Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 27 89 PC MinutesJune 27, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 27, 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; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Diehl. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 13, 1989 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Adwell Infosystems Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to convert an existing residence to commercial use for computer sales, service, and consulting. The entrance will be relocated to Hillsdale Drive and a parking lot installed. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 129A, is located on the west side of Rio Road, between Squire Hills Apartments. Zoned R-15 with SP-89-07. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-89-5 Ann Horner - Request to rezone 2,836 acres from R-2, Residential to C1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcel 46A, is located on the south side of Jarman's Gap Road at the intersection with Rt. 1201. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from June 13, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Keeler explained that this request had been deferred previously in order for the applicant to submit a proffer. He noted the following technical issues related to the proffer: "The applicant proffers that 'all uses by right in CO districts will be acceptable.' The County Zoning Ordinance is not a cumulative ordinance and, therefore, only CO uses expressly listed in the C-1 zone would be available." "The applicant has proffered deletion of some or all of: 22.2.1.b.17, 22.2.1.b.18 and 22.2.2.2. These are public uses and public utility types of uses which should not be deleted." 33 June 27, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Keeler explained the applicant's proffer. The applicant was represented by his. Virginia Gardner. She offered little additional comment except to say that the applicant had attempted to delete those uses which might be objectionable to the neighborhood. Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to a new piece of information which was included in their packet, i.e. a petition, the signers of which either (a) support Commercial Office zoning; or (b) do not support any commercial zoning at all. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Leonard Tosto, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He felt the re -zoning was premature. He was concerned about increased traffic and public opposition. He felt the property was not suitable for commercial development because of topographical considerations. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. lir. Jenkins stated that even though the Board has been under pressure to come up with commercial area in Crozet that is not in the watershed, he was still opposed to this property be designated as commercial because of its proximity to residential development. He noted that he did not know if he would be in support of commercial office either unless it was acceptable to the.residents. :sir. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-5 for Ann Horner be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Discussion: There was a brief discussion about the existing zoning on surrounding properties. (Two other neighboring property owners expressed their opposition to the proposal.) Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had recently denied a rezoning for a shopping center on 25OW based upon the recommendation in the Plan that the commercial be in this area. He agreed, however that the C-1 rezoning originally requested by the applicant (prior to the proffer) was inappropriate. He stated he did not see much difference in C-1 with the applicant's proffer, and CO. He felt the use was not more intense though there was greater flexibility. He concluded he could support the applicant's request for the rezoning. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. .211 June 27, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman noted that he was sympathetic to Mr. Jenkins' and the public's point of view. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt "sensitivity of development" was an issue in this case. He explained: "I think the flavor, although some of the C-1 uses have been proffered out, is still one of a speculative rezoning." He noted no particular use has been proposed. He also pointed out that some of the uses which have not been proffered out would not be allowed in CO zoning. He noted that there exists a residential development with a proposal to rezone a portion of that for some unspecified commercial use. Mr. Jenkins indicated he could not support the proposal simply because there is pressure for commercial area in Crozet, given the citizen opposition. Mr. Stark stated that if the developer had propo d a specific use that would be beneficial to the neighborhood and had "sold" the residents, then he would have been able to support the request. Mr. Michel stated he felt staff's recommendation for CO had been appropriate from the beginning. Mr. Bowerman stated he understood the concern, but he "had a problem using the Comprehensive Plan in ways that are suitable to me at the time and not trying to generally apply it in all cases, and this is a situation where we looked at the maps and we looked at the uses for Crozet and tried to understand -the requirements the Crozet community would need and we put those in place in the Comprehensive Plan. On a case -by -case basis you can rezone anything but you don't look at it in terms of the context of the Plan. I certainly recognize that there is decided opposition to this rezoning in this particular location because of the residential, but it has to start somewhere." Mr. Michel stressed that staff had mach a very strong recommendation for CO, but the applicant chose to meet it 75% of the way but did not go all the way. He felt staff's recommendation was correct because there is a difference between CO and C-1 and that difference is still evident even with the proffer. The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for denial. The motion passed (4:2) with Commissioners Bowerman and Wilkerson casting the dissenting votes. John C. Shifflett FAMILY DIVISION Modification Request - Proposal to divide t32 acres into four lots for Family Division. The proposed division necessitates a modification of regulations (Section 4.2.5) to permit septic easements for two lots. Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 12C, is located off Rt. 606 on the west side of Rt. 29N at Piney Mountain. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. 36' June 27, 1989 Page 4 The applicant had requested indefinite deferral. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the John C. Shifflett Family Division Modification Request be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Robert Hull Final Subdivision Plat - Proposal to divide an existingparcel into two lots of 6.0 and 9.0 acres. Applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 18-36f of the Subdivision Ordinance in order to allow both lots to have separate access to Rt. 743. Property, described as Tax Map 19, Parcel 28C is located on the south side of Rt.. 743 approximately ± 2/10 mile south of Rt. 664. Zoned 1U, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The main issue of discussion was the applicants request for a waiver of Section 18-36(f). The staff report explained: "As justification for a waiver of Section 18-36(f) the applicant has stated that the location of the septic system for the dwelling closest to Route 743 and the grade difference in the rear of the lot necessitates two separate entrances. While the grade differences between the front and rear portions of this parcel do exist it is possible for a single access road to serve both lots. The Engineering Department has offered one possible alignment for a joint access easement. Staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that a waiver should be granted due to existing development, topography or other physical consideration. Staff is of the opinion that approval of this waiver would constitute a special privilege or convenience. Staff recommends denial of the Robert Hull access waiver request." In addition to the staff report fir. Fritz explained:. "We recommend no conditions if you do choose to approve this as it's presented. However the applicant approached me, day -before -yesterday, with a proposal for him to voluntarily waive development rights on this parcel. He would like to retain one additional development right for Lot Y, the 9-acre parcel, to allow for a family division in the future. That would be a waiver of two development rights for this entire tract. Staff has not determined and has no way of knowing whether or not five lots can really be achieved on this and therefore doesn't have any comment on what the waiver of two lots would really mean." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Hull addressed the Commission. Mr. Hull gave a lengthy explanation of the sequence of events which had led to this request while stressing that his integrity was of uppermost importance in this situation. He explained that though it had been his intention to locate a joint entrance, topographic constraints of the property (steep slopes and location of the drainfield) make it impossible. .aG June 27, 1989 Page 5 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman noted that he had visited the site and he believed Mr. Hull's representation of the facts was accurate. He stated he did not think Mr. Hull had purposely tried to deceive the County in order to get two entrances but rather had proceeded in good faith to get a joint easement and then found he had a problem with the septic field. He also noted that locating a joint entrance as suggested by the Engineering Department would require a lot of cut and fill and the removal of several trees. He felt the applicant had done all he could do and therefore he could look favorably on the request. Mr. Hull confirmed he was willing to give up two division rights. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Fritz how this would be accommodated. Mr. Fritz replied: "There would need to be a deed with restricted development of that rear parcel (parcel Y) to one additional lot and further restricting parcel X to no additional lots and then appropriate wording on the plat. That can be done administratively." Mr. Bowling confirmed Mr. Fritz's explanation. Mr. Fritz suggested the following conditions of approval: 1. The final plat will be signed after the following conditions have been met: a. Staff approval of deed restrictions limiting further division of Lot Y to one additional lot and restricting all further division of Lot X. b. Staff approval of technical notes on plat restricting further development. Mr. Hull confirmed the purchaser of the other lot was aware that it had no development rights. He also confirmed he understood the impli- cations of giving up development rights. Mr. Jenkins moved that the Robert Hull Final Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions, with the notation that the applicant agrees to remove from this entire parcel two development rights: 1. The final plat will be signed after the following conditions have been met: a. Staff approval of deed restrictions limiting further division of Lot Y to one additional lot and restricting all further division of Lot X. b. Staff approval of technical notes on plat restricting further development. Mr. Wilkcrson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. -77 June 27, 1989 Page 6 Rio Place Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a z5,090 square foot office and retail building on 2.7 acres. The proposal is to share access to Rio Road with the recently approved Photoworks site. A total of 132 parking spaces are proposed to serve this development. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 100 and 101, is located on the north side of Rio Road, t 2/10 mile west of Rt. 29. Zoned C-1, Commercial in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended, approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Kr. Wilkerson moved that the Rio Place Preliminary Site be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations. c. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design. d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit. e. Planning Department approval of landscape plan. f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. g. Confirmation of retail and .office space square footage to insure that adequate parking is provided. Confirmation shall be made by review of building permit plans. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met. a. fire Officer final approval. 3. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. River Heights Retail Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a total of 37,OOO square feet of building area on 4.5 acres. This site is proposed to have access. to Route 29 and Hilton Heights Road, and will be served by 195 parking spaces. The proposed uses are retail and office. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D, is located on the west of Route 29, just south of the South Fork Rivanna in front of the Hilton Hotel. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. aS June 27, 1989 Page 7 The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, he confirmed that the entrance would be posted with ONE WAY signs. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the River Heights Retail Center Preliminary Site Plan be approved subjectto the following conditions: 1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. b. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design. c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit. d. Planning Department approval of landscape plan. e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. f. Confirmation of retail and office space square footage to insure that adequate parking is provided. Confirmation shall be made by review of building permit plans. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Office final approval. 3. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Solid Waste Task Force - Mr. Stark presented a very brief report of the progress of this committee. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. DS Secretary S9 �1 IJ,