HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 09 89 PC MinutesMay 9, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, May 9, 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; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter
Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and. Mr. James Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Diehl.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom's class on Farmland and Historic Preservation made
a 45 minute presentation to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman entered the meeting at 8:10.
The minutes of the April 25, 1989 meeting were approved as submitted.
SP-89-25 Crozet Church of God - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2{35)
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for a church and parsonage on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A is located in the southwest quadrant
at the intersection of Rt. 250 and I-64; accessed on the southwest side
of St. Rt. 824. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Deferred from
May 2, 1989 Commission meeting.
0
SP-89-26 Crozet Church of God - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(35)
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for day care facilities in a proposed church facility. Property, described
as Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A is located in the southwest quadrant at the
intersection of Rt. 250 and 1-64; accessed on the southwest side of St. Rt.
824. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Deferred from May 2, 1989
Commission meeting.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report explained that special
permits issued in June of 1986 had not been pursued and have since expired.
Staff recommended "no change of circumstance has occurred which would warrant
re-evaluation or amendment to the prior reports." Staff recommended
approval of the current petitions subject to prior conditions of SP-86--26 and
SP-86-27.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Brown, Pastor of the church. He
offered no additional comment.
3 —64�
May 9, 1989
Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-25 for Crozet Church of God be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions
and including administrative approval of the site plan:
1. Prior to review of the site plan the applicant shall obtain Health
Department and Virginia Department of Transportation approvals.
2. Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system, not to
exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Jenkins moved that.SP-89-26 for the Crozet Church of God be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions
and including administrative approval of the site plan:
1. Prior to review of the site plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department
and Virginia Department of Transportation approvals.
2. Enrollment tobe determined by adequacy of septic system and regulations
of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a maximum enrollment of
60 children..
3. Compliance with Sec. 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable.
Wilkerson seconded the notion which passed unanimously.
South Pantops Office Complex Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate two
(2) buildings totalling 25,400 square feet on 2.5 acres. This proposal is
to have access from a private road and be served by 103 parking spaces.
Properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 15C and 15F, are located on the
north side of South Pantops Drive, 500 feet east of Riverbend Drive. Zoned
HC, Highway Commercial. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.. The report concluded: "Staff
agrees with the justification submitted by the applicant for modification of
Section 4.2 (Critical Slopes) of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval
of the site plan subject to (conditions)."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. In answer to Mr. Michel's
question about the status of South Pantops Drive, Mr. Edwards explained that
all plats and plans have been turned in and "the street's dedicated --it's
under review now." He confirmed that it is not currently in the system.
"but the plans are being reviewed now."
-96-/
May 9, 1989 Page 3
Mr. Edwards made brief comments about the slope area. He stated there would
be no problem in stabilizing the slope because it is already stabilized.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the slope could be disturbed further at some future
time. Mr. Edwards did not answer definitively but did explain that the
parcel would be too small for any development unless more property was
acquired and added to it.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel asked if staff felt there were any problems with the road issue.
Mr. Keeler responded: "No, not with this plan. The road is constructed.
It's not uncommon for there just to be a punch list of items that need
to be corre ted or changed. I don't know in this particular case what
the problem the road is constructed." Mr. Michel. stated: "But
we don't know if the road is going to be accepted and this has been going
on for 10 years." Mr. Keeler pointed out that the final construction of
the road had not been undertaken until a couple of years ago. He confirmed
staff was comfortable with the status of the road.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "If it wasn't like this when we started out, I wouldn't
go along with it. But.this was a pre-existing condition and it's not being
made any worse. I don't have any problems with it."
Mr. Stark moved that the South Pantops Office Complex 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;
b. Department of Engineering approval of slope stabilization methods;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Department of Engineering approval of plans and profiles -for upgrading
of private road;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
g. Administrative approval of subdivision of this parcel.
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. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Horne advised the applicant: "We truly do view this as being the last
site before you start getting areas where there is significant environmental
benefit to leaving the slopes exactly as they are now. It's heavily
wooded; it's a very active buffer between this and the river and this and
Monticello as soon as you go beyond the site. So we see a material
May 9, 1989
Page 4
difference between this section and the section immediately to the.southeast
as you go down South Pantops Drive. So from the staff's point of view, the
action that we recommended here on.this site is not something that we'd
see that could be replicated any farther down South Pantops Drive."
Mr. Edwards pointed out that it would probably be uneconomical to go any
farther east because of topographic considerations.
Alderman Road Water Improvements Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate
a 5,250 square foot water storage tank on a proposed 1.49 acre parcel.
Access is to be from a private road serving University Heights Apartments.
Properties, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 2 (part of) and Tax :dap 60, Parcel
40CB (part) and 4006 (part) are located at the end of Colonnade Drive.
Zoned R-15 Residential. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about the visibility of the tank,
Mr. Fritz stated he felt it would not be "obviously visible" but he could
not say that it would be completely obscured.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Brent was present to represent the. Albemarle County service Authority.
Discussion centered around the tank's visibility. Mr. Brent described
screening plans.
Nr. Horne noted that the tank would be most visible from other relatively
high points.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Pat Ford, representing the contract purchaser and the owner of the
adjacent property, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had
been working with the Service Authority in locating the tanks on the
subject property. He noted that the proposed location of the tanks
constituted some of the more buildable areas of the site.
Mr. Brent noted that the present property owner was a financial participant
in this project.
Mr. Michel moved that the Alderman Road Water Improvements 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 grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Planning Department approval of landscape plan;
d. Approval by staff of subdivision plat creating the proposed 1.49
acre tract.
e. Staff approval of landscape easements and drainage easements and
grading easements.
,.5e9
May 9, 1989 Page 5
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-19 Cora Kirby -- Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on property described as
Tax Map 76, Parcel 21, property located on the east side of Rt. 29,
approximately one -tenth of a mile south of its intersection with I-64.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment. She presented photographs of
the property and explained that it was currently being used as a dumping
place. She felt her occupation of the property would prevent this from
happening. She also stressed that the property would not be visible
to any other surrounding property. (Mr. Fritz confirmed this statement.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. T.J. Westbury addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition
to the request. Mr. Westbury asked if mobile homes were not viewed as
objectionable, then why is screening required. Mr. Bowermanexplained
that screening is a way of mitigating the potential nuisance aspect of
mobile homes. He stated that screening is not necessarily used to
hide something undesirable, but simply to make the situation "better."
(Mr. Fritz explained the screening that would be required. He confirmed
that screening would be required all around the mobile home .) Mr.
Westbury explained that he did not object strongly to this particular
request, but he was very concerned about the precedent which it might
be setting.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark pointed out that each mobile home request is considered on its
own merit. He continued.: "The thing that I have always felt was necessary
was if a person needs a place to live and they're going to live in this
mobile home and it's their property, then they have every right to do so
as long as the meet the conditions as set forth. I've never (been in favor
of) one that was intended for rental or vacation property. ... I think
the Commission's record is consistent."
There was a brief discussion about the Interchange Study in relatirm to this
property. Mr. Keeler commented that the study had said basically that
property outside the growth area ought to be treated as rural property.
Mr. Cilimberg added that the Comp Plan identifies this interchange as one
area where some uses other than rural area uses could be possible, but
it does not preclude consideration of rural area uses where RA zoning is
in existence.
May 9, 1989 Page 6
Mr. Keeler stated he did not believe this property would be visible
from any other property in the area. He stated it was very isolated.
Mr. Stark stated he felt it would be an improvement to the property to
have someone residing on it.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-19 for Cora Kirby 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.
.5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be
provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Screening
adjacent to Route 29 shall be the equivalent of a double staggered row
of evergreens planted 15 feet on center. Required screening shall be
?maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die.
6. Special use permit is issued for use by the applicant only.
7. Mobile home shall not be rented.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Rittenhouse rioted that the Commission seems to view mobile hones
differently than conventional dwellings and also looks at double-wides
differently than single aides. He suggested that "further definition"
might be called for in the Ordinance with consideration given to
permanent permits being for double-wides and temporary perccits for
single-wides.
Capital Improvements Program - Public hearing to discuss the CIP project
requests for the first half of the 1989-90 fiscal year. The total amount
for project requests is $2,396,138.00.
Mr. Cilimberg led the discussion assisted by Ms. Scala. Ms. Scala noted
the addition of two requests which had been received after the priority
list had been established, i.e. (1) Avon St./Rt. 20 Collector Road and
(2) Cordon Avenue Library drainage improvements. Staff was recommending
that the collector road be placed in position 13a and the library
project in position lla.
3 77
May 9, 1989 Page 7
There followed a discussion about the ranking of the two additional projects.
Mr. Bowerman noted that it was very important that the priority set "is the
one we want" because of the shortage of funds. Mr. Michel suggested
putting the road project at position 18a. Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he
had a problem with that. He noted the relationship of the collector road
to the opening of the new Southside Elementary School. Mr. Michel
noted that "these are emergency projects, by their nature" and "emergency
projects are.physical repairs or replacements that produce immediate
results ---they are not engineering." He added: "So I'm having a little
bit of problem with engineering and architecture plans when some of
these others are roof repairs --health and safety." Mr. Rittenhouse
agreed to some extent but noted that there were several utilities projects
and pointed out that the Southern Regional Park could hardly be viewed
as an emergency project. Staff suggested the possibility of splitting the
collector road project into two parts, one for engineering and one for
right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Rittenhouse noted he would have no problem
with this approach because he felt the engineering was a necessary
first step.
Mr. Horne suggested that if the Commission was having a problem with
ranking the two additional projects, it might want to send the original
list on to the Board with the notation that the two late requests were
submitted too late for the Commission to review adequately.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in favor of this approach. He explained:
"We are not a training ground for capital improvements changes. It
seems like things do not get finalized until they get to the Board.
If things are needed, they are needed when we see them the first time.
It's very frustrating to this Commission to keep having the amounts of
money changed and the requests changed and I'm not talking about
staff's position in this. I talking about the accountability of
others giving us information and the point is that there is no account-
ability. It just happens and we kind of accept it and it goes on. I
think your suggestion is very well taken because it makes a point of the
fact that we have addressed these issues, we put a priority list on
them and.this is it. If you want to include these to go up, that's fine."
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about excluding the engineering study
for the Avon Street project based on the timeliness of the submittal.
He stated: "I do not think it is of any less importance because we
received it tonight...." (Mr. Bowerman agreed.) Mr. Rittenhouse continued
that he viewed other projects on the list as being of less importance.
He stated: ""What we're looking at is saying to the Department of Engineering
'You got here late and we're going to send you a message --you have to get
it to us in a timely fashion or we're going to consider it differently.'
But the real result of that is a lessening of the priority on this project."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he felt this was an important project.
Mr. Bowerman responded: "I don't think it will be delayed by the Board
but I think accountability is important." Mr. Rittenhouse agreed but
noted: "I don't want to see us send any message to the Board at all that
indicates that we think it's any less important than the other projects
we have already ordered."
-9 ZZ
May 9, 1989
Page 8
Mr. Xichel felt Mr. Bowerman's suggestion was not sending that
message, but was rather just saying "they came late, here they are."
Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed that the Commission was not considering the
request because the very fact that it was being discussed at length was
a consideration of the item. He stated: "I'm not willing to say that
we haven't considered it because it came late."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested adding a third note to the priority list
which would indicate that the requests came in late but noting
where they would have been included had they been received in a
timely fashion.
;Tr. Bowerman again stressed that he felt accountability was important
and that it would be inappropriate to deal with these requests as though
they were just "business as usual." He noted that he did not feel
the Commission's decision not to.rank the two projects would in any
way influence the Board's action on the requests. He. concluded: "But
I am trying to send a message."
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it was Mr. Bowerman's intent to send
a message to all submitting agencies (not the. Board) and he agreed that
it was frustrating and that "there needs to be accountability."
However, he concluded: "I'm just not willing to make what I consider to
be an important project the issue."
Staff confirmed the Board would have the same opportunity to review the
projects as did the Commission.
The Chairman invited public comment.
There being none, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman again stated that at some point it becomes necessary to
say "enough is enough" and that was his intent. He.did not feel taking
this position would in any way jeopardize the funding of the projects.
Commissioners Stark and Wilkerson indicated they agreed with �lr. Bowerman.
Mr. Stark moved that the Capital Improvements Program Priority List be
approved as submitted with the notation that the two late requests
had been received too late for the Commission to review adequately, and
therefore were not ranked.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
NTr. Rittenhouse noted that he would not support the motion because he
felt passing on a request without assigning it a priority "may imply
to the Board that we consider it a lesser priority than some that are
ranked." He felt the engineering study should be given a high priority
and he felt the Commission was "trying to make a point at the possible
expense of the project." He felt that the Commission's refusal to
rank the project was "dodging responsibility."
,4%3
May 9, 1989
Page 9
The motion for approval passed, 5:1, with Mr. Rittenhouse casting the
dissenting vote.
Mr. Bowerman noted that this was Mr. Horne's last meeting as he had
accepted a position elsewhere.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Iplow", ,
Ff , ly
IR MIM 111Ef I �- 15
Acting Secretary
DS