HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 17 89 PC MinutesJanuary 17, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 17, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson;
and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief
of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior
Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Stark and Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of January 5, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
Ms. Patterson quickly briefed the Commission on upcoming Consent Agenda
items.
ZMA-88-21 Faulconer Construction - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 7.75 acres from R-6, Residential to LI,
Light Industrial. Tax Map 45, 84A and 85 is located on the east side of
St. Rt. 659 adjacent to the north side of the SPCA property. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Rittenhouse that ZMA-88-21 for Faulconer
Construction be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
Christian Mission Guesthouse Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to allow direct
access from Rt. 250W. This development currently has an existing entrance
off St. Rt. 677. The property is described as'Tax Map 59, Parcel 23G(1),
located adjacent to the intersection of St. Rt. 677 (Ballard Road) and Rt.
250W. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The report concluded: "In the opinion of
staff, approval of this request would be contrary to public interest and
would not serve the health, safety, and welfare of the traveling public.
Staff recommends denial of this request."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Benjamin Dick. Mr. Dick began his
Presentation with a video showing the existing roads with narration
describing the applicant's proposal. Mr. Dick's comments dealt primarily
with the issue of the advantage of access to Rt. 250. He indicated the
applicant might be willing to lengthen the decel lane and also to grant
an easement from the lots that this proposed entrance is to serve so
that it will serve the other lot also and the applicant would then close
the entrance on Rt. 677. (mote: Staff had not been made aware of this
Aoq
January 17, 1989
Page 2
alternative proposal prior to the meeting.) Mr. Dick confirmed that this
alternative proposal had not been discussed with staff, i.e. the extension
of the decel lane and the closing of the entrance on Rt. 677.
Mr. Bowerman advised Mr. Dick that the ,Commission would like for staff to
have time to review* these changes and present their comments to the Commission.
Mr. Dick noted that "these are my ideas; they are not the applicant's ideas."
-Mr. Bowerman suggested.that a deferral might be in order. sir. Dick conferred
with the applicant briefly and then.requested that the item be deferred.
The Chairman invited.public comment.
Mr. Chris Jensen presented a letter from the Knickerbockers who had concerns
about the proposal. Mr. Jensen added that he had a concern about sight
distance.
Mr. David Salem stated his concerns had been altered by the statements made
by Mr. Dick. He felt that the alternative proposal should be examined in
detail.
There being no further public comment, the Chairman called for a motion
to defer.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Christian Mission Guesthouse Site Plan be deferred
to February 7, 1989.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMa-88-23 J.W. Sieg & Co. - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone .75 acres from LI, Light Industrial to CO,
Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax ;%Iap 59, Parcel 23C is
located on the north side of Rt. 25014, approximately 1/2.mile west of inter-
section with Ednam Drive. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request
based on the following: (1) Existing zoning provides reasonable usage
of the property; (2) Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and
(3) Approval of this request may set a precedent for similar requests on
adjacent parcels.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant, ti1r. Terry Sieg, addressed the Commission. He felt the
proposed use would be more compatible with surrounding properties than
a by -right use,.and would contribute more to the preservation of the
scenic highway. Mr. Sieg gave a brief history of the events leading
up to the current proposal. He .explained the proposed use for the property
was 44,000 square feet of medical office space and a 2,.500 square foot
bank with two drive-in windows. He stated: "To demonstrate our committment
to aesthetics and the preservation of Rt. 250's scenic beauty, we will
again proffer to extensively landscape and berm the development. In
addition, I can assure you that the building will be architecturally
appealing."
o2/0
January 17, 1989 Page 3
Ms. Denise Etheridge, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
She asked that the Commission keep four things in mind: (1) Although the
subject property is not within the growth area of the Comprehensive Plan,
they currently support offices, an auto dealership, an auto parts dealership,
a beer distributorship and a petroleum products bulk storage and distribu-
torship; (2) These commercial and industrial properties are themselves
surrounded by well -established residential neighborhoods; (3) This property
is located on a scenic highway (Rt. 250); and (4) The current request is
to change the zoning from light industrial to commercial office. She
stressed: "I think it is important to note that we have proffered out
every other conceivable type of development allowed under commercial office
except for the financial institution with the drive-in window." Her comments
also included the following:
--Regarding the issue of precedent, she reminded the Commission that
the County Attorney, at a previous meeting, had stated that approval
of this request would set a precedent "only for an identical request."
--Denial of this request will not result in the property reverting to
a rural designation, but rather will result in the property being
used for a by -right industrial use.
--This petition can be differentiated from others because of its
particular location, i.e. Rt. 250W, a designated scenic highway.
--Public opinion has indicated that uses other than those envisioned
under bight Industrial are preferred for this property.
--"The fact that Mr. Sieg will not be developing this property for a
typical light industrial use negates the substance of the staff's
argument that rezoning will remove an industrial site with public
utilities from the County's industrial inventory because implicit
in that argument is the assumption that the property will be
developed for a typical industrial use. I can unequivocally state
that Mr. Sieg will not develop this property for that typical
industrial use as we normally think of it because he is very
adamant that the designated scenic highway should remain as such
and we should do everything to enhance that designation."
--She stated that the argument that the request was inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan because of its location outside the growth
area was not taking into consideration the "contents" of the request.
--She quoted the following from the Zoning Ordinance: Commercial Office
districts are intended as "a transition between residential districts
and other more intensivelan�dacommercial districts." She explained
that the subject property "is surrounded by well -established residential
neighborhoods and is bordered to the right by Highway Commercial
property, and thus it is in conformance with the intent of the
Commercial Office designation."
--She argued that a CO designation for this property would make it
more in compliance with what is trying to be accomplished with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Referring to staffs statement that "Commercial zoning districts
are to be confined to designated growth areas as opposed to rural
localities where such uses could support undesired population
growth," Ms. Etheridge felt the issue of growth stimulation was
moot in this case because the property is surrounded by well -
established neighborhoods and no population growth is going to
result in the establishment of a drive-in bank.
January 17, 1989
Page 4
--Ms. Etheridge stressed repeatedly that this property could be
differentiated from others because it is located along existing
businesses and well -established neighborhoods.
--Trafficgeneration is not an issue because by -right development
could generate more traffic than the present proposal.
--In response to VDOT's recommendations, the applicant has proffered
only one access to Rt. 250.
--If traffic is a concern, the applicant is willing to proffer
a limitation to the amount of traffic generated by 44,000 square
feet of medical office space and a 2,500 foot bank with two
drive-ins, which is less than what would be possible by -right.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Nir. David Salem, a resident of Flordon, addressed the Commission. He
indicated he was in favor of the proposal, but at the same time cautioned
the Commission to "stick to its guns on the general plan."
Mr. W.J. Kirtley, owner of the property to the west, addressed the Commission.
He indicated he had no objection to the proposal. However, he stated: "My
main concern is that in the rezoning of this portion.it would, in effect --
if it leaves it open to where it would cause rezoning of what I'm in,
which .is L-1, it would concern me."
Mr. Craig Vande Castle addressed the Commission. He felt the Commission
should study carefully the uses "going in along this area."
There being no additional comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the intent of the Commercial Office
District ("This district is intended as a transition between residential
districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts.".
He asked staff tocomment on which was the better non -conforming use for
this location. He asked: "Is it Light Industrial or is it the transitional
Commercial Office as stated in the Zoning Ordinance?"
Mr. Keeler responded: "I think you have to look at the Statement of Intent
of the Commercial districts generally, which apply to all the commercial
districts, and it says it confine it to designated growth areas. This
wouldn't be a transition between residential and heavier commercial and
industrial uses because the zoning is industrial on the west and commercial
on the east. So it's not providing a transition between those uses."
Mr. Keeler checked the Ordinance and confirmed this was correct, i.e.
a transition between residential districts and other more.intensive
commercial and industrial districts.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked why financial institutions are included in Commercial
districts and not in Light Industrial zones which will permit medical
offices.
Mr. Keeler recalled: "We, the staff, did not propose including offices
in the Light Industrial zone. Daley Craig wrote a letter to the Board of
Supervisors and said 'I've got an industrial use and I've got offices
here too; why can't I have offices here?' and the Board just added
offices. If you notice it doesn't distinguish the type of office as it
does in other zoning districts."
.V/.Z
January 17, 1989 Page 5
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was trying to better understand why the financial
institutions might be viewed as a less desirable use than a general office
use. Mr. Pullen felt a financial institution was viewed as more of a
service -type use. Mr. Horneadded that the traffic generated by a financial
institution results in it being "essentially a retail service."
Mr. Keeler recalled the history of how the distinction between the industrial
and commercial districts had taken place. He explained that under a prior
Zoning Ordinance the two had been practically interchangeable, but when the
new Ordinance had been written the Board had wanted the two clearly
distinguishable. He did not recall there having been any real discussion
about various kinds of offices.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the staff report was very clear and the methodol-
ogy proper. However, he stated: "The question I have is I don't remember
one of these where the net effect of what the applicant is proposing, with
the proffers, really is a reduction, even though it is a small one, in
the current by -right usage. ... I wonder if that gave staff any pause
as to whether or not that might mitigate in favor of this approach
because it really doesn't open the floodgates because you probably wouldn't
see any flood of rezonings requested in these areas where the traffic
intensification was actually lower --the use of the property was lower,
because certainly the intent of what we're doing would be met if we allow
what the applicant is desiring. Did you discuss that at all because that's
one part of this application which makes me consider, somewhat, the applicant's
proposal?"
Mr. Pullen responded: "I think in our analysis of the traffic generation
we identified that the plan proposed tonight will clearly generate more
traffic than the property developed by -right." Mr. Kessler corrected
Mr. Pullen's statement and stated the traffic from this proposal would
be less than by -right. Mr. Pullen confirmed Mr. Kessler was correct,
and that traffic would be 5% less than by -right development. Mr. Pullen
continued: "But again I think that staff's position is still that
the policy issues override that fact, (though) that's certainly an aspect
that is the applicant's favor "
Mr. Bowerman stated: "If the policy issues in question don't.really change
the substance of the request, does that set a precedent? Does that change
anything if the substance of what you go to is basically the same as what
you had?"
Mr. Bowling responded: "I think you've got legitimate planning concerns
about precedent which have been raised clearly in the (staff) report.
And first it's their job to keep you on top of the hill, but the nature
of what you do is you're always going to be on the slope." In terms of
"pure legal precedent," Mr. Bowling stated: "We think the only precedent
you will be setting is whatever other situation is identical out there
in the County, and, of course, there isn't any purely identical. In
your legislative process you can do what you want to in this case
without effecting, frm a legal perspective, going into court and losing
the case. But that doesn't mean that the planning aspects of the thing
��3
January 17, 1989
Page 6
aren't equally true."
Ms. Diehl stated: "That's .,That concerns me, because I think it is inconsistent
with the current Plan and even though it might not set a legal precedent, I
believe that approval of this would generate a lot of pressure in the future
to change the character and the nature of that area of the County and I am
most reluctant to approve it."
Pullen stated that the pressure this would put on the Commission and
the Board would be for them to be able to distinguish between the various
requests..
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Commission has heard this argument before,
i.e. what is being proposed is better than what could be done by right.
He added: "You adopted the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance
and the actions that we've cited here are actions of the Planning
Commission and the Board. We're just taking our guidance from what
you'vedone in the past and making our recommendations to you. If
you feel comfortable �at you can deal with, in a logical fashion, these
other properties that Mtside the growth areas and determine, on a
case -by -case basis, which is better zoning, then there is no difficulty
with this."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was somewhat disturbed by the fact that
it appears the existing zoning is not the desirable zoning for this
property, but the zoning was inherited because it was an existing use
when the Zoning Ordinance was established.
Mr. Horne stated: "Just to emphasize Ron's point a little. I think it's
just a good point to "Keep in :rind. I don't think we're meaning it in
some kind of threatening manner. There are not that many parcels out there
that are outside the growth area that .have non -conforming zoning. There's
a goodly cumber, but iL'S UuL Liiousands of parcels by any means. You
Just need to be aware if you start this kind of thing, you are going to
be into this comparison in each case and as long as you are comfortable
with your ability to make that comparison based on some other criteria
than the Comprehensive Plan, then it's a logical pattern to get into to.
If you're not comfortable in making that comparison in each case, then
that's there you are going to, in our opinion, get yourself into a long-term
problem.. But that is a judgment the Commission and Board can logically
make."
Referring to a recent approval for a bank in the Ivy area, Xr. Jenkins
asked how this proposal was different. Mr. Horne explained that property
had been in a designated growth area, designated for commercial use.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that when this was previously submitted
the Commission had indicated there would be no problem if the area was
added to the growth area. However, the property was not added and the
circumstances remain the same in terms of staffs recommendation based
on the Comprehensive Plan. He concluded: "That doesn't mean you
can't set our recommendations aside."
January 17, 1989
Page 7
Mr. Wilkerson expressed some confusion in relation to Mr. St. John's
previous statement that "we are not setting a precedent in this case."
Mr. Bowling responded: "Legally, all I can say is we don't feel you
are creating a precedent. ...Our best guess is that a court of law
would not consider this a precedent for other areas of the County,
particularly other areas of the County which are undeveloped."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "The aspect of it that I'm wrestling with
is that I don't want to not consider this on the merits of the use
just to avoid having to do it again."
Mr. Bowerman felt this case was different than previous applications
because it was "less than by -right." He felt this was the only
characteristic which separated it from previous requests. He stated:
"I don't think that if we looked at this one in a way that was a little
different than the way we've looked at them in the past a floodgate
would be opened because I don't think that applicants are going to
come in and try to reduce the development potentials of their property.
Generally, that's going to be less economical for them to do so."
However, Mr. Bowerman stated: "I'm having a very difficult time
when the methodology here is so clear and we stuck to this so closely
in the past --of breaking away from it with ramifications .that we
don't currently fully understand."
Ms. Diehl pointed out that though this is a proffered use, future
requests might not be proffered. She felt this would result in a
lot of pressure to change the character of the area.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated "Do we have an opportunity to make it less
non -conforming and more in compliance with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan ---given the fact that the intent of zoning for
the area is probably not reflected by the LI in the first place
except for the fact that we've inherited it? ... Is it incumbent
upon us to consider this? I'm inclined to think that we should at least
consider the merits of this rather than to dismiss it...."
Ms. Diehl asked if this property was more reasonably zoned LT, because
of its tie-ins to water and sewer and its proximity to a growth area,
than Commercial.
Mr. Bowerman responded: "Except that the Industrial -is non -conforming.
It shouldn't even be there, but it is and so I think I'd rather see
the proposed use rather than an industrial use requiring water and
sewer...." Ms. Diehl pointed out that it had already been stated
by the applicant that that would not happen. Mr. Rittenhouse stated
that caused the issue to lose some of its objectivity.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-88-23 for J.W. Sieg & Co. be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
The motion failed to pass (2:3) with Commissioners Diehl and Jenkins voting
for the motion and Commissioners Wilkerson, Rittenhouse and Bowerman voting
against.
.V
January 17, 1989
Page 8
The Chairman called for alternative motion.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-88-23 for J.W. Sieg & Company be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowerman stated this was a difficult issue because he could "see it
almost equally well both ways." However,.he stated: "I think that on
balance in my own mind by voting to approve this motion I don't think
I'm recommending to the Board that they change their policy in terms
of situations like this. I think what sets this apart is that it is
a less intensive use than what the applicant could do by right; it's
one non -conforming use replacing another non -conforming use of a slightly
less intense area. I don't think that it sets a dangerous precedent,
in my own mind. If we were meant to apply everything that was.in the
Ordinance verbatim,. then we wouldn't have a Planning Commission. I think
it's incumbent upon us to find the time to try to look at these and be
reasonable as long.as we don't effect our long-range planning in terms
of our overall Plan. I don't think this does that .... It seems to be
consistent with what I perceive to be our policies in that area."
Ms. Diehl stated she would vote against the motion because she felt
the existing zoning allowed for reasonable use of the property, and
"given the characteristics of the property, it fits the LI description
in the Comprehensive Plan." She felt the request was "inconsistent with
the general description."
Mr. Rittenhouse attempted to clarify M.s. Etheridge's earlier statement
regarding the applicant's proffer. He asked if the applicant was proffering
only one entrance instead of the two shown. Ms. Etheridge confirmed this
was correct and added that the applicant was proffering "to limit traffic
generation to the plan that is proposed--44,000 square feet of office space
and 2,500 square feet of bank with tt.o drive-in windows."
Mr. Bowerman stated that inherent in the Commission's motion is the
acceptance of the applicant's proffer in writing to the Board at the time
of the Board hearing.
Mr. Bowling asked Ms. Etheridge if the applicant could "write
something up this evening." GIs. Etheridge replied affirmatively.
sir. Keeler added that there had been one other aspect of the proffer,
i.e. that the applicant had deleted all uses except the bank and those
uses that the County would want to remain such as public utilities.
The meeting recessed from 9:10 to 9:15 to allow the
applicant time to prepare a written proffer.
Mr. Bowerman read the following proffer submitted by the applicant:
January 17,. 1989
Page 9
110n behalf of the applicant, Mr. Terence Sieg, I hereby make
the following proffer with regard to the above -referenced request.
(1) We hereby delete all permitted uses by right under
Section 23.2.1 with the exception of 23.2.1.(3), 23.2.1(7) and 23.2.1(8).
(Mr. Bowerman explained that those sections refer to financial institutions
and two public uses.) In addition, we proffer to delete all uses by
special permit with the exception of sections 23.2.2(3) and 23.2.2(5).
(2) We hereby proffer to limit access to one point on Rt. 250 in
accordance with the recommendations of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
(3) We hereby proffer to limit traffic generation to that generated
by a 44,000 square foot medical office facility and 2,500 square foot
bank with two drive-in windows.
(signed) Denise Etheridge
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for approval.
The motion passed (3:2) with Commissioners Bowerman, Rittenhouse and Wilker-
son voting in favor and Commissioners Diehl and Jenkins voting against.
Mr. Bowerman asked that the record show that those voting for the rezoning
did so for the following reasons: (1) The building square footage under the
proposal is less than than the applicant could do by right under existing
zoning; (2) The traffic generation from this property, with the proposed
rezoning, is less than would be permitted by existing zoning.
SP-88-106 J.W. Sieg & Co. - Request in accordance with Section 32.2.2.5 of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of .a special use permit to allow for
a bank with a drive-in window. Property, described as Tax Map 59, Parcel
23C is located on the north side of Rt. 250W, approximately 1/2 mile west
of intersection with Ednam Drive. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
one condition.
In reference to the applicant's request for a setback reduction (from the
scenic highway) in accordance with Section 30.5.6.3.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance, Ms. Diehl asked why this did not have to go before the Board
of Zoning Appeals. Staff explained that the Commission has the authority
to approve this request because the applicant has agreed to move the
parking to the rear of the buildingand install screening from Rt. 250.
There was some discussion as to whether the bank would have an automatic
teller machine. Though the applicant was uncertain as to whether or not
there would be an automatic teller machine, the applicant confirmed that
there would be only two traffic lanes for the drive-ins.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Denise Etheridge. She confirmed the
applicant understood there would be a total of two drive-in lanes, regardless
of whether or not there was an automatic teller.
January 17, 1989
Page 10
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-88-106 for J.W. Sieg & Co. be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition.:
(1) A site plan shall be submitted in general accordance with the conceptual
plan titled "Schematic Plan C", dated November 15, 1988, by Clower
Associates, Inc.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (4:0:1) with Commissioner
Diehl abstaining.
ZMA-88-22 Great Eastern Management Company - Request in accordance with
Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone, with proffers, 1.8 acres
from RA to HC; 1.6 acres from RA to PD-SC; 6.137 acres from HC to PD-SC;
and 2.7 acmes from HC to RA. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels
109B, 110A, 110C, and 110 is located on the south side of L.S. Rt. 250
approximately one mile east of its intersection with Rts. 240 and 635.
White Hall Magisterial, District.
The applicant had requested indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Rittenhouse, that ZMA-88-22 for Great
Eastern Management Company be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed
unanimously.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
DS
.2IS