HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 19 88 PC MinutesApril 19, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 19, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms.
Norma Diehl; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. Goerge St. John, County Attorney; Mr.
John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. John
Pullen, Planner. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of April 5, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
The Chairman called for nominations for the position of Vice Chairman
of the Commission. Mr. Stark nominated Ms. Diehl. Mr. Wilkerson seconded
the motion. There being no further nominations, Ms. Diehl was unanimously
elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Commission.
SP-87-110 Design Builders (Emerald Ridge Subdivision) - Request in accordance
with Section 10.2.2(28) of the Zoning Ordinance to issue a special use
permit to create 31 lots from 5 existing parcels totalling 375 acres.
This is a request for the same number of lots and the same lot size, but
in a different configuration than by right development. Property,
described as Tax Map 39, Parcel 20 is located on the west side of Rt. 684,
1/4 mile north of Mint Springs. White Hall Magisterial District. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Deferred from April 12, 1988 Commission meeting.
Ms. Patterson presented a lengthy staff report. She noted the following
corrections in the staff report:
--Page 11, last sentence of the first paragraph was amended as follows:
"As a result of this donation, th-ree--{3} four (4) lots will be
reduced below 21 acres to 9.8, 7.8 and 7.3 acres."
--Page 13, Condition No. 4: Amend -as follows:
"The subdivision shall be limited to 31 lots, ten of which are
a minimum of 21 acres (seven six after donation of acreage to
Mint Springs Park), and shall be in general accordance with the
plan by Steven L. Key, Inc. dated January 19, 1988."
The report stated:
"Staff opinion is that while this request does not meet all the criteria
requirements for proposed rural area development, there is a demon-
strable public benefit in terms of protection of critical slopes and
Q1jLQ
April 19, 1988
Page 2
of the watershed which outweigh the criteria in this case. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of SP-87-110."
The report concluded:
"The present request does not meet all of the technical criteria as
setforth in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Based on
measures proposed by the applicant and on the subdivision design
proposed, this request clearly will better serve the goals of pro-
tection of critical slopes and of watershed quality. This request
creates more logical building sites and a significantly shorter
road system by 'by right' development."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was presented by :Ir. Katurah Roell. He stated he had "tried
to take specific steps to address any concerns for the park, for buffer
zones, and in regards to the streams and actual lots to be built on." He
added that "there may be some realignment of roads as far as road grades
are concerned, and septic field studies that will have to be done." He
stated that moving lots to the lower end is a more effective use of the
land.
Mr. Stark asked how the applicant intended to restrict hunting on the
property. Mr. Roell replied that this would be accomplished through
deed restrictions and posted signs.
-Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant intended to ask for private roads
to serve the development. Mr. Roell responded that he felt the development
would be more properly served by private roads, and he would address that
issue at a later meeting.
There being no public co=aent, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler suggested that condition 5--No further division of any lot without
amendment of this permit --be changed to "10 further division of any lot."
He felt that the original condition "could be interpreted by someone as
being promisory language."
:sir. Bowerman asked how staff had arrived at 31 lots. Ms. Patterson
responded: "it's pretty much based on the direction we received from the
Commission with the previous special use permits to Garth and Shelter
Associates, to review by -right development without going through the full
exercise of a subdivision plat requirements ---soil scientist's report, etc.
Basically what we look at is building sites. Do you have 30,000 square
feet of less than 25% slope exclusive of floodplain and stream setbacks:
We went through that exercise with the applicant and he proved all 31
building sites to us."
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County Engineer looked at a proposed roadway to
serve those sites. Ms. Patterson stated that was not part of the review.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was anything to prevent a road to serve the
building sites as demonstrated by the applicant. Ms. Patterson stated
that would have required extensive grading though it may be physically
possible.
12 V4W
April 19, 1988 Page 3
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was comfortable with this concept based on previous
decisions, i.e. the special permit for re -configuration of lots, containing
the same number of lots. However, he stated "I am uncomfortable with the
number of development rights that we have in this particular circumstance
because of the topography and because of the methodology that was used to
determine it." He continued: "I remember, specifically, the conver-
sations we had with staff when you sought our direction on how this was to
be determined and we wanted to use a reasonable standard. I think that
part of that reasonable standard was what can reasonably be anticipated
to have been developed under the old way, which I think would have to
include access, at least a preliminary review by the County Engineer
of the accessibility of the building sites, as being a reasonably
prudent way to go about the determination of the by -right lots."
Mr. Stark stated he liked the idea of both the acreage and the buffer
area.
Ms. Diehl stated she understood Mr. Bowerman's concerns. She added, however:
"I think looking at this plan itself and the careful protection of the
environment that we are getting here, buffer zones and so forth,
that we don't usually get in a plan, would offset that conern for me."
She confirmed she would support the plan.
Mr. Stark pointed out the lack of public objection also.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that in most respects he agreed with the application
and he had no problem with the theory.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-87-110 for Design Builders (Emerald Ridge Sub-
division) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. County Attorney and Watershed Management Official approval of
deed restrictions to include a) the conservation buffer zone, b) the
minimization of earth -disturbance, including tree removal and c) the location
of building sites on those lots (Nos. 8-16) proposed for no driveway
stream crossings on Had Run.
2. Best Management Practices shall be utilized during construction. The
Watershed Management Official shall review the Soil Erosion Plan.
3. Not more than two dwellings shall be constructed on the high-
er elevations (Lots 17 and 25), the location of which shall be specified
on the final plat.
4. The subdivision shall be limited to 31 lots, ten of which are a minimum
of 21 acres (six after donation of acreage to Mint Springs Park), and
shall be in general accordance with the plan by Steven L. Key, Inc. dated
January 19, 1988.
5. No further division of any lot.
n?4LAI
April 19, 1988 Page 4
'ir. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on April 20, 1988.
ZMA-88-06 North 29 Commercial Land Trust - This rezoning petition is sub-
mitted pursuant to agreements in ZMA-87-07 Jefferson Square Shopping Center
and review of alignment of Berkmar Drive Extension. North 29 Commercial
Land Trust proposes rezoning of 4.9253 acres from HC, Highway Commercial
to R-6, Residential. Properties, located in the Charlottesville TMIagisterial
District, are residue lots created by shopping center tract and dedications
of right-of-way for Berkmar.Drive Extended: Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A (part)
1.5785 acres; Tax Xap 45, Parcel 108 (part) 1.0650 acres; Tax M-ap 45,
Parcel 109/109A (part) 2.2818 acres.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
Mr.. Horne stated that the applicant had been told it was/necessary for him
to be present at the -meeting.
There being no applicant or public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-88-06 for North 29 Commercial Land Trust be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. .Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on May 4, 1988.
SP-88-12 Clifford Fox - Clifford Fox petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit for a Private School (Section 10.2.2.5) on
2.71 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 41,
Parcel 29, is located on the south side of Route 614 approximately 1,800
feet east of Route 810 at White Hall in the White Hall Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Dr. Fox was present and answered questions from the Commission. Answers to
these questions determined the following facts:
--The school will receive slides from around. the state which are
processed in stains and.then screened under a microscope.
--Abnormal results are saved for two years; normal results can be
disposed of.
--50-75 cc jars of staining solution are used.
--There is currently a lack of training for cytotechnicians.
--The course will last for 9 months, plus 3 months of on-the-job training.
--All slides are heat -fixed; there will be no testing of frozen sections.
--Students will not.live at the school.
April 19, 1988 Page 5
--No radioisotopes will be present in the process.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff had considered a condition limiting the number
of students. Mr. Keeler stated he had not considered this and, in the
Zoning Administrator's opinion, "numbers are insignificant."
Ms. Diehl expressed concerns about the adequacy of the septic system. Mr.
Keeler stated if that was a concern, number 4 could be amended to limit
the number based on the adequa2;/gY9tem. Ms. Diehl expressed interest in
the procedures that would be used in terms of flushing techniques and
amount of discharge. Dr. Fox stated that the procedure used only a water
bath and only very small quantities would be used, "a few gallons a couple
of times a day at the most."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-88-12 for Clifford Fox be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Engineer approval of certified engineer's report in accordance
with Section 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of the Zoning Ordinance. Due
to location of th3s.property in the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir
watershed, the County Engineer shall consult with the Water Management
Official in his review;
2. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance;
3. Planning staff approval of parking area;
4. Virginia Department of Health review and approval of septic system
including discharge to such system;
5. Fire Officer approval;
6. This special use permit is issued for a private school with active
participant student enrollment at all times. Failure to comply with
this condition shall be deemed a change of use and this petition shall
be referred to the Board of Supervisors for disposition.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-88-14 Central Virginia Educational Television - Central Virginia Educational
Television (WCVE TV) petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special
use permit for construction of a radio frequency transmission tower and
related facilities and appurtenances (10.2.2.6) on 7.827 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 18 (part of) is
located on the east side of Rt. 20S approximately ki mile north of its
intersection. with Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742) in the Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He also stated that after the writing
of the staff report, the applicant had received the FCC construction permit and
FAA approval. The staff report stated that "the applicant has responded
to all identified concerns as well as providing comprehensive information
-24L.
April 19, 1988 Page 6
for review." The report also pointed out that by using a "shared -use"
approach, the tower would provide capacity for third party users, reducing
future needs for additional tower structures. In this regard the report
stated: "To further enhance shared usage of the tower, staff would
recommend that no separate special use permits be required for future users,
provided that certain conditions are satisfied." Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. :also present was fir.
Dick Hall. He stressed that the tower would be located within close
proximity of other towers and would.also provide a multi-user facility.
He stated that benefits to county residents would include better reception
and reception in remote areas of the county, more school reception, and
the tower will meet the long-term power needs of the county. In response
to Ms. Diehl's question, he explained that the "dish" would be located
along the tower legs at different elevations. He stated that though
the original submittal had requested only one equipment building, there
will be two buildings necessary. He asked that condition 2 be amended
to reflect this change. He explained that the applicant, after filing
the application, had entered into a tentative arrangement with CENTEL
to "locate on the tower" and wants to locate a temporary facility with
a crank -up tower until this tower is constructed. Referring to condition
3(b)-'--'If such installation is an element or segment of a network or system
which requires Board approval, such installation shall not be authorized
until Board approval has been obtained for the entire project"- he asked
if this would apply to. CENTEL if they were going to have more than one
tower in the County. Mr. Keeler responded and explained that he had
addressed this issue in a letter dated April 18 (which fir. Gibson had not
yet received). Mr. Keeler continued: "[what I said in that letter was that
CENTEL has approached the county through :sir. Gibson and also directly
about three different locations. I don't know if all three of these
involve a cellular telephone system or not but my response to this
particular location was that 'CENTEL proposes the location of a temporary
mobile tower at the proposed CVET tower site on Carter's Mountain
after approval of SP-88-14 by the Board of Supervisors. The mobile unit
would be removed once CVET constructs its tower and permanent CENTEL
antennae are installed on the tower. Since this temporary unit does not
involve substantial investment, staff has no objection to this proposal
and will discuss this as a side issue during hearings on SP-88-14.
Permanent facilities for CENTEL would be reviewed for compliance with
the recommended condition of SP-88-14,' which again the operative
section of that condition is item (b). Obviously, we don't want to
approve one tower for Smith Communications if we are obligating the
county to four other towers elsewhere. So if CENTEL is proposing a
cellular telephone system, we would encourage them to present the whole
system at one time. We have no objection to the temporary tower."
Mr. reeler confirmed that staff could approve it under the conditions
of this approval.
Mr. Gibson indicated the issue was clear.
A *11
April 19, 1988 Page 7
It was determined the tower would have three legs with 7 feet between legs,
and would be built,initially,strong enough to handle the maximum number of
dishes that are envisioned.
It was determined that staff was requesting administrative approval of the
installation.
Ms. Diehl stated her only concern was that the dishes be placed at the min-
inum height at which they can be effective. The applicant responded and
stated that that is generally done as a matter of course.
It was determined the Commission had no objection to approval for two
equipment buildings and amended condition 2(a) accordingly. It was
indicated the applicant's building would be approximately 30' x 40' and
CENTEL's would be 12' x 24'.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the applicant had been sensitive to the needs of
the community and he had no problem with the request.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-88-14 for Central Virginia Education Television
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Tower height not to exceed 273 feet. Tower to be located as described
by applicant.
2. Administrative approval of site plan to include:
a. Staff approval of two equipment building sites and, if appropriate,
screening measures;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
3. As to future tower users, staff may administratively approve additional
antennae installation under the following circumstances:
a. Continued compliance with Sec.5.1.12 of the zoning Ordinance
including safety measures related to cumulative RF radiation
such as fencing of areas where ANSI standards would be exceeded;
b. If such installation is an element or segment of a network or
system which requires Board approval, such installation shall
not be authorized until Board approval has been obtained for the
entire project.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
02 "
April 19, 1988 Page 8
Cross Section Road Design for Subdivision.Streets - Mr.. Horne led a discussion
dealing with rural vs. urban cross sections. He presented a staff report
which addressed the current review procedure, the differences between
urban and rural cross section designs and the advantages and disadvantages
of each. The.report stated: "The staff feels it is important for the
full Commission to review this concept and resolve whether they wish to
proceed with an actual text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. ...The
only remaining general issue after the subcommittee meeting was the issue
of whether the 'waiver' provisions should be made automatic. ... The
staff anticipates that the waiver provisions in this section would be
administered in a similar fashion to the provisions dealing with private
roads and urban development on slopes over 25%. In those cases the Commission
must make a conscious decision in each case to grant the waiver, but the
ordinance clearly anticipates that if certain requirements and demonstrations
can be made, waivers will be granted in many cases.
Mr. Horne asked the. Commission to decide: (1) Should the Subdivision
Ordinance be amended to require curb and gutter on all proposed subdivision
street segments in residential subdivisions with an average lot frontage of
70 feet or less? Mr. Horne summarized: "If you have an average of more
than 70 feet of frontage on a road segment, rural or urban, either tray,
at the option of the applicant; if you have 70 feet or less of frontage,
urban automatically, unless.(the following three findings are made: off-street
parking, adequate driveway separation, and adequacy of drainage facilities
for the site). If all three of those findings are made, the Commission
may waive."'(2) Should staff investigage whether to establish minimum
road design standards in the Zoning Ordinance?
Mr. Bowerman_ stated he had some problems with these proposals when they
effect the urban area. He stated he did not want to allots for subdivision
streets in the urban area to have a rural cross section.
Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned about the "70 feet." She wondered if
this could be tied to a density. fir. Horne stated that staff had considered
this issue along with others and had concluded that "it is really its physical
effects on the frontage of the roadway."
It was finally agreed the Commission felt the general approach was acceptable
but it was desirable for the lot frontage requirement to be greater than 70.
Mr. Horne clarified that staff did not support a "blanket urban cross section
to the entire urban area."
Mr. Horne stated staff would review the Natter further to try to determine
what number higher than "70" was justifiable.
Hickory Rid a Preliminary Plat - Request for Extension - Mr. Horne reported
that the applicant was requesting a 90 day extension and staff had no
trouble with the extension. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by fir. Wilkerson,
that the Hickory Ridge Preliminary Plat be extended for a period of 90
days. The motion passed unanimously.
.2#9
April 19, 1988 Page 9
Preliminary Review for Access - Referring to the special permit for Design
Builders heard at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Keeler asked if the
Commission seriously wanted staff to begin requiring a preliminary review
by the County Engineer of the access issue for such proposals. He stated
that though staff could do that, it actually gets into the area of
"speculative opinion." Mr. Bowerman felt some indication should be given
as to whether access was "rational and reasonable." Mr. Keeler pointed
out that staff had asked the Commission, a couple of years ago, what items
should be reviewed specifically and access was not one of those items.
He stated the only items specifically stated at that time were "does
he have 30,000 square feet less than 25% slope that is not in the floodplain
and not in the stream setback? " Mr. Horne stressed that the policy
should be consistent and must be applied everywhere. Though some other
Commissioners were sympathetic to Mr. Bowerman's concerns, it was felt
there was no acceptable way to address those concerns.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
"0
C I