Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 11 86 PC MinutesMarch 11, 1986 Nq.w The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 11, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Wilkerson, Gould and Michel. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the February 25, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. 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 Commercial, 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 explained that this item had been deferred at the March 4 meeting because of the following concerns: (1) Was any zoning change appropriate; (2)How much acreage should be approved for the rezoning; and (3) Permitted uses. He stated the applicant has changed the application to request that 3.08 acres be rezoned and has also changed the proffer so as to make fast-food restaurant a use permitted by special use permit rather than by right. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Lloyd Wood, Jr., owner of the property, addressed the Commission. He stated the application was amended to address the concerns of the Commission. Mr. Richard Rhodes, President of Hanover Custom Buildings, addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of the application. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the current proposal for 3.08 acres included the already developed Putt Putt property and parking area, with 1.25 acre being undeveloped. Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-86-01 For Warren H. Painter be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the revised proffer of the applicant. March 11, 1986 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Page 2 Mr. Cogan stated that, as a result of the applicant's proffer, he would not consider this a truly HC zone. He stated he was convinced the intent of the rezoning is to allow this one particular use (sale of lawn buildings), and thus he could support the application. Ms. Diehl indicated the revision to the proffer had addressed her concerns. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the Putt Putt has been an existing use for some time with no change anticipated. Mr. Bowerman indicated he could not support the application for the following reasons: --This is spot zoning; --Requests for HC on Rio Road are going to increase in the future and the'Place to hold the line is now." The previously -stated motion for approval of ZMA-86-01 passed (3:1), with Mr. Bowerman casting the dissenting vote. The matter was to be heard by the Board on March 19, 1986. ZMA-85-35 River Heights Associates (Proffer) - Request to rezone 13.8 acres from R-15 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial (12.8 acres) and CO, Commercial Office (1 acre). Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 68D1 (part) is located on the west side of U.S. Route 29N south and adjacent to the entrance road (Hilton Heights Road) to the Hilton Hotel in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This rezoning petition is accompanied by proffers related to traffic genera- tion and future road access. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that the applicants' are proffering a limitation to traffic generation on Rt. 29N so that the traffic generated after the rezoning would not exceed the traffic that could be generated prior to the rezoning and they are also proffering to limit the number of access points to Rt. 29N. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that "the newest measure we are seeking to undertake (a Resolution of Intent was adopted on this issue March 4, 1986), is a parallel road to Rt. 29N that would lie between Rt. 29N and the SPCA Rd., with the intent of the road being to open these properties up to development and to provide access to these properties, two crossovers." Mr. Keeler explained that while only 14 acres is the subject of this application, the staff report discusses the entire 75 acres north of Jim Price Chevrolet, currently or previously controlled by River Heights Associates. March 11, 1986 Page 3 It was determined the applicants' proffer also provides for a parallel road to Rt. 29N (dependent on timing of County decision). The staff report stated: "Overall staff opinion is that proposed zoning, due to the potential parallel road, is an improvement over existing zoning. Staff recommends approval." In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Keeler outlined the other properties that have residential zoning. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, it was determined the applicant would construct a portion of the parallel road "to their southern property line;' approximately 600-700 feet of road. It was determined the traffic figures referred to in the applicants' proffer were taken from the study submitted by the applicant at the time of the rezoning for the hotel property. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed staff was comfortable with those figures being used in the proffer. Mr. Keeler made to the following comments relating to the applicants' proffer: (1) A 50-foot right-of-way at one of two locations: "What was discussed was that the applicant would not just provide a right-of-way, but actually construct the road. If a 50-foot right-of-way was inadequate and there were additional grading easements required, that would be granted too." Mr. Keeler pointed out that part (b) of proffer No. 1 should read: "Road B to run North to South beginning at Hilton Heights Road between the Hilton Hotel entrance or at least 150 feet west of the Hilton Hotel entrance. Mr. Keeler emphasized "The applicant is going to have to voluntarily make these changes, but they have been discussed and the County Attorney feels the Commission can proceed." (2) Total vehicle trips will not exceed 19,387 vpd: "The hotel is no longer under the ownership of River Heights Associates. So unless the hotel joins in with this proffer, we would recommend that you reduce the total traffic generation by the figure shown for the hotel (2,625). If the applicant wants the ability to be able to shift the traffic generation around on these various properties (as development plans proceed), the rezoning petition would Pave to be amended to include these other tracts. At this time, since we have separate tracts of land, we would want March 11, 1986 Page 4 a specific traffic generation tied to these tracts at this time in the event of change in ownership. If there is no change in ownership, and the applicant subsequently wants to shift 500 trips from over there to over here, we feel like that could be done administratively. Our concern is the overall traffic generation for Rt. 29." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bill Leach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --The applicant has worked closely with staff in an attempt to address the concerns of the County through the proffer. --The applicant is agreeable to the changes in the proffer as outlined by Mr. Keeler. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about proposed uses for the property, Mr. Leach indicated the applicant felt "shopping" would be the best use at this time. He added that the current zoning of the property would allow a "mish-mash" of uses and the proposed rezoning would make for more cohesive development. He indicated that a mall -type shopping center is not contemplated. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler if the 117 acres of Commercial land referred to as "vacant" in the staff report was exclusive of this parcel. Mr. Keeler responded: "It's exclusive of the acreage to be rezoned, but's it inclusive of whatever is vacant there, i.e. currently zoned commercial that is now vacant." Mr. Keeler confirmed that if this property were to be rezoned, the 117 acres of Commercial would be changed to 130 acres. He stated further, "The 117 acres is not 117 acres that can be developed to its fullest extent in terms of intensity of traffic generation." It was determined residential zoning still exists at the rear of the parcel. Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned about the increasing amount of commercial property in this area, it being almost twice the amount that is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. She added that she was concerned about taking more residential land out of the "pool" in that area. Mr. Bowerman asked for staff's comments on their feelings about the amount of commercial acreage in this area that would result from this rezoning and about the scarcity of commercial office land. Mr. Keeler responded, "If you go all the way back to Woodburn Road (SPCA Rd.) with commercial property, it's going to be very difficult, in my opinion, on these adjoining properties March 11, 1986 Page 5 to maintain (residential zoning at the rear) of these properties. This all started in 1980 when some properties were zoned (commercial) to this depth on the zoning map at that time, i.e. to a greater depth than what the Plan shows." Ms. Diehl pointed out this would be the first commercial property adjacent to Woodburn Road. Mr. Keeler indicated that approval of this rezoning would invite similar petitions on surrounding properties. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to comment on the fact that there is a shortage of Commercial Office property in relation to what is recommended in the Plan, and this rezoning would result in almost double the amount of commercial property that is recommended. Mr. Keeler responded: "That's in terms of the general zoning category. Some of the properties that are zoned Highway Commercial are develoFable in office -type uses. It's not as extensive as properties that are developed with retail type uses. Again, the inbalance initially occurred when the map was adopted in 1980 and this would be putting it more out of balance." Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned about extending it all the way back to Woodburn Road. He indicated he would review the request more favorably if the line were re -drawn in line with the back of the other commercial properties (approximately one-half of the 13 acres). He stated that would adjoin the existing HC at the front and would also allow the proposed "parallel" road. Ms. Diehl stated she felt it was premature to tie a rezoning to a road that a study has not yet been done on. Mr. Cogan agreed. Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the rezoning. She recalled that when the original rezoning was done, the Commission was quite concerned that the residential zoning along Woodburn Road be maintained. She felt approval of this rezoning would be forcing a whole new type of community in the area which would impact it significantly. Mr. Cogan suggested that the line could be re -drawn following the line that exists on parcel 68D, southward. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that such a possibility was not before the Commission. �5 % March 11, 1986 Page 6 Ms. Diehl asked why the Commission was considering rezoning more property to commercial when "this will amount to twice the amount of Highway Commercial that is recommended in the year 2002," particularly in light of the traffic problems on Rt. 29N. Mr. Bowerman made the following summation of the Commission"s comments: "What I am hearing is no support for the application that is before us tonight, but a willingness to discuss some sort of alternative proposal at another time which will allow residential to remain at the rear of the property along Woodburn Road, but certainly not one that would rezone all the current R-15 to a combination of both the Highway Commercial and 1 acre of Commercial Office at this time." Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-85-35 for River Heights Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on March 19, 1986. J.D. Clark Final Plat - Proposal to create two (2) lots of 6.067 acres each (leaving no residue acreage). The total area of the site is 12.134 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.. Property, is located on the northwest side of Rt. 785 approximately two miles north of Proffit Road. Tax Map 32, parcel 29I. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained: "This plat is before the Commission because one of the two proposed parcels has less than the required amount of road frontage. Lot 'A' has 210 feet of frontage; 250 feet is required in the Rural Areas district. The Board of Zoning Appeals has granted a Variance (Dec. 12, 1985) allowing 210 feet of frontage. The Commission is still required to review this proposal due to the inadequacy of the road frontage." The report also stated that the request was being made by the contract purchasers and that the owner of the property was unwilling to sell more frontage to the applicant, nor was he willing to provide, or use, a joint access for both properties. The report stated the following two alternatives were available to the applicant: "First, the existing frontage could be divided between the two parcels providing adequate frontage for each lot. Second, a joint access could be provided to serve both lots, thus negating the requirement for 250 feet of road frontage on a public road." The staff report indicated the staff could not support the proposal because (1) "There are no physical hardships which limit this proposal from complying with the Zoning Ordinance; and (2) The Commission has denied two previous subdivision proposals on Route 785 (Pineridge, 21 lots and Riverside, 23 lots) on the grounds that the roads were substandard and no improvements have been made to the road since these subdivision proposals were denied." �5� March 11, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Benish also presented an addendum to his staff report which r pointed out possible reasons for denial (i.e. inadequate frontage and inadequacy of Rt. 785), including what could be done to make the proposal comply with the Zoning Ordinance (i.e. establish a minimum of 250 ft. of road frontage on Rt. 785 or 150 feet of road frontage on a internal road). It was determined that approval of the proposal would require granting a waiver of Section 10.4 (road frontage requirements). The report stated that if a minimum of 250 feet of road frontage were established, the plat would be exempt from Planning Commission approval and the issue of the inadequacy of Rt. 785 would not be a consideration. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --Mr. Clark is the owner of the property. Mr. and Mrs. Pace are the applicants (contract purchasers). --If adequate frontage was available, this would be outside the subdivision ordinance. --Mr. Clark, for good reason, wished to limit the frontage on the lot he is selling to 210 feet, thus the need for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. --A variance was granted by the BZA. --Since another competent committee has approved the variance, it seems it would be fair to consider the issue settled. --Mr. Clark feels strongly that he must have a separate entrance. --The purpose in going before the BZA was to get two separate entrances. --The issue of the two previously -denied subdivisions should not be a consideration since they were much larger subdivisions (21 and 23 lots vs. 2 lots). That is not a valid comparison. --The lots are over the "five -acre size that would get it outside the Ordinance." --Highway Department has already looked at the proposed entrance and see no problems, but before an entrance permit can be issued, the applicant must own the lot. Site distance is adequate in both directions. It was determined that presenting this proposal to the Commission was, in essence, a request for a waiver. Mr. Bowerman asked if any further action was required of the applicant in this regard, i.e. was a written request for a waiver required. It was determined no further action was required. Mr. Allen Kendrick addressed the Commission. He explained that staff had advised him, as representative for the Paces, that a variance from the BZA was required. Once that was granted, March 11, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Kendrick stated he had advised Mr. Pace to go ahead and apply for a highway permit. The permit was granted. Mr. Kendrick indicated he had been under the impression that once the variance was granted by the BZA, it would be "an administrative function." He explained that Mr. Clark feels a common driveway would be a hardship since it would come very close to his well and would be in front of his house. He, too, felt the comparison with the denial of two previous subdivisions was not applicable to this situation. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Stark's request, Mr. Benish pointed out the location of the existing driveway. It was determined the existing entrance is approximately 50 feet from the property line and the proposed new entrance is approximately 30 feet from the property line (property line lying between the two entrances). It was determined that an additional 40 feet of road frontage is needed and Mr. Clark's well is approximately 100 feet back from the property line. Mr. Benish stated he felt it would be possible to redraw a portion of the property line at an angle to add the additional 40 feet. The Chairman asked Mr. Clark (owner of the property) if he was willing to make some adjustment to the property line. Mr. Clark indicated he was not. He explained that this would bring traffic right by his house. Mr. Bowerman suggested the possibility of entering on the existing driveway and then cutting off quickly to the left. Mr. Clark made no indication that he would agree to this possibility either. Mr. Clark also indicated that there is another road in existance on the property already. Regarding the possibility of "150 feet of frontage on an internal road" as stated in the Ordinance, Mr. Benish stated, "It's kind of silly to talk about an internal road between two lots. What we're talking about is an entrance that can be split at any point from that entranceway." Ms. Diehl stated she felt there were "private adjustments" that could be made to correct the problem. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to explain the sequence of events that had taken place, i.e. first to the BZA and then to the Commission. He asked if the BZA had been a necessary step, or if a waiver could have just been granted by the Commission. March 11, 1986 Page 9 Mr. Payne stated, "They are two complimentary provisions; one is a pure Zoning Ordinance provision and the other is a Subdivision Ordinance provision. So you have to act on it too. What Mr. Benish is telling you is if they put a private road in, even if it's just a joint driveway, then you've changed the section of the Zoning Ordinance that it's under and you don't need the 250 feet of frontage." Mr. Cogan stated, "The other option would be to adjust the boundary line between the two lots by moving it along the road to the north and along the back line to the south." Mr. Payne stated there were a number of different ways to accomplish this. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt if the solution were that easy, that a private agreement could have been reached, the applicant would not have brought it to the Commission. Ms. Diehl stated she did not think it was the purpose of the Commission to grant a waiver if no hardship has been demonstrated and several alternatives are available through negotiation. Ms. Diehl moved that the J.D. Clark Final Plat be denied, based on the staff report, and noted that the proposal would comply with the Zoning Ordinance if a minimum of 250 feet of road frontage on Rt. 785 or 150 feet of frontage on an internal road was included in the final plat. Mr. Payne pointed out the motion was "fine if that was what the Commission wished to address" but that it did not address the issue of the adequacy of Rt. 785 in general. Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel that was an issue. Ms. Diehl added that she felt this proposal was substantially different that the previous two subdivision proposals. Mr. Payne stated he felt that was an important point and further that it was important that the record show that the Commission had considered that issue and did find that distinction did exist. Mr. Stark seconded the motion for denial. Discussion: Regarding the topography of the land, it was determined the land raises from the roadway, but it raises equally on both lots with "no dissimilarity between lots on the property line." It was also determined the property was wooded. Mr. Kendrick pointed out that there will be no additional traffic on the road since the Paces already are living on the land (renting a room from Mr. Clark). .-�' 55 March 11, 1986 Page 10 It was determined there is already a second existing driveway on the property, though it is not being used. -40 Mr. Cogan indicated he was sympathetic to the Paces situation, but he felt it had not been demonstrated that the matter could not be worked out and that there are a number of options which could make the proposal comply with the Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman indicated he could not understand why "coming off the existing road (the one that is in use), 30 feet back,"would cause a hardship. Mr. Stark pointed out that the area is wooded and the driveway in question is approximately 100 feet long. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for denial. The motion for denial passed unanimously. The Chairman informed the applicant that he had 10 days to appeal the Commission's action to the Board of Supervisors. The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:15. Woodstock Hall Bed & Breakfast Inn Site Plan - Proposal to utilize two existing dwellings (Woodstock Hall and staff quarters) to serve as a country inn with a total of four (4) guest rooms, served by six (6) parking spaces. Acreage of site is 5.874 acres. Property, located in the Colston Subdivision on the south side V40 of Rt. 637 approximately 200 feet east of its intersection with Rt. 708. Tax Map 73, part of parcel 33 (number not yet assigned). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan moved that the Woodstock Hall Bed & Breakfast Inn Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Issuance of a commercial entrance permit. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Parking area to be #57 stone, or approved equivalent. 3. Compliance with Sp-85-8. March 11, 1986 Page 11 M Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Estouteville Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to renovate an existing structure to create a guest cottage. This will be the fifth dwelling unit on one parcel, requiring the sub- mittal of a site plan. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement. Acreage of site is 440+ acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is located approximately two miles west of Keene on Rt. 712. Tax Map 112, parcel 30A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated: "Normally staff review of a site plan waiver request requires that the applicant verify that each dwelling unit could be subdivided in the future with lots meeting the current zoning requirements. However, in this case, this type of review is not entirely practical. Given the historic character of the Estouteville Farm, and the nature of the surrounding property, it would seem unlikely that any portion of the land surrounding the estate would be subdivided... (since such subdivision would damage) the historic and aesthetic character of the estate." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. err✓ There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the Estouteville Site Plan Waiver Request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a) Health Department approval of septic site; b) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Crutchfield Warehouse Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 21,000 square foot warehouse to be served by 12 parking spaces. The total area of the site is 13.25 acres. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. This site is located off of Rt. 606, approx- imately one-half mile north of the Airport entrance. Tax Map 32, portions of parcels 9C and 10. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. March 11, 1986 Page 12 The staff report pointed out that the applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for necessary grading within the buffer zone to allow for the installation of a public water line and drainfield. The report continued: "The applicant has shown a 50 foot buffer area between the site and adjacent properties in order to allow for a 30 foot minimum area where no clearing or grading will occur." Staff recommended that the waiver be granted. Mr. Benish explained, "He's showing a 50 foot limit of grading. The water line will be along the property line and will require a 20 foot easement. He probably won't use the entire 20 feet to put the line in. What we've done is have him designate the additional 30 feet,from the end of that 20-foot easement to the 50 foot limit of grading,as a buffer area which won't be disturbed. You will have grading during site construction and clearing along this property line, but to compensate for that you will have a 30-foot buffer, just set back 20 feet." It was determined the 20feet that must be disturbed will be covered over and grassed. Mr. Benish confirmed that the adjacent 30 feet will "not be graded or disturbed." Though Mr. Benish explained that there is a note on the plat referring to the additional 30-foot buffer area, it was determined a condition would be added stating that the additional 30 feet would not be disturbed. The Chairman invited applicant comment.. Mr. Crutchfield addressed the Commission. He suqqested that an additional condition be added to the site plan which would state that existing easements benefitting neighboring property owners would be relocated. He explained that a neighboring property owner has an easement to the gravel road which runs through his property and which will be somewhat relocated. He indicated he wanted this property owner to be reassured that her easement would continue. Mr. Payne suggested the following wording to address this issue: "Relocation of easement benefitting adjacent properties to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Attorney." Mr. Payne indicated he was aware of the situation and the parties involved are in agreement as to what needs to be done. Mr. Crutchfield also stated that the drawing was a little misleading and he asked that the record show that it is his intention that the road be paved "to the top of the hill" with the remainder being gravel. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before *00 the Commission. r25 9 March 11, 1986 Page 13 Referring to the buffer issue, %ftw following conditions be added: adjacent to the 20-foot service be graded or disturbed." Mr. Cogan suggested the "Thirty-foot (30) buffer area authority easement shall not Mr. Cogan moved that the Crutchfield Warehouse Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; C. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of on -site and off -site water and sewer plans; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans and sight easement; e. Staff approval of landscape plan; f. Thirty (30)-foot buffer area adjacent to the twenty (20)-foot service authority easement shall not be graded or disturbed; g. Relocation of easement benefitting adjacent properties to the reasonable satisfaction of County Attorney. 1�61 2. Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval of site plan. 3. Waiver of section 21.7.3 of Zoning Ordinance to allow for necessary grading within the buffer zone. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Peacock Hill Section 5 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 26.9 acres into 22 lots, for an average 1.22 acre lot size. Fifteen lots are to be served by two new private roads off Peacock Drive, two lots to be served by Gillums Mountain Road, and five lots to be served by two entrances off Rt. 708. 26.9 acres for Section 5; 355 acres for total site. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property, located on the west side of Rt. 708, north of I-64. Tax Map 73A, parcels 29E, 29J, and 29K. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She clarified staff's position on the following three issues: (1) "We are happy with the Rt. 708 buffer." (2) "We feel Peacock Drive should be upgraded at this point even though the dwelling units do not exist; the lots are plated and it would be difficult to tie it to the issuance of the building permit." (3) Re: March 11, 1986 Page 14 Entrances on Rt. 708: "We don't see that it can easily be done without sacrificing a (building) lot, to serve all the lots with one entrance." In response to Mr. Cogan's question, it was determined lots 12 and 14 are double -frontage lots. However, Mr. Payne stated, "I don't know that that is particularly significant in this case because the development is oriented toward the internal roads, and consciously so." Mr. Payne confirmed that it would require a waiver. Mr. Cogan suggested an alternative road plan which would "serve two lots instead of having another lot come out onto Rt. 708." Ms. Patterson indicated that Mr. Cogan's suggestion was not possible because there would not be enough space for a turning radius. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bob McKee, representing Mr. Frank Smith, owner of Peacock Hill, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant is concerned about only one of the conditions of approval, i.e. "the upgrading of Peacock Drive down to the internal intersection." He explained that it had been part of the original PUD, and was reiterated in October, 1985, "that Peacock Drive be upgraded when the project reaches 102 dwelling units, not 102 platted lots." He stated this was more of an aesthetic concern than a financial one since the applicant feels that "to upgrade Peacock Drive, at this time, from Rt. 708 simply down to the new intersection, with a coating of S-5 surface treatment, would be rather unsightly." He asked that that condition be deleted. Mr. McKee also presented a copy of the Soils Report to the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated that while he was concerned about those lots with double frontage, his greatest concern was the number of lots coming out onto Rt. 708. He asked if there were not some way to eliminate one of those entrances and tie all 5 lots into one road. Mr. McKee indicated that Mr. Cogan's suggestion might be possible since he felt the Engineering Department's radii are excessive and it might be possible to make the turn and still comply with the Highway Department's requirements. He stated that while it would be less expensive to do this, the applicant was concerned because this would require a cul-de-sac and it. is not desirable to have large surfaced areas in a rural situation. Referring to the Soils Report, Ms. Diehl asked if some of the sites would require pumping, since this was stated in the report. Mr. McKee indicated he did not think pumping would be required. She also asked about the drainfield for Lot 9, which the report stated did not have an acceptable area for a drainfield, with the closest place being behind March 11, 1986 Page 15 Lot 3. Mr. McKee responded that that was the only lot which had that problem and confirmed that easements across other lots would be necessary in order to reach the drainfield area. Ms. Diehl pointed out that no easements were shown on the plan. Mr. McKee explained the plan had been prepared prior to the receipt of the Soils Report. He added that this would not be the first septic easement necessary for the development and there are, in fact, some "cluster" septic fields serving more than one unit. Mr. Cogan stated he felt those easements should be shown on the final plat and added that he felt the Commission should see the final plat. He stated also that he felt all five lots should be served by one road. Mr. McKee indicated he understood the Commission's concerns. He emphasized that the applicant is anxious to move forward with the development and asked that the Commission not defer the matter. It was determined that Health Department approval has been granted. The Chairman asked Mr. Horne when the Commission would be able to see the final plat (provided the preliminary plat was approved). Mr. Horne indicated this was difficult to answer but that it would probably not be longer than one month. Mr. McKee explained that it was the applicant's understanding that if certain conditions were met, the final plat could be approved administratively. Mr. Bowerman explained that whenever the Commissioners have concerns, they can request to see the final plat. Mr. Cogan indicated he was still concerned about the lots with double frontage, since he felt the Ordinance did not address the double frontage issue without reason. Mr. Payne indicated he felt the concern about double frontage was laiqely an aesthetic one. He stated, "The idea is you want to provide privacy for the lot and also protect the view from the public road." Mr. Horne recalled that the Board had not wanted the houses to front on Rt. 708, but rather to have an internal frontage. He added, "The question about the landscaping came up because they knew it was going to be the back of the houses. So they talked about a buffer and landscaping, both of which have been taken care of on this plat." Mr. Payne stated, "I think that's the point. You do have the major traffic control advantage of having the internal road, and you have the aesthetic viewpoint mitigated by the landscaping. The third point is that if you look at the _ &I March 11, 1986 Page 16 general plan, there really isn't any other way to do it and still serve this strip of lots with an internal road." Mr. McKee suggested that it was possible to bring a road "to the west of the lots that are fronting on the lake, if we wanted to bring a road through there, and single load the road, and then serve all the lots that we're talking about along Rt. 708 from 708." Mr. Payne stated this would lose the advantage of the internal road. He again stated that the double frontage issue was an aesthetic concern and, historically, it has been viewed as secondary to the traffic concern. He added that he felt the issue was an important one and should be considered by the Commission. He added, "But I think this is a sufficiently peculiar situation that this is not an unreasonable solution to it." Mr. McKee pointed out that the master plan which he submitted in late summer, 1985, was substantially the same except that the alignments had been changed somewhat and the intersection had been shifted 20 feet, per the Highway Department's request. He stated, "We assumed that when we received approval for that amendment, we were pretty much refining what we had originally submitted." Mr. Cogan stated he agreed with Mr. McKee in that he did "not read the requirements as it being necessary to put S-5 on that short section of Peacock Hill Drive at this juncture." Mr. Payne commented, "I don't think the staff's intent here is necessarily that this road has to built right away, but that the provision for it be made, probably in the form of a bond. I woul(V t see any objection or inconsistency between the Subdivision Ordinance's requirement of these improvements and the relationship to the 102 lots or units. The bond could be oriented so that you would require it to be actually constructed when you got 102 units. The problem is there isn't any other way to get a handle on constructing this road unless there are further sections of it developed, unless and until that point. Staff is not telling the developer he has to build it right now, he has to provide it so that there is some means of insuring that it is going to get built in the event that there is no further subdivision made of this property." Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne, "You don't think that condition 1(a) says that he has to upgrade it?" Mr. Payne responded, "No. I don't think it says that to the exclusion of its being bonded." March 11, 1986 Page 17 M M M Though Mr. Payne indicated it would be redundant, it was determined that the words or bonded would be added to condition l(a). Ms. Patterson advised the Commission that she had not been aware of the fact that they had not been able to locate two septic locations on each site since she had not seanthe Soils Report. She stated that in Mr. Keeler's staff report for the rezoning on the property, it was stated "Substantial amendment of an approved planned development could be treated as new business susceptible to current regulation." The report had analyzed the aspects that were considered more non -conforming in regards to the Ordinance and aspects that were considered more conforming. In that regard, the report stated "Provision of two drainfield locations on individual single family lots." Ms. Patterson stated that, though she had not discussed the matter with Mr. Payne and Mr. Keeler, she felt the assumption was that two drainfields must be located on each lot. It was determined Ms. Patterson was referring to Lot 9 which Ms. Diehl had called attention to earlier in the meeting. Mr. McKee stated, "On the lot there is adequate area for two drainfields for Lot 9; it's just that they are not on Lot 9. I think there is adequate area for the equivalent of 2 drainfields for each lot, (though ) they may not be on the lot specifically." Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission had ever approved a lot which didn't have at least one drainfield on it. Mr. Payne recalled that this has been done, though it was very rare. Mr. Cogan indicated he felt that issue required further study. Mr. McKee indicated he was under the impression that if there was adequate area, necessary easements were available, and the Health Department approval was granted, that was all that was required. He stated that there are numerous drainfields in the development which are "off the particular lot which they serve." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the preliminary plat could be approved with the understanding that the Commission would see the final plat at which time the Commission would like to see more detail on the septic system and more detail on an effort to make one road for lots 17 through 21. Mr. Cogan indicated he was satisfied with the double frontage issue. .moo S March 11, 1986 Page 18 Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any way the Commission's concerns could be staisfied without a full review of the final plat. Mr. Horne responded that the Commission could grant administrative approval subject to providing the Commission with the desired information prior to granting approval. This would eliminate the need for advertising, etc. for a full-scale review. However, since it was determined this could lengthen the process considerably in the event the Commission was not satisfied with staff's findings, it was decided the Commission would review the final plat in its entirety. Mr. Cogan moved that the preliminary plat for Peacock Hill Section 5 be approved subject to the following conditions, including Commission review of the final plat,which should include more detail on the septic system and an effort to make one road for lots 17-21: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Peacock Drive to be upgraded or bonded in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation comment of August 16, 1985; b. Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot; C. Health Department approval of central well system. System to be designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards and approved by the County Engineer including witnessing of well testing; d. Fire Officer approval of dry hydrant system; e. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents, to include road maintenance agreements; f. Issuance of an erosion control permit; g. County Engineer approval of private road and drainage plans and computations; h. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of drainage plans and computations and entrances in accordance with letter dated Feb. 6, 1986; i. Lot #9 and #10 are to be served by the existing 30-foot access easement from Gillums Mountain Road. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Better Living Addition Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 15,512 square feet warehouse addition to the existing furni- ture store, and a 42,800 square feet new storage yard, all uses to be served by a total of 135 parking spaces (14 new spaces). Acreage of site is 12.369 acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, is located on the west side of Rt. 29, adjacent to the north of the Hub Furniture Store, south of the Hilton. Tax Map 45, parcels 68C1, 68A, 112A, and 112B. Charlottesville Magisterial District. March 11, 1986 Page 19 Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She also presented an addendum to the staff report in which it was stated that staff's recommendation on the proposal (originally for approval) had been revised to a recommendation for denial. Citing noncompliance with Section 32.5.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that the "developer may construct a service road in lieu of providing travel lanes or driveways that provide vehicular access to and from adjacent parking areas and adjacent property," the addendum stated "the present plan proposes no provisions for access to adjacent parcels or a service road. There is any number of reasonable access; several of which could include the proposed Rt. 29/SPCA Road network." In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about the Commission's options, Ms. Patterson responded, "You can approve the entire project. If you did not approve Phase II you would have to deny it and give reasons for denial. If you deferred it for more than a week, (it) would be outside the 60 days which you have to approve or disapprove a plan from the date of submittal." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Richard Nunnally, owner of the property, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --Staff's recommendation had come as quite a "bombshell" since he had been made aware of it only shortly before the meeting. --He has, "in good faith," been dealing with the County on this project for some time. --Better Living's primary need is additional storage space. --This plan does not effect any of the entrances on 29. --No substantial increase in traffic is expected. --At site review on February 6, no mention was made of an access road nor Section 32.5.8 of the Ordinance. --The exact location of the proposed parallel road is not known at this time. --The terrain in the area is very difficult to work with. --It has long been the plan of the Highway Department to make a street between the Better Living Property and the property to the north which would connect with the re -aligned Carrsbrook entrance. --When the property was developed a 20-foot cut in the parking lot was put in the event that such a street should be constructed. (Mr. Nunnally felt this met the requirements of Section 32.5.8.) --He questioned the validity of applying 32.5.8 in this connection. --If the proposed parallel road is ever constructed, it will go behind the Better Living property. It could not effect this property because it is on "entirely two different planes topographically." March 11, 1986 Page 20 Mr. Horne interjected that the applicant's statement may be true, i.e. that the proposed road would not cut across this site. He statea that it is staff's intent to make provision for the possibility that it may cross the site. He stated that "within a relatively short period of time, we will know if it does or does not effect this site." In regard to Section 32.5.8, he stated it was his feeling that the site plan does not provide what is called for in the Code. He recognized that "there may have been provisions in the past due to grading, etc. which would make it possible to do that, but it, in fact, does not show that done now." Mr. Nunnelly continued and stated, "I think staff is grasping at straws to deny my request so that we can get something going on this road at the back and try to get me involved in that road, and I have no interest in that road. I don't think it is equitable at all to be denying my request for that purpose." He again pointed out that this issue had never been raised at any of the numerous meetings that have taken place. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, added that even f a road does cross this property, it will not provide access to the property because it will be too elevated. The Chairman asked for comment from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Highway Department. *04 Mr. Echols recalled from some of the meetings with the applicant that "Mr. Roosevelt pointed out he remembered when the Better Living site was first built the buildings were kind of put in the way of where they would have interferred with the crossover for Carrsbrook when one is built. Now if one is built, you would have Carrsbrook tied into 29 and to provide access to Better Living and other sites in that location, it would take some type of internal access road or something to serve those properties. Otherwise Better Living would be right at the crossover which would not be advantageous from the highway's point of view. It was discussed that eventually there might have to be something to provide access to properties in that area, that undeveloped lot as well as Better Living." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated, "Whereas this property may not be served by this (proposed) road, this property could block the con- struction of that road." Mr. Payne commented, "I don't think it's fair to say that this proposed road is unrelated to this development. It's obvious that it may have some bearing. But that's not really the issue. The point is, if that road is to be built, and March 11, 1986 Page 21 I don't think anyone has decided that it's going to be built, then that road would provide conceivably, assuming it is feasible as a matter of engineering, (satisfaction) for this part of the Ordinance if this property can be tied into it. But that doesn't mean that a site plan for this property couldn't satisfy that section of the Ordinance without having any connection to that road. The point here is, there are a number of ways of skinning this cat and the applicant hasn't shown any of them." Mr. Bowerman interjected, "But I don't think he was aware of them." Mr. Payne conceded that may be true and stated he was not blaming the applicant. He suggested that someone may have "dropped the ball" but that does not change the fact that this issue needs to be addressed before this is approval.. Mr. Payne continued, "The applicant has the right to have you act on this plan. What staff is telling you is that in its current state, this plan is incomplete; it doesn't satisfy the Ordinance." Mr. Payne indicated he felt the way to solve the matter was to do something entirely different and unrelated to the proposed parallel road, but which would satisfy the Ordinance. Mr. Cogan asked how the plan had met the requirements before, but doesn't meet them now. Mr. Payne stated that it may not have, that it may have been missed at that time also. Ms. Patterson stated that with the Jim Price Chevrolet property, Mr. Keeler had stated that the Commission chose not to apply that requirement. Mr. Cogan pointed out that staff's addendum had been prepared "today" and the applicant had done a lot of ground work in good faith. He felt that it would be unreasonable to impose this requirement now when it had not been imposed on surrounding properties. He also stated that he felt it would not be of any great consequence in terms of the county's overall plan. He pointed out that even if the applicant wanted to show the easement, he would not know where it should be located. Mr. Bowerman indicated there was no doubt the provision of the Ordinance and its interpretation were accurate. He stated he understood staff's dilemma in trying to improve the situation on Rt. 29N. However, he stated that the applicant had acted in good faith for some time and, under usual circumstances, the site plan would have been approved. He felt it would be unrealistic to hold the applicant captive to a decision that has not yet been made, even though this might mean the idea of the parallel road would be destroyed. He stated he could not deny this application without "having more knowledge that it would be a direct effect." Mr. Stark stated he felt the applicant has demonstrated in the past that it is his intent to provide some kind of access. March 11, 1986 Page 22 Mr. Cogan indicated he agreed with Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Cogan asked how the Commission felt about staff's recommendation for phasing, i.e. "this plan be phased such that the building addition is phase I, and the storage yard is phase II." It was determined this, too, had been tied to the road issue. Ms. Patterson stated, "Mr. Payne can answer that more precisely, but it is my understanding that we don't have the authority to do that." Mr. Payne explained that the applicant has a right to have what he has submitted acted on. He stated he thought staff felt if the plan were approved in phases, and the applicant agreed to such approval, then the road problem might take care of itself. Mr. Nunnelly pointed out "the blue part is merely a paved storage yard which will be built up higher than it is now." He stated that if a road were ever to go through this area, he would only have improved the situation rather than having created problems for the road. He also emphasized that the primary need is for the storage area more than enlarging the furniture area. He stated he could see no reason for phasing as the staff suggested other than that it is tied in with this "phantom" road. Mr. Horne stated that understood the applicant's statement and that was one fortunate aspect of this plan. He asked if the applicant might agree to'reservation of a 60-foot right-of-way, just inside the back property line, a portion of which would go across the storage area as shown, and if we don't need to exercise that right-of-way, the storage area stays just like it is. If we do need to exercise that right-of-way we (would) have the ability to come in, recognizing that, in that case, the applicant would have to relocate some of that storage." The applicant indicated he was unclear as to what Mr. Horne was suggesting. Mr. Horne explained again. Mr. Nunnelly indicated he was unsure as to the legal implications of such a suggestion and "he was not in a position to say that (he) would be giving any land for a roadway." He added, "I would be willing to say that I would forego the improvements that were put there if a road did go." Mr. Nunnelly indicated that construction of the storage area would begin as soon as approval was received. Mr. Horne indicated he had not understood the applicant's meaning when he had offered to "forego the improvements." He asked if that meant that the County would not have to compensate him for the improvements which would be lost because of the construction of a road, but would only compensate him for the land. -ZZ&3 March 11, 1986 Page 23 Mr. Nunnelly responded, "I would be willing to do that." Mr. Horne stated he was unsure as to how legally binding any of the discussion which had just taken place was, but if it is binding, the County would not have to compensate the applicant for what would probably be a considerable amount of money, given the amount of grading and drainage measures that will be necessary. Mr. Horne confirmed that the suggested right-of-way would be only 60 feet. Though Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if it would be possible to shift the storage area in such a way so that none of it would be lost in the event the road was constructed, Mr. Nunnelly indicated that was not possible because of engineering problems. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Horne's suggestion, i.e. to ask the applicant to reserve 60 feet of right-of-way and if the County ever needs it they will have to buy it. It was determined the applicant should be given time to consider his offer to forego compensation for improvements. Mr. Cogan asked if a time period should be placed on the reservation. Mr. Horne indicated he expected to have a definite answer about the proposed roadway within 60 days. Mr. Cogan asked if the reservation issue should be addressed in the conditions of approval. Mr. Payne indicated he had problems with the entire issue since it does not satisfy the concern of noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that if a roadway had already been adopted, then the reservation might have some meaning. Mr. Bowerman stated that, in all fairness to the applicant, since the issue was not made known to the applicant in the beginning, it should not be brought up at this time. He stated he was in favor of waiving it. Mr. Payne stated that though that might be the case, "when the next applicant comes along and points to this one and the others as not having this section applied to it, don't say that Mr. Horne and I didn't tell you so. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that future applicants will have been made aware of the issue in advance. Mr. Cogan moved that the Better Living Addition Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: March 11, 1986 Page 24 (It was determined that staff's original condition No. 3 would be deleted and that condition No. 1 would have the words for Phase I (Furniture Warehouse Addition) deleted.) 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Planning staff approval of location of new parking spaces; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; C. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; d. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; e. Planning staff approval of plat shifting lot lines showing any necessary easements; f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; g. Fire Officer approval; h. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of drainage plans, if applicable. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Officer final approval. 3. Reservation of 60-feet from the western boundary for a period of 120 days. Mr.Stark seconded the motion. In response to Ms. Diehl's question about buffering, Ms. Patterson stated, "The screening that's required for the storage yard will be addressed with the landscape plan. The buffering, that is no grading, clearing, construction within 20 feet of the property line has been addressed with the grading line shown on the site plan." The motion for approval passed unanimously. In response to Mr. Nunnelly's question, the Chairman confirmed that the conditions of approval do not require that the furniture store be done first and no phasing requirements are included in the approval. MISCELLANEOUS In response to Mr. Cogan's question, it was determined that the zoning maps are colored in such a way as to show which properties have proffers attached to them. Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned about the way the Commission has been dealing with proffered applications, i.e. verbally working out the proffers. Mr. Payne stated that there is no way to avoid that situation. March 11, 1986 Page 25 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. DS zm Cm John Horne, Secretary -v7