Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP201400001 Staff Report 2014-04-15 (2) Draft ACTIONS Planning Commission Meeting of April 15, 2014 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION FOLLOW-UP ACTION 1. Call to Order. • Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by the Chair, Cal Morris. • PC members present were Mr. Morris, Mr. Dotson, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Loach, Ms. Firehock, Mr. Keller and Mr. Lafferty. Ms. Monteith was present. • Staff present was Sarah Rhodes, Rachel Falkenstein, Frances MacCall, Amelia McCulley, Wayne Cilimberg, David Benish, Sharon Taylor, and Greg Kamptner. 2. Other Matters Not on the Agenda Clerk: from the Public • No action required • None 3. Committee Reports Clerk: • None • No action required 3. Consent Agenda Clerk: • Finalize Minutes for signature — 3-18-14 a. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 2014 APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA for item (a) by a vote of 7:0. 4. Presentation Staff: a. MPO Long Range • Note: Memo to Albemarle County Planning Transportation Plan Commission from Sarah Rhodes, MPO Update on Charlottesville- Program Manager re: 2040 LRTP: Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Process Update which includes fiscally- Organization's (MPO) 2040 constrained and visioning project list for Long Range Transportation Plan 2040 filed in office of clerk with minutes. (LRTP). (Sarah Rhodes) Presentation given by Sarah Rhodes on 2040 LRTP update. The Commission discussed and provided comments. No formal action was taken. -1 — Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 7a. Work Session Staff: • Action Letter — CCP-2014-00001 - CCP-2014-00001 CMA Properties Provide Planning Commission's Proposal by CMA Properties to feedback to the applicant. determine if use of the property for automotive related uses connected • Schedule review of proposal with Places to the expansion of the Colonial Auto 29 advisory council and report to the Center car dealership is in Commission what their feedback was. conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and potential next steps for the applicant. The subject property consists of Tax Map Parcel 045-00- 00-17300 located on Berkmar Drive behind the existing Colonial Auto Center. The property is zoned R6 Residential and has a land use designation of Urban Density Residential in areas around Centers in the Places29 Master Plan. (Rachel Falkenstein) The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed use in a pre- application work session and provided the following feedback on several questions posed by staff: • Consensus was that the proposed use could be appropriate for this site and the Commission supports the applicant moving forward with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) at the next application date, September 2, 2014 (Option B). • There was consensus that a rezoning concurrent with the CPA may be appropriate and decision should be made at the time of the CPA processing. • The Commission asked the applicant to get feedback on the proposal from the Places 29 advisory council. —2— Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 • The Planning Commission noted the major issues that should be considered when moving forward with this proposal as noted in Attachment 1. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:59 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m. 6b. Work Session Staff: • Refer to comments, suggestions and ZTA-2014-00002 Miscellaneous direction to staff noted in Attachment 2. Administrative Amendments • Staff to do further research, develop draft (Amelia McCulley) ordinance language and schedule public Discussion on amending hearing. County Code §18 (Zoning Ordinance) for Miscellaneous Administrative Updates, Corrections and Clarifications (Amelia McCulley) The Commission received staff's presentation, took public comment and provided comments and suggestions, as noted in Attachment 2. 7. Old Business Staff: • Committee Appointments — The • Update Committee List Commission concurred with Ms. • Meet with Morris and Dotson. Schedule Firehock serving as liaison to the Commission work session. National Heritage Committee. • Staff will be meeting with Mr. Morris and Mr. Dotson to discuss a process for the Commission's further review of priority strategies in its recommended Comprehensive Plan update. 8. New Business Secretary: • None • Public roundtable scheduled for Wednesday, April 16 from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. in room 241 of County Office Building on Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to Address State Code Requirements for Agritourism Farm Breweries. —3— Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 • No Planning Commission meeting on April 23, 2014 or April 30, 2014. • The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. 9. Adjourn to April 16, 2014 Public Roundtable at 5:30 p.m. in room 241 of Albemarle County Office Building, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. • The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Attachment 1 — CCP-2014-00001 CMA Properties Pre-application Work Session - Planning Commission Comments Attachment 2 —ZTA-2014-00002 Miscellaneous Administrative Amendments — Planning Commission Comments —4-- Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 ATTACHMENT 1 CCP-2014-00001 CMA Properties Pre-application Work Session In a pre-application work session staff presented a PowerPoint presentation to determine if use of the property for automotive related uses connected to the expansion of the Colonial Auto Center car dealership is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and potential next steps for the applicant. Staff posed several questions and requested feedback from the Commission. Present for the application was Pete Borches, with CMA Properties, Inc.; Scott Collins, of Collins Engineering and Valerie Long, of Williams Mullen, who presented a PowerPoint presentation to explain the proposal and answer questions. There was no public comment. The Planning Commission held a discussion with staff and the applicants and provided feedback on the questions posed by staff, as follows. Questions for the Commission • Does the Planning Commission find the proposed use to be appropriate for this site and could you support the applicant moving forward with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Consensus was that the proposed use could be appropriate for this site and the Commission supports the applicant moving forward with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) at the next application date, September 2, 2014. • Which option should the applicant pursue for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? A. Wait for the proposed land use amendment to be reviewed during the next Places 29 Master Plan update. B. Apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), for which the next deadline for filing is September 2, 2014. C. Apply for the CPA in conjunction with the submittal of a rezoning request for the property. There was a consensus supporting Option B. There was consensus that a rezoning concurrent with the CPA may be appropriate and that the decision should be made at the time of the CPA processing. The Commission also asked the applicant to get feedback on the proposal from the Places 29 Advisory Council. Staff will report back to the Commission regarding the council's feedback on the proposed use. —5— Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 • Are there any other major issues that the applicant should consider when moving forward with this request? The Planning Commission noted the following major issues that should be considered when moving forward with the request: 1. More specificity for what is actually being proposed on the site regarding use and design. 2. The visual and character impacts to Berkmar Drive. 3. The potential connection of Meyers Drive to Berkmar Drive. 4. Determining an adequate right-of-way for the ultimate Berkmar Drive expansion. 5. Several members mentioned a desire not to intensify the scale of development in terms of its impervious surface and environmental impacts. _g_ Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15, 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 ZTA-2014-00002 Miscellaneous Administrative Amendments — Planning Commission Comments In a work session staff presented a PowerPoint presentation on amending County Code 18 (Zoning Ordinance) for miscellaneous administrative updates, corrections and clarifications as outlined in Attachment B of the executive summary. Because the majority of these are housekeeping in nature, staff is highlighting highlighted three for focused discussion. Focus Discussion #1 1. Location of additional dwellings on RA or Residential property A. Address inconsistencies between RA and Residential; B. Establish purpose and applicable regulations. What is in question is how far we should clarify the ordinance. There are 2 Focused Discussion items. Focused Discussion #1 Clarify that this focused discussion relates only to dwelling units (defined in Z.O. as "single unit providing independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation"). Also want to clarify that zoning regulations are enabled to address land use impacts and generally shouldn't address owner-occupancy versus rental-occupancy. 1) The current inconsistency lies with Residentially-zoned property only invoking requirements for rental units. 2) Purpose: a) address land use impacts; b) to the greatest extent possible, assure that what we allow people to build under one regulation is consistent with other relevant regulations. For this discussion, staff recommends that the purpose to be served with regulating a 2nd dwelling is to assure that in the future it could be subdivided consistently with the zoning and subdivision ordinances. It is also not uncommon for people to need to subdivide these dwellings into individual lots (financing, estate settlement). The Planning Commission held a discussion, asked questions and provided feedback on the questions posed by staff, as follows. - Why go beyond what is required currently? - Are we willing to say that they should never have a second dwelling unit because the property cannot be subdivided? - Questioned if there was no setbacks for the second home. - Minimum fire standards? - This is wide open — these questions need to be answered about particular sites. They don't have enough information to respond to questions. —7— Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 - Don't understand what can and cannot do. When third dwelling the public needs to know fully what is required. Does it require a site plan? - Requirements at top of chart are generally sufficient except one Commissioner was not sure about road frontage. - Questioned road frontage provisions. - A common drive will suffice but if third dwelling then requires a road requirement. Is that correct? - Site plan public street frontage? - Site plan third dwelling units? - The Commission noted that they would have to see additional details regarding question 1. - Is there a reason why septic fields/requirements are not on the list? Focused Discussion #2 2. Regulations relating to Swim, Golf and Tennis Clubs 5.1.16 SWIMMING, GOLF, TENNIS CLUBS Each swimming, golf or tennis club shall be subject to the following: a) The swimming pool, including the apron, filtering and pumping equipment, and any buildings, shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the nearest property line and at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from any existing dwelling on an adjoining property, except that, where the lot upon which it is located abuts land in a commercial or industrial district, the pool may be constructed no less than twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest property line of such land in a commercial or industrial district; b) When the lot on which any such pool is located abuts the rear or side line of, or is across the street from, any residential district, a substantial, sightly wall, fence, or shrubbery shall be erected or planted, so as to screen effectively said pool from view from the nearest property in such residential district; ****************** Clarify first two requirements relate only to swim pools. Section 5.1.16 d) The board of supervisors may, for the protection of the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to provisions for additional fencing and/or planting or other landscaping, additional setback from property lines, additional parking space, location and arrangement of lighting, and other reasonable requirements; **************************** Currently includes broad provisions for Board consideration and that is generally limited to legislative actions (rezonings, special use permits, special exceptions). Question: should we establish specific standards that apply to: a) all swim, golf or tennis facilities, b) only to those that are permitted by special use permit or rezoning or alternatively, c) impose no specific standards? —8— Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 Section 5.1.16 e. Provision for concessions for the serving of food, refreshments or entertainment for club members and guests may be permitted under special use permit procedures. ************ • Problematic because it implies concessions are not permitted without a special use permit. • The definition of accessory use (customary and incidental) will limit most of these activities associated with swim, golf or tennis facilities. Staff recommends eliminating this provision. Question: Is there any benefit in keeping it and codifying practice (i.e. must be a permitted accessory use, etc.)? The Planning Commission discussed, asked questions and provided feedback on the questions posed by staff. The following key issues/concerns were raised for further consideration: - General agreement that standards would remain and apply to legislative actions. - Noise and Nuisances - There is no mention of potential noise. Suggested inserting "nuisances" to be considered that arise from the club from the property line. - Asked staff to do research on tennis courts separation and nuisance - Issue of scale - Staff to research setbacks before going forward to Board. - Tweak this language to clarify that the size, scale and nature of these facilities in the context of a special use permit are completely appropriate as part of that review. - Questioned if "entertainment"should be taken out since it was such a big word to use in the provisions. They have a noise ordinance, but there are a lot of ways that "entertainment"can be obnoxious or not appreciated by the neighbors. There was no public comment. No formal action taken. Staff to do further research, develop draft ordinance language and schedule public hearing. (See minutes for further details) —g_ Planning Commission DRAFT Action Memo—April 15,2014 Places 29 Community Advisory Council Meeting Agenda Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:00 - 6:30 pm, Room 246, Albemarle County Office Building McIntire Road • Welcome, sign attendance sheet • Lee Catlin, update on budget, comprehensive plan update direction (10 Minutes) • CMA Properties/Colonial Auto Center, Pete Borches Discuss future expansion, per request of Planning Commission ( below is hyperlink to Staff report) (30 minutes) http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_developm ent/forms/PC_Reports/2014/CCP-14-1_April_15_Staff_Report.pdf • Update on Route 29 Advisory Panel meetings (below is link to website and information presented at previous meetings) (15 minutes) http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/route_29_feedback.asp • Development updates (10 Minutes) • Places 29 CAC priorities (15minutes) • Updates from BOS Brad Sheffield, Ken Boyd (if any) • Updates from Planning commission Bruce Dotson, Mac Lafferty (if any) • Public Comments Next Places 29 CAC Meetings: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:00-6:30, Room 235 County Office Building Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:00-6:30 Rt 29 Advisory Panel meeting May 8, 2014 1:00 Previous Places 29 CAC priorities Pedestrian/Bike Crossings and Connectivity ROADS Western 29 Bypass ROADS Hillsdale Drive/Best Buy Ramp/Dickerson Road New Northside Library Bus Improvements/Street Lights Education of County Policies/regulations/Processes Public Safety Updates Open Spaces Project Updates of "what is in the County pipeline?"