HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 09 1992 PC Minutes6-9-92
1
JUNE 9, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning'Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 9, 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; 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. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell,
Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May
26, 1992 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the June
3, 1992 Board of Supervisors Meeting. (Mr. Johnson asked for
a copy of the Government Administration Facilities Section
of the Community Facilities Plan.)
Presentation to Former Commissioner - The Chairman read a
Resolution of Appreciation in honor of Mr. Butch Wilkerson,
a former Commissioner. Mr. Wilkerson was present and was
presented with a copy of the resolution and a Jefferson Cup.
CONSENT AGENDA
Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal Addition - The addition
to Totier Creek District consists of three parcels totalling
1,392.220 acres located between Scottsville and
Howardsville, north of Rt. 723 and Rt. 626, and west of Rt.
627. The addition must be reviewed with the original
district, which has a time period of 10 years from June 28,
1991. The existing Totier Creek District contains 7,246.52
acres.
"MIno
Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District Addition - The Lanark
District consists of 32 parcels totalling 4,625.885 acres
located in the Carter's Mountain area on Rt. 795, Rt. 727,
Rt. 627, and Rt. 20. The addition must be reviewed with the
original district, which has a time period of 10 years from
April 20, 1988. The existing Lanark District contains
996.05 acres.
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Consent
Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
.V7?
6-9-92 2
ZTA-91-05 - To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in Section 5.6.2, Conditions of Approval for Mobile Homes in
individual lots by the addition thereto of subsection "f"
reading: "No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same
to be occupied by the owner of the land on which the mobile
home is located, or by a lineal relative or bona fide
agricultural employee of the owner."
Mr. heeler presented the staff report. At the conclusion of
the report, the following options were outlined for the
Commission:
(1) To recommend denial of the proposed amendment,
i.e. do not include a condition (f) at all; [Mr. Cilimberg
later explained that this option would "essentially be
saying that you don't believe a No Rental Provision is
necessary and you are following the recommendation of the
Housing Report.].
(2) To recommend approval of the proposed amendment,
i.e. the addition of (f) to Section 5.6.2 ["No rental to be
made of the mobile home, the same to be the primary
residence of the owner of the land on which it is located or
of his lineal relative or bona fide agricultural employee;
and shall not be used for any purpose than a dwelling."]
which will result in no rental of mobile homes whether
approved administratively or by the Board; or
(3) To recommend amendment to the Ordinance but with
a different (f)--"Such mobile home shall be the only
dwelling on the property and shall not be used for any
purpose other than a primary place of residence."
Option No. 3 was another approach offered by staff which
they felt would be "simple to enforce and potentially more
legally sound than 'no rental' provisions. This approach
would address the intent of the Board to "avoid unnecessary
proliferation of mobile homes randomly throughout the Rural
Areas" but still "allow mobile homes as a legitimate means
of housing." The staff report listed advantages to this
approach: (1) It would allow a property owner who may not
be able to afford or desire conventional housing to live on
his property; (2) It would be a deterrent to rental
housing, yet would allow opportunity for the property owner
to recover his/her investment once the mobile home is
placed; (3) It would largely preclude weekend or vacation
units; and (4) It would be simpler to enforce and'may be
legally more sound.
Mr. Johnson noted that the recommendation in the staff
report was "completely counter" to the recommendation of the
Housing Committee Report without any "justific".tion or
explanation." He recalled that the Board had delayed action
,?,go
6-9-92 4
of the rural areas. Ms. Greenwood expressed her support for
the Housing Study recommendations.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Grimm expressed his support for staff's option No. 3
which he felt would allow for rental of mobile homes but at
the same time limit the number of mobile homes to one on a
parcel.
Mr. Johnson felt that having different regulations for
single vs. double wide mobile homes was "completely
discriminatory." He felt the entire issue should be
resolved completely and that it not be confined to just the
rental issue. He made the following proposals:
(1) That manufactured homes be referred to as
"dwelling units" so as to fit in the normal terminology of
the Zoning Ordinance;
(2) That Section 5.6.2 be changed to reflect the
recommendations of the Housing Report which will result in
all manufactured houses being treated as "dwelling units"
and "take a major step in their acceptance by the public;"
(3) That action be deferred on the proposed amendment
to allow staff time to make the recommended changes to the
Zoning Ordinance.
(4) Add a section under 5.6.2 which will require that
these dwellings meet HUD standards. (He felt this would
offer control.)
Mr. Johnson felt following his suggestions "would solve.the
whole problem of manufactured housing at one time."
Mr. Blue expressed agreement with some of Mr. Johnson's
statements; however, on the rental issue, he stated: "Let's
kill this snake right now and defeat it and then we can
discuss these other things in our work sessions on the
housing issue." Mr. Blue confirmed that he was in favor of
recommending denial of the zoning text amendment.
Ms. Huckle stated she would feel "uncomfortable" with
deleting the "no rental" policy "without having some other
qualifying condition such as staff's suggested condition
(f)." She noted that some counties have had trouble with
the proliferation of mobile homes and she was afraid taht
Albemarle would experience the same problem if there were no
restrictions against rental. Ms. Huckle concluded that she
could support staff's suggested Option No. 3 because she
felt it would address both problems --"it would allow people
to rent trailers but not to make them into trailer parks in
the rural areas."
Mr. Blue commented: "I thought this was going to be an
addition to the Zoning (Ordinance); we're not taking
6-9-92
3
on the rental question some months previous to await the
results of the Housing Committee's study.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that it was intended that the staff
report be "basic observation and information" which offered
three approaches, one of which is supported by the Housing
Committee Report.
Mr. Keeler added that the staff report addressed only the
question of rental and did not attempt, at this time, to
address any of the other issues identified in the Housing
report.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed
that this proposed amendment did not effect the use of a
mobile home for an agricultural employee.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Cilimberg
explained that permits granted administratively by the
Zoning Administrator must follow the existing supplementary
regulations in the Ordinance and the permit is granted
automatically if the provisions of the Ordinance can be met.
The Zoning Administrator does NOT make a decision "not to
allow" a mobile home and the question of "need" is not a
factor.
There was a brief discussion about control over a situation
where several administratively approved mobile homes might
be placed on a piece of property, one -by -one. Mr. Blue
concluded: "So if we don't have something similar to (f)
which says that we want it to be the only dwelling on the
property or not allow for rental, this particular example
could happen again if there were no objections." Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "As long as the development rights
were there." Though one such situation was referenced in
the staff report, Mr. Keeler noted that it was not a common
occurrence.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox and Ms. Virginia Greenwood, both having served
on the Housing Committee, addressed the Commission. Mr. Cox
expressed surprise that this issue was being voted upon at
this time. He had thought it would not be decided until the
entire report had been studied. Mr. Cox stated: "I would
ask that you respect our recommendations and reject this
zoning text amendment. He noted the difficulty in enforcing
a rental restriction and the need for low cost housing as
reasons to deny the amendment. He also felt there was no
need to discriminate against "renters" vs. "owners" and he
wondered why some County officials feel there is a'
difference which must be distinguished. He asked for an
explanation of why it is felt that renters must be kept out
i�
6-9-92 5
anything out that we already have. if we vote this down
tonight we're just preventing adding another regulation.
We're still operating under the same rules. So by denying
this tonight we are not going to be creating any problems at
all --it is the same situation that has been in existence for
a number of years."
Mr. Cilimberg advised that if the Commission recommends
denial of the ZTA, it may want to consider "sending a
message to the Board regarding the inclusion of this
condition not allowing rental which has found its way into
special permits over the last number of years because you
want not only to deny the ZTA but also indicate that you
don't believe the rental provision is necessary--i.e. you
want to support the Housing Committee recommendation, if
that is your desire."
Mr. Johnson again stated that if "we want to sell this idea
that the mobile home can be used in any way that'the owner
desires --and have it acceptable to the public --and if we
consider it a dwelling unit we have limited the number you
can put on a lot by definition and if we say that it must
meet certain characteristics, we have taken it out of the
category of a trailer and we have put it into a
configuration that far exceeds any other type of structure
that can be procured at anywhere near that price." He felt
that looking at only the rental issue was only addressing
part of the problem. He felt mobile homes had to be defined
in such a way as to make them acceptable to the people.
Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Johnson felt that just by changing
the name, the public's perception of a trailer would be
changed.
Mr. Johnson felt there was no comparison to the manufactured
homes of today and some of the "shacks" that currently are
in existence. [It was later noted that a pre-1976 (prior to
HUD guidelines) mobile home could be occupied which would
meet current County regulations and possibly BOCA
regulations. Mr. Johnson agreed that this would have to be
addressed through a requirement that the unit meet HUD
specifications or the National Manufactured Housing
Construction and Safety Standards of 1974.1
Mr. Jenkins did not disagree with Mr. Johnson's statements,
but noted that the issue is "what is the sequence of what we
need to go through to get there?" Mr. Jenkins felt that Mr.
Johnson's suggested approach could take a considerable
amount of time. Mr. Johnson felt that it would be "no task"
for the staff to re -write Section 5.6.2 within a week's
time. (Mr. Keeler stated this would not be possible because
re -advertisement would be required.)
,42$3
6-9-92 6
The question of whether to follow Mr. Johnson's suggestion
for deferral or to go ahead and taken action on the rental
question at this time generated a lot of discussion. Mr.
Grimm felt action should be taken on the present Zoning Text
Amendment with recommendations on the entire Housing Report
to come after further study.
Mr. Blue moved that ZTA-91-05 to Amend Section 5.6.2,
Conditions of Approval for Mobile Homes, be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial with the understanding
that after further study of the Housing Committee's Report,
further recommendations will follow in the immediate future.
Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Blue would include in his motion
the recommendation that denial is recommended "pending
complete review of the manufactured housing conditions in
the Zoning Ordinance --that we want to go ahead and look at
the whole thing."
Mr. Blue agreed to this addition to the motion.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg stated: "If there is no added language
regarding rental of mobile homes, then the message being
sent is that rental should not be a consideration in
approving mobile homes and not only are the two applications
pending for relief of that condition, but there are others
out there that have gotten that condition as well over time
and the Board has discussed a blanket removal of that
condition for all mobile home permits that were approved by
them." He asked if Mr. Blue's motion was intended to
support that action as well."
Mr. Blue confirmed that his motion did support that policy.
(There were no comments to the contrary from other
Commissioners. Ms. Huckle later expressed a lack of support
for the motion.)
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked if it was Mr. Johnson's intent that mobile
homes "be by -right, without any kind of special use permit."
Mr. Johnson responded: "Yes. They would be by -right in the
RA zone under the conditions controlling dwelling units,
like any other house."
Mr. Nitchmann expressed agreement with Mr. Johnson, i.e.
"that it is high time the word trailer and mobile home got
thrown out of the terminology for these structures." He
concluded he could support the motion.
Mr. Johnson noted that the study of the total affordable
housing issue would take months. He suggested that staff
6-9-92
7
re -write Section 5.6.2 and re -advertise the mobile home
issue for three weeks away. The rest of the affordable
housing issue could then be dealt with later. He did not
think one would influence the other.
Mr. Blue disagreed. He felt the two did effect each other
because "the dwelling unit/mobile home does have a very
decided impact on affordable housing. I think it is the one
thing we can do in this County that would address affordable
housing in a positive manner without any expenditures, or
without any change of law, etc."
Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Blue had misunderstood him. He
stated: "I can see nothing that we do relative to this
study that is going to come back and effect what we've said
about manufactured housing."
Mr. Blue expressed the hope that the Commission's study of
the Housing Report would not take six months. Referring to
Mr. Johnson's suggestions, he stated: "It seems to me it
will be easier to sell this idea of yours in the context of
affordable housing, which most of the County goes along
with, rather -than trying to pick this out and get a lot of
opponents who are opposed to trailers."
Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Blue's position.
Mr. Jenkins did not think staff could possibly do an in-
depth study of the Housing report in the time frame being
suggested by Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that it was staff's intent to
present a proposed time frame and breakdown for the study of
the report within a couple of weeks. He felt the Board was
most interested in those recommendations of the report which
have a budget effect which they need to be aware of by the
time budget deliberations begin.
Mr. Jenkins felt it ws appropriate to address those parts of
the report dealing with mobile homes first since he felt
that was what both the Board and the public expected.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff would need some direction
from the Commission as to how old mobile homes should be
dealt with since there are a lot of them currently in
existence, i.e. "are you going to make those by right or are
you going to regulate them or what?" Mr. Johnson indicated
that those may need to be dealt with differently. Mr.
Cilimberg clarified: "What you're saying is that you.are
proposing to establish a definition for manufactured housing
that may not allow what exists as mobile homes to continue
in new locations?"
6-9-92 8
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the mobile home issue would be
one of the first topics discussed in the Housing Study work
sessions. It was noted that the process would take longer
than 21 days because the text amendment must be written, so
that it will be available to the public, before the item is
advertised.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Cilimberg stated
that the Zoning Text Amendment would have no bearing on the
fact tht mobile homes will still be by special permit.
Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Blue would be willing to amend his
motion to recommend staff's suggested condition (f).
Mr. Blue would not agree to make such an amendment to his
motion. He stated that discussion about staff's suggested
approach would come later. He added that he did not think
there were going to be the problems with rental of mobile
homes which some people anticipate, or at least that the
problems will be less severe than those which are caused by
not allowing rental.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for denial of
ZTA-91-05. The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle
casting the dissenting vote.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he would tell the Board that "by
denying that you are also supporting the position of the
Housing Committee regarding the rental provisions."
SP-92-27 Stamm Family Trust - Petition to permit a stream
crossing in the floodplain of Muddy Run and Buck Mountain
Creek [30.3.5.2.1(2)] on 30.70 acres. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. property, described as Tax Map 7, Parcel 29A, is
located on the north side of Rt. 687 approximately 1.0 mile
east of Rt. 810 in the White Hall Magisterial District.
This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural
Area 1) .
The applicant was requesting deferral to June 23, 1992.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-92-27
be deferred to June 23. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-92-18 Stephen -Andrews - Petition for a home occupation
class B [13.2.2(9)] on 6.06 acres zoned R-1, Residential and
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described
as Tax Map 90, Parcel 29, is located on the west side of Rt.
742 (Avon Street Ext) approximately 400 feet north of Rt. 20
in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 4) and is
6-9-92 9
recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units
per acre).
Mr. Blue noted that though a survey included with the staff
report had been performed by him, it had been done 25 years
ago and he has no connection to the present owner.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending denial based on inadequate sight distance.
(It was discovered that condition No. 5 was a duplication of
No. 2.)
There was a brief discussion about the exact location of
the property.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the status of possible
improvements to the intersection. He noted that this
property is located "not too far back from this
intersection." Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has not yet
seen plans for the intersection. Mr. Fritz noted that VDOT
had not mentioned the intersection in their comments. Mr.
Fritz also pointed out that the sight distance problem is to
the north and not to the south (where the intersection is
located).
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about a 50-foot
right-of-way shown on the survey, Mr. Fritz explained that
the right-of-way was on the applicant's property.
Mr. Blue pointed out that though he understood that the
applicant should not be required to do a site plan in a case
like this, he felt the information included with the staff
report (i.e. the old survey) was misleading.
The applicant, Mr. Steve Andrews, addressed the Commission.
His comments included the following:
--There are two entrances to the property (not shown on
the map). VDOT comments were related to the "lower, gravel
driveway." The upper driveway (between the gravel road and
the cement road) offers better sight distance. [Staff later
stated that VDOT had commented on both entrances and neither
has adequate sight distance with the restriction being to
the north in both cases.] Mr. Andrews was under the
impression that the sight distance problems had been to the
north on one entrance and to the south on the other. He
felt he would be able to solve the sight distance problem in
some way, possibly by using both entrances --one for entrance
the other for exit. (Mr. Blue pointed out that the
applicant could still use the dwelling as a residence even
without adequate sight distance.)
--The business will be "occasional" and little traffic
is expected.
6-9-92
10
--The business will be furniture refinishing and
upholstering along with making craft items. (Mr. Andrews'
plans were not yet definite.)
--Occupation of the dwelling is anticipated in late
summer or fall.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked if staff knew when the plans for the
intersection would be done. Mr. Keeler stated that there
were plans some years ago, but then problems had been
encountered with the store and the gas tanks. Staff was
unaware of any current plans. Mr. Andrews stated that the
improvements to the intersection still would not improve his
sight distance problems.
Mr. Nitchmann tried to get a better definition of the
applicant's plans. He mentioned the disposal of chemicals
which are often used in furniture refinishing. Mr. Andrews
felt refinishing would be a small part of the business and
he did not think there would be any problems.
Mr. Blue stated that he did not like to oppose a request for
a home occupation, but "on the other hand, I think our
responsibility is to the public and when VDOT says that
there is'not proper sight distance, and the applicant says
there is no way of getting it, I think that we would be
committing an error if we approved this in light of their
(VDOT) comments and in light of staff's recommendation."
However, Mr. Blue pointed out to the applicant that he could
still build a storage building on his property, though he
would not be able to operate.a business in the structure.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the item be deferred "until we
can get a better feel for exactly what is going to go on at
that intersection...." He also wanted an opportunity to
visit the property again. He felt that clearing away some
ofthe vegetation at the entrances could possibly relieve
some of the sight distance problems. (Mr. Grimm noted that
the sight distance problem was more related to vertical
alignment.)
Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-18 for Stephen Andrews be
deferred to June 23, 1992. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson agreed that home occupations should be supported
whenever possible, but not at the expense of public safety-
SP-92-34 Townside East Limited Partnership - Petition to
permit a drive up window [24.2.2(13)] on 2.34 acres zoned
6-9-92 11
HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C1,
is located on the north side of Rt. 250W and is the Townside
East Shopping Center and is located in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated
growth area (Neighborhood 6) and is recommended for
Community Service.
It was determined the applicant was not present.
There was a very brief discussion of the proposal. Ms.
Huckle expressed concern about "backing out" movements. Mr.
Johnson asked for a better definition of what is being
proposed. He also questioned the statement that the
drive -up window would not generate more traffic.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-92-34 for
Townside East Limited Partnership, be deferred to June 23,
1992. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-91-42 McDonald's Cor oration - Proposal to locate a fast
food restaurant with a drive -through window [22.2.2.4,
22.2.2.10, 24.2.2.13] on 1.76 acres zoned C-1, Commercial,
HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 4
(part) and 4A, is located on the west side of Rt. 20
approximately 250 feet north -of Rt. 250 in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated
growth area (Neighborhood 3) and is designated Regional
Service.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Blue pointed out to the applicant that Stony Point was
spelled without an "e," i.e. it is not Stoney.
Mr. Blue noted that the site plan showed a connection,
including curb and gutter improvements, onto the adjoining
site (Texaco). He asked if'the applicant owned both sites
or had an agreement with the adjoining property to provide
this connection. Mr. Tarbell explained that staff had asked
the applicant to show this connection in anticipation of the
future development of the adjoining site. Mr. Tarbell added
that the applicant has several agreements with Texaco
related to grading, utilities, etc.. Mr. Tarbell confirmed
that the connection would be built as shown, but not used
until the other site develops. Mr. Blue expressed concern
about the access being used before the other site develops.
Mr. Tarbell suggested that some barrier could be put in
place to prevent usage.
6-9-92
12
It was this issue --the access shown to the adjoining
site --which generated the most Commission discussion later
in the meeting during the review of the site plan.
Mr. Johnson asked about the location of the existing
Monticello/Ash Lawn sign. (It was determined the sign was
not shown on the site plan.)
Mr. Tarbell stated that the landscape plan shown was
consistent with the Architectural Review Board's approval.
Mr. Jenkins asked about improvement plans for Rt. 20 in view
of the new development. Mr. Tarbell explained that this
area (past this site) is included in the current'Rt. 250
widening and bridge project.
There was a brief discussion about stacking space and other
traffic patterns on and around the site.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Lisa Barnett. She
expressed agreement with the staff report. She offered to
answer questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP--91-42 for McDonald's Corporation
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following condition:
1. The site plan shall be developed in general accord with
the plan prepared by Michael Baker, Jr., Incorporated
prepared August 19, 1991 and last revised April 3, 1992.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion based on
traffic conerns and the lack of a "positive" position by
VDOT that "this was going to work." He felt the site was
too close to the intersection.
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
SDP-91-074 McDonald's Corporation Site Plan - Proposal to
construct a 2,854 square foot fast food restaurant with a
drive -through window on a 1.76 acre site. Property,
described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 4 (part) and 4A, are
located on the west side of Rt. 20 approximately 280 feet
north of Rt. 250. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial, C-1,
Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the
.V_elQ
13
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.
Ms. Huckle expressed a lack of understanding of the
applicant's statement that "the stormwater detention
facility has been designed to address the 2-year storm, the
10-year storm and the 100-year storm." Mr. Keeler explained
that there are two ordinances in effect--Stormwater
Detention Ordinance and Soil Erosion Ordinance. Both the
Soil Erosion Ordinance and the Stormwater Detention
Ordinance require that channels be adequate to accommodate
runoff from a 10-year storm. Mr. Keeler could not explain
the reference to the 100-year storm. Mr. Blue added that
the reference to the 100-year floodplain probably means that
it is designed so that it isn't going to wash away.
Ms. Huckle also asked for an explanation of the "rubble
area" and "potential contaminants" referred to in the
applicant's letter of May 14, 1992. Mr. Blue interpreted
that the applicant was saying that after development and
proper storm drainage, the pollution potential will be
improved.
Mr. Johnson asked if the County had the authority to require
that the property owners maintain the detention basin. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the Department of Engineering is
now requiring, as standard practice, a maintenance
agreement. [This would come under condition 1(b).] Mr.
Tarbell stated he would check with Engineering to ensure
that this is correct and if it is not, staff will add it as
a condition. [NOTE: Staff decided later that the following
would.be added to condition 1(b): "...to include approval
of a maintenance agreement for the stormwater facilities.]
The issue of the access to the Texaco site was discussed at
length. Mr. Blue questioned how the owner of the adjacent
property could be required to let McDonald's traffic exit
across their site. Mr. Tarbell explained that reservation
for a joint easement could be required. Mr. Tarbell
stressed that it might be determined, after a site plan
comes in on the Texaco site, that the connection between the
two sites is not desirable, but it is felt that it is wise
to make provision for the Possibility of a connection at
this time in the event it is needed. Mr. Cilimberg added
that cross easements can be required as part of the "safe
and convenient access" issue with the cost being borne by
the developer. Mr. Bowling confirmed that it could be
required as a condition of site development. Mr. Johnson
stated: "But we can't force one property owner to give up
access to another without compensation." Mr. Bowling
responded: "You can require safe and convenient access and
,;21?%
6-9-92 14
if (a developer) can't get that access, that's his problem,
for whatever his proposed use is." Mr. Cilimberg was under
the impression that the applicant has offered to provide the
easement willingly. [Mr. Bill Savage, representing
McDonald's, interjected: "The access is provided as a part
of the purchase agreement."]
Mr. Nitchmann expressed that he was concerned about the
access inviting persons to stack beyond the five -car space
allowance to make a left turn onto the site from Rt. 250
(before getting to the main entrance). Mr. Tarbell stated
that the "stub" did not have to be shown on the site plan if
that was the Commission's desire.. This would mean that each
site would exit onto Rt. 250. He again stressed that
showing the connection on the site plan was just to provide
future options and to try to prevent Rt. 250 from developing
in the same manner as Rt. 29 North where there are curb cuts
for every business. Mr. Nitchmann felt the connection
should be "shut off permanently" because he felt two
businesses using the same access could create problems.
Mr. Johnson suggested the possibility of closing the
connection now with the understanding that it can be
re-evaluated in the future if needed.
It was determined that the inclusion of the connection to
the adjacent property on the site plan had been at staff's
suggestion. Regarding plans for the Texaco site, Mr. Savage
commented: "There is no agreement as to what is going to go
on except that the right of access across that parcel that
is owned by Starr Enterprises will be there for McDonald's.
If a site plan that is approved for that corner parcel gets
approved --right now there is no use on it --if driveways and
accessways are developed, our customers will have the right
to use it'subject to your site plan approval for that corner
parcel. In fact we altered it, as a part of the revisions
to the site plan." Mr. Savage suggested that additional
landscaping could be added so as to block the usage of the
connection "until such time as another plan comes in."
Mr. Cilimberg-clarified: "You're not asking that the
possibility for this cross access be removed. You still
would like to look at that when a new plan comes in?" The
Commission agreed that was correct but felt that the
applicant should not be required to build curb and gutter at
this time which may not be used. [It was later decided that
the following condition would be added: "Reconfiguration of
the southeast curbing to delete the extension into the
Texaco site with the addition of one large shade tree in
that location."]
Mr. Johnson described a scenario where
Rt. 250, but wanting to take advantage
prices at the existing service station
persons going east on
of the low cost gas
(name unknown) will
6-9-92 15
have to turn left at the light onto Rt. 20 and then go left
across the McDonald's site and the adjoining site to get to
the existing station. Mr. Jenkins did not think this would
happen too often because those persons would then have to go
back towards Charlottesville to find a place to turn around
in order to continue east on Rt. 250.
Mr. Jenkins wondered if there would be problems caused by
car lights at the drive -through window shining into traffic
on Rt. 250. It was felt that landscaping should alleviate
this concern.
The applicant, Ms. Lisa Barnett, stated that the applicant
understood the Commission's concern regarding the connection
to the Texaco site and is "willing to work with that."
Regarding the possibility of toxic materials in the "rubble"
she stated that soils reports had discovered only.
construction -type debris. No toxic materials were
discovered. She also stated that the applicant would change
the spelling of "Stony" on the plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Andersen moved that the McDonald's Corporation 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 to include approval of a
maintenance agreement for the stormwater facilities;
C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance
and full frontage improvements of curb and gutter with
appropriate storm sewer system;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority and Fire
Official approval of fire hydrant location;
g. Inspections Department approval of new curb cut for
the northernmost handicapped parking space access aisle;
h. Staff approval of final landscape plan to include
relocation of the four shrubs shown in the proposed
right-of-way, conservation plan for the undisturbed buffer,
d2?0
6-9-92
16
and consistency with the Architectural Review Board
approval;
i. Planning staff approval of a final plat.
j. Reconfiguration of the southeast curbing to delete
the extension into the Texaco site with the addition of one
large shade tree in that location.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. Board of Supervisors approval of SP-91-42.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he supported the motion "but with
significant concern relative to the potential and probable
use of McDonald's entry as an entry to whatever ultimately
is established on the corner property as this site plan
stands."
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a similar situation currently
exists with the shared access and parking areas of Hardee's
and Bojangles on Rt. 29 North. The situation works far
better than would two entrances onto Rt. 29.
Discussion of County Attorney's_Letter of May 5, 1992 - Mr.
Johnson called attention to this letter which had been
written in connection with discussion which had taken place
at a work session between the Commission, Mr. St. John and
the Zoning Administrator. He expressed concern about some
of the content of the letter and recommended that Mr. St.
John be asked to return to discuss this letter further. (if
the Commission was not in agreement, he offered to contact
Mr. St. John individually with his questions.) It was
determined that Mr. Johnson's main concern dealt with the
Zoning Department's procedure for handling violations, a
procedure which he felt was ineffective. He wondered,
specifically, how warrents could be used so as to more
effectively deter zoning violations. He also wanted Mr.
Shaw's responsibility more clearly defined.
Mr. Jenkins wondered if the warrant process was the
Commission's responsibility. Mr. yowling explained that the
"statutory scheme established by the Board of Supervisors"
makes the Zoning Administrator the chief enforcer of Zoning
,52119/-
6-9-92 17
Laws in the County, but "any citizen has the right to swear
out a warrant before a Magistrate if they see a violation of
the law" and the Commission's rights are the same as those
of a citizen. Mr. Bowling added that the Zoning
Administrator has been effective in addressing individual
violations through the Court system, which is the only
system available for enforcement of the Zoning Laws. He
explained further that the Zoning Administrator has a policy
of "seeking compliance" before a warrant is filed. Mr.
Bowling also pointed out that the Zoning Administrator does
not have the same power to issue a "summons" in the same way
a police officer does.
Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. St. John's letter says that the
Zoning Administrator can submit a complaint to "an
authorized officer" who then passes the warrant to the
offender. Mr. Johnson concluded: "We haven't been doing
that though." Mr. Bowling responded: "That's not correct.
They do go to the magistrate and get warrants against
individuals (if she determines that compliance is not going
to be obtained by any other method)."
Mr. Johnson suggested that if a "blatant violation" is
recognized, then it might be appropriate to file the warrant
first. Mr. Bowling stated that if that was the Board and
Commission's desire then they could "instruct the Zoning
Administrator in all cases to file the warrant first" or the
Board and Commission can instruct the Zoning Administrator
to act differently than she is currently acting.
Mr. Blue interpreted that Mr. Johnson's "beef" was with the
Zoning Administrator rather than with the County Attorney.
Mr. Blue expressed his support for the Zoning
Administrator's procedure when dealing with first offenders.
However, he felt that repeat offenders were a different
situation. (Mr. Johnson agreed.)
Mr. Johnson felt "we don't have a lot of teeth in our Zoning
Ordinance." He recalled situations of flagrant violations
where applicants have wanted amendments "after the fact."
He concluded: "The Zoning Ordinance is not being
universally respected, in my opinion." He felt there should
be enough of a deterrent so that potential offenders would
"have a fear of wrongdoing and would, (therefore), comply."
There was a related discussion (initiated by Ms.Huckle)
about the property on Rt. 29 North which backs up to the
Carrsbrook subdivision where there has been erosion
occurring for many years. Mr. Bowling was not familiar with
this situation. Mr. Cilimberg reminded Ms. Huckle that he
had looked into this question at her request previously and
had already advised her of the situation, i.e.. "that the
Engineering Department has determined that that problem is
.;2- 9.5-
6-9-92 18
stable and should not be addressed now but should wait until
the southern parcel, next to the existing Auto Mart, is
developed." Ms. Huckle disagreed with Mr. Keeler and Mr.
Blue's feeling that there has not been any actual damage to
the Carrsbrook properties. Mr. Blue pointed out that a tree
referred to by Ms. Huckle was actually planted by the
property owner on the adjoining property. Mr. Cilimberg
repeated that the County is aware of the problem and feels
that trying to take remedial action at this time would cause
more damage than it would repair. Therefore, it is felt
that nothing can be done at this particular time. The
question of a possible fence at the top of the slope is
being considered separately. There is some question as to
where the fence could be located.
Mr. Johnson commented briefly on violations at the Wal-Mart
site. He concluded: "Here again, as far as compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance, enforcement and penalities when there
isn't compliance --it doesn't exist, for all practical
purposes." Mr. Cilimberg stated that a grading violation
had taken place on the site and Ms. Patterson has required
re -planting of the area which was illegally graded and the
area has been re -planted to the Zoning Administrator's
satisfaction. Mr. Johnson stated that it was not to his
satisfaction when mature trees could be blatantly cut down
and replaced with a few saplings. He stated there was no
incentive to prevent this developer from doing the same
thing again.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that some pending changes to the
Zoning Ordinance would "simplfy the enforcement procedures,"
related to tree cutting.
The possibility of jailing repeat offenders was discussed
briefly. Mr. Bowling stated this has not happened in
Virginia.
Mr. Cilimberg interpreted that Mr. Johnson was interested in
some sort of fine process for repeat offenders. Mr. Bowling
noted that a judge would still would have to set the fine.
Mr. Johnson wanted "the Commission to go on record as being
concerned with the lack of enforcement and penalizing for
violations as a recommendation to the Board where the Board
will resolve it themselves as to whether or not they are
concerned. If so, then we can start taking whatever
additional action might be requested by the Board. ..
Whether or not there has been enough emphasis put on it, in
enforcement and penalizing to effect enforcement is a
question that I have and whether or not this body is
concerned enough to make a recommendation to the Board --I
don't know."
,�21�
I=zRg-Pa
19
Mr. Jenkins noted that the discussion which has just taken
place is a matter of public record. However, he stated that
he felt the Zoning Administrator is dedicated and sincere in
her efforts and it takes time to be effective. He felt "a
step two" at this time was premature. He noted that
violations do not occur every day.
Ms. Huckle felt the Zoning Administrator "is doing all that
she can given the limitations that she has."
Mr. Jenkins noted that the Zoning Administrates had
described her procedures to the Commission, which had in
turn shown it's support. He concluded: "We now must give
the process time to work and leave it to the Zoning
Administrator to come to the Commission if she feels she
needs more authority.
Mr. Blue stated that he would only be concerned with perhaps
changing the process when dealing with habitual offenders.
No action was taken in response to Mr. Johnson's comments.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:15 p.m.
DB
a97