HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 26 1991 PC MinutesFebruary 26, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, February 26, 1991, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms.
Babs Hackle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Richard Tarbell,
Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; Mr. Bob
Brandenburger, Deputy County Executive; 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
February 5, 1991 were approved as amended.
SP-90-119 The Rocks - Petition for a 43 lot Rural
Preservation Development [10.2.2(28)] and SP-90-120, a
request for a bridge in the floodplain property, described
as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18A, 18B, and 23, is located in
the southeast quadrant of Interstate 64 and State Route 637.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay, in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The property is not
in a designated growth area (RA III).
AND
SUB-90-244 - The Rocks Preliminary Plat -Rural Preservation
Development to create 43 development lots totalling 133.14
acres [10.3.3.3(b)] (average size = 3.09 acres), a
preservation tract of 382.82 acres and an open space parcel
of 114.9 acres from four existing parcels totalling 642.1
acres. The lots will be served by public roads totalling
11.24 acres. The property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcels
18, 18A, 18B and 23, is located in the southeast quadrant of
Interstate 64 and State Route 637. Zoned RA, Rural Areas
and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay, in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. The property is not in a designated
growth area (RA III).
The applicant was requesting deferral to March 19, 1991.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that the items
be deferred to March 19, 1991. The motion passed
unanimously.
SDP-91-001 - Wilton Apartments Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to construct a total of 144 rental apartment units
on 14.4 acres, zoned R-10, Residential and EC, Entrance
Corridor Overlay. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel
February 26, 1991 Page 2
8 is located on the eastern side of Route 20, approximately
0.66 mile north of its intersection with Route 250 East.
This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and
is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 3).
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "Staff recommends approval of SDP-91-001 with a
modification of Section 4.12.6.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow curvilinear parking. Staff does not recommend a
modification of section 4.12.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a 6% maximum (with a 3% cross slope)." (NOTE: It was
later determined that the applicant was no longer seeking a
modification of Section 4.12.6.3.)
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Ms. Lipinski
explained that staff could support curvilinear parking only
to the extent needed to meet the Ordinance requirements, but
not to the extent which the applicant had shown on the plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked how this reduction would be handled by
staff, i.e. if the Commission agrees with staff, will the
reduction be taken care of at the time of the final site
plan? Ms. Lipinski explained that staff would work with the
applicant to determine which parking spaces he preferred.
Ms. Lipinski read from Section 4.12.6.5 of the Ordinance
related to parking and the Commission's latitude in allowing
modification of the requirements. (Mr. Keeler pointed out
that the applicant was not requesting a waiver, but rather a
modification.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Swafford.
Regarding the request for a modification of Section 4.12.6.3
related to slope, he explained that the site had been
"lowered" and the grade reduced so that it is 5% or less.
Therefore, that modification is no longer necessary. In the
event that the applicant will be asked to give up parking
spaces, he asked that those spaces in front of the building
be allowed to remain.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the curvilinear spaces would
still appear to be perpendicular spaces because of the way
they would be "stripped."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding screening,
Mr. Keeler explained that the Architectural Review Board
had met and already addressed all the issues related to the
effect on the Entrance Corridor --specifically lighting,
landscaping, color of buildings. He also felt it would be
appropriate for the Commission to forward the two letters
which had been received to the ARB.
February 26, 1991 Page 3
Mr. Johnson asked that the record show that he was
"personally dissatisfied with the minimum requirement for
street tree size being 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 inches caliper." He
felt that it would take a number of years for trees of this
size to grow to any significant size. He asked that the ARB
consider a larger caliper tree, perhaps 3 to 4 inches, "as
they review this from a standpoint of street tree size."
Mr. Keeler noted that the ARB had already made their
recommendation for street tree size. He added that staff is
attempting to keep ARB matters separate from Commission
matters so as "not to confuse the process and confuse the
applicant." He pointed out that staff had researched this
issue when developing the landscaping requirements and had
found that younger, smaller caliper trees have a greater
chance of surviving.
Mr. Johnson stated: "I accept your comments, but my
comments still stand and I believe this is a subject for
further discussion at a later date."
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized that a modification was no longer
being requested for the cross slope provisions; therefore
the only issue remaining was that of curvilinear parking.
He felt staff could work out this issue with the applicant.
He explained that if this plan is approved, "implicit in
that approval is an acknowledgment that curvilinear parking
is appropriate or we would reject the plan as not in
compliance."
Mr. Johnson asked: "Where are we approving the plan in
these recommended conditions? I don't see any item in here
that refers to the plan."
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the plan that was being
reviewed was "this plan —that we're looking at."
Mr. Jenkins moved that SDP-91-001 for Wilton Apartments
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning staff shall not accept submittal of the
final site plan for signature until tentative approval for
the following conditions have been met:
a. Inspections Department approval of
parking spaces and fireflow or sprinklers;
b. Department of Engineering approval
and drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval
drainage plans and calculations;
handicapped
of grading
of road and
413
February 26, 1991
Page 4
d. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
e. Department of Engineering issuance of an
Erosion Control Permit;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans and easements;
h. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority approval for
water and sewer connections;
i. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan in
Concert with Architectural Review Board requirements.
2. The final site developmnent shall not be signed until a
Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the
Architectural Review Board.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SUB-90-243 Liberty Preliminary Plat - A proposal to
subdivide 16.566 acres into five lots with an average size
of 3.3 acres to be served by a private road. The property,
described as Tax Map 35, Parcel 3, is located on the north
side of Route 641 approximately 1.2 miles west of its
intersection with Route 20. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is not in a
designated growth area (RA II).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He
offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SUB-90-243, Liberty Preliminary 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 a
private road and drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
February 26, 1991
Page 5
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements and commercial entrance;
e. Staff approval of a road maintenance
agreement.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated: "Under the conditions of Section 18.52
(0) of the Subdivision Ordinance the preliminary plat is
required to show 'the location, area and dimensions of a
lawful building site on each lot.' Notwithstanding that the
comment is included here --the note that it has building
sites, there are none shown on here and I am reluctant to
pass favorably on this without having that information
available."
Mr. Tarbell commented that there is a note on the plat which
states that the applicant has demonstrated a 30,000 square
foot building site exists for each lot. He continued: "The
Soil Scientist's report actually locates the septic fields
and although I didn't have it drawn on each lot
specifically --I didn't think it was of great concern with
these lots as it exists." He pointed out that staff
requires applicants to draw building sites if there is a
controversy about their existence. He did not feel there
was a problem in this case.
The motion for approval passed (4:1) with Commissioner
Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
SDP-91-002 Village Homes at Mill Creek Preliminary Site Plan
- Proposal to create 38 lots averaging 6,376 square feet
with 2.02 acres of open space from two existing parcels
totalling 8.25 acres. The housing type proposed is duplexes
to be served by private roads. Property, described as Tax
Map 90C, Parcels G1 and G2, is located between Avon Street
Extended (Route 742) and Mill Creek Drive. Zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay,
in the Scottsville Magisterial district. This property is
located within a designated growth area (Neighborhood 4).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions, including the addition of
the following condition (at the request of the applicant):
February 26, 1991
Page 6
Extend undisturbed buffer in the open space
contiguous to the southern boundary of the Village
Homes at Mill Creek Parcel G and G1. Undisturbed
buffer shall meet 40' undisturbed buffer to the east
and shall extend up to the sewer line easement to the
west. Undisturbed buffer area is more specifically
defined by that checked area on 11 x 17 plan dated
2-26-91 below the undisturbed buffer key.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. He
presented a sketch of the proposal which highlighted the
buffer area. In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, he
explained that all parking would be off-street and driveways
for those units with double frontage would all exit onto the
same street. He also explained that it was the applicant's
intention that the units would all be owner -occupied and
would not be rental units. (He noted, however, the
applicant "has been misled in the past.") There was a
discussion about the buffer area. Mr. Craig explained that
the applicant has had numerous discussions with adjoining
property owners and has changed the plan a number of times
as a result of those discussions. He also stated that the
applicant has offered to plant 15 evergreens (to serve as an
additional screen) on each of the adjoining properties which
will be impacted by the development. It was determined the
width of the buffer area ranged from 40 feet to 15 feet.
The following neighboring property owners addressed the
Commission and expressed conerns about the proposal: Mr.
Edward Allen; Ms. Cheryl Tinelli; and Ms. Jane Deer. All
those speaking indicated they had been misled at the time
they had purchased their homes in regards to the width of
the buffer. They stated they had been told the buffer would
be 100 to 125 feet. (NOTE: The buffer proposed was
approximately 40 feet.) Mr. Allen asked for "assurances
that the undisturbed area would remain undisturbed ... and
that no buildings would be cropping up after this between
(his) property line and these other buildings." Mr. Allen
also asked particularly that the trees on Lot 19 remain
undisturbed. Ms. Tinelli indicated that the applicant was
working with the homeowners to see that the buffer area was
protected through a restrictive covenant.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Craig why the "pie -shaped" piece of
property, to which a neighbor had referred, was the only
piece shown as being common area. Mr. Craig.responded:
"It's a part of Section II, and after we finish each section
we turn them over to the homeowners' association. So now
the homeowners' association controls that." He added that a
certain percentage of open space is required for a PUD
-1r6
February 26, 1991
Page 7
(25%). Mr. Craig did not answer Ms. Huckle's question
directly. However, Mr. Tarbell pointed out to Ms. Huckle
that the piece to which she referred extended "all the way
down Avon Street."
Mr. Johnson asked if that area was protected for perpetuity.
Mr. Craig again explained that the open space is turned over
to the homeowners' association. Mr. Keeler added that the
Ordinance requires that open space remain in its natural
state unless the Planning Commission approves some
specified, particular use.
Ms. Huckle asked how the 11125-foot buffer story" had gotten
started. Mr. Craig responded: "I have no idea. We agreed
that there would be a buffer area. There's no way that we
could specify what dimensions." He added that the original
plan which was approved for this property (high -density,
multi -family units in 1988) showed a majority of the buffer
as being within 15 feet of those property lines. He
stressed that this plan was far superior to the approved
plan which exists for the property because it saves far more
trees.
Mr. Johnson asked if the buffer shown in yellow on the
handout submitted by Mr. Craig was "protected." Mr. Tarbell
indicated that the added condition (as stated earlier in
this record) addressed this issue. He noted that the buffer
could be addressed on the plat as an extension of the buffer
along Avon Street. He also noted that condition 3(b)
addressed the issue of preservation of the existing trees in
the undisturbed area.
Mr. Allen stated he still wanted assurances from the
applicant "on any future structures which might be put in
between (his) house and those other houses."
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that there are some issues which
do not fall within the Commission's authority. He noted,
however: "As Rich has pointed out, if this is designated as
an undisturbed buffer on this plan that's before us and
there is a condition of approval that requires that it
remain undisturbed, then it is enforceable by the County.
It becomes a part of this site development plan that's not
subject to who -promised -what -to -whom."
Mr. Johnson asked: "With us approving this, then there can
be no other buildings put on this without approval? Is that
correct?" Mr. Rittenhouse responded: "That's correct."
Mr. Tarbell added: "It's being platted as open space."
Mr. Rittenhouse explained to the public that the Commission
has no authority to enforce "promises" made by developers to
property owners. He stated this was a matter between
�7
February 26, 1991 Page 8
individuals and any recourse which might be possible would
be through the Civil Court system. He added that the
County could only enforce those items which are a part of
the approval of a particular proposal. In this case, he
stated that the applicant has offered to be bound by the
buffer which he has delineated on this plan. He also
pointed out that the current proposal is for a greater
buffer than what has already been approved by the County for
this property.
Mr. Allen again interrupted the Commission's discussion and
asked if the owner of lot 19 wished to place a "structure
on their property to the side of the house ... would they have
to come back to you to get approval for that structure?"
(He gave as an example "a garage.") Mr. Bowling responded:
"The key is whether or not he meets the setback requirements
under the Ordinance. If he meets the setback requirements
under your Site Plan Ordinance, he's going to have a right
to put something there." Mr. Rittenhouse added: "The
Ordinance governs what can happen with respect to
development on that lot." He added that approval of a
preliminary plat does not preclude a person from adding an
"accessory structure" on their property.
Mr. Rittenhouse cautioned that the Commission be consistent
in their review of proposals. He stated the Commission
could not restrict an individual lot owner's use of his
property outside of the limitations of the Ordinance. (Mr.
Bowling confirmed this was accurate.) He added: "The
Ordinance already limits activity within the setback, but we
don't really have basis for limiting what happens on the
rest of that property. If we feel that this plat is
inappropriate for some reason --if the lot layout is
inappropriate for some reason --then it's within our domain
to try to cite those reasons and deal with the plat as a
whole. But if we approve this plat I don't think we can
approve it with a condition on a particular lot that one
can't develop ... an accessory structure on his lot if he
purchases that lot."
Mr. Jenkins asked who would own the "yellow" area. Mr.
Tarbell explained that would ultimately be owned by the
Village Homes homeowners' association. It was determined
the Mill Creek Village Homes would have a separate
homeowners' association. Referring to the restriction on
cutting trees which had been mentioned by the applicant, Mr.
Jenkins asked: "That's not part of what we incorporate at
all --that strictly becomes part of the homeowner's activity
once he puts it in the deed restriction. Is that correct?"
February 26, 1991 Page 9
Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "If this is shown as an undisturbed
buffer, no matter who administers this area from a
homeowner's standpoint, they would still be bound to keep
this as an undisturbed buffer." Mr. Bowling confirmed this
statement and added that the Zoning Administrator had the
authority to enforce that condition.
Regarding condition 1(i) Mr. Beeler stated: "Let me
emphasize for the record why Rich has included that as a
condition ---because it's reflected on the plat and that's why
he has distinguished that from the issues of tree planting.
This proposal, on Mr. Craig's part, has to be shown on the
plat and that's why it's included in the conditions. If
this were something that didn't have to be shown on the
plat, we would not recommend including it in the
conditions."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support approval of the
plan. He felt the additional undisturbed buffer between the
existing single-family dwellings and the proposed duplexes
was an improvement over what was previously approved.
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the proposal because
there appeared to be a significant buffer all along the
property, particularly between lot 19 and Mr. Allen's house.
He felt this was "as good as you can get in this case." He
felt the note on the plat should allay the concern of the
property owners.
Mr. Johnson moved that the Village Homes at Mill Creek
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approval
for the following conditions has been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of drainage plans and calculations;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans;
February 26, 1991
Page 10
h. Staff approval of landscape plan to include
screening in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8 (c.4) on
lots 13-18 and 39-40.
i. Extend undisturbed buffer in the open space
contiguous to the southern boundary of the Village
Homes at Mill Creek Parcel G and G1. Undisturbed
buffer shall meet 401undisturbed buffer to the east and
shall extend up to the sewer line easement to the west.
Undisturbed buffer area is more specifically defined by
that checked area on 11 x 17 plan dated 2-26-91 below
the undisturbed buffer key.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. Administrative approval of the final plats to include:
a. Private road maintenance agreement;
b. Language regarding the preservation of the
existing trees in the undisturbed buffer.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued_ until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official approval.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler added the following comment for clarification:
"There can be accessory structures built on these lots and
they can be within 6 feet of the property line. The setback
for accessory structures is different from the main
structure. There cannot be any more dwellings on these lots
than what is shown here, but if somebody wants to put a lawn
building on there they can get within 6 feet of their
property line."
SDP-91-004 Rio Hill Sh000ina Center Maior Amendment -
Proposal to add 21 parking spaces in an area previously
shown on the rezoning application plan as a loading area
only. The area is located in the southeast corner of the
shopping -center between the Subway Deli and Shoney's.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report stated:
"Staff position remains that this area should not have
parking spaces directly accessing the primary travelway
which provides one of the two ingress/egress points for the
shopping center. Staff opinion is the request to allow the
parking spaces would present potential traffic conflicts on
this travelway and therefore it does not meet the intent of
Section 4.12.6 PARKING AREA DESIGN and Section 4.12.6.1 SAFE
AND CONVENIENT ACCESS. ... Staff recommends denial of this
major site plan amendment as it does not satisfy the purpose
of the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance."
February 26, 1991 Page 11
It was determined that the request was not based on the
requirement for additional parking for the shopping center,
but rather on the applicant's feeling that it would
"facilitate a more orderly and safe manner of parking and
traffic patterns" in an area where parking is currently
taking place in defiance of signs which designate it as a
Loading Zone.
Mr. Keeler noted that there has been one change in
circumstance since the original approval of the plan, i.e.
the road between the car dealership and the shopping center,
which was to connect to Berkmar Drive, has been deleted. He
added, however, that there is still a considerable volume of
traffic in this area.
The travelway was determined to be 30 feet--18 feet in the
area directly adjacent to the proposed parking spaces.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Chuck Lebo. He
explained the request is an attempt to improve safety for an
area that is already used for parking and because of the
fact that this is a "natural" parking area, it is likely
that it will always be used that way, regardless of attempts
to prevent parking from taking place.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Julia Shields, representing the Citizens for Albemarle,
addressed the Commission. She expressed support for the
staff's position on this request, "in the interests of
public safety and fewer traffic conflicts."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated he supported the application for the
following reasons: People are already parking there
regardless of the existing markings; there is clear sight
distance without impediments in either direction along this
area; this is an extremely wide road; and stores in this
area will be "unduly handicapped without any local parking."
He noted that if parking is prevented in these spaces, then
persons will park in the Shoney's lot and walk across the
travelway to access these stores. He felt the unique
characteristics of this proposal warranted approval.
Ms. Huckle felt she could support the application because
she did not see any difference in this request and the
curbside parking which occurs at Barracks Road.
Ms. Andersen stated she agreed with staff's position. She
noted that Barracks Road was an older shopping complex and
concerns may have been different at the time it was
approved.
�� i
February 16, 1991 Page 12
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he, too, was in agreement with
staff's position. Specifically, he expressed concern about
cars backing into the travelway in order to get back into
the traffic flow. He also noted that this was not a
hardship case because no additional spaces were needed. He
did not feel illegal parking should be legitimized simply
because persons ignor traffic control devices.
Mr. Johnson disagreed about the issue of need. He felt the
businesses in this area would suffer without this parking.
He also felt it was more dangerous for persons to park at
Shoney's and then walk accross the travelway.
Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed. He noted that all the parking
for the entire shopping center requires that persons walk
across the travelway and no businesses have curbside parking
provided adjacent to their stores.
It was determined parking regulations for the shopping
center are "self -enforcing." Mr. Tarbell read from a letter
from the Zoning Administrator: "Enforcement of this area as
'loading only' presents a certain degree of difficulty for
this department. It would require multiple manhours of
surveillance of the parking habits. The issue returns to
the shopping center's ability to control their own patrons'
choice of parking location."
Mr. Johnson moved that the Rio Hill Shopping Center Major
Amendment be approved subject to the following condition:
1. The final site plan shall not be signed until the
following conditions are met:
a. The parking spaces are aligned perpendicular
to the travelway.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
There was a discussion about the type of parking which was
being requested. Ms. Huckle stated she would prefer that
the spaces be parallel to the curb, or at least slanted,
which she felt would be safer for backing movements.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that this could require a number
of turn -around movements, depending on which way the exiting
vehicle wished to go. He did not think any of the possible
orientations provided a convenient turning movement for
traffic wishing to go back towards Berkmar.
Mr. Johnson clarified that his motion contemplated
perpendicular, not angular, parking.
February 26, 1991
Page 13
Mr. Jenkins noted that parallel parking would at least make
U-turns (by persons entering the parking lot from the road
adjacent to the car dealership) less likely to occur.
The motion for approval was defeated (3:2) with
Commissioners Huckle and Johnson voting for approval and
Commissioners Rittenhouse, Jenkins and Andersen voting
against. The request was denied.
Mr. Johnson commented: "In order to preclude perpendicular
parking from a practical standpoint... there's going to have
to be some kind of curbing or physical barrier put up
because what's there now is not eliminating vertical
parking. This being a major safety concern, perhaps the
applicant would want to consider that."
Rivanna Commercial Park, Phase II. Site Plan Amendment -
Request for Extension - Mr. Keeler reported that the
applicant was requesting an extension because delays have
occurred as a result of the applicant's negotiations with
the Albemarle County Service Authority in an attempt to
provide public sewer to the site. He stated that staff
has, in the past, recommended extensions when delays have
been caused by governmental agencies. Staff was
recommending a 6-month extension subject to additional
conditions.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Keeler to explain the statements
about the ARB and the proffers. Mr. Keeler replied: "I
think the ARB can review it for compliance with the proffers
that deal with aesthetic matters, but they can also exercise
their unfettered authority where it is not limited by the
proffers."
Mr. Johnson felt the conditions were worded in such a way
that it appears that the Architectural Review Board is
assuming the responsibility for seeing that the proffers are
complied with. Mr. Bowling stated he had spoken with staff
about that concern and was under the impression that would
be changed. Mr. Bowling stated the words "in order to
ensure compliance with the proffers" should be removed
because it was the Zoning Administrator's responsibility to
ensure compliance.
The applicant, Mr. Blake Hurt, addressed the Commission. He
briefly described some of the problems which he has
encountered and which are yet to be solved.
Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would prefer a one-year
extension. Mr. Hurt responded affirmatively.
February 26, 1991
Page 14
Rather than granting a one-year extension, Mr. Cilimberg
suggested that the Commission might wish to grant staff
administrative approval of an additional 6-months, if
circumstances remain the same.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was in favor of the 6-month
extension (with staff approval of an additional six months)
because that would give staff the opportunity to look at the
request again in six months with respect to any ordinance
changes which might have taken place or any changes in
circumstances with the project.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that he felt there was a public
benefit to be gained by this extension because there is the
opportunity for the public sewer to be extended to persons
who are currently experiencing drainfield problems.
Mr. Johnson moved that the Rivanna Commercial Park Site Plan
Amendment be granted a 6-month extension subject to the
following additional conditions:
1. Compliance with tree canopy provisions of Section
2. ARB review except as limited by the proffers of
ZMA-87-19.
3. Administrative approval of an additional 6-month
extension if circumstances remain same.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Jenkins asked if staff was working on a Mountain Top
Development Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg explained that an
element of the open Space Plan (currently being developed)
will be a ridge-top/mountain-top protection ordinance. He
anticipated the Commission would be having a work session on
this topic no earlier than late March.
Referring to the water line which was recently installed
along Avon Street, Mr. Jenkins asked who was responsible for
replanting those areas. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there
are restrictions against replanting over top the water line.
He also stated that the Service Authority is not required to
replant the area.
Architectural Review Board Process - Mr. Keeler went over a
memorandum he had prepared for the Commission which
explained the Commission's and the ARB's envisioned roles in
the site plan approval process. He also explained the
�a4
February 26, 1991
Page 15
scheduling process for submittals. He explained that it is
the desire of the ARB that they be included in the process
as early as possible.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom addressed the Commission in order to bring
the Commission up-to-date on the ARB's progress and it's
current status. His comments included the following:
--All actions taken by the ARB have been unanimous.
--Only one request has been denied --far a sign for Taco
Bell that violated both sign,and setback ordinances.
--The aesthetic aspects of a development are at the
bottom of the legal totem pole. The ARB cannot preempt
issues related to health or safety, but it is the only body
which can deal with the aesthetic issues of a plan.
--The ARB wants to fit the architectural review into
the existing process so that the developer does not have to
spend any "appreciably significant more time" in the process
than he already does.
--The ARB does not want to create the impression that
it is trying to preempt the process. "But by the same
token, we want to make sure that neither the Planning
Commission, the BZA, nor the Board of Supervisors
inadvertantly ties the hands of the ARB."
--Because an accepted proffer vests an applicant's
interest in the property, the Commission and Board must be
particulary mindful, when accepting proffers, that it does
not preempt the ARB's review. "When you approve a
preliminary site plan, when you recommend the acceptance of
a proffer that involves any design features or any layout
features, you have possibly preempted the ARB's review."
--A formal application form has been adopted by the
ARB.
--Interim guidelines are being developed.
--Two categories of corridors are being considered --a
developing corridor (e.g. Rt. 20 North), and a developed
corridor (e.g. Rt. 29 North).
Mr. Bowling explained that when the Commission requires an
applicant to submit a plan with a rezoning request, the
applicant then often proffers that plan as a part of the
rezoning and the layout of the buildings, etc. shown on that
plan are then vested. He stated: "If you know (this plan)
is going to be reviewed by the ARB, you can just deal with
the rezoning and then leave the plan to the ARB." Mr.
Lindstrom suggested that if the Commission can point out to
an applicant that it is feared that a certain proffer may
tie the ARB's hands then the applicant may be willing to
amend that proffer. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that
proffers do not have to be accepted, nor do rezonings have
to be granted. He felt the key was Commission awareness.
February 26, 1991
Page 16
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that a way to handle a plan which an
applicant might wish to proffer as part of a rezoning
request, would be to bring that plan to the ARB before the
Commission review.
Mr. Lindstrom requested the ARB be included in the upcoming
working session with the Commission on the site plan
approval process.
There was a brief discussion about scheduling of upcoming
work sessions. The staff was to work with the Commission
and the ARB to try to arrive at a time which would be
convenient for the majority.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:10 P.M.
DB