HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 01 87 PC MinutesSeptember 1, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, September 1, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard
Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma
Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present
were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. George St.John, County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Gould.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 18, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
ZMA-87-08 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE - S.W. Heischman (D/B/A University Village)
petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend the proffer of ZMA-82-11 to
increase building height to the maximum of 65 feet allowed under R-10 zoning.
Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 53 is located on Old Ivy Road
(Rt. 754) adjacent to Huntington Village in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District. DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Horne presented the staff report. The report included the following:
"Under the existing proffer, a building height of about 45 feet could
be achieved while the applicant proposes a maximum 65 foot building
height. The existing four story height limit appears to be based on
original development concept and fire fighting limitations that existed
at that time. ... Currently, the applicant proposes construction of a
6-story, 65-foot building on the knoll behind Huntington Village.
With a ground elevation of t700 feet this knoll would be visible from
other areas of Charlottesville, which ranges in elevation from 400
to 600 feet. ...The applicant's proffer states that the proposed change
would permit 'a more orderly development of the property, to provide
for better preservation of the landscape and lesson (negative) impact
on surrounding properties.' The schematic plan (which is also proffered)
reflects these comments. ...This proposed configuration would probably
allow for less of the total site to be graded, and for less of the
site to be covered by impervious surfaces. Staff recommends approval
of this rezoning and acceptance of the proffers."
Staff was also recommending that the applicant substantially shorten the
proffer and include only relevant materials due to the fact that the original
proffer was unnecessarily lengthy and vague.
Mr. Keeler pointed out the proposed locations of the various buildings
including variations from the original plan.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Landess and Mr. Tom Wyant (architect
- for the project). Mr. Landess explained that the original proffer was
quite lengthy, yet vague. He stated the applicant feels the buildings
can be better built with a different foremat.
-1/19
September 1, 1987 Page 2
Mr. Wyant explained that the original proffer would necessitate the
"removal of most of the trees and removing most of the dirt on the hilltop."
He explained that the currently proposed proffer would require that only
one point be lowered approximately 7 feet and would also allow most parking
to be placed inside. He also explained the new proposal would allow
fire protection from the new road. He stressed that the new plan would
minimize the environmental impact since most of the mature trees will
remain and the impervious area has been reduced as a result of the
basement parking facilities. He stressed that the plan would minimize
runoff which is an important concern for an elevated piece of property
such as this.
Noting the former Fire Officer's concern about fire flow, Mr. Cogan asked
Mr. Wyant if that situation had changed in. any way.
Mr. Wyant replied that the situation had changed in that the Albemarle
County Service Authority is currently designing a tank which will be
located behind University Heights and is also building a line which
will service this development. He explained that both the applicant
and the City of Charlottesville have contributed to this project and
the line size is being increased which will alleviate the fire problem.
He added that the applicant has consulted with both the City and
County Fire Officers and determined that the proposed 65-foot height
is within the capability of the ladder trucks.
In response to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Wyant stated that he had been
informed that the construction on the tank was to begin within 90 days
and service should be available 10 months after construction has begun.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Building Code required that the building be
sprinkled. Mr. Wyant responded that though he did not think sprinkling
was a requirement, the building would be fully sprinkled and it would be
constructed of non-combustible material.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to comment on the adjacent zoning and any
limitations which might exist on those sites. Mr. Keeler explained that
Ivy Garden Apartments, to the east, is already built; a 5-acre tract
belonging to Ms. McGavick is zoned R-1 and has a single-family dwelling;
Huntington Village is zoned R-10; to the west is property bordered by
the By -Pass, zoned R-15 and is limited to a certain number of units until
Old Ivy Road is improved.
It was determined the townhouses in front of this development are 3-stories
tall.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler stated there was no
comment from the Fire Officer on this proposal. Mr. Keeler pointed out
that at the time of the original proposal, the Service Authority had no plans
to build a new tank.
M
12/ A
September 1, 1987
Page 3
There was some question about the two different proffers which were attached
to the staff report. Ms. Diehl wondered if the Board had seen the same
proffer as had the Commission. However, Mr. Keeler explained that
Attachment A was the applicant's proposed new proffer and Attachment
B is the proffer that was originally approved and is in existence at this
time. Mr. Keeler was uncertain as to whether or not the proffer
that is in existence was presented at the Commission level or not until
the application reached the Board.
Mr. Keeler could not recall any discussions which took place regarding
fire protection in relation to building height.
Mr. Cogan recalled that reservations about height had been in relation to
fire protection. He did not think visibility had been discussed, because
it was a moot issue since there was concern about fire flow at that time.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Wyant explained that the outside
building would be primarily brick, with stucco portions, and a flat roof.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the concerns about fire protection had been
satisfied so the primary issue now was one of visibility. He stated that
he felt 65 feet was an excessive height for this neighborhood and he
was not inclined to approve the amended proffer.
Ms. Diehl agreed with Mr. Cogan. She noted this would be an extremely
large building which would not be in harmony with the surrounding
properties. She also stated she would be reluctant to remove the existing
proffer.
Mr. Michel agreed with Commissioners Cogan and Diehl.
Mr. Stark also agreed and moved that ZMA-87-08 for University Village
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial with the understanding
that the original proffer is to be maintained.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-70 EINSTEIN SCHOOL - Einstein School petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit for a PRIVATE SCHOOL (10.2.2.5) on 4.658
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 12G4,
is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Rtes. 660 and
676 in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the report. (Prior to the staff report Mr. Keeler distributed
the fbllox-n additional letters of opposition which had been received
after the staff report was prepared; a letter commenting on inaccuracies
which were contained in a letter composed by Mr. Hermann and distributed
to neighbors along with a petition; and an additional page of signatures
on the petition opposing the application. Note: Along with the staff
report was a petition of opposition containing 72 signatures and the
additional page added by Mr. Keeler contained 24 additional signatures.)
15/�,
September 1, 1987
Page 4
The staff report stated that the two primary physical impacts caused by
this use would be increased traffic and outdoor activities. Regarding
increased traffic, the staff report stated: "While this would Novo
represent an increase in traffic, (136 vtpd), such increase is inherent in the
nature of day care, church, and private school uses." Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
There was a brief discussion about septic requirements for this type
of facility vs. a single-family dwelling. Mr. Keeler explained the
difference: 150 gallon capacity/bedroom for a three -bedroom dwelling
for a total of 450 gallons vs. 10 gallons/day/student for a school
for a total of 380 gallons (38 students). Mr. Keeler pointed out that
figure did not include the requirements for the assistant headmaster
who would be living on the property, nor did it take into consideration
the possibility of athletic showers at the school. He confirmed that
showers would increase Health Department requirements.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Preston Thomas, Director of the Einstein School, addressed the
Commission. His comments included the following:
--The school primarily serves children with language disabilities,
and is the only school in the area which provides this service.
--Most teaching is of a tutorial nature (a 1-to-1 basis). The
overall teacher/pupil ratio is 1-to-4.
--The school is very quiet and orderly and has no intentions of
expanding.
--Though 30 students are proposed as a maximum, the school has
for several years had an enrollment of 18 students.
--Facility is appropriate for the school since it will provide
several small rooms. The nature of instruction at the school
does not require large rooms.
--The applicant has no intention of doing anything that would be
a detriment to the community.
--Regarding the issue of runoff, Mr. Thomas explained that the
proposed tennis court would be a soft court which will cause
no runoff.
--A transportation van L. being considered for transporting
students to andfrom school which would lessen the impact of
increased traffic.
--No shower facilities are planned.
--Food is not prepared at the school; students bring their
lunches.
--Regarding outdoor activities, Mr. Thomas explained tennis,
soccer, basketball, baseball (plastic bat), and swings for
smaller children are anticipated.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their
opposition to the proposal: Mr. John Herrmann (residing diagonally across
from the school); Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul (a soon -to -be neighboring property
owner and former teacher of disabled children); Mr. Walter Taylor;
Mr. Arthur Cox; Mr. Calvin Fisher; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Their reasons logo
for opposition included the following:
6.46-
September 1, 1987
Page 5
--This type of use should not be located in an entirely residential
community.
11ftW --Devaluation of property.
--Increased traffic, particularly at a critical time of day when
school buses are on the road.
--Yard will be unsafe for children unless it is fenced.
--Necessary paving will give the property a commercial appearance.
--The dwelling is not appropriate for a school because the rooms
are small and dark.
--Will become an attractive nuisance which will invite after-hours
loitering.
--Negative impact on watershed and local springs.
--Setting a precedent for other undesirable uses in the area.
--Unsafe intersection; inadequate sight distance.
--Noise.
--Septic requirements will be more than has been predicted considering
a permanent resident will reside on the property and a rental unit
is already in existence.
Mr. Ed Scott addressed the Commission and pointed out inaccuracies in the
letter which had been circulated by Mr. Herrmann, (i.e. This will not be
a permanent change as stated in the letter; the school is for a maximum of
30 children and not 30+ as suggested in the letter; and the facility
is not more than 5 miles from the fire house as stated in the letter).
Mr. Scott asked that his name be removed from the petition of opposition.
Mr. J.D. Morris addressed the Commission. Though he had not signed the
petition, he too called the Commission's attention to the inaccuracies
that were contained in Mr. Herrmann's letter.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Thomas final comment.
Mr. Thomas stressed that the modifications that would be made to the
dwelling would be very limited and would not prevent it from being
used again as a dwelling. He stressed that he had searched diligently
for an appropriate facility and this was found to be the only suitable
structure. He stressed that there are no plans to expand to more
than 30 students. He stated that the tennis court and blacktopped area
would be located far behind the house away from the roads. He
assured the Commission that no children would be allowed to play
in proximity to the roads. He pointed out that the Headmaster would
reside in the building so the property would not be unattended
after hours.
It was determined Mr. Thomas is also resident of this neighborhood.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
3!b
September 1, 1987
Page 6
Mr. Stark indicated he was sympathetic to both sides of the issue.
He stated that though the school would be a benefit to those it
served, it would not be a benefit if all the surrounding neighbors
were opposed.
Mr. Bowerman stated that though the school could be a beneficial
asset to any community, he would have difficulty locating it in
this intensely residential area. He felt it would change the
character of the area. He stated he felt there were ample places
in the County where the school could be located without this
much impact on a residential neighborhood, particularly in consideration
of the large amount of neighborhood opposition.
Noting that she had visited the area, Ms. Diehl agreed with Mr.
Bowerman and stated that she could not support the request.
Citing Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Cogan stated he
was not convinced that this use "would not be of substantial detriment
to the adjacent property and ... would not change the character of the
district."
Mr. Michel agreed with Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-87-70 for the Einstein School be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meetinp- recessed from 8:55 to 9:05.
SP-87-69 JOYCE C. BREEDING - Joyce Breeding petitions the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit. for a Gift/Antique Shop (10.2.2.36)
on 1.2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map
31, Parcel 18A, is located on the southeast side of Rte. 660 about
iz mile from Rte. 743 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Horne gave the staff report.
Mr. Horne confirmed that a house currently exists on the property and the
proposal is for a conversion of the existing house. Mr. Horne did
not think the structure would be used as a residence after the conversion
Mr. Keeler pointed out that Mrs. Breeding has a mobile home on adjoining
property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by her son, Mr. Melvin Breeding. He noted
that the residence was once a rental unit, but has not ban resided in
for two years. He added that the "Inspections Department" inspected
the structure and will require a new back porch and the installation of
a sprinkler system which will be tied in with the domestic plumbing
and will protect the oil furnace in the basement.
September 1, 1987
Page 7
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed this would
be a complete change of use as indicated by the applicant, i.e. the
1+ structure will no longer be rented or used as a residence. Mr. Keeler
added that the Commission could add that as a condition if it was
of concern.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl was in favor of a condition being added as suggested by
Mr. Keeler, i.e. to limit the use of the building to an antique shop
only, as proposed by the applicant.
It was determined the hours of operation proposed were Thursday through
Sunday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Though there was some discussion about
adding this as a condition also, it was finally decided this was not
necessary.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Breeding confirmed that
the tractor trailer which is presently parked on the property will
be removed.
Mr. Bowerman commented that similar applications in the past have usually
been associated with a residence. He stated this seemed to be similar
to a commercial -type operation in the rural areas, i.e. it is just a shop
with no residence attached or involved. He asked Mr. St. John to comment
on this aspect of the application since he was a little apprehensive.
He asked Mr. St. John if this type of situation has been seen before.
Mr. St. John deferred the question to staff. Mr. Horne was not aware
of any similar applications. Mr. Keeler added that very few have been
reviewed under the current ordinance though there have been some. He gave
as examples Sugar Hollow Antiques and the Calico Cat, along Rt. 250.
He concluded that this type of situation has been approved in the past
though the usual "home -occupation" is within an existing dwelling.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had no objection to the application.
Mr. Cogan asked if the issue of transferrability of the permit should
be addressed. It was decided the following would be added: "This permit
is issued to the applicant only and is non-transferrable."
Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-69 for Joyce C. Breeding be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of site plan after review by the Site Review Committee;
2. Building Official approval;
3. No outdoor storage or display;
4. No building expansion;
5. Structure shall be used as an antique shop only; no one shall be allowed
to reside in the building.
6. This permit is issued to the applicant only and is non-transferrable.
September 1., 1987
Page 8
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on September 16, 1987.
SP-87-68 LESCO, INC. - Lesco, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue
a special use permit for a Drive -In Window (22.2.2.10) on 0.85 acres zoned
C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Parcel 3-23 is
located on the north side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) west and adjacent to the
former Safeway building in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report explained:
"The drive-in window would be used in conjunction with the
dry cleaner. This use was approved in 1985; however, that
special use permit has expired. At that time, staff concern
was with internal circulation.... The applicant has submitted a
site plan which addresses those concerns."
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Bowerman expressed surprise that special permits expire. Mr. Keeler
explained that if the special permit is not "pursued" within 18 months,
it expires.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the revised plan submitted September 3, 1985,
resolved staff concerns with internal circulation.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. David Ripley. He explained that
financial considerations had caused a delay during which time the original
permit expired.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-68 for Lesco, Inc. be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with site plan dated September 3, 1985 prepared by
Roger C. Davis, Architect.
2. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for drive-in window
addition until concrete bumpers are secured in place and directional
arrows provided in accordance with site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on September 16, 1987.
Red Hill and Head of the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal Districts - Planning
Commission referral of these two applications to the Advisory Committee. Ifto
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that both Red Hill and Head
of the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal Districts be referred to the
M
September 1, 1987 Page 9
Advisory Committee. The motion passed unanimously.
The Advisory Committee was scheduled to meet Tuesday, September 8, 1987.
Miscellaneous
It was decided the Land Use Subcommittee meetings would begin at 5:15
rather than 5:30. The Transportation Subcommittee meetings would continue
to meet at 5:30.
The next regular Commission meeting was to be held Thursday, September 10,
rather than the usual Tuesday.
Mr. Cogan read a letter from Mr. Overstreet, Superintendent of Albemarle
County Schools, requesting that a Commission member be appointed to
serve on the Site Selection Committee for the new Crozet School. It
was decided Mr. Cogan would serve in this capacity.
There being no further business, Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson,
that the Commission adjourn to Executive Session to discuss personnel
matters. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned to
Executive Session at 9:30 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
AID
m