HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 12 1991 PC MinutesMarch 12, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, March 12, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski,
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Jenkins.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
February 26, 1991 were approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
Addition to Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District
and
R.K. Spencer Subdivision
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent
Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Lipinski briefly previewed SUB-90-092 South 29 Land
Trust Preliminary Plat which was scheduled for the March
19th Consent Agenda.
SDP-91-006 Berkmar, Lot 6 Preliminary Site Plan -
Construction of a 6,621 square foot building for
retail/warehouse use and 37 parking spaces on a 322,729
square foot parcel. Zoned Highway Commercial and is
partially located in the EC Overlay District. Tax Map 61U,
Section 01, Parcel 5 & 6; and Tax Map 61, Parcel 120F, is on
the Northeast side of Berkmar Drive approximately 475 feet
west of Route 29. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Designated Growth Area - Neighborhood 1.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. The staff report
discussed three primary issues:
(1) A waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 to allow development
on slopes of 25% or greater. (Staff supported this waiver
request.)
(2) A request for off -site parking. (Staff supported
this request.)
(3) Access and circulation problems. (Staff did not
support the proposed circulation pattern because of sight
March 12, 1991
Page 2
distance problems, the travelway to the back
on Lot 5 would be only 15 feet (the Ordinance
feet); and a lack of safe pedestrian access
of the building to the rear parking area.)
of the building
requires 20
from the front
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ha To Ly and Mr. Kirk
Hughes. Mr. Ly did not understand why Lot 5 had any
connection to this application on Lot 6. (Ms. Lipinski
explained that access to Lot 6 would require a sight
easement across Lot 5.) Mr. Hughes explained that the
entrance on Lot 6 has preliminary Virginia Department of
Transportation approval, subject to final engineering, and
it is also the only location for an entrance which would not
require grade changes in the travelway of Berkmar Drive. He
stated that the applicant owns both Lots 5 and 6. He
explained some of the history of the property and stated
that a sight easement across Lots 4, 5, and 6 was plated and
recorded by a previous owner. He explained that the sight
easement on Lot 5 would result in the elimination of some
parking spaces. He explained that there are no existing
plans for the development of Lot 5 but when it is
re -developed access will be through Lot 6. (Note: it was
determined that there is an existing building on Lot 5.)
Ms. Huckle noted that since both lots are owned by the same
person, perhaps they could be combined to make a more
convenient plan. Mr. Hughes responded that they had been
purchased as separate lots.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse explained the potential problem was the fact
that a sight easement across Lot 5 would result in the
creation of a zoning violation on Lot 5 because it would
cause the width of the travelway to the rear of lot 5 to be
only 15 feet (which is a violation of Section 4.12.6.2),
thus Lot 5 would become non -conforming. Ms. Lipinski agreed
with this assessment of the situation.
Mr. Johnson felt approval would be premature for the
following reasons:
-- The absence of Architectural Review Board comments
given the fact that part of the lot is on the Entrance
Corridor. 2/3 of the lot is completely exposed to Rt. 29.
-- Leveling of the lot will result in the creation of
a substantial slope on the northern edge which has not been
defined. This, combined with the existing 25% slopes, will
result in significant runoff which has not been addressed.
-- Approval of a preliminary site plan results in the
applicant having vested rights in the plan.
.2 3 C,1
March 12, 1991 Page 3
Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed with Mr. Johnson's statement about
vested rights. He stated that any applicant must comply
with the conditions of approval or the approval would be
invalid. Mr. Bowling added that if the applicant does not
meet all the requirements of the Ordinance, then he has no
vested rights.
Mr. Johnson understood that the Ordinance did not prevent
the applicant from commencing grading. Mr. Keeler explained
that the applicant could not start grading until he has
received final site plan approvals.
Mr. Johnson asked how this situation was different from what
had happened with the Wal-Mart project. He stated: "A
decision was made that they had vested rights already on the
basis of preliminary site plan and no significant changes
could be made."
Mr. Keeler explained: "That was in regard to the review by
the Architectural Review Board. The situation there was
that Wal-Mart was already in progress --in fact the plan was
submitted almost a year ago --before we even started drafting
the Entrance Corridor provisions. ... They had made multiple
revisions to the site plan. That had been in the pipeline
for about a year. At the Commission meeting on that I made
the statement that certainly the landscape plan would be
susceptible to the ARB, but at the time the Commission
actually acted on it, the ARB had not even been appointed.
So there are matters of gradation with, these plans that will
continue to come in for some time and each one will require
analysis and determination by the Zoning Administrator as to
the extent to which the ARB can exercise its authority based
on what's already gone forward."
Mr. Johnson stated he understood the ARB had been
considering asking that the applicant (Wal-Mart) move the
building but had been advised by the County Attorney that
such a requirement would result in a court case because the
applicant had a vested interest.
Mr. Keeler responded with comments related to the existing
Berkmar application. He explained that when the Entrance
Corridor District had been adopted, it had been decided that
staff would have to make administrative determinations as to
when this type of project is referred to the ARB because the
EC District is only applicable if the development is visible
from the Entrance Corridor. He stated that three county
staff members had viewed the property on separate occasions
and determined that it was not "reasonably visible... for
practical purposes in the experience of driving down the
corridor." He stated that staff had no objection to the ARB
making the determination as to visibility, but until
� 3'i
March 12, 1991
Page 4
"reasonably visible" is more clearly defined staff will
continue to define it as P9reasonably visible under the
normal conditions of driving down the corridor."
Mr. Johnson felt the ARB should be making the determinations
as to visibility.
Mr. Keeler expressed no objection to Mr. Johnson's
suggestion, though he did not know if the ARB would be
agreeable.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the ARB review was separate
and should not influence the Commission's review.
Mr. Johnson noted, however, that the ARB review was supposed
to take place before the Commission's review of the
preliminary plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that staff had determined that ARB
review was not applicable in this case.
Ms. Huckle indicated she was in agreement with staff's
assessment of the safety issue in relation to the width of
the travelway.
Mr. Rittenhouse again stated he felt the primary issue was
that approval of this plan for Lot 6 would result in the
creation of a zoning violation on Lot 5. He agreed with
staff that this was not good planning.
Ms. Andersen moved that SDP-91-006 for Berkmar Lot 6
Preliminary site Plan be denied based on those issues
identified in the staff report.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowling pointed out that the Commission needed to
identify, by reference to the Ordinance, the deficiencies in
the plan which resulted in the recommendation for denial and
also to generally identify what corrections could be made to
make the plan approvable.
The following reasons for denial were identified:
--Creation of a zoning violation of Section 4.12.6.2 on
Lot 5.
--Non-compliance with Section 32.7.2 which deals with
safe and convenient access. (Mr. Keeler read this section
from the Ordinance.)
--Non-compliance with Section 32.7.2.7 which deals with
on -site parking and circulation. (Mr. Keeler read this
section of the Ordinance.)
March 12, 1991 Page 5
[Mr. Johnson felt that a reason for denial was also the fact
that a waiver to allow development on critical slopes would
result in the creation of other slopes greater than 25%.
However, Mr. Bowling advised that in order to use this as a
reason for denial the Commission would need to identify how
this application was different from others where critical
slope waivers have been granted.]
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the
Commission's reasoning, i.e. can denial of a proposal on one
lot be tied to its effects on another lot? Mr. Bowling
responded that there has never been a waiver of sight
distance requirements for a commercial application and sight
distance is the basis of the problems. He also noted that
it was his understanding that there were alternatives which
would solve this problem.
Mr. Keeler explained an alternative would be "not to have a
joint entrance and access through the other commercial
development." He stated this would eliminate the need for
the sight easement. He stated that Lot 5 could be
re -developed. (It was noted that real estate files indicate
that the structure on Lot 5 has exceeded it's life
expectancy.)
Mr. Johnson questioned whether the Commission could advise
the applicant as to how to design the site. Mr. Bowling
responded to this by quoting from Section 15.1475 of the
Code of Virginia: "You are required to 'generally identify
such modifications or.corrections as will permit approval of
the plat' under your Ordinance."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Commission was to "generally"
offer guidance but not to offer a specific solution.
Mr. Bowling confirmed that the Commission had fulfilled the
requirement for identification of reasons for denial.
The motion for denial of Berkmar Lot 6 Preliminary Site Plan
passed unanimously.
Adelphia Cable Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct
a 900 square foot building on 0.63 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 16A, is
located on the west side of Rt. 743, 1000 feet north of Rt.
631 in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The site is
not locted within a designated growth area.
March 12, 1991 Page 6
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"In staff opinion, the concerns raised by the Board of
Supervisors have been addressed by the applicant, and the
conditions of SP-90-19 and SP-79-32 have been met." Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Johnson's and Ms. Huckle's questions
related to time requirements for plantings, Mr. Fritz
explained that the applicant had 60 days from February 1st
to commence planting.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Michael Smith. He
explained that the February 1st date had been determined
based on the survivability of the trees. He stated he had
made arrangements with Snow's Nursery who should commence
planting "next week."
Ms. Huckle asked why there was only one row of pines on the
side where there is the majority of dishes. Mr. Smith
explained that there were no other property owners along
that side and what is proposed had been agreed upon between
the staff and the applicant. (Mr. Fritz added there was no
room for additional plantings. He also stated there had
been no concerns raised by property owners "other than those
in the development to the north.")
Mr. Smith confirmed that the applicant will be cleaning up
the site. He also confirmed that the applicant would not
begin construction until the trees have been planted. (Mr.
Fritz added that that was a condition of the Zoning
Ordinance and no special condition was required.) Mr.
Keeler added that Zoning would require a one-year
maintenance bond for the plantings.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked what measures would be taken if the
plantings were not in place before the comencement of
construction. Mr. Bowling explained that the applicant
would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning
Administrator would take steps to correct the violation.
Mr. Keeler added that the County had no control over fines
as they are imposed by the Court.
Ms. Huckle stated she would be "more comfortable if this
were deferred until these trees were planted."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Adelphia Cable 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
140
March 12, 1991 Page 7
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. Building shall have lap siding and asphalt
shingles as shown in Attachment G;
c. No additional impervious area, including
driveway, shall be permitted without a runoff control
permit;
d. Compliance with the conditions of VA-90-68.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Discussion of Staff Approval of Subdivisions in Growth Areas
Mr. Keeler explained that the Subdivision Ordinance allows
staff administrative approval of subdivisions, in rural
areas, where (1) all lots front on a state road and have
adequate road frontage or (2) the division is a family
division. (Administrative approval of family divisions is
allowed in both rural and growth areas.) He explained that
currently staff cannot approve a subdivision in a growth
area which could be approved in a rural area. He stated
this results in delays to the property owners. He requested
that the Commission grant staff the authority to approve
these types of subdivisions in growth areas. He stressed
that staff would continue to bring requests before the
Commission which had potential problems. He explained that
staff would approve only those cases where there is adequate
road frontage, no utility problems and all the requirements
of the subdivision ordinance are satisfied.
Mr. Johnson concluded: "What you're asking is that we have
the same confidence in staff in growth areas as we do in
rural areas?" Mr. Keeler replied affirmatively.
Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that staff be
granted administrative approval of subdivisions in the
growth areas which have adequate road frontage and meet all
other requirements of the Ordinance. The motion passed
unanimously.
Referring to the Berkmar application which had just been
heard, Mr. Johnson initiated a discussion about the issue of
ARB review of sites which, though they are not "contiguous"
to the Entrance Corridor, have at least a portion of the lot
which lies within the 500 feet limit. He felt the Ordinance
should be modified so as to address this tvoe of situation.
March 12, 1991 Page 8
Mr. Keeler indicated that presently the Zoning Administrator
is ruling on cases such as those described by Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Keeler noted that this type of ordinance amendment could
not be made quickly because of notification requirements,
i.e. if less than 500 properties would be effected, then
written notice would have to be given to each property
owner.
Before pursuing an Ordinance change, Mr. Wilkerson asked
that staff ascertain how the Zoning Administrator is
currently making these determinations.
Mr. Johnson again stated his opinion that determinations as
to the visibility of a property should be made by the
Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about preliminary plans being
approved before Engineering comments have been obtained. He
again brought up the issue of vested rights in preliminary
plans and referred to the Wal-Mart development. Mr. Bowling
pointed out that Mr. Johnson's comparison with Wal-Mart was
inaccurate. Mr. Bowling explained that Wal-Mart had gone
through a long site development process, working with staff,
under the current ordinance. A new Ordinance had then come
into existence after this long process and after the
expenditure of substantial funds by the applicant. He
stated that vested rights were an issue in that case but in
the Berkmar preliminary plan the applicant could not have a
vested right because the applicant "had to comply with the
engineering requirements, the runoff control ordinance,
etc., all of which were in existence from the beginning."
He explained that vested rights become an issue when a new
Ordinance comes into existence in the middle of an approval
process which is already in progress.
Mr. Rittenhouse added that Wal-Mart had not achieved any
vested rights through non-compliance with the Ordinance and
neither could the Berkmar applicant.
Mr. Keeler added that there were different grades vesting,
e.g. the Wal-Mart building location was vested because of
all the engineering calculations which had been performed,
but the landscaping was not vested because no significant
expenditure of funds had taken place.
Referring to the Adelphia Cable approval, Ms. Huckle noted
that because staff had not requested administrative approval.
of the final, the Commission would be reviewing the final
plat.
There being no further burin s, the meeting ad'ourned at
8:30 p.m. �fA %o/l
, S$jbretary
DS B