HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 29 1998 PC Minutes9-29-98
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September
29 , 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms.
Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. Wiliam Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will
Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. David
Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Loewenstein announced that Commission's Recording Secretary, Debris Bradshaw,
would be resigning her position after tonight's meeting. Ms. Bradshaw has held this position
for 14 years.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the following Resolution
be adopted:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SERVICE TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Whereas, Deloris Bradshaw did serve as recording Secretary to the Albemarle
County Planning Commission for fourteen years, from September 4, 19984 through
September 30, 1998; and
Whereas Ms. Bradshaw served in that capacity with great competence,
intelligence, and initiative; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission did rely on Ms. Bradshaw's experience and
judgement in faithfully and accurately recording the details of its meetings and in
performing numerous other important related tasks; and
Whereas, the Commission wishes to make known its gratitude to her for her
valuable work;
Now Therefore Be /t Resolved that the Albemarle County Planning
Commission does hereby express its deep appreciation to Deloris Bradshaw for her
dedicated service.
The motion passed unanimously.
The minutes of September 15 were unanimously approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA - Woodbrook Crossing Lo# 3 - Critical Slope and Grading Within
A44 w Residential Buffer Waiver Requests.
No concerns were identified by the Commission.
9-29-98
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 99$-02 -Airl2ort Road Office Complex - Request to rezone 2.5 acres from RA,
Rural Areas to C-1,Commercial with proffers. A conceptual plan that accompanies the
rezoning, though not proffered, shows construction of an office building. The property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 B, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas and is designated for Office Service in the Comprehensive
Plan. Deferred from the September 8, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. She said the applicant has addressed concerns
about the need for dedication of right-of-way by establishing two areas as shown on
the survey attached to the staff report. "The area shown in Parcel X would be
dedicated for the road widening project. The area shown in Parcel Y would be set
aside for construction easement, with the construction easement terminating in five
years, or before if no longer needed."
The staff report concluded: "The staff believes that the appropriate future use of the
property is an office commercial use, rather than a residential one. A rezoning
reflecting that use is viewed as appropriate. Needs for dedication have been
adequately addressed. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the
v*a,, applicant's proffers."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Jones. He offered no additional
information.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 98-02, Airport
Road Office Complex, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval,
subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-19 Mitchel! Matthews - Request to rezone a .45 acre parcel from R-1,
Residential to CO, Commercial Office to establish an architect's office and residence
within an existing dwelling. The property, described Tax Map 60, Parcel 36A, is
located on Stillfried Lane (behind Teague's Funeral Home), off of Route 250 East, in
the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. It is in Development Area Neighborhood 6, and
recommended for Community Service use. Deferred from the September 1, 1998
Planning Commission meeting.
AND
SDP 98-092 Site Plan Waiver for Mitchell Matthews Architects Offices
9-29-98 3
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning
request, and of the site plan waiver request, subject to conditions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for clarification of the condition on the site plan waiver related
to public sewer connection. Ms. Echols said the Health Department will determine
whether or not the existing septic system is in working condition. If the system is not
in working condition, the applicant must connect immediately to the public sewer. If
the existing system is in working condition, then the applicant must connect to public
sewer within 12 months.
The applicant, Mr. John Matthews, addressed the Commission. He offered to answer
Commission questions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Matthews to describe the present road maintenance
agreement. Mr. Matthews explained that Stillfried Lane is maintained by the
University. He contacted them and they do not feel a maintenance agreement is
needed at this time. The University has indicated a willingness to negotiate a
maintenance agreement at some future time, if one should become necessary. The
property owner on the eastern side of Stillfried Lane, Mr. Newman, has agreed to
enter into a maintenance agreement for the maintenance of Sycamore Lane.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 98-19 for Mitchell
Matthews be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a Site Plan Waiver
request be approved for Mitchell Matthews Architects Offices, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall connect immediately to the public sewer if the existing septic
system is determined as inadequate by the Health Department; otherwise, connection
will be made within 12 months of the rezoning.
2. Delineation of parking spaces, except for handicap access, will not be required.
3. Screening between the adjoining residential use shall be installed and maintained
for so long as that use and zoning remains residential.
4. Receipt of modified maintenance agreements for access on the private road or
letters from owners of the private roads that no modification of a maintenance
agreement is needed.
5. Engineering Department approval of the parking lot improvements.
'�?' �7
9-29-98 4
6. Engineering Department approval of entrance improvements necessary to obtain
adequate intersection sight distance.
7. Engineering Department approval of drainage and stormwater management plans.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
ZMA 98-20 Pantops PDMC - Petition for approval of an Application Plan for general
development of 49.34 acres, zoned PDMC. Property, described as Tax Map 78,
Parcels 20A, 73, 73A, 76 and 75, is located on the south side of U.S. Rt. 250E and
west of State Farm Blvd. Property is in Neighborhood 3 of the Urban Area of the
Comprehensive Plan and recommended for Regional Service usage within the
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Staff was requesting deferral to October 6, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-20 be deferred
to October 6, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-050 Division of Motor Vehicles - Petition to establish a DMV facility of
approximately 9,140 square feet with one drive -through window [31.2.4, 22.2.2.101 on
2.7 acres zoned PDMC, Planned Development - Mixed Commercial and EC, Entrance
Corridor. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 78, Parcel 73, is located on the
southern side of State Route 250 East (Richmond Road), between the existing Virginia
Oil Service Station and the Guaranty Bank. This site is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District and is recommended for Office/Regional Service in Neighborhood
3.
Staff was requesting deferral to October 6, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-050 be deferred to
October 6, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-16 Colonnade enter - Proposal to rezone an 18,360 square feet parcel from
R-1, Residential to C-1, Commercial in order to locate a commercial/office building.
The property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C2, is located on Colonnade Drive
(off of Ivy Road), adjacent to the Townside Shopping Center and University Heights
Apartments, in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The site is located in Development
Area Neighborhood 6 and is recommended for Urban Density Residential use.
Soo
9-29-98
41
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request.
The report concluded:
"The small size of the parcel involved in this request provides practical limits to
its use and, overall, impedes its development potential. When combined with
the adjoining parcel, the site's development potential is improved, but the site
still does not lend itself to a multitude of uses. In this particular case, a
rezoning would be required on one or the other parcel to maximize use of the
land. As Commercial Service and Urban Density Residential Use come
together at this location on the Land Use Plan, either commercial or residential
use would be in keeping with the Land Use Plan. Staff opinion is the
commercial use is appropriate in this location and the HC zoning, with the
proffers proposed, allows this site to have a zoning designation consistent with
the surrounding commercial. Limits on intensity allow the use to function as a
transition between adjacent residential and institutional uses."
Echols
Mr. Rooker asked why it would not be more appropriate to rezone both parcels to CO,
as opposed to what is being requested. Ms.-&aMe said that option had been
discussed, and was considered a few years ago. She said: It could go either way.
What we tried to do was get those high intensity uses out of there. If (the
Commission) feels it is more appropriate specifically as an office, in that list of uses, it
could also be rezoned --both parcels --to CO. The request was just for the one parcel."
Given some of the surrounding uses (St. Anne's Belfield School and residential), Mr.
Rooker said he believes there are uses which have not been proffered out that would
not be appropriate for the site. He said he would be more comfortable with a CO
zoning on the property, which he feels would be appropriate for both parcels.
Mr. Loewenstein said he shares Mr. Rooker's views. He said he believes CO would
do a better job of providing the kind of transition that "we are talking about."
Ms. Echols said: As a single parcel, it attaches more easily to an HC than as a
stand-alone CO, but that is only one area where, from a good zoning practice
standpoint, it could be viewed as more in keeping with non -spot zoning. But we have
done the CO's as stand alone as well. So either way would work."
Mr. Rooker said what he is suggesting is that both parcels be rezoned to CO so it
would provide zoning for a unified use. He said he spoke with the applicant and
believes CO would allow any use they anticipate for the property.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that only one parcel had been advertised, so the
Commission can take action only on the single parcel.
Mr. Finley asked how the list of uses which remain had been developed, i.e. was staff
involved or was it just the applicant's list? Ms. Echols said staff had worked with the
applicant "to try to get the most intensive uses out of the list."
SU/.
9-29-98 6
Mr. Loewenstein said he shares Mr. Rooker's belief that some of the uses which are
on the list are too intense, given the surrounding uses.
Mr. Rooker asked if a future amendment to the Ordinance could result in some of the
uses which have been proffered out being re -instated as potential uses on this
property. Mr. Echols responded: "I don't think so. I think they are limited to the uses
which are in effect right now and that is why we attach to the proffers the existing list
of uses." Staff confirmed Ms. Echols' statement was accurate.
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Ms. Echols confirmed that a site plan will be
required for any use that goes on the property.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Cliff Hamner. He said the applicant is trying to
combine two very small pieces of property together in the simplest manner, so that an
appropriate use can be found. He said he does not believe there will be negative
impact to adjoining properties.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any use contemplated by the applicant which would not
be permitted under CO. Mr. Hamner said he was uncertain. He said he is not sure
what type of retail uses might be allowed under CO, and the applicant wants to keep
the capability for retail uses. He described potential retail uses as those similar to
what presently exist at the Townside Center, e.g. flower shop and optometrist. He
`+ confirmed that the primary intended use is office. No definitive tenant has yet been
found for the property.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone had spoken with St. Anne's. Mr. Hamner said he spoke
with the school and the Headmaster had not advised him of any concerns about the
rezoning proposal.
In answer to the previous question about potential by -right retail uses under CO, Mr.
Cilimberg quoted from the Ordinance: For accessory structures and uses incidental
to the principle uses provided herein. Such uses, in combination, shall not occupy
more than 20% of the floor area of buildings on the site." Those permitted accessory
uses are eating establishments, newsstands, establishments for the sale of office
supplies and service of office equipment, data processing services, central
reproduction and mailing services, pharmacies, medical laboratories, sales and service
of goods associated with the principle use, such as, but not limited to musical
instruments, musical schools, textbooks, art supplies and dancing shoes and apparel."
He said a wider variety of supporting commercial uses can be allowed by special use
permit, but only a small percentage. Mr. Cilimberg said the 20% limitation cannot be
exceeded by a special use permit, nor can it be exceeded with a waiver.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Lou Stevens, representing St. Anne's Belfield School, addressed the Commission.
He said the Headmaster has concerns about safety and security. He listed the
following:
ge)A
9-29-98 7
--Additional traffic on Ivy Road will increase existing hazards.
--Potential use of St. Anne's property as a short cut from this development to
the University campus. He asked if the Commission would consider requiring fencing
along the St. Anne's border. (Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that issues such as fencing
will be addressed during the review of site plans.)
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would be willing to proffer "at such time as the
property is developed, a fence will be built on the back of the property." Mr. Hamner,
responding from the audience, said: "We can do that."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Rooker said his primary objection is that there are still some by -right uses on the
applicant's list that would not be appropriate for the property. He said his concern
could be met if some of these are proffered out. He also noted that though the staff
report said motor vehicle sales and rental were proffered out, the proffer letter does
not reflect that.
Mr. Rooker listed the following uses which he felt should be deleted from the
applicant's list:
#4 - Building materials sales
#25 - Motor vehicle sales, service and rental
#26 - New automotive parts sales
#34 - Wholesale distribution
#39 - Heating oil sales an distribution
#40 - Temporary nonresidential mobile homes
#43 - Farmers' market
(Mr. Rooker originally listed #37-Temporary construction uses, and #35-Electric, gas,
oil and communication facilities. Mr. Cilimberg explained #37 are uses allowed in all
districts and cover such things as a temporary construction trailers which are used
only during construction, and #35 is to allow any public utility to establish such
facilities. Applicants are not usually asked to proffer out #35 uses. Mr. Rooker
agreed to remove #35 and #37 from his fist. )
He said he could support the request if the applicant is willing to proffer out those
uses he listed. Mr. Loewenstein agreed.
Mr. Hamner agreed to remove those items listed by Mr. Rooker. He said most of
these were not considered as potential uses because of the small size of the lot.
Mr. Kamptner suggested that the applicant, when submitting the updated proffers prior
to the Board hearing, reference Section 24.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance in proffer #3.
Mr. Rieley said he has concems about filling stations and convenience stores so close
to residences. Ms. Echols pointed out that filling stations would not be permitted.
J43
9-29-98 8
" Mr. Finley said he was somewhat concerned about "picking this apart without any in-
depth analysis," but because the applicant is agreeable, he can support the proffered
list of uses.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-16 for
Colonnade Center, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject
to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, as amended by the applicant at this meeting,
including the deletion of those uses listed earlier, and the agreement to add a proffer
to install fencing along the St. Anne's Belfield border.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
CPA 97-02 N & S LLC - Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Language
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. He presented an updated draft of the proposed
revisions to the text of the Land Use Plan, the Neighborhood 5 profile. The language
reflects the Commission's previous discussion of this item. The most significant
change was to change the designation from Transitional to Community Service and to
add language related to the design of the hotel/motel development.
Mr. Rieley said his greatest concern has been that once this Comp Plan amendment
has been made, the rezoning proposals which will follow will be "fairly ordinary
interchange kind of developments which do not add up to a cohesive whole."
Mr. Rooker agreed. He noted, however, that the it has been made clear to the
applicant, in previous meetings, that "if and when the applicant comes back for a
rezoning of the property, we are going to expect, as part of the proffers, some kind of
design for the property that is going to be adhered to. Throughout this process the
applicant has shown a design and we would certainly expect that what we've seen is
what we're going to get, or something very close to it."
Mr. Thomas recalled that the tree line was to be a factor in how the development will
blend in with the land. The topography of the site will have to be taken into account
when planning to use trees to screen a two or three story building.
Mr. Loewenstein said one of his concerns is that this development, because of it's
close proximity to the Interstate, will attract a large amount of Interstate traffic,
regardless of how it is sited or how it is designed.
The applicant, Mr. Cliff Hamner, addressed the Commission and presented suggested
changes to staffs proposed language.
After discussion of Mr. Hamner's proposed changes, the Commission agreed to
address each of the applicant's proposed changes by amending staffs language as
follows: (Numbers (1) through (5) refer to the numbering of the applicant's proposed
changes, dated September 29, 1998.1
9-29-98 9
(1) In the first "bullet', add: "...located south of 1-64. This area is larger than
what is normally associated with Community Service areas. Therefore, the sg-uare
footage limits outlined in the Land Use plan may not be a maximum limit. The primary
consideration in determining maximum use will be the following design issues.
Expectations..."
(2) Change the second "bullet:" "...facilities, etc.), are compatible in scale to
the height..."
(3) The Commission did not support the applicant's proposed change and
therefore did not adopt it. The Commission agreed with staff that convenience stores
and service stations are not acceptable uses on this site. Mr. Rieley said his main
concern is that gas sales will result in this "becoming a stop off the interstate," which
is exactly what the Board of Supervisors has previously decided is not acceptable.
(4) In the third bullet," remove the last section, beginning "reservation of right-
of-way" entirely. (There was some discussion of adding a sentence --Only enough
right-of-way to complete a third lane will be reserved --but it was ultimately decided to
delete the section. )
(5) The Commission did not support the applicant's proposed change to the
fourth "bullet," but did recommend the following change to the language: "Further
development along Fifth Street may depend upon the following improvements to the
164/5th Street interchange:..."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that CPA 97-02 for N&S
LLC be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as presented by staff
and amended as stated above.
The motion passed unanimously.
--------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Cilimberg thanked Ms. Bradshaw for her years of service.
Mr. Loewenstein reminded the Commission that beginning October 6th, Commission
meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
D:
ER
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary