HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 16 1992 PC Minutes6-16-92
1
JUNE 16, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: 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. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish,
Chief of Community. Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior
Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney., Absent: Commissioner Grimm.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
June 2, 1992, were approved as submitted.
Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken at the June 10,
1992 Board of Supervisors meeting.
CPA-92-02 South Fork Land Trust- Hollymead - Proposal to
amend the Hollymead Community to include approximately 30
acres designated for low density residential land use.
Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 22C and 98A, is
located on Rt. 643, 1 mile east of U.S. Rt. 29. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Baker presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff feels that any recommendation at this time for
inclusion of this property into the Hollymead Community
Growth Area is premature until at least the above mentioned
planning efforts are resolved (Meadow Creek Parkway/Open
Space Plan). These efforts are expected to greatly enhance
staff's ability to appropriately evaluate this area.
Therefore, staff recommendation is that the South Fork area
not be amended into the Comprehensive Plan at this time."
Mr. Johnson asked staff to comment on the fact that the
Comprehensive Plan recommends a buffer between Rt. 643 and
the South Fork of the Rivanna "to separate urban area from
the community of Hollymead." He asked if anything has
occured to change that recommendation. Mr. Baker was not
aware of any change in circumstance. Mr. Benish explained
that the intent was to "give Hollymead an independent
identity ... and it is also a realization of the fact that
probably 95% of the area between Hollymead and the growth
area is in the floodplain and therefore undevelopable. The
notion was that the area would remain natural and
undisturbed."
.298
6-16-92 2
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. His
comments, and answers to Commission questions, included the
following:
--Because of the existence of the floodplain and a
severe cliff, probably only 16 to 24 units will be
achieveable on the property, which is the low end of the
allowed density.
--He did not know if the owner of the property had
considered the possible effect of the Meadowcreek Parkway
when he had purchased the property.
Mr. Blue stated that while he agreed with the applicant that
the preservation of the buffer area was not a compelling
issue, he did think the parkway location was an important
consideration. He noted that because the parkway location
would be determined by this Fall, he felt "the Planning
Commission would be remiss in our responsibilities to
approve an area where we know there is going to be a road."
[Mr. Benish explained that it is anticipated that a
consultant's recommendation on the three alignments is
expected in October or November, and before the road is
constructed it will have to go through the VDOT public
hearing process.]
Mr. Melton pointed out that only one of the three possible
plans would have an impact on the property. Mr. Blue
disagreed; he felt that only one of the three would not
effect the property.
Mr. Blue noted that site plans could not be approved on the
property until after the parkway alignment has been decided.
Mr. Melton agreed, but pointed out that the applicant could
develop some of the property by -right, even without the
approval of this comprehensive plan amendment.
Me. Benish explained: "Your decision is whether this is an
appropriate place and time to expand the growth area to
allow higher densities than currently permitted under the
rural areas. Your next step would be to review the merits
of a specific request for a rezoning on that property and
then subsequent subdivision plat and site plans" request for
a rezoning
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle stated she agreed with Mr. Blue, i.e. that it is
premature to make this decision at this time, particularly
since the decision about the alignment of the parkway is not
too distant.
Mr. Blue felt that approval of this request was telling the
developer "to go ahead and make this plan and if he makes
the plan the property then becomes more expensive for the
�q
6-16-92 3
taxpayers to acquire at a future time.6i He noted that the
developer had been aware of the Meadowcreek Parkway issue at
the time he had purchased the plan. He stated he would feel
differently if that were not the case. He noted that denial
of the request at this time does not mean that it cannot be
reconsidered in the future, once the parkway alignment has
been determined.
Mr. Blue moved that CPA-92-02 for South Fork Land
Trust/Hollymead be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for denial based on the uncertain status of the location of
the Meadowcreek Parkway across this property.
Mr. Blue confirmed that his major concern was related to
increasing the value of property at this time which the
County may have to purchase once the parkway alignment has
been decided. He felt this would be detrimental to the
citizens of the County, financially.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson identified the following issues:
--The buffer between urban and rural areas (which he
concluded had been discounted by the Commission);
--The potential existence of the Greenway along the
Rivanna and Powell Creek;
--The uncertain status of the Meadowcreek Parkway
alignment;
--The applicant's offer of an easement for the Rivanna
Greenway. [Mr. Baker explained that the applicant could
proffer this easement as a part of the rezoning.]
Mr. Johnson felt it was "naive" to think that anything was
going to happen with the Meadowcreek Parkway within the next
ten years. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about "doing what
we have universally condemned VDOT for doing, i.e. starting
to effect values of property on sort of 'if -come' as they
have done on the bypass."
Mr. Blue agreed that "generally" he had the same concern;
however, he did not view this case in that way because the
developer was aware of the parkway issue when he purchased
the property.
The motion for denial of CPA-92-02 passed unanimously.
Mr. Johnson felt that if additional information, before the
Board hearing, shows that the Meadowcreek Parkway will not
effect this property, then the item should be re -considered.
He noted that he would "be very miic-.h in favor" of the
proposal if it is found that the alignment will not effect
this property.
6-16-92 4
CPA-92-04 Hollymead Expansion (formerly part of CPA-89-03) -
Proposal to expand the Hollymead Community north to the
North Fork Rivanna River from Rt. 606 to Rt. 785 and east of
its existing boundary to Proffit Road and the Norfolk
Southern Railroad. The area includes approximately 700
acres. Rivanna Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that CPA-92-04 be
indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SUB-92-096 Stony Point Mills Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 8 lots averaging 4.18 acres from two existing parcels
totalling 34.21 acres. The lots are proposed to be served
by a public road. Property, described as Tax Map 34,
Parcels 38 and 38A, is located on the east side of Route 784
approximately 800 feet south of Route 640. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not
located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Blue commented on condition l(f)--"Remove reference of
'old' or 'abandoned' road or provide evidence of legal
abandonment." He stated that it is often very difficult to
prove that an old road has been legally abandoned. Mr.
Bowling agreed. Mr. Keeler explained that staff feels the
word "abandoned" should be removed because staff does not
want to "legitimize" that the road has been abandoned if
there is no proof. There was considerable discussion about
how to re -word the condition to meet both staff's concerns
and the Commission's. It was finally decided, after some
confusion, that the condition would be changed to read:
"Remove word 'abandoned' from designation on plat 'old
abandoned road bed."' [Plat would then read "old road
bed."]
Mr. Johnson commented on conditions l(d)--requiring VDOT
approval of road and drainage plans --and 2--Administrative
approval of final plat. He noted that VDOT comments
included a "recommendation" for a 25 foot right-of-way from
the center line of Rt. 784. Ms. Hipski explained that
though VDOT regularly makes this recommendation, the County
cannot require it. (Mr. Blue expressed surprise that the
County no longer made this requirement. Mr. Keeler
explained that a former Director of Planning --Jahn
Horne --had notified surveyors several years ago that the
County Attorney had advised that the County could not make
such a requirement without "demonstrating that that
'361
6-16-92
R
particular development occasioned a need for it.") Ms.
Hipski confirmed that staff would not require the 25-foot
right-of-way during review of the final plat.
The applicant, Mr. Steve Melton, expressed agreement with
the staff report. He offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Stony
Point Hills Prelimnary Plat be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it 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 an erosion
control plan;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
e. Department of Engineering approval of "on -site" and
"off -site" drainage plat(s) recordation;
f. Remove word "abandoned" from designation on plat
"old abandoned road bed."
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-90-056 Hall's Auto Body Shop Maior Site Plan Amendment -
Proposal to add a total of 21,750 square feet to an existing
auto body shop on a total of 4.15 acres, zoned HI, Heavy
Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 22C5
and 67, is located in the Northside Industrial Park at the
end of Northside Drive, approximately six miles north of
Route 649 on the western side of Route 29 North_. This
property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
This site is located in a designated growth area (Community
of Hollymead) and is designated industrial service.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Hipski noted that the word "satisfaction" in condition
1(h) should be changed to "understanding." Staff explained
that the Planning staff would be approving the location of
vehicles, NOT the Zoning Administration, though she would be
made aware of those locations.
3n2.
6-16-92 6
Ms. Huckle asked if there were any limit to the number of
stored vehicles. Mr. Keeler replied: "No. This is a Heavy
Industrial zone and a body shop is authorized by -right. The
only thing that would be a limitation on storage of vehicles
or development of the property, would be if it were so
excessive that it ran afoul of one of the requirements of
the site plan ordinance."
Mr. Blue asked what determines whether staff requests
administrative approval of the final site plan or recommends
Commission review of the final. Ms. Hipski explained that
generally staff will request administrative approval of the
final site plan, though the Commission can deny that request
and require that the final come back to the Commission.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer
for the project. He offered no additional comment except to
say that the applicant had no concerns about the suggested
conditions of approval. Mr. Howard Hall, the applicant, was
also present and answered commission questions. Those
answers included the following:
--The applicant is not currently in the "restoration
business." Approximately 28 "classic" (non --restored) cars
which are currently on the site will be sold. (Mr. Johnson
noted that the request did not include auto sales. Mr. Hall
explained that he is not selling cars at this location as a
dealership though he does possess a dealer's license.)
--This site plan is a part of the process for removing
the existing zoning violations on the site.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the commission.
Ms. Huckle wondered, if there were no limitations on the
number of cars which can be stored on the site, how this
situation would be different from past experiences with this
type of use where many more vehicles are on the site than
allowed. Ms. Hipski explained that this situation is
different because there will be a site plan which will
clearly outline where cars can be kept. Ms. Huckle
interpreted: "They are only going to be able to keep as
many cars on the premises as there are parking spaces
delineated." Ms. Hipski confirmed that Ms. Huckle's
understanding was correct.
Ms. Hipski noted that the applicant has recently done
considerable cleanup at the site
Mr. Nitchmann asked where damaged, non -usable parts would be
stored. Mr. Hall explained that those materials are stored
behind the building (Ms. Hipski located the area on the
plat) and are picked up and hauled away at least once a
month, sometimes more often. He stated that the area was
screened.
6-16-92 7
Mr. Johnson stated that he had visited the site "yesterday"
(Monday, June 15) and had counted 118+ vehicles on the
property, plus 11 parked on the northside drive. He
calculated that 70%-80% of those appeared to be inoperable.
He was concerned because he felt there was "no control over
that aspect." He referred to the applicant's request for
modification of 5.1.31(a)--"There shall be no storage of
parts, materials or equipment except within an enclosed
building." Mr. Johnson noted that there were 98 parking
spaces on the plan, "spread indiscriminately all around the
area." [It was later noted that are an additional 36 spaces
around the building which will be leased.] He expressed
concern as to how the operation would "look" if approved as
requested. In terms of screening, he noted that inoperable
vehicles were not limited to any -particular area. Regarding
the change of the word "satsifaction" to "understanding" in
condition 1(h)--as explained previously --he felt this could
have been the result of his making staff aware that he did
"not recognize the Zoning Administrator as being chartered
with identifying conditions, but rather enforcing
conditions." He expressed concern that the "place is still
in the condition it is" and he stated he could "see nothing
in the plan which reflects any improvement which can be
enforced by the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Johnson
described some of the vehicles which he had viewed as "real
junk."
Mr. Blue asked staff to comment on Mr. Johnson's
observations. Ms. Hipski again stated that the applicant
has cleaned up the site considerably since the situation was
discovered by the Zoning Administrator, i.e. far fewer cars
are on the site now than originally. She stressed that not
only has the applicant been attempting to remove as many
cars as possible from the site, he also is attempting to get
a site plan approved and implemented. She emphasized that
the site plan would control the use of the site because it
"clearly shows what types of cars will be parked where."
She also emphasized that this is a heavy industry zone, and
the Zoning Ordinance does not offer any other means of
restricting the number of vehicles on the site, provided
there is no threat to the public health, safety or welfare.
Mr. Blue interpreted that the site is in better condition
today than it has been and will improve even further with
the implementation of this site plan.
Mr. Keeler noted that the site plan is a part of the process
of obtaining compliance.
Mr. Hall commented on Mr. Johnson's reference to the "junk"
on the site. He noted that the "junk" vehicles were to be
used in the restoration process and were very valuable. He
explained, however, that since he is no longer in the
restoration business, he will be getting rid of those cars.
= 11d
6-16-92 8
Mr. Johnson could not find either body shops or vehicle
sales listed in the heavy industry zone. Ms. Hipski
referred to a letter from the Zoning Administrator which
stated that it was her determination that a body shop is a
permitted use by -right within the heavy industry district,
though it is not specified. Mr. Keeler added that it was
decided ("a couple of years ago") that this use was a
component of "automotive, farm and construction machinery
products assembly," i.e. "it is the same function, and less
intensive, than a use permitted by right." He noted that
there is language in the ordinance which allows
determination of unspecified uses.
Mr. Blue asked why there was not a condition requiring
Health Department approval of the septic field. Ms. Hipski
explained that that tentative approval had been received
from the Health Department and staff would require final
approval before approving the final site plan.
Ms. Blue asked why this condition is included sometimes and
sometimes it is not. Mr. Keeler explained that if tentative
approvals have been received, then a condition is not
included, but if tentative approvals have not been received,
then a condition is included on the preliminary plat.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann"s question regarding
regulations related to the paint spray booth, Ms. Hipski
stated that would be addressed by the Engineering Department
(condition 1(d).
Mr. Nitchmann asked how the applicant was proposing to
"modify" Section 5.1.31(a) to allow outdoor storage. Ms.
Hipski explained "there will be no outdoor storage of parts
except as noted on the site plan." Mr. Nitchmann felt it
should be clearer because 5.1.31(a) clearly states "there
shall be no storage of parts, materials or equipment except
within an enclosed building." Mr. Keeler stated that the
site plan would need to show (if it does not already) the
screened area behind the building --as pointed out
previously --as the area for storage of scrap parts. He
stressed that this needed to be shown on the plan.
Mr. Johnson noted that the justification he had been given
for the modification of 5.1.31(a) was related to the storage
of classic automobiles. Since the applicant has stated that
his business will no longer include classic restoration, Mr.
Johnson suggested that there be no modification made to
5.1.31(a) but rather condition 1(h) should be amended so as
to read: "Location of vehicles will be limited as indicated
on approved site plan." He later clarified that the
vehicles referred to both those awaiting repair and classic
vehicles.
8 b-s-
6-16-92 9
There was some confusion as to whether or not the Commission
was, or was not recommending modification of 5.1.31(a) and
also as to the interpretation of "parts, materials or
equipment" which must be stored INSIDE. Both Commissioners
Johnson and Nitchmann indicated it was their intent that no
modification be allowed, but that vehicles awaiting repair
and classic vehicles only be allowed to be stored outside.
This issue was discussed briefly. Mr. Blue noted that the
HI zone is one of the broadest, and he was concerned about
"nit-picking." He wondered if too much was being expected
of a body shop. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the property
does have neighbors (GE) and will have others and things
should not be "strewn all over the place."
Mr. Hall stated that he could not possibly store all the
discarded parts inside the building because he would then
have no work space left. He stated that he had no objection
to screening the area.
Mr. Nitchmann stated that he had no problem with scrap parts
being stored outside provided they were confined to one
specific area.
Mr. Blue felt that amending condition 1(h) as recommended by
Mr. Johnson was not clear enough.
Though Mr. Johnson indicated he felt it was possible to
store all materials inside, he later clarified that he was
referring to new and usable parts and materials. He stated
he had no objection to salvage parts, awaiting disposal,
being stored outside.
It was again stated that an area would be designated on the
site plan for temporary storage of salvage parts. Mr.
Johnson noted that that area would have to be screened.
It was decided that condition 1(h) would be amended to read:
"Locations of vehicles and parts shall be confined to those
areas shown on site development plan." (There was some
discussion as to whether or not parts should be referred to
as just "parts" or "scrap parts." It was decided that just
"parts" was acceptable since there may be times when a new
part is not usable and will have to be disposed of.
Mr. Jenkins moved that Hall's Auto Body Shop Major Site Plan
Amendment 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:
Jo&
6-16-92
10
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right -op -way improvements and issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
d. Submittal of a certified engineers report in
compliance with Section 26.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Department of Engineering approval of this report;
e. Service Authority approval of water line location
and water meter;
f. Planning Department approval of and recordation of
access easement plat;
g. Staff approval of landscape plan to include
screening of stored parts;
h. Location of vehicles and parts shall be confined to
those areas shown on site development plan.
2. Staff approval of final site plan.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Housing Committee Report - Mr. Jenkins, who had served on
the Housing Committee, stated that in order for the project
to move forward it would need broad community support and
thus, as recommended in the report, he was "waving the flag"
to try to get that support.
There was a brief discussion about the upcoming work
sessions on the report. Mr. Blue noted that it was his
understanding that the Board has asked that the Commission
address the mobile home aspect of the report and the fiscal
impact questions first.
Mr. Johnson read a prepared statement related to the
affordable housing issue. His statement is attached to
these minutes as Attachment A. He concluded: "This is a
very important and far-reaching subject with many aspects
and ramifications that we need to consider and not rush over
lightly."
Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Johnson but pointed out that many
other items contained in Mr. Johnson's statement are
directly addressed in the report. Mr. Johnson agreed the
items were addressed in the report. However, he stated:
"But I think what we need to do is consider them, to a
degree, from a priority standpoint as we look at this and
make sure that they are addressed in such a way that we can
support considering the social aspects of the entire
community."
'?n'7
6-16-92 11
Mr. Blue interpreted: "Your concern is that the Housing
Committee Report addresses the subject of housing directly
and you want to consider it from the aspect of if we start
trying to implement some of their recommendations, how will
it effect the rest of the people in the County that are not
in need of this type of housing." Mr. Johnson confirmed Mr.
Blue's interpretation was accurate.
Mr. Johnson stated he has requested some information from
the Library of Congress related to "any kind of definition
or studies which relate square footage to family
size --including square footage of the house plus the square
footage of available outside space." Mr. Johnson noted:
"There are many examples where providing affordable housing,
as is identified here, has led, within a very few years, to
total ghettoes, such as we've never experienced here and
that is part of my concern."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Andersen if the Housing
Committee expected the plan to be adopted "in toto" or was
it expected that various strategies would be implemented
separately? Mr. Jenkins replied: "No. That again is the
reason that we need exposure --the flag waving --to try to get
broad -based citizen input to move this thing forward. I
think part of the Planning Commission's job is going to be
to set priorities." Mr. Jenkins indicated he felt one of
the top priorities was to study a model of this type of
housing which has proven successful --such as the one in
Lynchburg, Virginia.
Ms. Huckle stated: "I think we also have some examples of
what we don't want, like Westhaven and Garrett Square, where
so many people are confined in one small area that it
becomes a ghetto. We certainly don't want to do that.
Ms. Andersen, who also served on the Housing Committee,
commented: "When we were putting together the
recommendations, we put together our recommendations with
housing in mind, but not with existing land use
recommendations in mind. Therefore, as Ron said earlier, we
have to take a look at where the two impact one another, and
there are conflicts. ... There are broader issues which must
be looked at before we get down to specifics."
Taxing on Open Space Areas - Ms. Huckle asked who pays taxes
on property that developers dedicate as open space. Mr.
Keeler replied that the taxes are paid by the homeowners'
association or whomever ends up owning the property. Ms.
Huckle wondered about land which is donated to the County.
Mr. Blue noted that many times an easement is dedicated to
the County, but the ownership remains private. Mr. Keeler
noted: "I don't think we want to get in a position where we
6-16-92
12
say 'well, this is worthless land and you may be willing to
give it to us, but we're not going to take it."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:10 p.m.
DB
.,i09