HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 15 1991 PC MinutesOCTOBER 15, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 15, 1991, Meeting doom 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; 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. David Benish, Chief
of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
October 1, 1991 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Fritz briefly previewed those items scheduled for the
October 22 Consent Agenda (Lakeland at Reynovia Phase II
Section A Final Plat).
The Chairman announced the following agenda revisions:
Applicant withdrawal of ZMA-91-05 (Greenbrier Square Limited
Partnership). Ms. Andersend moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle
that the applicant's request for withdrawal be accepted,
without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously.
Staff deferral of ZMA-89-09 Rio Hill West. Mr. Wilkerson
moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the item be deferred to
November 7, 1991. The motion passed unanimously.
CPA-90-03 Amendment to the Land Use Plan - Hollymead -
Request to amend the Land Use Plan for the Hollymead
Community for 175 acres west of Rt. 29 and south of Rt. 649
(Airport Rd). The land use changes were from Industrial
Service to Regional Service, High Density Residential. The
area is located west of Rt. 29N and south of east of Rt. 606
in the Hollymead Community.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Staff did not
support the proposal for the following reasons: (1)
Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the
current land use plan/map, location criteria for residential
and commercial areas, and specific recommendations for the
development community of Hollymead; and (2) Fiscal impact
analysis has not yet been completed.
The applicant's proposal included the following offers to
the County: (1) The immediate extension of public sewer to
the airport area at the expense of the applicant; (Staff
43 9
10-15-91 2
noted: "Short term alternatives for obtaining sewer service
for the airport arc limited. Continued use of a septic
system is not seen as a viable alternative.]; (2) Location
of a mobile home park; [Staff noted: "While the need is
great, this is not a prime location, particularly in regard
to the noise impact form the airport.]; and (3) Development
of a connector road between Rt. 606 and Rt. 29. [Staff
noted: "It does not appear that this road will
significantly reduce the need to make other road system
improvements to Airport Road and Route 29.... Intersection
with the existing intersection at Hollymead would be
preferred."]
Ms. Huckle asked that a sixth item --Utilities Master Plan --
be added to the list of additional planning work (page 2 of
staff report).
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Benish explained
that Attachments 3 and 4 (to the staff report) were the
applicant's response to staff's request for conceptual
plans. Mr. Johnson noted that the plans were not definitive
in terms of total acreages for Regional Service and High
Density Residential. Mr. Benish explained the two
alternatives presented by the applicant. He stated that if
the Board should act favorably on the request, then the
locations would be pinpointed. Mr. Cilimberg noted that
Attachment 3 "comes closest to meeting the boundary criteria
in the Comp Plan in that it follows, more or less, stream
boundaries for the back side of the commercial and the north
and east side of the residential."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Benish stated that
Rt. 606 is classified as "non -tolerable" by VDOT.
Mr. Johnson asked if any circumstances have changed since
this proposal was made in May, 1990. Mr. Benish explained
that the Bypass issue has been resolved but he did not feel
there had been any other "significant" change in
circumstance. He added, however, that the Airport is under
a "tight time line" to deal with their septic needs.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if the Commission should
determine that a change to the land use designation was in
order, then staff was suggesting a third alternative, i.e.
an Office/Regional Service designation. He stressed that
staff was not recommending a change at this time, but the
Commission has other factors to consider.
It was noted that the applicant's proposal included the R-15
area almost totally in the Airport's noise impact area.
14d/b
10-15-91 5
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission.
He explained the history of the property. He explained that
this proposal was the result of the Airport and service
Authority's need for public sewer in this area. Other
comments included:
--There are no immediate plans for development of the
property.
--This is an opportunity for the County to save its
citizens money.
--The property currently has 9 by -right entrances onto
Rt. 29. Those would be given up in return for three
controlled entrances.
--A master plan for development is preferrable to
by -right development.
--R-15 is requested because that is what is required
for a mobile home park.
--Mobile homes are built to criteria which will
withstand the noise level of the airport. He offered to put
a time limit on the existence of the mobile home park.
--He offered to build the sewer line ($380,000), "up
front" (to be in operation by June 1992) and give it to the
County. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant has made
this offer in writing to the Service Authority.)
--He offered to restrict commercial development along
the front for 8 - 10 years.
--He disagreed with staff's position that the connector
road would be of questionable public value. He felt this
would decrease traffic on Rt. 649 and Rt. 606.
--Regional service is requested because it allows for
more flexibility.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Russell Mooney, an adjacent property owner, expressed
opposition to the request. He felt the proposal would lead
to a commercial "strip" along Rt. 29 and that the proposed residential
area would lead to a future slum.
Mr. Bill Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority,
addressed the Commission. He described the history of the
Airport sanitary sewer project. He explained that currently
the Service Authority has funds only for the over -sizing of
pipe for service to the Airport --there are no funds for
extension of the line. Discussions with Mr. Wood had
resulted in his offer to construct the line, up to and
through his property, at his expense, to the airport in
exchange for the change in the land use designation. He
noted a conservative estimate of $358,000 for this project.
He stated that the Service Authority took no position on
this request.
10-15-91 4
Mr. Briar Elliott, Director of Aviation for the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport Authority, addressed the
Commission. He stated the Airport took no position on this
proposal. He explained the approval for the current septic
system will expire in summer of 1992. Some state and
federal funds are available to assist with extension of
sewer, but those funds are greatly reduced for off -site
construction. He expressed concern about the location of
the proposed R--15 zoning. He stated the Airport feels it is
important to protect the Noise Impact Area. In response to
Ms. Huckle ''s earlier question, he explained that the
airport has three new carriers and passenger traffic is
increasing accordingly. However, it is not yet known if
1991 will show a profit. He stressed that the existing
septic system would not have been adequate even without the
recent expansion of the facilities. He noted that the soils
on the airport property are not "friendly" to private septic
systems. He stated that though the airport is trying to
find a funding mechanism to address its needs, "at the same
time we're hesitant to compromise the noise question...."
Mr. Elliott stated that it was his understanding that
because of topographic concerns, the routing of the lines as
proposed by the applicant is the only feasible location for
the lines. Mr. Elliott explained that available federal and
state funding decreases dramatically for an "off -site"
project. He confirmed, however, that those funds would pay
for an on -site septic system. He explained the airport has
one alternative: "To take waste from the terminal area and
pump it under the runway to a drainfield on the west side."
He pointed out that such a system would also have a limited
life.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Benish stated
that the two alternatives presented by the applicant were
not binding. He explained that the plans had very little
detail.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized that the Commission must compare
the pros and cons of the proposal, i.e. the extension of
public sewer to the airport vs. the noise conflict with
residential and lack of a fiscal impact study.
It was determined the existing airport septic system had
been installed in the mid-801s. Mr. Elliott recalled that
its expiration date had been based on a belief that the
public sewer issue could be resolved within that time frame.
10-15-91 5
Ms. Huckle felt the request was premature. She agreed with
staff's position that high density residential was not
appropriate in the Airport Overlay District. She stated
that the commercial is not needed at this time and it is
uncertain when it will be needed. She noted that there are
funds available for improvements of an on -site sanitary
system. She also noted that the best location for a
connector road has not yet been decided.
Ms. Huckle moved that CAP-90-03/Hollymead (Wendall Wood) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Grimm added that he felt it was desirable to adhere to
"our planning regimen in terms of the timetable for the
fiscal impact study to take place before any other
development plans take place."
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed.
Mr. Johnson agreed with staff's assessment of the proposal.
He emphasized that not only is the proposal incompatible
with the Comprehensive Plan, it appears to be "purely an
economic -driven request relative to the sewer."
Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that, with the exception of the
comments of the Service Authority, the proposal is basically
the same as was reviewed in 1990.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
SP-91-46 William Wibert (applicant), Ha To Lv (owner) -
Proposal to locate a sheet metal shop [24.2.2(8)] on
property zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map
61U, Section 1, Parcel 5, is located on the north side of
Berkmar Drive approximately 500 feet west of Route 29 in the
Charlottesville Magisterial district. This site is located
in a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the adequacy of the
access to accommodate trucks. The applicant explained that
nothing larger than a pickup truck would be used.
..1#0
10-15-91 6
Mr. Johnson questioned the purpose of condition No. i 'No
welding shall occur on site.] Mr. Fritz explained this was
to ensure that the use would remain a "contractor's office
and equipment storage yard and would not evolve into a sheet
metal fabrication" business which is a totally separate use.
He explained that the request had been reviewed strictly as
a contractor's office and equipment storage yard based on
the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the proposed
use. He stated that the use clearly fits the definition of
a contractor's office, but if welding and other activites
were to be added then the use would move into the definition
of metal fabrication. Mr. Fritz noted, however, that the
applicant does fabricate metal by means of a press which
folds the metal into desired forms.
Mr. Johnson quoted from the applicant's description of the
use (letter of August 5): "to fabricate materials which we
will install on the job." He questioned the accuracy of
the determination that this is a contractor's office and
equipment storage yard since this definition makes no
reference to fabrication of materials.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the outside appearance of
the building. Mr. Fritz explained that this is an existing
condition and staff could see no basis for requiring
landscaping since there will be no change in the appearance
of the building as a result of this use, nor does this use
occasion the need for landscaping.
It was determined that the ARB had been made aware of this
request, but had not commented.
The applicant addressed the Commission. In answer to Mr.
Johnson's questions, Mr. Wibert confirmed that some
soldering would take place, but no welding. He explained
that if welding is required, he takes it to a professional
welder. (Mr. Johnson noted that the definition made no
reference to soldering either.)
Mr. Johnson indicated that his concern was based on an
attempt to correctly identify the proposed use so as not to
"limit the (applicant's) chance for success."
Mr. Fritz passed out a copy of the Zoning Administrator's
comments which confirmed that she had determined the
proposed use fit the definition of contractor's office and
equipment storage yard.
Ms. Huckle noted that the Zoning Administrator's letter had
stated that no hammering would take place which was in
02*
10-15-91 7
conflict with the applicant's description of activity. Mr.
Wibert confirmed that some hammering would take place but it
would not be a constant noise. Mr. Fritz noted that the
Zoning Administrator had been aware that some hammering
would take place, but her comments referred more to "large
mechanical hammers."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-91-46 for William Wibert be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. No welding shall occur on site.
2. All materials shall be stored indoors.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated that though he endorsed the applicant's
request, he would reluctantly oppose the motion because he
"could not accept that welding as a fabrication process is
compatible under the definition of a contractor's office and
equipment storage yard and soldering, which achieves the
same end product... is under that." He felt the operation
was mis-labeled.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he had had a similar concern but
had been swayed by the Zoning Administrator's evaluation of
the proposal.
Ms. Huckle urged the owner of the property (Mr. Ha To Ly) to
install some landscaping.
The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner
Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
SP-91-52 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership - Proposal to
locate an emergency veterinary office on 3.1 acres currently
zoned HC, Highway Commercial (PROFFERED] (ZMA-91-06 is
pending). Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1,
Block A, Parcel 5, is located on the north side of
Greenbrier Drive approximately 500 feet west of Rt. 29 in
the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is
within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This
site is located in a designated growth area.
.�2AfS -
10-15-91
8
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval snb,ect to conditions.
There was a brief discussion as to how long animals would
remain at the facility and whether or not there would always
be an attendant present. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the
staff report made reference to the animals being removed "on
the following business day." He wondered if a condition
should be added accordingly. (it was later decided that
condition No. 6 would be added as follows: "Animals shall
be permitted on site only during hours of operation.")
Ms. Huckle asked if convenient parking would be available,
i.e. close enough so as to make it easy for persons who
would be bringing large injured animals. (The applicant
confirmed that a "roll -up door" was available from the rear
of the building.)
The applicant was represented by Ms. Bruce Murray. She
described the proposed emergency veterinary clinic. Dr.
Charles Wood, one of the participating veterinarians, gave
the following replies in response to Commission questions:
--Special staff members will staff the clinic --a
full-time emergency veterinarian and a technician (plus
clean-up workers). Area vets will serve as back --ups in case
of emergencies.
--Animals will have to be removed by their owners on
the morning following their admittance. If they are left
past pick-up time, an extra fee will be charged and they
will be removed to a designated veterinary hospital.
--This will not be a high transaction facility (average
77/month).
--The facility will have continuous staffing, i.e. no
animals will ever be present without a staff member present.
--The hours listed in the conditions of approval are
acceptable to the applicant.
--The present facility operates 6:00 p.m. Friday
evening through 8:00 a.m. Monday morning. It is hoped that
evening hours, Monday through Thursday, can be added at some
future time. (An additional vet will be hired when these
additional hours are added.)
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle wondered if there would be parking conflicts
caused by the proposed billard center (next agenda item).
Mr. Fritz responded that the Zoning Administrator has
determined that there is sufficient parking to accommodate
both uses. Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that some parking
spaces would be designated for the use of the veterinary
clinic only.
01hV4
10-15-91
0
Ms. Andersen moved that SP-91-52 for Greenbrier Square
Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. There shall be no outside exercise area.
2. No animals are to be confined outside.
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive.
4. Hours of operation shall be limited to: Monday --
Thursday: 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.; 5:30 p.m. Friday until
9:00 a.m. Monday.
5. There shall be no scheduled appointments. clinic shall
accept animals only on an emergency basis.
6. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of
operation.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-91-43 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership - Proposal to
locate a billard center [24.2.2(1)] on 3.1 acres currently
zoned KC, Highway Commercial [PROFFERED] (ZMA-91-06
pending). Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1,
Block A, Parcel 5, is located on the north side of
Greenbrier Drive approximately 500 feet west of Rt. 29 in
the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is
within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This
site is located in a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle asked if the presence of video machines had been
considered when determining the parking requirements. Mr.
Fritz replied affirmatively.
Ms. Huckle wondered if another street light would be needed
if persons would be parking at the theater and walking
across the street. she recalled that the area was not well
lighted. There was considerable discussion about lighting
in relation to persons crossing the street. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that this would be a Virginia Department of
Transportation issue and would involve lights in VDOT's
right-of-way projecting onto the street. Ms. Huckle
wondered if some type of "night -light" could be installed on
the applicant's property. Mr. Cilimberg felt the lighting
of the parking area would probably provide enough on -site
lighting.
10-15-91 10
The applicant was represented by Ms. Bruce Murray and Mr.
Jim Catoe (the operator of the billard center). Ms. Murray
stressed that this was not a typical "pool hall," but rather
is a "family entertainment center." She confirmed that the
site's parking area was lighted along the front. She noted
that the lighting is not directed to the street, except for
the spillover.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it has been determined that
adequate parking exists on the site, which should reduce the
necessity for parking across the street.
Mr. Catoe described the business in more detail. His
comments included the following:
--No alcoholic beverages will be served.
--No loitering will be allowed.
--No one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied
by an adult.
--There should be no need for off -site parking.
--in regard to the late -night weekend hours, Mr. Catoe
explained that those hours are requested because this is a
leisure business and must be available when people have
leisure time.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson recommended a fourth condition as follows:
"Violations to the provisions of 'impact mitigation'
provisions --Attachment C, page 2--can be considered adequate
cause for the revocation of this special permit." He felt
this would give more emphasis to the applicant's voluntary
provisions. He asked Mr. Bowling to comment.
Mr. Bowling questioned how the Zoning Administrator would
enforce such conditions, e.g. dress restrictions.
Ms. Andersen stated some trust had to be placed in the
owner's representation that he intends this to be a family
operation. She felt a lot of people would support this idea
and the applicant would be hiring persons who would enforce
those regulations.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the restriction against alcoholic
beverages would be have a major influence on the demeanor of
the establishment.
Mr. Grimm expressed support for the proposal.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-91-43 for Greenbrier Square
Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
,:2_ r4
10-15-91 11
1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive.
2. No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted.
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to:
Monday - Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight
Friday - Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Sunday 12 noon to 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-91-07 Redfields Development Corporation - Petition to
rezone 1.1 acres from RA, Rural Areas to PRD, Planned
Residential Development and to rezone 7.7551 acres from PRD
to RA and R-1 and 0.76 acres from R-1, Residential to PRD,
Planned Residential Development. Property, described as Tax
Map 76, Parcels 22A, 23, 24B, 47, 49, 49B (part) and Tax Map
76N, Parcels 8B and 12, are located adjacent to Sherwood
Farms and bounded by Sunset Road and I-64 in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial district. This site is located within a
designated growth area and is shown as low density
residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to agreements with the applicant. Mr.
Fritz noted: "These agreements and the application plan
replace the original conditions, proffers, and application
plan."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Cox. He
described briefly the history of the development and how the
current amendment had evolved.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that the proposal was of benefit to both
the County and the applicant.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-91-07 for Redfields Development
Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following agreements:
1. Each lot shall comply with current building site
provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal
feet on slopes of 25% or greater.
2. All roads, with the exception of roads A, B, and
the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to
Virginia Department of Transportation standards for
cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at
C and
urban
time of
.2AI9
10-15-91 12
development of those residential areas utilizing those
roads. Roads A, B and C shall be constructed in accordance
with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for
rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at
the time of development of the residential areas utilizing
those roads.
3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed
until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been
completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning
and Community Development.
4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with
Phase I.
5. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms
Subdivision.
6. Not more than 520 total units.
7. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and
C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in a
December 19, 1989 memorandum.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:10 P.M. .
a5_a