HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 02 1992 PC Minutes6-2-92
1
JUNE 2, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 2, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner;
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Johnson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May
19, 1992 were approved as submitted.
Ms. Scala briefly previewed items to be included on the June
9th Consent Agenda. Those items previewed were: Totier
Creek Agricultural/Forestal District Addition and Lanark
Agricultural/Forestal District Addition. No action was
required.
SP-92-19 Albemarle County Fair, Inc. (applicant)_ Elizabeth
Scott (owner) - Petition to amend SP-88-90 to permit a fair
[10.2.2(42)] on 50 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC,
Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 87,
Parcel 3, is located on the north side of Rt. 692
approximately 0.4 miles west of Rt. 29 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 conditions.
In addition to the staff report, Mr. Fritz called attention
to a letter from the Zoning Administrator in which were
identified two issues: (1) The possible stockpiling of
gravel to be used on the entranceway in the event of bad
weather; and (2) Relationship of vendors to agricultural
forestal activities. The Zoning Administrator was seeking
comment from the Board and Commission as to their feelings
about types of vendors which should be allowed. (This issue
had come to the Zoming Administrator's attention as the
result of a request from a car dealer to display at the
fair. The dealer had withdrawn the request.) Mr. Fritz
emphasized that there have been no problems thus far.
Ms. Huckle expressed surprise at the "scarcity of livestock
exhibits at the fair."
�70
6-2-92 2
Mr. Grimm expressed the following opinion: "This is
supposed to be supportative of our agricultural and forestal
uses and if we get away from that spectrum of activities
then we're getting into something that is not really
representative of what a County Fair is supposed to be."
Mr. Fritz explained: "This use falls under the special use
permit heading of the Zoning Ordinance of 'temporary events
sponsored by local, non-profit organizations which are
related to and supportive of the rural areas'."
Ms. Huckle felt that a lot of the exhibits did not fit that
description. She wondered if the permitted vendors should
be clarified. She wondered how this could be addressed.
Questionable vendors mentioned were knife and hot tub sales.
There was some confusion as to how the Zoning Administrator
is made aware of potential problems since she is not
presented with a list of vendors for review.
Mr. Blue pointed out that there have been no problems and no
complaints. He concluded: "I'm a firm believer --if it
ain't broke, don't fix it."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steven Meeks, President
of the Fair. His comments included the following:
--The fair has grown each year, including the livestock
exhibits.
--The fair is a multi -faceted event and commercial
vendors are a major source of revenue and therefore an
integral part of the fair. Eliminating those vendors "would
severely harm the fair's operation in the black."
--The Police Department reviews any requests which
could be potentially controversial.
--Car dealerships are required by State Law to obtain
an "off premises permit" (from DMV and the Zoning
Administrator) before they can exhibit at the fair. No car
dealers have ever displayed at the fair; one request for a
permit was withdrawn.
--The fair is a non-profit organization. Most receipts
go back into the fair. The fair is totally volunteer
operated.
--Many other non-profit organizations exhibit at the
fair. (Mr. Mike Stewart, Vice President of the Fair, noted
that those organizations put approximately $50,000 per year
back into the community.)
--Regarding the suggestion that gravel be stockpiled,
Mr. Meeks explained that several trucks are kept on standby
at the quarry in the event gravel is needed. He felt it
would be very difficult to stockpile gravel because it would
be difficult to spread when needed and the owner of the
property may have some objection to piles of gravel.
2 r/
6-2-92 3
--The fair has always worked very closely with the
Police Department to handle traffic control.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Grimm concluded (from Mr. Meeks' comments) that "what
they're doing is pretty much on target for a fair."
Ms. Huckle felt that the display of automobiles, which do
not have a direct connection to agriculture, would not be
appropriate. Mr. Grimm agreed.
Mr. Blue stated: "I have a different feeling on that. ...
The market is so complex now, to try to say that the fair is
devoted strictly to rural interests is like sticking your
head in the sand. I don't think it is. I don't feel very
strongly about that, but I see no reason to prevent those
dealers from going down there if they are willing to pay the
freight."
Mr. Blue moved that SP-92--19 for Albemarle County Fair be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions and with the understanding that
the Zoning Administrator would be made aware of the
Commission's comments:
1. Such events shall be limited to six consecutive days
excluding Sunday. Hours of operation shall be limited to
4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m, Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m.
to 11:00 p.m. on Saturday with no operation on Sunday
("Operation" shall mean the period of time during which the
fair is open to the public and shall not include set up,
dismantling and restoration activities.) This permit is
issued for the conduct of the Albemarle County Fair by
Albemarle County Fair, Inc., and shall not be used for any
other event requiring special use permit pursuant to Section
10.2.2.42 and 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant shall notify the Albemarle County Police
Department, Virginia Department of Health, and servicing
fire and rescue squads 60 days prior to each event and shall
make adequate arrangements for the conduct of the event with
each of these agencies.
3. Traffic management shall be approved annually by the
Albemarle County Police Department, Virginia Department of
Transportation and Albemarle County Planning Department,
with the final responsibility being that of the Police
Department.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
.1 17.;2
6-2-92 4
Mr. Jenkins asked where the Zoning Administrator fits into
this approval. Mr. Bowling responded: "I think that's what
she's asking you. She's saying, 'If you want me to approve
every little exihibit, speak now,' and that's really not
very feasible when you think about it because that is not
what she's supposed to do. But then she says, in the
alternative... 'If you just approve the overall thing called
the County Fair, there may be one or two instances which are
called to her attention and she will (be called upon to take
action) ... but, by and large, she is not going to have a
litmus test for the individual exhibits."
Mr. Cilimberg added: "The plan itself (that's referred to
in the previous special permit) has been reviewed and that
is the plan that they are to follow in the establishment of
the fair each year."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
ZMA-91-03 Dominion Land - Petition to rezone 8.79 acres from
R-6, Residential and C-1, Commercial to PD-MC, Planned
Development -Mixed Commercial. Property, described as Tax
Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1B, is located in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of Berkmar Drive and Rio Road
in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is
located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1) 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. Nitchmann's questions about VDOT
comments, Mr. Fritz explained that VDOT will require a left
turn lane under the current two-lane condition of Rio Road,
but is only recommending a left turn lane after the Rio Road
widening project is completed.
Mr. Grimm expressed interest in the issue of security around
the site during the construction process given the fact that
the property is adjacent to a residential neighborhood with
many children. He also asked about the disposal of "waste
materials." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a grading plan
will be required which will require approval of a soil
erosion control plan by the Department of Engineering. This
will address how the site is dealt with during its
disturbance and how it is secured. Mr. Grimm pointed out
that during previous development on Berkmar Drive there had
been burning activities which had "carpeted the Berkeley
community with smoke and ash." Mr. Cilimberg stated that
any burning activity would require a permit from the
Inspections Department.
l 716
b-2-92 5
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Green (engineer)
and Mr. Bob Smith (developer). Comments and answers to
Commission questions included the following:
--"In conjunction with the county's planned
improvements to Rio Road, the left turn lane will,
essentially, be a repainting of the pavement that will be
there to form a left turn into this property. To provide a
right turn in, some additional pavement will have to be
added. ... If, for some reason, the Berkmar project does not
go through but the Dominion Land project does go through,
then ... the developers of the Virginia Land property would
have to do more to provide a left turn lane."
--All buildings will be one-story.
--Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be screened so
as not to be visible from any residential areas.
--The topography of the property requires extensive
grading and as a result, "very few trees will be left on the
property when we're through." Some trees along the
perimeter will be saved. (The Forestry Department has
stated that there are very few trees which can be saved.)
--Those portions of the site which are not built on
immediately will be stabilized (i.e. top soil added and
re -seeded).
--The privacy fence will be 8 feet high--8 x 8 posts
with 1 x 4 planking on both sides, staggered. "It will
belong to whomever is the property owner of that piece of
property at a point in time down the road and it will be
their maintenance." [NOTE: It was later clarified that the
owners referred to by Mr. Smith were the owners of the
property for this piece of property, NOT the adjoining
property owners on the opposite side of the fence.] Ms.
Huckle expressed concern about the future deterioration of
this type of fence. Mr. Smith agreed with Ms. Huckle, but
stated: "But I don't know how we guarantee that sort of
thing."
--All internal streets in the property will be private
and will be maintained by an Owner's Association.
--Grading will be complete within 12 months. Some
grading may take place within the next 30 days because the
property has been designated as a borrow site for the work
being done on Berkmar Road.
--A project completion date cannot be determined at
this point.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Patricia Moore, an adjoining property owner, addressed
the Commission. She expressed concerns about lighting,
noise, possible burning of waste materials and security
fencing for the protection of neighborhood children. She
asked that no burning be allowed on site. She reported that
several homes had been damaged (by ash) as the result of the
development of the adjacent nursing home property.
6-2-92 6
Ms. Huckle asked if a safety fence (during construction)
could be made a condition for approval. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that staff could check with other departments to find
out what will be required and then pass that information on
to the adjoining property owners and the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Smith offered the following comment: "We
would be (delighted) to go ahead and tell you at this point
in time that we will extend that privacy fencing (which) we
told Ms. Wickline we would put next to her property, across
the end of the right-of-way and return it back to Mr. and
Mrs. Moore's property and we'll do that prior to
construction --and I say construction as opposed to grading."
Ms. Huckle felt the property owner was concerned about the
grading also, because that is when the steep slopes will be
created. Mr. Smith responded: "When we grade for E
building we will guarantee that those fences will be in
place, but they will be in place within four or five months
when grading starts to take place. We will have them in
place before the grading has taken place for E building."
Ms. Moore commented: "If the fences are put in prior to
grading, that disturbs me, because as you grade there are
trees that may be able to be saved."
Mr. Fritz identified two issues --a screening issue and a
safety issue during construction. He stated: "Perhaps that
can be accomplished by what Bob Smith just addressed and the
security issue may be able to be addressed by some other
means --temporary fencing. Mr. Cilimberg has explained that
we will have to get together with other departments to see
how best to do that before it goes to the Board of
Supervisors."
Ms. Kathleen Wickline, an adjoining property owner,
addressed the Commission. She explained that she has a
deeded right-of-way on the property. She asked how close
the residential townhouses would be to her property. (Mr.
Fritz determined that the "nearest point of the building to
the property line was approximately 20 feet. He also
explained that nothing could be placed in that area except
the fence, i.e. no streets, no parking, no dumpsters, etc.)
She asked where the privacy fency would be located. [NOTE:
Ms. Wickline had misunderstood a statement made earlier by
Mr. Smith when she thought he said that she would have to
maintain the privacy fence. Mr. Fritz corrected that
misconception and explained that the privacy fence would be
maintained by the townhouse homeowners.]
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Are we all thoroughly agreed upon
when. the fencing is goring to go up? ... When did you say the
permanent privacy fencing would go up?" Mr. Smith
responded: "it will go up before the grading starts." Mr.
4 7'6-
6-2-92 7
Nitchmann: "Before the grading starts on E building." Mr.
Smith: "That's right." Mr. Nitchmann: "But not before the
grading starts on the property --because you can grade the
property without technically grading for E site." Mr.
Smith: "We expect to put the privacy fence between our
property and Ms. Wickline's property when the grading
starts. We will put the privacy fence on around before
we're finished with grading --on around to the end of
Commonwealth and down to Ms. Moore's." Mr. Nitchmann:
"What time frame do you see that in? I'm trying to get
specific on the definition between preliminary grading of
the site vs. grading for E building. In other words, you
could preliminarily grade the site and then you could come
in and grade for E building after that. So if you don't
sell E building lot for five years, potentially, you would
not be required to put the privacy fence up until that
time?" Mr. Smith: "Correct."
Mr. Blue asked if Commonwealth Drive would be used by
construction vehicles. Mr. Smith responded negatively. Mr.
Blue asked: "What would be the reason that you wouldn't do
all the privacy fence at the same time?" Mr. Smith: "All
right, when we do the privacy fence we'll do it all the way
around." [Mr. Cilimberg noted that one of the adjacent
property owners had expressed concern about not installing
the privacy fence too early to the detriment of what trees
might be saved. He felt this could be worked out with the
applicant.]
Mr. Nitchmann stated that he did not want to see a 3-5 year
lag between the construction of one privacy fence and the
construction of the remainder. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I
think that we can pin that down and have some language that
the Board can consider. We know your intent."
Mr. Bowling noted: "You know that there is no maintenance
required for that fence (not that the County) or the owner
of the property would have unless something is put in the
record." Mr. Bowling clarified that there would be a
maintenance requirement between properties with different
uses (e.g. between residential and commercial) but not
between like uses (residential and residential). Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that if the fencing is shown on an
approved zoning plan (between residential uses) "which this
does and it is referred it, then it would be required to be
maintained." Mr. Bowling noted that since the applicant has
agreed that the fence will be maintained by the townhouse
residents, then there would be no problem with making this
an additional agreement for approval. Mr. Smith stated:
"We'll agree that when we transfer any of those properties
we will put that in the deed that the new owner will be
responsible for the maintenance so that it is clearly
spelled out."
oV%k
6-2-92 8
It was agreed that agreement No. 8 would be added as
follows: "Privacy fence shall be maintained in good
condition."
There followed a discussion of the improvement plans for Rio
Road. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the road would be widened all
the way from Berkmar Drive to Rt. 29. Mr. Cilimberg
explained the improvement plans which span a three-year
period and will ultimately result in the 4-laning for Rio
Road from Rt. 29 to Rt. 743 (at the Rock Store). Mr.
Nitchmann expressed concern about the safety of children
waiting for the school bus on the corner of Rio Road and
Berkmar Drive (north side). Staff stated they would make
VDOT and the Engineering Department aware of the
Commission's concerns. It was later noted that with the
opening of Agnor-Hurt Elementary in the fall of 1992 this
bus stop will probably be eliminated because children will
be walking to school along the sidewalk on Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Jenkins asked about the burning issue which had been
raised. Mr. Cilimberg stated staff would check into that
matter. He was under the impression that a permit would be
required and if it is felt that there could be problems,
with burning, then the permit may not be granted.
nr. Cilimberg confirmed that he would also speak with
Engineering (or Inspections) regarding the need for
temporary safety fencing.
Without further discussion, Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by
Mr. Blue, that ZMA-91-03 for Dominion Land be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following agreements with the applicant:
1. Building E shall be limited to those uses permitted in
the CO, Commercial Office and C-1, Commercial District.
2. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Hotels, motels and inns [24.2.1(2)];
b. Motor vehicles sales, service and rental
[24.2.1(5)];
c. Mobile home and trailer sales and service
[24.2.1(23)];
d. Modular building sales [24.2.1(24)];
e. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles
[24.2.1.1(32)];
f. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
[24.3.1(22)];
g. Heating oil sales and distribution [24.2.1(39)];
3. All exterior lighting shall be face mounted to the
exterior of the buildings.
6-2-92
V]
4. Roof mounted mechanical structures shall be adequately
screened from adjacent residential development.
5. Landscaping shall be of species similar to that on the
adjacent Daily Progress site.
6. Plan shall be revised to indicate not more than thirteen
(13) dwelling units.
7. Administrative approval of final site plan.
8. Privacy fence shall be maintained in good condition.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Housing Committee Report - Mr. Cilimberg reminded the
Commission of the joint meeting with the Board scheduled for
June 3rd, the purpose of which was to receive public comment
on the report. He also reported that the Board has sent the
original Resolution of Intent dealing with the rental of
mobile homes back to the Commission for action "in light of
the new report." The entire report will be referred back to
the Commission for comment on policy decisions and
recommendations for implementation.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:45 p.m.
DB
4279