HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 06 84 PC MinutesMarch 6, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 6, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Cogan; Mr. Jim Skove;
Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other
officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; and Mr.
Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
_Town and Country Services Site Plan - Located on the east side of
Rt. 29 South at Gleco Mills. Proposal to locate a warehouse for land-
scape business in existing building containing 11,350 square feet and
future garage containing 1,600 square feet with proposed 14 parking
spaces on 1.78 acres. Tax Map 88, Parcel 26A, zoned Light Industrial,
Samuel Miller District.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
Referring to condition 1(e)--Staff approval of annual Health Department
inspection system --Mr. Bowerman asked: "This has nothing to do with the
applicant —and his inability to satisfy (e) would not prevent a
certificate of occupancy from being met?" Ms. Scala responded: "I expect
that we will have that taken care of very shortly. I don't expect this
to hold them up, but I think it should be clarified before he proceeds."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Bain. He asked that it be under-
stood that septic approval is required only once (not twice as the
conditions seem to imply). He asked that staff be granted administrative
approval of any request for expansion of the outdoor storage facility
(condition 4). Mr. Bain felt the main issue dealt with engineering.
Mr. Bain objected to the requirement for a certified engineer's report
because he did not think it applied to this particular use, i.e. he
did not think this use had the type of "industrial character" which
would require such a report. He pointed out that the business license
was just for a commercial and service use.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Commission's discussion centered on the requirement for an engineer's
report. Mr. Bowerman noted his main concern was in protecting the site
in terms of future uses, though he did not have a particular concern
about this use. Ms. Diehl felt what was being asked for was reasonable,
i.e. what chemicals will be used; which ones are going to be discharged
into the septic system; and which ones may have to be stored. Mr. Michel
was under the impression that a more detailed report was being sought.
Ms. Scala noted that this requirement has been required and met several
times before. Though Mr. Cogan suggested the possibility of altering
9i
tilarch 6, 1984 Page 2
condition 1(a) so as to only require a report which addressed the
concerns for this particular use except in the event the use should
change at some future time, Mr. Payne explained that in order to
take this approach the Commission would have to determine that the
use was not of an industrial character. iris. Scala stated she felt
staff's original condition was simpler and accomplished the same
result as that suggested by 'Mr. Cogan. She noted that the only issue
that will need to be addressed is the protection from chemicals.
Ms. Diehl movedthat the Town and Country Services Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A certificate of occupancy for the main structure will not be issued
until the following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of certified engineer's report as
required by Section 4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b. Written Health Department approval of specific uses as required
by proffer No. 2a;
c. Health Department approval of new septic system as required by
proffer \o. 2;
d. Fire Officer approval of early warning fire detection system;
e. Staff approval of annual health Department inspection system;
(THIS COIDITIONN WAS LATER DELETED.)
f. Removal from the site of silo which is lying on the ground and
removal of trash in the area of the proposed garage to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
2. A building permit for the proposed garage will not be issued until
the following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of certified engineer's report as
required by Section 4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b. Written Health Department approval of specific uses as required
.by proffer No..2a;
c. Health Department approval of new septic system as required by
proffer No. 2;
d. Fire Officer approval of fire wall/separation of buildings and
early warning fire detection system;
e. Staff approval of annual Health Department inspection system;
IBN WAS LATERD .-)
f. Removal from the site of silo which is lying on the ground and
removal of trash in the area of the proposed garage to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
3. A certificate of occupancy for the garage will not be issued until
the following condition has been met:
a. Staff approval of the relocation of the truck trailer.
4. Any expansion of the outdoor storage area will require a site
plan amendment.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
'i'D
March 6, 1984
Page 3
Discussion:
It was determined conditions 1(e) and 2(e) were not appropriate
because they relied on staff's performance rather than the applicant's
performance. It was agreed these two conditions waid be deleted.
There was a brief discussion about whether or not to amend condition
1(a) as suggested by Mr. Cogan. It was finally decided the condition
would remain as suggested by staff. Mr. Keeler noted that he would
meet with the County Engineer and if there were any problems the
matter would be brought back to the Commission.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with
Mr. Gould and Mr. Michel casting the dissenting votes.
SP-84-4 and ZMA-84-4 VEPCO - Request for special use permit in accordance
with Section 27.2.2.8 to locate business office, materials storeroom and
microwave tower on 8.79 acres. Request to rezone .67 acre from R-6
Residential to Light Industrial (Tax Map 45, part of Parcel 26A) and
to rezone 8.12 acres from C-1 Commercial to Light Industrial (Tax Map 61M,
part of Parcel 12-1), Charlottesville Magisterial District. Located on
the southern side of Rio Road (Route 631), at its intersection with
Berkmar Drive (Route 2403).
The applicant was requesting withdrawal.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the applicant's request
for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-84-1 Walter Jaeger and R. Craig Ernst - Request in accordance with
Section 10.2.2(36) to amend SP-454 to allow maximum of 5 employees (not
including applicants) in existing woodworking craft shop, Tax Map 34,
Parcel 52, 23.09 acres zoned Rural Areas, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Located on south side of Route 641, adjacent to and west of Southern
Railway at Burnleys.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler explained how the original
conditions of approval for SP-454 would be amended to accommodate
the current request.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Walter Jaeger. He commented.briefly
and stated that hef as very in tune with the cummunity and sensitive to
the neighborhood's concerns.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-84-1 for Walter Jaeger and R. Craig Ernst be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
71
March 6, 1984 Page 4
1. Any renovations of the existing structure shall have County Building
Official approval.
2. Production be limited to custom-made items, i.e., no assembly line
production to be permitted.
3. Employment to be limited to a maximum of five (5) persons, not
including applicants. Any additional employment will require an
additional special use permit.
4. Signing be limited to one free-standing sign, not to exceed six
(6) square feet.
5. All woodworking equipment shall be located within an enclosed area.
6. Sales be limited to only products of the applicants.
7. Special use permit is issued to the applicants only and is
non -transferable.
8. Entrance improvements including improved sight distance and entrance
reconstruction as set forth in the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation letter of ;larch 1, 1984, with attached sketch,
are to be accomplished within six (6) m.onths of special use permit
approval.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-84-6 R.D. Wade Builder, Incorporated - Request to rezone 1.16 acres out
of 8.78 tract, currently zoned R-10 Residential with proffer (ZMA--79-05),
to .Commercial Office, Tax Map 61, part of Parcel 124C, Charlottesville
Magisterial District. Located adjacent to Putt -Putt Golf on northern
side of Rio Road (Route 631), ±1,800 feet east of its intersection with
Route 29N.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff noted two concerns related
to the request: (1) Given transportation concerns in the.Rt. 29 'North/Rio
Road area, access to the property should be provided internally; and
(2) Commercial Office is generally comparable to higher -density residential
in terms of traffic generation; however, financial institutions (23.2.1.3)
are often traffic -intensive uses. The report concluded: "Should these
two concerns be adequately addressed, staff could recommend favorably
on this rezoning request."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on the use of the word "nay"
in the applicant's proffer: i.e. "I hereby agree that a financial
institution, having a drive -up window that would generate unusual
traffic flow, may be excluded as a 'by -right' usage of subject property
if rezoning is granted." Mr. Bowerman asked if possibly the word
"will" should be substituted for "may." Mr. Payne did not feel this
was necessary because he felt the fact that the applicant's proffer
was meant to address staff's concerns removed the possibility of any
ambiguity.
/�
March 6, 1984 Page 5
The applicant was represented by Mr. Randy Wade. He felt this request
clearly fit the "letter of the Ordinance" because it would provide for
an appropriate transition between C-1 Commercial on the west and R-10
Residential on the east.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Commissioners Skove and Cogan indicated they felt the rezoning would
be appropriate for -the area.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-84-6 for R.D. Wade Builder, Incorporated be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
two proffers of the applicant.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Georgetown Lane Site Plan - Request for relief from sidewalk. requirement
(condition 1(a)).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended: (1) That
this plat be reviewed and decided on its merits; and (2) That a study
be made of the sidewalks issue, including reviewing local ordinances
and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation policy for
adequacy. Staff was recommending that sidewalks be required in this
development and that they be maintained by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Hereford, Jr. He stated he
would willingly install the sidewalks if the Highway Department would
maintain them.
The Chairman invited comment from representatives of the Highway Depart-
ment regarding the sidewalk policy. Mr. Roosevelt explained problems that
are currently occuring with sidewalks in some subdivisions in Fairfax
County. He stated the Highway Department's policy on sidewalks reflects
an attempt to determine when sidewalks are really needed so as to try
to keep to a minimum the number of unnecessary sidewalks being added
to the system for Highway Department maintenance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that he felt sidewalks on small cul-de-sac streets
were not necessary because there were few lots and no high-speed
traffic. He was more concerned about sidewalks on thru streets.
He added that he felt the County needed to formulate a policy relating
to sidewalks.
Mr. Michel noted that such a policy would have to be coordinated with
the Highway Department because it would be difficult to require side -
I walks if there were no mechanism for maintaining them. Mr. Skove
agreed.
March 6, 1984
Page 6
Ms. Diehl pointed out that the Highway Department criteria was ambiguous
and difficult to understand. Mr. Payne agreed.
Mr. Payne explained the Commission's alternatives: (i) To give the
applicant the relief sought as recommended by staff; (2) To require
the applicant to construct sidewalks knowing that they will have to
be privately maintained; or (3) To convince the Highway Department
that it is appropriate to maintain these sidewalks in this case as
provided within the terms of these .guidelines.
M.r. Gould pointed out that the Highway Department had already accepted
sidewalks in two subdivisions. He wondered what the Highway Department's
interpretation had been at that time. Mr.. Payne stated he felt the policy
was "sufficiently ambiguous that it would be a litigable issue."
It was the determination of the Commission that a thorough study of the
issue needed to be conducted by staff with the end result being the
formulation of a County policy.
Mr. Bowerman noted that he would be willing to grant the applicant's
request in this case. Commissioners Cogan and Michel agreed.
Mr. Michel moved that the applicant's request for relief from condition
1(a) regarding the construction of sidewalks in the Virghia.Department
of Highways & Transportation right-of-way be granted and that an amended
condition 1(a) be approved as follows:
Virginia Department of Highways .& Transportation approval of road
plans, profiles and drainage calculations; and approval of channelized
entrance off of Inglewood Drive and Solomon Road.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Skove expressed a lack of understanding as to why the waiver should
be granted. He noted that the location was clearly fig miles from a
school as stated in the Highway Department criteria.
�1r. Gould agreed. He suggested that the applicant be asked to defer.
Mr. Wilkerson felt the State should be asked to .justify why this
sidewalk did not meet their criteria. �1r. Gould commented that it
was already established that the Highway Department has been incon-
sistent in their interpretation.
There was further discussion as .to how to approach this particular
request.Suggestions included asking the applicant to post a bond
or deferring action and appealing the Highway Department's interpretation
of the criteria. No decision was made to follow any of these suggestions.
The motion for approval of the applicant's request for relief passed
(6:1) with Commissioner Skove casting the dissenting vote.
March 6, 1984 Page 7
Branchlands Retirement_ Village Site Plan - Request for relief from fencing
and bike -pedestrian trail requirements (conditions 3b and 3c).
Mr. Keeler explained the situation. He explained that the two conditions
from which relief was being sought were related to the church.
He explained that condition 3c requires construction (no bonding) of the
proposed 6-foot fence along area C's northern boundary. He stated the
church had agreed with the developer not to require that fence at this
time. He quoted the following from a letter written by the church to
the developer: "We will accept your representation that you will build
the fence when we request you to and we will not insist that this con-
dition be met as part of your subdivision plan approval process. We
will rely on your promise to build the fence and will not look to the
County of Albemarle to impose or enforce this condition." Mr. Keeler
explained that the main reason for the church's position is because the
church wishes to continue to use the parking area.
Mr. Keeler stated staff was not opposed to granting relief from that
condition.
Mr. Keeler then explained that condition 3b was related to the bike path/
pedestrian way. He stated that in addition to the construction of the
bike path within the retirement village section, the applicant is
obligated to construct it through the church property. Since the
church wants the bike and pedestrian way adjacent to the collector
road, and the collector road has not yet been built, it is not possible
to locate the pathway at this time. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the
church is not opposed to the ultimate construction of the bike path,
but it will be put on "hold" at this time.
A representative of the applicant explained that it was the applicant's
ultimate intent to request deletion of the pathway completely because
if it will not connect with a City path, it would be of little use.
She noted, however, that the pathway has been designed and can be
bonded if necessary.
It was determined the fence in question was not the same as the fence
along the top of the retaining wall.
Mr. Skove moved that the Branchlands Retirement Village Site Plan be
relieved from conditions 3b and 3c as described by staff.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Four Seasons PUD Amendment - Request that Planning Commission s:Lmultaneously
review PUD amendment and final site plan.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan, that
the Four Seasons PUD Amendment and final site plan be heard simultaneously.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Payne asked that the record show that by.this action the Commission
was not expressing any opinion as to the "advisability" of the plan.
March 6, 1984 Page 8
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation - Response to County
request for construction to less -than -ultimate standards (subdivision
streets).
Mr. reeler initiated the discussion and gave a history of the issue.
He explained the Highway Department's position as follows: "While the
reasons for this request were fully appreciated, .(.the Department) could
not agree to the acceptance of subdivision streets constructed to
standards less than adequate to accommodate the traffic ultimately
anticipated until such a time as an acceptable mechanism is available to
insure the timely financing and construction of the.complete roadway
facility without cost .to highway allocations."
The Commission expressed concern at what it viewed as abandonment by
the Highway Department. Mr. Bowerman noted that the Commission had
always relied heavily on the Highway Department's definitive
requirements.
Mr. Roosevelt disagreed and stated that he felt that policy had not
changed, but rather the Co-m-aission has just recently become more aware
of certain issues.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the one question before the Commission
in this regard is the one road in Hollymead which was to serve as
part of the collector road for the Meadowcreek Parkway. He stated:
"If Dr. Hurt has to build it to whatever design standard is necessary
to accommodate his development, that's it. ... But I can't see pushing
it beyond making him put in only what is necessary for the traffic
he is going to generate."
yir. Payne stated: "I think the County can take the position that the
developer has to put in a public road and he has to build it to a given
standard and ultimately you are looking at litigating the matter with
the Highway Department on one side, the Developer on the other side, and
the County in the middle." Mr. Payne stated he viewed this as a major
problem and it was not the same as the Hylton case because "the critical
traffic generation is not generated by the development" as in the Hylton
case.
�1r. Cogan stated: "As far as we are concerned, all we have to say is
'Your use of the road is the standard for which the road should be
built, but we can't go along with it because we know it won't be accepted
into the State highway system and we're going to insist that it be a
State road.' Then let him fight it out from there."
It was agreed this was the only choice open at this time, though it
was recognizedhthfit this put the developer in an unfortunate position,
but a position/was not the fault of the County.
Mr. Bowerman noted that if the County is saying "we want to put the
population in the urban ring, then it is our obligation to get State
and County monies to support plans for the way we want out community
to develop."
74
March 6, 1984
Page 9
Mr. Cogan noted that if the County can participate, and the road has
to be built to its ultimate standard, the County is the one that puts
up the money to improve it to its ultimate standard.
It was agreed this was probably the only choice and a way would have
to be found to deal with this issue.
Mr. Roosevelt stated: "It is the Highway Department's position that we
have more needs now than we will ever be able to meet and we don't
want to take any more roads into the system that we recognize are
going to require us to expend improvements funds in the future."
Mr. Keeler stated he did not understand the Highway Department's
position. He explained: "I could see the policy if it is
a road the Highway Department has had nothing to do with and they
know when it is constructed it is going to be inadequate, but when
it is a part of a road that's in a plan that they have participated
in developing, the policy doesn't make .sense."
The meeting adjourned at 10:00.
Secretary
Recorded by: Stuart Richard
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 6-89
��