HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 23 1992 PC Minutes6-23-92
1
JUNE 23, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 23, 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; and Ms. Babs Huckle. other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, 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 June
9, 1992 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the June
9, 1992 Board of Supervisors meeting. In relation to the
Board's desire to find a permanent site for the County Fair,
Mr. Johnson suggested that consideration be given to
coordination between the Fair and the outdoor theater which
is presently seeking a location.
Berkmar Drive Project - Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer,
presented information on the Berkmar Drive Extension
project. Mr. Johnson was very concerned about the fact that
no bikeway is proposed along Berkmar Drive leading to the
school, though a bikeway is planned along Rio Road to the
point where it will intersect with Berkmar. Mr. Nitchmann
asked staff to check with the Education Department to
determine the location of the schoolbus stop on Berkmar.
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). Deferred from June 9, 1992 Commission Meeting.
Yolanda presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
[Note: It was determined that the words "and" and "or" in
condition 1(c) should be reversed so that the condition
reads: "Issuance of Virginia Marine Resource Commission
(VMRC) or Corps of Engineer permit; and.
�1�
6-23-92 2
Regarding condition 1(c), Mr. Cilimberg explained: "VMRC is
the clearinghouse for these things and the Corps of
Engineers issues permits through VMRC... and all of this is
coordinated by the Department of Engineering."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding the location
of the Buck Mt. Reservoir, Ms. Hipski explained that the
Water Resources Manager determined that the reservoir is
quite a distance downstream from this project and therefore
there will be no impact.
There was a discussion, initiated by Mr. Johnson, regarding
the Water Resources Manager's comments and the "impact
assessment plan." Mr. Johnson wondered if the words "as
approved by the Water Resources Manager should be added to
condition 1, i.e. "This approval shall allow construction of
only one of the two options outlined in this report, as
approved by the Water Resources Manager." Mr. Johnson felt
the Water Resources Manager should have more authority in
this case than just an approval of the water impact
assessment. Mr. Blue felt all Mr. Robertson's (WRM)
comments referred to water quality. Ms. Lipinski noted that
the County Engineer had indicated that either of the two
options were approvable. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
"because this involves an impact assessment, even if this
weren't before you as a permit, (the Water Resources
Manager) would still have the same latitude and application
of the ordinance for this area." Ms. Huckle pointed out
that the Water Resources Manager commented that the
highwater crossing would have less environmental impact and
the Engineering Department commented that the WRM's comments
"should be given full consideration and used by the
applicant as a guide." She also noted that "it would be a
shame to compromise" the Buck Mt. Reservoir, "even before it
gets built," given the fact that the South Rivanna Reservoir
is "filling in so rapidly." Ms. Huckle noted that the
preliminary concept plan did not include the best management
practices referred to in Mr. Robertson's comments. Mr.
Bowling stated that he felt Mr. Robertson was indicating
that if the concept plan is not revised to include certain
items (best management practices and resource protection
area), then he will not approve the water quality impact
assessment plan. Ms. Hipski pointed out that if the Water
Resources Manager does not approve this plan, then the
permit would not be granted. Mr. Blue concluded: "I think
the County is well protected as is, without adding anything
else." Ms. Huckle felt the high crossing should be
required. Mr. Blue did not think it would matter in terms
of sediment. Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 1(b)
be changed to read "Water Resources Manager approval,"
rather than "Water Resources Manager approval of water
quality impact assessment plan." Regarding this suggestion;
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Water Resources Manager's
only jurisdiction is over the water quality impact
13#
6-23-92 3
assessment and it is better to state this specifically. Mr.
Cilimberg did not think the WRM had the authority to
recommend one of the options over the other "unless it is
directly related to the water quality impact assessment
plan." Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission could require one
of the options over the other. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
the Board of Supervisors could make that determination if
environmental concerns were cited. Mr. Blue did not feel
the Commission had the expertise to make that determination.
Mr. Grimm agreed that that decision should be left up to the
Engineering Department and the Water Resources Manager.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kurt Gloeckner,
engineer for the project. He explained that the reason the
option is being requested for both crossings is related to
whether or not the applicant will reside at this location
full time or part time. The high water crossing would be in
the event of permanent residency, and the low water crossing
would be "part-time resident access driveway." He explained
that a bridge crossing is very expensive as compared to a
low-water crossing. He described the low water crossing as
"concrete and locked into the bottom of the stream so that
they can't move." He explained that in a 2-year storm, the
low water crossing would be unpassable for approximately 4
hours; 10 hours in an 11-year storm; and 12-hours in a
100-year storm. Regarding the impact on the floodplain and
streams, both options will have about the same impact in
land disturbance and the bridge would have a great deal more
environmental impact initially. After construction,
however, the impact of both options would be the same. He
felt Mr. Robertson's comments dealt more with the structures
themselves and had not taken into account the approaches to
the crossings. He concluded that the applicants would like
both options and would "do whatever engineering and
environmental necessities are required."
It was determined the stream was too shallow for serious
fishing and was only canoeable during higher water. Mr.
Blue felt a bridge would be more of a hazard to canoeists
than would a low water crossing.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Huckle stated: "I bow to Mr. Gloeckner's expertise.'"
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-92-27 for Stamm Family Trust be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. This approval shall allow construction of only one of
the two options outlined in this report;
191A
6-23-92
4
2. A building permit to construct a crossing shall not be
issued until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering final approval;
b. Water Resources Manager approval of water quality
impact assessment plan;
C. Issuance of Virginia Marine Resource Commission
(VMRC) or Corps of Engineer permit; and
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion
Control Permit (Grading Permit).
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
It was clarified that it was the intent of the motion that
the applicant be allowed the choice of options.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-92-18 Stenhen 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
recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units
per acre). Deferred from June 9, 1992 Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending denial of the request based on inadequacy of
sight distance.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz explained
that VDOT's comments were related to the northern entrance,
but they have commented previously on the southern entrance
and the same comments apply to both entrances, i.e. that
sight distance, to the north, is inadequate at both
entrances. Mr. Fritz explained further that sight distance
will be achievable only by substantial grading and clearing
which may involve activity on an adjacent property.
The applicant, Mr. Andrews, addressed the Commission. He
explained that the southern entrance was 90 feet short of
adequate sight distance and the northern entrance was 150
feet short. He explained how grading might effect the
location of the existing septic field. In response to Mr.
Johnson's question regarding the power line, Mr. Andrews
stated that the line referred to by Mr. Johnson was south of
his property. He felt his proposal would not cause a
noticeable increase in traffic.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
6-23-92 5
Mr. Nitchmann questioned how VDOT could have determined
existing sight distrance given the abundance of vegetation.
Mr. Cilimberg explained how VDOT measures sight distance.
He stated that if VDOT had felt that clearing of vegetation
would solve the problem, they would have stated that.
Mr. Blue asked if the request could be approved with the
condition that adequate sight distance must be achieved. He
noted that staff's recommendation for denial was based
solely on the lack of sight distance. Mr. Fritz indicated
staff would have no objection if the applicant were
agreeable to such a condition. He explained that such a
condition had not been included by staff because it was felt
that adequate sight distance could not be achieved and if
the Board and Commission chose to approve the request it
would be with the knowledge that sight distance was
inachievable.
Mr. Blue felt the Commission would be "derelict in its duty"
if this request were to be approved without requiring
adequate sight distance. In the event that it is possible
that sight distance can be achieved, he suggested that a
condition be added requiring sight distance, because he
could see no other reason not to approve the application.
Mr. Nitchmann felt that it might be possible to achieve
sight distance, once vegetation is trimmed, without the need
for excessive grading. He concluded he could support the
request with a condition requiring sight distance.
Mr. Fritz offered two choices for the condition requiring
sight distance, one of which might also result in a
requirement for upgrading the entrance. The Commission was
not in favor of the choice which would require entrance
improvements.
Mr. Nitchmann questioned condition No. 3 which restricted
the new structure to a certain location and dealt with
facade of the structure. Mr. Fritz explained that the first
part of the condition was based on the applicant's
description of the proposal, and the second part, related to
facade, was taken directly from the ordinance. Mr.
Nitchmann was in favor of deleting the first part of the
condition related to location of the structure on the site
because he felt the applicant might change his mind about
the location at some future time. Mr. Cilimberg explained
that the Board usually likes to establish the location of an
accessory structure in consideration of neighboring
properties and to assist the Zoning Administrator in
ensuring that the activity is being conducted in compliance
with the Ordinance and the approval.
Mr. Johnson felt that Attachment G should be corrected so as
to show the location of two houses. He also stated that he
6-23-92
0
did not feel the Commission, in its action, should infer
that one driveway is preferred over the other. (It was
noted that neither of the two choices offered by staff, for
the additional condition, made reference to either
entrance.)
Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Fritz to clarify the location of the
other house on the property. Mr. Fritz responded: "It's
down where it says 'VEPCO'." Because it was felt that
Attachment G (Plat initialled WDF 5/27/92) did not clearly
show the location of the existing structures, it was decided
that the plan which was on display at the meeting,
identified as the VDOT Plan for the Rt. 742/Rt. 20
intersection would be amended so as to show both existing
and proposed structures and would be used at the Board
hearing.
Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-18 for Stephen Andrews be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on -site.
2. Compliance with the performance standards of section
4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be
located approximately as shown on sketch initialled WDF and
dated 5/27/92 and shall be similar in facade to a
single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other
structure normally expected in a rural or residential area
and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale
with other development in the area in which it is located.
4. There shall be no sales on the premises, other than
items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with the
home occupation.
5. The conduct of the home occupation shall not commence
until the applicant resides on -site.
6. Use shall not commence until such time as 350 feet of
sight distance has been achieved for the entrance serving
the home occupation.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-_92-24 Townside East Limited Partnership - Petition to
permit a drive up window [24.2.2(13)] on 2.34 acres zoned
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. 25OW and is the Townside
6-23-92
7
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. Deferred from June 9, 1992 Commission
meeting.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Johnny Maupin. He
explained that the kiosk would serve primarily handicapped
persons and would be marked accordingly.
Mr. Johnson wondered why the applicant was restricting the
usage to only certain individuals. Mr. Maupin explained
that a regular drive-in window was not feasible because of
the lack of stacking space in the travelway. Mr. Johnson
pointed out that the only condition on the request was
related to the size of the kiosk, thus leaving any
restrictive signage, etc. up to the applicant. The
applicant indicated understanding.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-92-34 for
Townside East Limited Partnership be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
condition:
1. The outdoor kiosk shall not exceed 21" in height and 10"
in width.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZNA-92-4 Mill Creek Commercial Land Trust - Proposal to
amend the Mill Creek PUD to permit residential development
(Maximum of 40 dwelling units) on 6.7 acre area currently
permitting commercial uses. This site is zoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Property, described as Tax Map 90C, Parcels B & F, is
located on the west side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Ext)
between Mill Creek Drive and Southern Parkway in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (Neighborhood 4) and is recommended
for Neighborhood Service.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Mill
Creek Commercial Land Trust be indefinitely deferred. The
motion passed unanimously.
3i�
6-23-92 8
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Comment from Residents of Westhaven and Garrett
Square
The following persons addressed the Commission to express
concerns about comments made at the June 16th Commission
meeting in reference to their neighborhoods, comments which
they felt were racist and insulting. (NOTE: These comments
were attributed to Commissioners Johnson and Huckle in the
Press.)
--Ms. Joy Johnson: She asked for a public apology from
Ms. Huckle (who had referred to Westhaven and Garrett Square
as ghettos) and Mr. Johnson. She stressed that the residents
of these developments take pride in their neighborhoods and
the majority of the residents are hardworking people.
--Ms. Sylvia Tyree (a member of the Housing Commission
of the Charlottesville Housing Authority): She invited the
Commission to a community party to be held July 4, 9:30 a.m.
to 10:30 p.m.
--Ms. Frances Johnson (a member of the City School
Board and a member of the Board of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Center): She pointed
out the effect that such comments have on the young people
in the neighborhood, children who are already having a
difficult time in the public school systems. She pointed
out that statements such as those under discussion, about
"low-income people and Afro-American people" are made too
easily and the explanation is usually that "they were taken
out of context." She concluded: "We, as a community, will
continue to address statements which are taken out of
context... if we have to show up for every Commission and
Board meeting, to let people know that we are people and we
are striving to do something now, in the 1990's, that should
have been done with public housing when it was first built.
... We didn't get on the various Boards that we serve on in
the Community by being a ghetto. We got on these Boards
because it was time to speak out and show people what we
are."
--Ms. Desiree Pollock: She reminded the Commission
that any of them, or their children, might someday find
themselves in the same economic position as many of the
residents of Westhaven and Garrett Square.
Mr. Johnson congratulated Ms. Johnson for stating her
concerns before the Commission. However, he pointed out
that though the comments which were broadcast inferred
otherwise, he had not made reference to any particular
neighborhood, but rather his comments had been, in effect,
"that as we look and plan for affordable housing, we take
special care not to create ghettos as has been done other
places in the country." He apologized for the "inference"
made by the Press.
�/7
6-23-92 9
Ms. Huckle responded: "My whole intention was positive.
I'm sorry if my words were misinterpreted. ... My whole
thought was that if the County should create low cost
housing as they plan/hope to do, that we could learn from
other areas and not have large-scale housing developments,
and certainly not developments where people were confined in
a small area. I would like to see something where there is
more space for the people, for the children to play. That's
what I was hoping. I certainly didn't mean to offend
anybody."
Though Ms. Huckle suggested that Ms. Johnson check the
dictionary for the meaning of the word "ghetto," Ms. Johnson
indicated that regardless of the dictionary meaning of the
word, the common connotation of the word is far different
and it is that public understanding of the word which is
insulting.
Mr. Blue stated that he has visited both Westhaven and
Garrett Square and he believed the statements made by Ms.
Joy Johnson. In defense of the Planning Commission, he
explained: "This came up in the context of discussion about
affordable housing and/or subsidized housing. ... Two of
our members were on a Committee which prepared a report
which recommended that the County adopt, in their
Comprehensive Plan, affordable housing, and among that was
some subsidized housing, similar to Crozet Crossing. I
regret that some of the comments were taken out of context.
I saw at the time how some of the comments could be taken
out of context. I do apologize, but I do think that we were
trying to be positive and it just came out wrong. I think I
can say for the Commission, that we agree with most of your
statements, that we think that Albemarle County does need
affordable housing and we want it to be good housing, which
you will be proud of, just as you are in Westhaven and
Garrett Square, and I also agree that the reputation,
sometimes, is undeserved, because, (based on) the reports
that come out of the media on incidents that happen there,
many of (the problems) are caused by persons from other
areas. That's unfortunate, but it happens."
Mr. Johnson offered to
statement which he had
contacted the Press to
been reported.
send Ms. Joy Johnson a copy of the
read at the meeting. He had also
object to the way his comments had
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:45 p.m.
&/91