Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 12 86 PC MinutesAugust 12, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 12, 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. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Gould The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the July 29, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. ZMA-86-02 Joseph Wright - Request to rezone 6.65 acres from RA, Rural Areas to CO, Commercial Office and 48.13 acres from Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry. Property described as Tax Map 32, parcels 41D and 41E is located in the vicinity of the southwestern quadrant of the Rt. 29 North/Rt. 649 (Airport Road) intersection in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated that this rezoning petition originally appeared before the Commission as a conventional rezoning on June 24, 1986. At that time staff stated that while the request was consistent with the Land Use Map, certain Comprehensive Plan standards were not reflected in the proposal and staff recommended denial. The Commission accepted the staff's recommendation and commented that the applicant could address those matters of public concern prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing. The Board, after review of the applicant's subsequent proffer, determined that the petition was a substantial change from that reviewed by the Commission and referred the petition back to the Commission for additional comment. The report stated that staff had recommended denial of the original petition "because it did not, in staff opinion, adequately address certain Comprehensive Plan standards and other matters of public concern, more specifically: buffering or transitional uses; phasing of utility extensions; and access control." The staff report explained that the applicant has attempted to address the concerns of the Commission through a proffer limiting access to one point at a proposed new crossover and by changing the rezoning request from LI to CO for the smaller tract located between Deerwood Subdivision and the Laurel Hill Baptist Church. The staff report concluded: "The applicant's proffer adequately addresses earlier concerns expressed by staff; therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffer of July 2, 1986 and approval of ZMA-86-02." The report also stated that the Highway Department was still recommending that access be limited to Rt. 649; however, staff felt that an entrance aligned to a new crossover and internal road system to the Hollymead residential/commercial areas could prove beneficial by reducing cross traffic load on the Rt. 29N/ Proffit Road intersection and portion of Rt. 29N. The Highway Department also commented: "By changing the zoning on part of the request to CO, this 6.65 acre Parcel B would generate more traffic under the CO zoning than the LI zoning and this request is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan." August 12, 1986 Page 2 In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler explained that the traffic generation under current zoning (RA) would be 150 vehicle trips per day, and under the proposed LI zoning would be 2,800 vehicle trips per day. In regard to the use of septic systems in LI areas, it was determined that the discharge of anything other than domestic waste would require a special use permit. In reponse to Mr. Michel's question, it was determined this stretch of Rt. 649 was not scheduled for improvement in the current 6-year plan. Mr. Keeler also stated he was not aware of any Highway Department schedule for closing any of the crossovers on Rt. 29, though the Highway Department has the authority to close a crossover without holding a public hearing. In reference to the staff report statement that the Commission and Board have a discretionary review period of one year in which to act on a rezoning petition, it was determined this is one year, collectively. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He asked that the Commission consider the new information, i.e. the proffers, that was presented to the Board. He pointed out that the tract for which CO zoning is being requested is not linked to the main tract. He emphasized that residential development of this property would be very impractical because of its proximity to the airport and the appraised value of the property would not allow it to be subdivided into lots which could be sold on the open market. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Commission concerns and comments on this application were as follows: Diehl: She stated she had voted against the original proposal because of the large increase in traffic, and the present proposal has not improved, and possibly even worsens, that situation. She also stated there is no clear idea of how to implement the Board of Supervisors directives from last year. Bowerman: He felt the Comprehensive Plan is correct in its designation of this area for LI; however, he was mindful of the concerns for Rt. 29. He stated he could support the application except for the fact that it shows access to Rt. 29. He felt the way to access the site was on Rt. 649, which will require improvements, including possibly 4-laning of a portion. He felt the problem lies in the fact that there is no mechanism for putting into place the industrial zone recomendations that are currently in the Plan, i.e. utilities, infrastructure are lacking. Cogan: He felt the proposal was the highest and best use of the land, but the timing was not right in view of the current Comprehensive Plan review. He stated that as long as the applicant does not have any immediate plans for development, there is no hurry to rezone the property. He felt it could be done at a better time when it can be tied in with other land uses in the area. He was in favor of an overall plan for the area August 12, 1986 Page 3 which would have the least possible adverse impact and which would not inhibit the traffic flow on Rt. 29 and Proffit Road. He also felt the proposal needed to be reviewed more closely in terms of access and sewer provisions. (Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Diehl indicated agreement with Mr. Cogan.) Wilkerson: Mr. Wilkerson stated he could support the proposal if access was via Rt. 649 only. Michel: He agreed that it was mainly a matter of timing and was also concerned about the issue of sewer service. (Mr. Keeler explained that the Commission could require connection to public sewer at such time as it becomes "reasonably available.") Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-86-02 for Joseph Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Mr. Cogan stressed, for the benefit of the Board, that the Commission does feel that LI is the best use for this land, but, the timing is not right for the rezoning at this time. He viewed this as a delay in the rezoning which was inevitable at some future date. The motion for denial passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 20, 1986. SP-86-41 Kenneth L. Browning - Request to locate a single wide mobile home on a 2 acre parcel described as Tax Map 119, parcel 51A, Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is located on the west side of Rt. 717, ±.3 mile southwest of its intersection with Rt. 630. Zoned RA, Rural Area. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated that a letter of objection had been received from the owners of the undeveloped property across Rt. 717, who were concerned with an influx of transient housing. (It was later determined the person who had filed this objection was not in attendance at the meeting.) The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Browning and his son presented some photographs of the proposed site. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Linda Leap and Mr. Jerry Jordan, neighboring property owners, spoke in support of the petition. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated that the application met the criteria that is generally established for such applications. J,i Z� August 12, 1986 Page 4 Ms. Diehl moved that SP-86-41 for Kenneth L. Browning be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Maintenance of a buffer to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Ad- ministrator, along Rt. 717 to screen mobile home from the public road. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 20, 1986. Brunk Mechanical Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 16,250 square foot warehousing building (one story) on a 3.13 acre site. The site is to be served by 54 parking spaces. The property is located on the south side of Broadway Street, near the Woolen Mills area. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Tax Map 77, a portion of parcel 40D. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated th& the Highway Department would require a sight easement be established west of this entrance prior to issuance of a commercial entrance permit. It also reported that the development would be using an existing stormwater detention basin which, as a result of the proposed subdivision, would be located off of this site. Therefore, written permission or an easement for this development to use the detention basin would be required prior to approval of the subdivision plat. The applicant was requesting administrative approval of the subdivision plat. Mr. Benish added condition I.e. (Planning staff approval of landscape plan) to the suggested conditions of approval. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the requirement for an easement for the detention basin should be a part of the site plan as well as the subdivision plat. Mr. Benish pointed out the property was all owned by one owner, but that could be made a part of the site plan if the Commission so desired. Mr. Cogan stated it should be an easement and not just a letter of permission. Mr. Payne agreed. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated there were no problems with any of the conditions of approval. He stated it was his intention, as soon as the site plan is approved, to immediately draw a subdivision plat. He stated it was his intention to put an easement for the pipeline to the detention pond on that plat. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the following conditions would be added: l.f. - An easement must be recorded for the detention pond and access to the detention pond. l.g. - Sight easement must be shown on site plan, if required by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. August 12, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Cogan moved that the Brunk Mechanical Site Plan be approved, including staff approval of the subdivision plat, 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. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer lateral connection sketch for non-residential connections; e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; f. An easement must be recorded for the detention pond and access to the detention pond; g. Sight easement must be shown on site plan, if required by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. 2. Administrative approval of subdivision plat for this property. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mechums West Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 7 lots served by a proposed public road. Lots range from 6 to 11 acres with 2 lots of 21 acres each. The property is located on the south side of Rt. 682 across from Ivy Woods Sub- 11*4w division; and approximately 14 mile south of Rt. 250. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 57, parcel 53. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Ms. Diehl expressed interest in whether the developer would actually install the driveways or simply establish the driveway locations. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, explained that the developer will install the driveways. Mr. Cogan pointed out that two accesses were shown for lot 6, one onto Rt. 686 and one with an easement across lot 5. He felt only one access should be shown. Ms. Patterson stated that would be resolved before the staff would sign the final plat. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding lot 6, Mr. Foster stated the applicant would like to request a 20 foot easement to lot 6 at this time and written with deed provisions that that would be abandoned at such time as the state highway is improved. He explained this was the reason for wanting to keep the option open for the entrance opening onto the state road. i47 August 12, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Cogan again stated he did not think two accesses should be shown for lot 6, though he realized it was not his intention to make use of two accesses. Mr. Bowerman stated, "We can't deal with it if it is under deed restriction. All we can do is leave the access easement on there and allow him access to Rt. 682 also." Mr. Payne disagreed. He stated, "What we're discussing here is access to a public road; in that case, �%e do have the right to deal with the terms of an easement. What might be the easiest way to do it is to have the easement terminate, by its terms, at such time, if ever, as an entrance permit is granted by the Highway Department directly onto Rt. 682." Mr. Michel asked how it would be determined when this happens. Mr. Payne explained that the banks would pick it up. Mr. Bowerman asked if a note on the plat would be sufficient. Mr. Payne stated that it would not be, but the language of an easement would be sufficient. He added that there had to be a maintenance agreement for this driveway anyway which would have to be approved by the County Attorney. Regarding the Highway Department's recommendation that right of way for the ultimate construction of roadway improvements be dedicated across the frontage of the property, Mr. Cogan asked for comment from the applicant. Mr. Foster explained that the Herefords (applicant) and several other people have already dedicated land and it is the applicant's intention to dedicate not only the 25 feet, but to work closely with the Highway Department and dedicate additional land where it might be needed for curve alignments, etc. He pointed out that if such additional dedication should result in slightly less than a 21-acre lot, he hoped a waiver could be granted so that that parcel would not be lost. He confirmed that the dedication would be shown on the final plat. Ms. Diehl asked it if was necessary to include a condition stating that the applicant would install the driveways. It was determined condition l.f. would read: "County Engineer approval of driveway profiles and locations." Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Mechums West Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Written approval from C & 0 Railroad for work to be done in their right-of-way; b. Health Department approval; c. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations and individual entrances for lots 6 and 7; e. Issuance of an erosion control permit; f. County Engineer approval of driveway profiles and locations; g. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement. 14' <) August 12, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:10. Roslyn Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 16 lots from 3 parcels. Lot size ranges from 2.93 acres to 6.11 acres, with a 21 acre and a 66 acre lot. Fifteen lots are to be served by a proposed public road, the 66 acre lot is to continue to use an existing entrance. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 743 at the intersection with Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 45, parcels 18 and 21; Tax Map 61, parcel 1. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that a verbal objection had been received from a Mr. Dean who preferred that this land be developed as a public park. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Marcia Joseph represented the applicant but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Roslyn Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Vacation of plat creating 9.0 acres from Tax Map 45, parcel 21, dated November 2, 1983 by Thomas B. Lincoln; b. Health Department approval; c. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; e. Issuance of an erosion control permit; f. Planning staff approval of technical notes. 2. Lots 18-3, 18-4 and 18-5 are to all enter from the internal public road. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Northridge Office Park Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 3-story (with basement) office building of 58,770 square feet to be served by 259 parking spaces on 5.0257 acres. The property is located on Rt. 250W between J.W. Seig & Company and Kirtley Realty. Zoned LI, Light Industry. Tax Map 59, parcel 23B. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. August 12, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson to explain why a maintenance agreement was needed for Folly Road (condition l.a) since they did not appear to be using Folly Road. Ms. Patterson explained that they would be using Folly Road for a service entrance to their basement only. The staff report also explained that"the applicant has submitted a variance request, which will be heard by the Board of Zoning appeals on August 19, 1986. This is a request for a building height of 41 feet at a setback of 76 feet from the front property line a setback variance of 12 feet (2 feet for every 1 foot above 35 foot height). The plan before the Commission shows a building height of 35 feet at 76 feet from the front property line. The additional 6 foot height requested will be utilized in architectural features such as higher ceilings, rather than in an additional floor. It is the Commission's policy not to review items which involve a variance, until the variance is resolved. The applicant has chosen to proceed with the plan." Mr. Bowerman asked how the request for the variance effected the proposal that was presently before the Commission. Mr. Payne responded, "It has nothing to do with the variance; if the variance is granted and they want to amend the project and make it higher, the question arises as to whether that requires a substantial amendment to the plan. I think if it is just a question of raising the ceilings, it probably doesn't. For your purposes, what you're looking at is a building that does not require a variance." Ms. Diehl asked why the Commission does not normally review an application involving a variance until after a decision has been made on the variance request. Mr. Payne responded, "Because a variance is, by its nature, and definition, something which is at odds with the terms of the ordinance. In the ordinary case, where a variance is required in order to accommodate what the developer wants to do you can't approve it, because in approving a site plan you are saying that it does comply with the ordinance, and it doesn't as long as there is something that requires a variance. In this case, the developer is saying 'I can build it with 35 feet of height.' and that's what is proposed here, and that might damage his case before the Board of Zoning Appeals, but that's his problem. He is saying 'I'll build it to comply.' If they allow him a greater height, it may or may not make any difference to your approval." Mr. Payne confirmed that this would not be a deviation from the Commission's normal policy because this site plan does not show the 41 feet requested by the variance. Ms. Patterson asked the Commission to advise staff as to whether or not the wish to see an amended site plan if the variance is granted. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roudabush was present to represent the applicant. He too asked for an indication from the Commission as to whether or not a granting of the variance would be considered a significant change in the plan. He also stated that present plans call for the elimination of the access to the basement area, therefore there will be no use made of Folly Road. Therefore, he asked for deletion of condition l..a. relating to Folly Road. He also asked that staff be granted administrative approval of the location of the dumpster pad. He presented several artist's renderings of the building. August 12, 1986 Page 9 Mr. Wilkerson asked where the new service entrance would be located. Mr. Pete Clay, one of the applicants, indicated that the service road would be at the back, concealed corner of the building. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. W.J. Kirtley, adjacent property owner to the west, addressed the Commission. Mr. Kirtley stressed the dangerous traffic pattern on this section of road, particularly the lack of a right -turn lane from the west. He had no objection to this particular proposal, but felt the traffic problem should be addressed. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding Mr. Kirtley's concerns about the traffic situation, Ms. Diehl stated that the Commission has brought this to the attention of the Highway Department a number of times and the only thing to do is take a "wait -and -see" attitude. Though Mr. Cogan suggested changing condition l.a to read "No access to Folly Road," Mr. Payne stated it would be preferable to change the condition to require an amended plat showing the deletion of the access to Folly Road and the location of the proposed service entrance and dumpster pad. Regarding the issue as to whether or not the variance would constitute a significant change, it was the consensus of the Commission if the square footage was not increased, nor the parking requirements increased, and the usage of the building was not increased, staff was authorized to administratively deal with the change. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Northridge Office Park Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Staff approval of amended site plan showing: 1-deletion of access to Folly Road, 2-new service entrance to building, 3-addition of dumpster pad; b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of onsite and offsite final water and sewer plans; c. Fire official approval; d. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; e. Issuance of a runoff control permit; f. Issuance of an erosion control permit; g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance, turn lane and drainage plans; h. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations. 161 August 12, 1986 Page 10 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Officer final approval. 3. Approval is granted only for gravity -fed public sewer service. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Hollymead Rezonings - Mr. Keeler gave a staff report which stated: "During Board discussion of ZMA-86-02 Joseph W. Wright, Jr., general question arose as to the propriety of rezoning properties in Hollymead at this time in view of: (1) The Board's resolution of August 14, 1985 regarding Route 29 North; and (2) The initiation of Comprehensive Plan review by the Commission in April 1986." The report suggested the following options for handling rezoning petitions in the Hollymead area: (1) Zoning Moratorium; (2) A written Policy Statement regarding rezoning petitions in a specific geographic area; (3) Comprehensive Plan Amendment; or (4) Case -by -Case Review. The case -by -case review was the approach favored by staff. Mr. Payne commented on the four options as follows: (1) Zoning Moratorium: Unlawful except in very limited circumstances. (2) Written Policy Statement: Has no legal significance unless adopted into the plan and can only be damaging to the County. (3) Comp Plan Amendment: Obviously not practical at this time and would be so disruptive as to be damaging to the County. (4) Case -by -Case Review: Only logical approach. Mr. Payne did not feel the first three options were worth debating. It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission to treat each rezoning petition on a case -by -case basis, being mindful of the Board's concerns. The Commission stressed that it was felt this was the best approach at this time. Resolution of Intent - The Commission unanimously adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the language of the ordinance as it relates to Fire Separations. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. DS .%4 J944i Horne, Secreta: R 16 ;