HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 21 86 PC MinutesOctober 21, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 21, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr.
Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present
were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
David Benish, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 7, 1986 meeting were
approved as submitted.
Earlysville Forest Commercial Area, Final Plat - Proposal to create four (4)
lots from a 3.7 t acre parcel, for an average lot size of .92 acres. Zoned
PUD, Planned Unit Development. The property is located at the intersection of
Rt. 743 and Earlysville Forest Drive, in Earlysville. Tax Map 31B, Parcel C.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
Of particular concern to the Commission was the fact that Health Department
approval for the septic fields had not yet been received. The staff report
included the following statement in relation to this issue:
"The central septic field will be located in a portion of
the designated common open space adjacent to several lots in the
Earlysville Forest residential development. The Earlysville Forest
Homeowners Association is concerned that this proposed location will
require the clearing of most of the trees between the rear lot lines and Rt.
743. ... It is staff's opinion that the homeowners' association approval
is required for the applicant to locate the septic fields in any common area."
Mr. Benish reported that the applicant and the homeowners' association
have reached an agreement on this issue.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to the reason for the delay in obtain-
ing Health Department approval, Mr. Benish explained there had been a delay
in Board approval which had delayed the applicant's timing in closing on the
property.
It was determined that Health Department approval could possibly allow the
applicant to use the area which was of concern to the homeowners' association.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated
he had no objections to the conditions of approval and he also felt that
the condition requiring Health department approval of the central septic
facility (l.a.) before signing of the final plat, was sufficient to address
the concerns of the Commission.
October 21, 1986
Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she had a problem with approving a final plat without
Health Department approval. She stated she could find no reason to deviate
from the established policy of the Commission. She was particularly concerned
about the homeowners' concern regarding the location of the septic field.
Mr. Gilliam again stated he felt condition l.a. addressed Ms. Diehl's concern.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that it is the policy of the Commission to require
Health Department approval before approving a final plat.
Mr. Gilliam explained that there is no problem with locating the septic field,
but the Health Department simply has not gotten to their application as of yet.
Some discussion took place about the possibility of placing a time limit
on condition l.a., but there was little support for this suggestion.
Mr. Jeff Joseph, a representative of the homeowners' association, confirmed
that an agreement has been reached with the applicant and that the association
has no objection to any of the sites proposed by the applicant, but they
would prefer the site closest to lot 8 be used as a last choice.
Mr. Cogan was concerned that granting approval without having received
Health Department approval, even with a date limitation, would be setting
a precedent.
Though staff suggested that homeowners' assocation approval be added as
a condition of approval, Mr. Cogan pointed out that it has been the Commission's
policy not to become involved in private agreements between individuals.
Mr. Benish explained that this case was somewhat different because "those lot
sizes don't meet minimum standards for being served by one facility; either
they have a central septic system or this proposal isn't valid." He confirmed
it was for this situation that Board approval had been granted.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he would like to approve the application, but he
could see no way to do this at this time which "would not put the Commission
in a box in a case where the facts might be a little different."
The Chairman suggested a two week deferral. Mr. Gilliam noted his objection
to a deferral.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Earlysville Forest Commercial Area Final Plat be
deferred to November 11.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Note: Mr. Payne excused himself from the meeting for the following agenda
items due to a conflict of interests.
��b
October 21, 1986
Page 3
ZMA-86-4 Christian Missionary Alliance Bible Church - Under ZMA-86-4, the
applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.731 acres of the
existing 5.207 acre parcel from R-2, Residential to CO, Commercial Office
(PROFFER). Property , described as Tax Map 61, parcel 127 (part of) is
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 631 (Rio Road)
and Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road) in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
and
SP-86-50 Christian Missionary Alliance Bible Church - Under SP-86-50, the
applicant seeks relief from condition 1. of SP-84-45 to permit the same
1.731 acres to have access to Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Property, described as
Tax Map 61, parcel 127 (part of) is located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) and Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road) in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff reports. The report included the following
statement:
"The only matter of public interest identified by staff is concern
of access to Rio Road. Property to the north is zoned CO, Commercial
Office and occupied by Bill Bailey (Caldwell Banker) Realty. Mr. Bailey
DBA/Rio Land Trust is contract purchaser of the property proposed for
rezoning. Due to title differences, these two properties would not be
combined, however, Mr. Bailey has proffered joint access for the
two properties."
The applicant's proffer was as follows:
"Access from State Rt. 631 to the 1.731 acre parcel will be limited to one
entrance to be located over a "joint access easement" on parcel 128
Tax Map 61. This access easement is shown on the attached subdivision
plat of Parcels X and Y prepared by Roudabush, Greene, and Gale, Inc.
P.C. revised July 21, 1986 and also shown on an attached plat showing
Joint Access Easement to serve Tax Map 61, Parcel 128 and Parcel X
which is to be subdivided from Tax Map 61, Parcel 127 prepared by
Roudabush, Greene, and Gale Inc. dated September 11, 1986."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Richard Thurston, Pastor of the church, addressed the Commission. He
offered no additional comments.
The Chairman asked Mr. Bailey about his intended use for the z acre. Mr.
Bailey responded it was mainly for "protection" of his existing property
and possibly might be used for an "over -run" of parking at some future
time. He stated that possibilities for expansion were very limited.
He confirmed he had no immediate plans for construction.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following people addressed the Commission: Ms. Carolyn Mustoe, Mr.
Henry Hansen, Ms. Karen Devies, and David Devies. All were residents of
Northfields Road. Their concerns included the following:
October 21, 1986
Page 4
--What could possibly be built on the property in the future.
(The Chairman explained that any future use could only be of a commercial -
office, non -retail nature, with low traffic generation. He explained
that a use such as a restaurant would not be allowed.)
--Additional entrances onto Rio Road.
(Mr. Keeler explained that as a result of the applicant's proffer,
there will be no additional entrances onto Rio Road, though there could
be a slight increase in traffic.)
--Possible access to Old Brook Road.
(The Chairman explained that this application proposes no entrance onto
Old Brook Road and such an entrance at a future time would be difficult
to obtain since an easement would have to be granted from the Church.)
The Chairman explained to the public that though he understood their concern,
the questions they had raised were not issues before the Commission at this
time.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan in relation to the uses contemplated in that area.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-86-4 and SP-86-50 for Christian Missionary Alliance
Bible Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. ZMA-86-4 - Acceptance of the applicant's proffer for joint access between
Tax Map 61, parcel 128 and 1.731 acre portion of Tax Map 61, parcel 127;
2. SP-86-50 - Amend Condition 1 of SP-84-45 to read as follows:
1. Access from 3.163 acre residue of Tax Map 61, parcel 127 restricted
to Old Brook Road (Rt. 652).
3. Staff approval of subdivision plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on November 5, 1986.
(Note: Mr. Payne returned to the meeting.)
ZMA-86-07 Mary V. Doggett - Mary V. Doggett petitions th=_Board of Supervisors
to rezone 11.86 acres from R-1, Residential to PD-MC, Planned Development -
Mixed Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 91, parcels 1, 1A, 1B, and
1E, is located on the east side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) south and
adjacent to Hillcrest in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The staff's recommendation on the application
was as follows:
"In the report for the prior Light Industrial rezoning petition, staff
stated 'at this time, staff cannot recommend favorably on any zoning other
than residential, based on the Comprehensive Plan.' Therefore, staff
cannot recommend favorably on this current petition."
October 21, 1986 Page 5
Mr. Keeler explained that the "Lots" referred to in the suggested conditions
of approval were actually "areas" because "these are not approved lots at this
time."
Mr. Keeler read the following proffer which he had received from Mr. Rice:
"The applicant proffers that the aggregate traffic generation from
Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not exceed 500 trips per day."
He explained that staff had recommended 830 trips per day and felt that
the 500 proposed by the applicant's representative was "cutting it a little
close," though the Commission was free to accept the applicant's proposal
of 500.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Frank Buck, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated the applicant felt the proposal was consistent with surrounding
properties and addressed the concerns of the Board and Commission and also
was an economically sensible use for the property. He presented photographs
of other commercial uses in the area.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to Condition No. 5 (Commission reserves the right to require connection
to public water and/or sewer if deemed reasonably available at time of
site plan approval), Mr. Michel asked if the Commission could require such
connection, "lot by lot." Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively.
Mr. Keeler also confirmed the Commission could restrict a site plan if
there was indication that the plan would exceed the vehicle trips per day
that the applicant has proffered.
Mr. Payne made the following statement regarding the applicant's proffer:
"There's nothing in the file that Mr. Rice is, in fact, authorized to
make this proffer. ... I think you should treat the proffer as not being
perfected." Mr. Payne confirmed a way of handling this was to change
the number in condition No. 6 from 830 vehicle trips to 500 vehicle trips.
Mr. Payne also confirmed that the proffer could be perfected prior to Board
review.
Ms. Diehl indicated she did not have a problem with the application since she
felt there was not much other way to use the property.
Mr. Cogan agreed but stated that he was concerned about the idea of tractor -
trailers having to get to I-64 from Avon Street, since the only route is
very undesirable.
Mr. Michel stated he was concerned about utilities and also the possbility
that another "de facto" industrial zone is being created that will run from
I-64 to Rt. 20. He felt this could lead to rezoning more of surrounding
property from Residential to industrial usage which "impacts the Comprehensive
*'%ur Plan in a negative way."
'a 19,
October 21, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Horne pointed out that staff shared Mr. Michel's concerns. He stated
that though it may be possible to address many of the physical issues
on this type of use, "the fact remains the Comprehensive Plan does not show
this use in this location and to do so now may, in fact, be painting us
into somewhat of a corner as we start into this review of the Comprehensive
Plan. It is unfortunate that our review is not concurrent with the timing
necessary for Ms. Doggett."
Mr. Cogan felt that the proposal was "a little ahead of its time" considering
the fact that the road and utility networks are not in place.
Mr.Bowerman indicated he understood both Mr. Cogan and Ms. Diehl's positions,
but felt that the Commission would have adequate control over the development
through site plan approvals.
Mr. Cogan questioned the amount of control the Commission would have at the
time of a site plan.
Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission always has the authority to consider public
health and safety.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt this was a reasonable use for the property and the
applicant has demonstrated that it can be developed in a way that is compatible
with the surrounding area.
Mr. Cogan conceded that it did appear to be a "low intensive use" of the land.
Mr. Michel still expressed concern about condition No. 5 and indicated he
was unsure of the meaning of the term "reasonably available."
Mr. Keeler explained reasonable availability is usually determined by
"how much it would cost to extend utilities to the site compared to providing
them on -site."
Mr. Michel stated he was concerned about "even such a light industrial use as
this" without public utilities being "a little further along."
Mr. Horne stated that the Commission could assume that the applicant anticipates
developing without public water and sewer.
Mr. Payne explained that the critical question in determining reasonable
availability is, "If this were to be developed along the lines that the
applicant has suggested, and (a site plan) came in today, would you, as
a member of this Commission, consider it to be reasonable to require the
extension of these utilities to the site to serve those users?"
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-86-07 for Mary V. Doggett be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Lot 1 shall remain zoned R-1, Residential. Lot 2 shall be zoned PD-MC,
Planned Development -Mixed Commercial with uses limited to CO, Commercial
Office uses as permitted in that zoning district. Lot 3, 4, and 5 shall be
zoned PD-MC and shall enjoy all uses as permitted in the PD-MC zoning district
except that no retail uses shall be permitted.
7 �4
October 21, 1986
Page 7
2. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall not have access directly to Rt. 742 but shall be
served by an internal public or private road, whichever shall be permitted
by the Planning Commission at time of subdivision approval. Access shall
be provided to such internal road for adjoining property (Tax Map 91, parcel
1D; zoned LI).
3. Not more than one use shall be located on any lot and not more than 4
commercial lots shall be permitted. No development shall occur until
subdivision approval has been obtained.
4. In addition to requirements of Section 25A and other applicable provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance, a 50-foot undisturbed buffer shall be maintained
along all residential zoning boundaries.
5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to require connection to public water
and/or sewer if deemed reasonably available at time of site plan approval.
6. Traffic generation from Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall not exceed 500 vehicle
trips per day. The applicant shall allot traffic generation to lots at
time of subdivision approval provided that generation limitations may be
reallocated at future time upon consent of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed (4:3) with Commissioners Wilkerson,
Cogan and Michel casting the dissenting votes.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on November 5, 1986.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Keeler reported that he had received a copy of a "Document of Complaint"
from the Key West residents in relation to the S.L. Williamson issue. He
stated the Commissioners could pick up a copy of the document if they
so desired. Mr. Payne explained that he had received the original of this
document and had also received comments from Mr. Williamson's counsel on
the matter. He stated that after he had reviewed both sides of the issue
he would make a report to the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
DS
OR
John Horne, Se retary