Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 12 1992 PC Minutes1 MAY 12, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 12, 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; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Blue. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and etablished that a quorum was present. Presentation to Former Commissioners - The Chairman read Resolutions of Appreciation (adopted at the May 5th meeting) in honor of Keith Rittenhouse and Butch Wilkerson. Mr. Rittenhouse was present and was presented with a Jefferson Cup. (Mr. Wilkerson was not present. A presentation will be made at a later time.) Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its May 6th meeting. SP-92-15 Thomas P. and Patty J. Hale - Proposal to establish a Home Occupation Class B (10.2.2(31) and 5.21 for a locksmithing business on 8.29 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 69, Parcel 48C4 is located on the north side of Rt. 637 approximately four miles west of its intersection with Rt. 691. This property is served by a 600 foot private road and does not have direct state road access. This site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is not located in a designated growth area. Because the letter of objection had been withdrawn, this item was eligible for administrative approval. Therefore, staff was requesting that the item be withdrawn from the Commission's agenda. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the request for withdrawal of SP-92-15 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-92-25 Winter Haven Limited Partnership a licant South Panto s II Land Trust owner - Petition to permit a 23,450 AIZ9 5-12-92 2 square foot nursing name on 1.86 acres zoned R-15, Residential [18.2.2(9)]. Property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 20 (part), is located on the west side of South Pantops Drive, approximately 1/4 mile north of State Farm Blvd. in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 3) and is recommended for High Density Residential development. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Tarbell commented briefly on stormwater detention and a Certificate of Need. Mr. Johnson called attention to what he felt was an error in the dates referred to in Condition No. 2. It was determined that the March 28th date should be changed to March 23. Mr. Johnson also questioned the dates and sequence of some of the attachments in the staff report. He also questioned the "origin and date" of Attachment C. (The applicant later explained that the document was prepared April 21st by Ray Gaines and Keith Gibb.) It was decided Attachment C would be identified as "Project Summary Received by the Planning Department April 22, 1992." The applicant was represented by Mr. Ray Gaines and Mr. Keith Gibb. Mr. Gaines explained that the facility would be licensed as a Home For Adults, which is similar to a Nursing Home, but is not exactly the same. He stated that the -level of care would be different and also that staffing requirements were different (i.e. a skilled nursing facility requires 1 1/2 times more staff.) It was determined that the facility anticipated 75% ambulatory residents (those which do not require any assistance in "getting around") and 25% would be patients who do require some assistance, such as walkers or wheelchairs, but are not bedridden. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson moved that SP-92-25 for Winter Haven Limited Partnership (applicant), South Pantops II Land Trust (owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Use is limited to 80 beds in the facility. 2. Site shall be developed in general accord with plan prepared by Raymond E. Gaines, Architect dated March 23, 1992 and revised April 29, 1992. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 2SO 5-12-92 3 SDP-92-023 Winter Haven Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 23,420 square foot nursing home consisting of two buildings on a 1.86 acre site. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 20 (part), is located on the west side of South Pantops Drive approximately 1/4 mile from its intersection with State Farm Boulevard. Zoned R-15, Residential in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 3). Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson questioned the sequence of dates on attachments B & C, i.e. the Engineering Department's approval memo (dated April 24), pre -dated the applicant's letter of May 1 on which the Engineering approval was supposedly based. Mr. Tarbell stated that another Engineering approval letter had been received by staff "today" (May 12). Mr. Johnson asked that additional information which is received by staff be made available to the Commission in the future. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Tarbell explained that the Engineering Department will determine the need for and height of the retaining wall. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the location of the dumpster. She hoped that a better spot could be located. (The applicant later explained that the location was due to the need for the dumpster to be located as conveniently as possible to both kitchens.) In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Tarbell explained that the area in front of the retaining wall would be re -seeded. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ray Gaines. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Grimm stated he could support the request. Mr. Johnson stated that he, too, would support the request. He asked that the record show that the Engineering Department's approval for the project was dated May 11, 1992. Ms. Huckle asked questions about State requirements for this type of facility. Ms. Hazel Frazier responded for the applicant. The following requirements were noted: --There are no reauirements related to staffing; --The facility will be licensed by the Virginia Department of Social Services; 231 5-12-92 4 --The State will inspect the facility three times a year; --A "fire plan" will identify those rooms which have residents who have mobility problems. --Three care -givers will work the night shift. (It was not clear exactly where these three persons would be stationed, but Ms. Frazier seemed to indicate there would be one person in each building and a third person at a central station.) --Each room will have an emergency call system ("a light outside each room and a centrally monitored station"). Ms. Huckle expressed concern about one person's ability to handle so many elderly in the event of an emergency. Without further discussion, Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Winter Haven 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 road and drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design, if necessary; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvement plans; f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; h. Fire Official approval of new fire hydrant location; i. Staff approval of a final landscape plan and conservation plan; j. Staff approval of subdivision plat to include two feet of right-of-way dedication along South Pantops Drive and sight and drainage easements. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan. 3. Board of Supervisors approval of SP-92-25. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: 2� 2 5-12-92 5 a. Fire Official approval. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle stated that though she would support the motion, she was very concerned about the level of staffing. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SDP-92-021 - Food Lion at Branchlands Preliminary„ Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 36,853 square foot building to be served by 189 parking spaces on 4.86 acre portion of a 9.84 acre site. The residue of the site is proposed as three outlots with internal access. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 11, is located at the intersection of Route 29 North and Branchlands Boulevard and is bounded on the east side by Hillsdale Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 2). Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Tarbell described the landscaping plans for the parking area. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, it was determined Attachment C should be dated April 16, 1992. Mr. Johnson again called attention to what he perceived to be an inconsistency between dates and approvals in relation to the ARB's role in the review process. Mr. Tarbell attempted to explain the sequence of the approval process. He stated that the ARB had met with the applicant in two preliminary conferences and though a final Certificate of Appropriateness has not been approved at this time, granting of that certificate will be required before the final site plan is approved. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Ordinance does not speak to the ARB's review of preliminary plans.) Mr. Cilimberg noted: "Should you approve this site plan as a preliminary and grant administrative approval, this still has to go to the ARB for a Certificate of Appropriateness. There is no final plan that we would sign until the ARB issued that Certificate. If, in their review, there were elements which brought up a substantial change to the plan you're seeing here, a material change through the ARB's subsequent review, then we would inform you of that...and bring that to you to make sure that you felt it was consistent with your original approval." 5-12-92 6 Mr. Johnson felt the dates indicated "that the ARB has not necessarily looked at the plan that we're looking at and yet according to our Flow Chart,... they're supposed to have made a recommendation. They can't have made a recommendation if they didn't have the document, according to these dates." He stated that this "bothered" him. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the ARB is providing a preliminary recommendation to be incorporated into the plan that is reviewed by'the Commission. He stated: "The applicant has attempted (in the plan currently under review by the Commission) to provide, for the Commission's review, a site plan which meets the Ordinance requirements and attempts to meet the recommendations made by the ARB to this point. It has not gotten any kind of approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB. It is just to reflect to you, what's most current and by granting preliminary approval you are not telling the ARB that they have to accept every element of this plan because their COA comes after your preliminary approval." Mr. Cilimberg addressed Mr. Johnson's comments as follows: "What you're saying is that you don't want the applicant --when they bring a site plan to you --to have revised that site plan to reflect the ARB's recommendations because, based on what you've said, what you would want to see here is the original site plan and the ARB recommendations and nothing else. If you feel that is more consistent with your review, we can do, but that does not seem to meet a wise fashion of trying to address everybody's concerns. But if the Planning Commission feels that once the ARB has seen this and the preliminary comes to you, that you don't want to see anything change to relect the ARB's comments, we can do that. That's not really consistent with good planning." (Mr. Johnson agreed.) Mr. Cilimberg continued: "The procedure is a guide ... to help everybody through the process. We have to try to help the applicant through the process and (at the same time) try to give you the most current information. If we get hung up in 'who's seeing what,' the applicant will never get through the process." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant ws represented by Mr. Bill McKenzie. He offered to answer questions. To address Mr. Johnson's comments related to changes made to the plan after April 9th (after the applicant's last meeting with the ARB), Mr. McKenzie explained: "We re -submitted to the Planning Commission all the site drawings reflecting the comments of the staff and we re -submitted to the ARB to show them the building changes they requested. We did that by the 20th." In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about the location of the sign, Mr. McKenzie explained: "We are contemplating ao�, 5-12-92 someplace in this island, one sign to serve all the users --some kind of monument sign with a panel for each user." He pointed out anticipated access points. Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant had any objection to showing on the Plan (or in the narrative) the location of the sign as described by Mr. McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie replied: "No, sir, I would not." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding sign location, Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that that is a specific function of the ARB and to define sign location at this time could possibly "tie the hands of the ARB." He suggested that this be left to the ARB's review. Mr. Bowling later added that if the ARB does not agree with that location, the item would have to come back to the Commission once again. He stated this would result in the applicant being caught in a "ping-pong match between the two Boards." Mr. Grimm felt the sign location was not related to the Commission's "charge for public health, safety and welfare" because it is a design issue. Mr. Johnson again stated: "The Zoning Ordinance specifically says that the size and construction of the sign will be identified on the preliminary plot (plan) and there is no exception." Mr. Grimm stated that the ARB should be given the opportunity to carry out it's function given the fact that they, too, must stay within the bounds of the Ordinance. Mr. Johnson continued to point out that the Ordinance says that "the preliminary plan shall contain the location and dimensions of signs." He felt that the omission of the sign location (on the preliminary plan) has caused some problems in the fast in terms of variance requests. Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Keeler described some of the history of the sign provisions. The County Executive (Mr. Tucker) had explained to Mr. Cilimberg that the location of signs were omitted from the preliminary plan at the request of the Zoning Department because there was a tendency, at some point in the past, for applicants to claim that because they had a preliminary plan with a sign shown they were entitled to have the sign in that location. He stressed that the preliminary plan is "preliminary" and staff is trying to deal with it in a practical manner. Mr. Keeler added that the Commission had not wanted to deal with signs in the past. He also pointed out that the "operative" section in the Site Plan Ordinance says that the sign is approved by -213-1;- 5-12-92 8 the Zoning Administrator and the Commission can require safety signs. Mr. Johnson suggested that perhaps the requirement should be transferred to the final site plan. He noted that he had not created this issue, but rather it had been brought to his attention by a member of the BZA. Without further discussion, Ms. Andersen moved that the Food Lion At Branchlands 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. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of a water line easement to extend from the existing end of main along the frontage of Hillsdale Drive; f. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; g. Staff approval of a final landscape plan; h. Staff approval of on -site circulation signage. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan for Food Lion and the out -parcels. 3. Administrative approval fo the subdivision plat to include: a. Parking lot travelway maintenance agreements; b. Drainage easement relocation plat; c. Required access, parking, landscaping or utility easements. 4. 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. Z:?e 5-12-92 9 Boar's Head Inn Sports Club Major -Amendment - Proposal to construct three tennis courts southeast and directly adjacent to the existing sports club. The courts are proposed to be covered by a temporary air structure no more than six months per year. Property, described as Tax Map 59D(2) Section 1 Parcel 15, is located on the east side of Wellington Drive just south of Berwick Road in the Boar's Head development. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial and R-1, Residential in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 6) . Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions including two additional conditions: 1(e) - Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans; and 3(b) - Albemarle County Service Authority acceptance of dedication of water line easement extension. The applicant was represented by Anne Collins. She offered to answer questions. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, she stated the Inn and Sports Club are both owner by the same organization. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated he supported the request. He suggested that condition 1(d)--Staff approval of landscape plan --be deleted. He stated: "Considering location and the demonstrated history of the Boar's Head Inn in landscaping their area, I think that's superfluous and by its elimination will save time and money both on the part of the applicant and the review associated from the staff's standpoint." Mr. Bowling advised that 1(d) was a part of the final site review. Mr. Keeler quoted from the Ordinance: "Landscape plans shall be required as precedent to final site development plan approval. The foregoing notwithstanding, the landscape plan shall be required at the time of preliminary plan approval when there is 80% impervious coverage or when the agent determines that due to some unusual circumstance it is absolutely necessary to have it (in the preliminary)." Mr. Johnson interpreted: "In other words it is essentially required --there is no way we can eliminate this effort, necessarily." Without further discussion, Ms. Andersen moved that the Boar'G Head Inn Sports Club Major Amendment he approved subject to the following conditions: 4&7 5-12-92 10 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. Staff approval of landscape plan. e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans. 2. Administrative approval of final site plan. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official approval. b. Albemarle County Service Authority acceptance of dedication of water line easement extension. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. (SDP-92-022) - Branchlands Professional Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct two office buildings consisting of a total of 15,000 square feet on a 1.88 acre site. The site is to be served by 69 parking spaces with the entrance proposed off the Church of the Incarnation access road. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 2, Parcel 10 (part), is located on the east of Hillsdale Drive at its interseciton with Branchlands Boulevard. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 2). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. There was a brief discussion about the difference between condition l(b)--Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations --and 1(c)--Department of Engineering approval of drainage plans and calculations. Ms. Hipski explained that one refers to the overall drainage for Branchlands and the other to on -site drainage. Mr. Keeler stated that the County Engineer would be asked to make the distinction between the two clearer. .?.3lf 5-12-92 11 It was determined that this request was not subject to ARB review because it was more than 500 feet from the highway and was not continguous to the right-of-way. In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Ms. Hipski described the traffic circulation pattern. Mr. Johnson asked why VDOT objected to an entrance at Branchlands Court. Ms. Hipski explained that an entrance at that location would require a sight easement which would eliminate a large portion of the day care center's parking area. Mr. Keeler added that there was a configuration problem also. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. Regarding the alignment of Branchlands Blvd. and the entrance, he confirmed that the major problem had been with sight distance, though the high traffic count and speed limit was also a consideration. He stated that such an entrance would have eliminated all the parking spaces for the day care center. He pointed out, however, that the walkway will be extended across both sights so that parking can take place on both sides. He noted that the road was not yet in the State system but it is hoped that it will be by mid -summer. Regarding signage, he stated that individual signs, over each use, are contemplated, but no final decision has been made. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Without further discussion, Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Branchlands Professional Center 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. Inspections Department approval of fire hydrant; b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of drainage plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations; f. Staff approval of landscape plan; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval. 2. Administrative approval fo the final site plan. -?J 9 5-12-92 12 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official approval. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Lester Jones Reauest - Mr. Jones explained a problem he is experiencing related to the disturbance of a family cemetery. He explained that property adjacent to him was subdivided and a portion of that subdivision includes his family burial plot. He stated he had made the builder aware of the problem and had also contacted a surveyor to have the property surveyed. He was asking for assistance from the Commission in stopping the building activity on the property until the survey has been completed and the issue resolved. Mr. Keeler explained that he had checked into the matter but found that no County permits have been issued on the property; therefore, there is nothing the County could withdraw to stop what is currently taking place. (Mr. Jones explained that foundations for 2 houses were being dug and septic systems.) Mr. Keeler stated that no County permit is needed to dig a foundation. Mr. Keeler explained further that adjacent property owners had not been notified because the subdivision had been administratively approved. Mr. Jones noted that if the area for the cemetery had been deducted from the property, there would not have been sufficient acreage for two 2-acre lots. Mr. Bowling stated the Ordinance did not support "carving out" the cemetery from the property. Mr. Keeler explained that usually cemetery rights are handled through the description of an easement on the plat, including an access easement. Apparently that had not been done in this case and the surveyor who had surveyed the property had found nothing in the chain of title identifying any right of access or description in the deed. (Mr. Bowling noted that even if that is the case, Mr. Jones still has a remedy if he can prove the cemetery exists, etc.) Mr. Keeler also pointed out that the simple division of the property had not caused the disturbance of the graveyard. Mr. Cilimberg added that even if the property had not been subdivided, the owner could still have built two dwellings on it (depending on appropriate development rights). Mr. Bowling advised that this was a private matter which Mr. Jones could pursue through the Court system. Though Mr. Bowling offered to check into the matter, he did not think the County had any authority over this process because this is a private matter, not a public one. ZJ10 13 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. DB 2 h//