Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 27 1997 PC MinutesM 5-27-97 MAY 27, 1997 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman (7:45); Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioners Dotson and Finley. A quorum was established and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the May 6th and May 13th Commission meetings were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their May 21st meeting. SP 97-7 James W. & Edith M. Love - Request for a special use permit to display vehicles for sale, on a parcel currently used for a mobile radio installation and repair ,. business located on the west side of Avon Street Extended (Route 742) north of Interstate 64. The property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 11, lies within a designated Entrance Corridor, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The portion of the parcel located adjacent to Avon Street Extended is zoned HC, Highway Commercial; the rear portion is zoned RA, Rural Areas. It is recommended for Industrial Service in Urban Neighborhood 4 in the Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the May 6, 1997 Commission meeting. Site Plan Waiver Request James W. & Edith M. Love - Request to waive the site plan requirement for a proposed used car sales display. Deferred from the May 6, 1997 Commission meeting. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both requests, subject to conditions. Ms. Thomas distributed to the Commission two additional items: (1) A letter received by e-mail from some residents of Willoughby, an adjacent subdivision; and (2) A draft of comments from the ARB meeting. Commission action was required on three items: (1) The special permit; (2) The site plan waiver, and (3) A waiver of minimum improvements to allow gravel surface in lieu of surface treatment for the used car display area only. 5-27-97 2 Mr. Loewenstein asked if the applicant has proffered a maximum of 11 cars displayed. Ms. Thomas responded affirmatively, and staff confirmed this could be added as a condition. Referring to condition No. 2 on the Site Plan Waiver Request, [Site shall be developed in general accordance with the sketch plan submitted by the applicant.], Ms. Huckle expressed concern that there is no landscaping shown on the plan. Ms. Thomas said a landscaping plan will be submitted prior to ARB review. She said she believes it is the applicant's intent to submit a separate landscaping plan which will show more detail. The applicant was represented by Greg Love. He expressed no objection to a condition limiting the number of vehicles to a maximum of eleven (11), nor to a condition requiring a landscaping plan. He passed among the Commission a copy of the landscape plan he plans to submit. Contrary to a comment in the ARB's report about a light on the sign, Mr. Love said there is no light on the sign and he has no plans to add a light. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this site lies within his district and he has received no comments from neighbors. He said he could support the request with the addition of the two conditions discussed. In relation to the landscape plan, he noted that he hopes the landscape plan will be consistent with landscaping at the Edgecomb Motors site. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-7 for James and Edith Love be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. No elevated vehicle display. 2. Vehicle sales and display shall be limited to a maximum of eleven (11) vehicles and only in the area designated on the applicant's sketch plan (Attachment D to the staff report). 3. Submittal of a landscape plan which shall be acceptable to the agent and approved by the Architectural Review Board. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Site Plan Waiver Request for James & Edith Love be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Department of Environmental Quality regulations for removal of underground storage tanks located on the site, prior to commencement of used car sales. 3 on 5-27-97 3 2. Site shall be developed in general accordance with the sketch plan submitted by the applicant. 3. No grading shall occur at an elevation below the surface of the existing pavement, gravel and/or topsoil. 4. Applicant must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board prior to commencement of used car sales. 5. The entrance must be paved to the right-of-way line, in compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation requirements. 6. Submittal of a landscape plan which shall be acceptable to the agent and approved by the Architectural Review Board. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.12.6.3, to allow a gravel surface in lieu of surface treatment for the used car display area only, for the site plan for James & Edith Love be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-15 Western Ridge Business Park - Petition to establish a day care on a 1.5 acre portion of property, described as Tax Map 56, part of parcels 88, 89, 90 and 90A. The site consists of a total of 10.51 acres, zoned LI, Light Industry, which is located on the south side of Route 240, Three Notch'd Rd., approximately 1.5 miles west of the Route 240/250 intersection at Mechum's River in the White Hall Magisterial District. (27.2.2(14)] This site is located in the Community of Crozet and is recommended for Industrial Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Staff answers to Commission questions included the following: --"We found the difference between this use and other potential supporting commercial uses is the specific notation of the Crozet Study of the need for day care facilities which is not satisfied by the existing downtown development. We felt that overcame some of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of focusing development in the downtown areas.... We are not ruling out that there is no location elsewhere in Crozet (but) one has not been established elsewhere and the need has been identified." --The drainage easement on lot 2A "appears to be a detention pond that will serve both the Martha Jefferson site as well as areas upstream on lot 2A, adjacent to Rt. 240." (Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the special permit applies only to tract 2B.) Ms. Huckle was concerned about the safety of the children being compromised by the ,Is-- 5-27-97 4 existence of a railroad track on one side of the site, and a drainage easement on the other. --On the issue of the appropriateness of this type of use in an industrially zoned area, Mr. Fritz said if an industrial use is proposed on adjacent property then this applicant could request limitations on the industrial use. --Traffic generation figures were not considered because traffic is not usually a concern with industrial properties. Mr. Fritz said the traffic would probably be either comparable to, or lower than, a by -right use. Ms. Huckle pointed out: "This is not really an applicant to have the day care center. This is an applicant with land who would like to utilize the land." Mr. Cilimberg said this action would only allow a day care use, whether or not the applicant plans to operate the facility or have someone else operate it. The applicant was represented by Ms. Kathryn Womack. Her comments included the following- --This facility will be similar in size to the Mill Creek Day Care Center (just under 6,000 square feet). It will serve 120 children, ages infant to age 4, and will have 14 employees. --The facility will be licensed by the State and will have to meet all State requirements for safety. Negotiations are taking place with a local day-care provider. The applicant will not operate the facility. --There is a natural barrier between this site and the railroad tracks. --Even though the Comprehensive Plan encourages development in the downtown area of Crozet and discourages development in the 250 area, it does not address the Rt. 240 area at all. --Regarding conflict with potential future adjacent industrial uses, she pointed out that this area is already developed on three sides, and this site is a part of the Western Ridge Business Park. There are recorded covenants which govern what can been done in the Business Park and those covenants limit the use of the property to what is currently allowed under Highway Commercial or Light Industrial. --The Western Ridge residents support this request. --The special permit approach addresses previous Commissioner concerns about spot zoning. Ms. Huckle asked why the day care was not located farther away from the railroad track, and closer to Rt. 240. Ms. Womack did not know why the applicant had selected this site, but said she questioned whether being close to Rt. 240 would be better than being close to the railroad track. She again pointed out that there is a natural barrier between the site and the railroad track in that the track is at a higher elevation. (Mr. Tice arrived at the meeting at 7:45 p.m.) Public comment was invited. on 2� 5-27-97 5 Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission. He agreed with staffs position that commercial development "belongs downtown." However, he said he agreed that day care is needed in Crozet. He hoped, in the future, that day care could be addressed by County programs. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said she was not concerned about whether this site is commercial or industrial. Rather, she feels it is inappropriate to put babies and small children in an industrial area. She said there are 9 - 12 trains daily on these tracks, and 10 more may be added in the near future. She said the noise created by these trains would be very disturbing to sleeping infants. She also expressed concern about the fact that the railroad will spray their right-of-way yearly with herbicides. With all the talk about "family values," she said she would like more value to be placed on "families and helpless children." She concluded: "I think this is an outrageous thing." Mr. Nitchmann said that though this may not be an ideal location, it is preferable to one closer to Rt. 240. Noting that there is going to be considerable growth in the Crozet area, he said it is important that day care facilities are available which are convenient for working parents. With the recent changes in the Welfare laws, he said there is going to be an even greater need for day care. He said he has confidence that the Engineering Department and the State will ensure that this will be a safe facility. Mr. Loewenstein agreed there is a need for day care in Crozet, but he expressed concerns about this particular site. He said the need would override his concerns except for the fact that he is not convinced that a more suitable site cannot be located within the downtown Crozet area. He also expressed concern that the use is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan in this area and he wondered if approval would set a precedent, even though staff believes it would not. He was concerned about what type of industrial use might develop on adjacent land. Mr. Nitchmann understood Mr. Loewenstein's concern, but pointed out that presently there are no other applications to establish day care in downtown Crozet. He also said that he is not aware of any site in the downtown area which would be large enough to allow for a playground, as will this site. Ms. Huckle added: "I just want to point out one more thing about tract 213--it is a rectangular piece with the longest access being adjacent to the railroad. If they are playing outdoors they will be impacted by the railroad even more." Referring to a comment made earlier about traffic on Rt. 240, Ms. Huckle pointed out that to reach this site "you still have to go on 240 and make a turn into Park Ridge Drive. Same difference." (Mr. Nitchmann clarified that his comment about traffic on 240 was that the all -day -long traffic on Rt. 240 will not be going past this site.) MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that SP 97-15 for Western Ridge Business Park be denied. The motion died for lack of a second. 3Y 5-27-97 6 MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP-97-15 for Western Ridge Business Park be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions of this special use permit. 2. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the conditions of this special use permit. 3. These conditions are supplementary and nothing slated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal agency. Discussion: On the question of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Kamptner explained that there is some latitude for interpretation because a day care use is a little different from the typical types of uses associated with downtown commerce because it is not shopping oriented. (Mr. Keeler added that day care is treated differently in the Ordinance than other types of uses.) Mr. Tice agreed that it may not be an ideal location, but it is what has been proposed and a critical need for day care in this area has been identified. He thought too much was being made of the impact of the railroad because the railroad goes through the middle of town and even if a site were found downtown the railroad impact would be similar. Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be added requiring fencing. Staff assured Ms. Huckle that fencing would be required as both a State requirement and as part of the site plan process. Hearing staff assurances that fencing will be required, Mr. Nitchmann declined to amend his motion to add a condition related to fencing. The motion for approval passed (3:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Loewenstein casting the dissenting votes. WORK SESSION - Industrial Square Footage Mr. Loewenstein thanked staff for the work that has taken place thus far on this study. He also thanked County residents for their input. He explained that this work session 5-27-97 will be the first of several work sessions which will, "presumably" lead to a public hearing at some later date. Mr. Loewenstein described the history of the origin of the original Resolution of Intent: "At its meeting on May 7, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to (consider) amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance to require a special use permit approval for industrial and certain commercial uses which exceed a specified square footage of floor area. Further discussions with staff have generated the results that we have before us tonight. As this report points out, a broader, more comprehensive approach to this issue may be appropriate to pursue, regardless of whatever regulatory measures, if any, may result." He read a statement which outlined the four possible options that will be discussed in future work sessions. Those options are: (1) Review the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Development Policy and the Zoning Ordinance together to insure consistency among these documents if we determine that we should pursue regulatory measures; (2) An analysis of the acreage needed to meet current and projected employment might lead to alternative actions regarding the Comp Plan. If the amount of zoned and unzoned land is excessive for the near or long term, then the Comp Plan could be amended in a couple of ways: (a) To remove excess designated acreage and replace it with another land use; (b) Continue to show this land as holding area reserved for development beyond a certain date and require a Comp Plan Amendment for rezoning if development were proposed at an earlier date; (3) Special Use Permit Approach. This is the original Zoning Text Amendment proposal which came from the Planning Commission last year in its Resolution of Intent. This would apply to 950 acres of unzoned land; 285 acres (9 sites) of vacant zoned land; and to most existing uses. (4) A new zoning district with a special use permit for square footage which could be applied to the 950 unzoned acres but would not apply to existing vacant land or to existing uses. Prior to receiving the staff report Mr. Loewenstein made the following "philosophical comment" on the work done to date: "The County needs to incorporate in its planning policies and zoning regulations the presumption that non-residential uses of a certain scale may be incompatible with the character of this community and its ability to absorb new population growth in an orderly and fiscally responsible manner. This is consistent in the sentiments that were expressed in the 1994 Center for Survey Research Opinion Poll that was conducted for the County in which 97.8 % of those polled thought the County was either growing at the right rate or too quickly. My understanding of the original Zoning Text Amendment proposal that we will discuss tonight is that it would allow an infinite number of expansions up to the threshold annually, because the purpose of this proposal is not to cap growth, but to assure that it occurs at a pace which can be absorbed by this community without incurring physical strain or damage to community character. These comments are my own and are not intended to limit discussion of the options I have already outlined but I wanted to address the philosophy behind the original Resolution of Intent." Y1 5-27-97 8 Mr. Loewenstein later read the original Resolution of Intent: "In order to serve the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good planning practice, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby resolves to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require issuance of a special use permit for any establishment exceeding a specified aggregate building floor area, whether or not located on a single or multiple tracts of land. This requirement shall apply to (1) any use allowed by right in 27.0 Light Industrial (LI), 28.0 Heavy Industrial (HI), or 29.0 Planned Development Industrial Park (PDIP); and (2) any use allowed by right in 22.0 Commercial (Cl), 23.0 Commercial Office (CO) and 24.0 Highway Commercial (HC), provided that the use is also allowed by right in the 27.0 Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, or Planned Development Industrial Park." He further explained: "Our original Resolution of Intent used aggregate building floor area to determine a way this provision would kick in." Mr. Loewenstein quoted from sections of the Economic Development Plan provisions in the Comp Plan which he said "is operating behind this discussion:" --Page 9, Strategy 9, Objective 2: "Encourage employment of the local labor force rather than heavy reliance on relocated workers." --Page 11,Strategy 1, Objective 4: "Evaluate the physical impact of new business and industrial development." --Page 11, Strategy 2, Objective 4: "Recognize that County residents place importance on job opportunities and economic growth, but not at the expense of the protection and preservation of water quality and quantity, natural resources, farmland, historic areas, and open space." --Page 11, Strategy 3, Objective 4: "Recognize that the purpose of this economic development policy is to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living, improved job and wage opportunities, and workforce development opportunities rather than to seek to stimulate further population growth." Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Commission comments and questions were as follows- --How many sites are there in the 950 acres of unzoned land? Mr. Keeler could not respond precisely, but said breaking it down into 10 acres pieces would result in 95 sites. He confirmed, however, that many of the sites are much larger. --Was consideration given to limitations based on water usage? If so, would it be studied in the same manner as the square footage limitation? Mr. Keeler said water usage can vary greatly and it would be very difficult to establish a water consumption figure that could be translated into an employment figure. Building area is more translatable. (Example: A large warehouse would have a high square footage, but would have few employees and low water usage.) He did not think a limitation based on water consumption would achieve the same result as a square footage limitation. Ms. Huckle pointed out that while its possible to build new schools and new roads, "water is a finite item." Mr. Kamptner said water consumption may be an impact that would be considered with a square footage application. Ms. Huckle suggested that a limit on water consumption should be identified in some of the 5-27-97 9 County's printed material so that a prospective industry will be aware of it from the beginning. Mr. Keeler said a limit related to water consumption is a separate issue from a square footage limitation. Ms. Huckle felt a special permit tied to water usage would motivate applicants to devise methods for saving and reusing water. Mr. Loewenstein suggested it would be helpful to see if the RWSA can provide information on the water usage of existing large scale businesses. --Referring to staffs statement that the amendment would probably impact "5 of 17 sites," Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to identify those 5 sites. Mr. Kamptner said it is best, at this point in this study, "not to say whether or not a property might have vested rights. Mr. Nitchmann said he is trying to determine if this is a case of "the tail wagging the dog," i.e. only 18 or 19% of the total land might be effected by this amendment. He asked: Are we willing to add more legislation which will effect only 18% of the land?" He also disagreed with Mr. Kamptner's comments about not identifying sites which might be impacted. He said: "I think we need to put all the cards on the table and those property owners who might be affected should know up front, right now, before we get too deep into this." --Referring to an analysis of land use --connecting it to residential development -- Mr. Loewenstein asked if staff could come up with a "relatively simple" way to carry out such an analysis, "given the other initiatives which have proceeded since the adoption of the new land use plan that would be helpful to us in our consideration?" Mr. Loewenstein said finding a way to connect all these figures is necessary in order to make sense out of Option II. --Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to see an analysis of how this amendment would impact tax revenues. Mr. Loewenstein added that it would be helpful to include in the study the potential fiscal impact of all of the options being considered, "at least in a general way." --Referring to Option I (ensuring consistency among county documents), Mr. Tice suggested: "This would be a perfect task for the Development Area Initiative Consultant." --Referring to Option IV and the uses which may be included in a new zoning district, Mr. Loewenstein asked if staff could consider this question and include it in the next staff report. Mr. Nitchmann said there is a need for areas where small businesses can locate. Staff is not suggesting that the County initiate rezonings; rather "adopt a new district and then deal with rezonings as they come in." --Of the 740 acres "possibly protected by vesting rights," Mr. Tice asked: "Are there any circumstances where those lands might lose that vesting?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "All I can think of is if it were rezoned." --Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that 76% of the people who completed the County survey feel "we do need some economic policies to stimulate growth so they can improve their standards of living." "94% said they liked living here. So it is a situation where both desires need to be satisfied." Mr. Loewenstein hoped this initiative will result in a balanced approach. --Ms. Huckle said it is important to find out "what is lacking" in the local workforce which causes large employers to have to hire people from other areas. "What do we need to add to our educational opportunities to make it possible for local people to fill these jobs?" 5-27-97 10 Public comment was invited. Ms. Lisa Harmon, an Earlysville resident and President of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission. She pointed out that the County's participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program and the North Fork Industrial Park could result in a tremendous increase in the amount of industry in the area. She said it "makes sense" to curtail industrial and commercial development as much as possible and thought it was a good idea to refer this study to the Consultant for advice on the best approach. She ended her comments by saying that some citizens of the County feel as though they are "victims of the Comprehensive Plan" because: (1) It is not a user-friendly document; and (2) The inconsistency with which the recommendations of the Plan are applied. Ms. Suzanne Staton, representing the Charlottesville Albemarle Chamber of Commerce expressed opposition to "requiring a special use permit for business expansions in aggregate of 125,000 square feet or more." Her statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. Ms. Babette Thorpe, speaking for herself (not PEC), expressed concern about the County having "given up its ability to influence the scale and phasing" of the North Fork Research Park and having "given up the ability to ensure that the economic development coming from those sites is compatible with the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development strategy." She felt regulating the use through a special use permit may be a way to address this problem. She stressed that the proposed amendment would not prohibit large industrial uses, but rather it would give the County a chance to evaluate the impact to schools, neighborhoods, roads and the water supply before giving approval. The work session ended after public comment. A summary of directions to staff (prepared and submitted to the Recording Secretary by Mr. Loewenstein) is as follows: (1) Ask the RWSA to provide water usage figures for large-scale businesses identified in Table B of Attachment I in the staff report; (2) Ask Mr. Benish to look at residential development figures to compare these with industrially designated land, in order to better analyze acreage needed to meet current and projected employment levels (Option 2 in Attachment III of the staff report); (3) Investigate statistics on job growth among local large- scale employers; (4) Analyze fiscal impacts of all types of growth, using the new fiscal impact model (this will require some time and additional staff, which have been projected for this initiative generally by the County); and (5) Further analyze (listing various options and the potential impacts and value of each) the possibility of creating a new zoning district with a flat or special use permit square footage limit. There being no further business, the meeting ended at 9:40 p.m. V. Way4 Cilimberg, Secr`e a `%" D B Z/,