Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 22 1991 PC MinutesJANUARY 22, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 22, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of January 10, 1991 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA - Addition to Free Union A ricultural Forestal District Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the application be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. SP-90-93 Delfar Land Trust - Automart petitions for a special use permit for visible outdoor parking display and storage of automobiles in the Entrance Corridor overlay District [30.6.3.2). The property, described as Tax Map 45B1, Parcels 5-C-4 and 5-A-9, is on the east side of Route 29 approximately 2000' north of Carrsbrook Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This is in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 2). Deferred from December 18th Planning Commission Meeting. U,�D SDP-90-096 - Automart Parking Preliminary Site Plan -- Proposal to locate a 55-car overflow parking area on 0.95 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 45B1, Section 5 parcel A9 is located on the east side of Route 29 approximately 1500 feet south of the South Fork Rivanna River and adjacent to the existing Automart building. Access shall be through the existing Automart parking area and a southward extension of the existing frontage road is proposed. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial, the site is located within the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. (Urban Neighborhood 2) Deferred from the December 18th Planning Commission Meeting. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral of these two items. / 77 January 22, 1991 Page 2 Ms. Andersen asked staff to comment on the Carrsbrook/Route 29 North Slope Study in relation to this property. Mr. Keeler responded that it is staff's position that the findings of this study "are still valid and that report will be incorporated in the final review by the Engineering Department." Mr. Keeler briefly described the history of this property including the fact that the slope damage had not been caused by this applicant. Mr. Cilimberg added that because there has been no damage to adjoining properties as a result of the slope problems, this application will fall under the Erosion and Sediment Control laws and would not be a civil matter. Ms. Huckle asked who would follow through with this matter. Mr. Keeler responded that if the site plan is approved, then the measures to stabilize the slope will be incorporated in that plan, but if no use of the property is approved, then the Engineering Department will be asked to re-evaluate the plan to see if there are any measures which need to be taken. He added that the applicant has submitted the information which was required. Mr. Keeler also noted that the Architectural Review Board had reviewed the plan and suggested several changes. He did not know if that was the reason for the requested deferral. Ms. Huckle stated: "Apparently they didn't live up to the conditions of their first approval." Mr. Keeler stated he felt it was more complicated than that and he advised that it was not appropriate for this issue to be discussed without the applicant present. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-90-93 and SDP-90-096, be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Z_MA_-90-25 Mitchell, Matthews and Associates - The applicant is requesting a rezoning of 2.34 acres from HC, Highway Commercial to PD-SC, Planned Development - Shopping Center. The property, developed as Townside East and described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C1, is on the south side of Rt. 250 at its intersection with Colonnades Drive in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is in a designated growth area. (Urban Neighborhood 6) ` The applicant was requesting that the petition be withdrawn. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the applicant's request for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. SP-90-116 Cosmo A. DeFazio - The applicant is requesting a permit for a community center with a swim facility in the /7Z January 22, 1991 Page 3 Dunlora Subdivision [15-2.2(4)]. Property described as 6.4 acres of Tax Map 62F, Parcel A zoned R4, Residential is located on the east side of Rio Road (Rt. 631) approximately 400' north of its intersection with Penn Park Road in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is in a designated growth area. (Urban Neighborhood 2). The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-90-116 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-90-24 South Pantops Land Trust II and Hurt Investment Comnoany - The applicant is petitioning to rezone 13.67 acres from R-15, Residential to CO, Commercial Office. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 20 (part) and 70 (part) is located on the northeast side of South Pantops Drive and approximately 600' west of State Farm Boulevard in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is in a designated growth area. (Urban Neighborhood 3) Deferred from the December 18th Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Tarbell confirmed that this property would not require the review of the Architectural Review Board, but the applicant has proffered the final site plan will be reviewed by the ARB. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He pointed out that the property on State Farm Blvd. is zoned Commercial Office and approximately 50 acres is zoned PDMC. He stated the applicant would like to use the "streambed as a buffer between the R-15 and the CO." The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Eleanor Santick, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, read a statement of opposition to the proposal. The reasons for opposition included: --Difficulty in assessing the impact of the proposal without a plan for site development; --The responsibility for the site plan should not be that of the ARB (as proffered by the applicant) since that Board cannot address issues of engineering, soil erosion, utilities, etc. /7S January 22, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Andrew Drucopoli, representing Mr. Gene Worrell, addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. He emphasized the following points: --He disagreed with the staff's position that the boundary between the office designation and the high -density residential was the streambed. He noted that the boundary line was not well-defined on the map. He felt there was a rational argument for this proposal not being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. --This area has the greatest surplus of undeveloped office land in the urban area. He stated: "Given the County's emphasis towards pushing development into the urban area and given the County's emphasis on developing inexpensive housing for its employees in the urban area, it seems to me to run counter to good planning to be turning R-15 land into Commercial Office land, particularly in this area where you have such an enormous amount of undeveloped office land." There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Referring to the implication by Ms. Santick that the ARB would have the ultimate review of a site plan, Mr. Cilimberg explained that a site plan will be subject to the full provisions of the Ordinance, though the applicant has proffered that it also be subject to ARB review. Regarding the issue of the boundary, he also explained that at the final hearing of the Comprehensive Plan review, a request was made by the property owner to establish that boundary of office service at the streambed and the Board accepted that request and the map had been altered to show that approximate location. He felt the Board's records would reflect this decision. Referring to the applicant's proffer for ARB review, Mr. Rittenhouse asked when that review would take place. Mr. Keeler responded that the ARB has asked staff to encourage applicants to meet with the ARB before a preliminary site plan is submitted. However, the language in the Entrance Corridor Overlay Ordinance requires review before a final site plan. Mr. Keeler noted that the Entrance Corridor Overlay did not take into consideration view from historic sites. He advised that the Commission "might want to clarify the intent of the referral of the site plan to the ARB, because technically it does not fall under the Entrance Corridor District. ...If you intend to accept the proffer to make it applicable to the view from Monticello, I think your action should reflect that... so that when it goes before the ARB they will know why it's there." Mr. Keeler also explained the reasoning behind a planned development approach to a rezoning, i.e. it allows the January 22, 1991 Page 5 issues of traffic generation, effects on surrounding residential property, and physical characteristics of the property to be addressed. He noted that the applicant's proffer addresses the issue of traffic generation and the fact that the applicant owns the surrounding residential property addresses the second consideration. However, in relation to the physical characeristics of the property, he explained that presently there is no assurance that the applicant will not propose development on steep slopes (which the ordinance does allow if a waiver is granted). Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the Commission is under no obligation to grant a waiver request. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the loss of high -density residential property. Mr. Johnson stated that without a physical plan to review, he felt the request was premature. He noted that the terrain is "quite hostile" and the property is in direct view of Monticello and I-64. Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant to comment on the intent of the second proffer, i.e. to abide by the recommendations of the ARB. Mr. Melton responded that the applicant is presently working on a contract with State Farm for this piece of land for their future expansion. He did not know when this expansion might take place. He explained that the contract of purchase was contingent upon the approval of the rezoning. He explained the offer to have the site plan reviewed by the ARB was based on a suggestion from staff. He explained it was the applicant's intention to "turn in an adequate site plan and to take what the land will give us." He stated the applicant was aware that building on critical slopes was not allowed. Mr. Rittenhouse asked: "If we were to accept the second proffer we would need to give direction to the Architectural Review Board. ... If we were to give them direction to review this in terms of Monticello's viewshed, does that effect your offer of the proffer?" Mr. Melton replied: "No, I think that would be acceptable. I think everyone will be able to work with Monticello on that." Ms. Huckle asked what would happen if the rezoning is approved and then the contract with State Farm falls through. Mr. Melton noted that there is really no site plan being presented from State Farm either. He pointed out that the County "was not giving up anything" because the Commission would have the power to review any site plan which might be proposed. January 22, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Keeler clarified that staff was Commission re -write the applicant's however, that the Commission could more limited fashion that what was way the proffer was written it gave "authority to do virtually anything with no guidance as to what purpose concluded: "If your concern is the project from Monticello, I think yo to that extent." not suggesting that the proffer. He added, accept the proffer "in a written." He felt the the applicant the that they choose to do it is to serve." He visibility of the u can accept the proffer Mr. Bowling confirmed this was accurate, if it was the Commission's intention to narrow the scope of the proffer. Mr. Bowling also pointed out that Mr. Melton's earlier description of the authority of the ARB was inaccurate, i.e. the ARB does have authority over the landscaping of a site. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was willing to support the application based on the Board's statement during adoption of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the designation for this parcel, i.e. the Board decided the property was to be used for Commercial office. He noted that the proffer will limit the traffic so that there will be no additional traffic as a result of the rezoning. He also pointed out that the proffer offers the County the opportunity to address the issue of the view from Monticello. Mr. Wilkerson agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse and moved that ZMA-90-24 for South Pantops Land Trust II and Hurt Investment Company be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as submitted. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked how it could be assured that the Board would know the Commission's position was based on the decision the Board had made regarding this property during the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg indicated he would make that known to the Board. The motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Johnson casting the dissenting votes. Ms. Huckle noted that she felt the rezoning was premature. SP--90-112 Einstein School - Thomas S. Edwards, Jr. (owner) and the Einstein School (applicant) petitions the Board of Supervisors for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a private school [Section 17.2.2(5)] on 2.50 acres /T4, January 22, 1991 Page 7 zoned R-10, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 10 and 10A, is located at the end of Greenbrier Drive approximately 1,500 feet east of the intersection of Route 743 and Route 631 in the Charlottesville Magisterial distract. This site is located within a designated growth area. (Urban Neighborhood 1). Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Staff noted the addition of a seventh condition ["Construction of a gymnasium or other expansion will require amendment to this special permit.] This addition was based on the applicant's desire to possibly add a gymnasium at some future date. The staff report identified one unresolved issue, i.e. whether the applicant should be required to connect to public water. It was staff's position that the water line was reasonably available. The applicant was requesting that the school be allowed to continue to use the existing well because of the cost involved with connecting to public water. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about the expense of connecting to public water, Mr. Tarbell explained that he was not aware of any physical constraints to making that connection. The applicant was represented by Mr. Preston Thomas, founder and director of the school. He explained that the well water was treated with an extensive filtration system and was superior to public water. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Tom Edwards, owner of the house to be used for the school, addressed the Commission. He felt the school would be an asset to the neighborhood. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle indicated that she could support the request for the school, but she could not agree to allow the use of the private well. Commissioners Grimm and Rittenhouse agreed. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that when a property is within the Service Authority's jurisdiction, there must be a compelling reason to waive the requirement for connection to public water or sewer. He felt a waiver could not be granted based purely on the basis of the connection fee. / 7t January 22, 1991 Page 8 Mr. Wilkerson agreed and moved that SP-90-113 for the Einstein School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is not transferable. 2. Enrollment limited to thirty-five (35) students; 3. Administrative approval of a site plan sketch to include: a. Location of recreational facilities; b. Reservation of area for future right-of-way dedication; c. Parking and access improvements to include provision for two-way traffic at the entrance. 4. Access is restricted to the northern entrance onto Greenbriar Drive and the southern entrance shall be physically deleted. 5. Recreational facilities shall not be lighted. 6. The existing buildings shall connect to water and sewer prior to the opening of the school. 7. Construction of a gymnasium or other expansion will require amendment to this special permit. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-90-26 University Real Estate Foundation - UREF petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.28 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office and LI, Light Industry to C-1, Commercial (PROFFERED to restrict use to medical center, Section 22.2.1(b.21)]. Property, described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 23C (part), is located on the north side of Rt. 250 West approximately 0.5 miles west of its intersection with Ednam Drive in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. SDP-90-114 - University of Virainia Linear Accelerator Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 7,650 square foot outpatient medical center on 1.28 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office and LI, Light Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 59 Parcel 23C (part), is located on the north side of Route 250 approximately 0.5 miles west of its intersection with Ednam Drive in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. 179 January 22, 1991 Page 9 Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer, and was requesting administrative approval of the site plan subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. David Durrer. [He was accompanied by David Westby (UREF), Jack Horne (contractor) and Steven Key (site planner).] In response to Mr. Grimm's question, he stated that the proposed facility would not involve the use of any nuclear materials. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Henry Thielbar, representing the Ednam Forest Homeowner's Association, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about "the lack of notice" about this proposed project. He felt the homeowners had not had time to prepare an adequate response. His main concerns were: (1) Approval of this project will only add to the existing developments on nearby properties and invite consolidation of existing uses, resulting in an ultimate "major satellite medical center," which will change the character of the area; and (2) This project will only add to existing serious traffic problems on Rt. 250. Mr. Jack Marshall, representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about further rezonings in rural areas and noted that this property was not in a designated growth area. He stated he did not oppose the proposal but he asked that "medical facilities" be more clearly defined. Mr. Bob Sleeth, representing the Northridge Office Center, addressed the Commission. He expressed support for the rezoning. However, he expressed concern about potential health hazards which the linear accelerator might pose to surrounding properties. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle noted she felt this was more acceptable than a typical commercial establishment. (In response to Ms. Huckle's request, the applicant presented photographs of the proposed facility which will be submitted to the ARB.) Mr. Keeler noted that just as site planning issues are the purview of the Commission, aesthetic issues of the plan are the purview of the ARB. He cautioned against sending "double signals" to the applicant. January 22, 1991 Page 10 Mr. Johnson called attention to the Virginia Department of Transportation's comments related to the identification of this section of Rt. 250 in the CAT Study. He noted that with the completion of Rt. 250 West as a divided four -lane highway, this building would be only 61 feet from the pavement and only 56 feet from the right-of-way. He compared these to the 150 foot setback requirement for entry corridors. He stated he could not support the proposal because of this "invasion of the aesthetic requirements that have been identified for a scenic road, namely 250." He pointed out that there was sufficient area to move the building further to the west, thereby avoiding a significant intusion on these dimensions. He did not feel that such a shift in the building would pose any hardship. Mr. Johnson further stated that if the proposal should be granted approval, then he felt condition 1(f) should be modified so as to include a requirement that street trees be a minimum of 4 1/2 inches caliper. (He noted this would represent a modification of the minimum requirement in Section 32.7.9.5(a) of the Zoning Ordinance which identifies a 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 inch caliper.) He noted that the smaller trees are ineffective. Mr. Cilimberg commented that Mr. Johnson's point was well taken. He noted, however, that this was within the purview of the ARB, and rather than this being an express condition, he felt it would be appropriate that Mr. Johnson's concern be communiated to the ARB for their consideration. Regarding the issue of the road setback, Mr. Tarbell commented: "Our recommendation is here for granting of this exception based on the fact that (the applicant) came in in November with three various sketches and we encouraged them to go with the one that is before you because it put the parking facilities in the back and I felt the landscaping around the building adequately screens it from 250. As far as the ultimate dedication, I think Mr. Johnson is correct in his calculations. I don't know if you want to use that discretion to take the ultimate dedication which is not being done right now for actual dedication." He noted that the Westridge Bank site plan had been very similar to this and the Commission had granted the same exception. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Ordinance gives the Commission the latitude to reduce the setback to not less than 75 feet from the right-of-way, (i.e. from 150 feet to 75 feet). He asked Mr. Bowling to comment on Mr. Johnson's concerns about the ultimate improvements to Rt. 250. Mr. Bowling commented: "Your ordinance deals with what is in existence now, not what may be in existence in the future." January 22, 1991 Page 11 Referring to condition 1(h) ["Reservation for future right-of-way dedication in accordance with the CAT Study."], Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We can only require reservation; we can't require a dedication of right-of-way. It's not considered to be an allowed connection between the development and the road improvements necessary ultimately." Mr. Keeler added: "This is not full reservation as the ordinance allows because there are no adopted plans on (the road); if there were adopted plans we could require a plated reservation under the provisions of the Ordinance and under those conditions the setback would be measured from the reservation. We don't know if the Highway Department is going to take equal right-of-way on both sides and the applicant has been cooperative in showing the reservation that's here. ...We're getting more than we can actually require in the provisions of the Ordinance." Mr. Johnson noted that he was not attempting to define what should be reserved or dedicated. However, he noted that the Ordinance gives the Commission the latitude to "go up to 75 feet of the existing right-of-way," and his point was "in anticipation of this being expanded, then the building is essentially on the road and there is an alternative which could be considered by the applicant to move the building elsewhere and get more separation." He pointed out that he had no opposition to the proposed facility. Mr. Wilkerson noted that this use would generate considerably less traffic than would a bank (which was previously proposed). Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-26 for University Real Estate Foundation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support the motion. He noted he was influenced by the fact that this is a less intense use than was already approved by the Board for the same site. He also acknowledged understanding of Mr. Johnson's concerns related to setback. He expressed the hope that the ARB would be particularly mindful of the granting of the waiver for reduced setback in their evaluation of landscaping and screening. Ms. Huckle stated that she, too, would support the motion. She added that because this facility does not depend on visibility from the highway for success, extensive screening can be used. !81 January 22, 1991 Page 12 Staff noted that they would pass these desires on to the ARB. There followed a discussion about tree size. Though Mr. Johnson was in favor of suggesting at least a 4 inch caliper tree, it was decided this would be left to the discretion of the ARB. (Mr. Keeler noted that the ARB had already considered the issue of tree size, generally). Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion on the basis of the limited setback. Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission should review the final site plan. Mr. Keeler responded that it would depend on the reason for such a review, e.g. is it something other than an aesthetic issue? He pointed out that the ARB now has authority over "all the aesthetic matters." He felt that the ARB has more authority than the Commission in this area, based on the wording of the Ordinance. He noted that "carrying plans back and forth between various bodies" should be avoided. He stated that the Ordinance does not authorize the Commission to override the ARB on aesthetic matters, but only on matters of public health and safety. Referring to condition 1(f) ["Planning staff approval of the final landscape plan."], Mr. Keeler stated: "I think we will approve whatever the Architectural Review Board tells us to approve on the landscape plan." The previously stated motion for approval of ZMA-90-26 passed (5:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Johnson casting the dissenting votes. The Chairman then called for a motion on the SDP-90-114 (UVA Linear Accelerator Preliminary Site Plan). Mr. Wilkerson moved that staff be granted administrative approval of the site plan for the University of Virginia Linear Accelerator Preliminary Site Plan, said approval to be subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include 200' x 200' right turn and taper lane and closure of existing entrance; b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; AM January 22, 1991 Page 13 c. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; f. Planning staff approval of the final landscape plan; g. The proposed internal road shall provide the only entrance into Phase II of the site and that entrance shall be located at least 85 feet from the existing right-of-way of Route 250; h. Reservation for future right-of-way dedication in accordance with the CAT Study; i. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained from the Architectural Review Board. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official final approval - Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS There were brief discussions about the following unresolved issues: VDOT's decision about roads in Crozet: Mr. Cilimberg reported that four alternatives had been taken to public hearing and a fifth alternative was later considered. Three alternatives were not considered because of strong public opposition, and a fourth was not considered acceptable by VDOT because of the expense of crossing the railroad tracks. It was the Board's decision not to pursue the first four alternatives, but rather to do spot improvements at the intersection of Tabor Street with Rt. 240 and High Street to allow for sight distance improvements, and to ultimately go to location and design public hearing with the connection from Park Street down to Rt. 250 (the fifth alternative). He stated that alternative would still be studied for a more precise alignment. The Board had also decided not to do a new road between Park Street and Rt. 240 on the western end of Park Street because of the impact on residential areas. Proposed RA Amendment Related to Development Rights - Mr. Cilimberg explained that this issue is still being reviewed and it is yet to be determined as to whether or not this amendment will be pursued. He added that staff had just received the Piedmont Environmental Council's latest suggested changes to this proposed amendment. 1 8.S January 22, 1991 Page 14 Foster Well Request to Use Private Well - The Board had taken no action, thereby allowing the Commission's action to stand. Kegler's SAeedbumps - This issue has not yet been resolved. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. g V. Way Cilimbdrgk Secretary /YA1