Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 26 1993 PC Minutes10-26-93 1 OCTOBER 26, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, Ms. Marcia Joseph, ARB Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Andersen The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 5 (7:00) meeting were approved as amended. ZMA-93-08 Feldmann's Inc. a licant Mark & L nnle Thornton (owner) - The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone approximately 1.9 acres from R-6 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 95, is located on the east side of Rt. 659 (SPCA Road) approximately 500 feet north of Rio Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated Growth Area (Urban Neighborhood 1) and is on the boundary of areas recommended for medium density residential (4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre), and high density residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre). Deferred from the October 5, 1993 Commission Meeting. Staff reported that the applicant was once again requesting deferral to November 23, 1993. The Commission asked staff to advise the applicant that the item will be heard on November 23, 1993, unless withdrawn. No further requests for deferral will be approved. MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA-93-08 be deferred to November 23, 1993. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-93-10 Hillcrest Land Trust and Hurt Investment Company - Petition to rezone approximately 152 acres from R-1, Residential to R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcels 2 and 2C is located south of and adjacent to Piedmont Community College. These parcels front both Route 742 and Route 20 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 4) and is recommended for High Density ail 10-26-93 2 Residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre). Medium Density Residential (4.01-10 dwelling units per acre) and Low Density Residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre). The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that ZMA-93-10 be deferred indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson brought up a question which he stated had come to his mind as he reviewed the Hillcrest application, i.e. whether or not a developer can be asked to pay a "fair share" of the cost of the extension of utilities (water and sewer) which the County may have already installed in an area (prior to development) in an effort to "put teeth" into a growth area. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Service Authority recovers its costs through hook-up fees. He explained the Service Authority has sometimes, "with developer participation," extended utilities and then when development occurs the fees recover the costs. Entrance Corridor - Information regarding building permits in the Entrance Corridor. In response to Mr. Johnson's proposal some weeks earlier to amend the Zoning Ordiance to give the ARB the authority to review restructuring and renovation projects in the Entrance Corridor, Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner for the ARB, was present to answer Commission questions. Answers to questions and other comments were as follows: --The ARB understands Mr. Johnson's concerns and can endorse an amendment, but "not with a great deal of zeal." --An amendment such as the one proposed by Mr. Johnson would allow "us to get the continuity that we are looking for in some of those Entrance Corridors." --An amendment could extend the review process by as much as two weeks. --Currently, the only renovation projects which must be approved by the ARB are those which, because of the expansion of the building, some of the parking is deleted or the entrance is changed. Mr. Blue expressed a reluctance "to approve something like that that puts --in addition to time --another financial burden on the businesses unless it is really in the interests of the Community." He stated: "I am a firm believer that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that is why I have been a little reluctant to have ARB approval of anything more than they already have, but I may be wrong 10-26-93 3 and I am anxious to hear your opinion." He concluded: "What it boils down to is if we do, indeed, believe that the facade in the Entrance Corridor is important to the community, then I suppose the ARB ought to have some say." Ms. Huckle agreed with Mr. Blue's last statement. She stated: "It doesn't really matter if a building is existing or new if it's inappropriate or garish it still has the same impact." She noted that Ms. Joseph had said only a few such projects occur each year, thus it should not be too much of a burden to add this review to the ARB's responsibilities. Mr. Cilimberg explained the procedure for beginning the zoning amendment process: (1) The Commission must pass a Resolution of Intent to amend the Ordinance; (2) That Resolution is then passed on to the Board of Supervisors; (3) The Board must then take action as to whether or not to proceed with the amendment; (4) If the Board agrees with the Commission and the Resolution of Intent is passed, the staff then prepares the actual zoning text amendment; (4) The zoning text amendment is then scheduled for a public hearing before both the Commission and the Board. Mr. Cilimberg stated staff could develop language for the Resolution of Intent based on the Commission's discussion. Mr. Blue stated that he would not feel comfortable supporting an amendment until after he has had a chance to review the recently distributed ARB guidelines. In response to Ms. Huckle's suggestion for a discussion of the ARB guidelines at this time, Mr. Johnson pointed out "in fairness to the ARB" that the guidelines had been distributed several days previous, and the ARB had also held a public hearing to accept comment. Ms. Huckle asked Ms. Joseph why all the "musts" had been changed to "shoulds." Ms. Joseph explained that these were meant to be "guidelines", i.e. to give people guideance as to what needs to be done, and it was felt "should" indicates more flexibility. Returning to the issue of an amendment, Mr. Grimm stated he could support ARB review "where there is a change made --a drastic change in the appearance of the facade." He questioned, however, how it would be determined when that point has been reached, and how that could be spelled out in a document. Mr. Johnson felt more than just the facade was in question, rather "any changes visible from the direction of the road within the Entrance Corridor, assessing those for their aesthetic acceptance." A25 10-26-93 4 Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that "a building permit issuance, without a site plan, is going to be only for that activity which is within 6 feet of the building and including the building and if you get out into parking areas, or landscaping, or new structure, a site plan is required and that is already under review." Mr. Bowling noted that some very small projects can require a building permit, e.g. upgrading electrical work. Mr. Grimm suggested that staff be given time to develop wording for the Resolution of Intent before any action is taken. Mr. Nitchmann also asked if staff could report on what criteria will be used to determine which renovation projects would require ARB approval and also what will actually be required of the applicant. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. McCulley "if she was satisfied with the provisions for non -conforming signs that are in the Ordinance, insofar as when they become delapidated, etc. --the progressive reduction in size --does that satisfy the ARB to start getting these things back into general acceptance for the area?" Ms. McCulley responded that staff is "real excited" about the results of the new sign ordinance. On the subject of signs, Ms. Huckle asked if the statement "It should not overpower the message portion for the sign" was too vague. Ms. Joseph explained that the actual Sign Ordinance is much more specific. Mr. Johnson asked if the ARB had any other changes which they might wish to make along with this proposed change. Ms. Joseph indicated there might be some "housekeeping" type items. Mr. Blue asked if there is generally a consensus among the ARB members about requirements. He expressed concern about the fact that what one person thinks is beautiful, someone else may not. He stated it was this concept of the ARB which troubled him. Ms. Joseph stated there is generally not a great deal of disagreement among ARB members. Ms. Joseph found this a difficult question to answer. Mr. Blue commented: "That is my whole problem with the concept of the ARB. We're supposed to be protecting community interests. If there really is an aesthetic community interest that the community can visualize, that's fine. But I'm not convinced there is." Ms. Joseph responded: "That's why we look at the enabling legislation; that's why we created the guidelines; that's why we solicited community input. ..." a. 4 10-26-93 5 Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the backgrounds of those serving on the ARB represents a good mix. Ms. Huckle did not think it was so much a question of "ugly or beauty," rather "it is something which is within keeping with the architectural traditions of this area." Mr. Blue concluded: "It's hard for me to try to rationalize legislation of aesthetics. But if that's only a question to me, then it's no problem." Ms. Joseph pointed out that is one of the reasons the "shalls" were changed to "shoulds," to allow some flexibility. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Commission's intent: "I understand the primary purpose behind this particular effort would be to change the Ordinance to have the Entrance Corridor provisions apply to 'reconstruction, altered, or restored"' buildings, not requiring a site plan, (other than single-family residential buildings.) Mr. Jenkins inquired as to the status of the Fisal Impact Study. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We are in the process of negotiating a contract. We are working with that vendor to try to get a contract. We have hit a couple of snags, but we are hoping to work things out." He estimated that an operational model could be available within 6 months. Forest Lakes Temporary Sales _Center Preliminary Site Plan - Request for modification of Section 32.7.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow use of septic system. Ms. Hipski explained that Forest Lakes is requesting permission to install a temporary septic system to serve the temporary sales center. Public sewer will be extended as the property develops. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the request for a modification of Section 32.7.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for Forest Lakes Temporary Sales Center Preliminary Site Plan be approved, subject to Health Department approval, and with the rquirement that connection to public sewer be made when public sewer is within 500 feet of the building. The motion passed unanimously. 10-26-93 E Aztec Center Preliminary Site Plan - Section 4.2.3.2 to allow encroachment twenty-five percent or greater. Request for a waiver of on slopes of Ms. Hipski explained the applicant was requesting to encroach on 25% slopes for one corner of the building. In response to Mr. Johnson's questions, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the request is for a modification of 4.2.3.2 for this application only; it is not a request to change the entire ordinance. In response to Mr. Johnson's question: "What's the difference between that and granting a waiver?", Mr. Cilimberg explained: "It's just the way the ordinance is worded." Ms. Hipski explained the applicant's plan in some detail for the benefit of Ms. Huckle. The applicant, Mr. Floyd Artrip, addressed the Commission. He explained: "We're cutting the top off the slope, not filling, which means we have less water running down the hill." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that a modification of Section 4.2.3.2 for Aztec Center preliminary Site Plan be approved. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Cilimberg reported that the has been filled. He described who was chosen. Housing Coordinator position the background of the person Mr. Johnson once again brought up the subject of the Daily Progress publishing Commission agendas. He reported that the Editor of the paper had informed him that if the agendas are sent to the paper before 10:00 a.m. Friday morning, (by fax) to the person responsible for the Public Meetings column, they will be printed. He noted that Mr. St. John had cautioned there might be problems if the entire agenda is not printed. Because of the belief that the newspaper would choose which items to include in the notice, Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board has chosen not to have their agendas printed in this fashion. Mr. Johnson explained that he had received correspondence from the paper which indicates that they "would go ahead and pick the 93{ 1 10-26-93 7 agenda items, by title and number, where number is applicable, and print those in the Monday edition." It was the consensus of the Commission to send the Commission's agenda to the Daily Progress each Friday morning. Mr. Cilimberg cautioned: "Just be aware that we are going to be leaving this in their hands which is exactly the way it would need to be handled because I don't really think we want to get into the middle of it." He noted that the Meadow Creek Parkway public hearing notice had been included in one of these notices with an incorrect date. He noted that mistakes often happen. -------------------- Mr. Blue called attention to a statement found in a VPI publication ("Land Issues and Problems'$): "No growth is deadly and unfair and uncontrolled growth is stupid and unfair." Mr. Bowling answered Mr. Blue's questions about potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Blue was particularly concerned about Agricultural Forestal District reviews where a Commissioner might be an adjacent owner. Mr. Bowling advised: "If you are an adjoining property owner in that situation, I wouldn't participate in the (discussion). If you feel that your position as a property owner could possibly effect your decision on a vote on a matter before the Commission, I wouldn't vote on it." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. DB XYA V. Wayne P limberg, ecreta 0?2 7