Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 19 87 PC MinutesMay 19, 1987 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 19, 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; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. Mike Armm, County Engineer; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 5, 1987 were approved as submitted. University Village Marketing Center Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 3,220 square foot one-story building to serve as a marketing center and model living unit for the University Village Retirement Community. The site will be served by 20 parking spaces. The total area of the site is 61.39 acres. Zoned R-10, Residential with proffer. Property, located on Old Ivy Road (St. Rt. 601) adjacent to Huntington Village and Ivy Gardens apartment complex. Tax Map 60, Parcel 53. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Deferred from May 12, 1987. Staff reported that the applicant was again requesting deferral of this item to May 26, 1987. Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the University Village Marketing Center Site Plan be deferred to May 26, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA-87-04 Health Resort/Farm - Blanka S. Rosentiel petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend 10.0 RA, Rural Areas zone to include Health Resort/Farm by special use permit and to amend 3.0 Definitions to include health resort. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report which included a statement of the proposed ordinance amendment. The staff report focused on the relation- ship of health resort to the RA zone. An addendum to the report focused on the relationship of health resort to other zones. During the reading of the staff report, Mr. Payne added the following as item (F) under 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, 5.1.30 HEALTH RESORT: "F. It is intended that the scale of development be consistent with the rural character of the RA district. Accordingly, except as otherwise expressly provided by the governing body in a particular case, the area of total improvements shall not exceed 2% [This was changed to 3% later in the meeting.] of the gross area of the site. For purposes of this section, the term 'total improvements' shall include all /79 May 19, 1987 Page 2 buildings, structures, roads [Roads was later deleted.], parking areas, tennis courts, swimming pools and other paved areas located on the site, exclusive of access road open to the public [This last phrase, beginning with 'exclusive' was added later.]." Mr. Payne explained the purpose of this addition was to limit the use in terms of construction of improvements. The staff report made the following summary and recommendation: "In recent Comprehensive Plan work sessions, the Planning Commission reaffirmed a growth management policy for the Rural Areas intended to: 1. Deliver public services in an orderly fashion and in the most cost-efficient manner; 2. Conserve the County's natural, scenic and historic resources; 3. Protect existing and future water supply impoundment watersheds and groundwater resources; and 4. Preserve the County's prime and important farmlands and forestal areas. Such policy may be difficult to sustain if uses are permitted in the RA zone that bear little or nor relationship to the policy. In view of this policy and due to extensive acreage requirements, traffic generation, and other considerations, staff has recommended that health resort be reviewed under the RA subdivision special permit criteria in addition to the requirements of 31.2.4.1. In summary, staff opinion is that health resort is a use normally anticipated in a rural setting but health resort appears foreign to the statement of intent of the RA zone. Therefore, staff views the proposed amendment as a policy decision by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as to the future character of the Rural Areas." In addition, the.addendum to the staff report included the following statements: "The Planning Commission is currently considering expansion of the urban area in its Comprehensive Plan review to accommodate additional low -density residential development. Conversion of residential land to other uses would be contrary to this effort and could result in additional needs for growth area expansion. ...As an alternative to special use permits, the Planning Commission may wish to consider a special zoning district for health resorts and other types of uses." In response to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Keeler stated he was not aware of any other existing facilities of this type (health resort) in the state. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to go over the criteria under which special permits are reviewed. Mr. Keeler responded that the "general criteria for special use permit requires the Board of Supervisors to make certain positive findings." He quoted: W /go May 19, 1987 Page 3 "The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 [Supplementary Regulations] of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." (Section 31.2.4.1) Mr. Keeler added, "In addition to that general criteria, we are also recommending that it be reviewed under the RA criteria for additional subdivision development (Section 10.5.2)." Mr. Keeler explained this included 9 additional criteria, the 9th of which applies to a review that is located in the reservoir watershed. Mr. Keeler further explained that the first three criteria address the issue of the suitability of the property for agriculture, in terms of size, shape, topography, soils, and history of agricultural production on the property; the fourth criteria asks the question "Is the property located in an agricultural or forestal area?" where additional subdivision development is undesirable; the fifth criteria asks the question "Is the property located in an area that has already experienced so much subdivision development that permitting this particular piece of property to develop will not adversely effect the agricultural and forestal policies?"; the sixth criteria addresses the relationship of the development (distance -wise) to designated growth areas; the seventh criteria addresses the issue of the probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services; and the eighth criteria addresses adequacy of the roads. Before opening the meeting to applicant and public comment, the Chairman explained the issue before the Commission at this time. i.e. a zoning text amendment which would establish a health resort as a use permitted by special permit in the RA zone. He stressed that should the Commission decide to approve this ZTA, final approval would still be needed from the Board of Supervisors, and even then any subsequent application for this type of use would still have to meet all of the criteria listed by Mr. Keeler in order to be approved. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Landess, Attorney, Mr. Daniel Burack, a representative of Canyon Ranch, and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Engineer. Mr. Landess also pointed out that the issue before the Commission was not site specific. However, Mr. Burack, a representative of the applicant which had initiated this amendment, addressed the Commission and explained the character of the proposed use. He stated that Canyon Ranch was a "vacation/health/fitness resort" which focused on the quality of life. He stated the atmosphere was one of "quiet, cleanliness, and peaceful healing." Mr. Landess stated the applicant feels this type of use would preserve the character of the rural area since it would be less of a change than a residential development. Mr. Landess also pointed out that l YI May 19, 1987 Page 4 95% of the property would remain undisturbed, in a natural state. Mr. Gloeckner addressed the percentages referred to in item (F) (as read by Mr. Payne earlier in the meeting). He felt the 2% was "a little tight" since a 2 - 3 mile access road could "eat into the 2% very rapidly." He suggested that 4% or 5% would be preferable and would be in keeping with the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Payne asked Mr. Gloeckner if 2% "made more sense" if the access road were excluded from the calculations. Mr. Gloeckner responded, "Probably so; I think maybe 3 would be all right." Mr. Landess concluded the applicant's presentation and stated that the applicant was agreeable to the amendment as proposed by staff. He pointed out that the use under consideration would have no impact on public schools, and for the current applicant, would not require public utilities, yet at the same time would be creating a new source of income for the County. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to how many guests and employees were envisioned, Mr. Burack estimated 120-150 guests/week with 2 - 212 employees per guest. The Chairman invited public comment. (Note: Though the Chairman stressed several times throughout the course of the hearing that the current issue was NOT site specific, the vast majority of those who addressed the Commission spoke in opposition to the health resort application which had initiated this proposed zoning text amendment.) The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal: Mr. David Bass; Mr. Mark Sullivan; Mr. Sam Page; Mr. Henry Page; Mr. David Benroyan; Ms. Anne Page McClung; Mr. Bob Farris; Ms. Anne Farris; Mr. Tucker Johnson; and Mr. George Gilliam. With the exception of Mr. Gilliam, all those who spoke were residents of the Red Hill area. Their reasons for opposition included the following: --Proposal is in opposition to the statement of intent for the RA zone; --Proposal is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan objective to promote agriculture and forestry in the RA area; --Such a use does not fit in with the historic nature of the area; --There are other districts in the County which are more suited to this type of use; --Negative impact on the watershed; --Inadequacy of roads; --No public need for such a use; is of no benefit to Albemarle County; --This type of use is often short-lived; --Approval will invite more applications of this type and could potentially change the character of the entire County; --Possibility of future expansion of such a facility; --Noise pollution; --Continuous changes in the Ordinance create a lack of confidence and a feeling of insecurity among County citizens. lja May 19, 1987 Page 5 Mr. Gilliam's comments were quite lengthy. He suggested that before such a radical change is made, the Comprehensive Plan Review should first be completed and the question of whether or not this use should go into a commercial zone should be thoroughly considered. In addition to the criteria listed by Mr. Keeler, Mr. Gilliam suggested the following additional criteria should be considered before issuance of a special permit: 1. The impact of employee, guest and service traffic on existing roads; 2. The height, mass and scale of proposed buildings; 3. The effect which the proposed development will have on the views of neighbors; 4. Groundwater depletion; 5. The noise to be generated by the proposed use; 6. The intensity of lighting of parking, guest quarters and sports facilities; 7. Whether the proposed development is in accord with the provisions of the Comprehensive plan; 8. The availability of public water and sewer to the proposed development; 9. The availability of other sites in Albemarle County, already served by public water and sewer; 10. The proposed ratio of improvements to surface area (proposal should not have more than 2% coverage); 11. Economic impact. There being no further public comment, the Chairman allowed the applicant final comment. Regarding the question as to whether or not a heliport was a part of the application, now or in the future, Mr. Landess stated that a heliport was not expected. Mr. Burack again addressed the Commission and expressed surprise at the public response. He again stressed the high quality of the operation. In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to what the facility would contribute to the citizens of Albemarle County, Mr. Burack stated it would serve as a "resource base" where people can learn more about life- styles and change in lifestyles. Mr. Gloeckner again addressed the Commission and explained the exact location of the proposed facility. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Ms. Diehl noted that it was important to remember that a general, rather than a specific, request was under consideration, and that a special permit did allow each application to be judged on its own merits. However, she stated she shared the concerns of those residents living closest to the proposed facility. She stated she felt the proposed definition was too broad and it would be difficult to regulate similar uses. She stressed the "growth management policy" for the rural areas recently reaffirmed by the Commission, i.e. "To preserve the County's prime and important farmlands and forestal areas." She stated she could not support putting a commercial establishment into a rural area. iY3 May 19, 1987 Page 6 Mr. Stark stated he agreed with many of Ms. Diehl's concerns. He added he was particularly concerned about what a change of this type could mean to the County, i.e. if there are no other facilities of this type in the state, it could serve to make Albemarle County "special" and could change the character of the County. He stated he could not support the proposed amendment. Mr. Cogan stated he could view this type of use in two ways, i.e. as a commercial endeavor which is not agricultural or forestal in nature, yet, on the other hand, taking 200 acres of land and being able to develop only 4-6 acres, could be considered as preservation. However, Mr. Cogan stated he was finding it difficult to see any type of community benefit from this type of use. He stated he was not "completely comfortable" with having something this commercial in an RA zone. Mr. Cogan noted that a great area of the County is in one zone and it might be desirable to consider establishing a special zoning district for this type of facility. Mr. Wilkerson noted that he agreed with the comments thus far. He added he did not think the Commission could justify "conversion of residential land to other uses" since this would be contrary to the Commission's efforts and would result in "additional needs for growth area expansion." He stated: "I don't see where we can put ourselves in a position to do this and keep on hunting --we're going to run out eventually." He concluded he could not support the amendment. Mr. Gould stated he was not in favor of this type of use in an RA area. He stated: "I believe that some of the values this county has stood for for a long, long time, and which the people in this county, the Commission, and the Board of Supervisors are dedicated to preserving, outweigh any of the benefits I can see this facility bringing to the Community in the RA zone. I cannot support this application." Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Payne: "Am I right in assuming that unless its proffered, this special permit would not effect the development rights, the subdivision rights that would remain with the property?" Mr. Payne replied: "Let's get site specific for a moment and say we have 1,400 acres which is to be subdivided into 200 and 1,200. It would not effect the subdivision rights of the 1,200 remaining acres. It would certainly effect the subdivision rights of the 200 acres because anything you did on it would count toward the maximum coverage." Mr. Bowerman stated he was basically in agreement with all the comments made by fellow Commissioners. Mr. Bowerman moved that ZTA-87-04 Health/Resort/Farm be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on June 3, 1987. The meeting recessed from 9:20 to 9:35. / 94 May 19, 1987 Page 7 SP-87-32 Uniroyal and Goodrich Tire Company - The Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit "dams, levees and other structures for water supply and flood control." This request is to establish flood protection measures for the existing plant facility, in the floodplain of the James River. Property, described as Tax Map 130, Parcel 43 and Tax Map 131, Parcel 81A, is located on Bird Street Extended past the Scottsville School. Zoned HI, Heavy Industry with a portion of Parcel 81A Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Ms. Patterson made a correction to the staff report, page 2, which described the type and location of the structure. She stated that the sentence which began "At the north end a concrete retaining wall 24 inches high, extending..." should be changed to read 'At the north end a concrete or earthen retaining wall from 5 to 10 feet high, extending from the northeast building corner and around the refrigerator building would complete the flood barrier." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant from Mr. Mike Armm, the County Engineer. Mr. Armm explained the idea is not to build a levee around the entire plant and lawn area, but rather to use the facade at the front of the plant as part of the flood control project and then come off of the sides with a berm and a combination berm/retaining wall, bringing it back into grade. He explained the proposal more fully, including how the access road would be effected by the construction of the flood protection measures. Mr. Armm also explained that the original three proposals developed by the Army Corps of Engineers would have "taken out a much greater area of floodplain." He added that the Army Corps never made the suggestion of using the facade of the building itself. He felt that was an advantage to the County since the building would be protected without taking out a great area of flood storage, and this is very critical during a large storm. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Steve Nichols, Plant Engineer for Uniroyal/Goodrich, addressed the Commission. He offered no additional comment, but expressed appreciation to the Commission and the County staff for their assistance. Noting that there had been a flood which readii289 feet (1972), Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Nichols why it had been decided to construct to a height of 288 feet rather than 290 feet since it was conceivable flooding could still occur. Mr. Nichols indicated it was an economic issue, i.e. "dollars vs. amount of protection," and also insurance had some bearing on the issue. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Tom Bruce, representing the Town Council for the Town of Scottsville, addressed the Commission and asked that the Commission approve this application. He noted that though efforts have been made to include the Uniroyal property in the town's flood protection plans, they have been unsuccessful. May 19, 1987 Page 8 Mr. Dwayne Carr, owner of the True Value store in Scottsville, addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of the application. Both Mr. Bruce and Mr. Carr pointed out that the Uniroyal/Goodrich plant is the economic basis for the community. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-32 for Uniroyal and Goodrich Tire be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Issuance of an erosion control permit; 2. Appropriate permits for borrow area; 3. Applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal approvals; 4. Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements of Section 30.3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to include: a. County Engineering Department approval of the term and retaining wall design; b. County Engineering Department approval of the stream diversion; C. County Inspections Department approval of the facade improvements to the structure. 5. Administrative approval of site plan. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-87-04 Colonnade Associates - Colonnade Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 0.42 acres (Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C3) from R-15, Residential to C-1, Commercial (Proffer) and 0.71 acres (Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C2) from HC, Highway Commercial to C-1 Commercial (Proffer). These adjoining properties are located on the west side of Colonnade Drive about 200 feet south of U.S. Route 250W. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report included the following statements: "The applicant has proffered to exclude certain uses from the C-1 zoning. The applicant has verbally stated intent to construct offices on the site but is unable to commit that to proffer. The staff does, however, feel that the application could be improved by additional proffers limiting retail usage. The 0.42 acre lot zoned R-15 is of such dimension that an apartment building of the scale of University Heights could not be located on the site. This is not to say that a reasonable use of the property could not be realized under existing zoning. Certainly a smaller apartment structure could be accommodated on the site. ...Colonnade Drive is a private road. Historically staff has not endorsed mixing of residential and commercial uses on a private road. In this case, commercial zoning already exists along Colonnade Drive and the residential uses are rental apartments. Since Colonnade Drive is not a public road, improvements at this intersection with Rt. /9� May 19, 1987 Page 9 250W can be required at time of site plan approval. The Comprehensive Plan reflects commercial and high -density residential uses in the area. The Plan is general in nature and specific properties are not identified. Commercial depth shown in the Plan appears arguably consistent with the applicant's request. Staff recommends approval and acceptance of the applicant's proffer." The applicant proffered that the following uses, presently allowed under C-1, would not be permitted on the parcels: Churches, cemeteries, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic uses, funeral homes, indoor theatres, libraries, museums, automobile service stations, automobile/ truck repair shops. Mr. Cogan asked if the applicant was aware of staff's feeling that the application could be improved by additional proffers. Mr. Keeler replied that Mr. Horne had met with the applicant prior to the filing for the rezoning. Mr. Keeler added, "If you look at the uses that are proffered to be deleted compared to the uses that would remain, in terms of traffic generation, for example, I don't think these proffered -out uses are going to reduce the traffic generation." Mr. Keeler pointed out that proffered zonings are to be voluntary. He also noted that, given the size and shape of these parcels, staff expressed concern as to whether or not, subsequent to the rezoning, variances would be sought from setbacks from the residential area. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Hal Brownfield was present to represent the owner of the property. He pointed out that "downzoning" is being requested for 31,000 square feet, and the applicant is only asking "to go up" on 18,300 square feet. Mr. Cogan noted that traffic generation was the main issue. He suggested that if the envisioned use was to be a professional office building, CO zoning might be more appropriate. The applicant responded that since currently there is no perspective tenant, he would not wish to be "locked into" one particular zoning that would block the way for other possible uses. Mr. Gould stated he had the same concerns and felt the staff report was "not reconciled." He indicated he was uncomfortable with the application. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Keeler to list some of the by -right uses permitted in the C-1 zone. Since the list was quite lengthy, Mr. Michel asked Mr. Keeler to name some of the "bad ones," i.e. highest traffic generators. Mr. Keeler read the following: clothing apparel, department store, drug store, hardware store, furniture and home appliances, newstands, retail nurseries and greenhouses, financial institutions, food and /9,7 May 19, 1987 Page 10 grocery stores, health spas. He stated there are also unspecified uses such as video rental. He continued: eating establishments, automobile service stations (proffered out), laundries, dry cleaners, laundromat, medical center. He stated a fast-food restaurant would be by special permit. It was also determined that the applicant's proffer to exclude service stations would not apply to a convenience store which often includes gas pumps. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission could, if it so desired, change the requested zoning to CO (rather than C-1). Ms. Diehl stated she was uncomfortable with the high -traffic generating uses which would still be allowed. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-87-04 for Colonnade Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with the parcels in question being changed to CO, Commercial Office. Ms. Diehl noted that the applicant would have the opportunity to change his proffer, if he so desired, before the Board of Supervisors hearing. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on June 3, 1987. ZTA-87-03 Amend 4.6 Lot Regulations as it relates to frontage and lot width measurements. Mr. Keeler explained that staff has determined the amendment needs to be reviewed further. He noted that a definition of joint access needs to be added and it also needs to be decided as to whether or not a front and back subdivision served by an easement would be permitted in the R-1 zone as well as the RA zone. Mr. Cogan asked if staff could provide some drawings showing these different situations at the time the item is heard again. It was determined the Commission was generally in agreement with the proposed amendment. Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that ZTA-87-03 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ( � ) 4�,, , l _" John Horne, Secretary DS 15q