Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 05 86 PC MinutesAugust 5, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 5, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr.Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. David Bowerman. Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the July 22, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. SP-86-42 Saponi Corporation - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance for a special use permit to convert cafeteria/lodge structure into a church building. Property, described as Tax Map 21, parcel 32B consists of 13.459 acres and is located east of Rt. 29N, near the Green County line. Property has access from Greene County on St. Rt. 1120. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. It was determined the building sits just within the Albemarle County line. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. J.F. Bishop was present to represent the applicant but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined there would no longer be camping on this 131-2 acres. Mr. Bishop also corrected the staff report which had stated there were 16 residential units in the camp. He stated there were only 10 residential units and the usage of these units for rental purposes would not change. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-86-42 for Saponi Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Seating capacity limited to 100 people. 2. Health Department verification that septic facilities are adequate for purposed church use. 3. Staff approval of parking expansion. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 20, 1986. 1. � August 5, 1986 Page 2 SP-86-44 Jan Spink/Irving Jones - Request to allow a special use permit for commercial stables on a vacant 50.9 acre parcel. Property described as Tax Map 44, parcel 4F is located on the south side of Rt. 676, approximately 1/2 mile west of intersection with Rt. 660. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Regarding condition No. 1 (Enrollment limited to fifty-five (55) persons), Ms. Diehl asked how staff had arrived at this figure. Mr. Keeler replied that it was based entirely on a similar application (Davila) for which the traffic levels had been almost identical. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Jan Spink addressed the Commission. She pointed out that this would not be a membership -type riding club. She also stated that the 55 limitation had been suggested by staff though she would probably never work with that many people. She explained that typically she worked with four people a day. She stated that her main purpose was to work with handicapped persons, but she often must give therapists lessons also. Ms. Spink stated that she would work primarily within a controlled setting with little trail riding. It was determined Ms. Spink currently has two horses, with a limit of 10. Ms. Spink stressed that this was not actually a commercial stable, but this was the closest description that could be found in the ordinance. Mr. Payne confirmed that the classification as a commercial stable was an accurate one. Mr. Irving Jones, one of the applicants, stated that the Highway Department has approved commercial sight distance. He was interested in knowing at what point a decel lane would be required, i.e. at what level of traffic would a decel lane would be required. He felt a decel lane would not be necessary for this operation. Mr. Cogan stated that he could not speak for the Highway Department and was unsure as to what they will require. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission was concerned about the wording of Condition No. 1 since there would not actually be an enrollment per se. Ms. Diehl felt if the Highway Department was concerned about not increasing the traffic level on the road, then the number should be geared to some kind of rationale that would not increase the traffic that would be expected with development of this property rather than based solely on a previous application. Mr. Payne suggested that the number noted by the applicant (10) would be a sensible number and suggested the following change: "Not more than 10 students per day." Mr. Stark indicated he was more comfortable with the term "clients." Ms. Spink stated that occasionally she will hold training sessions which will involve more than 10 people. The Commission agreed this would not cause a problem. /z/S August 5, 1986 Page 3 It was determined condition No. 1 would be changed to read: "Usage limited to not more than 10 clients per day." Mr. Stark moved that SP-86-44 for Jan Spink/Irving Jones be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Usage limited to not more than 10 clients per day. 2. Not more than one (1) horse show or other such event per year open to the general public. 3. Compliance with 5.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance: 5.1.3 Commercial Stable a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; b. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be main- tained at all times. 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance. 5. Staff approval of off-street parking. 6. Any grading plan to be reviewed by Watershed Management Official in addition to review by County Engineer. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 20, 1986. SP-86-47 Encore Investors LimitedPartnership - Request to amend Sp-78-22 to incorporate and to extend to this parcel all uses permitted under SP-78-22 but not to increase density or uses permitted under SP-78-22. Property described as Tax Map 60A(l), parcel 30 consists of .627 acres and is located on the east side of Georgetown Road just north of Georgetown Court Subdivision. Zoned R-15, Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated that the property orig- inally subject to SP-78-22 would be referred to as the Mowinckel tract and property proposed to be added under this petition would be referred to as the Ross tract. Mr. Keeler also explained that the last plan reviewed for this property had been Westgate V and that the disposition of stormwater had been a major issue of that review. Mr. Keeler stated, "It is my understanding, at this time, that the Highway Department has approved the method of discharge of the stormwater into the public right-of-way." Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to this situation because Ms.Blair, who owns property across Georgetown Road, has been concerned about this issue for some time. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --He asked for a modification of the setback requirement from Georgetown Court, i.e. that it be a 25 foot setback rather than a 50 foot setback. He clarified that he was requesting a 25-foot setback off the property line. It was his understanding that a 25-foot setback was allowable in a commercial office area. OP. August 5, 1986 Page 4 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Gary Kendall, attorney for Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair, addressed the Commission. He stressed that Ms. Blair has been concerned about the stormwater issue since the property first began to be developed and the situation does not seem to be any closer to a solution. He presented several photographs to the Commission which depicted the topography of the land. He called attention to the steepness of the land. Mr. Kendall stressed that Ms. Blair's property was served by two private wells. He explained that Ms. Blair was concerned about the large amounts of water that will come off of this property and drain directly onto her property. He stated her main concern was that once the development has occurred and the drainage issue is tied to the building permit rather than the special use permit, the matter will never be resolved. Ms. Blair was also concerned about contamination of her wells which has already occurred (December 1984). He stated, "We would like to ask that the Planning Commission not only consider, as a condition of granting this special use permit on the Ross tract, that these restrictions are imposed and some studies are done, not only for the protection of Mrs. Blair's property, but for the protection of the reservoir, the watershed area, and those folks downstream on Meadowcreek, but we also ask that it be done with some eye as to what's going to happen in the future as to the part we have already given a special use permit to." Ms. Blair addressed the Commission and pointed out that this property, including the Ross property, is not included in the watershed area, even though the water does drain that way. Mr. Kendall added that silt from the Mowinckel tract is currently coming across the street and being deposited on Mrs. Blair's property. The Chairman asked for comment from the County Engineer. Mr. Armm explained that water is now crossing Georgetown Road because of the roadway design itself. However, with the plan that has been approved, there will be a series of drainage inlets which will catch the water coming down off the site as it reaches George- town road and will then divert it into the Bennington Channel. Only a tapered portion in Westgate V will still cross Georgetown Road toward the Blair property, going to the watershed and thus requiring run-off control. In response to Mr. Kendall's question, Mr. Armm indicated he was unaware of the size of the pipes that go under Georgetown Road, but he was aware that they are currently clogged. Mr. Armm added, "My understanding from my staff is that the drainage plans for this portion up to the rear have been approved by the Engineering Department, the planning staff, and this Commission. The subject property we are here for tonight, we do not know what type of coverage is truly planned. It's just a change in zoning at this point so we cannot speak to stormwater detention, whether it will actually be required. If there's development of greater than 20,000 square feet of impervious surface on here, it will be required through the ordinance. That will not be runoff control in that that would be intercepted and brought back down into the Bennington Channel. The plans that were proposed for Westgate V, from my understanding, have sort of gotten lost over the last few years, with no finalization. So now, as it stands, there is still a need for review of the Westgate V drainage and runoff control." Azi August 5, 1986 Page 5 In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Armm stated he had tried to contact the Highway Department to determine their plans for the two pipes that are currently clogged. He was not successful. Mr. Armm stated that the pipes will need not only to be cleaned out, but also extended. Mr. Armm indicated those pipes could not be connected to the Bennington Channel because that would involve diverting water from the watershed, which is against County policy. Mr. Kendall again stressed that his client was concerned about contaminated water runoff from this property flowing into the stream that feeds the reservoir. Mr. Armm confirmed there would be no problem with getting the runoff from the Ross tract into the Bennington Channel. Mr. Cogan asked what the options were for Westgate V. Mr. Armm responded, "I think the options are that revised plans have to be submitted that would show how both detention and runoff control would be handled for Westgate V. That portion of the tract falls under both those requirements, detention and runoff control." He stated that the runoff from Westgate V would still have to stay within its watershed, which is part of the Rivanna watershed. It was determined a site plan for Westgate V has been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Keeler stated he was unaware of how many of the conditions of approval have been met. Mr. Wagner stated the plans for Westgate V would result in less water going through the pipes under Gerogetown Road than currently. He indicated the actual work has been delayed because of the involved transactions with obtaining the Ross property. Mr. Cogan closed the public portion of the hearing at this point. Regarding the request for a variance from the setback requirement, Mr. Cogan stated he did not think it was within the Commission's power to grant such a variance at this stage. He asked for comment from Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne indicated it was his understanding that Mr. Wagner was asking that it not be treated as if it were zoned CO, but rather to simply have the setback be what it would be in R-15 on the theory that R-15 permits offices by special use permit. Mr. Payne indicated it was within the Commission's power to do this, but it certainly was not required. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the condition should remain as suggested by staff. Mr. Michel asked if this is approved would the Ross property be incorporated into the original special use permit and be allowed to develop as offices. It was determined that the original 8,000 square feet approved for offices would not be increased, but a portion of that 8,000 square feet could be built on this property. /44� August 5, 1986 Page 6 Regarding the setback issue, Mr. Keeler suggested the following addition to condition No. 12: However, at the time of final site plan approval the Planning Commission may reduce the setback to not less than 25 feet. Ms. Diehl stated, "My point was it was a lower density than the R-15 and I think the 50-foot buffer is a reasonable request." Messrs. Gould, Michel and Stark agreed. Regarding the run-off issue and the suggestion that this approval be somehow tied to Westgate V, Mr. Cogan stated he felt the Westgate V site plan would stand on its own and the Engineering Department is aware of the concerns of both the Commission and Mrs. Blair. He suggested adding a condition to the effect that the runoff from this tract would have to go into the Bennington Channel. Mr. Stark stated this might be the Commission's last chance to see that the runoff issue gets resolved. Mr. Keeler pointed out that there has been no development of this property, the site plan simply has not gone forward. He stated the Westgate V plan will expire in three or four months if the conditions are not met and con- struction has not begun. He stated the Commission could fail to grant an extension of the approval and require that it be re -submitted, with the understanding that it not be re -submitted until the Engineering Department has approved the method of stormwater disposition. Mr. Cogan stated he felt nothing would be accomplished by tying this to Westgate V because it is already a condition of the site plan that the stormwater drainage plans must be approved. Mr. Michel indicated he still was concerned about this becoming a part of the Westgate V approval and thus allowing offices to be placed on this property. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the amount of square footage for offices was not being increased, but just the amount of land area upon which that square footage can be placed. Mr. Stark asked if there was any way the water which is running across Georgetown Road could be diverted away from Ms. Blair's property. It was determined this would be difficult since this is a natural drainage area. It was also pointed out that staff would not support any diversion of water from the reservoir. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the conditions should remain as presented by staff, i.e. the original ten conditions of SP-78-22, plus two additional ones. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to comment on his suggestion that a a condition be added requiring that the runoff from this tract be diverted to the Bennington Channel. Mr. Payne responded, "Unless there is some very important policy objective to be served by it, I don't think that kind of condition is a good idea generally. Mr. Armm is the expert, and I feel a little uncomfortable with the Commission instructing him on a matter on which he is the expert unless there is some really important policy objective." MIN August 5, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Armco stated he was aware of what the Commission hoped to accomplish and he felt the only way it would be accomplished was by letting the water go into the Benning Channel. Mr. Keeler indicated the phrasing of such a condition would be important and suggested the following: "The Commission would ask the County Engineer to be particularly mindful on the review of the site plan for the Ross property, that storm drainage be carried to the Bennington Channel." Mr. Payne stated, "The difficulty I have with this is that Mr. Armm is going to be confronted with the problem of making sure this drainage works properly when the development comes in. I don't know that it is really terribly important in this case, but I am very concerned about tying his hands in a case where, (for instance), the site plan isn't even approved for six months or twelve months and something happens to change the conditions and all of a sudden he is brought a drainage plan that makes a great deal of sense that is not what you said, but is based on some changed circumstances." Mr. Cogan pointed out, however, that if the drainage was going to go anywhere but the Bennington Channel, the Commission would not approve it. The other Commissioners agreed. Mr. Keeler stated, "Ideally water that drains in this direction (pointing to the map) to this point southward would go to the Bennington Channel anyway. I think what Mr. Armco indicated to you is that currently Georgetown Road hasn't received a lot of attention over the years and there is some question as to whether the ditchline, pipes, etc. are adequate for that purpose. What's occuring now is that the water comes down the drive and goes accross the road. What we are doing is basically restoring the direction of the flow that the Highway Department intended. We are not supporting any diversion of water from the reservoir. ... What is in the watershed we hope to keep in the watershed. ... I think we need to be very careful when we are talking about cases like this about diverting water out of the reservoir watershed." Mr. Armm added, "If Georgetown road had never been built, that water would flow to the watershed naturally. But because of the fact that the State Highway Department has put a road through there and the road is crowned so that water flows off to each side, the intention is for it to go down the easterly sideline, southerly, back into Bennington Channel. What is happening now is that the road is not functioning properly, there is not a good crown so the driveway carries the water over to the opposite side. Yes, in essence, it is being diverted out of the watershed, but it is being diverted because of the fact that the road has been constructed and the proper way for that road to function is to carry it into the Bennington Channel." Ms. Diehl moved that SP-86-47 for Encore Investors Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: August 5, 1986 Page 8 1. Amend the approved site plan of August 29, 1978. 2. County Engineering Department approval of adequate on -site and off -site drainage facilities. 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities and adequate dedication for a 60-foot right-of-way along Rt. 656 frontage, including increasing the pavement depth of the existing Bennington Road to satisfy Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications from Inglewood Drive to the end of the existing temporary turnaround. 4. This site is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided that if any units are to have access from Bennington Road, they shall be 34 in number, with lots 1-12 developed as single-family detached dwelling units; the remaining lots developed as single-family detached and two-family dwelling units with a maximum of seven two-family dwellings, whose location shall be approved by the County Planning staff. In the alternative, the area proposed for subdivision (as shown on plat dated 5/30/78 and initialled "RWT") may be developed in townhouses provided access is only through Georgetown Road. 5. At such time as access is established to Georgetown Road, permanent access for the day care center to Georgetown Road shall be provided. 6. a. The staff shall approve temporary access, parking and play area for the day care center (the following standards shall be used for the temporary plan: parking - 1 space/2 employees; 1 space/10 children enrolled; 2 spaces for the dwelling; play area - 75 square feet/ child enrolled); b. In the event of sale df property on which the day care facility is located, the County Attorney shall review written agreements insuring site plan cooperation. 7. The day care center shall be served by both public water and sewer to be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority. 8. Approval of the day care center by appropriate state and local agencies. Conditions stated are supplementary and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude applicant of requirements and regulations by the Virginia Department of Welfare or any other agency. 9. Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. In the event of license expiration, suspension or revocation, the Zoning Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this special use permit. 10. Conditions 1, 6a, 7, 8, and 9 shall be met prior to the opening of the day care center. 11. Access to the Ross tract limited to access as approved under SDP-84-062 (The Commons at Georgetown). No direct access from the Ross tract to Rt. 656. 12. Should the Ross tract be devoted to office usage, all requirements of the CO district shall apply in relation to Georgetown Court (i.e. - setback, screening, etc). 13. County Engineer shall ensure that stormwater drainage from the Ross tract be diverted to the Bennington Channel. (Wording for this additional condition was suggested by Mr. Gould.) Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. /S/ August 5, 1986 Page 9 Ms. Diehl asked that the record show that she would not be willing to approve any extension of the Westgate V site plan unless the method for runoff control has been approved. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Rio Woods Request for Site Plan Extension - Proposal to locate 72 rental units at a density of 11 dwellings per acre. The present owners are requesting a 12-month extension for the plan to be valid until August 12, 1987. This property is involved in ZMA-86-6, a request for a rezoning to C-1 Commercial. Property described as TM 61, parcels 124B, and 124C, is located off the north side of Rt. 631 about 0.5 mile southeast of the intersection with Rt. 29, and adjacent to the Putt -Putt Golf property. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report which stated that two site plan extensions have already been approved for this property (with a former owner). The report stated that because of the following changes in circumstances, and because the present owners have submitted a rezoning request, staff was recommending denial: 1. Landscaping requirement amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Recreation requirement amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A decision by the County Attorney which will alter the acceptable road design (for rent requirements versus for sale). Mr. Keeler pointed out that even though the original site plan has been extended twice, no changes have been made in that original plan, even though there were conditions requiring changes to be made. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Don Wagner, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated he would be willing, as a condition of approval of this extension request, to comply with all changes in requirements as listed by staff. He asked that the Commission consider that this is the present owner's first request for a site plan extension. Ms. Diehl indicated she could not support the request and pointed out that there have been so many changes, the present owners would need to start all over. Ms. Diehl moved that the Rio Woods Request for a Site Plan Extension be denied. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Keeler went over some changes in upcoming agendas. There being no further business, the meeti adjourned at 9:35 p.m. .tv John Hornel Secretary DS k S'Z