Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 04 90 PC Minutes1 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 4, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mt_ Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim 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 August 14, 1990 were approved as submitted. Mr. Fritz presented a brief preview of the September 11, 1990 Consent Agenda (Branchlands Phase IV Site Plan Amendment). No action was required. SP-90-72 RayMgnd Hellin er - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to locate a single wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 115, parcel 29, Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 618 and Rt. 620/Rt. 708. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The applicant, Mr. Hellinger, addressed the Commission. He explained he felt the reason behind Mr. Via's objection was based on personal differences which have occurred related to the road. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 6 be amended to read as follows: "The mobile home shall bt occupied by the applicant and/or his immediate family only." Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be added prohibiting rental use of the mobile home. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt that was implied by condition No. 6. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-72 for Raymond Helli,nger be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: _'A''Ci 4. September 4, 1990 Page 2 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, if applicable under current regulations; 5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced it it should die; 6. The mobile home shall be occupied by the applicant and/or his immediate family only. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-90-24 Michael Shifflett - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to permit a bridge in the floodplain of the Doyles River (30.3.5.2.191)) on 22 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 14, Parcel 29H and Tax Map 15, Parcel 11 is located on the east side of Rt. 810 approximately 1.4 miles north of Rt. 668 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "In staff opinion this request is inconsistent with the stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan for water resources 'Protect the County's surface water and groundwater supplies for the benefit of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests.' The request is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore staff recommends denial of SP-90-24." The applicant, Mr. Michael Shifflett, addressed the Commission. He explained that the ford was not on his property though he has an easement which allows him to use A-r'PA ra September 4,1990 Page 3 it. He stated that it would not be possible to construct a bridge in the location of the ford because the area is too narrow and other property owners' yards would have to be disturbed. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he confirmed that it was his intent to continue to use the ford for large vehicles, and the proposed bridge would be for automobile traffic. He indicated he would have no objection to his neighbors using the bridge, but he was not agreeable to granting legal rights -of -way. Ms. Terry Hall, a geological consultant, commented on the studies which have been performed thus far in relation to the proposed bridge. She stated a preliminary drawing of the bridge had been done, to Mr. Shifflett's specifications, and several engineering firms have quickly reviewed the plan and feel it is a good design. However, she noted that the bridge design is not being submitted at this time, but the applicant understands that "getting the permit would be contingent upon'approval of the bridge design by the Board." Mr. Keeler noted that he was not familiar with the Engineering Department's review of a bridge in terms of strength but it was possible that it might be required that the bridge be built to a stronger capacity than is intended by the applicant. The Commission continued to discuss the design of the bridge until Ms. Hale pointed out that she had not realized that the design of the bridge was to be approved at this time. She stated the applicant had no objection toithe permit being approved subject to Commission approval of the bridge at some future time. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that Ms. Hale was correct and that condition 1(b) would address that issue, i.e. "Department of Engineering approval of bridge design." It was determined the road which would have to be constructed -would not be in the floodplain. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-w24 for Michael Shifflett be recommended to -the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 371 September 4, 1900 Page 4 1. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; c. Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; d. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of an entrance permit. Mr Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle asked about bonding for erosion control. Mr. Beeler stated that was not necessary because it was included in the issuance of the permit. Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the motion based on the staff's determination that the proposal did not satisfy any of the goals or objectives of the Comprehensive Plan "to make multiple use of such types of crossings." He stated he could not support the request without further information. Mr. Jenkins gave a description of the area in question, including the number (17) and types of crossings of the stream. He explained that the property on the other side of the stream deserved to have access. It was determined four additional properties use the ford in question. Ms. Andersen asked if staff had taken into consideration the number of crossings when making their recommendation. Mr. Fritz replied that he had not been aware of the exact number but he was aware of numerous crossings and it is staff's desire that any new or existing bridges serve multiple parcels. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the applicant would "latitude" to build a bridge at the location i.e. would the property owner cooperate? Mr. responded that that might be possible, but he able to get the property owner to contribute construction or maintenance, have the of the ford, Shiff Jett would not be to its 3 11A September 4, 1990 Page 5 Ms. Huckle and,Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling if the applicant could build a bridge on someone else's property and then require the property owner to participate in its maintenance, as in the•case of a maintenance agreement for a road. Mr. Bowling did not think it would be possible, because a road maintenance agreement can be required when a person is proposing to subdivide his property and one person owns all the lots. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he understood staff's position, but at the same time was sympathetic to the applicant because he did not feel the applicant had the opportunity to achieve the result desired by staff. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Fritz explained the location of the property which was owned by the applicant. Mr. Wilkerson stated he would support the motion and he called for the question. The previously stated motion for approval passed (8:1) with Mr. Johnson casting the dissenting vote. SP-90-74 Crown QrQhArd Co. (owner). Charlottesville Cellular Partnership (applicant) - The applicant is proposing to construct a tower and -equipment building for reception and transmission of cellular telephone signals [10.2.2(8)] on 234 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 28, is located on top of Carter's Mountain in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Reeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The staff report pointed out that previous towers have been designed to accommodate other users, but the proposed tower would not be so designed. Staff felt this was an issue of policy to be determined by the Board and Commission. However, Mr. Keeler noted that the proposed tower would be only 150 feet tall which may make it of limited use to other users. The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Carter, attorney. His comments included the following: J76 September 4, 1990 Page 6 --This application should stand on it's own merits and is not tied in any way to any future application. --Regarding multiple useage of the tower, the proposed tower meets the applicant's present and future needs (2 dishes initially and can accommodate 5 in the future). --Even if the WCVE tower could be used presently, it is too full to meet future needs. Also, the WCVE tower has Centel receivers which could cause a potential problem with interference. --Most multiple use towers are much larger. --The tower has no guy wires and is completely self - standing. There was a brief discussion about the adjoining property (owned by Mr. Wendall Wood) and access issues. In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Carter confirmed that there are future plans for another tower in Northern Albemarle County and there is a "plan to put some type of reception in the City," but there are no plans for another tower in close proximity to this site. (Mr. Carter noted that the applicant is trying to purchase a tower that is already constructed so that another tower would not have to be constructed.) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission_ Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-74 for Crown Orchard / Charlottesville Cellular Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet; 2. Staff approval of site plan; S. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even though they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this petition. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. It was determined the Commission was not requiring that the tower accommodate other users. The motion for approval passed unanimously. �i� September 4, 1990 Page 7 paran United Methndist Church _Preliminary Site Plan.- The applicant is proposing to construct a 7,500 square foot church on 6.778 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 18, is located west of Route 29 North and east of Route 606. The site is approximately 1,000 feet north on Route-606. The site is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant ws represented by Mr. Childress, Pastor of the church. He offered little comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated he supported the request, but because he felt condition 1(c) was ambiguous as stated, he proposed the following amended condition 1(c): "VDOT approval of road and drainage plans and calculations to include widening Route 606, between Route 763 and the Church entrance, to 14 feet by applying additional roadway gravel as necessary, and (where required) relocation of ditch. It is recognized that this effort will not improve the road as would be necessary to meet the standards adopted by VDOT for Secondary Roads. Complying with this condition does not connote the acceptance by the applicant of any responsibility for road maintenance." Mr. Rittenhouse noted that part of Mr. Johnson's suggested condition had included a disclaimer about maintenance. He questioned whether this was necessary since this would be a public road. (Mr. Keeler agreed that such a disclaimer was not necessary.) Mr. Johnson felt it should be clear that if the applicant puts gravel on the road, he should not be expected to maintain the gravel in the future. He did not think this was stated clearly. There was some discussion about which portion of the road would be widened. Mr. Keeler read the following condition which was already a part of the special permit: "Widening for Rt. 606 to 14ft. from the church entrance to Rt. 763." (Ms. Huckle noted that this property was not in the Samuel Miller District as had been reported in the staff report. It was determined the property was in the Rivanna District.) There was no support for Mr. Johnson's suggested change to condition 1(c). ,?%6r September 4, 1990 Page 8 There was some confusion about which site plan was under consideration. Staff confirmed that the Commission was being asked to approve both plans. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Paran United Methodist Church Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department will not accept the submittal of the final plan until the following conditions have been met and the final plan will not be signed until these conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; C. VDOT approval of road and drainage plans and calculations to include widening improvements of Route 606 to 14 feet and (where necessary) relocation of ditch; 2. Staff approval of final site plan and landscape plan to include a tree conservation plan and building foundation plantings. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion since his concerns had been made known by the suggested change in condition 1(c). Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he felt the intent of Mr. Johnson's suggested condition had been satisfied. The motion for approval passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS eiedmo t Envi_ronmentg1 Council - EC Overlay District - Mr. Keeler presented a draft of the PEC's answer to their concerns about this proposed ordinance which was in the form of actual ordinance amendments. He explained he had not had time to study the proposal in depth as he had only received a copy today but it appeared that it added language and requirements which were intended to be in place until an Architectural Review Board is actually established . He quoted from the proposal: "We (PEC) would propose that September 4, 1990 Page 9 these regulations be implemented with the existing Site Plan Review Committee and be subject to Planning Commission review and approval." Mr. Keeler briefly explained the proposal. He stated it was to be presented to the Board of Supervisors the following night. Mr. Keeler again noted that staff agreed with all comments which had been received from the private sector and from PEC, i.e. "that this Ordinance is not going to do any more than the Scenic Highways Ordinance... and we feel that that ordinance is ineffective." Mr. Rittenhouse stated that though he understood PEC's motives, i.e. to get as strong an ordinance in place as quickly as possible, he would not support the suggested revisions because the Commission has already determined that the Architectural Review Board is "part and parcel" of what is being contemplated and an ordinance in place without a mechanism to implement the ordinance is an empty measure. He stated he was not in favor of putting in place any "intermediate level implementation organization for fear that it would stop there." He stated he did not think it should be the Planning Commission's job to subjectively review "how things look." He stated he preferred to keep the ARB tied to this Ordinance and that nothing be "stuck in between" which could split them apart. Mr. Rittenhouse also stated he felt the technical functions should be kept apart from aesthetic functions. He stated he felt staff's approach to the Ordinance was a proper one. He stated he hoped the Board would consider the ARB and Ordinance as a unit and would not try to separate them. Mr. Keeler explained how the staff envisioned the ARB and EC Ordinance would work. Mr. Keeler asked if he was safe if telling the Board that "whether or not they include PEC's recommendations, the Commission's position is still to move forward with the Architectural Review Board in a comprehensive manner." This was determined to be the consensus of the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that if the Board would move forward with both the Ordinance proposed and the implementation of the ARB, then PEC's recommendations would not be necessary. September 4, 1990 Page 10 Ms. Huckle noted that if funding delays the implementation of the ARB, then it might be better to have a "stop gap" measure in place for a while as opposed to nothing. Referring to the Ingleside project which had been reviewed some weeks previously, Mr. Johnson asked if staff had made any progress in amending the Zoning Ordinance to include language which Mr. Keeler indicated had been inadvertantly omitted from the Ordinance regarding watershed protection. Mr. Keeler responded that this was on his agenda of items to address, but because of time constraints and work load, he had not yet had time to review this issue. Adelphi Cable - Mr. Johnson called the Commission's attention to a letter he had received from Scientific Atlanta Network Systems Group related to color of antennas (satellite dishes). Mr. Johnson read the letter into the record and it is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. NEW BUSINESS Buck Mountain PUD,- Request for Resolution of Intent to rezone all properties within the Buck Mountain PUD from PUD Development to PRD or RA. Mr. Reeler presented the staff report. The Commission was being asked to endorse this Resolution so the matter could be brought to public hearing. Mr. Keeler explained: "Back in the early 70's the County approved Buck Mountain PUD but has taken certain actions since that time that basically ignor the PUD zoning and it has gotten to the point where, in our opinion, we can't really assert the PUD zoning ... now, having ignored it in the past." Mr. Reeler explained specifically some of the actions which have been taken by the County. He also pointed out on the map the areas which were suggested for change. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson moved that a Resolution of Intent to rezone all properties within the Buck Mountain PUD from PUD to PRD or RA be adopted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. ;2 0 September 4, 1990 Page 11 Mr. Jenkins asked if adjoining property owners would be notified. Mr. Kepler explained that this action would allow the matter to go to public hearing and property owners to be be notified. The motion for adoption of the Resolution passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DS a V. Wayne gilimberg, Seiiretary ._179 i )I I F ATTACHMENT B To minutes of 9-4-90 RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has stated in its Comprehensive Plan GOAL: Promote the efficient utilization of County resources through a combination of: a. Designated growth areas that provide a variety of land uses, facilities, and services to support the County's future growth. b. Emphasis on the importance and priority of the four major elements that form the basis for the Rural Areas: (1) preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; (2) water supply protection; (3) limited service delivery to these areas; and (4) conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources. Of these, the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities is the highest priority. and WHEREAS, the Buck Mountain PUD lies in the Rural Area and in the watershed of the Buck Mountain Reservoir and the existing South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir; and WHEREAS, the original tracts of land were previously zoned A-1 (Agricultural); and WHEREAS, the PUD has not developed to the extent of the preliminary plan approved by the Board of Supervisors April 23, 1975; and WHEREAS, Southern Capital Fund, Inc. no longer owns nor desires to develop any portion of the Buck Mountain PUD, and WHEREAS, other property owners within the PUD wish to execute land transactions that do not comply with the approved plan; and WHEREAS, some properties have already been subjected to uses inconsistent with the PUD plan but consistent with the RA zone; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Commission does hereby state is intent to rezone all properties within the Buck Mountain PUD from PUD to PRD or RA to unemcumber these parcels from the approved plan. 21946 'Vf -J 7�I.sf-V'