HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 21 89 PC MinutesMarch 21, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 21, 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 Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials.present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Senior Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Benish,
Senior Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Michel and Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of March 9, 1989 were approved as submitted.
SP-88-112 Richard Snow - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to locate a single -wide
mobile home on property described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 16. Property,
located approximately .2 mile on private easement off the south side of
Rt. 640 and Rt. 22. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from Planning
Commission meeting of March 8, 1989.
It was once again determined that the applicant was not present for the
hearing. (The applicant had not appeared when the request was first before
the Commission on March 8, 1989.)
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Rittenhouse, that SP-88-112 for Richard
Snow be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously.
Lewis Mountain Water Storage Tank - Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff finds
the 500,000 gallon water tank and associated water pipelines to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by
the Commission."
Mr. Bill Brent was present to represent the Albemarle County Service Authority.
He made brief comments about the need for the tank, the primary need being
increased fire protection. He also made comments about how the project would
be funded.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Pat Ford, representing Mr. Bill Heischmann,owner of part of the property
on which the tank will be located, addressed the Commission. He stated
Mr. Heischmann was supportative of the plan and asked only that he be kept
advised of the site specific issues as they develop. He noted potential
tank siting and utility line conflicts.
.17t
March 21, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Ned Slaughter, representing Mr. and Mrs. Rutledge Vining, owners of another
portion of the property on which the tank will sit, addressed the Commission.
He indicated he felt the notification process had not given him sufficient
time to consider the project. He asked that consideration of the proposal
be deferred until the new Comprehensive Plan has been adopted since this
project is not referred to.in the existing Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this was somewhat of a "new step" in the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of identifying this type of project.
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with staff that the project was in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan because it allows the recommendation of the
Plan to be carried out and it also meets certain public health and safety
standards that are contained in the Plan.
In response to Mr. Stark's suggestion that the tank be positioned entirely
on the Heischmann property, Mr. Bowerman explained that the specific site
location was not the issue at this time. Mr. Cilimberg added that the
specific site did not make a difference to staff's recommendation because
the general location indicated was close enough in terms of evaluating
the project for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Stark moved that the Lewis :Mountain Water Storage Tank be found in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Jenkins asked why there was a need for two tanks. Mr. Brent explained
that only one tank would be constructed at this time, but the site would
be prepared for the possibility of a second tank at some future date if
there should develop a need for a second tank.
The motion previously stated passed unanimously.
Morris Waiver Request - To allow a parcel to have frontage on an internal
easement while continuing to utilize an existing entrance on Rt. 712. This
request requires a waiver of Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Property, described as Tax Map 111, Parcel 4, is located on the north side
of Rt. 712, approximately 4,500 feet west of the intersection of Rt. 712
and Rt. 719. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
11r. Pullen gave the staff report. The report concluded: "in staff opinion,
approval of this waiver request is acceptable. Staff recommends approval
subject to obtaining adequate sight distance at the existing entrance."
Mr. :Morris was present but offered no additional significant comment.
March 21, 1989 Page 3
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that the Morris Waiver Request be granted subject to
adequate sight distance being obtainable.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Gardens Phase II Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate an 11,020 square
foot office retail building on 1.15 acres served by 73 parking spaces and a
22,450 square foot cinema on 2.28 acres served by 300 parking spaces. Access
is to be from Route 29N. Property, described as Tax Map 45,.Parcel 104
(part of) and Tax Map 51, Parcel 123E (part of) is located on the east side
of Rt. 29N, just north of Albemarle Square Shopping. Center. Zoned C-1,
Commercial, PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center and R-2, Residential.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. The staff report addressed three main
issues: (1) Development an critical slopes; (2) Impact on Woodbrook
Subdivision; and (3) Parking location. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Jenkins raised a question about the parking area serving the Cinema which
is leased from Albemarle Square. He asked what will happen when the lease
expires.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. George Gilliam. He stated the applicant
was in agreement with the staff report and recommendations. Regarding the
issue of the parking lot lease, Mr. Gilliam explained: "The term of the land
lease is longer than the term of the lease for the Cinema, so the lease on
the land cannot expire prior to the time that the lease to the theater operator
expires. The land lease also has an option connected with it so that Mr.
Mellon's partnership, The Gardens Partnership, has the right to purchase that
land at several stages during the term of the lease,before the expiration of
it." In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Gilliam explained that the
Cinema would be built by the applicant's partnership and leased to a theater
operator and the term of that lease will be 15 years.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following residents of the Woodbrook Subdivision addressed the commission
and expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr. Mike Boblitz; Mr. Fred
Kain; Mr. Eugene Powell; and Mr. Sam Kaplan. Their comments and concerns
included the following:
---The negative impact of the cinema on the residential community, e.g.
-Building is very close to residential property lines and because
of the elevation of the site sits approximately 30 feet above
the residences;
-The hours of operation are not compatible with a residential
neighborhood and would result in vandalism, noise and lighting problems;
-Vegetative screening is not sufficient to block car llghLS and
security lighting;
-Will create the temptation for youngsters to trespass on private
residential property to reach the cinema;
MA
March 21, 1989
Page 4
--Increased run-off from the development will exacerbate already existing
drainage and flooding problems on some properties;
--The 8-inch sanitary sewer which is located on the border of the buffer
zone is inadequate and has experienced problems in the past;
--The residential community would favor a more retail -type of commercial use;
--Excessive disturbance of critical slope areas.
In addition to these comments, Mr. Kaplan raised the question of setbacks.
Referring to Section 21.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, he asked if part of the
parcel is zoned R-2,.shouldn't part of the parking be setback 20 feet from
the residential district, which would result in 170 feet (rather than 150 feet)
from Woodbrook and shouldn't the building be 50 feet from the R-2 district?
Mr. Kaplan also felt that if the County is expected to "respect the letter of
the Ordinance" then the developer should be expected to9he same. He asked
that the Commission deny the requested waivers for critical slopes and parking.
Mr. Kaplan also pointed out that when the Zoning Ordinance had established
landscaping and setback requirements it had not considered a difference in
elevation of approximately 30 feet between adjacent properties.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Regarding the issue of setbacks Mr. Bowerman asked if the setbacks conform
to the R-2 setbacks. tilr.r/ex5lained that a 20-foot buffer is required between
residential and commercial districts and staff "took the construction" that
the buffer which is in place is what was intended by the Board of Supervisors
at the time of the rezoning and there is no additional buffer. He explained
further that only that lot which was part of Albemarle Square is involved
in this issue. He also stated that the building was set back 75 feet "at
its closest point."
The Chairman reopened the public hearing in order to allow Mr. Gilliam to
respond to some of the public comments.
Mr. Gilliam commented on three issues. Regarding the concern about
car headlights shining into the residences, he did not think this
would be a problem because the .lot is so much higher than the residences
and it is unlikely that the lights would be "angled down shaprly enough to
shine into a residence." Regarding run-off, he pointed out that a condition
of approval is County Engineer approval of detention and stormwater plans.
Regarding buffering, he stated the applicant "is prepared to install a
very heavy evergreen screen as indicated on the plan."
Ms. Lisa Glass, engineer for the applicant, addressed the issue of detention
and the 8-inch sewer line. She explained that it has been determined that
detention can be done on site with underground pipes but final approval has
not yet been received from the County -Engineering Department. She stated
the applicant is aware of flooding problems in the area and the fact that
any additional runoff from this site must be detained. Regarding the
sanitary sewer, she stated the applicant was intending to "replace portions
of the line that we were going to fill over," and at the request of the
County Service Authority, will.also include in the plans the replacement
of one more section of line which has experienced problems in the past.
She added that if the Service Authority were willing to bear the cost
difference, it would probably be possible to replace the rest of the
line, but that should not be the responsibility of this development.
(She noted that the additional section referred to would be paid for
March 21, 1989
Page 5
by the Service Authority.)
There was some discussion about the size of the sewer line. Ms. Glass
stated the line would be replaced with a 10-inch line and that it would
be "going back far enough so that the slope can be increased all the way
through." She stated part of the problem has been with the slope in addition
to the collapse of some old terra-cotta line. Mr. Bowerman asked if the
10-inch line would connect to a manhole out of which would flow an 8-inch
line. Ms. Glass indicated she believed this was accurate. Mr. Bowerman
asked if the slopes were such that an 8-inch line "coming off" were.adequate
to handle discharge from a 10-inch line "coming in?" Ms. Glass responded:
"It has to or you can't put more into the line than it will carry."
She added that this was what had been required for .the first phase and
if the requirement is changed for the second phase, the applicant will
design to that requirement.
Responding to Mr. Jenkins' concerns about runoff, Mr. Gilliam stated the
applicant is aware of the problem and both the applicant and the engineer
believe (1) if there is a problem with oilt, it is an existing problem and
not a result of this development and (2) the re -channeling and re -development
of stormwater management that this project will undertake will improve
existing problems and the County Engineer will insure that that is the
case.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the channel will only run as far as this
property and there is concern about its effects on downstream properties.
He felt the problem lies in the fact that though the runoff cannot be
greater than before development, it often "comes quicker" because it
is not being slowed down by pervious surfaces.
Mr. Horne clarified: "What is accomplished by our ordinance is that the
rate of runoff after development does not exceed the rate of runoff prior
to development. There will, in fact, be more runoff in greater quantities
because there's more impervious surface; therefore there's more water that
leaves the site but it will not leave it at any greater rate. ... So
if there is a problem downstream, where this project discharges, with the
adequacy of that channel in the longrun to just handle the quantity of
runoff, then that is something that won't be handled here. If it is a
problem because the rate of runoff from this site now hits that channel
and the rate overflows the channel, then that would not be exacerbated
by this development and could potentially be helped by this development."
Mr. Bowerman asked if it made any difference to the public if the parking
area and theater sites were exchanged, i.e. which is the lesser of two
evils? Mr._Boblitz responded and though his preference was unclear, he
stated that it was desirable that the building be as far away from the
residential property as possible. Mr. Boblitz expressed concern about
not only car lights, but also about security lighting on the site.
Mr. Kaplan pointed out that this question would never arise if a use
were chosen whichwas more compatible with daylight hours.
i!t f 6,�
March 21, 1989 Page 6
In response to Mr. Stark's concern about problems with the existing sewer
line, M.r. Horne explained that the problem would be addressed because
"before any proposal to work on that line or this development is undertaken
there must be Albemarle County Service Authority approval of all water and
sewer plans." He added that if the Commission approves this site plan
staff will make sure the Service Authority is aware that this was a major
item of concern to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the issue would be addressed if it is determined
the problem is beyond the site and out of the control of the applicant.
Mr. Horne responded that it would be a Service Authority problem and they
must use their own resources to correct the problem. Mr. Horne explained
further that the portion of the line which runs through this site will
be replaced, but the portion which is causing the problem is beyond the
site, further downstream.
Given the concerns which had been expressed, fir. Bowerman stated that if
the Commission was inclined to approve this plan it should also review
the final plan and not grant staff administrative approval. He felt there
was not adequate information to address the issues of runoff and sewage
disposal at this time, though other issues, such as lighting and
screening, could be addressed.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was primarily concerned about the amount of critical
slopes which must.be developed in order to accommodate the project as
proposed. He felt the development might be too large for the site "in
terms of the constraints the Ordinance puts on it." He stated he did
not see any public good to be gained by getting into the critical slopes
with the parking area. However, he noted that he was in favor of
getting into the critical slope area in order to replace the sewer line
because that would benefit the public good. He noted that allowing
the parking area in critical slopes was really increasing the size of
the building. He noted that the property was clearly zoned for this use
and if the zoning can accommodate the use, "that's fine," but if it
cannot accommodate it without waivers, "that's another question."
He stated he did not think it could be denied based on the fact that it is
a cinema rather than an office building, but the Commission did have some
.latitude "based on the waivers that we can allowiin terms of the scale of
the development that can be built on this site."
Mr. Jenkins asked if the Commission had ever approved a plan which
included parking under a lease arrangement. Mr. Horne replied affirmatively
and noted that "cooperative parking" was not that unusual.
In response to Mr. Jenkins' question as to whether or not a subdivision
approval was a part of this request, Mr. Kurt Wassenar, representing the
applicant, explained that the applicant was proposing a modification of the
original subdivision boundaries (at staff's suggestion) in order to allow
"parking tradeoffs to occur in a direction which would not require people
to cross over the main entrance road."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked 'Mr. Fritz to.comment on the grading question and what
would happen to the critical slopes.
March 21, 1989
Page 7
Mr. Fritz explained there were some fill slopes and some cut slopes with
some resulting 2:1 slopes behind the parking and the cinema.
Ms. Glass commented that the resulting slopes would be steeper but that
is allowed by the Ordinance.
Mr. Rittenhouse questioned whether this is allowed by.the Ordinance. Mr.
Rittenhouse felt more input was needed.from the County Engineer on the
critical slope question, particularly the resulting slope stability.
Mr. Rittenhouse had expressed concern about this issue on previous
applications, i.e. "the Ordinance says 'you shall not do it' but we know
that the County allows some modification of that and I have been trying to
get a basis for when that's done and on what criteria a waiver is based."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "One of the things that we have done on this
Commission is where grading on critical slopes has been incidental to
the development of the site and where it meets sound engineering practices
we have allowed it, I think where there was a public purpose to be served
by constructing in critical slopes, other than the monetary interest of the
developer, we have considered it favorably when it meets sound engineering
practices. But where it is contemplated to allow further development of
the site beyond what the site would normally allow we have been rather
reticent to do that and I think this is the situation here." Mr. Bowerman
again stated he did see a benefit to be gained by allowing the sewer line
in the critical slope areas but not the parking. He concluded: "I think
that this particular use in this particular location is rather intrusive,
but the Ordinance doesn't give me any ability to deal with that so I
think the only ability I have is the critical slopes question."
ewer
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed. He added that though the sanitary question was
important, it was not unique to this particular site, but rather is a
pre-existing problem which the applicant will have to satisfy the County
that it is not being exacerbated by this development. He also stated
that though the question of aesthetics was important, he was not sure
the Ordinance allows the latitude to waive those aesthetic questions.
(Mr. Bowerman pointed out the Landscape.Ordinance is used to mitigate
the visual impact.) He also agreed with Mr. Bowerman that the issue of
the parking spaces that were far removed from the building was more a
technicality than a real concern. Mr. Rittenhouse again stated he
wanted more information on the final slope stability, after grading,
before making a decision on this proposal.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Rittenhouse was suggesting that the building
on critical slopes be allowed if it meets sound engineering principles.
Mr.Rittenhouse replied: "Not necessarily; I think that that is a pre-
requisite to giving it good consideration." He wanted some assurance
that it could be designed so as not to be detrimental to downstream
properties.
Mr. Bowerman again pointed out that development on these critical slopes
is substantially increasing the amount of parking which, in turn, substantially
increased the size of the allowable building footprint. He stated that
regardless of sound engineering practices, he felt this was an instance where
a waiver to build on critical slopes should not be granted.
79�
March 21, 1989 Page 8
Mr. Horne agreed with 'Mr. Bowerman's comments, i.e. that it has not, in the
past, been entirely an engineering question.
Mr. Rittenhouse clarified his position as follows: "I am not implying
that the engineering considerations on slopes for building should be a
sufficient condition for granting a waiver. I am saying that, in my mind,
it is a necessary condition. The two are clearly separate."
Mr. Michael Mellon, the developer, explained that three slopes are, in fact,
man-made and can be "substantiated," and the one critical slope, by definition
of the Ordinance, is being disturbed to increase the flow to meet the concerns
about over --capacity. He felt it was important to distinguish between
"critical" slope vs. "man-made" slope.
Mr. Bowerman noted that fir. Mellon's point was well taken, but staff felt
whether or not the slopes were vatural or man-made was inmaterial at this
point because of the way the slopes are vegetated.
1r. Bowerman felt that if the Commission chose to approve the plan, condition
1(d) should be amended to include some type of solid fencing. However,
Mr. Horne pointed out that if the intent of fencing was to block headlights
it would be more effective, and7more visually pleasing method would be to
berm the edge of the parking lot additionally, with plantings along the top
of the berm. He added that if the intent of the fence was to provide
security, "Ve have not in the past provided security fencing,as a matter.
of Ordinance between commercial and residential properties."
Mr. Jenkins felt that because of past problems with this site more information
was needed from the County Engineer before approval could be granted.
Mr. Bowerman noted that detailed information was usually not available
until final site plan review. He interpreted that Mr. Jenkins felt
the preliminary plan should not go forward without this information.
He questioned what a delay at this time would accomplish.
In reply to fir. Rittenhouse's question about how much development was proposed
on man-made critical slopes, Mr. Fritz explained that "virtually all of the
man-made critical slopes will be disturbed to One extent or another...."
Mr. Bowerman did not think a deferral would accomplish anything. He pointed
out that all the issues which had been raised would have to be addressed
before the final plan -if the Commission chooses to approve the preliminary
plan. He added, however, "But I still feel that it's basically a by -right
with some .waivers and I'm not in favor of the waivers for the critical slopes,
other than the one for the sewer and that's basically my position."
Mr. Jenkins asked what effect not granting the waivers would have on the
application. Mr. Bowerman replied: "Then I think what we'd see on the final
is a substantially reduced plan; I don't know what the configuration would
be but I think it would be scaled down, which is what I'm contemplating,
hopefully with a theater that's in a different location based upon the public
input I've heard."
94?
March 21, 1989 Page 9
Mr. Rittenhouse asked how the request could be approached as suggested by
Mr. Bowerman, i.e. was he suggesting approval with an added condition
addressing the waiver issue? Mr. Bowerman replied negatively and explained,
"I would differentiate between the two areas of critical slopes, the ones
for the parking area and the one for the sewer, and I would allow the
sewer line because there's a public benefit to be derived."
Mr. Stark moved that The Gardens Phase II Preliminary Site Plan be
denied.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission was certain this was the approach to
take.
Mr. Stark explained that he had understood that what Mr. Bowerman was
suggesting constituted a denial of the current proposal because it would
result in an entirely different plan. Mr. Bowerman stated that was not
his intent but he understood Mr. Stark's reasoning.
Mr. Bowerman felt his suggested approach, i.e. approval without the waivers,
"puts it in a slightly different light (in that) it recognizes that it's
a by -right type of development but it's more of a by -right because we are
now allowing a waiver and we could endorse the concept of the theater and
we could endorse the concept of the parking but by the limitation of the
building on critical slopes, it could not be to this scale. They might
come back with something entirely different."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowling if the Commission had to give a reason for
denial. Mr. Bowling replied that because it was a by -right development
it was the Commission's duty to tell the applicant how he could comply.
Mr. Bowerman asked for staff comment. Mr. Horne responded and recommended
"If you do not wish to grant all the waivers that are requested here tonight,
I would suggest, since this is a preliminary site plan, that you deny the
site plan instead of allowing it to go to final. My reason, in my opinion...
if we do not grant the waivers in that parking area what you see on the
final will not resemble the preliminary very much so it.makes tha preliminary
that Kou are supposedly approving almost meaningless." He also confirmed
that applicant had the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the
Board.
Mr. Bowling agreed with Mr. Horne's explanation.
Mr. Horne explained that if the Commission chose to deny the plan the reason
would be that the plan does not comply with the Ordinance and the Commission
was not predisposed to grant the waivers.
Mr. Stark restated his motion and moved that The Gardens Phase II Preliminary
be denied because the proposal, as submitted, did not comply with the
Ordinance and the Commission was not inclined to grant the necessary
waivers.
March 21, 1989
Page 10
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(The meeting recessed 9:50 to 10:00.)
SP-89-08 Phil Rogers - Request in accordance with Section 20.4.1(1) of the
Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow recreational
facilities on property zoned PL'D, Planned Unit Development. Property,
described as Tax Map 46B2, Section 1, Parcel 4, is located on the north side
of Hollymead Drive across from the Silver Thatch Inn. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson explained the applicant was requesting a one -week deferral to
allow additional time "to make his case for the fire safety waiver."
The Chairman invited comment from a member of the public, Ms. Landess, who
chose to wait until the Commission heard the request before :Waking comment.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by -Mr. Jenkins, that SP-89-08 for Phil Rogers be
deferred to March 28, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
Hollymead Racquet and Fitness Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate
a 23,700 square foot racquet and fitness center on 6.7 acres Proposal is to
be served by 54 parking spaces (variance is required) and access is to be
from Hollymead Drive. Propertyq described as Tax Map 46B(2), Section 1,
Parcel 4 (part of) is located on the north side of Hollymead Drive opposite
the Silver Thatch Inn. Zoned PLD, Planned Knit Development. Rivanna
:Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson explained that this proposal was tied to the Special Permit for
Mr. Rogers and thus should also be deferred.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by fir. Wilkerson, that the Hollymead Racquet and
Fitness Center Preliminary Site Plan be deferred to March 28, 1989.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-88-1.13 County of Albemarle - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
the construction of a dam and access road in the floodplain of Walnut Creek.
Property, described as Tax map 100, parcels 33, 35, 37, and 39, is located
on the eastside of St. Rt. 631, approximately !;� mile south of its intersection
with St. Rt. 708. Scottsville Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested deferral to March 28, 1989.
:sir. Stark moved, seconded by ?sir. Wilkerson, that SP-88-113 for the County of
Albemarle, be deferred to March 28, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-89-02 Charles Pietsch - Request in accordance with Section 22.2.1(b4) of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 1.316 acres from LI, Light Industrial to C-1,
Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 649, 1� mile west of
U.S. Rt. 29. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Finding no
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or good planning
practice, staff recommends denial of ZMA 89-02 Charles Pietsch."
'M
March 21, 1989
Page 11
The applicant was represented by lair. Eton Lewis. -fie explained that the applicant
had plans for an athletic facility on this property. He indicated there was
some misunderstanding on the part of the applicant'as to exactly what
procedure to follow in making this request. (Mr. Horne explained.that the
applicant had not realized that he should have applied for a special permit
at the same time as the rezoning.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman felt the staff's assessment of the request was accurate and
the issue was "cut and dry."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-89-02 for Charles Pietsch be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial based on the reasons stated in the staff
report which were:
(1) Existing zoning provides reasonable usage -of the land;
(2) Commercial zoning on this parcel is spot zoning, is inconsistent
with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan; is contrary
to the recent denial of a commercial rezoning by Wendell Wood on
Airport Road, and is contrary to good planning practice;
(3) Approval of this request would set a precedent for general
commercial use on Airport Road, west of Route 29.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP--89-07 Winfried Adler - Request in accordance with Section 18.2.2.11 & 12
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
computer consulting, sales and service to be located in an existing single
family residence. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 129A, is
located on the west side of Rio Road (Rt. 631) between Hillsdale and Old
Brook Roads. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated: "Staff recommends
denial for the reason that this use is not consistent with the intent of
Section 18.2.2.11 and 18.2.2.12. The proposed use provides none or extremely
limited service and convenience to the surrounding residential area."
Mr. Gary Summers represented the applicant along with Mr. Adler. Mr. Summers
stated he felt the use was reasonable and that there were no "qualifiers" in
the Ordinance to exclude this situation. He referred to Section 31.2.4.1
of the Ordinance and stated that the use would have a positive influence
on adjacent property and could not possibly. be a detriment and also he
felt that the district would be further enhanced by the use, more so than
by -right uses.
Mr. Adler addressed the Commission. He explained the nature of his business,
i.e. to provide computer assistance in the form of consulting, training
and service to both businesses and private homes. He stresseddthhat most
of his work took place on the customer's site, and the business?not include
a retail store or showroom. He stressed that the property would be "owner
nccupied." He stated that office hours were typically 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. He explained that he had many customers in the
{ 2_^4
March 21, 1989
Page 12
immediate neighborhoodand offered to produce a customer list if the
Commission desired. He stated that neither the manager, nor the owner,of
Squire Hill are opposed to the proposal.
It was determined the applicant would not be residing in the building, i.e.
the building would be used solely as an office.
Mr. Summers again addressed the Commission and stressed there were be no
traffic generation after 5:00 p.m. nor on weekends. He made some comments
about access and noted that the Highway Department prefers that the
site be accessed from Hillsdale Drive. He asked for staff assistance in
accomplishing this. He noted that the apartment manager is also in favor
of access from Hillsdale Drive.. He noted that the site had constraints (e..g; setbacks)
which would make it difficult to develop residentially. The applicant
proposes to "clean-up" the existing buffer and make it a "park -like" setting.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to comment on M-r. Summers' statement that setback
requirements restrict the use of the property. Ms..Patterson responded:
"While the setbacks present a limitation (the property) could potentially
be eligible for a variance or just by -right reduction.due to fire protection
considerations." Mr. Horne added: "I think the staff is weighing pretty
heavily in terms of Bur interpretation of what the intent of the section of
the R-15 is and.tha.Ment by service uses to the high density residential
is not to allow unconnected services."
Mr. Bowerman stated that though the applicant had made an eloquent argument for
the proposed use, and the staff's interpretation of the Ordinance was
correct, he felt it was the.Commission's call as to whether this use is
appropriate in this area and conforms to what is contemplated as a commercial
use in the R-15.
Mr. Stark raised the issue of precedent. Mr. Bowling stated: "If you want
to take it out of the precedential factor you can say that there is going
to be less traffic involved." He noted that developing the property to
its maximum R-15 scale would be much more intense. Mr. Horne added: "If
there is a precedent it is for allowing commercial uses under that provision
of the ordinance that I think we all Mould admit have marginal, if at best,
connections to any service to the surrounding residential area."
Mr. Bowerman also pointed out that there is the need to accommodate more
people in the urban area and this proposal.does not meet that goal.
i1r. Rittenhouse stated he supported staff's position. .He felt themain
issue was the application of this kind of commercial use within a
residential area. He felt staff's interpretation that such use should
support the surrounding residential use is a reasonable interpretation
and this use seems to be a general broader market commercial use.
Mr. Rittenhouse *Moved that SP-89-07 for Winfried Adler be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
J OIR
March 21., 1989 Page 13
SP-89-18 Alford Associates - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.4 of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
the expansion of an existing motel (Quality Inn) in the RA, Rural Areas
zone. Properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 44, 45, and 45A, are
located on the north side of U.S. Rt. 250 approximately k mile east of
its intersection with I-64. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Mr. Pullen also noted that the applicant.was requesting an
additional year on the special permit in order to get financing in order
and solicit investors. To address this request, Mr. Pullen added the
following condition:
• Commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of
such permit within three years from the date of the issuance of the
special permit.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Alford. He stated that at the time
of the previous Board hearing the applicant had agreed to install public
water (within 2--3 yrs.) and also to improve the left and right turn movements.
Regarding the easement referred to earlier by Mr. Stark, he explained it
was a 20-foot private road to which other owners had access.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Horne commented: "The major factor that they are not meeting in the
Interstate Interchange is the access distance from (the 1,000 feet)."
He pointed out on the plan the point at which this could be achieved.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the possibility of a rezoning, as opposed to a special
permit, had been discussed. Mr. Pullen stated that a rezoning had been
discussed but it was felt that would not have been consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, because the Plan says that "lands within the Interstate
Interchange area shall be developed in accordance with the existing
zoning," and Commercial zoning would have been inconsistent with that
recommendation.
Mr. Bowerman asked: "My question is ... we're not going to set -any type of
precedent by doing this because we have an Interstate Interchange policy
that says 'x', the Board has taken action to diminish that, we're taking
further action now, s sentially, by allowing additional usage of it and
requiring additional improvements .... Inust concerned that we deviate
from a policy that the Highway Department supports as well as the County."
Mr. Horne responded: "I think, yes, you are setting some kind of precedent
here .... The precedent is not as general as I think in a totally vacant
situation where you had no prior zoning, no prior use and no existing
entrance location. If you had a totally vacant situation we probably
would not be recommending this to you. So I think your concern is
valid --you are increasing the amount of traffic on what, by definition
to our development standards of Interstate Interchange, is an inadequate
location."
March 21, 1989 Page 14
�L . Bowerman pointed out that the additional use is not existing.
Mr. Bowling stated: "There would be a precedent if you had a similar
situation but if you were involved with a rezoning request, then Z don't
think it would be.a precedent." He noted the existing use and the difficulty
with complying with the 1,000 foot requirement.
vi . Bowerman stated he did not have a particular problem with approving
the request, but he wanted to explore all the implications of an approval.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89--18 for Alford Associates be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Commission shall review the preliminary site plan, which
shall be in general accordance with the plan titled "conceptual site
plan" dated February 2, 1989.
2. Department of Engineering approval of increased usage of central sewer
system prior to Planning Commission review of site plan;
3. The proposed structure shall be subject to the development standards noted
in Section 21.0 Commercial Districts - generally, including additional
development restrictions that the Planning Commission may deem appropriate;
4. Decel lane westbound on Rt. 250 and left turn lane eastbound be extended
and approved to handle additional traffic. Extent of improvements to
be determined during site review.
5. Public water shall be extended to the property at the time the property
is included in the Service Authority's jurisdictional area for water.
6. Commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of
such permit within three years from the date of the issuance of the
special permit.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was concerned about the access issue, not only in
terms of precedent, but also in terms of safety. He asked "How do you
reconcile how substantial 'substantial improvements' need to be to make
it an acceptable situation with 400 feet vs. 1,000 feet?" He felt safety
was also a concern of the Virginia Department of Transportation. He stated
he was not willing to support the proposal "based on the fact that there is
no other easy way to get up there." He asked how lengthening the turn lanes
would ameliorate the spacing that is already there.
*Ir. Pullen responded that he felt the improvements to the turn lanes would
reduce friction on the road, and widening the entrance would improve
ingress and egress to the existing road.
There was some question as to where the 1,000 foot requirement had
originated, i.e. with the Highway Department or in the. Comp Plan?
llml
March 21, 1989 Page 15
Mr. Bowerman felt Mr. Rittenhouse's concern was a valid one.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the 1,000-foot separation was not necessarily a
safety issue, but rather was more a congestion issue (which if congestion
becomes severe enough could spill over into a safety issue). He
noted however: "It would be our position that with adequate turn lanes
to take the turning movement traffic out of the travel lanes in both
directions, then this would not in any way be an unsafe situation --that
the level of additional traffic generation here may cause some additional
side friction but the side friction is ameliorated by the full-length
turn lanes which are not there now, and it's ameliorated to the point
at which if there's additional congestion, the congestion does not go
to the point where it is an unsafe situation. If at any point we feel
that it is an unsafe situation you'd never get a recommendation out of
us to approve it, and we don't think the 1,000-foot is the minimum to
create a safe situation. ...to
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if possibly the 1,000 feet was "unreasonably large"
and if so, is a 60% reduction (to 400 feet) not excessive?
Mr. Horne felt it would be unreasonable if it was an Ordinance requirement
and was required in all cases, but it is a Comprehensive Plan design
standard which is a general guideline.
Mr. Rittenhouse again stated he felt a 60% reduction was "a significant
variation'from the goal. He also stated he was reluctant to increase
congestion in any way because of problems which may develop in the
future as traffic continues to increase.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for approval.
The motion passed (3:2) with Commissioners Bowerman and Rittenhouse casting
the dissenting votes.
Six -Year Primary Road Improvement Plan - Mr. Benish gave the staff report
and led the discussion, assiste by Mr. Horne.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked that staff include in the recommendations a reference
to a short segment of Rt. 20S which has a very dangerous curve and high
accident record. Staff was to determine the precise description of the
segment in question.
Mr. Stark moved that staff's recommendations for projects be passed on to
the Board. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "It's unanimous." (No vote was taken.)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
DS
�d�