HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 18 1992 PC Minutes8-18-92
Ei
AUGUST 18, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on -Tuesday, August 18, 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. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, 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
August 4, 1992 were approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP-91-015 Covenant Church of God Major Site Plan
Amendment - Proposal to move the stormwater detention basin
and add 33 new parking spaces. Property, described as Tax
Map 61, Parcels 154 and 155 is located on the east side of
Rio Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Greenbrier Drive.
Zoned CO, Commercial Office and R-4, Residential in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (Neighborhood 2).
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
Addition to Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal 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, 1992. The existing Totier Creek
District contains 7,246.52 acres.
Ms. Scala presented a brief staff report.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the
Addition to the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
0
8-18-92 2
Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal 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. Scala presented a brief staff report.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the
Addition to the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The
motion passed unanimously.
SP-92-48 Jimmy Chisholm - Proposal to locate a single wide
mobile home on 19.47 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 102, Parcel 39H, is located west of
Blenheim Road (Rt. 727), approximately 1.4 miles south of
the Blenheim Road/Carters Mountain Road (Rt. 727/Rt. 626)
intersection in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This
site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural
Area 4).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question regarding the
applicant's right to use the private road, Mr. Bowling
explained: "We haven't gotten into those disputes. We have
relied upon the other individuals, who have rights, or don't
have rights, to regulate that particular issue."
The applicant, Mr. Jimmy Chisholm, addressed the Commission.
He stated that Health Department approval has been received
for the septic system and the well. He also confirmed the
existence of right-of-way to the property.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed his support for the request. He
noted that of the two letters of complaint received, one had
been withdrawn and the other was from an out-of-town
property owner and had been received after the deadline. He
expressed his dissatisfaction with the mobile home approval
system, noting the amount of applicant and staff time
involved. He asked that the Commission direct staff to
proceed with a Zoning Text Amendment that would allow mobile
homes to be treated "like any other home." (Mr. Johnson
advised Mr. Cox of a Work Session scheduled for September 1,
during which the mobile home issue would be discussed.)
OV
8-18-92 3
There being no further comment. the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-92-48
for Jimmy Chisholm be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval.
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current
regulations.
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die.
5. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located.
The motion passed unanimously.
(SDP-92-002)_Earlysville Forest Commercial Center
Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 5,400 square
foot commercial building on a 30,395 square foot site.
Access is proposed off Bent Oaks Drive through the approved
post office parking lot. Property, described as Tax Map
31B, Parcel C-3 (pt), is located on the east side of Rt.-743
approximately 250 feet south of Earlysville Forest Dirve.
Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated
growth area (Village of Earlysville) and is recommended for
Village Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was.represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He
offered to answer Commission questions. In response to Ms.
Huckle's question, he stated the building would house
commercial offices and would be designed to accommodate 25
people.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
V';
8-18-92
4
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Earlysville Forest Commercial
Center 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 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 issuance of an erosion
control permit;
C. Planning Department approval of landscape plan.
2. The final plan shall not be signed until Fire Officer
final approval has been obtained.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(SDP-92-049) - Mill Creek Industrial Park Parcel 19
PreliminarySite Plan - Proposal to construct a 12,350
square -foot contractor's office on a 6.06 acre site.
Property, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcel 19, is located
behind the National Guard Armory and south of Interstate 64.
Access to Route 742 is proposed through an existing
right-of-way between the Armory and the Joint Security
Complex. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 4) and is
recommended for Industrial Service.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
It was determined that the a "grinder pump" (to handle the
sewage) would be required.
Mr. Johnson questioned the authorization of a "contractor's
office" in a PUD. He was concerned because of what he
perceived to be a lack of control over "outside external
storage of equipment and/or materials." He had been unable
to locate it in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler explained:
"The PUD designation has three different areas and one of
them is Light Industrial. If you look at the industrial
area, it refers you directly to the Light Industrial." Mr.
Tarbell referred to the following pertinent sections of the
Ordinance: Section 20 - Planned Unit Development (PUD);
Section 20.6 - Permitted Uses - Industrial which references
uses permitted in accordance with Section 29.0 - Planned
.23
8-18-92 5
Development - Industrial Park (PD-IP); 29.2.1 -- (Permitted
Uses) By Right, which references the LI district, and
contractor's office and equipment storage yard is a use by
right under Section 27.2.1(9).
Mr. Johnson asked if it was appropriate to restrict exterior
storage of materials and/or equipment. Mr. Tarbell pointed
out that adjacent uses are of an industrial nature.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He
offered no additional comment.
Mr. Blue asked if the applicant had investigated the
possitility of serving the site with gravity sewer
(eliminating the need for the grinder pumps). Mr. Muncaster
responded: "There is a real big swale there." He also
noted that there are a couple of other lots in the
industrial park of the PUD which were approved with pump
systems.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission would review the final
site plan. Mr. Tarbell responded that that condition had
been mistakenly ommitted. He suggested the addition of No.
2: "Administrative approval of the final site plan." There
was no Commission opposition to the addition of this
condition.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Mill
Creek Industrial Park Parcel 19 Preliminary Site Plan be
apppoved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning ❑epartment 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
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval
and drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval
control permit;
d. Department of Engineering approval
control permit;
e. Department of Engineering approval
off -site drainage plats;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority
final water and sewer plans;
of grading and
of access road
of an erosion
of a stormwater
of on -site and
approval of
g. Dedication of existing water and sewer lines in the
Mill Creek Industrial Park;
3#
8-18-92 6
h. Staff approval of a final landscape plan.
2. Administrative approval of final site plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
Note: Public hearing items ended at 7:50 p.m.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Johnson commented on the following:
(1) Referring to the 250 square feet per employee used
in the County Government Facilities Plan, he noted that the
Community College is using a figure of 100 square feet per
employee for their plans.
(2) Referring to the comments attributable to Mr.
Cilimberg in the August 4 minutes in regards to proffers, he
felt it was important that the minutes show that proffers
cannot be "required" as had been stated in the minutes.
[NOTE: Subsequent examination of the August 4 minutes
revealed that Mr. Cilimberg had not used the word
"required." The minutes were corrected accordingly.]
Regarding Mr. Cilimberg's statement that a project must be
included in the CIP before a proffer can be accepted, he
stated: "I'd like the minutes to show that the only
requirement is that there be a Capital Improvements Program
adopted prior to accepting or identifying the proffer, that
the items that are covered by the proffer need to be in the
CIP, but only at the time of transfer of any funds, or the
proffer. We don't have to have the item in the CIP, we just
have to have the CIP in order to accept zoning with a
proffer on it, but at the time time of physical or actual
transfer of the proffer, the item has to be in the CIP."
In an attempt to clarify some of the discussion which had
taken place at the August 4 meeting, Mr. Keeler explained:
"In order to spend 'hard money,' (i.e. money spent on
engineering plans), it is appropriate to have it in the CIP
because we are spending significant amounts of money. So
what we were really saying is 'we need the engineering plans
to know where the right-of-way is to be able to negotiate
with the developer when he comes in. If I came in as a
developer and proffered right-of-way for the Meadowcreek
Parkway not knowing where it was, I'm not going to put
myself in that position. So that's the whole thing in a
nutshell of what I think Wayne intended by that whole
discussion."
Mr. Johnson agreed.
NEW BUSINESS
25-,
8-18-92 7
Shell Station -- Colonnade Drive 250W - Mr. Tarbell explained
that after having received comments from the ARB, which
would have resulted in the replacement of the roof and major
structural changes, the applicant has decided to construct a
new building rather than re -arranging the existing building.
He explained that the new building would be "slightly behind
the existing footprint." He stated that the applicant has
cooperated with all staff's recommendations. (Mr. Keeler
noted that the staff still considers this to be a "minor
site plan amendment.")
Mr. Blue asked if the applicant's change in plans was the
result of advice from his own architect, or was the result
of the ARB's review. Mr. Tarbell felt that the applicant
had been "agreeable" to the recommendations of the ARB.
There was a brief discussion about the removal of
underground storage tanks. Mr. Bowling explained that
underground petroleum storage is regulated by the State
Water Control Board.
The Commission expressed no opposition to staff handling the
changes, as described, administratively.
Me. Nitchmann wondered if there were many instances where
the requirements of the ARB has resulted in a project being
"scraped." Mr. Tarbell stated this is the only project he
has been associated with which involves the replacement of
an old structure with a new one. He noted that Circuit City
had chosen not to locate in the County because of
restrictions placed by the ARB. Mr. Keeler added: "The ARB
only has authority over an existing building if the
applicant is seeking to make some change to that building.
That came up on Moore's on 250E where they wanted to do
something to their storage yard and the ARB asked the
question 'Can we get them to make changes to the existing
building?' and Mr. St. John's response was 'No, that's not
before you.' If somebody comes in to remodel their building
and it's involving an expansion that requires a site plan,
then they do have authority over it. A place where they
didn't have authority was where it was simply renovation to
the facade of the building that had been approved under site
plan. There was no change to the site whatsoever and that
was Western Sizzlin', which in my opinion was an improvement
over the building that they had, but that caused some
concern that they didn't have authority over that building.
But the way the Ordinance is written, the ARB only exercises
its authority when it involves a site plan."
Mr. Nitchmann asked: "So you don't feel that history shows
that the ARB's rulings have been a deterrent to business
owners trying to improve their property?" Mr. Keeler
responded: "Again, if it involves a site plan, then the ARB
2�
8-18-92 8
has full discretion." He confirmed that ARB decisions can
be appealed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:10 P.M.
DB
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
27