Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 07 1998 PC Minutes4-7-98 `%. APRIL 7, 1998 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 7, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. William Finley; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Juan Wade, Planner; Mr. Larry Davis (County Attorney - 5:00 work session only); and Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator. Absent: Commissioners Washington and Rooker. 5:00 WORK SESSION - Comp Plan =Proposed Mountain Overlay District Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The Commission was being asked: (1) To comment on the proposed Comp Plan section on Mountains; and (2) To review the proposed Ordinance language and schedule a public hearing on the proposed Mountain Overlay District as soon as possible. Answers to specific Commission questions were as follows: (The name of the Commissioner who asked the question is in parentheses. The questions were answered both by staff and by Commissioners who had served on the Committee.) -"In the Ordinance, we have tried to address not only existing parcels, but subdivision of new parcels. So, if you are creating a new parcel, you cannot create one which has its only building site on the ridge area." (Finley) --Topo maps can be used for certification of elevation. A PE or surveyor's certification is not mandatory. "(But) due to the accuracy of these maps, someone might come in with a parcel and their surveyor might be able to show that, on the ground, the contour line actually falls in a slightly different place in relation to the parcel boundaries. If the surveyor can show they can do what they want to do and be outside the contour -- because our maps are inaccurate, then they can prove that and can use a surveyor to show that." It is acknowledged that the maps might "be off a little bit." (Finley) --The Buck Mountain contour was raised because it seemed to be taking in a lot of land that was really not mountain land. The higher contour did a better job of encapsulating the critical slopes. Also, an effort was made to make the contour lines similar for mountains that are near each other. (Finley) --Existing parcels entirely within the Mountain Overlay District = 579, totaling 32,842 acres, average parcel = 57 acres. Parcels straddling the Overlay District line = 802, totaling 88,400 acres, average parcel = 110 acres. The 88,400 acres which straddle the line are both "in and out" of the District. The numbers were compiled when the Blue Ridge Mountains line was at 1,000, so the total acres would be less now. This needs to be recalculated. (Tice) --Existing dwellings on parcels entirely within the Overlay District = 202; existing dwellings on parcels which straddle the District line = 579. The ones straddling are both "in and out." (Tice) --Potential development right lots on parcels "entirely on mountain" = 2,099 (between 2 and 21 acres). 1,323 potential minimum 21-acre parcels. Both of those �O 4-7-98 2 numbers are maximums and do not take into account possible physical constraints. Staff doubts there would be "anywhere near that number of building sites." (Tice) --A building site within the Overlay District must be 30,000 square feet of contiguous area, less than 25% slopes. That is the same requirement which is currently in the Zoning Ordinance. The only difference recommended by the Committee is that the building site be showed on the final plat (which is not now required). (Finley) --An E & S Plan will be required for most buildings in the Overlay District, but the Engineering Department can, at its discretion, allow an Agreement in Lieu of a Plan. The cost of processing this plan is not yet known, but it will be included in the final Impact Statement which is being prepared for the proposed Ordinance. The Engineering Department presently has the authority to require a full Plan for construction on a steep site, whether or not it is in a mountain district. (Finley) --Private driveway regulations were deleted from the proposed ordinance "for the sake of consistency because there are critical slopes both inside and outside the mountain district." It is up to the Board of Supervisors to decide when this issue will be addressed. (Loewenstein) --In terms of impact to the owners of the parcels which will be effected by this Ordinance, the Committee considered this issue by looking at a piece of property as a "test." "It was found that the same person who was losing development rights was also gaining views of adjacent mountains that were free of development. For that particular parcel, it was a balance of losing development rights with gaining living in a mountain area that doesn't have houses scattered all over the top. It was considered a net gain --a substantial gain for somebody who has mountain property." (Finley) --Most of the parcels which will be impacted (total approximately 1,400) are large parcels. The County is required by State Law to notify all property owners who are effected by the proposed Overlay District map change. Notification will take place prior to the public hearing. Notice must be sent a minimum of 5 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, which is several weeks before the Board of Supervisors hearing. Included with the notices will be a summary statement of potential impact to the property and information about the recently adopted Water Resources Ordinance. (Finley and Nitchmann) --It is up to the Board to establish the effective date of the Ordinance. It could be adopted the date of the hearing, or could become effective at some future date. Building permits will continue to be processed as usual up until the effective date of the Ordinance. (Finley) --At the time a Building Permit is applied for, the landowner will be required to supply --if they don't have a recent subdivision plat showing the building site --a boundary survey on which a surveyor has indicated where their building site will be located. The surveyor will have to show that the building site meets the requirements of the Ordinance. (Finley) --In Section 30.8.5(a)(ii), Location of Building Sites, Mr. Davis explained: "Only one house can be built on a lot in the ridge area. If there is no building site outside of the ridge area, even if you have two building sites and the acreage in the ridge area, you are limited to one building site only in the ridge area. Ms. Scala said this provision is similar to what presently exists for critical slopes, i.e. if you have an existing parcel that is entirely in critical slopes, you are allowed to build one house on it, and that is to allow a d2 Y/ 4-7-98 reasonable use." t_1 Commission comments: --Mr. Nitchmann was concerned about the short amount of time between the public notice and the public hearing. He feared many people will not have time to fully understand what is being proposed. He wanted a single sheet to be included in the notice letter which is very attention -getting and states clearly "that this is going to have some impact on the value of their property. He asked that staff allow him to review the letter before it is mailed. He also recommended that the notice be sent more than five days in advance of the public hearing. Mr. Tice recommended that the statement highlight the major features of the proposed changes. Ms. Scala said care must be taken that general statements not be made which may not apply in all cases. Mr. Davis added: "I would caution about going but so far in the notice provision. Public knowledge is important and we want everyone to understand what is going on, but the Legal Notice Requirement simply advises people that there is a proposed Zoning Map Amendment and then they need to be on notice that they need to inquire about that and protect their rights. We can provide them information, but that Zoning Map Amendment is subject to change by the Board of Supervisors and by recommendation of the Planning Commission. A Zoning Text Amendment doesn't require an advertisement at all. That Ordinance, again, is something they need to be on notice of, but it could change. It could change to be more or less restrictive as the public hearing process continues. If you put a narrative in there that tells people one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Ordinance will say that at the end of the process. They just need to be on notice that there is a process and protect their rights accordingly." Ms. Scala said the notice will include directions as to whom to call for more information and will suggest that the landowner visit the Planning Department to look at the maps. Mr. Nitchmann asked that staff provide him with a list of names and addresses of landowners who will be receiving the notice in his district. Mr. Cilimberg said Commissioners will be provided with a draft of the notice before it is sent, along with a list of names and addresses of those landowners who will receive the notice in each particular district. --Mr. Finley expressed concern about people who may have been slowly preparing to build a house in this proposed Overlay district for many years which may, as the result of this Ordinance, no longer be allowed. Though Mr. Rieley said there is a process to seek relief for "special hardship cases," Ms. Scala said: "They can't seek relief by asking to build above the mountain contour. What they can seek relief from is if they can prove that the mountain contour isn't where it is shown on that map. But if the only place to build on the parcel is on that ridge, they still have the right to do that. But if the parcel is partly in and partly out of the Overlay district, if they have a building site that is outside the district, then they would be required to build there instead of in the ridge area. It really depends a lot on the configuration of their parcel." Mr. Davis added: "This Ordinance does not stop anyone from building on an existing parcel. It just may require them to put it in a different location, possibly. --Mr. Nitchmann indicated he feels it is unfair that any type of farm building can be placed anywhere on a mountain, but the location of a residential dwelling is now going to be restricted. Mr. Davis pointed out that this particular ordinance is promoting agriculture and forestry preservation on mountainsides. He said he did not think the Committee had off- `/ o1, 4-7-98 4 considered limiting those uses because those are the uses of the mountains which are preferred. It will be up to the Zoning Administrator, at the time the building permit is applied for, to determine whether a structure might be a legitimate farm structure or not. Mr. Nitchmann asked: "But it could still be a big white building on top of a mountain?" Both Ms. Scala and Mr. Davis responded: "It could be." Ms. Scala said the Committee made a conscious decision to allow agricultural and forestal buildings. --Mr. Finley expressed concerns about how the adoption of this Ordinance will impact staffing demands. He pointed out that the Engineering Department is mentioned 9 times on two different pages. Ms. Scala said staff needs will be addressed in the Impact Statement. Mr. Nitchmann suggested staff look at a comparison of the cost of the 16 permits which were issued in 1997 with what the cost would have been if this Ordinance had been in place. Mr. Finley asked what will happen if the Impact report shows that more staff will be needed than anticipated. Mr. Tice said the document may be changed or there could be a recommendation that it not be adopted. Public comment was allowed. Mr. Rick Walden, owner of 440 acres in North Garden, all of which is entirely within the proposed Overlay district, addressed the Commission. He was very concerned about the impact of the proposed Ordinance on his property. He said he has plans to divide the land among his 5 children and this Ordinance will prevent that, "and the people making the Ordinance could care less." He asked: "If I give each of my kids a piece of land on top of the ridge, which is the only flat piece of land on the entire property, and I can't build a road there that is 2:1 or even 1.5:1 slope, can you restrict their ability to get to those sites?" Ms. Scala responded: "You can't build but one house on the ridge, but you are allowed to build a road to it. If the only building sites are on the ridge area, the way the wording is proposed, you would not be able to build but one house on that ridge. You would not be able to subdivide it into five parcels." She said the driveway restrictions have been dropped from the proposed ordinance. The 2:1 mentioned by Mr. Walden refer to the side slopes of the road. Mr. Walden asked: "What if the parcels exist?" Ms. Scala responded: "If the parcels exist, then you are allowed to build at least one house on each parcel." Mr. Walden asked how the County proposes to compensate landowners for the loss of development rights. Mr. Davis responded: "The only way the County would be in a position legally where it would be required to pay someone for the property would be if you have no reasonable use left of your property. That would be looked at on a case -by - case basis. If a zoning regulation is adopted that simply reduces the value of your property, then that situation may not be compensated for." Mr. Walden asked: "What is the real purpose of this Ordinance? I think it is legislation of aesthetics, and it is just a round -a -bout way of doing that because State law says you cannot legislate aesthetics_" Mr. Loewenstein commented: There is more being protected here than aesthetics. There are significant ecologic considerations as well. I think in the minds of many people those are more important than what you have talked about. Also, we do not know yet what final form this proposed Ordinance may take. That will be discussed further during the Commission and Board public hearings. We are still refining this although my suspicion is that the committee expects this, in large part, will be put forward for adoption, yea or nay, as it has been presented. I think it is wrong to assume that this is simply .�, VS 4-7-98 5 legislation of aesthetics. Mountain tops and ridge tops have been identified for a number of years in the County's Comprehensive Plan as significant county resources that need to be protected, just as streams and wetlands...." Mr. Walden disagreed. Mr. Walden expressed the belief that one forestry, clear cutting operation will do more damage than the construction of a dwelling on every single parcel within this proposed Overlay district. Mr. Bob Watson addressed the Commission. He posed the following question: "Let's suppose, Mr. Loewenstein, that you own a parcel that is 94 acres in size. It is partially within an MPO, partially without. The portion within the MPO is not in the ridge line. Let's suppose the portion within the MPO of your 94 acres is 42 acres. That would give you two parcels to develop within the MPO. Am I correct? (Mr. Davis responded: "If you have building sites.) You have 52 acres of that parcel that are outside the MPO. You would have five 2-acre development rights (10 acres), 42 residue (two 21-acre sites). Chronologically, I must build outside the MPO first? Mr. Davis responded: "No." But Ms. Scala responded: "The reason I think you have to build outside first is because it says 'if you have a building site outside the district, you can't use one in the district.' If that is not the intent, then we need to change the wording." Mr. Davis said: "If you have an existing lot that straddles the ridge line, then you would have to build outside. But if you are creating new lots, it allows a 21-acre lot to be created within the district and there is no restriction that you have to build outside before you build on that lot. " Mr. Watson said the Blue Ridge Homebuilders are "basically going to support the proposed Ordinance. He suggested, however, that it would not be good planning for this Ordinance to become effective prior to the completion of the Rural Areas study. Mr. Don Morse, a local realtor, addressed the Commission. He said he feels the proposed Ordinance is a "broad brush stroke which is too broad." He thought the elevations were chosen arbitrarily. He suggested if the goal is to protect aesthetics, that can best be achieved through architectural building requirements. He said more consideration needs to be given to the financial impact this is going to have on property owners. He said a lot more thought is needed before this document is approved. Mr. Tice said there is no State enabling legislation which would permit architectural controls as suggested by Mr. Morse. Mr. David Van Rojen asked how the proposed Overlay will effect extraction areas and also how it will impact the County's tax base if properties are devalued. He agreed that notice should be sent more than five days in advance of the public hearing. Ms. Scala said the committee had not discussed extraction areas. Mr. Davis said: "This Ordinance does not effect permitted uses or special uses. It only effects the subdivision of land and where structures can be built." The Commission directed staff to finalize the details of the document and schedule it for public hearing. Mr. Tice agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that the public notice should be sent as far in advance as possible. In addition, he proposed that staff set aside a special day when the maps will be on display and available to the public, and that the date of that day be included in the notice letter. Mr. Loewenstein suggested the map day be advertised for the public at large. Mr. Benish estimated the public hearing will fall in mid or late June. 4-7-98 The meeting recessed from 6:40 to 7:00 p.m. C.1 The meeting was called back to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. The minutes of the April 24th meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their April 1 st meeting. CONSENT AGENDA SDP 97-142 Vehicular Maintenance Facility - Waiver request for one-way circulation. No concerns were raised by the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Chris Green Lake Fishing Pier - Request for a special use permit to enlarge an existing fishing pier (30.3.5.2.1) at Chris Green Lake, to provide improved accessibility for persons with disabilities. The property, described as tax Map 32, Parcel 41, is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and accessed from State Route 850 (Chris Green Lake Road). It is zoned Rural Areas and designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan Deferred from the March 17, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Tice asked staff to comment on the results of county staffs research on alternatives to treated wood. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Crickenberger (County Parks and Recreation). He said this project has been part of the ADA plan for some time and alternatives to treated wood are being explored. Mr. Hirschman addressed this question later in the meeting and explained that the two most promising materials (based on cost effectiveness, suitability and lack of maintenance) are (1) ACQ Preserve, which is a material which eliminates chromium and arsenic; and (2) TREX, which is a composite material of recycled plastic and recycled wood. TREX is attractive because long-term maintenance is very low. However, it cannot be used for the structural framing. The possibilities are to either have the entire pier be ACQ, or, if the budget will support it, have the structural timbers be treated with ACQ, and have the decking and railing be TREX. The TREX is 50% more expensive than treated wood. Mr. Rieley suggested staff might want to check to see if there is a problem with slipperiness with the TREX (which would be a problem with a V- 4-7-98 handicap ramp). Mr. Hirschman said he is not aware of any problem but that is an issue to be considered. Public comment was invited. Mr. David Van Rojen addressed the Commission. Given the fact that Chris Green is designated as a future water supply, he questioned why the County would want to spend tax dollars on a facility that will soon be restricted as a recreational facility. Mr. Hirschman addressed Mr. Van Rojen's comments. He confirmed the lake is now considered a water supply, though it is not a constant -use water supply --it is a back-up water supply to be used only during drought conditions. There has been a "preliminary determination" that there is no conflict between the recreational use and the back-up water supply function. Even when it is used during drought conditions there will be no restriction against its recreational use because the modeling done to date shows that the draw -down level will be very small, so it will not significantly effect the recreational use. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice said he too had originally had concerns about the water supply designation of the lake, but he feels a fishing pier would be a compatible use. He applauded the county's efforts to find alternatives to the traditionally treated wood. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-04 for Chris Green Lake Fishing Pier, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Issuance of building permit by the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services. ( No objections were raised to the addition of the following two conditions, which were proposed by Mr. Rieley.) 2. Pier to be in compliance with all ADA requirements. 3. Department of Engineering certification that structure will support a minimum of 100 lbs./square foot. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-56 Anaus Arrington - Petition to expand a Class B Home occupation on 4.6 acres zoned Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 74C, is located on Deer Bonn Lane/Route 842 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated Development Area (Rural Area 2). The applicant proposes to add one additional employee. Deferred from the March 24, 1998 Commission Meeting. . y( 4-7-98 8 Mr. Wade presented the staff report. He distributed letters of opposition which were received by staff after the preparation of the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions. Referring to statements made in the staff report about the Zoning Department's investigations of complaints about this business up to January 16th, Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. McCulley to comment on her department's activity related to this business since January 16th_ (Mr. Tice noted that the Commission had just received a copy of a memo dated April 7th from Ms. McCulley.) Ms. McCulley addressed the Commission: (Also present at the meeting was Mr. Bart Swobota, the Zoning Inspector who has usually responded to complaints about this business.) She said she is not aware of any further violations related to number of employees since January 16th. She summarized her April 7th memo as follows- ­The current situation is "out of all the alleged violations we have investigated, we have been able to substantiate that there have been too many employees on site on several occasions." The applicant has been officially cited for that violation on two separate occasions. --Of the other complaints made by the adjoining neighbor (violation of hours of operation, storage of fuel and chemicals, noise) the Zoning Department has not been able to substantiate any violations. It was the Zoning Administrator's determination that the activity occurring before 10 a.m. are related to the on -loading of equipment so that it can be taken to job sites, and is not a recurring, blatant violation of the conditions of the permit. The Department was not able to confirm the existence of chemicals on the site. Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. McCulley how she interprets condition No: 5 of the existing permit -"No repairs of equipment other than routine operational maintenance (oil change, blade replacement, and the like). Operation of equipment in association with routine maintenance is only allowed between the hours of 10.00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m." He asked specifically: "if someone were simply loading or unloading equipment, and there weren't maintenance involved, how would this condition impact that activity?" Ms_ McCulley said that particular question had been discussed at the Board meeting, and it was her understanding it was not intended that the activity involved in loading or unloading equipment would be required to fall within these hours of operation. She said there are two parts to condition No. 5, the first being a limitation to the kind of repairs that can be conducted on site, and the second being the hours during which those routine maintenance repairs can be performed. Mr. Loewenstein asked: "So what I am hearing you say is if there were simple on and off loading going on, that wouldn't be covered by this condition." Ms. McCulley responded: "That is my understanding, from the Board meeting." The applicant, Mr. Angus Arrington, addressed the Commission. He said the purpose of this request is to change the status of his son from "resident to employee." He expressed the belief that the complaints which have been filed by his neighbor represent harassment which are racially motivated. He said he has four employees which he pays year round. He said he is asking for "two employees" in addition to himself. He stressed he has tried aLl7- 4-7-98 9 141.1 very hard to follow the conditions of the permit and to be mindful of his neighbors in the operation of his business. He described a fence which he constructed to shield his property from his neighbor's view. His employees all take their trucks home at night. He has no chemicals on site. He said he does have a water tank which his neighbor may have mistaken as some sort of chemical tank. Public comment was invited. Mr. Matthew Perry, representing Mr. and Mrs_ Joseph Maney; adioining property owners, addressed the Commission. (Mr. and Mrs. Maney were also present at the meeting.) He read a statement explaining why his clients oppose the request. That statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. Mr. Maney played a video tape which he explained was a 3-minute segment of an 11-minute tape of a "typical" activity which lasted a total of 45 minutes on November 14, 1997. Referring to the applicant's statement earlier in the meeting that his neighbor has invaded his privacy, Mr. Perry said: "Mr. Maney did not invade Mr. Arrington's privacy. He simply recorded a scene on tape for 11 minutes and wants to play 3 minutes of it for you for his presentation." (The Chairman allowed the 3- minute video tape to be played for the Commission. The tape depicted what appeared to be a lawn tractor being downloaded and moved into a storage building by two employees. The sound of a mower engine could be heard. Mr. Maney said the tape was taken 2 feet inside his property, approximately 20-25 yards from the activity which was being recorded.) After the playing of the tape, Mr. Arrington answered Commission questions about the tape. His answers to those questions were as follows: --The continuous noise was the sound of the tractor engine as it was being moved inside the building. --A truck backs up to the building and loads the equipment in the morning and then repeats the operation in the evening when the equipment is unloaded and stored for the night. The only noise is related to backing the truck up and driving out." There are two bays to the building and there are two crews which "drive in and drive out." --He was uncertain exactly what the activity had been on this particular day but said there is some difference in the timing of the loading and unloading of equipment when leaf removal activity is taking place. --The privacy fence seen in the video was erected by the applicant for the benefit of the neighbor, even though the County did not require a fence. The fence is 6 feet tall. The neighbor must stand on something in order to see over it. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Arrington to comment on the notice of violation which he had received. Mr. Arrington said there had been confusion related to the change of his son's residence. Zoning had told him: "Your son can't come back, but you can have two employees. So I had two employees. That was all (but) my son was not one of them." Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. McCulley to comment on alleged noise violations. Mr. Swobota responded and said no meter readings have been taken because the noise has always stopped before he can get to the site. He said there have been some complaints ��8 4-7-98 10 about noise, but most complaints have been related to the number of employees on site. He estimated he has been called to the site over a dozen times "since the issuance in '97." Mr. Loewenstein asked if Mr. Swobota has spoken to neighbors during his investigations. Mr. Swobota responded: We try to keep those separate. I will deal with the property owner first and then follow up, either by phone or by visit, with the complainant later." Ms. McCulley said sound meter readings could be performed if it would be helpful to the Commission and Board. Mr. Nitchmann said the noise had not sounded any louder than a normal lawn mower. Mr. Finley said the activity taking place in the video appeared to be normal for this type of business --loading and unloading equipment. It appeared to be as the applicant has described. "it was not maintenance; it was just getting ready to go to work. That is about all 1 saw in the video." Referring again to condition No. 5 and the term t1routine operational maintenance... and the like," Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. McCulley if it would be helpful to have this more precisely defined. Ms. McCulley responded affirmatively. She said: "I think if we had some kind of specific condition, which would exclude onloading and offloading activity (as routine operational maintenance), then it would make it clear to everybody and would not be open for interpretation." Mr. Kamptner agreed it would be better if examples of routine operational maintenance were listed. Mr. Arrington was consulted and it was determined routine maintenance includes oil changes and blade, belt and tire replacement. Ms. McCulley proposed that condition No. 3, related to number of employees be worded differently so that it is clear that Mr. Arrington's son is still family. Mr. Kamptner suggested: "Not more than two employees, other than members of the family residing on the property, shall be permitted on the site." This was acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Rieley asked about VDOT's recommendation for a commercial entrance (condition No. 1), particularly, why it had not been a condition of the existing permit. Mr. Cilimberg said it is probably because previously there was only one employee entering and leaving the site from outside, but now there will be a second employee entering and leaving the site. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "Now whether that is significant enough in your mind to require the commercial entrance, is your choice." Mr. Wade said a commercial entrance must be wide enough for two vehicles to pass. He added that this permit will result in only two additional vehicle trips/day. Mr. Rieley said he thinks this is a "minor' change because "we are talking about the same number of people leaving, because the guy who lives there has got to go to work." He said the damage caused by the construction of a commercial entrance would be much greater than any benefit. It was ultimately decided condition No. 1 would be deleted from the conditions. Changes to conditions which had been proposed during the discussion were perfected and ' are reflected in the motion below. ��9 4-7-98 11 Mr. Rieley said he believes the primary issue is whether or not the second employee lives at home or not. He said the location of the ,maintenance shed, the noise level, and the existence of chemicals are all issues which are addressed elsewhere and are not the focus of the iommission's action. He said he could support the request with Staffs suggested conditions, as modified during the Commission's discussion. He said these changes will result in a greater level of control over what is essentially the same number of people. He said he also 'supports the routine onloading and offloading of equipment as a normal part of the operation. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 97-56 for Angus Arrington, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to 'the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall have no more than three trucks with gross vehicle weight not to exceed 20,000 lbs. per vehicle and three trailers parked on site. 2. Not more than two employees, other than members of the family residing on the property, shall be permitted on site. 3. No storage of gas, oil, fertilizer, or chemicals on site. No outside storage of equipment, supplies/materials related to landscape business, including trailers noted above. "Storage" will mean the keeping of more than a five -gallon quantity of material. 4. No repairs of equipment shall be permitted other than routine operational maintenance such as oil changes, blade replacement, tire changes and belt changes. Operation i of equipment in association with routine maintenance is only allowed between the hours of iu:uv a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The on -loading and off-I�ading cif equiprne rt Ij not UCell'ICU to be routine operational maintenance. 5. Area use to conduct the Home Occupation will not exceed 1,800 square feet. Discussion: Mr. Tice said though the noise may be somewhat aggravating, "this is a rural area and, based on what i heard on the tape, there are probably a couple of hundred other farm operations that have similar kinds of noise in the rural area that we have to live with.... With these conditions, I am comfortable supporting this request." The motion passed unanimously. Addition to Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District - Request to add 11.971 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. The property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcel 29, is located on the west side of Route 29 South (Monacan Trail Road) approximately 2 miles north of Route 708 (Red Hill Road). The site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. 6,1SD 4-7-98 12 Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the addition. The applicant was present but offered no comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Addition to the Hardware A ... '� II L..1 r1:..1 a L... ...J AgriculturavFor estar District be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Withdrawal from the Ivy Creek Agricultural/ Forestal District - Request to withdraw 2.016 � r� A r+..__� Areas, r_._--- .� Ivy i•+-_ w _y � »r- a-� �:_._ _ i_ _ acres zoned rv1, Rural HreaS, nctrn the ivy Creek Hyti�tiitiir"aurc�restai ur5trict. rie property, described as Tax Map 44, parcel 21, part thereof, is located on the south side of Route 676 (Earlysville Road). The site is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and is designated Rural, Area in the Comprehelisiiie Plan. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the applicant's request for • _J 9-1 :a_ 1 - inuenrnte deferral be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP 98-11 Southgate (Brinkman Management) - Request to extend Special Use Permit 96- .....,,,, .'.,,, :.. � r� J ,,..: 32, originally approved on October 9, 1996, to permit excavation I III the loodpiarn in o der to reestablish a pond on approximately 12.009 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. [Section 30.3.6.2] Property, described as Tax Map 7 0, Parcel 12A, is located on the north side of Fontaine Avenue Extended (Route 29 Business), near the intersection of Reservoir Road (Route 702) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in Urban Area ryeighborthooud SSx Development eveIopien1 Area. rea. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Rieley asked if a safety ledge has been proposed for this pond. Mr. Hirschman said the design has a lot oI S -allow marsh, sh, wetland id type al, eas. The deep water area drops of i steeply from one edge, but there is no reason a shallow area couldn't be left around it. In fact that would probably enhance the wetland area." Mr. Finley asked if a permit would be required if this property were not in the floodplain. Mr. Hirschman said a Corps of Engineers permit would be requited and, because it is on a perennial stream, there would be a mitigation plan required. ;- l 4-7-98 13 Mr. Nitchmann asked what needs to be done to reestablish this as a pond. Mr. Hirschman said a dam must be constructed. Using the plan on display before the Commission, Mr. Hirschman described how the pond will be reconstructed and what will happen to the wetland area as a result. He said the water table will be stabilized and the ability of the area to support wetland vegetation will be enhanced. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Hirschman explained how the weir will operate. Mr. Rieley said he believes this is a good proposal. "Though it does eat up some wetlands, it is probably going to replenish some other ones." He said having the spillway above ground will eliminate future maintenance hazards of dealing with underground pipes, and it will cause additional aeration of the water which will have a cleansing and filtering effect. The applicant was represented by Mr. Michael Matthews. He said the pond will not be built until there is something like a corporate headquarters on the hillside..until the funds are there to do it." He said the Corps of Engineers has approved the plan. Public comment was invited Mr. Donald Day, a resident of Buckingham Circle, expressed opposition to the destruction of the existing wetlands. He said currently the wetlands filter the runoff from the stream, thus improving water quality downstream. He suggested the proposed pond is actually a stormwater detention facility which will "give up" the water quality function which the existing wetland is presently providing. He suggested a stormwater detention facility could be placed elsewhere on the property. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Referring to Mr. Day's comments about the wetlands filtering the runoff from the stream, Mr. Tice said that only occurs during periods of high water. During normal flow, "the stream flow passes through virtually untreated." Mr. Hirschman responded; "The entrenchment of the stream limits the treatment." Mr. Tice asked if this plan will be beneficial to the repairs to Moore's Creek (the next item on the agenda). Mr. Hirschman responded: "If nothing else, it will be a pretty good sediment trap." Mr. Tice asked if the design of this pond is taking into account the future potential buildout of this parcel, as well as other parts of the watershed. Mr. Hirschman said: "The design of the weir, to contain a 10-year storm, would be the detention requirement. However, the area of the site, in comparison to the area of the watershed -- it's a very small ratio. So detention becomes almost insignificant. ... Since this starts out as jurisdictional, and it's going to be jurisdictional when they finish, it wouldn't be an appropriate place to discharge stormwater. So other options would have to be looked at -- whether it could be discharged either upstream or downstream and, at a minimum, treated fairly significantly before going into the deep water area. " �S� 4-7-98 14 Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Hirschman to respond with a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether this plan is good or bad. Mr. Tice added: "Is there a net public benefit that you see to this structure in our goals of protecting the water resources?" Mr. Hirschman responded: "I think in this watershed --and since there is a golf course upstream --yes, it would help in terms of Moore's Creek watershed issues." Mr. Nitchmann asked if the work that will take place to reconstruct the pond will destroy the existing wetland species. He asked if a biodiversity study will be done to confirm there are no endangered species present. Mr. Hirschman said a biodiversity study could be required by the Commission. Given the fact that this wetland pond has existed for such a long time, Mr. Tice said the likelihood of there being a James Spiny Mussel in it is very unlikely. But because a biodiversity study has been required on other applications, he agreed it should also be required here. He suggested condition No. 3 have added at the end "...including a survey of biological resources." Mr. Nitchmann said he understood from Mr. Hirschman's earlier comments that this pond could not be used as a stormwater detention facility. Mr. Hirschman responded: "Not a primary receiving body for stormwater--not the primary means of treatment. The water flowing in here would have to be treated in some other way before it gets here (because of the recently adapted Water Resources Ordinance). The other factor is, if there is any encroachment into the stream buffer, it kicks in additional BMP requirements." Mr. Nitchmann asked if there had been a condition with the previous permit which stated this pond could not be used as a primary detention facility. (Mr. Loewenstein said there was no such condition on the previous permit.) Mr. Hirschman added: Because this special use permit is being considered independent of whatever site plan may ultimately come in on this, those questions are difficult to answer without knowing what the specifics of the site plan would be." Mr. Loewenstein asked: "So you are suggesting it would be more appropriate to condition that sort of thing, if we were going to, at the site plan level." Mr. Hirschman responded: "I don't know because with certain site plans you may not have the ability to condition it." Mr. Finley asked: "Suppose there were no pond going there, would there be any legitimate reason for denying him a permit to pave that six acres?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Being Highway Commercial, it's allowed its by -right uses. So, depending on how much area they have of impervious surface, they would have to meet the Water Ordinance requirements." Mr. Finley asked: "Could they build a detention pond in a wetland area?" Mr. Hirschman responded: Permits could be issued to allow that." Mr. Finley said this proposed structure is equal, or superior, to a normal detention pond. Mr. Hirschman said the design of the pond is more for its use as an amenity to the development, stormwater considerations are secondary. Mr. Tice asked Mr. Rieley if he thinks a requirement for a safety bench should be included. Mr. Rieley said he believes it is an important safety feature because of the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and it will be even more intensively developed in the future. He suggested the standard safety bench be required— "10 feet level at 2 feet of AS-8 4-7-98 15 depth from the shoreline. Mr. Hirschman recommended shallower than 2 feet. Mr. Rieley said the intent is "no deeper than 2 feet for 10 feet out." Mr. Nitchmann said he never wants to see this pond serve as a detention pond for future development. Mr. Rieley said he shares that "general sentiment," but he thinks Mr. Hirschman is correct --that "we have to evaluate that within the context of a development proposal when we have one." Mr. Nitchmann was concerned that it may be too late then. Mr. Hirschman said the Commission "has a chance to address it legally at the site plan review stage." MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 98-11 for Southgate (Brinkman Management) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of plans, details, and supporting computations for the proposed dam, including safety shelf. Depth of safety shelf not to exceed 2 feet. 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of computations and documentation to verify effects on the existing FEMA delineated floodplain. 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Protection Ordinance, including a survey of biological resources. 4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-37 Moore's Creek Stream Restoration at Azalea Park Request for a special use permit for stream restoration [30.3.5.2.2(3)], in Azalea Park on Moore's Creek. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 55E, is located on the east side of Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 780), in the Scottsville Magisterial District. It is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and FH (Flood Hazard), and lies within a designated Entrance Corridor. It is recommended for Parks and Greenways in Urban Neighborhood Five in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms, Thomas presented the staff report.. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant for this project is the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Hirschman has been working with the City on the restoration project. Mr. Hirschman offered to show the Commission a series of slides. Because the Commission had seen photographs of the project, it was felt the slides were not necessary. using the drawing of the project which was on display, Mr. Hirschman described the various aspects of the plan. �4 4-7-98 16 Mr. Tice asked if a biological survey has been conducted. Mr. Hirschman responded affirmatively. He said no endangered species were identified. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's questions about the cost of the project and why it is needed, Mr. Hirschman explained that the City is bearing the entire cost, and the repairs are needed because this is a public park and it is presently a very dangerous situation. Mr. Hirschman called attention to a letter from Mr. Cason, an adjoining property owner. He summarized discussions which have taken place with Mr. Cason. Mr. Cason has made staff aware that "he fully intends to exercise his ability to --he would say " improve it,' --but also to clear that land of some of the vegetation and put some crops in of some sort." (Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Mr. Cason's letter be forward to the Zoning Administrator.) Public comment was invited. Ms. Joan Albeston, an adjacent property owner and President of the Frye Spring Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission and expressed support for the proposal. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 97-37, the Moore's Creek Stream Restoration at Azalea Park, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville OR the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board, in accordance with Section 10.1-563(A) of the Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Act and Section 19.3-11 of Albemarle's Water Protection Ordinance (pertaining to projects that involve more than one jurisdiction). 2. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State permits for stream channels and wetlands. 3. Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations to demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for impacts to floodplain elevations. This includes Engineering Department approval of the design of the low-water stream crossing on the intermittent stream to provide maintenance access to the restoration project, and approval of the location of a soil stockpile for excess material. 4. Engineering Department receipt of as -built cross -sections of the post -restoration stream channel for purposes of the Moore's Creek stormwater model. PAS 17 4-7-98 5. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan in accordance with Sections 19.3-45 and 19.3-46 of the Water Protection Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- SP 98-10 Charles Pietsch - The Meeting Place - Proposal to use an existing facility for a supporting commercial use [27.2.2(14)] as an off -site meeting facility for area businesses. The property, zoned LI, Light Industrial, and described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E, is located at the intersection of State Route 649 (Airport Road) and Doble Ann Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in the Community of Hollymead. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval; subject to conditions. Referring to condition No. 3, related to permitted uses of the facility, Ms. Thomas suggested Mr. Kamptner's assistance may be needed to perfect the language of the condition. She explained that some of the uses which the applicant has been promoting for the facility may not be appropriate if they are not of a supporting commercial use nature for Industrial Service and Office Service." She gave as an example private functions such as weddings or parties. *ftw It was clarified that condition No. 2's reference to "applicant's justification dated 2/23/98 and initialed SET" is Attachment C to the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg suggested "Attachment C" be added to the condition. Mr. Nitchmann asked if this facility could be used as a teen facility one night a week. Mr. Cilimberg said the request is for a "special permit in the Light Industrial district for support commercial use, which is fairly well defined." It is not a "general" commercial use allowance. To go to general commercial uses would require a rezoning to a commercial district. Mr. Finley asked if paving was required in the area where parking was proposed over the existing drainfield. Ms. Thomas said the Health Department is going to investigate the condition of the existing system, and paving will be required over the drainfield where parking is proposed. If the existing system is found to be inadequate, the Director of Planning may make a determination as to reasonable availability of the public sewer. The applicant, Mr. Pietsch, addressed the Commission. He said he plans to attract commercial users for the facility. He is trying to come up with a use which will help him to pay the taxes on the property. He has had indications from several organizations that there is a need for this type of use in this area. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice suggested the following additional wording be added at the end of condition No- 2- "...(Attachment C to staff report) except that only those uses allowed in condition No. 3 IR will be permitted." Mr. Kamptner said he was trying to understand the Zoning Department's concern because the application says it is for "an off -site meeting facility." Ms. Thomas explained Ms. Sprinkle (Zoning Department) had been concerned because the applicant's brochure lists as uses "business, civic, social or church." She said she thinks Ms. Sprinkle was concerned because there are special concerns associated with church events, such as a repetitive schedule, and these may not be appropriate for the Ll district, or may not be permitted at all. Ms. Sprinkle felt for this facility to be a supporting use to the LI district, the usage should be business related. Ms. Thomas thinks the confusion is with the fact that the applicant's justification lists a wider range of uses than what the Ordinance allows as supporting commercial uses in the LI district. Mr. Rieley suggested citing the Ordinance and say „only those uses that are permitted in the LI District" be permitted. Mr. Cilimberg suggested: "Why don't you make that basic reference in the condition and let Ms. Sprinkle and Ms. Thomas work with the County Attorney's Office to come up with more specific language before the Board hearing, rather than trying to write it tonight." Mr. Kamptner asked: "is the desire to expand the use beyond an off -site meeting facility, or only to limit the purpose of it as a meeting facility to secondary use for industrial service and office service areas?" Ms. Thomas responded: "That, I think, is staffs concern. And we don't really want to limit it to just the LI district on Doble Ann Drive. That is not our intent. Mr. Rieley said: "My own feeling is that we should make it as broad as the Ordinance will allow. Once this is being used as a meeting place, what difference does it make if it is a (personal type function such as a Shower) or not. I don't see that as fundamentally degrading to the Ll district." Mr. Tice and Mr. Nitchmann agreed. Mr. Cilimberg explained: It is the way the Ordinance is structured to deal with the idea of supporting Commercial in the U. You have to look at it from the standpoint that, in general, the Ordinance was anticipating new development. It didn't want supporting commercial taking large quantities of the new development for otherwise industrial uses. The Ordinance is written that way, but it makes it somewhat awkward when you have an existing use that comes in as part of an area that has been established for some time. it has to fit the same language. I think that is what Ms. Sprinkle was addressing --making sure it didn't get beyond the Ordinance allowances. But I think we can make the conditions say that, obviously with the broadest interpretation of what the Ordinance would allow." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP 98-10 for Charles Pietsch - The Meeting Place, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions, with the understanding condition No. 3 will be reworded as discussed by the Commission prior to the Board meeting: 1. Applicant shall comply with all site development plan requirements of Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to provision of septic/sewer, parking, and fire protection. �S7 4-7-98 19 2. Facility shall be operated in general accord with the applicant's justification dated 2/23/98 and initialed "SET," (Attachment C to the staff report), except that only those uses allowed in condition No. 3 will be permitted. 3. Permitted use of the facility to include only those of a supporting commercial use nature for Industrial Service and Office Service, as described in the March 30, 1998 memorandum from Building Code and Zoning Services (Attachment E to the staff report. (This condition to be reworded prior to the Board hearing) 4. Facility shall be limited to 2,000 square feet in size. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Upcoming Tower Reouests - Mr. Nitchmann asked if the ARB will have comments on these requests. Mr. Cilimberg said the ARB took a position a while back that the County needed to decide how it will deal with towers in a general sense, potentially through the hiring of a consultant. So the ARB is not taking action on the special use permit aspects of the tower proposals. They will take their action as to Certificates of Appropriateness when they are necessary in the development of a tower, but not in special use permits. Mr. Nitchmann asked if it might be premature to act on the special permit requests. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has a process which it must follow in bringing these requests before the Commission. It is then up to the Commission to make a decision as to whether or not to defer action. The Board has directed a Request for Personnel for a Consultant Assistant for Towers. Proposals are currently under review but that process will probably not be complete before these requests are before the Commission. The interviews are scheduled for Friday, April 10th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 91-50 p.m., with the next meeting of the Commission announced for 10:00 Friday, April 10th, for an Athletic Field Lighting Presentation to be held in the Board Roam of the Coin nOffice Building. F M Wayne/Cilimberg, Sec"ary '00