Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 30 1991 PC MinutesJuly 30, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 30, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, 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 July 16, 1991 were approved as submitted. SP-91-30 Gorden D. Berne - The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to grant a special use permit for a landscaping contractors office with two employees [14.3.2(9)] on 1.3 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 76C, Section A, Parcel 3 (#6 Canterbury Road) is zoned R-1, Residential and is located on the west side of Canterbury Road approximately 700 feet south of Rt. 250 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 6). AND SP-91-32 Kenneth E. or Jean Blackburn - Proposal to locate a single wide mobile home on 28.808 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corricor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 126, Parcel 22E is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection between Rt. 6 and Rt. 721 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. (Staff later explained that the objection to this request had been withdrawn, thus the application would qualify for administrative approval.) The Chairman announced that both these items had been withdrawn by the applicants. Later in the meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to accept both requests for withdrawal, without prejudice. CONSENT AGENDA SDP-91-054 Susan Reppert Day Care Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to utilize two existing residences and construct nine parking spaces for a day care center on 0.72 acre site. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 120F i.39 2 and 120F1, is located just and behind the Thomas Tire Commercial and EC, Entrance Charlottesville Magisterial within a designated growth north of Berkmar Drive off Rt. 29 site. Zoned HC, Highway Corridor Overlay District in the District. This site is located area (Neighborhood 1). Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. He answered questions about easements and fencing which had been raised by the Commission at the July 23rd meeting. He explained chain link fence had been changed to picket fencing. Mr. Johnson asked if issues such as enrollment and difficult topography would be addressed by State authorities. Mr. Tarbell confirmed that State licensing would be required. Ms. Huckle had questions about proposed fencing. Mr. Tarbell explained that the applicant proposes to fence the entire property and, in addition, the play areas will be fenced -off from the parking areas. It was decided the following condition would be added: "Staff approval of fencing as proposed verbally by applicant." Mr. Grimm moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent Agenda be approved (Susan Reppert Day Care Center Preliminary Site Plan) with the addition of the following condition: "Staff approval of fencing as proposed verbally by applicant." The motion passed unanimously. SP-91-36 Verulam Farm Limited Partnership - The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 (a 43 lot Rural Preservation Development and a bridge in the floodplain of Ivy Creek) to allow the use of private roads instead of public roads. The property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18A, 18B, and 23, is located in the southeast quadrant of I-64 and St. Rt. 637. Zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial district. The property is not located in a designated growth area (RA III). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. In response to Mr. Johnson's questions regarding apparent changes in the conditions of approval, Mr. Fritz confirmed that those conditions appearing in the staff report were those which were approved by the Board of Supervisors (for SP-90-119 and SP-90-120.) Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board had made some changes to the conditions which had been approved by the Commission. Mr. Johnson asked if the Engineering Department's recommendation No. 5 (Attachment E of the Staff report), should be made a condition of approval. Mr. Fritz explained %A0 /-30-91 3 that would not be necessary because "it would be required before we would even approve the plan...." Mr. Johnson asked if a water quality impact assessment should be required before issuance of a grading permit (as referred to in Mr. Robertson's letter of July 15, 1991). Mr. Fritz responded: "It's not necessary to add that as a condition; the Engineering Department automatically forwards all erosion control plans to the Water Resource Manager for his review." Mr. Cilimberg added that condition 5(a)--"Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit." --would cover that concern "in all circumstances where the Chesapeake Bay or the Resource Protection Area is involved." Mr. Johnson asked if the street entrance and the taper lane were being ignored. Mr. Fritz replied: "No, sir; the conditions of the subdivision approval will permit the Department of Transportation to provide approval of the entrance location." He added that the applicant was proposing to amend only private roads. Mr. Cilimberg added that a preliminary of the subdivision had already been approved so these issues will be addressed through the final plat. Ms. Huckle asked if there was more than one bridge anticipated since there is an existing bridge and the conditions suggest that another bridge "will be constructed." Mr. Fritz explained that only one bridge is planned and the reason for the wording of the condition is to cover the possibility of replacement or improvements to the existing bridge. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the entrance location has been moved closer to the interchange. Mr. Rittenhouse asked about minimum distance requirements. Mr. Fritz explained: "There are no standards for separation from this interchange stated in the Comprehensive Plan or in the Virginia Department of Transportation standards. It is a recommendation only. This entrance location does not jeopardize safety. ...." He confirmed that staff would make sure that the 100-foot taper lane is part of the subdivision approval. Ms. Andersen asked for an explanation of condition No. 1 in relation to "family divisions." Mr. Cilimberg explained that the lots in question would still have to qualify for a family division under our ordinances and "this is not a pre -approval of that...." 7-30-91 4 Question was raised about condition No. 1, i.e. is or still enforce? Staff clarified with the County the Special Permit referenced in the original SP-90-119 superceded indicated that issue would be Attorney before Board hearing. The applicant was represented by Mr. Hi Ewald. He offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. She asked that the issue of Private roads vs. mountainous standards be clarified. She also was in favor of the water impact assessment being performed. She indicated most of her concerns had already been addressed in the Commission's discussion. She read a statement which indicted that though CFA did not support the project, neither did it "condemn" it. She asked that "all reasonable precautions and conditions be in place before work begins." There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Fritz clarified that the present request is to have Private roads designed to State standards for mountainous terrain and administered by the County Engineer rather than public roads designed to rolling standards (as previously approved). Ms. Huckle indicated she had always favored mountainous standards. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-91-36 for Verulam Farm Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: I. Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in the preservation tract and shall be located as shown on the preliminary plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0 acres and no greater than 4.3 acres in size. All dwellings/lots must qualify as "Family Divisions." Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approval of "Family Division"; 2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from the public roads, i.e., I-64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots; /h� 7-30-91 5 3. Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads and dwellings; 4. New dwelllings shall be of earth tones. 5. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; c. Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private road shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous standards. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-91-31 Kenneth B. Moyers - Request to locate a Home Occupation Class B to sell reef fish, live coral and invertebrates from an accessory structure on 5.065 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 76N, Section 1, Parcel M, is located at the southwest intersection between Mountain View Drive and overlook Drive in the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, this property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification of the proposal, i.e. is it to raise fish (as stated in the staff report), or to sell fish (as stated in the Zoning Administrator's letter)? He wondered if there would be the same objections if the proposal is only to raise fish and not to sell them. Ms. Lipinski stated it was her understanding that the fish would be raised on site and then taken off site for sale. She stated there would be no on -site sales. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this issue had been discussed with the Zoning Administrator and it had been her determination, based on the information given her by the applicant, that the proposal fit the definition of a Home Occupation Class B. Thus a permit is needed. %T3 -3U-91 5 There was a brief discussion about the differences between Class A and Class B permits. It was noted that Class A permits are conducted only in the home, whereas Class B involve an accessory structure. At this point, it was determined that the applicant was not present. Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that SP-91-31 for Kenneth B. Moyers be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS University Corporate Center Final Plat (formerly Willoughby Corporate Center) - Reapproval Request Mr. Tarbell presented a brief staff report which described the history of the approvals for this project. An 18-month extension (Note: Mr. Tarbell later referred to this as a "re -approval") had been granted in March, 1990. The applicant is now requesting another 18-month extension based on economic reasons. He explained that the only ordinance change which would effect the subdivision is the adoption of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The applicant is aware that future site plans will require ARB approval if they are visible from the road. The Commission will also be reviewing some private road design standards which may effect the development's road design. (Mr. Tarbell felt the road design would not be effected.) He also stated that the applicant has met the conditions of approval of the final so it is a matter of "getting bonds posted or roads built." [Mr. Rittenhouse quoted from what he mistakenly believed to be the staff report for this item. It was determined that the sentences quoted by Mr. Rittenhouse were actually taken from the staff report for Lakeland at Reynovia Phase I.] Mr. Johnson noted that he did not feel there were any justifiable reasons for granting an extension of the University Corporate Center and therefore granting this request would set undesirable precedent. Mr. Wilkerson noted that the sentences mistakenly quoted by Mr. Rittenhouse were actually appropriate for University Corporate Center also, i.e. "Historically, staff has recommended favorably on extension requests when there has been undeniable unusual delay due to matters beyond the control of the developer... those circumstances are not present in this situation;" and "...unjustified extensions would defeat the purpose of an 'expiration date' ...." 7-30-91 7 Mr. Cilimberg noted the following difference: "One is a preliminary plat and one is a final plat. The final has already satisfied the conditions of approval that were established in the preliminary and the preliminary plat has not." He explained: "You are being asked on the second one to extend a preliminary plat; you are being asked on this one to extend a final plat in which all conditions have been met and it's simply a matter of them recording the plat." {NOTE: This explanation later proved to be inaccurate as both requests were determined to refer to a final plat.] Mr. Tarbell added: "They have moved forward in meeting conditions of approval; this is just going to allow them another period of time to either go out and build the road or post the bonds and I think what they're asking for is re -approval of the plat to relieve the burden of having to put up that money for construction or for a bond for their project even though they've met the conditions of approval." Mr. Rittenhouse concluded: "You're saying they just don't want to do it now." Mr. Tarbell responded affirmatively. He added: "But they have met everything we had conditioned on them and they have agreed to comply with the current ordinance provisions when they do pursue it." It was determined no actual construction has begun on the project. In the event the extension request is denied, the following options available to the applicant were described: --Post the bonds and get it signed by August 23rd; --Let it expire and re -submit it, starting as a final, with another site plan committee and Commission review. Mr. Cilimberg indicated he needed to confer with staff on this item and also on the Reynovia request, because "in both cases we are talking about building or bonding roads." It was decided that the Commission would leave this item temporarily to allow time for staff to confer. The Lake Reynovia request was then discussed. Lakeland at Reynovia Phase I Preliminary Plat - Extension Request Mr. Fritz presented the staff report which included a history of the approvals for the project. He stated that the applicant has "satisfied all the conditions of approval for that action." He also stated: "Staff is unaware of any changes in the Ordinance which would affect this approval or this particular project." The applicant was requesting a 6-month extension request in order to have additional time to construct roads and in order to reduce or eliminate the need for a bond. He also stated that grading activities have commenced at the site. 14�5_ 7-30-91 8 The report stated that there had been no delays caused by governmental agencies and the request is for the convenience of the applicant. The staff report described the following options: --The applicant may bond improvements and record the plat prior to expiration; --Staff could support a three-month extension (consistent with past staff recommendations) "provided the plat is approved under the current zoning regulations and submitted with a new fee, etc. Re -submittal should occur within 30 days." --The Commission could grant the 6-month extension as requested by the applicant, citing specific reasons for the approval, such as the fact that grading activity has begun. It was determined the applicant had been issued a grading permit and has posted an erosion control bond. Ms. Huckle asked what would happen in terms of the construction which is taking place if the applicant should have "to start over." Mr. Fritz explained that work would have to cease until a re -approval is obtained. Ms. Huckle asked why the extension was being requested. Mr. Rittenhouse answered: "In order to have additional time to construct the roads so as to eliminate or reduce the bond required prior to the signature of the final plat." The Commission recessed for 5 minutes. After having conferred with staff Mr. Cilimberg made the following statement: "There are two different problems actually. One, this is not a preliminary plat extension on Lakeland, it's a final. So it is, in essence, the same type of re -approval request as the University Corporate Center. They are both final plat requests for extensions and what we outline as three options apply to both. So look at them as being the same. We had a mis-identification of one plat extension and we should have included, under the University Corporate Center, basically three options (as stated above under the Reynovia discussion). Under option No. 2, staff could support a three-month extension consistent with past staff recommendations provided the plat is approved under current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance provisions. That was done on another subdivision (Dunlora) not too many months ago. You granted a 3-month; they came in with a new fee --essentially they were re -submitting but it was all handled administratively and they were able to accomplish what they needed to accomplish within the timeframe. I %�6 7-31-91 9 think for at least the Lakeland at Reynovia Phase I Final Plat Extension, that giving the 3-month extension allows them to re -submit for basic review, with a fee, but it also doesn't make them stop their work --it extends the plat and covers what Ms. Huckle referred to before we went into the break about the work that's underway. Rather than letting it expire and they have to stop work, they get a whole 3-month extension. We get to review it again and accomplish what needs to be accomplished at both ends. In the case of University Corporate Center, there is no work under way. They have gotten approvals, but no work is under way so they may or may not benefit by a 3-month extension, but at the end of 3-months, basically, if they haven't done anything, they will just have to go through the whole application procedure all over again." It was determined that the University Corporate Center had received other extensions. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the extensions had been for the final site plan. Mr. Tarbell explained: "It came to you as a preliminary and then again as a final on the Consent Agenda and then once as an extension." He clarified that the University Corporate Center has had one extension granted: March 20, 1990. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that after that approval the Commission had decided (at the time of the Dunlora request) that it needed to established a "more standard approach to extension requests." That approach was essentially the options outlined in the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg noted: "I guess the one difference we could identify --in the Lakeland situation --it does not look like there is anything that has changed to effect (the project) under current Ordinance provisions, as we had with Dunlora." Mr. Fritz confirmed: "No, there has been no change in the Ordinance that we have been able to identify which would effect it in any way." He also noted that Lake Reynovia was a proffered development. The Chairman suggested that the Commission deal first with the Lake Reynovia request. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the staff's position, i.e. that they can support a 3-month extension under the terms described previously. Commissioners Wilkerson and Rittenhouse indicated they were in agreement with staff. In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, Mr. Fritz described the bonding process. She asked if the applicant has difficulty obtaining funding to complete the project "is he liable to just walk away and leave this road?" Mr. Bowling replied: "It's possible." /�4;r 7-30-91 10 Mr. Johnson indicated he felt the applicant had not presented "good reasons" for the granting of an extension. Mr. Jenkins noted that though there may not be good reasons for extending the approval, there are also no good reasons not to extend it, "other than making the applicant go back through the process. As long as the ordinance is the same, I don't need the exercise myself." Mr. Rittenhouse again stated he could support staff's position for a 3-month extension. He felt this would not unduly penalize the applicant or the County because staff will get to review the application as though it were a new application in terms of Ordinance changes. Mr. Jenkins understood Mr. Rittenhouse's reasoning, but noted that there are no changes. Ms. Huckle asked if a condition could be placed on the extension to the effect that another extension would not be granted. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Commission could make the applicant aware of the it's intention not to grant any further extensions, if that was the Commission's position. Mr. Wilkerson moved that Lakeland at Reynovia Phase I Final Plat be granted a 3-month extension as set forth in option No. 2 of the staff's report. Ms. Huckle asked that the a statement be added to the motion to advise the applicant that the Commission does not intend to grant further extensions. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that this was an "intention", i.e. "that the Commission does not intend to grant any further extensions but would be open to extenuating circumstances. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the record would clearly show the Commission's intent, but that should not be made a part of the motion. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. The Chairman asked if the applicant had any comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Pete Bradshaw. He explained that the applicant's solution to financing difficulties, caused by the present state of financial markets, had been to acquire a partner in the development. That partner, in this case, is a local contractor (A.G. Dillard) who is going ahead and constructing the roads. So the intent is for the roads to actually be completed for /-IV-y1 ij- recordation of the final plat, rather than bonded. He explained that actual grading of the vertical and horizontal alignments have begun. He stated the request for a 6-month extension is to allow for adequate time for the roads to be completed, given uncertain weather conditions and the approach of Fall. He stressed that construction is underway and will proceed diligently. The motion for a 3-month extension passed, 6:1, with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. University -Corporate Center Discussion continued. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the circumstances were similar except that no construction has begun and one extension has already been granted. There was some question as to why an 18-month extension had been granted. Mr. Tarbell explained that the reasons for the request at that time had been very similar to those of Lakeland, i.e. economic conditions --"they just haven't found buyers for these lots to make it feasible to proceed with the development." He confirmed that staff had had the opportunity to re -review the project at the time of that 18-month re -approval. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commission had actually given a "reapproval" rather than an extension. Ms. Andersen wondered why option No. 2 (the 3-month extension )is now being recommended when an 18-month extension had been granted last year under circumstances that were the same as those currently being experienced by Lakeland at Reynovia. Mr. Tarbell explained that the 3-month recommendation had been the result of the Dunlora development at a time when many of these requests were being received. Mr. Cilimberg added that the previous 18-month re -approval for University Corporate had allowed re -review of the proposal and was also at a time when extension requests occurred less frequently than they did subsequently. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the current request is for another 18-month re -approval. Mr. Grimm stated he could not find justification for another re -approval. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. The applicant, Mr. Claude Cotton, addressed the Commission. He explained that delays have been the result of economic problems in the commercial real estate F"A 7-30-91 12 market. He stressed that the real estate market in Charlottesville is still in a deep recession. He explained that the applicant has already invested a great deal in engineering, etc. Ms. Andersen stated that she was very sympathetic to the financial market and she felt some flexibility was called for. Ms. Huckle pointed out that the engineering, etc. would not be wasted because the applicant could re -submit the same plan. Mr. Wilkerson questioned the benefit of a 3-month extension in this case. Mr. Rittenhouse again referred to the staff report in relation to "unjustified extensions." Ms. Huckle moved that the University Corporate Center Extension Request be denied. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins indicated he was uncomfortable with a denial, though at the same time he was not in favor of unlimited extensions. He referred to Ms. Andersen's comments about the state of the economy and also stated he did not feel the applicant was trying to take advantage of any Ordinance changes. Mr. Grimm questioned whether financial considerations should be a part of the Commission's determinations. He felt the Commission's charge was "to carry out the (provisions) of the Ordinances." Mr. Rittenhouse agreed with Mr. Grimm. Mr. Tarbell again explained the process and fees the applicant would have to follow for re -submittal. The previously stated motion for denial passed (6:1) with Commissioner Andersen casting the dissenting vote. Mr. Johnson once again brought up the Verulam Farm development. He quoted the following from the minutes of the previous hearing on this item: "It will not come under Architectural Review Board review because it is a subdivision." He asked under which section of the Ordinance this statement had its basis. Mr. Fritz referred to Sec. ao 7-30-91 13 30.6.4.1 of the Ordinance. He stated this section states that ARB review is required in a case where you have a site development plan. He quoted: "For any development subject to approval under Section 32.7, Site Development Plan, of this Ordinance, the Commission shall not approve any final site development plan unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued." He explained that The Rocks (Verulam Farm) is a subdivision plat not subject to Section 32.7 because it does not require a site development plan. Mr. Johnson asked: "Where are subdivisions excluded under provisions of final site plan which is 32.7." Mr. Fritz responded: "It's excluded by it's not being referenced." Mr. Cilimberg added: "The Ordinance works to refer to all those items that are inclusive in regulation. ... 32 is the site development plan section of the Ordinance. Site development plans are applicable to those projects that are required to submit a site development plan and it can be a site development plan submitted in conjunction with a subdivision that has already taken place." Mr. Cilimberg continued to try to explain the meaning of the Ordinance in response to Mr. Johnson's questions. Mr. Bowling summarized: "Single family subdivisions are excluded from site development plan requirements of your Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Johnson pointed out: "But we have a separate ordinance --separate provisions for subdivisions. If we develop it under that that isn't exclusive of a single-family or anything else. That is an entity as defined in itself --a subdivision --a single family dwelling also has a definition." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "A subdivision act, in and of itself, does not preclude or include the necessity for site plan review. A site plan review is going to be necessitated by the type of development that occurs on each one of those lots. ... The application of the Ordinance for site plans is going to be based on the type of use to be developed on that lot that is subdivided. With the Verulam Farm application, we know that the type of unit to be developed on those lots under Rural Preservation Development, is a single-family detached unit and that is not subject to site plan review." Mr. Johnson stated: "I agree with the exclusion of single-family development but I do disagree with saying that a subdivision is defined --because it has single family developments --is excluded because it has such single family developments." /1V 7-30-91 14 Mr. Johnson felt that if the statement made about Verulam Farm (The Rocks) not requiring ARB review was let stand, it could be setting a precedent. [Note: Because of equipment failure some of the comments made after this point were lost.] The tape continued: Mr. Cilimberg, speaking of industrial and commercial development: "As soon as a master site plan or an individual site plan for any one of those lots is submitted, if it's in the EC Overlay, it's subject to the Ordinance. The subdivision action that created the lots on which the development takes place is not what kicks in the EC Overlay; it's the action of site plan." Mr. Johnson: "I would submit, at least in my opinion, this interpretation is not in the intended context of the EC and the ARB operation. Whether or not its a subdivision of homes or a subdivision of industrial development, the intent is still to make it aesthetically acceptable and excluding an individual house is one thing, but excluding a whole number of them in a plan is another thing." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. q %,i..'�llM, Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw 1.6oQ