HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 08 87 PC MinutesDecember 8, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 8, 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 Develop-
ment; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Laura Hill, Planner; Mr.
John Pullen, Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of November 24, 1987 were approved
as amended.
Ashcroft Section V Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 24 lots from 42
acres, including 14 acres in open space. Lot size ranges from 40,702 square
feet to (0.9 acre) to 89,199 square feet (2.05 acres). Lots are to be
served by public water and private individual septic fields. Lots are to be
accessed by proposed private roads. Property, located off the north side
of Rt. 250E, off the west side of North Pantops Drive, adjacent to Sections
I and II. Tax Map 78, Parcel 55. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development.
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that this item be
indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl, that the Ashcroft Section V
Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
Premier Plaza Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 9,582 square
foot commercial building comprised of a 7,840 square foot first floor, and
a 1,742 square foot second floor, to be used for a furniture store and
general retail shops. Development proposes to provide 57 parking spaces,
including l(one) loading space, 2 (two) spaced for the handicapped, and
4 (four) marked for employees only. 0.98 acres, zoned C-1, Commercial.
Property, located on the west side of Route 29N, adjacent to the north of
Premier Realty; Tax Map 61M, Parcel 2; Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Hill gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Ms. Hill called the Commission's attention to a letter from an adjacent L
property owner who expressed concern about lighting on the site.
To address this concern, Ms. Hill suggested that a condition be added
which would require that the applicant provide a "plan of exterior
lighting." She stated staff would require approval of such a plan
by the County Engineer before staff would approve the landscape plan.
Mr. Cogan felt the landscape plan should include screening requirements
as well as lighting requirements. He noted that some of the trees
which have been planted along the access road have died.
December 8, 1987
Page 2
It was determined a different applicant was involved with the existing
screening trees on the access road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the original conditions had not applied to the
maintenance of the buffer.
Mr. Keeler responded that the original conditions had applied to a
special use permit. He added, however, that "In this particular case,
I think you can require that those trees be replanted to the extent
that it is providing screening for this project." Mr. Keeler indicated
he was uncertain as to the exact location of the trees which have died
and been removed. Mr. Keeler added that screening for this project
cannot be provided on site because of sight distance requirements.
There was some discussion about the present condition of the existing screening.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Ordinance requires that the landscaping be
bonded for one year. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was no recourse beyond that
time. Mr. Keeler stated he felt this was a matter for the Zoning Adminis-
trator to determine. He added that if the landscaping is a feature shown
on the site plan, "then the applicant is obligated to provide it."
Mr. Bowerman stated he was trying to separate the present application from
prior actions.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt they were two separate issues: (1) Landscaping
on this site to screen commercial development from residential; and (2)
Screening that was established previously by a previous applicant.
Mr. Keeler again stated that he did not believe the applicant could meet
screening requirements on site because of interference with sight distance,
"so he cannot meet the Ordinance in that regard." He added: "What we
are suggesting is that he simply replant those trees that are being
requested to be replanted in order to satisfy the screening provision
of the Ordinance."
Mr. Bowerman stated he was not in favor of requiring this applicant to
plant trees off his property. He felt the prior applicant should be
required to replant the trees. Mr. Cogan agreed.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the present applicant cannot meet Ordinance
requirements for screening on site, then the site plan may not be viable.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Jerry Dixon addressed the Commission. He questioned how the applicant
could be required to replant someone else's trees. He felt the issue
was simple, i.e. if the former applicant is not meeting the conditions of
the special permit, then it should be revoked.
Mr. Robert Bruin, owner of the property stated he did not think there would
be any problem with getting the tree planting issue resolved. He felt that
issue should have no bearing on the present application.
iN
December 8, 1987
Page 3
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Leon Gorman addressed the Commission. Mr. Gorman was primarily concerned
about exterior lighting. He also asked that the dumpsters be screened from
residential property and that the trees which have died be replanted.
Mr. Ragland expressed his support for Mr. Gorman's statements.
Ms. Hill stated that the applicant has proposed to plant trees and bushes
around the dumpsters. Mr. Michel noted that the plan also shows a 7-foot
high screen.
Mr. Robert Cox, a future tenant of the proposed building, expressed his
support for the proposal. He stated he did not think bright lighting would
be a problem.
liere being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler if the special permit would "follow" this
particular piece of property.
Mr. Keeler stated he did not have the file, nor the conditions of the
special permit or site plan with him. Mr. Keeler stated he did not know
if the Zoning Administrator could "go out tomorrow and require Knight's
Inn to replant those trees." He recalled that Knight's Inn had an
agreement regarding the payment for the trees with the seller of the
property, but Knight's Inn had "gotten tired of it and went ahead and
planted."
However, Mr. Keeler added that he was certain of what the Ordinance
requires, i.e. "that screening shall be required in the following
instances: commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from
adjacent residential and rural areas districts." He stated that
the applicant cannot meet that requirement on site, with this site plan,
"but the intensity of the development could be reduced to where he
could plant the trees on site." He concluded: "So I assume if you
approve this subject to those trees being replanted, the applicant
will find some way to insure that they are done, if the trees that
are missing are necessary to screen his development."
Mr. Cogan stated he felt all the Commission needed to do was to
approve the proposal "subject to the appropriate screening being put
in place somewhere."
Mr. Horne reminded the Commission that this is a preliminary plan
and, following Mr. Cogan's suggestion, the staff will guarantee that
before the final site plan is approved, "there shall be screening."
He added: "If he doesn't want to do it off site, and we're not
requiring that he does it off site, then he'll do it on site."
Mr. Bowerman stated he recalled clearly previous actions on this property
and the screening issue has been a recurring problem. He stated the
trees were supposed to have been planted prior to the first development,
the Thomas Jefferson Motor Lodge. When they had not been at the
8n
December 8, 1987 Page 4
time of the Knight's Inn approval, the issue was again addressed. He
felt that the responsibility for providing required screening lay with
whatever arrangements were made at the time of the Knight's Inn approval.
Mr. Horne stated that staff would investigate the issue.
Mr. Cogan suggested the following additional condition: "County Engineer
approval of exterior lighting plan. Staff approval of landscape and screening
plan."
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant would consider having two types of
lighting: (1) An all-night lighting; and (2) A parking lot lighting
which could possibly be turned off after the parking lot is vacated at
night.
Mr. Dixon expressed a willingness to consider such an arrangement; however,
he pointed out the safety factor and legal responsibility which are involved
in the lighting issue. He stated it was not the applicant's intent to
project any lighting beyond the property line.
Mr. Keeler stated he did not think this was an issue the Commission should
deal with because it would be very difficult to enforce. Mr. Cogan agreed.
Mr. Keeler clarified the lighting issue. He stated: "I believe what we're
talking about is that the lights be shielded from the residential area
and that the tracing ... be the spillover limit at the residential line."
Mr. Cogan stated he felt this was to be left up to the County Engineer's
office and staff.
Mr. Michel stated he felt the staff's note regarding parking was better
worded than that shown on the plan. He asked that staff's wording
be used on the plat also, i.e. "Future certificates of occupancy shall
be contingent upon available parking" vs. "Future certificate (singular)
to be issued based on available parking."
Mr. Cogan stated staff could take care of that concern before the final
plat.
It was determined that staff would report back to the Commission on the
specifics of the landscape and lighting plan before signing the final plat.
Mr. Michel moved that the Premier Plaza Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are
met:
a) Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b) County Engineer's approval of grading and drainage plans and cal-
culations;
c) County Engineer's approval of stormwater detention plans;
d) County Engineer approval of entrance onto private road.
I/
December 8, 1987
Page 5
2. Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy shall be contingent upon the
following:
a) Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Future certificates of occupancy shall be contingent upon available
parking.
4. Amend the landscape plan to include provision of screening shrubs at
the edge of the parking lot along Route 29 pursuant to Section 32.7.9.7.C.
5. County Engineer approval of exterior lighting plan. Staff approval of
landscape and screening plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Blandemar Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create approximately 66 lots with
an average lot size of 24.3 acres from an existing 1,379 acre parcel. In
addition, three small lots are proposed at an average lot size of 2.03
acres. Each of the smaller lots will front on State Route 708. This plat
proposes single family residential use. The property is located on the
east side of State Route 708, at its intersection with State Route 710,
Red Hill area. Tax Map 88, Parcel 1. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The primary issue of the application
was private vs. public roads. The applicant had submitted a written request
containing justification for private roads. The report stated that the
applicant felt "the construction of public roads within the site
would 'create a tunnel effect which would not comply with the designed
character of this development."' Staff felt that the applicant failed to
demonstrate that private roads would "alleviate a clearly demonstrable
danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent
properties." The report stated further: "Staff was unable to identify
any specific benefit received by the general public as opposed to proprietary
interest for approval of private roads...." The report concluded: "Staff
is of the opinion that serving this proposal with private roads is un-
approvable, based on the grounds that this request has not been demonstrated
to meet the intent of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance."
Staff provided conditions of approval, in the event the Commission chose
to approve the proposal with public roads.
(Note: Mr. Pullen noted that the following statement in the staff report
was incorrect: "Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that the
same number of lots could be realized if the property were developed with
public roads." He explained that "This plat is drawn with the lots
exclusive of the 50-foot right-of-way that was needed for a public road.")
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne represented the applicant. He stated the applicant felt
private roads would provide more security for a "very upscale markEtplace."
Az
December 8, 1987 Page 6
He asked that the Commission consider private roads, but he stated that
the applicant would be willing to construct public roads if so required.
He asked for administrative approval for the final plat for Phase I.
He stated there would be no problems meeting the conditions for the
lake.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mrs. Heyward addressed the Commission and asked that the developer
leave as much open space as possible in the development.
Mr. David Van Roijen addressed the Commission. He distributed a statement
to the Commission and then read the statement. His comments included
the following:
(1) He felt the proposal was in opposition to the agricultural -forestal
district and to the present zoning in the area.
(2) He asked that public roads be required.
(3) He asked that the developer consider proffering underground
utilities.
(4) He asked that "full bond funding" be required as soon as any part
of the preliminary plat is recorded.
(5) He asked that roll -back taxes be insisted upon for all parcels
under land use regardless of the fact that development is to be
done in phases.
Mr. Van Roijen felt the issues of 'bonding and roll -back taxes were central
if a developer is to lock in development rights in perpetuity." He felt
these issues should be voted upon before a subdivision of this magnitude
is approved.
Mr. Cogan advised Mr. Van Roijen that the Commission could only address
the road issue because the other issues are not under Commission control.
Mr. Osborne asked Ms. Heyward if she would be willing to come back at
a later time if the applicant were to consid--r a cluster development.
Mr. Cogan asked if Mr. Osborne was suggesting that the proposal be deferred
so that an alternate plat could be submitted. Mr. Osborne responded
"Absolutely not.."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel stated that though he was sympathetic to Ms. Heyward's and Mr.
Van Roijen concerns, those were issues which the Commission could not
address at this time. He stated the plan before the Commission was
"basically by right" and he felt the staff's recommendation for a
public road was accurate.
Mr. Michel moved that the Blandemar Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a) Health Department approval of two septic locations;
b) County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans, and calculations;
c) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans, and calculations to include right turn lane;
2_4
December 8, 1987
Page 7
d) Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e) Issuance of an Operations and Maintenance Permit from the State
Water Control Board;
f) County Attorney approval of homeowner documents to include any
joint use facilities.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan asked if Mr. Michel's motion contemplated administrative approval
of the final plat for Phase I only.
Mr. Keeler noted: "The lot size and frontages in Phase I make those lots
exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance. I will assume that Mr. Osborne, being
a very conscientious professional, is going to ensure that he has the
Health Department approvals and other things so there are no problems with
the lots in the future. ... If you want to deem it as part of the subdivision,
we will sign a subdivision plat."
Both Mr. Michel and Mr. Bowerman stated they had no objection to administrative
approval for the Phase I final plat being included in the motion.
Ms. Diehl stated that since the proposal was in compliance with County
ordinances, she would support the motion. However, she stated she was
disappointed to see such a prime piece of farmland divided into 21-acre
lots. She stated that if the applicant is sensitive to environmental
issues, it would be realized that cluster development would be much
better for this piece of property.
Mr. Michel stated he hoped the applicant would return with an alternative
plan.
Mr. Keeler stressed that the Commission was talking about "something that
isn't adopted and the only way to achieve that at this time is through a
special use permit application which is a legislative act. I want to make
sure that the applicant is not interpreting any of your comments that
they're to go out and spend a lot of money on a special use permit
application."
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous
December 22 Meeting: The Commission requested that staff attempt to
reschedule the December 22nd meeting to either December 17th or
December 21st.
Mr. St. John commented on the issue brought up earlier in the meeting
regarding the Zoning Administrator's power to continually require
maintenance of screening. He stated that the Zoning Administrator
rr does indeed have the authority to require continual maintenance, even
after the bond has expired.
91/
December 8, 1987 Page 8
Regarding the issue of land use as commented on earlier in the meeting by
Mr. VanRoijan, Mr. St. John stated that the 21-acre parcel issue was designed
to dovetail with the size of parcels eligible for continued land use. Mr.
Michel asked if, in general, "you can do it with phases?" Mr. St. John
responded that "if all of this was done tomorrow as one phase, every one
of those parcels would qualify." He added "If you qualified for land use
you would have no roll -back taxes; a change in ownership would require a
re -application and the use of the parcels would then have to continue to
qualify in order to maintain their deferred taxation, provided that each
21-acre parcel continued in agricultural activity that qualifies for that
treatment." Mr.Michel asked if these were all 2-acre parcels, "Would
the roll -back taxes go beyond phase I?" Mr. St. John stated he did
not believe so, but he would research the matter.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45.
John Horne, Secretary
DS
9