Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 24 90 PC MinutesAPRIL 24, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members Present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior 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 April 10, 1990 were approved as submitted. - The applicant is Petitioning the Board of Supervisors to rezone 19.54 acres from R-1, Residential to R-6, Residential. Property is located on the north side of Jarman's.Gap Road (Route 691) approximately 3/4 mile east of Route 684 in the White Hall Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 66 and 66A and is currently zoned R-1, Residential. Deferred from April 17 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to the applicant's proffers_ Mr. Jenkins asked for a explanation of the R-6 request since the applicant's proposal is for less than that. Mr. Fritz explained that the R-6 is needed to achieve the desirable lot sizes. He added that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The applicant was represented by Mr. Will Smith. He explained that the proposal was for 2.7 units/gross acre, which is at the low end of the medium density range. His comments included the following: ---The lots sizes will be approximately 1/4 acre. --A typical lot is 75' wide x 135 ' deep. ---The water line along Jarman's Gap Road will be enlarged. --Jarman's Gap Road is already in the Six Year Plan for improvements. Mr. Bob Bargamin, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --The project will serve the $130,000 to $150,000 market range. --The project will take 3 to 4 years to complete so the impact to the community will not happen overnight. April 24, 1990 Page 2 The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr. Paul Burke; Ms. Alfrieda Hayner; Ms. Susan Haberly; Mr. Ralph Schultz; Mr. Roy Petterson, representing the Citizens for Albemarle; Mr. Dennis Yutchison; Mr. Allen Cohen; Mr. Rick Minor; and Mr. Mitchell Newman. Their reasons for opposing the proposal included the following: • --Concerns about the inadequacy of the roads. --Density too intense. --Possible damage to existing dwellings as a result of blasting related to installation of the sewer line. --Health hazards associated with locating dwellings adjacent to an active orchard which uses toxic chemical spray every two weeks for five months of the year. --Belief that the area is not included in the designated growth area. ---Impact on schools. --Concerns about runoff from additional development. Mr. Ken Depoid expressed his support for the proposal because he felt it was in compliance with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Will Davis, representing the applicant, made closing comments. He stressed that though R-6 was being requested, the actual density was 2.6 units/gross acre. He also stated that he did not think blasting would be necessary. In response to Ms. Huckle's question about open space,. Mr. Davis stated there was no public open space. Mr. Keeler explained that the lots to the rear were larger in order to accommodate the 100-foot stream setback, and the lots at the front are smaller. Mr. Keeler explained that gross density is a term used in the Comprehensive Plan and this development is actually in the low -density range. He explained further that the R-6 was necessary to "reduce the lot size in the front and to accommodate the increased setback in the rear. He added that if the applicant's proffers and plan are accepted, he would be "held to 51 units." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to a member of the public stating that the area was not in the designated growth area, Mr. Cilimberg explained that this part of the Crozet growth area, along Jarman's Gap Road, is designated for medium -density residential which allows for 4.01 to 10 dwelling units/acre. April 24, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Johnson asked staff to explain why their position had changed from a recommendation for denial to one for approval. Mr. Fritz explained that at the time the original staff report had been written there was no proffer to address the maintenance of vegetation, which is stressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the applicant had provided further information about the housing types which had shown the proposal was for single-family dwellings. Ms. Andersen asked if lot owners would be bound by the proffer in regards to the preservation of the vegatation around the stream. The applicant explained that this would be made a part of deed restrictions. Referring to the applicant's letter of April 12, Mr. Johnson noted that the applicant spoke in terms of his "intentions... He asked how intentions could be enforced or evaluated. Mr_ Bowling responded that the two proffers which staff had focused on, and re -stated in the staff report, were enforceable. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant had agreed that the staff report statement of the proffers were "what is being proffered and also that the deed restrictions would be carried over from the April 12th letter to the Proffer as to limitation on vegetative removal." Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted: "So proffer 2 would be modified to include revisions for enforcement of these restrictions via deed restrictions." Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that though proffers which are not in writing are not usually considered, the Commission would entertain this part of the proffer if it was clearly the applicant's intention to amend the proffer. Mr. Fritz pointed out that the letter of April 23rd was clearer and the applicant has stated that the proffer in the April 23rd letter, related to maintenance of vegetation, will be included as a deed restriction. Mr. Bergamin confirmed this was correct. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the issue of Possible conflict between adjacent uses, in this case residential adjacent to agricultural. Mr. Fritz stated that this is not a rural area, as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler added: "The concerns you heard expressed tonight are the conflicts that we continually express to you as problems accommodating residential development in the rural areas." Mr. Wilkerson asked if staff was satisfied as to the housing type. Mr. Fritz explained that staff had always understood - the intent was for single --family dwellings, but wanted that //Z April 24, 1990 Page 4 understanding to be confirmed in writing. Mr. Jenkins stated he felt the density, even though it was on the low side of what was allowed, was still intense considering the condition of what is basically a country road. He stated that the density was too intense for the neighbors and, therefore, it was too intense for him Commissioners Grimm and Huckle indicated they agreed with Mr. Jenkins. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Fritz stated the applicant could do 19 units. Mr. Johnson pointed out that Jarman's Gap Road is currently priority No. 37 in the Six Year Road Plan and no funding is indicated until at least 1906. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for medium density residential and the condition of the roads were as they are now when the Plan was discussed and adopted. He asked staff to comment on the reason this area had been designated for medium density. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there are a number of these parcels along Jarman's Gap Road and it was anticipated that the road would be a future road project "and it was recognized that in designating these various densities, both in Crozet and other parts of the County, that there were going to be infrastructure improvement needs to support development of that type, and the question was --and this was a conscious question asked during the plan review and discussed at length by the Commission and the Board -- whether or not to designate, with the expectation that you will get development under that category, or that density, and that the County take the obligation for trying to make sure that the roads get improved whether you leave lower densities and lower the capacity of your growth areas to handle new development and new growth and the idea was that the growth areas were intended for growth and the County would need to take some responsibility in assuring that infrastructure ... take place to support that. Unfortunately, in this case, we're looking at a road improvement that's several years down the road. But it is in the Plan; it has been prioritized. It is the second priority of road projects in Crozet. It is intended to handle the medium - density development that would occur along Jarman's Gap Road." //3 April 24, 1990 Page 5 Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-90-03 for Barclay Development be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: It was determined that the motion was based on a concern about the inadequacy of the transportation network and also on public concern about density. Mr. Rittenhouse stated there were 2 issues at odds --the Comprehensive Plan's designation of this area for medium density which reflects what the County feels should happen in this area vs. concern about the pace of development in relation to the transportation network. He stated the question of "what drives what" has been wrestled with before, i.e. until growth takes place there is no real impetus on the part of the State to improve the road network. He stated he interpreted it was both the Commission's and the public's feeling that the road network cannot accommodate the proposed density at this time. The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously. Batesville Aor_icultural/Forestal District - Located to the west and south of Batesville on State Route 635, 636, 637 and 692 and consists of approximately 907 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Three persons -spoke in favor of the applicants: Ms. Johnston; Mr. Rick Halp; and Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The only item of discussion was the existence of the special use permit on one of the parcels. The permit was for the Falls River Wilderness Center, a ropes course. After brief discussion, it was agreed that the use was compatible with and supportive of forestal uses. Mr. Johnson moved that the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with the understanding that the Commission recognizes that this approval includes the Falls River April 24. 1990 Page 6 Wilderness Center, and considers the Center a forestal operation fully compatible with the intent of Article 15.1- 1507 of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. District - Located west of Lake Albemarle off State Route 680 in the vicinity of White Hall and consists of approximately 186 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She noted that parcels had been added after Advisory Committee approval, making the total acreage 350.87 acres (not 186 acres as stated in the staff report). The additional parcels were: Tax Map 29, parcels 9 and 10; Tax Map 42, parcel 40H; and Tax Map 43, parcel 3D. Ms. Buttrick again spoke in favor of the proposal. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the addition to the Moorman's River III Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. Addition to Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on the north side of Route 22 at the Albemarle/Louisa County line near Cobham and consists of approximately 64 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Ms. Buttrick represented the applicants once again. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the addition to the Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. lt�c— April 24, 1990 Page 7 ZIA-90-02 Family Day Care - To amend 3.0 Definitions to exempt family day care for nine children or fewer from the definition of day care center and allow as a use by right. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report explained: "Currently, zoning provisions allow care for fewer than six children as a use by right. The proposal is to allow an increase to nine children by right provided the use is licensed as a Family Day Care. ... The amendments would liberalize the number of children permissible by right but impose supplementary regulation on any family day care operator." The application was originated by the Albemarle County Department of Social Services; the Zoning Administrator; and the Planning staff. The Department of Social Services was represented by Ms. Cheryl Lewis, Supervisor of the Day Care Program. Ms. Lewis attempted to answer the Commission's questions about state and local regulations and licensing requirements. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the possibility of one person caring for 9 children. Ms. Lewis indicated that would not be allowed. She explained a point system, based on the age of the children, for determining how many care providers are required in each case. In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to what determines what is allowed, Ms. Lewis explained that regulations for Family Day Care Homes are set by the State Department of Social Services. She explained the definitions for a family day care home and noted the difference between "certified providers" (5 or less children in the home of the provider) and "licensed family day care homes" (8 to 9 children). Mr. Johnson noted that he could find no definition for family day care in the Ordinance. Mr. Keeler stated that the Ordinance definition falls back on the State definition: i.e. "Family day care providers certified and licensed as such by the Virginia Department of Social Services." Mr. Johnson noted that other definitions did appear in the Ordinance; he wondered if "our own" definition should also be included for family day care. Mr. Keeler stated that would be possible, but he did not think it was necessary since the Ordinance requires that the use be licensed by the State. Mr. Bowling felt that it was appropriate to refer to the State regulatory agency and let them be responsible for enforcing the child care regulations rather than the Zoning Administrator. He felt the existing language was acceptable. April 24, 1990 Page 8 Ms. Lewis confirmed that approval of this amendment would not remove the requirement that a provider caring for more than 5 children be licensed. In response to Mr. Grimm's question, Ms. Lewis stated the assistant providers need not be family members_ Mr. Reeler interjected that a Class B Home Occupation allows two employees other than family members. He confirmed that a Class B Occupation requires a special permit. Ms. Huckle asked: "So we're going to have an employee, but we're not going to require a special permit in this case?" Mr. Keeler responded that staff has recommended that this is the type of use which should be encouraged rather discouraged by red tape. Mr. Johnson asked what problem was being corrected by this change. Ms. Lewis stated the request was initiated by her department as a result of the upcoming Welfare Reform Act which will increase significantly the number of children who will be placed in day care. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed this amendment would bring the County's definitions more in line with State definitions. Ms. Lewis confirmed that there are square footage/child requirements for certification. Ms. Huckle asked: "If we pass this, would it be good to have a disclaimer that this would not apply to any other home occupation without a special use permit." Mr. Rittenhouse responded: "I think that would follow by definition." Mr. Keeler added that there is language which states that more than 9 children is considered day care. Ms. Lewis acknowledged that there are day care providers which are not licensed because they never come to the attention of Social Services, but any provider with over 5 children is supposed to meet State requirements. She added that this proposed amendment would not have any impact on that situation, i.e. 5 would still be the number at which State regulation begins. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission and expressed her opposition to the proposal. She questioned whether or not the item had been properly advertised. She stated that the notice had not clearly stated that the uses by right in all //7 April 24, 1990 Page 9 the other zones was being considered. (After taking a few minutes to look over the notice, Mr. Bowling determined that the item had been properly advertised. He explained: The words "and allow as a use by right" is sufficient for public notice. He stated the purpose of notice is not to recite the amendment verbatim but only to alert the public.) Ms. Graves expressed concern about neighborhood impact in terms of increased traffic and the possibility of several of these uses being present in a given neighborhood. She also recalled problems which have occurred with this type of use and absentee landlords, i.e. a renter becomes a day care provider and possibly two renters in the same dwelling as in the case of a duplex or basement apartment. She felt the use should be owner -occupied and owner -operated. (This issue was discussed briefly later and Mr. Keeler noted that he felt this was a constitutional issue, i.e. we cannot say that only homeowners have the right to be family day care providers and not renters.) Ms. Graves suggested the use could be dealt with better as a Home Occupation Class B. Mr. George Stovall, a resident of Berkeley, expressed his opposition to the proposal. His concerns were similar to Ms. Graves. He felt approval of this amendment would rob the Commission of its authority to review this type of use for the 5-9 child range. Ms. Eleen Huff expressed her support for the proposal. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There was a discussion about whether the Ordinance addresses the issue of third -party ownership. Mr. Keeler quoted from the staff report: "Family day care conducted in the home of the provider and therefore does not represent conversion of a dwelling for purely commercial uses." He added, however, that this would not preclude a tenant from providing a family day care facility. He felt saying that renters could not operate a day care facility would be a constitutional question. Mr. Bowling agreed. Mr. Rittenhouse felt Ms. Graves' concern was that a dwelling not be used as a purely commercial enterprise. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the definition actually requires that the provider actually live in the dwelling, as stated in the staff report. Mr. Keeler stated: "That relies back on the State definition." Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the State definition addressed that concern. (Ms. Lewis was checking the State regulations as the discussion was taking place. She noted that in all those facilities currently licensed Z19 April 24, 1990 Page 10 the care provider resided in the dwelling.) Mr. Rittenhouse felt this was a legitimate concern. Mr. Rittenhouse felt a second issue was the by -right aspect of the amendment. He asked: "If we decided that we do indeed want to amend the definition, do we want to allow those uses by right in all the districts listed?" He stated he was uncertain about the answer to this question. He was particularly concerned about the Rural Areas because of issues suoh as questionable aocess. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about 9 children which she felt was too large a number in the event only one person might be providing the care. Mr. Johnson interpreted the request was being made to reduce the -regulations so as to accommodate more children so that "mare people could get into the act to provide child care." He expressed concern about this possibility because of the widespread awareness of child molestation. He felt this was hardly the time to reduce regulations. Mr. Rittenhouse explained the proposal would not decrease control, but would reduce the requirements for public hearings and applications in order to "get from 5 to 9." He stated the regulations for control and review would remain in place just as they are now. Staff confirmed this was correct. Mr. Reeler explained: "What we've attempted to do in the supplementary regulations is to beef those up to address the issues the Planning Commission and Board characteristically address in a land use decision." He added that it was not staff's role to screen potential day care providers --that was a function of the licensing agencies. He suggested that the addition of the following words to No. S (3.0 DEFINITIONS) would address the concern about the dwelling being occupied by the provider: day care conducted in the home of the provider...." Mr. Johnson indicated he still felt control was being reduced and regulations relaxed. Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he did not agree. He stated: "As I understand this what's being proposed is that we relax how you get from here to there not what happens after you get there, in any event." Ms. Andersen asked if the number of providers allowed per street or per neighborhood was addressed in any fashion. (Mr. Keeler responded that the Zoning regulations do not address this issue.) Ms. Andersen if there were any requirements 119 April 24, 1990 Page 11 for amount of yard space per child and any requirements for fencing. (Mr. Keeler responded those issues were addressed by the regulatory agencies. Ms. Lewis added that the regulations address the play area in terms of both size and possible hazards.) It was determined that the supplementary regulations will apply to any number up to 9. Mr. Keeler stated this amendment was "adding regulation which wasn't there before." Ms. Huckle stated: "But it's not dependent on going to 9," Mr. Keeler stated that was correct. Ms. Andersen noted that "conceivably we could have every person on a street engaged in day care." She asked if there were any regulations to address this possibility. (Mr. Keeler responded negatively.) She was concerned about excessive traffic. (Ms. Lewis responded to the earlier question about whether the State regulations address the issue of where the care is to take place. She quoted: "Care in the individual's own home.") Mr. Rittenhouse again summarized the issue as being two- fold, i.e. the definition and "how the Commission feels about including the 9 children by -right, and whether the Commission then would agree with all zoning districts that are listed as being appropriate for by -right use." Ms. Huckle stated she could not support this as a by -right use. She noted that such approval would make it different from a home occupation. In response to Mr. Jenkins question about complaints related to this type use, Mr. Keeler stated the Zoning Administrator has had no complaints about day care uses. Mr. Jenkins stated he would have no objection to addressing problems at the time the problem arises, "rather than sit here and try to come up with the 'what ifs.'" Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-90-02 related to Family Day Care (3.0 Definitions and 5.0 Supplementary Regulations) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as submitted by staff including the change suggested by Mr. Keeler (recorded earlier in this record). Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. 1.250 April 24, 1990 Discussion: Page 12 Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would not support the motion because he was not comfortable with the use by -right in all zones. He was particularly concerned about the RA zone and the increase in vehicle trips per day with staff having no opportunity to address transportation needs. Ms. Andersen indicated she was concerned about neighborhood impact in the event the use could be repeated several times in the same neighborhood and the resulting increase in traffic. Mr. Grimm agreed with Ms. Andersen's comments. The previously stated motion for approval failed to pass (2:5) with Commissioners Jenkins and Wilkerson voting for approval and Commissioners Grimm, Andersen, Huckle, Rittenhouse and Johnson voting against. There followed a discussion during which staff repeatedly attempted to pinpoint the Commission's concerns so that they would be able to address those concerns satisfactorily. Mr. Keeler noted that there had been a number of "no" votes and if no one was in favor of the amendment, then deferral would accomplish nothing. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was not willing to increase the number to 9 as a by -right use in the RA zone. He stated staff could address his concerns by "amending the definitions of family day care provider potentially to change it from 0 to 9 to 6 to 9." Ms. Huckle indicated she was uncomfortable with the use by right in any zone. Mr. Wilkerson stated he did not want to eliminate the use in the RA completely. Mr. Cilimberg suggested an approach would be to "differentiate between the 0-5, which we already have, and the 6-9, and have the 6-9 addressed in a similar fashion to Home Occupation which would require a hearing by you only if there were objections of neighboring property owners. Otherwise, it would be simply allowed by right." He stated this would be similar to the way home occupations are addressed currently in all districts." He did not knew if this would address all the concerns or not. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that the reason for the proposed /Z/ April 24, 1990 Page 13 amendment was to "try to open up the day care opportunities- -not put people through a special use permit process for up to 9 children and pay a fee, and that is intended to support the idea of family day care and to meet a need that the Social Services Department feels is going to be an increasing need." Ms. Huckle pointed out that there are many day care facilities (as previously discussed) which are unlicensed and "it's not like we're going to close everybody down." Regarding the possibility of addressing this need through the Home Occupation route, Mr. Reeler suggested also that the fee be reduced (e.g. reduce it to be commiserate with the fee for a mobile home application). Mr. Keeler briefly explained the history of this type of use. Ms. Andersen moved that ZTA-90-02 for Family Day Care be deferred indefinitely to allow time for staff to address the following concerns: --Number of persons required to provide the care, with a minimum of two being present at all times. --Possibility of changing fees. --The possibility of classifying this as a Home Occupation. --Traffic concerns in relation to increased number of children. --The question of whether this should be a by -right use in the Rural Areas. --Add the supplementary regulations. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission recessed for 10 minutes: 7MA-90-02 Virginia Oil - Proffered request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 1.377 acres from CO, Commercial Office to HC, Highway Commercial [PROFFER] in order to construct a convenience store with a carwash and gas station. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of U.S. Rt.;250 and North Pantops Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending denial because of inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 122 April 24, 1990 Page 14 NOTE: At this point (10:30 p.m.) in the meeting, Mr. Rittenhouse determined that the applicant's presentation was going to be lengthy and therefore it was the decision of the Commission that the remaining items on the agenda be deferred to the May 1, 1990 meeting. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm that the following items be deferred to May 1, 1990: ZMA-89-21 Mechum River Land Trust SP-89-15 First Virginia Bank - Central First Virginia Bank - Central Preliminary Site Plan Reliant Truck Corporation Major Site Plan Amendment Crossroads Village Center Site Plan Extension Request The motion passed unanimously. The review of ZMA-90-02 for Virginia 0il Company continued_ The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne. Mr. Payne gave a very lengthy presentation during which he explained the proposal and debated the position of the staff report. His comments included the following: --The applicant would be satisfied with C1 zoning but has had to request HC based on the Zoning Administrator's position on the uses permitted in the C1 district. --The applicant intended that the proffers offer "the highest grade of landscaping and discretion to the County to work with us in producing a high quality development." --The property is ideal for a neighborhood commercial center. --The applicant believes the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and to the statement of intent of the Highway Commercial District with respect to: (1) Landscaping and preservation of scenic quality; (2) Development of the site in a manner to serve Neighborhood Three; and (3) Promotion of safe and efficient travel on Rt. 250. --The application meets the statement of intent of the HC District in the following respects: (1) A gas station and convenience store are primarily oriented to highway locations; (2) It is to "be established on major highways within the urban areas and communities of the Comprehensive Plan; and (3) It does not promote "sprawling growth" (the sprawling growth already exists) and the applicant would prefer to share an access with the other commercial user (but VDOT is opposed to joint access:) --Adjacent property is already zoned and developed as Highway Commercial. IJ3 April 24, 1990 Page 15 --The only feasible by -right use for the property is a bank and it is highly unlikely that the Commission or Board would ever approve a drive-in window on this property. ---The applicant will offer to be bound by the Highway Corridor Protection regulations (which are currently being developed) whether they are ever adopted by the County or not. --The property will be the first to be subject to architectural control. --The applicant would elevation of the building. be willing to proffer the Mr. Payne also discussed the following topics: strip development; expected usage of the facility based on similar facilities; expected traffic generation (1,200 vtpd); other by -right uses which might be possible on the property; history of the zoning on this property; and the general history of the development of the Ordinance. The Chairman invited public comment. Both Mr. Milton Adams, President of the Ashcroft Neighborhood Association, and Mr. Norm Broadbent, Secretary of the same Association; addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal. Mr. Adams read a statement of opposition which is made a part of this record as Attachment A. Approximately 25 persons showed their support from Mr. Adams" position by standing. Mr. Andrew Ducoppoli, representing the Worrell property on the southside of Rt. 250 Last, addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. He felt approval would be the "beginning of the end" for preservation of the Rt. 250 corridor "east of the crest of the hill." Mr. Laten McCann, representing Chatham Mountain Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission. He stated he had canvassed his neighborhood and found 4 were in opposition, 5 preferred that "nothing happen" but were resolved to the inevitability that it is going to happen, and 3, including himself, supported the proposal. Speaking for himself, he stated he would prefer to make use of this type of neighborhood service, rather than being forced to go to other areas for the service. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing Council, addressed the Commission. Commission that staff is presently Corridor Ordinance and, therefore the Piedmont Environmental She reminded the working on a Gateway the timing of this 1.241 April 24, 1990 proposal was inappropriate. Page 16 Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters, expressed opposition to the proposal. Her statement is made a part of this record as Attachment B. Mr. Payne was allowed to summarize. He stated that the property is zoned for high -density development and it is certain to be developed. Regarding the Gateway Ordinance, he stated this was the Commission's opportunity "to lead the way with that ordinance," because "what we will give you is, indeed,... the thin end edge of the wedge for presevation of this site." He agreed that the Ordinance was appropriate and stated: "We will give it to you on this site whether or not the County adopts this Ordinance." He also noted that the facility's sign would be subject to County's architectural review. There being no further public or applicant comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse quoted the following from the staff report: "As to the issue of economie.justification of the proposal, zoning must provide a reasonable use of the land and not be confiscatory in its effect. There has been substantial litigation on this issue and staff recommends that the County Attorney's Office should be consulted in this regard." He asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the issue of reasonable use and its pertinence to this request. Mr. Bowling responded: "It's up to you all to resolve whether current zoning is a reasonable use or not. Briefly, the burden is on the applicant to show that the current zoning is unreasonable. That's his burden. The legal issue that's involved, if it ever got that far, is whether or not the decision to keep the current zoning or to change to the requested zoning is fairly debatable. You have to keep in mind when you have a rezoning request before you, you are essentially engaged in a legislative act and the Courts generally will grant bodies who engage in legislative acts broad discretion in reaching their decision. It's up to you to ultimately determine whether the current zoning provides a reasonable use of the property for the applicant. You are under no legal obligation to allow a developer to max -out under the current zoning. In other words, the law doesn't require that a developer has to make the largest profit he possibly can or the current zoning is unreasonable. You may want to consider staff's comments that they think a bank is a reasonable use and you may want to consider comments from the public that a small professional office or an administrative or business office may be a reasonable use as the property is currently zoned. That's the kind of /2$1' April 24, 1990 Page 1'7 analysis that you, as legislators —have to go through in this particular type of situation. And you may agree with the applicant and decide that the current use is not reasonable, but I don't I can sit here and say that the current use is reasonable or not because that's not my role." Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on conflicting statements about access. Mr. Keeler responded: "At the time the subdivision was approved, we had no plans for Rt. 250 Bast. We spent a considerable amount of time attempting to come up with some way to align North Pantops Drive with State Farm Blvd.... We spent ten years on that. The plans have been adopted now. North Pantops Drive is offset from the crossover and that's reflective of the Highway Department comments. They're simply looking at Old North Pantops as only serving La Hacienda Restaurant, the current construction offices of Dr. Hurt, and this parcel of land - That's a restriction on the subdivision plat on this particular parcel of land. But it would be closer to the crossover than an entrance on the western edge of this property to 250. So, of the two, the Highway Department prefers the western entrance. That entrance doesn't meet the minimum requirements of the Ordinance either,...but it is pretty close to the minimum of 500 feet that the Ordinance does require." Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on landscaping in terms of the Virginia Code referenced by the applicant's request, i.e. "whether the County would have broad latitude in dictating the landscape or whether the landscaping that's been offered and proffered by the applicant is literally nothing more than what's provided by the Ordinance anyway." Mr. Keeler replied that that particular section of the Code does not have any quantities or any design standards in it. He explained: "What Mr. Payne is saying is that it does provide a locality broad latitude in how they control what goes on along tourist access routes." He added that he did not think it was real clear in "terms of what that offers the County." He added that he did not see anything in the applicant's proffer that specifically speaks to architectural review by the County. Mr. Bowling interjected: "Take the applicant at his word. He's said that the broadest parameter of that particular Code section shall apply to the landscaping proffer that he's made. I don't see it reaching it over into the architectural control of the building design ... which that section also envisions once the County has adopted the Ordinance." Mr. Cilimberg explained the approach staff was taking in drafting the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (also referred to as a iz4 April 24, 1990 Page 18 Gateway Ordinance elsewhere in this record). He explained in terms of the applicant's proposal: "What they're offering is consistent with the provisions of the State Code, but we already have that enabling legislation anyway. We're working on trying to adopt an Ordinance. I think until the Ordinance is in place, there is basically a recognition on the applicant's part that the State Code provision exists and that they're willing to comply with it. Unless the Ordinance is in place, that's what we're going to use for compliance provided that 250 East is one of the corridors that's designated. I think there's more of a spirit here than there's really a hands on mechanism for control. If there's going to be proffers, the proffers should be more explicit in exactly what kind of control they intend to have placed on them by County review." Mr. Payne stated the applicant had not become aware of staff's concern until this meeting. He stated that the applicant was willing to work with staff "if staff feels the proffer is not adequately worded." Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on Highway Commercial compatibility with residential districts. Mr. Fritz pointed out how surrounding properties were zoned. Mr. Jenkins stated that though he felt Mr. Payne's presentation was convincing, he was "just not comfortable with letting that be the starting point particularly when we have as much citizen input as we have against the proposal." Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-90-02 for Virginia Oil be recommended to the Board of Supervisors of denial. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion - Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt the Commission would need to be convinced of the applicant's argument that the property does not have reasonable usage as presently zoned if recommendaiton for approval was to be made. He stated he was not convinced that that is the case. He stated he was influenced by public comments and the location of the property in relation to what already exists on "the other side of the hill." He stated he was also influenced by the State's comments on access and traffic pattern concerns. He stated he would support the motion. I.2 7 April 24, 1990 Page 19 Mr. Johnson mentioned the issue of what might take place with the improvement of Rt. 250 in the next 2-3 years and how that would effect this limited access. The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson stated he would like for the Commission to receive copies of Board minutes. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. "/ JV, V. Way I Ci imb Secretary D3