HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 24 1992 PC Minutes3-24-92
1
MARCH 24, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, March 24, 1992, 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; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. William Fritz, Senior
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. Minutes of the March
10, 1992 meeting were approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA - Review for Compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan 15.1-456 Review • City of
Charlottesville Gas Division Line Installation to Serve
Keswick
Mr. Baker presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval.
Mr. Baker addressed the issue of a possible realignment of
the gas line as had been suggested by the Commission at its
March 17th meeting. He stated staff had contacted the Gas
Company and determined that the route suggested by the
Commission had been given consideration. The route was
determined not to be feasible because it would require the
crossing of two bridges and the Virginia Department of
Transportation will not allow utility lines to run along
their bridges or across their roadway networks (unless there
is absolutely no other alternative). Mr. Baker pointed out
that the proposed line could be extended to the south at
some future time in order to serve other rural properties.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the "dog legs"
shown in the alignment, it was determined they were
necessary because of the layout of the existing railroad and
the desire to cross only one railroad instead of two.
Mr. Bill Garver was present to represent Charlottesville Gas
Company. In response to Mr. Johnson's question about the
capacity of the line, Mr. Garver explained: "It's a high
pressure, 4-inch gas line; it will be a 90 psi gas line and
the capacity of that gas line will serve any need of that
area currently or in the future." He estimated it could
/5"b
3--24-92
2
serve "hundreds" of homes. In response to Mr. Blue's
question, he stated that the Gas Company has not decided
whether gas will be extended to the Glenmore development
though an interest has been expressed by Glenmore.
Mr. Blue stated that though he understood the Gas Company's
explanation, it would be possible to "go down the slope and
bore under 64." He acknowledged that this would be more
expensive, but pointed out that it could potentially serve
15-20 homes, a school and a church which would mean more
revenue to the Gas Company while at the same time satisfying
the concerns of the Commission. Mr. Garver again stated
that VDOT would only approve going under 64 (as suggested by
Mr. Blue) if there were no other alternative, and the
proposed routing is an alternative.
Ms. Huckle wondered if it were possible to restrict the
usage of this line (to protect the rural area), i.e.
prohibit any other users from tying into the line as had
been done with the Crozet Inteceptor. Mr. Bowling pointed
out that a gas line is not considered to encourage growth in
as does a sewer line. Mr. Cilimberg added: "The sewer line
also fell in the jurisdictional area decision by the Board
of Supervisors --they grant the service opportunities. This
utility, as well as electricity and telephone are not under
that same decision -making mandate or power of the Board of
Supervisors."
Referring to Mr. Cilimberg's statement, Mr. Blue wondered
why the line had to be found in Compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan "if it makes no difference." Mr.
Cilimberg stated that it would make a difference if a
locality's Comp Plan were to specify utility routes, but we
don't have "that level of review." He confirmed that gas
lines and electric transmission lines are not addressed
specifically in the Plan in terms of alignments.
Mr. Johnson quoted the following from the Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter 3: "Goal: To strongly support and
effectively implement the County's growth management
priorities in the planning and provision of transportation
of public facilities and public utilities." He read the
following Objective under Private Utilities: "To maintain
cooperative planning efforts between the County and other
non-public utilities which provide essential services, such
as telephone, electric, and natural gas utilities, to insure
the adequate provision of these services to support existing
and anticipated development in the County." Mr. Johnson
stated he had measured the distances of the two possible
alignments and found there to.be a difference of.05 mile
with 80 residences, 1 hunt club, 1 church, and 1 school
along the Commission's preferred alignment as opposed to 5
residences and 1 hunt club along the gas company's proposed
alignment. He concluded: "I cannot support this because of
/51/
3-24-92 3
the differentiation between the services being provided by
the alternative routes. I have had some experience in the
past with statements made on the part of VDOT and have
frequently found when reviewed, they are opinions and not
decisions. So I cannot support this as being compatible
with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan."
Though Mr. Blue indicated agreement with Mr. Johnson's
comments, he stated he would support the request because the
gas company has indicated they investigated the other route
and "it doesn't really have that much effect on the
Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Grimm stated he would support the request. He noted
that no taxpayer's money was involved in the project.
Mr. Nitchmann moved that the City of Charlottesville Gas
Division Line Installation to serve Keswick be found to be
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with
Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
SP-92-02 Harold & Sarah Hensley - Proposal to operate a home
occupation class B [14.2.2(11)] to permit a hauling business
involving three trucks on 0.3 acres zoned R-2, Residential
and within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Property, described as Tax Map 90A, Section A, Parcel 24D,
is located in the Oak Hill Subdivision in the southwestern
corner of the intersection of Pinehurst Court and Rt. 631 in
the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located
in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 5) and is
recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units
per acres).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that the proposed use exceeds the scale
and intensity of activities contemplated by the home
occupation provisions. Therefore, staff recommends denial.
Mr. Blue asked how this situation had come to the County's
atttention.' Mr. Fritz was uncertain. It was noted that the
Zoning Administrator had determined the use was NOT
grandfathered, but no zoning violation has been issued. No
objections to the use were received.
The applicant, Mr. Hensley, addressed the Commission.
Responses to Commission questions and other comments
included the following:
--He has been a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood
for 26 years, and in this particular location since 1977.
The 3 dump trucks which are a part of this application have
been present since the early 1801s.
IG-2
3-24-92 4
--The petition of support was instigated by a neighbor,
not by the applicant.
--Various types of trucks, sometimes as many as 8-10 at
one time, have been present on his property during the
entire 26 years and no complaints have ever been received.
The vehicles were parked on the street and in the back yard.
--The applicant owns one of the trucks; his son owns
the other two. (Mr. Cilimberg later explained that if only
the applicant's truck was involved, it would not be subject
to a Class B Home Occupation review.)
--He has no plans for expansion and after his son has a
place to park two of the trucks, only one truck will remain
on the site.
--Attempts to make arrangements for parking the
vehicles elsewhere, in safe surroundings, had been
unsuccessful. Renting parking space would also create a
financial burden.
--This issue had arisen when Mr. Hensley had applied
for a business license and not because of a complaint.
--Denial of the request will put the applicant out of
business.
--Though the property is on an entrance corridor, there
are several other pieces of large equipment visible along
this corridor before the applicant's property. (It was
noted that the other equipment is within City limits.)
--Though the property is littered with various other
pieces of equipment periodically, it is only when the
applicant is performing repair work on the trucks and is
cleaned up in a timely fashion.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Bowling
explained that home occupations are particular to the person
making the request and are not attached to the property.
It was determined that a time limit could be placed on the
permit.
Mr. Blue felt this request deserved special recognition,
given the fact that the situation has existed for many years
without complaint. Regarding the issue of precedent he
stated: "It seems to me that that is the purpose of
advisory bodies such as this and governing bodies like the
supervisors. When it's possible they can make exceptions
and it does not necessarily mean precedent. If another
similar example came up which had good reasons for it, we'd
do the same thing. If one came up and there weren't good
reason or a good number of neighbors were opposed, it would
be a different thing." He stressed that there were no
neighbor complaints even though.the situation has existed
for a long time. He suggested the request be approved, but
/S3
3-24-92 5
with a 2-year time limit at which time the applicant could
apply for renewal.
Mr. Jenkins stated he agreed with Mr. Blue.
Mr. Hensley stated that a two year time limit was
acceptable.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to amend
the condition related to number of employees. Mr. Grimm
pointed out that space limitations would limit the number of
trucks to three. No amendment to the number of employees
was made, i.e. condition No. 2 remained as presented by
staff.
Mr. Johnson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Blue. He
stated: "I think that the empathy we have for this
gentleman --to keep him in business --is certainly worth
pursuing."
Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the request because
she felt it did not fit within the definition of a home
occupation and she did not feel it was any different than a
previous request on which the Commission had recommended
denial. She felt this type of situation would lower
neighborhood property values. She felt strongly that other
parking arrangements could be made for the trucks.
Mr. Grimm stated he could support the request based solely
on the fact that the situation has existed for many years.
Mr. Blue moved that SP-92-02 for Harold and Sarah Hensley be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. No on -site sales.
2. Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on -sate.
3. Compliance with the performance standards of Section
4.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Repair of drainage pipe under the driveway entrance.
5. Permit will expire two years after date of issuance.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Commissioner
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
SP-92-07 Farmington Country Club - Proposal to construct a
30,980 square foot sports club and a 4,830 square foot
storage facility to supplement the existing 4,350 square
foot golf maintenance/storage building on approximately 28
3-24--92 6
acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas (10.2.2(2) and 10.2.2(4)1.
Property, described as Tax Map 60E2, Parcels 1 (part) and 2,
is located in the Farmington Subdivision on the east side of
Old Mill Road approximately 500 feet north of its
intersection with Lake Road in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. This site is not located in a designated growth
area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to one condition.
There was a brief discussion about the small pond. Mr.
Fritz explained that the pond's drainage area is not
sufficient to maintain the pond's total capacity and
therefore water is pumped into the pond to maintain the
water level. It is anticipated, at this time, that the pond
is adequate to handle any runoff from the site and will also
serve as a stormwater detention basin.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the words "or guests" should be added
to the condition of approval. Mr. Fritz explained that it
is intended that the Club's current membership rules be
followed, i.e. if the rules permit guests now, no amendment
is proposed.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to why the matter
was before the Commission, Mr. Fritz explained that the
facility is a non -conforming use and therefore cannot be
expanded without a special permit [Sec. 10.2.2.4]. (This
was the determination of the County Attorney.)
Mr. Blue asked if approval of the special permit would mean
that the site plan had to be approved. Mr. Fritz replied
that approval of the site plan was a separate issue and
would require determinations regarding critical slopes. Mr.
Blue expressed concern about the adequacy of the pump
station because he pointed out that this facility would
generate much more waste water than residential dwellings.
(Mr. Fritz stated that the pump station was adequate.) Mr.
Blue wondered if this facility would take up capacity of the
pump station to the point where other undeveloped properties
will have to expand the pump station in order to develop.
He wondered if this possibility had been considered. Mr.
Cilimberg interjected that the service provided to the sewer
line in that area is limited by jurisdictional area
designation and "if we continue making jurisdictional area
decisions in that area, as we have over time... it's not
anticipated that we are going to get any added customers out
there." Mr. Bowling also noted: "The Service Authority has
a straight first -come -first -served policy."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Peter Sheeran. Answers
to Commission questions and other comments included the
following:
/1949-
3-24-92
7
--The pump station was constructed, and is owned and
maintained, by Farmington.
--The Club would prefer to maintain the existing
relationship between members and their guests.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Jim Deinlein, attorney for Mr. Philip Ryder, an
adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He
expressed concerns about traffic impact, possible parking
spillover onto Mr. Ryder's property, the absence of a
turnaround at the end of the road for those persons who miss
the turnoff, the aesthetic appearance of the building,
screening provisions, and lighting plans.
Mr. Sheeran responded•to Mr. Deinlein's concerns as follows:
--No more traffic is anticipated than "would be
generated coming into Farmington Road at the main clubhouse.
Mr. Ryder will not be exposed to any more traffic than
someone living on one of the main roads."
--Forty parking spaces are proposed which should be
adequate for the building. 24 additional spaces are
provided for employees at the maintenance building.
--The entrance to the building is very visible and it
would be very difficult to miss, so turnaround at Mr.
Ryder's property should not be a problem.
--The building appears to be only one story from all
road approaches and should not be objectionable.
--A landscape plan and lighting provisions must be
approved by the County.
--Two decrepit residences on the property, which are a
concern of an adjoining property owner (Mr. Ryder), will be
removed.
--The existing wood fence will be extended and will
screen all the employee parking.
Mr. Johnson asked if it was practical to consider installing
a turnaround at the end of Mill Road. Mr. Sheeran could not
answer this question without a study of the engineering
issues. Mr. Sheeran noted that a turnaround had originally
been proposed in the front of the building, but staff had
preferred a single entrance (because of on -site circulation
safety concerns) into the site and the plan was revised
accordingly. He also noted that he did not think Mr. Ryder
would be in favor of a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Johnson noted that there was no connection between the
parking lot to serve the proposed facility and the existing
parking lot for the two sheds. He stated: "If that was
connected, then the shed parking lot could be used in case
of overflow." Mr. Sheeran agreed that was a valid
comment.
Ash
3-24-92
8
It was determined the tennis facility would operate from
8:30 a.m. to 9:30 or 10:30 p.m. with later hours being used
for indoor tennis.
Staff suggested that a turnaround could possibly be provided
beyond the entrance (he pointed to the location on the
plan), rather than at the end of the street.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Grimm noted that the applicant has researched the issue
of necessary parking and feels that adequate parking is
provided. He also felt it would be very difficult to drive
past the building given its size and visibility.
Mr. Blue moved that SP-92--07 for Farmington Country Club be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following condition:
1. use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington
Country Club members only.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SDP-92-005 -- Farmincrton indoor Sports Facility Preliminary
Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 30,980 square foot
sports club and a 4,830 square foot storage facility to
supplement the existing 4,350 square foot golf
maintenance/storage building on this 28 acre site.
Property, described as Tax Map 60E2, Parcels 1, (part) and
2, is located in Farmington on the east side of Old Mill
Road approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with
Lake Road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions and supported the applicant's
request of a modification to Section 4.2.3.2 related to
critical slopes.
Mr. Fritz verified that the pump station is owned by
Farmington. Mr. Blue asked if staff felt it unnecessary to
include a condition related to the adequacy of the capacity
of the pump station. Mr. Fritz replied: "Because these are
all private lines, it will be handled when they get their
building permits...."
Mr. Fritz pointed out that the critical slopes shown on this
plan are slightly less than was shown on the original plan.
1sr
3-24-92 9
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed
that all the issues which had been raised would be reviewed
during site plan review and the turnaround issue would be
pursued further with the applicant before the special permit
is heard by the Board.
The applicant offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated that he supported the site plan but he
again stated that he felt the site plan should show an
access between the existing parking lot and the area between
the two sheds. He felt this was desirable from both an
access and a safety standpoint. Mr. Johnson did not insist
that this be made a condition of approval, but he strongly
urged that the applicant consider this suggestion.
Mr. Johnson moved that the Farmington Indoor Sports Facility
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
e. Staff approval of final landscape plan;,
f. Staff approval of plat combining parcels 1 and 2;
g. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for the
existing pond.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Championship Miniature Golf Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal
to construct a 20,250 square foot miniature golf course on a
3-24-92 10
1.41 acre site with access and parking to be shared with
Kegler's Bowling. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel
112C(1), is located on the west side of Rt. 29N
approximately 1,200 feet north of Woodbrook Drive. Zoned
HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This
site is located in a designated growth area (Urban
Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for Regional Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz noted that the
Engineering Department has not issued an Erosion Control
Permit because the site plan has not been approved, but
everything else has been approved. Also, the ARB is
awaiting additional lighting information.
Regarding sewer facilities,
Service Authority's opinion
reasonably available and it
opinion that the use can be
drainfield.
Mr. Fritz stated it was the
that public sewer is not
is the Health Department's
served by a septic system and
Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Service Authority is very aware
of the entire drainage basin issue in this area.
It was determined that the site has sufficient area for 1.5
drainfields, i.e. one main field and half the area for a
backup. Mr. Fritz explained that if the system were to fail
the applicant would either have to discontinue use or
connect to public sewer. Ms. Huckle asked why this
applicant was not required to have two complete drainfield
areas. Mr. Fritz explained: "There is an alternative here
and a potential solution just over the horizon." Mr. Blue
wondered: "Are we letting them get by with 50% less than
other people." Mr. Fritz replied: "it's a modification and
it can certainly enter into your decision making." He again
pointed out that the Health Department has determined that
the drainfield area is adequate and the location has been
approved.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Stoner. He
stated that the use is expected to be short-term given the
fact that it is in the alignment of the Bypass. Connection
to the pump station is not feasible at this time because of
cost considerations. Mr. Stoner pointed out that the
Ordinance does not require restrooms on the site because it
is within 300 feet of a building with restroom facilities
(Kegler's, which has the same owner); however, the restrooms
had been added to address the concerns of the the Board of
Supervisors. He noted that because this is a seasonal use
the restrooms will only be used 6 months out of the year.
He stated that connection will be made to public sewer at
the time it becomes available which "will probably happen at
the point that all the parties in the basin come to some
15,17
3-24-92
11
agreement as to how the cost is going to be shared." Mr.
Stoner stated that negotiations regarding the cost -share
arrangements for upgrading of the pump station have been
going on for approximately 2 years.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated he would
asked that special emphasis
the time of final approval,
steps around water, etc.
support the request, but he
be placed on safety factors at
e.g. railings over bridges,
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Championship Miniature Golf
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
b. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from
the Architectural Review Board;
C. Staff approval of parking easement documents.
2. Staff approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Sign Ordinance - Mr. Johnson asked if consideration had
been given to the usage of "small panel trucks" with
advertising on their sides. If not, he felt this issue
should be addressed.
Board Summaries - The Commission once again asked that the
staff present a brief summary of actions taken by the Board.
It was clarified that the Commission was interested only in
those items on which the Board took a different action than
the Commission. It was suggested that this be a regular
agenda item and was stressed that the summary be very brief:
160
3-24-92
12
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:18 p.m.
g:
. Way ci erg, ecretary
161