HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 20 89 PC MinutesJune 20, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 20, 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; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr.
Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala., Senior Planner;
Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer;
and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners
Diehl, Michel and Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 6, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
Albemarle Planning Task Force - Mr. Blake Hurt presented a follow-up
report on the implementation of the Land Use Regulations Committee's
recommendations. He briefly highlighted sections of the report with
emphasis on some of the following ideas:
--He emphasized the expensive carrying costs associated with the
lengthy approval process which results in more expensive projects.
He suggested a way to encourage affordable housing might be to have
a bonus based on "how quickly you can get it through the County."
--He noted the biggest benefit realized from the LURC study was the
separation of the preliminary and final site plans.
--He suggested that developers be allowed to provide material to
the Planning Staff so that it can be sent out with meeting notices
so as to facilitate developers and homeowners getting together. He
felt this would help reduce public misunderstandings which might occur.
--He noted that Mr. Lindstrom had supported all of the recommendations
of the Committee though it was understood that some were easier to
implement than others.
--He suggested the easiest ideas to implement would be the index
and the engineering manual. (Note: The idea of the engineering manual
was discussed at the end of the meeting. Mr. Moring pointed out that
he currently does not have the staff to produce such a manual but
is looking into other possibilities, e.g. hiring a consultant or
modifying a manual that had already been produced by another locality.
The expense involved in producing such a manual was a large consideration
and Mr. Jenkins pointed out that if only a few developers were interested
in such a document it would be extremely expensive.)
Mr. Tarbell previewed the June 27 Consent Agenda.
26
June 20, 1989
Page 2
Alderman Road grater 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, Parcel 2
(part of) and Tax :lap 60, Parcels 4008 (part of), 4006 (part of)
are located at the end of Colonnade Drive. Zoned R-15, Residential.
Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that this item,
which had been approved by the Commission ?May 9, 1989, was being
re -heard because of an error in the notification process.
Mr. Brent was present to represent the Service Authority.
The Chairman invited public conment.
Mr. Ned Slaughter represented Mr.. and Mrs. Rutledge Vining on whose
property part of the tank would be constructed. (It was Mr. Vining
who had not received notice of the May 9 hearing.) Mr. Vining was
also present and read a lengthy statement. He asked that approval of
the plan be delayed so that further consideration could be given to the
location of the tank and water lines.. He felt he had been "left in the
dark" about the plans for the tank .and had not been included in any
negotiations. He felt there were a number of alternative sites on the
property where the tank could be located. He also expressed concern
about an extra five feet of easement along the boundary of his property
which would destroy many mature evergreens.
There was a discussion about the location of the easement -and its relation
to Mr. Vining's property..
Mr. Brent explained that the location of the tank and pipeline are fixed,
though issues such as screening and fencing can still be dealt with.
He explained that engineering studies had determined this to be the
only "acceptable" site for the tank based on soil conditions, steep
slopes and relation of the distribution system. Regarding compensation
to property owners, he explained: "We hired an independent appraiser
who will appraise the damages to the property and the value of the
property that we must acquire. Offers will be made based on an
independent appraisal. If we are unable to negotiate for the purchase
of the property they} the law provides provision for the courts to
establish that value and we are obligated to abide by it."
In response to 11r. Stark's question about whether delaying the project
would be of any benefit, Mr. Brent replied negatively. He stated the
Authority had no basis to find another site. He stated the only
negotiations left to be completed are "compensation to the Vinings
and Mr. Heischman for the property that's being taken and damages to
the residue.".
Responding to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about visual impact from
historic sites, :sir. Brent stated that though they will be screened
as much as possible they will still be visible, particularly from
the higher elevations. He pointed out that this tank was smaller than
the existing tanks.
June 20, 1989 Page 3
There was another brief discussion about alternative sites with Mr.
Vining expressing disagreement with Mr. Brent.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark stated he felt the rationale for location of the tanks was
acceptable. He added that though it was unfortunate that the
tanks had to impinge on private property, that was a problem that
had to be faced with public utilities.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's request, Mr. Brent gave brief history
of the project and the engineering studies.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt there were two main issues: (1) Whether
or not the smaller landowner has been treated fairly; and (2) Would
there be any benefit indelaying the approval process and how that
might enhance Mr. Vining's "bargaining position?"
Mr. Slaughter pointed out that Mr. Vining was not seeking a delay in
order to enhance his position in terms of compensation. He stressed
the issue was purely one of siting of the tank.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the only issue before the Commission was a
site plan. He felt Mr. Vining's concerns would be more appropriately
addressed before the Service Authority Board.
Mr. Bowerman summarized he had no reason to believe Mr. Brent's representa-
tion of events was any less than accurate. He felt the site was
appropriate though he expressed regret that there had been a flaw in the
notification process. He noted that if problems did develop the property
owners have recourse through the courts.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he did not feel there were any real benefits to
be gained from a delay considering the history of the selection of the
site. He pointed out that three different engineering studies had
been conducted, all with the same conclusion.
Mr. Stark 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 have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval 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.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
June 20, 1989 Page 4
!sir. Rittenhouse seconded the motion.
Discussion:
The issue of the width of the easement was discussed briefly.
Mr. Brent stated he had ad-dsed Mr. Fining that the Service Authority
is receptive to reducing the easement to 20 feet.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District - Contains 2,275 acres and
located on State Routes 614, 672, 673, 674, and 810 in the vicinity of
Sugar Hollow and Doylesville.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
addressed the Commission. She explained she had assisted in putting
the district together and asked that the Commission approve it.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal
District be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-06 John Gruss - Request in accordance with Section. 10.2.2(18) of
the zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a
veterinary hospital to be located on property zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 7, is located on the west
side of Rt. 743 approximately 1000' south of its intersection with
Rt. 663 at Earlysville. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Main issues of discussion were setback from adjoining properties, confine-
ment of animals and method of waste disposal.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if restrictions on decibel levels take into
consideration whether animals are inside or outside. (The applicant
interjected there would be no outside runs and the only time the animals
would be outside would be to be walked.) Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the
condition specifically addresses when the animals are to be confined
which implies that they will not always be confined. He felt if the
animals are to be confined at all times then the condition stnuld reflect
that.
129
June 20, 1989 Page 5
Mr. Rittenhouse also asked staff to comment on the method of waste
disposal. He wondered if that should be addressed in a condition of
approval. Mr. Keeler explained that this would be covered by
Health Department regulations. He noted that .there are different
requirements for the management of animal wastes.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Dr. Gruss addressed the Commission. He explained that even though he
had been told that ordinary septic systems could handle animal wastes,
he would be installing two separate systems, one for domestic wastes
and one for animal wastes. He stated sound studies are currently
being conducted. He felt his development of this site would improve
the property because some existing abandoned structures would be
removed. He stated there would be no outdoor runs and no boarding
of animals, but animals would be walked outside.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked why there were two separate requirements, i.e. one
on sound transmission and the other simply on distance. He asked: "If
sound transmission is the central question, does that alone not address
the issue or is there another separate issue that is hidden that relates
to the distance?" Mr. Fritz responded that sound was a large factor
in determining setbacks and the Commission has the ability to reduce
setbacks. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the decibel levels in this
case contemplate inside activites in which case it is important to
determine if the animals will be outside and if so, can the County
assure that the decibel levels will not be exceeded. Mr. Keeler pointed
out that there may be cases where both requirements are desirable such
as in the case of a boarding kennel. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was
attempting to understand the justification for reducing the setback
from 200 feet to 104 feet. Mr. Fritz felt that sound was the primary
issue in determining setback.
There was considerable discussion about outdoor animal activity and
whether or not outside exercising.of animals was acceptable. The
Chairman invited comment from the Zoning Administrator, Ms. Patterson.
Ms. Patterson stated she was of the opinion that outside exercising
of animals was understood. It was concluded that the occasional
outside exercising of animals was acceptable and that condition
No. 1 would be amended to read: "Animals shall be confined to an
enclosed structure. Noise measured at the nearest lot line shall not
exceed forty (40) decibels."
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-06 for John Gruss be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. Noise measured
at the nearest lot line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels.
2. Submittal of a certified engineers report to insure that sound
shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest lot line.
.30
June 20, 1989 Page 6
3. Staff approval of site plan.
4. Staff approval of subdivision plat.
y&. Stark seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that though he would support the motion he was
concerned about the application of the Ordinance . He explained that
the setback called for in the Ordinance begins at 500 feet (except
where animals are confined in air --conditioned, sound -proofed structures),
with the possibility of reducing the 500 feet to 200 feet. He
stated: %That we do in cases where we wantto do something else is go
to Section 5.1 which lets us do anything we want to do." He stated he
was not in support of the way the Ordinance was interpreted in cases
like this.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
ZTA-89-05 - Resolution of Intent to amend Section 4.1 Area & Health
Regulations Related to utilities to reflect the practical review
process of the Virginia Department .of Health.
AND
ZTA-89-06 - iesolution of intent to amend Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
to more clearly reflect its original intent to control improvements
and grading activity in steeper areas. "Minimum building site areas
are more clearly defined by type of use.
F�
ZTA-89-07 - Resolution of Intent to amend Section 4.7.3 Open Space -
Character, by repealer of Section 4.7.3 and adoption of Section 4.7.3
Open Space - Design Requirements.
The staff report, presented by Mr. Keeler, explained the proposed
amendments as follows:
Section 4.1 (ZTA-89-05): "Would be amended to reflect the practical
review process of the Virginia Department of Health, which is to assume
that a lot created for residential purposes would likely be developed
with a three -bedroom dwelling. In the past, subdivisions have been
approved which could only support a one or two bedroom unit, which in
staff opinion would be difficult to control."
Section 4.2 (,ZTA-89-06): 'Vould be amended to more clearly reflect
its original intent to control improvements and grading activity in
steeper areas. Minimum building site areas are more clearly defined
by type of use. Substantial revision to 4.2.5 Xodification of Regulations,
has been included as requested by the Planning Commission."
-1/
June 20, 1989
Page 7
Section 4.3.7 (ZTA-89-07): "Recommended for wholesale revision in
view of preservation recommendations of the pending Comprehensive Plan
as well as proposed revisions to the Critical Slopes provisions. Additional
amendments may result from adoption of the Open Space Plan element of
the Comprehensive Plan in the future"
Mr. Bowerman explained that staff was awaiting information from the
Engineering staff, including a policy manual on the development of
critical slopes, before final adoption of these proposed amendments.
Mr. Stark moved that ZTA-89--05, ZTA-89-06 and ZTA-89-07 be indefinitely
deferred.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
DS
I6 Z12, �t CL!.(
e
Az