Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 20 90 PC MinutesNOVEMBER 20, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 20, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of October 30, 1990 and November 6, 1990 were approved as amended. Mr. Fritz presented a brief preview of the Consent Agenda scheduled for the November 27th meeting. ZMA-90-19 Frank Kessler - The applicant is proposing to rezone 1,195.02 acres from RA, Rural Areas, to PRD, Planned Residential Development (PROFFERED). Property is described as Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6 and 7 and Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60 and Tax Map 94, Parcel 2 and 11. The site is bordered by Route 250 on the north and by the Rivanna River on the south and west. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is within a designated growth area. Mr. Keeler presented a summary of a very lengthy staff report. The report stated: "Staff opinion is that the Glenmore Development complies with the nine specific recommendations for the Rivanna Village as adopted into the Comprehensive Plan by the Board of Supervisors in December, 1989." Mr. Keeler concluded: "Staff opinion is that the Glenmore PRD provides a public benefit beyond simple compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and recommends approval of ZMA-90-19 Glenmore Planned Residential Development subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers together with modifications as outlined above pursuant to 8.5.4(d) of the Zoning Ordinance." The applicant, Mr. Frank Kessler, addressed the Commission. Using several charts, Mr. Kessler described the history of the development to date. The charts showed slope, soil and wetland analyses. Mr. Kessler described in some detail the Master Plan. He presented several slides showing the proposed locations of roads. He noted that less units are being proposed now than were originally proposed and that some additional property has also been added, i.e. 50 less 103 November 20, 1990 Page 2 units are being proposed and 145 acres have been added. He noted that this change was the result of efforts to protect the environment and respect the restraints of the property. He stated that his most significant concern throughout the process has been to safeguard the environment. He explained the plans for the golf course. Ms. Huckle asked if the setbacks would apply just to the golf cottages or if they would apply "across the board?" Mr. Lee Mallen, a planner for the project, explained that there would be two sets of setbacks, i.e. a standard one for the conventional houses which would be similar to County requirements and a 110" lot line setback which allows for patio homes to be built. Ms. Huckle also commented on the cash proffer and asked how much the mineral rights were worth. Mr. Kessler responded that the entire mineral rights had been appraised at $1,800. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with the staff's recommendations and moved that ZMA-90-19 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers and with a recommendation for the approval of private roads. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: In response to Mr. Jenkins' question about the proffer dealing with the school site, Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant had agreed that the property dedicated for a school site could be used for some other public use if it is later determined that a school is not necessary. The motion for approval passed unanimously. ZTA-90-11 Sperry Marine - Request to amend Section 5.8 Temporary Non-residential Mobile Homes, to allow temporary office trailers without site plan approval for a permanent structure. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and explained the proposed amendment. The report explained the purpose to be served by the amendment was "to accommodate unforeseen or temporary increased space demands at existing uses." 1.04 November 20, 1990 Page 3 The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Finley. He explained that his company often has increased space needs which are of a temporary nature. He stated that it was hoped that the company will be able to house the additional employees in a permanent structure by the time the temporary permits expire. He noted that this amendment would also be useful for the Education Department which often has fluctuating needs for space. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZTA-90-11 for Sperry Marine, to amend Section 5.8 related to the usage of temporary mobile units, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as submitted by staff (see ATTACHMENT A). Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZTA-90-12 Albemarle County Public Schools - Request to amend Section 4.12.6.6.2 to require parking for elementary schools (K-5) at a rate of one space per twenty students plus one space per staff member. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report explained the purpose to be served by the amendment was "to provide reasonable parking schedules for elementary and middle schools." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle moved that ZTA-90-12 for Albemarle County Public Schools, to amend Section 4.12.6.6.2 related to parking for elementary schools, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff (see ATTACHMENT B). Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. TA-90-08 John Townsend - Request to amend Section 27, LI, Light Industry zone to allow arboriculture sales by special use permit and to amend Definitions. ZTA-90-09 John Townsend - Request to amend Section 27, LI, Light Industry zone to allow arboriculture sales by -right and amend Definitions. AND /ds November 20, 1990 Page 4 ZTA-90--09 John Townsend - Request to amend section 27.2.1(9) to read "contractor's office and equipment storage yard. For landscaping contractors, arboriculture sales may be maintained upon premises provided that Section 5.1.24 of the Ordinance notwithstanding, such arboricultural sales shall not exceed one-third of the floor area of the main contractor's office and storage yard use." Request also to amend Definitions. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report for these requests. He summarized the three requests as follows: " One would allow it by -right; one would include it as part of contractor's office and storage yard; and one would allow it by special use permit." He explained all three requests contemplated a definition for arboriculture sales. Staff was recommending approval of ZTA-90-08 only (allowing the use by special use permit) . The applicant, Mr. John (Jay) Townsend, addressed the Commission. He stated he was agreeable to ZTA--90-08 as recommended by staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. St. John expressed confusion as to exactly what was being proposed. It was determined that staff was recommending only ZTA 90-08. Mr. St. John expressed a lack of understanding as to why this amendment was needed to allow the applicant to "do what he was proposing to do." Mr. St. John stated: "If you just enact these two amendments, you are going to have a use which is defined and permitted but it is automatically going to be subject to the square footage limitation that we're trying to avoid." Mr. Keeler disagreed. He called Mr. St. John's attention to No. 3 on page 154 of the Ordinance. He explained: "You see that reference to 5.1.24? That limitation is explicit as to that particular list of uses...." Mr. Cilimberg added: "The Zoning Administrator has interpreted that only where there is a reference to a particular supplementary regulation for a particular use, does that supplementary regulation apply. By not referencing 5.1.24 for this amended use, that supplementary regulation would not apply under the interpretation of the Ordinance." Mr. Keeler added: "And also by defining it as at least partially retail in character." Mr. St. John asked: "If retail sales are subordinate to whatever else they are going to do in an arbory, my question is, doesn't that apply?" He noted that staff had indicated that the Zoning Administrator has ruled that it doesn't apply. He indicated he had not been aware of this interpretation. A06 I J November 20, 1990 Page 5 Mr. Rittenhouse asked for clarification as to whether or not a space limitation was going to apply. Mr. Keeler stated that such a limitation could be applied in a special use permit review "to make it compatible with the area in which it is located." (NOTE: The Commission discussed these proposals briefly and unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-90-08 and also unanimously recommended denial of ZTA-90-09 and ZTA-90-10. However, later in the meeting, as a result of comments made by the County Attorney in relation to ZMA-89-16 and SP-90-108 for John Townsend, the Commission unanimously voted to reconsider all three of these proposals and then unanimously voted to indefinitely defer action on all three. Comments which follow will explain this action.) ZMA-89-16 John Townsend - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 9.9 acres from R-1, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property,described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B is located on the west side of Rt. 29N approximately 2,000 feet south of the bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River. Rivanna Magisterial District. AND SP-90-108 John Townsend - The applicant is requesting an arbory on 10.3 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. Request is being reviewed concurrent with ZTA-90-08 and ZMA-89-16. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B is located on the west side of Rt. 29N approximately 2,000 feet south of the bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the ZMA subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer No. 2 and approval of the SP subject to conditions. Ms. Huckle raised a question about the closing of a crossover. Mr. Fritz stated that could be addressed at the time of site plan review, or it could be made a condition of the special permit. Ms. Huckle also expressed interest in the zoning on the surrounding property. The applicant, Mr. Townsend, again addressed the Commission. He explained it was his desire to continue his landscape contractor business and to operate an arbory. He explained the layout of the plan in some detail. Regarding the crossover issue, he explained that the "old" crossover will be closed. He stated that he felt the proposed use would be a very attractive use for the property, given the industrial area in which it is located. He also noted that the use 107 November 20, 1990 Page 6 would provide an outlet for local agricultural and forestal products. He read a list of local nurseries which sell wholesale plants. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the visibility of the equipment storage yard from adjacent properties. She asked if this could be screened. Mr. Townsend indicated a willingness to provide evergreen screening to "soften whatever exposure we might have." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. St. John expressed a lack of understanding of the difference between what was being proposed and a retail nursery. He asked the applicant to distinguish between his proposed use and Ivy Nursery. (Note: Mr. St. John used Ivy Nursery as an example.) Mr. Townsend explained that Ivy Nursery is a retail nursery and greenhouse and sells a wide variety of items, "everything from Christmas ornaments to large trees and shrubs." He stated his business will market the same trees and shrubs used in his landscape business. Mr. St. John pointed out that Ivy Nursery markets the same type of "trees, shrubs and flowers." Mr. St. John was unable to make a distinction between the two types of uses. He noted: "I don't understand why they aren't the same. This definition says that a retail nursery shall not be deemed arboriculture sales." Mr. Fritz stated: "The items you can buy at Ivy Nursery include things that are included in the definition of arboriculture sales, such as the 'sale of floral and similarly sized items.' Mr. Townsend wouldn't be selling those same kind of items that you can but in a retail (nursery)." He confirmed that a retail nursery "can do everything he's going to do, but they do more." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Mr. Townsend's business would not include "accessory types of sales." Mr. St. John continued to try to differentiate between the two uses. He asked: "Are we sure, if we enact this definition, that we will be able to distinguish between which is a retail nursery and which is an arboriculture sales?" He expressed a lack of understanding as to how that distinction could be made. Mr. Fritz stated: "My discussions with the Zoning Administrator, today, are that she can (make that distinction)." November 20, 1990 Page 7 It was determined there was no definition of "retail nursery" in the Ordinance. Mr. St. John again stated that he could not understand why an amendment was necessary for this use to take place. Mr. Rittenhouse explained briefly some of the history of the proposal. He stated that it had been the Commission's concern "whether this ancillary sale would indeed be ancillary to a contractor's business, or whether a contractor's business would be ancillary to retail sales_" He felt this had been the overriding concern. Mr. St. John stated that though he understood the Commission's concern, "you don't cure something like that by coming up with a new definition tailor-made simply to fit one business without considering the effect of this." He felt that adoption of this new definition would make all the existing nurseries non -conforming and nurseries would only be permitted in the LI zone if this amendment were to be enacted. He felt a nursery would also fit the proposed definition of arboriculture sales. He again stated he could not distinguish between the two. Mr. St. John apologized for not having discussed this issue with staff earlier, but he repeated that he was not able to follow staff's reasoning. Mr. Keeler disagreed with Mr. St. John's interpretation. He explained: "It says that retail nurseries shall not be deemed to be arboricultural sales; it does not say that arboricultural sale is not a sub -set or sub -division of retail nurseries." Mr. St. John asked: "If they are a sub -division of retail nurseries, then why can they not go anywhere that retail nurseries can go now without this amendment?" Mr. Keeler responded: "They can. Retail nurseries cannot go in the LI zone." Mr. St. John concluded: "Then this is tailor-made simply to let this activity --this applicant --go on a certain piece of land." Mr. Keeler responded: "A number of years ago (it was discovered) that we don't have what a number of other localities have --a term like Warehouse Commercial --which is a very low intensity type of use. His sale of trees, compared to the volume of sale of Christmas Cactus and that sort of seasonal item which occurs in greenhouses --his sale per square footage of site, is going to be comparatively low. ... The notion of this was to accommodate this low -intensity use that has a retail character to it within the LI zone as we have done in the past with warehouse and wholesale type uses...." Id? IN November 20, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he, too, was having some problem with the distinction between the two uses. Mr. St. John repeated: "If you enact this, you're saying that any business whose primary concern --it doesn't say sole concern --any business whose primary concern is the cultivation and sale of trees and shrubs --they're going to become non -conforming in any district except the LI district." Mr. St. John indicated that a way to distinguish between the two was to reference the landscape contractor's aspect of the operation, but that had not been done in the proposed amendment. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if that was a concern of the Commission, staff did consider language which would include the landscape contracting aspect of the business. He felt it could be included. He also stated: "To address George's concern, there will have to be something in the definition of arboriculture sales that distinguishes this as a use consistent with the LI distict...." Mr. St. John asked why Landscape Contractor could not simply be added as a use in the LI district and allow landscape contractors to have an ancillary retail outlet which is already under the Supplementary Regulations. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that intensity of use had been a concern of the Commission, i.e. the level of activity was more a concern than the type of material sold. He agreed that further work on the definition was warranted. He asked that the Commission consider a reconsideration of ZTA-90-08 (on which the Commission had just acted). Mr. Keeler suggested: "If Mr. St. John's overriding concern with the definition is that if you include arboriculture it excludes retail nurseries, why not simply add, in the next -to -the -last sentence, 'Retail nurseries and greenhoues shall not be deemed arboriculture sales; however, arboriculture sales shall be permitted under retail nurseries and greenhouses."' Mr. Rittenhouse felt this might clarify the issue. Mr. St. John again asked: "If they are a sub -use under retail nurseries, then why can't they go anywhere that a retail nursery can go without this rezoning?" Mr. Keeler responded: "The problem is retail nurseries can't go in the !/D November 20, 1990 page 9 Rural Areas and they can't go in the Light Industrial Areas, they can only go in the Commercial areas." Mr. St. John asked: "And that's too expensive?" Mr. Keeler replied: "It's staff opinion that there are certain types of uses that are of a commercial nature but are relatively not land intensive to be able to justify the competition." Based on the conservation that had just taken place, and particularly on Mr. St. John's comments, Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-90-08 be reconsidered. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the staff had not had the opportunity to get Mr. St. John's input before the meeting. He apologized to the applicant. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out to the applicant that the Commission must consider zoning text amendments in the context of their total effects on the County as a whole and not on just one particular applicant. Mr. Townsend expressed no opposition to a deferral. He did ask that the Commission reconsider the other two ZTA's also. Mr. Wilkerson then moved that ZTA-90-08 be indefinitely deferred. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Wilkerson then moved that ZTA-90-09 and ZTA-90-10 be reconsidered. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-90-09 and ZTA-90-10 be indefinitely deferred. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-89-16 for John Townsend be indefinitely deferred. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-102 for John Townsend be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that these deferrals were "driven by the need to have the County Attorney get with the applicant and staff to work out a definition for this type of use which is clearly differentiated from retail nurseries which, at this point, contemplates a higher, more intensive zoning." rir November 20, 1990 Page 10 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:18 P.M. DS