Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 15 89 PC MinutesAugust 15, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 15, 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; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The inutes of August 1, 1989 were approved as submitted. ZMA-89-7 Virginia Land Trust - Request to rezone 5.1 acres from R-1, Residential to HI, Heavy Industrial. Property, described. as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B1, is located on the west side of Rt. 29N, approximately 1,400' south of the North Fork Rivanna River Bridge. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from August 8, 1989 Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz distributed a copy of the applicant's proffer which he explained included only one use for the property, mobile home manu- facturing and distribution. He also noted that the applicant had inadvertantly omitted three uses which should not have been omitted; • Fire and rescue squad stations. • Electric, gas, oil and.communication facilities excluding multi - legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. • Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies; public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Fritz stated it would be acceptable for the Commission to act on the request and the applicant could amend his proffer to include these three uses before the Board hearing. Mr. Fritz explained that these were public uses. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff has typically tried to ensure that public, by -right uses are maintained. He confirmed that it is staff's intent that the three public uses (described above) NOT be proffered out. 16 August 15, 1989 Page 2 fir. Bowerman stated he did not want to delay action any longer because the applicant had taken the Commission's direction literally. Mr. Tom Batchelor,.representing the applicant, agreed that the public uses should remain and not be proffered out. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Though Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commission could accept an amended proffer, Mr. Bowerman indicated he would prefer not deviating from the usual policy of requiring that a proffer be submitted to staff at least one week before Commission review. He added that he felt the confusion about this proffer had not been the fault of the applicant. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-7 for Virginia Land -Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the applicant's proffer for one use, mobile home manufacturing and distribution, and subject to the applicant's agreement to include those public uses recommended by staff. sir. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on the west side of Rt. 29 South, between North Garden and Covesville and containing approx- imately 1,186 acres. fir. Cilimberg presented tine staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District be approved as recommended by staff. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SF-89-59 All Saints Anglican Church - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a school to be located in the All Saints Anglican Church. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 91E1, is located on the south side of Rt. 250W just east of the Greencroft Country Club. Samuel 'Miller Magisterial District. Mr. reeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Carrswell. He explained that the request for the special permit is being made to help offset the cost of the mortgage. The Chairnan invited public comment. 43? August 15, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Richard Bryan addressed the Commission. His major concern was about traffic and the accident history of the road. He recalled the representations made by the church at the time it had been originally approved, i.e. that there would be only one member approaching from the west and the church would only be in use on Sunday. He asked that the Commission support its original position, i.e, that the road is only fit for use by a church, and only on Sunday. Mr. Fleirher Askew, representing the West Leigh Homeowners Association, expressed concern about the possible increase of traffic through the subdivision. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Referring to the applicant's representation that only four students would be coming from the west, Mr. Stark stated that would be difficult to control. Ms. Diehl expressed concern about traffic, particularly in terms of viewing this as a commercial venture. She added that she felt one year would be a reasonable time period so that any problems could be reassessed at the end of that time. Mr. Michel agreed. Mr. Carrswell indicated he had no objection to a one-year permit. He explained the Montessori School was currently looking for a permanent location. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that, by the applicant's own admission, this was clearly a commercial venture and not an ancillary function to the church. He expressed concern about the safety of the highway. He questioned whether the length of the permit really had any impact on the safety considerations. Mr. Bowerman noted that there was no question a right turn lane was needed, but the question is whether it is appropriate for a temporary use. He also stressed a point made earlier by Mr. Bryan, i.e. that the real hazard is traffic coming from the east trying to turn left against traffic. Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-59 for All Saints Anglican Church be recommended to the Board of -Supervisors for denial. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl stated she would support the motion because she felt that a turn lane would be appropriate for a commercial venture. The previously -stated motion for denial passed unanimously. 74 August 15, 1989 Page 4 ZMA-89-8 J.W. Wr;Lght - Request to rezone 11.4 acres portion of 48.13 acres from LI, Light Industrial to C1, Commercial. Property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D is located on the west side of Rt. 29 approx- imately 1/4 mile south of intersection with Rt. 649. Rivanna Magisterial District. additionally, the 11.4 acres fronting on 'U.S. Route 29 North and proposed for C-1 Commercial zoning is subject to the following special use permit petitions: SP-89-71 J.W. Wright - For location of a skating rink in accordance with 22.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. SP-89-72 J.W. Wright - For the location of a motel in accordance with Section 22.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. SP-89-73 J.W. Wright - For the location of a drive -through bank in accordance with Section 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report conclued: "Staff opinion is that the proffered plan of development is in general accord with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffer (in addition to proffers accepted under ZMA-86-02) and approval of ZMA-89-08." Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant was agreeable to making all improvements required to Rt. 29 North. He added that there were no comments from VDOT on the necessary* improvements to Airport Road at this time. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush. His comments included the following: --The plan is generally the same as was submitted at -the rezoning request in 1986. --The road alignment has been altered somewhat at the intersection with Rt. 29, but the location of the crossover has been fixed. --This application plan is more detailed than most because the uses shown are realistic and likely to be put in place. --The applicant has participated in the extension of sewer to this property. --The applicant plans to construct the road all -the way to this .site. --It is intended that the road be constructed with the initial phase of development once the plan can be coordinated with VDOT. --The applicant intends to develop an extensive landscape plan. --The retail area is very small. ?Ir. Roudabush confirmed "this is a proffered plan of development -- this is the plan." Mr. Joe Wright, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained the reasoning behind his proposed development. He felt that rezoning to Commercial would ensure a more "upscale" development and would attract a higher type of clientele. WN August 15, 1989 Page 5 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Frank Kessler expressed his support for the proposal. He noted that he and the applicant share the same interest in making this growth area very attractive and the proposed uses will be complimentary to the Forest Lakes development. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed. before the Commission. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Wright explained that the skating rink would be for ice skating and would be open all year round. Mr. Michel expressed confusion about VDOT's comments about Airport Road. He asked what had happened to anticipated industrial funds. for that road. Mr. Keeler responded that he thought those comments were related to the curvature of the road in that particular area. He stated that it is hoped that "we will have something from the Highway Department" before the applicant's site plan proffer as to what improvements to Airport Road will be necessary. Regarding the issue of funding for Airport Road improvements, Mr. Cilimberg explained that this project is in the Six -Year Plan but how it will eventually come to pass is unknown at this point. Mr. Stark stated he supported the request and moved that ZMA-89-8 for J.W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Bowerman asked if staff was satisfied that the access on Airport Road and the access for the University Real Estate Foundation would be separated sufficiently. Mr. Keeler responded that he felt a separation of at least 250 feet would be possible. The previously -stated motion for approval of ZMA-89-8 passed unanimously. Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-71 for J.W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Location and size are subject to ZMA-89-08. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Stark moved that SP-89--72 for J.W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Maximum of 144 units in location consistent with ZMA-89-08. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. n^ August 15, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-73 for J-W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Location and size are subject to ZMA-89-08. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Bowerman noted that there had been a lack of discussion on these items because the Commission obviously feels this is an appropriate use for this site,both in terms of the Commercial designation and the three proposed uses. ZTA-89-10 ,Tames R. Skove - Request to amend the zoning Urdinance to add the following use text in the PRD District by special use permit: 19.3.2.8 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report included the following comments: --" . staff opinion is that a golf club which must rely on membership outside of a PRD should not be viewed as an ancillary use." --"Although a golf course retains substantial acreage as open or 'green' space, it typically requires substantial grading and artificial maintenance." ---"Only one PRD has bccn approved without common open space. .:.this development was not a proven success and in staff opinion was contrary to the intent of the PRD." The report concluded: "Staff can support this request provided that any such activity which is not under direct ownership/control of the home- owners and/or relies on outside :membership or participation not be allowed to account for open space as required under Section 19.6" The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Skove addressed the Corm:tission. He stated he agreed with staff recommendations. He felt there was no logic in excluding this use from the PRD, and that, in fact, is the one district where it should be allowed. He disagreed with staff in terms of the ownership of the land in the PRD, i.e. he felt there was no difference between open space in .com:aon.and open space. He stated that the form of land ownership did not effect matters of public health, safety and welfare and should not be of concern :4 a public body. He stated he felt, based on the Zoning Ordinance, that both active and passive uses are appropriate in open space. He stated that lot owners alone could not support a golf course within a PRD. He felt issues of water quality and runoff should be addressed at the time an actual application is made. The Chairman invited public comment. 4/ August 15, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Rooker addressed the Commission. He expressed his agreement with Mr. Skove's comments. He felt the primary issue was to make sure that the open space is properly dedicated to open space use. He quoted the following from Section 4.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance: 'Ownership of Open Space - Openspace in private ownership shall be prdotected by legal arrangements sufficient to ensure its maintenance preservation for purposes for which it is intended. Such arrangements shall be subject to Commission approval as a part of the site development plan and/or subdivision plat approval process." He pointed out that the Commission has adequate control to ensure that when such plan is presented the legal arrangements are there to ensure that there's a proper interface between a privately -owned golf course and the community it's intended to serve. Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Commission. He felt it was important, in a planned community, that the developer hold and pay for the amenities for a certain period of time and that the homeowners not be "strapped" with something that could be "very detrimental down the road." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to respond to Mr. Skove's comments about the difference between open space in common and open space. Mr. Keeler explained staff feels that people who buy into a planned development have the belief that they will have some say in the overall plan for the development. He noted that conceivably homeowners could have no right to use a golf course which is allowed to be considered as meeting the open space requirement for the development. He concluded: "Simply stated, we've had one planned development that had not had common open space and, in staff's opinion, that did not turn out as was anticipated." He continued and explained that of three developments with "lots and golf courses", two had had less than desirable results. Mr. Michel asked if there was any way to ensure the perpetual maintenance of the open space. Mr. Bowling -responded: "I think it is possible to put restrictive covenants on the open space such that the residents of the PRD would have a say in any change." He stated Section 4.7.4 provides that authority. He added, however, there is no way to ensure that problems won't arise in the event a golf course should not be successful and there is the temptation to put some other use in the space. He explained that a way to do this would be "to run a restrictive covenant, to the benefit of all the lots in the development, that the land would remain open space and define what open space is as applied in the Ordinance." He stated that such a covenant could only be altered if all the lot owners agreed. He pointed out that since the proposed use would be done under a special use permit, a change in use would have to be approved by the County. Mr. Rittenhouse stated it was important to make a distinction as to how we view open space, i.e. as visual, not to be commercialized or otherwise built upon OR as an amenity for the residents of a planned community. He understood staff feels open space that is considered 4� August 15, 1989 Page 8 an amenity should be usableopen space uver which the residents of the community have some control. He felt it was important to determine whether the open space would be a usable amenity to the residents of the planned community or whether it would be visual open space which is actually commercial. He stated he was trying to decide if the Ordinance envisioned visual open space as an amenity. He concluded the central question is whether open space is supposed to be, in a planned community, owned and controlled by the residents. Referring to Section 4.7.4 of the Ordinance (as quoted previously), Mr. Bowerman asked if staff feels this gives the County ample opportunity to ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance is carried out even without the change in the terminology here to common open space, leaving the first part of this alone, i.e. does it require the necessary documents to ensure that the adjacent owners are protected? * NOTE: At this point in the meeting, the recording equipment failed. Therefore, the remainder of this transcription is taken entirely from Ms. Wills' notes. August 15, 1989 The Albemarle County Elanning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 15, 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; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The inutes of August 1, 1989 were approved as submitted. ZMA-89-7 Virginia Land Trust - Request to rezone 5.1 acres from R-1. Residential to HI, Heavy Industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B1, is located on the west side of Rt. 29N, approximately 1,400' south of the North Fork Rivanna River Bridge. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from August 8, 1989 Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz distributed a copy of the applicant's proffer.which he explained included only one use for the property, mobile home manu- facturing and distribution. He also noted that the applicant had inadvertantly omitted three uses which should not have been omitted; • Fire and rescue squad stations. • Electric, gas, oil and.communication facilities excluding multi - legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies; public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Fritz stated it would be acceptable for the Commission to act on the request and the applicant could amend his proffer to include these three uses before the Board hearing. Mr. Fritz explained that these were public uses. Mr.. Cilimberg added that staff has typically tried to ensure that public, by -right uses are maintained. He confirmed that it is staff's intent that the three public uses (described above) NOT be proffered out. NO August 15, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Bowerman stated he did not want to delay action any longer because the applicant had taken the Commission's direction literally. M.r. Tom Batchelor, representing the applicant, agreed that the public uses should remain and not be proffered out. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Though Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commission could accept an amended proffer, 'Mr. Bowerman indicated he would prefer not deviating from the usual policy of requiring that a proffer be submitted to staff at least one week before Commission review. He added that he felt the confusion about this proffer had not been the fault of the applicant. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-7 for Virginia Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the applicant's proffer for one use, mobile home manufacturing and distribution, and subject to the applicant's agreement to include those public uses recommended by staff. Mr. Michel seconded the :notion which passed unanimously. Chalk Mountain agricultural/Forestal District - Located on the west side of Rt. 29 South, between North Garden. and Covesville and containing approx- imately 1,186 acres. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District be approved as recommended by staff. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-59 all Saints Anglican Church - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a school to be located in the All Saints Anglican Church. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 91E1, is located on the south side of Rt. 250W just east of the Greencroft Country Club. Samuel :Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Carrswell. He explained that the request for the special permit is being made to help offset the cost of the mortgage. The Chairman invited public comment. August 15, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Richard Bryan addressed the Commission. His major concern was about traffic and the accident history of the road. He recalled the representations made by the church at the time it had been originally approved, i.e. that there would be only one member approaching from the west and the church would only be in use on Sunday. He.asked that the Commission support its original position, i.e. that the road is only fit for use by a church, and only on Sunday. Mr. F]etrhg Askew, representing the West Leigh Homeowners Association, expressed concern about the possible increase of traffic through the subdivision. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Referring to the applicant's representation that only four students would be coming from the west, Mr. Stark stated that would be difficult to control. Ms. Diehl expressed concern about traffic, particularly in terms of viewing this as a commercial venture. She added that she felt one year would be a reasonable time period so that any problems could be reassessed at the end of that time. Mr. Michel agreed. Mr. Carrswell indicated he had no objection to a one. -year permit. He explained the Montessori School was currently looking for a permanent location. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that, by the applicant's own admission, this was clearly a commercial venture and not an ancillary function to the church. He expressed concern about the safety of the highway. He questioned whether the length of the permit really had any impact on the safety considerations. Mr. Bowerman noted that there was no question a right turn lane was needed, but the question is whether it is appropriate for a temporary use. He also stressed a point made earlier by Mr. Bryan, i.e. that the real hazard is traffic coming from the east trying to turn left against traffic. Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-59 for All Saints Anglican Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl stated she would support the motion because she felt that a turn lane would be appropriate for a commercial venture. The previously -stated motion for denial passed unanimously. August 15, 1989 Page 4 M-89-8 J.W. Wri ht - Request to rezone 11.4 acres portion of 48.13 acres from LI, Light Industrial to C1, Commercial. Property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D is located on the west side of Rt. 29 approx- imately 1/4 mile south of intersection with Rt. 649. Rivanna ?1agisterial District. Additionally, the 11.4 acres fronting on U.S. Route 29 North and proposed for C-1 Commercial zoning is subject to the following special use permit petitions: SP-89-71. J.W. Wright - For location of a skating rink in accordance with 22.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. SP-89-72 J.W. Wright - For the location of a motel in accordance with Section 22.2.2.7 of the Zoning.Ordinance. SP-89-73 J.W. Wright - For the location of a drive -through bank in accordance with Section 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. reeler presented the staff report. The report conclued: "Staff opinion is that the proffered plan of development is in general accord with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffer (in addition to proffers accepted under ZMA-86-02) and approval of ZMA-89-08." Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant was agreeable to making all improvements required to Rt. 29 North. He added that there were no comments from VDOT on the necessary improvements to Airport Road at this time. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush: His comments included the following: --The plan is generally the same as was submitted at the rezoning request in 1986. --The road alignment has been altered somewhat at the intersection with Rt. 29, but the location of the crossover has been fixed. --This application plan is more detailed than most because the uses shown are realistic and likely to be put in place. --The applicant has participated in the extension of sewer to this property. --The applicant plans to construct the road all the way to this site. --It is intended that the road be constructed with the initial phase of development once the plan can be coordinated with VDOT. --The applicant intends to develop an extensive landscape plan. --The retail area is very small. Mr. Roudabush confirmed "this is a proffered plan of development -- this is the plan." Mr. Joe Wright, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained the reasoning behind his proposed development. He felt that rezoning to Co=ercial would ensure a more "upscale" development and would attract a higher type of clientele. August 15, 1989 Page 5 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Frank Kessler expressed his support for the proposal. He noted that he and the applicant share the same interest in making this growth area very attractive and the proposed uses will be complimentary to the Forest Lakes development. There being no further public comment, the matter was placedbefore the Commission. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Wright explained that the skating rink would be for ice skating and would be open all year round. Mr. Michel expressed confusion about VDOT's comments about Airport Road. He asked what had happened to anticipated industrial funds for that road. Mr. Keeler responded that he thought those comments were related to the curvature of the road in that particular area. He stated that it is hoped that "we will have something from the Highway Department" before the applicant's site plan proffer as to what improvements to Airport Road will be necessary. Regarding the issue of funding for Airport Road improvements, Mr. Cilimberg explained that this project is in the Six -Year Plan but how it will eventually come to pass is unknown at this point. Mr. Stark stated he supported the request and moved that ZMA--89-8 for J.W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Bowerman asked if staff was satisfied that the access on Airport Road and the access for the University Real Estate Foundation would be separated sufficiently. Mr. Keeler responded that he felt a separation of at least 250 feet would be possible. The previously -stated motion for approval of ZMA-89-8 passed unanimously. Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-71 for J.W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Location and size are subject to ZMA-89-08. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-72 for J.W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Maximum of 144 units in location consistent with ZMA--89-08. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 0^ August 15, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-73 for J.W. Wright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Location and size are subject to ZMA-89-08. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Bowerman noted that there had been a lack of discussion on these items because the Commission obviously feels this is an appropriate use for this site, both in terms of the Commercial designation and the three proposed uses. ZTA-89-10 James R. Skove - Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add the following use text in the PRD District by special use permit: 19.3.2.8 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 2Nr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report included the following comments: __II . staff opinion is that a golf club which must rely on membership outside of a PRD should not be viewed as an ancillary use." --"Although a golf course retains substantial acreage as open or 'green' space, it typically requires substantial grading and artificial maintenance." --'Only one PRD has been approved without common open space. ...this development was not a prover. success and in staff opinion was contrary to the intent of the PRD." The report concluded: "Staff can support this request provided that any such activity whichis not under direct ownership/control of the home- owners and/or relies on outside membership or participation not be allowed to account for open space as required under Section 19.6" The Chairman invited applicant comment. :sir. Skove addressed the Commission. He stated he agreed with staff recommendations. He felt there was no logic in excluding this use from the PRD, and that, in fact, is the one district where it should be allowed. He disagreed with staff in terms of the ownership of the land in the PRD, i.e. he felt there was no difference between open space in common .and open space. He stated that the form of land ownership did not effect matters of public health, safety and welfare and should not be of concern to a public body. He stated he felt, based on the Zoning Ordinance, that both active and passive uses are appropriate in open space. He stated that lot owners alone could not support a golf course within a PRD. He felt issues of water quality and runoff should be addressed at the time an actual application is made. The Chairman invited public torment. 4/ August 15, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Rooker addressed the Commission. He expressed his agreement with Mr. Skove's comments. He felt the primary issue was to make sure that the open space is properly dedicated to open space use. He quoted the following from Section.4.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance: "Ownership of Open Space - Openspace in private ownership shall be ptected by legal arrangements sufficient to ensure its maintenance preservation for purposes for which it is intended. Such arrangements shall be subject to Commission approval as a part of the site development plan and/or subdivision plat approval process." He pointed out that the Commission has adequate control to ensure that when such plan is presented the legal arrangements are there to ensure that there's a proper interface between a privately --owned golf course and the community it's intended to serve. Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Commission. He felt it was important, in a planned community, that the developer hold and pay for the amenities for a certain period of time and that the homeowners not be "strapped" with something that could be "very detrimental down the road." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to respond to Mr. Skove's comments about the difference between open space in common and open space. Mr. Keeler explained staff feels that people who buy into a planned development have the belief that they will have some say in the overall plan for the development. He noted that conceivably homeowners could have no right to use a golf course which is allowed to be considered as meeting the open space requirement for the development. He concluded: "Simply stated, we've had one planned development that had not had common open space and, in staff's opinion, that did not turn out as was anticipated." He continued and explained that of three developments with "lots and golf courses", two had had less than desirable results. Mr. Michel asked if there was any way to ensure the perpetual maintenance of the open space. Mr. Bowling responded: "I think it is possible to put restrictive covenants on the open space such that the residents of the PRD would have a say in any change." He stated Section 4.7.4 provides that authority. He added, however, there is no way to ensure that problems won't arise in the event a golf course should not be successful and there is the temptation to put some other use in the space. He explained that a way to do this would be "to run a restrictive covenant, to the benefit of all the lots in the development, that the land would remain open space and define what open space is as applied in the Ordinance." He stated that such a covenant could only be altered if all the lot owners agreed. He pointed out that since the proposed use would be done under a special use permit, a change in use would have to be approved by the County. Mr. Rittenhouse stated it was important to make a distinction as to how we view open space, i.e. as visual, not to be commercialized or otherwise built upon OR as an amenity for the residents of a planned community. He understood staff feels open space that is considered 4.z August 15, 1989 Page 8 an amenity should be usable open space over which the residents of the community have some control. He felt it was important to determine whether the open space would be a usable amenity to the residents of the planned community or whether it would be visual open space which is actually commercial. He stated he was trying to decide if the Ordinance envisioned visual open space as an amenity. He concluded the central question is whether open space is supposed to be, in a planned community, owned.and controlled by the residents. Referring to Section 4.7.4 of the Ordinance (as quoted previously), Mr. Bowerman asked if staff feels this gives the County ample opportunity to ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance is carried out even without the change in the terminology here to common open space, leaving the first part of this alone, i.e. doesit require the necessary documents to ensure that the adjacent owners are protected? ** NOTE: At this point in the meeting, the recording equipment failed. Therefore, the remainder of this transcription is taken entirely from Ms. Wills' notes. 9.i Page 9 ZTA-89 10 Jim Skove (CONTINUED) Mr. Bolling stated that if commercial uses were approved, it is possible to put covenants on open space. Section 4.7.4 gives the Planning Commission authority to put covenants on open space. If homeowners wanted any changes to the open space this could be addressed in the homeowner's "bylaws." This does not mean that a restrictive covenant could not be put on the open space for the benefit of the entire subdivision. He also noted that restrictive covenants could be put on the open space for the benefit of all lots in the development. That land would be used as open space. No lot would be used for commercial development. To do so would require signatures from all lot owners noting their approval. Mr. Jenkins noted that the homeowner upon purchasing his home would be aware of the golf course, and stated that he felt the need was for protection for the homeowners against the change in use of the open space. Dennis Rooker: Read Section 4.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which applies to open space. He noted that the Commission could require that restrictive covenants be put on the open space to insure that it remains as open space. He noted that public ownership of a golf course would fail due to the cost factor (maintenance, etc). The character of a golf course would not change because of private ownership. Mr. Keeler stated that the County has the opportunity to see that the "spirit" of the ordinance is enforced to insure that adjacent property owners are protected. The developments cited as examples preceded Section 4.7.4. Mr. Keeler also pointed out that Section 4.7.2 needs to be amended if the applicant's request is granted. Mr. Jenkins stated that he felt the Commission should defer action to allow staff and the County Attorney time to review the necessary revisions. Mr. Keeler stated that as the zoning text amendment was submitted it is the intent of the applicant to add uses to those permitted by special use permits, not to substitute for open space. He also noted that because Section 4.7.2 needs to be amended, that perhaps this zoning text amendment needs to be re -advertised. Mr. Bowerman stated that it would be easier to understand if the Commission changed "conforming" to "common." He noted that the adjacent owners have a right to use the open space. 94 Page ]0 Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he felt this was a good idea in PRD. Mr. Keeler stated that condition #1 in staff's recommendation for changes should read as follows: AMEND 19.6.1 AS FOLLOWS: 1. No less than 25% of the area devoted to residential use within any PRD shall be in common open space, except as hereinafter expressly noted. Mr. Rooker asked for clarification on how open space was to be counted. Mr. Keeler explained how open space would be calculated. Acreage in a golf course would not increase the acreage required in common open space. Mr. Rittenhouse moved for approval of ZTA-89-10 James Skove subject to the following conditions: AMEND 19.6.1 AS FOLLOWS: 1. No less than 25% of the area devoted to residential use within any PRD shall be in common open space, except. as hereinafter expressly noted. ADD TO 19.0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) AS A USE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 19.3.2. 8 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZTA-89-11 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: An amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to amend Section 30.5.2.2 as follows: C. Virginia Rt. 6 from the corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville westward through several e}9C6PitSt18t19-�39�i®Y19-ef Albemarle County. d. Route 151 in Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report noting that staff recommends adoption of this amendment subject to the approval of the renumbering by the Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Board. 9S Page I With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this request was before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors as outlined above and with approval of the renumbering by the Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Board. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ZTA-89-08 Great Eastern Management - Request to amend Section 10.2.2, Permitted uses by special use permit in the Rural Areas District of the Zoning Ordinance to add the following: Expansion of existing uses in other districts adjacent to the RA district into the RA district and/or into the setback adjacent to the RA district. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Don Wagner, representing Great Eastern Management stated that he disagreed with the staff report. He noted that any qualified applicant is aware of what can and cannot be approved by the Commission and that the public's perception that the issuance of a special use permit as a "rubber stamp" process is just that, a perception. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment. Mrs. Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters, asked that the Planning Commission deny this zoning text amendment. She pointed out the "seepage of uses" in other districts and stated that this avenue would allow applicants to have what would be denied by a rezoning request approved with this amendment. Joan Graves also asked that the Commission deny this zoning text amendment. She felt this would be a detriment to the adjacent owners and would defy the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Dr. Schulman also asked that the Planning Commission deny this zoning text amendment as he felt this would compromise public good. Roy Patterson stated that to change the procedure would be a weakening of the protection of public interest. Cindy Norden asked that the Commission deny this zoning text amendment. Page 12 Gertrude Peyton stated that to approve this zoning text amendment would give the applicant carte blanc to do as he pleases and asked that the Commission deny this petition. With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this request was before the Commission. Mr..Stark stated that he agreed with staff in that he felt the existing procedures provide adequate mechanism for expansion of uses through the rezoning process and, therefore, moved to recommend denial of this zoning text amendment to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZTA-89-0 Great Eastern Management - Request to amend Section 25.2.1, Permitted Uses by Right in the Planned Development - Shopping Center, of the Zoning Ordinance to add the following: Veterinary office and hospital. Section 5.11 herein shall apply except that the setback requirements of 9a) therein for soundproofed air conditioned buildings shall be modified to be identical to setback requirements otherwise applicable for the PD-SC zoned. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Don Wagner, representing Great Eastern Management, stated that they were making this request as they had a veterinary interested in locating in Charlottesville (Pantops Shopping Center). Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment. Dr. Schulman stated that he felt this proposal was inappropriate as a by -right use (see attached). His main concern regards infectious diseases dealt with on a daily basis which can be transmitted easily by pedestrian traffic. He felt that veterinary offices within a shopping center were not appropriate. He also noted that animals have to be walked twice daily. He noted setback requirements to adjacent properties and stated that the adjacent owners should be protected. He also noted that this could lead to mobile hospitals, as approval of this as a by -right use would not restrict this type of use. He noted that he has spoken to another veterian and he indicated.that approximately 10-15 pedestrians go by his door. In a shopping center, the amount of pedestrian traffic would be increased. He asked that the Planning Commission deny this application. 4� Page 13 Frank Kessler stated that he did not feel this should be allowed by right and that citizens like the opportunity to express their concerns. This should be allowed through the special use permit process. Joan Graves also expressed her concern with a veterinary clinic located within a shopping center and asked that the Commission deny this request. Mr. Wilkerson ascertained that although dogs are required to be walked twice daily, there is no time limit. Mr. Bowerman noted that Section 5.1.11 would be less restrictive and asked if this had been properly advertised. Mr. Bolling stated that he felt requirements of Section 5.1.11 apply to all districts and that this should be advertised. Mr. Keeler read the applicants proposal "Section 5.1.11 herein shall apply except that the setback requirements of (a) therein for sound -proofed, air-conditioned buildings shall be modified to be identical to setback requirements otherwise applicable to the Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC) district." This could go forward but for PD-SC only. Mr. Bolling stated that the proposed amendment agrees with Mr. Wagner's request, therefore, he felt this had been properly advertised. Mrs. Diehl stated her concern for adjacent property owners and read the following from the staff report; "(a) For non -soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator." Mr. Wilkerson stated his concern with sick animals be located in a shopping center, pointing out the amount of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Keeler noted that the suggested repealer of a portion of Section 5.1.11 item (a) notes that if the structure were not sound -proofed and air-conditioned, then the structure could not be any closer than 500 feet to any agricultural or residential lot line; (b) noise level at the nearest agricultural/residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; (c) is applicable to (a); and (d) applies to all cases (outlined in staff report). Page 14 Mr. Stark moved for approval of ZTA-89-9 as outlined below: 1. ADD TO 25.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - SHOPPING CENTER AS A USE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 25.2.2.5 Veter FOLLOWS: office and hospital (reference REPEALER OF A PORTION OF 5.1.11 AS 5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ANIMAL HOSPITAL a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. frt-ae-eaae-sha��-any-9�eh st�t�.ett�.tee-e�-area-be-�eeateel-e�eae�-than twe -hundred- f 2 9 9 } -feel! - to - any b. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; C. For non -soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator; d. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Discussion• Mrs. Diehl noted her concern with the above amendment noting concern regarding the relationship of a-b-c-d, and asked if there was a time limit imposed. Page 15 Mr. Keeler explained the relationship of the above -noted repealer (a-d), noting that (d) applies to all cases, and that it may be easier to understand if (a) and (c) were combined. Mr. Wilkerson asked if an outside run would be allowed since this was in a shopping center. Mrs. Diehl noted that the run could be along the adjacent property lines. Mr. Wilkerson stated that he did not believe an outside run should be allowed because of sick animals and the amount of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Stark withdrew his motion for approval, and Mr. Rittenhouse withdrew his second. Both felt that staff should have time to review the language of Section 5.1.11. Mr. Rittenhouse moved for denial of ZTA-89-09 noting that he felt this would be a detriment to public health. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion for denial. Discussion: Mr. Stark requested that the Board of Supervisors be made aware of the Commission's concerns regarding public health. Mr. Wagner stated that the Commission would be restricting all veterinary operations to locate within the Rural Areas zone if they denied this request. Mr. Jenkins stated that he did not feel the Commission had sufficient information to properly review this request and felt this should be deferred. Mr. Wagner pointed out to the Commission the number and size of out parcels within a shopping center. Frank Kessler stated that he did not feel this use should be removed from the shopping center, pointing out the size of out -parcels and the need for a special use permit to locate a veterinary office on an out -parcel. He also stated that he felt each request should be reviewed individually. Mrs. Diehl made a substitute motion to defer indefinitely the above -noted zoning text amendment. Mr. Rittenhouse withdrew his motion for denial and Mr. Wilkerson withdrew his second. lelw�l Page 16 Mrs. Diehl's motion for indefinite deferral was seconded by Mr. Wilkerson and carried unanimously. V. Wayne i1imberg Direct of Plann'ng Community Develo ment / ®/