Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 25 89 PC MinutesApril 25. 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 25, 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. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 11, 1989 were approved as submitted. ZMA-89-4 Evangelical Lutheran Church - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 5.29 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 42A and 42C is located on the west side of Rt. 29, approximately 1/2 mile north of Hollymead Drive. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson presented the staff report. The primary issue of the review dealt with site access. The staff report explained: "Without an access solution, industrial zoning would not in staff's opinion, provide reasonable usage of the land. The Comprehensive Plan provides general recommendations for po- tential development and is not to be used singularly without other considerations. ... In summary, due to the extensive work necessary to provide access on this property's frontage, industrial zoning does not provide reasonable usage of the land. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this petition. Staff recommends a combined effort to construct a service road with this and adjoining properties, to provide access to Route 29 at a crossover or 500 feet distant. If the applicant proffers an access solution, staff could support this request." The report explained that the access .problem was the result of a lack of adequate sight distance and the extension amount of grading that would be required in Rt. 29 to obtain sight distance. Mr. Bowerman expressed an interest in knowing exactly how much sight distance was lacking. Ms. Patterson was not able to answer this question definitively but noted that the Highway Department representative had stated that the distance was "so far off that it would require a great deal of cut on Rt. 29." The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Stewart, Pastor of the Church. He explained it was not the applicant's intent to build a church on the site. He agreed with staff's assessment of the access -91�47 April 25, 1989 Page 2 problem. He explained that the applicant was trying to work out a "swap" arrangement with the property, i.e. an adjacent property owner was interested in trading another piece of property for this property, contingent upon the property being rezoned. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had investigated the possibility of access via an adjacent property. He explained that the Commission could look more favorably on the request if an acceptable access could be proffered. -Mr. Stewart responded that the adjacent property owner "wants this piece of property." He added that negotiations had not been profitable. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Sylvia Guengerich.asked if it might be possible to rezone the property subject to safe access being obtainable. v1r. Bowerman responded: "One of the things the Commission.could do, I believe, would be to re -zone it subject to Highway Department approval of a commercial entrance which you can't get on this site. The zoning would be recommended for change to Industrial but it couldn't be developed until access could be granted from another parcel. It would be reflective of what the Comprehensive Plan calls for and actually reflective of what probably will happen to the site anyway." yir. Cliff Anderson addressed the Commission and noted that he felt Mr. Bowerman's suggestion would be a practical approach. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Air. Bowerman stated he was trying to look favorably on the application because this area is designated for industrial use and will never develop as a residential lot. However, he stated: he was uncomfortable with the Commission being put between two different parties "in terms of our decision and our decision references what those two parties are going to ultimately decide." He added: "But I am sympathetic to the applicant because I think it problably will be, or should be, industrial --it's just a.question of when and I think if it's subject to Highway Department approval, which a commercial entrance would be, then it can't develop until such a time as safe access is granted, whether it's by lowering the grade on Rt. 29 or by getting access through another site. It's immaterial to me which one of those happens as long as it happens. I'm sure no site plan could be approved there until it did happen." Ms. Patterson stated staff was in favor of some type of service road which would limit the number of entrances and serve adjoining properties. It was determined the access issue would have to be addressed in the form of a proffer since conditions could not be attached to rezonings. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission_ might have no choice but to deny the request at this time, but the applicant, having heard the Commission's comments, could change the nature of the request before the Board hearing. S418 April 25, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman was uncertain about the legality of a proffer which would depend on adjacent properties if the applicant did not own those properties, particularly if there was no intent on the part of adjacent property owners, at this time, to cooperate on the access issue. Mr. Bowling responded: "You can't. (This applicant) will be willing to give you an access easement, or whatever, but it's still up to the adjacent property owner." Mr. Bowerman asked: "Is the willingness of the applicant not to develop a particular property until such a time as access is granted over an adjacent parcel, even though he has no control over it --does that mean for all time that that parcel can't be developed unless it actually proceeds?" Mr. Bowling replied: "It means that the applicant voluntarily put the condition on the rezoning and I think it's viable. He can come back in and say 'Well, it's been a long time and it's not working out, please change it. ... Please relieve me of the burden that I imposed on myself."' Mr. Rittenhouse questioned the value of a proffer. He stated: "If the property is rezoned, it doesn't imply that it can be developed. For it to be developed they would have to obtain a commercial entrance permit from VDOT in any event, so I am losing site of what the value of the proffer is on access." Mr. Bowerman felt the problem with approving this request was that "we haven't rezoned things with an open condition like that." Mr. Keeler pointed out that without a commercial entrance "this property has no use. You would be placing a zoning on it where the property owner would have no reasonable use of the land." Mr. Bowerman asked what staff had meant by the reference to a proffer. Ms. Patterson explained: "What we intend is that a more specific proposal be developed so that we'd know generally where access would be taken but that it could be taken at a suitable location that could achieve minimum standards for sight distance." In answer to Mr. Rittenhouse's previous question about the value of a proffer, Mr. Bowerman explained: "One of the things that we would insure if the applicant made a proffer before the Board limiting access through an adjacent property --or the proffer would be not to access Rt. 29 directly --the point of that would be if ultimately it was to develop we would control access points to Rt. 29." Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Commission had not determined whether the contract purchaser of the property owned the adjoining property, i.e. is it within the purchaser's power to provide access to the property? The applicant stated the purchaser did not own the adjacent property. He added that the purchaser is aware of the sight distance problem. April 25, 1989 Page 4 !Ir. Bowling stated that he thought Mx. Keeler's comments were correct. He explained: "Even if you do have a proffer ifthe end result is that the landowner is unable -to get access through an adjoining parcel and he comes back to you and says 'I can't get access' at that point you'd be hard pressed not to let him have a commercial highway entrance if he could meet the requirements." Mr. Bowerman stated the risk would be, if the zoning were already in place, that the Highway Department would be mandated to give them access. Mr. Bowling stated: "They'd have to meet the Highway Department requirements, whatever they were for a commercial access." Mr. Bowerman interpreted that the Highway Department had to grant access as a residential property, but they do not have to grant commercial access without the sight distance. Mr. Bowling stated that was correct. tiIr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-4 for Evangelical Lutheran Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. :Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman noted that the reason for denial was because rezoning would result in the property being potentially undevelopable without the cooperation of a third party. Mr. Bowerman again asked that more information about actual existing sight distance be made available to the Board. The motion for denial passed unanimously. Branch -lands Shopping Center Phase II - Request for Site Plan Extension - Mr. Keeler explained that some matters had come up which were beyond the control of the applicant and thus a three --month extension was being requested. Ms. Roxenne Hill was present to represent the applicant but offered no significant additional comment. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Branchlands Shopping Center Phase II Site.Plan be granted a 3-month extension. The motion passed unanimously. Capital Improvements Plan Priority List - Ms. Scala led the discussion. Ms. Scala.confirmed that an attempt had been made to put the safety and mandated items first. The Commission asked that project 20, Meadowcreek Parkway, be ?roved to position 14 to emphasize the Commission's feeling that this project should move forward. A April 25, 1989 Page 5 The Commission also asked that a memo be forwarded to the Board requesting that the Board attempt to negotiate fair -share funding from Fluvanna, Nelson and Buckingham Counties for the Scottsville Rescue Squad.' It was determined there was no public comment. No action was required. Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood Study - Mr. Benish led the discussion. Mr. Michel asked why the Henderson -Heyward property was still shown on the map when it should have been removed. Mr. Rittenhouse expressed confusion as to what was being asked of the Commission at this time, i.e. a recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan or merely an endorsement of the study? Staff's memo was somewhat confusing on this issue. It was determined the Commission was being asked to comment on the study, particularly the map and staff's statement about the exception to the roadways. Mr. Bowerman attempted to explain how the study had been conducted. In response to Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Benish explained that the current Comprehensive Plan shows the entire area below 164 and north of Sherwood Farms as low density. Ms. Diehl expressed a great deal of concern about the fact that the area south of I-64, north of Sherwood Farms,was recommended for medium density since there was no viable road to serve the area. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed that continuing to show this area as medium density without a road was not consistent. Other commissioners agreed it would be difficult to develop this area without a through road. Ms. Diehl noted that the densities had just been assigned with the recent Comprehensive Plan review and it seemed unreasonable to change them at this time, particularly if adequate roads were not included. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the study should not be amended somewhat before being.recommended for adoption and before an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is recommended. Mr. Bowerman again attempted to explain the process surrounding the study. He concluded: "Nothing happens to our Comprehensive Plan at this stage until we hold formal public hearings to change the plan if the Pact agrees." It was finally determined the Commission was not prepared to make a recommendation on the study until the following issues had been addressed further: (1) Clarification of the status of the Heyward - Henderson property; (2) Hold the medium density back to Rt. 631; and (3) Re -word some of the confusing language in the study. d.157 April 25, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Keeler noted that he had not been suggesting that the language in the study be changed, but rather that whatever the Commission recommends to the Board as amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan "ought to be the land use map and whatever descriptive material goes along with this map." It was noted that the Commission was in agreement with staff's deletion of the two alternative north -south connectors until further studies were conducted. Crossroads Shopping Center - At Ms. Diehl's request, it was decided the final site plan for this project would be reviewed by the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. DS John Horne, Secretary Js6�+