HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 14 1995 PC MinutesM
3-14-95
MARCH 14, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March
14, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Ms, Katherine Imhoff, Vice
Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials
present were: Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, Mr. Ron Keeler,
Chief of Planning, Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Tom Leback, UVA
Representative; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Nitchmann.
The meeting was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of February 28, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
SUB-94-49 Luxor Preliminary Plat - Request for a modification of Section 18-37(o) in
the subdivision ordinance to permit an entrance onto Route 250 less than 500 feet
from a crossover. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcels 55D1, 55A4, 12, 12B,
and 57 is located on the north side of Route 250 west of Westminster Canterbury in
the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Sanford Wayside Stand - Request for a modification to allow a wayside stand
exceeding the 600 square foot limit of Section 5.1.19 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 9J is located on the west side of Route
606 north of and adjacent to the airport in the White Hall Magisterial District.
On the Luxor request, Ms. Huckle asked staff questions about the location of the
crossover in relation to the entrance. Mr. Fritz answered her questions and confirmed
that VDOT has no concerns about the request.
On the Sanford request, Mr. Dotson asked whether the stand will be only for produce
which is grown on site. Mr. Fritz confirmed that only goods produced on the property
could be sold at the stand. Mr. Dotson also had some safety concerns about the
parking area being shared with the music center. He was concerned that persons
visiting the wayside stand might not be aware of the children who may be present in
the parking area. Mr. Fritz said he had visited the site and did not feel there would be
a problem. Mr. Dotson also wondered how the stand would attract customers, given
the distance from the road. He asked if any signage was planned. Mr. Fritz explained
that some signage will be allowed, but that issue will be addressed by the Zoning
Administrator.
//7
M
3-14-95
2
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that both items on the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
[NOTE:- In the interests of saving time, the following four requests were heard
concurrently.]
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition
consists of two parcels containing 169 acres located on the west side of Rt. 821
(Blufton Mill Road) near Millington.
and
Addition to Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition consists of
two parcels containing 39.205 acres. One parcel is located on the west side of Rt.
777 (Vineyard Road) near Barboursville; the other parcel is located on the west side of
Rt. 639, north of Lindsay.
and
Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition consists of
two parcels containing 17.390 acres. One parcel is located on the northwest side of
Rt. 22 (Louisa Road); the other parcel is located on the northeast side of Rt. 648
(Clark's Tract Road), both near Keswick.
and
Addition to Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition
consists of one parcel containing 26.890 acres located on the east side of Rt. 601
(Free Union Road), near Buck Mountain.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She explained that the Advisory Committee was
recommending approval of all four proposals.
At Mr. Dotson's request, Ms. Scala explained the differences between
agricultural/forestal districts and use value taxation. She explained that most people
who join ag-forestal districts already have use value taxation, but joining an
agricultural/forestal district does not qualify a property for use value taxation. There
are four categories of use value --agricultural, forestal, horticulture, open space --and a
property must meet the requirements for a particular category. Only the open space
category requires that a property be part of an ag-forestal district.
There was no public comment on any of the four ag/forestal additions.
// 9
3-14-95
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the addition to the
Moorman's River Ag/Forestal District be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that the addition to the Blue
Run Ag/Forestal District be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that the addition to the
Keswick Ag/Forestal District be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that the addition to the Buck
Mountain Ag/Forestal District be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZTA-95-1 Right To Farm - Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section
10.0 Rural Areas District, to remove hog farms by special use permit (10.2.2.11), and
to add hog farms by right (10.2.1.xx), as required by Virginia Code Sections 3.1-22.28
and 15.1-491.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Ms. Scala explained a change to the
"Description of the Request." She said it is not necessary to add hog farms by -right
(10.2.1.xx) because they will now be permitted under the category Agriculture,
Forestry and Fishing uses, "except as otherwise expressly provided."
Ms. Scale confirmed the amendment will bring the County in line with the new State
law passed in 1994. The purpose of that law is "to limit the circumstances under
which agricultural operations could be deemed to be a nuisance." The most
significant effect is "that the County can no longer require a special use permit for any
production type agricultural use, such as a hog farm, in an area that is zoned for
agriculture." She explained further that production does not include activities related
to the processing of agricultural/forestal products, e.g. a slaughterhouse or a sawmill.
The County may still require a special permit for processing activities.
The Board of Supervisors held a work session (November 1994) to discuss the new
legislation and supported staffs recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance prior
to April 1, 1995 (the effective date of the new legislation), to remove hog farms from
special permit status, and to continue to research possible supplementary regulations
��9
em
3-14-95
4
for hog farms and other intense livestock operations. Ms. Scala said staff will be
considering those regulations as a part of the Comprehensive Plan review.
Ms. Scala pointed out that all the other intensive agricultural operations have been
allowed by -right for some time, without supplementary regulations. This will put hog
farms in that same category. But staff does plan to research the question of
supplementary regulations to determine if they are necessary. for intense livestock
operations. She noted that the other side of the issue is whether new regulations
would jeopardize the whole reason for the rural area district.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff felt it was unfortunate that supplementary regulations were not being
considered along with the zoning text amendment. She felt strongly that there should
be supplementary regulations for cattle, poultry and hog operations. She doubted
that the state regulations address the issue of site location in enough detail.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that ZTA-95-1, to amend
Section 10.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
[NOTE: Because both the next two agenda items were very similar, the staff reports
were presented together.]
ZMA-94-26 Glenmore Associates - Petition to amend the existing agreements of the
Glenmore PRD, Planned Residential Development to establish modified setbacks on
the undeveloped portion of Glenmore identified as Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 1 and
Section D as shown on Tax Map 93A4. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District and is recommended for Village Residential in the Village of Rivanna.
and
ZMA-94-27 Forest Lakes Associates - Petition to amend the existing agreements of
ZMA 91-04 (Forest Lakes South) to allow modification of the open space and setback
requirements. Property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit development in the Rivanna
Magisterial District and is recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units
per acre) in the Community of Hollymead.
l�-o
3-14-95 5
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report explained: "The existing setbacks
have proven difficult to interpret and enforce. The proposed setbacks are intended to
provide clarity and do not represent a change in the character of the development.
The Zoning Department has reviewed the proposed setbacks and is of the opinion that
they are superior to the previous setbacks." Staffs recommendation on both petitions
was as follows: "Staff recommends approval of this request as it is consistent with the
intent of the original approval and is proposed solely to aid in interpretation and
enforcement." The staff reports explained that the original agreements on both ZMA
91-04 (Forest Lakes) and ZMA-90-19 (Glenmore) would remain the same except for
agreement 10.
The applicants (for both items) were represented by Mr. Steven Runkle. He said the
intent of the amendment is simply to make the setback issue clearer so there is no
confusion for the applicant, the Inspections Department, or for title insurance
companies.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-94-26 for Glenmore
Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with
amendment to agreement 10 as set forth in the staff report dated March 14, 1995.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-94-27 for Forest
Lakes Associates, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with
amendment to agreement 10 as set forth in the staff report dated March 14, 1995.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-04 Forest Lakes Associates - Petition to rezone 12.08 acres from R-1
Residential and R-4, Residential to R-10 Residential (9.73 acres) and C-1, Commercial
(2.35) acres (proffered). [NOTE: The request for C-1 had been deleted with the
original approval of this petition on September 21, 1994.] Tax Map 32, parcel 29F is
located on the south side of Rt. 649 at the northern end of Timberwood Parkway in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in the Community of Hollymead
and is recommended for Low Density Residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre), High
Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that the rezoning had been
approved by the Board or Supervisors in September, 1994, but because an error in
notification was later discovered, the County Attorney advised that the ZMA be
reprocessed with correct notification. The report concluded: "Staffs opinion is that
there has been no change in circumstance since the Board's approval that warrants
change in the considerations and decisions made previously on this petition.
3-14-95
Therefore, staff recommends approval as originally granted by the Board of
Supervisors and reflected in the action letter of October 14, 1994."
Ms. Imhoff asked staff to explained the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area.
Mr. Fritz responded: "This area is in the Community of Hollymead, recommended for
low density residential, high density residential and neighborhood service.
Neighborhood service was for the portion closest to Rt. 649. The low density
residential was to the east." Ms. Imhoff recalled that the low density had been a
"sliver" of the property and the majority had been high density. Ms. Imhoff also
recalled that she had been in favor of the property being developed at the higher end
of the density range.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle, He clarified that the final action
had not included a density limit, it had just rezoned the property to R-10, without the
commercial area. He explained that the current plan shows 62 attached units
(2lbuilding), which will be sold separately. He said the request is the same as was
previously approved. He also said he was willing to "proffer that plan (on the basis)
that it was not to exceed that number of units (62)." He explained that it might be less
units.
Mr. Fritz explained that though no proffer had been submitted, it would not be
inappropriate for the applicant to make such a proffer. Mr. Davis confirmed that a
proffer could be finalized prior to the Board hearing (scheduled for March 15). Mr.
Davis pointed out, however, that the Board had not been interested in a "maximum
unit proffer" when this item was first heard.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Kenneth G. Robinson, a resident of Meadowfields Subdivision, addressed the
Commission. He said he had not been notified of the last hearing. He did not think
anyone in Meadowfields had been notified. He expressed concerns about the
existence of a pond and dam on the property which the County staff does not seem to
be aware of. He wondered if the County really knows what is happening on the
property. He was opposed to the property being developed at high density. He was
concerned about noise, possible runoff onto his property, and decreased value of his
property.
On the question of a pond, Mr. Fritz said he had walked the entire property last fall
and he had not seem a bond. Mr. Runkle later addressed this same question and said
that there may be an oid stormwater basin.
Mr. Dotson pointed out to Mr. Robinson that if the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations for this area were strictly followed, the density would be even higher
than what is proposed here, and there would also be some commercial area.
/,2A
3-14-95 7
*taw--* Mr. Bob Watson, President of the Forest Lake Homeowners' Association, addressed
the Commission. He said the Association's Board unanimously supports the petition
for the following reasons:
--it is viewed as a natural extension of Forest Lakes into the growth area.
--It provides a mix of prices that supports the County's strategy for affordable
housing.
--It is contiguous to the existing development.
--it goes a long way to helping the County's� goals of increasing density of less
than 2 units/acre. (This will average 5 units/acre.).
--It is consistent with current market demand.
M
Ms. Joan Forest, a resident of Meadowfields, expressed agreement with Mr.
Robinson's concerns. She noted that the staff report still shows that 2.3 acres is
requested for Commercial. Mr. Fritz explained that only residential zoning is
proposed. Staff is recommending that the Commission re -approve the Board's
previous action, which does not contemplate any commercial zoning.
Ms. Phyllis McKee expressed concern about traffic on Proffit Road. Mr. Blue pointed
out that the traffic from this development will not have access to Proffit Road.
Mr. Runkle responded to some of the public comment. He explained that there will be
a total of 62 homes, not 62 duplexes. He also said he was not aware of the existence
of a pond on the applicant's property, though there may be an old storm basin. He
was not aware of any utilities that would cross a dam. He offered to landscape
between this development and the Meadowfields Subdivision.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Imhoff noted that some of the comments heard had reinforced her feeling that it is
helpful to have a concept plan with proffers at the time of a rezoning request. She
strongly believed the County should stand behind the Comprehensive Plan. She did
not think the final product would be as undesirable as the adjoining properties expect it
will be. She concluded: "if we are going to have centralized growth and we are going
to save our rural areas, we are going to have to have some medium density affordable
housing growth areas, so I do support this rezoning request."
Mr. Dotson pointed out that the deletion of the commercial area would be a benefit to
the adjoining neighborhoods.
Mr. Blue wondered if there might be a better way to notify people of the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations, so that there would be a clearer
understanding of what can take place. Mr. Cilimberg felt it was difficult to go further
/Of3
3-14-95
8
than what is already being done in terms of advertising the dates of meetings and
actually holding community meetings at various locations.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-04 for Forest Lakes Associates be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, without the commercial area.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue noted that some commissioners had felt that a proffer of a maximum of 62
units should be accepted from the applicant. It was his understanding, however, that
the Board had not desired such a proffer with the original approval.
Ms. Imhoff clarified: "My motion accepts the proffers as offered by the applicant."
Mr. Dotson added: "And this plan is for information purposes, It is not being
proffered."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-23 C.M.A. Properties, Inc/Colonial Auto Center - Petition to rezone
approximately 1.1 acres from PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center to HC,
Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 94A (part) is
located at the end of Myers Drive and includes the cul-de-sac of Myers Drive. This
site is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District and is recommended for
Regional Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. The report concluded: "This is a relatively minor
rezoning request, but its potential consequence is significant. The proposed site plan
indicates an acceptable development concept, with vehicle circulation being
adequately provided for. However, the potential traffic generation impacts on Route
29 that could result from this rezoning, while not major compared to existing volumes,
cause some concern for the efficiency of Route 29. The proposed use of parking area
expansion for Colonial Auto is not expected to generate significant additional traffic,
but potential uses under unfettered HC zoning could generate much more traffic than
the parking area would. Therefore, staff is unable to support this request. "
Mr. Lilley answered Ms. Huckle's questions about what type of high -traffic uses are
allowed in HC zoning, (e.g.conveNence store, fast-food restaurant).
Ms. Vaughan asked if the Ride Share program which will be implemented soon had
been considered by staff in terms of the possible effect on Rt. 29 traffic. Mr. Lilley did
CR
3-14-95 9
N%W- not think it would impact this area. He noted that there are travelways through the
parking lot which should not cause any problems in terms of circulation within the lot.
Mr. Lilley confirmed that this plan would involve a shift in boundary line, i.e. the
applicant would purchase the "yellow shaded" area from the shopping center. Mr.
Blue asked what was to prevent the applicant from using the area for parking without
changing the zoning. Mr. Lilley responded: "Now it is a part of the PDSC and it
would require a change in zoning to the Planned Development Shopping Center plan.
So either way a rezoning is necessary." Mr. Blue asked if it would be possible to
rezone to some other designation which would allow the applicant to use the property
as proposed, but would not entail the risk of higher traffic generators. Mr. Lilley
thought that might be possible. He explained, however, that the Colonial Auto zoning
is HC and it is desirable that the zoning be consistent on all the Colonial property.
Mr. Davis addressed Mr. Blue's question: "The easiest way for it to be possible is
through proffers." Mr. Cilimberg added that he did not think there was a zoning district
which would allow the applicant's proposed use which would not have the same
concern about increased traffic, because all commercial districts, "unfettered" by
limiting proffers, will have potential increased traffic.
Mr. Blue stated: "if it were proffered to that particular use, and rezoned, that would
remove staffs objection." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Exactly."
Mr. Lilley understood the applicant is reluctant to offer a proffer because though they
intend to use it for parking, "they wouldn't want to tie their hands unnecessarily." Mr.
Lilley added that it might be possible that a proffer could be related specifically to
traffic generation.
Ms. Imhoff asked if there would be any limitation, under the PDSC zoning, to leasing
the land for parking. Mr. Lilley could not answer the question definitively. He
explained that even a leasing situation would require an amendment to the PDSC
zoning. (Mr. Blue noted that the capital investment involved might prevent a leasing
arrangement.) Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that with either approach (either leasing from
the shopping center, or purchase by the applicant) a rezoning would be necessary and
the question of traffic would still have to be addressed.
Mr. Lilley noted that the existing proffers on the Colonial property will "be relaxed"
when the Rt. 29 widening project is complete.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Thomas. She said the applicant does
not disagree with the County's desire to minimize traffic impact to Rt. 29 North. Her
comments included the following:
--The applicant desires to have one consistent zoning throughout the entire
property.
12ss
3-14-95 10
*MO-- --The County's policy that rezonings on Rt. 29 should not result in increased
traffic is not "as applicable" in this situation because of the cul-de-sac and "what it has
been used for and what we propose to use it for."
--Staffs concerns about other uses are unrealistic because the property is a
poor location for a convenience store or a fast-food restaurant because it is not visible
from Rt. 29.
--Less than 1/2 the cul-de-sac is usable because of the topography of the
property and because of a waterline easement. The applicant dedicated that
easement to the County at no cost.
--No public use of the property is planned. The property is needed to give the
service department more flexibility and a better traffic flow so that cars will not have to
be moved as often. The parking layout has been designed to meet public parking
standards, though there is no plan to use it publicly.
--The applicant has submitted an amended site plan along with the rezoning
request. "The site plan says it all. VVe were reluctant to do the proffer because we
have committed ourselves very specifically to what we want to do. We know that any
change to that would require another review and approval by staff, or by the
Commission and the Board. So, you would have many opportunities to review
something that would be more intensive. We saw ourselves getting into a dueling
proffers situation, where the proffer instituted in 1979 on the rest of the property ends
when the widening is completed and then we have a more restrictive proffer on the
least useful, least active portion of the property. It just seemed a little crazy to do it
that way."
--"The 29North transportation system is changing substantially with the
completion of the widening project and, undoubtedly, it will change further in the
future. A proffer with an unspecified term, like the one suggested by staff, seems very
open ended, especially when the traffic scenario may look better in 5 or 10 years than
it does now."
--Referring to the future of the business, she said: "Although we don't have
anything specific in mind at the moment, whatever we might do in the future with our
dealership, we'd like to do right there as opposed to spinning off satellites."
--The applicant understands that an amended site plan would have to be
submitted if there were any plan to change the use on the property in the future.
--This change benefits only the applicant. No new uses are contemplated.
This use will not generate any additional traffic.
--A fence around the cul-de-sac will enhance the safety and cleanliness of the
area.
M
--"We would suggest if the Planning Commission wants a proffer that we proffer
what we have already proffered on the remainder of the property, which certainly is
not a lot but at least it would be consistent. We are just a little reluctant to tie this one
acre, one-half of which we will be using, for parking only, down to a more stringent
proffer than applies to anything else on the dealership."
124
M
3-14-95 11
Ms. Thomas made reference to a letter of support for the request which the applicant
had received from Mr. Preston Stallings, the owner of the adjacent trailer park.
Ms. Imhoff asked Ms. Thomas: "Are you proffering the site plan?" Ms. Thomas
responded: "I don't really know what that term means exactly. We submitted the site
plan, so does that mean (sentence incomplete)?" {Mr. Cilimberg interjected: "It is not
binding as to zoning unless it's proffered as part of the zoning."] Ms. Thomas
continued: "I guess what we're intending to do is commit ourselves to that use via the
site plan. We would rather not proffer with the zoning." Ms. Imhoff explained: "That
plan would tie your uses."
Ms. Imhoff explained that the Commission cannot request proffers and for that
reason, it is not appropriate for Ms. Thomas to seem to suggest that the Commission
work the proffers out for the applicant. Ms. Imhoff explained: "Sometimes when you
are talking it sounds like you are, indeed, proffering the site plan which would limit you
to that being used for parking and it would not allow you to convert it to a convenience
store, or some of the other uses (which would be possible under HC zoning).... If your
whole idea is that you want just to use the site plan and are going to be proffering it,
that puts a different complexion on it; but if you want all the uses that are allowed by
HC zoning, then I think you need to say that. But I've heard both things being said by
YOU."
Ms. Thomas responded: "If we proffer the site plan and then amend it at a future
date, we would come in for another review --is that correct?" Mr. Cilimberg responded:
"Another rezoning." Ms. Thomas: "I don't think we want to take up everybody's time
with repeated rezonings. That is a more unwieldy process than a site plan
amendment as I understand it."
Ms. Imhoff concluded from Ms. Thomas' remarks: "So I guess you are not proffering
the site plan." (Ms. Thomas did not respond.) Mr. Blue addressed Ms. Imhoff s
statement: "1 think that's obvious at this point." He pointed out that proffers have to
be in writing and that has not been done. Ms. Imhoff stated: "1 wanted it to be clear
that she didn't think we did (have a proffer)."
Public comment continued.
Mr. Chuck Lebo, representing the Rio Hills Shopping Center, expressed support for
the applicant's proposal.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson viewed this as "largely a housekeeping matter." He felt it would be
reasonable to have the same proffers (related to traffic generation) on this site as on
/-7- ?1-
M
3-14-95 12
the rest of the site, though he questioned the value given the fact that the 29
improvements will soon be complete. He said he was inclined to support the request.
Ms. Huckle said the applicant's reluctance to make a proffer made her wonder about
the motives behind the request.
Mr. Jenkins asked if staffs position, in terms of the traffic generation policy related to
rezonings along Rt. 29, would remain the same after the 29 North widening project is
complete. Mr. Lilley responded: "I don't know. That policy has been in place since
1978 and at time widening was envisioned at some point in the future. But I haven't
heard anything about whether the policy might change once widening has been
accomplished." It was clarified that the policy being referred to was a policy of the
Board of Supervisors established in the late 1970's, with an official resolution being
adopted in 1985 or 1986 which spoke specifically to the Hollymead area. Mr. Keeler
recalled that resolution had called for "looking at Hollymead during the Comp Plan
review, in terms of traffic generation" and it also said that the Board did not want to
entertain rezonings that would increase traffic.
Mr. Blue said: "I think that is obviously what staff is worried about. If this is rezoned,
it could possibly increase traffic. I am inclined to think that what you see is what you
get. If they want to have parking, we should be able to approve it. But on the other
hand if there are certain Commissioners who are worried about this from a staff
position, I would suggest we consider, rather than turning it down completely, perhaps
deferring it to allow time for the applicant to consider whether they want to offer a
proffer."
Ms. Imhoff expressed support for staffs position. She did not view it as a
housekeeping issue. She pointed out that Highway Commercial zoning is one of the
least restrictive uses and we should, therefore, be very careful about where we place
more HC on Rt. 29 north. She said she had no concerns about a parking use, but it
was the other things which could go on HC that caused her concern.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-23 for C.M.A. Properties/Colonial Auto
Center, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. She noted that this
would allow the petition to move forward and the applicant could make revisions, if
desired, prior to the Board hearing.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
The motion passed, 4:2, with Commissioners Jenkins and Dotson casting the
dissenting votes.
12 F
3-14-95 13
SP-95-03 Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust - Proposal to construct baseball fields
on 109 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Property, described as Tax Map 117, Parcel 5F, is located on the east side of Route
29 approximately 0.34 miles north of Nelson County in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. Access to the site is proposed off of Route 632. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Prior to giving the staff report, Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to
additional information which had been included in the Commissioners packets just
prior to the meeting. The first item of additional information was a letter from the
applicant's attorney which was a revisal of the request in relation to proposed lighting
of the field. The letter was deleting the request for lighting at the site except for
ceiling lights in the concession stand and restroom.s. The second item of additional
information was a set of revised conditions of approval (from staff). The third item of
additional information was a summary of total names received on supportive petitions,
categorized by locations (total 143). The remaining items of additional information
were letters from individuals, some supporting the proposal, some opposing.
Ms. Huckle noted that staffs revised conditions of approval make reference to a
security light in condition No. 2. Mr. Keeler said the applicant had not requested a
security light but staff had included it in the event that it is later determined that a
round-the-clock attendant is needed.
Ms. Huckle asked if the facility would be fenced and. gated. Mr. Keeler explained that
there will be gates at the entrance and fencing will enclose the fields and will also be
along Rt. 632.
Mr. Keeler read the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. His comments included the
following:
--This is strictly a benevolent gesture on the part of the applicant. There is no
financial gain, ulterior motive or cost to the County.
--If the County is not satisfied with the use, the property will be returned to its
original state.
—This charitable foundation will transfer the property to another not -for -profit
organization which the applicants will continue to control. They will then lease the
prope"to the Little League for a nominal amount, with the provision in the lease that
if, at any time, it doesn't appear that the property is being used and maintained as it
was planned for, the applicant can cancel the lease and take the property back."
--This field will provide a playing area for disadvantaged children in this part of
the County.
--He quoted the following statement from a letter from the Albemarle County
Department of Parks and Recreation: "in addition to the obvious advantages to the
/.2- f
3-14-95 14
VA""- residents served by the Piedmont League, there are several other reasons that our
department supports this proposal. We have received from the League a request for
improvements to the Red Hill School which would cost approximately $63,000. These
improvements will not need to be funded by the County if the new complex is
developed. Also, the end result at Red Hill, with the limitation on the amount of
property, would be far inferior to the proposed facility. Most important, any additional
playing fields, be they for soccer or baseball, serve the purpose of helping all outdoor
field sports in the city or county. All of our fields are used to the maximum. ,,, We are
going to need this type of development, combined with County resources, to meet the
future demands for field space in Albemarle County."
--The applicant has agreed to buffer the property from the adjoining Ganong
property by retaining the open fields. The Ganongs support the project.
--There are no plans to use any of the property from Cove Creek south.
--Of the entire 109 acres, approximately 30 will be used.
--A public address system is an important part of tournament games because it
gives the players a sense of accomplishment. Approximately 6 tournament games per
year are anticipated. The public address system should be allowed for emergency
purposes at all times.
--VDOT has determined the entrance onto Rt. 29 has adequate sight distance.
--Little league games do not generate a great deal of traffic because they are
predominately attended by family members only.
--He pointed out that the hours of usage listed in the conditions of approval
should be amended to reflect the fact that no lighting will be used. He suggested the
9:30 p.m. ending time might be changed to "dark" or "dusk."
--No games will be held on Sunday, though the field may be used for practice
on that day.
--This proposal addresses the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,
and the Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000.
--Little League coaches are role models which have an important impact on
children's lives.
--There is no plan to hold regional tournaments on this property. The goal of
the applicant is just to address the needs of this community.
Ms. Huckle asked which entrance the applicant was planning to use. Mr. Brian Smith,
engineer for the project, responded to her question. He explained that the entrance
which will be used has been approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
He confirmed it was the "second entrance" (as so described by Ms. Huckle). Ms.
Huckle found this surprising because of the entrance's close proximity to a curve.
Mr. Woods, Chairman of the Piedmont Little League, addressed the Commission. He
described the values which Little League brings to today's society, i.e. "honesty,
sportsmanship, the meaning of team, courage, self reliance, judgment, the fine art of
being a gracious loser, ... and how to help your fellow man." Mr. Woods briefly
described the history of Little League, and the Piedmont Little League.
CID
3-14-95 15
Two All -Star Little League players, Andrew Woods and Danny , addressed
the Commission and described how baseball has influenced their lives.
Public comment was invited.
The following people addressed the Commission and expressed support for the
proposal:
Bill Strickland - He expressed disappointment about the deletion of lighting.
Dave Shaw - He stressed that the field would be very well controlled. He said
the games are small and have few spectators.
The following people addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the
proposal: Jennie Sunnie Peterson (a resident of Rt. 632) [She presented a petition of
opposition containing 27 signatures of persons living on the south side of Rt. 632.];
Leigh Sunnie; Riley Kitchen [He said he had not received notification of the meeting.
He also suggested that the County make Walnut Creek Park available for these
fields.]; MaryAnn Glenn. Their reasons for opposition included the following:
--Traffic, noise, and trash will disrupt the rural atmosphere of the area.
--This use will invite other changes in this rural area.
--This property is too remote to serve the majority of county children.
--Increased traffic on a "narrow, quiet, residential" road.
--This "intensive, urban recreational activity" does not fit the Comprehensive
Plan recommendations for this rural area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked why there was not a condition requiring Engineering Department
approval. She was in favor of such a condition being added. She was under the
impression there would be a stream crossing. Mr. Blue said he thought that the main
stream would not be crossed.
Ms. Imhoff said she was most concerned with the question of whether or not this use
will fit in with the rural character of the area. However, she said one of her fears had
been reduced with the applicant's deletion of lighting. She said her fears would be
further reduced if the public address system was also deleted. She said if public
monies were being spent, she would not support a field so remote from its service
area. But because it is private funds being expended she found it more difficult to tell
the applicant to find another site. Though she had reservations, she concluded that
she would support the request if the public address system were deleted.
Mr. Dotson felt this type of facility would be a benefit to the County and to the players
and would also save the County money by not having to provide similar facilities. He
said his concerns about the lighting had been resolved. Though he was sympathetic
/I/
3-14-96 16
to the neighbors' concerns, he noted that there are uses which could be placed in the
rural areas, by -right, which they might find even more objectionable (e.g. a hog farm).
He wondered if the money which is being saved on the lights might be used to pay
more per acre for a smaller site. He felt this site would make more sense if children
from Nelson County could also use the field and he suggested that the "border" (of the
Piedmont Little League) might be changed. He concluded that he was going to find it
difficult to support this location.
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Dotson if one of his concerns is that this use could invite more
commercial growth in this area. Mr. Dotson responded: "That's not my particular
concern. I don't see this as, for instance, a school. This isn't going to attract more
residents (or) more activities. I think it is fairly free-standing."
Ms. Vaughan expressed the feeling that this type of recreation is a family -form of
entertainment which offers youngsters a desirable alternative to more passive forms of
activities (e.g. video games and t.v.). She felt the sound system was important in
terms of emergency use and she also agreed with Mr. Carter that the P.A. system is
an important part of tournament games because it gives the children a sense of
accomplishment. She felt the benefits of the proposal outweighed the negatives. She
also felt that having the facility in this setting gives some urban children the
opportunity to experience a rural environment, which they might not otherwise be able
to do. She felt the Comprehensive Plan was meant to be used as a guide and should
not always be taken so literally. She said she was shocked that the lighting had been
deleted.
Mr. Jenkins said there was no question that this type of project has benefits. He said
he was bothered by the fact that the Commission is often given the challenge of
"bringing the parties together as neighbors." He did not think the Commission could
do that. He concluded: "If this project goes forward, there is quite a challenge to the
Little League to be the kind of neighbors that people in the area are used to. If they
are going to be successful down there they are going to have to be good neighbors."
Mr. Blue said: "The Board of Supervisors, when they approved the present Zoning
Ordinance, allowed special use permits for this kind of thing, knowing full well that
there aren't infinitely large rural areas that you can fit a use like this in and not disturb
somebody. It's going to happen. I feel badly for those people (in the area). I wouldn't
have wanted to move down there with the idea that I was going to enjoy peace and
quiet every night and then find out differently. But, be that as it may, that's life and it
happens, and I think this is a time when we have to make a decision for the public
good. I believe in the old adage that you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I think
that applies well here and I think it does serve a good purpose." He concluded that
he would support the request.
1 .5,2-
3-14-95 17
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis to address the question of whether or not this facility
could be placed at Walnut Creek Park (on County property). Mr. Cilimberg did not
know if there was available, appropriate acreage at the park for this type of field. Mr.
Davis responded: "if there was County land available that was suitable for baseball
fields, the County could accept a donation of money to build facilities on that. There
would be no legal prohibition to accepting that type of gift." Ms. Huckle asked if such
a facility could be run by the Piedmont Little League or if it would have to be run by
the County Parks Department. Mr. Davis said there are other similar activities which
are run in conjunction with the Parks Department. Ms. Huckle hoped someone would
explore such a possibility. She concluded that she was still concerned about the
entrance being dangerous.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Commission typically defers action on items until a meeting
following the public hearing. However, she understood that the Board would be
hearing this item March 15, 1995, and therefore action needed to be taken this
evening.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that SP-95-03 Oakwood
Foundation Charitable Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The use is approved for organized Little League baseball only and no other activity
shall be permitted. (For the purposes of this petition, the terms "Little League
baseball" and "baseball" shall be deemed to include Little League, Junior League,
girl's softball and T-ball activities). Annual activities shall be limited to the months of
March through October. Daily baseball activities during these months shall be limited
to the following hours:
Weekdays 4 PM - 9 PM with park closure at dusk.
Saturdays 9 AM - 9 PM with park closure at dusk.
Sundays 12 noon - 5 PM with park closure at dusk.
[NOTE: There was some question about the definition of dusk. It was decided this
would be discussed with the Zoning Administrator.]
Games shall be scheduled to start no later than 6:30 PM. The park shall close at
times set forth above except due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control such
as but not limited to extra innings or rain. Maintenance activities are not restricted to
the hours and months set forth in this condition.
2. Development shall be limited to four (4) regulation fields and two (2) practice fields
together with parking, concession stand, maintenance buildings and the like which the
Zoning Administrator deems directly related to and supportive of baseball activities.
Ball fields shall be located no closer to property line than shown on Attachment N.
/-�3
CR
3-14-95
18
3. There shall be no lighting on the site except ceiling lighting in the concession stand
and restrooms.
4. Prior to usage of the public address system, maximum volume control adjustment
shall be field verified in a manner prescribed by the Zoning Administrator. Sound
measured at any property line shall not exceed 60 dbA. Public address system shall
be used for emergency services only.
5. Access shall be limited to Route 632 and no direct access to U.S. Route 29 South
shall be permitted. The applicant shall construct a 100' taper and 100' right turn lane
on Route 632 at the entrance to the site.
6. The site shall not be subdivided or otherwise diminished in land area except by
exercise of eminent domain. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Department of
Planning and Community Development may authorize sale/or exchange of land with
an adjoining property provided that such transaction does not increase the residential
development (lots or houses) of such adjoining property.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked if Ms. Imhoff would agree to delete the last sentence of condition
No. 2, which was related to security. (It was noted that this had not been part of the
applicant's request.) Both Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Vaughan agreed to this amendment.
(The above stated condition No. 2 reflects this change.)
Ms. Imhoff said that she hoped the public address system would be used only for
emergency purposes. She later amended her motion to include this restriction. (The
above stated condition No. 4 reflects this change.)
Ms. Huckle asked if a condition could be added requiring Engineering Department
approval of site development. Staff explained that is a standard site plan requirement.
(No condition was added.)
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Dotson casting
the dissenting vote.
Modifications Required for SP-95-03 (Oakwood Foundation) Site Plan
Mr. Keeler explained that modifications will be required for the following:
--Critical slopes provisions;
--To allow parking farther than 500 feet from the fields;
--To allow a one-way circulation pattern.
/3 �
3-14-95
19
Planning and Engineering staff had reviewed these issues and supported the
modifications.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the above -noted modifications be granted for SP-
95-03. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
r:
OR
V. Waynf Cilimbezr
ry
/S 5-