Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 06 88 PC MinutesSeptember 6, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Steve Cresswell, Assistant County Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 23, 1988 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Cowles Chevrolet at Scottsville Shopping Center - Proposal to locate a temporary (2 year limit) satellite office and sales area for Cowles Chevrolet, within the Scottsville Shopping Center. The main dealership is located across Rt. 726 from this site. An office trailer will be utilized. Zoned PD--SC, Planned.Development Shopping Center. Tax Map 130A1, Parcel 63. Scottsville Magisterial District. and Foster Well Compan Final Site Plan - Proposal to locate az8,750 square foot building on approximately 0.91 acres. Three parking spaces are proposed, with a 2,000 gallon fuel tank to be located on this site. The property is located on the north side of Rt. 649, east of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport. Tax map 32, Parcel 17E, Lot 3. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Rittenhouse asked for further information on the Cowles Chevrolet application. He asked if the use was satisfactory with the other merchants at the shopping center. Ms. Patterson explained that the proposal is to use part of the existing shopping center parking lot for a satellite sales office. She explained further that the applicant has already received several variances from the BZA including a variance which allows the use of the existing parking area for a display area. She stated the applicant had worked with staff and made several revisions to the proposal. She explained the use would be temporary because a permanent use is planned in the future. Ms. Patterson stated further that the owner of the shopping center was applicant for the variance. Mr. Michel moved that the consent agenda be adopted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-88-10 J.W. Sieg & Company - Request in accordance with'Section 33.2.1 of the ,Zoning Ordinance to rezone 3+ acres from LI, Light Industrial to C-1, Commercial for a commercial neighborhood center. Property described as Tax Map 59, Parcels 23C, 23D, and 23F is located on the north side of Rt. 250W, approximately 1/2 mile west of intersection with Ednam Drive. Samuel �Q September 6, 1988 Page 2 Miller Magisterial District. The applicant had requested deferral to October 4, 1988. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-88-10 for J.W. Sieg be deferred to October 4. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZTA-88-3 Amend 6.0 Nonconformities; Repeal 31.2.4.5 - To clarify and limit applications; to provide more consistent application of regulations. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The amendment originated with the planning staff and the Zoning Administrator with the purpose being to clarify and limit application of .regulations and to provide more consistent application of regulations. This item generated considerable discussion as the Commission sought to understand the implications of the amendment. fir. Keeler explained the amendments and stated: "These amendments were developed by both the planning staff and the Zoning Administrator to avoid these types of inconsistencies and interpretations in the future and to include more precise language in the ordinance that ties down dates and the like." He added: "We are not being overly restrictive with our non -conforming section; all we're trying to do is restore the language to what was the intent at the time we put these sections in here. The intent was not to permit expansion of a.use that is by special use permit...it was not to permit wholesale expansion of those types of uses without meeting the requirements of the ordinance. Under that interpretation, it is better to be non -conforming to the ordinance than to conform --you've got a free hand." In response to .ir. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the amendments would be "going back to the original intent, no more no less." In relation to the Nonconformities amendment, Mr. Michel questioned what was to be gained. Mr.'Keeler explained this would extend to a property owner who had a subdivision approved under the prior ordinance the right to continue to develop his lots as they exist, under the setback regulations that were in effect at the time he had the subdivision approved. He stressed: "All we're trying to do- here with this language, is to confine the application in that section to what I "recall as being the Board's intent, and that was not to penalize somebody who came in under the subdivision ordinance and under the zoning ordinance and operated in good faith and had been :jade non -conforming by the adoption of this new ordinance. It was not intended to apply to any lot that existed before 1980." Mr. Keeler confirmed -that "in some senses it's more restrictive on those (subdivisions) that were cut up before 1969 because they do have to meet our current setback regulations or seek a variance." He confirmed that "the Board never contemplated that it would be anything less than that." There being no public comment, the natter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-88-3 to Amend 6.0 N-onconfor:rities and to Repeal 31.2.4.5 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows: 1. Repeal Sec. 31.2.4.5 2. amend Sec. 6.0 NON. -CONFORMITIES AS FOLLOWS: 67 September 6, 1988 Page 3 6.0 NONCONFORMITIES 6.1 CONTINUATION 6.1.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure lawfully in existence on the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated, may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this section. 6.1.2 No change in title to any property subject to the provisions of this section, including but not limited to the demise, renewal, expiration, termination or modification of any leasehold interest, shall impair the nonconforming status of such property. 6.1.3 Any such use, activity or structure which is discontinued for more than two (2) years shall be deemed abandoned and shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated. 6.1.4 whenever any such use, activity or structure is changed to a conforming or a more restricted nonconforming use, activity or structure, the original use shall be deemed abandoned. 6.2 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE On any building devoted in whole or in part to any nonconforming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing, to such extent that the structure is kept in a usable condition. Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any structure or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with promoting public safety upon order of such official. 6.3 CHANGES IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed, any uses of land or buildings which become nonconforming as a result of such change shall become subject to the provisions of this section. az September 6, 1988 Page 4 6.4 EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT 6.4.1 The use of any building or structure shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated whenever such building or structure is enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered. Except that, nothing in this section shall prohibit the replacement of a nonconforming mobile home with a larger mobile home, provided the mobile home is labelled to indicate compliance with either the Virginia Industrialized Building and Mobile Home Safety Regulations or with the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards adopted by HUD, 1974, as amended; and, further provided that the conditions of Section 5.6.2 are met if applicable. (Added 3-5-86). 6.4.2 Except that as otherwise provided in 30.5 SCENIC AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT, any building or structure located or constructed after December 22 1969 and prior to the adoption of this ordinance may be expanded, enlarged, or extended in accordance with the rear, side, and front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of location or construction. In all other cases, the _rear, side and front yard and 6.4.3 6.4 9 A nonconforming activity maybe -extended throughout any part of a structure which was arranged or designed for such activity at the time of enactment of this ordinance. 6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS 6.5.1 Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance which is less in area and/or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permitted for a lot having the minimum area and/or width so required; provided that the rear, side and front yard and setback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; and provided further than no such use shall be permitted which is determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger to the public health, safety September 6, 1988 Page 5 6.5.2 01 6.5.3 6-5-+ and general welfare. Except as otherwise provided in 30.5 SCENIC AREAS OVERLAY_DISTRICT , in the case of any subdivision which -was approved and detined as such pursuant to Chapter 18 of the County Code after December 22; 1969 and prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which was of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side, and front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall apply to all lots within such subdivision. In all other cases, the rear, side, and front varc and se apply. For purposes of this situat' shown on a preliminary or f' which was approved by the p county in accordance with 1 adoption of this ordinance,- subsequently recorded in due deemed to be a lot of record adoption of this ordinance. RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT nance ma r en; section any lot nal subdivision plat oper authority of the aw prior to the and which plat was course, shall be at the time of the 6.6.1 Whenever any nonconforming structure, except signs, or structure the use of which is nonconforming is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed and the nonconforming use thereof continued as provided in this section provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty-four (24) months from the date of such damage; and provided further that no such structure shall be enlarged or expanded as a part of such repair and/or reconstruction. 6.6.2 Any such structure which is substantially destroyed as a result of any act or omission within the control of the owner thereof shall be deemed to have been abandoned in accordance with Section 6.1.3 of this section. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. f� September 6, 1988 Page 6 Tract A Phase I Landfall Final Plat Waiver Request - Request for a waiver of Section 18-36e to permit a lesser road standard on approximately 700 feet of roadway serving four (4) lots. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is located in Solaris Subdivision on Helios Path. Tax Map 34, Parcel 50. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report explained that the applicant was requesting relief from the requirement for a four -foot shoulder and ditch width on either side of a 700-foot road segment of Helios Path extending from its intersection with Omega Court southward, and the applicant cited as justification for the reduced shoulder width tree and soil removal. The Planning staff and the County Engineer recommended denial of the request based on the following: (1) No justification per Section 18-3 showing "because of unusual..size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property, or other unusual conditions, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would result in extraordinary hardship...." Staff rel.t.nothing.had been shown to differentiate this from other cases; (2) No justification for permitting a precedential change in the private road requirements, by allowing.a road construction design waiver; (3) The shoulcx width is the minimum acceptable to safely accommodate traffic; and (4) Engineering Department feels that it is generally not practical to save trees this close to the road travelway due to damage which occurs to the tree's root system. Ms. Patterson clarified that the applicant was not requesting a reduced travelway width, but'was requesting a reduced shoulder and ditch width. Ms. Patterson called the Commission's attention to two letters of support from the other two users of the road. Mr. Van der Linde, the applicant,addressed the Commission. He pointed out that he was not requesting a reduced road standard but was asking for flexability in shoulder width so as to be able to preserve the maximum number or trees. Mr. Van der Linde presented photographs of the road. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Santic, one of the users of the road, expressed support for Mr. Van der Linde's request. Mr. Lawrence Cabell, a forester, addressed the Gommission and expressed support for the applicant's request. He pointed out that if the waiver was not granted 81 trees would certainly be -lost with a possible 21 more being damaged. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman noted that this must comply with the provisions for four lots served by the entire length. He asked why it could not be viewed in two segments, i..e one serving the four lots and one serving two lots. Mr. Keeler explained that when the ordinance was amended in 1985 this was the way it was to be done and it was simple and straightforward.. Mr. Bowerman .asked 'now staff defined "segment length from intersection." Mr. Keeler pointed out that the staff report outlined it as the "red" segment, and.'bnce it gets past the last lot and there is no longer an easement, then it is no longer a road segment." 33- September 6, 1988 Page 7, Mr. Michel stated if Lot 10 and Mrs. Santic's lot were on the other side of Omega Drive then this would not be an issue. Ms. Patterson and Mr. Keeler confirmed this was correct. Mr. Michel asked "Why can't you go beyond the intersection?" Ms. Patterson explained that the segment in question that does not meet the current standards, is from Omega Court to the end of the frontage for this proposed lot. She added that from Omega Court to the state road the road is in compliance with the standards. Mr. Michel stated that if the waiver was granted he would much rather it be granted by interpreting where the road ends rather than allowing more driveways onto that section. He felt this would create a real problem. Mr. Keeler pointed out that Lot 10 does not enter onto Omega. He recalled that Mr. Van der Linde had stated that he didn't want to enter Lot 10 on Omega so he wouldn't have to pave Omega. He added: "Now he doesn't want Lot 10 to count on Helios. It's got to count somewhere." Mr. Keeler pointed out that the standards recommended were absolute minimum and he reminded the Commission that they had previously approved this as a public road. Mr. Michel stated he had not realized before the reason why Lot 10 did not enter onto Omega. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that if they wished to approve the request they should do so under Section 18-3. He questioned whether it was a good idea for the Commission to "start interpreting something which, in my opinion, is absolutely clear in the Ordinance." Mr. Bowerman stated he was trying to understand the rationale for setting up the road segments and trying to .determine if,there was any other way to look at this since this was a.very short segment of road "which causes us to go from one standard to being just a private drive." He wondered if there was any way to deal with the request in the confines of Section 18-36 without actually granting a waiver. He stated: "I have a very big problem with granting a waiver from the provisions of 18-36 in general and specifically what's before us tonight, so I was trying to look at it a different way. That's been my difficulty... because I can't separate this request from any other request for a general waiver from the road requirements, because clearly in most circumstances an applicant could use arguments about the existing roadway, the vegetation along it, (etc.) and then we might just as well throw the whole Ordinance out." Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the waiver request and the staff and Engineering Department had provided a well -thought-out response. She stated that though she supported the way the trees were being treated as a commodity on the rest of the property, there was. still no reason why safety standards should be sacrificed to preserve some of those trees that are in the buffer zone-. In response to Mr. Stark's question, it was determined the buffer strip, which is a voluntary action on the part of the applicants is 50-feet wide on either side of the roadway. September 6, 1988 Page"8 Mr. Michel asked if it was possible for the applicant to put in a cul-de-sac at.the end, thus resulting in a private drive for two lots. -Mr. Keeler pointed out that a turn around would take even more trees. Mr. Keeler pointed out again that this was "all occasioned by the creation of another lot, and that's the applicant's decision to create the lot." Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "If I understand correctly, if tract A were not divided off, then there could.conceivably be a turn around just beyond the two driveways that exist now." Mr. Keeler responded: "If A were not divided off this would not be before you and there would be no question about taking the trees down." Mir. Jerkins moved that Tract A Phase I Landfall Final Plat Waiver Request be denied. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could not support the waiver request for the reasons stated by Mr. Keeler. He felt the main issue was that road standards were based on the development of the tract and it was the applicant's decision whether or not to develop the tract and the value judgment in relation to the preservation of the trees was the applicant's to make, i.e. if he chooses to save the trees he need not develop tract A. Mr. Stark agreed. Mr. Michel stated he would support the motion for denial; however, he expressed concern that "we feel so constrained" that requests such as this can not be dealt with on an individual basis. Mr. Bowerman recalled when the Commission was faced with many of these waiver requests and he stated: "I have been very pleased since we adopted the Ordinance that we have been able to make almost every application fit in." The previously -stated motion_ for denial passed unanimously. The Chairman advised the applicant he had ten days in which to appeal the Commission's action to the Board. Francis B. & Peggy S. Gravitt_ - Proposal to subdivide a 6.296 acre parcel into 4.295 and 2.001 acre parcels. The 4.295 acre lot is to be served by an existing 30-foot right-of-way. The applicant requests that the existing Country Store not be required to use this easement and instead. continue to have direct access to Route 231. (Waiver of Section 18--36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance). Property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 12C is located on the north side of Rt. 231 at its intersection with.Rt. 22. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to conditions. 67 September 6, 1988 Page 9 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Gravitt was present but offered no comment at this time. There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the Francis B. and Petty S. Gravitt waiver request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: (a) Construction or bonding of entrance in compliance with letter and sketch from the Department of Highway and Transportation dated June 19, 1986. (b) Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Mr. Jenkins asked if approval of this request would be setting any type of precedent. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Fritz to address this issue, pointing out that two different uses would be served by this entrance if it remained a joint one, i.e. a commercial use and a private use. Mr. Fritz explained that the Subdivision Ordinance does not envision mixture of residential and commercial uses on a private road, and forcing both the store and the residents to use the same entrance will be causing the mixture of commercial and residential uses on the private road. He further explained that putting the island back in place would separate the two uses. Mr. Bowerman added that the Commission has, in the past, tried to make this happen in situations where it was going to be a mixed use by requiring a separate access so that the two uses could be kept separate as much as possible. Mr. Bowerman did not think any precedent would be set. Mr. Keeler added that one reason the mixture of residential and commercial uses is not envisioned is because it is difficult to figure equitable maintenance costs. He pointed out, however, that cases have been approved where commercial and residential uses are located on a private road, but it is more the exception than the rule. He pointed out also that this is an existing condition. Mr. Gravitt, the applicant stated that he had been informed by the lending institution that if he wished to build a house on the property the entrances would have to be separated. 3�� September 6, 1988 page 10. Regarding the issue of replacing the island, Mr. Gravitt explained that the issue had come up after he had "done everything, including paving. Mr. Fritz explained that he had spoken with Mr. Echols of the Virginia Department of Transportation in relation to the islands and there was little on record about this issue because there had only been verbal conversations. He stated there were existing islands which were in: a bad state of disrepair and the applicant had asked if he could replace them. No permit had been issued because he was replacing islands. Mr. Gravitt had replaced the islands as•.he had been advised to by. a representative of VDOT (he could not recall who). Mr. Gravitt stated he had been given plans and he had followed them exactly. He also stated he was trying to locate the plans he had been given by VDOT at that time. Mr. Fritz stated staff conditions contemplate reconstruction of the islands as shown on the sketch included with the staff report. Mr. Gravitt stated the plans he had been giver_ did not include what was presently before the Cgmmission.. He added that VDOT had .not '.'pushed anything since 1986," and he had not been aware of the existence of the current plans. Mr. Gravitt stated he had spoken with the person who had given him the original plans, but that person had denied involvement in the issue. :sir. Gravitt stated neither Mr. Roosevelt nor Mr. Echols had been involved. Mr. Kichel stated that his .motion understood that "that island would have to be replaced to separate the two uses." Mr. Bower -mar. added: "But the design of it is up to the Highway Department which is the design that they have given use here," He added: "They have to approve the entrance and if this is what they are going to approve, I guess this is what we're going to have.to require.: Mr. Michel added: "Because there's a change taking place." The Chairman called fora vote on the motion for approval as previously stated. The motion passed unanimously. University/City/County Cooperative Neighborhood Studies - West Main Street, University Hospital Neighborhood - Discussion deferred to September 13 meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. M John Horne , ecretary DS September 13, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 13,.1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Wilkerson and Diehl. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 30, 1988 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA - Mill Creek Phase I Section 4 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 67 lots ranging from 0.24 to 0.38 acre, for an average size of 0.31 acres. The total site area is 79.66 acres, of which 54.92 acres is proposed as open space. Lots are to be served by proposed public roads extending from Section 3. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36B. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. SP-88-57 and SP-88-58 Charlie F. or Edith M. Kin rea - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of special use permits to allow for two single wide mobile homes to be located on 21.462 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 620, 1/10 mile southeast of its intersection with Rt. 795. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Kingrea was present but offered little additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. ke Mr. StarC/wny.the mobile homes could not be located in a different area so they would not be so close to the property line, and the drainfield could "go in a different direction." After brief discussion, it was ascertained that due to the topography of the property, drainage could be a problem and if the location of the mobile homes was moved a pump would probably be necessary to pump the affluent back up to the drainfield. Mr. Michel asked if more specific requirements for buffer area could be stated. Mr. Fritz stated that dense natural vegetation existed and the Zoning Administrator would enforce the maintenance of the vegetation. Mr. Michel felt it would be simpler for the Zoning Administrator to enforce if it there were more specific requirements. 40 September 13, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Horne felt 75 feet would be "reasonably achievable." He felt this would still allow the applicant to clear around the mobile home. It was decided condition No. 5 would be amended as follows: "Maintenance of existing vegetation, to include 75-foot undisturbed buffer from property line, landscaping and/or screening to be provided ...." Mr. Michel moved -that SP-88-57 and SP-88-58 for Charlie F. or Edith M. Kingrea be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; 3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of,a certificate of occupancy; 4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; 5. :Maintenance of existing vegetation, to include 75-foot undisturbed buffer from property line, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. 6. Mobile horses shall be located as shown on attached sketch on plat prepared by Robert L. Lum dated November 12, 1986.. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Rivanna Commercial Park Preliminary Site Plan — Proposal to locate 81,540 square feet of warehouse spaces on 15.3 acres. Approximately 81 parking spaces are to be provided for this development. This site will have access.from Northside Drive. Please review theattached letter of approval for ZMA-87--19 Republic homes which describes zoning proffers on this property. The property is located on. Route 29 North, approximately 0.8 miles north of Route 649. Tax Map 32, Parcels 22, 22C, 22M. Zoned HI, Highway Industrial with proffers. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Aside from -transportation and access issues, staff is of the opinion that .the applicant's plan accurately reflects the proffered application plan and will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to ... conditions." (Note: Mr. Pullen made the following correction in the staff report: "The Virginia. Department of Transportation has recommended that the existing left turn lane for the crossover north of Route 1570 be upgraded to a 200 foot long, 12 foot wide left turn lane, with a 19Q 200 foot taper lane.") 41 September 13, 1988 Page 3 'there was a brief discussion about access, traffic patterns and traffic distribution percentages. Mr. Stark was concerned about how exiting northbound traffic would be able to make the turn and stay on pavement, particularly tractor trailers. Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about an industrial site which"requires U-turns to get in. and U-turns to get out." He asked if there was a safety consideration involving slow-movingtractor trailers making U-turns. Mr. Pullen pointed out that that is a problem in other areas of Rt. 29, and an effective way to address this problem has not been discovered. Mr. Horne pointed out: "That basic feasibility planning item, if it was a problem to be addressed, should have been addressed at rezoning.. I don't believe we can address it as a basic feasibility item to the point at which you would find this unsuitable for this kind of use. We should have done that, if we felt it was that serious a problem at the rezoning." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission. He noted the following changes from the original master plan: (1) Building is "reverse C shaped" rather than rectangular to offset reduction in building size of a later phase which will be dictated by the slope behind this first building; (2) The second entrance was created -as a result of grade differential. Regarding the parking space lengths, he was under the impression that according to the Ordinance 16 feet was allowed, but the applicant.had been requested to provide 17 feet. He requested that 16.feet be permitted "with the option to provide concrete bumpers or low, -vertical, treated wood posts to keep cars from running out into Rt. 29." Regarding road improvements, Mr. Hurt felt this was a very important issue. He quoted the following proffer which was a part of the rezoning: "in the way of road improvements, we proffer to limit development of the property to not exceed the capacity of the access road until such time as the road is improved to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the added development of this rezoning." He explained that the capacity of the access road was further defined as "to be -that of what was existing as of January of 1988 of this year." He stated: "We meant by that that we would approve Rt. 1570, or any other off -site roads, whenever the industrial property that we're developingexceeded what we originally had." Mr. Hurt very strongly stated that he did not feel it was fair to be required to improve Rt. 29 when he was "attached" to Rt. 1570. He felt it was also unfair to be asked to make those improvements "up front when there is no demonstrated need that I'm going to have any truck traffic." He pointed out that he currently has no users for the property and therefore "there is no demonstrated need." He felt it was premature to ask for these improvements with this phase of development. He pointed out that these conditions could always be added at a future phase of the development. He indicated he would have no objections to being at least "partly" responsible for these improvements at a later time if his development was shown to contribute to the need for the improvements. He offered to do a study on the effect of tractor trailer traffic on Rt. 1570 as a result of his development. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. eva September 13, 1988 Page 4 Mr. Bowerman felt the main question was whether or not the Commission felt that because of this development offsite improvements were warranted and if the answer is "yes" then they can be required. If the answer is "no," they cannot be required. Air. Stark felt Mr. Hurt's argument against improvements was persuasive. Mr. Pullen recalled a previous site plan (approved June 1987) for a mini -warehouse facility on a nearby parcel which had anticipated only small -type vehicular traffic, yet a northbound left turn lane had been required. (Since this site has not yet developed, the improvements have never been made.) Mr. Horne pointed out that the.staff feels the right turn lane and left turn lane are separate issues and though they are related, it is possible to determine that there might be the need for one but not necessarily be a need for the other. Mr. Rittenhouse felt a warehouse facility invited the association of large trucks and slow --roving traffic. He felt that in that context, "the argument for extended stacking along the northbound lane would seem to make sense." Atr. Rittenhouse indicated he viewed the left and right turn lanes in a similar manner, i.e. "if you don't need the right hand turn lane coming south it implies that you do not (anticipate) a vehicle that requires that kind of turning radius and if you don't have that kind of turning vehicle you can keep on 'cracking up and saying "well, we don't need the additional stacking."' Mr. -Rittenhouse felt the key was the type of facility and not the potential tenant. Mr. Horne again stated staff's position that the left turn lane and right turn lane could be tied together; or they could be viewed separately. Mr. Rittenhouse asked what if it were to be decided that a south -bound lane is needed now but the additional stacking (north bound left turn lane) is not needed at this time. Mr. Bowerman felt the two improvements were inseparable because since there already exists a right turn lane, the only reason to remove the "hump" in -that southbound lane is to accommodate left turning vehicles at the crossover. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed with Mr. Bowerman and clarified that he agreed that the "hump" definitely should be removed, but he was uncertain as to whether there needed to be additional stacking room in the northbound turn lane at this time, i.e. does the northbound turn lane which already exists need to be lengthened at this time? Mr. -Rittenhouse asked what would be the County's remedy if the northbound lane .improvements were not required at this time, but future development resulted in the need for such improvements. Mr. Pullen felt it would be difficult to require any requirements after the site is developed and is in use. Mr. Michel recalled that Air. Hurt had stated that if traffic should become a problem this issue could be addressed with a later phase of development. Mr. Rittenhouse asked tinat would happen if the site is not developed further but traffic has become a problem after this phase of development is complete. G3 September 13, 1988 Page 5 Mr. Horne stated that if there was no future -development, any road improvements would then become a public cost. He confirmed, however, that if there is additional development the Commission would have the option of requiring the applicant to make these improvements at a later date. Mr. Michel stated he was inclined to require the southbound improvements (the removal of the hump) at this time but was willing to forego the 100-foot extension of the northbound left turn lane. He stressed that the applicant should understand that the northbound improvements could be required with a future phase of development. Mr. Stark stated that, for safety reasons, he would support the removal of the "hump . " To avoid the possibility of the Commission making an arbitrary decision, Mr. Bowerman asked to recall similar situations. After discussing this briefly, Mr. Horne stated the test was: "You must be able to decide in your own mind that it is directly attributable to the use proposed on the site plan." He stated there had to be established a direct relation- ship between this site plan and the particular improvement. Discussion continued briefly about traffic issues and Mr. Hurt"s projections for future building. Mr. Jenkins moved that the Rivanna Commercial Park Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site development plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include the extension of the existing right turn lane in the southbound lane of Route 29 down to the Cedar Hill Mobile Park entrance. e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; f. Parking spaces shall be 17 feet in depth from the edge of the pavement. 2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval; b. Each future occupant of any industrial character shall submit to the County Engineer a certified engineer's report. 4. Administrative approval of the final site plan. 6X/ September 13, 1988 Page b Regarding condition. 1(f), Mr. Michel asked staff to comment in relation to 'Mr. Hurt's suggestion for addressing this issue. Mr. Horne felt there was a particular need for this requirement and also stated he felt sir. Hurt had mistated the ordinance, i.e. "the requirement is for 18 feetwhich may be reduced to 16 feet." Mr. Horne did not feel 1 foot was a "make or break" issue. It was determined the condition would remain as originally stated and if it should be later determined to be a problem, the :natter would be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Stark seconded the previously -stated motion for approval. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse stated tie would not support the motion because he was in favor of staff's and VDOT's original condition l(d), i.e. for improvements to both the left turn lane and the right turn lane. Mr. Rittenhouse expressed a sensitivity to traffic problems on Rt. 29. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He added that the Commission has historically required improvements to Rt. 29 with the development of property adjacent to it. He did not feel a decision should be swayed by an "eloquent argument" as presented by Mr. Hurt when another applicant might not be as "artful" in presenting his case as s;r. Hurt. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Mr. Hurt had not been able to demonstrate that his development would not increase traffic on Rt. 29. Mr. Stark stated that if it is determined that the development generates the traffic that is expected, the additional improvements.can be required with a future phase of development. Mr. :Michel agreed. The motion for approval passed (3:2) with Commissioners Bowerman and Rittenhouse casting the dissenting votes. Stony Point mills Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 9 lots from 2 existing parcels. Lots are to be served by a proposed public road off of Route 784. The proposed subdivision is located on the east side of Route 784 just south of its intersection with Route 640. Property, described as Tax sia.p 34, Parcels 38 and 38A. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz called the Commission's attention to a neighboring property owner who felt that if the road could not be improved the application should not be approved. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. Mr. Edwards made no additional comment. 4.41- September 13, 1988 Page 7 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he had driven the entire length of Rt. 784 and found it to be in no worse shape, with the possible exception of one area, than any other rural gravel road. He did not feel it was in bad shape, and was no basis for denying the application. Mr. Stark moved that the Stony Point Hills Preliminary Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: I. The final plat shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances: a. Note that all rights (if any exist) of access to the old road at the rear of lots 5, 6 and 7 are hereby abandoned. b. increase right-of-way width of Turkey Run to 50'. c. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations. 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Michel seconded the motion .which passed unanimously. The Gardens Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate three (3) buildings totalling 30,535 square feet for retail, office and a restaurant use. The buildings are one -and two -stories in height, and will be served by 188 parking spaces. The plan proposes subdivision of 7.98 acres into six (6) lots,.of which three (3) lots are reserved for future development. This plan revised the previous plan by deleting the.areas for future development and minor site redesign. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Tax Map 45, Parcels 104 and 104B and Tax Map 45, Parcels 104, 104B and Tax Map 61, Parcel 123. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The staff report also stated that staff supported the applicant's request for additional grading, but the applicant "is put on notice that future development will be reviewed independently and by allowing additional grading at this time the.County in no way is obligated to approve any site plan on the basis of the effects of this additional grading." Mr. Fritz made additional comments about the grade of the property and about the nature of the existing fill. Mr. Bowerman asked how the proposed grading would effect future development of parcels C & F. Mr. Fritz responded: "We're not feeling bound by any means by what is being approved here." The Chairman invited applicant comment. 66 September 13, 1988 Page 8 Mr. George Gilliam was present to represent the applicant. He stated there were no objections to any of the suggested conditions of approval with one minor exception. He suggested some alternative wording for condition 1(f). He explained that the two parcels which staff was suggesting be combined made up Albemarle Square Shopping Center and the ownership of the two parcels was very complex. He asked that the condition be re -worded to allow staff and the County Attorney some flexibility in achieving staff's objective. He suggested the following: "Presentation of a method of insuring access for both parcels to Rt. 29 as may be approved by the County Attorney and the Planning Staff." Mr. Bowerman indicated the Commission would have no problem with Mr. Gilliam's suggestion. Mr. Horne suggested that the words "to Rt. 29" be changed to "to a public roadway.". Mr. Gilliam asked that the condition not state that the parcels be combined but rather that provision of access be provided. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from the Engineering Department regarding grading and technical details. Mr. Peter Parson, Jr. Engineer, addressed the Commission. He stated the Engineer- ing Department was in support of the applicant's request to grade beyond the limits of the proposed development. He explained that if replacement of the poorly compacted fill material was done at a later date it would create more problems. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it would be a major benefit to any future development of this area, i.e. to have foundation questions answered at this point. It was determined condition l(f) would be made into twoconditions as follows: "Approval of subdivision plat showing addition of a portion of Tax Map 61, Parcel 123E to Tax Map 45, Parcel 104." and "Provision of access for residue of Tax Map 61, Parcel 123E across Tax Map 61, Parcel 123 to the satisfaction of the County Attorney and Planning Staff." Mr. Rittenhouse moved that The Gardens Revised Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a) Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b) Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; September 13, 1988 Page 9 c) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit; e) Planning Department approval of landscape plan; f) Approval of subdivision plat showing addition of a portion of Tax Map 61, Parcel 123E to Tax Map 45, Parcel 104; g) Provision of access for residue of Tax Map 61, Parcel 123E across Tax Map 61, Parcel 123 to the satisfaction of the County Attorney and Planning Staff. h) Final Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; 1) Fire Officer approval. 2. Administrative approval of proposed subdivisions as shown on site plan. 3. Administrative approval of final site plan; 4. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a) Final Fire Officer approval. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Charlotte and Archie Tomlin - The applicant proposed to subdivide an existing 24.2 acre tract into 5 lots ranging in size from 2.944 acres to 8.801 acres. The applicant is requesting that a lot fronting on a proposed private road not be required to access it (waiver of section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance.) Property described as Tax Map 10, Parcel 10 is located on the north side of Route 605 just south of the Albemarle/Green County line. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the waiver request. Staff suggested that a road be constructed between lots 1 and 2 to serve lots 1, 2 and 5, and due to the size of the lots, this would have to be a public road. There was a brief discussion about the size of the lots and staff's suggested approach. Mr. Fritz confirmed that staff was recommending that lot 3 use the existing road, lots 1, 2 and 5 use a to -be -built public road, and lot 4 use the entrance off the state road. Mr. Horne added that 3 lots of less than 5 acres would not be eligible for a private road. Mr. Fritz concluded: "Without substantial reconfiguration of the lots, you are looking at a public road." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Morris Foster. Mr. Foster stated he could not comprehend a public road to access the 8-acre lot, in the middle of a rural area. He felt that was ridiculous. Mr. Foster stated he had laid out the property in what he felt was the best use .of the land. He stressed that he would "not go with a public road." He stated: "I'll go with the waiver or I'll simply just redesign, come 250 feet up the road, change two lot. lines and bring the plat back to the staff with 250 feet of road frontage, Highway Department approval,.... It's as pure and simple as that." AS, September 13, 1988 Page 10 Mr. Foster felt the purpose of a waiver was to review each case on its own merits. (It was later clarified that the alternative to the waiver would result in five driveways instead of four.) ?fir. Michel indicated he understood Mr. Foster's argument, but he "could not imagine us. approving a private road with less than five acres." Mr. Bowerman asked if there should not have been a request for two waivers, the other dealing with minimum lot size. Air. Fritz responded: "No, sir. You can approve a private road serving two lots under five acres." -Mr. Tomlin, owner of the property, made a brief comment and explained that the access road which serves the property extends almost to the Greene County line. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel said he did not feel strongly one way'or the other because, as Mr. Foster explained, the result was going to be the same. He stated: "It doesn't deserve a public road." He indicated he understood staff'} reasoning "but the reality is that the applicant has a layout which doesn't require it." There was discussion abouthow the property could be developed if the waiver were not granted, i.e. what the access requirements would be. Mr. Jenkins expressed he was always concerned with waivers because he feared future problems which they might invite. Mr. Foster interjected that if he had approached this division in two stages he would not have had to come before the Commission and he could have achieved the same plan. He explained how this could have been done. Mr. Bowerman said he did not see that "the public purpose was much changed by either way we go, whether we do it this way or Air. Foster comes back with the five." He added: "I see the public purpose probably being more served by not deviating from our ordinance in this case because I just don't see the justification." Mr. Stark moved that the Charlotte and Archie Tomlin Waiver Request be denied. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Michel stated he -would vote against the motion for denial because not granting the waiver will result in five driveways instead of 4. Mir. Bowerman understood, but stated he "could not buy that as an argument for waiving the ordinance." Commissioners Stark and Rittenhouse indicated agreement. The motion for denial passed (4:1) with Mr. Michel casting the dissenting vote. L9 September 13, 1988 Page 11 Further discussion: Mr. Foster asked the Chairman for the floor. Mr. Foster described what he had meant by making the subdivision in two stages which could have been approved administratively. He asked if there was anything to prevent him from taking that course at this time. Mr. Bowerman responded: "If the Ordinance allows you to do that--.'." Mr. Stark completed the sentence: "--then do it. Sorry it takes two steps." Mr. Horne stated he was not familiar enough with the proposal to comment. Mr. Stark pointed out that was one reason the Commission had not granted the waiver, i.e. because the applicant could achieve the desired result without having to waive the ordinance. Mr. Foster stated he was bothered by the fact that by not approving a "total" plan as he presented, the Commission is encouraging him to do it piecemeal. Mr. Bowerman stated Mr. Foster had a valid point. However, he stated: "But the Ordinance attempts to deal with larger types of actions and is trying to accommodate the whole policy in terms of rural subdivision. Clearly there are circumstances where it is to the benefit of the applicant to. approach it in a different manner." Mr. St. John felt this was a "big problem," i.e. "the sanctity of the Ordinance is more important than getting the best development." Mr. Bowerman stated "If this was a common occurance, it should be accommodated in the Ordinance to be allowed by right.." Mr. Horne agreed. Mr. St. John felt Mr. Foster was being forced to engage in a "subterfuge.'" Mr. Horne disagreed. He stated: "Any Ordinance has these edges to it; no matter how you write it they are not going to accommodate everybody's particular (plan) so there is always going to be something in the edge." Mr. Bowerman felt waivers were to be used when there were exceptions because of.particular circumstances. He did not think this was a particular circumstance. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the good planning process was two phased: (1) Good application of the Ordinance; and (2) Review of the Ordinance to see that it is accomplishing what is intended. He felt Mr. Foster's candor was important in the second phase because it invites.review of the Ordinance. University/City/County Cooperative Neighborhood Studies -- West Main Street, University Hospital Neighborhood - Mr. Horne led a brief discussion. Mr. Michel moved that the University/City/County Cooperative Neighborhood Study be accepted as presented. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 70 September 13, 1988 Page 12 Definition of Perpetuity - Mr. St. John spoke briefly about the definition of perpetuity. Site Plan Extension Requests. Player's Club - ACAC - y1r. Fritz explained the applicant was requesting a 6-month extension of the site plan. Mr. Fritz gave a history of this site plan approval which showed that several extensions had already been approved. It was the decision of the Commission that the request for an.extension be denied. Tiger Fuel - 111r. Horne explained that the applicant was requesting an extension of the 6-month period during which administrative approval was allowable. Mr. Horne explained that the reason for the request involved some complex problems with the Highway Department. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by fir. Jenkins, that the Tiger Fuel site plan be extended 3 months. The motion passed unanimously. Mill Creek Multi -Family - fir. Horne explained that the applicant was requesting an extension of the period during which the site plan was eligible for administrative approval. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the M211 Creek Multi -Family site plan be granted a 3 month extension. The motion passed unanimously. Referring to the last two items, sir. Bowerman. suggested that staff :Night want to consider amending the ordinance to increase the time that a site plan would be eligible for administrative approval, particularly in consideration of the extended tine period that VDOT approvals are now taking. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 D.M. DS ova John Borne, Secretary 71