HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 15 87 PC MinutesSeptember 15, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, September 15, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those commissioners present were:
Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman;
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. John Pullen, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner;
and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 1, 1987 were
approved as submitted.
Minor Townhouses Phase III Preliminary Plan - Proposal to locate nine townhouses
served by eighteen parking spaces on 1.01 acres. The townhouses are proposed
for sale on individual lots averaging 1,784 square feet. Zoned R-6, Res-
idential, with cluster development including Phases I and II. Property,
located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Westfield Road
and Minor Ridge Court, adjacent south of Berkeley Subdivision. Tax
Map 61W2, Parcel 48. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. Mr. Edwards stated
the applicant had no problems with the suggested conditions of approval
and that condition 1(f)--Albemarle County Service Authority approval
of final water and sewer plans. --had already been satisfied.
Mr. Bob Hauser was also present to represent the applicant. He offered
no additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Roger Flint, President of the Minor Ridge Homeowners Association,
addressed the Commission. He stated that though his organization was
initially concerned about this phase of the development since it meant
the last area of greenery would be lost, after meeting with Mr. Hauser,
he was satisfied that the homeowners concerns had been met. He
indicated he had no objections to the plan. Approximately seven
persons had accompanied Mr. Flint to the meeting and indicated they
were in agreement with him.
Ms. Virginia Post, a homeowner in Minor Ridge, addressed the Commission
and was concerned about an existing problem with drainage around her
home. She stated that she has water inside her home each time it rains.
Mr. Horne advised Ms. Post that he would contact her to try to determine
if this phase of development will have any impact on her problem, or
if any requirement of an existing phase was not properly met.
.3a 2
September 15, 1987
Page 2
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
9
Mr. Cogan noted that the conditions of approval cover all areas and that
it is evident that the applicant is cooperating with the Homeowners
Association.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Hauser to explain where the stormwater that would
be detained would eventually go. Mr. Hauser briefly explained the
detention plans and stated that the water would discharge "back into
the existing system that is currently in Minor Ridge Court ... and at
that point it will go downstream."
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Minor Townhouses Phase III Preliminary Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; to reflect approved
conservation plan;
b. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
c. County Engineering approval of underground stormwater detention
plans and calculations:
d. Fire Officer approval;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final
water and sewer plans.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. County Attorney approval of homeowner's documents.
3. The final plan and final plat may be administratively approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-73 Ben Boyajian (West Ivy Shops) - Request for the issuance of
a special use permit for a Drive -In Branch Bank (24.2.2.13) on 1.42
acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map
60, Parcel 38, is located in front of University Heights apartments,
on the south side of U.S. Rt. 250W in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff's primary concerns with
this application centered upon access and circulation patterns com-
bined with high traffic volumes. The staff report explained:
"Regarding circulation, staff does not support the introduction of
drive-thru traffic to traffic presently utilizing the site. In
this regard the Virginia Department of Transportation stated,
' ..a drive-in bank generates an average of 192 vehicle trips per
day for each 1000 square feet of commercial zoning. This is one
.A.2Q
September 15, 1987
Page 3
of the higher traffic generators among businesses in commercial
zoning.' Staff concerns of circulation and access are as follows:
likow (1) Although modifications are proposed and will improve it, the
resulting traffic circulation patterns are confusing....(2) Sufficient
stacking room is not available without creating conflicts.... This
may result in stacking at the eastern entrance and onto Route 250.
(3) Neither existing entrance has the minimum sight distance
required for a commercial entrance.... Staff does not support any
intensification of use whatsoever, utilizing entrances which do not
meet the minimum sight distance standards. The applicant proposes
measures to obtain sight distance at the western entrance and improve,
but not meet, the full requirement at the eastern entrance (which
carries the higher volume of traffic)."
The report concluded:
"The Virginia Department of Transportation, the County Engineer,
and Planning staffs recommend denial of this petition. Due to
access and circulation issues, this use on this particular site
is not, in staff's opinion, in harmony with the p pose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance or the public health, safety and general
welfare."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ben Boyajian addressed the Commission. Mr. Boyajian began by asking
that the record show that this process had begun in November, 1984, when
he had been advised by Mr. Keeler that "(his) business was with the
Zoning Department." He also asked that the description of the item,
as stated on the agenda and in the staff report, be amended to read:
"Benjamin K. Boyajian petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue
a special use permit for a Drive -In Bank on an existing driveway
located on 1.42 acres ... etc." He was requesting that the word "Branch"
be deleted and also that the reference to the "existing driveway" be
added. Mr. Boyajian felt that the staff report contained many errors
and that staff had not studied the site plan thoroughly. He disagreed
with staff's position that the traffic circulation patterns were
confusing and unsafe. He distributed a drawing illustrating the cir-
culation pattern. Regarding the stacking problem, Mr. Boyajian proposed
to "block" a portion of the area (it was unclear exactly which area
he was referring to) or to eliminate some of the parking spaces to
allow more stacking room. He agreed there were sight distance problems
but felt that given the congested condition of the area which already
exists, it is likely that the speed limit will eventually be reduced,
thus eliminating the sight distance problem. He stated he had written
a letter to the "Commissioner of Transportation requesting that either
a light be installed at the entrance, or that the speed limit be reduced
to 35 mph. Mr. Boyajian presented a report which he asked that the staff
pass to the Board of Supervisors. (The subject of the document Mr.
Boyajian presented was unclear.) Mr. Boyajian also proposed to erect
signage and a barrier to keep cars, entering at the western entrance,
from making a left turn to the bank.
The Chairman invited public comment.
,A8 0
September 15, 1987 Page 4
Mr. Pierson, Engineer for the project, addressed the Commission. Mr.
Pierson also noted that his office is located in the same shopping center
as the proposed bank. He pointed out that the proposed location of
the bank had partially been determined in an effort to block the view
of the funeral home. He pointed out that there is little pedestrian
traffic across the bank property because The Lime Tree and Unusual
Interiors access from the courtyard. He stated that if the applicant
was required to lower the grade on the road (to gain sight distance), the
cost would be insurrmountable. He suggested "cooperative alternatives"
including lowering the speed limit and establishing traffic controls.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the
Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Cogan asked how the granting
of the special permit would impact the existing traffic problems in
this area. Mr. Echols responded that the biggest problem would be the
additional traffic which would be using these entrances. He also pointed
out that the sight distance problems at the eastern entrance involve
both the vehicles turning left into the sight and vehicles exiting the
sight and turning left.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about customers of existing businesses
(The Lime Tree and Unusual Interiors) having to walk across bank property
to get to parking areas. Mr. Pierson pointed out that these businesses
have a very low volume of business and he also suggested that the applicant
would consider some means of restricting this.
Mr. Stark disagreed with the applicant's statement that "bank service in
this area of Albemarle County is scarce and suitable property is rare."
He pointed out that there are 3 banks currently existing within 2 mile
and a fourth has recently been approved. He also felt that the
property was not suitable because adequate sight distance does not exist.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-87-73 for Ben Boyajian (West Ivy Shops) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Cogan stated he was less concerned with the internal situation than
the external. He explained to the applicant that when a special use
permit is applied for, it is expected that the applicant will correct
existing problems, so the fact that the entrance is already in use is
irrelevant.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
331
September 15, 1987 Page 5
SP-87-74 Northside Baptist Church - Request for the issuance of a special
use permit for a Day Care Center (14.2.2.7) on 3.33 acres zoned R-2,
'err Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 62A1-Section F, Parcel 18,
is located on the east side of Rio Road, just north of Wakefield Road
and adjacent to Northfields Subdivision. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
(Mr. Bowerman, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the YMCA,
which also offers day care, disqualified himself from hearing this petition
and left the meeting.)
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Ms. Patterson also explained that the day care center has already opened
and has been cited for violation by the Zoning Administrator who has
given the operation until October 12 to "cease and desist" if the Board
denies the application, or, if approved, the applicant will have 30
days from the date of Board approval to comply with all the conditions
of approval and to receive a certificate of occupancy.
It was determined the operation has not yet received a license from
the Department of Welfare because the license cannot be issued until the
special permit has been approved.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bill Templeton, pastor of the church, was present. He offered no
initial comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Harold Taylor, representing the Northfields Community Association,
addressed the Commission. He stated his organization was strongly
opposed to the application. He pointed out that Northfields is
composed of single-family dwellings. He felt approval of this application
would invite other business on the adjoining property and would also
increase the traffic on Rio Road.
Ms. Jackie Moreno addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of the
application. She stressed the need for this type of facility and the
quality education that her child has received at the facility.
The applicant, Mr. Templeton, responded to some of the public comments.
He stated that he did not consider this a business since it would be
a continuation of the church ministry and would be non-profit. He
also did not feel that approval of this permit would invite other
business on the adjoining property because deed restrictions would
prevent that. In response to Mr. Cogan's request to elaborate on
the grading easement which will be required by VDOT. Mr. Templeton
explained that though he was not authorized to speak for the church,
he was reasonably certain that there would be no problem with granting
the easement. In response to Ms. Diehl's questions, Mr. Templeton
.�.3 a
September 15, 1987
Page 6
stated 52 children are currently enrolled in the facility. He also
explained that the school has either met or exceeded all requirements
for the Department of Welfare license, with the exception of the *04
special permit approval.
Mr. Michel was uncertain as to the difference between a day care center
and a school. He noted that the proposal goes through second grade.
Mr. Templeton explained that the Welfare Department has no jurisdiction
over those children who are in the school, i.e. first grade and K-5.
He stated the facility would be licensed for 22 through 4-year old
children day care and also for the older children who will be
cared for by the center after the school day is complete. Mr. Michel
was concerned that the applicant might eventually apply for a permit
to expand to higher grades. Mr. Templeton assured the Commission that
would not happen because there was no room for expansion. He added that
the site is "built out."
Referring to the newspaper ad for the facility, Mr. Keeler stated that
the facility was probably a combination day-care/private school.
Ms. Diehl asked if there were additional licensing requirements for
a private school. Mr. Keeler stated that he had never been able
to determine this definitively. He stated the difference between
day-care and a school was the presence of a curriculum, and the State
Welfare Department does not license schools.
Mr. Templeton added that there are now additional considerations,
other than just curriculum. He also stated that private schools no
longer receive accreditation from the State.
Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned about safety regulations and Mr.
Templeton explained that local officials were involved with those
inspections.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Templeton to explain how the facility came to be
in violation of the Zoning regulations. Mr. Templeton responded that
when a local day care center had closed recently, a tremendous need
had been created to absorb those children and all other facilities in
the area were full with waiting lists. He explained that the processing
time for the permit had been longer than expected, and though the
application was made in a timely fashion, the item could not be
scheduled for review as soon as hoped because of the Commission's
full agenda schedule.
Mr. Keeler added that this situation was not unusual with this type
of facility since applicants are unfamiliar with the time required
for such an approval.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. St. John if the easement referred to in condition
4--Virginia Department of Transportation approval of grading easement. --
could be required, or only requested, in a special permit.
,33.3
September 15, 1987 Page 7
Mr. Keeler explained that the easement had been shown on a previous plan
but had not been a separate requirement to dedicate it to VDOT. He stated
this was just a follow-up to that, which assumes that it was part of the
site improvements when the church was first built.
It was uncertain whether the easement was shown as a dedication or a
reservation on the previous site plan. Ms. Patterson stated it was
confusing because it was primarily shown just as m area to be free
of new improvements.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was uncomfortable with the wording of condition
4 because normally the applicant is asked to dedicate an easement
rather than having VDOT "approve" an easement.
Mr. St. John, in response to Mr. Cogan's question as to whether or
not this can be required, explained that this was determined by the
purpose of the easement. He stated, "If the need for it is generated
by this special use permit, then it can certainly be made a condition.
If the Highway Department just needs it and is going to condemn it
anyway in order to improve Rio Road, but they look at this as a good
way to avoid paying for it, I don't think you can make an enforceable
condition."
Mr. Templeton again stated he did not feel there would be any problem
in gaining the Trustee's approval for the easement.
Mr. Echols (VDOT) pointed out that previous site plans had shown an
1%W easement, but it has never been recorded. He stated that VDOT is
just requesting that the easement be recorded.
Though there was some consideration given to adding the language "as
shown on site plan" to condition 4, Mr. St. John stated that the
language suggested by staff was perfectly adequate.
Mr. Cogan also felt that a specific date should be added to condition
6--Compliance with conditions 1-5 within 30 days of Board of Supervisors
approval of this petition. However, Mr. Horne pm:.rted out that there
was no way to put a condition on it until it is approved by the Board
because the condition is not in effect until the petition has been
approved. Mr. St. John again stated that condition 6 was adequate
as stated.
Mr. Michel asked that a condition be added limiting the enrollment
as currently proposed. It was determined that condition 7 would be
added as follows: "Enrollment shall be limited to pre-school 2 and 3,
jr. kindergarten, kindergarten, first and second grades, and day care."
Mr. Cogan noted that he was concerned about the additional traffic
that will be added to Rio Road. He also pointed out that this type
of proposal changes the use of the church considerably. He added,
however, that once Rio Road is improved to five lanes, the church
property will no longer actually be considered in a residential
rrr sense. Ms. Diehl shared Mr. Cogan's concerns. However, in consideration
%of the soon -to -take -place improvements to Rio Road, both stated they
would support the motion.
;134
September 15, 1987
Page 8
It was determined it is hoped construction will begin on Rio Road
in the summer of 1988 and will take approximately 12 - 18 months.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-87-74 for Northside Baptist Church be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Enrollment to be determined by the Virginia Department of Welfare;
however, in no case shall enrollment exceed sixty (60) children;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-
transferrable;
4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of grading
easement;
5. Fire Official and Building Official approvals;
6. Compliance with conditions 1-5 within 30 days of Board of Supervisors
approval of this petition;
7. Enrollment shall be limited to pre-school 2 and 3, jr. kindergarten,
kindergarten, first and second grade, and day care.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(Note: It was decided that no reference to the site plan would be included
with condition 4 since this would lock it into the site plan and it
might be determined that the easement location is somewhat different than
originally shown.)
The meeting adjourned from 9:05 to 9:10. Mr.
Bowerman returned to the meeting after the recess.
SP-87-67 Clyde and Doris French - Request for the issuance of a special
use permit (10.2.2.37) for a public garage on 48.3 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described ?s Tax Map 93, Parcel 26 is located on the
north side of St. Rt. 53, approximately three quarters of a mile from its
intersection with St. Rt. 729. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The report concluded:
"Although staff does feel the garage is an appropriate land use,
given the area's limited rural services, staff does recommend
disapproval. The issue of sight distance clearly outweighed
the appropriateness of the use when considering public safety,
health and welfare."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
A316-
September 15, 1987 Page 9
Mr. Clyde French addressed the Commission. He stated he felt this type
`Awe of service was needed in his community. He explained this would be
a one-man operation with the possibility that his son might join
him at some future date. Mr. French presented a petition on which
he had obtaired105 signatures from neighboring property owners.
He stated that he had no problems with the suggested conditions
of approval. He stated he would have no trouble meeting sight
distance requirements to the west since this would involve only
the cutting of some vegetation on land currently owned by his
aunt. However, he stated he could not afford to lower the highway
in order to obtain the additional6 0 feet which is lacking to the
east. Mr. French stated that he would like very much to be able to
make a living entirely by farming (he owns 120 acres), but has found
this is not possible.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons, neighbors of Mr. French, spoke in favor of
the application. All those who spoke stressed the fact that Mr. French
has been providing this type of service, on un an unofficial basis, for
his friends and neighbors for many years. Those who addressed the
Commission were: Mr. J.L. Lively, Mr. John Parziale, Mr. David Hill, Mr.
James Moneymaker and Mrs. Sawman. Mrs. Sawman expressed some concern
about the possibility of junk vehicles accummulating on the property,
but she stated staff's condition 3--No outside storage of parts including
junk parts and junk cars.... --addressed her concern.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
The Chairman asked Mr. Echols to comment on the sight distance issue.
Mr. Echols explained there would be no problem with obtaining sight
distance to the west since it was a line of sight problem and could
be corrected with the clearing of vegetation. However, to the east
the sight distance is a vertical, and possibly a horizontal problem
because the road has a crest and then drops off and there is a
bank along the side of the road. He stated this would require re -working
the road and right-of-way easements on other property. Mr. Echols
confirmed that VDOT would not approve a commercial entrance if
the sight distance could not meet requirements in both directions.
Mr. Cogan noted that even if the Commission were to approve the
application, it would be a dead end because the applicant would not
be able to meet condition 6--Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of commercial entrance --without proper sight distance.
Mr. Echols confirmed that it appeared the entrance was presently
located in the best possible place so shifting it would be of
no value.
Mr. Keeler suggested it might be possible to locate the entrance on
some adjoining property since Mr. French has indicated the adjoining
property is owned by relatives and also that he himself owns 120 acres.
,434�-
September 15, 1987
Page 10
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Keeler why this was not a "grandfathered" situation.
Mr. Keeler could not answer this question.
The Commission asked Mr. French to elaborate further.
Mr. French stated that he had recently become unemployed and since he
has been performing this type of service for his neighbors, he thought
he would try making a living at it by going into business for himself.
In response to Mr. Keeler's suggestion about relocating the entrance
on neighboring property, Mr. French seemed to think that would not be
possible because moving onto his aunt's property would affect the sight
distance in the other direction.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. French explained that he
repaired automobiles, light farm machinery, lawn mowers, power saws,
etc. He stated that he does not do major repairs of any type.
Mr. Cogan explained to the applicant that though the Commission was very
sympathetic to his proposal, approval would be a dead end because
he would not be able to meet the requirement for a commercial entrance
because of the sight distance problem, and the permit could not be
issued if all requirements were not met.
Mr. French asked if the entrance had to be considered a commercial one.
Mr. Cogan replied that it did because this was a commercial activity.
Mr. Keeler stated that he felt there were some aspects of this proposal
which should be discussed with the zoning administrator and the
applicant. He stated that, based on what he had heard described at
this meeting, this use might be classified as an agricultural service
occupation. He also indicated there might be a possibility this was
a non -conforming use. He suggested that a deferral might be in order
to consider these issues.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-87-67 for Clyde and Doris French be deferred
to September 22, 1987.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-71 Betty K. Haigh -Lawson (Top 100 Video) - Request for the
issuance of a special use permit to authorize commercial uses (18.2.2.12) on
0.7 acres Zoned R-15 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 61,
Parcel 129A, is located on the southeast side of Rio Road and is surrounded
by the Squire Hill Apartment Complex. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated:
"...staff opinion is that a video rental use on this particular
property would rely on a larger market area (than the surrounding
residential development) for a significant portion of its business.
The use in this location would, therefore, increase traffic on
Rio Road. Staff recommends a denial for the following reasons:
.37
September 15, 1987
Page 11
(1) This use would increase traffic on Rio Road; and (2) This
use is not consistent with the level of commercial activity
11*A✓ and type of activity envisioned under 18.2.2.12."
M
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Burr who offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Cogan's request to elaborate on those uses that are
permitted by special permit in the R-15 zone, Mr. Keeler replied:
"The R-15 zone permits commercial uses, the shops being on a single
floor, compatible in design with the residential character of the
district and with a gross floor area not to exceed 4,000 square feet."
He confirmed it was anticipated these uses would be in support of the
residential development. He confirmed that staff feels that while
this use might attract some people from the Squire Hills development, it
will likely attract more people from the highway.
Mr. Keeler explained again staff's concerns about traffic considerations.
Mr. Cogan stated that, based upon the staff report, he felt that this
use would not fit in with the criteria for a special permit in the R-15
zone.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it has been the position of the Commission
to limit commercial development along Rio Road to what exists now because
of the future plans for Rio Road. He felt that there would have to be
a substantial public benefit to be derived from any type of commercial
activity which would increase traffic on Rio Road in order for him to
support it. He concluded, "I don't think that's the case here."
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-87-71 for Betty K. Haigh -Lawson be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-87-11 Republic Capital Corporation - Request to rezone 25.6 acres
from R-1, Residential to HI, Heavy Industrial (proffer). Property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22, is located on the west side of US
Rt. 29N south and adjacent to Northside Industrial park in Holly -
mead in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff recommends approval of this rezoning and acceptance of the
applicant's proffers provided public utilities and other public uses
are not expressly excluded."
.43 ,9
September 15, 1987
Page 12
It was determined the applicant's proffer did not extend to the 9
acres included in the plan which are already zoned industrial.
Mr. Cogan asked if approval of the ZMA meant that the Commission was
accepting the master plan being presented. Mr. Keeler responded that
the Commission was accepting the plan "t., the extent that the applicant
can rely on it." Mr. Keeler added that there was no guarantee that
the applicant would be able to get that much building on the site without
public sewer. He clarified that lack of public sewer would not limit
the building area, per se, but would limit the number of people who
could be placed on the property until public sewer is available.
Mr. Cogan stressed that he was accepting the plan that was being
submitted only as an illustration of a proposed plan.
There was some question about the accuracy of thescale on the master
plan since it did not appear to conform to any conventional scale.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Blake Hurt, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hurt
explained that the drawing had been done by a computer and though
done to "a scale" it was not the conventional scale. He stated that
the measurements on both the parking and the building was in excess
of 100 feet. He stated he had attempted to consider the important
issues, i.e. (1) To keep off of Rt. 29; (2) Water already exists;
(3) To take advantage of property that is already designated for
industrial growth in the Comprehensive Plan; (3) Since public
sewer is not yet available half the project is proposed for distribution
warehousing which can rely on a domestic sewer system. He stated he
felt this was a 10 to 20 year project and could be expected to absorb
the demand for light and heavy industrial property for some time.
He stated he expected to build 20,000 to 40,000 square feet a year.
He explained that the plan that was being presented was meant to be
for the benefit of the Commission to give them an idea of what was
intended for the property and was not an attempt to "hoodwink" the
Commission into accepting something that they might not like.
He stated he was very sensitive in trying to accommodate the
adjacent residential property and has tried to do this in several
ways: (1) The road is proposed for the side of the property, rather
than the center, to act as an additional buffer; (2) The buildings
have been placed as close to the Northside Industrial Park and as
far north as possible: (3) An attempt has been made to concentrate
the buildings on the property that is currently zoned HI in order
to minimize the impact on Airport Acres; (4) Whatever buffering
is desired by the neighbors will be utilized; and (5) An attempt has
been made to keep the lines of communication open between the developer
and the neighboring residential property owners. He concluded that
he was attempting to go along with the desires of the County for this
property.
It was determined the other side of Northside Industrial Park (other
than the 9 acres included in this proposal) was not under the control
of the applicant.
Mr. Hurt also stated that he was agreeable to including the 9 acres
already industrially zoned in with his proffer.
339
September 15, 1987 Page 13
CR
on
Mr. Hurt also indicated he was agreeable to staff's suggestion that
the proffer not exclude public utilities and certain other public uses.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Carroll Good, a resident of Airport Acres, addressed the Commission.
He pointed out that the lots in Airport Acres are larger than .8 acre
as had been stated. He presented a petition of opposition containing
74 signatures. The following persons also expressed their opposition
to the proposal: Ms. Jean Jarvis; Mr. Walt Buckram; Mr. Jerry Marshall;
Ms. Terry Bibb; and Ms. Anne Gearhardt. Their reasons for opposition
included the following:
--Devaluation of property;
--Noise;
--Increased traffic;
--Impossible to buffer effectively;
--Destruction of wooded areas.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Gould felt proffer No. 1 was confusing. He asked if it meant
that "there could be 450,000 square foot built and the uses all limited
to activity which could be served by domestic septic fields."
Mr. Keeler replied, "No, sir. I think it limits it to 225,000 square
feet." Mr. Gould asked for an explanation of the second paragraph of
proffer No. 1. Mr. Cogan agreed that this paragraph was confusing.
Mr. Keeler explained: "It says he builds 225,000 square feet, and then
subsequent to installation of sewer he builds another 225,000 square
feet, or a total of of pre -public sewer and post -public sewer of
450,000 square feet." Mr. Gould asked: "And does that mean it's
all limited to only uses that can be served by domestic septic fields?"
Mr. Keeler replied: "No." Ms. Diehl suggested that the addition of
a semi -colon after 225,000 would make the statement clearer.
Mr. Gould stated he felt it should be clarified.
Mr. Hurt stated: "The buildings in dark brown are the buildings I'm
proposing to build on septic system for uses that only require domestic
sewage. When public sewer is installed, I plan to build in phases the
ones that are in lighter brown and to have uses whatever are in keeping
with the public sewer and discontinue the use of the septic fields."
Mr. Gould and Mr. -Cogan indicated they understood Mr. Hurt's explanation
but did not feel it was in agreement with proffer No. 1 as written.
Ms. Diehl expressed an interest in knowing what uses could ccommodated
in this zone which would not be accommodated in the LI zone.
In response to Mr. Michel's request, Mr. Keeler went over the zoning
on the surrounding property and the original plan for Northside Industrial
Park.
G_7�
September 15, 1987 Page 14
It was determined this property is currently in the jurisdictional area
for sewer service.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there had been any changes in the Comprehensive
Plan designation for this property as a result of the recent Land Use
Subcommittee meetings. Mr. Horne stated that it continues to be
designated for industrial indevelopment, though no distinction is made
between light and heavy industry.
In response to Ms. Diehl's earlier question, Mr. Horne read the following list
of uses "permitted" in the HI zone (after the applicant's proffer) which
would not be allowed in the LI zone: dry cleaning plants; machine shops,
tool and dye, blacksmithing, boiler shops and similar operations; manu-
facuture of heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances;
manufacture of building components; metal fabrication and welding
operations; mobile home manufacturing and distribution; moving
businesses; sawmills; veterinary dog and cat hospitals.
Mr. Michel stated he was sympathetic to both the residential community
and to the applicant. However, he stated the applicant's proposal would
offer better control over the front of the property since it doesn't
come off of Rt. 29 and it will meet a need for industrial uses
which is currently lacking.
Ms. Diehl also stated she was concerned about the proximity to the
residential property and the Commission would have to be very aware of
buffering with future site plans. However., she stated that the property
has been designated for industrial development in the Comprehensive Plan
and, therefore, she would support the petition.
Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned about heavy industrial development on
septic systems. He was also concerned about the proximity to the R-1
zone. He felt that a Light Industrial zoning would be more appropriate
which would serve as a transitional area between the R-1 and the HI.
Mr. Gould stated he was sympathetic to both sides of the issue and that
he thought the applicant had presented a well -thought-out response in
trying to anticipate some of the problems. However, he stated he
felt "we've got to find a way to find some accommodations between what Mr.
Hurt's proposing and the people who want to live (in Airport Acres) for
the rest of their lives." He also stated he was opposed to 225,000 square
feet of industrial development on septic systems.
Mr. Bowerman also stated he was sympathetic to both the applicant and
the residents. However, he pointed out that nine acres in this immediate
area, already owned by the applicant,are HI, and much of the surrounding
land is industrial and the major recommendations for this area are
basically industrial. For those reasons, he stated he was more sympathetic
to the applicant. Regarding the issue of industrial uses on septic
fields, he felt that our ordinances provide adequate protection. He
pointed out that this property would ultimately have utilities. He concluded
that he felt the application was basically in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2tl /
September 15, 1987 Page 15
Mr. Hurt again stated that he did not expect to put any heavy industrial
uses on septic fields. He added: "I'm happy to proffer that until such
*401r time as the public sewer is there, that I will not have any heavy
industrial uses that can't easily pass the Health requirement. So
if you want to take the parcel I'm asking for rezoning and say 'Until
such time as public sewer is provided, this will be only light
industrial uses,' I'm happy to do that."
Mr. Keeler didn't think what Mr. Hurt was suggesting was possible, i.e.
"to say that until such point in time in the future when something
happens it's light industrial then it becomes heavy industrial."
Mr. Cogan addressed some of Mr. Bowerman's comments and stated that
though the Comprehensive Plan designates the property for industrial
development, it does not specify light or heavy industrial, and
though heavy industrial already exists, how far should it be allowed
to spread. He again stated he felt LI would be a good transitional
use between the R-1 and HI use.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if he had considered placing the
more heavy uses toward the center of the property with the less
intense uses along the residential side. Mr. Hurt stated he had
not looked at configurations but had tried to allow as much buffer
area as possible between his property and Airport Acres with the
exception of the stormwater detention pond. He stated it was impossible
to predict future uses at this time, but he would be happy to consider
Mr. Bowerman's suggestion as site plans come up.
Regarding the plan presented by the applicant, Mr. Horne stated:
"The applicant's proffer is a proffer of that general development
in general accord with that master plan. If that master plan
shows approximately 190 feet (buffer), I personally would not
interpret a 100 feet to be generally in accord with a drawing that
shows 190 feet."
Mr. Hurt stated the plan was meant to be an approximate plan.
Mr. Stark asked for a clarification of the issue before the Commission,
i.e. is the issue whether or not the property should be industrially
zoned at all, or has it not been so designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for several years. It was confirmed that the property has been
so designated for several years and this issue was not the result of
this application. Mr. Cogan further explained that the current issue
is not one of whether or not the property should be industrial, but
rather the intensity of that industry, light or heavy.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-87-11 for Republic Capital Corporation be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors of approval subject to the
proffer of the applicant and with the understanding that the applicant
is willing to include the 9 acres of already industrially zoned property
in with the proffer as he had indicated.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
ER
_A'1A
September 15, 1987
Page 16
It was also noted that it was the desire of the Commission that the
applicant not exclude (in proffer No. 3) public utilities and public
uses as referred to by staff.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Gould and
Cogan casting the dissenting votes.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 7, 1987.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
/. • �7
-Qorv� John Horne, Secretary
DS