HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 20 88 PC MinutesDecember 20, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 20, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma
Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of December 6, 1988 were approved as
amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - The Yellow Mountain District
consists of ten parcels totalling 662.810 acres located on Rt. 250 West,
and State Route 691, 692, and 637 in western Albemarle. The proposed time
period before initial review is ten years. The Commission is not required
to take action at this time, other than to receive the applications from
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously..
Southside Elementary School Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
59,250 square foot elementary school on 16.06 acres. Proposal is to be
served by 79 proposed parking spaces. Property described as Tax Map 91,
Parcel 13 is located on the east side of Route 742 (Avon Street) approximately
8/10 of a mile south of 1-64. Zoned R-1, Residential. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to con-
ditions.
The Education Department was represented by Mr. David Papenfuse. Also
present was Mr. Fletcher Rush, and Mr. Mel Lambert, architects for the
project. They were present to answer to questions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bob Sleeth, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He
stated he was in favor of the project, but expressed concern about what
effects construction would have on his well. He asked that it be assured
that adequate precautions be taken to protect his groundwater.
i7G
December 20, 1988
Page 2
Regarding the issue of questionable soils on the site, mr. Rush explained that
this was not a major problem. He stated the first two feet of soil would
probably be removed and replaced.
Mr. Larry Hill, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
He expressed concern about run-off and about buffering between his property
and the school.
There was a brief discussion about run-off control measures and buffering.
Mr. Keeler stated that staff had not yet reviewed the landscape plans, but
he did not believe any screening from adjacent properties had been
recommended. He explained that with school projects what is usually
required is screening of parking areas from the public road. He stated
that if it was the Commission's desire to require screening staff would
address that at final site plan approval. It was determined the detention
basin would be screened.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mir. Keeler if the County Engineer anticipated.any problems
with run-off or soil conditions. Mr. Keeler responded that the only
recommendation made by the County Engineer was that the detention pond
be kept to a maximum depth of two feet at the front to eliminate the need
for a fence. Regarding the issue of the soils, Mr. Keeler explained that
the Site Plan Ordinance requires that staff notify applicants when it is
determined poor soils are going to be encountered. He stated that the
staff report advises that the applicant should work closely with the Soil
Conservation Service and the Engineering Departmentin order to provide
adequate drainage. Mr. Keeler stated he was unaware of any particular
concerns the County Engineer might have about erosion control. He added
that the Soil. Erosion Ordinance requires that at any time that erosion
occurs to the detriment of downstream property, the County can require
corrective measures. Mr. Keeler did not think the grading plan had
been approved as yet.
Mr. Bowerman asked that staff be .mindful of the concerns voiced by
the adjacent property owners in relation to run-off. Mr. Keeler stated
staff would make the County Engineer aware of this concern in his review
of the final site plan and soil erosion plan.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt screening from adjacent properties would
be reasonable. He noted that the limits of grading come very close to
the property line. Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant's architect
had been correct, i.e. "that's required under 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning
Ordinances screavfg previsions and that consists of a staggered row of
evergreens, 15 feet on centers, 4 to 5 feet in height at the time of
planting."
Regardingthe fence around the detention basin,.
be placed in such a way as to encourage children
and not cross adjacent residential property.
Ms. Diehl asked that it
to "stay on the road"
/7?
December 20, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that the Southside Elementary School Preliminary Site
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
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 and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
e. Planning Department approval of landscape plan;
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval.
3. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission wished to review the final site plan in view
of the public concerns which had been expressed.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was satisfied that staff could address those concerns.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-88-105 Martin Schulman - Request to amend condition No. 3 of SP-88-60
Martin Schulman, to allow a reduction of the minimum building setback to
50 feet from the proposed western agricultural property line. SP-88-60 was
approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 5, 1988 to allow a
veterinary clinic (Section 10.2.2.18) and commercial kennel (Section 10.2.2.17)
on 21.523 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 56,
Parcel 67 is located on the north side of Rt. 240 across from Acme Visible
Records and in front of the existing Crozet Veterinary Clinic. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff can find.
no hardship as basis for this request. Staff is of the opinion that approval
will be detrimental to the residential use of the proposed western lot.
Therefore, staff recommends denial."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
/r8
December.20, 1988 Page 4
Dr. AJartin Schulman, the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
--The main reason for the setback requirement is to provide adequate
noise control and the criteria of meeting a 40 decibel noise level, or
less, is easily met at the 50 foot setback distance which is being
requested.
--The distance.between the potential building site on the western lot
and the hospital building will be 200 feet.
--Two possible uses for the western lot are: (1) An expansion of the
current practice to include large animals; or (2) An equine centeror
riding stable.
--This request represents a completion of the original request.
--The Health Department has established that there is an adequate
building site on the western parcel. (He pointed this out on the
plat.)
Mr. Stark asked Dr. Schulman what hardship he was claiming as justification
for a waiver. Dr. Schulman responded that he was not representing a specific
hardship, but rather was proposing a plan that he felt had merit.
In response -to Mr. Horne's question, Dr. Schulman pointed out the possible
location of a drainfield and agreed that pumping might be necessary.
There being no public Comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Stark commented that though the applicant has represented that a
building site exists on the western parcel, staff had not reached that
same conclusion. He asked staff to comment.
Mr. Keeler responded: "What occasions the need for the amendment is the proposed
subdivision, but we don't have in hand all the information on the subdivision
plat showing the 30,000 square foot building site, the drainfield locations,
and where exactly things would go."
Mr. Jenkins asked: "Is it in order, if we should choose to approve this,
to specify how far away from that boundary line a residence might.be
constructed at some future date? Is that outside of our jurisdiction?"
:YIr. Horne felt that would be possible, i.e. "if the property is subdivided
in the future and a residence is built on a portion of it at that point, then
specify the distance." Mr. Bowling agreed he thought that could be done as
part of the special use.permit process.
Mr. Wilkerson asked "'L+That if the distance doesn't coincide with the necessary
building site?" ?sir. Bowling replied: "You're already being asked to vary
that as part of this special permit process."
Air. Horne explained that if Mr. Jenkins suggestion was followed: "We'd be
reducing the.setback to 50 feet because it's the setback on the center lot
you're talking about. But as part of that, if you chose that that was
appropriate if, then, there was a limitation on where the potential dwelling
on the western lot were to be placed, then you would add that as a separate
condition."
179
December 20, 1988
Page 5
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that the Ordinance requires a minimum setback of
200 feet, and assuming that the Ordinance is well-founded and reasonable,
there should be a compelling reason if it is not to be followed. He
did not find a compelling reason in this instance.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the reason for the Ordinance requirements would
be more apparent if the veterinary clinic was adjacent to residential property
because there would be a great deal of public concern about the nuisance issue
which the setback requirements are meant to address.
Mr. Bowerman recalled: "When we originally heard this we allowed a reduction
in that from the letter of the law --the initial subdivision of the two
acres being added to the other parcel --and I think there was a reason for that
which the staff outlined which means we have looked favorably in the past
on these, but in that case I think it was totally different from this one.
By adding that parcel to it and.then asking for the reduction was still
increasing the distance from any potential dwelling from this proposed
hospital." Mr. Rittenhouse added: "That increased the buffer on the opposite
side where this proposal would decrease a buffer from a potential site."
Mr. Bowerman added: "I'm not unmindful also that it's not in a growth area.
We've dealt with other questions on this over a period of some months. But
I'm just not sure that the applicant doesn't already enjoy reasonable usage
of the property and the staff mentioned that there are other alternatives
than creating this particular subdivision arrangement which the applicant
could explore with staff."
Mr. Bowerman concluded: "It. seems to me that with the restrictions on the
parcel that we would be allowing to be created, with the gasline easement,
the right-of-way across the property, the drainage problems and the drainfields,
it is a rather restricted site. It might be better off with this site with
maybe another lot coming off someplace else."
Mr. Stark agreed and moved that SP-88-105 for Dr. Martin Schulman be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowling clarified that the "hardship" analysis referred to by Mr. Stark
is "merely a framework of analysis suggested by the staff, in other words
... staff is using the analysis that are used in the variance process
before the Board of Zoning Appeals." He continued: "Staff feels that is an
appropriate analysis but it is not a legally required analysis for the
Commission members to use." Mr. Stark asked: "Does that mean we can't
use it?" Mr. Bowling replied: "No, sir."
Mr. Keeler explained that he felt Ms. Patterson had "written the report in
that regard because the veterinary clinic had already been approved."
He continued: "The reverse analysis of that would be to say 'Pretend that
the 4-acre lot on the west exists, would you approve a veterinary clinic
50 feet from this property line and 100 feet from that other property line?"'
��O
December 20, 1988
Page 6
Mr. Jenkins again stated he felt it would be reasonable to condition an
approval with a restriction on a building site because it appears that
a building site would be 200 feet from the clinic, through not 200 feet
from the property line.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for denial.
The motion passed (6:1) with Mr. Jenkins casting.the dissenting vote.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on January 4, 1988.
ZMA-88-18 J.S. or Frances D. Barnett - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 1.7 acres from LI, Light Industrial
to HC, Highway Commercial with proffer. Property described as Tax Map 77,
Parcel 8A is located on the west side of Route 742 (Avon Street) across from
City of Charlottesville Public Works, at the site of Herring Auto Sales.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested indefinite deferral.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that ZMA-88-18 for J.S. or Frances
D. Barnett be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-88-16 Forest Lakes Associates - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone .13.9264 acres from HC, Highway Commercial
and R-1, R-15 Residential to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center for
a community shopping center of 71,800 square feet with an additional 3.96
acres in unspecified outlots. Property described as flax Map 32, Parcels 36,
36F and 42 and Tax Map 46, Parcel 29D is located on the east side of Route 29
North and north side of Timberwood Boulevard. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Section 8.5.4(d)
permits the Planning Commission to recommend approval subject to stipulated
modifications. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a
positive finding that the proposed Forest Lakes Shopping Center is consistent
with the required findings of 8.5.4(a) and (b)" subject to certain modifications
and agreements.
Mr. Bowerman asked if one of the reasons staff could.recommend favorably
on this additional commercial rezoning, reducing some of the residential, was
because some of the residential is being made up in other -areas such as
Hollymead and Barlysville. Mr. Keeler responded: "There is development.
in this general area which could justify some increase in commercial
zoning." However, Mr. Keeler stated he had *not done an analysis to
justify the increase in.commercial zoning.
fir. Rittenhouse recalled a previous J.W. Sieg rezoningapplication on Rt. 250W
where:staff had felt there were already enough commercial sites in the
urban area and staff didn't see that the "duplication of comimercial property
outside the urban area was.desirable." He asked Mr. Keeler to comment on how
staff views this rezoning application as different from that application.
/S1
December 20, 1988 Page 7
Mr. Keeler responded: "The J.W. Sieg property is not within the growth areas;
it is in the rural areas. We do not make -development zoning available in
the rural areas. This property is within a growth area and is designated
for commercial development. Commercial development is intended to support
the Hollymead community and the surrounding rural areas.... The main
difference is that this is, and has been, shown as commercial development
for some years and you have just finished two years of deliberation on the
Comprehensive Plan and have actually upscaled some of the recommendations
for development." Mr. Keeler concluded: "It's either growth area or its
rural area and we have been trying to sustain that since 1980."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Denise Etheridge. She stated the
applicant was in agreement with the three modifications listed in the
staff report. She asked that agreement No. 4 [Agreement by applicant that
traffic generation from the 24.2 acres of commercial zoning shall not exceed
9,452 vehicle trips per day.] be deleted. Ms. Etheridge gave a slide
presentation showing what the development would look like when completed.
She explained that the commercial uses in the shopping center would be
required to belong to the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association. .
There was some question as to how the Virginia Department of Transportation
had arrived at the trip generation figures. Ms. Etheridge confirmed that
the category of road would serve the ultimate usage of the 26 acres including
the residential. Ms. Etheridge stated that a traffic study had not been
done because it would have involved a long delay, but the applicant has
agreed to do "the absolute maximum as far as commercial." She was unaware
as to what the limit would be for that classification.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He emphasized that this was not just a rezoning for a commercial use, but
was rather for a Planned Development Shopping Center. He stated that 3/4
acreon either side of the road along Rt. 29 would be set aside for
landscaping. He explained that the applicant had asked VDOT what the
maximum category of road that could be required for this development would
be andthen incorporated those additional improvements into the plans
and re -submitted them to VDOT. He explained that VDOT based their
requirements on the "level of service." He pointed out that the property
already has utilities available. He stated the applicant intends to modify
the application to include all staff's recommendations.
Again, Mr. Bowerman asked "What's the maximum traffic generation that
can be produced at this level of service?" Mr. Roudabush did not know
the answer to this question.
Mr. Frank Kessler, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained that he had spoken with Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia
Department of Transportation and asked what would be the maximum
the Highway Department could require if this property were developed
with the largest shopping center possible. Based on Mr. Roosevelt's
response to this question (which had been put in writing), Mr. Kessler
stated he had agreed to make all these improvements "right now."
/Y02
December 20, 1988
Page 8
The Chairman invited public comment.
yx. David Sutton, President of Tiger Fuel, addressed the Commission.
He asked that the request for rezoning be denied because he felt it was
"in direct conflict with a previously approved site plan that we have,
and we believe it is directly in conflict with our property rights as
the owner of the five -acre parcel (on the northern most boundary of this
property) adjoining this." He stated he had not realized this .was
a combination rezoning request and, essentially, site plan approval.
He stated he had been notified by staff that his site plan will have to
be modified or possibly revoked. He felt it was "unfair and inappropriate"
that he was being asked to amend his site plan. He explained that the
Forest Lakes plan does not allow direct access to.his property which
would preclude the use of the property for the sale of retail gas. He
stated the applicant's plan showed a 20 foot right-of-way on his parcel
of land to which he did not believe the applicant was entitled. He
stressed that he was the "initial developer and first person to have a site
plan approved" and felt it was unfair that he should be asked to amend his
site plan. He felt the applicant'ssite plan should accommodate what had
already been approved by the Commission. He concluded: "I would submit
to you that our contractual rights entitle us to the use of our entire
one acre and to limit the use of that.joint curb cut to the original
five acre parcel which was contemplated and to limit the use of that
joint curb cut to an entrance -only configuration which I believe is
consistent with the plat that was hand drawn and initialed by both
parties and attached to the original contract. I believe what is
proposed here is not only inconsistent with our site plan, but incon-
sistent with our rights as a property owner and as the holder of an
approved site plan." He stated he believed he had legal rights and
an approved site plan, "all of which are inconsistent with this
proposed development."
Mr. Bob Smith, a commercial real estate broker, addressed the Commission.
He stated he had submitted the proffers for the original zoning. He
gave a brief history of the property and the crossovers. He stated he
wanted to clarify what the zoning proffers had meant and what they were
intended to do. He explained: "4ti'e appeared before this body on 5 or 6
different occasions requesting .the zoning. We came in with a five -acre
parcel --that was deferred; we came back with a 35-acre parcel --that
was deferred; we came back with a 17-acre parcel --that was deferred until
we could address access to the properties. We then came in with a proffer
that was approved, basically. We went to the Highway Department and they
told us, within about 100 or 150 feet,.where they thought.that crossover
was going to be moved to. We took that location and, by some miraculous
luck, four of our crossovers fit the Ordinance and we needed a fifth one
to serve a service station. At one of the meetings Dan Roosevelt was
here and was asked by the Chairman... what his reaction was and Dan
said that he thought that a service station at that location needed two
accesses. ... We had added part of a proffer that said that that particular
access, the one that was nonconforming, could not be built until the
one that conformed was built, to the north and .this was done to avoid
exactly what is being proposed here --to make it a major access into
a commercial development. When we negotiated a joint access point there
it was imagined that there would be a small complimentary user to the
south, what is now the Tiger Fuel site, and at that point in time it was
told to have joint entrances and so we complied and put a joint entrance
/J3
December 20, 1988
Page 9
in there to serve what is now the Tiger Fuel site and one that Dr. Hurt, at
that time, still owned which would be adjoined to it. I don't think the
intent was anywhere near the magnitude of what this entrance -exit would
be onto 29 from the shopping center."
Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Commission. Dr. Hurt explained that he was
the original owner of both the applicant's property and the Tiger Fuel
property. He explained that he had originally sold the Tiger Fuel property
to Tri-Ton who later sold it to Tiger Fuel. He stated that none of his
negotiations had been with Tiger Fuel, but he was aware of what the
intentions were when the five acres was sold to Tri-Ton. He explained:
"At that time Z transferred five acres with the understanding that if
you approved the division of one acre and the entrance and they were
going to build the entrance as shown by Frank Kessler's plan they
were to keep the one acre, but in the event that they were unable to
get their approval and did not build the entrance road as shown there,
they would transfer the property back to me. If they got the approval
and built the entrance, they were to keep the one acre and transfer
four acres back to me. So I an entitled to get back the four acres
which they have title to now but really don't have the right to keep
and they don't have the right to even keep one acre of the five acres
in the event they do not build the road as shown there, and I always
expected to use that entrance, not just for the one acre but I own the
property behind. So it's not reasonable --I can understand possibly how
Tiger Fuel might have gotten some impression because the other people
wanted to sell the property to them and I'm not sure what they didn't
tell them, but I can tell you that was not the deal that I made and I
feel that this property is subject to, so I'm expecting to get the
four acres back which I have agreed to sell to Frank Kessler and he has
the full rights, as I had, to have that road built as shown and to use
it to access the four acres and the property behind."'
Mr. Kessler stated that if another entrance were possible he would
be "glad to take it" and let Tiger Fuel have two, but he stated he
has been told by the Highway Department and staff that that is not
possible.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
The meeting recessed from 10:00 to 10:10.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the Commission had no intention of getting
into a discussion of the legal rights of the parties involved.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to comment on the status of the Tiger Fuel
site plan and the rationale for the Commission to approve this application
which would require a modification of an already approved site plan.
Mr. Keeler explained that staff had not looked at the agreement. He
stated the agreement was submitted with the rezoning petition to the
Zoning Department because only the contract purchaser or owner of
property can file a rezoning. He said apparently the Zoning Administrator
/A�
December 20, 1988
Page 10
was satisfied that the agreement gave Mr. Kessler the posture of contract
purchaser and so he forwarded it to the Planning Department. He explained
that 4 acres of the existing 5 acre tract are included in the shopping
center. He continued that what was germane to the Commission's review was
the .prior approval of the Tiger Fuel site plan. (Mr. Keeler then distributed
copies of Commission minutes from March 8, 1988 at which the Tiger
Fuel preliminary site plan was approved.) He quoted the following from
those minutes:
"He (i.e. fir. Keeler) stated that one issue is still unresolved
and recommended that a fourth condition be added to address this
issue. The condition would be: 'The applicant is placed on
notice that the subdivision or additional development of this
property may require alteration to access.' Mr. Keeler explained
that this use will occupy only a portion of the five -acre site
and if other uses or further subdivision are proposed in the
future alteration to the access could be required."
He continued quoting from the March 8 minutes with a statement from
Mr. Sutton,.President of Tiger Fuel, as follows:
"He (i.e. Mr. Sutton) stated he had no objections to staff's
recommended conditions of approval."
Mr. Keeler explained that stated in that list of conditions of approval
was No. 4: "The applicant.is placed on notice that subdivision or additional
development of this property may require alteration to access."
Mr. Keeler confirmed that this condition was actually placed on the
approval. He added: "I think if the applicant is not willing to abide
by that condition, he does not have an approval."
Mr. Horne stressed that the applicant has Planning Commission approval of
a preliminary site plan and -that does not constitute final site plan
approval. He stated that staff has not ever approved a final site plan,
and a preliminary site plan is "not a site plan that you can build to."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "It's clear in my mind that based upon our action
of 8 March that this type of thing was contemplated because Mr. Keeler
brought it up and we were privy to that at the time and so were all
parties involved."
?r. Bowerman stated he was bothered by the fact that "I don't really
understand the Highway Department's position in terms of their approval
of the road plans for Mr. Keeler. Consistently they look to our
Comprehensive Plan ... and they are not in favor of rezoning requests
that would increase traffic generation over and above wnat's currently
contained in the Plan or what we modified in our new Plan. This has
been their action in the past and I am just curious as to ---and also
staff's position now --that we don't really have any trip generation
figures that we can rely on...." He was interested in "what type of
generation figures we are looking at for this entire area and how this
particular development impacts the Comprehensive Plan recommendations
in terms of the total traffic generation figures' potential." He
asked staff to comment.
December 20, 1988 Page 11
Mr. Keeler responded: "What could be generated from the shopping center and
the residue acreages would not exceed what the Comprehensive Plan shows.
The Comprehensive Plan shows more commercial acreage than would exist with
this rezoning and what exists on the south side of Timberwood." Mr. Keeler
stated he had not been present at the second meeting with the Highway
Department, but at the first meeting VDOT had stated a revised Transportation
Analysis Plan would be needed which takes a considerable amount of time.
He recalled that at that point the issue of the zoning improvements had.
come up. He did not feel that Mr. Roosevelt had based his recommended
.improvements on any hard generation figures, but rather it was "to avoid
the time lag involved to develop and cycle through one or two times."
He concluded: (1) "The Highway Department is not endorsing more traffic
than the Comprehensive Plan calls for; and (2) I don't think that the
recommendations that they made were based on any generation figure" but
rather on 'Hey, if this thing is really loaded up, what would be the
ultimate that you'd need?' Mr. Keeler felt Mr. Kessler's concern was
building the ultimate road.design but not putting enough traffic on it
to justify it.
There followed further discussion about traffic generation figures.
It was determined the 10,300 vehicle trips per day figure would be for the
entire commercial area, i.e. the shopping center, the outlots, and the 9-acre
residue of commercial.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Bowling if he agreed with staff's position that approval
of this application was not infringing upon the integrity of a previous
site plan.
Mr. Bowling declined comment on this question because of a possible
conflict of interests.
Mr. Horne stated he had discussed this question with Mr. St. John, the
County Attorney. He explained: "Mr. St. John agrees with the staff
analysis that a preliminary site plan is not site plan approval and that
if that condition is in there as written then it was clearly anticipated
that when the residue was developed or subdivided, then the access was
going to be altered, or could be altered. It is now being developed
and subdivided and we're proposing altering it." Mr. Horne stated this
had been a verbal opinion given by Mr. St. John.
Mr. Horne added: "I very strongly advise you that preliminary site plan
approval is not site plan approval. It's not that under the Ordinance
and it was never anticipated to be site plan approval."
Referring to the issue of whether the joint entrance with Tiger Fuel
(AP4S on the Application Plan) should.be located 480 feet north of
Timberwood Blvd., as proposed by the applicant and recommended by the staff,
or 500 feet as recommended by VDOT and the County Engineer, Mr. Rittenhouse
asked which should be approved. Mr. Horne explained that staff felt
the 480 feet was "the best solution for all parties involved." He
stated: "Give 20 feet on that and everybody gets something out of this
proposal. If you stick it at 500 feet, in our opinion, it will dramatically
alter, if not really preclude, Tiger Fuel from using their property for
what they want to use it for."
/ Y�i
December 20, 1988
Page 12
Mr. .Bowerman interpreted: "We can go from the proffered five (accesses) to
the current proposed four because Mr. Kessler represents the original portion
of the property where the proffer was made and he accepts the decrease from
five to four."
NKr. Keeler stated he had informed Mr. Roosevelt (VDOT) that staff was going
to recommend 480 feet with the final determination to be made by the
Commission. He explained that the. Highway Department's recommendation was
simply in accordance.with the Ordinance which was developed from a
recommendation that the Highway Department made in 1978.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was comfortable with the application as originally
proposed by staff'.with four accesses and the traffic generation figure
changed from 9,452 to 10,3.50. He added: "In the event that in the future
the applicant can demonstrate or a future applicant can demonstrate that
that figure should be something other than the one that was arrived at by
staff, knowing what we know, then the applicant can demonstrate that to us
and we can modify that." He stated he felt that was a reasonable trip
generation figure at this point. He was not in favor of dropping agreement
No. 4 as had been requested by the applicant.
Ms. Diehl agreed.
Mr. Horne commented: "In terms of some kind of application like this, their
input into traffic generation purely has to do with the.road being built
correctly. They don't get into too much advice as to is it appropriate for
the general health of 20 North that we do XYZ in terms of total traffic
generation. ... Their role is '.%That are the roads sized to handle?"'
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that in this case the applicant is willing to make
the maximum in►provements and this is advantageous not only to the County
but also to the applicant because he gets to proceed with his project earlier.
However, Mr. Bowerman stated he still had questions about the trip
generation figures and therefore he felt agreement No. 4 should remain.
Mr. Jenkins asked that the record show that he was very uncomfortable
with being put in a position "to resolve differences between neighbors."
Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission could only deal with the issues before
it in terms of good planning and .the application itself. He added: "The
private agreements have to be mitigated by the parties involved."
Mr. Michel stated this was a very professional project and his only
reservation was acting without Mr. St. John's comments. He suggested
that Mr. St. John be asked to furnish the Board with his written
co:ments before their review.
Mr. Rittenhouse askedfor an explanation of the change from 9452 vehicle
trips to 10,350 vehicle trips. Mr. reeler explained, that the 9,452 figure
was based on an estimate by Wilbur Smith and associates as to commercial
area on the front based on 138,500 square feet of building area. The
10,350 figure was based on 4,850.from the shopping center and 5,500 from
the 12 vacant acres, and these figures were based on Comprehensive Plan
recommendations of highway -oriented commercial uses.
181
December 20, 1988
Page 13
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-88-16 for.Forest Lakes Associates be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the modifications to the
plan and agreements between the applicant and the County as follows:
Modifications to Application Plan:
1. Note on plan that outlots are not approved for uses involving drive-in
window.
2. Relocate access near Timberwood for Outlot 1 to align with main access
aisle parallel to Phase I of the shopping center.
3. Provide joint or c ss easement between Outlots 2 and 3.
Agreements Made by the County and the Applicant:
1. Agreement to develop property in general compliance with the Application
Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in Section 8.5.6.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Staff approval of shopping center subdivision plats and Tiger Fuel
subdivision plat. All plats shall reflect appropriate access easements
and carry notes regarding restriction of access to U.S. Rt. 29N.
3. Staff approval of site plan for Forest Lakes shopping center and revised
site plan for Tiger Fuel service station. Staff may request administrative
approval of site plans for individual outlots.
4. Agreement by applicant that traffic generation from the 24.2 acres of
commercial zoning shall not exceed 10,350 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-88-98 Insm_ed Incorporated (Astec) - Petition under Section Z7.Z.Z.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance for issuance of a special use permit to allow laboratories,
medical or pharmaceutical on 3.286 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial,
developed as the Astec Center. Property described as Tax Map 77E2, Parcel 4
is located on the west side of Route 742 (Avon Street) adjacent to the south
of I-64 and across from City of Charlottesville Public Works. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Peter Thomas, President of Insmed, represented the applicant. He
offered no additional comment. He was accompanied by Dr. Joseph Larner
who would be conducting the research. In response to Ms. Diehl's request,
Dr. Larner briefly described the process that would be used in the
research.
A"
December 20, 1988
Page 14
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she had no problems with the proposal.
Mr. Michel stated his only concern was with waste disposal and that seemed
to have been addressed.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-88-98 for Insmed Incorporated (Astec) be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. This special use permit is issued to authorize a pharmaceutical laboratory
to be operated in accord with "Certified Engineers Report and Performance
Standards: prepared by Pleasants Associates, Inc., submitted by Peter G.
Thomas for Insmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dated November 17, 1988 and further
identified as "Exhibit A: SP-88-98," procedures, materials listing, or disposal
methods shall be approved by the County Engineer who at his discretion may
defer such approval to the Board of Supervisors;
2. Albemarle County Service Authority/Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority approval
prior to discharge to sanitary sewer system;
3. All Virginia Department of Health requirements to be met including approval
of materials to be iandfilled, and including report submitted to.Bureau of Toxic
Substances Information;
4. County Engineer approval of spill containment plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Addition to Blue Run_ Agricultural/Forestal District - Located an State
Routes 231, 640 and 641 in northeastern Albemarle. The proposed addition
contains about 2,325 acres described as Tax :Zap 35, Parcels 22, 22A and 23;.
Tax Map 36, Parcel 9; Tax Map 49, Parcel 24; and Tax Map 50; Parcels 47, 47A,
and 47B. Rivanna ?Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval as proposed.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Y..s. Sherry Buttrick; representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed
the Commission and spoke.in favor of the application.
Mr. Stark moved that the Addition to the Blue Run agricultural/Forestal
District be approved as proposed.
)Zr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on State
Route 658, Ivy Farm Drive, and Pleasant Lane in western Albemarle. The
proposed addition contains about 82 acres described as Tax -Map 44, Parcels
31A, 31Ai, 32, 32E, 32E29 32G, 32G1, 32K, 32L, and 32N. Jack Jouette
Magisterial District.
/89
December 20, 1988 Page 15
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. An issue of discussion with this proposal
centered on the inclusion of small subdivision lots. Staff felt: "...the
subdivision lots do not meet the intent of the agricultural/forestal district
(and recommended) that all the subdivision lots be excluded from the proposed
addition."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bill Edgerton addressed the Commission and argued for the inclusion
of the subdivision lots. He felt inclusion of the lots was of no real
benefit to the landowners but was of benefit to the County. He particularly
asked that lots 32G and 32G1 be included. He stressed that there were
no plans to improve these lots and his reason for including them was to
insure that they would never be improved. He suggested that these two
lots could be considered as "different" because they currently have
no construction on them.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
For the Commission's information, Mr. Horne pointed out that the
construction of a single-family dwelling on the lots in question was not
defined as "more intensive use" so if they were to be included in the
district there would be no restriction on the construction of a single-
family dwelling.
Mr. Michel indicated he was opposed to the inclusion of the small lots
because he felt they"lessened the potential legal arguments that may
come to bear with agricultural/forestal districts."
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in agreement with staff's position because
it was consistent with previous Commission and Board actions.
Though Mr. Edgerton offered to proffer that lots 32G and 32G1 would not
be built on, Mr. Bowling stated this was "not a proffered situation."
He pointed out that "there is no you can get rid of your rights
unless you re -plat the thing." Mr. Horne agreed.
Ms. Buttrick asked that the Commission be mindful, when excluding
small developed lots, that the farmhouse lot which is often included
with the large tracts not be included in this category. Mr. Bowerman
indicated the Commission was aware of this situation.
Mr. Stark moved that the Addition to the Moorman's River Agricultural/
Forestal District be approved as presented by staff, excluding the
small subdivision lots.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
/90
December 20, 1988
Page 16
Addition to Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on Peavine
Hollow Road off State Route 668 in northwestern. Albemarle. The proposed
addition contains about 15 acres described as Tax Map 16, Parcel 13D. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval as proposed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Addition to Free
Union Agricultural/Forestal District be approved as proposed.
The motion passed unanimously.
Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on State Routes 671
and 664 in northwestern Albemarle. The proposed district contains about
634 acres described'as Tax Map 8, Parcels 16A, 16C, 17E, 17F, and 50; and
Tax Map 17, Parcels 26C and 31. 1%'hite Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval as proposed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded. by Ms. Diehl, that the Buck 'Mountain Agricultural/
Forestal District be approved as proposed.
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
DS
/ q1