Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 07 1992 PC MinutesJANUARY 7, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 7, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. V.Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of December 10, 1991 and Decemer 17, 1991 were approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board of Supervisors had not yet appointed new commissioners, thus the election of officers would be delayed. CONSENT AGENDA PREVIEW - Mr. Cilimberg briefly previewed the items to appear on the January 14th Consent Agenda: Earlysville Forest Commercial Plat and Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan/Earlysville Post Office. Mr. Johnson questioned the accuracy of the plat in terms of the location of the utility lines and utility easement. Staff stated they would check this issue. Mr. Johnson also asked "what option" the Commission had for disapproving the plat "as being an unsubstantiated change to the PUD plan?" Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff had reviewed the proposal for compliance with all the provisions of the PUD and determined that it did comply. Therefore, options for denying the plat would have to be based on the plat not complying with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance- mr. Johnson was concerned about taking an adequately sized lot and dividing it into very small parcels which might pose future deelopment problems. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the exit onto Rt. 743- - Proposal to locate a home occupation Class B [14.2.2(11)] on 0.4 acres zoned R-2, Residential and located in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property described as Tax Map 90A, Section A, Parcel 20 is located on the eaast side of Rt. 631 approximately 400 feet north of Pinehurst Court in the Scottsville Magisterial district. This site is located in a designated growth area. 1-7-92 2 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report- The report concluded: "The general intent of the home occupation regulations is to limit the activity to a point that it is not apparent that the use is occurring. Although this use will involve only a limited amount of traffic due to only one employee coming to the site and the level of activity on site should not adversely impact the use of the adjacent properties, the proposed building is larger than the average dwelling size in the area and the proposed construction will occur on critical slopes. Staff opinion is that the physical changes on the site necessitated by this request are not consistent with the provisions of Section 5.2 and that the character of the distict will be changed due to the bulk of the proposed structure. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-91-6$." The applicant, Mr. James Johnson, addressed the Commission - His comments included the following: --The use of his property is very limited because it is not large enough for a new septic system. Half of the property is in critical slopes. --The existing storage shed does not meet existing building codes, is in a state of deterioration, and must be replaced. The new shed will be placed in the steep area of the property out of necessity. --The proposed structure will be used for business storage, personal storge, a business office and a garage. I may also be used to perform small jobs associated with his contracting business, such as spray painting of doors. --He disagreed with the staff report's statement that it would be the largest building in the area. He stated there were several larger. --Because of the topography of the land, only 3-5 feet "above the existing roofline of the house" will be visible from the road. --He offered to change the proposal to a two-story structure, rather than 3-story, if that would be more acceptable. --No heavy equipment will be used; no deliveries will be made; and there will be no outside storage. --Building the storage building the the steep area of the lot will allow for better usage of the property. Mr. Johnson determined that the applicant's proposal would result in improving the convenience and efficiency of the applicant's existing operation. No change in the type of work or scale of work is proposed. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Lou Kramer, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. (Note: Mr. Kramer did not reside on the (oaZ. 1-7-92 3 adjacent property.) He indicated that his concerns had decreased because the applicant had stated that the driveway would not be located between his property and the applicant's property. He also stated that he would have less objection if the permit were issued only to the applicant and did not attach to the land. He indicated he would have no objection if the size of the building were changed so as to be one story above ground and one story below. There was a brief discussion about restricting the permit to the applicant only. Mr. Bowling confirmed that this would be possible. Mr. Bowling explained that normally a permit for a Home Occupation is granted to the applicant only but this request is somewhat different because of the significant size of the proposed structure that is proposed to be built. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission_ Ms. Huckle stated that though she was sympathetic to the applicant, she felt this type of structure belonged in a commercial or industrial area. She did not think the proposal met the definition of a Home Occupation because the size of the structure would change the character of the area. Mr. Grimm agreed. He felt it involved too much of a change to the property and he was also concerned about the issue of critical slopes_ Mr. Rittenhouse felt there were two issues: (1) the size of the structure which he felt was such that it was not ancillary to a residence because it was so large that it would seem to overwhelm what is expected for a normal garage; and (2) is this more like a contractor's storage yard? He felt the use as a home occupation was unclear. He interpreted that it seemed that the "home occupation would embody the drafting and office work." He asked if this had been classed as a Class B Home Occupation --because of the use or because of the structure itself? Mr. Fritz explained that a Class A Occupation is performed in the home by only the operator of the business; a Class B involves either an accessory structure or at least one additional employee other than the operator. This proposal meets both those characteristics --an employee and an accessory structure. He confirmed that staff was not concerned about the type of activity. He stated that it was the Board and Commission's decision as to whether or not the proposal fits the Class B definition. It was his /05 1-7-92 4 understanding that the application would have been approved administratively had it not been for the receipt of a written objection. Regarding the issue of critical slopes, Mr. Fritz explained that approval of the request would mean that the applicant could build on critical slopes. Mr. Rittenhouse determined that staff's position was based on the size of the structure and not the proposed activity. He asked staff to comment on the possibility of a two-story structure. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that if the applicant were to propose a smaller structure, then staff would have to review the request further before commenting. Ms. Huckle questioned why such a large structure is needed based on the description of the usage as represented by the applicant. Mr. Fritz noted that some of the storage would be for personal use. Mr. Bowling stated that if only personal storage was planned, then the applicant "had a right to build it if he could meet the setback requirements." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that for any accessory structure the Zoning Administrator must determine that it is, in fact, an accessory structure. Mr. Fritz noted that the applicant is a contractor and is maintaining an office on site. Mr. Cilimberg stated he did not know if the Zoning Administrator would grant a permit for this 2-story, plus basement, structure if it were simply an accessory structure. Mr. Johnson noted that the existing structure was 1/10 the size of the proposed structure. He felt the applicant might be willing to compromise with a structure that would have a less adverse appearance to neighbors. He noted that the applicant is operating his own business and supporting himself and "we should do everything we can within reason to assist him in this endeavor." He pointed out that the applicant is proposing to improve an existing dilapidated condition. He also noted that the person who had objected has indicated that he would have no objection if the building were smaller and restricted to the applicant only. Mr. Johnson was in favor of reducing the square footage, limiting it to two stories --one above and one below ground -- and limiting the permit to the applicant only. He felt this would serve both the applicant and the community. Mr. Grimm felt that historically Class B permits have been for structures that already exist on the lot and the 64 1-7-92 5 operation of a business is not apparent from the outside. He felt this was a significant deviation because the proposed building is twice the size of the applicant's dwelling. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed. He stated he was not opposed to the described usage, but the question is whether or not the size of the proposed structure changes the character of the area. Mr. Jenkins noted that if a neighbor had not objected, then the permit would have been approved administratively. That neighbor has now tempered his objection. He stated he could support Commissioner Johnson's approach. Ms. Huckle felt approval would be setting a bad precedent_ She supported staff's position. Commissioner Johnson called attention to the definition of a Class B Occupation: "An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit, with or without the use of one or more accessory structures for profit...no more than two people." He noted that there is no requirement that the accessory structures be in existence before the fact. Mr. Johnson moved that SP-91-68 for James M. Johnson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No materials or equipment shall be stored outside_ 2. Building shall be located as shown on a plat initialled WDF and dated 12/18/91. 3. No on -site sales. 4. Permit is issued to applicant only. 5. Size of new structure not to exceed two stories, only one of which shall be above ground, with total floor area not to exceed 1,200 square feet. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion_ Discussion: Commissioner Johnson declined to add a condition related to on -site deliveries of materials. He felt the size of the operation would be self-limiting. He expressed no opposition to such a condition if the Commission so desired. No such condition was added. 1-7-92 A Mr. Grimm stated he would not support the motion because of the issue of critical slopes and the feeling that it did not meet the definition of a Class B occupation. The applicant expressed no opposition to the proposed reduction in size. He noted, however, that he had only requested 1,200 square feet in the beginning and the Zoning Administrator had told him he could have that. He did not think the basement area counted because unfinished basement area is not taxed. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could not determine at what point the size of the building is no longer objectionable, i.e, at what point does it stop changing the character of the neighborhood? The motion for approval failed to pass (2:4) with Commissioners Jenkins and Johnson voting in favor and Commissioners Grimm, Rittenhouse, Andersen and Huckle voting against. Mr. Grimm moved that SP-91-68 for James M. Johnson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed (4:2) with Commissions Huckle, Grimm, Rittenhouse and Andersen voting for denial and Commissioners Jenkins and Johnson voting against. The Chairman advised the applicant that there is an opportunity for him to consider the Commission's concerns (size and critical slopes) before his presentation to the Board. The applicant expressed a lack of understanding as to what is expected. - Proposal to create two lots averaging 2.865 acres with a 15.5 acre residue. This subdivision will be served by an extension of a privte road. Property, decribed as Tax Map 73, Parcel 39, is located on the west side of Route 7098 approximately one mile south of Route 637. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated growth area. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Huckle asked about the location of septic fields. Ms. Lipinski explained that the final plat would state that 4"01 1-7-92 7 septic fields cannot be located on 25% or greater slopes_ However, she stated that final septic field locations are not determined until a building permit is applied for at which time the Health Department must approve septic field locations in relation to the dwelling, the well, etc_ Mr. Johnson asked if three new lots were being added to a previously approved subdivision. Mr. Lipinski explained that additional land had been added. Regarding maintenance of the road, Ms. Lipinski stated that a maintenance agreement would be required with the final plat. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the 30,000 square feet building area can encroach on the setback area. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Driver. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Grimm moved that the Jasiurkowski Preliminary Plat 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. Department of Engineering approval of grading an drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit_ d. Septic fields shall not be located on 20% or greater slopes. 2. Staff approval of final plat. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. U1 Wayn%/Cilimberg, ,�iec�retary (OF