Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 19 90 PC MinutesJUNE 19, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 15, 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; and Mr. Walter Johnson. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, 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 May 22, 1990 and June 5, 1990 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA - Mr. presented a short preview of the items scheduled for the June 26 Consent Agenda. Addition to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District The Commission was being asked to refer the application to the Advisory Committee. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the Addition to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District be referred to the Advisory Committee. The motion passed unanimously. Private -Public Transit Alternative for Urban Albemarle County - Mr. Benish presented a brief staff report. No action was required of the Commission. ZMA-89-16 J.W. Townsend - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to rezone 9.9 acres from R-1, Residential, to LI, Light Industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B is located on the west side of Route 29 approximately 3/10 mile south of the North Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from May 15, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff if there were any comments from June 19, 1990 Page 2 the Zoning Administrator on the question of retail sales. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he had consulted with the Zoning Administrator and it was her interpretation of the Ordinance that 15% of the area could be devoted to retail sales as an accessory use to the contractor's business. He explained that approval of this rezoning would allow for that accessory use by -right, but greater than 15% would require either an amendment to this rezoning or a separate rezoning request. He stated that the applicant, at this time, is not requesting more than 15%. He explained further that the 15% would be based on the floor area of the main use and was not to precede the establishment of the main use. Mr. Keeler added that it was not uncommon for a contractor to have retail sales at the office. He noted that this type of use is almost exclusively outdoors so the 15% would be based on the amount of area that the applicant would be using outdoors, i.e. the development area, not the entire acreage. Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of the first proffer [Not limiting uses by right or by special use in the LI. Light Industrial District]. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant was not proffering out any by -right uses in the LI zone. He explained this was to avoid any misunderstanding that by proffering this plan, the applicant was proffering only this use. He explained further that "Any use that he would perform on this site would have to be within this development area shown on this plan." The applicant, Mr. J.W. Townsend, addressed the Commission. He offered to answer the Commission's questions. In terms of the envisioned scale of a retail operation, Mr. Townsend explained that the areas designated as display areas had been measured along with the square footages of the floor space of the buildings. He stated he was not familiar with the 15% which had been discussed, but he had met with the Zoning Administrator and she had no concerns based on those spaces. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that he was concerned because retail sales are envisioned in a C-1 or HC district and this request is for Li. He stated he was trying to determine if the retail use was likely to become the primary use at the site at some future time. He asked Mr. Townsend if the retail sales would always be a relatively small, ancillary part of the contractor business. Mr. Townsend responded June 19, 1990 Paqe 3 that it was his intent to "continue landscape contracting as we are now." He explained the advantages of being able to offer the inventory to the general public. He stated: "I don't anticipate dropping the contracting as soon as we start retailing. I fully expect to continue doing and growing in our contractor's business just as we have in the past eight years. It would be impossible to say, right now, what percentage one would be of the other 10 or 20 years from now. But, I would fully expect, given the growth we've experienced and the volume we do contracting --and we certainly plan to continue doing that --that retail would have a very big impact on that." Mr. Townsend explained the layout of the property. Mr. Wilkerson asked if staff could estimate how much area could be used for retail if the application were approved tonight. Mr. Keeler stated he did not have the figures on how much of the property would be developed, but a substantial amount of the property will remain in a wooded state. In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the exact square footage would be available at the time of site plan review. Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern that the applicant might find, once the actual square footages have been determined, that 15% is not adequate for retail space. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission has the opportunity under the Supplementary Regulations to waive the 15% requirement and change it. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Rittenhouse's concern, i.e. putting a commercial endeavor in an LI zone. Mr. Cilimberg stated staff has the same concern, but feels that the retail part of the business will be an accessory/subordinate use, and will not make up more than the 15% outlined in the Ordinance. Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about what will happen if the retail aspect of the business does indeed grow beyond 15% at some future time. He asked how this would be handled. Mr. Keeler responded that such expansion, unless modified by the Commission, would be treated as a violation. Mr. Keeler added that it is always difficult to keep a main use and an ozl?7 June 19, 1990 Page 4 accessory use separate. Mr. Keeler also pointed out that the current Comprehensive Plan does not require industrial areas to be exclusively industrial nor commecial areas to be exclusively commercial. Mr. Jenkins felt the primary issue was not the percentage of retail sales, but rather the question of traffic, i.e. how many cars would be hauling the retail inventory from the site. He stated he was concerned about a high traffic generator at this location and since the number of cars visiting the site cannot be controlled, then the percentage of retail sales must be counted on to control the traffic. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant, by his proffer, has limited the area of the property that is available not only for this use but for any other type of industrial use. He added that the property is recommended by the Plan for industrial designation which permits office buildings by -right, and if offices were placed on the maximum area allowable, a significant amount of traffic could be generated. Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern that the applicant might find that there is not enough space for his desired retail growth. Mr. Townsend stated that issue had been considered and he was comfortable with the area. He pointed out that if he found a change was needed, further approval of the Commission and Board would be required. (Mr. Townsend noted that a letter addressing this matter should be in the staff's files.) Mr. Cilimberg stated staff did not have the letter referred to by Mr. Townsend which included a breakdown of the development area of the site. He suggested that the commission might wish to defer the matter for one week to allow time for staff to locate that letter and comment. Mr. Keeler added that staff might be able to make some traffic comparisons also. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that if this were a.request for a change to HC or C-1 traffic would be an important issue. Both Mr. Rittenhouse and Wilkerson indicated they would like to see the additional information referred to by staff. Mr. Wilkerson also asked for more information about the future status of the crossover. Mr. Cilimberg stated the crossover was scheduled for closing, hut- tbn exact time of closing was not known. June 19, 1990 Paqe 5 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Townsend to comment on the feasability of defining "retail vs. contracting" area. Mr. Johnson felt it was probably impossible to make a distinction between the two areas. Mr. Townsend explained that he had discussed this with the Zoning Administrator and the process of just designating 15% of the plants for retail sale seemed acceptable. Mr. Johnson responded: "But this is an arbitrary, superficial and not necessarily reasonable, to be anticipated, breakdown." Mr. Townsend responded that it is not difficult to inventory the plants. He stated that contracted jobs usually involve special orders and remain on the site for only a short period. The Commission continued to discuss the method for separating the 15% retail from the contracting business. Mr. Wilkerson asked if the applicant had any objection to a one -week deferral. Mr. Townsend expressed no objection. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-89-16 for J.W. Townsend be deferred to June 26. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson questioned the reason for deferral. He did not think it was possible to separate retail and commercial sales in this type of business and he pointed out that any type of use would involve increased traffic. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that HC and C-1 anticipate more traffic and the Comprehensive Plan does not designate this area for commercial uses. He stated he was trying to determine if this use was actually a retail business or if the retail part of the business was purely ancillary. The previously stated motion for deferral passed unanimously. SP-90-40 Curtis and Debbie Mundie - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a Home Occupation Class B [5.2 and 10.2.2(31)] to allow a hauling operation for sand, dirt, and gravel with Io?9 June 19, 1990 Page 6 two employees. Property consists of 4.7 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 23 (part), is located on a private road, 1/4 mile south of Rt. 641 and 1/2 mile east of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 1990. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The staff report stated: "Staff opinion is that this request more closely resembles a contractors' office and equipment storage yard which is allowed in the HC, Highway Commercial district by special use permit and in the Industrial districts by -right. Staff recommends denial." Mr. Fritz noted that two letters of opposition had been received. The applicant was represented by Mr. Wade Jacobson. He presented four letters of support for the application. He explained that the applicant operates a gravel hauling business and needs a place to store his three trucks. He stated the lot is very secluded and only the applicant and his family have access to the private road. He stated the lot is not visible from the public road or any neighbors. He stated that the business would not substantially increase traffic. He explained that the applicant will widen the gravel driveway if the application is approved, but he was not in a position, financially, to make significant improvements to the road. He explained that the applicant has been storing the trucks as his mother's home (Rt. 641) for 10 years. He stated that the applicant will have any oil which is removed from the trucks stored in barrels and then hauled away. Regarding the issue of setback requirements, he pointed out that a County representative (Mr. John Grady) had selected the site for the buildings. He indicated the applicant has already begun construction because a County representative had told him there shouldn't be any problem unless there were objections. He asked that the Commission waive the requirement that the house be occupied before commencement of the business. Mr. Mundie presented photographs of the site. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. W.S. Roudabush, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. His reasons for opposition were as follows: as [ ) June 19, 1990 Page 7 --There is a 20-lot residential area very close to this property; this is the only property that is not of a residential or agricultural nature in the area. --Though traffic generation for this use would be low, the use is not of a residential character. --This site is at the headwaters of the drainage of an existing lake which is identified in the National Wetlands Inventory Maps as wetland which is subject to protection by federal law. --The industrial character of the runoff from the site is of concern. --The total floor area of this proposal exceeds the permitted area and is almost double the permitted area for a home occupation. --The outside appearance will not be similar in facade to the residence on the property. --A business does not meet the definition of a home occupation because it will not be conducted within the home or accessory structure. --This use, a contractor's office and equipment storage facility, is permitted only in HC with a special use permit and in industrial zones by -right. In either of those two districts, this use would require a full site plan review. --Approval of this request would set a dangerous precedent for the approval of similar requests. Mr. Roudabush expressed surprise that staff would consider this request as a typical home occupation. He suggested f that better criteria be developed to define home F occupations. Mr. Jinx McDaniel expressed his support for the application. He felt the use would not interfere with any neighbors. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Grimm noted that a number of aspects of the request were in conflict with the definition of home occupation, e.g. setback was 25 feet instead of the required 35 feet and the size of the structure was 2,600 feet instead of the 1,500 feet allowed. Mr. Wilkerson agreed with Mr. Grimm and with the staff report. He felt this type of use belonged in a HC zone and approval would set a precedent. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-40 for Curtis and Debbie Mundie be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. .�,q June 19, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: It was determined that the applicant currently holds a Class A permit and stores his trucks as his mother's home. Regarding the setback issue, Mr. Mundie pointed out that Mr. Grady, Asst. Zoning Administrator, had chosen the site for the garage. Mr. Johnson stated he was not convinced that the site cannot be seen from adjoining properties or the public road during the winter months. The previously stated motion for denial passed (4:1) with Commissioner Jenkins casting the dissenting vote. SP-90-46 Albemarle Concrete. Inc. (applicant), S.L. Williamson Company, Inc. (owner) - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a concrete plant [30.4.2.2(1)] on 4.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, in the NR, Natural Resources Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 100, Parcel 24A is located on the south side of Route 708 across from Red Hill Quarry approximately 2.7 miles west of Route 631 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about runoff into the Hardware River. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant would make use of a "settling pond" which is a zero discharge and will be required to obtain a permit from the State Water Control Board. Mr. Rittenhouse asked for an explanation of the wastewater recycling process which was proposed. Mr. Fritz deferred to the applicant. (The owner of Albemarle Concrete, Mr. Hornaday, later explained the process.) The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Larry MacElwain. He pointed out that the character of the land supports the proposed use, i.e. it is in a Natural Resource District, 41-111, June 19, 1990 Page 9 there is suitable road access, and it is adjacent to a quarry. He stated the applicant had no objections to the proposed conditions of approval. He explained that the hydrogeologist's report had already been received and "it is supportive of the project." He also referred to a letter from Mr. Williamson stating that his well has a yield of 45 gallons per minute on the adjacent property. Mr. Steve Hornaday, owner of Albemarle Concrete, explained the water reclamation process. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the "sequence of consideration" of the application. He wondered if the hydrogeologist's report on water withdrawal should be available before the Commission acts on the special permit. He felt this information was critical to the ultimate approval and institution of the business. Mr. MacElwain again stated that the applicant had received a letter from the hydrogeologist. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that it is the Commission's policy not to consider information which staff has not had time to review. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the special permit cannot be effectuated without the County Engineer's positive review of the hydrogeologist's report. It was decided that condition No. 5 would be changed to read: "Prior to site plan submittal, County Engineer review and approval of a report...." Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-46 for Albemarle Concrete, Inc. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Operations shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to midnight; 2. Health Department approval; 3. Staff approval of site plan to include relocation of entrance and construction of turn lanes in accordance with the comments of the Virginia Department of Transportation dated May 23, 1990; June 19, 1990 Page 10 4. Compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance; 5. Prior to site plan submittal, County Engineering review and approval of a report prepared by a hydrogeologist demonstrating that water withdrawal will not constitute overdrafting to the detriment of adjacent properties and properties within the designated North Garden Village; 6. All structures, including office trailer and stockpiles, shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any public road right-of-way or adjoining property within any residential district; 7. Office trailer shall be allowed only with approval of VA 9-20, or in compliance with Section 5.8. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Bowling informed the Commission that the language in the Tree Canopy Ordinance had been changed to conform identically to the enabling legislation. Mr. Rittenhouse announced the appointment of Commissioners Wilkerson and Grimm to a Private Roads Committee and directed staff to proceed to formulate the committee to include staff, members of the private sector and the Board of Supervisors. Staff was directed to schedule the presentation of Resolutions of Appreciation to former Commissioners for the June 26 meeting. (Note: It was later determined that this would be scheduled for July 10.) Staff was directed to arrange a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to take place in early Fall. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. V V. Way Cilim e , Secretary DS f/