Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 24 1993 PC Minutes8-24-93 1 AUGUST 24, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 24, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Blue and Grimm. The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 27 and August 3 were approved as amended. (NOTE: It was determined that approval of July 20 minutes had not yet taken place. They were to be placed on the August 31 agenda.) Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed Board of Supervisors Meetings of August 4 and August 11. CONSENT AGENDA Pasture Fence Mountain A Forestal District North ork Moorma 's River A Forestal District Addition III to Sugar Hollow A Forestal District Addition III to Kinloch A Forestal District Review of Eastham A Forestal District MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the applications for North Fork Moorman's River, Addition to Sugar Hollow, Addition to Kinloch, and Pasture Fence Mountain Ag/Forestal Districts be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. No action was required at this time on the Eastham District. SP-93-21 CharlottesvilleZAlbemarle YMCA - Proposal to locate a child care center [10.2.2(7)] on 5.016 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 6 is located at the northwestern quadrant of Hydraulic Road/Lambs Road intersection in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1) . The applicant had requested withdrawal. do, // . . . 8-24-93 E MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the applicant's request for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA - 93-04 Hydraulic Road Partnership - Proposal to amend the C--1 Commercial, HC Highway Commercial, PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center, PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial and LI, Light Industry districts to permit indoor athletic facilities as a use by -right. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He noted that Mr. St. John had amended the proposed definition slightly as follows: "A building or structure in which are conducted recreational, therapeutic, or athletic activities, whether or not under construction...." The staff report concluded: "The introduction of indoor athletic facilities to the C-1 and HC districts is consistent with the intent and permitted uses of those districts. Staff is unable to support indoor facilities as a use by -right in the LI district. Staff does support the use by special use permit in the LI district to allow evaluation of the appropriateness of the request in particular locations. Staff also recommends that the use be permitted in the CO district by special use permit. Ms. Andersen questioned the use of the word "structure." She asked for an exact meaning. She asked if a tent could ever be considered a "structure." Mr. Keeler explained that a structure is defined in the ordinance and is something that is "permanently affixed to the ground." He did not think a tent would meet that qualification, but stated the Zoning Administrator would have to make that determination. Mr. Fritz read the following definition of structure from the Ordinance: "Anything that is constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc. For the purpose of determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a structure." Mr. Keeler later explained that structure is used throughout the Ordinance and is "classic zoning definition language." Ms. Huckle asked if a tent could qualify as a structure if it was attached to a concrete slab. Again, Mr. Cilimberg explained that would be a determination for the Zoning Administrator to make. Mr. St. John (later in the discussion) explained that the concrete slab would be a structure, but the tent would not. He stated: "The definition of structure, in my mind, excludes tents. A tent is not a permanent structure attached to the ground--" 8-24-93 3 Regarding the staff report's recommendation to delete the health spa use, Mr. Fritz explained that it was later decided that that use should be retained for the time being because advertising for the ZTA had not included the deletion of the health spa use. Mr. Johnson asked that staff again explain why staff was separating LI and CO (by special permit) from C1 and HC (by -right). Mr. Fritz explained that C1 and HC encompass a wide variety of by -right commercial service and retail uses and an indoor athletic facility is consistent with those uses in terms of intensity, land area, parking, traffic generation, etc. However, the CO district is intended to serve as a buffer between higher density commercial and residential districts and is not a service or retail district. LI districts are intended primarily as employment centers, and also are not service or retail districts. However, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that "certain supportative commercial and recreational facilities are appropriate in industrial districts and therefore there may be occasions in an industrial district where an indoor athletic facility may be appropriate and the only way to address that is by special permit. If it were by -right, it could go in areas by that may not be appropriate due to the nature of traffic or the character of the district." (NOTE: Mr. Fritz repeated this explanation several times throughout the Commission's discussion of the request.) Mr. Nitchmann expressed some concern about allowing these facilities in Planned Unit Developments since those developments include residences. Mr. Fritz explained that planned developments include a mix of uses. Mr. Cilimberg added that if a proposal for this type use was added to a planned development after it had been approved, it would be subject to review because it would involve an amendment to the PUD. The uses, and locations of those uses, in a planned development are usually defined as part of the application. Mr. St. John noted that it is more difficult to obtain an approval to amend a PUD than an approval of a special permit. The applicant was represented by Mr. George McCallum. He explained that the request had arisen from the applicant's desire to add two squash courts to an existing facility located on Hydraulic Road between Lamb's Road and the Rock Store. He asked that the use be by -right in the LI district (rather than by special permit as supported by staff). There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Fritz again explained staff's analysis of the request and the reason for recommending the use by special permit in the LI and CO 113-0 8-24-93 4 districts. (See explanation above and staff report filed with these minutes.) Referring to today's emphasis on health, including the County's interest in promoting good health among it's employees, Mr. Nitchmann viewed this use as one which is directly related to the promotion of good health. He wondered if it should be by -right in the CO district. Mr. Fritz pointed out that if it were to be by -right, and the proposal can meet all the requirements of the Ordinance, then the County has no choice other than approval. He felt there would be many instances of CO adjacent to residential districts, which could result in an athletic facility in close proximity to residences. Allowing it by special permit provides for an additional review to insure that there are no negative impacts. Ms. Andersen expressed support for staff's recommendation, i.e. that the use be by -right in the C1 and HC, but by special permit in the LI and CO. Ms. Huckle cautioned against creating some of the problems which some neighborhoods adjacent to athletic facilities are currently experiencing. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that ZTA-93-04 for Hydraulic Road Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff (with amendment by Mr. St. John) and with the understanding that the health spa question would be addressed at a later time. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously. ZT -9 -05 John and Carolyn Pflug - Proposal to amend Section 32.2.1a to raise the number of units permitted on a single parcel before a site plan is required from 2 to 5. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff can identify no public purpose to be served by this Zoning Text Amendment. The requirement of a site plan for three (3) of more units on a single parcel ensures minimum necessary improvements and compliance with the public health, safety and welfare provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Waiver of a site plan can still be requested, exempting the submittal from the complete site plan submittal standards, but retaining review of the proposal for health, safety and welfare provisions." Mr. Fritz read a memorandum from Mr. Keeler, dated August 17, 1993. It was Mr. Keeler's opinion that "adoption of this proposed zoning text amendment without other amendment to both the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance 8-24-93 5 would, in my opinion, result in arbitrary and discriminatory regulation. That is to say, the text amendment standing alone discriminates as to ownership and is arbitrary as to dwelling unit type." Mr. Fritz also read Mr. Jack Kelsey's (County Engineer Department) memorandum of July 14, 1993. The letter explained: "By changing the site plan requirement criteria to five lots, there will be roads within the County that are providing public service which have neither been verified nor required to upgrade to State/County standards. These roads will be potentially: unsafe for travel and hazardous to the public; inaccessible for emergency vehicles, limiting the ability to provide emergency medical and fire suppression services; and these roads may be subject to ditch and embankment erosion, contributing to the siltation and pollution of our streams. This text amendment will be in direct conflict with the responsibilities charged to the County by the State Code. Therefore, the Engineering Department recommends denial of this request for zoning text amendment." Mr. Fritz stated staff agreed with these comments. The applicant was represented by Mr. George McCallum. He explained the applicants' wish to create a village ("Headquarters Farm Antiquarian village"), under common ownership, made up of classic Virginia/North Carolina mountain cabins (log and stone)... scattered on the site at suitable locations where slopes are conducive ... to be leased on a long-term basis. The applicants feel part of the attractiveness of the village will be the setting of the cabins (nestled in the hillside), accessed by primitive roads. It was Mr. McCallum's understanding that a 3rd dwelling causes the requirement that the road be built to public road standards. Mr. Fritz explained: "What's required is that the private road provisions of the subdivision ordinance come into account. It would not be until the subdivision occurs that any analysis of public vs. private road would occur. But the road would have to be built to the private road provisions for any road serving 3 to 5 lots. The analysis of public vs. private to serve those units would not occur unless a subdivision was occuring." Mr. McCallum seemed to be somewhat confused. He explained that the proposal here is not to do a subdivision. Mr. Fritz explained: "In Mr. Pflug's case, because of the number of units and the road serving that, the road standard would be to VDOT standards; it would be, in essence, a public road." It was determined there are already existing buildings on the property. Mr. Fritz explained that after 6 dwellings, the County's road standards are the same as the 8-24-93 6 VDOT standards (for mountainous terrain), so even though the road would be private, it would be built to VDOT standards. In response to Ms. Huckle's statement that the applicant could request a waiver to allow private roads, Mr. Fritz explained that there could be no waiver request because no subdivision will occur. He added that with only one property owner, the proposal "would not even be eligible for public roads." He again explained that an analysis of public vs. private roads would be made at the time a subdivision occurred. Mr. Keeler added that if this were a private road subdivision the County could require a maintenance agreement, and, at a minimum, require that the roads were accessable to emergency vehicles. However, the County cannot specify to what level a private road is maintained. Mr. St. John cautioned against focusing discussion on one piece of land. He pointed out that the zoning text amendment would apply county -wide. He wanted the Commission to understand clearly that the applicant's motive in taking this approach is to be able to construct a less expensive road, but the approval of this request could apply to any property in the County. Mr. St. John expressed concern about the applicant's approach because since it is not being called a subdivision (i.e. it will remain under one ownership and properties will be leased on a long-term basis), it is not subject to subdivision review, but the impact is the same. Mr. Johnson wondered if some distinction might be made between driveways and roads which would allow the applicant to achieve the aesthetic quality that is desired. Mr. McCallum explained that some other approaches had been considered but it does not appear that the Zoning Ordinance will allow the applicant to "achieve what he wants to do." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann wondered if the applicant had been made aware of all the ramifications of this proposal. Mr. Fritz explained the applicant had been well aware that "he was facing a very difficult task." Mr. Nitchmann could see no public good to be served by the proposed amendment. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA-93-05 for John and Carolyn Pflug be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on a feeling that the proposal does not serve the better interests of the public at large, nor the county. 8-24-93 7 Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. of the request were momentous. Discussion: She felt the ramifications Mr. Jenkins wondered how this proposal differed from the Montfair proposal. Mr. Fritz explained that Montfair was approved as a campground many years ago. Mr. Beeler confirmed that if the applicant wished to do so he, too, could request a campground and staff's review would be based on that request. However, one of the main items which would be considered would be the provision for emergency access. Mr. St. John added that if Montfair were being proposed today, it would have to go through the site plan process. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that all possibilitites had been explored with the applicant. Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the request because he felt the universal applicability of such a change would adversely effect the County's charge to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The motion for denial passed unanimously. WORK SESSION CaRital Improvements Program Mr. Baker briefly reviewed the CIP process. The Commission requested that the County Executive's Office make a 15 minute presentation at the August 31 meeting describing (and answering questions about) the budget process. It was decided Commissioners would submit written questions on Schools, Administration Costs and Libraries to staff by the August 31 meeting (remaining questions to be submitted to staff on September 9). Staff to answer first set of questions at September 9 work session, second set at September 14 work session. Mr. Nitchmann questioned the "point" of prioritizing projects (beyond those for which there is secure funding) when there is no known source of funding and nothing the Commission can do. MISCELLANEOUS 137 8-24-93 g Mr. Nitchmann asked for a progress report from the AHIP Re-Hab program. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. DB /Is;?