Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200900003 Staff Report 2010-01-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA200900003 North Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Hill Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: January 12, 2009 To Be Determined Owner: Elizabeth J. Washington Life Applicant: Delores Wallace Estate c/o Delores R. Wallace Acreage: 0.69 acres TMP: 07800000003400 Existing Zoning and By -right use: Location: 2042 North Hill / east side of RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, Richmond Rd. (Rt. 250) at Inn Dr. / and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 approximately 230 ft. south of I64 unit/acre eastbound onramp Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: No DA (Development Area): Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA RA Rural Areas): X Proposal: Rezone parcel from Highway Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial (HC) to Rural Areas (RA) Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density 0.5 unit/ acre Character of Property: undeveloped Use of Surrounding Properties: Comfort Inn Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The Rural Areas District would be Staff has not identified any unfavorable consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. factors. 2. The parcel would support one single- family residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Zoning Map Amendment. ZMA200900003 North Hill PC 1/12/10 Staff Report Page 1 STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas PLANNING COMMISSION: January 12, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined ZMA200900003 North Hill Petition: PROJECT: ZMA 200900003 North Hill PROPOSAL: Rezone .69 acres from HC Highway Commercial District which allows commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); HC zone approved by a conditional rezoning ZMA 87-16 PROFFERS: Yes _No_X EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas — preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes _X_No LOCATION: 2042 North Hill / east side of Richmond Rd. (Rt. 250) at Inn Dr. / approximately 230 ft. south of I64 eastbound onramp TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000003400 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville Applicant's Proposal: Request to rezone a .69 acre undeveloped parcel from Highway Commercial (HC) to Rural Areas (RA). The RA District would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Character of the Area: The area is a mixture of commercial, rural and residential uses. Over 1,200 acres of land to the south of the subject parcel has been protected through conservation easements. This area is also the entrance into the Southern Albemarle Historic District and it is on an Entrance Corridor. The subject parcel is undeveloped. The location map (Attachment A) and the area zoning map (Attachment B) are included as reference. Planning and Zoning History: ZMA-87-16 Seville Associates. Rezoning approved for approximately 1.56 acres from Rural Areas (RA) to Highway Commercial (HC) for two parcels located between the Quality Inn (now Comfort Inn) and Route 250. The parcels, Tax Map/Parcel (TMP) 78-34 (ZMA 09-03 subject parcel ) and TMP 78-60A (adjacent parcel) were rezoned to provide parking and support services for an expansion program of the Quality Inn motel (now Comfort Inn) located on TMP 58-60. The expansion program included a multi -story parking garage that would provide two stories of parking and 75,000 square feet of commercial space, as well as a conference center, a fitness center and a gas station on TMP 78-60. The approved proffers would restrict the development of the subject parcel (TMP 78-34) to on - grade parking, a pond with fountain, landscape buffering and other landscape ZMA200900003 North Hill PC 1/12/10 Staff Report Page 2 improvements. At the time of the rezoning, a single-family residence was located on the subject parcel, but it has since been demolished. Located on the east side of the subject parcel was the residence of the owner of both parcels, Mrs. Elizabeth Washington. The parcel containing Mrs. Washington's residence (TMP 78-35) was not part of ZMA 87-16 and remains in the RA District. The subject parcel was leased to the motel owners, Seville Associates, for 20 years. At the time, Seville Associates anticipated acquiring ownership of both parcels at some future time. The Board of Supervisors Action Letter (Attachment C) and minutes of the Board public hearing on February 17, 1988 (Attachment D) are included as reference. The motel expansion plan has never been pursued. SP -87-94 was approved for a 3 -story 130' by 290' foot structure which would provide first floor and roof top parking on Tax Map 78 Parcels 60 and 60A (adjacent to the subject parcel). The second level would be reserved for commercial uses. A condition of approval allowed public water to be extended to serve the property, with a stipulation that the extension would not be at public expense. Although not included in the special use permit, the subject parcel was part of the overall development plans, as described above. VA -87-75 - the Board of Zoning Appeals granted Variances from Sections 4.12.7.2 and 21.7 to allow reduced setbacks for construction of the proposed parking garage/commercial structure. ZMA 2007-21 Cavalier Mini -Storage, a rezoning request for TMP 78-36, the parcel immediately south of the subject parcel, to change the zoning district from RA to HC was denied by the Board of Supervisors. Specifics on the Proposal: The proffers approved with ZMA 87-16 restricted the future development of this property (Attachment D) to the plans for the expansion of the motel, which included "parking, landscaping, buffering, and other landscape improvements." The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to Rural Areas. The rezoning would remove the proffers approved with ZMA 87-16 that would affect this property but would not affect the other parcel subject to the rezoning (TMP 78-60A). Under the RA District, one single-family residential dwelling could be constructed. However, if the applicant were to combine this parcel with TMP 78-35, an additional residence would not be permitted, as TMP 78-35 contains an existing residence. Applicant's Justiflcation for the Request: The applicants have provided a narrative in support of this rezoning which is included as Attachment E. In general, the rezoning would provide a reduction of the current commercial tax rate for a property that is encumbered by proffers approved for a development that has not taken place. Rezoning to the RA District would allow the construction of a single-family residence. The current owners of the property, the heirs of Mrs. Washington, intend to sell the property. ZMA200900003 North Hill PC 1/12/10 Staff Report Page 3 By -right Use of the Property: If developed under the current HC zoning, the property could only be developed under the restrictions of the proffers approved with ZMA 87-16 (Attachment A). The applicant could seek a rezoning to retain the HC zoning but remove the proffers; however, development under the HC zoning regulations would be very limited by setback and frontage requirements due to the small size of the parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area is Rural Areas. Approval of a rezoning application to change the parcel from HC to RA would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Following the 1988 rezoning, future Interchange Development was considered during the development of the Land Use Plan. The adopted Land Use Plan for Interchange Development section of the Comprehensive Plan states that "Because Interstate -64 is a limited access highway, its interchanges may be a focus for development activities. To accommodate appropriate land uses in the vicinity of interstate interchanges, while maintaining the safety and functional and aesthetic integrity of such interchanges, the standards and policies set forth below are recommended." The Plan further states that urban uses at Route 250 East (Shadwell) should be developed on the Urban Area side only. Therefore, the Plan has determined that the south side of the I-64 / Rt. 250 interchange is not to be a focus of development activities. In addition, the Pantops Master Plan does not recommend that this portion of the interchange be incorporated into the Development Areas. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The RA District was established for the following purposes: -Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; -Water supply protection; -Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and -Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. Residential development not related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use shall be encouraged to locate in the urban area, communities and villages as designated in the comprehensive plan where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objective. While this .69 acre parcel would not support either agricultural or forestal uses and development of one single-family residence that would be permitted on the parcel does not directly support the purpose and intent of the RA District, the development ZMA200900003 North Hill PC 1112110 Staff Report Page 4 that would result from this rezoning is more in keeping with the Rural Areas designation in the Land Use Plan than the current HC zoning. Public need and justification for the change: Amending the zoning map to RA would provide consistency with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Rural Areas. The RA district would allow a single-family residence that would be consistent with other residential dwellings in this area. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources: The site is within the Monticello viewshed. The property is also across Route 250 from Shadwell, the site of Thomas Jefferson's birthplace. Shadwell has been protected by an easement held by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The property is also at the entrance to the Southern Albemarle Historic District. Both Rt. 250 and I-64 are designated Entrance Corridors. A change to the Rural Areas zoning district would be more consistent with these resources than the current zoning and the development that could result. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Transportation — Under the existing RA District, the one residential dwelling permitted by -right would generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day (9.57 vpd), substantially less than traffic that could be generated under the existing zoning. Water and Sewer — The parcel is in the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water only. The Service Authority has advised that public water is currently provided to two adjacent parcels: TMP 78-36 and TMP 78-35. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. Rezoning to Rural Areas District would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The parcel under RA zoning would support one single-family residence which is more in keeping with Rural Areas designation than the development that could occur under the current zoning. Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of ZMA20090003 North Hill. No proffers have been offered or are deemed necessary to address impacts of the rezoning. ZMA200900003 North Hill PC 1/12/10 Staff Report Page 5 ATTACHMENTS: A Location Map B Area Map - zoning / easements C Board of Supervisors Action Letter (ZMA 87-16) dated February 19, 1988 D Board of Supervisors February 17, 1988, Public Hearing Minutes (ZMA 87- 16 and SP 87-94) E Applicant Justification Letter, dated August 6, 2009 ZMA200900003 North Hill PC 1/12/10 Staff Report Page 6 Q A OW ATTACHMENT 13 O• I r ®■ ■E■ NOT ■■■■■ ■■qocm HIA 1 1 1110 1 1 1 to0■■ ❑ M IV cp 7 4 r W N W q W � W O N W � � � Q A OW ATTACHMENT 13 O• I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 February 19, 1988 Seville Associates c/o Walter N. Alford Quality Inn Rt. 9, Box 428 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-87-16 Seville Associates Dear Mr. Alford: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on February 17, 1988, unanimously approved the above -noted request to rezone approximately 1.56,acres from RA, Rural Areas, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, located in the southeast quadrant of intersection of Rt. 250E and I-64. Tax Map 78, Parcels 34 and 60A. Rivanna Magisterial District. This request is approved as proffered in letter dated January 20, 1987 (copy attached), received by Planning on January 20, 1988, from Walter N. Alford (signed), The Alford Corporation, Seville Associates, addressed to Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, and with correction of typo to #2 as follows: 11 ... of commercial personal service's area, 2 levels of parking... 11 In the proffer delete the following language: "This proffer will continue the limitation of the above -ground use of Parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on Parcel 78-35.11 Also, portion of proffer related to the landscaping plan shall be applicable only with the understanding that landscaping shall be provided and that such proffer shall in no manner foreclose the requirement of additional landscaping or other buffering by the Planning Commission at time of site plan approval. ATTACHMENT C Seville Associates Page 2 February 19, 1988 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. S' rely, 4�� 77*rvl-� T. P. Horne for of Planning & Community Development JTPH/jcw cc: Kathy Brittain ATTACHMENT February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Fiscal Calculated Year Payment 82-83 $1,293,552 83-84 $1,664,067 84-85 $1,635,984 85-86 $1,909,389 86-87 $1,942,509 87-88 $2,417,318 88-89 $2,513,521 REVENUE SHARING Amount of Cap Payment Did not apply $1,293,552 $1,530,991 $1,579,753 $1,530,991 $1,579,753 $1,875,179 $1,875,179 $1,956,554 $1,942,509 $2,277,953 $2,368,027 $2,277,953 $2,368,027 Increase Over Previous Year +$237,439 +18.36 +$ 48,762 + 3.18 +$295,426 +18.70 +$ 67,330 + 3.59 +$335,444 +17.27 +$ 90,074 + 3.96" Item No. 4.3. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for February 2, 1988, was received as information. Item No. 4.4. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of January, 1988 were approved as presented, by the vote shown above. Agenda Item No. 5. Leaf Burning Ban - Jefferson Village (deferred from January 20, 1988). The Chairman asked if anyone from the pyblic was present concerning this item; there was no response. Mr. Bowie said!at the January 20 meeting there was some misunderstanding on the part of theiapplicants as to what would happen to the leaves if they were not burned.' When the applicants found out that the leaves would be their responsibility, they asked for more time to think about the request. Seeing that no one is present, he would assume that the applicants are withdrawing the petition, but he suggests deferring the item to later in the meeting. There was no further discussion at this time. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-87-16. Seville Associates. Rezone approximately t. 1.56 acres from RA, Rural Areas, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property located in southeast quadrant of intersection of Route 250 East and Interstate 64. Tax Map 78, Parcels 34 and 60A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1988.) Agenda Item No. 7. SP -87-94. Seville Associates. Allow above grade parking in conjunction with conventional facility adjacent to existing Quality Inn Motel. Property is zoned HC and is located in southeast quadrant of intersection of Route 250 East and Interstate 64. Tax Map 78, Parcels 60 and 60A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the following joint 'staff reports (portion of origi- nal staff report dated December 15, 1987, and addendum report dated January 26, 1988, respectively) and letter (dated Decembe5 15, 1987): "Petition: Seville Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.47 acres from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 34 and 60A, is located in the southeast quadrant of the I-64/Route 250 East interchange in the Rivanna Magisterial District. 6 O 1 February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Petition: Seville Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a PARKING STRUCTURE (24.2.2.12) on 0.87 acres to be rezoned from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commer- cial. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 60A is one of two parcels subject to ZMA-87-16. Character of the Area: This rezoning is sought by the owners of the Quality Inn which is adjacent to these properties. Other development in the area consists of a well driller's office and yard, single family dwellings, and a small mobile home park. Property across Rte. 250 East is zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and has been subject of recent litigation involv- ing a flea market operation. Existing Conditions: These properties are located between the Quality Inn and Rte. 250 East Parcel 78-60 consists of 4.4 acres zoned HC, Highway Commer- cial, and is developed with the 100 -unit Quality Inn and restaurant. Parcel 78-60A, subject of this petition and consisting of 0.87 acres, is developed with a motel parking lot which covers about two-thirds of the site. Parcel 78-34, also subject to this petition and consis- ting of 0.6 acres, is currently developed residentially. A third parcel is located between the Quality Inn and Rte. 250 East; Parcel 78-35, consisting of 0.3 acres and developed residentially, would be bordered on three sides by HC zoning if this petition were approved and would, therefore, in staff opinion be clearly susceptible to HC zoning in the future. Description of Reauest: This is a conventional rezoning as opposed to a proffered rezoning request. While accompanied by a special use permit, no representa- tions made by the applicant are legally binding. According to the applicant Parcel 78-34 under HC zoning 'would permit landscaping, water fountain, on -grade parking, and an 80 -foot beautification and buffer strip.' The special use permit request is for a three-story structure which would provide ground -level and roof top parking. The center two floors would be available for 'convention, fitness, and related motel facilities.' While not rectangular, the structure would measure about 130 feet by 290 feet in width and length. Comprehensive Plan The INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT policies of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that the Shadwell interchange of I-64 be considered for interstate -oriented development including 'highway service businesses which primarily rely on the interstate traveller as a market including hotels, motels, restaurants,' and other such uses. Regional uses including convention centers should also receive consideration. The Comprehensive Plan identifies four urban inter- changes to receive consideration for such development. At these interchanges, the Comprehensive Plan does not specify that areas susceptible to this policy be restricted to the designated Urban Area. In the case of ZHA-81-20 Joe and Sallie Gieck, the Board of Supervisors approved HC zoning for 13.3 acres located outside of the Urban Area (and across Rte. 250 East from this current request) subject to a proffer that the property be developed in accordance with uses specified in the INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT poli- cies which were pending Comprehensive Plan amendments at the time." "Two changes have occurred since completion of the original staff report for this petition. On December 15, 1987, the applicant sub- mitted a written zoning proffer. On January 12, 1988, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted four variances. February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 602 (Page 5) VARIANCES Variances were granted to allow for construction of the proposed garage/commercial structure as proposed by the applicant: 1. Relief from Section 4.12.7.2 and 21.7 to reduce the number of required loading spaces from eight (8) to zero (0) spaces; 2. To reduce setback from a public street from seventy-four (74) feet to five (5) feet; 3. To reduce setback from an adjacent Rural Areas district from ninety-four (94) to zero (0) feet; 4. To reduce the buffer area required adjacent to a Rural Areas district from twenty (20) feet to zero (0) feet. (The applicant indicated that a five foot tree buffer would be provided). No conditions were attached to these variances, therefore, the applicant's proffers under this rezoning petition would govern usage of the property (Conditions which may be imposed under this special use permit petition are effective only if the special use permit is pursued). As to the relationship of these variances to Commission and Board review of this rezoning petition and special use permit petition, staff offers the following comments: 1. Development of the property as proposed by the applicant is inconsistent with requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission and Board have no authority to vary, modify, or waive zoning regulations. Therefore, the Commission and Board could not approve the applicant's proposal without these variances. The Board of Zoning Appeals action was in anticipation of rezoning approval, therefore, if rezoning is not approved these variances have no effect; 2. Section 31.2.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance states in part that 'the Board of Supervisors may impose upon any such permit such conditions relating to the use for which such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest....' Specifi- cally included in the list of items the Board may address in conditions are 'the establishment of special requirements relating to the building setbacks,'front, side and rear yards, off-street parking.' Therefore, while the Board may not relax setback requirements, review under'special use permit does not limit the Board to minimum requirements (i.e., variance setbacks). APPLICANT'S PROFFERS: The applicant has submitted zoning proffers intended to improve the posture of these petitions. Generally, 'these proffers: 1. Propose development in accordance with proposed building and landscape plans; 2. Limit usage primarily to motel -related facilities. An area not to exceed 1,000 square feet would be available for commercial personal service uses. A gasoline service center is also proposed (Tax Map 78, Parcel 60A); 3. Lighting would be shielded from the adjoining residence, Inter- state 64 and U. S. Route 250 East (while not part of the proffer, the applicant has stated that a brick parapet wall would be incorporated around roof top parking to shield headlights); 6 O 3 February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 4. Usage of Tax Map 78, Parcel 34 would be restricted to parking, landscaping, buffering, and other landscape improvements (Note: The last sentence of this proffer states that 'this proffer will continue the limitation of above -ground use of Parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on parcel 78-35.' Staff does not favor zoning proffers which anticipate some future legisla- tive action by the Board of Supervisors, and does not recommend acceptance of this proffer). The original staff report discussed four issues of concern relative to these petitions. Staff offers additional comment in view of the variances and zoning proffers: DEVELUVMENT policies: The proposed structure would be clearly visible to eastbound traffic from Interstate 64. Setback variances would preclude substantial landscaping buffering. (Note: Some trees shown on the proffered landscape plan would be located in right-of-way for Interstate 64). Therefore, the Commission and Board should determine if the proposed building itself is visually harmonious to Interstate 64. Access and access improvements: No change to access or access improvements are proposed. Staff is unsure as to whether improvements (if warranted) to the intersection of the frontage road and U. S. Route 250 East can be required at time of site plan approval. The proffer governing usage would significantly reduce traffic generation as compared to conventional Highway Commercial zoning. Intensity of development and 'overdevelopment': When consider- ing this interstate interchange quadrant and the relationship of the proposed use to existing interchange uses in this quadrant (i.e., Quality Inn), staff does not feel the use constitutes overdevelopment of the quadrant. The use compliments the existing hotel, utilizes the existing access to the hotel, is appropriately located as regards proximity to Interstate 64, and will practically utilize existing grade of the property through a multi-level design. However, as regards the parcel to be developed, staff would define 'overdevelopment' as a case requiring special approvals, reduced design standards or other exceptions to accommodate development which exceeds normal limitations, where such excep- tions are occasioned by intensity of development as opposed to provision of reasonable use of the land. Variances granted for this development would in staff opinion preclude effective application of the site plan ordinance related to screening and buffering. While staff has not referred the proposed plans to the Site Review Committee, maintenance of adequate sight distance may be a problem. Utilities: The applicant has stated that past problems with the on-site water system where in terms of operational deficiencies as opposed to system deficiencies. Increased fire protection will be necessary for the new structure. Whether or not to require connection to public water can be addressed at site plan stage. As stated in the original report, staff opinion is that this property is susceptible to the INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Approval would permit expansion/improvement of an existing business. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-87-16 provided that the fol- lowing language of the written proffer is not acgepted: 'This proffer will continue the limitation of above-grqund use of Parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on�Parcel 78-35.' Also, proffer related to landscaping plan shall be applicable February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 6 O 4 (Page 7) only with the understanding that landscaping shall be provided and that such proffer shall in no manner foreclose the require- ment of additional landscaping or other buffering by the Plan- ning Commission at time of site plan approval. Staff recommends approval of SP -87-94 subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval of increased usage of central sewer system prior to Planning Commission review of site plan; 2. Submittal of landscape plan at time of site plan submittal. Landscaping/buffering measures to be approved by Planning Commission. 3. Staff shall recommend reduced building length or other measure if such action is necessary to maintain sight distance." "December 15, 1987 Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning Dear Mr. Keeler: On behalf of Seville Associates, I, Walter N. Alford, Agent, hereby proffer in accordance with ZMA-87-16 the following measures and limitations. 1. Building design and structure to be per general building plans as submitted, prepared by Forrest Coile Associates and landscape plan as prepared by George Carter, Ivy Nursery. 2. Building use to be used for convention, health and fit- ness, related motel facilities, 1,000 sq. ft. maximum of commercial personal services area, 2 levels of parking with gasoline service center which must be within building structure as designed. This use of parcel 78-60A should provide reasonable limitations of traffic volume and access to Route 250. Access, traffic flow and volume is a vital part of motel success and this building structure and its use are crucial to motel guest needs and development. 3 Roof top parking landscaping to be in general accordance with Carter landscape plan and further proffer lighting design to shield light from overflow onto adjacent resi- dence on parcel 78-35 and I-64,and Route 250. 4. Parcel 78-34 Seville Associates desire, by formal 20 -year lease requirement and this proffer will limit parcel 78-34 use to only include front 30 feet to landscaped lighted entrance, pond signage. The next 60 -foot strip of parking (excluding buses, trucks). The next and rear 80 feet by lease requirement will be and iemain landscaped buffer of adjacent residence on parcel 7$-35. This proffer will continue the limitation of above ground use of parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on parcel 78-35. I trust this proffer in addition to plans, utility letter, and formal presentation to planning commission, and Board of Supervisors will permit Seville Associates request to be approved. SEVILLE ASSOCIATES Walter N. Alford The Alford Corporation Seville Associates" 605 February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 1988, by a vote of five to two, recommended approval of ZMA-86-16 and suppor the staff's recommendations as related to the proffer with the deletion of "This proffer will continue the limitation of the above -ground use of Parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on Parcel 78-35." The Planning Commission, also at its meeting on January 26, 1988, by a vote of four to three, recommended approval of SP -87-94 subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff and a fourth condition as follows: "4. Public water to be extended to property at no public cost." Mr. Horne said at the Planning Commission meeting most of the discussion related to the visual impact of the structure relative to Interstate 64 and the issue of overdevelopment of the parcel. He indicated on an aerial photo- graph the location of the proposed structure. The entrance roadway is the frontage road off of Route 250 and along the edge of I-64. The parcel subject to the rezoning and special permit presently contain a parking lot. The frontage parcel which is subject to the rezoning, presently contains a house which is to be removed and an existing residential parcel which is not subject to the rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom asked the location of the variances. Mr. Horne so indicates on the map. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any variances relative to Route 250. Mr. Horne said he does not know, but the frontage road is a state maintained public road. Because of the treatment given frontage roads by the Highway Department, the staff does not know if it could require any improve- ments. Mr. Horne said Seville Associates does control other properties that are being used in conjunction or as part of the rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Seville Associates can locate the parking structure further into the property. Mr. Horne said the applicant needs to address that question. Topographically another location might not work as well. Also, there have been some discus- sions where the applicant has indicated a desire to use other portions of the properties for other future use. Mr. Perkins asked if it is safe to put the gas station in the building. Mr. Horne said it has been done in other parking structures and would be reviewed by the Building Official. Mr. Horne then described the landscape and buffering plan submitted as part of and referenced in the proffer. He presented a drawing indicating how the structure would appear from I-64. As pointed out in the staff report, although there are trees shown on the plan, the structure is very close to the edge of roadway and the staff has some concerns as to whether trees would ever grow to a size that would effectively screen the structure. Also some of the trees in the plan are shown within the interstate right-of-way over which the applicant has no control. While the staff fully intends, if this request were approved, to institute as much of the buffering and screening as possible, the Board should also try to determine whether the structure is visually compati- ble with I-64. Mr. Horne said according to the applicant, the railing on the upper level shown on the drawing is actually a brick parapet wall designed to shield headlights from the upper parking level. Mr. Bowie asked if that was part of the proffer. Mr. Horne replied no, but the Board can make that a condition of the special use permit. Mr. Bain asked the height of the western end of the building. Mr. Horne said the structure is 40 feet up to the lower parking lot level and then there is the parapet wall and some additional stairway struc- tures. Mr. Horne said other property in the area applicable to the Interstate Interchange Policy is the Gieck property, zoned HC, and is currently undeve- loped except for the Flea Market operation. There is a recommendation in the Interstate Interchange Policy that there be a minimum separation of 1,000 feet between the interstate/interchange ramps and the first entrance into a commer- cial development. Because of the access location of this development, that recommendation cannot physically be complied with. Again an attempt has been made to proffer traffic generation as a proxy for meeting that separation. February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 6 O 6 (Page 9) Mr. Lindstrom asked how the applicant plans to enforce such a proffer. Mr. Horne said by limiting the amount of commercial service area in the structure to 1,000 square feet and by listing the service as personal services. As described by the applicant, personal services are beauty parlors, barber shops and small retail areas that would be useful to the occupants of the motel. A fitness center is also planned, but would not be restricted to use by occu- pants of the motel. The other use planned is convention meeting rooms. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the amount of convention space was proffered. Mr. Horne replied no, but there have been some building plans submitted. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the staff looks at the traffic generation for the use of the conven- tion and health center. Mr. Horne said the staff is comparing this use to conventional HC which is a high traffic generator. The proffer is not an attempt to reduce the current level of traffic generation, but an attempt to reduce the traffic generation that would be allowed by HC zoning. Mr. Lind- strom asked how much extra traffic would be generated at the entrance. Mr. Horne said he thinks there will be a relatively significant increase in traffic. It all depends on the frequency and types of conventions held. Mr. Bain asked if there is a deceleration lane coming off of Route 250. Mr. Horne said he thinks there is a small lane. If the Highway Department treats the frontage road as a connection to a state maintained road, there may be no improvements that can be required of the applicant, because that would be an off-site public roadway. The Highway Department has not yet provided the staff with a firm answer on how it will look at that area. Mr. Lindstrom asked for the specifics about the variances and where they are located. Mr. Horne described the varianges as outlined in the staff report. There being no further questions for Mr, Horne, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Walter N. Alford, representing Seville Associates, addressed the Board. Seville Associates purchased the hot4l in May, 1987 and are in the process of major renovations within the motel. Parking was the first major problem recognized. People have to climb a hill to get from the parking area to the motel which is the reason for the proposed four stories of the struc- ture. A need was discovered for more convention space. Thus, the facility must be at a size where it will be economical. The design as proposed by the applicants would restrict view from Monticello, I-64 and Route 250. The applicants have worked closely with Mrs. Washington, the owner of the adjacent residential property. Mrs. Washington concurs with and supports the request for rezoning. The applicants have a 20-year'lease on the property located in front of Mrs. Washington's property and are prohibited from any use other than landscaping and the small area shown for parking. The applicants want to create an attractive entrance into the motel. They want to do nothing that will inhibit or interfere with the appearance of the motel or its access thereto. He thinks the applicants have doneia good job of sliding the struc- ture into the hillside so that about one-third of the building is actually sitting underground which would then accommodate the first entire level of grade parking. Mr. Alford said no one has opposed the plan as submitted. The proposed design of the building is brick. The applicants have built projects through- out the east coast including the old Del Monte building in Charlottesville. The applicants do high quality work and are protective of trees and landscap- ing as well as other aesthetics. He thinks this is the best plan possible for this property. Mr. Alford said the size and the reason for the variances are extremely critical. The width of the structure must be as proposed in order to get the fitness area within it and for the utilization of the parking area above and beneath the structure. The reason for the length of structure is to get in as much parking as possible. The property at the top of the hill is owned by Seville Associates and is zoned RA, but there are no plans for that property at this time. Mr. Alford said there is a tremendous need in the motel industry now for a facility that is more than a place to sleep. The proposed health and fitness facility contains approximately 42,000 square feet. That space is 6 O 7 February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) double -decked for the pool and handball area, and utilizes the second level for aerobics and a jogging track. It would not be economical to restrict use of the health and fitness center to occupants of the motel, therefore, it will be available to other people. Mr. Alford then described the features and appearance of the building. Mr. Bowie asked where in the building the health facility will be located. Mr. Alford said the health facility will be located on the second and third levels, and 10,000 square feet of the second and third levels will be used for the convention center. There is approximately 35,000 square feet on each level. So as to not be misleading, he has provided detailed information to the staff on what will be used in each area of the building. Mr. Bowie asked if there is a ramp at the bottom level to get to the top. Mr. Alford said no, there will be an elevator to get to the top level. Mr. Alford said the entrance roadway is state maintained for approxi- mately half its length. For some reason, the applicants own the real estate in fee simple on the entire roadway along the side. Landscaping of I-64 and Route 250 is within the fee simple ownership of the owners. He feels that the fully nurtured trees buffering I-64 and Route 250 will serve as adequate screening. Mr. Bain asked if there are deceleration and acceleration lanes. Mr. Alford said there is a short 300 foot deceleration into the entrance of the property and a shorter acceleration lane exiting onto Route 250. There being no one else from the public present to speak on the applica- tions, the public hearing was closed. (Mr. St. John arrived at the meeting at 8:30 P.M.) Mr. Bain asked if the Board can, as a condition to a special use permit, require an extension of a left turn lane into a commercial site when the Highway Department may not have the legal means to require it themselves. Mr. St. John said yes, if the need of the lane is generated by the use that is subject to the special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the applicant had not acquired Mrs. Washington's property and requested rezoning of all of the property. Mr. Alford said the applicant has the right of first refusal to purchase the parcel that is leased for 20 years and Mrs. Washington's property. Mrs. Washington made the deci- sion to not sell her property because she wanted to live there throughout her life. Mr. Bowie said he is concerned with shielding flashing headlights on the upper floor. He is also concerned with the dangerous intersection. He would like to insure that there be an approved deceleration lane on the westbound lane of Route 250 and an improved left turn lane on the eastbound of Route 250 so as not to have a stacking problem and blocking of I-64. He would suggest that those two items be added as conditions to the special use permit. Mr. Alford said he does not mind stating that the applicants will build a decele- ration lane whether legally required to or not as well as an acceleration lane. There is sufficient right-of-way to extend that deceleration lane a reasonable distance. With regard to shielding the headlights, included in the applicants plan is a proposed brick parapet. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve ZMA-87-16 as proffered in the letter dated January 20, 1988, correcting the typographical error in Condition lie to read "two levels of parking" and deleting the following language from the proffer: "This proffer will continue the limitation of the above -ground use of Parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on Parcel 78-35." The portion of the proffer related to the landscaping plan shall be applicable only with the understanding that land- scaping shall be provided and that such proffer shall in no manner foreclose the requirement of additional landscaping or other buffering required by the Planning Commission at the time of site plan approval. Mr. Bain said this is a tough issue to decide, but the use is there now and he would rather see use of that end of the property rather than up on the knoll above the property because of exposure to traffic on I-64. He thinks February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 608 (Page 11) the applicants have done a reasonably good job with the building structure. He is still concerned and thinks there will be traffic problems. He will support the motion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP -87-94 subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and two additional conditions as set out below: 1. County Engineer approval of increased usage of central sewer system prior to Planning Commission review of site plan; 2. Submittal of landscape plan at time of site plan submittal. Landscaping/buffering measures to be approved by the Planning Commission; 3. Staff shall recommend reduced building length or other measure if such action is necessary to maintain sight distance; 4. Public water to be extended to property at no public cost; 5. A brick parapet wall must be built around the rooftop parking area to shield headlights; 6. The deceleration lane westbound on Route 250 and the left turn lane be extended and approved to handle additional traffic. Extent of improvement to be determined during site review. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-87-17. Four L Partnership and/or W.A. Lynch Roofing. Rezone 16.061 acres from R1, Residential, to LI, Light Industrial, to allow for contractor's office and equipment storage yard. Located on east side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended), north of intersection with Route 742 and Route 20. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: Petition: Four L Partnership petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 16.061 acres from R-1, Residential, to LI, Light Industrial. Property described as Tax map 91, Parcel 13, is located on the east side of Avon Street just north of the entrance to Lake Reynovia in the Scottsville Magisterial District.' i Character of the Area: This site is vacant and heavily wooded with evergreens. Mill Creek PUD and Lake keynovia are across Route 742. Parham Construction borders a portion of the site on the north and is zoned LI, Light Industrial. All other properties adjacent to the site are zoned R-1, Residential. Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan recommends medium -density residential use in this area. Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards - Industrial Land Use Standards states among other things that: Industrial uses should seek locations adjacent to compatible uses (commercial, public or other industrial, etc.) as opposed to residential, agricultural or other sensitive areas. Con- sideration should be given to transitional uses such as com- mercial offices. 6 O 9 February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Objectionable aspects of an industrial use should be addressed through a combination approach including realistic performance standards, buffering and special setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. At time of rezoning, the applicant should submit proposals to mitigate objectionable aspects. STAFF COMMENT As stated earlier, Parham Construction is north and adjacent to this site. In turn, north and adjacent to Parham Construction is property now or formerly of Mary V. Doggett. The Doggett property was subject of two rezoning petitions: ZMA-85-26 petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone the property from R-1, Residential, to LI, Light Industrial. Staff noted that the property was recommended for medium density residential use. This petition was denied. ZMA-86-07 petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone the property from R-1, Residential, to PD -MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial. While staff again recommended disapproval, six modifications to the Application Plan were offered. This petition was denied. Section 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance states in part that 'this ordi- nance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner....' Staff can distinguish no circumstance to distinguish this property from the Doggett property. Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons: 1. The request is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The request is inconsistent with some recommendations of Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards relative to industrial uses. 3. Staff cannot distinguish between this request and prior peti- tions reviewed for the Doggett property. Unless such distinc- tions can be made, approval of this petition in staff opinion could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. 4. During current review of the Comprehensive Plan, development interests have complained as to the availability of residential land within growth areas. The Planning Commission has proposed expansion of the Urban Area to maintain holding capacity and in response to this complaint. In the past, staff has cautioned as to loss of residential capacity due to underdevelopment or rezoning to commercial/industrial. Staff will give more emphasis to this concern in future rezonings. Mr. Horne presented the following letter of proffer dated February 10, 1988. "February 10, 1988 Mr. John T. P. Horne,. County of Albemarle - 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA Dear Mr. Horne: Director Dept. of Planning 22901 In conjunction with ZMA-87-17, the Applicants hereby offer the following proffers for consideration along with this application: 1. The maximum land coverage by buildings on an individual lot shall not exceed 0.25 times the land area of the lot. Dolores 1, Wallace ............................................................................................................................................................................................... August 6, 2009 MEMORANDUM FOR: GEORGE W. REAVES, SR MADELINE REAVES RUBY REAVES WILLIAM REAVES BRIDGETT REAVES SUBJECT: Lower Lot James Quarles, Real Estate Agent, that has the listing for the lower lot at North Hill, has brought it to my attention that the Albemarle County Planning Board will not approve any commercial building on the lot due to a variance related to the small size of the lot (0.69). The lot is worth more zoned as commercial property; however, it is worthless if the County Planning Board will not approve any construction. At this time, we are continuing to pay $1,300.00 every six months for property taxes with no income on that lot. If we changed the zoning from commercial back to residential, we would probably have a better chance of selling the property. It is current listed for $475,000.00; the residential value would probably be lower. I would like to petition the County Planning Board to change the zoning and I am asking for your permission to sign the application only on behalf of the family. The application needs to be submitted by August 17`h and a hearing will be held within four to five months which we can all attend. Any questions please call me. PERMISSION TO SIGN THE APPLICATION FORM ONLY. Love you all, 4olloreslace SIGNATURE (PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE) GEORGE W. REAVES, SR MADELINE REAVES RUBY REAVES WILLIAM REAVESp ATTACHMENT E ✓BRIDGETT REAVES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4110 27th Avenue • 7empCe Yfitrs, Maryland 20748-1605 Yfome (301) 423-5520 • Ceff(301) 503-6054