Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 21 1993 PC Minutes9-21-93 1 SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 21, 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. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, 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 August 31 and September 9 were approved as submitted. Mr. Keeler briefly reviewed the September 15 Board of Supervisors Meeting. &L-wLila4s Limizea Yartnershin (owner) - Petition to establish a commercial recreation establishment including, but not limited to go-karts, bumper boats, batting cages and arcade games (24.2.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 109 (partof), consists of approximately 1.2 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This property is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Rt. 29 and the access road to Kegler's Bowling Center in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. Deferred from September 9, 1993 Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue asked if he was correct in his belief that this use could be handled by a septic tank and drainfield whereas a more intense use would create a higher volume of sewage discharge which may not be handled by a septic system and would, therefore, require either the upgrading of the pump station, or gravity sewer. Mr. Fritz responded that while there are high water usage uses (e.g. a laundromat or restaurant) that would be inappropriate on a private septic systems, there are are also some high intensity uses (in terms of vehicle trip generation, etc.) which are permitted by special use permit which could use a private system because they are low water usage uses (e.g. banks, convenience stores, factory outlet stores). Mr. Blue concluded: "So if we go along with the theory that they can 173 9-21-93 2 use a septic facility, then they could also use it for a more intense use even if this were turned down. That's what I wanted to know." In response to Mr. Blue's request, Mr. Fritz summarized the ARB's comments. Mr. Fritz explained that the ARB felt the use could not be designed in a manner that would be compatible with the EC District. Mr. Blue noted that he felt the ARB was cautioning the Commission that if this request is approved, the ARB is not inclined to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Fritz stated that the ARB had not stated it would not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, but only that it would be difficult to design the site in a way that would be acceptable. (Mr. Keeler read the ARB's comments referring to possible screening methods.) There was a brief discussion about a previous request (car dealership) on the site across the highway from this property. The ARB had felt there was no way that site could have been effectively screened. Mr. Fritz recalled that part of the issue on that site had dealt with the topography of the property and extensive grading planned by the applicant. Mr. Blue then interpreted that the ARB was making the applicant aware of the type of screening that will be required if the request is approved. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that a car dealership would be permitted by special permit on the property under review. A special permit would be required because of outdoor storage and display. Mr. Fritz stated that the vehicle trip generation for this use appears to be lower than for the average HC use. He confirmed that there were many by -right uses which would be more intense. Mr. Blue asked counsel to comment on the County's legal obligation to protect the alignment for the western Bypass. He noted: "In this case, it wouldn't be a justifiable reason for turning this applicant down." Mr. Bowling responded: "Standing by itself, I think you'd have some problems. There is no law which says you shall consider this as a factor, but I think it is one of the factors you can take into consideration if for no other reason than it undeniably exists --but it may or may not occur --and if it does occur it may or may not happen in the near future or the far future. In addition, you have the other problem of the fact that the property is zoned for by -right uses which are more intense. .,." %7f 9-21-93 3 The applicant, Mr. David Elmore, addressed the Commission. His comments and answers to Commission questions included the following: --The go-kart track will be the main attraction and will use state-of-the-art vehicles which are quiet, safety oriented, with pollution controls. Each vehicle's speed will be controlled by an attendant. --This will be an alcohol -free, family oriented establishment. --A septic system will; be adequate to serve the use until such time as public sewer is available. Sewage use is much below the normal usage of an average residence (66 gallons per day for this use vs. 150 gallons per day for a residence). --The applicant's engineers feel that a septic system will be easily workable. --The applicant feel's the ARB's negative comments are caused by the applicant's "inability to articulate and demonstrate the visual impact of the new Fastrax." --Fastrax will have a small colonial style building, landscaping with vegetation and stone to create an homogeneous appearance with the surroundings. Landscaping also includes screening using trees and shrubs which will blend with the surroundings. --The facility will be accessible to the golf course through the parking lot of Kegler's. In answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz explained the Health Department's requirements for the construction of the septic fields. Mr. Blue asked if the applicant feels he will be able to meet the ARB's requirements for screening without creating a financial hardship , i.e. will screening cost more than the project can justify? Mr. Elmore responded: "We do feel we can meet the requirements." Mr. Elmore confirmed that he will not feel he has been misled if it is later determined that the ARB's requirements make the project economically unfeasible. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Anne Straton spoke in favor of the proposal. She pointed out that there are few recreational opportunities for young people in this area. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Referring to a recent similar request (Todd Shields) which was denied by the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Nitchmann felt that none of the reasons on which that denial was based are applicable in this case, i.e. it is not a rezoning, it is 17.5' 9-21-93 n not directly adjacent to residential property, it is not easily accessible to the school. Mr. Grimm expressed the feeling that the use which could be developed into a feasible application for this site, and the applicant feels that he will be able to screen the use in an acceptable way. He agreed there are a lack of recreational sites for young people in the area. Mr. 41ue repeated concerns expressed on other requests related to the use of private septic in this area. He felt that with uses being approved with private systems, it will become increasingly difficult to extend public sewer at some future time. However, he stated that his questions have been answered previously. He expressed some reluctance to approve a use which will be in the path of the Western Bypass but "we really have no reason to be able to turn it down on that basis." He noted that there could be more intense uses by -right on the property. He concluded that he would support the request. After determining that a Certificate of Appropriateness will be required even though it is not a stated condition of approval, Mr. Nitchmann stated that he could support the request. Mr. Johnson stated he felt the use was inappropriate for the location. However, he suggested that if the request is approved a condition limiting noise (Section 4.14.1 of the Ordinance) be added. Mr. Jenkins expressed some anxiety about the fact that the Board recently turned down a very similar request in this same area. (Mr. Grimm pointed out that the circumstances are different in this request.) Mr. Jenkins pointed out that there were no persons expressing concern about the effect on the nearby school. He concluded that he would support the request. In response to Mr. Blue's request, Mr. Keeler read some of the comments made by the Board of Supervisors during their review of the Todd Shields request. He stressed that he was reading from "unofficial" notes made by Mr. Cilimberg. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-93-25 for Fastrax Entertainment be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No alcohol sales. 2. The bumper boat pool shall not be constructed until a method of handling the waste water has been approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. 7� 9-21-93 9 3. Uses shall be limited to go kart races, batting cages, bumper boats and arcades. 4. At such time as a swer line with adequate capacity is in place within 200 feet of the building the applicant will connect to public sewer. Discussion: Mr. Blue asked if Mr. Johnson would support the motion if it included the additional condition he had suggested. Mr. Johnson replied negatively. Mr. Nitchmann stated his motion did not include the additional condition recommended earlier by Mr. Johnson. The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. Review of Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District - which consists of eight parcels totalling 764.750 acres, located on the east and west sides of Rt. 20 North at Rt. 612. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Mr. Blue asked Ms. Scala about the source of her information on the current status of the parcels in the district. Ms. Scala explained she gathers her information from the latest tax records and visits to the site. Mr. Blue pointed out what he felt were some significant errors: --Tax Map 63, parcel 28 shows three dwellings, when there are actually 8 dwelling units on the property, 5 of which are rental units. He was uncertain when the rental units had been constructed but he suspected they may have been built since the establishment of the district. (Ms. Scala explained that if the units existed prior to the district, then they may continue, but if not, only one rental unit would be allowed.) He felt similar situations probably exist in other parts of the county, i.e. where landowners want the benefits of the ag/forestal district, but have a number of "guest cottages or rental units." He felt this issue should be investigated more thoroughly. He stressed that he was uncertain as to when the rental units may have come into existence. --Tax Map 63, parcel 4 shows two dwelling units, but the real estate office shows three dwelling units and a mobile home. He felt that correct information should be presented before action is taken on these proposals. The Chairman invited public comment. /7/ 9-21-93 6 Mr. Carlo Colombini, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the district effecting future development potential for his property. He explained that he had developed a portion of his property prior to the creation of the ag/forestal district. He asked that the Commission's action be worded in such a way as to acknowledge the pre-existence of his property and that he be allowed to do as he wishes with his property the same as those property owners in the ag/forestal can do with theirs. Mr. Blue agreed that the existence of an agricultural/forestal district would be taken into consideration during any review of a development proposal on an adjacent piece of property. Mr. Bowling pointed out that Mr. Colombini has the same opportunity to make application to develop his property as anyone else. Mr. Johnson indicated it was his understanding that the Board and Commission did not necessarily have to consider the existence of an adjacent ag/forestal when reviewing a request for a rezoning. (Mr. Keeler stated that was not correct. He pointed out that the Commission is obligated by the Code of Virginia to give consideration to the existence of an ag/forestal district in any legislative act on adjacent property.) Mr. Blue pointed out that the ag/forestal district would be a very small issue when compared to other problems related to rezoning property in this area. Referring to Mr. Blue's earlier comments regarding discrepancies in the staff report related to number of dwelling units, Mr. Nitchmann suggested that a deferral might be called for to allow time for clarification. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Andersen agreed. MOTION: Ms. Andersen moved that the review of the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District be deferred to allow time for clarification of the number of dwelling units. (No date was specifically set though October 5 was mentioned.) Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-93-08 Feldmann's Inc (applicant), Mark & L nnle Thornton (owner) The applicant was requesting deferral to September 28, 1993. 79 9-21-93 7 Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that ZMA-93-08 be deferred to September 28, 1993. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-90-17 and SP-93-12 Hydraulic Sand Company and ZMA-90-16 Southside Church of God Both applicants were requesting indefinite deferral to allow consideration of change in the land use designation during review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the requests from Hydraulic Sand Company be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that ZMA-90-16 for Southside Church of God be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SP-93-22 Malcom Woodward & Virginia Land Trust - Petition to permit fill activity in the floodplain [30.3] on 1.2 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 76, parcels 12B, 12C and 12E is located on Fontaine Avenue Extended west of Morey Creek in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood Service (SDP-93-45 Buckingham office Building Preliminary Site Plan is being reviewed concurrently). SDP-93-045 - Buckingham Office Building Preliminaa Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 8,000 square feet office building on 1.212 acres with 30 parking spaces zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 12B, 12C, and 12E is located on Fontaine Avenue Extended west of Morey Creek. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Neighborhood Service. Mr. Fritz rpesented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the SP and supported the applicant's request for a modification to allow a reduction of the undisturbed buffer between commercial and residential properties (Section 21.7.3). Mr. Fritz explained that the buffer in question provides no effective buffer between sites due to the slope and the lack of existing vegetation. He also explained that the /7F 9-21-93 g residential property is not used as such and even if it were, the site for this property is not visible from the residentially zoned property. Mr. Johnson asked if approval was granting authority to penetrate the drainage "condition." Mr. Fritz explained that the area was not protected by the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance and is a drainage swale rather than a stream. He added that the standard conditions of site plan approval will ensure that drainage is adequate across the property. In answer to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Albemarle County Service Authority has been working with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. They have looked at both the sanitary sewer line and the water line on the property. The ACSA will have to sign off on the final plan. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. (He was accompanied by Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Woodward.) He offered to answer Commission questions. He stated that a 4,000 square foot building was planned. Mr. Woodward described some of the history of the site. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-93-22 for Malcolm Woodward and Virginia Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. 2. The basement shall be used only for storage and mechanical equipment space. The basement is not considered habitable and there shall be no employee work space or area open to the public in the basement. 3. Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements pertaining to fill activity within the floodplain. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------- MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the request for a modification to allow a reduction of the undisturbed buffer between commercial and residential properties for Buckingham Office Building Site Plan be approved, with staff to approve the site plan administratively subject to Board of Supervisors approval of the special use permit. 4W 9-22-93 The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _ n _ DB /Yl