Board of Supervisors was primarily concerned
with specific improvements to Rt. 29N at that time, no action
was taken on any of the proposed roadways.
Mr. Horne explained that this area has become very interesting
to the development community since it has a large amount of
Commercial zoning.
Mr. Horne explained that staff is requesting that the following
three roadways be added to the Plan:
(1) A north -south connector road from Berkmar Drive (south)
to the Hilton site (north);
(2) A road that would connect to the proposed north -south
connector road and Rt. 29N at the Woodbrook crossover;
(3) A road that would connect to the proposed north -south
connector road at the Carrsbrook crossover (with the
Carrsbrook crossover being relocated slightly to the
north).
Mr. Horne stated staff feels this is important because applications
for development in this area are being received and since the
zoning is in place, the proposals will be site plans requiring
administrative approval. He stated that if these roadways are
not designated beforehand, the Commission will not have the
ability to come back later and put them in.
March 4, 1986
Page 2
Mr. Horne cited the following reasons behind staff's request
for the amendment:
(1) Extensive commercially zoned acreages currently
exist on the west side of Rt. 29N, north of Rio Road
with the sole access to these properties being Rt. 29N.
(2) The staff anticipates active development proposals
to be submitted in the near future for some of these
properties.
(3) This roadway could provide a very viable alternate
access to these commercial areas and some possible
through traffic from Rio Road to the Hilton
area.
(4) If, during the site plan process, for any one of
the properties in question, this roadway is not
provided for, the roadway could be effectively
precluded from ever being constructed.
Mr. Horne stated that the County Executive's Office has
authorized the staff to acquire engineering consulting services
to do a location study to set the alignment proposed, said study
to be completed within the next 30-45 days. He explained
that after the study is completed, staff will again bring
the matter back to the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked if staff was aware of the Highway Department's
reaction to the proposed roadway. Mr. Horne explained that
the Highway Department was supportive of the north -south
connector road. He emphasized that neither staff nor the
Highway Department was proposing this as a by-pass to Rt.
29N.
Ms. Diehl asked if Mr. Horne had stated that site plans
in this area would not require Commission approval. Mr.
Horne clarified that he had meant that "it was not a
legislative action of the Board of Supervisors; it is
an administrative action of the Planning Commission and
if you have no designation of that roadway, you cannot
legally require that roadway to be shown."
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Horne confirmed
that, "to a certain extent," this would negate the
possibility of service roads, since this road would
serve somewhat the same function.
Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned about the three
connections to the SPCA Road which were shown on the drawing.
Mr. Horne explained that the map is the one used by the
County Engineer and staff is not proposing those roads
at this time since they too have concerns about those roads.
It was determined staff was seeking a resolution of intent
in order to begin studying the question, and the decision
as to whether or not the issue should go to public hearing
can be decided at a later time.
�J
March 4, 1986 Page 3
Mr. Stark moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent
to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Map 9, Urban
Area Land Use Plan 1982-2002, to show the location of proposed
roadways to be constructed generally between Rio Road and
the Hilton Hotel site between SPCA Road and Rt. 29N; and, to
amend Chapter 11 Land Use Plan page 150 to describe said
roadways in the recommendations for Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-86-02 Tom Curtis, Trustee - Request in accordance with Section
10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for an amendment to SP-85-54 to
permit six guest rooms previously approved for two existing
cottages to be located in the Keswick Clubhouse addition/
conference center and this addition to be connected to the main
clubhouse. In addition, permit the renovation, and modification
of two existing cottages into a tennis pro shop and storage
building. Property, described as Tax Map 80, parcels 8, 8Z,
and 9, is located on the south side of Rt. 731 at Rt. 744,
known as the Keswick Country Club property. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained this request
was seeking to change two of the original conditions of approval
as follows: (1) Change condition No. 1 to permit the location
of 6 guest rooms in the Keswick Clubhouse addition/conference
center thus making a total of 28 guest rooms in the main club-
house and to permit the renovation, alteration, and modification
of the two existing cottages into a tennis pro shop and
storage building; and (2) Change condition No. 4 to permit
"bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Route 731
to Route 616 and the central well system shall be required prior
to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the new guest
rooms/suites. The applicant will complete the pump testing of
the wells to be finished in accordance with the necessary
regulatory requirements for approval prior to issuance of
building permits for new guest rooms/suites."
Regarding the possible replacement of one of the accessory
structures that was "going to be an existing structure
converted to a tennis pro shop," Mr. Horne explained that
the newspaper advertisement had not made provisions for a
new structure and the County Attorney has advised that it
would not be wise at this point to proceed with approval
of removal of that structure and construction of another.
He added, "That may be the intent of the applicant and
they may choose to come back at a later date to do that."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to the net effect
of these changes, Mr. Keeler responded, "Originally the
guest suites were proposed in three locations --these two
err existing buildings, the clubhouse and the lodge. The current
proposal is to locate all the guest suites in the clubhouse
and the addition to the clubhouse and in the lodge (with) the
same number of rooms."
..75V
March 4, 1986 Page 4
In response to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Keeler stated that
an addition was shown before though it was not this size and
configuration. He added that the addition had not been shown
on the plan reviewed by the Commission, but had been shown on
the plan reviewed by the Board.
Mr. Keeler stated staff's recommended amended condition No. 1
should have the date "February 10, 1986" changed to "March 3,
1986."
Regarding the request for amendment to condition (4), Mr.
Keeler explained that condition (4) had required upgrading
of the road prior to issuance of a building permit for the
new guest suites, and the current request is to tie it to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy rather than a
building permit. He stated staff has no objection to such
an amendment.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ed Bain, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
Regarding the amendment of condition (1), he asked that the
limitation that "it be no closer than existing private dwellings"
be removed. He stated this had been discussed at the Board
meeting and the Board had understood the issue, but had failed
to delete the limitation. He stated, "We show the distance,
on that plan that Ron just went over, from the nearest dwelling
to existing buildings that were there on the tract. We are
showing no buildings closer than that...." He explained that
the applicant felt the current proposal made more sense, i.e.
to keep the rooms all together in one area.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. Regarding the request for amendment to condition
No. 4, he explained that one mile of new road must be
constructed and one mile of existing road must be improved.
He stated that bonding is based on an approved set of road
plans. He explained that'it will take a longer period of
time to design the road, but the buildings that are proposed
and the renovation work can be commenced immediately, thus
the reason for the request that the bonding of the road
be tied to the certificate of occupancy so that the design
period and review period can be coincided with the initial
construction time on the renovation and new buildings
and by the time those buildings are close to the point of
occupancy, we are pretty sure the road plans will have been
approved and a bond amount can be determined." He indicated
that testing of the wells, as required by condition No. 4,
has been completed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
J J6_.
March 4, 1986
Page 5
Mr. Bowerman asked when the applicant proposed to construct
the road system. Mr. Roudabush responded, "Just as soon
as the necessary permits and approvals can be obtained. The
contractor is ready to start any time." He confirmed that
it is the applicant's desire that the building permit not
be held up because of the road plans, but that it is
intended that the road plans will be approved and the road
will be bonded and under construction prior to requesting
a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-86-02 for Tom Curtis, Trustee, be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following:
(1) Amend condition No. 1 of SP-85-54 as follows:
Expansion limited to a total of twenty-eight (28)
guest rooms in the main clubhouse building and club-
house addition together with conference rooms and
twenty (20) guest rooms in the proposed new lodge.
Two existing cottages may be employed as a tennis
pro shop and storage/maintenance building. Location
of buildings/additions shall be in general accord
with "Preliminary site plan, Keswick Country Club,"
dated January 15, 1986 and marked "Received March 3,
1986 Planning Division" and further identified as
"Presented to Planning Commission on March 4, 1986"
and initialled "RSK."
(2) Amend condition No. 4 of SP-85-54 as follows:
Bonding and/or construction of the connector
road from Route 731 to Route 616 and the central
well system shall be required prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the new guest rooms/
suites. The applicant will complete the pump testing
of the wells to be finished in accordance with the
necessary regulatory requirements for approval prior
to issuance of building permits for new guest rooms/
suites.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on
March 19, 1986.
SP-86-03 Tom Curtis, Trustee - Request in accordance with Section
30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the con-
struction of golf course and road in the floodplain. Property,
described as Tax Map 80, parcels 8, 8Z, 61, 60A, 62, 70, 31,
is located on the current Keswick Country Club grounds between
St. Rt. 731, 616, and I-64. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
March 4, 1986 Page 6
Mr. Cogan noted that the suggested condition of approval for
this special permit was identical to a condition on
SP-85-53. Mr. Keeler explained that permit related to
subdivision of the property and the way it was phrased, it
could be interpreted that the only approval the applicant
had for work in the flood plain was that which was occasioned
by the subdivision. The purpose of this current application
is to make it absolutely clear that it is applicable to the
entire property.
There being neither applicant nor public comment, the matter
was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-86-03 for Tom Curtis, Trustee be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
condition:
(1) County Engineer approval of construction activity
in the flood plain of Carroll Creek in accordance
with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was scheduled for the Board on March 19, 1986.
SP-86-04 Tom Curtis, Trustee - Request in accordance with
Section 10.2.2(28) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a special
use permit to allow for the subdivision of the clubhouse tract
into two tracts, a 15.200 acre parcel and a 5.000 acre parcel.
Property, described as Tax Map 80, parcels 8, 8Z, and 9, is
located on the south side of Rt. 731 at Rt. 744, known as the
Keswick Country Club property. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated: "The
applicant is proposing no change in the uses granted under
SP-85-54 and is filing this application for financing purposes
as required by the lenders involved in the project." Mr.
Keeler added, "We're treating it as though it's still the same
property and we're not authorizing any additional residential
construction."
Mr. Cogan expressed some confusion about the total acreage.
He indicated his figures did not agree with those stated in
the staff report. Mr. Keeler explained, "There's a lot of
swapping of small pieces of property here. For example,
this area is part of this tract right now, but it contains
one of the golf greens. This is being added back to the golf
course tract. These other transactions can all occur without
a special use permit, but to create this additional lot
requires a special use permit." Mr. Cogan asked what would happen to the
residual (approximately 4 acres). Mr. Keeler explained that
the additional acreage has been added to other properties. *410
Mr. Cogan concluded, "We are just talking about a division
of two parcels, what is now one is going to be two and the
remaining 4 acres was annexed to an existing parcel." Mr.
�7
March 4, 1986 Page 7
Keeler confirmed this was correct.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Tom Curtis, the applicant, addressed the Commission. His
comments included the following:
--Two lenders are involved in this process --one for
construction and one for refurbishing the golf course
and doing development.
--5.7 acres of this parcel is to go to the golf course
"where it rightfully belongs."
--He explained the acreage of the parcels shown on the
drawing: 9.057, tract B; 3.886, parcel B2, tennis courts;
2.257, parcel D3, sewage treatment facility. All these
come under the construction lender, i.e. the building,
the pool, the tennis courts and the treatment plant. (15.2 acres)
--A minimum of 20 acres is required for a PGA tour.
--This leaves an "out -tract of 5 acres", tract C, for
which the applicant has no use, so it is extracted.
Another reason for extracting that parcel is "it does
not become part of the basis for the construction lender."
--The request is "mechanical and financial oriented."
--The entire parcel will only be used for what was allowed
in the original special use permit.
--No uses are being changed; this request is for lending
purposes only.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was still not clear as to the location
of the 20 acres. Mr. Curtis explained the 15.2 acres, plus the
other 5 (out -tract) makes up the 20 acres, but since the applicant
has no need for the 5 acres right now, it is just being "highlighted."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
It was determined the condition of approval enforced the
applicant's need for meeting PGA requirements.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-04 for Tom Curtis, Trustee, be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
(1) Final plat shall include notation that 5 acre
tract shall not be used for residential purposes
but may be used for such subordinate or accessory
uses as may be established under SP-85-54.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was scheduled for the Board on March 19, 1986.
Mr. Curtis expressed concern about the possibility of the
acreage figures being slightly off (1/10 acre). He stated
approval was requested for the "concept" rather than the
actual acreage. Mr. Roudabush explained that the figures
031?
March 4, 1986
Page 8
may vary slightly as a result of Highway Department requirements
for alignment of the road.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "I am sure that under the guidelines of our
approval, and the Board's approval, staff can handle any small
administrative -type deviation from the exact acreage. A
major deviation might cause some problem." The applicant
indicated no major deviation is expected.
SP-85-100 Bruce K. Tyler - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction
of chapel for religious service on property zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 58, parcel 91E is located
on the south side of Rt. 250W near the West Leigh entrance.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that the
proposed 4 acre church site is a portion of a 6.129 acre
residential lot, with the remaining 2 acre parcel remaining
a residential lot with access onto the interior road to the
subdivision.
It was determined the parking requirement for churches is
"one space for four fixed seats, or one space for 75 sq. ft.
of congregation area, whichever is greater." It was
determined 30 spaces would be required. He pointed out that *400
the plan was just representative of the applicant's intent,
and approval was not being sought for the plan.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bruce Tyler, representing All Saints Anglican Church,
addressed the Commission. His comments included the following.
--A regularly functioning church is envisioned eventually.
--The plan has been revised to meet Highway Department
recommendations, though such revision creates added
expense.
--Off-street parking requirements can easily be met.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Keeler clarified that the parking requirement is based
on "area of assembly" not gross floor area. Mr. Tyler
pointed out that not all the floor area will be sanctuary.
Ms. Diehl stated she liked the idea that the parking was set
back from the road. Mr. Bowerman noted this is located on
a scenic highway.
Mr. Keeler stated the parking setback requirement on a scenic
highway is 50 feet. .40
;39
March 4, 1986
Page 9
It was determined the building setback reguirement on a scenic
highway is 150 feet, though Mr. Keeler explained "there is
a provision which allows the building setback to be reduced
to 75 feet if the parking is to the rear or side of the building
and effectively screened from the scenic highway."
Ms. Diehl stated that was one reason she likedthis plan, i.e.
because there is such a deep setback for both the parking
and the chapel.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that any variation of this plan, moving
it closer than the 150 foot setback, may not be in accordance
with the Commission's approval of the special use permit (if
approved).
It was suggested by Ms. Diehl that a condition be added requiring
the parking area be setback 150 feet.
Mr. Tyler indicated he understood the concern of the Commission,
and did not feel it would be a problem to set the parking back
150 feet since it would be impractical to locate parking
on the slope.
Mr. Tyler presented photographs of the site.
Mr. Cogan suggested the addition of the following condition:
No connection of entrance road or parking area with
Rodes Drive.
This was shortened to: No access to Rodes Drive.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-100 for Bruce K. Tyler be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Site plan approval;
2. Access to align with West Leigh entrance;
3. Building setback of 170 feet; and parking area setback
of 150 feet;
4. County Engineer approval of construction activity in
floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard
Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; Watershed
Management Official review of grading permit to be
guided by construction Best Management Practices as
outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, the Com-
prehensive Plan and State Water Control Board.
5. No access to Rodes Drive.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on March 19, 1986.
March 4, 1986 Page 10
ZMA-86-01 Warren H. Painter - Request to rezone 8.0844 acres of
a 35.520 acre parcel from C-1, Commercial to HC, Highway Com-
mercial, with proffer as to limitation of use. Property,
described as Tax Map 61, part of parcel 124E, is located on the
east side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) surrounding the existing Putt
Putt Golf Course, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He noted the following
correction in the staff report: Under the paragraph entitled
Intensity of Uses, the second sentence should have read --
"Under the applicant's proffer (attached) twenty-six (26)
uses would be permitted by right and seven (7) uses could
be available by special use permit."
The staff report pointed out that the Highway Department
did not support the rezoning request because a fast-food
restaurant could be established by -right under the proposed
zoning which would generate six times the traffic volume
of a sit-down restaurant. (A drive-in window would require
a special use permit.) However, the staff report also
stated "since 'fast food restaurant' is permitted by
special use in the existing C-1 zone, staff does not recommend
deletion in entirety. If 'fast food restaurant' were by
special use permit under the zoning request then review could
be given to a specific proposal. Should this issue be resolved,
staff could recommend favorably on this rezoning request."
It was determined that "staff opinion is that the applicant's
proffer results in commercial zoning generally in keeping with
the character of existing C-1 zoning in terms of intensity of
uses and locational requirements."
It was determined the issue of the "fast-food restaurant"
had not yet been resolved. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the
Code does not allow staff to "negotiate these proffers."
It was determined the applicant was proposing to use
approximately 1 acre of the property, on a lease basis, for
sale of small lawn buildings. Mr. Keeler explained there
were no specific uses proposed for the remainder of the
property.
It was determined that the only use being added by this
rezoning that could substantially increase traffic is a
fast-food restaurant, thus the reason for the concern about
that particular use. Mr. Keeler explained that the other
additional uses are of the same general character as the
C-1 zone permits with the same general traffic generation.
Mr. Keeler again pointed out that staff could not support
the petition if a fast-food restaurant were permitted by
right, and he confirmed the only way this could be done would
be for the applicant to proffer the fast-food restaurant use 400
by special permit.
1_..2 ti /
March 4, 1986
Page 11
Mr. Cogan suggested that could be done, if the applicant so
desired, before the matter is heard by the Board, as has
been done in the past.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Lloyd Wood, Jr., owner of the property, addressed the
Commission. His comments included the following:
--There are no plans for a fast food restaurant at
any time in the future.
--An attempt has been made to proffer out all objectionable
uses in the HC zone.
--The only use proposed is for the display and sell of
modular yard buildings which requires HC zoning.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any consideration had been given to
rezoning only a portion of the property.
Mr. Wood indicated this would be difficult to do since it
would prevent Mr. Painter from shifting his display to
other parts of the parcel in the event the existing uses
should be expanded at sometime in the future.
Mr. Wood continued:
--The applicant is not asking for anything additional
11%01 except to allow Mr. Painter to display his product.
--The rezoning is of no benefit to the owners of the
property, but is requested for the benefit of Mr.
Painter.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did have concerns about the rezoning
in this location on Rio Road. He felt Cl and CO were
appropriate for the area. He indicated he was reluctant to
rezone the property to HC, even with the proffer. Mr.
Bowerman pointed out that if the sole purpose of the rezoning
was to allow the sale of the modular lawn sheds, the
applicant could have proffered out all the other items in
HC with this one exception. He stated that the proposal
opens up the potential development of the remainder of the
property to an extent greater than is allowed under Cl.
Mr. Wood stated, "Clearly the intent here is to do what we
already are permitted to do." He added that he shared the
concerns of the Commission in that he did not want to see
some of the Highway Commercial uses on the property.
Mr. Painter presented photographs of the buildings he
proposes to display and sell. He confirmed he was in agreement
with Mr. Wood's comments.
The Chairman invited public comment.
En
March 4, 1986 Page 12
Mr. Dwight Craige, representing Aldersgate Methodist Church,
a neighboring property, addressed the Commission. He 400
stated the church was not opposed to this particular use,
but was concerned about what was going to happen with the
remaining acreage.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler made the following comment: "Under the existing
Cl zoning, the applicant has 37 uses by right. What the
report addressed were different uses that would be gained by
the rezoning. The report does not specifically address the
12 uses that would be lost by virtue of the rezoning. The
reason for that is there is a section of the Highway
Commercial that authorizes the Zoning Administrator and the
Director of Planning, if they see eye -to -eye on this issue
in terms of locational requirements, etc., to permit uses
that aren't specifically permitted. So I didn't want to say
that these 12 uses would absolutely be lost because some
of them could be permitted in that fashion. Right now the
Cl has 37 uses by right and the proposed zoning would have
33. 12 of the Cl uses are gone; 8 of the HC uses are picked
up.
11
Mr. Wood confirmed that he had no specific uses in mind for
the remainder of the property.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the request. She
was concerned about the amount of acreage that was being
requested and more intensive uses.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he could support the proposal since
it has been explained that the request is based on this
one specific use. He added, however, that he was concerned
about the fast-food restaurant issue, but pointed out that
the applicant has stated that no such use is anticipated.
Mr. Michel indicated he was in agreement with Ms. Diehl.
He was concerned about the size of the parcel and noted
that a lot of acreage has been rezoned to HC recently.
He noted the proximity of the property to residential
development. He indicated he might view the request differently
if it were for only 2 acres and was at the front of the
property, in line with the Bonanza and Putt Putt businesses.
Mr. Keeler responded to Mr. Bowerman's request and quoted
from the ordinance the uses that are specific in the Cl
zone that are not specific in the HC zone, that would
likely be lost, allowing for some interpretation: antique,
gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops, clothing apparel and
shoe shops, department store, drug store, pharmacy, florist,
sale of musical instruments, newsstands, magazines, pipe and
J1/ ✓
March 4, 1986
Page 13
tobacco shops, optical goods, photographic goods, visual and
audio applicances, sporting goods, barber and beauty shops,
laundries, dry cleaners, laundromats,(He noted staff is
recommending that the HC be amended to include dry cleaners,
laundries and dry cleaners.) libraries, museums, nurseries,
day care centers, tailor, seamstress, medical center.
Mr. Stark stated he did not feel there was any attempt on the
part of the applicant to circumvent the zoning. He felt the
proposed use, though not listed under Cl, could be. He
indicated he could support the application.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was concerned about the large acreage
and also the addition of a fast food restaurant as a by right
use. He stated the simplest solution to address the concerns
of the Commission would be to request rezoning for 1 acre
only and incorporate into the current proffer that a
fast-food restaurant would be by special use permit.
It was determined there is no minimum area requirement for
HC zoning.
Mr. Michel indicated he could support a request as suggested
by Mr. Cogan.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wood if he would go forward with
a request as outlined by Mr. Cogan. Mr. Wood did not respond
definitively, but stated that the applicant would like more
than 1 acre rezoned because of the possible future expansion
of the Putt Putt operation which would necessitate the
shifting of Mr. Painter's business somewhat.
Mr. Bowerman again asked Mr. Wood specifically, "If we were
to limit this rezoning request to 2 acres, would you go forward
with the petition to the Board?" Mr. Wood responded, "Yes, if
you would allow me to move that 2 acres within the (parcel)."
Mr. Bowerman stated that the approval would be for a specific
parcel. Mr. Wood indicated that could cause a problem.
The Chairman stated he did not object to the proposed use, but
he was concerned about future uses. He felt that approving
an 8 acre parcel for HC on Rio Road could be a "crack in the
door." He pointed out that future Commissions would not
recall that the land had a proffer attached to it. He
felt the current zoning was appropriate. He stated he could
not support the application, regardless of the acreage.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the proffer were changed as he had
previously suggested and the acreage was reduced, with the
back line being drawn from the corner of the back of the
Bonanza property to the corner of the back of the Putt Putt
property, he could support the request.
4 y�1
March 4, 1986 Page 14
Mr. Michel stated that the applicant had indicated a reluctance
to reduce the acreage and re -draw the property line. VAO
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Board will have had an
opportunity to consider the Commission's comments and recommendation.
Mr. Wood pointed out that the Bonanza is already zoned HC. Mr.
Cogan stated that was one reason he had chosen that as a boundary
line.
Mr. Horne pointed out to the applicant that the Commission
cannot change the proffer. That must be done voluntarily by
the applicant, if he so desires. Mr. Bowerman further explained
that a change could not be made verbally, but must be made in
writing.
Mr. Cogan explained that the applicant could make the changes,
if he desires, before the matter is heard by the Board.
Mr. Wood indicated that he would be willing to amend his request
to address the concerns of the Commission.
The Chairman called for a motion.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-86-01 for Warren H. Painter be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan stated that he would support the motion based on
the fact that he could not accept the current proffer and he
could not accept the entire eight acres.
The Chairman stated that the applicant would have opportunity
to address the concerns of the Commission before the matter is
heard by the Board on March 19.
However, Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that the Board has
expressed some concern about such an approach, since it is not
always clear what the Commission would have recommended. He
indicated that the Commission's position on the fast-food
usage is reasonably clear, i.e, that it be by special permit;
but the position on the acreage was not clear.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed
that he was suggesting that one of the options was to defer
the item.
Mr. Boweman explained that those Commissioners who wish to defer
the item, should vote against the denial.
Though a substitute motion was suggested, it was determined that
was not necessary. VAO
March 4, 1986
Page 15
The previously -stated motion for denial was defeated (5:2)with
Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Diehl voting in favor and Messrs. Wilkerson,
Cogan, Michel, Gould and Stark against.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-86-01 for Warren H. Painter be deferred
indefinitely.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Horne stated that he felt by deferring the application in-
definitely the Commission was "pretty much negating the possibility
of this applicant moving forward." He stated he felt the
original motion for denial could have moved forward. He felt
the applicant would prefer that the matter be deferred to a date
specific. He added that he felt it was possible that either
Mr. Keeler or the Commission was misinterpreting the Board's
instructions in this particular case, since the Commission
has been very specific in stating its concerns.
It was determined the application could be placed on the March
11 agenda.
Mr. Cogan amended his motion and moved that ZMA-86-01 be deferred
until March 11, 1986.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl asked that the record show that by voting for deferral
she was in no way stating that she was supporting the
changes as discussed.
The motion for deferral to March 11 passed unanimously.
Request for a Resolution of Intent - To amend the HC zone to
add "lands ies, dry cleaners and laundromats" as by right uses.
Though staff requested that a resolution of intent be adopted,
it was determined that staff would study the issue further
to see if there were other uses which should also be included,
and then bring the matter back before the Commission.
No action was taken.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:25 p.m.
ohn Horne, Si
DS
retary