Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 21 2009 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission July 21, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Marcia Joseph and Bill Edgerton, Acting Chair. Absent were Calvin Morris, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non -voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Philip Custer, Engineer; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Election of Temporary Chair: Mr. Cilimberg noted the Commission needs to elect a temporary Chair for tonight's meeting. He asked for nominations. Ms. Joseph nominated Bill Edgerton for temporary Chair. Mr. Franco seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3:1. (Edgerton voted nay) Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Edgerton was Chair for this meeting. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Edgerton invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, said that he appreciated all the Planning Commission's hard work and lengthy discussions on the Places29 Study. As the matter of the proposed Western By- pass has been a topic of some debate he thought that it might be helpful to share some information that he had. There are some people in this community including elected officials and county staff that could offer more detailed accounts of the situations than he could. However, he wanted to offer this brief overview in the handouts distributed. He explained some of the history and analysis regarding the Western By-pass proposal. He noted that this is a lot of information, but is an extremely complex issue. He asked that the Commission read the material and direct any questions to staff. He hoped that they could get more facts into the discussions within this community about the Bypass. (Attachment A — Memorandum to Planning Commission from Jeff Werner regarding Proposed Western Bypass dated July 21, 2009) There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item. Consent Agenda: SDP-2009-00039 Martha Jefferson Hospital (Road Design) — Maior Amendment The request is for a major site plan amendment approval to phase the construction of Willis Road in err regards to two waiver requests for the private street [Section 14-234] and curb and gutter [Section 14- 410(i)]. The subject property is zoned PDMC-Planned Development Mixed Commercial, and EC -Entrance ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 1 FINAL MINUTES Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 20M, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on State Farm Road approximately 0.50 mile from its intersection with Richmond Road [SR 250W]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial in Urban Area 3. (Summer Frederick) Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item on the consent agenda. Ms. Joseph asked to pull the SDP-2009-00039 Martha Jefferson Hospital (Road Design) — Major Amendment from the consent agenda to obtain some clarification about what is going on. She desperately wanted Willis Road to be a public road because the Pantops area desperately needs connector roads. There are so many private roads that are not working. She asked Mr. Mathews to come up and address the issue. She would like to have some mechanism in place to ensure that Willis Road would eventually become a public road. She could understand that they don't want Willis Road to be a public road at this point in time because they are going to continue with construction and fear that the construction activity will be hard on the public road that they put in. They want to make sure that if the road has to be repaired that it is cheaper to repair it to get the road up to public road standards. She asked if that is what is going on here. Mike Mathews replied that was partially correct and made the following comments. • The theory is right in part although if it was a public road he would guess VDOT would be stuck with the maintenance if they were to build later on. So maybe he should like it for that reason. What has happened is that they just learned more. He assured the Commission that Martha Jefferson cares about safe and convenient access to this hospital more than anybody does. That is their primary objective. But they have simply learned more in the design process. Their engineer, Malachi Mills, is here to answer any technical questions. But in the traffic studies that they have done since to make sure that this campus works they just learned that the traffic projections are much lower for that road than they thought. They have committed to a design that is ultimately a public section, but it is not warranted at this point. It is a private road now and seemed appropriate to keep that. • There are two other factors in play. Primarily there is a building on the corner that in the master plan will be removed. In order to build a public road it requires wiping out the front parking lot. Parking is so important right now in the planning. Therefore, they would like to leave that parking. The only reason it is not a two-lane public road is that there is a slope issue right at that junction that does not meet the VDOT standard. Otherwise, they would love it to be a two-lane public road. The ultimate section is simply not warranted at this point. They are happy to put it in at whatever time it is warranted in the development of the master plan or if their projections don't prove to be true. It seemed that at this point since VDOT has agreed that it is not warranted that there is no need to spend the extra money and displace all of that parking if it is not necessary at this time. That is the primary motivation. Ms. Joseph asked how the County can make sure that becomes a public road at some point. She is concerned if the hospital stops their expansion or phasing of this then it stays a private road. Mr. Mathews replied that VDOT has their guidelines on road volumes if this road were ever subject to future development. He believed that the condition that has been drafted would require the hospital to upgrade it to a public road. Whether the County would want it or not they obviously would need to do that. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the word may is used several times in the condition, which means that it is not a requirement. Mr. Kamptner said that the use of the word may in that context is that it is a grant of authority to the County. He learned about Ms. Joseph's concern late this afternoon. They have some alternative language modified that has been modified from some of the standard proffers where they are requesting the applicant in a rezoning to dedicate and construct the public road at some future point. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 FINAL MINUTES Malachi Mills, Engineer with RK&K Engineers, said the fine details of the paint striping of the road have not been provided on this plan. They are in review on the technical aspects of the road, but would have a "` divided yellow line down the center with stripes along the outside edges. Currently this section is a 24' wide pavement for a two-lane road 12' each and an 8' shoulder with a 1' deep hallow ditch. There will be a generous shoulder as well. There will be no sidewalk at this time. There is a cross -over from the park area that cuts over to the current OCC. Ms. Summer reviewed the suggested alternative condition proposed by Mr. Kamptner. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the way the condition is worded it assumes that there will be a subsequent site plan or subdivision plat. What it does not recognize is that Willis Drive appears to interconnect two public streets, Peter Jefferson Parkway and State Farm Boulevard. From prior practice the County does not to want to have a private street serving as an interconnections to two public streets. It can be problematic. He was not sure where the completion of Willis Drive fits into the entire Peter Jefferson Place Master Plan and the timing of its completion. But this condition envisions that there will be at least one more site plan or subdivision plat for this property. Ms. Joseph asked if there was some way within the maintenance agreement itself that there can be written that the public has access over this road. Mr. Kamptner replied that they could add a separate condition, which is something they have been reviewing independent of this particular application. That is the need to grant a public right-of-way over these privately maintained streets. Ms. Joseph said she would feel more comfortable if it was guaranteed as public access so that in future time there would be no problem with the public being allowed to use this. Mr. Fritz noted that Mr. Kamptner's condition is a much better written condition than the second part of staff's recommended condition. The first part of the second condition was this waiver is granted for the existing site plan, which was their way of saying if they wanted to come back in and put gates in like Carriage Hill did that would be a separate site plan and staff would have to come back and revisit it with the Planning Commission. Ms. Joseph said that if the condition was drafted to allow public access, then she could support the request. Mr. Mathews pointed out that one junction does not meet the slope requirement. Mr. Mills noted that they could not develop the full width of the road next to the existing parking lot because of the grade change. So they are phasing the development. It is an interim plan, but he could appreciate their concerns. Mr. Edgerton said that he wanted to see the road built as originally promised in the rezoning a number of years ago. If it would help to postpone the requirement until the next phase of the project, he was comfortable with that. But, he was uncomfortable with the idea of a private road. He supported Mr. Kamptner's suggestion to put a mandate on the condition now saying that it would be open to the public. He questioned if that challenges the definition of a private road. Mr. Kamptner replied no. It was the public/private distinction. Although the County had different design standards and construction standards, the real distinction is who is responsible to maintain the road VDOT or the owners along the road. Ms. Joseph knows they are good citizens — but what if they move. She asked Mr. Mathews what they think. Ms. Kamptner suggested that the County cannot require it be done within less than a certain period. Therefore, it could be specified in the letter the precise time period in which they are to do it can be ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 21, 2009 3 FINAL MINUTES specified when the demand letter goes out. Just for the applicant's comfort level he thought that they would want to have a minimum so that they would know that the county won't ask for it all to be accomplished in 30 or 60 days. Ms. Porterfield suggested the period of two years. Mr. Mathews said that he liked the Fontana idea and agreed to two years. Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Motion on Private Street Request Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Joseph seconded for approval of the request for authorization to convert an approved, but not yet constructed, public right-of-way to a private street, for SDP-2009-00039 Martha Jefferson Hospital (Road Design) — Major Amendment in accordance with Sections 14-232 and 14-234 with the following conditions, as amended. 1. Review and administrative approval of a road maintenance agreement; and, 2. Upon demand by the County and within the time period specified in the demand which shall not be less than two years in conjunction with any subsequent site plan or subdivision plat, in association with Martha Jefferson ZMA-2001-13, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way, as shown on the final site plan entitled SDP2008-16, and construct road improvements in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation. If the right-of-way is dedicated by one or more subdivision plats, each such subdivision plat shall depict the right-of-way and bear a notation that the right-of-way is dedicated for public use. If the right-of-way is not dedicated by subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay the costs of surveying the right-of-way, preparing one or more plats thereof and preparing and recording one or more deeds of dedication. 3. The Owner shall record a declaration, deed of easement, or other instrument granting a public right-of-way over the privately maintained segment of Willis Drive. The instrument shall contain the substance and be in a form approved by the County Attorney. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Fritz noted that there were two waiver requests with the second request for a waiver of curb and gutter. Motion on SDP-2009-00039 Martha Jefferson Hospital (Road Design) — Major Amendment — Curb and Gutter Waiver: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the curb and gutter waiver for SDP-2009-00039 Martha Jefferson Hospital (Road Design) — Major Amendment in accord with Section 14-410(I) with the condition listed in the staff report, as modified. Mr. Kamptner suggested that the second sentence of the attached condition correspond with conditions 2 and 3 above. Mr. Franco accepted the amendment to the motion. Ms. Porterfield seconded the amendment. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. The Planning Commission approved the curb and gutter waiver request to waive design standards to allow for a rural cross-section in accord with Section 14-410(I) with the following conditions. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 21, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 1. The waiver is granted for the existing site plan. 2. Upon demand by the County and within the time period specified in the demand which shall not be less than two years in conjunction with any subsequent site plan or subdivision plat in association with Martha Jefferson ZMA-2001-13, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way, as shown on the final site plan entitled SDP2008-16, and construct road improvements in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation. If the right-of-way is dedicated by one or more subdivision plats, each such subdivision plat shall depict the right-of-way and bear a notation that the right-of-way is dedicated for public use. If the right-of-way is not dedicated by subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay the costs of surveying the right-of-way, preparing one or more plats thereof and preparing and recording one or more deeds of dedication. 3. The Owner shall record a deed of easement, or other instrument granting a public right-of-way over the privately maintained segment of proposed private. The instrument shall contain the substance and be in a form approved by the County Attorney. Mr. Edgerton noted that two waiver requests for SDP-2009-00039 Martha Jefferson Hospital (Road Design) — Major Amendment were approved and would not go to the Board of Supervisors. Items Requesting Deferral: ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: Request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000 square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995-04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 191-11, 191-12, 19J, 22131 and 22132 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio AND SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park (Parkin-) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Parking Structures. AND SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park -Laboratories medical Pharmaceutical PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. AND SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park -Supporting Commercial Uses PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). AND SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park -Hotels, Motels, Inns PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2). (Rebecca Ragsdale) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Edgerton noted that the applicant has requested deferral to August 18. He opened the public hearing and asked for comment from the applicant or the public. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Franco seconded to accept the applicant's request for deferral of ZMA-0005-003, SP-2008-00015, SP-2008-00062, SP-2008-00063 and SP-2008-00064 to August 18, 2009. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Edgerton noted that list applications were deferred to August 18, 2009 Public Hearing Items: AFD-2009-00001 Buck Mountain An Forestal District Review. Review of the Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as Tax Map 8, Parcels 16A, 16C, 17E, 17F; and Tax Map 17, Parcels 26B, 26C, 26C1, 26C2, 26C3, 31 (part), and 32. The district includes a total of 503.89 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. (Eryn Brennan) Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. • Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the District for another ten-year period. Mr. Edgerton questioned the actual size of the district. Ms. Brennan replied that it was 504 acres total. Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Ms. Joseph seconded, to recommend approval of AFD-2009-0001, Buck Mountain Agricultural Forestal District Renewal for a ten-year period. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Edgerton stated that AFD-2009-00001, Buck Mountain Renewal would go before the Board of Supervisors on September 2, 2009 with a recommendation for approval. AFD-2009-00002 Yellow Mountain Ag Forestal District Review. Review of the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as Tax map 54 Parcel 71 B; Tax Map 55 Parcel 15; Tax Map 70 Parcels 15, 15A, 15D, 15E, 29, 37B, 37B1 (part), 37D (part), 37K, 37L; Tax Map 71 Parcels 2B, 22, 22A, 22B, 64, 64A. The district includes a total of 656.72 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. (Eryn Brennan) Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. • Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the District for another ten-year period. Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 FINAL MINUTES Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded, to recommend approval of AFD-2009-00002, Yellow Mountain Agricultural Forestal District Renewal for a ten-year period. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Edgerton stated that AFD-2009-00002, Yellow Mountain Renewal would go before the Board of Supervisors on September 2, 2009 with a recommendation for approval. SP-2009-00015 Senior Center PROPOSED: Community Center ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development - residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses SECTION: 20.4.2.1 Community Center COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood 1 -- Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 200 Four Seasons Drive approximately 1450 feet from intersection of Four Seasons Drive and Rio Road West. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-04A0 and 061X2-00-00-04130 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Judy Wiegand) Ms. Wiegand summarized the staff report. • The purpose of the special use permit is to allow the Senior Center, which is now located on Pepsi Place, to relocate to a facility that is now owned by ACAC on Four Seasons Drive. The Senior Center is planning to purchase the two adjacent parcels. • The Senior Center would be allowed by special use permit as a community center in the PUD District. The issue of parking is the only item identified by staff. With previous users of this site there have been some issues with the 200 spaces being filled with overflow parking across Four Seasons Drive. This happens two or three times a year when there is a swim meet at the pool facility. To address this issue the Senior Center has agreed to close during the two to three swim meets that are held each year. • VDOT has indicated to staff in a telephone conversation that they do not feel that a traffic study would be necessary for this change in facility. • Staff has identified two favorable factors: 1. Relocation of the Senior Center will allow it to expand programs that are needed in the community and are an asset. 2. Relocation of the Senior Center will mitigate or eliminate some of the issues with the current private school use. • Staff has identified no unfavorable factors. • Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The senior center is in the process of purchasing the property. The school still has another year on its lease and will continue to operate. Assuming that the special use permit is approved the Senior Center will use that time to fund raise and prepare its plan for the renovation of the interior of the building. If they have an approved special use permit for the Senior Center they would like for the school to be able to continue until its lease expires and the Senior Center is ready to take over the facility. That is the reasoning behind the first condition. Mr. Edgerton invited questions for staff. Ms. Porterfield noted concern regarding the entrance. She asked if they are not going to try to create an entrance rather than parking on both sides. Ms. Wiegand replied that this is the way the facility has been in operation for a number of years. The Senior Center is planning to continue the same use of the parking lot and the same entrance. They had not planned any exterior renovations. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 7 FINAL MINUTES 444w, Ms. Porterfield said that they were changing the demographics of the people who are going to be there. The last thing they wanted to do was drive through a parking lot if they don't have to because of people backing in and out. She felt that the entrance and exits needed to be clearly marked. There does not appear to be a true entry and exit road. Ms. Wiegand suggested that the applicant might be able to address her questions. Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission. Mary Reese, President of the Board of Directors for the Senior Center, explained their plan to relocate to Four Seasons. The Senior Center has been a part of this community for almost 50 years and is planning their 50th celebration for February, 2010. So they are a recognized part of the community. Their mission is to involve, empower and enrich seniors in the community. They feel that they have been very responsible in doing that. They are the first Senior Center in Virginia to receive national accreditation. They are excited about what the move will mean in terms of them being able to not only continue but to increase their services to the senior population in the community. Peter Thompson, Executive Director of the Senior Center for ten years, thanked staff for their assistance with the request since they were new at the planning process. The request is all about meeting a community need since they were bursting at the seams. As a 501C3 Nonprofit owned and operated by the community and for the community they are not in it for themselves. They are in it to serve the community. While their current facility has met their need for the last 18 years it no longer is. They don't have adequate parking or program space to provide new programs. They don't have the right kind of program space to meet the growing demand for life-long learning, group learning, dance, fitness, creative learning and a lot of other things that seniors today and in the future need. The demand for their services will only continue to grow. They are landlocked on Pepsi Place and there is no place to grow. They have *AW been looking for new space for some time. The space at Four Seasons meets the parameters in terms of what they need in a new facility. They have communicated with all four neighborhoods. The traffic would be spread out during the day. He had spoken with VDOT about the entrance and they don't seem to have any problems. They would accept the condition concerning closing during swim meets on Wednesday night. They do not anticipate any safety problems as far as the parking. Mr. Edgerton invited public comment. Dave Bruns, with Charlottesville Day School, noted that his wife, Stacy Bruns, founded the school. They are a fellow non-profit. Some of the teachers and students of the school are present. He did not oppose to this application, although this is the first time he had heard the Senior Center's view. He was in the uncomfortable situation in that the Senior Center has an option contract on this property and the school would like to know what they can do with the County. They have a five-year lease with the last two years at Phil Winn's, the landlord's, option until August 15, 2010. The school has an issue to find out for these children where the school will be located. He questioned whether the parking needs for the Senior Center could be met since it was an issue for the school. He asked for assistance from the County on their school's future. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, asked for clarity to be able to understand the Commission's desire to vacate a special use permit, which was based on certain criteria that have not changed. He questioned why that special use permit would then be vacated without a change in those conditions. Sean Reid, husband of a CVS teacher and friends with the administrators, noted that he was a family physician in town and had a number of patients that use the Senior Center. Also, his children use the ACAC pool and attend the school. Therefore, he had positive things to say about the Senior Center and its role that it brings to the community and the Charlottesville Day School. 144W There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Joseph pointed out that the noise issue noted by staff came from a remark made by an adjoining property owner. In reference to Mr. Williamson's comment, she understands what he was saying that it made the use of the property more flexible to keep sort of a standing list of special permits. But she also thinks that situations change whether it is traffic or whether it is the people living in the area. She thought it was fair to say that reexamining a special permit after a 10- or 15-year time period if it is expired is not an unusual thing to do and really is not hampering anyone. Those were her thoughts on those two issues. Mr. Franco considered the staff report and the statements made about noise as just comments. He did not associate it about this school particularly or the use in general. He would expect that kids would make a little bit more noise, but he did not see that as a problem personally. It was just more of an editorial comment in the staff report. With the special use permit there could be site plan changes that occur in the future that may make the original special use permit inappropriate. If that remained in effect someone could come back and say it is in effect and he did not need to do any improvements or any other requirements that may be appropriate in the future to put parking back or some other important feature to that use. Therefore, he did not find it inappropriate to have that one special use permit expire once this use is fully established. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Joseph seconded to approve SP-2009-00015 Senior Center with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Kamptner suggested some revisions to the Commission. He hesitates recommending that another legislative act be invalidated by this legislative act or the old special use permit by this special permit. But there are ways in which they can deal with the Commission concern. In condition 1 he suggested language that states, "the use allowed by SP-2006-00042 shall not be permitted on the property while SP-2009-00015 is in force and effect." Because it is a special use permit condition its life and effectiveness only exists as a condition. So it is possible that SP-2009-00015 could go away within a few years. If the Senior Center decides to purchase the property he certainly would invite them to take the steps needed to invalidate the old special use permit on the property. He thought that the results would be the same. He was happy to look at the issue between now and when this goes to the Board of Supervisors, which would be in September. Mr. Edgerton said that the Board date was to be determined. Ms. Echols noted that September 2 would be the earliest that it could get to the Board if it could get there on that date. Ms. Porterfield asked when the special use permit goes into effect. Mr. Kamptner replied that this special use permit would go into effect the date the Board takes action. He assumed that the Senior Center has proceeded with this application with the consent of the current owner. Therefore, this special use permit will become effective for purposes of condition 1 as soon as the Board takes its action. So from that date on as long as this special use permit remains in effect the old special use permit cannot be used on the property. Ms. Porterfield noted that it sounds like the Senior Center intends to keep the school there for a while. Mr. Franco noted that it was the use and not the special use permit itself. Mr. Kamptner said they would go back to the original condition as written for now. He suggested that they keep condition 1 as is. In condition 2 he suggested that they use the word "use" instead of "operations" because "use" is a term that zoning is more familiar with. Condition 2 would read, "The Senior Center shall begin operations at 200 Four Seasons Drive on or before and then they will insert the date of the Board's action and add 5 years so there is a specific date in there 60 FnGRth6 from the date Gf or this Special Use Permit shall expire." Condition 3 change the reference in line 3 to, "owned and operated by ACAC" would be replaced by ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 9 FINAL MINUTES "located on Tax Map and Parcel # BLANK" and staff will fill that in. That would be a reference to the pool parcel. Mr. Edgerton said that on the first condition he continued to be concerned because in most situations where the special use permit is granted the new special use permit is granted for the use of the piece of property that the existing one expires. This condition was written to allow both special use permits to stay in existence while the school fulfilled its lease. If what he heard earlier is not correct, then he understands his reluctance. Mr. Kamptner said that he thought he misunderstood what staff said. He thought that there are some people out there that think when a special use permit is granted for a piece of property that all other uses are no longer allowed and that is simply not the case. There are by right uses and uses by special use permit. Absent a condition limiting the use of various special use permits while one is in use any use that is allowed by right or by special use permit on the property can take place. Mr. Franco said if the Senior Center gets established and operates for 5 years does the 2006 SP expire because that use has not been active. Mr. Kamptner replied that it is a legal use, but just can't be used because of this condition. The condition is designed to simply control the intensity of the activities that can take place on the property. Mr. Franco said that once it establishes then it is good forever and it does not have to continue its operation. If they take 2009 out of it and SP-2006, then if the school went away and the property sat vacant for 15 years another school could come back in and the special permit would still be in place. Mr. Kamptner replied yes, as long as the other regulations did not change and it satisfied all of the conditions. Special use permits run with the land just like a rezoning. Mr. Franco asked if the special use permit has to be established in five years. Mr. Kamptner replied that this special use permit has to begin its operations within five years, which is a conditional requirement that is fairly common with special use permits. Ms. Porterfield said the question is if the applicant is okay with the date of five years from the date of the Board approval since they will not actually own the building until 2010. Ms. Wiegand noted that initially they talked about a two-year time period, but they have made it a five year period or 60 months because they wanted to make sure there was enough time. Mr. Edgerton invited the applicant to come forward and answer that question. Mr. Thompson agreed with staffs suggested condition. It is not a problem. He appreciates the Commission's concern for the Senior Center. Amended Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Joseph seconded to amend the motion to incorporate the comments of Mr. Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Kamptner reiterated the changes to the conditions: • Condition 1 would remain as is. • Condition 2 would read, The Senior Center shall begin use at 200 Four Seasons Drive on or before blank (to be filled in five years after the date the Board approves the special use permit) or this special use permit shall expire. • Condition 3 the second line clause "owned and operated by ACAC" would be deleted and replaced with the clause, "located on tax map and parcel number blank" and Community Development staff will provide that number. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 10 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Porterfield suggested that the applicant give the school as much notice as possible. She was making the assumption that the school's lease could be extended. But it would be nice for the school to have time. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Edgerton said that SP-2009-00015 Senior Center would go to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined with the recommendation for approval, with the following conditions. 1. The use allowed by SP-2006-00042 shall not be permitted on the property while the use permitted by SP-2009-00015 is operated on the property. 2. The Senior Center shall begin operations at 200 Four Seasons Drive on or before (blank — to be filled in five years after the date the Board approves special use permit) or this Special Use Permit shall expire. 3. Once the Senior Center occupies the premises at 200 Four Seasons Drive, whenever a swim meet is scheduled at the adjacent pool facility located on tax map and parcel number (to be filled in) owned and epeFated by AGAG, the SenieF Center shall close to the public at least one hour before the swim meet is scheduled to begin and shall remain closed until at least one hour after the swim meet ends. The Planning Commission recessed 7:43 p.m. and reconvened at 7:47 p.m. SP-2009-00006 Kenridge PROPOSED: Amendment to SP-2004-52 to change the approved application plan. Modification consists of revised location for access road and parking for the commercial building and the elimination of one of the single family attached units. Approved uses remain unchanged. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) SECTION: 23.2.2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) in Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf Course) Approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass. TAX MAP/PARCELS: 60K/61 & A2 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. • The applicant is requesting to amend the approved Special Use Permit SP-2004-052. The requested change consists of revising the location of the access road and parking for the office building and eliminating one of the single-family attached units. The purpose of this public hearing is for the Commission to act on this request. • The new access road was installed during site construction to provide access to the office building from Marsh Lane while the building was being used as the sales center for the project. The location of the graded in road and parking area was not shown on the approved plan. The applicant is now requesting approval of this location for the access road and parking to the office building instead of the approved access road and parking to the office building that is shown on the approved plan. • Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request: 1. The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed. • Staff finds no factors unfavorable to this request. • Staff recommends conditional approval of SP 2009-006, Kenridge provided the applicant makes minor revisions to the conceptual plan prior to submitting the plan for the Board of Supervisors public hearing. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 21, 2009 11 FINAL MINUTES • The conditions are the same as the ones previously approved, except for the plan change shown in condition 1, as follows. 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan prepared by Collins Engineering_ n, dated june 16, 20 March 16, 2009 revision To be determined: 2009 " . (See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required; Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Scott Collins, representative for Kenridge, LLC, noted that staff has done a wonderful job in laying out the request. He offered to answer any questions the Commission may have in regards to what they are proposing at this time. Mr. Edgerton invited questions for Mr. Collins from the Commission. Ms. Joseph noted when she saw the site plan that was approved she really liked it. When the Commission first looked at this there was just a slope going right back into those units and she kept trying to figure out how they were going to divert the water from just going into those units. This plan has a series of three retaining walls on it and it looked like a very eloquent plan in answer to what was going to happen. This is difficult because this plan is so far superior to just blasting in that road. They have two parallel roads now. They have one unit that sits to the side of one of the roads that is separated by this road now. The plan is lovely with the three retaining walls coming down. She could not read the elevations of the retaining walls, but it looks as if they are 3' or 5' stepping down the hill. It gives the people a nice backyard and a lovely swale. She asked if they are requesting this because the road has already been cut in there. She was trying to figure out why they can't do the plan that was approved. Mr. Collins replied that the biggest issue was the retaining walls that they had to put in beside the single- family homes and the existing homes. The 10' retaining walls would be right next to these units and could be seen from Route 250. It was not ideal from any aspect to put in such tall retaining walls to try to force a road in at 10 percent grade from Colridge Road up to the office building. Ms. Joseph asked on Sheet 3 of the site plan layout if he was talking about the retaining wall behind units 62, 63, 64 and 65 being 10' tall. Mr. Collins replied no that he was talking about the retaining wall between units 12 and 65. In trying to get that road through there was going to be very hard. The retaining wall that is shown behind units 62, 63, 64 and 65 is still going to be there. That is not going to go away. That is still fairly necessary. Ms. Joseph noted that she was trying to figure out what was going on here. She asked if he was saying to put that road in would require jumping up 10'. Mr. Collins replied that basically cutting that road between units 12 and 65 is ten percent at a maximum and is going straight up. But units 12 and 65 are basically a flat house and the yards just go straight back. So they would have a road going up 10 percent next to a yard that is flat. It starts at 2' at the road and at the back of the house people would be looking at a 10' to 12' wall. Ms. Joseph said that the 10' wall would be visible from the occupants of the house and not from the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Collins pointed out that actually that wall was visible from the Entrance Corridor as well. All of the exhibits done for the ARB during their review did show that wall being visible from the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Edgerton invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 12 FINAL MINUTES Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to approve SP-2009-00006 Kenridge subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report with minor revisions to the conceptual plan with administrative approval by staff. 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan prepared by Collins Engineering, dated March 16, 2009 revision To be determined: 2009. (See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required; 2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy five (275) feet between the a. southern -most structure (the "Main House") and the property line adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan; 3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property. All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG; 4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval, the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28; 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not in an interest - bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of Community Development; and b. If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Engineer approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant's pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand. 6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on eight (8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas. Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent property and the impact of the railroad on this development; 7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation Planner; ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 13 FINAL MINUTES 8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development; 9. Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone (A) the exteriors of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick, with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in Zone (A) shall be red brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone (A) shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings. The exteriors of detached residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick. These materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit for the buildings (See Attachment C); 10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate; 11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, Landscape Architect. (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner's Association which shall be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone; 12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-five (275) foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County's Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site plans, and subdivision plats; 13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state: "The existing site wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening of the proposed entrance into the site." Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250; 14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors, roofing, siding and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the Architectural Review Board -approved designs of the attached residential units, as determined by the Design Planner; 15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit. The acceptance of this special use permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution; 16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House; and 17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development. Ms. Echols asked if that included all of the conditions listed in the staff report, and Ms. Porterfield replied yes. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Edgerton said that SP-2009-00006 Kenridge would go to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions of approval as modified by the Planning Commission. ZTA-2009-00011 Definitions, including Home Occupations Amend Sec. 3.1, Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 by amending the definitions of Home Occupation, Class A and Home Occupation, Class B, by expressly requiring that the home occupation be conducted within the same dwelling unit in which the members of the family conducting the home occupation reside. A copy of the full text of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 14 FINAL MINUTES ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia McCulley) Ms. McCulley passed out two versions of the revised text. One version had strike outs with underlines to show what is new and the other a clean copy. (Attachment) The revision is to reorder some of the words so that it is clear and won't create problems in the future. She summarized the request, as follows. • This amendment is limited to the definition of Home Occupation, Class A and Home Occupation Class B. The whole purpose is to make sure that the words on the page say what they have always intended and actually what they have practiced until the recent case in which the Commission is familiar. That is the business to be conducted only the dwelling unit in which the family, the business owners reside. Several public services are served. One she talked about in terms of better reflecting the intent and practice. Also, the by-product is that it is better assuring that the residential character is being preserved and they don't have residences that are then converted to purely businesses. • No negative impacts have been identified. In terms of process and clarity staff thinks this amendment should improve clarity for both staff and the applicant and avoid some interpretations that would take a lot of time. • The current text amendment is just about the two definitions. There is work underway on the home occupations for the rural areas. The Commission may recall in the joint meeting with the Board about the rural area initiatives that one of the two rural area uses identified to have staff go back and look at allowing for more administrative approval is the home occupations in the rural areas. That is something staff is working on. It is a much more comprehensive analysis and staff will be bringing that back in the future. • She read the specific language for the Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation conducted for profit within the dwelling unit in which the members of the family conducting the home occupation reside, where the members of the family residing in the dwelling unit are the sole persons engaged in the occupation. This definition would not change the requirements that are currently in the ordinance. In other words the Class A, Home Occupation is a by -right use as accessory to a residence. The Home Occupation, Class B is allowed only by special use permit. The difference between the two is that either employees are allowed in a Class B or an accessory structure is involved or both. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to the Board of Supervisors. Staff has scheduled the public hearing for the Board on August 5. Mr. Edgerton invited questions for staff Ms. Joseph asked to go over what this allows. For a Home Occupation, Class A she has to live in the house where she is having this business and it has to be herself or some other family member that is operating this business in the house. Ms. McCulley replied that is correct. Ms. Joseph said that she could not have another house on the site and operate the business out of that other site. She asked if she would have to reside in that dwelling. Ms. McCulley replied that was correct because the business would have to be conducted where she actually resides. There could be another house on the site, but she could not conduct a business from it unless that became a special permit for a Class B. Ms. Joseph said that if it was in an accessory structure or other dwelling it is a Class B and if she hired anyone that is not a family member. Ms. McCulley replied that is correct. Just to clarify she noted that employees are people who come to the site. There are plenty of people that have businesses and those employees never come to the site. They would not count those as employees that would then need a special use permit. They are really dealing with the land use on that residential property. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 21, 2009 15 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Joseph said that if she had a landscape crew that meets on site and not at her house she was okay Ms. McCulley replied yes, but they would have to look at where they were storing their equipment and materials because that in and of itself may take it to a Class B, Home Occupation. Ms. Porterfield asked in the Class A if the two items one had to have are that they are working within the dwelling unit in which they reside and the members of the family residing in the dwelling unit are the sole persons. It seems like instead of a comma they want an "and" in front of the "where." If it was that one not subjective to the other and they both have to happen, it seems that it should be "and." Ms. McCulley replied that is true. That is what they intend. If there is any lack of clarity, they can make that revision. She asked Mr. Kamptner to look at that to see whether they should make it "and" since they both have to be true. Ms. Porterfield noted in the Class B she had a problem because they put "for profit" way down in it. It seems that they ought to be parallel. Mr. Kamptner agreed that is a good point and was going to suggest that change as well to the two definitions so it would have a very parallel structure. Ms. McCulley noted that they would mirror each other. Mr. Kamptner agreed. Ms. McCulley said staff can make those revisions before it goes to public hearing. Ms. Porterfield asked if the reason staff had "for profit" in there was that they were basically saying that one was earning money to do this and it was not a volunteer activity. She noted that it was always questionable about how much money anybody makes. Ms. McCulley replied that was correct. Mr. Kamptner noted that their recommendation was to leave for profit in for now. Staff will look at that as part of the other home occupation text amendment. Ms. McCulley noted that staff was concerned about unforeseen consequences of taking that out and all of a sudden it applies to den mothers and things not intended for it to apply to. Ms. Kamptner noted that one of the Commissioners raised a question about the employees and the home occupation use classification focuses on the activities taking place in the dwelling unit. In both of the definitions he was wondering if it would be clearer to eliminate any question about that if looking at the Class B definition where the last line would read, "The sole persons engaged in the home occupation in the dwelling unit or the accessory structures or on the site or maybe on the site." Similarly he suggested in the Class A where it would end in the home occupation in the dwelling unit. Ms. McCulley replied that is a good point. That would be much truer to the practice and the intent. Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said while they sincerely appreciate the clarity that staff is striving for they can't help but recognize the applications that have come forward that kind of drove this amendment forward and had to question the intent of differentiating between a dwelling unit that may serve as a mother-in-law suite and a family room over a garage that would not be a dwelling unit. The question he had was what the true impacts are to the community of differentiating between Class A and Class B. He believed it was the intent of the Commission to ensure the residential neighborhood feel of these mixed use communities that are being designed. He did not think that in general Class B, Home Occupations have been incredibly difficult to attain. However, he would be concerned if he was someone ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 16 FINAL MINUTES who was looking at this from a property owner's standpoint whereby he had a separate dwelling unit and had always operated it as a business to now be out of compliance. He was curious how the grandfathering may be and if it is really as necessary as staff sees fit or if the dwelling unit is not that different than a family room over a garage. He appreciates staffs patience with clearing up that difficulty for him. Ms. Joseph asked staff if in the past up until the Belvedere case if they always considered anything that was a separate building, whether a dwelling unit or not, as a Class B. Ms. McCulley replied yes. Ms. Joseph pointed out that this Commission has reviewed those and approved most all of those home occupations that have come in that have been in another building and not the dwelling unit or the person who receives the home occupation. So this is not anything new. It is just clarifying that process and making sure that they have the correct words for what they intend. In what they have been doing since 1980 it has treated those buildings as a Home Occupation, Class B by special use permit. Because someone had determined that the language that was currently in the ordinance was questionable that is when they started treating those in Belvedere as a Class A instead of a Class B. That is what happened? Ms. McCulley replied that was correct because the current language says on the premises, which would include any of the buildings on the property. In the case of a situation such as Belvedere there is more than one actual dwelling unit on the lot. One could be conducting a business in a dwelling that they don't reside in. That has not been their intent previously. Mr. Franco questioned if in a place like Belvedere they think that is really important. With the things that have come before the Commission since he has been here he had not seen a problem with those uses being there. He was not sure that having to jump through a special use permit is really important. Ms. Joseph felt that it is important since the Commission looked at the rezonings and it might be the same amount of vehicle trips and the same amount of activity and use. She did not have a problem with that happening in that area since it was an interesting way to use that extra unit on the site. But she did not think it was contemplated and that it would be something that would come to the Commission three at a time. She thought that it was something that the neighborhood itself might want to know what is going on. If they are neighbors and also have a unit she thought that they would want to know that there are these businesses being conducted that are outside. The intensity when it is outside the house versus inside can be a bigger intensity. This also gives the person with a Class B an opportunity to have more vehicle trips per day. There is a plus side to this, too. She asked what staff allows for a Class A as far as people coming to the site if she had a massage office. She asked how many clients would be allowed per day. Ms. McCulley replied seven clients were allowed per week. The idea is they are coming individually. It is not a group of seven people at one time as in a class because it has a different impact. Ms. Joseph said that with a Class B she could have more per week instead of seven. It is that sort of intensity that she felt that the neighbors have the right to know what is going on. Mr. Franco asked if there is a different notification process for a Class A, Home Occupation. Ms. McCulley replied that Class A is an administrative approval. It is either done instantly or within 24 hours as long as they meet all of the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Franco said that there is no notification to the public. Ms. McCulley replied that there is no notice. If they have some kind of chemicals such as our former zoning person, John Shepherd who is a photographer and had a dark room, he had to do an engineer's report before they could approve his Class A. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 17 FINAL MINUTES There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Ms. Joseph seconded for approval of the draft ordinance presented by staff with the editorial changes as noted below that staff and the County Attorney will make. • The two definitions should have a very parallel structure. • In the Class A if the two items that one had to have is that they are working within the dwelling unit in which they reside and where the members of the family residing in the dwelling unit are the sole proprietors, it seems like instead of a comma they want an "and" in front of the where. If it was that one was not subjective to the other, then they both have to happen. • In the Class B there was some concern expressed because they put nonprofit way down in the definition. It was suggested that the two definitions should mirror each other or be parallel. • A question was raised about the employees and the home occupation use classification focusing on the activities taking place in the dwelling unit. Both of the definitions might be clearer to eliminate any question about that - if looking at the Class B definition the last line could possibly read, "The sole persons engaged in the home occupation in the dwelling unit or the accessory structures or on the site or maybe on the site." Similarly, in the Class A, the wording could read "where within the home occupation in the dwelling unit." The text was revised as follows: 1 1 •1111RE11111011r, 1 1' Il"Il•" • 1" -11 •1• l• l" 1•II" • •< • _ •- -1! i 1" " 1" 11"Il0" • .11 I! 0 1 WIPWOWt4l NP11111,1111 WItAl I" • - •- • -1P.O-• I- •I • • • 1 I _1 �1 1 I" 11"Ilf" • I •1� 1! I- •II- • or. 141911 - RL--MA I q 1 W61MI• - - • •I- • p• - - •� -1� I- - 1- Mr. Edgerton asked how those edits will be made. He asked if the edits will be made between now and the time it goes to the Board. Mr. Kamptner replied yes and since it is going to the Board on August 5 the new draft will be made tomorrow. Ms. Joseph asked staff to email the new draft to the Commissioners. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Mr. Franco voted aye in the interest of moving this ZTA forward to the public hearing.) Mr. Edgerton said that ZTA-2009-00011, Definitions, Including Home Occupations would go to the Board of Supervisors on August 5 with the recommendation for approval as edited. Old Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item. New Business: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 21, 2009 18 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Strucko asked if there was any new business. Ms. McCulley reported on the progress of the violation at Barrack's Road quarry operation on the south side. • Staff asked to provide information on the new Land Use regulations to the Commissioners and to also schedule a work session in the near future. • Staff asked to check on a possible soil erosion problem at Barrack's Road quarry operation on the south side. • No meeting on July 28 and August 4, 2009. • The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2009. • Mr. Edgerton will be absent on August 11. There being no further new business, the meeting moved to the next item. Adjournment: Wit no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. to the Tuesday, August 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. r' V . V. Wayne Cilinberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &(Plannfg Boards) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 21, 2009 19 FINAL MINUTES