Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 12 1994 PC Minutes7-12-94 JULY 12, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 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; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. 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: Commissioners Dotson and Jenkins. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of June 28, 1994 were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the July 6 Board of Supervisors meeting. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-19 Lloyd F and Patricia E. Wood - The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Though the Chair invited public comment, there was none offered. Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-94-19 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SP-94-09 Mt. Carmel Church - Petition to construct an addition of a friendship hall 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 Rt. 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. Fritz presented the staff report. The report explained that because of an error in the original staff report, the County Attorney had determined that a second public hearing was required. The original report had reported the square footage as 322 square feet whereas it should have been 1,800 square feet (approximately 30' x 60'). Mr. Fritz explained that all other issues remain as presented in the original report. It was determined that the proposed structure will be located to the rear of the existing building. The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Nobles. He confirmed that the intended use was the same as orginally stated, i.e. for church reunions and church club meetings. �7 7-12-94 2 Mr. Blue asked if the applicant would be required to pay a second fee for this application. (Mr. Fritz was unable to answer this question.) The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Kevin Cox addressed the Commission and expressed concern about, what he felt, is an excessive fee for this application ($750), and about condition No. 2, which he felt was a County attempt "to limit the uses to which churches can put their structures." He pointed out that churches often provide many services which would otherwise have to be provided by the taxpayer (i.e. daycare, soup kitchens, etc.). There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-94-09 for Mt. Carmel Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Church expansion limited to not more than 1,800 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 service and the like, shall warrant amendment of this special use permit. Discussion: Referring to Mr. Cox's comments, Mr. Nitchman asked about the necessity for condition No. 2. Mr. Fritz explained that the entrance to the site had been an issue during the original review, and though VDOT had recommended improvements to the entrance, staff had viewed the use as not generating more traffic than a single family residence with baby sitting service. Mr. Fritz stated this is a "fairly routine" condition. Ms. Imhoff recalled that staff had worked with the church so that they would not have to make the entrance improvements recommended by VDOT. Ms. Huckle pointed out that this is a rural site and the adequacy of water and sewer service must be taken into consideration when considering types of activities allowed. Ms. Imhoff added that each application must be reviewed on a case -by -case basis and often "who's living next door" must be considered. The motion for approval passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- ZMA-93-03 Craig Builders (applicant) Mechum River Land Trust (owner) - Petition to rezone approximately 5 .77 acres from RA, Rur�reas to R-4 Residential. This parcel is also within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as m 7-12-94 3 Tax Map 57, Parcel 29, is located on the south side of Three Notch'd Road (Rt. 240) approximately 0.5 mile west of its intersection with Ivy Road (Rt. 250) 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 denial for the following reasons: --Inconsistency with the boundaries of the Crozet growth areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; --The proposal for urban density zoning is inappropriate for rural area land as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; --Conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance which does not allow additional development rights for property zoned RA in the water supply reservoir watersheds; --Approval could set a precedent for similar requests outside of growth areas in water supply reservoir watersheds. A main topic of discussion centered on the issue of runoff control and the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. The applicant was proposing an on -site runoff control basin which he claimed would reduce total phosphorus by 65% and suspended solids over 95% (as opposed to 45% and 71% for the Lickinghole Creek Basin). In response to Ms. Imhoff's request for some backgound information on the Lickinghole Basin, Mr. David Hirschmann, Water Resources Manager, County Department of Engineering, explained the history of the project and also commented on the debate over on -site vs. off -site detention. He stressed that though on -site detention can work, it is believed that the off -site basin will be more cost effective "per developable acre." Mr. Nitchmann asked what level of development the basin was designed to accommodate. Mr. Hirschmann explained that it was designed to accommodate the development of the growth area of Crozet and would also "pick up non -developable growth area in that watershed, i.e. agricultural runoff." Mr. Nitchmann asked how the growth area boundaries had been determined in 1971 (the time the basin was approved). Mr. Hirschmann was not certain of the answer but felt that various "potential development scenarios" had been projected and calculations were based on those projections. To be more precise, Mr. Nitchmann felt that the studies done in 1971 would have to be reviewed. [Mr. Cilimberg later explained that the actual design for the basin had been done in the late 80's and had been based on the growth -area boundaries of Crozet and the land uses that were shown within those boundaries. The growth area boundaries were based on what could drain to the Lickinghole basin.] It was determined that this rezoning proposal would drain below the Lickinghole Creek basin and would, therefore, have no impact on the basin. It was Ms. Imhoff's understanding that this was /1 7-12-94 4 the reason this property had not been included in the growth area designation, i.e. because it does not drain to the Lickinghole basin. Mr. Nitchmann asked if it was true that technology has progressed, since 1971, to the point that it is easier to ensure that "pollutants do not go where we'don't want them to go," Mr. Hirschmann replied: "Certainly." Mr. Blue emphasized that the purpose of the Lickinghole basin is to protect the reservoir which is downstream. Ms. Imhoff expressed an interest in any information which might be available on the maintenance of detention basins --publicly maintained vs. privately maintained. Mr. Hirschmann was not familiar with any local data. - The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. He addressed, individually, the points raised in the staff report. His comments included the following: --The original boundary was based on a false premise, i.e. "that water quality could be better managed at a regional basin, than with on -site devices." The applicant's engineer has presented evidence showing -that is not the case. Also, there are numerous acres across from Blue Ridge Builders Supply which do not drain into the basin, yet the property is within the growth area. -The adjoining properties are: A water treatment faclity, R4 property, a railroad, and steep property leading down to the river. --This property is not suitable for agricultural or forestal practices. --All services existing in Crozet today will be readily available to this site. --This property can in no way be considered a natural or historic resource. --Seven of the 16 requests for urban densities in the rural areas have been approved. One --Peacock Hill-- is very similar to this property in that it was outside the designated growth area and was within the reservoir watershed. --One reason the Board did not adopt the F.X. Brown study was that it showed that suspended solids concentrations were greater from a natural forest than from a fully developed commercial shopping center. [Ms. Huckle noted that this was to be expected because a shopping center is either paved or under roof.) The runoff from this property, using on -site detention devices, will result in better water quality than if the water went through the Lickinghole basin. --The applicant was advised, at the time Highlands at Mechum's River was built, not to build on�site basins, which he felt resulted in a violation of the Runoff Control Ordinance (because the Lickinghole basin had not yet been built). The 7-12-94 5 applicant contributed to the proposed Lickinghole Creek basin at that time. --Highlands (also developed by this applicant) has been very successful in addressing the affordable housing problem because a family with a $25,000 income can qualify for a house. (He later explained that the anticipated price range for these homes will be $90,000 to $150,000, with the main market being 90's to 110.) They will be 3-bedroom, attached, manor homes.) --He requested that the application be approved with the proffer that "the runoff after development be no worse than it is today in its existing state." Ms. Imhoff asked why a Comp Plan Amendment was not being requested, rather than a rezoning. Mr. Craig explained that it was a question of time and a Comp Plan Amendment would be a very long process. He also did not think any additional information could be added for a Comp Plan Amendment. Mr. Blue asked if the applicant had any input from the Crozet Community meetings which have just been completed. Mr. Craig responded that he had not attended any structured meetings, but he had spoken with a lot of people. He was not aware of any concerns. The Chair invited public comment. The following members of the public addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal; Mr. Tom Olivier (Citizens for Albemarle) His statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A; Mr. Tom Loach (Crozet Community Planning Committee); Mr. Roy Patterson (a Crozet Resident); Ms. Katherine Hobbs (League of Women Voters) - Her statement is made a part of this record as Attachment B; Ms. Babette Thorpe (Piedmont Environmental Council) - Her statement is made a part of this record as Attachment C; Ms. Ellen Waugh, Mr. Unger, Mr. John Marston, and Mr. Heinz Adam (all Crozet area residents). Briefly, their reasons for opposition included the following: --The property is outside the growth area and within a watersupply watershed. --No compelling reason has been presented for making this change. --Negative impact on already overcrowded schools. --Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. --Approval would make denial of similar future requests difficult. Mr. Kevin Cox expressed support for the proposal which he felt would help address the affordable housing problem. He pointed out that one factor which drives up the cost of housing is a limited supply of properly zoned land in the face of a strong a2/ 7-12-94 6 demand. He stated that less than 1.5% of Albemarle County is residentially zoned, buildable land, in the growth areas. Mr. Daily Craig, representing the applicant, addressed Ms. Vaughan's earlier question about the violation mentioned by Hunter Craig earlier in the meeting. He recalled how unbelievable he had found the County's direction that on -site detention not be provided for the first phase of building for the Highlands. He explained that he had pointed out that this was a violation*of the law because the County law requires stormwater detention. He also stated that the County's formula for calculating runoff proves that on -site devices are more effective than the regional basin. He felt the Lickinghole basin had been built to accommodate runoff from agricultural properties and already developed properties. He concluded that the County does "not respect its own Ordinance which it forces us to either respect, on one occasion, or disregard on another, at their whim." Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering for the County, disagreed with Mr. Craig's comments. He explained: "The Runoff Control Ordinance clearly states that any development within the runoff control area has to provide some type of control structure and it also states, clearly, that any development within a drainage area of a runoff control basin or facility pays a contribution to the construction of that facility and that facility serves that area. The Lickinghole Basin was designed to accommodate existing and future development of the growth area of Crozet and we have full confidence in the effectiveness and the adequacy of that basin to fulfill its function." Ms. Imhoff clarified: "What you're saying is the fact that the Runoff Ordinance does indeed apply and in this sense it is applying because the applicant paid a contribution to the regional detention basin." Mr. Kelsey added: "The Runoff Control Ordinance applies because this site drains into a watershed -that goes to a water supply reservoir. Part of that Runoff Control Ordinance is that some type of management facility has to be provided. In this particular case, the management facility is already provided, it's just a regional facility that was built to accommodate this area." He noted that the basin does not effect the property presently under review because it discharges below the regional facility. He confirmed that on -site facilities would have to be provided for this property. Mr. Blue noted that if the issue of long-term maintenance is not considered, the applicant could probably make a good case that on -site detention facilities are probably as effective as a regional basin. (Mr. Kelsey responded that it would depend on the design.) Mr. Blue felt the County had felt that, overall, the regional facility would be more cost effective. 7-12-94 7 Mr. Hunter Craig again addressed the Commission and stated that he felt the Commission was being misled. He pointed out that many houses had been constructed at the Highlands (almost all of Section 1A--76 houses) without any runoff control, either on -site or off -site because Lickinghole Creek had not yet been constructed. He felt that was a clear violation of the Ordinance. (Mr..Blue noted that though the final design had not been done, the basin was planned and the County would not have advised that on -site runoff not be provided if they were not expecting that the regional basin would come.) Mr. Blue understood that Mr. Craig's point was that there was a time when there were houses in existence which did not have runoff control. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff stated that this request seemed "out of sequence" given the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan. She did not feel there had been enough change in circumstances to warrant a rezoning at this point. Ms. Huckle asked what remedies are available if the applicant should not live up to the proffer. Mr. Davis responded: "The proffers are the same as a zoning ordinance requirement and a violation of a proffer would be a zoning violation which could be enforced either criminally or could be enforced by an injunction or if a bond was required to secure the proffer, it could be enforced by calling the bond." Ms. Huckle wondered if these remedies would realistically solve the problem. Referring to regional detention basins, Ms. Imhoff felt the County was going to have.to grapple with the issue of "who pays and who maintains these in the long term?" Ms. Imhoff stated she was looking forward to receiving the report from the Crozet Community Association. She noted that there are still 768 acres available for development within the Crozet community. Mr. Blue felt the applicant had made a good case for on -site facilities being better than regional, even though this site would not drain to the regional basin. However, he stated he could not support the request for other reasons. He felt that property owners rely on the Comprehensive Plan designation as a growth area for some assurance that those boundaries are secure, at least until the Plan is amended. He stated he would prefer that this project be reviewed as a CPA. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that ZMA-93-03 for Craig Builders be recommended to the Board,of Supervisors for denial Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. A3 7-12-94 Discussion: 8 Ms. Imhoff asked if the Commission needed to cite the reasons for denial as those stated in the staff report. After reading the reasons in the staff report, Mr. Blue stated that he did not necessarily agree with all them and that his motion was based on the fact that it is outside the designated growth area and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be a better approach for this property. However, he agreed to amend his motion to refer to the reasons stated on page 6 of the staff report. Ms. Imhoff re- affirmed her second to the motion. The motion for denial passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-20 Clark Broadcasting Com an -- Request to amend the conditions of SP- - 5 to permit larger satellite receiving dishes [Section 23.2.2(3)]. Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcel 123A, consists of 1.2 acres zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District and is located at the northeast intersection of Rt. 29 and Rio Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area and is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 2. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Betline. He explained that the larger dishes were needed to address interference and reception problems. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that SP-94-20 for Clark Broadcasting be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is limited to two, 3 meter or less diameter dishes. 2. Dishes shall be painted same color as building. 3. Dishes to be located as shown on Attachment (copy attached to this letter) dated August 21, 1991. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- ZMA--94-07 Philip Sansone - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA- 89- 4 to permit development adjacent to Rt. 20. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 8 (part of) is located on the .;?J� 7-12-94 9 east side of Rt_ 20 approximately 0.5 miles north of the Rt. 20/Rt. 250 intersection in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is currently zoned R-10, Residential with proffers and is recommended for medium density residential (4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. (NOTE: Mr. -Fritz pointed out that ARB approval is not required for this proposal because of the proposed unit type. The staff report had mistakenly stated that ARB approval was required.) Ms. Imhoff asked how this land had been previously "labeled." Staff reported that it had not been labeled; no specific use was shown. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that it had been shown as "land not to be developed." Ms. Imhoff felt it was important to note that this land had not been designated for open space or recreation area, etc. Ms. Imhoff suggested that the applicant consider landscaping the berm with "a variety of plantings, using some hardwoods and pines," as was done at Brookmill, rather than just a row of pines at the crest of the berm. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Crystal and Ms. Marilyn Gale (engineer for the project). Mr. Crystal offered to answer questions. Mr. Nitchmann asked about the price range. Mr. Crystal stated the bottom price would be approximately $89,000 and an effort would be made to keep the range as low as possible. Ms. Gale expressed a willingness to consider any suggestions for the landscaping. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that ZMA-94-07 for Philip.Sansone be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's 3 proffers as stated on page 2 of the staff report dated July 12, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------ ZMA-94-03 University of Virginia Health Services Foundation - Proposal to rezone 5.026 acres from Light Industry to C-1, Commercial (proffered). Property, described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B is located on the north side of Rt. 250 approximately 1.3 miles west of the Rt. 29 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Rural Area 3. 7-12-94 10 Mr. Fritz distributed copies of a letter from Ms. Catherine Womack (representing Mr. W.J. Kirtley, Jr., an adjacent property owner). The letter expressed Mr. Kirtley's concern that approval of this request could result in some future action by the County to reclassify his property from Light Industry. It was his desire that his property remain Light Industry. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff is concerned about any request that proposes uses inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff opinion is that this request is unique due to the type of existing development and the similar nature of this proposal. Approval of this request should not be used as a precedent for development of rural land for commercial uses. The applicant's proffers limit the uses on site so as to not change the nature of the activity occurring on site. (The rezoning simply allows expansion of an existing use within the existing building). All of these factors taken as a whole overcome inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers." Mr. Blue asked if staff had any comments on Mr. Kirtley's concern. Mr. Fritz felt that the Mr. Kirtley's wishes for his property may actually allay concerns about industrial property being rezoned to commercial because the property owner has stated his intent to have the property remain industrial, which staff feels "may be the more appropriate zoning for this property based on past actions." Ms. Imhoff stated she had been struggling with this request because of the Comp Plan issue. However, after further consideration she felt the argument should perhaps be "not that this approval is not consistent with the Comp Plan, but that this approval would bring this property into closer consistency with the Comp Plan since commercial zoning, by definition, is less intensive than light industrial and would, in that sense, move it closer to what the Comp Plan outlines for that area." Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Comp Plan actually leaves "industrial zoning somewhat open in terms of where it can locate because there were considered at that time some unique circumstances where industrial may be appropriate in rural areas under certain circumstances, whereas it spoke very definitely that commercial should only be in growth areas." He felt that was the basis of Mr. Fritz's report. The applicant was represented by Mr. Norm Brinkman. He explained the motivation behind the request, i.e. "because the way the Zoning Ordinance is written, it is not detailed enough to cover what is taking place in health care these days." He explained that some services which are diagnostic or treatment related -- like shooting an x-ray film in the office --is a gray area which could be interpreted either way. 0 7-12-94 11 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Kirtley (adjoining property owner to the west) addressed the Commission. He called attention to the letter distributed by Mr. Fritz. He explained that his is the last piece of property which is zoned Industrial and it is -his desire that it remain Industrial. He feared that the commercial development of the property to the east would cause pressure to be placed on his property not to develop industrially. He did not object to the present proposal, but he wanted his concern to be made a part of the record. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff felt that this was "going around the barn door to try to get this use to fit in this existing building." She was uncomfortable with having to do a rezoning to make this work, without an amendment to go with it. However, she stated she was supportative of the use and did not -see a conflict with the adjacent LI property. Ms. Huckle wondered if the high-tech nature of the use meant it should be in the LI zone, rather than in Commercial. Ms. Imhoff wondered if the problem lies with the zoning classification definitions. Ms. Vaughan asked why staff felt that the use would fit better under Commercial (rather than Industrial). Mr. Fritz referred to a letter from the Zoning Department. It was his understanding that when there are 2 uses in the Zoning Ordinance (professional offices and medical offices) found in another district, then professional offices do not necessarily incorporate medical offices into that definition. Mr. Blue felt the question was "whether or not that is a reasonable determination," i.e. "is the Zoning Ordinance wrong so that it causes this sort of action to have to be initiated?" He felt this was "quite a stretch." Mr. Fritz briefly explained some of the history of the LI designation. Mr. Cilimberg explained that if there had not been a determination that this would fit under medical center, it would have required a zoning text amendment, which would have been another step for the applicant. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-94-03 for the University of Virginia Health Services Foundations be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the J 7-12-94 12 applicants proffers as stated on page 4 of the staff report dated July 12, 1994 (with the typographical correction noted by Mr. Fritz, i.e. Section 22.2.1.b, NOT 22.2.1.d). Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff expressed some nervousness about this "tricky path" but because the staff report assured that "in a round about way, this will forward the purposes of the Comp Plan and since it is recognizing an existing facility," she stated she would reluctantly support the motion though she had strong reservations about the fact that this was not accompanied by a Comp Plan Amendment. The motion for approval passed (4:0:1) with Commissioner Vaughan abstaining. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting with Faquier Planning Commission - Mr. Cilimberg explained the overnight trip was set for July 28th. Commissioners to meet at the County Office Building no later than 1:30. Site Visit to UREF Site - It was decided the site visit would be postponed until after the first work session. Joint Meeting with the Board of Supervisors - A possible meeting time was discussed. The Commission expressed a preference for an evening meeting on either the 1st, 4th or 5th Wednesday of August. Change in VDOT Site Distance Requirements - Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about what he felt was a signficant increase (from 250 feet to 500 feet) in site distance requirements. He wondered if the financial impact to property owners had been considered. Agenda Scheduling - There was a brief discussion about the rationale staff uses when preparing the agenda in terms of the order in which items are heard. Ms. Imhoff was concerned about applicants with very simple proposals having to wait long periods. Mr. Blue felt any last minute change to the agenda should be left to the discretion of the Chair. 1?3 7-12-94 13 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. w: 1;29