HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 10 1996 PC MinutesM
9-10-96
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 10, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice
Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior
Planner; Ms. Claudia Paine, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of August 6, August 13 and August 20 were unanimously approved as
submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the August 21st and September 4th
Board of Supervisors meetings.
ZMA-96-14 Albemarle County Service Authority - Petition to rezone approximately 4
acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 57,
Parcel 29B, is the location of the construction yard/storage shop for the Albemarle
County Service Authority. This site is located on the south side of Route 240
approximately 0.7 miles west of the 2401250 intersection at Mechums River in the
White Hall magisterial District. This area is recommended for Neighborhood Density
(3-6 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of Crozet and for Rural Area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to October 1, 1996.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that ZMA-96-14 be
deferred to October 1st. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-96-31 Lillian Shiffiett - Petition for approval of a Home Occupation Class B for
the establishment of a beauty shop on approximately 20 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas
[10.2.2(31)]. Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 23 is located on the east side
of Route 665 approximately 0.25 miles south of Route 609 in the Whitehall Magisterial
District.
Ms. Paine presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Ms. Paine called the Commission's attention to one particular aspect of
the request, i.e. the applicant's request to be able to sell hair care products in
conjunction with the beauty salon activity. It was staffs opinion that "the sale of hair
3�
9-10-96 2
care products is subordinate to beauty shop activity and is normally expected with this
type of use." Staff recommended approval of a modification to Section 5.2.2.1 c to
allow the sale of hair care products.
Ms. Paine noted that the last word in condition No. 1 should be changed from
"abandoned" to "terminated," at the recommendation of the County Attorney.
Referring to condition No. 1--No subsequent subdivision (including family division) nor
establishment of any additional dwellings shall be permitted unless this special use
permit is terminated. --Mr. Dotson asked: "If they wanted to divide it to create, for
example, one additional property, yet they wanted to maintain the beauty salon
activity, what would they have to do under that circumstance? Would they have to
reapply and reinitiate the whole thing?" Ms. Paine responded affirmatively. Mr.
Cilimberg added: "If they want to continue the special permit and subdivide it, they
have to get the special use permit amended, which would be the same Commission -
to -Board process." Mr. Dotson asked if this was a usual condition on this type of
Class B permit. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think this has to do strictly with the
existing circumstances of the entrance onto the State road and concern about
increased traffic. There's not adequate sight distance in one direction. "
The applicant, Llilian Shifflett, was represented by Ms. Debbie Pond, her daughter.
She said the Health Department has not yet approved the septic system because she
had not realized a separate application was needed for that approval. That application
was filed "today." The Health Department has indicated they do not think there will be
a problem. Ms. Pond explained that she will be operating the salon in her mother's
dwelling.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice asked why a restriction was placed on the number of customers per day. He
was concerned that the condition was so restrictive it would limit the applicant's ability
to have a successful business. Staff explained that the restriction is related to traffic
count. If the vehicle trips/day exceeds 30, a commercial entrance will be needed. Mr.
Tice wondered if it would be better to make a limitation on the number of vehicle
trips/day, rather than on the number of customers. Mr. Cilimberg said, in either case,
this is not something which would be monitored, unless there is a complaint. Because
of safety considerations, Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff has never recommended
approval of a home occupation which will cause an increase in traffic at a point where
there is inadequate sight distance. "So it then becomes a question of what is the
break point. We have used a break point that is associated with no more than 2
dwellings, which is less than 30 vehicle trips. Establishing that threshold in a
condition will be about as enforceable as 4 customers/day."
_?S
M
9-10-96 3
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment on Ms. Sprinkle's memo of August 22 which
states: "Section 5.6 states that mobile homes on individual lots shall not be used for
any purpose other than a primary place of residence." Staff confirmed that the
primary use of the mobile home will be residential.
Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the sale of products which are not produced on
the site. She quoted from Section 5.2.2.1 c which says "there shall be no sales on the
premises, other than items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with such
home occupation, this does not exclude beauty shops or one -chair barber shops."
She wondered about the issue of precedent. Ms. Paine said Section 5.0 allows a
modification of Section 5.2.2.1 by the Commission. Staff feels the sale of hair
products is so closely related to the use that staff "feels comfortable with supporting
the request. Mr. Kamptner added: "Staff also considered the fact that the applicant
will be purchasing the products and bringing them to the site; there will be no on -site
deliveries. Therefore, the residential character of the neighborhood will not be
impacted.
On the question of precedent, Mr. Nitchmann said the Commission looks at each
situation individually, and has the authority of approve modifications.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner if this was a defensible position. Mr. Kamptner
replied: "The one thing that is unique in this case is that the applicant is bringing the
products to the home. So the next time someone wishes to sell products which are
not made at the home, we are not bound to grant that particular modification. We
would need to look at the facts. Certainly, if someone proposed a similar situation,
where they purchased products somewhere else and brought them to the home
business --similar types of items, small in size, but ancillary to the main home
occupation --staff will try to be consistent in the their analysis of these applications.
Will the Planning Commission be bound to grant the modification in that case --if there
is a reason that indicates to you that the modification would not be consistent with the
home occupation use, then it is within your discretion to deny the modification."
Mr. Cilimberg said that condition No. 5--No deliveries of hair care products for sale on
site. --is fairly limiting. He said with this limitation and the limitation on the number of
customers, the primary concern of impact to the neighborhood is addressed. Staff
feels the sale of hair care products "is a very limited and associated kind of activity vs.
something that may be very different in terms of a service plus sales."
Mr. Dotson said: "The way Ms. Huckle is reading this is 'No sales and this applies to
beauty shops.' The way I read it is 'There should be no sales but beauty shops,
normally--implied--do involve some sales.' So you can read it either way."
Mr. Tice again expressed concern that the limitation of customers was too restrictive.
S(.11
9-10-96
4
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP-96-31 for Lillian
Shifflett be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. No subsequent subdivision (including family division) nor establishment of any
additional dwellings shall be permitted unless this special use permit is terminated.
2. Not more than one employee, who is not a family member living on site, shall be
permitted.
3. Health Department approval of separate septic drainfield prior to commencement of
beauty shop activity.
4. Not more than 4 customers per day.
5. No deliveries of hair care products for sale on site.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
SP-96-32 N.T. Brinkman, Inc. - Petition to permit fill in the floodplain in order to
reestablish a pond. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 12A is located on the
north side of Fontaine Avenue Extended approximately 800 feet west of the Route
29/250 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This area is recommended for
Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 6.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. He explained that this had been a "primarily
technical" review. The Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and is satisfied
that the floodplain will not be adversely impacted. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Staff and the applicant answered questions about the history of the site.
Mr. Lilley clarified that the pond under consideration is the one shown on the plan
which is "the lower one that is closest to Buckingham Circle."
The applicant was represented by Michael Matthews. He described the applicant's
history with the property, the history of the previous pond, and the motivation behind
this proposal. He described the process which the applicant has followed in the
creation of this proposal, including neighborhood interaction, etc. He said the ultimate
development plans for the rest of the property have not yet been decided, but
commercial office use or residential use are being considered. He stressed that the
applicant wants this pond to be a "natural area" and the reestablishment of the pond
will be an improvement to the natural wetland area which this site has become. It is
.�q
9-10-96 5
the applicant's plan to "give this (new) wetland, roughly 6 acres, with some
restrictions, to the Environmental Education Center." The new pond will be a "visual
amenity" to the rest of the development and will help attract "high end" users.
Answers to specific Commission questions included the following:
--All grading will take place in the area of the old pond. There will be no impact
to "Zone A" (on the map).
--Subject to certain assurances, the applicant would like to give title to the
Environmental Education Center (EEC), but nothing has been finalized at this point. If
arrangements cannot be finalized with the EEC, the applicant would like to find some
other entity "whose business it is to be stewards to these types of properties."
--This pond project cannot be done until the remainder of the property has been
developed because the work will be done with the proceeds from upcoming
development. It is hoped that development of the property will proceed as rapidly as
possible. The applicant plans to close on the property "any day now."
Public comment was invited.
Donald Day (Buckingham Circle) and Mr. Paul Rood (Buckingham Circle) expressed
the following concerns:
— "Incompleteness" of the proposal in terms of the plans for the remainder of the
property;
--A question as to whether or not a new pond will be an improvement to what is
an existing "vibrant, diverse" wetland. Is it possible to improve upon nature?
--How will public access to the site be provided for if this pond is managed by
an outside group? A part of the site borders Buckingham Circle property. The
neighborhood opposes any access through Buckingham Circle.
--Will a 10-feet deep pond create a "public nuisance," which will require more
control than presently exists? Will it be a danger to neighborhood children?
--A comprehensive plan for the entire property should be submitted before
approval is granted for this proposal.
--Will there be flooding as a result of the pond?
Mr. Rood expressed the belief that the applicant has deceived the neighborhood as to
the nature of the design of the proposal. He said what is currently proposed is
different than was presented at neighborhood meetings.
Ms. Jane Heyward felt the property should remain as it is with no improvements.
Ms. Mary McClaren, Mr. Barry McClaren and Anna McClaren (Buckingham Circle
residents) addressed the Commission and expressed their support for the plans to
reestablish the pond. Mr. McClaren, however, agreed with Mr. Day's concerns about
the lack of a comprehensive plan for the entire property.
39
cm
9-10-96 6
Mr. John Hermsmier, representing the Environmental Education Center, addressed the
Commission and read a prepared statement which is made a part of these minutes as
Attachment A. He explained the purpose of the EEC and expressed support for the
proposal. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Hermsmier how the pond proposed would be an
improvement over the existing wetland. Mr. Hermsmier agreed that the existing
wetlands have value but he felt the proposed improvements "would, on the balance,
not do harm to the amenities that the wetland provides today and will potentially
enhance those." He said: "If I felt, or the EEC felt, there would be degradation to
what is there, based on these plans, we might still be interested in this project but we
would have to weigh the tradeoff of what can a community get. But the information I
have today leads me to believe that at worse we are talking about a wash, although
there would be change. We would value it in its present state and, hopefully, value it
more in its planned stated." He confirmed that the plan will result in more diversity.
Ms. Huckle asked if any discussions have taken place about parking. Mr. Hermsmier
said parking will have to be provided, but discussions have not taken place with the
applicant about that issue. Mr. Hermsmier described the type of maintenance which
will be involved with the site, including the maintenance of a walkway and possibly
screening which may be required. Maintaining the safety of visitors will be a primary
concern. Mr. Finley asked about the water quality on the site. Mr. Hermsmier said it
is "not a pristine area" but that does not mean it does not have significant value as a
natural area.
The applicant was allowed final comment. He disagreed with Mr. Rood's statement
that the applicant had misled the neighbors. He said the plan is the same, but
perhaps the applicant's presentation to the neighbors had not been clear. He said the
only changes have been to reduce the impact to the wetlands, at the request of DEQ.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he said the deepest point of the pond will be 10
feet.
Ms. Huckle asked the applicant why there is such a rush to get the pond approved
given the fact that the calculations for the pond, dam, etc. will be effected by the
development (impervious surface) that takes place on the rest of the property. Mr.
Matthews said the engineers have used calculations which assume the full
development of the property to its "highest, best and most impervious use." Mr.
Matthews said he needs to "sell the space on the hill" and it will be advantageous to
be able to tell perspective buyers that the existing wetland area is going to be
improved. Also, the DEQ approval process is a long one and the applicant "needs to
get as many approvals as possible processed to make this a viable property in the
marketplace." He said he feels the pond proposal is a completely separate issue from
the development of the rest of the property except that the pond will act as a
stormwater runoff basin for the rest of the property. On the issue of parking, he said
the parking area which is on Buckingham Circle (which was mentioned by a member
of the public) is part of that which it is envisioned will be given to the EEC.
31
9-10-96 7
Mr. Finley asked if the wetland area, in its present state, could be used as a
stormwater detention facility. Mr. Matthews did not know the answer to this question,
but said there are other options for stormwater management, both on site and off,
including the construction of a pond in another location. Mr. Matthews said the pond
could be made available to other adjacent properties for stormwater management.
Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant has considered the fact that the property has a
history of flooding. Mr. Matthews replied: "We're aware that there is a lot of water
going through there and we are hoping that is working in our favor. It has been
considered by our engineers and this plan is the result."
Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant is prepared to assume the responsibility for the
maintenance for the pond if it should not be given to some other entity. Mr. Matthews
said the pond is designed to be accessible to maintenance equipment , so that is a
possibility and "I assume that is what we would want to do to maintain the water
feature." He said the question of liability insurance is "quite far down the road," but
the applicant currently carries insurance on the property. He again emphasized the
applicant is not in the business of maintaining wetlands.
Mr. Tice asked the Water Resources Manager, Dave Hirschman, to comment on how
this project fits into the water quality of the Moore's Creek watershed. Mr. Hirschman
said the pond "would be a benefit for the watershed scale, considering the upstream
landuses, in terms of filtering and treating." He added: "As a wetland it functions as
habitat ... and as a kind of living machine for filtering water and biological uptake of the
things that are coming down. It is strategically placed near the bottom of the Maury
Creek drainage before it goes into Moore's Creek. Mr. Tice asked if this pond could
also serve to filter some of the runoff coming off Buckingham Circle. Mr. Hirschman
said a lot of Buckingham Circle drains through the property "so it would also help with
that runoff."
Ms. Huckle asked if this would effect "Moore's Creek further down and would the dam
help to stabilize the amount of water." Mr. Hirschman said he did not see this pond
functioning as major flood control, "but in terms of what is required for other projects in
that urban ring, it would function in that way."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein said he was concerned about this "piecemeal approach" and "too
many unanswered, or vaguely answered, questions." He said he supported
reestablishment of the natural area, "provided no damage is done to the existing
habitat." However, he said he would not want the Commission to be seduced by this
applicant's proposal and then find the ultimate development plans for the property may
negate some of the value of what might be approved tonight. He expressed concerns
about the issues of access, maintenance and liability and how these will be addressed
�1D
9-1 Q-96 8
by whoever may ultimately be responsible for this facility. He concluded: "I'm not
eager to support this special permit in a vacuum. I would prefer to see this submitted
as part of a larger plan.... I understand the applicant's position from a business
perspective, but I would like to know a little more about what will be done up the hill."
Mr. Kamptner commented on the issue of a comprehensive plan for the property:
"This property is zoned HC right now and there are a number of uses that would be
allowed by right that would never come before this Commission. So the opportunity
for the Commission to have a comprehensive view of the development of this 12 acre
parcel is kind of limited. One, it will depend on whether the applicant or the owner
decided to request a use that would be allowed by special use permit. The other
would be if a site plan was called up for review by the Commission. But in either
circumstance, the ability for a comprehensive review of the entire 12-acre parcel may
not exist unless the whole 12 acres is going to be developed at once. This is different
from a planned development in a Planned Development type of zone which is either in
place or is being sought. So, the ability of the Commission to ever get a
comprehensive review of the parcels is going to be limited in this case."
Staff confirmed that any proposal to develop in the floodplain would require
Commission review, but not every project will effect the floodplain.
Mr. Tice said he is usually an advocate of comprehensive reviews, but, in his opinion,
"this proposal is significant in its own right regardless of what happens on the rest of
the property." He cited other stormwater facilities that have been approved without
being tied to any type of comprehensive review of the uses on other parcels. He
concluded: "This has merits on its own which really make it stand out from the
comprehensive planning issue and I think its one that justifies this piecemeal
approach. The merits of this proposal, regardless of what happens on the rest of the
property, are significant enough and it sends exactly the kind of message we want, not
only from an environmental standpoint but the way in which the applicant is trying to
work with the neighbors and the community in seeking their input. I think with the
conditions staff has recommended the concerns over maintenance and the long term
integrity of the project should be able to be addressed."
Mr. Finley said he agreed with Mr. Tice. He said he thinks this project "is going to
control what happens next because if this is turned over to the EEC it is going to
restrict, to some degree, what happens to that pond in the future. What they do in the
future has to stay within the environmental impact on which the Engineering
Department will base their approval. So I agree it stands alone and I can vote on it as
it has been presented."
Mr. Dotson asked if a site plan review would take place which would address issues
such as parking and access. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Yes. There would need to
be a site plan review for anything that would provide ingress or egress from the road."
(Mr. Lilley said a site plan has not yet been submitted. Mr. Lilley added: "Actually, I
Im
cm
9-10-96 9
think it is an interesting question about whether that use is allowed in the HC district.
It could, I suppose, be an accessory to the main use on the property, but I don't think
its a use allowed as a primary use on a separate property. There may be a public
hearing process for that to even happen.") Mr. Cilimberg said a possible scenario
may be that parking and access (for the pond area) will be provided within the
development on the remainder of the property.
Mr. Dotson said there appear to be mechanisms in place to deal with his concerns,
i.e. "the nuisance factor to neighbors and the safety concern which must always be
balanced against the amenity concern." He said the safety concern is one that the
neighbors will have to be aware of and "be very attentive about." He said: "It doesn't
seem to me it is a clearcut as a nuisance. In fact, it could be just as much an amenity
as some people have testified." He concluded that he could support the request.
Ms. Huckle said she supports the concept but she had concerns about the
maintenance of the pond which can be an expensive process. She wished there was
some way to ensure that the maintenance would be done properly by some on -going
entity.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP-96-32 for N.T.
Brinkman, Inc. 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.
2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of computations and documentation to
verify effects on the existing FEMA dedicated floodplain.
3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment.
4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
5. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a copy of a Section 401 Water Quality
Certificate from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality requested by the
Army Corps of Engineers. (NOTE: The staff report had incorrectly stated the permit
number to be 404.)
Ms. Huckle asked that the Commission review the site plan.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1 with Commissioner Loewenstein casting the
dissenting vote.
on
9-10-96 10
OLD BUSINESS
Wal-Mart Special Permit for Outdoor Storage / Amendment to Minutes of July 23,
1996 - Mr. Cilimberg reported that the minutes for Wal-Mart's Special Permit to allow
Outdoor Display had been incorrectly stated in that condition 2(c) had not been
amended to reflect the intent of Ms. Washington's motion. The phrase ...and
specification that the 'Outdoor Sales Display Area for items up to 4' high' be limited to
plants and planting materials only should have been stricken from the motion.
The Commission agreed this was correct and the record should be changed
accordingly.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that condition 2(c) for
the Wal-Mart special permit be amended to read:
2(c). Specification of February 15 through September 15 for areas shown as
"Temporary Outdoor Sales Display Area" and "Outdoor Sales Display Area for items
up to 4' high."
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Huckle asked that the following topics be added to the Staffs Work Plan: Day
Care in the Rural Areas; Parking Requirements; and Design Criteria. Mr. Cilimberg
said the first two topics would be covered, but he was uncertain about the Design
Criteria because that is covered by the Engineering Department.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
U. W
V. Way Cilimb etary
11�3