Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 12 1994 PC Minutes4-12-94 APRIL 12, 1994 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 12, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of March 29, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. ----------------------------------------- The Commission presented Certificates of Appreciation to past commissioners Phil Grimm and Walter Johnson. ----------------------------------------- Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the April 6th Board of Supervisors Meeting. Mr. Blue asked why the McRavens (applicants in the outdoor theater project) have been asked to appear before the Board to "answer questions." Mr. Cilimberg did not know the answer to this question, nor did he know what questions would be asked of the McRavens. ----------------------------------------- Addition to Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition consists of 178.090 acres located between Rt. 610 and Rt. 612 off Rt. 20 North, and is described as Tax Map 63, parcel 28. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She explained that the zoning violation which had delayed the consideration of this parcel with the request for the renewal of the entire district (Fall 1993) has now been corrected. Staff was recommending approval of the request. Ms. Huckle asked questions about parcel 28A (2 acres). Ms. Scala explained that the two acres is in the center of the property and it is not uncommon for there to be a farmhouse, or another structure, on a smaller parcel in the middle of a farm. These are included, when possible, to prevent a "Swiss cheese effect" in the district. Ms. Huckle asked if the entire two acres, or just 1 acre and the house, would be taxed at the normal rate. Ms. Scale was of the belief that the entire 2 acres would be excluded from the land use tax benefit because it has been subdivided. Mr. Blue had a different understanding, i.e. that once the parcel gets back into the ag/forestal district, only 1 j acre for the house will be deducted for the assessment of the I IRO 4-12-94 2 fair market value. Ms. Scala felt that it depended on the size of the yard area, though she was not certain her understanding was correct. It was determined the applicant was not present at the hearing. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation as to how the violation had been resolved. Ms. Scala explained that Mr. Bigelow had met with county staff who had recommended that he seek advice from a professional. He had then decided to do a family division. A plat had been completed by a surveyor which was reviewed by staff. A question regarding joint use of septic systems and wells was resolved through the Zoning office. The plat was then recorded, and an affidavit stating to which family member the lot would go was placed in the file. It also had to be determined that "at least 3 of the other dwellings would be able to be subdivided on 21 acres --they wouldn't be so close to another house that they couldn't be subdivided in the future." (This was confirmed by a County planner.) In terms of development rights, Ms. Scala estimated "he would have the ability, I think, to do a couple of more dwellings." Ms. Huckle asked: "But he can't do any more dwellings and be in the ag/forestal district?" Ms. Scala responded: "If he subdivides them he could, (if he does not use up more than his 5 development rights and then his 21- acre parcels) but he could not have any more rental units. But he could, possibly, for instance, cut off a 21-acre parcel and build a house on it. ... Anybody in any ag-forestal district can subdivide the entire property into 21-acre parcels." Mr. Blue was of the belief that ag-forestal districts were set up for the specific purpose of essentially preventing intensive development of the agricultural area. He felt it has been taken advantage of in this case, as it oftentimes is. He felt this could ultimately result in "the people who are honestly trying to do that may be penalized if there is a political backlash" which removes the possibility of having these. He expressed surprise that the minutes of the Ag/Forestal Committee had indicated they did not feel this was much of a violation. (Ms. Huckle had been present at that meeting and stated she felt they were not concerned about the fact that they were rental units, but rather about the zoning violation.) Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Did you say there are 3 units there which are not subdivided?" Ms. Scala responded: "None of the other units are subdivided; only the newest one is subdivided on a 2- acre lot, but it was determined that it would be possible to subdivide them on 21-acre lots in the future." Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Why wouldn't we require that?" Ms. Scala responded: "It's just not something we require." / 2 4-12-94 3 Ms. Imhoff addressed Mr. Nitchmann's question: "It certainly doesn't serve the public purpose to force people to subdivide before their time ... and what you're trying to figure out is how many rights are left and how many 21-acre lots you could create so you could meet the Ordinance. But you don't require people to go out and configure their lots bizarrely." Mr. Cilimberg added: "There are a fair number of cases in the county, in and out of ag/forestal districts, where rural properties have more than one unit and aren't subdivided, but could be." Mr. Blue felt the most serious issue had been the lack of a building permit, because if they had gone through that process "this would have been caught and there wouldn't have been any problem with the A-F district." It was determined no punitive measures had been taken as a result of the building code violation. (Mr. Davis noted there is no civil punishment available, though there is a criminal punishment which could be applied.) Ms. Imhoff noted that the Commission's thorough review of this application has "put the public on notice that you do look closely at A-F districts and people better be sure they are doing it correctly." MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that Agricultural/Forestal District Supervisors for approval. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: the Addition to the Eastham be recommended to the Board of Mr. Nitchmann again expressed the opinion that he felt the renewal of this district was premature because "it is only approximately 2 miles from a growth area --Neighborhood 3--and during the Comp Plan review it may be decided that the growth area out Rt. 20 needs to be expanded because it seems like a logical area to do so and if we approve this at this time it restricts this property from any development for 7 to 8 years." He concluded that he could not support this proposal. Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that this is something which the landowners volunteer to do and they should be supported in these type of decisions. She concluded: "I really don't see it standing in the way of a 20-year planning document." Mr. Jenkins asked why this violation had not been caught. Mr. Cilimberg felt it was a Zoning Department issue since building permits are handled through that department. Ms. Scala explained /�?A 4-12-94 4 that the property had been listed correctly in the real estate records, i.e. "they had picked up the error and had written on the record that he had picked up this new dwelling." The Real Estate Office stated they notify the Building Inspections Department when these situations occur, though there is not always a violation involved. Ms. Scala "assumed" there was a breakdown there. Ms. Scala explained that this case had caused the following changes in the review process for A-F districts: (1) Real estate files will now be used to gather information on property rather than computer records; and (2) The applications have been changed and applicants are now asked to describe the actual use of the property and to supply the exact number of dwelling units, including rental units. Mr. Blue felt the rental unit issue was "at odds" with the A-F District, because he felt having rental units, i.e. a more intensive use of the land, would not be in the best interests of the A-F District. It was his understanding that the Committee does not share this concern provided the other criteria are met. Ms. Huckle felt this situation points out that there needs to be a great deal of communication among the various County departments. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Committee had felt this was "the exception to the rule." The previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Nitchmann casting the dissenting vote. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-09 M}1. Carmel Church - Petition to construct an addition of approximately 3 square feet on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(35)]. Property, described as Tax Map 14, parcel (b) is located on the west side of Route 810 about a mile north of Mountfair in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions. Regarding VDOT's recommendation for a commercial entrance, the staff report noted: ..there are no peculiar aspects to traffic generated by the church. The differences in character between traffic generated by this church and uses allowed by -right are not so significant as to warrant upgrading the entrances." The report also explained that the church would generate about 30 vehicle trips per week (exlcluding annual homecoming), which is less than a single home. The report also stated that adequate sight distance exists at both entrances, thus safety is not an issue. /v9.!5 4-12-94 5 The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Nobles. He explained the expansion was to accommodate the church's annual homecoming celebration. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Noting that there were no issues of concern with this request, Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-09 for Mt. Carmel Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following 2 conditions: 1. Church expansion limited to not more than 350 square feet. 2. Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related services only. Use of the church for non -congregational activities such as day care, youth groups, food services, and the like shall warrant amendment of this special use permit. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Dotson asked if any other use of the addition, other than the homecoming activity, would require amendment to the special permit. Mr. Keeler explained no further approval would be required provided the use is a congregational one. The motion for approval passed unanimously. NOTE: The approval did NOT include the requirement for the upgrading of the entrance. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-05 Peter Goebel - Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B [1 .2. (3 )] for a tinsmith/coppersmith on 1.2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 54, Parcel 34 (part) is located on the west side of Rt. 691 approximately 300 feet north of Route 827 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to one condition. The applicant, Mr. Goebel, addressed the Commission. He explained the nature of his work: "a one-man business done in the style of 1760--a historical coppersmith/tinsmith." He stated he has never received a complaint about the business. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, he explained that he uses lead-free solder. In response to Mr. Dotson's question regarding electrical power to the building, he explained that he currently runs an Ia� 4-12-94 6 extension cord from the main house, but he plans to eventually run a line underground. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP- 94-05 for Peter Goebel be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: I. Compliance with Section 5.2.2.1. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Commission's recommendation for approval "is addressing the only issue" in relation to the setback. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-08 Virginia Rowing - Petition to construct a boat house, adjacent parking and relocate a boat dock for a boating athletic facility on 5.584 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(4)]. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcels 6D and 6D2 is located on the east side of Route 676 approximately 0.38 miles north of the Route 676/Route 743 intersection in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that there will be minimal adverse impact caused by the new construction and that the benefits of the proposed development are superior to maintaining the existing condition of the site. ... staff is able to recommend approval of this request subject to conditions." Mr. Fritz pointed out that the use is currently operating on site and can continue to do so, under the present conditions, even without approval of this permit. He explained that it is a non- conforming use and is before the Commission because of the change which is proposed. Ms. Imhoff asked if staff had received any comments from adjacent owners. Mr. Fritz replied: "I have had no contact from any member of the public on this request." There was a brief discussion of the plans for sanitary facilities. The applicant later explained that the restroom part of the building will be heated. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the runoff from the overflow parking area will also be diverted to the pond. %.4-5- 4-12-94 7 Ms. Huckle asked if the muddy, pot -holed roads will be re - vegetated. Mr. Fritz explained that would be addressed by condition No. 7. Ms. Huckle asked what type of vegetation was planned for the rest of the area. Mr. Fritz responded: "I believe it will be maintained in it's existing open condition." Ms. Huckle asked how parking would handled for events such as regattas. Mr. Fritz explained it will be similar to the County fair, i.e. on the grass. Some grading is proposed to level the parking area and staff will make sure that the grass which is planted will be of a variety capable of withstanding traffic for a few days at a time throughout the year. Mr. Dotson asked if the berm would be of sufficient height so as to prevent cars from moving closer to the water than the designated overflow parking area. Mr. Fritz explained that parking would be allowed only in those areas designated for overflow parking on the plan. Mr. Fritz explained that only the special permit is before the Commission. Staff will still need to approve the site plan. No items have been identified which will prevent administrative review of the site plan. In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that this project will result in the site being pretty much built out, i.e. because of limitations related to setback, etc., no further expansion will be possible. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Jack Kelsey, representing the County Engineering Department, if the small pond will be able to handle the additional runoff which will result from the increased impervious area. Mr. Kelsey stated that question will be addressed during site plan review. He explained that it is difficult to answer this question at this time because the principal spillway is not functioning at all --it is "clogged up". Ms. Huckle asked if the safety of the dam will be verified. Mr. Jack Kelsy replied: "To a degree." He explained that the dam is very old and was built before there were any requirements for dam design. He explained that initially he is concerned about the trees which are growing on the dam and those trees will have to be removed. He felt this proposal is an opportunity for some improvements to be made to the dam. Ms. Huckle felt the reliability of the dam was important given the fact that if it failed all the silt and sediment which is presently in the pond would end up in the reservoir. Mr. Kelsey concluded: "Once we have an idea of what that principal spillway is, we can get the information necessary to get the calculations done to verify that the pond has the proper storage capacity...." He stated he could see no evidence that the dam has been overtopped during a storm. He stated that the 10-year storm is the design storm for the capacity of the principal spillway and the berms. 4-12-94 g The applicant was represented by Mr. Kevin Sauer, Coach of the Virginia Rowing club. He explained the motivations for the project were the need for additional storage, the desire for a more aesthetically pleasing structure which will fit in with the environment, and the need to improve the access road. He explained that this is a club sport which receives no university funding. This project will be funded by monies from a benefactor. Mr. Sauer asked for "latitude" in terms of reorienting the boathouse, if necessary, so as to make it best suit the lay of the land. (Mr. Fritz explained that there would be no problem with Mr. Sauer's request provided the siting of the boathouse was "in general accord" with the sketch plan presented by the applicant.) Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that a good percentage of the pine trees would be left undisturbed. Mr. Sauer estimated that a 10- 12 foot swath would remain. Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that this will be an improvement over the existing situation. In reply to Mr. Blue's question about Health Department approval, Mr. Sauer explained that the percolation test was successful, but the Health Department will not actually approve the drainfield site until after the building permit has been obtained. (Mr. Fritz stated that the Health Department had not expressed any undue concern about septic sites at site review.) Ms. Huckle invited comment from Mr. David Hirschmann, the County's Water Resources Manager. Mr. Hirschmann expressed the feeling that the proposed plan is a "great improvement" over the existing situation. The Chair invited public comment. Ms. Lisa Glass, an Earlysville resident, addressed the Commission. She expressed support for the proposal, but noted that this is a highly visible area and asked if a condition could be added requiring replacement of a percentage of the vegetation which is removed. (Mr. Fritz addressed the concern and explained that such a condition was not necessary because the zoning Ordinance already contains regulations which require a certain percentage (10%) of tree canopy after 5 years, with the calculation based on only that area which is disturbed. Ms. Huckle asked if "permanent vegetation" refers to grass or "something taller than grass." Mr. Fritz replied that grass is considered a permanent vegetation, but there are other types of vegetation which would also qualify as permanent vegetation. Ms. Huckle felt it might be better to plant some type of shrub which would not require mowing and would also hold the soil better than grass. 071t 4-12-94 There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-94-08 for Virginia Rowing be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be in general accord with the plan titled "proposed UVA Rowing Association Boathouse" and initialed WDF 3/31/94. 2. The new boathouse shall be similar in facade to a single family dwelling private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural area. 3. Design of walkway shall be approved by the Water Resource Manager. 4. Provision of a permanent diversion berm to direct runoff from the proposed development to the existing pond. 5. Provision of a single row of screening trees adjacent to the parking area adjacent to Tax Map 45, parcels 5D3 and 5D4. 6. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new boathouse, the following shall be completed: dam; a. Cutting of all trees and brush growing on the existing b. Unclogging of the principal spillway of the dam. 7. All existing dirt/gravel roads for which no upgrade is proposed shall be abandoned and permanent vegetation installed. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Ms. Imhoff asked that staff make certain the Commission's minutes are given to members of the Site Review Committee. (Mr. Fritz pointed out that 3 members of the Commission serve on the Site Review Committee.) ----------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS CIP Memo Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Commission had any comments on Mr. Baker's memo, presented to them at the April 5th meerting. Ms. Huckle commended staff for an excellent job. Mr. Blue suggested that the memo be sent to Mr. Walter Johnson since he had been responsible for some of the suggested changes. /a 9 4-12-94 Comp Plan Review 10 Mr. Dotson explained that he and Ms. Imhoff had come up with some "basic questions" which might be of assistance in the upcoming review. He distributed copies of these questions to the Commission and briefly explained how he perceived these questions would fit into the review process. He felt that it would be particularly helpful to have maps showing: (1) Developed areas; (2) Areas planned for development, but available and vacant; and (3) Alternatives. (Mr. Blue was not opposed to this suggestion, but felt it might "be a theoretical, academic exercise which might not play too well in the real world.") Ms. Imhoff suggested that other Commissioners might want to take time to look over these questions and add some of their own. Ms. Huckle asked if there was a map available which showed all the platted parcels in the county. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is a tax -map composite for the County which shows all the lots. Also, the subdivision map will show everything that has been platted in subdivisions. Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about holding the county -wide meetings in June before enough factual information has been gathered. She felt maps would be really helpful to the public. She suggested that the June meetings be postponed until there is some good information to show the public, information which they can react to. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the next opportunity to hold the meetings, if not in June, would be September. Mr. Cilimberg also stated that the background report which staff is currently working on will provide much of the information the Commission is seeking. Mr. Blue was of the impression that the Community Survey recently completed also provides a good deal of information. Ms. Imhoff agreed, but stated that it does not provide the "full picture." Mr. Cilimberg offered to make available the maps developed for the Master Utilities Plan, provided everybody look at them for what they were meant to be, i.e. "an identification of areas which hold potential, over a long term, for being developed areas." Committee Reports Brief reports were given on the following committee meetings: CIP and Fiscal Impact (Mr. Nitchmann); The CATS Advisory Committee to the MPO (Mr. Blue) ; Design Committee (Ms. Huckle) . Mr. Cilimberg distributed a report of the Visioning Committee which included the recently adopted Vision Statement. ----------------------------------------- /0217 4-12-94 11 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. m' -