Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 11 1998 PC Minutes8-11-98 AUGUST 11, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chair; Mr. William Finley; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Juan Wade, Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Rooker. A Work Session began at 6:00 p.m. Comprehensive Plan - Natural Environment Chapter Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She described how the section has been reorganized. She stressed that the strategies are the same as in the existing Comp Plan. Any changes from the existing Plan have been highlighted. Mr. Nitchmann asked if any of the groups who expressed concerns about the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance have looked at this section. Ms. Scala said no one has seen this section yet, but it is available to anyone who wants to see it. She explained that the controversy has been about the proposed Ordinance, not this section of the Comp Plan. Mr. Benish added that no part of the Historic Preservation Committee study which is currently underway is a part of this section. A public hearing is potentially planned for the end of September. ------------------------------------- Six-Year Secondary Road Plan 1995-2005 Mr. Wade presented the staff report. in response to Ms. Washington's questions about how priorities are set, staff explained the criteria used to rate and rank the projects and the policies connected to funding. The Commission made the following comments and recommendations: --Mr. Finley asked questions about Catertin Road (the one mile section to get to Rt. 601). Staff confirmed that all right-of-way is available, but there is still neighborhood opposition and some of those opposing the project have not agreed to grant other necessary construction easements. That section has not been added to the plan because VDOT does not want to jeopardize funding for the other section. --Mr. Loewenstein asked if it is possible to get more up-to-date traffic figures from VDOT. Mr. Wade said VDOT will conduct traffic count studies in response to specific requests. Mr. Benish said he will also ask for VDOT to provide information about when the a1¢ 2 8-11-98 `'- counts are done. He said: "Maybe we need to find out what their process is and get them to prioritize private roads that we think we need to track better ." --Ms. Washington expressed concern about the fact that some of the projects in the northern part of the county, which is a growth area, are far down the list. She said she thinks projects in designated growth areas should take precedence over some of the higher ranked projects. --Mr. Rieley asked about Rt. 684 (Half Mile Branch Road), the connection from Jarman's Gap Road to Yancey Mill. He said this is an important section of road because it relates to how people get from that side of Crozet to the Interstate. He said the road has some vertical sight distance problems, and "because we are looking at some fairly substantial development in that part of the growth area, that is a road that certainly should be considered for spot safety improvements, if nothing else." --Mr. Nitchmann wondered how many growth area projects could be completed sooner if funds set aside for some of the major projects (e.g. Meadowcreek Parkway), could be used now. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Board has established that the Meadowcreek Parkway is the major #1 urban road project in terms of significant projects that need to be completed --that, and the other projects that are in the CATS, including the widening of Rio Road and the completion of Rt. 29 improvements. So in saying 'remove some of these projects to get to the ones we really want to do that would be shorter term,' is ignoring the fact that the project that the Board has established needs to be done is, in fact, the large Meadowcreek Parkway project. Because it has not gotten tremendous money in phase 2 yet, it is not effecting the rest of the construction program in any significant way. It has no construction money yet in the program --it is only planning money. But that road is going to stay a high priority, as it is. We need the planning money. We need plans that we can show property owners who are thinking about doing something with their land as to where that road is going to be and how it might effect their land." Mr. Nitchmann said: "The growth is coming and sometime the County is going to have to step up and support the infrastructure that is required for that growth, but, basically, we have no control over the funding." Mr. Wade said changes can be considered each year and projects can be moved, added or deleted at the Board's discretion. Mr. Benish added: ""The VOOT plan is funded, based on our priorities, so they will make adjustments to the six -year funds based on the list and the priorities that we give them. For the final draft of the plan, Mr. Cilimberg said staff will show in "bold" type those projects which are in development areas. He agreed that Commissioners Washington and Nitchmann had raised an important point. Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment briefly on a letter from the City regarding the improvements to Rio Road. Mr. Cilimberg said a project to develop the old Meadowcreek Treatment Plant property in the City originated a couple of years ago. The proposed access to the property is from the intersection of Penn Park Lane and Rio Road. The developer who is interested in developing the property has indicated they will pay for the improvements to the intersection (if they pursue the development), but the project needs to be in the Six - Year Plan in order to be processed through the normal design, acquisition and construction process. It is included for that reason. The project has not yet been ranked, but it will have a footnote explaining that it is to be funded by other than secondary road funds. The work sessions ended at 7:05 p.m. ------------------------------------- 8-11-98 3 The meeting recessed until 7:20. The meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m. A quorum was established. The minutes of July 21 st and July 28th were unanimously approved as submitted. Action on the minutes of July 14th was deferred to August 18th, at the request of Commissioner Rieley. Mr. Cilimberg reviewed actions taken at the August 5th Board meeting. SDP 98-078 Oak Terrace Site Plan Waiver Reguest - Applicant requests site plan waiver to convert an existing duplex into a four -unit apartment complex. No structural additions are proposed. The existing 4,000 square foot duplex is zoned R-15, in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This property, described as Tax Map 61 K, Section 05, Block B, Parcel 02 is located on the south side of Inglewood Drive, approximately 600 feet west of Hydraulic Road [State Route 7431. This property is recommended for Urban Density in Urban Neighborhood 1. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. The applicant was represented by Ms. Cathy Crosby. She said this change is needed in order to make the property easier to manage. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. No concerns were identified by the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Oak Terrace Site Plan Waiver Request be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. Parking spaces shall be properly delineated by striping, signage, landscape timbers, railroad ties, and/or other visible markings approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. The motion passed unanimously. SP 98-18 South Fork Soccer Field (Special Permit for the Use) -Proposal to locate 5 soccer fields, an approximately 2,000 square foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [This activity requires a special use permit in accord with Section 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.] The property, described as tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C, is located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Road, approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a development growth area. Deferred from the July 7, 1998 Commission meeting. C/(o 4 8-11-98 AND SP 98-22 South Fork Soccer Field (Special Permit for Activity in the F000dplain) - Proposal to locate 5 soccer fields, an approximately 2,000 square foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [This activity requires a special use permit in accord with Section 30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance due to activity in the floodplain of the Rivanna River.] The property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C, is located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Road, approximately 1.1 miles east of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a development growth area. Deferred from the July 7,1998 Commission meeting. A waiver for construction on critical slopes and approval of a site plan were also being requested. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff recommends approval of SP 98-18 only with annulment of the prior special I'se permit for the church. Should the SP Board approve SP 98-18 as requested by the applicant, staff recommends approval 98-22 subject to conditions which cover both SP 98-18 and SP 98-22." Staff recommended approval of the critical slopes waiver and the site plan if the special permits are approved. Staff answers to Commission questions were as follows: --Because Covenant Church (the applicant for the church special permit on the same ,. property) recently expanded its existing facility, staff believes it is no longer interested in the site. However, the applicant has indicated other churches have expressed interest in locating on this property. No proposals have been presented to the County. If another church does wish to make use of the property, no additional approval will be needed if the conditions of the existing special permit can be met. The existing church permit had a limitation of a maximum of 800 seats. --The distance from the entrance to Polo Grounds Road and Rt. 29 is approximately 1.1 miles. --This property (both the church and the soccer fields) could be impacted by the Meadowcreek Parkway, though there would probably be an attempt to keep the alignment out of the floodplain as much as possible. Mr. Cilimberg said if any Federal Funds are used for the Parkway there would be a requirement that an attempt be made to find "any alternative that would avoid a recreational facility." Mr. Rieley thought this limitation would apply only to federally funded recreational facilities. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has tried, unsuccessfully, to get an answer to this question. He said there is the issue of "public use" even if the recreational facility is privately owned. Mr. Rieley commented on the traffic figures for the church use and the soccer use shown in the staff report. Using an "average" of the IDT figure and the applicant's figure, he said it appears that the only day any vehicle trips would be added (to the count for the church use) would be on Sunday, and even then the addition would be modest. Mr. Fritz said substantial traffic was a major concern of staff during the review of the church special permit. He continued: "Our opinion is that the Board of Supervisors approved that request, so that number of vehicle trips was deemed to be acceptable. But, in review of this request, the concern surfaced early that any increase over and above the traffic for the church use is "Z'7 8-11-98 5 more than what should be in a rural area that serves as a buffer between the urban area and Hollymead, and on this particular road. When you combine the fact that VDOT is requesting that 643 be upgraded and have some strengthening done to it, we felt that having the two uses together was too much --that tipped the scales into substantial detriment." Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that the VDOT traffic figure quoted in the staff report is now six years old. He said he knows, from personal experience, that the volume of traffic on Polo Grounds Road has increased tremendously over the last six years. The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Roell. His comments included the following: --The applicant is aware of the Parkway alignment issue. --The owner of the property (Dr. Hurt) is willing to donate this property for long-term use, but does not want to give up the special permit for the church. --The applicant will dedicate Greenway space along the river and will plant additional trees along the river edge and the stream to the north. The applicant has talked with the County's Water Resources Manager about the buffer which must be maintained. --Only a small amount of critical slope area will be disturbed. --16 acres of the total 72 acres will be used for the soccer fields. The traffic figures were for the entire 72 acres. If calculated for 16 acres, they would be only about 1 /4 of the total count. The figures provided by the applicant were generated by an actual count of traffic taken during activities and are an accurate representation of the use. --The applicant has no objection to condition No. 8, which would require that Polo Grounds Road be upgraded prior to making use of both SP 98-18 (soccer fields) and SP 90- 35 (church). --The applicant does not wish to give up the special permit for the church. Applicant response to specific Commission questions: --The applicant agrees to upgrade Polo Grounds Road, based on VDOT traffic calculations, prior to the construction of a church. The applicant would agree to that requirement for any church site plan. --The owner would not accept a condition on this approval that would remove the church approval, so if that condition is a part of the soccer field approval, the soccer fields would not be built. (Mr. Kamptner interjected: "What is before you tonight is the soccer fields. Any conditions that you impose should be related to the soccer fields and not the church. If you don't want both uses, you should make the soccer fields conditional upon there not being a church. The staff report says you should render the church permit null and void, (but) really what you should be doing is making this s.p. null and void if the other s.p. (for the church) is exercised, if you want to prohibit both uses from occurring at once.") Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Roell if the applicant would agree to the condition described by Mr. Kamptner. Mr. Roell replied: "What I would propose would be when a site plan for the church is brought before the Commission and the Board --if in fact it would be --then the road would be upgraded along with that approval." Mr. Roell said he did not think the SOCA organization would want to risk losing a considerable investment if such a condition were a part of this approval. --The applicant is willing to dedicate area for the Greenway, including a canoe access. --The applicant is trying to make the site as user-friendly as possible. "The size of the church could be reduced." g1 8-11-98 6 --Given the fact that the applicant wants the ability to have both uses on the property, Ms. Washington asked why he was not willing to go ahead and upgrade the road now. She said developers seldom offer to bear the cost of improvements to roads and County taxpayers should not have to bear these costs. Mr. Roell said the applicant might be willing to do that if this were a for -profit use, but it is not. The applicant does not wish to burden the SOCA organization with the expense of improvements to the road. The applicant is donating this land to SOCA along with $40,000 worth of grading and equipment and construction time. The fields will serve thousands of county children. --The surface of the parking lot will be prime and double seal, as recommended by the Engineering staff. Mr. Bill Mueller, representing SOCA, addressed the Commission. He stressed the "desperate" need for more playing fields. It has been determined by the County's Director of Parks (Pat Mulaney) that a total of 19 more fields are needed at this time. He again pointed out that the traffic figures in the staff report are based on the development of the whole 72 acres, though only 20 acres are actually being used in this proposal. The traffic count is expected to be only 1/2 of even the applicant's figures. He said he hopes the Commission will view this proposal as "a private initiative to solve a growing public problem at an extremely low overall impact." He described how the applicant had performed traffic counts, i.e. by actually counting vehicle trips for five fields at Darden Towe Park. He was confident that the numbers were, "within a margin of error, quite reasonable." Mr. Loewenstein asked the applicant to describe how the storage building will be used. Mr. Mueller said the soccer goal will be stored in the building, along with maintenance equipment. Also envisioned are a small concession stand, restrooms and a small office. Public comment was invited. Mr. Tony lachetta, an adjacent property owner, expressed opposition to the request. He said the road is already overloaded and has a lot of truck traffic. He expressed concern about the fact that soccer is not a "Saturday afternoon only" activity. He said this property is often underwater and this type of intense use should not be allowed. Ms. Barbara Strongman, President of the SOCA Board, expressed support for the request. She stressed that this is a gift to the County at no cost to county taxpayers." She said these additional fields will relieve some of the use of the other fields. Mr. Dave Wilson, a member of the SOCA Board, expressed support for the request. He said SOCA has the reputation for being a high -quality organization. 'The biggest criticism faced by SOCA is potential injury to players because of the condition of existing fields. None of the existing fields are owned by SOCA. SOCA is able to do this project only because of the property owner's willingness to donate the use of the property, at a minimal cost. SOCA will still need to raise $150,000 to $200,000 to develop the fields. He said SOCA would not be able to pay for improvements to the road. He said he believes the benefit to the county will far outweigh the concerns about the road. ,21� 8-11-98 .. Mr. Fred Gerke, President of the Proffit Community Association, expressed concerns about traffic, noise and security. He said this is a unique site, "with limiting factors." He pointed out that this property lies near the site of the old Monocan Indian village. He questioned the wisdom of providing public sewer to the site. He feared this could set an undesirable precedent for the lines that serve Crozet and Glenmore. Mr. Nat Howell, a resident of Polo Grounds Road, expressed concerns about the scale of the Project. He said the traffic has increased substantially over the last 6 years and he is concerned about adding additional traffic. He feared a concession stand would result in trash along the road. He felt the project should be "scaled back, if it's approved." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Mueller why the fields shown on the plan are not the usual soccer field shape. Mr. Mueller said the fields are aligned so that they can be shifted on a seasonable basis so as to reduce long-term wear and tear. Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant would object to a permeable surface treatment for the parking lot. Mr. Mueller said the applicant would not object to a permeable surface, provided the County Engineering Department can offer reasonable guidelines. (Mr. Fritz pointed out that the Ordinance requires minimum standards for a parking lot of this size, and no waivers are possible, but a pervious type of pavement does exist.) Mr. Finley asked if the fields will be developed in phases, or all at once. Mr. Mueller said the work will be done all at once. Noting that the traffic figures had been based on 72 acres, Mr. Nitchmann asked why figures were not given for 16 acres. Mr. Fritz said he had been unable to determine the acreage to be used at the time the staff report was written. Mr. Fritz said the applicant is correct, if the acreage is reduced to 20 acres, the ITE numbers would be very close to what the applicant has provided, based on an actual observation of traffic at events. Mr. Fritz said actual counts are always more accurate than ITE figures. Mr. Rieley said this is an issue he has been interested in for many years. He agreed that an increase in traffic on this road is a concern, as is the safety of the intersection at Rt. 29. He said that intersection should be studied carefully if any additional traffic is added. He said he is also concerned about the lack of discussion about an archeological survey, given the fact that "the floodplains here are always rich in prehistoric material. He felt, at a minimum, whenever there is activity proposed in the floodplain, a Phase 1 archeological survey should be a requirement. However, "the need here is crying and obvious and floodplains are the ideal locations for playing fields --the best places we are going to find to put these kinds of facilities." The fact that this property is often underwater is precisely the reason why it is well -suited for this type of use --the fields are not used when they are underwater and when the water recedes the fields are perfectly usable again. Another reason to look favorably on the request is the fact that the site is close to several large residential neighborhoods which will be able to use the fields. He was confident that the traffic count done by Mr. Mueller was more accurate than the ITE figures. He concluded: "I don't think there is any perfect 0 8-11-98 8 location. If we wait until we find an absolutely perfect site we will never have another soccer field or another baseball field or another football field. I think the pros in this case greatly outweigh the cons, but I do think some work needs to be done on the clarification of the recommended conditions for approval, and an archeological survey needs to be added to the conditions." Mr. Loewenstein agreed that an archeological survey should be required if the request is approved, particularly in view of the location of the indian village. He expressed other concerns about the proposal. He said he is very concerned about the traffic because the current traffic is in excess of the capability of the road. He said not only has the volume of traffic changed significantly in the last few years, the type of traffic has also changed --there is considerably more truck traffic on the road. Other problems with the road are the fact that it is very narrow, has an inadequate surface, and includes a single -lane railroad underpass. He expressed concern about the number of fields, the size of the parking lot, the size of the storage building, and, in particular, the potential double use of the site. Though he agreed that more soccer fields are needed and floodplains can be an ideal location, he said he is "dubious" about this particular location. Addressing a public concern about the concession stand, Mr. Nitchmann asked if SOCA would be willing to "police" this entire road on a regular basis --two or three times a year --to ensure that it is kept free of trash. Mr. Mueller responded: "We would enthusiastically agree to that." Mr. Finley asked why there are problems with the maintenance of the road surface. Mr. Loewenstein explained that the road was paved by VDOT a few years back (with the minimum surface treatment), but because of the truck traffic and additional vehicular traffic, the surface breaks down easily and requires frequent spot maintenance. Mr. Finley wondered why the truck traffic has increased so much. Mr. Loewenstein responded: "Probably because of additional development in this part of the county." There was a brief discussion about when the road would have to be upgraded if the church special permit were to be used. Staff explained that the church use cannot exist until the road has been upgraded. Mr. Rieley said he is not too concerned about the co -existence of the church and the soccer fields. He said: "I like, in fact, to see properties where churches co -exist with other uses that use the property more intensively other days of the week. I could even see church use of some of this land, under some agreement with SOCA, on Sundays. I think I actually like the dual use because I think we are getting more out of the land and more good for more people by allowing a dual, compatible use." Staff summarized the actions to be taken by the Commission: --Action on SP 98-18, for the athletic facility; --Action on SP 98-22, for activity in the floodplain; --Action on the Site Plan; and --Action on a critical slopes waiver request. alA/ 8-11-98 9 Mr. Fritz explained that the recommended conditions of approval are the same for both the special permits. Conditions 1-8 contemplate the church and soccer fields co -existing on the property. Condition 9 contemplates the soccer field use only on the property. (Earlier in the meeting Mr. Kamptner suggested alternative wording for Condition 9. See page 5 of these minutes.) Mr. Fritz said he had failed to include a condition about the dedication for the Greenway. He suggested the following additional condition: "100 foot area for the Rivanna Greenway will be reserved for dedication upon request of the county, which shall include provision for canoe access." (Staff to perfect this wording prior to the Board hearing.) Mr. Kamptner said the applicant has agreed to this condition. Mr. Nitchmann asked if a condition could be added to require that SOCA clean the road, as discussed earlier, at least twice during soccer season. Because of the difficulty in enforcing such a condition, and because such a condition would require obtaining a permit from VDOT, it was decided that a condition would not be added, but that Mr. Nitchmann's comments would be reflected in the minutes. It was decided a condition would be added requiring a Phase I archeological study: "Phase 1 archeological study, followed by appropriate mitigation measures as directed by the Planning staff, shall be conducted prior to issuance of a grading permit." Mr. Rieley suggested that filling should be limited in those areas which may be identified as "particularly sensitive." Later in the meeting, in response to Mr. Finley's questions about a survey, Mr. Rieley explained that a Phase I survey is a very cursory survey, mainly to determine what is there, but not to excavate it." It is just to identify "what's at stake." Ms. Washington said she was torn about the request. She acknowledged the need for additional recreational fields (not just soccer). However, she said she is sensitive to the residents of this neighborhood who must deal, on a daily basis, with already existing traffic problems. She said she is also concerned about the fact that soccer does not seem to have a real definitive season. She said she believes at some point developers must assist the county in upgrading roads "without it coming out of the taxpayers' pockets" and that assistance should not be based on the whether or not the applicant gets something in return. Mr. Loewenstein asked how condition No. 5 will be enforced so as to prevent trespass. Staff said trespass will be a police matter, as it is on any private property. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 98-18 (for soccer fields), for South Fork Soccer Field, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No exterior lighting shall be installed. 2. No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted. 3. No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16. 5. Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood events. ;?aa 8-11-98 10 6. The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA. 7. Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre -development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager. 8. Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant making use of both SP 98-18/SP 98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP 90-35 [Church]. The applicant may make use of one of the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo Grounds Road. 9. 100 foot area for the Rivanna Greenway will be reserved for dedication upon request of the county, which shall include provision for canoe access. 10. Phase I archeological study, followed by appropriate mitigation measures as directed by the Planning staff, shall be conducted prior to issuance of a grading permit. Discussion: Mr. Rieley clarified that his motion does not include the requirement for the special permit for the church to be voided. His motion envisions that both permits will exist. The motion for approval passed (3:2), with Commissioners Washington and Loewenstein casting the dissenting votes. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-22 (activity in the floodplain) for South Fork Soccer Field, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. No exterior lighting shall be installed. 2. No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted. 3. No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16. 5. Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood events. 6. The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA. 7. Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre -development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager. 8. Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant making use of both SP 98-18/SP 98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP 90-35 [Church]. The applicant may make use of one of the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo Grounds Road. 9. 100 foot area for the Rivanna Greenway will be reserved for dedication upon request of the county, which shall include provision for canoe access. 10. Phase I archeological study, followed by appropriate mitigation measures as directed by the Planning staff, shall be conducted prior to issuance of a grading permit. ,�P3 8-11-98 11 The motion failed to pass by a vote of 2:3, with Commissioners Finley and Rieley voting for the motion for approval, and Commissioners Loewenstein, Washington and Nitchmann voting against the motion for approval. Mr. Nitchmann confirmed that it was his intention to vote no on the permit for activity in the floodplain because he has concerns about the size of the concession stand, trash on the roads, and about the hours of activity. Mr. Cilimberg clarified Mr. Nitchmann's votes: "You voted to recommend approval of the athletic fields in this location, but not approval of disturbance of the floodplain." Mr. Nitchmann responded: "That's right." MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SDP 98-055 (Site Plan) for South Fork Soccer Fields, be approved subject to the following conditions: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals of the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: 1. Engineering Department approval to included: a. Approval of an erosion control plan; b. Approval of stormwater management BMP plans. This will include receipt of a completed facilities maintenance agreement. 2. Health Department approval. 3. Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include: a. Provision of one van -accessible barrier -free parking space with its adjacent access aisle and accessible route to the building entrance, at the Storage and Rest Rooms Building. 4. Planning Department approval to include: a. Landscape plan; b. Notation to insure compliance with conditions of SP 98-18 and SP 98-22. The motion for approval failed to pass by a vote of 2:3, with Commissioners Finley and Rieley voting for approval and Commissions Washington, Nitchmann and Loewenstein voting against the motion for approval. Mr. Kamptner clarified the basis for the denial of the site plan was the failure of the approval of the special permit (SP 98-22) for activity in the floodplain. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a Modification of Section 4.2, to allow activity on critical slopes, for the South Fork Soccer Fields, be approved. The motion passed by a vote of 3:2, with Commissioners Finley, Rieley and Nitchmann voting for the motion and Commissioners Loewenstein and Washington voting against. gl� 8-11-98 12 Mr. Nitchmann said he is not concerned about activity on the critical slopes on this property so he had supported the request for the waiver. SP 98-24 Mundie Trucking - Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B for storage of dump trucks in an existing garage. The applicant proposes to store and perform routine maintenance on dump trucks. The site, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located on 4.69 acres at 3061 Burnley Station Road. The property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 23A, is located just off State Route 641 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated development area. Deferred from the July 7, 1998 Commission meeting. Mr. Wade presented the staff report. The report explained: In 1990 the applicant was denied a Home Occupation - Class B for a hauling operation for sand, dirt, gravel, with two employees. After the Board's action, the applicant modified his operation to be consistent with the provision for a Class A Home Occupation (one truck and no additional employees on site). However, the applicant is currently operating with up to five trucks and three employees on site. This application is an attempt to alleviate the zoning violation and bring the property into conformance with the County Ordinance. ... It was staffs opinion in 1990 that the applicant's proposed use was more in keeping with a contractor's office and equipment storage yard and more appropriate in a commercial or industrial district and, therefore, staff recommended denial. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agreed with staffs opinion in 1990. Staff still believes the applicant's proposal is best suited for the classification as a contractor's office and equipment storage yard. However, this is not permitted in the Rural Areas. Potential impact to adjacent properties includes: visibility and noise from truck operation and impact of truck traffic on a private road in terms of maintenance. The staff report concluded: "Staff recommends denial of SP 98-24 Mundie Trucking to establish a Home Occupation Class B for the storage of dump trucks in an existing garage." Approval of the request would also require approval of a modification of setback requirements and approval of a modification to allow a larger building size. It was confirmed that the existing violations were brought to the Zoning Administrators attention by a neighbor's complaint. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Commission. She explained the two modifications which are a part of this request: (1) A modification of setback to allow rear setback to be reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet; and (2) A modification to allow an increase in the area which may be devoted to a home occupation. 1,500 square feet is allowed. This garage is 2,600 square feet. She said the number of employees cannot be modified. Two employees (living off -site) are allowed. The applicant currently has three employees. She explained a Class A does not allow the use of an accessory structure, nor does it allow employees on site. Class A would allow "essentially the same business, B-11-98 13 without the employees coming to the site, and without the use of the garage, but one or two trucks could be parked on site, though they could not be parked inside the garage." Mr. Loewenstein clarified that this request is for a Class B permit. A request for a Class B permit was denied in 1990. Mr. Finley asked what will happen if this request is denied. Ms. McCulley said if the Class B is not approved, the applicant can request a Class A, which means no employees could come to the site, only one or two trucks could be on site, and the garage could not be used. Only the applicant could use the site. She said: "Believe it or not, they could have this garage, but they couldn't park this truck inside the garage to do maintenance or to screen it from view or to shelter it, just because by definition once you use a garage, or any other accessory structure, it becomes a Class B Special Permit that needs the approval of the Commission and Board. Ms. McCulley said currently the applicant is operating under a Class A approval. Ms. Washington asked: "if we don't approve the Class B and they continue to operate as they are now, they are still in violation, is that correct?" Ms. McCulley responded affirmatively. Mr. Finley asked if the garage could be petitioned so as to allow less usage for the home occupation, thereby eliminating the need for a modification of building size. Ms. McCulley said she believes a 1,500 square foot portion of the structure could be designated for the home occupation, though she has had no previous experience with such an arrangement. Mr. Finley asked if the number of employees would be in compliance if the brother who is an employee lived on -site. Ms. McCulley said he would not be counted in the number of additional employees, but she believes there are other employees which would still cause non-compliance. The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. He said the violation is not a deliberate one. He confirmed that the applicant had agreed to a Class A permit in 1990, but at that time his garage was already under construction and the building permit was for a "garage/shop." Because he was issued a building permit he was under the impression that the size of the garage was not a problem. The number of trucks was reduced from 3 trucks to 2 in 1990, to be in compliance with the Class A permit. A CO was obtained for the garage/shop in 1992. It is used for light maintenance of the trucks. In 1993 and 1996 he purchased additional trucks (for a total of 4), with the intention of selling two of the trucks, but he never sold the trucks because (1) he needed them; and (2) he worked 10-12 hours and day and did not vigorously try to sell the trucks." "So he got too many trucks," but there was no intent to do anything wrong. He stressed the trucking company has existed since 1973, within a 1/4 mile area of this same site. He said reverting to a Class A permit will require that his brother drive his truck home each night and park it in a location that is clearly visible from the road, whereas this site is screened from the view of all neighbors. He disagreed with staffs comparison of this use to a contractor's storage yard, which has several employees on site, has vehicles coming and going throughout the day, and is a more intense use. He called the Commission's attention to the photographs on display. He stressed that this is the applicant's home "and they are not going to do anything to hurt it." a�� 8-11-98 14 He said safety concerns on the road are the same whether this is a Class A or Class B operation. He said: "It's true that it makes sense not to have so many trucks in a rural area, but it makes sense to have them all located in the same location and in a location that is out of sight. He stressed that this business has been in operation since 1973 and though there is Light Industrial property available, this applicant cannot afford it. He said as many neighbors have expressed support for this request as have opposed it. He read excerpts from two letters of support from neighbors. Addressing the needed modifications, he pointed out that the applicant, or other family members, owns the property which is adjacent to the needed reduced setback. He pointed out that under a Class A permit the two trucks will have to be parked outside and the garage will set empty. He asked: "Would it not make more sense to allow him to park the trucks inside the garage and to use the garage for their maintenance?" He concluded: "They've been operating without any problems for a long time. They are good stewards of the community and of their neighbors. They are hard- working family people and I ask you to take this into consideration and approve this permit." Ms. Washington asked Mr. Carter how many trucks are currently on the property. Though Mr. Carter answered "three," Mr. Mundie indicated, by a show of fingers, that five trucks are on the property. Public comment was invited. Ms. Linda Mancini, representing adjacent property owners Mr. and Mrs. Bacon, expressed opposition to the request. Her concerns were related to truck traffic on roads not built for truck traffic. She described situations where a car must move onto the shoulder to allow one of these trucks to pass. She feared that approval of this request will invite other similar requests. Ms. Stacey Walker, residence directly across Rt. 641 from the applicant, expressed opposition to the proposal. She said the operation is out of character with the rural area. She described how difficult it is for school buses to maneuver around these trucks. Mr. Stuart Kessler, a resident in the area, expressed opposition to the proposal. He referred to a petition of opposition which he described as having been signed by a number of area residents. He said this is a residential, rural area and this use is wholly incompatible. He said approval of this request will "change the character of the area to the detriment of the majority of the people who live there." He believes this operation "stretches the definition of a home occupation," and it is almost impossible to monitor. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Finley said he sympathizes with the concerns about traffic, but this operation has been in existence for quite a while, "and they were there when the neighbors moved in. (The neighbors) changed the character of the neighborhood, not the trucking company. The trucking company was already there." Ms. Washington understood Mr. Finley's position, but said this operation is much bigger than the county ordinance allows it to be and it has been operating out of compliance. She said 8A 1-98 15 she supports home occupations, but she has concerns about the intensity of this trucking operation in a rural area. She said she cannot support the request. She said she could support a Class A operation or would prefer that the operation be in an LI site. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that SP 98-28 for Mundie Trucking be denied. Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann asked if approval would set a precedent for the expansion of similar operations. Mr. Kamptner replied: "I don't think it sets a precedent because you look at each of these on an individual basis. You look at the intended use and the conditions you are imposing to address the impacts of the use. You are certainly not binding this Commission or the Board to approving future applications if you were to approve this one." Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. McCulley some general questions about how her office deals with enforcement. He said he has concerns about enforcement for either a Class A or Class B Home Occupation and he wondered if one is more difficult to enforce than the other. Ms. McCulley confirmed that enforcement is usually complaint driven. She said the Planning staff consults her office when conditions are being formulated so that an attempt is made to create conditions that are as easy to interpret and enforce as possible, "but it is going to be problematic any way you do it." She said when repeated complaints are received, it becomes extremely labor intensive, and violations are often hard to prove. Mr. Loewenstein said he is concerned that an approval could appear to be rewarding the misuse of a property. He said: "It sounds as if the Mundies seem to run an exemplary operation, except that they seem to be doing it in violation of what is permitted. If we expand what is permitted, it seems as if the county is turning the other cheek, and I have problems with that. I also have some problems, generally, with this kind of use in the rural areas. I am familiar with some other uses like this where there have been similar problems." Mr. Nitchmann recalled the Commission had recommended denial of a request from a church a few weeks ago for a printing operation. He said he was trying to differentiate the two requests. He said he can justify this request because this operation has existed for over 20 years and has been well run during that time. Also, there is not the same concern about an excessive number of trucks coming and going from the site throughout the day. Also, this operation is the livelihood of two families, and the family has operated the business since 1972. Another difference in the two requests is that there are not employees on site all day long in this operation. He said he thinks he can justify, in his own mind, "that there is a major difference between the two." Ms. Washington said her main concerns are: (1) That the business is operating out of compliance; and (2) If this request is approved, how could similar situations, where businesses might be operating out of compliance, be denied in the future. S*NWI The Chair asked if there was a second to Ms. Washington's motion. M 8-11-98 16 Mr. Rieley seconded the motion. He said he is "deeply conflicted" on this request because he, too, believes it is a well -run family operation and has existed for a long time. He pointed out, however, that "it has not been in this form for a long time." He said the bottom line is that the business is operating way above the level at which it was approved and is operating at a level which even exceeds the Class B Home Occupation. Even if a Class B permit were granted, the operation would still have to be scaled back to be in compliance. He added: "I must say I am mystified by our Ordinance, which allows the trucks to be parked inside under a Class B, but they have to be parked outside under a Class A. We need to clean that up." Referring to Mr. Nitchmann's comparison to the church printing operation request, he pointed out that this operation has five truck trips per day, which is much more than the trips per week which were discussed with the church request. He said: "There is a point at which this is going to have to move from the garage out back to a light industrial kind of setting. The question would come back to us if they expand to 8 trucks or 10 trucks. At what point do you draw that line and does it move out of a rural area? For me, I think for this particular situation --though I think it is a very close call --I think it should be operating on the Class A Home Occupation, with its eccentricities, because of the existing situation." Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that even if a Class B was approved, the applicant still could not have more than 2 employees. That is a limitation that cannot be modified. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the lack of affordable light industrial land available to the small businessman in the County. He said this is an issue which needs to be addressed. Mr. Finley noted that the conditions of approval would bring the operation into compliance with a Class B permit, though enforcement problems will always exist as they exist everywhere. He said: "They have been there 25 years. The people subdivided their land; they sold their lots; they got their money and they left. And this fellow is now behind the 8- ball. He's got his garage; he's got his land; he's got the place well kept. But (neighbors) have come in and said 'get out of here, we don't want you here anymore.' It's kind of tough. I would support the business if I had a chance, if it conformed to these conditions." Mr. Nitchmann called the question. The Commission was reminded the motion was to deny the request. The motion for denial passed by a vote of 3:2 with Commissioners Loewenstein, Rieley and Washington voting for denial and Commissioners Nitchmann and Finley voting against. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a Modification of Setback be approved for SP 98-24, Mundie Trucking. Mr. Nitchmann explained his support was based on the fact that the adjacent property is owned by family members and it was also indicated that the lot lines could be adjusted. 8-11-98 17 The motion for approvalof the modification failed to pass by a vote of 2:3, with Commissioners Finley and Nitchmann voting for the motion, and Commissioners Rieley, Loewenstein and Washington voting against. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that a modification to allow an increase in the size of the accessory structure be denied. The motion to deny the modification passed by a vote of 4:1, with Commissioners Loewenstein, Nitchmann, Washington and Rieley voting for denial and Commissioner Finley voting against denial. SP 98-26 Albemarle First Bank - Request for a special use permit, in accord with the provisions of Section 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, to operate a bank with a three -lane, drive -up teller facility on approximately 1.028 acres of land at 1265 Seminole Trail, situated at the southeast corner of Route 29 North and Westfield Road. The existing building on the site (currently used as medical offices, previously used as a bank with a drive -up teller facility) will be renovated to accommodate the new use. The property, described as Tax Map 61 W, Section 2, Block B, Parcel 1 is located in the Rio Magisterial district. The property is zoned C-1, Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay district, and is designated as Community service in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. A site plan showing proposed development of the property will be required. (Deferred from July 28, 1998 Commission meeting.) Ms. Pickart presented the staff report. Staff identified two factors unfavorable to the request: (1) The lack of a bypass lane at the drive -through, which could cause congestion and confusion in circulation; and (2) The existing configuration of the site and location of the western entrance on Westfield Road could contribute to on -site congestion and conflicts on Westfield Road. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions which addressed both these issues. The applicant was represented by Mr.Douglas Gilpin, architect for the project. He described the history of the existing structure, which has previously been used for a bank. Addressing the factors of concern identified by staff, he explained that a combination ATM/Bypass lane is not a new concept. It has been used successfully in other locations and even recently constructed banks use this feature. He explained why a fourth lane would not be practical, given the property lines. He said the bank wishes to maintain the Westfield Road entrance. He said the present configuration has worked well since the mid-1960's and the applicant has analyzed the situation and feels it is safe. He described changes which have been made which improve the plan. He concluded: "Albemarle First is eager to meet or exceed the county's recommendations for many site improvements. However, at this time, the bank is requesting the Planning Commission not require the additional by-pass lane, nor to close the western, Westfield Road entrance." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 8-11-98 18 The Commission briefly discussed staffs recommended condition #1--Limit the proposal to two drive -through lanes and provide a bypass lane. Ms. Washington said there are several banks in the area that have combined ATM/bypass lanes and she is not aware of any problems. It was the consensus of the Commission to delete this condition, but to support condition #2--Eliminate the western Westfield Road entrance. Mr. Nitchmann noted that there is much more traffic congestion today than there was when this site was first developed. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-26 for Albemarle First Bank be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following condition: 1. Eliminate the western Westfield Road entrance. Discussion: Mr. Rieley said he could support the motion. He said he believes the bypass lane is an internal matter and is for the convenience of the bank customers, but the entrance onto the public road is much too close to the intersection and involves not only bank customers but the general public. Mr. Loewenstein agreed. The motion for approval passed unanimously. $AP 98-15 Zion Hill Baptist Church - Request for a special use permit to enlarge an existing church (10.2.2.35]. The property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 106, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is located on the north side of State Highway 22 (Louise Road), approximately 1.3 miles east of the junction with State Highway 231 (Gordonsville Road). It is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and EC (Entrance Corridor) and designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Henry Chapman. He said the church has been a part of the community for over 100 years and is used constantly. He said these improvements will allow the church to be "modernized." The applicant has no problems with any of the recommended conditions of approval. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. No concerns were identified. Mr. Loewenstein said the church is an important part of the county's history and he hopes the church members will consider the suggestions of staff, related to the alterations to the building, when making these improvements. 8-11-98 19 MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-15 for Zion Hill Baptist Church, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the sketch plan dated (revised date) July 20, 1998 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, and childrens' play equipment. 2. Day care and other non -church related uses shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. 3. Two of the three existing entrances along Route 740 shall be closed and the third shall be improved to support two-way traffic by having a 30-foot width and 25 foot radii. The entrance from Route 22 will be improved to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the right-of-way line as determined by the Engineering Department. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------- SP 98-33 International Cold Storage - Petition to bring existing assembly of modular building units use (Section 27.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance) into conformance with zoning and to allow building and storage area expansion. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 33 is located about 0.1 miles west of U.S. Rt. 29 on Heards Mountain Road in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area and is recommended as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter and Mr. Gifford Chiles. Their comments included the following: --When this permit is approved, the site improvements will make the use more compatible with the surrounding areas. Additional screening will be provided and all work that is currently being done outdoors will be enclosed. Lighting and noise will also be reduced. --Enclosure of the outdoor work area will improve the health, safety and general welfare of the employees. --Though it may be true that this use is not compatible with the rural areas, it is a use that has existed for many years, even "pre -zoning." Everything cannot fit within the Comprehensive Plan, but this will be an improvement. --The applicant agrees that this is a win -win situation --for the neighborhood, for the employees of the facility, and for the applicant. --This is a clean, non-polluting business which provides jobs for 80 employees. --The business has a nationwide reputation for high quality products, and an excellent local reputation as a good neighbor and corporate citizen. --It is the applicant's desire to meet all the conditions of approval and to work with neighbors to address any concerns they may have. 8-11-98 20 --The inventory storage area will be expanded so that the workforce can be maintained throughout the year. "The addition will take up and reduce some of the area that is currently being used for finished goods." The original plan was to construct the addition this year and then to do the finished goods lot in 1999 or 2000, but because of the length of time it takes to get county approvals, it was decided to get approval for the entire plan at one time, "so that we could be up front with the community and let everyone know what our plans are." Public comment was invited. Ms. Judy Perkins, a Covesville resident, addressed the Commission. She said she has no concerns about the addition, but is opposed to the future finished goods storage. She felt the future finished goods storage should be dealt with at a future time under a separate approval process. Mr. Otto Stultz, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He pointed out that this facility is very visible from Rt. 29 and it will be a very long time before six-foot tali trees provide screening from Rt. 29. He also expressed the belief that "if this approach is approved, anyone in the county can expand their facility in violation of zoning." He was concerned about the fact that the storage area had not been mentioned when the applicant obtained a zoning variance. He also expressed concerns about runoff from existing parking lots and from the additional impervious surface. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Keeler to comment on Mr. Stultz's concern about stormwater runoff. Mr. Keeler said the first plan had shown no increase in impervious area, but when this plan was submitted (with the future storage area) there was an increase and that increase brought it before the Engineering Department for review of the drainage plans. The plan is still under review. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's questions about screening, Mr. Keeler pointed out the location of a screening fence. He said he does not believe the finished goods storage area will be visible from Rt. 29. He said he will visit the site prior to the Board hearing to confirm whether or not it is visible from Rt. 29. He acknowledged that the building and water tank will be visible from Rt. 29. He said the net area for outdoor storage expansion is approximately 11,000 square feet. Mr. Nitchmann said this business has existed for a long time and has always been a good neighbor to the community, and it is not easily seen from Rt. 29. He said he believes the county needs to be supportive of this request because this business is providing jobs for residents of the area. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-33 for International Cold Storage be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: �3� 8-11-98 21 1. Compliance with section 32.7.9.8 Screening of the Zoning Ordinance to include extension of proposed screening fence across new storage area adjacent to Rt. 633. 2. Engineering Department approval of engineer's report as required by 4.14 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. VDOT approval of entrance upgrade to minimum commercial entrance standards. 4. Building expansion and outdoor storage area expansion limited to those areas depicted on site plan prepared by- Roudabush, Gale & Associates, revised July 8, 1998. 5. Only shipping/storage activities to be conducted outdoors. 6. All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded. Discussion: In response to Mr. Loewenstein's questions about when runoff issues will be addressed, Mr. Keeler said that is a part of the site plan approval process. Mr. Rieley said he agrees with Mr. Stultz's concern about the small size of the plantings. He suggested also that staff might want to reconsider Leyland Cypress because there is a disease which is killing a lot of these trees. He suggested consideration might be given to Virginia Red Cedar. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP 98-38 Ken Rogers - Proposal to construct professional offices on 0.794 acres zoned R- 10, Residential (Section 17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance). The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 13A, is located on the east side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) just south of its intersection with Rio Road East (Rt. 631) in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is located in a development Area, Neighborhood 1. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The only issue identified by staff was the width of the buffer and setback from the abutting residential properties. "in this case staff would rely, to some extent, on the opinions of the abutting owners. One request, for a 35-foot buffer, was received from adjacent Garden Court townhouse residents. Ms. Scala said she had received a communication from Commissioner Rooker (who could not be present for this hearing) which indicated that he preferred that a condition be added related to the hours of operation. That suggestion was made based on his discussions with property owners. He had no concerns about the other conditions of approval. On the issue of the setback, she said if the property were developed as residential the side yard setback would be 15 feet, but could be reduced to 10 feet. Zoning has determined that 8-11-98 22 because of the unusual shape of this parcel, both of the lot lines adjacent to the townhouses can be considered side yards. Ms. Scala said when a residentially zoned property applies for a commercial use, a 50-foot side yard setback buffer is often imposed. Mr. Loewenstein raised questions about part of condition #3, related to the architectural design of the building -- "...and designed in keeping with the character of the area." Mr. Rieley said he had the same questions. He wondered which particular architecture the building was supposed to match, given the fact that there are a variety of uses in this area. Mr. Loewenstein could not recall this type of condition being used before. Mr. Kamptner agreed, adding: "This is really more the purview of the ARB." Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks Zoning staff, who suggested this wording, was probably concerned about what will happen to the building if it ceases to be used for offices. If it has a residential design it could be used as a residential use, and would fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods, at some future time. Mr. Cilimberg added that this site does not fall within the ARB's jurisdiction. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the owner of this property could build a 3-story apartment building on this site by -right. He said he thinks this proposed use is preferable to some of the alternatives that could go on the property. He was concerned about the Zoning staff making comments about architectural design. He thought this should be discussed at some future time because he did not want applicants to become even more confused "about who's running the show." Mr. Loewenstein questioned how design issues could be addressed when all that has been presented at this point is a sketch plan. He said: "I'm not prepared to impose design restrictions, given what I have in front of me here." Mr. Kamptner added: "Under our current authority we are pretty much limited to the Entrance Corridor anyway." It was the consensus of the Commission that condition #3 be ended after the word "height." The condition would then read: The building shall be no more than two -stories in height." After reading the Zoning staffs comments, Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks it was probably the intent to tie the design to what was described by the applicant in a pre -application conference as "one 8,000 square foot building that would architecturally resemble surrounding single family homes," because the comments say "if he is still indicating that style, we would like to have that condition." The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Morris. He said the economic value of this property is based on the fact that apartments could be built, but the owners do not think that would be the best use of the property. He said the applicant is in agreement with recommended conditions of approval with the exception of the width of the buffer along the adjoining properties. He said 113 of the property is already allocated to buffer space (including a 15-foot buffer). A 25-foot buffer, as recommended in the staff condition, would mean 50% of the property would be in buffer and, because of the value of the property, "you would not be able to do an office use. He said his architect worked long and hard to come up with a 15-foot buffer. He said: "We are willing to accept conditions that would require us to do a really good job of buffering, but the condition to reduce the size of the lot would take it out of the economic viability zone for us and we would not be able to do it if we had to give � 3S 8-11-98 23 the 25-foot buffer." He said he knows neighbors have expressed concerns, but he pointed out that the highest value of the property would be to develop it in apartments, but this proposed use would be much better for the neighbors. He said he would have no problem with a limitation of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. except there may be times when he must work in his office slightly later. There is no intent to operate at night on a regular basis. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the elevation plan submitted was substantially similar to what will be constructed. Mr. Morris responded affirmatively. He said a hip roof may be used instead of what is shown on the sketch. The building will also be brick, though it does not appear to be brick in the sketch. Public comment was invited. Ms. Pat Nolan, President of Garden Court Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission. She said her Association is not opposed to the proposal, but would like for a 25-foot buffer to be required on the side adjacent to Garden Court. Ms. Maureen Clark and Ms. Bobby Gilkerson, also Garden Court residents, expressed the hope that the wooded area behind Garden Court will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the width of the buffer, Mr. Loewenstein wondered if some compromise might be possible, i.e."Is there any wiggle room in the figure?" Mr. Morris replied: "I would certainly be willing for the architect to do as much as he can about moving the buffer area as tight to the parking lot (as possible) and maybe even moving the parking lot over. When you have to deal with the constraints of parking requirements, it makes it very difficult. As far as the trees are concerned, we don't want to cut down one tree that we don't have to." Mr. Morris said he believes (though he has not measured) the existing trees are not much more than 15 feet in depth. Ms. Scala said the sketch plan shows 24 parking spaces and an 8,000 square feet building. Parking requirements are 1 space/200 square feet of net office space, so the building may need to be smaller. 24 parking spaces would serve only 4,800 square feet of net building space. It is difficult to pin down those details without a site plan. Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to work with the applicant and reduce the buffer to 15 feet because the alternative to this is one that the neighbors would not want. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded that SP 98-38 for Ken Rogers be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. A buffer strip a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width shall be maintained along both abutting property lines, with landscaping and screening to be approved with the site plan in accordance with Section 32.7.9. The buffer strip abutting Garden Court shall be undisturbed, 011 8-11-98 24 2. All exterior lighting shall be full cutoff luminaires if the lamps emit 3,000 or more lumens. 3. The building shall be no more than two stories in height. Discussion: There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to add a condition limiting hours of operation. Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks that is difficult to do with an office building, because people occasionally must work late. Mr. Rieley wondered if Mr. Rooker's concern might have been more related to the hours the building is open to the public. Mr. Nitchmann said: "I don't know and I don't know how you would enforce that anyway." Mr. Nitchmann said Mr. Rooker will have had time to read the minutes before the Board hearing and if he wishes he can pass his concerns on to his Supervisor. Mr. Rieley pointed out that a site plan will be required and some of these issues will be resolved at that time. He said he believes it is possible to work with a narrower buffer -- because this is a very tight site --and make use of "upright plants and things that can be used in a tight buffer to achieve largely the same objective that the neighbors are after." The motion for approval passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Nitchmann asked if any of the Education Department's representatives received notices about site review meetings. Mr. Cilimberg said the Education Department is provided with a list of all residential projects (with 30 or more lots or units). He said people who receive Site Review Meeting notices are those who are involved in the review process. Mr. Nitchmann was concerned about comments which have been made that the Education Department does not know when major residential developments have been approved and therefore can't consider those when making enrollment projections which are used in decisions about the need for new schools. Mr. Cilimberg said such comments are not being made by Education Department employees because Mr. Morgan and Mr. Reeser are very aware because we talk regularly and they are the school (representatives)." Mr. Nitchmann doubted that the general public has this information. ------------------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m, V. Way CiIimb etary DB a3'j