Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 22 1996 PC Minutescm M 10-22-96 OCTOBER 22, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 22, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioners Tice and Loewenstein. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 8, 1996 were unanimously approved as amended. SUB-96-080 Far Hills Rural Preservation Development (formerly known as Timbercreek) - The applicant is proposing to reconfigure Lots 6 thru 10, 12, 13 and Lots 15 thru 20 and to add a portion of Lots 6 thru 9 to Preservation Tract 2. No additional lots are being proposed. Property, described as Tax Map 59, Parcels 27H, 271, 57J, 27K, 27L, 27M, 27N, 27P, 27Q, 27R, 27S, 27T, 27U, 27W, and 27Y (portion), is in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to conditions. The report concluded: "Staff accepts (the applicant's) justification of this proposal. Staff opinion is that the net effect on the reconfiguration on the Preservation Tract is an improvement because the new boundary between the Preservation Tract and Lots 6 and 7 roughly follows a fence at the edge of a pasture at a wood line. The area of the Preservation Tract will add 1.11 acres to 167.976 +/- acres." Mr. Roger Ray represented the applicant. He questioned the need for condition 1(b)-- All owners of lots shown on the Far Hills Subdivision Plat, signed on October 28, 1996, must sign final plat. He explained: "Two lots have been sold after lots 3 and 4 were sold and they are not immediately adjacent to this lot reconfiguration. We would rather not have to approach those folks to sign this final plat. We would like for you to eliminate item 1(b) if you can." Mr. Shepherd explained condition 1(b) was recommended because the people who bought those lots did so on the basis of a different plan. Staff felt if the plan is now going to be changed, those owners should sign the plat. Mr. Ray said the change improves the backyards of those owners because acreage has been added to the RPD which will back up to their lots. Staff confirmed that all lot owners had been notified of this proposal. Staff received no comment from any of those owners. PIN 10-22-96 2 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this appeared to be a housekeeping matter and was adding a little more acreage to the preservation tract. Because no concerns were expressed by adjoining property owners, he questioned the need for condition 1(b), unless there is a legal requirement to require their signatures on the plat. Mr. Kamptner said the condition could be amended to say: "All owners of lots shown on the Far Hill Subdivision Plat, signed on October 28, 1996, must sign the final plat, if legally required to do so." Mr. Cilimberg said this issue had just been raised and staff has not had the opportunity to check the State Code requirements. He agreed with Mr. Kamptner's suggested wording. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Far Hills Rural Preservation Development be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall not be submitted for signature, nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Staff and Recreational Facilities Authority approval of new deed of easement modifying the location of the Preservation tract. b. All owners of lots shown on the Far Hills Subdivision Plat, signed on October 28, 1996, must sign the final plat, if required by State Code. c. Health Department approval of the revised lots. d. The final plat must either replace the Far Hills Subdivision Plat, approved October 28, 1996, or clearly reference what is preserved from the previous plat so that both plats are in agreement. 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-37 Buck Mountain Episcopal Church Special use Permit - Proposal to construct an addition of approximately 1300 square feet on approximately 5 acres zoned VR, Village Residential [12.2.2(15)]. [A site plan waiver request is pending on this site.] The property, described as Tax Map 31, parcels 35 and 35A1, is the location of Buck Mountain Church which is on the east side of Route 743 approximately 700 feet south of Route 663 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development area (Rurat Area 1). AND St3P-- Buck Mountain Church Site P#au iAl~ Request - Request for waiver of requirement of a site plan for construction of the addition. TA 10-22-96 "Cl Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both requests. Mr. Fritz said the primary issue in the review of this request is the entrance. The present entrance is "hemmed in" by an existing rock wall. To allow for 2-way travel, staff is recommending the entrance be widened to 20 feet, which would necessitate the removal of a portion of the rock wall. Though the applicant has revised the plan to show the 20-foot travelway, they are requesting that they be permitted to continue the use of the existing travelway so that the rock wall can be preserved. The Commission can allow the continued use of the entrance as it presently exists, if it so chooses. Mr. Fritz said the rock wall has no historic significance, but it does add to the setting of the site and it is of significance to the church because it was dedicated to a former pastor. The applicant was represented by Geoffrey Mattocks, a member of the church. He explained why the preservation of the rock wall is of importance to the church. He pointed out that this addition to the church will reduce the number of parking spaces from 26 to 16, so the use of the entrance is actually being reduced. He stressed that the size of the church congregation is not being increased. The addition will be used for Sunday School classrooms, a nursery, office space, a meeting room, a counseling room and a fellowship room. These plans also include changes in the existing church building to make it handicapped accessible. He described some of the history and activities of the church. ` There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. OR Ms. Huckle said she thought the plan was "harmonious and blends nicely with the existing building." She thought it would be unfortunate to alter the rock wall, particularly since the size of the church congregation is not being increased. Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Ms. Huckle that the entrance should be "left as it is." Mr. Fritz repeated that it is staffs recommendation that the entrance be widened to 20 feet (causing the removal of part of the rock wall). It is staffs policy to recommend that all sites should be provided with 2-way access. However, an alternative condition has been provided in the staff report if the Commission wishes to grant the applicant's request and allow the entrance to remain as it presently exists, with no changes. Mr. Finley asked if VDOT would be involved in the process if the entrance is allowed to remain as is. Mr. Fritz said that VDOT may require certain improvements at the right-of-way, "but it is unlikely that will involve any changes to the rock wall (because) the rock wall is located off the right-of-way." Mr. Fritz confirmed that the plan does not increase the seating area of the church. M 10-22-96 4 Mr. Cilimberg noted that if the Commission votes to allow the entrance to remain as is with no changes, then condition 1(c) of the site plan waiver request needs to be amended accordingly to reflect that VDOT approval will only be required for work within the right-of-way. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP-96-37 for Buck Mountain Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be in general accord with the plan titled "Proposed Addition to Buck Mountain Episcopal Church" prepared by S.L. Key and initialed WDF 10/2/96 and with plans titled "Proposed Addition to Buck Mountain Episcopal Church" prepared by Samuel E. Darnell and initialed WDF 10/2/96 except as amended to address requested revisions of the site review committee and to allow maintenance of the existing rock wall and column. 2. Approval of this permit shall not constitute approval of a day care/nursery school. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Buck Mountain Church Site Plan Waiver Request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit or grading permit shall be issued until the plan of development is approved. No plan of development shall be approved until the plan addresses the following: a. Health Department approval. b. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan will be required if the land disturbed activity exceeds 10,000 square feet. c. VDOT approval of an entrance permit for any work proposed within the right- of-way. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-96-38 UVA Employees Credit Union - Petition to allow drive-thru windows in connection with a financial institution on approximately 4 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial, [24.2.2(13)]. The property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 109E, is located in the northeastern corner of the intersection of Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood One. $p 10-22-96 5 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. It was staffs opinion that the proposed layout is superior to what was previously approved. Therefore, staff recommended approval subject to one condition. Staff also recommended approval of a modification of Section 4.12.6.2 to allow one-way circulation associated with the drive-thru lanes. Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about what she perceived to be potential conflicting traffic movements as vehicles exit the drive-thru lanes. Staff described various traffic movements and expressed no concerns about conflicts. The applicant was represented by Wayne Frants and William Luers. Mr. Frants said there will be 6 lanes--4 will be drive -up tellers and 2 will be drive -up ATM machines. He said he feels the "traffic flow does work to satisfy concerns about any conflict between drive -up traffic and circulation on the site." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP-96-38 for the UVA Employees Credit Union be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following condition and including approval of a modification of Section 4.12.6.2 to allow one-way circulation associated with the drive-thru lanes: 1. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "A New Building for University of Virginia Employees Credit Union" and initialed "WDF 9/30/96." The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-96-36 Suzanne Crane - Petition to establish a Home Occupation (Class B) for a pottery shop [Section 12.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.] Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 36, is approximately 1 acre in size and is located on the east side of Route 743 (Eadysville Road), across from the Earlysville Animal Hospital, in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is zoned VR, Village Residential and is not in a designated Development Area of the Land Use Plan (Rural Area 1). AND SP-96-36 Matthew Crane - Petition to establish a Home Occupation (Class B) for equipment storage for a home building business [Section 12.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance]. Property is described as Tax Map 31, parcel 36. Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of both petitions, subject to conditions. Mr. Lilley said the applicants have indicated to him that they will seek more flexibility in conditions 2 and 3 than staff has recommended. w Particularly, though they do not anticipate regular usage of "vehicles with trailers" or da 10-22-96 6 "vehicles with more than two axles," they would like this restriction to be more flexible so that these vehicles may be allowed occasionally if needed. Also, they would like to be able to have occasional classes and studio/kiln openings if parking can be accommodated off -site. Mr. Lilley explained staffs recommended conditions had been based on concerns about sight distance and lack of parking. Mr. Nitchmann said he thought the term "vehicles with trailers" was too vague. Ms. Huckle wondered if there should be a condition restricting the outdoor storage of large equipment. Mr. Lilley said it is his understanding all storage will take place inside the building. Mr. Finley asked if it was staffs intent not to allow on -site sales. Mr. Lilley responded affirmatively, explaining staffs concern is related to lack of on -site parking and sight distance. However, he acknowledged the applicant may be able to address this concern by arranging for off -site parking, possibly with the Earlysville Animal Hospital on the opposite side of the road. Mr. Lilley acknowledged that studio/kiln openings, on an infrequent basis, could be compared to yard sales. Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Lilley how the Ordinance treats retail sales for home occupations. Mr. Lilley said "basically it is limited to products manufactured on the site." The applicants, Suzanne Crane and Matthew Crane, addressed the Commission. Ms. Crane presented two pieces of her pottery as examples of the type of items she will be producing in her studio. She stressed that she does not "mass produce" articles. The majority of her work will be sold at craft fairs. It is anticipated that very few sales will occur on site. She asked for the flexibility to hold a kiln opening sale, no more often than quarterly. Mr. Crane explained the planned use of the buildings in more detail, i.e. one building will be for the pottery studio and the other will be used to store his carpentry tools and occasionally building supplies. Regarding concerns about sight distance, he said his neighbor (on the north) has agreed (in writing) not to block the sight distance and to keep his hedges trimmed. He said he measured the sight distance in one direction to be 370 feet and 390 feet in the other. Regarding traffic concerns, he explained there is sufficient room to actually pull off of Rt. 743 and slow down before turning into the property. Likewise, there is room to pull away from the site and gain speed before actually entering back onto Rt. 743. Mr. Crane asked that condition No. 2 be amended to read: "Vehicles with trailers and/or vehicles with more than two axles shall not be used at the subject location more than once per month." He recalled that a table saw he recently purchased was delivered by tractor trailer. Also, his wife's clay is delivered by tractor trailer. (This occurs only 4-6 times per year.) He asked that condition No. 3 be amended to read: "On -site pottery classes or studio/kiln openings shall be allowed only if parking can be arranged off site." He said . 10-22-96 7 he is checking into the possibility of using parking at the veterinarian's office across the street. There is also the possibility of making arrangements with a neighbor. Mr. Dotson asked how many people might be involved in pottery classes. Ms. Crane said she presently has no intention of offering classes, but it is possible that she may at some time wish to have an apprentice or may want to teach someone "how to throw pots." She said she would not have room for more than 2 people. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. On the possibility of arrangements for off -site parking, Mr. Cilimberg explained: "Off - site parking would have to be on a limited basis or it may jeopardize the situation on the other property in terms of creating a zoning violation." He said he had checked this with the Zoning Administrator, and it is her belief that it would be acceptable, from a zoning standpoint, only if it is on a very limited basis (four times a year would be acceptable) and that the condition be very clearly worded. Regarding the restriction on sales, Mr. Dotson said it is his understanding that the applicant anticipates some low volume of sales at this facility. Mr. Lilley said those items listed in condition 3--studio/kiln openings, classes and sales --were all grouped together because of the concern about sight distance and about inadequate parking. Mr. Dotson noted that staff had confirmed that the Ordinance allows the sale of items which are produced on the site. Mr. Lilley agreed they are allowed, but condition No. 3, as proposed by staff, would override that allowance. Mr. Nitchmann suggested that condition No. 3 may need to be broken down to allow classes for no more than 1 or 2 students and studio/kiln openings no more than 4 times per year (if adequate parking can be provided). Ms. Huckle wondered if action should be deferred until the applicants have finalized parking arrangements. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Commission feels this is important, it should be made a part of a condition of approval which ties the activity to off -site parking. Mr. Dotson said the Commission could rely on staff to determine the adequacy of off -site parking. Ms. Huckle said: "But there's nothing to say that anybody is going to check up on this." Ms. Nitchmann said he feels it is admirable that the applicant has even applied for permission to store his tools on this site. Many people would just do it without seeking a permit. Mr. Finley asked how much room is available for parking on the site, on the east side of the entrance. Mr. Lilley estimated you could "cram" 3 cars on the site and still leave maneuvering room. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out there is almost 39,000 square ram: feet of the site which is not being used. He thought it should be possible to make RON 10-22-96 0 space for additional parking, even though it may mean the removal of some trees. He said he hated to see the Commission get caught up in trivial details. He feared this type of "hassle" could present a barrier for future people who are just trying to make a living with a home occupation. INSERT * Mr. Dotson thought the Commission was just trying to avoid later misunderstandings. He did not see it as creating a "hassle." Mr. Nitchmann disagreed. Mr. Lilley repeated the applicant's requested wording for conditions 2 and 3 (as stated previously in these minutes). Ms. Washington attempted to understand the issue of whether or not the conditions of approval would allow Ms. Crane to sell some of her articles on site. She indicated she felt the applicant should be allow to sell, on site, the items she produces in the studio. Mr. Lilley said the applicant's proposed wording would allow sales, if off -site parking can be provided. Mr. Nitchmann indicated he did not think the sale of articles produced on the site should be tied to the availability of parking. Mr. Dotson said that the condition, as proposed by the applicant, is "silent" on the issue of sales. Therefore, they would be permitted, as allowed for in the Ordinance (i.e. "things made on the premises can be sold"). Mr. Cilimberg confirmed: "If sales limitations are not part of the condition, then sales can occur as the ordinance allows them." Mr. Cilimberg summarized the applicant's proposed changes to staffs condition: --Deliveries by vehicles with trailers or vehicles with more than 2 axles shall be allowed once/month. --Studio/kiln openings shall be allowed, up to 4 times/year. --Classes limited to one or two students (apprentices). He said it is better to "stay silent" on the question of sales if there is no intent to limit sales. If studio/kiln openings are to be tied to off -site parking, then the number allowed per year should be established in a condition, with the requirement that evidence of availability of off -site parking be provided to the Zoning Administrator. If the Commission wishes to allow apprentices, then the number allowed should be established in a condition. It was the consensus of the Commission to grant the applicant's requested changes in the conditions and that the three items in question (deliveries, kiln openings, and classes) be broken down and addressed in separate conditions. It was clarified that it was not the Commission's intent to tie the permission for apprentices to available off -site parking. It was also the Commission's intent to "stay * Ms. Huckle pointed out the site is only one acre and half of the site is behind the building and not available for parking. IN M 10-22-96 silent" on the issue of on -site sales, with normal Ordinance allowance for sale of articles produced on site to be applicable. On the issue of potential for outside storage of equipment, Mr. Dotson asked staff about Ordinance regulations. Mr. Lilley said outside storage of items is not allowed in home occupations, so no additional condition is needed to assure that all storage will be inside the building. [NOTE: At this point Ms. Washington made a motion to approve both special permits in one motion. However, because it was pointed out that some conditions are relevant only to the pottery shop, this motion was withdrawn and two separate motions were offered.] MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded that SP-96-36 for Suzanne Crane, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The entrance onto Route 743 and the applicable properties shall be maintained such that sight distance is optimized, providing a minimum of 250' of sight distance. 2. Vehicles with trailers and or vehicles with more than two axles shall not be used at the subject location more than once per month in conjunction with the home occupation. 3. Studio/kiln openings shall be allowed only if adequate parking can be arranged off - site and are not more than four times per year. The permittee shall provide to the Zoning Administrator evidence of the adequate off -site parking. 4. Submission of a Certified Engineer's Report indicating that the regulations of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall be met by the proposed kiln to be filed by the applicant and approved by the County Engineer prior to the issuance of a zoning compliance clearance. 5. Not more than two apprentices shall be allowed at one time. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP-96-36 for Matthew Crane be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The entrance onto Route 743 and the applicable properties shall be maintained such that sight distance is optimized, providing a minimum of 250' of sight distance. Cl/ 10-22-96 10 2. Vehicles with trailers and or vehicles with more than two axles shall not be used at the subject location more than once per month in conjunction with the home occupation. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SUB-96-073 Charles & Kathy Maddox - Request to amend the conditions of approval of the Coventry Subdivision to allow access for a lot directly to Rt. 641 instead of Coventry Lane. This requires a modification of Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Property, described as Tax Map 21, parcel 45 is Lot 1 of the Coventry Subdivision and is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Coventry Lane and Rt. 641, approximately 1.2 miles east of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. It was determined the applicants were not present for this item. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SUB-96-073 for Charles and Kathy Maddox be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Cilimberg reported that Mr. Fritz has accepted a position in another locality. This is last appearance before the Commission. The Commission thanked Mr. Fritz for his 8 1/2 years of service to the County. Mr. Cilimberg introduced Mr. Ben Blankenship, the County's newly appointed Development Review Manager. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. M: OR q a.