Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 04 1991 PC MinutesJune 4, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 4, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. other officials present were: Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner, Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 14, 1991 were approved as submitted. Presentation to Norma Diehl - The Chairman read a Resolution of Appreciation in honor of Ms. Diehl, who had served on the Commission for many years. SP-91-18 William & Mar Rid well - Petition to allow an exterior garden display area on 2.78 acres zoned C-1, Commercial (30.6.3.2b]. Properties, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12, Parcels 1H and 1, is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Dominion Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District (this is the location of the former Pizza Inn building). This site is located in Neighborhood One and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the "mulch area." He described it as "unsightly" and asked if it was staff's intent that said area remain as shown on the plan. Ms. Lipinski explained that the Architectural Review Board had reviewed this plan and had expressed no concerns about the mulch area. Mr. Johnson, referring to condition No. 2, noted that said condition included signs and could thus "be construed as prohibiting signs." Ms. Lipinski explained that condition No. 2 is a standard condition for this type of site plan. She noted that signs would have to meet the requirements of the Ordinance and would require approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Johnson, referring to condition No. 3 related to the expansion of the storage area, asked if any storage area was shown on the plan. Ms. Lipinski explained that the condition was related to a change in the type or amount of storage. Mr. Johnson questioned the origin of the "ten inches above 'I7 June 4, 1991 Page 2 the finished floor" in condition No. 6. He also noted that "air tight" containers should be "water tight" containers as referred to in the County Engineer's report. Ms. Lipinski explained that the 10 inch limitation was an effort on the part of the the County Engineer to insure that potentially hazardous materials would not be exposed to floodwater. Ms. Lipinski agreed that "air tight" could be changed to "water tight." Also referring to condition No. 6, Ms. Huckle asked that the words "in the building" be added after the word "stored." (It was ultimately decided that condition No. 6 would be changed to read: "All herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and any other hazardous material shall be stored in the building in water -tight containers and located ten inches above the finished floor of the building.") The applicant was agreeable to this change. The applicant, Mr. Ridgewell, addressed the Commission. He explained that he felt the flooding problems on the site had been the result of poor maintenance of the drainage ditch by the State. He presented a petition of support for the proposal. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he explained that it was his intention to continue to use bulk, loose mulch rather than bagged mulch. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson expressed his strong support for the proposal. However, he recommended several changes to the conditions. In regard to the first condition, which referred to a storage of items in accordance with a general sketch plan, he expressed concerns about "tying the hands of the ARB.rr Mr. Johnson's recommended changes to the conditions of approval are made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. Mr. Rittenhouse commented on Mr. Johnson's suggested changes. He felt the mulch storage question will be addressed though staff's condition No. 8 [ARB issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for new structure and landscape plan.] He felt this was an implication that the ARB's review is not being limited. (Mr. Bowling pointed out that the ARB has already seen the sketch plan.) Regarding the storage of herbicides, fertilizer, etc. he agreed with Ms. Huckle that storage should be inside the building. Regarding comments 5(a) and (b) in the County Engineer's letter which Mr. Johnson had included in his amended conditions of approval, Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that 5(a) is really an "admonition" to the applicant and (b) IN June 4, 1991 Page 3 would require the applicant to maintain a part of the State's right-of-way and neither should be included as conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff's condition No. 8 included the space between the display areas and Rt. 29 (as referred to in Mr. Johnson's condition No. 10). Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that he felt Mr. Johnson's concerns were met through staff's original conditions of approval. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Ridgwell explained that the equipment for his other business (Eagle Nest Irrigation Systems) would not be stored on this site though a demonstration system may be displayed at this site. Ms. Andersen moved that SP-91-18 for William & Mary Ridgwell be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Outdoor storage of items shall be in general accord with sketch plan dated June 4, 1991, initialled Y.L., in terms of items and their locaiton. Containers shall be noted as "planting pots and urns." The garden display area on Parcel 1, shall be noted. 2. No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsels or other attention getting devices shall be allowed. 3. Any expansion of storage shall require additional review. 4. Maintenance trimming of vegetation to obtain minimum sight distance to the satisfaction of Virginia Department of Transportation. 5. Fire official approval. 6. All herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and any other hazardous material shall be stored in the building in. water -tight containers and located ten inches above the finished floor of the building. 7. Staff approval of easement agreement to allow off -site parking. 8. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for new structure and landscape plan. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 7R June 4, 1991 Page 4 SP-91-15 Gifford & Rachel S. Crawford - Request to locate a single wide mobile home on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(10)]. Property, described as Tax Map 18, Parcel 8J is located on the north side of Rt. 776 approximately 3/10 mile west of the interseciton of Rts. 664 and 776 in the White Hall Magisterial district. This site is not located in the designated Growth Area (Rural Area 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He included the addition of condition No. 8: "Mobile home is to be located as -shown on plat dated June 4, 1991, initialled W.D.F." Mr. Johnson asked about the location of the inoperable vehicles. Mr. Fritz explained that they are on the back of the property. This issue was later discussed and it was concluded that because the applicant owns additional property it should be no problem for him to meet the requirements of the ordinance, i.e. only a few vehicles are involved and he can move them so that no more than 2 are on each property. (This matter is being addressed by the zoning Administrator.) Mr. Johnson questioned the origin of condition No. 7 which restricts the use of the mobile home to the applicant or his family. Mr. Fritz, and others, explained that it has been a consistent long-standing policy of the county that mobile homes be occupied by the owner or the owner's family and that renting of mobile homes has not been allowed. (Mr. Johnson felt the word "used" should be changed to "occupied." The Commission and staff agreed.) The applicant, Mr. Crawford, addressed the Commission. He described the property and the surrounding properties. He stressed his intent to do extensive planting (trees, shrubs, etc.) on the property. He also asked that the use of the mobile home not be restricted to family only. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Kevin Cox addressed the Commission. He expressed support for the proposal and stressed the need for affordable housing in the County. He, too, expressed opposition to the restriction to family use only. He stated: "T don't think it's right to insist that Mr. Crawford see that this single -wide trailer is occupied only by members of his family when that same requirement cannot be made of an occupant of a -double -wide trailer, a modular home, or any other dwelling in the County. T don't think it's fair to deprive him of control over his property in such a manner." There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. June 4, 1991 Page 5 Ms. Huckle noted that she felt there was a difference in a mobile home vs. a conventional dwelling because when a family no longer has a use for the structure, it can be removed. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Ordinance considers mobile homes differently, thus the requirement for a special permit. He noted that historically the Commission has reviewed such requests in terms of providing necessary housing for an applicant or his family and has purposely "stayed away from mobile home requests which have been speculative in nature whereby one might obtain a special permit in order to speculate on it as a rental unit or a venture, per se." He noted that the Board has reaffirmed that position through denial of a recent request for a mobile home to be used as a vacation home. It was at this time that it was decided that the word "used" would be changed to "occupied" in condition No. 7. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-91-15 for Gifford and Rachel Crawford be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; 3. 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; 4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; 5. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced it it should die; 6. Mobile home shall not be located on the property until such time as all zoning violations have been abated or the applicant submits an acceptable administrative consent order to the Zoning Administrator; 7. Mobile home shall only be occupied by Gifford & Rachel Crawford or their family; 8. Mobile home is to be located as shown on plat dated June 4, 1991, initialled W.D.F. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. June 4, 1991 Page 6 SP-91-16 Trinity Presbyterian Church - Petition to add two modular classrooms to the existing church facilities [13.2.2(10)] on 17.54 acres zoned R-1, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C and 17C1, is located on the south side of Route 702 approximately 3/10 mile west of its intersection with the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial district. This site is located in Neighborhood Six and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Mr•. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Regarding the .requirement for connection to public sewer, which was required with a previous approval for a pre-school, Mr. Fritz explained that the need for connection to public sewer is caused by the pre-school and not by these additional classrooms (which are for the use of the existing church membership). He also explained that condition No. 3 [A building permit will not be issued until connection to public sewer has been completed.] is an attempt to insure that the connection to public sewer is made, i.e. it is just another way of monitoring the enforcement of the requirement. He confirmed that the connection to public sewer will still be required, regardless of the outcome of this application. Mr. Fritz explained that the Church has requested that the connection to public sewer be tied to a certificate of occupancy rather than a building permit so that the buildings can be erected, even though they will not be put in use until the sewer connection is made. (The staff report explained that the sewer project has been put out for bid.) Ms. Huckle did not see any problems with the condition as stated by staff since the buildings could be erected quickly. The applicant was represented by Mr. Doug Lowe. He called attention to a recent letter from the Health Department which verified that the applicant was in compliance with the previous special permit. He indicated that the awarding of the contract for the sewer project was imminent. He confirmed that the classrooms were to accommodate the existing church attendance, which fluctuates with the coming and going of university students. He asked that the sewer connection be tied to a certificate of occupancy rather than a building permit in the event there should be delays in the construction process. It was determined the classrooms would not have plumbing. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. June 4, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was willing to grant the applicant's request regarding the sewer connection. He felt the County had a way of insuring that the connection would be made independent of this application. He pointed out that this request was not based on an expanded use of the facilities. Ms. Huckle noted that she would like to support staff since they must have had reasons for the condition as stated. Mr. Fritz explained that staff's position had been based on: (1) An increased area (which staff stated was a minor consideration); and (2) The nature of the previous condition --that it be completed by August 21st and there be periodic inspe-ctions of the drainfield--makes it very difficult to monitor. He suggested that the Commission may want to keep the condition but tie it to a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Rittenhouse was agreeable to this suggestion. The applicant pointed out that all previous special permit conditions have been followed and that will continue to be the case. Mr. Johnson moved that SP-91-16 for Trinity Presbyterian Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which shall not be larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet. 2. The modular classrooms shall be loated as shown on Attachment C initialled WDF and dated May 6, 1991. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until connection to public sewer has been completed. 4. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary for the installation of the modular classrooms. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Annual Report - 1990 - Mr. Cilimberg noted some minor corrections to the report, including an incorrect date in Mr. Johnson's term (termination date listed as 12-31-92 should have been 12-31-91). Other corrections were typographical errors or for clarification. The Commission expressed no concerns about the report. SA June 4, 1991 Page 8 Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Annual Report be adopted as amended by Mr. Cilimberg. (See Attachment B). The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8.20 p.m. V. Wayne ilimberg, ary DB 7 0*