Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 15 1994 PC Minutes3-15-94 MARCH 15, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Ms. Monica Vaughanl Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of February 21st and March 1st were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. CiIimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the March 2nd and March 9th Board of Supervisors meeting. SP-92-27 Stamm Family Land Trust - Petition to grant an extension of the time period of approval of SP-92-27 which authorized a stream crossing in the floodpiain of Muddy Run and Buck Mountain Creek. Property, described as Tax Map 7, parcel 29A consists of 30.7 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the north side of Rt. 687, approximately 0.75 miles west of Rt. 601 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "No changes in the ordinance or the area have taken place since the original approval of this request. Staff recommends that the time limit requested by the applicant be approved and that the conditions of SP-92-27 be modified to reflect the new time limit." Mr. Fritz noted that the conditions of approval are the same as with the original approval with the exception that condition 3 "sets the alternative time period." Mr. Blue ascertained that the issue before the Commission was "the appropriateness of the extension." Mr. Blue confirmed that both the Water Control Board and the Engineering Department will review the crossing, regardless of whether a low-water or high-water crossing is constructed. The applicant was represented by Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. He repeated that "nothing has changed." In answer to Ms. Huckle's question about weight capacity, Mr. Gloeckner explained the applicant is interested in using discarded flatbed railroad cars, which "carry 20 tons." He confirmed that the bridge will be able to accommodate emergency vehicles. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 1 Also present: Mr. Tbm Jenkins V T, 3-15-94 2 MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-92-27 for Stamm Family Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval shall allow construction of only one of the two options outlined in this report; 2. A building permit to construct a crossing shall not be issued until the following conditions are met; a. Department of Engineering final approval; b. Water Resource Manager approval of water quality impact assessment plan; c. Compliance with all federal, state and local requirements pertaining to a perennial stream; d. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion Control Permit (Grading Permit). 3. Approval of this permit shall expire January 1, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-04 B & B Partnership - Petition to permit outdoor storage and display of vehicles within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [30.6.3.2]. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 6, is located to the west of the existing Brady Bushy Ford dealership on Route 250 East in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area (Neighborhood 3) and is recommended for regional service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue noted an error in the staff report which was corrected as follows: "The additional parking/display area proposed is a 3,200 square foot vehicle washing area and a separate 800 square foot sales office." Mr. Fritz confirmed that the site plan does not show the landscaping which will be recommended (and it is not intended that it be shown at this point). Mr. Blue asked if it was appropriate for the Commission to comment on ARB recommendations. Mr. Fritz explained that both the Commission and the ARB are "advisory" to the Board and the Commission may recommend conditions of approval if it feels there is something needed "in order to make this use appropriate in the Entrance Corridor." (Mr. Blue stated he would not comment on his concern if it was not of concern to the applicant.) W 3-15-94 Referring to condition No. 1, Mr. Dotson asked if the applicant must go back before the ARB before issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant addressed this question and confirmed that the ARB had granted staff (the Design Planner) administrative approval of the final plan. The applicant was represented by Mr. Brian Smith. He expressed no objections to the staffs report or suggested conditions. Regarding landscaping, he stated the "general size of trees and general character of types of trees" had been discussed with the ARB. He stated the applicant is concerned only that the type of trees chosen are not of a type which might damage the cars. He expressed no objection to the ARB's conditions. He noted that he had failed to include the signage on the site plan. He explained that nothing special was planned and that the County's sign regulations would be met. Regarding plantings, Ms. Huckle cautioned against varieties which might grow to a size which would obstruct sight distance. Ms. Imhoff felt outdoor storage can be a problem in "setting community character." It was her feeling that the landscaping recommended by the ARB will ensure that this is an attractive lot. She expressed the hope that the landscaping would "not be cut down to a nub." Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Smith to comment on the two entrances. He noted that the entrance by the hotel was very steep. He wondered if the applicant might want to use the existing entrance, perhaps widening it to serve both properties, and get rid of the steep one. Mr. Smith felt there were advantages and disadvantages on both sides. He explained that several different possibilities had been discussed with the owner and it is felt that "this is probably best at this time for them." He added that the applicant wants to keep the two properties separate as they are owned by two different partnerships. It was noted that the steep entrance would be "flattened" somewhat. Mr. Dotson asked if the trees at the back of the sight would be kept as a buffer between this site and the adjacent property which is developed with apartments. Mr. Smith responded: "We are not going to do any grading or removal of those trees." Noting that this is an elevated sight, Mr. Dotson asked if the height of the sign would be measured from the top of the ground, which could result it it being further up in the air. Mr. Fritz did not know the answer to the question. (Mr. Blue was of the understanding that the measurement is taken from the ground.) Mr. Dotson asked that the applicant, to whatever extent possible, consider a "ground sign or something that would blend better." Mr. Dotson noted that this is one of the most attractive entry corridors into the city. He pointed out that the existing sign does not protrude above the roof lines, but since this site is elevated, the new sign might, if it is the same height above the ground as the existing sign. Ms. Huckle asked if a grease trap would be used for drainage from the site. Mr. Smith explained there would be an oil separator in the "detailing building in the back." He was of 3-15-94 4 the belief that it will discharge into the sanitary sewer. Mr. Fitz confirmed this was accurate, i.e. the washing area discharges into the sanitary sewer. Mr. Smith added that stormwater detention will go under the parking lot and discharge down the back side. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-94-04 for B & B Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the Architectural Review Board. 2. Development shall be in general accord with site plan titled Brady -Bushey Ford dated November 5, 1993 revised February 10, 1994. 3. Administrative approval of the site plan for this use. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-01 Allen & Edna Dunbar - Request for an additional development right [10.5.21 on 4.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 52, is located on a private road 0.4 miles west of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt. 631) approximately 1.1 miles south of its intersection with Dudley Mountain Road (Rt. 706) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He described the history of the property in some detail. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the favorable factors cited in SP-92-51 outweigh the negative factors and staff recommends approval of SP-94-01 subject to (one condition)." Referring to a note stating "None of the 5 lots shown on the previous plat in 1987 shall be transferred to anyone who is not a child or grandchild," Ms. Huckle asked if that would also apply to this lot and what period was covered by the 20 year time period stipulated. Mr. Fritz replied: "This is one of those lots," and that condition had started in 1987. He did not know if the applicant, when making the transfer to his children, had a deed restriction which would "start the 20-year clock running again." Mr. Blue noted: "In any event, this is a bona fide family division at this time, regardless. That is a deed covenant that he put in there." [Mr. Fritz corrected that the covenant had been placed in the deed by the applicant's mother. Mr. Dunbar also addressed this question, stating: "As far as I know, he (his father) came down and told them to just do away with that --the 20- year thing." ] Mr. Blue concluded: "But I think it went to record, so it still applies." Mr. Fritz added that staff had noted this covenant only as further evidence of a bona fide family division... simply as an acknowledgement that that is clearly what is intended here." 3-15-94 The applicant, Mr. Dunbar, addressed the Commission. He stated: "As far as I know it will always stay in the Dunbar family; (but) there is no telling what might happen later on." He explained that it was his desire to give a member of his family a piece of the property. (He also commented on the location of a cemetery which was mentioned in VDOT's comments, but staff explained those comments were in relation to another application and had nothing to do with this applicant's proposal.) Mr. Dunbar commented on the road serving the property and staff confirmed that the road was recently relocated. (Mr. Fritz noted that the road was not germane to this discussion.) In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Fritz explained that the original division, which created the existing situation, was made in 1987. Mr. Fritz added that staff determined there was no other way of achieving what Mr. Dunbar proposes, other than through a special permit. In response to Ms. Imhoffs question about the placement of a second dwelling on the property, Mr. Fritz explained that another dwelling could be placed on the property, but it would still require a development right. Mr. Dotson asked about the significance of the fact that this is a family division, e.g. does it make a difference in terms of road frontage and improvements? Mr. Fritz explained that it makes a difference in terms of the road improvements, i.e. "because it is a family division, there will be no requirement to modify the road in any way, but in terms of frontage, or lot size, or any Health Department approval, or anything else, all those things remain." It was determined that only the Dunbar family uses the road. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-94-01 for Allen & Edna Dunbar be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Staff approval of subdivision plat. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that it is the Commission's role to say "no" when something has gone too far. She explained: "I think the fact that the development rights have been known since 1987, that relief has been granted once already, that they have exhausted their rights --I think about a lot of similarly situated family divisions of people who live within their development rights, and because of precedence --it's nothing personal --I simply could not support that motion." 3-15-94 Ms. Huckle expressed sympathy for the applicant's situation, but repeated her position on this issue, i.e. "that there are a lot of people in this county who have more children than they have development rights and I just can see that this would totally destroy the Comprehensive Plan." She concluded that she could not support the motion. Though he shared the concern of Ms. Imhoff related to precedent, Mr. Dotson expressed support for the motion for the following reasons: This is not particularly good agricultural land; it is not in the watershed; it has a unique 20-year deed restriction to family members; and it provides affordable housing. Given the County's affordable housing strategy, he felt this last issue "just put it over the line," for him. Mr. Blue noted that this is an issue which he has commented on many times before and which will most certainly be addressed during the discussions of the rural areas in the Comp Plan review. He explained: "i think the fact that when the Board of Supervisors re -did the Zoning Ordinance and created these special development rights--5 lots by right --but left an out saying with a special use permit they could grant others, indicated to me they were wise enough to realize that you can't have a blanket policy on these development rights without looking at it." He felt that those who had visited the site "realized what we're dealing with" and he "found it hard to believe that you could be opposed to this particular instance if you had done that." Ms. Imhoff took exception to Mr. Blue's statement. She noted that she had attempted to visit the site but had "not quite" been able to find it, though Elhe had "come close." She stated: "I don't think it has anything to do with whether you've seen it or not or whether it's this individual or that individual, to me it is a question of how far you go with family divisions, the fact that lots of other people have even larger families, and I think that family divisions --as I've seen in other counties --can be very difficult to safeguard and watch over. The 20-year restrictive covenants I find probably less a protection than you might feel because I know family divisions have in the past been abused." Mr. Blue asked: "How do you address the affordable housing issue that Bruce brought up?" Ms. Imhoff replied: "I think affordable housing is most appropriately addressed, not by scattering people far from services in the rural area, but bringing them closer to the urban area." Mr. Blue felt Ms. Imhoffs suggestion would result in "packing them all in" the urban area. Ms. Imhoff disagreed stating: "Not pack them in, but bring them closer to jobs, make them less dependent on cars, bring them closer to public water and sewer." Mr. Blue asked: "Even if they don't want that?" Ms. Imhoff replied: "There's always an opportunity for rural areas." 3-15-94 7 Mr. Blue responded: "Sure, if you have enough money." Ms. Imhoff felt there were still affordable properties in Albemarle and surrounding counties. She felt it was not the county's role to "find an affordable house that is everybody's ideal choice, but rather to provide a different range of opportunities." The motion for approval failed to pass due to a tie vote, with Commissioners Blue, Dotson and Jenkins voting for the motion and Commissioners Imhoff, Vaughan and Huckle voting against. No alternative motion was offered as it was agreed such a motion would most likely have the same result. The item was passed on to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation. ----------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS Putt -Putt Recreation Center - Mr. Cilimberg reported that the applicant for this project requested a deferral before the Board to allow the opportunity for a sound test to be performed. Commissioners are invited to attend the demonstration, to be conducted Tuesday, March 22, 10:00 a.m, at the Putt -Putt site. There was some discussion as to whether or not the Commission could attend without the event being advertised as a public meeting and minutes taken. Mr. Davis advised that as long as the Commission did not "interact as a group or take up any business as a Commission," then no such advertisement was required. (Mr. Davis advised that if the Commission announces at this meeting that there will be such a meeting on March 22, that would serve as public notice.) It was noted that the Commission has already taken action on this request. Some Commissioners were interested in knowing . whether or not adjacent property owners had been notified. Staff explained that this event was the initiative of the applicant and it was his decision as to whom was to be invited. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission could, individually, notify Raintree property owners, if so desired. Ms. Huckle expressed the preference of observing the demonstration from the Raintree property. Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service is offering a Certified Planning Commissioners program, to be held March 23-24 in Harrisonburg, and September 15-16 in New Market. (Both sessions must be attended.) Ms. Huckle and Ms. Vaughan expressed interest. Berkmar z-Lot 6 ! Off -Site Parking - Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff needed Commission authorization to be able to administratively approve 4 additional off -site parking spaces (for a total of 8 off -site spaces). Previous approval had already allowed 4 off -site spaces. He explained that the additional spaces are "needed" and are not just a desire of the applicant's. V 3-15-94 8 MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that staff be granted administrative approval of 4 additional off -site parking spaces for Berkmar/Lot b. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle asked questions about the new administrative approval process which is being contemplated, i.e. "Will staff still list all the items submitted for the Commission's information; will the Commission still get site plans; and will the Commission still be able to request that an item come before the Commission?" Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively to all these questions. He added that nothing will be done, beyond what is currently being done, until the Zoning Text Amendment process has been completed. He explained that adjacent owners will continue to be notified (even though State Code does not require such notification). The Code also does not require that these items be advertised. ----------------------------------------- There being no futher business, the meeting adjourned at 8.15 p.m. E: 0. &L V. Wayne ilimberg, Secre 0