HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 28 89 PC MinutesFebruary 28, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,.
February 28, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman;
Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and
Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Bowerman.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of Feburary 14, 1989 were approved
as amended.
SP-88-97 Christ Community Church - Request in accordance with Section 14.1.12
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
a church on 7.63 acres zoned R-2, Residential. Property described as Tax
Map 45C-2, Parcel 6 is located in the Woodbrook Subdivision on the east side
of Idlewood Drive at the intersection with Brookmere Road south of Brentwood
Road. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to March 28, 1989.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-88-97 be deferred to
March 28, 1989.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-88-26 Alford Associates - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 7.5 acres from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway
Commercial. Properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 44, 45 and 45A, are
located on the north side of U.S. Rt. 250 approximately 1/4 mile east of its
intersection with I-64. Properties requesting rezoning are to have access
through existing hotel access road.
The applicant was requesting withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the applicant's request
for withdrawal be accepted.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA-88-06 David Lee S radlin - Request to amend the LI, Light Industry zone
to allow a public garage/salvage and/or junkyard.
AND
"Y
February 28, 1989 Page 2
ZMA-88-27 David & Nary Spradlin - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 7 acres from RA, Rural Areas, to LI, Light
Industry. Property, described as 'lax +ia.p 104, Parcel 14F1, is located
on the east side of St. Rt. 620, approximately 2.5 miles north of Woodridge.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
AND
ZMA-88-20 David &. Mary S radlin - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 7 acres from RA, Rural Areas to HI,
Heavy Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1, is
located on the east side of St. Rt. 620, approximately 2.5 miles north of
Woodridge. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of ZTA 88-06
for the following reasons: "Salvage yard/junk yard is allowed only by
special use permit in the HI zone, and the Commission and Board have made prior
determination that a salvage yard is a use of such objectionable nature as .
to be of a heavy industrial character and must be reviewed individually,
even within the HI zone; (2). The LI zone is intended to permit uses which
are compatible with and do not detract from surrounding districts; and (3)
The Ordinance currently contains adequate provision for salvage yard."
Staff recommended denial of ZMA-88-27 and ZMA-88-20 for the following
reasons: "This location is inappropriate for a motor vehicle salvage
operation in terms of environmental concerns, relationship to adjoining
properties, and adequacy of transportation facilities; (2) A former
application for special permit by the applicant was reviewed as to locational
and other guidelines of the HI zone and recommended .as not satisfying
those guidelines; (3) There has.. been no investment, peculiar site
characteristics, or other circumstance identified to demonstrate that
existing zoning -is incorrect; and (4) The scale of the business indicates
that it is of a regional nature and staff can determine no need for this
particular type of use to be located in a rural area."
The staff report noted:
"The issueto be addressed in review of these various petitions is
whether or not a salvage yard is appropriate in this particular location.
Based on past and continued inability to comply with County regulations
and General District Court orders, it should be anticipated that the
salvage yard would be operated in an unregulated manner and that
imposition of conditions of approval would.be ineffectual."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Benjamin Dick. His comments included
the following:
--He felt the Commission had the authority, under Section 15.1-491.1
of the Code of Virginia, to recommend "conditional zoning." (Note:
Mr. Dick quoted from this section of the Code from time to time.)
--Tests on surrounding wells, arranged by the applicant, have shot+m
no contamination.
--The use has been in operation for 11 years, long enough to have
proven its community worth.
--The only violation committed by the applicant was in relation to the
number of inoperable vehicles on the site, i.e. he exceeded the two
vehicles which his original permit allowed.
zbc
February 28, 1989
Page 3
--The vehicles are confined to a 2-acre area and are not visible from
either the road or adjacent properties.
--The applicant also maintains a farming operation, i.e. he raises
"'prize roosters which he sells nationwide."
--The applicant is willing to proffer certain conditions before the
Board hearing:
(1) The use will be restricted to the applicant and his immediate
family.
(2) The applicant will agree to State Water Control Board testing
as well as private testing of the wells in the area.
(3) The applicant is willing to restrict the number of vehicles
on the site to a range of 1-500. (He noted that 200 to
500 vehicles has been the norm.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to Mr. Dick's comments on conditional zoning, Mr. Stark asked
Mr. Bowling if there were any State requirements by which the County must abide.
Mr. Bowling responded: "With a zoning request, it is within your
prerogative to recommend that it be granted or denied."
The Commission first discussed ZTA-88-06, a request to amend the LI zone to
allow a public garage/salvage and/or junkyard.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that this request, though initiated by the applicant,
would have universal application throughout the County.
Mr. Stark felt this would be "opening a Pandora's box."
Ms. Diehl felt that such an amendment would require a "whole re -thinking
of the zone itself because it is quite contrary to the statement regarding
the LI zone."
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-88-06 for David Lee Spradlin be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Commission then discussed ZMA-88-27, a request to rezone 7 acres from
RA to LI.
Ms. Diehl noted that this request was probably moot because of the action
on ZTA-88-06.
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed but felt the Commission needed to act on the request
irrespective of the proposed use of the property.
Mr. Michel stated that since ZTA-88-06 had been recommended for denial, this
request would be of no benefit to the applicant.
Mr. Michel mo ed that ZMA-88-27 for David and Mary Spradlin be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
244
February 28, 1989
Page 4
The Coimiission then discussed Z,Lk-88-20, a request to rezone 7 acres from
RA to HI.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could not support the request based on the following
concerns:
--Possible contamination of groundwater and the difficulty involved in
monitoring wells.
---Large scale of the.operation which make it more than a local service.
--Given the belief that it is a regional -scale operation, staff's assessments
regarding transportation networks, etc. are quite germane.
Mr. Michel pointed out that Mr. Dick was familiar with the process regarding
proffers. He stated that he could not consider this type of request without
first having seen the proffers clearly stated in writing, prior to the meeting.
Regarding Mr. Dick's statements about well testing, Mr. Michel pointed out that
the County would be more interested in testing for the existence of heavy metals,
not chloroform.
Mr. Stark stated he found the staff report to be more "factual" than negative.
He explained that though normally he weighs public support heavily, the
issue of possible groundwater contamination was extremely important because
of the difficulty of dealing with such contamination after it has occurred.
He indicated he could not support the request.
Mr. Horne pointed out that though staff agrees that environmental impact is
very important, staff also feels this would be very intense urban use quite
removed from the growth area, in an area very unsuited for this type of use.
Ms. Diehl indicated she could not support the request. She pointed out that
denial of this request was not removing a right that was previously granted
because the previous permit had been for a garage, NOT a salvage yard.
Mr. Wilkerson :coved that ZMA-88-20 for David & :Mary Spradlin be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
These requests were to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on April 5, 1989.
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. 25014. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel :Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions, including an additional condition 1(f): "Submittal of a
plat showing the establishment of an access easement between parcels 23G and
23E." The staff report concluded: "The revised access proposal in staff
opinion would represent an improvement to existing conditions. For this
reason, both the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Planning
Staff recommend approval of the revised access plan."
Aa 7
February 28, 1989
Page 5
The applicant was represented by Mr. Benjamin Dick. He stressed that this
proposal would result in a safer traffic situation than currently exists.
He also explained that allowing the access to Rt. 250 would allow the applicant
to have an address on Rt. 250, thus making it easier for visitors to locate.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Chris Chapman, a property owner across the street from the applicant,
addressed the Commission. He felt the proposed location for the entrance
would result in an unsafe condition. He suggested using the old Rt. 250
for access.
Mr. Finley, a representative of the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained that Mr. Chapman's suggestion was not feasible because
of economic, environmental and topographic considerations. The applicant's
engineer confirmed that the road would be very steep.
Mr. Mayo, an adjacent property owner, expressed interest in the proposed
use for the property. Mr. Dick responded to Mr. Mayo's inquiry. Mr.
Finley stated that no formal plans had been made "as yet." Mr. Mayo
also expressed concern about traffic problems.
Ms. Wild, an adjacent property owner, expressed concern about future
development of the property. She asked that adjacent property owners
be kept advised.
Mr. Gibson Powell, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Powell was under the impression the applicant had previously stated he had
a right-of-way "along the track", but now was saying that such a right-of-way
did not exist. Several of the Commission members indicated they had understood
Mr. Finley to say the right-of-way did exist. Mr. Keeler recalled that Mr.
Finley had stated the right-of-way referred to by Mr. Powell could not be
used because of steep grade and prohibitive costs. (Mr. Powell explained
he was referring to the right-of-way "next to the track, along the old
Rt. 250.") Mr. Powell was concerned because of the fact that the old road
had been cleared off "five years ago" as though there was some plan for it to
be used. Mr. Horne explained: "Staff's understanding is that the right-of-
way of old 250 is accessible to this property --they either own it or have
rights of access over it. It's not a question of whether they can do that
legally, but whether it is best for them to do that physically. We have
never discussed it as a legal question. We have assumed that they have
the legal right to use it, and it has never been asserted to us by the
applicant that they don't have the legal right to use it."
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Horne confirmed that the
applicant had not proposed to give up any right to use said right-of-way.
Mr. Powell stressed that his concern was "over the development of this
property." Mr. Powell confirmed he was opposed to the proposal.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the staff report had stated: "As with any
other proposal, access will be subject to review with future intensification
of development. There is no proposal for any construction on this plan
other than the entrance to Rt. 250 at this time."
0244
February 28, 1989
Page 6
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
�1r. Stark stated he had a "gut feeling" it was.an unsafe situation traffic -wise,
but he had no suggestions as to what might provide safer access to the property.
He also expressed concern about inadequate sight distance.
Mr. Pullen stated that the entrance proposed on Rt. 250 had adequate sight.
distance. He further stated that both staff and the Highway Department
felt an entrance on 250 was preferable than continuing the entrance off
677 because of the problems such an entrance creates at the intersection of
677 and 250. Mr. Horne added that the proposal would result in "a full frontage
right turn lane, a painted left turn lane and the closing of an entrance on
677 that is very close to a very congested intersection."
Mr. Michel disagreed that the intersection at 677 was that congested.
He also stated: "I'm having a little trouble with the staff's note on
here talking about future development and then I'm also having a hard time
separating putting in a second commercial entrance 500 feet away from
another road for an unknown use. They are being served by their present
entrance now (though possibly not served well)." He questioned whether
approval of the request would be gaining enough.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it would require a site plan amendment to
grant another entrance. ?Ir. Michel stated however: "If the easement's there,
the easement's there." Mr. Horne stated: "I do not believe they have a
commercial entrance permit on 677 so to use it for an amended site plan
you would have to get a commercial entrance permit and you would have to
amend the site plan and go back through site review...." Mr. Horne confirmed
his comments were related to future development of the larger open parcel.
He stated if Mr. Michel were concerned about the access issue for just
this use, i.e. what is built there now, 'You may have some valid concern
because they could probably travel down that road and go out. But
any future buildings come back to you as a site plan and you get a
complete new shot at access." Mr. Horne pointed out that he believed
the Commission had discretion in this matter, i.e. there is nothing that
says the Commission must grant this entrance.
Both Mr. Stark and Mr. Wilkerson indicated they were unsure as towhat
would be the safest situation.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the comments from X'DOT implied that
the amended proposal was preferrable. He agreed that it would have
been more advantageous to the Commission's review if VDOT had been
more "overt in their recommendation."
Mr. Michel stated he interpreted VDOT's comments as saying that the
entrance "meets minimum standards."
Mr. Michel moved that the Christian Mission Guesthouse Site Plan Amendment
be denied.
mr. Stark seconded the motion.
,267
February 28, 1989
Page 7
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl, stated she would not support the motion. She explained that though
she was not particularly in favor of another entrance on Rt. 250, she
could see no explicit statement in the Highway Departments letter which
would sway her to vote against the proposal. She mentioned the trade-offs
that had been referred to by staff.
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed with Ms. Diehl.
The motion for denial failed to pass (1:5) with only Commissioner Michel voting
for the motion.
The Chairman called for an alternative motion.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Christian Mission Guesthouse Site Plan Amendment be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan amendment will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit to include:
I. Approval of required guardrail location;
2. A minimum deceleration lane of 235 feet with a 200 foot taper lane;
e. Staff authorization to increase the deceleration lane while reducing the
taper .Lane after review of final grading plans;
f. Submittal of a plat showing the establishment of an access easement
between parcels 23G and 23E.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Mr. Michel casting the
dissenting vote.
Crossroads Village Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 30,600
square feet of building area on 3.95 acres. This plan proposes access to Route
29 and Route 692. This site will be served by 96 parking spaces. Commercial
uses include a food store, bank and beauty salon are proposed. The property is
located atthe intersection of Route 29 South and Route 692, at the Crossroads
Store in North Garden Village. Tax Map 99, Parcels 1, 1-A, and 5, Zoned
C-1, Commercial. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial for the following
reasons: (1) Access on Route 29 should be limited to one access point as
far north of the existing crossover as possible in compliance with Section
32.7.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; (2) Fuel pumps should be limited to the
center island of the fueling area and curbing should be extended near the
pumps in order to provide for safe on site circulation in accordance with Section
32.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; (3) A 100' x 100' turn and taper lane should
be installed for the easternmost entrance on Rt. 692 in order to provide for
safe and convenient access.
4716
February 28, 1989
Page 8
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant, Mr. Hampsh, addressed the Commission. He presented a drawing
of the proposed development along with photographs of the existing
condition of the property. Additional comments included the following:
--Placing unrealistic restrictions on gas puWs and entrances will restrict
his business.
---Allowing only one entrance on Rt. 29 will create a traffic pattern problem
in the parking lot.
--An easement from an adjacent property owner will be necessary in order
to install a turn and taper lane on Rt. 692.
--The hill on Rt. 69.2 will be lowered to provide good sight distance.
Mr. Mark Osborne, .engineer for the project, answered questions regarding the
proposed package treatment plant. He explained it would be a small enclosed -type
facility with a flow rate of 6,000 gal/day and would discharge into the Hardware
River. Mr. Michel asked why a central treatment system was proposed, i.e.
was there not enough room for a septic field? ?Ir. Osborne explained that
one of the proposed uses was a laundromat which is a high water user which
could not be served adequately by a drainfield.
Mr. Horne asked Mr. Osborne to comment on water supply in the area, particularly
if he was confident there was enough water available to supply a laundromat.
Mr. Osborne responded that the minimum water needs would be 5 gpm and a surface
storage tank system was planned which should be able to meet all peak flows.
He explained how the system would work with a booster pump and pressure tanks.
Given the laundromat use, Ms. Diehl questioned the accuracy of 6,000 gallons/day
usage.
The Chairman invited public comment.
the following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their support for the
proposal: TMfr. Roy Clark; Mr. Dave Franzine; Ms. Kathy Wood on; and Mr. Blair
Turner. Their reasons for support included:
--Igill result in a much safer, more attractive situation than currently exists;
--Applicants are valued members of the community and have the community's
interests in mind;
--Grading the hill on Rt. 692 will provide greatly improved sight distance.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition
to the proposal: Ms. Belle Woodson and Mr. Ronald Cutright. Their reasons
for opposition included:
--Opposed to growth in North Garden;
--Concern about the proposed treatment plant;
--Too large a development for the North Garden area;
--Property not large enough for the proposal.
Mr. Bob Paxton, architect for the applicant, pointed out, that this was a unique
proposal and asked the Commission to take that into consideration.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
.2V
February 28, 1989
Page 9
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Fritz to comme�tf on how strongly the staff
and Highway Department feel on. the issue two entrances. Mr. Fritz responded
that at site review meetings the Highway Department was- "in support of
the ordinance in restricting it to as far north of 692 as possible."
It was determined if there were two entrances the northernmost would be
372 feet from the intersection and the southern entrance would be 250
feet (31 the recommended distance) from the intersection. Mr. Keeler
pointed out that approval of either one or two entrances would require
a waiving of a provision of the Ordinance.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the proposal for the following
reasons:
--Agreement with staff's assessment of the problems associated
with the plan;.
--The County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation
share staff's concerns about the access to Rt. 29;
--Excessive development for the site;
--Would need more justification for waiving Section 21.7.3 in relation
to the buffer;
--Concern about the package treatment plant, including the fact that it
would-be located "off the commercial area," how the discharge would
effect downstream areas, and difficulty in determining how much water
the laundromat would both use and discharge.
Mr. Michel stated he shared Ms. Diehl's concerns.
In response to Mr. Jenkins question about a time frame for the project,
the applicant stated there was no particular time frame but the development
would occur in phases.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt there two issues involved in the review, i.e. (1) the
desirability from the community standpoint and the viability of the plan; and
(2) the specific elements of the site design. He felt staff's recommendation
for denial was based "not on the .concept of the project, but on specific elements
of the site design." He stated, "I haven't heard anything which indicates that
the viability of this project is in jeopardy as a result of these particular
elements of site design." He felt staff's questions about site design were
important issues and because they had not beais3tisfied he indicated he could
not support the preliminary site plan.
Mr. Stark stated he could not support the proposal because of the safety
issue.
Mr. Jenkins noted that consideration had to be given to future traffic
as well as existing traffic.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Crossroads Village Center Preliminary Site Plan be
denied.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
February 28, 1989
Page 10
Joyce Hills Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to subdivide a 68-acre
parcel into 7 lots ranging in size from 2.4 to 27.8 acres. Access is to be from
a proposed public road. Property, described as Tax -lap 47, Parcel 53 is located
on the north side of Rt. 784 approximately 7/10 miles west of Rt. 600.
Zoned RA. Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Ray who offered no significant
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that a letter of opposition had been received from
�Ir. John Girdler.
There was little discussion about this proposal.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Joyce Hills Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are
met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations:
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
!�. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
miscellaneous
There was a brief discussion about recent Board of Supervisor work sessions
on the Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
DS