HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 03 87 PC MinutesOR
March 3, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 3, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr.
Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; 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; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of
Community Development; Mr. Pat Ford, Planner; 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 February 17 were approved
as submitted.
SP-87-10 Paul Opiela - Request in accordance with Sections 27.2.2.5 and
5.1.24 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special
use permit to allow the construction of a warehouse on a vacant 6.399 acre
parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 5F is located on the east
side of Rt. 29N, north of Badger-Powatan. Zoned LI, Light Industrial.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Ford presented the staff report. Due to the fact that the entrance
to the site will not be located across from a median break, there was
concern about tractor trailers accessing the site. The report explained:
"Southbound tractor trailers will be required to make U-turns at the break
in the median. As a result of discussion between the Planning staff and
applicant, the applicant is attempting to obtain an easement through the
parcel located south of his property.... Vehicular access to the three
adjacent industrial zoned parcels could thus be internalized on a service
road which would allow all three parcels to utilize the crossover on
Route 29N and provide for more fluent circulation on site. If an easement
is not acquired by the applicant, the planning staff will strongly recommend
that an easement be provided when the property to the south develops."
Mr. Ford confirmed that the Highway Department was in agreement with
staff's recommendation and he also confirmed that the Highway Department
had no objections to the proposal even if easements are not available.
Mr. Ford also corrected condition 1 of the staff report to limit the
building area to 16,800 square feet instead of 12,000 square feet.
He explained this additional 4,800 feet was "strictly warehouse" and
would not effect the office and retail area.
It was determined the special permit pertained only to the 58,500 square
foot lot at the northwest portion of the parcel and not the entire 6 acres.
It was determined public sewer is available to the property, but not
public water.
9",
March 3, 1987 Page 2
It was determined this permit could not be conditioned upon an easement
being obtained across a vacant piece of property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Keller, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He clarified that "retail sales" referred to on page 2 of the staff
report actually means "over-the-counter" sales. He explained that
the contract purchaser of the property has approached Virginia Land
Company about the easement issue and it has been determined that
this will result in sizeable expense to the applicant (i.e. cost
for a master plan and additional pavement). Regarding condition 3
(All storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted.)
he stated that though there should be no need for outside storage
for many years to come, the applicant would. prefer not to be bound
by this condition in the event that the business does prosper and
12,000 square feet of internal space should become insufficient.
He pointed out that there are many by -right uses in the LI district
which allow or necessitate the use of outdoor storage.
It was determined 20-30 foot UPS trucks and 30-40 foot tractor trailer
trucks would be servicing the property. Mr. Cogan was concerned
about the.necessity of trucks arriving from the north having to
make U-turns on Rt. 29, particularly since there will be no left -turn
lane at the crossover.
The applicant pointed out that trucks are currently required to make
this same movement to access Badger-Powatan. Mr. Cogan pointed out,
however, that a U-turn is somewhat different than a left turn. Mr.
Keller explained that the median itself was wide enough to accommodate
the turn and the wider pavement in front of the Badger-Powatan entrance
also offered more space for the turn. It was determined that
written comments had been received from the Highway Department but
they did not address this issue directly.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated his only concern was the U-turn issue, but he noted
that same concern would apply to a by -right submittal. Mr. Cogan
cautioned the applicant that at the time of the site plan submittal
there may be different comments from the Highway Department, e.g.
there may be recommendations for improvements. Mr. Keeler noted that
the comments received thus far from the Highway Department do not
mention any improvements.
Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that as the business expands the tractor
trailer deliveries will become much more frequent than three per week.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that tractor trailer traffic was a concern, but
he felt that it was not significant enough to outweigh all other aspects
of the proposal. He pointed out that tractor trailers make this type
of maneuver on 29 daily without creating problems since they are not
present at peak traffic times.
Mr. Gould ask that staff pursue the matter with the Highway Department
at the time of site review.
C'r7
March 3, 1987
Page 3
Mr. Bowerman agreed that a decel lane for trucks coming from the north
was a worthwhile objective.
Mr. Cogan questioned how to handle traffic exiting the site which wished
to go south on Rt. 29. As pointed out by Mr. Keller, he agreed that was
an even bigger problem. Mr. Bowerman suggested such traffic could
proceed north to the GE intersection and make the turn back to the south
at that point.
Mr. Gould moved that Sp-87-10 for Paul Opiela be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building area limited to 16,800 square feet in northwest portion of
site as designated by the Master Plan.
2. Planning Commission approval of site plan to include method of screening
warehouse from Route 29N and Rural Area district (Tax Map 32, parcel 5)
located to the north of the site.
3. All storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Regarding the applicant's request for a removal of the restriction on
outside storage, it was felt the applicant could request a change in
the special permit at such time as outside storage might be needed.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 1987.
SP-87-5 Wrenson Corporation - Request in accordance with Section 24.2.2(1)
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special use permit
to allow construction of a bowling alley. Property, described as Tax
Map 45, Parcel 112C and 112D1 is located on the west side of Rt. 29N,
approximately 1200 feet north of the intersection with Woodbrook Drive.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler stated staff had no objection
to changing the number of allowable amusement games from 10 to 25
(condition 1) as requested by the applicant. Regarding suggested condition
2 (Maintain a one -hundred foot undistrubed tree buffer along residentially
zoned boundaries.) Mr. Keeler stated the applicant was concerned about
this condition because it would remove approximately 1.6 acres from
development of the site. He stated that if the Commission wished to change
the condition, the following could be substituted as condition 2:
"Maintain a 100-foot undisturbed tree buffer along residentially -zoned
boundaries, provided that the Planning Commission may reduce this
tree buffer upon demonstration by the applicant that the applicant's
proposal provides equal satisfaction, in terms of buffering, as the
100-foot buffer."
Mr. Gould asked if the parking requirement (4 spaces/lane) included
employee parking. Mr. Keeler explained that this requirement was
taken from the City ordinance since the County ordinance does
not state a requirement for this use. He assumed the requirement
C?Aj
March 3, 1987
Page 4
had included employee parking.
It was determined the building would be 46,200 square feet (little
over an acre) .
In response to Mr. Gould's question about the nursery, Mr. Keeler
explained this would just be a baby-sitting service for the
children of the bowlers.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mike Stoner, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He presented the Commission with a document which addressed the
issues brought out in the staff report. He commented on these issues
as follows:
--100-foot tree buffer: He felt this was excessive since the
HC district currently recommends a 20-foot parking setback and
a 50-foot building setback. He pointed out that the adjoining
parcel is not currently developed and a 2-acre parcel to the
rear currently has one rental unit on it. He stressed that a
100-foot setback represented 21% of the proposal's land area
which would "inflate our effective land cost to a point that
jeopardizes the viability of our project and thus will negatively
effect our ability to find required investors' support." He
stated that the owners of parcels 112 and 112E have indicated
no opposition to the proposed use and feel the proposed
project would favorably effect their land values. He stated
it is the applicant's belief that surrounding parcels will
be developed commercially.
--Amusement games restriction: He asked that no restriction be placed
on the number of games. He explained that the request had not
stated a specific number because research has not been completed.
He pointed out that it is the applicant's intent to provide a family
recreation center and the amusement games will provide entertainment
for those family members who cannot, or do not wish to bowl, as
well as interim entertainment for persons waiting to bowl.
--Hours of operation: Though the applicant had no objection to
those hours proposed by staff, he asked that the Commission be
flexible should it be determined that an added hour might be
desirable on weekends.
--Parking requirements: No problems.
--Public water and sewer: "We are prepared to participate in the
extension of the sewer from whatever direction the sewer authority
would like us to bring it in conjunction with other land owners.
This cost would likely be borne by the relative few who own and
develop property in the area. We are prepared to participate
generously but must note that it absorbs our financial cushion
to meet supplemental restrictions eliminating the use of 20% of
our site...."
The chairman invited public comment.
R
rV74-01
March 3, 1987
Page 5
Mr. Steve von Stewark, owner of parcel 112E stated he expects to develop
his property commercially. He expressed no opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Stewart Wood, owner of the adjacent property, stated he has no
immediate plans for development of his property. He expressed no
opposition to the proposal.
It was determined both Mr. von Stewark's and Mr. Wood's properties lie
to the rear of the applicant's property and are currently zoned R-6.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan listed the three main issues of the proposal as follows:
(1) The number of amusement games; (2) The buffer zone requirement; and
(3) Highway access. The Commission's comments and actions on these
issues were as follows:
--Amusement games: Mr. Keeler stated that an "amusement center" is
always a use by special permit and the Commission has historically
put a cap on the number of games to maintain control. It was the
consensus of the Commission that 25 games was a generous figure
at this time with the applicant having the right to request a larger
number at some future date if deemed desirable.
--Buffer zone: It was the consensus of the Commission that since there
were no objections fran surrounding property owners, Mr. Keeler's
amended condition No. 2 (as previously stated) could be substituted
since this would allow the applicant some flexibility. This issue
was to be dealt with in more detail at site review.
--Highway access: The Commission was particularly concerned about
traffic exiting the site and wishing to go north on Rt. 29. There
was some discussion about whether traffic could proceed south to the
light at Woodbrook and make a U-turn. Mr. Keeler felt there
was inadequate sight distance to make a U-turn at this point.
There was some question as to whether U-turns were allowed at this
intersection. Mr. Keeler felt there were allowable for southbound
traffic. Mr. Cogan was also concerned about the inadequacy of the
crossover before the one at Woodbrook (at the old gas station).
He also pointed out the poor visability for any traffic exiting
the site because of the vertical depression in the road at this
point. Mr. Keeler stated that before site plan review he
would ask the Highway Department if the traffic generated from
this use would warrant the closing of the crossover immediately
to the south. That would force all the traffic to the Woodbrook
crossover. It was agreed that most traffic would use the cross-
over closest to the site. Mr. Cogan asked what would happen if
the Highway Department, at the time of site review, determines
there is inadequate sight distance at this point. Mr. Keeler
responded, "That is a matter of public safety. The bottom line
there is, 'Do you want a use there, in terms of the Highway
Department's minimum criteria for a commercial entrance, which cannot
1400✓ be located there safely?' You can deny a site plan based on that."
/rnn
March 3, 1987
Page 6
In response to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Stoner, the applicant,
acknowledged that he was aware of the sight distance issue, and
what the results could possibly be. Mr. Cogan stated he could
envision the same problem even with a by -right use, though this
use has a particularly high traffic generation. Ms. Diehl
expressed concern about the possibility of an existing
commercial entrance permit for the property (possibly granted
for some previous use). She wondered if the existence of such a
permit would prohibit the Highway Department from making additional
requirements. Mr. Cogan felt that even if this was the case, it
would not prohibit the Commission from imposing certain requirements.
Mr. Payne commented: "This is something that has come up before
and the Highway Department has handled it differently in different
instances in my experience. I am familiar with at least three
instances where the Highway Department has addressed this issue
and in one of them it was my opinion that the Highway Department
had the authority to require the commercial entrance to be upgraded.
The Highway Department's representatives in the Attorney General's
Office disagreed with it; it was litigated and the Court sustained
my position. In the other two instances the Highway Department's
legal advisors agreed with my position that they did have the
authority to do that. I don't think there is any question about
it, frankly. I think the statute is perfectly clear and there is
specific, express statutory authority for the Highway Department
to do this. The other thing... that is entirely clear, and we do
have at least a Circuit Court case on this matter, that you do have
the authority to deny an application for a site plan on the basis
of the inadequacy of the entrance. In that instance, in my judgment,
the Highway Department stands as your experts. In other words,
if the Highway Department came in here and said, 'We don't have
any authority to do this, but you shouldn't allow it because it's
dangerous,' in my opinion you have the authority... to deny that
site plan if that entrance is required. You don't have to approve
something that is dangerous. That's the bottom line." Mr.Payne
added that the statute does not refer to "commercial entrance" but
rather to "entrance for commercial establishement." He felt that
was a substantial difference.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-87-5 for Wrenson Corporation be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the property limited to a 48-lane bowling alley
together with accessory uses as described in applicant's submittal
"Description of Facility Operation" which is Attachment A of this
report. Not more than 25 amusement games/devices as defined by
the Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted.
2. Maintain a 100-foot undisturbed tree buffer along residentially -zoned
boundaries, provided that the Planning Commission may reduce this
tree buffer upon demonstration by the applicant that the applicant's
proposal provides equal satisfaction, in terms of buffering, as the
100-foot buffer.
Z","
March 3, 1987
Page 7
M
3. Hours of operation limited to 9AM to 12AM, except for Fridays and
Saturdays when the facility may be operated from LOAM to 1AM.
4. Provide four (4) parking spaces per bowling lane.
5. The use shall be served by public water and public sewer.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on March 18, 1987.
Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Cilimberg presented a status report on the progress
of the two Comprehensive Plan Subcommittees.
He reported that, to date, the Transportation and Public Services Subcommittee
has adopted the following policies and guidelines:
--Accepted staff employment projections for 1990-2010.
--Accepted the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget Population
Projections for 1990-2010.
--Accepted the need for a methodology to estimate industrial and
commercial land use needs.
--Endorsed the concept of establishing a functional classification system
for the County.
--Endorsed the concept of developing and using a standarized criteria -
based rating system for road improvement projects.
--Jurisdictional area should follow the boundaries of the designated
growth areas.
--Review of growth area boundaries should consider their functional
support for utility expansion.
--Densities within urban neighborhoods and communities support cost-
effective utility expansion.
--Changes to jurisdictional areas should only be allowed in cases where
the property is very near or adjacent to existing lines and public
health or safety is compromised.
--Private central water and sewer systems should not be allowed in
urban neighborhoods and communities.
--All public and private water and sewer facilities should be built
to an ultimate design capacity consistent with the recommended land
use densities in the Comprehensive Plan coordinated with the timing
of development.
--A hierarchical system for identifying funding sources should be
established based on the type of project that may be undertaken in the
future.
--Endorsed the concept of doing a utility needs assessment of all
structural and capacity problems existing or anticipated in the
future and that there be a planning process for long-term needs
that would involve the County Service Authority, the Rivanna
Authority, the City of Charlottesville, the University of
Virginia, Albemarle County and that there be a utility master plan
for the region which would recommend specific projects to be
programmed over the planning period.
/D
March 3, 1987
Page 8
--Sewer service to the Village of Ivy, if recommended by the Land
Use Subcommittee, to be provided by access to the Crozet Inteceptor.
--No public sewer service to Earlysville, but public water service
extended, if recommended by the Land Use Subcommittee, could
come from an extension of the Service Authority's service in the
airport area.
--Public sewer service could be available to Piney Mountain area
through Camelot Treatment Plant.
--Extension of water and sewer from Town of Scottsville to the Village
area would provide for additional needs there.
--Stoney Point and North Garden should be supported by development of
a central water and/or sewer system.
Recommendations made by the Land Use Subcommittee, to date, include the
following:
--Endorsed the concept of eliminating the special use permit under
Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for additional lots and
rearrangement of lots on multiple parcels. The Subcommittee chose
not to eliminate the special use permit for changes in lot sizes.
--Endorsed the concept of maintaining the existing five development
rights as implemented in 1980.
The following recommendations were not endorsed by the Committee
but are to be discussed by the full Commission:
--To maintain a minimum lot size of 2 acres and establish a maximum
lot size of 6 acres on development right lots.
--To reduce the existing number of possible by -right divisions other
than the first five development right lots by either an increase
in the current minimum lot size of 21 acres to approximately 50 acres
or through a sliding scale.
--To permit the option to develop additional development right lots
in lieu of dividing the residue acreage into large parcels. Additional
lots shall be developed on internal roads.
Mr. Cilimberg requested a clarification of the urban area growth policy
adopted by the Commission on December 16, 1986. The staff was under the
impression the policy was as follows: "For urban neighborhoods, the
overall residential holding capacity of the urban area should be maintained
at its current capacity; however, some additional land will be necessary
to offset severe topographic conditions and residential land developed
for other uses." Mr. Cilimberg stated that some subcommittee members
were under the impression that the "residential holding capacity of the
urban area should be increased."
Mr. Cogan stated it was his understanding that the first part of the
statement read by Mr. Cilimberg was correct but the question lies with
the second part of the statement. He stated it was intended that "residential
land developed for other uses" mean additional land in the urban area to
sustain lower -density residential uses that would be contiguous or adjacent
to existing boundaries of the urban area. This would be additional land, not
additional density. Mr. Cogan stated further that he felt it was intended
In-3
March 3, 1987 Page 9
that the Commission wished to "maintain the current capacity (number
of dwelling units --same density) with the exception that we found that some
`✓ portions of the urban area that were designated for certain densities and
certain residential capacities couldn't sustain it because of topographical
limitations and therefore we would make up for that either by increasing
a density or by adding additional land to maintain the overall population
figure, the overall dwelling unit figure. That was one part of it. The
other part was we had seriously discussed adding additional land or extending
the boundaries of the urban area in certain areas with the thought in mind
of permitting lower density residential development."
It was determined this did not include the watershed areas, but rather areas
east and south, with Cismont and Keswick being mentioned. It was recalled
that those areas were discussed, but no conclusion was reached.
Mr. Michel stated he agreed with Mr. Cogan's explanation but he had questioned
staff's statement because he could notrecall the Commission precluding the
idea of increasing numbers.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the policy statement does preclude increasing
numbers, though possibly it could have been adopted incorrectly.
Mr. Michel stated that was the point on which he was unclear.
Mr. Horne explained it is important that staff determine the Commission's
intent because, "we are looking for these areas and we want to know how far
to look." He added, "We are only looking for replacement areas right
now," i.e. replacing what has been lost through topographic or other
physical features, while maintaining that number at the same level.
Mr. Cogan asked how the level would be maintained --by increasing densities
in existing areas or by adding more areas?
Mr. Horne replied that at this point staff is considering additional land.
Mr. Cogan stated the two could be tied together, i.e. additional land is
needed to maintain the current capacity and also additional land for the
addition of lower density residential uses.
Mr. Horne stated that the two were viewed by staff as being very
different.
Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with the policy statement as read by Mr.
Cilimberg. She stated it was her understanding that the Commission had
said "Let's maintain the status quo until we see where that's going to leave
us, because we wanted to see how much area we're talking about is going to
be needed to add to the current area to maintain that capacity before we
made any decisions on increasing that density." Ms. Diehl felt it must
first be determined how much land would be involved with the "first scenario"
before moving on to the second. She questioned how it could have been
decided to increase the urban area without tying all the other areas
together.
March 3, 1987 Page 10
Mr. Horne asked it it was possible for staff to continue "along with what
we're talking about for right now."
Mr. Cogan replied, "I think this should stay by itself. Let this stand on
its own and then we'll address the other as we go through our subcommittee
meetings."
Mr. Horne stated, "The staff will operate on a replacement basis for right
now."
Mr. Cogan concluded he felt the Commission felt that these were two
seperate issues and "This will stand on its own."
Economic Development Policy - Mr. Cilimberg asked for the Commission's
guidance on the concept of the development of an Economic Development
Policy, i.e. is it relevant to the Comprehensive Plan and should it be
pursued.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the Commission had already stated that the
County does not wish to be involved in the recruitment of industry.
Mr. Horne clarified that the term "Economic Development Policy" as
perceived by staff, does not in any way mean industrial promotion.
He explained that industrial promotion would just be one of several
"tools" which would be used if more industrial growth was desired.
He explained that staff is referring to "whether or not (the Commission)
wants to analyze the structure of your economy and identify strengths
and weaknesses...." He stated that if the Commission is not interested
in addressing the issues which might be identified in an analysis, then
staff feels a detailed analysis should not be undertaken.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the issue should not be ignored entirely.
He felt it would be desirable to have an analysis of "what we currently
have and its strengths and weaknesses." He felt this would aid in
determining the need for future policy statements.
Mr. Michel was concerned about the additional work load such an
analysis would create for staff, particularly since the usefulness of
such an analysis is in question.
Commissioners Cogan, Michel and Diehl indicated they were not in
favor of such a project. Mr. Cogan stated he felt there were many other
more important issues to be dealt with. Mr. Wilkerson agreed that it
was not an integral part of the Plan.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the County already has an Industrial
Development Policy, adopted around 1979. He felt that, as an
absolute minimum, the Commission might wish to review that document.
Mr. Gould indicated he felt the County should have an Economic Development
Policy. He pointed out that the University is considering "incubated
development" and he felt the County should be prepared to address that
possibility in a meaningful fashion.
/O 5`_
March 3, 1987
Page 11
Regarding the Industrial Development Policy referred to by Mr. Keeler,
it was determined this was passed by the Board of Supervisors
r primarily as a support for the Industrial Development Authority
and is not a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Horne stated that if the Commission does not make any statement
whatsoever about any County government role in the structure of the
economy, that is, in fact, a "de facto" policy decision.
Mr. Cogan stated he was satisfied with a "de facto" policy.
There was some confusion as to whether those Commissioners opposed
to the concept were opposed to a policy or opposed to an analysis
being done.
Ms. Diehl felt that the data derived from such an analysis could
be helpful, but questioned whether it would have any significance
to the current Comprehensive Plan review. She added, however, that
she did not see how any of the goals of the land use considerations
could be accomplished without such an analysis being done.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated the emphasis of the analysis would be to
develop a policy.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Horne what he had concluded from the Commission's
discussion.
Mr. Horne stated, "I would be under the impression it is not worth the
staff's time right now. ... We would go through a lot of work, put together
a lot of data and it would be put to no particular use, therefore, from
my staff's point of view, I think it is not worth it."
Mr. Gould concluded: "I see no point in asking you to do something that
no one wants to consider."
CIP Work Schedule - Mr. Cilimberg presented a schedule for upcoming
CIP Work Sessions. The schedule was to be discussed further at the March
10th meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
� c2
31X C7
J hn Horne, Secretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms
9