Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 20 1993 PC Minutes4-20-93 1 APRIL 20, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 20, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; and Ms. Ellen Andersen. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Huckle. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 23, 1993 were approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg reviewed actions taken at the April 7 and 14 Board of Supervisors meetings. ZMA-92-08 Dominion Lands, Inc. - Proposal to amend ZMA-91-03 to delete the residential use of the property and to add a 16,150 square foot commercial structure. Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1B, is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Berkmar Drive and Rio Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Zoned PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial. This site is located in a designated growth area (N1) and is recommended for Community Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recoommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson asked why the applicant was making the change. The applicant (Bob Smith) responded to this question a little later in the meeting and explained that because the Board had only granted approval of 13 residential units (not the 18 which were originally requested) the economics of the proposal were adversely effected. Also a consideration was the topography of the property which is such that it would have been very difficult to design residential units that would have fit. Mr. Johnson noted that buildings E1 and E2 include only CO and C1 uses, whereas the other buildings include those uses as well as HC uses. Mr. Fritz explained that buildings El and E2 are restricted from the HC uses because they are the closest to residential property, whereas the other buildings have a wider range of uses because they are adjacent to a 0 4-20-93 2 non -developed property and are a distance from the developed Berkeley property. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Smith. He answered Mr. Johnson's questions as noted above. Regarding the difference in allowed uses for the buildings, he stated: "That was not our intent. Staff asked us if we would be willing to do that and I felt their request was based on more of a transition to go along with the other uses on Berkeley Drive. We had no problem doing that. We would have a problem doing it with any of the other (buildings), however." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins recalled that at the time of the previous hearing there had been considerable discussion about the protection of the Wickline property (adjoining). Mr. Fritz explained that Ms. Wickline had met with the applicant and staff and had agreed the language in condition No. 9 would meet Ms. Wickline's concerns. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the following question: "By approving this, are we in any way jeopardizing the ability or options of the adjacent land owners to make claims related to erosion or damage which might occur in the future as a result of this rather significant grading?" Mr. Bowling explained that an adjacent landowner would still have whatever private remedies are available at law. He added however: "(A landowner) may have a tough row to hoe if whatever is happening meets all the (enegineering) requirements." Mr. Johnson noted that he felt the added language in 2(b) [This prohibition shall not include the "installation" of "new parts" by wholesale distributors if done under roof in building.] was superfluous. He felt "that was already allowed by -right under item 2--Automobile-Truck Repair Shops." However, he expressed no opposition to the words remaining if it was felt they added clarity. Mr. Nitchmann asked when the privacy fence would be installed. (Condition No. 9) Mr. Fritz explained this would be a part of the site plan review process prior to the development of any particular site. Mr. Nitchmann asked what agreement had been made with the adjoining property owner regarding the timing of the installation of the privacy fence. Mr. Smith responded: "We assumed that the screening that we are talking about would have to be approved and installed with the site plan improvements for Lot F. I informally have told Ms. Wickline we will try to get them done just as soon as our development loan is in place." Mr. Nitchmann continued to try to pin down a 3/7- 4-20-93 3 specific time as to when "trees would be planted, etc.". He was concerned about the possibility that there could be a lack of screening until all the buildings have been occupied. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there will be landscaping requirements with each site plan. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that all the lots could be graded at once, but the site plan provisions will not kick in for each particular building until they are submitted for approval to be built. He noted, however, that the developer could agree to do landscaping along the exterior of the site (and has already agreed to some fencing along the exterior) before any site plans are approved. (But that has not been a part of the approval to this point.) Mr. Fritz indicated it was his understanding that the adjacent property owner understood that the privancy fence would be installed when the lot adjacent to her property develops. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about property owners having to look at rough -graded land for some time before screening is installed. Mr. Smith commented: "I have committed to Ms. Wickline that when we start the first building we will go ahead and try to get this fence that you're talking about up. That's part of our development program; it's not going to tie into the individual building." In response to Mr. Cilimberg's question as to whether or not Mr. Smith was referring only to the fencing, Mr. Smith stated: "We'll do the landscaping also." It was ultimately decided that the following would be added at the end of agreement No. 9: "...these improvements shall be installed with the first building." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-92-08 for Dominion Lands, Inc. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following agreements: 1. Buildings El and E2 shall be limited to those uses permitted in the CO, Commercial Office and C-1, Commercial District. 2. The following uses shall be prohibited: a. Hotels, motels and inns [24.2.1(20)]; b. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental [24.2.1(25)]; This prohibition shall not include the "installation" of "new parts" by wholesale distributors if done under roof in building. c. Mobile home and trailer sales and service [24.2.1(23)]; d. Modular building sales [24.2.1(24)]; e. Sales of major recreational equipment and vehicles [24.2.1(32)]; f. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental [24.3.1(22)]; g. Heating oil sales and distribution [24.2.1(39)]; l _9 4-20-93 4 3. All exterior lighting shall be face mounted to the exterior of the buildings. 4. Roof mounted mechanical structures shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential development. 5. Landscaping shall be of species similar to that on the adjacent Daily Progress site. 6. Administrative approval of final site plan. 7. Privacy fence shall be maintained in good condition by the developer, his successors or assigns. 8. Fencing, designed to prevent pedestrian access, shall be installed adjacent to the residential development (and existing right-of-way shown in Deed Book 804, Page 527) in Berkeley prior to the commencement of grading activities for development of the site. 9. An eight (8) foot high privacy fence shall be installed adjacent to the residential development (and existing right-of-way shown in Deed Book 804, Page 527) in Berkeley and shall overlap for ten (10) feet the existing fence on Tax Map 61M, Block 9, Parcel 9. Adjacent to Tax Map 61M, Block 6, Parcel 2 the fence shall be offset from the property line approximately 5 feet and shall be 6 feet in height. The area between the fence and residential property shall be planted with shrubs planted at a spacing of 5 feet if street shrubs are used and 10 feet if screening shrubs are used; these improvements shall be installed with the first building. 10. No burning on site. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION - Rural Service Center Concept and Application Mr. Baker presented a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would add a "Rural Service Center" category to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff's report provided a description of the intent of the "Rural Service Center" and the amendments which would be necessary to establish this new designation. Also included in the report was wording for the application of this new concept to the Schuyler area. Commission comments and suggestions included the following: BLUE: He expressed concern about the proposed boundary for the Schuyler zone. He noted that there may be a need at some future time to know the exact location of the boundary and it would be very difficult to follow the description 1319 4-20-93 5 proposed. He also was concerned that the proposed boundary splits existing property. He felt this could potentially create legal problems. Mr. Blue recalled that this matter had originated as an effort to accommodate the Schuyler Enterprises Truck Terminal without doing spot zoning. He felt that if we are only concerned with the truck terminal then "why wouldn't we describe that area as his property? If there are other owners who want to do something, they can come forward and ask to be included. He noted: "It seems to me we are straining to try to keep this from being a spot zoning, yet that is exactly what we want to do." NITCHMANN: He asked if any study had been made on impact (short or long-term) on property taxes. He, too, felt the boundaries should be better defined. JENKINS: He suggested the possibility of "just designating the area of the truck facility and have language that the County would be receptive to the expansion of that area based on whatever might come before us, rather than say 'this is the area."' JOHNSON: He agreed with Mr. Jenkins. He stated: "The idea is great, but that is going to be driven by economics which are going to be driven by a particular need. For us to arbitrarily block out a substantial piece of property and say 'this is it,' I don't think is going to work. We have houses there and they don't need to be in a Rural Service Area. If there is some way to get the definition in the Comprehensive Plan and then apply it when needed as you've somewhat inferred, looks like it would be the more effective way." How to better delineate the boundaries of the Schuyler area was discussed at some length. Mr. Cilimberg interpreted Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion: "You're talking about a linear delineation along Rt. 800 and some distance on 602 as far as Rt. 6 from the County line. Mr. Nitchmann added: "What we have to determine is 'how deep."' Mr. Jenkins: "If you have language in there that gives the impression that you are willing to entertain the expansion of it, then whoever the property owner is, in that general area or wherever, who has a use that may be fitting for this, then you have the flexibility for addressing it in that manner rather than saying 'Oh no, you can't because you're not in the area." Mr. Cilimberg interpreted both Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Jenkins as saying: "Keep this to a distance that follows the roads but it establishes the outside limits of where you have the type of thing you're saying occur." 4-20-93 6 Mr. Grimm: "I think this service center concept has application, particularly in this area, because of the fact that we have had non --agricultural uses in the past. I think this has merit because this is a unique area. The concept could possibly apply to other unique areas of the County in the future. It might be important to identify those. I do feel, for planning purposes, boundaries do need to be set." Mr. Johnson: "I think we need to step back and look at the real cause of why we have the problem. I suggest it is strictly a localized commercial and almost a strip right along a road or in one spot. We would like to accumulate these, as feasible, in a reasonable area. But I don't see how we can arbitrarily go ahead and do anything other than have the provision that is in the Comprehensive Plan to react to the requests that are based on economics. Right now we are looking at Schuyler Industry here. That's a spot and no matter what we do around it, probably nothing is going to happen, or nothing will necessarily happen. There is no big demand for it. I think we are jumping through the hoop too far; we have put Schuyler Industries through the hoop too many times and what we would like to do is figure out a legtimate way, a practical way of accommodating these requests when they are appropriate." Mr. Cilimberg explained that the purpose of the delineation of limits is so that the next applicant does not have to go through unnecessary hoops. Mr. Johnson wondered if there were a "general way of allowing it, rather than being so specific and pre -designated." Mr. Blue recommended the following boundaries for the Schuyler site: "Cut down the area and describe it as parallel to Rt. 800 on the north side and going back to the old railroad grade as it is shown there, but only going north of the intersection of 800 and 602, 500 feet and then coming back perpendicular to Rt. 800 and then following on up 602 the same distance parallel until we get to a point that's --we come across and be 500 feet from 800. Use the physical feature of the railroad grade on the northwest side of the road and use a depth of 500 feet on the southeast side of 800 and the east side of 602, but only go the same amount, 500 feet north on 800 towards St. Rt. 6, not go all the way. That would accommodate the area that is specifically the truck terminal parcel and would also get around the question of doing spot zoning and it would tie into Nelson County. I still like what Tom suggested of just doing the truck terminal and leaving it open for other areas, but essentially that's what the Comprehensive Plan amendment does; we're not rezoning that, we're just saying this is an appropriate area for the rural service center and that would describe it.' --?__)_1 4-20-93 7 Mr. Benish stated staff sees a benefit in this approach because it could be applicable in other areas. Mr. Johnson suggested that sentences 2) and 3) of Subparagraph C on page 4 be deleted. He also suggested the elimination of the word "existing" in the last sentence of that same paragraph. (It was later noted that staff preferred that those sentences remain and there was no opposition expressed by the Commission.) In Subparagraph D, page 4, Mr. Johnson suggested the words "will be allowed" in the second sentence be changed to "can be considered." Mr. Grimm felt a "maximum distance off a road" needed to be established. There was a brief discussion of the "next step" in proceeding with this topic. It was decided that the rural service center concept (change to the Comprehensive Plan) would be dealt with first, separately from the designation of the Schuyler area, which would take place at a later time. There was no Commission opposition to staff's request to proceed with advertising both items, but with the understanding the ads would run on separate days and the hearings would be on separate days, with the Schuyler hearing to be scheduled last. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Mr. George Clark expressed support for the amendment. Mr. Tom Olivia, a resident of Schuyler and President of Citizens for Albemarle, expressed some concerns about the concept in general and its application. He expressed support for "workplaces in the countryside" but was concerned about "chopping up" the remaining agricultural/forestal areas. He felt caution should be taken so that these areas are not "plunked down arbitrarily." He was also concerned about opening the door to spot zoning and stated it would be difficult for CFA to support this concept for one property. He concluded that he felt it was reasonable to apply this concept to the Schuyler area (though there were concerns about the lack of infrastructure), but he was concerned about opening a Pandora's Box. Economic Development Policy - Mr. Cilimberg presented a revised version of the economic development policy Comprehensive Plan amendment reflecting recommendations from the Commission's previous worksession. Mr. Johnson recommended the deletion of the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 6. The Commission expressed no opposition to this suggestion. It was a consensus of the Commission to schedule the item for public hewing. 4-20-93 Meeting with the Board of Supervisors - It was decided the meeting would be held at 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 5. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M. 3