HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 10 1997 PC Minutes6-10-97
JUNE 10, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June
10, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Babs
Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr.
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala,
Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent. -
Commissioners Tice and Washington.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The
minutes of May 27, 1997 were approved (4:0.1) as amended. Having been absent
from the May 27th meeting, Mr. Dotson abstained from the vote.
Mr. Keeler summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their June 4th
meeting.
Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission could be provided with copies of the Cellular
Tower report prior to the June 17th meeting.
SP 97-16 St. Paul's Church - Proposal to amend the current special use permit for St.
Paul's Church (SP 96-54) to expand the facilities with a two story addition to the
existing church on 15.315 acres zoned VR Village Residential. Property, described as
Tax Map 58A2, Parcels 17, 18 and 19 (combined), is located on the east side of State
Route 678 (Owensville Road) at Ivy in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This
property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is not located in a
Development Area. Deferred from the June 3, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting.
Prior to the staff report Mr. Loewenstein made the following statement: "I want to
affirm for the record that although I am a member of St. Paul's Church, I believe that
can be fair and impartial in considering this application. I will abstain from voting on
this matter, however, to avoid any possibility of conflict."
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mark Keller. He said all four conditions are being
addressed. All engineering design calculations have been done and are being
checked and made ready for submission to the County Engineering staff. Regarding
improvements to the ditch about which an adjacent owner had concerns, he said the
Highway Department will be making those improvements, but the condition of approval
is acceptable because the applicant will work this matter out with VDOT. Because it
will result in a significant loss of trees, VDOT is studying further their recommendation
for an additional 100-foot taper lane. The 100-foot taper may be reduced to a 30-
foot taper or just an increase in the existing radius. Once the magnitude of the
'4�6
6-10-97 2
grading at the northern entrance is known, the applicant will then put forth "a
landscape remediation plan to the County and work that out with staff."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Noting that this is a significant increase in square footage (8,800 sq. ft.), Mr. Dotson
asked how the expansion will be used. Mr. Vic Dandridge, a church member,
answered that 20% will be for a large adult meeting room, 10% for a kitchen, 10% for
hallways, etc., and 60% for Sunday School classrooms. No increase in congregation
is anticipated. Mr. Dandridge acknowledged that any potential future use as a pre-
school would require amendment to this special permit. (For purposes of clarification,
it was decided a condition would be added, as it has in previous similar applications,
related to future day-care or pre-school use.)
Ms. Huckle said she could support the application if a condition is added regarding
day-care or pre-school use.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-16 for St. Paul's
Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. County Department of Engineering approval of entrance improvements, drainage,
erosion control,and runoff control.
2. Staff approval of landscape/screening plan to address replacement of screening at
northern entrance.
3. VDOT approval of northern entrance improvements.
4. Virginia Department of Historic Resources certification that addition does not
detract from the integrity of the existing historic structure.
5. This special use permit is approved for worship and church related activities only.
Day-care, pre-school, or other such activities, shall require amendment to this special
use permit.
The motion passed (4:0:1) with Commissioner Loewenstein abstaining.
SUB 96-081 La Clvde Run Revised Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 8 lots
averaging 3.23 acres, and two parcels, averaging 24.15 acres. Property, described as
Tax Map 55, Parcels 87 and 88A-1, is located on the west side of State Route 684
(Half Mile Branch Road) near Yancey's Mill. This property, containing 75.379 acres, is
zoned Rural Areas in the White Hall Magisterial District, and is designated Rural Area
in the Comprehensive Plan. The lots will be served by a proposed state road.
157
6-10-97
Ms. Scala explained that staff was requesting that this item be deferred (for at least 2
weeks) because the Water Resources Manager did not receive necessary information
about wetlands and therefore was unable to make a recommendation on this proposal.
She said this information could potentially effect one of the lots.
Ms. Scala presented a summary of the staff report and explained that the item was
before the Commission due to an appeal by an adjoining property owner. She said
the possibility of a Rural Preservation Development had been discussed with the
developer, but "it did not have clear advantages over conventional development in this
case, mainly because there is only one possible location for the road entrance...., so it
would have been a question of either putting the lots in the stream area or in the
orchard area." The applicant preferred to preserve the orchard area. The
preservation tract, in either case, would be minimal.
Ms. Huckle asked if the Engineering Department has considered the effect of multiple
stream crossings on the flooding potential of the stream. Ms. Scala said she was sure
that was considered and the Engineering Department has said that "if the crossings
are designed along with the roadway, he will be able to approve them." Ms. Scala
said she would make sure the County Engineer is present during the next meeting.
Ms. Scala explained how the wetland determination could potentially effect the lot
layout. She said it could possibly eliminate a lot.
,,,W The applicant was represented by Morris Foster, Land Surveyor and Planner for the
applicant. He apologized for not having fully understood what was needed in relation
to the wetlands. He did not anticipate any significant problem. He explained if the
wetlands extend farther than he thinks, then he will revise the lot lines between lots 2
and 3. Regarding the creek, he said the total upstream drainage area is 180 acres.
The channel of the creek is presently adequate to contain a 100-year storm flow.
There is presently a problem downstream at the State Road crossing. VDOT's pipe is
inadequate in that location. However, he said he was not concerned because the
water would have to overtop the highway at a depth of 5 feet before it would ever
back up to this property's road crossing. He said the stream crossings for this
proposal could be accomplished with either culverts or a small bridge.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. David Spicer, an adjoining property owner, expressed two concerns: (1) That the
existing right-of-way be terminated and not be used by this subdivision; and (2)
Potential changes to the flow of the stream which could negatively impact the water
supply for his cattle.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out to Mr. Spicer that a note on the plat will require that all
these lots are to be accessed from the proposed 50-foot right-of-way which should
address his first concern. He said also that he believes his concerns about the stream
will be addressed by the Water Resources Manager's approval.
6-10-97 4
Mr. Dotson noted that even though these lots will be required to use the new State
road, that does not mean the existing easement will be eliminated. Ms. Scala said the
extent to which the County can address Mr. Spicer's concern is in the requirement that
the lots use the new road only. Whether or not the existing easement is eliminated is
a private matter between Mr. Spicer and the owner of this property.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the concern about changes to the flow of the stream, Mr. Nitchmann asked
if there are any State laws which make it illegal to impair the flow of a perennial
stream. Mr. Kamptner replied: "That may fall under the Riparian Rights Doctrine --that
adjoining landowners to perennial streams and damable rivers have the right to
reasonable use but they can't keep it all to themselves."
Mr. Nitchmann hoped staff would make sure the conditions of approval and the notes
on the plat are such that they prevent, as much as possible, the future use of the
existing easement. Mr. Loewenstein suggested the language on the plat could be
stronger.
Mr. Dotson pointed out that the use of the existing easement is a "neighbor -to -
neighbor" concern. He suggested the two property owners may find they do not need
to eliminate the easement, but just need to reach an understanding about its usage.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that LaClyde Run Revised
Preliminary Plat be deferred to at least July 15th, "or beyond."
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle suggested an additional condition of approval should be added related to
the access being only from the State road. She said people do not often pay close
attention to what is written on a plat.
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
SDP 97-37 Forest Lakes North Car Wash Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct
a two -bay automated car wash of approximately 1,500 square feet on a 0.512 acre
parcel zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property,
described as a portion of Tax Map 46134, Parcel 1,is located on the south side of
Timberwood Parkway (State Route 1720), between the Timberwood Parkway/Worth
Crossing intersection and Route 29 North. This site is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District and is recommended for Community service in the Hollymead
Community.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. The report explained that this is a by -right
use and the issue of use is not before the Commission. The preliminary site plan is
before the Commission at the request of adjoining property owners. Commission
6-10-97 5
action on a modification of Section 4.12.6.2 to allow one-way circulation is required.
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan and the modification, subject
to conditions.
The staff report stated: "Objectionable aspects of the operation raised by the
neighbors such as traffic, appearance, trash removal and stormwater runoff control
have been addressed through the site review process. Other objectionable aspects of
the operation raised by neighbors such as property values, inappropriate business,
windswept trash onto adjacent properties, hours of operation and undesirable clients
are matters of use which are not subject to site plan review regulations. Conditions
are included to address the development of the site such as screening, landscaping
and stormwater management. This proposal is subject to Albemarle County
Architectural Review Board review. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not granted by
the ARB until final site plan review...."
Ms. Huckle asked how the wash water will be disposed of. Mr. Morrisette called
attention to condition (1)(e) which requires that water collected in a catch basin in
each wash bay be routed to the sanitary sewer system.
Staff explained the zoning history of the parcel. "When Worth Crossing was cut
through (SUB 96-042, June 1995), there was a residue residential parcel (less than 1
acre) that remained on this side of Worth Crossing that got rezoned to Commercial."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that "the majority of this parcel has been zoned Commercial
since 1968."
The applicant was represented by Ted Glass (with Roudabush & Gale Engineers).
Answers to Commission questions were as follows:
--The applicant has met with the neighbors a couple of times and has moved
and redesigned the site to try to address some of the concerns.
--The ARB requirements will ensure that the design and landscaping are
compatible with Gateway Village.
--It is anticipated the use will serve the residents of Forest Lakes primarily.
--The wash water will go into the sanitary sewer system and the RWSA will
receive the wash water at the treatment plant where it will be treated along with all
other waste water. This is the same as for all other car washes in the area.
The applicant, Steve Parks, answered questions:
--Regarding the landscape plans, he said the site would have a "residential
look." The dumpster will be screened.
--The site will be accessed from Timberwood Parkway.
--The facility will be coin operated, but an attendant will be on the site. Vacuum
stations will be present.
--Lighting will be in accord with County requirements.
--The use of the vacant site to the left of this site is not known at this time. (Mr.
Runkle later said the vacant site could accommodate about 10,000 feet of retail or
restaurant space or perhaps 20,000 square feet of office space.)
�0
6-10-97
Public comment was invited.
0
The following residents of Forest Lakes and Gateway Village addressed the
Commission and expressed opposition to the request: Madeline Horton, Christopher
Noel; Albert Capehart; and James Dickman. Their reasons for opposition included the
following-
--"There is a difference between what is legal and what is appropriate." (Ms.
Horton)
--The facility will not be used by the market it has targeted because many
Forest Lakes residents have "pledged" that they will not use the facility.
--Concerns about hours of operation, noise, lighting, loitering and trash were
expressed.
--Many of the uses in HC zoning are not appropriate so close to a residential
community.
--Negative impact on property values.
--Increased traffic.
--Possible pollution of pond in Gateway Village. (NOTE: Mr. Steve Runkle, a
representative of the Forest Lakes developer, later explained that the pond referred to
was built to serve as a detention basin for this property and the other 10 acres of
commercial area south of Timberwood Pky).
Mr. Noel read a Position Statement which was signed by many residents of Forest
Lakes. He said the document was signed by 1/2 the residents of Forest Lakes. He
had not had time to get to the remaining houses. The statement expressed concerns
about the "broadness" of the HC zoning category and the possible uses which could
be located on this property. The statement concluded: "No one lived in Forest Lakes
at the time of the zoning. Maybe it looked good on paper then, but it is definitely
offensive now. There were not hundreds of children and hundreds of families living
together in the neighborhood. We're asking that you seriously consider our petition to
reexamine your zoning. We do not want a car wash up front out of fear of what will
come next. Please help protect the thousands of citizens in that part of the county.
We do not believe that a car wash, or many of the other businesses which are allowed
by the zoning, are appropriate to the concept and intent of planned urban
development....."
Mr. Noel also read a Petition of Opposition signed by the same residents. The petition
included a "pledge" that the residents of Forest Lakes (whose names appeared on the
document) would "never use the car wash." (Mr. Capehart, a resident of Gateway
Village, later presented another copy of the petition with an additional seven names.)
Ms. Liz Jessup, a resident of Forest Lakes North, spoke in support of the proposal.
She felt the proposed use is more acceptable than some of the other potential uses.
She said the applicant has changed the plans in an attempt to meet the concerns of
the neighbors. She pointed out that cars which are washed at home cause more
pollution than will this facility because the water drains into the storm drains (not the
sanitary sewers) and goes into the river.
61
6-10-97 7
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Capehart if the neighbors would feel less hostile to the proposal
if the hours of operation were limited. He responded: "Possibly less so if we had
guarantees that it wouldn't run 24 hours a day, but we have objection to the car wash
itself, not just its hours of operation." Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Kamptner pointed out
that the Commission can set limits on hours of operation only on special permits. This
is not a special permit --it is a Preliminary Site Plan. Ms. Huckle suggested that the
owner might be willing to offer some limits on hours of operations in the interests of
promoting better relations with the neighbors.
Mr. Capehart asked what type of help the County can provide to protect the residents
of these neighborhoods from this type of situation. Mr. Kamptner responded: "If you
have a concern about the Highway Commercial zoning that exists now, your best
course of action is to approach your Board member or Planning Commission member
and ask if they will consider a rezoning of the property, recognizing that it would be a
downzoning. This is a fairly small area so it would be considered a piecemeal
downzoning. It could be accomplished only if there was a mistake of fact or fraud or a
significant change in circumstances since the original zoning was put in place. The
matter before the Commission tonight is a site plan. For the Commission, it is a
ministerial action. The use is really not before them because the applicant has
complied with the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the use. The issue in front of the
Planning Commission tonight is whether or not this site plan meets all the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and some other related ordinances, such as
Water Quality, etc." He added that noise and lighting are items which will be
addressed during site plan review.
Ms. Horton said that the Position Statement does make the request that the property
be rezoned. She asked what else needs to be done to initiate such an action. Mr.
Keeler said the request should be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Keeler added: "A rezoning can be initiated in three ways --by application by the
owner of the property, by resolution of intent by the Planning Commission, or by
resolution by the Board of Supervisors. To rezone it there would have to be a
designation to rezone it to (another designation). If you're going to ask the County to
change the zoning, are you going to leave it up to the County as to what to change it
to or are you going to determine what you think would be the appropriate zoning on
the property. It has to be readvertised and we have to advertise the current zoning
and the proposed zoning."
Regarding Mr. Kamptner's statement about a "significant change in circumstances
since the original zoning," Mr. Noel pointed out that Forest Lakes did not exist at the
time of the 1968 zoning action. He feels this is a significant change.
Mr. Steve Runkle, representing the developer of Forest Lakes, addressed the
Commission. He pointed out that this property has been designated for many, many
years as a commercial service area for a growth area. What has been developed on
the commercial property thus far meets both the requirements of the Forest Lakes
Architectural Review Board and the County's Architectural Review Board. He pointed
out the additional traffic from this use (120 vtd) is insignificant when compared to the
(,, z
6-10-97 8
total traffic for Forest Lakes North residential area (6,000 vtd). He said lighting will be
controlled by the Zoning Ordinance and will also be a part of the ARB review. He
pointed out that when the vacant sites surrounding this property develop, they will
offer additional buffering and landscaping between this site and neighboring properties.
Mr. Dotson asked if the site will be highly visible from Rt. 29, and what type of sign is
envisioned. Mr. Runkle said the site will always be visible from Rt. 29, though it will
be somewhat less visible when surrounding sites develop. There will be no signage
on Rt. 29 for this use. Regarding possible future expansion of the use, Mr. Runkle
said he did not think it would be easily expandable, as proposed by this site plan. He
was not aware of any plan by the applicant for future expansion.
Mr. Capehart was allowed a final comment. He said he thought a site farther north of
the shopping center, as mentioned by Mr. Runkle, would be more acceptable to the
residential neighborhoods.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to clarify how the County will address noise and lighting issues.
Mr. Keeler said complaints about noise occurring as a result of the human activity on
the site will be addressed through the County Code and enforced by the Police
Department. Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance will address noise as it applies to
uses of an industrial character. This would require a determination by the Zoning
Administrator that this is a use of an industrial character, "unless as the use is listed in
the Ordinance, it makes specific reference to Section 4.14." Mr. Keeler added that the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are applicable only to the site improvements, so
the Zoning Ordinance would apply to the car vacuums (about which public concern
was expressed). Mr. Keeler did not think a car wash vacuum is as loud as some
regular home vacuum cleaners. Section 32.7.10 will apply to lighting. The lighting
cannot exceed 1/2 foot candle at adjoining residential properties or at a public road.
(The public road is closer in this case.) Shielding will be required "where appropriate."
The ARB has required shoe -box, down -directed lighting, exclusively.
Mr. Dotson said since the HC zoning is in place the Commission cannot address the
question of use. He pointed out that the use was relocated in response to neighbor
concerns and there is now an area that will act as a shield between the use and the
residential area. He noted also that the site is "constrained and will not be easily
capable of expansion" and the lights and noise concerns will be covered by the
Ordinance. He concluded that he felt the staffs recommended conditions of approval
are reasonable. He asked, however, that condition (1)(e) be reworded so that it is
clear that recycling of waste water is not prohibited. He wanted to make sure that the
condition did not prohibit recycling of the water if such a system were to be proposed.
(There was further discussion later as to how to reword the condition to best address
Mr. Dotson's concern. It was ultimately decided the condition would be amended to
read: "... Water collected in the basin, whether first recycled or not, shall be routed to
the sanitary sewer ...." Rest of condition remains same.)
Z, z5
6-10-97 9
Mr. Finley added that the applicant had also reduced the square footage of his original
proposal by 750 square feet.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed with both Commissioners Finley and Dotson. He said it is
unfortunate that some type of transitional zoning was not put in place at the time of
the rezoning. He said there are many more objectionable uses which could be placed
on the site by -right. He wanted staff to assure, at the time of the final site plan, that
the facility will take on the characteristics of the neighborhood. He concluded that
there is no legal reason to deny the request and he could support staffs
recommendation for approval.
Ms. Huckle hoped the applicant would attempt to limit hours of operation and would
also consider relocating the facility farther away from the residences. She agreed with
the neighbors that HC is not appropriate adjacent to a residential neighborhood. She
said she hoped the Zoning Ordinance could be changed "where HC is that close to
residential."
Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with most of the remarks made by Commissioners
thus far. He said the Commission is forced to consider the application within the limits
of the law and therefore the Commission cannot deal with the request any more
thoroughly than it has. He hoped the applicant would continue to work with the
residents of the community to attempt to address their concerns.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that the final site plan come back to the Commission for final
approval.
There was a brief discussion of the rewording of some conditions which will take place
as the result of the Commission acting on the final site plan (rather than staff
approving the plan administratively).
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Forest Lakes North
Car Wash Preliminary Site Plan be approved, subject to the following conditions, and
also that a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2 be granted to allow one-way circulation:
1. Prior to submittal of final site development plan for Planning Commission review,
the applicant shall obtain tentative approval of the following conditions:
A. Planning Department approval of Landscape Plan.
B. Engineering Department approval to include:
1. Labeling the existing alignment and roadway features for Timberwood
Parkway (i.e. pavement width, entrance to Food Lion, pavement markings, etc),
2. Approval of grading plans and computations;
3. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval of plans, drainage
computations, and Fortune Park Road plans or connection to a state -maintained road.
Per VDOT:
6�/
6-10-97
10
a. Fortune Park Road has not been approved, however, an existing
entrance from Timberwood Parkway is adequate to serve this site,
b. For Fortune Park Road, a traffic analysis will be required to determine
the level of service at build -out at Timberwood Parkway and Worth Crossing;
4. Approval of detention plans and computations.
C. Albemarle County Service Authority approval to include:
1. The meter shall be located in a grassy area within the existing easement of
the 12" water main;
2. Provide revised water usage numbers so the meter can be sized;
3. Increase the fall away from the exit side of the wash bays. The general
note regarding grading the site so runoff will not enter the bays is inadequate. (NOTE:
Because of concerns raised by Ms. Huckle about the lack of clarity in this condition,
staff was directed to "tighten" it up for the final plan.]
D. Albemarle County Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
E. Each wash bay shall contain a catch basin. Water collected in the basin,
whether first recycled or not, shall be routed to the sanitary sewer (or it shall be
discharged in a manner approved by the department of Health or any other applicable
state or federal agency).
F. Albemarle County Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include:
1. Rearrange the employee parking space so that it is 16' wide for barrier free
accessibility. (This parking space does not have to be marked as accessible on the
pavement nor have a standing sign indicating accessibility.)
The motion for approval passed (4:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting
vote. Ms. Huckle explained that her negative vote was "to encourage the two sides to
come together."
The Commission is to review the final site plan.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
CM