Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 10 1991 PC MinutesDECEMBER 10, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 10, 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: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; 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 November 26, 1991 were approved as submitted. Mr. Fritz briefly previewed the items to be placed an the December 17th Consent Agenda (Lakeland at Reynovia Phase I Final Plat). SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land -Company - Petition to establish outdoor display and storage of autos [30.6.3.2(b)] on 7.06 acres zoned HC, Highway Commecial and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 111, 111A, and 111B, is located on the east side of Rt. 29 approximately 0.2 miles south of the intersection of Rt. 29 and Carrsbrook Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area (Neighborhood 2). Mr. Fritz passed out letters from Mr. James P. Mooney, Mr. Don Walker and Mr. Frank Rice, all expressing opposition to the proposed development. Mr. Fritz summarized the reasons for opposition: Effects of sight and sound from the site; water runoff; lighting; fuel spillage; and general concerns regarding site and building design. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Mr. Fritz stressed that "this use is subject to a special use permit only because of its location within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and this review is limited to matters of aesthetic consideration and whether the use can be aesthetically accommodated in the proposed location." He explained that if this were not an Entrance Corridor the item would be before the Commission ONLY as a site plan because it is a by -right use under the existing zoning (HC). [NOTE: This point was re-emphasized several times throughout the hearing.] He noted that the application had been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that with the appropriate site design this use will be in accord with the Entrance Corridor Overlay ,�4a 12-10-R1 2 District. Sufficient regulations are in place to ensure that the site plan is reviewed for compliance with the Entrance Corridor regulations. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request subject to ... conditions." Mr. Rittenhouse explained the Commission's latitude in relation to the review. He again explained that the special permit is before the Commission because it is a proposal for an outdoor display area in an Entrance Corridor. He stated: "Cur purview in looking at this from the standpoint of aesthetic appeal or suitability is limited to the considerations from the Entrance Corridor...which does not include the aesthetic compatability with an adjacent property zoned otherwise." Mr. Fritz confirmed that matters such as stormwater drainage and control, grading, etc. would be addressed at the time of site plan review. Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling if the Commission had the latitude to place conditions on a special permit which relate to the control of noise, lighting, etc. Mr. Bowling responded that he agreed with staff's analysis of the request, i.e. that the "analysis you are required to make is limited to matters of aesthetic consideration." In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Cilimberg explained that there had been particular concerns about outdoor displays, particularly with auto dealerships, during the discussions about the EC Overlay. Thus, this type of use had been included as a special permit because (1) it gives the Board the opportunity to deny a use that is determined to be particularly onerous, or (2) it gives the opportunity for conditions to be attached which will limit the scale of outdoor storage. The appliant was represented by Mr. Dave Walsh and Mr. Tom Muncaster. They expressed agreement with the staff report. The offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons, all residents of the Carrsbrook and Woodbrook neighborhoods, addressed the Commission: Mr. Frank A. Rice (President of the Carrsbrook Homeowner's Association); Mr. Don Walker; Mr. Don Swafford; Mr. Jim Mooney; and Mr. Joel Hamilton. (Approximately 12 persons were in attendance to support the speakers' comments.) Their concerns included the following: 116 12-10-91 3 --Will radically and significantly alter the topography of the landscape. --The appearance of the site from the residences of Carrsbrook and Woodbrook should be given consideration; --The past record of the developer should be considered; --The site has no natural buffer between it and the residential property; --Light pollution; --Imcompatability with adjacent residential property; --Eventual widening of Rt. 29 would destroy any buffer which may be installed; --There are many other HC uses which would be much less objectionable. Mr. Swafford described auto dealerships in Texas which have been developed in such a way that they fit in with the landscape. Mr. Rice expressed the understanding that his comments would be more appropriate for the site review hearing. Mr. Rittenhouse confirmed that if his concerns dealt with site specific issues such as drainage, sanitary sewer, landscaping, etc., then his understanding was correct. Ms. Huckle felt that the issue of sanitary sewer was a matter of public health and safety and therefore Mr. Rice should be able to present those comments. She thought the time to place conditions on a request was at the time of a special permit request. Mr. Rittenhouse again stated that the Commission is considering whether the use is appropriate and "for there to be any development of that property, the developer would have to meet the requirements of our Ordinance and if issues of safety and health could not be satisfied, then the Ordinance could not be complied with and the development could not take place." He again pointed out that the County Attorney and staff have stated that the Commission's review is limited to matters of aesthetic consideration." Mr. Cilimberg added that "health and safety predominates even when there is a site plan and you always have the latitude to deal with mattters of health and safety matters --no matter what the review is before you -- specifically that is why we have site plan provisions of our ordinance and there will be a requirement that this development meet those requirements during the site plan review process." Mr. Johnson suggested that interested residents attend the site review meeting and the Architectural Review Hoard meeting. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 12-10-91 4 Mr. Johnson noted that staff and counsel have advised that the Commission's review is confined to aesthetic concerns. He suggested, however, that condition No. 5 have the following added at the end: "...with emphasis on items 1-8 of the Architectural Review Board minutes of Nov. 12, 1991, and paragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance." He quoted from section 1.4.3: "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." He stated: "Hopefully. by adding that it would emphasize the aspect which has been demonstrated here --the effect on the community and not just the effect on Rt. 29." (The Commission expressed no objections to Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Condition 5 was later amended as recommended by Mr. Johnson.) Ms. Huckle did not think it would be possible to screen the site from Rt. 29, given the topography of the land. She also expressed concern about lighting and felt it would be "difficult to live with that in your back yard." Mr. Grimm noted that one of the attractions of having a business along Rt. 29 is high visability. He did not think a business would want to be completely screened. Ms. Huckle noted that there are many businesses which could be placed on the site which do not operate late at night and would not require all the outdoor display. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the appropriateness of the zoning was not the issue. He added that if the permit is ultimately approved, then the Commission will consider very carefully all the issues of public concern at the time of the site plan review. There was a brief discussion about Mr. Robertson's (Water Resources Manager) encouragement of above -ground stormwater storage so that all runoff would eventually feed into the regional detention basin. Staff did not know how this issue would be resolved because the ARB may feel that underground detention is aesthetically preferable. Mr. Fritz stated this would have to be "worked out with a detailed analysis of what is required." There was a brief discussion about spill -over lighting. Mr. Fritz referred to Section 4.12.6.4 in terms of maximum, shielding, etc. He confirmed that this issue would be addressed in the site plan review and staff will assure that "one-half foot candle is not exceeded." He stated that lighting plans have been required in the past where developments are adjacent to residential property. 4.5 12-10-91 5 Ms. Andersen referred to the ARS's minutes and stated that she was concerned because the ARH expressed concerns. Mr. Fritz acknowledged that the ARH had specific concerns, but he felt the general outcome had been that they felt the aesthetic concerns could be addressed during site plan review. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the ARH had stated that the concerns could be addressed through the B items Mr. Johnson had referred to earlier in his amendment to condition No. 5. He stated those B items relate to plantings, no storage in plateau grassy area, reduction of acreage in the request for outdoor storage and display, and storage of stormwater runoff in underground pipes. Ms. Huckle pointed out that the ARS had expressed concerns about the sanitary sewer and the storm water detention. She noted this was also one of the concerns expressed by the adjacent residents. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized that the permit was before the Commission because of the location in an Entrance Corridor. He explained that "to deny the special permit application assumes that there are aspects of this site that cannot be made acceptable to the ARH." He noted that the ARH will "predicate their review and the issue of a Certificate of Appropriateness on some of the items they have looked at preliminarily and if the ARH feels they cannot grant that Certificate of Appropriateness, then this development cannot take place." Mr. Johnson noted that the intent of his addition to condition 5 was to emphasize the Commission's support for the ARH review and not to imply that these items would be overlooked. In answer to Mr. Johnson's question about additional turn lanes, Mr. Fritz confirmed that those items would be addressed at the time of site review. He added that the plan has been revised based on VDOT comments. Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that the words "will be displayed" be deleted from condition No. 2. (No objections were expressed to this suggestion.) Mr. Cilimberg suggested the addition of the following to No. 1: ..approval does not guarantee any maximum display area of other feature." (No objections were expressed to this suggestion.) W9- 12-10-91 Mr. Johnson moved that SP-91-57 be recommended to the Board of to the following conditions: 6 for First Gold Leaf Land Trust Supervisors for approval subject 1. Approval is for automobile storage and display; approval does not guarantee any maximum display area or other feature. 2. There shall be no flags, pennants, spinners, tinsel, banners, or other attention grabbing devices other than signage approved specifically by the Albemarle County Zoning Depoartment and the Architectural Review Board. 3. Vehicles shall only be displayed in areas designated in the approved site plan; 4. No elevated vehicles; 5. Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval of the site plan with emphasis on items 1-8 of the Architectural Review Board minutes of November 12, 1991 and paragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. (It was clarified that the motion assumed that the stormwater detention issue would be addressed by the Engineering Department and would be satisfactorily resolved.) Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked if approval "authorized site development." Mr. Rittenhouse responded: "No. If the Board grants the special permit, the developer will go through the normal site review process and Condition 5 says that the ARB and the Commission will review the site plan. Staff will not administratively approve this site plan." Mr. Rittenhouse stressed that even though the preliminary site plan had been included in the report for information, no approval was being granted to the preliminary site plan. The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. ZMA-BV-09 Rio Hill West - Proposal to rezone 9.198 ares from R- 6, Residential to R-15, Residential (Proffered). Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcels 29B (part), 91, 92 (part). 93A1, and 109C are located on the west side of *7 12-10-91 7 Berkmar Drive at its intersection with Woodbrook Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area (Neighborhood i) and is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre). This item is being referred back to the Planning Commission due to new information received. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "The appliant's proffers have addressed the development's potential impact on Woodburn Road. While this proposal is within the Alternative 10 Bypass alignment and approval of this request may increase right -of way acquisition costs, the County's position is that Alternative 10 is not required and it is not included in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area and staff recommends approval of ZMA-99-09 subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers." There was considerable discussion as to how the applicant could limit the vehicle trips onto Woodburn Road to 110 vt/day. Staff explained that this was not difficult to achieve through site design. Possibilities include: limiting the total number of units which have access to Woodburn (11 units with 10 trips/unit) or having no units which have access onto Woodburn Road. Mr. Cilimberg noted that if a unified plan is submitted for all the property a traffic analysis will be required to make sure that there is no presumption of more than 110 vt/day using Woodburn Road. Ms. Huckle asked if the ultimate development of Parcel 91 could have access to Woodburn Road. Mr. Fritz explained the history of the property. He stated that Parcel 91's access to Woodburn Road had been a concern previously but the applicant's proffers have now addressed that concern, i.e. Parcel 91 will have an easement onto Berkmar Drive and no more than 110 vt/day will be allowed onto Woodburn Drive. He stressed that no more than 110 vt/day will be allowed onto Woodburn Road and site design will assure that. Mr. Johnson expressed some doubt about the feasibility of limiting the vehicle trips. Mr. Steve Melton represented the applicant. He stated that the applicant had understood the Commission's previous concerns and feels that the proffers address those concerns. He also noted that the applicant was agreeable to sharing in the cost (for one face) of a traffic signal at Berkmar and Woodbrook Drive. The Chairman invited public comment. IN 12-10-91 B Ms. Eleanor Santick. representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. After determining that the applicant has no current plans for the development of the property, though it will be developed when economic times improve, Ms. Santick read a statement expressing opposition to the request. That statement is attached to this record as Attachment A. Mr. William Stephenson, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He noted that he felt the alignment of Alternate 10 was unrealistic. He pointed out that it was prepared before the school site was developed and it also crosses a cemetary. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson asked if a condition could be placed on approval that there be no direct connection between Herkmar Drive and Rt. 659. Mr. Fritz responded that such a restriction would have to be made voluntarily by the applicant because rezonings cannot have conditions placed upon them. Ms. Huckle stated she would continue to oppose the proposal because it had too many loose ends and was therefore premature. There was a brief discussion about a discrepancy in fiscal impact figures. Mr. Fritz explained that the first figure was based on a very preliminary analysis, but the number in the report was as accurate as possible. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the issue was whether or not the proffers were adequate to "alleviate the unknowns" since there is still no development plan offered. Staff felt the the proffers addressed some of the unknowns associated with a speculative rezoning. He stated he had confidence in staff's ability to address site development issues, but he was still "uncomfortable with the unknowns," e.g. impact on the adjacent school and the visual impact of the site from public roads. He noted that the three proffers address transportation issues only. He expressed hesitancy. Mr. Johnson noted that it has been determined that the rezoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan so the Commission is just being asked to "correct the zoning to make it compatible with the Comprehensive Plan?" He questioned whether the ultimate development of the site was germane to the issue. 12-10-91 9 Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not dictate the pace of development. Mr. Jenkins agreed that the rezoning was "speculative" but he felt that the system is vulnerable to this type of request. He stated, however, that he would support the request. Mr. Grimm stated that the Comprehensive Plan was the County's "development tool." He noted those aspects of the proposal which are in compliance with the Plan and stated he could find no reason to oppose the request. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on previous similar requests. Mr. Fritz repeated a statement in the staff report: "The County has attempted in past rezoning requests to obtain a conceptual plan for development in order to determine the relationship of the development to adjacent areas...." He stated that there have been some rezonings which have been approved without plans, though it is not common. He was able to recall only one specifically (an extension to an existing development in the Hollymead area). Mr. Cilimberg stated: "We don't tend to view speculation as part of our review directly. In a sense, whether or not it's attached with many proffers or no proffers at all, its speculation. It's tighter when it has a lot proffers and particularly when it has a conceptual development plan. That's been important to us and we would have preferred it here, all things being equal. ... Our view on this was that although the conceptual plan would have been desirable, the factors of greatest concern were addressed by the proffers and we were then willing to accept the ability of our zoning Ordinance to take care of the site development issues in this particular case. In other cases, that might not have been adequate enough...." Mr. Rittenhouse again expressed concern about being unable to determine the impact on the adjacent school. He noted there have been problems recently connected with schools adjacent to residential areas. He added that circumstances have changed somewhat since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the construction of the new school. Mr. Johnson moved that ZMA-89-09 for Rio Hill West be recommended to the Hoard of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, as stated in a letter dated November 12, 1991 from Mr. Stephen M. Melton to Mr. William D. Fritz. 12-10-91 10 Mr. Grimm seconded the motion Commissioners Rittenhouse and votes. which passed (4:2) with Huckle casting the dissenting Mont.fair Estates Preliminary Plat - A proposal to create a Rural Preservation Development with 19 development lots with 63.76 acres of open space and a 78 acre preservation tract. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcels 33, 33H and 33F, is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is loated on the northwest side of Route 673 approximately 0.3 miles west of its intersection with Route 810 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area I). [This is a revision to a plat reviewed by the Site Review Committee on March 7, 1991.1 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. [He noted the addition of condition 1(h): Health Department approval.] Mr. Fritz explained that written Health Department approval has not yet been received though it was his understanding there were no problems. It was noted that there could be no further subdivision of the property. Mr. Johnson noted that fairway 5 for the golf course is outside of the RPD. Mr. Fritz responded that that was not an issue and does not effect the RPD. (Mr. Fritz also explained that the approval for the golf course was still valid because it is under construction.) Mr. Johnson also expressed concern about the fact that the road crosses a dam. He wondered if the road should be re -aligned. Mr. Fritz stated that the Department of Engineering would address that issue. He stated that staff would also see if there were any alternatives and bring the results of their study back at the time of final site plan review. Mr. Cilimberg noted that VDOT's primary concern in relation to dams is their design in terms of compaction, and material make-up and also liability in the event the dam should break. The applicant was represented by Mr. Phil Sheridan. He stated he was in agreement with the staff report. He also explained that the dam had been designed by the Soil Conservation Service. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse noted his support for the staff's analysis of the proposal. Mr. Jenkins moved that the Montfair Estates Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: .6-1 12-10-91 11 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 calulations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval of a rural preservation easement; e. Staff approval of a road name; f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations; g. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit if required; h. Health Department approval. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-91-093 Dr. T.H. Hain Clinic Addition - Proposal to locate a 5,185 square foot building addition on 0.96 acres zoned A, Rural Area. Property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcel 31,is located on Route 691 approximately 0.5 mile west of the Route 810/240 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This is located in a designated growth area. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Ms. Huckle's question about on or off -site detention, Ms. Lipinski stated she was under the impression that they would be contributing to the off -site dentention basin. (Mr. Brent Nelson confirmed this was accurate.) In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Lipinski explained how the site would be different as a result of the addition, i.e. the travelways would be widened, there will be additional marking of the travel lanes, the entrances will be widened and will become two-way. Mr. Johnson asked why there would be additional detention needed. Ms. Lipinski explained that detention requirements increased because the coefficient is determined by the size of the building. 12-10-91 12 There was a discussion about how fire flow requirements would be met. Ms. Lipinski explained there were several options, e.g. the building can be sprinklered or the building can be constructed with materials that have a greater fire resistance, thus reducing the fire flow requirement. The applicant was represented by Mr. Brent Nelson. He indicated agreement with the staff report. He added that he felt it was important that the evergreen trees in front of the property be preserved. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle moved that the Dr. T.H. Bain Clinic Addition 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 drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design if height is over five (5) feet; C. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrane permit; e. Inspections Department approval of fire flow; f. Widen two-way travelways to twenty (20) feet; g. Planning Department approval of signage indicating one-way travel in front of the building; h. Department of Engineering approval of run-off control plans if "on site" detention is used or a contribution of $1,260.53 to the County's Lickinghole Creek detention basin prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Wal-Mart Site - Ms. Huckle called attention to a newspaper article about an occurrence on this site. Several buffer 12-10-91 13 trees were apparently removed in violation of site plan approval. Ater County inspectors visited the site and discovered the violation, they returned to their offices to write the appropriate letters during which time the remainder of the trees were then removed. Mr. Bowling noted that the trees would have to be replaced if that was a condition of the approval. Sound Wall Project Between Georgetown Green and Department of Education Property CIP Project - Mr. and Mrs. Bob Dewey asked for a report on the outcome of their request for a sound barrier. Though they stated that the Commission had invited them back to this particular meeting for an answer, the Commission could not recall having made such an invitation, particularly since it could not have been known exactly when the Board would take action on the CIP. The Commission recalled that they had recommended that money be set aside to study what type barrier would be most appropriate. However, they had no knowledge of the Board's final decision on this recommendation, nor on this project as a whole. Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Cilimberg advised the Deweys to contact the Board of Supervisors office for an answer to their question. Satellite Dishes on Tom of Building at Corner of Rio Road and Rt. 29N - Mr. Johnson noted that these dishes were in place and the applicant had gone beyond what had been required so that the dishes blended very well with the surroundings. He felt a letter should be written to the applicant acknowledging their efforts. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.m. DB V. Wayne ilimber9. piecr t a r y 64