Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 26 1994 PC Minutes4-26-94 Z APRIL 26, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 26, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. 'Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 5th were unanimously approved as amended; the minutes of April 12th were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized the Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 20, 1994. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-06 Emily H. Sanford - Petition to establish a music school on 3.640 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas (10.2.2(5)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 9J, is located on the west side of Route 649 approximately 0.75 miles north of the Route 649/Route 606 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that staff had, in it's review of this proposal, taken into consideration the Airport Master Plan. He stated that the property does lie within the Airport Impact Area but the Airport has no plans to acquire more property "on that side." In response to Ms. Huckle's questions about utilities, Mr. Fritz stated he had spoken with Gary Rice (Health Department), and there do not appear to be any obstacles. Ms. Huckle asked if a well test would be required. Mr. Fritz explained that the County does not require a well test,_though, typically, the lending institution will require well and septic tests. In response to Ms. Imhoff's questions about parking, Mr. Fritz pointed out the parking areas, i.e. "the area of the drive between the house and Rt. 606, then adjacent to the house and some beyond." Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that the residential character of the area should be maintained and, therefore, the parking areas, and landscaping and screening, are /W 4-26-94 2 very important. She asked if staff has, in the past, recommended this type of condition. Mr. Fritz explained that staff has conditioned special use permits to a site plan, if there has been a site plan. He explained that "there is no condition to a site plan on this one ... the function of the Site Plan Ordinance will address those things." He added that, because of the topography, it is likely parking will be visible only from Rt. 606 so "any landscaping which will be required will be minimal and will be low street shrubs which we would typically require." It was Ms. Imhoff's belief that the parking would be more visible to adjacent houses than staff seems to feel. She pointed out that there is a residential community which exists there and "to put parking in the front yard would be not in keeping with some of the adjacent uses." She concluded: "I'd be real interested in seeing some view of trying to keep this residential -looking, which parking in the front yard would not do." In relation to the road, Mr. Dotson asked staff to explain the meaning of "non -tolerable." Mr. Fritz explained: "The number of vehicle trips on the roadway (Rt. 606) exceeds the design capacity of the roadway such that it occasions increased maintenance costs. It is not an unsafe situation, which would be an 'intolerable' road." Mr. Fritz described the uses on some of the surrounding property, i.e., a moving company, offices, and warehouse, multi -purpose. In response to Mr. Dotson's question as to why this request is allowed, Mr. Fritz confirmed that schools are allowed by special permit in the rural areas. The applicant was represented by Ms. Emily Sanford. She explained that the adjacent residential property is "eager" for this use. Regarding the parking area, she explained that it would be an attractive parking area. In response to Mr. Blue's questions about concerts and adequate parking, she explained that recitals are given twice per year and approximately 45 cars would be present at these functions. Larger recitals are given at Buford Middle School. Regarding septic adequacy, she explained that a comparison of her personal water bill (for a family of 5)and the water bill for her current school facility showed that the water usage for her home is greater than for her school. She stressed that the school does not use a great amount of water since there will be no washing machine, no dishwasher, and no showers, resulting in much less usage than the average house. Mr. Dotson noted that the Airport is projecting that its flights will double in the future. He asked if the applicant felt that could be a problem. Ms. Sanford expressed no concern about this possibility. The Chair invited public comment. 14A 4-26-94 3 Mr. Alvin Morris, son of the sellers of the property, addressed the Commission. He explained that the Airport has been offered this property on several occasions but has no plans to expand in this direction. He described some of the surrounding uses (warehouses) and stated he was not aware of any opposition to the proposal. He was familiar with the history of the well and did not think there would be any problems with sufficient water flow. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that this is a "tough area" and she hoped that this area would be looked at carefully during the Comp Plan review. She urged staff, during its review of the site plan, to try to keep it residential looking and to not allow parking "all the way out to the road." MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-94-06 for Emily H. Sanford be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Use shall not commence until the following requirements have been met: a. Health Department approval. b. Construction of commercial entrance with a minimum of 450' of sight distance. c. Approval of site plan. d. Installation of required parking. e. Building Official approval. Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-94-07 Keswick Corporation - Petition to expand club facilities to add a swimming pool, tennis courts and a clubhouse on 149.846 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(40)]. Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 8Z, is located on the east side of the intersection of Route 744 and Route 731 and in the southeastern quadrant of Club Drive/Route 731 intersection in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The existing clubhouse is located in the northeastern quadrant of Club Drive/Route 731. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Dotson sought clarification of the note "expansion not approved at this time" which appeared on the plan which was on display. Ms. Hipski explained that the expansion had not been reviewed because it was not shown. The note referred to by Mr. Dotson had been voluntarily placed on the plan by the applicant. 4-26-94 4 Ms. Huckle noted that the plan included a viewing stand. She assumed this meant there would be tennis matches and wondered where parking for such matches would be accommodated. Ms. Hipski pointed out the parking areas on the plan. Ms. Huckle asked for further explanation of the access. Ms. Hipski explained: "There is an existing driveway already, serving this house (which currently houses the Keswick Inn staff). The original SP had shown this driveway coming up here and hooking into Club Drive. The applicant has decided to retain the existing entrance as it is." Ms. Hipski confirmed that there is an existing entrance on Club Drive, but it does not connect to the house. Mr. Cilimberg asked Ms. Hipski if there should be a condition stating that the house was not going to access as shown in the original SP. Ms. Hipski responded: "This parcel is not part of this amendment to the SP. We talked about that, at staff level, and we could find no reason why VDOT would have to review and approve this entrance as it is now." Ms. Imhoff offered: "I think it wouldn't matter one way or the other because if the applicant wants to build all these pools and tennis courts and then run a road through it --it seems sort of intuitive that this won't be a problem." Ms. Hipski noted: "It's also written in the report." Ms. Huckle noted that there was no condition related to the public address system. Ms. Hipski explained that the Ordinance limits noise to 40 decibels at the nearest property line. Staff had discussed a condition saying "The applicant shall comply with current as well as future ordinances," but it was not included because of the fact that it would not be possible to comply with different sets of limitations. Ms. Hipski pointed out that she had included in the staff report the statement that "The applicant shall comply with current as well as any future noise restrictions." There was some question as to whether such a condition could be placed on the special permit. Ms. Imhoff felt noise was not likely to be an issue since this site is reasonably distant from any existing or future residences. The applicant was represented by Mr. Pete Bradshaw. He offered to answer questions. Regarding the viewing stand, he explained that there are presently no definitive plans for the stand, but it has been included because the applicant wanted to show as many "envisioned uses as possible at this stage." He felt it was possible that there could be some type of competitive tennis matches, but not of the "circuit" type. He explained that the focus of the expansion has been to enhance family membership. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 4-26-94 5 MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP- 94-07 for Keswick Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition Corporation and SP-85-54 Tom J. Curtis, Jr.. 2. The clubhouse shall not exceed 6,250 square feet; the viewing stand shall not exceed 2,000 square feet; accessory buildings shall not exceed 5,200 square feet; and the pool shall not exceed 3,500 square feet. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS County Housing Committee - Ms. Imhoff reported that there would be a meeting of the Housing Committee at 10:00, Thursday, April 28, in the 4th floor conference room of the County Office Building. She offered to attend this meeting on behalf of the Commission and to alert the Housing Committee to the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Jenkins asked if Housing Committee minutes could be included in Commission packets. Ms. Imhoff expressed an interest in receiving notice of the Committee's agendas. Mr Blue suggested Committee's meeting notices could be included in the Commission's packets. Sustainability Council Meeting - Ms. Vaughan reported that there would be a meeting of this Council, open to the public, on May 15, 2:00 to 4:00 at PVCC. ----------------------------------------- South Panto s Office Com lex I Major Site Plan Amendment - Ms. Hipski explained that the applicant is proposing to locate a building on slopes of 25% or greater and therefore is requesting a waiver of Section 3.4.3.2. The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and approved it subject to approval of erosion control measures to be implemented before, during and after construction activities. A waiver of this same provision was granted to this applicant on May 9, 1984, allowing intrusion on man-made slopes. The same slopes are involved in this request. Based on the Engineering Department's recommendation and the Commission's previous action, staff supported the request. It was Mr. Blue's understanding: "This is essentially the same thing we have had in a number of instances in that these are slopes that were constructed for various improvements and now they want to do some more improvements and just change those slopes. It is not the same thing as a natural valley or a mountaintop, which is what I envision the original ordinance provision was designed to protect." Ms. Hipski confirmed that these are the existing man-made slopes. Ms. Huckle noted that 4-26-94 6 some engineers feel there is no difference between man-made and natural slopes. She felt the main issue is that "proper precautions are taken in either case to control runoff." Mr. Dotson asked: "We can be assured that in the rest of the site plan review that there will be vegetation, grading and so forth so that those slopes are stable?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Exactly. There has to be." MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the request to allow grading on critical slopes for the South Pantops Office Complex I Major Site Plan Amendment be granted. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Shifflett Farm Site Plan Waiver Request - Ms. Hipski explained the applicant was requesting a site plan waiver to locate a third dwelling unit on 16.35 acres. (TM30-P15 southside of Rt. 616 approximately .25 mile west of the Rt. 660-662 intersection, White Hall Magisterial District) Ms. Hipski confirmed that adjacent owners had been notified. No written comments were received. Two verbal objections were received after the appeal date and those objections had been to the type of dwelling proposed, rather than to the issue of a 3rd dwelling. It was Ms. Hipski's understanding the third dwelling will be occupied by the applicant's parents. She added that if the applicant wished to subdivide the property, it could probably qualify as a family division which would be approved administratively. She explained that "road improvements up to the first driveway" will be required. She confirmed that the Health Department had approved a drainfield area. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the Shifflett Farm Site Plan Waiver Request be approved, allowing a third dwelling to be placed on the property described as TM30- P15. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- Blue Sprinq Farms Site Plan Waiver Request - The applicant was proposing to locate tennis courts on a 10.173 acre portion of a 22.059 acre parcel. Ms. Hipski confirmed that adjacent property owners were notified. The tennis courts will serve Blue Spring Farms subdivision only (17 lots). Neither off-street parking nor a commercial entrance will be required at this time. There was a brief discussion of whether lighting was proposed. Ms. Hipski was of the impression that lighting was not proposed at this time. Mr. Nitchmann and Ms. Imhoff were particularly concerned since both had had some experience with living close to lighted tennis courts. Ms. Imhof£ was reluctant to grant a waiver without more specifics about the lighting plans. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Ordinance requires that the lighting of tennis courts be directed "down" onto the courts and that it cannot "spillover." He thought these provisions would address the 4-26-94 Commission's concerns. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant would have to get county approval if lights are added at some future time. Mr. Blue pointed out that it would not be that difficult for the applicant to submit a site plan since there is already a good deal of detail on the plan that has been submitted. It was determined that the site plan submittal fee would be $1,260 (for the preliminary) + $325 (for the final). (The fee for a site plan waiver is $250.) Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the Commission could condition an approval so as to require that any lighting must comply with County Ordinance requirements. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the Blue Springs Site Plan Waiver Request be approved, with the understanding that any lighing must comply with County Ordinance requirements. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- Ms. Imhoff expressed discomfort with having items added to the final agenda without the Commission having received prior notice. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that such items could be placed on the Consent Agenda one week prior to their being heard. The Commission favored this suggestion. ------------------------------------------ Mr. Nitchmann asked for information on the following: ---The ratio between County taxes generated by residential property owners and business property owners. --The status of improvements to the intersection of Rt. 29 North and Airport Road. (Mr. Cilimberg explained that will be part of two upcoming projects for the late 901s, i.e. the 4- laning of Airport Road and the improvements to Rt. 29 from the river, north to Airport Road.) ----------------------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. M0: /47-