HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 20 87 PC MinutesOctober 20, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 20, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard
Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma
Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present
were: Ms. Laura Hill, Planner; Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr.
George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Gould.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
Wray Brothers Construction Company (Lot 19) - Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to locate a 12,000 square foot building and 9,800 square foot
storage yard, served by 30 parking spaces. The building is to be used
as a contractor's office, with other undetermined tenants. The develop-
ment is proposed on 3.60 acres zoned LI, Light Industry with proffer.
Ms. Hill gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Cogan expressed some concern about condition l(d)-"Virginia Department
of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a
commercial entrance permit, to include sight easement." He asked how
VDOT could issue a commercial entrance permit on a road that was not part
of the state system. Mr. Horne explained that VDOT will review the plans
and will approve the design, but they may not actually issue a permit.
He stated the design of the entrance would be coordinated in such a way so
that it will be acceptable into the state system when that time comes.
Ms. Diehl questioned the wording of the first statement in condition No. 3--
"Future occupants may be limited by and/or subject to the following...."
She felt the words "and/or" should have been "and are." After brief
discussion, it was determined Ms. Diehl's suggested wording would be
substituted.
Ms. Diehl also had a question about condition No. 4--"Waiver of Section
32.7.5.3 is granted to permit preliminary plan approval prior to Board
of Supervisors' approval for central systems." She asked if the
section referred to required that granting of a waiver be based on certain
criteria. Mr. Horne confirmed that Section 32.7.5.3 was a "general"
type of waiver which dDes not set forth reasons for granting a waiver.
Mr. Horne explained that a waiver would just allow a waiver of the
timing mechanism and not a waiver of the central system itself.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Stan Tatum. He offered no significant
additional comment.
October 20, 1987
Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel stated that the application was in order and moved that
Wray Brothers Construction Company (Lot 19) Preliminary Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Board of Supervisors' approval of central well and central
sewage systems, in accordance with Title 15.1, Chapter 9,
article 7 of the Code;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit in compliance with approved
conservation plan;
c. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit, to
include sight easement;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
f. Fire Officer approval.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Future occupants may be limited by and are subject to the following:
a. Availability of approved parking spaces;
b. Health Department approval for well and/or sewage usage; and
C. County Engineering approval of Certified Engineer's
report in accordance with Section 4.14.
4. Waiver of Section 32.7.5.3 is granted to permit preliminary plan
approval prior to Board of Supervisors' approval for central systems.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about location of drainfields in relation
to areas with 2:1 slopes. Mr. Tatum explained that Health Department
approval has been received for drainfields. He confirmed that the
drainfield is not located in the area of 20% slope. Mr. Horne
stated that staff would check this issue before the final site plan
is signed.
IVA
/7
October 20, 1987
Page 3
The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
ZMA-87-12 Martha & Albert Bacon / Althea Riley - Request in accordance
with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately
3.22 acres from R-6, Residential to CO, Commercial Office. Property,
desecribed as Tax Map 45, Parcels 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, and
157, is accessed by Greenfields Road on the north side of Rio Road at
Berkmar Drive. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Horne gave the staff report. One of the most significant items of
discussion with this proposal was the fact that the proposed Berkmar Drive
Extended would affect 3 lots (lots 150, 151 and 152) that are proposed
for rezoning with this petition. The staff report stated: "The proposed
Berkmar Drive Extended would affect 3 lots proposed for rezoning. While
the extent to which these lots would be affected has not been determined,
it appears that acquisition of all 3 lots may be necessary. ... Staff
proposed referring the issue of property acquisition to the Board of
Supervisors prior to scheduling of this rezoning petition for public
hearing. The applicant objected, citing contractual obligations." The
staff report concluded:
"Given existing development in Greenfield subdivision, the
requested rezoning from R-6 Residential to Co Commercial Office,
though inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use map, does
not appear unreasonable provided issues of public concern are
adequately addressed. Residential use of these lots would prove
to be questionable given the location. Staff recommends no zoning
action in regard to the 3 lots involved by Berkmar Drive Extended,
but that the Board of Supervisors take immediate action to acquire
such lots."
Mr. Horne read the following proffer which had been submitted by the
applicant after the staff report was written:
"In regard to ZMA 87-12, Dr. Hurt will agree to the two proffers
which we discussed. When the property is developed (1) Use of
the properties will include utilization of public water and
sewer, and (2) Greenfield Court will be upgraded to a minimum
of standards established by the County for private roads."
Mr. Horne pointed out the location of the three lots in question.
He stated the proposed alignment for Berkmar Drive Extended would
cross all three lots diagonally.
Mr. Horne summarized that staff has no objections to rezoning
lots 6 through 9, but feels that no rezoning should take place on
lots 3, 4 and 5 at this time and the Board should take action to acquire
these lots.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Virginia Gardner. She stated the
applicant is agreeable to whatever road standard may be required.
She asked that the Commission rezone all parcels as requested by the
applicant.
i s1
October 20, 1987 Page 4
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Charles Laybon, attorney for Albert and Martha Bacon, owners of
lots 3 and 4, addressed the Commission. He explained that his
clients have been trying to sell their property for some time and
feel that it will be much more marketable if rezoned. He asked
that the rezoning be approved to include these lots.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated he could not see a justification for excluding
lots 3, 4 and 5 from the rezoning. He cited the current indefinite
status of the Berkmar Drive Extended proposal as reason for his
position. He felt the rezoning was proper in all other respects
and it would be unfair to exclude these lots.
Mr. Cogan also pointed out that the applicant had indicated a
willingness to change proffer No. 2 to "either private or public
road." He noted that though the Commission could not require
that the applicant change the proffer, it could suggest that
the change be made before the petition is heard by the Board.
Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with Mr. Cogan that the petition had
merit and he had no problem with the rezoning. However, he stated:
"I'm not sure how you break off the three lots either. It may be
economically wise, but I'm not sure I can take that into consideration."
Mr. Horne stated Mr. St. John might wish to address that question. Mr. vao�
Horne felt the Commission could take that issue into consideration.
Mr. St. John stated he did not believe the Commission should take
the issue of economics into consideration. He stated: "I think
where you have a clear and present announced intent to acquire
property for public use, and the location has been designated...,
and there is a positive commitment, right down even to the point
of having the money put in the Capital Improvements Program...,
I think you would be justified in not doing it." (He stressed
that the State Supreme Court has addressed this issue.) Mr.
St. John stated that the location of the road in question is still
in limbo and there has not been enough of a positive commitment
to buy and pay for those lots for the Commission to take that
issue into consideration at this time. He stated the Commission
should "stick to the ordinary standard criteria used for a rezoning."
Mr. Horne pointed out that he felt the proposed roadway was more
definitive than indicated by Mr. St. John even though no road plans
have been approved. He stated that the roadway has been adopted in
the Comprehensive Plan and certain sections have been definitively
fixed. He stated: "I think I can state to you confidently that if
that road is built in that location, which is part of a proffer of
an approved rezoning (Jefferson Square Shopping Center), subject to
a site plan approved that we've received, there is no other location
to build a public roadway but precisely where it is shown on this
plan. There is no way to meet the curvature standards that are
necessary for a public road. ... It has to go there."
.n
October 20, 1987
Page 5
He stated that the only thing which "would make that point not fixed"
would be if the Jefferson Square project did not proceed. Otherwise,
it is fixed by proffer.
In response to Mr. St. John's question, Mr. Horne confirmed that no
money has been allocated in the Capital Improvements Program to
build that portion of the roadway which has not been proposed by
private developers. He also confirmed that no time frame bas been
established. Mr. Horne pointed out, however, that the roadway
has been in the Comprehensive Plan for approximately one year and
"this is the first major development we've had in." He added
that a private developer has agreed to build a major portion of
the road and fix it to the point indicated.
Mr. Horne stressed that though the Board has not made a commitment
at this point, staff is recommending that "the point at which they
commit is when this rezoning petition appears before them."
Mr. St. John stated his opinion was unchanged because the County
has made no definite commitment at this time.
Mr. St. John agreed that the Commission could recommend to the
Board that the property be acquired, but that recommendation should
be accompanied with an alternative which would recommend that the
lots in question be rezoned if the County decides not to
purchase them.
Mr. Horne stated he was agreeable to amending the staff report
to state that if the Board chooses not to acquire the three lots
in question, then staff would recommend that they be rezoned to CO.
Mr. St. John felt that was a sound position, provided the Commission
feels that the property should be rezoned based on normal standards
and criteria.
It was determined that the parcels in question were 150, 151 and 152.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the rezoning was reasonable and moved that ZMA-87-12
for Martha & Albert Bacon / Althea Riley be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval as follows: Parcels 153 through 157 are recommended
for rezoning to CO, and it is further recommended that the County acquire
parcels 150, 151 and 152, OR if the County does not choose to acquire
these parcels, they are also recommended for rezoning to CO.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The petition was to be heard by the Board on November 4, 1987.
Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District - Notice of intent to create
the Jacob's Run Agricultural'Forestal District located on Routes 743, 660,
664 and 665. Comprised of Tax Map 18, Parcels 40 and 40F; Tax Map 19,
Parcels 25 and 25A; Tax Map 20, Parcel 7A; and Tax Map 31, Parcels 16,
16B, 44C, 45, 45B and 45C. The proposed district contains 742.222 acres.
MW
October 20, 1987 Page 6
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. A main issue of the proposal
was the conflict between the proposed agricultural/forestal district
and the existing village area. The staff report stated: "If the
Earlysville Village boundary is changed as recommended by the Land Use
Subcommittee, then there will be no conflict." The report also stated
that "this is the first agricultural/forestal district which could limit
the expansion of a growth area." The report stated that staff had "no
problem with the proposed district at the present time (but) the need
for an expansion of Earlysville will have to be re-evaluated when the
district is reviewed." Staff recommended a six -year time period
for the district, to coincide with the completion of the next Compre-
hensive Plan review. The staff report also asked that the Commission
discuss the configuration of the district, and whether any problems may
arise from the large gaps between participating landowners.
Mr. Cogan expressed some concern about the southeastern corner of the
Blades property which was in the shape of a long, narrow strip. He
felt such a narrow strip could have potential impact on non -participating
property on either side. He suggested that some consideration should
be given the issue of "pipestems" on future applications.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Babs Huckle addressed the Commission. She called the Commission's
attention to an 8-acre lake on her property which acts as a
siltation basin for Chris Green Lake. She pointed out that all of
the property in the proposed district that forms the core abuts
Jacob's Run and will have an impact on Chris Green Lake whether it
remains as a recreation facility or should become a water source.
It was determined the pipestem about which Mr. Cogan had expressed
concern was for road access.
Regarding the Earlysville Village boundaries, Ms. Scala explained
that the portion of the proposed district which overlaps into the current
village has been recommended for removal from the village, to be
replaced by the Deer Run Subdivision which is not currently in the
village.
Mr. Shannon Shirley expressed concern as to how the property in
this district will effect adjoining, non -participating property.
Mr. Horne explained that adjoining property owners are not subject
to any of the land use limitations in the district, but the existence
of the district must be taken into account when actions on adjacent
properties are reviewed. He stated that State Law requires that
the potential effects of any action on non -participating adjoining
property be considered as it relates to the ability of the district
to conduct agricultural or forestal operations, but it does not
dictate what action must be taken, only that the existence of the
district be considered. Mr. Shirley expressed his opposition to
such districts and questioned the need for them.
R
2/
October 20, 1987 Page 7
Mr. Steve Murray, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, also responded
.r to Mr. Shirley's question. He explained that property owners
join a district to protect themselves and keep themselves under
land use taxation.
CR
Ms. Virginia Gardner expressed concern about the potential impact of
the district on the future development of her property. Mr. Horne
stated that by -right development of adjacent property is not limited
by its proximity to a district. He added: "Any legislative action
by the Board of Supervisors, rezonings or special permits, where they
have discretion, could potentially be affected. They must take into
account the existence of the district. Whether it would be effected
is totally open to question. All the State Law says is that they have
to take into account the existence (of a district)."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. St. John stressed that only those parcels that qualify for land
use under land use tax laws will qualify for it under a district.
Ms. Diehl asked Ms. Scala to explain again the possible impact on the
future growth of the Earlysville Village.
Ms. Scala explained that everything revolves around Chris Green
Lake and whether or not that lake will need to be used as a water
source in the future. She stated that when the Utility Master Plan
is completed the future of utilities in that area should be clearer.
She stated that if it is determined that Chris Green Lake is needed
as a water supply, it will cease to function as a recreational facility
and it will probably preclude any further expansion of the Earlysville
Village. However, if the lake is not needed for a water supply,
then Earlysville can expand, probably to the north, since it is limited
by the airport on the east and by the South Fork Watershed on the southwest.
Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Scala if she felt there were any disadvantages to
having an AF district lying directly adjacent to a village. Ms. Scala
responded that this is the first time the issue has come up. She stated
that she did not think it would create a problem for the next 6 to 8
years and, in the meantime, it will protect the Chris Green Lake
water supply.
Ms. Diehl expressed interest in more information about the five -acre
parcel, 18-40F. It was unknown whether or not the property was
developed. Ms. Diehl was concerned because she felt the Commission
should be consistence in its treatment of small parcels.
It was determined that staff would obtain more information about parcel
18-40F and would have it available for the Board of Supervisors' review.
Mr. Michel stated he had no problem with including the five -acre parcel.
as
October 20, 1987
Page 8
Mr. Michel moved that the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as presented,
for a period of 6 years, and with the further recommendation that
the Board give consideration to the five -acre parcel, 18-40F, after
receiving additional information on this parcel from staff.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
DS
l 07
0
John Horne, Sec etary
LWA
n
.7R