Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 04 90 PC MinutesDECEMBER 4, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 4, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; 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. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Wilkerson and Grimm. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of November 13th and November 20th were approved as amended. Mr. Fritz presented a brief preview of the December 11th Consent Agenda. (Mr. Johnson asked that staff attempt to determine why a former Commissioner had requested that this item be brought back to the Commission.) Prior to the opening of the public hearing, Mr. Rittenhouse made the following statement regarding the Press' accusation that the Commission had held an illegal Executive Session to discuss County development activities on November 27, 1990: "We did indeed meet in Executive Session. We did not meet to discuss development activities or development officer, or a reallocation of development -type personnel within our County staff. The question of whether we met legally or illegally could best be addressed by Mr. Bowling, with the County Attorney's Office, who did address it before we met with full knowledge of why we were meeting. He sat with us; he was with us throughout the meeting; he watched us close the meeting, and, to my knowledge, he was satisfied that we were meeting legally before, during and after we met. I feel compelled to make that statement for the record." 5P-90-92 Olga Morse - The applicant petitions for a special use permit to operate a nursery school on 2 acres zoned R-6 (16.2.2(7) and 5.1.6]. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 112E, is located on a private road 1200' off the west side of Route 29. The private road is approximately 1500' north of Woodbrook Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial district. This is in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 1). The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-90-92 he indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. %/9 December 4, 1990 Page 2 SP-90-97 Charlottesville Cellular Partnership - The applicant petitions for a special use permit to construct a tower and equipment building for cellular telephone transmission and reception on part of 184.875 acre parcel zoned RA [10.2.2(6)]. The property, described as Tax Map 20. Parcel 18, is on piney Mountain on the west side of Route 606 approximately 500 ' south of its intersection with Route 763 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is not in a designated growth area (Rural Area I). The applicant was requesting withdrawal of the petition. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the applicant's request for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. SP-90-98 Charlottesville Cellular Partnership -- The applicant petitions for a special use permit to construct a tower and equipment building for cellular telephone transmission and reception on part of a 30.519 acre parcel zoned RA [10.2.2(6)]. The property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 12, is on the southeast side of Route 600 approximately 2 miles southeast of Route 641 (near Route 29) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is not in a designated growth area (Rural Area II). The applicant was requesting deferral to December 11, 1990. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that SP-90-98 for Charlottesville Cellular be deferred to December 11, 1990. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-89-23 River Heicfhts Associates - Request to rezone 9.0 acres from R-15, Residential and 5.55 acres from CO, Commercial Office to HC, Highway Commercial (proffered). Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 69D and 69D2 is located west and adjacent to the Sheraton Hotel north of Hilton Heights Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This property is located within a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that this request is inconsistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area and does not recommend amending the plan. ...staff recommends denial of the rezoning." Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of the authorization for a retail establishment on HC property. Mr. Fritz responded that he would have to check the Ordinance and respond to the cmestion later. I/9 December 4, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Cilimberg addressed this question and explained that there is a section at the beginning of the by -right uses for HC which states that the "Zoning Administrator, after consultation with the Director of Planning and other appropriate officials may permit as a use by -right a use not specifically permitted in the district." He explained further that this particular type of use (a department store type wholesaling operation) is identified in the Comprehensive Plan under non-residential use as a use appropriate in the regional service area. He stated: "So the Zoning Administrator has accepted the application based on the appropriateness of this use in a regional service designated area of the Comprehensive Plan, assuming that this will all bd designated as regional service through a Comprehensive Plan amendment and, therefore, felt that the application as HC was appropriate." Mr. Johnson also questioned by what authority the applicant could use the parking area which is currently allocated to the hotel. Mr. Fritz responded: "I can't address any easements or documents which may exist allowing the parking that is currently in place to be used for the hotel. I don't know of any easements, but it's an existing situation." The Chairman determined that there was no public opposition present at the meeting. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. He spoke at length about the history of the site, traffic generation, visual impact, site suitability, landscaping, and grading. His comments included the following: --The category of the rezoning is not crucial because the proffer will limit development of the property to this particular store only. --The County has already downzoned the property by 1,750 residential units, whereas the applicant's proposal would downzone it by only 70 to 80 residential units. --There is only a 288 vtpd discrepancy in the traffic count for the year 2010. (Additional comments: Attachment B) --The visual impact will be minimal because the surrounding property can develop commercially by -right. --There will be no negative impact on the remainder of the property because it is owned by this same applicant. --The Comprehensive Plan calls for the west side of Rt. 29 to be regional service development. --Shared parking with the hotel is allowed by a recorded easement. --Accessibility to residential property will be via a road of 10% slope which will meet state standards. --The site is well suited for the use because the surrounding property is zoned HC. ---There will be no outside storage. Ito December 4, 1990 Page 4 Mr. Wood was accompanied by Mr. Mike Davis, representing Wal-Mart, and Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Wood explained the topography of the property, the location of proposed cut and fill, and plans for stabilization. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Jim Cannon, a resident of the Ivy area, addressed the Commission. He stated he was familiar with the Wal-Mart stores and noted that they vigorously support local community programs. (Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that this application was not for Wal-Mart, but rather for Sam's. Mr. Cannon was aware of this but noted that Sam's is a part of the Wal-Mart system.) He stressed that Wal-Mart/Sam's is vigorously involved in the Children's Miracle Network which provides funds for childrens' hospitals. He felt Wal-Mart/Sam's would be good community members. Mr. Mike Davis, representing Wal-Mart, addressed the Commission. He expressed the hope that the County's concerns had been answered and stated it was the applicant's intent to make this a development of which the community would be proud. Ms. Huckle expressed disappointment that more attention had not been paid to the quality of the stormwater runoff from the parking lots. (Mr. Davis confirmed that the applicant had proffered to "sweep" the parking lots twice a week.) Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant had any plans for a detention basin or methods for slowing down the speed of the runoff. Mr. Muncaster addressed the question and stated that the appropriate time to "put in a settling basin at the toe of the slope" would be at site plan approval. He confirmed there was "some room" along the river bank to allow for this. Mr. Wood explained the existing drainage system in more detail. Mr. Wood also stated that Mr. Bobby Shaw of the County Engineer's Office, had approved the completed pipe and rip -rap. (Ms. Huckle indicated the County Engineer was not aware of this approval.) Mr. Davis stated he was unaware of any other requirements of staff, but if there should be any, "we would certainly comply." Mr. Keeler noted that he did not think the existing channel would be able to remain because the fill to support the parking lot would extend into that area. Mr. Keeler also noted: "Whether fill occurs here --I don't think the Engineering Department goes with a slope greater than 1 1/2:1 and we would not endorse any fill encroaching in the / 0V December 4, 1990 Page 5 floodplain." He explained that there is an elevation difference which needs to be overcome in the channel to get the slop back down to acceptable grade. ... It may be necessary to construct a partial retaining wall to shore up the parking lot in order to avoid compromising the 1 1/2:1 slope or encroaching in the floodplain. That can be addressed at site plan." Mr. Wood again addressed the Commission and stressed that the applicant had attempted to cooperate with staff and had agreed to build a third traffic signal at the Woodbrook intersection. He also stated he was sure there was enough space to accomplish a 111:1 slope" on the property. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the following two issues before the Commission: (1) Whether or not to amend the Comprehensive Plan so that an approval of this request would be in compliance with the Plan; and (2) Rezoning of the property. It was clarified that a CPA was contemplated with this request though it was not presented at this time and both a ZMA and CPA would require Board review. Mr. Jenkins recalled that this had been the property about which there had been a discrepancy about the location of the boundary line. Regarding this issue, Mr. Cilimberg explained that two votes had been taken: the first vote --to find the proposal in compliance with the Plan --had failed to pass due to a tie vote (3:3); and the second vote --to find that the proposal was NOT in compliance with the Plan --had passed 5:1. The Commission had directed staff to review an amendment to the Plan along with the rezoning request. Mr. Cilimberg further explained that it had been decided the line was "an extension of the line on the west side of the Sheraton Hotel to the south." Thus, part of this property is within the Comprehensive Plan area but the part to the west which is now zoned R-15 is not. Mr. Rittenhouse further clarified that the lower part of the property is zoned CO and the upper is zoned R-15 and the applicant's request is to rezone both parts to HC. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if the Commission were to decide to amend the plan, it would be a determination that the boundary line was where "the applicant had indicated it was to begin with and... it would establish your position that that line, while it might not represent all of what the applicant wants, should represent that." /,2 A I December 4, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Rittenhouse felt the question of residential areas was a central issue of the Comprehensive Plan question. He also noted that two of staff's concerns in regard to the Comprehensive Plan are: (1) Giving up residential area will force it to go somewhere else; and (2) It may be very difficult to screen this site from dissimilar uses. He noted the following concerns related to the rezoning: (1) Concern about cut and fill; (2) Stormwater runoff; and (3) Waivers will be necessary to allow development on critical slopes and disturbance of buffer. Mr. Johnson was in favor of a deferral and made a very extensive statement which is made a part of these minutes as ATTACHMENT A. At the end of Mr. Johnson's prepared statement he made the following motion: "I thus recommend and do so move that: (1) The Planning Commission amend its decision of 15 May 1990 by recognizing that the applicant's request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Map 20), and (2) that the question of rezoning be indefinitely deferred until such time as the applicant has been able to clarify the language of his proffers." Mr. Jenkins asked if this motion could be acted upon as two separate motions. Mr. Johnson was agreeable to amending his motion accordingly and moved that the Commission amend its decision of 15 May 1990 by recognizing that the applicant's request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Map 20). Mr. Jenkins seconded this motion. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would not support the motion for the same reason he voted against it previously, i.e. "does the map dictate the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan or does the text, or how is it determined?" He recalled that staff's position had been that the intent of the Commission and the Board by establishing these boundaries, whether they be shown on the map or shown in the text, was to establish the boundaries in accordance with the text. He stated he supported that position at that time and would continue to support it. Mr. Jenkins indicated he felt this was a difficult question to answer because it is one of the few times there has not been some geographic feature to define a boundary. He noted, however, he felt it was a toss-up as to which type of development was preferrable in this area --this type of service or R-15? He did not see much difference. He stated he could support the motion. December 4, 1990 Page 7 Mr. Johnson again noted that the Comprehensive Plan only referred to "Map 20," and he had seen no record of any kind, other than a "memory that this might have been." Mr. Rittenhouse recalled discussions about the computations for some of the tables and the areas which formed the basis for those computations. Mr. Cilimberg stated there was no textual reference to the computations and the references staff had found had been from Commission work sessions. He explained: "In dealing with what areas were to be high, medium, low density, residential, commercial and the acreage tabulations --in going back to that we were able to find that the particular area shown in the Comprehensive Plan and the acreage estimated for that area was in fact the R-15 area zone." He further explained that if the fault was with the Plan text, "it was the fault of saying a straight-line extension of Berkmar Drive --it should have instead said that the particular area was to represent current zoning because it is very obvious from our standpoint, from yours and from the applicant's that the map itself is not definitive enough when you get into this kind of a 200 foot difference." Ms. Huckle stated she was "very concerned about the general standards of the Comprehensive Plan not being followed, the amount of cut and fill that is going to be required to make this building and its parking areas possible, and being right on the banks of the river." She noted that staff felt this was proposal was "overdevelopment" of the site. She stated she could not support the motion. Ms. Andersen stated that though she would like to support Mr. Johnson's position, she could not do so without having had the opportunity to consider his statements prior to this time. She questioned whether or not the intent of the Plan could ever be fully documented. The previously stated motion to find the property is already in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan failed to pass (2:3) with Commissioners Johnson and Jenkins voting for the motion and Commissioners Rittenhouse, Andersen and Huckle voting against. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support staff on the issue of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Johnson moved that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval which would designate this area as being Regional Service. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion failed to pass (2:3) with Commissioners Johnson and Jenkins voting for the motion. and Commissioners Rittenhouse, Huckle and Andersen voting against. t-, December 4, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Rittenhouse then noted that the Commission needed to act on the rezoning request because of the possibility that the Board may or may not agree with the Commission regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He again noted the need for waivers in relation to critical slopes and building in the buffer area. He stated he was reluctant to support a rezoning based on the Engineering Department's lack of support for a waiver. Mr. Johnson asked if staff had suggested any conditions of approval in the event the Commission chose to look favorably on the request. Mr. Fritz responded that approval would be subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Jenkins asked if the site could feasibly be developed as R-15 without the need for the same waivers. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that less grading would be needed. Ms. Huckle felt the site could be more sensitively developed with some other plan which didn't involve so much modification of the natural topography. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptation of buildings to the site, rather than the site to the buildings. Ms. Huckle moved that ZMA-89-23 for River Heights Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Mr. Rittenhouse asked that staff assign a CPA number to the previous motion before Board hearing. (Mr. Jenkins noted that a CPA-90-02 was referenced in the staff report.) The motion passed (3:2) with Commissioners Rittenhouse, Andersen and Huckle voting for the motion and Commissioners Johnson and Jenkins voting against. SP-90-100 James F. Scott - The applicant petitions for a special use permit to locate a private helipad on a 141.15 acre parcel zoned RA [10.2.2(19)]. The property known as Mirador and described as Tax Map 54, Parcel 74E, is bounded on the north by I-64 and on the east, south and west by Routes 690, 250 and 691 respectively. It is in the White Hall Magisterial district and not in a designated growth area (Rural Area III). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. /26- December 4, 1990 Page 9 Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of the terms "heliport" and "helipad." He noted that both were used in the staff report. Mr. Fritz felt that both terms were used in the Ordinance. Mr. Fritz also added that no repairs (other than emergency repairs) or refueling of the helicopter would take place on the site. Mr. Fritz also explained the difference between "private" and "personal" helipad. Mr. Fritz also confirmed that all the required materials had been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Johnson questioned the reason for condition No. 3: "No fuel storage on site." Mr. Fritz noted that the site is within the watershed and the applicant had not proposed any type of on -site fuel storage. Mr. Johnson stated it was difficult to imagine this type of use without some sort of emergency fuel storage. Mr. Johnson expressed some concern about the lack of specifics. It was determined a sketch plan had been submitted, but a site plan would not be required unless the Commission specifically required one. Mr. Fritz stated that staff envisioned Department of Engineering approval of the necessary plans for the provision of a dust free landing surface. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. James Scott. He explained that he had received a letter from the Virginia Department of Aviation and they expressed no objection to the proposal. He noted also that the FAA had visited the property. In response to Ms. Andersen's question regarding refueling, Mr. Scott explained that he would refuel at either the Charlottesville airport or the Shenandoah Valley airport. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-100 for James Scott be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only; 2. Limited to one base aircraft; 3. No fuel storage on site; 4. Landing lights to be shielded form adjoining properties and public roads; /.e to I December 4, 1990 Page 10 5. Department of Engineering approval of dust free landing surface to include approval of erosion control plan if grading is necessary; 6. Approval/registration by/with the FAA and the Virginia Department of Aviation. (Note: A seventh condition was added later.) Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson asked that the terminology be made consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, i.e. that it be referred to as "Private heliport throughout." He also wondered if a condition should be added requiring compliance with Section 5.1.1. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that these were already in the Zoning Ordinance and would be applicable unless they were specifically excluded. Mr. Keeler stated that there would be no problem with adding a condition as suggested by Mr. Johnson, merely to serve as a checklist. Mr. Jenkins amended his motion to include condition No. 7: 7. Compliance with Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Ms. Huckle, who had seconded the motion, agreed to the amendment.) Mr. Johnson wondered if condition No. 1 was legally supportable. Mr. Keeler explained that there would "probably be no improvements to this property in order to accommodate this use" so the argument that the permit "runs with the property" would only be feasible if the helicopter remained with the property. Mr. Bowling: "He couldn't claim that he has any vested right...I don't see any problem with the permit running individually with the person in this case." It was determined the structure to store the helicopter is already in existence. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. /00 I December 4, 1990 Page 11 SP-90-96 Allen Cutright - Petition to issue a special use permit for a Home Occupation Class B (5.2). The applicant proposes to operate a custom shutter repair and building shop in an accessory structure on four acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcel 6B is located on the west side of Rt. 708 approximately six -tenths of a mile west of Rt. 29 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area III). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. There was a brief discussion about decibel levels. Mr. Fritz stated that the 45 decibels which have been measured were within the acceptable range. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the 45 decibels were what could be heard outside the structure and that a person within a residence would have to "strain" to be able to hear any noise. The applicnt was represented by Mr. Allen Cutright. He offered to answer questions. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that the application was for a permanent permit, provided the applicant complied with the conditions. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-96 for Allen Cutright be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 4.14; 2. Upgrading of the existing entrance so that 250 feet of sight distance is obtained or relocation of the entrance to a point where 250 feet of sight distance may be obtained; 3. No on -site sales; 4. No employees. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Lanford Hills Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create eight lots from six existing lots on 15.185 acres. The average lot size is 1.75 acres with a range from 2.327 to 1.378 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel (s) 34, 34D, 34E, 34F,34G, 34H, is located on December 4, 1990 Page 12 St. Rt. 649 approximately one mile north of Proffit in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Access shall be through a proposed public road. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area II). Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented -by Mr. Steve Runkle. He noted that the property was not in a growth area and was not likely to become a growth area. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Commission has typically looked favorably on redivisions which bring property more into conformance. Ms. Andersen moved that Lanford Hills Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it 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. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans to include a right turn and taper lane. 2. Administrative approval of final plat. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle stated that though she was not in favor of approval of lots of less than 2 acres, she would support the request because it is the "lesser of two evils." The motion for approval passed unanimously. /A9 December 4, 1990 Page 13 OLD BUSINESS Mr. Jenkins asked if VDOT had ever made a decision about the "Park road" in Crozet. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board would be considering alternatives on December 5th and a fifth alternative was evolving which would be to build part of the Comprehensive Plan road between Rts. 240 and 250 in Crozet. Mr. Keeler explained that the staff would begin implementing a new format for staff reports beginning December 11th. He explained some of the changes. Mr. Johnson brought up a question about a proposal which had been before the Commission (in March, 1990) to subdivide a lot in Northfields. He expressed a lack of understanding as to why the County Attorney had advised that the Commission could deny the subdivision (which the Commission did) and then later reversed that opinion and had advised the Board that he had advised the Commission incorrectly. Mr. Keeler recalled that the proposal had been to divide the parcel into three lots. Mr. Keeler felt that Mr. St. John's original opinion had been based on a mistaken interpretation of another similar case. Ms. Huckle wondered if a restriction should be placed on all subdivisions which precludes further subdivision. Mr. Keeler responded: "So long as you meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, just because you've already divided property, you can't be precluded from further dividing it." Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Bowling to look into this question and to advise the Commission as to what it "can and can't do" and "what provisions might be added to preserve and protect what we approve." There was general discussion about development rights. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. DSB 400