HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 02 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 2, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 2, 1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; : Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr.
William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Dennis Rooker, and Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Planner.
A quorum was established.
Mr. Finley asked for unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Deferred Item•
SP 98-60 Triton/Bever (Sign. #60) — Triton Communications is a personal wireless service provider.
The applicant proposes to construct a 195-foot monopole as part of their system network. Construction
of the monopole requires a special use permit in accord with the provisions of Section 27.2.2.8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed site is on Tax Map 78, Parcel 49E, which is zoned LI, Light Industry,
and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The site consists of 2.4 acres located in the Hunters Hall
Industrial Subdivision between Route 250 (Richmond Road) and I-64. The site is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. The area is not located within a designated development area of the
Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the January 5, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Applicant
requests deferral to March 23, 1999.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of SP 98-60 to March 23, 1999.
Public Hearing
SP 98-69 Brown's (Sign #44)
Request for a special use permit to allow for the construction of a 24'x44' canopy to cover existing gas
pumps in accordance with Section 6.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for the expansion or
enlargement of an existing building or structure. The property, described as Tax Map 128 Parcel 92A,
contains 2,055 acres and is located at 2724 Irish Road (Route 6) in the Scottsville Magisterial District
about 300 feet from Route 627. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is located in an Entrance
Corridor, EC. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Areas — RA in Rural Area 4.
Request deferral to March 2, 1999.
The Commission, moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of SP 98-69 to March 2, 1999.
SP 98-70 Starbase Alpha Dance Hall Permit (Sign #42)
Proposal to amend the existing special use permit for a commercial recreation activity to ad a dance hall
to the permitted activities. A special use permit is required in accord with the provisions of Section
22.2.2 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 61 W, Section 1, Block A,
Parcel 2 consists of 1.650 acres zoned C-1, Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
**mole and is located on the south side of Westfield Road approximately 600 feet north of Greenbrier Drive in
'1z
the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 1.
Remove from agenda due to incomplete application (lacks owner signature).
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved removing the item from the agenda.
SP 98-69 Blue Ridge Community Church (Sian #41, 40)
Request to establish a church on the site of the former Camp Lake Saponi. This requires a special use
permit in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows
churches by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 32B, consists of 19.679
acres and is located at the end of Lake Saponi Terrace, east of Route 29 North near the Greene County
line in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Rural Areas — RA in Rural Area 2.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, explaining that the petition would allow the congregation to expand
from 100 to 250 people and to construct a 4,000 square foot sanctuary building in the future. There is
currently a single-family dwelling, a 10-unit apartment complex, a picnic shelter and tennis courts on the
site. There is a single dwelling unit along the private road leading to the site. Mr. Wade reported that
the church will meet in the existing buildings until the new church is completed, and the applicant does
not plan to remove any buildings.
He stated that the estimated traffic count for the existing uses on the site is approximately 76 vehicle
trips per day, totaling 532 vehicle trips per week. Noting a change in the staff report, Mr. Wade said that
under the proposed use, assuming a 4,000 square -foot church is constructed, the estimated vehicle count
would be 46 vehicle trips per day on weekdays and Saturdays, and 146 on Sundays, for a week total of
422. He then distributed modified conditions as posed by staff.
Mr. Rooker told Mr. Wade that he did not understand the comment on Page 2 of the staff report "Since
there are currently more dwelling units then would be allowed by ordinance, this church can still retain
the by right uses of the district and have a lesser impact on the land," and asked him to explain the
statement. Mr. Wade responded that if the applicant develops the property to its fullest extent, it would
have more of a traffic impact than what they are currently proposing.
Mr. Kamptner commented that the current residential uses on the property are non -conforming, and
were there before zoning, so the density is higher than what would otherwise be allowed. Mr. Wade
said that the apartments that are currently there were intended to be rooms for the day camp, and when
the camp use was discontinued, they became residential apartments. In response to Mr. Rooker's
question, Mr. Wade said that the apartments would not be used as residences under the change; only one
would be used as a unit for a night watchman, with the other nine used as classrooms, administrative
offices, etc. in the church complex.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Wade confirmed that the single family dwelling unit,
formerly the lodge/cafeteria, on the private road would not be affected.
Mr. David Butt, the applicant and pastor of Blue Ridge Community Church, addressed the Commission.
He stated that Mr. Wade's report very accurately explained their intentions, and recognized the church
property manager and church members. Mr. Butt explained that in the acquisition of the property, he
wanted to have a good relationship with the neighbors, but did not know that there was a property
owners association in Saponi. He said that prior to the meeting he offered them an apology for not
approaching them earlier and letting them know of the church's intentions. Mr. Butt said that they want
to be a traditional rural church, and have no intentions of using the property for any other purposes.
U
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bill Bailey, a realtor who has been involved with Lake Saponi for approximately eight years,
addressed the Commission. He told Commissioners that he has shown the 19-acre tract that houses the
current apartments and single-family dwelling to many people for different potential uses, and said what
the church is planning is a "good use" for the property. He mentioned that the Lake Saponi convenants
and restrictions state that the lots may be used "for purposes not objectionable in a residential area such
as private schools, camps, place of worship, libraries, museums, art galleries, recreational buildings..."
Mr. Bailey said that the property is situated about 2 blocks into the site, and is not located such that all
the traffic is going to flow by residences. Also, he added that the property is located about 1-'/2 blocks
from two commercial lot that the applicant could already use to construct a larger church. Mr. Bailey
said, "I really believe that their use is good and they will make good neighbors." He said that he just
sold an adjacent lot to a builder putting up a spec house who commented that the church would be a
good neighbor.
Mr. Ira Cozell, a resident of the Lake Saponi Subdivision, addressed the Commission. He said that
while using the property for a church was not an excluded use in the original covenants and restrictions,
if the property is included by the covenants of the homeowners association, the determination of whether
or not that is an allowed use is exclusively up to the homeowners association. He said the homeowners
feel they were not given sufficient notice of the plans because the signs announcing the proposed zoning
change were improperly posted; most residents did not know about the plans until Sunday afternoon.
Mr. Cozell said the major concern of most residents is the increased traffic flow, and the potential
danger it will present to children in the area. He said that there are two commercial lots available in the
subdivision which are close to Route 29, where there are no residential units, and mentioned that most
residents he has spoken with are opposed to the Special Use Permit, primarily because of the traffic.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about the improper sign posting, Mr. Wade said that planning staff
found out Thursday or Friday (last week of January) that someone had contacted the zoning department
and said the sign was misleading, and was on the wrong property. Zoning then moved the sign.
Ms. Washington asked if the time that they moved it from one location to another was sufficient for
proper notice. Mr. Kamptner responded that the posting requirement is 15 days prior to the Planning
Commission hearing, but added that the posting of the sign on the property is an additional requirement
above and beyond what state law requires. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the ordinance now has language
that says improper posting of the sign doesn't jeopardize the validity of the proceeding. Mr. Kamptner
said it was up to the Commission's discretion whether or not to defer an item based on the posting issue.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff received any calls regarding the sign when it was posted in either place.
Mr. Wade said the planning office had received no calls, but he did get a call regarding the covenants &
restrictions agreement, during which the sign misplacement was mentioned. He added that he got the
impression from the zoning staff that one call was received in their office regarding the permit. Mr.
Wade said that the sign was placed on an adjoining property.
Ms. Cathy Walker, a resident of the subdivision, addressed the Commission. She said that there were
two signs posted on the property; however, the property is 100 feet from the state road, and no one goes
down the private road where the sign was posted except for the people who currently own the property,
tenants in the efficiency apartments, and the people who live across from the property. Ms. Walker said
that Jane Sprinkle in the Zoning Department told her that the signs are supposed to be posted where the
road leaves the state highway, and she would check into it; if the signs were not posted there, she would
have them moved. Ms. Walker said the signs had been moved by Friday (January 29`h), but until that
MI