HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 14 89 PC MinutesFebruary 14, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 14, 1989,.Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. John Pullen,
Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of January 31, 1989 were approved as
submitted.
Body Works Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate an 8,000 square foot
Auto Body Repair Shop on 2.8 acres. Access is to be from a private access
easement intersecting Route 649 (Doble Ann Drive) and is to be served by
16 parking spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E3 is
located on the north side of Route 649 approximately 5/10 mile west of
Route 29 in.Airport Center Subdivision. Zoned LI, Light Industrial.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions, including the addition of condition 3: "Administrative approval
of final site plan."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked some questions about the critical slope area. Mr.
Pullen explained the applicant would be cutting into the critical slopes,
as opposed to filling on the critical slopes, in order to create a flat
area on which to locate the building.
Regarding the drainfield, Mr. Pullen explained that pumping would be
necessary because the building site is lower than the drainfield.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Marcia Joseph. She offered little
additional comment other than stating that the applicant planned to
plant additional vegetation in the critical slope areas.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he was concerned about grading on the critical
slopes because the Ordinance says "You shall not do it." He felt the
Ordinance was "non -conditional" and did not say "You can do it if you do
certain things." He felt the Ordinance did not give the Commission any
latitude, or any ameliorating conditions, that could be applied to
allow grading on critical slopes.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to comment on the technical way the Commission
has approached this issue in the past. Mr. Pullen responded: "Under
Section 4.1.5.1 the Commission has the authority to grant modification
of Section 4.2 Critical Slopes. You typically grant that modification
based on staff and County Engineer recommendation."
aSD
February 14, 1989
Page 2
fir. Bowerman stated: "So the ordinance does contemplate situations --because
I know we have done this in the past --we haven't done it recently because
the areas were quite large and they effected a large portion of the site."
Mr. Pullen responded affirmatively.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, fir. Pullen quoted Section 4.2.5.1
of the. Zoning Ordinance as follows: "The applicant shall demonstrate to the
Commission that such modification is consistent with sound engineering and
design practice and that the public interest and the intent of this section
would be served to at least an equivalent degree by such modification."
He also read Section 4.2 Critical Slopes.as follows: "These provisions
are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving
steep hillsides and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion,
sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with
the development of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical
slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of critical slopes
may result in rapid ar.d/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive
stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water;
loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system failure, a
greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential
dangers to the public health, safety and welfare. These provisions are
intended to direct building and septic system locations to terrain more -suit-
able to development and to discourage development on critical slopes."
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the applicant's rationale for locating the building
on critical slopes, i.e. "it's difficult to locate the development on the site,"
was not sufficient reason to allow it. He felt the applicant needed a
stronger argument.
Mr. Michel stated he understood Mr. Rittenhouse's concern but explained that
historically the Commission has "tended to let it go" if only a small percentage
of the site was involved..
mr. Pullen explained the applicant's grading plan and pointed out that there
would be no critical slopes remaining on the site after the grading is
complete. He also confirmed that though grading would take place in
critical slope areas, the footprint of the building was not in critical
slope areas.
Referring to Mr. Rittenhouse's comparison to a previous application (Mountainwood),
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had not allowed it in that case
because the property was almost all in critical slopes, whereas in this case
there is a very minimal utilization of the lot. He stated: "I don't think
that we contemplated :Waking this lot unbuildable for a use that, in my mind,
takes up a small portion of the lot. I don't think it's unreasonable where
it meets sound engineering principles and practices to exchange one slope
for another. I don't think it's.a violation of the Critical Slope section.
I don't think we're leaving the property any worse that it was when they
entered it."
:sir. Michel stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Rittenhouse's concerns but,
in this particular case, he was willing to vote in favor of the request
partially because the staff report indicated "they tried to address things."
He added, however, that he felt the Commission needed to address the criteria
of how these issues should be dealt with in the future.
February 14, 1989 Page 3
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was striving for consistency while also striving
not to be arbitrary.
Mr. Keeler explained there was a difference in this proposal from previous
proposals (Mill Creek and Mediplex). He stated that in the case of Mediplex
"they had other areas.on the site and they could locate the expansion without
intruding on 25% slopes. In the case of Mill Creek it was explicit in the
zoning approval that they wanted to get on 25% slopes, and they came back
and proposed to get on the 25% slopes. This subdivision was approved around
1978, before the new ordinance,. and.at that time we asked them to enlarge
this site because of the physical development problems that we were aware
of at that time. We didn't have the critical slope provisions in place at
the time." Mr. Keeler explained the basis for the critical slope provisions.
He explained that this had been done on a smaller contour interval and
if it had been done on a 20-foot .contour interval it probably wouldn't have
shown as 25%. He stated that staff feels, as it has in the past, that
"basically it's inconsequential but it still does require your action to
waive that provision."
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler stated the lot had been
enlarged as recommended.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the Ordinance addressed the creation of slopes
of 25% or greater.
Mr. Keeler replied that "creation of slopes of 25% or greater would be
done through engineering reviewwith engineering approval." He explained
that the "idea of this ordinance was not to permit intrusion of development
on natural slopes... without any engineering study that doesn't preclude,
with proper engineering practices, getting on those steeper slopes."
Mr. Rittenhouse felt it was desirable, when presented with this type of
situation, to have a report from a geo-technical engineer stating that
the resulting slope should be stable. He felt the intent of the
Ordinance was that "we will end up with a stable slope that will not be
subject to erosion because of grading."'
Discussion continued about the slope issue. Mr. Bowerman asked how this
could be defined any better to give the Commission the flexibility it needs.
He indicated he felt the Ordinance contemplated a certain amount of
discretion on the part of the Commission, "as long as we are satisfied
that it can be done in sound engineering ways."
Mr. Rittenhouse confirmed that he felt that was missing in this case,
i.e, that the County Engineer has not confirmed that the resulting slopes
will be stable. He stated that an additional condition requiring
this information from a geo-technical engineer could address his concerns.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he would prefer to leave to the discretion of the
County Engineer the determination as to whether a geo-technical study
was necessary.
a.5"a
February 14, 1989 Page 4
There was a brief discussion as to how to best address this concern through a
condition. It was finally decided the following would be added to condition
l(a): "Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations, including approval of slope stabilization methods and
calculations."
Mr. Pullen noted: "I think you haveMear to staff what information you want
in the future to grant the modification."
?sir. Michel moved that the Body Works Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations, to include approval of slope stabilization
methods andcalculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Compliance with all federal, state, and local permit requirements
pertaining to the relocation, disturbance, or alteration of any
perennial stream;
d. Planning staff approval of landscape and conservation plans.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of a certified engineer's report;
b. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl stated she would not support the motion.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was still uncomfortable with the whole aspect and
felt the key was slope stability.
:sir. Michel stated he felt more definitive criteria was needed for dealing
with this issue. He indicated he would "rather have a natural slope of
25% that is undisturbed than a stabilized 50% slope."
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed that more definitive criteria was needed to strengthen
the ordinance.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with Ms. Diehl casting
the dissenting vote..
It was decided a discussion of critical slopes would be added to the Ngork
session scheduled for February 21, 1989.
February 14, 1989
Page 5
Blue Ridge Garden Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a
7,300 square foot retail and office building served by 68 parking spaces.
Access is to be from a private road off of Rt. 649. Property, described as
Tax Map 32A, Section 2, Parcel 1B is located on the north side of Rt. 649
just east of Rt. 29 in front of 84 Lumber. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
There was some confusion on the partof the Commission as to whether
approval was being sought for a "future food store" which was shown on
the plan. Mr. Fritz explained that he thought the food store was shown
for information purposes only and would require a separate approval.
The main issue of discussion dealt with whether or not the applicant should be
required to connect to public sewer, and, if so, at what point.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Fritz stated that the
following condition should be added: "Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of drainage plans and calculations." Mr. Fritz explained that
it had been mistakenly omitted.
Ms. Diehl expressed confusion about condition 1(g) [Note on the final
site plan that public sewer shall be extended to this site within one year
of the extension of services to the Forest Lakes Day Care Center or a
point of equal distance; or with the development of Phase 2.]. It was
determined that "Phase 2" referred to the possible future food store,
Ms. Diehl questioned how this condition would work in the event plans
should change. Mr. Bowling responded that "if Phase 2 is not before you,
it is probably appropriate just to delete it." Mr. Bowerman suggested
that the condition be ended after the word "distance."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He explained that the
food store had been shown merely as a possibility and no approval was being
requested. He stated that another reason for showing the food store was
to explain the parking arrangement. He explained that if the applicant
ever does build a food store it will be at least 5 to 10 years away and
it would be the applicants plan to "expand the other operation into it."
Mr. Edwards described the use as a garden supply. He explained that
the building would include 2,500 square feet of retail space, a small
office, and storage. He stated the use would be 'one owner, one occupant"
and all garden related. Mr. Edwards stated he had problems only with
conditions (f) and (g) which related to public sewer connection and the
posting of a bond. He explained that the use would have only one bathroom
which would not be open to the public. He stated that connection to public
sewer would require pumping overtop of Proffit Road, even if extended to the
Day Care Center first. He felt this was not feasible. He indicated he would
not object to a requirement to hook to public sewer if a food store should
ever be built. Regarding VDOT approval of drainage plans, Mr. Edwards
pointed out that the use would not be discharging any drainage into the
State right-of-way and, in fact, "we are picking up their drainage and,
through an enclosed storm system, carrying it all the way through this
site." He also indicated that no grading would take place.
a-,
February 14, 1989
Page 6
-Mr. Barto, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that
the facility would be a small, family -operated garden center with only
four employees, he and his wife and his son and daughter-in-law. He, too,
asked that the requirement for connecting to public sewer be deleted.
He pointed out that the Health Department has granted approval for a
drainfield.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the connection to public sewer be approached
as it has been in the past, i.e. "when it is reasonably available." He
felt, in this case, that would mean "when there is a force main on the
other side of Proff it Road." He felt it seemed "unreasonable to essentially
pipe sewage which should be through a 4-inch line 600 feet to some other
place, up a hill over a drainage divide." He asked staff what triggers
that, i.e. how is it determined when it is reasonably-available2 Mr.
Keeler responded that that is a determination for the Commission to make.
tii . Keeler explained that if the condition is in place, it gives the applicant
a year from the time of service to Forest Lakes Day Care Center and if the
condition is not acceptable at that time the applicant can come back to the
Commission. He felt this would give the Commission the opportunity to see
what else has been developed in the area. He stated that staff has concerns
about not holding a bond.. He recalled problems that occurred with a
another use as a result of no bond.
There was some discussion about the size of line that .the Service Authority
might require. Mr. Keeler explained that if a line size is required that
is larger than needed to serve a particular use, the Authority will pay the
difference for the line size. Mr. Edwards explained the sewer line issue
further, including flow, size of line, velocity, etc.
The was some discussion about the adequacy of the septic system and drainfield.
It was pointed out that the Health Department had been aware of the use when
approval was granted.
Mr. Bowerman felt -it was unreasonable to require the applicant to "pump
sewage 600 feet" in view of the very low volume of sewage that the use
would produce. He felt the scale of use had to be considered along
with the availability of public utilities.
Ms. Diehl stated she was not arguing with that position.
There was a brief discussion about conditioning the use based on the
number of employees. (Note: No additional condition was added.)
2%Ir. Bowerman suggested that it be conditioned so asto require that
if there was an addition to the site plan, connection to public sewer would
be required at that time, or if the greenhouse activities should be
expanded. fir. Bowerman pointed out that a change in use or an expansion
will require Commission review. Mr. Keeler suggested a condition
could be added stating "No administrative approval or expansion or
additional use." Though Mr. Bowerman stated this would be satisfactory
�sS
February 14, 1989
Page 7
because it allowed control over number of employees and additional usage
of the site, there was no consensus on the part of the Commission that
the condition be added.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see connection to public sewer when
it is reasonably available_, regardless of the volume of use. He stated:
"I know we have done that in the past, Mr. Keeler." Mr. Keeler responded:
"Ineffectively —because there's no way to be sure that it will occur."
Mr. Edwards pointed out that if the applicant's septic system should fail
the Health Department will force him to connect to public sewer.
Mr. Keeler stressed that without a bond there is no guarantee that the
applicant will ever connect to public sewer.
There was some discussion, and confusion, as to whether or not to delete
conditions (f), dealing with requiring a bond, and (g), dealing with
a requirement to connect at the time the Forest Lakes Day Care Center
is provided with service.
Mr. Jenkins felt that there would be adequate opportunity to address the
issue at the time when an addition or expansion occurs. He felt it
was not reasonable to require a bond with this presently proposed usage.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that "this was not the site plan to go to the mat on
because of the size of the use." Mr. Michel agreed.
It was agreed that the Commission wished to see the use connect to public
utilities when they were reasonably available, but it was also understood
that there was no mechanism to insure such connection at this time
(without a bond). Mr. Jenkins confirmed he was in favor of deleting
conditions (f) and (g).
Ms. Diehl seemed to be in favor of letting condition (g) remain and adding
the phrase "when reasonably available."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that perhaps it was not necessary to state "when
reasonably available" because the Ordinance already says that. Mr. Bowerman
pointed out that the Commission would have the opportunity to require it
with a future review.
Mr. Bowerman again stated he felt (f) and (g) should be deleted. He stressed
that it was not an intense use and the Commission would have adequate control
with a future review.
Regarding Mr. Rittenhouse's suggestion about limiting the number of employees,
Mr. Bowling stated that was also an enforcement problem.
Mr. Keeler suggested that if the Commission wished to delete (f) and (g), their
concerns could be addressed by a new condition:
• Planning Commission approval of any expansion, additional use or
change of use.
February 14 1989
Page 8
Ms. Diehl asked that the minutes clearly show the proposed .use. It was
determined the use being approved was "one office, one bathroom, four employees,
garden center only."
Mr. Bowling stated he felt the use had been tied down by the applicant's
testimony..
:1r. Jenkins moved that the Blue Ridge Garden Center Preliminary Site
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a) Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c) Planning Department approval of landscape plan;
d.) Approval of fire hydrant location by Fire Officer;
e) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of cater plans;
f) Planning Commission approval of any expansion, additional use
or change of use;
g) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans
and calculations.
2 A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a) Fire Officer final approval.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the :notion which passed unanimously.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission needed to take action on the waiver referred
to in the staff report, i.e. "Staff recommends a waiver of Section 32.7.5.1
of the Zoning Ordinance which requires connections to public sewer unless
the Commission finds that public sewer is not reasonably available."
Mr. Keeler replied that the Commission had determined that public sewer
was not reasonably available, thus the Commission's action had taken
care of the need for a waiver.
Buffalo Run Preliminary Plat - Proposal to subdivide two existing parcels
into 28 lots ranging in size from 10.5 to 31.6 acres. Access is to be from.
a proposed public road. Properties described as Tax Map 20, Parcels 6A
and 6B are located on the north side of Rt. 743 just east of its intersection
with Rt. 664. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Mr. Fritz noted that since Health Department approval had already
been received condition 1(e) could be deleted. He also noted the addition
of condition 3:
s Administrative approval of final plat.
.V37
February 14, 1989 Page 9
Referring to a statement made in a memo dated January 19, 1989 from Mr.
Peter Parsons, County Engineer's office, to Mr. John Pullen, which
stated "...the 50' septic setbacks from streams have not been properly
delineated," My Rittenhouse asked staff to comment. Mr. Fritz explained
this was a drafting error because in some instances the draftsman did
not continue the line. He stated staff will require that that be
delineated the "rest of the way prior to final approval." Mr. Fritz noted
that though a 50 foot setback is required in this area of the County, staff
requested a 100 foot setback which was agreed to. He suggested the addition
of a condition as follows:
• Planning staff approval of technical notes.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards who offered no significant
additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
(Note: Before public comment was received, Mr. Fritz informed the Commission
that this property was adjacent to an agricultural/forestal district.)
Mr. Coughenour addressed the Commission. His concern was about the inadequacy
and dangerousness of a one -lane bridge on Rt. 743. Mr. Keeler explained that
this bridge situation had been looked into and it was discovered that the
problem lies with the lack of sight distance more than with the bridge
itself. He explained that substantial grading would be required on one
side and an easement would be needed from at least one property owner.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg to contact the property owner involved
in the easement to see if it might be possible to add this project to the
Six -Year Plan.
There being no further public comment the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Buffalo Run Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a) Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations, to include right turn lane;
d) Staff approval of road names;
e) Planning staff approval of technical notes.
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
February 14, 1989
Page 10
Southside Health Center -- Review for compliance with the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan (Virginia Code Section 15.1--456) for construction of a
health care delivery site (Southside Health Center, Inc.) on former
Jackson property. Tax Map 128, Parcel 109A, 15 acres on St. Rt. 6.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. Staff was recommending that the
Commission find this site and use in compliance with the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairman invited public comment.
M.r. Christopher Hill and Ms. Ellen wash, members of the Board of the
Southside Health Center, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hill explained
that the clinic had outgrown its existing facility and growth of the
facility was presently limited by the physical facility.itself and not
by staff. Ms. Nash .stressed that if the proposal were not approved the
clinic would have to close.
There being no further public comment, the Matter was placed before the
Commission.
-Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt this was a positive .move and also that
he agreed with staff's appraisal of the proposal. He felt it unlikely
that this development would foster additional development outside the
growth area.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that the Southside Health Center be found in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl stated that she would support the :notion but she noted that she
felt it was important that the Scenic Byway zoning requirements be met
with the plan.
The previously -stated motion passed unanLmously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Al-F., h
/ .
John Horne,
Secr ary
DS