Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 13 87 PC MinutesJanuary 13, 1987 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 13, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Planner; Pat Ford, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Frederick Payne, 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 the December 16, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. Mr. Keeler introduced Mr. Patrick Ford, a new planner. ZMA-86-10 Ken Diepold - Request to amend prior rezoning (ZMA-77-12) to change condition No. 9 to read as follows: "No dwelling unit may be closer than 149 €eet 75 feet to any adjacent dwelling units." Property described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 641, 64m, 64s, 64t, 64u, 64v, 64w, 64x, 64y, the lots are located in Jarman Gap Estates at the intersection of Rt. 691 and 684 in Crozet. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. (Note: Though the written staff report stated the separation was to be changed to 75 feet, Mr. Keeler reported that the change was to be to allow a 100 foot separation.) Mr. Keeler explained that the former Fire Official had recommended a 150- foot building separation; however, the current Fire Official views that as excessive and has recommended favorably on the requested change to a 100-foot separation. Mr. Keeler added that fire separation re- quirements have been at the discretion of Fire Official who have based their recommendations on the number of dwellings involved, adequacy of fire flow, and general building separation. Mr. Keeler stated that Mr. Bob Jenkins, the current Fire Official, was present to answer questions. Mr. Jenkins addressed the Commission. He explained that it is his intention to base building separation recommendations on the Insurance Service Office guidelines. He stated that the Ordinance requires that buildings with less than 100 feet separation must meet the minimum fire flow stipulated by ISO. He added, "It does not say 'Increase the distance' if you do not have a minimum flow. I discussed this with ISO and they do not determine structures closer than 100 feet apart,in residential areas only,as being a hazard from one building to the other or being an exposure problem. Therefore, I do not have anything (on which to) base the previous decision made by the other Fire Official. So that's the reason why I reduced it to 100 feet in this area." Mr. Jenkins confirmed that the comparison to the water flow made by the former Fire Official was irrelevant. He explained that insurance companies will not give an area a better rating if it has a flow of 500 gallons or less. He also stated the ISO does not consider the type of building (e.g. brick, frame, etc.) in residential determinations. January 13, 1987 Page 2 Mr. Jenkins confirmed that he might be making other changes in the future. He explained that he would work with Mr. Horne to establish a policy that will serve as a guideline for developers. He stated some decisions would have to be made on a case -by -case basis. Rather than changing the fire protection section of the Ordinance, Mr. Jenkins stated he hopes to more clearly define the section. Mr. Keeler pointed out that at the time this development was approved, there were no references to the ISO in the Ordinance and staff could only rely on the expertise of the Fire Official. Mr. Jenkins confirmed that he was satisfied that 100-foot separation was acceptable for this development in terms of fire safety, provided "the distance does not go below 100 feet." Mr. Cogan explained that the only issue before the Commission was one of building separation requirements based upon the Fire Official's specifications. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Diepold explained that the 100 feet separation is an absolute minimum and will only be necessary for two houses, with the remaining houses having 150 to 200 feet separation. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he was satisfied that granting the change would not cause a reduction in the fire safety of the development. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-86-10 for Ken Diepold be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows: Change Condition 9 of ZMA-77-12 as follows: 9. No dwelling unit may be closer than 149 100 feet to any adjacent dwelling units. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on Jaunary 21, 1987. James L. Wood Final Plat - Proposal to create two (2) lots from a 6.0 acre parcel for an average lot size of 3.0 acres. Access to the proposed lots will be from a joint entrance off of Pheasant Hill Lane. The parcel is located in the Ivy Farms Subdivision. Tax Map 44, Parcel 32G. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Jack Jouette Magisterial District. Staff requested deferral to January 20, 1987. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the James L. Wood Final Plat be deferred to January 20, 1987. January 13, 1987 Page 3 M Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Clark and Covert Professional Building Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 3,100 square foot professional office building on a 10.260 square foot parcel, to be served by 21 parking spaces. Access to the site will be from a joint entrance on Westfield Road. The property is located on Westfield Road adjacent to the Albemarle Veterinary Clinic. Tax Map 61W, Parcel 01-A-1. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He stated the applicant had no objections to any of the recommended conditions of approval. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he was familiar with the site and the application was in order. He moved that the Clark and Covert Professional Building Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: irr a. County Engineer approval of site plan, grading and drainage design. b. County Engineer approval of drainage calculations demonstrating the downstream drainage facilities to Rt. 29 are adequate to convey the additional run-off generated by this development; c. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer lateral connection sketch. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Church of Our Savior Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 6,700 square foot addition to existing church building. The site will be served by 59 parking spaces (not including overflow parking area). Access to the site is from Rio Road and Huntington Road. The property is located at the inter- section of Rio Road and Huntington Road. Tax Map 61, Parcels 144 and Tax Map 62A1, Section IA, Parcels 1 and 2 (these parcels have recently been combined by plat). Zoned R-2. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that the applicant proposed two entrances onto Huntington Road to serve the parking area. err Though the Highway Department was recommending approval as proposed, the County Engineer was recommending that the access to the main parking lot be limited to one entrance on Huntington Road, located as far east of Rio Road as physically possible. The applicant felt the second access 114 January 13, 1987 Page 4 was necessary to provide adequate internal circulation. Staff disagreed with this contention and recommended that only one access be provided to the parking area due to the general policy of staff and the Commission to require the consolidation of entrances when and wherever it is feasible and practical to do so. However, the report explained that "this proposal is not an intensification of the use on the site, and the traffic impact would not be extensive, and would occur primarily during non -peak traffic periods. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that no unusual precedent would be set if the Commission should choose to permit the second access to the main parking area." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. It was determined the existing parish building, which will be torn down, is approximately 3,000 square feet. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Rhinehart, architect for the project, addressed the Commission. He explained that it was the applicant's feeling that a parking lot of this size needs more than one entrance particularly since people will leaving one service concurrently with people arriving for another service. He felt this would also aid the traffic flow along Huntington Road since it would reduce the problems created by "stacking." He stressed that the church will not be in service at peak traffic times. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the access onto Rio Road was to be closed and a second entrance to the parking area is proposed farther away from Rio Road on Huntington Road. Though Mr. Rhinehart explained it was intended that the second entrance be both ingress and egress, he stated he could agree to it being only an entrance if that was absolutely necessary. He stressed, however, that the applicant would prefer that it be both an entrance and an exit. Mr. Bowerman stated he was very familiar with this site and pointed out that he has never seen any problems with the traffic, even on Sunday morning. He felt that closing the entrance onto Rio Road and moving one of the entrances to theparking area further back would not create any problems even if both entrances are both for ingress and egress. Ms. Diehl pointed out that allowing two entrances would not be setting a precedent. Mr. Bowerman moved that the Church of Our Savior Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of site grading and drainage computations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and compu- tations; /,5 January 13, 1987 Page 5 C. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of * ,.W commercial entrance and closure of Rio Road entrance; e. Fire Officer final approval of fire flow; f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; (Note: Staff's recommended condition g. was eliminated.) Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Benish noted that the applicant had been very cooperative in relation to the issue of closing the Rio Road entrance. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Cogan reminded the Commissioners to complete their Conflict of Interest forms which were due January 15. He explained that only the Real Estate Disclosure need be completed. Regarding a letter each Commissioner received from Social Services, there was some confusion as to what response was expected from the Commission. Mr. Keeler asked to see a copy of the letter and stated he would take the matter up with Mr. Horne to determine if any action was necessary. Mr. Cogan reminded the Commission of the upcoming meeting with the Board of Supervisors, 4:00 p.m., January 14. Mr. Stark stated he could not attend the meeting due to a previous committment. New Preliminary Site Plan Ordinance - It was determined this project was currently "stuck" at the Board level as a result of additional public comments received only recently (from Treva Cromwell and PEC). Mr. Keeler explained that the staff had made changes to the Ordinance, "in every respect" as a result of Ms. Cromwell's comments and was concerned because both Ms. Cromwell and Ms. Van Yahres (PEC) were on the LURC Committee and were presented with copies of the ordinance drafts as soon as completed. He stated he did not know how much longer the process might be drawn out as a result of additional comments from other citizens' groups. It was decided this issue would be brought up at the joint meeting with the Board. Mr. Keeler noted that the issue which generates the most concern among the public is the public notification and participation element of the process. He stated staff was surprised at the public reaction since no change is being proposed in that aspect of the Ordinance. Referring to a letter which he had received from a citizen (Mr. Kegley) `§fir✓ regarding the Comprehensive Plan Review, Mr. Cogan stated that he felt whenever such a letter is received by the Commission it should receive a brief response expressing the Commission's appreciation for the interest shown. i /> January 13, 1987 Page 6 Regarding a recent newspaper article related to state-wide planning, +rw` it was decided staff would contact Mr. Haas, University of Virginia School of Architecture, and ask that he submit his comments to the Commission in writing so that they might be taken into consideration during the Comprehensive Plan review. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. John Horne, Secretary. Recorded by Janice Wills Transcribed by Deloris Sessoms /7