HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 28 90 PC MinutesAUGUST 28, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, August 28, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia'. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr.Richard Tarbell,
Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. George
St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. I
CONSENT AGENDA
Rigaory__Ridge Final Plat - Proposal to create 12 lots
averaging 4.98 acres on 70.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 16 is located on
State Route 20 North across from its intersection with State
Route 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
not located within a designated growth area.
Hardtimes Estates - The applicant is proposing to divide a
12.3 acre parcel into two lots of 9.6 and 2.7 acres.
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B, is located on
the west side of Rt. 29 approximately 3/10'mile south of the
North Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This property is located within -a designated
growth area.
There was a brief discussion about the Hardtimes
application. Ms. Huckle expressed some confusion. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the rezoning action was totally
separate and was not before the Commission at this time.
Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted: "You are saying this is simply
a division with no change in zoning." Staff responded
affirmatively. j
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously.
i
Adelphia Cabel. Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct
a 720 (24' x 301) square foot building on 0.63 acres zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel
16A, is located on the west side of Rt. 743, 1,000 feet
August 28, 1990 Page 2
north of Rt. 631 in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
The site is not located within a designated growth area.
Deferred from the August 14th Planning Commission Meeting.
The applicant was requesting indefinite!deferral.
Mr. Cilimberg explained the reason for the deferral was
because the Zoning Administrator was working with the
applicant to resolve a possible setbackviolation.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that Adelphia
Cable Preliminary Site Plan be indefinitely deferred. The
motion passed unanimously.
I
ZMA--89-23 River Heights Associates - Request in accordance
with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 9.0
acres from R-15, Residential and 5.55 acres from CO,
Commercial Office, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 68D, 68D2sl is located on
the east side of St. Rt. 659 (Woodburn Road) adjacent to the
Sheraton Property. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This site is located within a designated growth area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
I !I
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-89-23
be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
s
SUB-90-117 Rosemont Section 2 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 7 new lots from 18 existing lots for a total of 25
lots on 227.7 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.; Property,
described as Tax Map 74, Parcels 57D-576 and 58-71 is
located on State Route 637 approximately 4200 feet south of
its intersection with Interstate 64 in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is notlocated within a
designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report., The report
concluded: "Staff opinion is the Rosemont preliminary plat
is consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
regulations with the exception of Lot 37A which requires a
waiver of Section 4.2.4.2. Staff recommends approval
subject to ... conditions." � Ii
Mr. Tarbell noted that condition No. 7 should be amended to
remove lot 28A and condition No. 9 should be amended to
remove lot 36B. i I
�.
August 28, 1990
Page 3
It was also decided that condition 1(c)'would have the
following added: "...storm; and utilize rip -rap to
stabilize stream bed."
i
Ms. Huckle questioned the wording of condition No. 6. (Note:
The condition was amended later in the meeting.)
i it
In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Tarbell pointed
out the location of the public right-of=way.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike:Boggs. He
reviewed the history of the property and the present
proposal. He explained that the present proposal is for
only seven additional individual lots "out of a potential 65
additional development rights." He explained that the
applicant proposed to "keep one of these additional rights
for each of the 25 lots strictly for the purpose of
constructing a guest house." He stated'that convenants and
restrictions "prohibit the use of a guest house for
occupation for anyone other than the principle resident, his
family, a guest or domestic employees, therefore no traffic
generating outside rental would be allowed." He noted the
restrictions also prohibit further subdivision. He stated
that 58 potential lots were being given up, though
technically only 33 actual rights. Mr. Boggs explained the
proposal in some detail particularly the issue of lot 37A
which had a proposed septic field in an�lar�a of steep
slopes. He noted that both the Health Department and a
Soils Analyst had reviewed and recommended the proposed
septic site. He noted that the Ordinance !'discourages" but
does not "prohibit" septic fields on slope's of 20%.
Regarding the abandonment of the old public right-of-way, he
presented a petition signed by 6 adjoining property owners
requesting vacation of the right -of wayi j
i f
Referring to Mr. Boggs statement that the private road would
meet state requirements for grade and alignment, Mr.
Rittenhouse asked why a private road was requested instead
of a public road. Mr. Boggs responded that any private road
which serves more than 20 lots must be built to state
standards, but there is a problem with this being a
state -maintained road because it crosses two dams.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr.'Boggs stated that
the steeper slope on the property is 16% which is the
maximum allowed by the state on state -maintained roads.
The chairman invited public comment.
,_�{° ,_O
August 28, 1990
Page 4
Mr. John Embery, Farm Manager for Blandemar Farm Estates,
addressed the Commission. He asked fora clarification of
the difference between a "lot" and a "parcel." (Mr. St.
John responded that he did not feel there was a distinction.
He expressed some confusion about Mr. Embery's point.) Mr.
Embery asked if the division rights which Rosemont is giving
up were "based on parcels which all hadfiye division
rights." Mr. St. John responded affirmatively. Mr. St.
John explained the history of the division rights of the
property under consideration. Mr. Keeler interjected that
staff had considered 65 "theoretical rights" but staff "had
not analyzed how many actual lots can be created." Mr.
Embery interpreted that the 65 number was -then "theoretical
as opposed to a solid number." Mr. Tarbell responded:
"Division rights are theoretical until youlverify that you
do have a building site which meets all ordinance
requirements." Mr. Embery asked if anyimo:e houses would be
visible from the Blandemar side. Mr. Boggs responded that
during the winter possibly one more house would be visible.
I I
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Tarbell noted that staff had received two letters of
support from adjacent property owners.
Regarding Ms. Huckle's previous concern about condition No.
6, Mr. Tarbell proposed the following rewording of that
condition: "Statement on the final plat that each lot
reserves the right to construct one guest house; no lot
shall be further divided." I
Mr. St. John noted that the word "further" is often used and
it has been interpreted to mean "further means after the
approval of what's before you, not after a division
subsequent to approval of this plat."
I ;
Mr. Wilkerson stated he had no problem approving a waiver of
Sec. 4.2.4.2 for Lot 37A given the fact thajt the Health
Department has already given approval.
I f
Mr. Johnson felt the applicant's description was "completely
adequate." He stated he agreed with Mr Wilkerson.
i
Mr. Grimm agreed also.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Rosemont Section 2 Preliminary
Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
i
1. The final plat shall not be submitted nor shall it be
signed until the following conditions are met:
tgv
August 28, 1990 I Page 5
1
a. Department of Engineering�ap roval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit; i i!
c. Department of Engineeringapproval of the
stream crossing by Road B to accommodate a
100-year storm and the utilizationof'rip-rap to
stabilize stream bed; I i!
d. Virginia Department of Transportation
issuance of a commercial entrance permit for the
intersection of the proposed private road and the
existing Rosemont Drive cul-de-sac;
2. The building permit shall not be issuedfor an individual
lot until the following condition is met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of an
erosion control plan for the subject lot.
3. The general rules for development in Rosemont, included
herein as Attachment C, shall be recorded,n the homeowners'
agreements.
i
4. The existing public right-of-way must be vacated by the
Board of Supervisors. Should the Board°of Supervisors
choose not to vacate the public right-of-way, a 75 foot
building setback shall be delineated from the existing
right-of-way and Lot 33A shall be deleted.;
i d
5. Drainfield locations shall be delineated on the final
plat.
6. Statement on the final plat that each lot reserves the
right to construct one guest house; no lot shall be further
divided. I
7. Access to lots 29A, 30A and 31A is restricted to road A.
i
8. Access to lots 31B, 32A, 32B and 33A is restricted to
Road B.
9. Access to lots 37A, 37B and 38A is
10. Access to lots 34A, 34B and 35A is
11. Planning Commission approval of a
4.2.4.2.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
restricted to road C.
i
restricted to Road D.
aiver of Section
i`
i
i
I �
ev
August 28, 1990 Page 6
Ms. Huckle expressed some concern about the issue of
precedent in regards to lot 37A. She pointed out that the
conditions in this case were unique.
u
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that from his standpoint the
difference between the desired maximum of 80% and 22% is
very small. He noted that with the increased size of the
lot and Health Department approval, he was',willing to
support the waiver request.
Mr. Cilimberg noted: "I think the record Will show the
specifics of the approval and your desire to consider this
based on its own circumstances." Mr. St. John added that
the other sites where septic fields could be located would
be more environmentally detrimental than giranting the
waiver.
The previously stated motion for approval passed
unanimously. .
i i
SUB-90-058 Paran Methodist Church Preliininary Site Plan -
Proposal to construct a 7,500 square foot building on 6.778
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map
21, Parcel 16 is located west of Rotue 29 North and east of
Route 606 approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection
of Route 606 and Rt. 29. This site is not?located within a
designated growth area. i fl
I l
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 4, 1990.
I I
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm; that the item be
deferred to September 4, 1990. The motioh passed
unanimously. it
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Jenkins introduced the topic of the ECsOverlay
regulations which had been discussed at the August 21st
meeting. He stated that he had been bothered by the idea of
creating another body (i.e. an Architectural Review Board)
into the process, though he understood the;need to protect
areas with historical significance. He suggested that as a
first step, developers wishing to develop along these
corridors might be required to submit, along with their
proposals, information regarding historical significance and
impact. Mr. Cilimberg noted that though developers could be
asked to submit such information, it couldnot be a
condition of approval "that they designa building to a
,A103
August 28, 1990
Page 7
specific design or even necessarily preserve a building
unless they desire to do so." He added that even the
initial overlay district discussed at the August 21st
meeting would not accomplish that result but it should
"create more of an awareness of a need for corridors to be
looked at as being significant to Charlottesville and (show)
the design of new development or the preservation of
existing structures along corridors is of concern to the
County."
Mr. St. John stated that the trouble with Mr. Jenkins
proposal, though it was a common sense approach, was the
fact that the concern is not just with thd1history of each
individual site but also with the issue3of whether or not
what is built on the site is architecturally compatible with
the character of the entrance corridor,whether the
individual site has a history or not. He'stated that could
not be done on a piecemeal basis for each individual site.
He felt the proposal which has been submitted, including the
creation of an Architectural Review Board,.was the only way
to achieve the desired result.
Mr. Johnson questioned Mr. St. John's statement which
referred to the Architectural Review Board;as being advisory
to the Commission. Mr. Johnson recalled that the ARB as
discussed had been completely autonomous, "answering to no
one and with all sorts of powers...." Mr.�Johnson indicated
he agreed with Mr. Jenkins' concerns, i e_�that another
Committee was not necessarily desirableL
Mr. St. John explained the envisioned role of the ARB whose
first task would be to take an architectural inventory of
all the corridors in question and then "settle on standards
of architecture to be recommended to those'.who write the
laws." Thereafter, the ARB will "review plans to see if the
plans conform to the standards... and thgn hey are going to
administer these standards." He noted =!ARB,
d the ARB would
not be able "to enact law." He stated in both
those roles, would be advisory only.
NEW BUSINESS i
Herb Brown Motors. Ltd. - Appeal of Administrative Denial
for Replacement of Non -Conforming Sign I
Mr. St. John noted: "This appeal is in accord with a
provision of the Zoning Ordinance which routes this kind of
appeal here instead of through the BZA." It was noted the
appeal was pursuant to Section 30.5.7.1(c)�of the Zoning
ordinance.
ja
I
I
August 28, 1990 Page 8
Mr. Cilimberg stated the issue was one of design and it is
now covered under the Scenic Overlay District of the
Ordinance. j
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report.';'Mr. Cilimberg
explained that though he agreed that the proposed sign was
an improvement over the present sign in:terms of design and
size, he did not feel "that the replacement sign is of
appropriate size, material, or lightingto'meet the intent
and character of the SA -Highways overlay district and (is
not) significantly less non -conforming than the existing
sign." For these reasons, Mr. Cilimberg did not approve the
proposed replacement sign and thereforeiMr. Brown was
appealing that decision. j
The applicant, Mr. Brown, addressed the:Commission. He
stated he agreed the existing sign was unsightly and pointed
out that the proposed sign would be an improvement over what
is existing. He stated that he could not ;use a pedestal
sign and if that is the requirement, then the old sign will
have to remain. Mr. Brown indicated that! t was not in his
power to change the sign because what is p oposed is the
only sign which his dealership (Volvo) will allow.
Mr. St. John stated he understood that Mr Brown was caught
between Volvo and county requirements. However, he noted
that there was a precedent to be concernedabout in that
many businesses will try to make this same argument, i.e.
that "so-and-so" has only one logo and will not allow
anything smaller. Mr. St. John recalled aipast cast
(involving Holiday Inn) where the same argument had been
used, i.e. that no other sign was possible; but when
presented with the choice of either ceasing business in
Albemarle County or conforming to Zoning regulations, the
sign had been changed to conform to County laws. Mr. St.
John pointed out that the Board of Supervisors writes the
laws for Albemarle County and not the Volvo company. Mr.
St. John felt it should be made clear that the argument
presented by Mr. Brown "would not get you anywhere" in
Albemarle County or else the Boards of Directors of large
companies would be writing the Albemarle County Zoning laws.
d
Mr. Brown noted that he understood the County's position,
but he had no other choices.
Ms. Huckle suggested that Mr. Brown write his company a
letter explaining the situation.
rl
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he felt this issue would be seen
frequently as the County gets involved in design control.
I
J
August 28, 1990 1 Page 9
He explained that it has been found, in,other areas, that
franchises usually "come around" when faced with the choice
of conforming to local laws or not doing business in a
desirable area.
It was determined the existing sign is 1,rgrpLndfathered11 and
can remain if the new sign is not approved'. Mr. Brown
stated the Volvo company would not allow h m to design his
own standard because of trademark considerations.
Mr. Brown stated that if the company would allow him to
install one of the pedestal signs, he would be happy to do
so, but that was not the case.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Brown and Mr...Grady (Asst.
Zoning Administrator) had discussed the issue at length and
"there was an effort made." He stated his decision had been
based on what he interpreted to be the intent of the
ordinance. i
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle stated that she felt "we have to start someplace
on this Scenic Highway Corridor business,";and therefore she
would support Mr. Cilimberg's decision to,deny the sign.
I II
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the ZoninglAdministrator had
determined that the existing sign is grandfathered.
I }1
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was sympathetic td;the applicant's
position and he was wondering what would be better --to leave
the existing sign or to at least have an improvement.
i [
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he agreed with Mz. St. John's
comments, though he applauded the applicant's attempt to
ameliorate an objectionable condition. iHe�felt it was
"difficult to approach that in degrees of what would be
better than something else." He continued`: "If we embark
on that course, I think we begin to make our ordinance
ineffectual. We can always creep into something that's
better and as long as we're willing to do that, there's
probably not much incentive to actuallymeet the
requirements completely in any case. I will support Mr.
Cilimberg's opinion in this. I think it is an important one
if the ordinance is indeed reasonable and we are talking
about a Scenic Highway District here." I
Mr. Johnson felt it was a question of the"County sticking to
its principles. i
i
I
I
August 28, 1990 Page 10
Mr. Grimm noted that supporting staff's position would not
effect Mr. Brown's business. ! j
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that supporting sltaflf's position might
result in "losing the battle on this particular site," but,
as pointed out by Mr. St. John, this Ordinance is not site
specific, but rather looks at uniformity and its application
throughout this kind of district. E
Ms. Huckle moved that the Commission support Mr. Cilimberg's
determination that the proposed replacement sign for Herb
Brown Motors not be approved.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. _
F
The motion to support the administrative denial of the
replacement sign passed unanimously.
1 I
It was confirmed that Mr. Brown could appeal the
Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors.
i
Though Ms. Andersen had requested that staff write a letter
to Volvo explaining the County's position, it was finally
decided that staff would take no action until the Board had
acted upon the appeal.
Mr. Johnson suggested that if such a letter is sent, it
might be helpful to include a photograph of the Christian
Aid Mission sign which is next door to this business.
MISCELLANEOUS I
I ,E
Ms. Huckle asked if anyone could explain t�e land
disturbance activity which was taking pjace behind the Volvo
dealership. Mr. Keeler stated it was possibly a waste area
from the Christian Aid Mission entrance construction.
�I
Mr. Cilimberg called the Commission's attention to some
Virginia Tech programs for Planning Commissioners (Institute
for Planning Commissioners - October 7-9 and the Certified
Planning Commissioners Program which involves
August 28, 1990
Page 11
correspondence -type course work). He stated he could supply
more information for those interested. 1 11
There being no further business,
9:15 p.m.
the meeting adjourned at
AL