HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 08 89 PC MinutesAugust 8, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, August 8, 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. Tim Michel. Other officials
present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Richard Tarbell,
Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Diehl and Stark.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 25, 1989 were approved
as amended.
ZMA-89-7 Vir inia Land Trust - Request to rezone Sol acres from R-1,
Residential to HI, Heavy Industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 32,
Parcels 22B & 22B1, is located on the west side of Rt. 29N, approximately
1,800' south of the North Fork.Rivanna River Bridge. Rivanna Magisterial
District. Deferred from August 1, 1989 Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He read the applicant's proffer
which was as follows:
"1. We hereby proffer a restriction on the types of uses of the
property that will prohibit brick manufacturing;
concrete mixing plants; manufacturing of sewage disposal
systems; manufacturing and recycling of tires; petroleum
gasoline, natural gas and manufactured gas storage; sawmills;
wood preserving operations.
2. We will expand the undisturbed buffer area from the required 30
foot width to a 50 foot width along the lot line which abuts
the Residential planned property."
The report concluded: "Staff is of the opinion that it would be inappro-
priate to approve a Heavy Industrial Zoning which has a public nuisance
potential adjacent to areas shown as medium density residential in the
Comprehensive Plan and areas shown as and currently zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Staff recommends denial of ZMA-89-07 Virginia Land Trust."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Batchelor. He pointed out
that the Comprehensive Plan calls for.this property to be zoned
industrial and he felt there would never be residential usage of the
property.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the property
to be industrial, but does not distinguish between light and heavy.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
%Y
August 8, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Bowerman asked why the.applicant had not proffered out more of the
HI uses. Mr. Batchelor responded that while the applicant (Dr. Hurt)
would be willing to remove more uses, he was not willing to exclude
everything except this use as had been suggested by staff. He explained
that these particular uses had been singled out because they are
the same as those proffered out of another rezoning for property adjacent
to an existing residential area (owned by Blake Hurt).
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Fritz to comment on the "equality" of the two
rezonings, i.e. this request and the rezoning mentioned by Mr. Batchelor.
Mr. Fritz explained that the property referred to had been rezoned
with LI adjacent to the residential and HI farther away from the residential.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed it was
possible to proffer out uses permitted by special permit as well as
by right.
There followed a discussion between the Commission and Mr. Batchelor
wherein Mr. Bowerman listed specific uses and asked for Mr. Batchelor's
determination as to whether or not they could be omitted. Mr. Nichol
asked if he had considered proffering out special permit uses. Mr.
Batchelor did not answer definitively. fir. Michel noted that the Commission
1vould prefer that the property be LI, but the applicant needs HI for
this intended use. Mr. Michel added that there were some by -right
and special permit uses that could not even be considered for this
property.
Mr. Bowerman summarized staff and the Co -mission's position as being:
"Next to a residential area, as this one is proposed to be in the
future, is that Light Industrial would be a more appropriate use
and failing to have Light Industrial, since you are requesting Heavy
Industrial for a specific use that you have, I am hearing staff and
the Commission saying that they only way we would be willing to grant
that is if you proffered everything out except that which you need
to carry on the activity that you have planned which I think has a
good value for the community. The Commission and staff are both
concerned —about having this many heavy industrial type uses next
to what we envision as expansion in the mobile home park, which
could be transitory, but could be in existence for a long time.."
Mr. Batchelor asked how a proffer could be amended. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that an applicant can request an amendment to the rezoning
which follows the same procedure.
Mr. Batchelor stated he would accept staff's recommendation and
"'proffer out everything except mobile home manufacturing and sales
as it exists in the Ordinance and have everything that is in Light
Industrial available to this property." Mr. Bowerman asked Mr.
Batchelor to take a moment to write out the proffer and submit it
to staff.
mr. Bowerman stated it was somewhat
proffer that was not entirely clear
in time for staff to review.
uncomfortable to consider a
and had not been submitted
16
August 8, 1989
Page 3
Mr. Fritz pointed out that "there are no uses by -right in the HI district
which are also duplicated by -right in the LI district." He confirmed
that this means "he is being restricted to just the one use."
Mr. Bowerman explained the Commission's options for action. There was
some discussion as to how soon the request could be rescheduled if
it were deferred.
Mr. Batchelor asked: "If I cam in with a proffer for this use and
all uses under the Light Industrial, it shouldn't take two minutes."
Mr. Wilkerson interjected: "You can't use the Light Industrial zone."
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Do you want LI or HI?" Mr. Batchelor responded:
"I want HI for mobile homes and everything else proffered out except
what's in the Light Industrial. What it does is give me Light
Industrial plus mobile homes." Mr. Bowerman stated: "We don't have
any provision for that. It's not LI zoning; the uses are totally
different between LI and HI. If you proceed with the HI proffering
out everything except the re -manufacture of mobile homes, that's the
only use you're left with unless you (request an amendment to the
rezoning)." Mr. Batchelor stated he had misunderstood because he
had been under the impression he could eliminate everything in the
HI zone exceptmobile home manufacture and still keep the uses allowed in
the LI. Mr. Bowerman responded: "They are mutually exclusive."
Mr. Fritz added: "There are no uses in the HI which are also included
in the U . "
Mr. Cilimberg explained that if the applicant were to request rezoning
to LI and then ask for this use by special permit, a zoning text amendment
would be required.because this use is not permitted either by -right
or by special permit in the LI district.
Mr. Batchelor confirmed it was hisintent to offer a proffer as
discussed to address the concerns of the Commission, with the
request remaining for rezoning to HI.
Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-89-7 for Virginia Land Trust be deferred to
August 15, 1989.
(The applicant confirmed he was agreeable to a deferral.)
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Blue Ridge HC Area - Proposal to construct 73,750 square feet of retail,
office and warehouse use on 6.25 acres. Proposed development is to have
access to Route 250 and is to be served by 385 parking spaces. Property,
described as Tax Map 569 Parcels 109B, 110 and 110A (part of)is located
on the south side of Route 250 approximately one mile east of the Route
250/Route240/Route 635 intersection. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the
White Hall Magisterial District.
16
August 8, 1989 Page 4
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz noted that all during the review
of this proposal it has been contemplated that the applicant would
connect to public water and sewer. however, the applicant is now
asking to be allowed the flexibility to use a private septic system
if it is deemed equally effective and more economically advantageous.
Staff had ncthad time to address the issue of private utilities.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. Regarding the issue
of curbing, he stated there had simply been a misunderstanding and
it was always intended that there be curbing around the entire site.
Regarding the utility issue, he explained that while public water is
available at the intersection of Rts. 240 and 250, the pressure
is far .too low to provide required fire flow, which means that
additional measures (sprinklering, etc.) will have to be provided
on the site. He felt this could be provided more effectively and
economically through a private water system. He stressed that the
applicant has never.said they were committed to connecting to public
utilities, though it is something they have triedto finesse.
He noted that it is difficult to make a final determination as to
the utility questim at this time because the tenants are unknown.
He felt time would be available during the site plan approval process
for both staff and the applicant to evaluate the possibility of
private utilities. He asked that the Commission grant approval.
of the preliminary site plan with authorization for staff to approve
the final site plan with details to be worked out, including
the question of water and sewer. He felt this was in accordance
with normal procedure. Mr. Wagner stressed that this was a by -right
proposal and no waivers were being requested. He asked that staff's
suggested condition be changed to read: "Approval of water and sewer
plans by the appropriate agency."
�Ir. Bowerman asked why the issue of public vs. private utilities had
just been raised today. Mr. Wagner explained that some of the key
people involved had been out of town.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. William W'horling addressed the Commission and asked how this project
would impact parcels 109E and 110A. MIr. Fritz explained that the
project would encompass all of parcel 110., part of 109B and part of 110A.
He stated the parcel does not impact any _A land.
Ms. Ellen Waff addressed the Commission. She asked that the Commission,
in its action, pay particular attention to three issues: (1) The
responsibility for maintenance of the detention facility; (2) Require
that the project connect to public water and sewer; and (3) Require
Commission approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, repeated
Ms. Waff's concerns.
Mr. Ken Depold and Mr. Allen Helmandollar expressed their support for
the proposal.
77
August 8, 1989 Page. 5
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The primary issue of discussion was whether to require connection to
public water and sewer at this time or to allow that determination to
be made at a later point in the process.
Regarding the issue of fire protection, Mr. Fritz explained that the
Fire Official stated that both sprinklers and fire hydrants will be
required if the fire flow is inadequate. He also pointed out that
the fire flow requirement is the same regardless of whether the
development uses public water or a private system. Later in the
meeting Mr. Fritz noted that it is not at all unusual for fire flow
to be inadequate and that is the reason for the requirement for
sprinklers and other measures.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the Ordinance allows the Commission to approve
in terms of utilities for a development of this scale. Mr. Fritz
quoted the following from the Ordinance (Sec. 32.5.6 Q : "A preliminary
plan shall contain the following information: Proposed conceptual lay -out
for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drainage facilities
including storm detention ponds or structures..." Mr. Fritz pointed
out that a large drainfield area would be required to serve this
development and because most of the site is covered drainfields would
be under parking lots.
Mr. Michel expressed some confusion about the utility question, noting
that the County recently spent a great deal of money to have public
utilities extended to this area. He also questioned why this issue had
been raised this late. He questioned whether, for a development of
this scale, private utilities should even be considered.
Mr. Fritz noted that Health Department approval will be required before the
preliminary plan is brought to the Commission.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the applicant, pointed out that the
applicant was not requesting approval for a private utility system at
this time, but only to be allowed to postpone that final decision until
the types of uses have been established. He indicated it would be
economically unfeasible to extend the water line 5,000 feet if it
still would not provide adequate fire flow. He stated the applicant
would "like to have public water and sewer if it is appropriate."
He pointed out that extending public service to this property would
require that the lines pass through a considerable amount of property
outside the growth area. He stressed that staff would not approve
any plan without either Service Authority Approval of Health Department
approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowling what control the Commission would have at
a later time if the applicant is allowed some flexibility, at this
point, in determining what type of system is preferable.
August 8, 1989
Page 6
Mr. Bowling replied that it the applicant is allowed flexibility, and
he meets all the requirements and can obtain either Health Department
approval or Service Authority approval, then the Commission could not
change the requirement at a later date. He noted that the applicant
will have to meet the same requirements as any other applicant for
any other development.
Mr. Michel pointed out that even if public water and sewer is required
at this time, without the option of a private system, the applicant
can always request an amendment to this requirement at a later time,
due to .changed circumstances ..He stated he was not willing to give
the applicant a "blanket" approval at this time. He explained that he
felt water and sewer were two very different issues. He stated he
had trouble with a major development, in a jurisdictional area, not being
served by public sewer. He indicated he was slightly more sympathetic
about the water issue. (It was at this point Mr. Fritz explained that
it was not uncommon for water pressure to be inadequate to -meet fire
flow requirements, thus the necessity for additional measures. He stated
many items must have sprinkler systems.)
Mr. Bowerman noted that this was a by -right development with no requests
for waivers and if it can meet the terms of the Ordinance it can proceed.
However, he stated his only concern was that it was his understanding
that the Board feels this development should be able to exist on this
site as it is currently zoned.. He stated he would hate to discover that
drainfields could not be located on site because of some yet unforeseen
problem and would end up encroaching on RA property. (Mr. Fritz pointed
out that the applicant would not be allowed to cross the stream,.to the
rear of the property, because it is in the watershed and no portion of any
septic system can cross a stream within the watershed.) Mr. Fritz
confirmed that he felt a drainfield would have to be located entirely
on site.
There followed a lengthy discussion related to possible.wordings for
condition (f) [Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water
and sewer plans. This approval shall include the connection of the existing
Building Supply Center to public sewer].
Mr. Bowerman stated he supported public water and sever unless the
applicant can demonstrate to the Health Department and staff that they
can provide private systems. He stated the burden of proof would be on
the applicant and if that proof could not be supplied, they would have
to install public utilities. (Mr. Rogtin indicated that was acceptable.)
He suggested the condition might be amended as follows: "Albemarle County
Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans OR Health Depart-
ment approval of alternative private system."
It was determined the Commission would review the final site plan, therefore
condition 3 [Administrative approval of final site plan.] was deleted.
Regarding the issue of the maintenance for the detention basin, it was
decided the following condition would be added: "The owner/applicant shall
enter into a maintenance agreement satisfactory to the County Attorney
for the permanent maintenance of the detention basin prior to final site
plan approval."
h�
August 8, 1989 Page 7
Another issue which generated discussion dealt with the existing Building
Supply Center referred to in condition (f). There was some question
about the existing location of the drainfield and the possible necessity
of re -location of the drainfield as a result of this development.
Though staff was under the impression that the drainfield was possibly
located on this property, Mr. Preston Stallings, owner of the property,
stated the drainfield was across the stream. 'There was some question as
to whether of not an adjoining property owner could be required to
connect to public sewer as a result of this development. It was Mr.
Bowling's opinion that they could not be required to connect. It was
staff's position that when the existing drainfield "is taken" an amended
site plan for the Building Supply Center will be required. Mr. Bowling
did not think such a requirement was enforceable. He stated that even
if the existing septic system should be disturbed, the owner still had
the right to replace it with a private system if he could meet Health
Department approval. Mr. Cilimberg stressed that staff's only intent
was to address the issue of the replacement of the adjacent property's
septic system IF it is on the property under discussion and is disturbed
by construction. Mr. Stallings pointed out that if the drainfield
should be disturbed the Health Department would ensure that it was
replaced. Mr. Fritz suggested the following amendment to the second
sentence of condition 1(f): "If the septic system for the existing
Building Supply Center is disturbed, alternative methods for septic
disposal shall be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority if
public sewer is available, or approval by staff and the local office of
the Health Department." It was finally decided, however, that since
there seemed to be a legal question as to whether or not such a requirement
could be made of an adjoining property owner, the reference to the
Building Supply Center would be deleted entirely. Mr. Bowling repeated
Mr. Stallings' earlier statement that if the septic system is disturbed
the Health Department will get involved and see that it is replaced.
Mr. Michel expressed fear that approval with condition (f) as amended
could set a precedent for any developer to expect the same language.
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed. He felt the requirement for public utilities
should remain with the applicant having the opportunity to offer an
alternative and request an amendment between now and final site plan
approval.
Mr. Wilkerson brought up the issue of possibly requiring connection to
public water and then finding the pressure is inadequate for fire flow.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that staff has stated that is not an uncommon
occurence, thus the reason for sprinklering. (Mr. Rotgin interjected
that is was an uncommon occurence to have to extend a line 5,000 feet.)
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that was an entirely different issue, i.e.
whether or not public utilities are reasonably available.
Mr. Bowerman could not re ifranbeme a oureo water foal mile and
extension of sewer for 1/3 mile7 yHe el Is case was different than
previous ones because the applicant does not know his preference, or
his needs, at this point.
q0
August 8, 1989 Page 8
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the precedent issue.
Mr. Bowling stated Mr. Bowerman had noted an aspect of this request
which makes it different, i.e. that the developer does not know
his preference at this point and is not requesting a relief from
the public water and sewer requirement. He added that while another
developer can ask for the same flexibility, the Commission has the
authority to treat each case on its own merit.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wagner when the applicant would determine
which type of utilities were preferable. Mr. Wagner replied that
gaining preliminary approval the applicant would begin "doing some
serious work with potential tenants." He stated no perk tests had
been done though there are septic fields on the site which have been
in existence for a long time.
Mr. Rotgin asked that the applicant's right to come back to request an
amendment be noted in the conditions of approval.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated the "applicant has that right anyway."
Mr. Rotgin stated he would feel better if it were in writing.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Blue.Ridge HC Area
be approved subject to the .conditions submitted by staff with the
following changes: (Note:this motion was later amended.)
Change 1(f) to read: Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans or Health Department
and staff. approval of alternative private system.
Add 1(m) to read: The owner/applicant shall enter into a maintenance
agreement satisfactory to the County Attorney for
the permanent maintenance of the detention basin
prior to final site plan approval.
Delete condition 3.
Discussion:
mr. Michel stated he could not support the motion based on his feeling
that condition (f) could possibly set an undesirable precedent and also
based on the belief that the applicant should have brought this issue
up sooner.
Mr. Kttenluisa, steted he was in agreement with fir. Michel. He noted,
for the record, that he felt "we could reasonably affect the same
results through either path.... T. think ultimately the question
will be decided on whether public utilities are appropriate there or
private utilities are appropriate." However, he stated he could support
some sort of motion for approval of the preliminary* site plan and
that his position was based on the wording of condition (f) and how
much "latitude we are willing to give an applicant at this stage
of the review process." He confirmed he could support the motion with
staff's original condition (f), without the second sentence referring
to the Building Supply Center. Mr. Michel agreed.
August 8, 1989
Page 9
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the public purpose would be served either
way because the applicant always has the right to request an amendment.
Mr. Bowling agreed this was accurate.
Mr. Jenkins agreed to amend his motion for approval and moved that the
Blue Ridge HC Area 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 to include curbing locations. Drainage shall be
designed to minimize velocity at outfalls. Trash traps shall be
installed to minimize impact on the watershed;
b. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval of right-
of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit.
This approval shall include signalization of the intersection if
recommended by VDOT;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
g. Fire Official approval of a minimum of five handicap parking spaces
located immediately adjacent to building sidewalks;
h. Fire Official approval of curb cuts to provide for handicap
access;
i. Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and fire
flow of not less than 250 gpm at 20 psi;
j. Planning Department approval of landscape plan;
k. Approval of proposed subdivision as shown on the site plan;
1. Staff approval of easement documents for off -site drainage to include
maintenance of detention pond.
m. The owner/applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement
satisfactory to the County Attorney for the permanent maintenance
of the detention basin prior to final site plan approval.
2. Administrative approval of subdivision plat.
3. Issuance of certificate of occupancy by the Zoning Administrator will
kJ be dependent on adequacy of parking. No certificate of occupancy
shall be issued until final Fire Officer approval has been obtained.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. (It was noted the applicant clearly
had the right to appeal the condition at a later time.)
<?el
August 8, 1989 Page 10
The notion for approval passed unanimously.
Palais Royale Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 12,058 square
foot office and warehouse use on 2.06 acres to be served by 21 parking
spaces. The site is located on the east side of Broadway Street;
400 feet east of its intersection with Franklin Street. Property,
described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 40M is zoned LI, Light Industrial.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed interest in the Engineering Department's
torment about adequate pavement. Mr. Muncaster, representing the
applicant, explained that after traffic study had been completed, the
Engineering Department was satisfied with the pavement design.
Mr. Muncaster offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Palais Royale Preliminary Site Plan be
approved subject to the conditions of staff:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. The western entrance radius must tie into a point 24 feet from
the center of Broadway Street and taper 50 feet to the existing
edge of pavement;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations to include construction of CG-6 at the entrance,
and CG-2 curbing on -site, if deemed necessary;
c. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans
and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering issuance ofan erosion control permit;
e. Submittal of a certified engineer's report in compliance with
Section 26.7, Performance Standards, of the zoning Ordinance;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
g. Service Authority approval of water and server plans and easements;
h. Planning staff approval of the landscaping plan;
i. Administrative approval of the final plat.
August 8, 1989
Page 11
2. A certificate of occupancy wi11 not be issued until the following
condition has been.met:
a. Fire Officer approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which.passed unanimously.
Tandem Farm Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 18 lots from two
existing parcels with average size of 11.68 acres. Lots are proposed
to be served by two new public roads with one entrance on the existing
Frontage Road. Property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcel 14B and 15,
is located along the north side of Frontage Road west of Rt. 637 and just
north of Interstate 64. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Sam Saunders. He stated the road
plans have been submitted to VDOT and the Erosion Control Plan has been
approved except for the road plans. He stated the only change between
this and the preliminary was related to a change in the entrance to
get sight distance. He stated the number of lots was the same.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Tandem Farm Subdivision Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been 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 and turn lane;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Lot Number 1
private entrance.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Thomas Tire - Request for Amendment to Conditions of Approval - Mr. Fritz
explained that the applicant was requesting relief from condition No. 3:
"A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has
been met: (a) Contribution of $7,255 for the stormwater control
provided by the County Berkmar Detention Basin." In return for deletion
of Lhis condition, the applicant was proposing downstream detention
improvements.
Q*
August 8, 1989
Page 12
-Mr. Peter Parsons, Assistant County Engineer, explained the applicant's
plan for detention improvements. He confirmed that downstream improvements
are required by both VHOT and the Ordinance and Mr. Bowerman agreed that
requiring both contributions would be unreasonable.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that Condition No. 3(a) be deleted from the preliminary
site plan approval for Thomas Tire Center dated April 11, 1989.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55.
D5
571