Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 01 1994 PC Minutes11-1-94 NOVEMBER 1, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 1, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair, Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson.; Mr. Tam dews; and Ms. Monica Vaughan (arrived at 7:25). Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, Mr. Kern .Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Lary Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Niitchmann. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 18, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT Oak Knolls Subdivision -Review for Complia9r. wi1h Ig,ComprehmsiveP_ 3 n 15.1=455 Review - Albemarle County Service Authority water line extension to existing structures in Oak Knoll Subdivision located off Rt. 250 W in the Ivy area. and UREF North Fork SIEe-et Tree Plan— - Proposed landscape plan for the UREF property Can the UREF plan, Mr. Dotson asked if this proposal addressed "the street in the vicinity of the MicroAire site, because the rest of this will brought back to us because of a comprehensive rezoning for the whole 500 acre piece, or will the lower piece not be brought back to us as part of a comprehensive rezoning?" Mr. Tim Rose, representing UREF, responded. "Our plan is just to build that small section of road off of Quail Run right now. We will not be building any other roads until we know your decision on the Comprehensive Plan (amendment)." Mr. Dotson clarified his question further: "I notice there is no landscaping along 606. I think that that would be an issue, but if on the other hand the landscaping, and other things, are going to be brought back to us with the comprehensive rezoning, we don't need to address that tonight and we can go ahead and approve this with the understanding that this is really all we are doing tonight." Mr. Dose responded: "That's our understanding." Mr. Mark Keller, representing UREF's engineering firm (McKcc-Carson), explained: "This is an issue, I believe, that is affiliated with the approval of the rezoning of the southern part of the property, which i believe was done in the late 70's. I think one of the provisos of that approval of the Commission at that time was that before any final approvals of the final site plan submission for that southern portion was given, a master street tree plan for the interior Aga 11-1-94 compliance with Section 32.7 of the Zoning Ordinance." She explained it is through Section 32.7 that screening requirements, street tree plantings along Rt. 606, etc. will be required. Mr. Baker added that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would contain language recommending that a buffer be retained around the whole UREF site. Mr. Dotson concluded: "So if we were to approve this tonight, this does not undo such a subsequent action." Mr. Keller responded: "That's our understanding as well." Pointing to the plan, Mr. Dotson asked an additional question: "If this is the northern - southern border, why was the detail shown here?" Mr. Keller explained: "The reason for that is the plan that was performed and viewed and approved for the southem portion some 15 years ago showed a road --if you could imagine, (wail Run Extension, continuing through that T-intersection, just north of parcel B9, you might notice there is an existing road bed that parallels a stream and ends up hitting 29 about in the same place, but it goes under parcel E. That was the previous alignment for that connector road. Since that road was an integral part of the transportation plan for the southern parcel at that point in time, we were compelled to include some sort of plan for whatever road substituted for that." Ms. Imhoff commented: "I am a little confused though. For me, if we're looking at the street tree master plan, it should only cover that southern portion unless there is some language that I am not aware of in that original rezoning that says the street tree plan would go off -site. I want to be sure that we are real clear about what we are approving because there are things that are still very open and should be and are not yet set. Somehow, if we approve this tonight, I want to add language that clearly identifies it is only the southern portion." She asked: "Are you saying there is some language that says you are supposed to have an off -site street plan as well?" Mr. Keller replied: "No." Mr. Blue attempted to clarify the issue: "When this street plan for the whole thing was set up and made a condition --back then they probably should not have gone beyond what they were going to get zoned, or maybe the zoning hadn't taken place at that time. I guess it took place at the time of the zoning." Ms. Huckle: "But I think you said that it really wasn't where it is now." Mr. Blue: "Right. It tied in at the same place. It still went off the southern portion and came in at the same place on 29. It's really just a housekeeping (issue). To keep things legal, we have to do this, but it really doesn't have much bearing on what we're ultimately going to see on the development of this property." Mr. Keller responded "That's right." He added: "I think we felt it would be queer to, first of all as an option, go back to a very old plan and give you something that really you would be approving something you know isn't going to happen. Where as this, we feel fairly certain will (happen). Another option was to take it right to that imaginRry property line and stop / IT 11-1-94 (which would have led to the question) 'you're going to build that road and not landscape thatT What you're seeing is a good faith effort on our part. I hope it doesn't convolute the issue at this point." Mr. Dotson concluded: "So beyond the border, it is for illustration purposes." Mr. Keller responded: "Not truly. Let's say, for instance, parcel BS requires that connection to Rt. 29, then the road would have to built, and if that ever were the case, you'd want street trees along that. Is that a reasonable assumption?" Mr. Blue responded: "It is to me because I think we'll take care of the rest of it at the time of site plan, but I understand why some Commissioners have a problem." Mr. Dotson noted that no sidewalks were shown on the drawing. He asked if that was a "done deal." He was disturbed at the idea of a "totally auto -dependent facility." He felt this issue was relevant to the landscaping plan. Mr. Keller was not familiar with the original history of the rezoning (15 years previous) and could not answer Mr. Dotson's question. Mr. Baker felt the issue of sidewalks could be addressed through the rezoning of the northern portion. He explained that if the comprehensive plan amendment is approved the applicant will have to submit a master concept plan. He stated that UREF has agreed to interconnecting the open space through pathways, trails, etc. Based on all that had been said, Mr. Dotson concluded: "What we're really looking at tonight is knocking an obstacle out of the way of MicroAire and in various ways and venues we will have a chance to consider these questions again in the future, assuming the comprehensive plan (amendment) is approved." Mr. Rose responded: "That's how it was portrayed to us." Mr. Dotson expressed no oppostion to the item remaining on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Imhoff commented: "I agree with Bruce, But I have been operating under the assumption that we were going to have a master plan for both the north and the south portions. So some of this will be re -presented and re -packaged and with that understanding, I can go forward with it as well. I am a little uncomfortable approving something I consider to be off -site." Mr. Rose commented: "I didn't know we were asking you to approve the off -site items and if that is how it came across, we apologize. We thought we were focusing on the MicroAire." Ms. Imhoff responded: "O.K_ That makes me comfortable." Ms. Huckle noted that the minutes would reflect the Commission's intent. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that both items on the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. / 9.- 11-1-94 P 94-29 Hwl Invest Commv - Petition to allow the establishment of a drive through window for a bank [Section 25A.2.2]. Property, described as. Tax Map 78, parcel 72 (portion of), is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 250 and State Farm Blvd in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property consists of 2.2 acres zoned PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial and within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Deferred from October 18, 1994 Commission meeting. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The report explained that the applicant was able to address staff concerns with the following changes to the plan: --Widening the planting island adjacent to the entrance to 27 feet, thus allowing the necessary turning radius for automobiles; --Narrowing the proposed entrance to 30 feet and narrowing the planting island adjacent to the drive -through, thus allowing a better alignment of the westbound travel lane with the site entrance; --Pulling the sidewalk on the east side against the building so as to better align the northbound travel lane. --Providing a 100-foot turn lane and 42-foot taper lane on State Farm Blvd.; --Withdrawing the request for deletion of the loading spaces. Staff was recommending approval subject to one condition. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He offered to answer Commission questions_ In response to Mr. Dotson's question as to whether or not the building position had been shifted, Mr. Melton explained that shifting the sidewalk had resulted in a gain of 3 feet and thus it had not been necessary to shift the building. Ms. Imhoff recalled that Mr. Nitchmaim (absent from this meeting) had suggested a possible reduction in the number of parking spaces. She ,asked if any change had been made to the parking spaces. Mr. Melton responded that the parking spaces had remained the same, with the exception of the addition of the three loading spaces, which may have effected one parking space. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-94-29 for Hurt Investment Company, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: I. The site shall be developed in general accord with the preliminary site plan identified as sheet 2 of the "Site Development Plan Showing Guaranty Savings and Loan Pantops Tax Map 79 parcel 72 Rivanna Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia" and further identified as "Presented to Planning Commission November 1, 1994, and initialed YAH." /84� 11.1-94 The motion passed (5:0:1). Ms. Vaughan abstained from the vote because she had entered the meeting late and had not been a part of the discussion. ZMA94-15 Philip A. Sansone - Proposal to rezone 7.87 acres from R-1 (1 dwelling unit per acre) to R-10 (10 dwelling units per acre), with proffered plan showing 34 dwelling units. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 581, is located off of State Route 20 and Gamette Center Drive, immediately north of Wilton Coinitry Homes, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting deferral to December 6, 1994. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that the item be deferred to December 6, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-94-12 River H i is ss i tes - Petition to rezone approximately 63 acres from Rural Area to LI, Light Industrial. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 32, Parcels 5 (part of), is located on the east side of Rt. 29 approximately 0.5 miles north of the North Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting deferral to November 8, 1994. There was determined to be no public comment. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the item be deferred to November 8, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. SP-94-25 James nod Becky Johnston - Petition to amend SP-84-38 to permit the further division of a lot. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 8 is located on the east side of Rt. 649 about 1/2 mile southeast of the intersection of Rt. 649 and Rt. 643 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property consists of 67.485 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant was requesting deferral to November 29, 1994. He explained that it is the applicant's intent to modify the proposal and because of anticipated revisions adjacent property owners will need to be rc-notified. Mr. Blue had some questions about the staff report. Mr. Fritz briefly summarized the history of the property. He explained the current proposal is to "incorporate 2 parcels that were not part of the original development, nor part of the original special use permit into the farm parcel." He stated this would "generate development potential in a rural preservation development option which will allow the creation of a lot where none was permitted before /8� 11-1-94 7 because of the conditions of the special use permit." He concluded: "So, technically, this is a revision of a previous special use permit condition which forbid further development of the residue." Mr, Fritz confirmed that 2 dwellings currently exist on the farm parcel and they existed at the time of the original approval. He also confirmed that the conditions of the previous approval did not allow any further dwellings to be built. It was Ms. Huckle's understanding that there are presently 2 dwellings, with a possibility for S additional ones. Mr. Fritz confirmed that by adding this 2-acre lot the applicant would achieve more development potential. He also stated that the 1/2 acre has been identified as a "developable, non -conforming parcel." Mr. Blue questioned haw a building permit, could be obtained on such a small lot. Mr. Fritz stressed that it is a non -conforming parcel since it was created long before the current Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Imhoff explained further that as long as building setbacks could be met, well and septic could be located off site, and thus the parcel is potentially developable. Mr. Fritz confirmed that staff s determination that the 1/2 acre lot is potentially developable tools into consideration the fact that there would have to be room to locate 2 septic fields and a well, Mr. Fritz pointed out that the applicant owns the adajacent property and thus easements for septic, etc. would not be a problem. He also noted that there are some 1/2 acre lots which can meet all the requirements within the 1/2 acre area. Mr. Fritz stated that Health Department approval has not yet been obtained for the 1/2 acre parcel. Pointing out that the applicant was, in a sense, "shifting the development potential from one place to another place," Ms. Imhoff felt it would be helpful to know if the lot actually is developable. She stated: "I would like it proved that it is developable." Mr. Fritz stated staff would try to get that information before the next hearing. Referring to Section 4.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that a building site (not served by public water and sewer) be at least 60,000 square feet, Ms. Hackle noted that the Ordinance does not speak to when the lot was created. She asked Mr. Davis: "How do these basic regulations apply?" Mr. Davis explained that in the Non -Conforming Section of the Ordinance there is a provision which deals with pre-existing lots and says that "any lot that is existing at the time these ordinances were created, is entitled to have a dwelling on it, if it can meet the basic health, safety and welfare requirements of the regulatory agencies." He concluded: "Those requirements, although they would apply to any new lot, they would not necessarily apply to a pre-existing lot." Ms. Imhoff explained further: "The reason for that is, otherwise everytime you (amended) your Ordinances, you could, potentially, be creating many lots that are completely non - developable, in which case there could be an argument for the complete taking of the use of that property. That is one of the ways the County has made these transitions over time --to 11-1-94 say, 'if it is an existing lot of record, it is basically grandfathered, as long as it meets the Health Department requirement!" Ms. Huckle stated: "Perhaps before a blanket approval is given for another lot we ought to Find out if this really is a lot or not." Mr. Blue expressed concern about the fact that the staff report did not appear to address what the applicant was proposing. Mr. Fritz understood Mr. Blue's concern and explained that it was because of the discovery (earlier in the afternoon) that there could be two interpretations of the proposal,.that a deferral had been requested. Mr. Blue accepted Mr. Fritz's explanation and asked that staff be certain that the applicant knows clearly what ,staff is recommending. lkf; . Johnston, the applicant, briefly addressed the Commission and confirmed Mr. Fritz's comments. There was determined to be no public comment. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-94-25 for James and Becky Johnston be dcfcrrcd to November 29, 1994, The motion ;passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Dotson reminded the Commission of Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion that the seating arrangement of the Commission be changed at the beginning of the new year. Mr. Dotson also reminded the Commission to be thinking about the election of officers which will take place at the beginning of the year. Ms.Imhofi asked that consideration be given to a change in the procedure for the presentation of staff reports, i.e. to allow applicant comment prior to the staff report. She felt this could prevent staff being asked questions which could better be answered by the applicant. Mr. Blue did not think the idea would work because he felt the applicant would then be "grilled„ with questions that would be better answered by staff. Ms. Imhoff suggested that it might work if questions were not allowed until after both staff and the applicant had made their presentations. Mr. Blue did not object to further discussion of Ms. Imhoff s suggestion, though he felt it would "make the problem worse." There being no further business, the meepng adjourned at 7:45 p.m. fl-WaVK.eA- N. Waynilimb , ec f: /if