Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 01 1997 PC Minutes7-1-97 JULY 1, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 1, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Washington. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of June 17, 1997, were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA SDP 97-034 Mobile Home Sales Center Preliminary Site Plan - Requests for a waiver of critical slopes, and a waiver for grading within residential buffer. Ms. Huckle said she had some questions about this request so the item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and discussed by the Commission. Mr. Morrisette gave a brief staff report. Staff recommended approval of both waivers. Ms. Huckle asked how much more slope, in addition to that needed for the office building, will be cut. Mr. Morrisette said the building is approximately .025% of the site; the display area is 75% of the site. Mr. Tice added that the grading proposed is virtually the entire site, all the way to Woodburn Road and it appears grading also is proposed on the adjoining parcel. Mr. Tom Batchelor represented the applicant. He explained the grading plan is to "take the front and move it back ... to create level land in front." He said the final site will be about four feet above Berkmar Drive. Ms. Huckle asked if all the trees will be lost. Mr. Batchelor said some trees will be lost but he did not think all. Mr. Tice asked if this site falls within the entrance corridor. (Part will be visible from Rt. 29). Mr. Morrisette said staff had originally determined that the site does fall within the entrance corridor. However, the applicant appealed that determination and "it was upheld that the applicant was not subject to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District." Mr. Tice raised a question which caused considerable discussion, i.e. the fact that the plan shows grading on the adjacent parcel, including some critical slope areas. Mr. Tice pointed out that the request before the Commission is for a waiver on parcel 68D1. He asked if a waiver was required to cover the grading that will have to take place on parcel 68D2 in order to accomplish this plan. The applicant explained that 7-1-97 2 D2 is also owned by the same applicant, and "what we have requested is to be able to do what the plan shows." Mr. Kamptner addressed Mr. Tice's question. He said the staff report identifies only 68D1 and it is not apparent from the staff report that grading is to take place on the adjoining parcel. The question of whether or not the application should have included parcel 68D2 was discussed at some length. Ms. Huckle asked if a second waiver is required to allow the grading on 68132. Mr. Morrisette confirmed that the plan shows grading on 68132 even though the waiver request submitted by the applicant identifies only 68D1. The Commission discussed whether or not to proceed with action on this request, or to defer the item so that the application can be revised to include both parcels. Though Mr. Kamptner said the Commission could go ahead and act on this request, it would be with the applicant's understanding that the plan may not be able to proceed until the grading on D2 is addressed. The applicant expressed a desire that the Commission would proceed as suggested by Mr. Kamptner and "if we can't go on that other land, then let us proceed with this and if it is necessary we will put in a separate request for the other land." Mr. Dotson questioned how grading would be able to stop at the property line without the installation of a retaining wall. Mr. Tice said taking action on this request would "essentially mandate what is going to happen on the adjoining parcel, by default." Without having all the information about parcel D2, Mr. Tice said he felt the cleanest approach would be to have the application come back to the Commission with both parcels included in the waiver request so "we can be sure we are making a sound decision." Ms. Huckle agreed. Staff explained that though the waiver request identified only parcel D1, the site plan which was reviewed by the Engineering Department, and the full Site Review Committee, was the same as on display before the Commission and that plan shows the total extent of grading, including that which occurs on 68D2. Staff assumed the Engineering Department's review for the waiver request had covered both parcels (because they are both shown on the plan), though Engineering Department's comment did not identify parcel 68132 specifically. Mr. Cilimberg thought this was simply "an error of omission." He said: "There is nothing new here in what is being proposed. It has been assumed the grading would be on both D1 and D2 and while we might defer this request, it will only be to correct a technicality. The same information will be before you. The Engineering Department has looked at the critical slopes as they will be effected in this entire area (he indicated the area outlined in brown on the plan)." Mr. Cilimberg said it is perfectly acceptable for the grading on the adjacent parcel (zoned R15) to be included in the site plan because of the way the joint entrance is being established. He added later that it is very typical that applications for site plans be for the property on which the use is proposed because the proposed use must coincide with the zoning. So having the application for the one parcel is not unusual. The Site Review Committee is looking at the site plan, and is not looking at parcel boundaries (except for the Zoning Department which will make tX 7-1-97 a sure the use proposed is in a properly zoned area). He concluded that staff has no doubt that the Engineering Department's comments apply to the full area of grading. Ms. Huckle said though the situation might be clear to staff, the Commission can only act on what is "on the paper before us and it specifically says 68D1 only." Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Batchelor if this sales center is a substitute for one previously approved on Rt. 29. Mr. Batchelor declined to answer. She asked if the Bypass will pass through this land. Staff confirmed that the preliminary plans for the Bypass presently show it dissecting this parcel. The Commission identified no other issues to be addressed further by staff. Mr. Finley said this type of situation has been before the Commission with other requests --where the application is for one particular parcel but construction easements spill over onto other parcels. He did not recall there having been any question raised about those requests though he did not know if that had been just because no one noticed. Ms. Huckle said she could not recall any such situations. Referring to a statement in the staff report which says that the Open Space Plan notes this wooded area as a resource, Mr. Dotson asked staff "why." Mr. Cilimberg recalled the reason was because "it constitutes a continuous area of woods in a higher ridge area." Ms. Scala added that at the time of that designation the west side of Berkmar Drive Extended was designated Residential and it was felt protecting those woods would help protect a buffer between the commercial on the east side and residential on the west side of Berkmar. That area is now considered transitional area. Ms. Huckle asked if the Open Space Plan requires that trees be replaced when removed. Mr. Cilimberg said the tree canopy provisions of the Zoning Ordinance requires tree planting to replace canopy cover in certain percentages. That is normally incorporated into the site plan and is based on a 10-year maturity to reach canopy. "To that extent, yes, but to the extent that it exists now, no." Mr. Tice said though he does not have a major problem with this site plan, he feels the Commission should have the full information before making a decision. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SDP 97-034 Mobile Home Sales Center Preliminary Site Plan be deferred to July 15, 1997. The motion passed 4:2 with Commissioners Nitchmann and Finley casting the dissenting votes. Mr. Tice asked that the Engineering Department have a staff member present at the July 15th meeting. Mr. Dotson felt there should be a clearer statement of the extent of the waiver, either in language or on a map, so there can be no future dispute. ------------------------------------- SP 97-23 Rivanna Rowing Inc. - Request for a Special Use Permit to allow the use of a private rowing organization on the Rivanna Reservoir and the construction of a X I 7-1-97 4 floating dock on property owned by the Monticello Wesleyan Church located at 2001 Earlysville Road. This property is described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 31 D in the Rio ``tw Magisterial District. It is zoned Rural Area and is shown as Rural Area on the Land Use plan. The applicant was requesting deferral to July 22, 1997. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-23 for Rivanna Rowing be deferred to July 22, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-25 Spring Hill Baptist Church - Request for a Special Use Permit for an existing non -conforming use to allow for a two-story church addition for a Sunday School and a Fellowship Hall at the Spring Hill Baptist Church located at 2620 Frays Mill Road at the intersection of State Route 606 and 641. This property is described as Tax Map 21 Parcel 5A(1) in the White Hall Magisterial District. It is zoned RA, Rural Area and is shown as Rural Area on the Land Use Plan. SDP 97-057 Spring Hill Baptist Church Preliminary Site Plan - Request for approval of "+f..r a site development plan, entitled "Spring Hill Baptist Church, dated 4/28/97" showing a two-story church addition for a Sunday School and Fellowship Hall at the Spring Hill Baptist Church. The site development plan also shows a new parking lot entrance from State Route 606. The applicant was requesting deferral of both items to July 22, 1997. Public comment was invited on both requests. None was offered and the public hearings were closed. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-25 and SDP 97-057 for Spring Hill Baptist Church be deferred to July 22, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-29 James and Becky Johnston - Proposal to reapprove SP 94-25 which allowed an additional division of the "farm tract" as part of a Rural Preservation Development. The property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 8 is located on the east side of Route 649 about 1/2 mile southeast of the intersection of Route 649 and Route 643 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area (Rural Area 2). Mr. Wade presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the same original conditions. ?C1 M 7-1-97 5 The applicant, Mr. James Johnston, addressed the Commission. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's request, Mr. Johnston explained the confusion which had occurred with the original conditions. He said: "We thought the approval of the special permit before would allow us to transfer the farm and remain on the property. But it was explained to us that was not the intention. If we sold the farm we would have to move because we didn't have a development right which would protect our own residence." He explained his present plan is "to incorporate the 2-acre lot and the 114 acre lot in the subdivision and we have asked if it would be possible for us to move that 2-acre lot to another part of the property and sell a 5-acre lot, which would still leave an adequate residue to meet the requirements of the County." Public comment was invited. Mr. Ed Pugh, a resident of the applicant's subdivision, addressed the Commission. He did not object to the application specifically, but said he objected to the way the subdivision has been managed. He said the road maintenance agreement says the homeowners' association will be responsible for maintenance, but a homeowners' association has ever been established. He said he has performed all the maintenance on the road. Mr. George Overstreet, a friend of the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that the subdivision is not totally developed and 5 lots are owned by one owner. He said he is 90% certain a homeowners' association was formed, but given the fact that five lots have never been built on, the subdivision is "rather inactive." He felt sure the two homeowners and Mr. Johnston could meet and come to agreement about the collection of annual fees for the maintenance of the road. He said this plan would make for a more aesthetic use of the property. Mr. Kamptner said there should be recorded documents which would confirm the existence of a homeowners' association. Those documents should be recorded in the Clerk's Office. A road maintenance agreement is a separate document. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked how a preservation tract is formalized. Mr. Fritz said there is a standard easement. He confirmed that the conditions will provide that such an easement be established. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 97-29 for James and Becky Johnston be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is restricted to nine (9) lots (in addition to the preservation tract). 2. No further subdivision rights on the 110.4 acres of land. c�� 7-1-97 6 3. Division of Tax Map 47, Parcel 8, shall be permitted only as part of a Rural Preservation Development which includes Tax Map 47, Parcels 8, 8A, and 9. Such development shall result in the combination of the three parcels to allow the creation of one new development lot and one preservation tract. The total acreage devoted to the development lot shall not exceed six acres and the Preservation tract shall not be less than 63.55 acres. The building site shown on the Preservation tract may be allowed as a development lot provided that the balance of the Preservation tract is added to Lots 8B, 8C, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, 81, or the development lot authorized by this permit resulting in a Preservation Tract with a minimum acreage of 63.55 acres. This provision allows for transfer of the Rural Preservation tract to only one of the aforementioned lots. 4. Any plat submitted for a Rural Preservation development shall be reviewed under the administrative review procedures and no separate action by the Planning Commission shall be required for the creation of a Rural Preservation development unless review by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to the administrative review procedures. 5. Only one additional dwelling shall be allowed in the area of Parcel 8. Such additional dwelling shall be permitted only after approval of the Rural Preservation Development approved in accord with this permit on the Preservation tract. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- SP 97-26 Ruth Russell Shifflett - Request for a one-year extension of SP 95-38 which permitted a stream crossing in the floodplain. Property, described as Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, is located on the east side of Route 810, Browns Gap Tnpk., approximately 1.4 miles north of Route 668, Walnut Level Road, in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to the same conditions of SP 95-38, with one additional condition extending the time period for one year. Mr. Loewenstein expressed concern about the use of the word "may" in the Engineering comments (Attachment B to staff report), i.e. "The culverts through the embankments, depending on their number and size, may alleviate these concerns." He asked: "How effective will the culverts be?" Mr. Fritz was unable to give a detailed answered, but said "the Engineering Department does recommend approval and they have included some conditions. Typically when they do that they raise a concern; they're letting the Commission know they have a concern and the conditions they propose are designed to overcome that concern or give them adequate flexibility so if there does appear to be a problem, they can correct it." The applicant was represented by Mr. John McNair. He addressed the question about the culverts, saying: "There is some question about the drainage around those 91�1 7-1-97 / abutments. Certainly the drainage will be completely taken care of. The proper design of the bridge abutments will take care of all the drainage." Ms. Huckle asked if this has been worked out to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Mr. Fritz said the final design has not yet been approved. It is still under review, but the conditions give Engineering adequate flexibility. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 97-26 for Ruth and Russell Shifflett be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final bridge plans and details. The plans must include grading plans for the road and abutments in the flood plain with details of culverts through the embankment. Bridge plans must be sealed and signed by a professional engineer. 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic, hydraulic and structural computations prepared by a professional engineer. Computations shall include an analysis of the impacts to the one -hundred year flood plain. 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan if the disturbance is more than 10,000 square feet. 4. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. This will involve a Joint Permit Application through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment. 6. All future divisions of Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, shall use this stream crossing for access to Route 810. 7. Approval of this special use permit shall expire on February 14, 1998, unless the construction on the stream crossing shall have commenced. [NOTE: At the end of the meeting Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the date in this condition should have been 1999. A Motion to Reconsider (made by Ms. Huckle, seconded by Mr. Finley) ) passed unanimously and the date was changed to 1999.] The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------- SP 97-28 Farmington Country Club - Proposal to make the existing club a conforming use in the RA, Rural Areas Zoning District and to allow for three building additions to the club on part of 273.472 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas District [10.2.2(2)]. Property, q,6 7-1-97 8 described as part of Tax Map 60E2, Parcel 1, is located on the north side of Route 250 West (Ivy Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to conditions. Staff also recommended a modification of Section 4.12.6.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit five (5) parallel parking spaces. Because of the State's concern about the use of the word "certification," Ms. Scala proposed condition No. 1 be changed as follows: "Virginia Department of Historic Resources confirmation that the additions will not adversely effect the National Register listing." Later Mr. Tice amended the condition further to read: "...will not adversely effect the listing on the National Registry of Historic places." Ms. Scala confirmed the conditions suggested by the Engineering Department will have to be met before the site plan can be approved. Ms. Huckle asked if approval of this request will change anything. Ms. Scala said approval will bring the use into conformity. She had not identified any significant changes. Any substantial changes or expansions will still require a special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg added that the applicant is adding to a non -conforming use, which cannot take place without a special use permit. "To that extent, bringing it into conformity is necessary. On the question of whether it is changing things. Yes, it is changing things in terms of the status of this property as it relates to our Zoning Ordinance." Ms. Huckle asked if it gives the applicant "more latitude and more power to do things." Mr. Cilimberg replied: "Only through a special use permit." The applicant was represented by Mr. David Carr. He described the significance of this proposal to Farmington. Public comment was invited. Mr. Richard Strickler, representing the Farmington Homeowners' Association, expressed support for this proposal on behalf of the residents of Farmington. Mr. Todd Bullard, architect for the project, described the three proposed additional buildings. He presented conceptual drawings of the buildings. He said the Club anticipates no increase in membership at this time. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-28 for Farmington Country Club be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: a 1. Virginia Department of Historic Resources confirmation that the additions will not adversely effect the listing on the National Registry of Historic Places. 9� 7-1-97 M 2. This permit is for the existing club facility and three building additions, excluding the golf course. Any future intensification of use shall require an amendment to this special use permit. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a modification of Section 4.12.6.5, to allow parallel parking spaces, for SP 97-28, be approved. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ()-w %� % V. Wayne Oilimberg, 7�ly Cm