Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 05 1992 PC Minutes5-5-92 04 MAY 5, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 5, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 21, 1992 were approved as submitted. ZMA-92-02 Virginia Land Trust & South 29 Land Trust - Petition to amend the existing Hollymead PUD, Planned Unit Development to permit 37 single family lots and 76 townhouse units on 19 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 46B2, Section 1, Parcels 1, 3 and 4, is located near Rt. 29 with access to North and South Hollymead Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Community Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to agreements with the applicant. In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that Parcel 5 is already platted and dedicated to open space "all the way to 29." Mr. Johnson deduced that approximately 60% of the originally +oned commercial property was being eliminated as a result of this proposal (19 acres of an original 31.5 acres). He asked why a Comprehensive Plan amendment was not needed since the Plan shows the property for community service usage. Mr. Cilimberg explained that issue had been discussed extensively at staff level and it was felt that "though it was the intent of the Plan to have neighborhood service scale there, the PUD always showed more (than was typically needed for convenience shopping and professional service needs)." Mr. Blue added that the PUD had probably shown what the developer "wanted ...and had nothing to do with good planning at the time." Mr. Johnson asked if the fiscal impact of the proposal should be reviewed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that fiscal impacts are reviewed where the number of dwelling units -2/4, 5-5-92 2 would be an increase over what is currently allowed by -right, which is not the case here. Mr. Johnson asked about VDOT recommendations for improvements. It was discovered that Agreement No. 4 had been erroneously omitted from the list of proposed agreements. It was to be reinstated as follows: "Improvements to North and South Hollymead Drive shall be in accordance with recommendations as stated in the Virginia Department of Transportation letter of March 23, 1992." The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He stated the applicant was in agreement with the staff report. He offered to answer questions. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Beth Vanda, an adjoining property owner, questioned the feasibility of fitting 27 houses on the property. She also expressed concerns about possible negative impact on existing utility problems, i.e. power blackouts and water pressure problems. She also expressed concerns about increased traffic. She stated she found this plan to be more acceptable for the property than previous plans. It was determined lot sizes would be comparable to existing lot sizes. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The utility problems described by Ms. Vanda were discussed briefly. Mr. Fritz noted that Virginia Power was aware of the proposal and had offered no comment. Regarding water, he stated that adequate fire protection will have to be proven before final approvals are obtained. Mr. Fritz offered to direct Ms. Vanda to the appropriate officials who might be able to answer her questions about water pressure. Mr. Fritz noted that the flow rate in the area is substantial so the problems described by Ms. Vanda might be related to the connection. He also explained that it is the Service Authority who determines the needed flow and pipe sizes and those items will have to be addressed before final approvals are granted. Mr. Fritz stated he would make the Service Authority aware Ms. Vanda's comments. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Cilimberg explained how school enrollments are tracked in relation to proposed new development. Mr. Grimm stated he was in agreement with staff's recommendation. ` /7 5-5-92 r3 Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-92-02 for Virginia Land Trust and South 29 Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following agreements with the applicant: 1. Development shall be in general accord with plan titled "Proposed Division of Parcels A, C-2, and D, Tax Map 46" dated February 24, 1992. 2. Thirty (30) feet on the north sides of North Hollymead Drive and Hollymead Drive shall be provided as open space and shall contain an impervious pathway and landscaping. 3. Landscaping in the open space adjacent to North Hollymead Drive and Hollymead Drive shall consist of not less than a double staggered row of screening trees planted 15 feet on center. 4. Improvements to North and South Hollymead Drive shall be in accordance with recommendations as stated in the Virginia Department of Transportation letter of March 23, 1992. 5. Yards shall be provided as follows: front yard (measured from road right-of-way or edge of access easement) - 30 feet in depth; rear yard - 20 feet in depth; side yard - 10 feet in depth. 6. Access to adjacent property to the south of the townhouse development may be required at the time of site plan review if determined practicable. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson asked that the item be brought back to the commission in the event it is determined that a problem does exist with providing utilities to the area. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-92-14 Geater & Emma J. Allen - Petition to locate a single wide mobile home on 3.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(10)]. Property, described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 37 is located on the east side of Route 627 approximately 1.4 miles south of Rt. 6 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. 12/9 5-5-92 4 The applicant, Mr. Geater Allen, was present but offered no additional comment. He was accompanied by his daughter Ms. Imogene Allen. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked if the mobile home could be located farther back from the highway, given the fact that the site has been cleared and will be visible from the road. Mr. Blue had visited the site and commented that he felt the proposed location was "as good a place as you'd find." He stated that the unit will be "as well screened as the other houses on the road." Ms. Hipski added that the property "falls down hill" which may offer some screening from adjacent properties. Mr. Blue moved that SP-92-14 for Geater & Emma Allen be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County Building Official approval. 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located. 3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations. 5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. 6. The mobile home shall be occupied only be Geater and Emma Jean Allen or other family members. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson asked if the restriction against rental of the mobile home would be removed if the Board determines that it is not appropriate, i.e. will all previous restrictions on rental be removed from all such permits. Mr. Cilimberg �.2/q 5-5-92 5 stated: "If the Board makes that decision, it will apply to all those conditions that stand on any SP for mobile homes." Mr. Johnson suggested the addition of another condition as follows: "Moving hitch, wheels and axles and transportation lights shall be removed." He felt this would "move this object further from the trailer concept." Ms. Hipski stated she had discussed this possibility with Mr. Schlothauer (Department of Inspections) and he does not recommend the removal of the wheels because that results in the unit being no longer "mobile." Mr. Blue noted that the requirement for skirting accomplishes the same purpose, i.e. it hides the mobile features of the dwelling. Mr. Blue also pointed out that there may be a tax issue involved. ( Mr. Cilimberg explained that mobile homes are assessed as personal property, though taxed as real estate. ) The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-92-22 Dale Wilberger (applicant), - Petition to permit outdoor storage and display of autos, trucks and trailers (30.6.3.2(b)] on 0.49 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 57B, is located on the north side of Rt. 250 west of and adjacent to the White House Motel in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 3) and is recommended for Regional Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson asked for a more specific description of the grandfathered use. Mr. Fritz stated that a car sales business existed on the property less than 2 years ago. Mr. Johnson asked if the grandfathered usage also allowed the automobiles to be displayed "in front." Mr. Bowling stated: The applicant "has a right to do what was done previously." Mr. Bowling recalled that the previous business was a Volvo sales. Mr. Bowling explained that the purpose of the special permit was to allow for outdoor storage and display of autos. He stated that such display would be regulated by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the property is zoned Highway Commercial, which allows sales and service of vehicles by -right and this item is being reviewed because it is in the EC Overlay District which requires a special permit for the outdoor storage component of the proposal. Though Mr. Cilimberg expressed some confusion about Mr. Johnson's Sao 5-5-92 11 question, he explained that "if the outdoor storage was grandfathered you would not be seeing this because it would not be subject to a special use permit." In response to Ms. Andersen's questions, it was noted that the ARB had granted it's staff member administrative approval of the request and a Certificate of Appropriateness will have to be issued (by the ARB staff member) before the use can commence. In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding the conditions attached to the Certificate of Appropriateness, Mr. Cilimberg explained that those conditions would have to be met (not just agreed to) BEFORE the Certificate of Appropriateness would be issued and before a final site plan (if one is needed) can be approved. There was some confusion about the meaning of the ARB's comments, particularly No. 2 [Placing screening trees or fence adjacent to the building to screen the U-Haul vehicles for rental]. The Commission began to discuss the conditions imposed by the ARB. Mr. Blue felt it would be helpful if the Commission were provided with the same information the ARB had used in making its recommendations (e.g. photos which may have been viewed by the ARB). Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it was not the Commission's role to pass judgement on the Certificate of Appropriateness, but rather to recommend whether or not the use should be allowed. (That being the case, Mr. Blue asked why the Commission was discussing the ARB's conditions.) Mr. Johnson stated: "But if we see something on here that we don't like, from a non-conformance with the Entry Corridor provisions, we, too, can make that comment, can we not?" Mr. Cilimberg replied: "You can recommend that the special use permit not be approved based on the features that you see." Mr. Johnson asked: "Or condition it to some feature, right?" Mr. Cilimberg replied: "The ARB has asked the Planning Commission not add design conditions to special use permit approvals because that is the function they have been given. If you have a concern over the use based on its impact to the Entrance Corridor, you should indicate what the concern is and you should recommend accordingly. The ARB has asked that conditions for design in the Entrance Corridor be avoided unless the Board felt that they absolutely had to have some particular kind of design feature that was over and above the ARB's decision making." Mr. Blue stated: "I assume we can't do the reverse either; if we felt the ARB was perhaps being too strict that we couldn't eliminate one of their conditions? We have already 5-5--92 designated that power to them." Mr. Bowling interjected: "With appeal rights to the Board of Supervisors." Mr. Blue could not see any reason for the Commission to be discussing the ARB's conditions since they had no power to change the conditions. He felt such discussion was a waste of time. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board of Supervisors has the "final decision making on all elements, including the Architectural Review Board's conditions, whereas you do not. You are in a position to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in terms of whether you think the special use permit should be issued or not and if you have a concern —that (concern) should be noted in your statement going to the Board." Mr. Cilimberg again explained that the ARB has created conditions that will have to be met before the Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued and the Special Permit requires the issuance of the COA before the use can commence. Mr. Johnson stated: "But we can recommend a special use permit with some additional conditions." Mr. Bowling responded: "If they're design related, why do you have the ARB. If you don't want the ARB, get rid of it, but don't have two." Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission could add conditions that are health and safety related or it could recommend that the use is not appropriate under any circumstances. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, it was determined the screening trees are "to go all along the diagonal line ... to the fence." No screening of the U-Haul vehicles in the back is required because of the distance from Rt. 250 and the nature of adjacent properties. It was determined that the drawing reflected the improvements that VDOT is currently making to Rt. 250. Mr. Fritz stated that there would be room available for landscaping. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dale Wilberger. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that a commercial entrance would be constructed by VDOT as a part of their improvements. Ms. Andersen moved that SP-92-22 for Dal Wilberger be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject 5-5-92 8 to the following conditions and with the understanding that all the ARB's conditions would have to be completed before the commencment of business: 1. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the Architectural Review Board. 2. Storage areas shall be limited to those areas noted on sketch dated 4/16/92 and initialled WDF. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: There followed further discussion about the intent of the ARB's condition related to the identification of the U-Haul parking space, i.e. does the condition allow for a "marked" U-Haul vehicle or does it just reserve that space as a U-Haul parking space? Mr. Johnson wanted a condition to be added so as to disallow the parking of a "marked" U-Haul vehicle in the front of the building. He did not feel this would be in conflict with the ARB's condition. Mr. Grimm referred to the drawing which showed "one U-Haul van for display" in the space referred to by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Fritz stated that the ARB had seen the same drawing. Mr. Cilimberg called attention to condition No. 2 (stated above in the motion) which identified storage areas. He stated that if the Commission was not satisfied, then that condition would have to be changed. Mr. Johnson felt that the "ARB has not said they can put a marked U-Haul vehicle there, they have just reserved the space." Mr. Grimm felt Mr. Johnson's suggestion would be in opposition to the ARB's condition No. 4. (Mr. Johnson disagreed, though he admitted he was "grasping at straws.") Mr. Grimm felt it was the implied intent of the ARB's condition to allow a "marked" U-Haul vehicle in that one space. Mr. Johnson disagreed and stated "we are just compounding a felony as we go along; we are never going to get 250 East squared away... if we don't start somewhere, we will never get there." Ms. Huckle asked how Mr. Johnson's concern could be addressed in the conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that No. 2 could have added at the end "...except the space designated as 'One U-Haul Van for Display' shall be eliminated." Mr. Fritz confirmed that it was the ARB's intent to allow "only one U-Haul van in front" and it was one which would have the U-Haul logo painted on the side. He also confirmed that the applicant was aware of, and agreeable to, this condition. aa3 5-5-92 0 There was a brief discussion deal with trucks which serve to address this issue . as to how the Sign regulations as signs. Staff was not able Mr. Blue did not see any reason to overrule the ARB's decision to allow the one U-Haul vehicle in front. Mr. Grimm agreed. No change to the previously stated motion was offered. Mr. Johnson stated he would oppose the motion "on the basis that one truck is deleterious to the area and that could be easily resolved." Mr. Jenkins felt Mr. Johnson's comment about a "starting point' was a valid one. Mr. Grimm felt the proposal would result in a great improvement to the existing conditions. Mr. Cilimberg stated he would make the Board and ARB aware of Mr. Johnson's concerns in relation to the U-Haul vehicle and the ARB's condition related to that issue. Mr. Blue felt that placing such a restriction on this particular applicant would not cause any significant improvement to RT 250 and could possibly harm the applicant's business if the availability of the U-Haul service was not apparent to passing public. Mr. Grimm also noted that there are many other car dealerships in this area with many vehicles displayed outside and the vehicle in question was "only one more vehicle in addition to the hundreds of cars which are already there." The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. SP-92-16 Scott W. Campbell a licant George A. Ragsdale (owner) - Petition to establish auto sales and rental (22.2.2(8)] on 1.6 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 14B is located at the end of and on the north side of Rt. 650 just east of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 2) and is recommended for Neighborhood Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, Mr. Fritz described the current status of the property. It was established that aa� 5-5-92 10 the only change from the existing be the outdoor storage of vehicles 650/Gasoline Alley). use of the property would (adjacent to Rt. It was determined that "Attachment C initialled WDF 4/10/92" would be the "governing document" for this proposal, i.e. no grading is proposed, but a landscape plan and lighting plan will be required. Mr. Johnson suggested that No. 4 be amended for clarification purposes as follows: "Area for storage and display of vehicles for sale or rent shall be limited to that area approximately shown as "New Parking Area Addition" on Attachment C initialled WDF 4/10/92." Mr. Blue also suggested that the note on the Revised Site Plan be corrected to refer to a 6 inches "depth" of stone rather than 116 inch stone or larger." The applicant was represented but offered no additional comment. (Note: The applicant's representative did not identify himself.) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 5 (requiring a commercial entrance) be deleted. He felt this was an unnecessary restriction given the fact that there is plenty of sight distance for all points. There was a brief discussion of Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Mr. Fritz stated that VDOT had indicated "there may or may not (be adequate sight distance), it's too close to call." He quoted from VDOT comments which stated that "depending upon the entrance location, a sight easement could be needed on the adjacent property." Mr. Cilimberg quoted further from VDOT Comments: "They state: 'A commercial entrance with adequate sight distance will be required for access to this property.' If their saying that is establishing the entrance --in other words for them to give a permit --then really No. 5 is not necessary from a condition standpoint but it will likely be required anyway. They've noted it will be required and they issue the permit and we don't." Mr. Blue noted that if the applicant chases to use the existing entrance, then the commercial entrance does not become an issue. Mr. Cilimberg comfirmed that was accurate. Mr. Cilimberg also noted that staff has always followed VDOT's recommendations in matters dealing with sight distance. It was the consensus of the Commission to delete No. 5. a42s' 5-5-92 11 Ms. Andersen moved that SP-92-16 for Scott W. Campbell be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of lighting plan and landscape plan. 2. No loudspeakers. 3. There shall be no flags, pennants, banners, streamers or strings of lights. 4. Area for storage and display of vehicles for sale or rent shall be limited to that area approximately shown as "New Parking Area Addition" on Attachment C initialled WDF 4/10/92. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. CPA-92-03 Community Facilities Plan - County Government Administration - Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include the County Government Administration section of the Community Facilities Plan. The purpose of this section of the Community Facilities Plan is to provide an evaluation of the office space needs for County employees. Mr. Benish briefly reviewed the revised plan. Mr. Johnson suggested several additional changes which he felt would "simplify and clarify" the proposed plan. (See Attachment A to these minutes.) There was a brief discussion about the term "space planner." Mr. Johnson's suggestions included one that all references to "independent space planners" be removed. Mr. Blue indicated he understood the reasoning behind the recommendation for an "independent evaluation" of needs, but there was uncertainty as to the origin of the term "space planner." Mr. Benish suggested that the term "independent evaluation" be substituted for "space planner." Mr. Johnson also suggested that the order of the Procedural Strategies needed to be changed. Staff agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Johnson suggested that employees be solicited for their opinions as to how their space might be better utilized with some incentive program being developed. Mr. Grimm called attention to an error (a missing word) on page 2, No. 2. .a� 5-5-92 12 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that CPA-92-03 Community Facilities Plan/County Government Administration Building be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff May 5, 1992 with further consideration being given to the additional comments of Mr. Johnson and the Commission made at this meeting. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Johnson made the following recommendation in relation to applications where the Commission is "being asked to bless" a use that is already in existence.: "I would recommend that staff look into the feasibility of including on all pertinent documents, but specifically business licenses and building permits, a statement which would read somewhat as 'Certified to be in full compliance with all applicable zoning and special conditions.' This would appear above the signature of the applicant. Hopefully, that would alert him and others, at the time, that there may be some zoning conditions that he has to comply with. . If he signed that and then comes later and says 'I want this,' he could be held in some kind of violation --of falseofficial (?) statement or perjury or something --to try to put some teeth into these things before the fact. Right now, time and time again, an applicant, either wittingly or unwittingly, goes merrily on his way violating the zoning ordinance without even realizing it." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out before building permits are issued they must be cleared with the Zoning Department. He was not familiar with the business license procedure because that is not a part of the Planning Department's process. Mr. Grimm reported that Enniscorthy has been placed on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register and nominated for the National Register. Resolution of Appreciation - Mr. Cilimberg reported that former Commissioners Rittenhouse and Wilkerson would be acknowledged at the May 12th meeting. Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that Resolutions of Appreciation be adopted in honor of Keith Rittenhouse and Butch Wilkerson. The motion passed unanimously. aa7 5-5-92 13 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. I _ DB a�� R�.�:..�..� MAY 0 4 1992 PLANNING DEPT, Memorandum To: Kenneth Baker �� From: W. F. 3ohnsc, Date: 5-�-4-92 !!! Subj; CPA--92-03, Community Facilities Plan - County Government Administration The following changes to -the proposal forwarded 28 April are respectfully submitted for your consideration: PP2 Para 1. Office Space Needs: Determine by a detailed study each department's space needs, (Comment, simplification_ ) PP2 Para 2. Other Space Needs: Determine ,by a detailed sturdy . anri l lrary -space needs, recognizing bath public and employee The following should be considered: large meeting/auditorium interior office. meeting rooms public area to review office material (files, plats, plans, etc.) - storage areas (Comment, simplification) PPS Para 1 line G: —structures shall be considered when, locating to a new structure. tComment, as written, it is inferred that the condition applies only to a newly r_onstrurted building.) PPS Para 5 line 8: —considered in addition to single story building(s) for _ , (Comment, as written, single story building are not to be considered, hardly an appropriate condition in a planning document) Comment: One section, of "Strategies" should be sufficient. The modified "Service/Facitily Strategies" is believed to be inclusive, leaving only the implementation to be defined as "Recommendations". "Service/Facility Strategies" should be followed by a "Recommendation" section. Recommendations: