HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 05 87 PC MinutesMay 5, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 5, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, VA.
Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard
Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma
Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief
of Planning; Mr. Patrick Ford, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and
Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. 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 14 and April 21, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
ZMA-87-5 Ednam Associates - Request in accordance with Section 33.0 of the
Zoning Ordinance to amend an existing PRD to allow condominiums in an area
previously approved for single family attached units. Property, described
as Tax Map 59D(2)-6-01 is located within the Ednam PRD on the south side of
Rt. 250 adjacent to Birdwood. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She called the Commission's attention
to three letters of opposition from neighboring property owners which she
had just received. Staff felt the plan was, in general, "an improvement
over development of this area under the existing dwelling unit type"
and was "more compatible with adjacent Ednam Village." Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. Ms. Patterson noted that condition No.
3 (Site plan review shall include landscaping which shall buffer from Ednam
Village.) should have Worthington Drive included also.
Ms. Patterson called the Commission's attention to three additional
letters as follows:
(1) From Mr. Edward Perrinton, President of Ednam Village Homeowners'
Association -- Though some concerns were stated in the letter,
the Honeowners' Association did "not wish to express opposition
to the plan."
(2) From Mr. Petty, Chairman of Ednam Community Association's
Board of Directors -- This letter noted that the "Ednam
Architectural Review Committee had approved the construction
of this proposal."
(3) From Mr. Caleb Stowe, the applicant -- Ms. Patterson read a
portion of this letter which explained the reasons for the
amendment. This included the following statement: "We
have addressed several concerns in dealing with Section B:
grades, drainage, maintaining views, pleasing aesthetics
and suitable guest parking." The letter also explained
the type of structures that are envisioned.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to what type of dwelling units
currently exist on Kellogg and Wylie Drives, Ms. Patterson stated they
were mostly duplexes.
1-5'9
May 5, 1987 Page 2
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Caleb Stowe addressed the Commission. He stressed that no property
values would be adversely effected by this proposed change. He explained
that this has been a long process and the market has dictated that the
development be a "mixed bag." He stressed that he has taken into con-
sideration all the interests of the community.
Mr. Bob McKee, Planner for the project, addressed the Commission. He
explained that this request was not for a change in density, nor for
change in zoning classification, but rather for a change in unit type
and ownership type. He pointed out that one of the advantages of a PRD
over conventional developments is that it affords the developer a certain
flexibility in modifying his unit and ownership type and other characteristics
of the project in order to meet changes in market conditions. He
explained the following aspects of the current proposal:
(1) Elimination of surface parking for the residents, resulting in
reduced impervious area and less surface run-off;
(2) Increased the open space;
(3) Created a greater separation of the units from Worthington Drive
as well as from Ednam Village;
(4) Created vistas;
(5) Reduced the overall building coverage (from 39,300 sq. ft. to
31,408 sq. ft.).
He stressed that the units were all within the allowable height
restrictions.
Referring to the three letters of opposition that Ms. Patterson had
distributed at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Stark asked if a
"promise" had been made to current owners to the effect that the
remaining homes in the development would be the same as what they
had purchased. He asked if this had been a verbal or written agreement.
Mr. Stowe responded: "We certainly don't have any agreement to that
effect."
There was some discussion about the elevation of the units and their
visibility from surrounding properties.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed their opposition to the proposal:
Mr. Alfred Burger, a resident of Wylie Dirve and Mr. Charles Almy, a resident
of Kellogg Drive. Their reasons included the following:
--Current residents were promised that there would be only single-
family dwellings;
--"Massive" buildings will change the character of the village since
single-family dwellings greatly outnumber duplexes.
--Destruction of vistas.
R
9
/00
May 5, 1987 Page 3
Again there was some discussion as to the elevation of the structures.
Though staff was under the impression the buildings were lower than
*410` the road, Mr. Stowe stated "Our first floors are generally on the
contour of the road; the parking area is on the sloop -off. So we
get our first and second floors from about the elevation of the road."
He added that it would vary from building to building because "the
grades go down."
The Chairman allowed Mr. Stowe to make a final comment.
Mr. Stowe stressed that this proposal would improve the exist-
ing development. Regarding the issue of a "promise" having been
made to current property owners, Mr. Stowe stated that the
homeowner's documents (recorded in Book 745, page 511 of the County
records) very clearly address the developer's rights and veto powers
and all homeowners are required to read these documents. He stressed
that the units that are to be built will be more valuable than
those which currently exist.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
The Chairman advised members of the public that the possibility of
a "contractural dispute" between the homeowners and the developer
is a private legal matter between those parties and does not
enter into the Commission's considEration of the proposal.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was in agreement with staff's position that
this proposal is an improvement over existing development.
Though the applicant had requested administrative approval of the site
plan, Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of Commission review of the site
plan because of the questions about elevation. Mr. Cogan also suggested
that a statement be added to condition No. 1 stating that none of the
units shall exceed three stories. There was some discussion as to
whether the limitation should be to "three stories" or to "35 feet."
It was finally determined that since the original approval limits
structures to 35 feet, it was not necessary to state that limitation
again.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question concerning detention, Mr.
McKee confirmed that the existing detention basin would be used
for this development.
Ms. Diehl stated that changes are to be expected in a long-term project
such as this one. She added that the change, which reflects the original
density, is being requested by a responsible developer and is good planning.
She stated she would support the request for amendment.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-87-5 for Ednam Associates be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions,
including Commission review of the site plan:
/(/
May 5, 1987
Page 4
(1) Approval is for a maximum of 30 multi -family dwelling units.
Development shall be in general compliance with the Ednam Section B
Application Plan dated March 23, 1987 by Robert B. McKee and
Associates.
(2) Amend the overall PRD Land Use Summary to reflect this change.
(3) Site plan review shall include landscaping which shall buffer from
Ednam Village and Worthington Drive.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
It was noted that the Commission wished to see specific elevation
data for the buildings at the time of site plan review.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on May 20, 1987.
SP-87-1 Larry B. Hall - Request in accordance with Section 28.2.2(15) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow motorcycle sales and services in the HI, Heavy Industrial
zone. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 67 is located on the west
side of Rt. 29, in the Northside Industrial Park approximately 3/4 mile north
of Rt. 649. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report, which included a statement that this
business is already in existence pursuant to authorization from the Board, 4/9/86.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Ms. Patterson explained that the
test track referred to in condition No. 2 was actually located on another
parcel of land apart from that on which the motorcycle shop is located.
Ms. Patterson stated both parcels of land were owned by the applicant.
She also explained that the applicant feels the test tract will eventually
be eliminated when that parcel of land is developed.
There was some discussion about noise in relation to the test track.
Ms. Patterson stated that, to date, no complaints from neighboring property
owners have been received. There was some question as to how noise could
be controlled from such a use.
Mr. Cogan questioned whether the track was actually a part of this
application since it is located on a separate piece of property, except
in the event the track should be relocated or expanded as referred to in
condition No. 2 ( Any relocation or expansion of the test/training tract
will require amendment of this special use permit.). Mr. Cogan asked
Mr. Payne to comment on this issue.
Mr. Payne felt Mr. Cogan's interpretation was correct. He pointed out
that this is an "after the fact" application.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the track is an accessory to this use, though
it is on a different piece of property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
9
/6 2
May 5, 1987 Page 5
The applicant was represented by Ms. Marge Ingram. Ms. Ingram corrected
the staff report's statement that it was 100 feet to the closest residence.
She stated that measurements had been taken and the closest residence
to the tract was actually 165 feet. She stressed that the business has
operated in the building for over a year and no complaints have ever
been received about noise. She stated that the track would never be
relocated or expanded because there is no place for relocation.
Referring to section 4.14.1 of the Ordinance which addresses the
issue of noise, she pointed out that the hours referred to are
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. She stated that this business operates
from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Addressing a question that had been raised
earlier in the evening, Ms. Ingram stated that mufflers are required
on off -road vehicles. In response to Mr. Stark's question about
security at the track "after hours", Ms. Ingram stated there is no
security but, to her knowledge, the track has never been used except
during business hours.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan suggested the following as a substitute condition for No. 2:
"Use of the track from this business establishment is restricted to the
hours of 10 a.m. to 5 p.m." Mr. Stark indicated his agreement with
such a condition. (Note: This condition was changed somewhat later in
the meeting.)
Mr. Payne asked if it was the Commission's intent to endorse the track.
Mr. Cogan responded: "No."
Mr. Payne commented: "I don't see why this track is lawful at all.
I think it is not a permitted use under any scheme. It is certainly
accessory, but it is not on the same property, so I don't think it's
a lawful accessory use. ...I do not see any analysis under which this
is a permitted use at all."
Mr. Cogan asked: "What you're saying is 'It's probably a use that
never should have been there and doesn't belong there at this time?"
Mr. Payne responded: "Yes. It's unlawful and would be unlawful
regardless of what your action is." Mr. Cogan stated: "But that really
has no connection with the application that's before us tonight."
My Payne responded: "To the extent that you're going to say something
about it it does, ... to the extent that you impose conditions on
it." Mr. Payne cautioned the Commission against endorsing the track
if that was not intended.
Mr. Cogan stated he did not consider his suggested condition an
endorsement. He suggested the following rewording of the added
condition he had stated earlier: "Any testing of vehicles outside the
building is restricted to the hours of 10 a.m. to 5 p.m." Mr. Payne
stated that would be appropriate and was more comprehensive.
Ms. Diehl asked that the Board be particularly advised of the Commission's
position in respect to the track. Mr. Keeler stated it was unclear to
him as to what that position actually was. He stated: "This is a
peculiar situation --everything is already there. It's just a question,
//.:g
May 5, 1987 Page 6
in my mind, a matter of adding one additional parcel, the parcel that the
track is on, to the special use permit application, to make it effective
as to the track."
Ms. Diehl stated: "But at this point in time, that parcel is not before
us, so we can't address that tonight." Mr. Cogan added: "We don't even
know if a (test track) is a permitted use for a special use permit in
the HI zone anyway, do we?" Mr. Payne stated that to the extent it is
an accessory use it is permitted. He added, however: "The reason it is
not an accessory use is accessory uses are limited to being on the same
parcel as the main use."
Mr. Gould felt that condition 2 as stated by staff should be eliminated
and Mr. Cogan's suggested condition be substituted. He felt it should
be addressed "because it's there."
Mr. Horne asked if the Commission could add a condition requiring that
the parcel on which the test tract sits be added to the application.
Mr. Payne responded: "No, because it hasn't been advertised as such."
There was some question about what type of noise a certified engineer's
report would address as referred to in condition No. 3. Mr. Burgess,
the Zoning Administrator explained: "Regardless of what the Commission
does with the Engineer's report, I have the perrogative of requiring
that with an industrial use. If the applicant were to disagree with
that, my determination on the Engineer's report, the proper forum for
that would an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Any noise levels
would be (measured) at the adjacent residential property. We would
be concerned both with noise from the building and anywhere on the
property."
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-87-1 for Larry B. Hall be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning staff approval of additional screening from Cedar Hill Mobile
Home Park, if deemed necessary;
2. Any testing of vehicles outside the building is restricted to the
hours of 10 a.m, to 5 p.m.
3. County Engineer approval of a certified engineer's report addressing
noise (Section 4.14).
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ms. Diehl stressed that the Board should be made aware that the Commission
was "not including the test track in these conditions."
SP-87-23 Young Companies - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2(5) of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow a warehouse facility on a vacant 5.72818 acre parcel,
zoned LI, Light Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 40D is
located on the south side of Broadway Street just east of the City limits
near the Old Woolen Mills. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Ford gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
May 5, 1987
Page 7
Regarding condition No. 2 (Outside storage shall be limited to overseas
shipping containers) Mr. Cogan expressed concern that there was no limitation
on the number of containers that could be stored at one time. (It was
later determined that the applicant was agreeable to a limitation of
15 being placed on the number of outside containers.)
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Lorenzo Davis. Regarding the containers
which would be stored outside, he stated that no more than 6 - 8 would
probably be present at any one time since they are moved in and out regularly.
He explained that the company was an agent of Allied Van Lines.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Since Mr. Davis stated that during the summer months there would be
times when more shipping containers would be stored outside, it was
decided a limitation of 15 was appropriate.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-23 for Young Companies be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. Building area limited to 10,000 square feet on the proposed 1.133
acre lot which is to be subdivided from the parent parcel (Tax Map 77,
Parcel 40D).
2. Outside storage shall be limited to overseas shipping containers and
there shall be no more than 15 containers stored outside the
building at any one time.
3. Site Plan to be administratively approved by the Planning Staff.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-26 Ray C. Beard - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2(5) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a mini -storage warehouse, on property zoned LI,
Light Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22I is located
on the west side of Rt. 29N, near Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Ford gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Osborne. He asked that the
Commission act on a request "to waive the 30-foot buffer with the
residential area." He stated that the applicant owns both properties.
He explained that because of the lack of public sewer the applicant
is greatly limited on the number of trailers, and being able to grade
"a little over the zoning line" will give him more space.
M
May 5, 1987 Page 8
It was clarified that the applicant was requesting a waiver to
be allowed to grade within the 30-foot buffer. Mr. Osborne pointed out
that screening trees would be replaced after the grading. *40
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the request for a waiver, it was the consensus of the Commission
that the issue be addressed at the time of site plan review to give
staff time to research the issue more fully. It was determined the
Commission wished to review the site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-26 for Ray C. Beard be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building area limited to 12,800 square feet in the 4.85 acre portion
of the parcel zoned light industrial.
2. All storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Heritage Hall XI Site Plan Amendment for Additional Grading - Proposal for ad-
ditional grading on both sides of the entrance road off Rio Road on 9.37 acres
of 11.6 acre tract. Zoned R-6, Residential with SP-85-4 for a nursing home
use. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 26C and 26, is located
north and adjacent to Four Seasons PUD and Berkeley Subdivision. The
proposed access is on Rio Road West, approximately 0.1 mile west of Rt. 659
(SPCA Road). Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She called the Commission's attention
to a letter from a neighboring property owner who felt her yard had been
disturbed (Ms. Plunkett) and had not been restored to its original condition.
Ms. Patterson had suggested that Ms. Plunkett speak with both the contractor
and the developer about this matter.
Staff recommended denial of this request for the following reasons:
--No evident practical purpose to serve the development since
it is too distant from the nursing home to be usable by most
residents.
--Aspects of site development cannot be addressed at this time
since there is no proposed use of the area.
--Removal of existing tree buffer and grading in close proximity to'
the property line may have a more negative impact on adjacent
residential properties.
--Does not appear to be any public purpose served by approval of the
additional grading, nor does it further the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance or Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Richard Frizzel and Mr. Bob McKee were present to represent the
applicant. Mr. Frizzel explained that a mistake had been made by the
applicant in that he had not included the entire property in the
original submittal. He stressed that the applicant owned all the
property and not just the nursing home site. He explained that it
May 5, 1987
Page 9
would be advantageous for all the grading to be done now because there
is a sedimentation basin in place and all the necessary grading
�nw equipment is currently on the site. He stated also that the additional
grading would "beautify the nursing home and allow the residents more
green area to walk in." He disagreed with staff that there was
sufficient area closer to the nursing home which could serve as
"green area." He explained that most of the area is either paved
or steep slopes.
Mr. McKee addressed the Commission. He reaffirmed Mr. Frizzel's statements
and added that the additional grading would result in a nicer appearance
from Rio Road and would enhance the appearance of the nursing home.
He also indicated that replacement landscaping would be "more than
what currently exists."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Paulene Cox addressed the Commission and expressed concern that
the development would cause run-off problems on her property.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. McKee if the proposal would have any effect
on the volume of water. Mr. McKee responded that he did not think
it would increase run-off since the impervious area is not being
increased.
Ms. Cox also expressed concern about the "pond" which currently
exists. Mr. McKee explained that the pond is a temporary sediment
basin and will be abandoned after the development is completed.
r He stated that no detention facility was required for this
facility.
Mr. Keeler advised Ms. Cox that she should address her questions
about drainage problems to the County Engineer's office. He
felt this issue was related to the existing approved Soil Erosion
Plan and grading plans are not approved by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Patterson added that she had spoken with another neighboring
property owner who had complained about the sediment basin. She
had notified the County Engineer's Department and learned that
they had already notified the owner of the problem and the owner
had expediently corrected the matter and the basin is now functioning
properly.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated he was in agreement with staff's position.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed and moved that the Heritage Hall XV Request for
a Site Plan Amendment be denied.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
09
May 5, 1987
Page 10
Ms. Diehl asked staff to check to see of a zoo is a permitted use in 1404
the HC zone.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the Stone -Robinson site plan
has been submitted which includes a package sewage treatment plant.
He stated that the treatment plant would have to be approved by the
Board but the site plan would be presented to the Commission with
very little information available about the package treatment plant.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
r. `5 ,fA
�7
% V L., -�
John Horne, Secr tary
DS
R
/GW