HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 19 1994 PC Minutes4-19-94
APRIL 19, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, April 19, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs
Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; 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. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia
McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Ms. Marsha Joseph, Design
Planner; Mr. Tom Leback, representing the University of Virginia;
and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Imhoff.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was
established. Approval of the minutes for the April 5, 1994
meeting was deferred until the April 26 meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to Ms. Ellen
Andersen, who served on the Commission from 1991 through 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the April 14
Board of Supervisors meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aril 7 Board Meeting - Mr. Blue called attention to Ms.
Humphries' comments related to the Commission's March 8 meeting.
She had expressed concerns about "incorrect statements" made in
the Commission minutes of 1984 and felt they needed to be
"corrected so as not to become incorrect history." Mr. Blue
stated he had re -read those sections of the minutes referred to
by Ms. Humphries (which were primarily his comments) and they are
correct as stated. He stated that though he might not always be
right in what he says, his statements were reported correctly and
he did not feel Ms. Humphries' suggestion that they be corrected
would be proper procedure. (Mr. Cilimberg explained that he
felt the concern had been more with the lack of clarification by
others, including staff, as to the history of the bypass.) Mr.
Blue again stated that the minutes reported his coments
accurately. Mr. Nitchmann noted that minutes cannot be changed
(if they have been accurately transcribed and approved by the
Comission). Mr. Cilimberg confirmed Mr. Nitchmann's statement
was accurate. He added that omissions can be added to minutes,
but "you cannot change what someone actually said."
Regarding this same Board meeting, Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to
comment on Ms. Humphris' request for more information on
legislation "which would require evidence of sufficient
groundwater before approval of a building permit." Though Mr.
i-9I
4-19-94 2
Cilimberg explained that there is enabling legislation which
would allow the County to do this, Mr. Davis explained that the
enabling legislation speaks specifically to water quality
testing. Mr. Davis noted, however, that in order to test
quality, there will have been, of necessity, some determination
of water availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ZTA-94-03 Building Permit Review - Amend Section 30.6 Entrance
Corridor Overlay District to require a certificate of
appropriateness be granted from the ARB prior to building permit
approval.
Prior to presenting the staff report, Ms. Marsha Joseph
distributed copies of a letter from Mr Don Wagner, and also
copies of a corrected staff report. She then presented the staff
report which included a brief history of, and an explanation of
the proposed changes. (She noted that Mr. Wagner's comments are
the only public comments which have been received by staff.)
She explained that Mr. Wagner suggested giving the Zoning
Administrator the authority to make the determinination as to
whether or not a request for a building permit is eligible for
exemption. Mr. Wagner also suggested that the words "or
modification" be added to the final sentence in the proposed
changes. Staff felt that changing item (a)(6), under 30.6.6.3,
as follows, would address Mr. Wagner's concerns: "Additions or
modifications to a building where no substantial change in design
or material is proposed, as determined by the Zonin
Administrator."
Mr. Blue stated he was somewhat concerned about the "surprise
factor" as described in the staff report. However, since this
issue has been well advertized and no other public comment has
been received, he felt it must not be of concern to others.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed surprise that neither the Retail
Merchants' Association nor the Chamber of Commerce had offered
any comment on the proposed change.
Ms. Huckle noted that perhaps this is of little concern because
it will impact few properties. (Ms. Joseph noted that it will
have no effect on single family residences, nor uses in the
agricultural area.)
Mr.Nitchmann asked why agricultural uses are exempt "if they are
treated as a business" the same as retail businesses. Ms. Joseph
agreed that agriculture is beginning to be viewed as a business,
"but the policy has always been hands -off." Mr. Davis added that
agricultural buildings are not required to get a building permit.
/I.V
4-19-94 3
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Dotson expressed the feeling that it was a "good idea." He
felt the exemptions listed would "ease peoples'minds that it
would not become burdensome." Referring to item (5) under
exemptions, he asked if this would apply to "routine maintenance
where there is no damage or decay." He felt there was no need
for the words "damage or decay." Mr. Blue agreed with this
suggestion. Ms. Joseph expressed no concern about such a change.
Mr. Dotson wondered if there was a need for both item (3) and
(5). He felt they said the same thing. Mr. Blue agreed. Ms.
Joseph felt that it was intended that there be a distinction made
between non -conforming uses (item 3) and conforming uses (item
5). Mr. Dotson wondered about including item (2), related to
handicapped ramps, as an exemption since there are good ways and
bad ways to construct ramps, in terms of appearance. Ms. Joseph
explained that if these types of improvements were not exempted
it could add extra costs and "you can't require anything that is
more expensive than the minimum standards the BOCA Code
requires."
Referring to item (3) and Section 6.2, Mr. Nitchmann asked if
this meant a member of the public would have to seek a ruling
from the Zoning Administrator if he or she were planning to
repair something on their business. Ms. Joseph replied: "More
than likely, yes, that's what that means." Mr. Dotson clarified:
"If you have a non -conforming use."
Ms. Huckle asked if this amendment applied to "only things which
are in view." Ms. Joseph replied affirmatively, explaining that
all interior alterations are exempt.
On the subject of non -conforming uses, Mr. Cilimberg explained
further that there are already restrictions as to what can be
done to the property. He stated: "That's why it reads as it
does --"as may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator -"-really
relates more to the allowance of what you can do as a non-
conforming use." (Ms. McCulley confirmed this was accurate.)
Mr. Blue felt item (5) might be a "sticking point" because of the
possibility that someone who may want to change the facade will
go ahead and do it and then argue with the ARE later as to
whether or not he "substantially" changed the design or material.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed, saying "because what's substantial to you
may not be substantial to me."
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not general
maintenance projects require a building permit. Ms. McCulley
explained that some projects do require permits, such as re-
roofing or re -wiring. She explained Section 6.2 in more detail.
She felt there would be few instances where someone would be
/3-5
4-19-94 4
adding on to a building in such a way that the addition is
substantially different in design than the structure being added
onto.
Adddressing item (4), Mr. Nitchmann described a hypothetical
situation and asked if he would need a building permit if he
wanted to replace some old style windows (which need to be
recaulked) with some new style windows. He asked Ms. McCulley:
"Would that be considered general maintenance by you or would a
building permit be required to replace that window?" Ms.
McCulley did not believe a building permit would be required, but
she found it difficult to answer the question as to whether or
not it would be considered general maintenance. She noted that
if no building permit was needed, it would not be before her at
all. She finally concluded: "I would think if it has gone
beyond caulking, etc., it would make good sense and it would,
certainly, be maintenance."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were any other Commission comments
on his question as to why agricultural buildings should be
exempt. Mr. Blue expressed his agreement with Mr. Nitchmann,
i.e. "that we ought to be treating them like everyone else."
Mr. Davis pointed out "the one problem is that (agricultural
buildings) don't require building permits... unless they are for a
commercial purpose." Mr. Blue questioned whether that was
correct because he wondered how the Tax Assessor would pick them
up. Ms. McCulley explained that a permit is processed, but it is
not a building permit, per se, rather it is a record keeping
process which allows the structure to be checked for setbacks and
allows the Assessor to pick it up. She stated that though it is
called a Building Permit, it is not one which must comply with
the BOCA Code. Mr. Blue asked if building such a structure
without the permit described by Ms. McCulley would be a violation
subject to criminal penalty. Mr. Davis responded that this would
be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance but not the BOCA Code.
There was a question about uses such as Show Barns. Mr. Davis
explained that if public access to the building is allowed, then
the building would fall into a different category.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that item (4) contains the
qualification "where no site development plan is required." Mr.
Blue commented: "But that's what generated this --a site plan was
not necessarily required for a building permit --that's why this
whole thing got started." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "But what
you were typically looking at was building permits which were
being issued where site development plans would also be
required."
Mr. Blue understood Mr. Nitchmann's concern about the exemption
of agricultural buildings. He stated: "We're concerned about
the Entrance Corridor. I, personnally, happen to believe there
is no way to legislate such things, but nevertheless that's what
4-19-94
we're doing and why would a farmer be allowed to build an ugly
barn on the Entrance Corridor but a business couldn't put up an
ugly building?"
Mr. Nitchmann asked Ms. McCulley to estimate the probability that
anything similar to the new Japanese restaurant (corner of
Greenbrier Dr. and Rt. 29N), with its oriental facade, will every
be approved on Rt. 29 again, with these proposed changes. Ms.
McCulley felt the ARB would look very closely at color and
materials and would not be guaranteeing a trademark building.
She deferred to Ms. Joseph for further comment. Ms. Joseph
explained that the County's design guidelines are structured to
relate to the historic buildings in the County. Because there
are historic buildings within the County with oriental features,
she felt there "are any number of things that could be used to
set this building aside and make it a little different than
anything else and yet still within the historic concept." She
concluded that "it could be done but it would be a little more
subtle, perhaps, than what you see out there." Mr. Blue felt the
answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question was "no, it probably wouldn't
have been like that." Ms. Joseph responded: "That's correct."
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZTA-94-03, to amend Section 30.6
Entrance Corridor Overlay District to require a certificate of
appropriateness be granted from the ARB prior to building permit
approval, be recomended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
as presented by staff but with the following changes:
30.6..6.3.a.
3. Repair and maintenance activities and improvements to
non -conforming uses as may be authorized by the Zoning
Administrator pursuant to section 6.2.
5. General maintenance, where no substantial change in
design or material is proposed.
6. Additions or modifications to a building where no
substantial change in design or material is proposed, as
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue stated that though he would support the motion, he was
hesitant to do so without having received more public input. He,
noted, however, that the public had had the opportunity to
comment but, with one exception, had chosen not to do so.
The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Nitc!�mann
casting the dissenting vote.
4-19-94 6
SDP-94-11 - Crutchfield Corporation Site Plan Amendment - Request
to modify the buffer zone requirements adjacent to residential
and rural areas districts (Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance) to construct a 52,237 square foot warehouse expansion
on 13.25 acres Zoned LI, Light Industry. Property, described as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 9C is located on the east side of Route 606
approximately 0.38 miles north of the intersection of Route 606
and Route 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Industrial Service in a designated growth area
(Community of Hollymead).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The Commission was being
asked to grant a waiver of Section 21.7.3 to allow disturbance,
for an accessway within the 20-foot bufffer area. With approval
of the waiver, the site plan could be approved administratively
by staff.
Mr. Dotson said he had visited the site and there appeared to be
a lot of visibility in the area "back toward the doors." Mr.
Fritz confirmed "the tree canopy will remain on that area —the
existing tree cover is not effected."
The applicant, Mr. Crutchfield, was present but offered no
comment.
There was determined to be no public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that a waiver
of Section 21.7.3, to allow disturbance within the 20-foot buffer
area, be granted for the Crutchfield Corporation Site Plan
Amendment (SDP--94-11) .
The motion passed unanimously.
--------------------------------------------------------
Berkmar Crossing Waiver - Request to modify the slope of access
ways and parking areas (Section 4.12.6.3(b) of the Zoning
Ordinance) in the Berkmar Crossing development. The site is
zoned PD-MC, Planned Dev elopment - Mixed Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1B, is located in
the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Berkmar Drive and
Rio Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site
is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1) and is
recommended for Community Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The request was for a
waiver of Section 4.12.6.3(b) to allow modification of the slope
of access ways and parking areas in the Berkmar Crossing
development. (The need for the waiver was caused, in part, by a
construction error which took place with development of the
/& 4 r.;
4-19-94 7
existing building, resulting in it being 2 feet higher than
originally planned.) It was staff's opinion that "the proposed
grades are consistent with sound engineering and design practices
and will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare."
Staff recommended approval of the request.
Addressing the applicant's suggestion that "the Zoning Ordinance
is ambiguous in the way we define these permissable slopes," Mr.
Blue asked if staff was taking any steps to study this
possibility. Mr. Fritz responded: "We are taking under
consideration what they are saying and trying to determine if
there is any better way to describe the methodology that is
used ... but there is no proposed zoning text amendment."
Ms. Huckle asked: "Are you saying that the County's requirements
for slope are greater than the Highway Department?" Mr. Fritz
responded: "More restrictive. We require a flater slope."
Ms. Huckle asked if the error meant that the rest of the
buildings will also be 2 feet higher than originally planned.
Mr. Fritz replied: "It results in various changes in the
elevations than the original, but it's not that severe. The real
impact as been on the calculation of slope and cross slope and on
that entrance." Ms. Huckle noted that though the entrance is not
a severe slope, under conditions like we had many times this past
winter, a car could easily slide down and into the highway. Mr.
Blue did not think the 1% change would make any difference
because in icy conditions a car can slip on flat ground.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Smith, Mr. George Ray
and Mr. Tom Muncaster. They offered to answer questions. There
were none.
There was determined to be no public comment.
MOTIION: Mr. Blue moved that a waiver of Section 4.12.6.3(b) be
granted to Berkmar Crossing to allow a modification of the slope
of access ways and parkings areas.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
---------------------------------------------------
WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan
Ms. Nancy O'Brien, representing the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Comission (TJPDC) reported on projects and regional
issues which the TJPDC is currently involved in. A copy of her
report is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.
Answers to specific Commission questions included the following:
%S
4-19-94 g
--She described the TJPDC's mission as being "to provide a
forum for the discussion of regional issues, the effect of the
actions of one locality on another, and to develop regional
solutions for problems that are shared, and to provide an
opportunity for jurisdictions to work out issues in an informal
way." The TJPDC also aims to decrease the amount of duplication
which exists throughout the region. Funding is received from
each locality (on a per capita basis), from the State, from State
and Federal grants and from contract work.
--Mr. Dotson asked if she felt there was an advantage in
taking a regional, rather than a jurisdictional approach to
economic development. She felt advantages of a regional
approach are (1) the elimination of a lot of duplicate effort in
terms of developing information, and (2) each jurisdiction brings
different strengths to the economic development picture. She
described an example where a business recently decided not to
locate in Albemarle County because it determined there was not
enough housing available for its primarily blue-collar employees.
Had the counties been working together, that industry might have
stayed in one of the more rural counties, supporting their
economy. She stated that resources needed to perform economic
development activities "are considerable" and there does not
exist in this area a large enough private, or government, sector
to "do it by itself." A regional approach at least puts
everyone "on a level playing field" and provides the opportunity
for Albemarle County to be more directional than reactional in
its economic development activity. She added: "At the same
time, there is still a need for each locality to determine where
it is going and to pay attention to its own economy so it doesn't
lose its strength." It is the TJPDC's role to serve as a
"facilitator of local government cooperation."
--On the topic of affordable housing, the TJPDC is trying to
define "need" for the entire district, which is difficult given
the different characteristics of the jurisdictions. TJPDC does
not consider land use issues, rather it is studying more a
"housing stock and housing condition issue." The Virginia
Housing Study Center (VPI) is currently studying the effect of
land uses on the cost of housing. Refering to the TJPDC's Self -
Help Housing Project, she explained that originally 20 units were
planned for Albemarle County but it now appears only 10 will be
possible. She felt the Commission might want to keep that in
mind as it begins the Comp Plan review. She explained that it is
difficult to locate land in Albemarle County. Mr. Dotson agreed
that is a problem, but he felt that the Farmer's Home
Administration's strict requirements are the biggest stumbling
block, rather than County's land use policies. Mr. Blue was of
the opinion that the County's land use policies essentially
prevent the County from making use of Farmer's Home funding. Ms.
O'Brien agreed the Farmer's Home regulations are difficult to
deal with and though she has attempted to get them changed, she
/S
4-19-94 9
has had little luck. She stated the TJPDC has made no attempt to
get the County to change its land use policies.
--Regarding the TJPDC's work in developing Comprehensive
Plans for other localities, she stated she has not found any
particular point of conflict. There was a brief discussion on
the Schuylar area in Albemarle County. It was noted that the
County will need to take into consideration Nelson County's plans
for that area as it makes its own plans for Schuylar. It was
agreed the same was true for other counties which have areas
which impact Albemarle County, e.g. Lake Monticello in Fluvanna
County. Mr. Nitchmann expressed an interest in receiving a copy
of Scottsville's Comprehensive Plan and also in knowing when the
public hearing will be held to receive public comment on said
plan.
--TJPDC will be developing a Regional Land Use Map which
will join everyone's (i.e. each region's) proposals. Prior to
completing that map, definitions will need to be "smoothed out"
so that there is common nomenclature.
--Several maps, prepared by the TJPDC, were displayed
showing impacts and sensitivities on watersheds. These maps
dealt strictly with surface water. Ms. Huckle asked that future
maps include roads or landmarks to make the areas more
identifiable.
--TJPDC did a study to identify Potential Pollution to
Groundwater Supply from various pesticides. No major problems
were found in Albemarle County. A map showing depth to
groundwater was displayed. DRASTIC maps, showing areas most
likely to have groundwater pollution, have not yet been done for
Albemarle County.
--There was a brief discussion of the TJPDC's relation to
the MPO. Ms. O'Brien stated the MPO does not have a Land Use
Implications Model (related to traffic), but the County does have
the resources to do traffic modeling.
--She felt the Traffic Reduction Study could help the County
in planning land uses which will be accessible by other than just
single -occupancy vehicles.
At the conclusion of Ms. O'Brien's presentation, Mr. Benish
stated staff considers TJPDC a very important resource in the
upcoming Comp Plan review.
------------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
4-19-94
10
Comprehensive Plan Community Meetings - It was the consensus of
the Commission that these meetings be postponed until September
to allow time for more information to be gathered.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Oue��"
V. Wayne ilimbe , S cretary
0