Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 01 86 PC MinutesApril 1, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 1, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Com- missioners Wilkerson, Cogan and Stark. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the March 18, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. Warren Painter Site Plan Waiver Request Modular Building - This is a proposal to establish a modular building sales operation. Thirteen buildings will be displayed for sale purposes. This use will be served by 16 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the site plan requirement pursuant to Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The total area of the site is 3.08 acres. The property is located on the north side of Rio Road East and adjacent to the Bonanza Restaurant. Tax Map 61, parcel 124E (part). Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. It was determined that three evergreen trees currently exist along the front of the property and no removal of trees will take place. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the Warren Painter Site Plan Waiver request be approved. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Diehl indicated surprise at the number of buildings that were proposed for display. She was under the impression that fewer had been represented at the time of the rezoning. The applicant stated that he had not represented any certain 11*01 number at the time of the rezoning. April 1, 1986 Page 2 It was determined the office building was one of the display buildings and was not a permanent structure. Mr. Bowerman asked what control would exist on the intensification of the use, i.e. what would require a site plan. Mr. Benish indicated that an increase in square footage which would require more parking spaces would serve as a control. Mr. Keeler stated, "If you choose to do so, you can simply approve that plan, or authorize staff to approve it, and any substantial increase in the number of units we would bring back to you.,, It was determined the applicant has obtained permission from the Bonanza Restaurant to use their restroom facilities. Mr. Benish explained that with a use such as this, which can be temporary in nature, restroom facilities are not required. Mr. Gould made a substitute motion and moved that the Warren Painter waiver request be granted for this specific site plan only, and in the event that there is an intensification of use, staff will determine if it can be approved administratively or if it requires Commission review. Ms. Diehl indicated agreement to this substitute motion. The motion passed unanimously. SP-86-07 Merry L. VanCleave - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(7) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a special use permit for a day care center, with enrollment of 15 children. Existing use as a single family dwelling. Property described as Tax Map 94B, parcel 01-B-18 is located on the west side of Rt. 623 near Rt. 616, in the Woodsedge Subdivision. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to why a site plan would not be required, Mr. Keeler explained that, in this case, the usual approvals are covered under State licensing and staff feels it is not necessary to duplicate the review. He stated further that the Highway Department has already recommended a commercial entrance and, thus, there seemed to be no other reason to require a site plan. It was determined the facility would be reviewed by the local fire official. April 1, 1986 Page 3 It was determined no comment was received from adjacent property owners. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. VanCleave addressed the Commission. She presented a petition, signed by her nearest neighbors, which stated they were in favor of the proposal. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that SP-86-07 for Merry VanCleave be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance in accordance with comments of March 17, 1986; 3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. Enrollment limited to 15 children; 5. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on April 16, 1986. ZMA-85-29 Forest Hills (Lake Reynovia PUD) - Request to rezone +236 acres from R-1 Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Develop- ment, including 6 acres shopping center; 39 acres industrial; 215 single family detached dwellings; 100 multi -family dwelling units and including roa.ds,recreational areas and open space areas. Property, described as Tax Map 90, parcel 36A, (part) is located on the west side of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742) from the National Guard Armory to Lake Reynovia entrance road. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He also read a letter from Mr. Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority, dated April 1, 1986, which summarized issues involving water and sewer service for the proposed PUD. Mr. Keeler explained, "The plan has been amended to include a note that a 12" water line is to be extended to Fifth Street at such time as necessary to satisfy fire flows and quantities. There is an extension of the line shown on the plan." Mr. Brent's letter also stated: "The Service Authority recognizes the obligation it has assumed for providing sewer service to the subject property. Mr. Keeler stated further, "The plan has also been amended to r.r delineate the buildable areas in the general industrial area. Staff concurs that these are appropriate buildable sites. The plan also reflects two points of connection for Lake Reynovia to the road system of the PUD, and ultimately to April 1, 1986 Page 4 to Avon Street." Regarding traffic generation, Mr. Keeler stated, "The proposed Vao PUD would fall, generally, within the traffic generation if the property were developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan." The staff report further stated: "The difference between the total and net generation figures is attributed to trips internal to the PUD and shopping traffic which would be on Avon Street for other purposes. The total and net figures should be viewed as the range of traffic increase to Avon Street." In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Keeler compared the traffic figures as follows: Under Existing Zoning: 1,650 -i 2,500 vtpd Comp. Plan Recommendation: 4,100 4 8,650 (Mid -point 6,500) Note: Comp. Plan recommends more dwelling units than PUD, plus staff added in the industrial generation. Proposed PUD: 7,300 4 9,200 (Mid -point 8,000) Note: Total 9,200 trips, minus 1,900 "captured" trips and those internal to PUD = 7,300. Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant's plan shows a system of internal roads which addresses all that staff has worked towards in this petition, i.e. (1) A potential connector road from Avon Street to Fifth street; (2) Two direct means of access to Avon Street from residential areas; and (3) Internal access from residential areas to the commercial areas. Mr. Keeler emphasized that though the Highway Department has commented that traffic from this development would put Avon Street into a "non -tolerable" status, the same would occur if development takes place under existing zoning. Regarding the connector road, Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be private or if the Highway Department would accept it if it were "built to occasion traffic generation from this proposal only." Mr. Keeler stated staff envisions the road being constructed as follows: "The applicant would construct a road to a standard occasioned by this development. The applicant also has an agreement with the industrial land to the north to provide access to this road. If this develops as proposed, and the industrial land develops too, both of them using the road and it is upgraded as this development occurs, it is likely that the category of the road would be the same as if it were a through road. Also, the Board is going to have to take positive action to acquire the remainder of this right- of-way because this area over here is developed. If that occurs, then the County can, by some mechanism, get the remainder of the road upgraded to a category that the Highway Department will accept. These decisions will have to be made by the Board when this rezoning petition comes before them." F,pril 1, 1986 Page 5 Recalling that the Commission had found the original proposal (January 1986) to be unclear on certain issues, Mr. Gould asked Mr. Keeler to explain how those issues have now been clarified. Mr. Keeler stated the following issues had been unclear: --Access easements along the Lake Reynovia property line; --Undefined utility easements; --Buffering of the development from Lake Reynovia. He stated that recent correspondence indicates that all those issues have been addressed. He stated, "There is specific access shown for the Reynovia property which would replace the existing access easement along the property line. There is a very specific landscape buffering proposal included in the package and as development occurs, the applicant will grant those water and sewer easements in appropriate locations, depending on the final utility layout of the plan." Mr. Gould recalled that the Commission had indicated concern that the commercial acreage was too large. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the commercial acreage has not been changed. Mr. Keeler indicated the reasoning was that even though the PUD could not support this amount of commercial acreage, the commercial area would draw people from surrounding areas. In response to Mr. Gould's question, Mr. Keeler explained the Sewer Authority's plan for providing service to the PUD. Mr. Keeler stated staff was recommending approval of the proposal, provided several design criteria are satisfied. He stated staff feels the proposed PUD is an improvement over conventional zoning and the applicant has agreed to at least partial construction and dedication of the through -connector road. Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff "was not making any recommenda- tion on the commercial area other than the fact that (staff) feels that the six acres could support 61,000 square feet of area." This issue was being left up to the Commission. It was determined if the Commission chose to approve the pro- posal as submitted, no further criteria need be added, but the issue of timing of the commercial development should be addressed. The Chairman asked if Mr. Brent (Service Authority) had any additional comments to make. Mr. Brent offered no additional comments. Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Highway Department, was present but offered no additional comments. OR April 1, 1986 Page 6 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. George Gillum, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --The Ordinance provides that "additional commercial and industrial activity may be permitted upon a finding that the area in which the PUD is to be located is not adequately served by such use." --The applicant has made a careful study of the shopping needs of the area and thus concluded that the commercial proposal is justified. --Regarding roads, he quoted from Section 25.4.1 of the Ordinance as follows: "Unless otherwise specifically provided by the Commission, the following standards shall be employed in the analysis of adequacy of existing roads: neighborhood center (previously defined as a center between 3 and 10 acres) 1,300 to 3,900 vtpd." --Commercial development in this area will take traffic off some of the more congested areas of the county. --The applicant has already purchased the land (he is not a contractor purchaser), and development is going to begin, either as a PUD, or as by -right development. --Shopping opportunities must be provided in this area of the County if it is to attract residential development. --The proposed connector road can only be justified in a planned unit development since by -right development Ago would necessitate condemnation of land in order to build such a road. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about possible by -right development of the property, Mr. Gillum indicated development would probably begin farther back from the frontage, followed by a petition for rezoning at some future date Mr. Gillum indicated the applicant feels 61,000 square feet is a reasonable number for commercial area. He stated _ this would allow "the smallest size grocery store that is now being built by any of the larger grocery operators, a 6,000 to 8,000 square foot drug store, a branch bank, a barber shop, etc." The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. James Murray, representing the owners of Lake Reynovia, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --A Deed of Partition exists which divided the Lake property from a larger tract. That deed provided for several easements and cross easements which, if not resolved, would make the development of this PUD very difficult and make the plan impossible to implement. The rights -of -way along the boundaries would encumber the title of numerous lots, unlocated easements for water and sewer would cause problems, etc. April 1, 1986 Page 7 M --It is imperative that the applicant and the owners of Lake Reynovia work together to re -write that Deed of Partition, thus allowing both this development and Lake Reynovia to move forward. --There is some question as to how the Highway Department can enforce road construction standards which will have internal streets carry traffic for future development of Lake Reynovia. A method for doing this has been arrived at by all parties concerned, but it will require a new agreement and the County must be a party to that agreement. The first draft of that agreement which included the County was just prepared "this afternoon" (April 1, 1986). The County Attorney, staff and the the Highway Department have not yet seen the agreement. --There are a few problems with the agreement and the owners of Lake Reynovia will not sign it in its present condition. --Based on the status of this agreement, the owners of Lake Reynovia must withhold any comment on the proposal, except to say that the issues are being discussed and there seems to be an agreement in principle on major points. --The owners of Lake Reynovia will voice their opposition to the proposal if agreement has not been finalized by the time of the Board review. --The landscaping plan proposed by the applicant appears to address some of the concerns of the owners of Lake Reynovia. It was determined the agreement referred to by Mr. Murray was not addressed in any of the criteria listed by staff. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the Commission chose to act favorably on the application, it would like to have a condition added dealing with the finalization of the hypothetical agreement. Mr. Payne indicated he would not be opposed to this but questioned whether or not such a condition were essential since the developer must have a subdivision plat approved. In reply to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission could act on the application even though such an agreement is not currently in existence. Mr. Payne pointed out that many of these problems must be worked out, as a practical matter, regardless of the Commission's action. Mr. Murray offered the following additional comment: "As I understand it, theplan before you tonight shows at least two access points from Lake Reynovia into the Forest Hills street. It is shown with red arrows. When VDH&T approval is required they are going to approve roads that, as I see it, show access to other property. If we reach no agreement with Mr. Craig, then he is going to have to design and build roads 0 April 1, 1986 to handle traffic from our property. Otherwise the Highway Department is not going to approve it because the plat shows that property having that access. So it is going to behove Mr. Craig to deal with us and make sure that we have an agreement, that we are going to contribute to those roads, avoid the Hilton problem, and let him get on with his work." Mr. Horne confirmed that Mr. Murray's summarization was accurate. Regarding the County's involvement in the agreement, Mr. Horne asked Mr. Payne what direct impact the agreement has on the County other than the question of the collector road. Mr. Payne explained it was his understanding that the "Highway Department was going to look to the County for enforcement of an agreement to construct a road upon further development, etc. The Highway Department doesn't want to be a party (to the agreement) directly. The County, by statute, owns the road, so, to that extent, it is appropriate for the County to be involved." Mr. Payne stated further that "the County has the authority to require certain improvements as a condition of approval of further developments and the developers agree that the County has that authority." In response to Mr. Gould's question, Mr. Payne explained that there is one substantial assurance the County can "build into the agreement," that being that "before any substantial development can take place, it has to be approved by the County." Mr. Payne explained, "In essence, what is happening is that the developer is saying we agree that we will waive any rights we have under the Hilton case and we will allow you to require us to build these roads, and the consideration that we are getting for doing that is approval at this time, in the case of the applicant here, in the case of Lake Reynovia, we are getting a connection into these other roads which we wouldn't otherwise be able to get." Mr. Payne explained that "the case law does support the proposition that a developer can agree to things like this which the County couldn't otherwise require." Mr. Horne restated staff's position as follows: "The plan before you is a planned unit development; it's not intended to really put in detail all the proposals. Based on our discussions, we feel this is a generally practical plan in most of its details and we would assure you that before any subdivision took place, all the precise details would be tied down which is the intent of a planned unit development as opposed to a subdivision plan." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel stated that while the current proposal was greatly improved over the original proposal, he still had concerns about the proposed commercial area. He indicated he would favor some sort of compromise between staff's suggestion and the applicant's proposal. in April 1, 1986 Page 9 Ms. Diehl stated she could not agree to the 61,000 square feet of commercial area proposed by the applicant. Mr. Gould indicated he has never been in favor of the proposal and cited concerns about the size of the commercial area and the serious road problems in the area. Mr. Michel, Ms. Diehl and Mr. Gould all agreed that a denial of this proposal would in no way be "sending a signal" to developers that the Commission was opposed to development in this area, as had been suggested by Mr. Gillum. Mr. Michel asked if the Commission's only options, at this point, were to either accept or reject the applicant's proposal. Mr. Keeler responded that Section 8.5.4 allows the Commission to recommend to the Board that the plan be changed. Quoting from the staff report, he stated, "The Commission can recommend approval of the PUD as proposed, or approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval." Mr. Michel stated he could support the proposal if the commercial area were limited to a certain amount and at least tie it to residential units. Ms. Diehl stated she could support the proposal if the commercial area was consistent with the amount that is available in a PUD, recognizing that almost every development of this type has requested additional area after build -out has proceeded. Mr.Michel stated the problem with this approach was that the PUD would have to be "80% built out." Ms. Diehl felt this was as it should be. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Commission can recommend a modification of that requirement also if deemed appropriate. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about the proposed gross density, Mr. Keeler stated the total area is 236 acres with 315 units (12 units per acro. He stated that under existing zoning 230 units could be built, and the Comp Plan recommendation recommends a density even higher than the 315 units proposed by the applicant. Mr. Bowerman indicated he could support the proposal since he felt it offered the following advantages: --A viable way to get the connector road built; --Better water and sewer service to the area; --The PUD begins to implement some portions of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the growth projected for this area. April 1, 1986 Page 10 Though Mr. Bowerman indicated he did not have a real problem with the proposed 61,000 square feet of commercial area, he stated he would not be opposed to some modification of that number. Ms. Diehl, Mr. Gould and Mr. Michel again expressed their opposition to 61,000 square feet of commercial area. Mr. Bowerman asked what alternative proposal could be suggested. Mr. Michel stated he would be willing to allow 6,600 square feet now, with the rest tied to building permits as suggested by staff, i.e. 150 sq. ft. per building permit issued (47,250 sq. feet). Ms. Diehl did not think it was appropriate to allow 6,600 square feet with no build -out figures since this could allow a commercial area to be built before any residential development takes place. She stated she could accept a lower build -out percentage. Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-85-29 for Forest Hills PUD be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Gould withdrew his motion since it failed to get a second. Mr. Michel indicated he would be willing to move for approval with the addition of the following to staff's list of design criteria: Commercial development is limited to 6,600 square feet of floor area, regardless of residential development, plus 150 square feet of floor area of commercial development for every residential unit building permit obtained by the developer up to a maximum of 53,850 square feet. It was suggested that the proposed 315 units should also be included in the proposed wording. However, Mr. Horne pointed out that if the Commission approves this plan, the plan is for 315 units. Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-85-29 for Forest Hills PUD be recom- mended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the criteria listed by staff with the addition of criteria No. 7 (stated above). (There was no second to this motion.) Ms. Diehl indicated she still was opposed to the 6,600 square feet, though she would consider a slightly higher square footage tied to the building permits. April 1, 1986 Page 11 Mr. Gillum advised the Commission that the developer could not justify spending the $150,000 for the loop -line (to get adequate fire flow) for only 6,600 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Bowerman stated he could not support the motion because he felt "it did not make any sense," (i.e. the part dealing with the commercial area). The Chairman called for a vote on Mr. Michel's motion to approve ZMA-85-29. The motion did not pass (1:3), with Commissioners Bowerman, Gould and Diehl opposed and Mr. Michel voting in favor. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Gillum if the developer would move forward with the proposal if 47,250 square feet of commercial area was recommended. Mr. Gillum stressed he was not certain of the answer to this question, but felt it was "likely" that the development would proceed. Mr. Keeler stated that reducing the commercial area to 47,250 square feet would reduce the traffic generation to a level that was comparable with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gould asked Mr. Gillum if the applicant could accept an initial 25,000 square feet of commercial area with 75 sq. ft./unit for the balance. Mr. Gillum stated that 28,000 square feet would allow the smallest grocery store. He stated that still could not be built until the water line is put in and then the "balance could be built out in accord with the development of the shopping center." He stated, "That may be workable." It was determined the previously suggested wording for criteria No. 7 would be changed to read: Initial commercial development limited to 28,000 square feet gross floor area. Thereafter, an additional 60 square feet per building permit issued to a maximum total gross area of 48,000 square feet. Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-85-29 for Forest Hills (Lake Reynovia PUD) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the satisfaction of the following design criteria: 1. Residential, industrial, and commercial areas with their attendant open space areas shall be located in general accord with the Application Plan. Industrial acreage may increase by not more than two (2) acres April 1, 1986 Page 12 as a result of possible realignment of the collector road. 2. Uses permitted in the commercial area shall be as provided in Section 20.4 Commercial/Service uses. The applicant shall develop a balanced mix of uses intended to provide local service to the PUD and the neighbor- hood in general. Shopping center parking standards may be employed. 3. Special use permit approval is required for establish- ment of the day care center. In lieu of day care use, the number of proposed single family detached units lost as a result of final street design, ordinance regulation, or other factors, excluding the desire of the developer, may be added to the number of milti- family units, and located on this site. 4. Preliminary road layout reflects recommendation of County Engineer and Planning staff. The residential street design shall provide for two street connections (including the potential collector road) to Avon Street in the approximate locations shown on the Application Plan. The residential street layout shall employ patterns which shall provide reasonably direct access from all residential areas to both Avon Street intersections and, shall provide at least one connection between the northeast and southwest portions of the site, in addition to the potential collector road. 5. All roads, with the exception of the potential collector road shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. 6. The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The collector road shall be designed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards and have final road design plans approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the County Engineer. It shall be built according to a schedule approved by the County Engineer and the Planning Commission and be privately maintained until upgraded to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards, at which time it shall be placed in the Secondary System. There shall be no residential entrances onto the collector road, with the exception of public road connections. 7. Initial commercial development limited to 28,000 square feet gross floor area. Thereafter, an additional 60 square feet per building permit issued to a maximum total gross area of 48,000 square feet. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. April 1, 1986 Page 13 The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on April 16, 1986. OLD BUSINESS The following CIP Work Sessions were scheduled: Tuesday, April 8, 4:30 - 6:00 Thursday, April 17, 4:30 - 6:00 Thursday, April 24, 4:30 - 6:00 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Recorded by Janice Wills Transcribed by Deloris Sessoms MCM John Horne, Horne, Secretary