HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 02 88 PC MinutesFebruary 2, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 2, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John
Pullen, Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; and
Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of January 19, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
Wind River Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 16 single family residential
lots with an average lot size of 6.3 acres, from 95.7 acres (7 parcels).
The development will be served -by internal public roads, with a single
entrance onto Rt. 614. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 614, adjacent
to the Mechums River near Owensville. Tax Map 42, Parcels 46, 46A, 46B;
Tax Map 43, Parcels 4E through 4H. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Jack Jouett
Magisterial District. DEFERRED JANUARY 19.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the plat
subject to conditions, including the addition of 1(d): "Health Department
approval of the final plat."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Commission. His comments included the
following:
--He was shocked at the implications by neighbors that favorkism had
been shown the applicant,
--The applicant has complied with every rule and regulation established
by the County and the State, and has even gone beyond requirements
of all governing bodies, including taking steps to preserve the
rural character of the land.
--He did not believe the citizens of Albemarle County understood the
development process.
--He reviewed county regulations for development of this type.
--The preservation of the rural character of Albemarle County is an
integral part of the developer's philosophy.
--The applicant is voluntarily placing a 150-foot setback on the
property bordering Garth Road.
--The applicant is voluntarily placing a 100-foot private conservation
easement on all the lots that border the Mechums River.
--Although 35 lots are allowed by -right in Wind River, the developer
is creating only 16.
--He felt that opposition that has been voiced was the result of
misconceptions by the public.
!sa
February 2, 1988
Page 2
The Chairman invited public comment.
The.following neighboring property owners and residents of the Garth Road
area addressed the Commission: Mary Bergin; Gabrielle Copen; Forbes Reback,
representing John and Mary Scott Birdsall. Their concerns included the
following:
--Degredation to the watershed.
--Steepness of lots in relation to the location of septic fields.
--Property slopes to the Mechums River and thus will drain eventually to
the watershed.
--Potential for long --range problemsthat this type of development will
foster.
--Not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law should be
considered.
--Wrong project in the wrong place.
All those who spoke urged the Commission to delay action on t*�e application
in order to give Commissioners a chance to visit the property and to allow
the applicant time to re -think the development, particularly those lets on
the steepest areas.
Mr. Reback also asked the Commission to address two additional issues which
had not been mentioned in the staff report: (1) Does a right-of-way still
exist for an old public road which.used to run through the property; and
(2) The location of the old 'pit. Harmony -Meeting House and graveyard.
fix. Reback also requested a written opinion from Mr. St. John on the "'kernel"
issue, i.e. what "enables you to flesh out your kernels with land from
adjoining parcels?" He stated he did not believe this was the original
interpretation of the Deputy County Attorney.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it was regrettable that aspects of this review
had become emotional. He stated the commission did not view this as an emotional
issue. He explained that the question before the Commission is "Do we have
a legal preliminary plat which meets the requirements of the Ordinance. which
has received the review and approval of various members of the County staff;
whether we trust in the.staff to carry out the ordinances, and failing to
find any overriding public detriment to the approval of this site, it
would become a legal preliminary plat." Mr. Bowerman stated he did not
think a delay in reviewing the plat was warranted.
Mr. Cresswell, representing the County Engineer's Office, confirmed that
it has been determined that a building site exists on each parcel. He added
that the plat does also appear to meet all ordinance requirements in relation
to slopes.
it was determined that the Health Department had giver preliminary approval
to the plat. fir. Keeler stated that condition 1(d),(Health Department
approval of the final plat), had been added due to the revision of
a couple of lots.
'Ar. McGee, attorney for Mr. Sieg, owner of the property, addressed the
issue of the old public road and the A. Harmony Meeting House which had been
raised by Mr. Reback.
/6/
February 2, 1988 Page 3
Mr. McGee stated z road had traversed the middle of the property. However,
he indicated that after researching the matter, there was no doubt in his
mind that the road was closed. Regarding the Mt. Harmony Meeting House,
he stated that 1 acre of land was deeded to the Meeting House in 1840,
but the property was abandoned in the late 1800's when the building was
destroyed. He explained that at that time the Calhoun's, the owners of
the property, had treated the property as their own and have paid real
estate takes upon it. He stated the evidence was so conclusive that a
title insurance company has insured the present owner.
Mr. Horne stated that prior to staff approving any final plat, all
documents related to the confirmation of these two issues will be
submitted and reviewed by the County Attorney.
Mr. McGee stated that a small cemetery does exist which will be
preserved and will be shown on the plat.
Regarding the "kernel" issue referred to by Mr. Reback, Mr. Bowerman stated
the county staff has used the County Attorney's interpretation of the
issue as their guideline, and the issue is not before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated that she too was concerned about watershed issues and
topographic constraints of sites. However, she stated this preliminary
plat does meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Stark indicated his agreement with Ms. Diehl and moved that the Wind
River Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calculations;
b. The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations, commercial entrances, and right
turn lane;
c. Approval of an erosion control plan;
d. Health Department approval of the final plat.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
McLane Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 4 lots with an average lot
size of 2.2 acres from an existing 38 acre parcel. A public internal road is
proposed to serve these lots. Property, located on the south side of St.
Rt. 600, approximately one mile from it's intersection with St. Rt. 641.
Tax Map 21, Parcel 34. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roudabush who stated the applicant
had no objections to the suggested conditions of approval.
AT-2
February 2, 1988
Page 4
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the McLane Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. County* Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations:
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Planning staff approval of technical notes on the plat.
2. Staff request administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-87-17 Four L Partnership and/or W. A. Lynch Roofing - Request in accordance
with Section 27.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 16.061 acres from
R-1, Residential to LI, Light Industrial to allow for a contractor's office
and equipment storage yard. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 13
is located on the east side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) and has access
to St. Rt. 20, approximately 1.25 miles north of its intersection with Rt. 742
and Rt. 20 on either road. Scottsville Magisterial District
Mr. Horne gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the petition
for the following reasons:
1. The request is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Land
Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The request is inconsistent with some recommendations of Chapter 10
Comprehensive Plan Standards relative to industrial uses.
3. Staff cannot distinguish between this request and prior petitions
reviewed for the Doggett property. unless such distinctions can be
made, approval of this petition in staff opinion could be viewed as
arbitrary and capricious.
4. During current review of the Comprehensive Plan, development interests
have complained as to the availability of residential land within
growth areas. The Planning Commission has proposed expansion
of the Urban Area to maintain holding capacity and in response to
this complaint. In the past, staffhas cautioned as to loss of
residential capacity due to the underdevelopment or rezoning to
commercial/industrial. Staff will give more emphasis to this concern
in future rezonings.
Mr. Keeler pointed out the location of the property and zoning on surrounding
property.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roudabush who made the following comments:
-This is a family business which has been in existence since 1957.
--The business has no "walk-in" business, but rather is primarily
by contract.
40
February 2, 1988
Page 5
--Materials used in the businesswill not cause any environmental problems.
--Most of waste material is re -cycled.
--This site meets all the criteria for the operation of this business.
--There will be no traffic impact on Rt. 742. Anticipated traffic from
this business would be no greater than from residential development.
--The applicant does not anticipate use of the 20-foot access easement
to Rt. 20.
--The existing development along Rt. 742 is primarily non-residential,
or institutional.
--The parcel which lies between the Doggett property and this property
is currently zoned, and used., as Light Industrial.
--This application is different from the Doggett application in that it
is not a speculative re -zoning, and alBo duttto changes in other
circumstances due to the taking of the?poperty by the Albemarle
County Service Authority for the errection of a two million gallon
water storage tank.
--Whether the Comprehensive Plan reflects it or not, the use of the
property, "immediately next door to this tract, and one tract removed,"
is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
--The Service Authority has indicated additional use of the Doggett
property as a maintenance yard for the Authority.
In response to why .the applicant had chosen this piece of property, Mr.
Roudabush cited as reasons: easy access to Charlottesville, easy access
to Rt. 64, presence of public utilities, and the family was raised in
the vicinity of this property.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
--Ms. Donna Hill objected to the petition because she felt it did not
fit in with the residential area immediately surrounding the property.
--Ms. Connie Houchen, owner of Lake Renovia, expressed concern that there
are no specific setbacks for buffer zones.
--Mr. Bob Sleeth expressed concern because this property slopes toward
his creek and well.
--Mr. Allen Martin, an adjacent owner, expressed his objection to the
proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Ms. Houchen's concern about setbacks, Mr. Bowerman explained,
"The same -setbacks would be required from any light industrial rezoning
whether this applicant or any other." .
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John to comment on the. Commission's prior action
on the Doggett rezoning and then the subsequent taking of that property by
the Service Authority.
Mr. St. John responded: "What the Service Authority did is a very substantial
change in circumstance which wipes out the effect of the precedent. ... I think
Mr. Roudabush's argument is sound. The Commission's and the Board of Supervisors'
denial of that rezoning is no longer a precedent. It's what's there now that
February.2, 1988
Page 6
counts. You've got to look at the facts realistically. ... What the Board
did in denying that rezoning is of no effect now. It has been totally
changed by the action of condemnation by the public authority."
It was determined Mr. St. John was somewhat confused about the exact location
of the applicant's property. However, he concluded: "Nevertheless, I don't
think the Doggett denial has any weight as a precedent now."
In response to Mr. St. John's question .to staff, Mr. Horne stated that the
Service authority's water tanks had been reviewed by the Commission and
approved. Mr. Keeler added that they are permitted in all zoning districts
and is not an industrial zoning.
Mr. St. John stated he understood, but added "Water tanks and a maintenance
yard are certainly not residential uses by anybody's definition."
Mr. Horne stated that no :maintenance yards have been approved or passed under
456.
Mr. St. John again stated he felt Mr. Roudabush's argument was sound, though
that did not negate the argument of the adjoining property owners. He stated
"It only negates the precedent that was set by.the denial of the Doggett
rezoning."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that both the Board and Commission had knowledge of
the potential use of the Doggett property by the Service Authority at the
time of that review. Mr. reeler also explained that the selection of the
site by the Service Authority was more of an engineering determination than
any other land use -type consideration.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that though the Service Authority had needed only
11 acres for the water tan1k., they had acquired the entire Doggett property,
11.6 acres.
Ms. Diehl stated that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as one of
the primary growth areas. She stated, "I have concerns that we attempt to
maintain the integrity of this zone as best we can." She stated she could
not support the rezoning request.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-87-17 for Four L Partnership and/or W.A. Lynch
Roofing be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed (4:1), with Mr. Stark casting
the dissenting vote.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 17, 1988.
SP-87-109 Albemarle County Fair, Inc. - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(42) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a county fair to be located
on approximately 50 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas and located within an
agricultural/forestal district. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel
3 is located on the north side of Rt. 692 approximately 600' west of its
intersection with Rt. 29S. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
i er,
February 2, 1988
Page 7
Mr. Keeler supplemented the staff report with additional comments about
traffic problems and traffic control.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that significant changes in the usage of the site by
the applicant would require an amended site plan, otherwise thepermit
would-be in effect for five years. He added: "We would exercise the
normal latitude we have under the zoning ordinance to approve amendments
to the site plan, but any really substantial change (would come back to
the Commission)."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Kilday who offered no additional
comments.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
--Mr. David Ben Royan expressed concern about traffic and noise problems.
He suggested that the fair be given a permanent home in the new Southern
Park. He encouraged that the permit be reviewed each year.
--Mr. Richard Carter, representing Mr. Sutherland, an adjoining- property
owner, expressed concerns about traffic, loss of the rural character of
the area, poor soil which will cause problems in the event of wet
weather. He asked that the permit be approved for only one year.
He stressed dangerous traffic problems that will occur.
--Mr. David Bass expressed concern about traffic problems and potential
for serious accidents. He felt a one-year permit was appropriate.
--Ms. Belle Woodson was opposed to the fair being permanently located
on this site. She felt this would devalue her property.
--Mr. John Moore spoke in favor of the application.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he would be in favor of a one or two year permit.
He felt there could not be a more appropriate place for a county fair
than the rural area, on a four -lane major highway.
Ms. Diehl agreed that a one or two year permit would be appropriate. She
expressed concern about traffic, but stated that could be addressed at the
time of the site plan. She also expressed concern about the hours of
operation and felt that 11 p.m. was excessive given the location.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he would be in favor of a one-year permit.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-109 for the Albemarle County Fair, Inc. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. This.special use permit is issued for a period of one year beginning
in 1988 and ending in 1989. Such events shall be limited to 6 con-
secutive days excluding Sunday. Hours of operation shall be limited
to 4 PM to 11 PM Monday through Friday and 9 AM to 11 PM on Saturday
with no operation on Sunday ('Operation" shall mean the period of time
ATZ
February 2, 1988 page 8
during shich the fair is open to the public and shallnot include set up,
dismantling, and restoration activities). This permit is issued for the
conduct of the Albemarle County Fair by Albemarle County Fair, Incorporated
and shall not be used for any other event requiring special use permit
pursuant to Section 10.2.2.42 and 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant shall notify the Albemarle County Police Department,
Virginia Department of Health, and servicing fire and rescue squads 60 days
prior to the event and shall make adequate arrangements for the conduct of
the event with each of these agencies.
3. The applicant shall submit a preliminary plan in accordance with Section
32.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for Planning Commission review no later than
June 1, 1988. Such plan shall be reflective of: comments offered in this
report; Virginia Department of Transportation comments of January 21, 1988
relative to access to Route 692; and Virginia Department of Health comments
of January 13, 1988. (Note: Staff commented that it was staff's intent
that VDOT comments be as modified in a meeting held February 1, 1988.)
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Mr. St. John suggested that it be made clear that. "After the year
it would be reviewed again; it's not your intent to say that it will
absolutely terminate after a }Tear."
Mr -Bowerman stated: "It doesn't foreclose the possibility of them coming
back and re -applying for another special permit or for a special permit in
a different location. It doesn't question their right to do that does it?"
Mr. St. John replied: "Not if you don't intend.for that to happen."
Mr. Wilkerson added: " I. think based on the conversation, this addresses
concerns, and if there are problems they can come back and at that time of
the SP we'll try to address those concerns." Mr. St. John stated: "It would
be new business at that time." Mr. Wilkerson responded: "Right."
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with Mr. Wilkerson and added: "I don't think
we're precluding a re -submittal of this and there is no prejudice on the
part of myself."
Mr. Jenkins stated his question was: `Would this in fact kill the fair
in that location." Mr..Horne explained: "The effect of your motion, .if
passed, this special permit will expire in one year. It must be reapplied
for.". Mr. Jenkins.stated he understood, but asked if this would "kill it
for next year." Mr. Horne replied, "No." However, Mr. Keeler replied,.
"We can't answer that because it would require another approval next year."
Mr. Jenkins again stated he understood, but he pointed out, "There are
other people involved here rather than just us." Mr... Horne indicated
he understood Mr. Jenkins concern and replied: "Oh I see; in their
mind does this kill it for a second year?" fir. Horne did not know the
answer to this question.
Mr. Kilday responded: "lie had not asked for the five year special use
permit. Staff recommended that since we had a five-year lease. We .asked
for the five-year lease due to the expenses. We'll do everything we can
February 2, 1988 Page 9
to comply with that permit hoping for a renewal."
Mr. Jenkins stated that Mr. Kilday's response answered his question.
Mr. Scott, the son of the owner of the property, addressed the Commission.
He pointed out that on -site improvements will take 80% of the organization's
funds which may mean that it will not be possible to re -locate.
Mr. Bowerman stated that all points were well taken. He added that it
was incumbent upon the fair to do the best job they could.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for
approval of SP-87-109 for a one-year period.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 10:00 to 10:15.
ZMA-87-19 Republic Capital Corporation - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately 25.6 acres from R-1
Residential to HI/LI, Heavy/Light Industrial to allow for warehousing
facilities. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22 is located on the
west side of Rt. 29N between Airport Acres Subdivision and Northside Industrial
Park. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
the proffers of the applicant.
Mr. Keeler read the applicant's proffer..
Mr. Keeler added that though staff had recommended approval of the previous
application, it is felt that this proposal offers more in terms of protection
to Airport Acres.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Blake Hurt, the developer, addressed the Commission. He stated the
application had been changed in response to concerns of the Commission,
the Board of Supervisors and the residents of Airport Acres. He stated
the primary change was to put in a substantial buffer of Light
Industrial.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
--Mr. Carroll Good, a resident of Airport Acres, expressed his opposition.
He felt the rezoning was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Other concerns were: pollution of wells in subdivision and traffic
increase.
--Ms. Valerie Rottenthawler expressed concern about the increased danger
to school buses caused by industrial traffic.
--Ms. Jean Jarvis expressed her opposition to the proposal. Her concerns
included groundwater pollutions noise, lighting problems, devaluation
of property, and opposition to the Comprehensive Plan.
iA
February 2, 1988
Page 10
--Mr. Fritz Britton asked why it was necessary to rezone this property. He felt
there is already enough industrially -zoned property in the county.
--Ms. Treva Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters, read a
statement of support for the proposed rezoning. The reasons for
support included:(1)the proposal is in compliance with the long-range
goals for this area; and (2) the applicant has attempted to alleviate
concerns of the residents of Airport Acres by providing a transitional
area and has addressed the road access problem.
--Ms. Virginia Gardner spoke in favor of the application.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Keeler quoted the following section from page 171 of the Comprehensive
Plan related to land use in the Hollymead community:
Land Use and Public Facilities:
The basic premise of land use planning for Hollymead Community is
to avoid the division of residential portions of the community by
Rt. 29N. Therefore the area west of Rt. 29N is planned for
industrial use as an employment area for the future. Existing
residential areas on the west side of Rt. 29 North in the
northern portion of'the community are recognized as residential
areas on the Land Use Plan. One small undeveloped area north of
Cedar Hill Trailer Park is recommended for medium -density
housing.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that though he had a great deal of.sympathy for
the residents of Airport Acres at the time of the previous request, he
had voted for the rezoning. He felt the present application was more
acceptable than the former application in terms of its impact on the
residential neighborhood. He stated he would support the application
based primarily on the fact that the Comprehensive Plan intends for
this area to be industrial.
Ms. Diehl stated she continued to support the application. She felt the
current application wasan improvement over the original one and that
it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-87-19 for Republic Capital Corporation be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the proffers submitted
by the applicant.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The natter was to be heard by the Board on February 17, 1988.
ZMA-87-20 Virginia Land Trust - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 3.023 acres from LI, Light Industrial to HI,
Heavy Industrial.to allow for a mobile home sales park. Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E is located on the east side of Rt. 29N, north and
adjacent to Badger Powhatan. Rivanna Magisterial District.
February 2, 1988
Page 11
Mr. Keeler stated the applicant had submitted a proffer on the rezoning
request which dealt primarily with permitted uses. He quoted the following:
"Virginia Land Trusts proffers deletion of certain HI uses for
that parcel known as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E, effectively
limiting uses to the following:. (1) mobile home sales; (2) uses
permitted in the HI zone which are permitted by right in the LI
zone; (3) uses permitted in the HI zone which are permitted by
special use permit in the LI zone, subject to special use permit
approval."
Mr. Keeler explained: "The net effect of this rezoning, if you accept
these three proffers is actually to limit the number of uses that would
be available to this property because some Light Industrial uses would
no longer be available, and'to permit one new use on this property
which is -mobile home sales which has been situated on this property
twice in the past."
Mr. Keeler stated that the last two paragraphs of the applicant's letter
addressed the issue of access to the property and did not constitute a
proffer.
Mr. Keeler stated that staff was recommending approval of the rezoning
with the acceptance of the proffer as previously read.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Virginia Gardner represented the applicant. She offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that 2MA-87-20 for Virginia Land Trust be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the proffer
as read by Mr. Keeler.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
This matter was to be heard by the Board on February 17, 1988.
Crozet Replacement Elementary School - Review for conformance with Comprehensive
Plan. Review of site proposed to be located on a portion of Braeburn Farm
along St. Rt. 810, designated as Tax Map 56, Parcels 64D and 66. Approximately
21 acres. Currently zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff finds the
proposed site to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends
favorable action by the Commission."
The Education Department was represented by Mx. Bill Sugg, Facilities
Coordinator, who offered no additional comment.
!G 0
February 2, 1988 Page 12
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Christine Baker spoke in favor of the proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the proposed site for the Crozet Replacement
Elementary School be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Premier Plaza Site Plan - Issue of parking lot lighting.
Mr. Keeler distributed a copy of a letter from Mr. Gorian,.a neighboring
property owner, who was appealing a condition of the preliminary plat, and
asking that the Commission require that the exterior lighting be turned
off at night.
Mr. Keeler explained that it was the County Engineer's intent to approve
even more limited lighting than was originally anticipated, i.e. no more
than 1/2 foot candle spillover will be allowed beyond the edge of the
site as opposed to the adjoining property line. He stated the County
Engineer will also require that the lights be shielded from the.residential
area.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that Mr. Gorman had suggested that
the lights be turned off at the time of the preliminary plat review, but
the Commission felt they could not make such a requirement at that time
and, though the applicant had expressed a willingness to cooperate with
neighboring property owners, he had expressed concern about the safety.
issue and possible liability problems.
Mr. William West and ?sir. Gorman were present at the meeting. Both compared
the lighting at similar businesses and stated the lighting on the Premier
site was much greater and was even greater (3 times) than adjacent
buildings.
Mr. Robert Bruin was present to represent Premier Plaza.
There was a brief discussion by the Commission of lighting measurement.
-Mr. Keeler pointed out that there has never been a specific lighting limitation
placed on a site plan. Mr. Keeler also advised Mr. Gorman that if he had
complaints about lighting on existing buildings, he should contact the
Zoning Administrator who enforces such issues.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt 1/2 foot candle was reasonable.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that all that was being asked was that
the Commission require that the exterior lights be turned off.at a certain time.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not think the Commission could control such a
requirement.
February 2, 1988
Page 13
It was the consensus of the Commission that no requirement be made to
turn off the exterior lights.
Mr. Stark moved that the Commission's prior approval, with accompanying conditions,
stand.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
It was the Commission's desire that ALL outside lighting not exceed 1/2 foot candle
over the property line.
LC Parrish Finalat — Determination not to pursue subdivision violation.
Mr. Keeler explained that'in early 1980 a subdivision plat proposing division
of a parcel of land into three lots was submitted for Planning Commission
approval. During review of the plat the staff and County Attorney's office
discovered a prior subdivision violation. The next two years were spent in
an effort to resolve the outstanding violation and obtain approval of the new
three lot plat. Finally, the plat received conditional approval by the
Planning Commission in August, 1982. Since that time the property owners...
have complied with most conditions of approval including the issue of
primary public interest, i.e. the consolidation of three seperate entrances
into one entrance." Mr. Keeler stated most conditions to correct the
prior violation have been met and the only outstanding condition is
that there is no private road maintenance agreement and there is no
compelling mechanism to obtain such an agreement. Mr. Keeler concluded:
"Staff opinion is that, in terms of public interest, this violation has
been corrected and that the matter be considered resolved."
It was determined the Commission agreed with staff's resolution of the issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
7 C
John Horne, Secretary
DS