HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 10 1991 PC MinutesJANUARY 10, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Thursday, January 10, 1990, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr.
Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Grimm and Jenkins.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
December 11, 1990 were approved as submitted.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
The following were unanimously elected to serve as officers
for 1991: Mr. Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Wilkerson, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Cilimberg, Secretary.
After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously voted
to change the meeting time to 7:00 p.m. The Chairman noted
that if this should prove to be a hardship for anyone, the
change could be reconsidered.
SP-90-114 Olivet Presbyterian Church - The applicant is
requesting a permit to construct an open-air chapel on 3.25
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map
43, Parcel 9B is on the south side of Rt. 614 approximately
1/4 mile west of the Rt. 676 intersection, directly east of
Harmony Drive and approximately 400 feet west of the
existing Olivet Church in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. This is not a designated growth area (RA III).
The applicant was requesting deferral to January 29, 1991.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that SP-90-114
be deferred to January 29, 1991. The motion passed
unanimously.
SP-90-115 James & Sue Willis - The applicant is requesting a
permit for a day care center [10.2.2(7)] on 2.5 acres zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel
37C2 is on the south side of Rt. 738, approximately 1/4 mile
east of its intersection with Rt. 676 near Ivy in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial district. This site is not in a
designated growth area (RA III).
163
January 10, 1991 Page 2
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
(Mr. Keeler corrected the ordinance section cited in No. 4,
i.e. it should have been 5.1.6 rather than 5.16.)
Mr. Fritz also called the Commission's attention to a
petition of support for the proposal which contained 175
signatures.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about a previously
approved central well request for this property, Mr. Fritz
explained that that approval had expired.
Mr. Johnson also asked about the validity of the signatures
on the petition. Mr. Fritz explained that staff did not
have the resources to verify each individual signature and
address, but all signatures were accompanied by addresses.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed
that condition No. 4(c) would address Health Department
approval and he also noted that staff would not approve the
site plan until Health Department approval had been
obtained.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant, Mr. Jim Willis, addressed the Commission. He
noted that commercial development already exists in the
area, so this use will fit with what is already in place.
He also stated that there appears to be a real need for this
type of use in the area.
The following residents of the Ivy area expressed their
opposition to the proposal: Mr. Tom Hutchinson and Mr. and
Mrs. Frederick Connetti. Their reasons included a concern
aobut increase in traffic on Rt. 738 and the further
commercialization of the rural areas.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated that he was in favor of the request.
However, he expressed concern about the specificity of
conditions No. 1 and 6 in relation to maximum height and
square footage of the structure. He felt this left the
applicant little flexibility and recommended the following
changes in the conditions of approval:
No. 1: "Day care center shall be limited to
approximately 20 feet in height and 2,600 square feet."
No. 2: " Building shall be constructed with
consideration given to the elevations provided in
Attachments E and F."
144
January 10, 1991 Page 3
Mr. Johnson felt the applicant should have the "latitude to
make minor changes."
He also asked that the following be added to No. 5: "The
landscape plan shall emphasize the preservation of major
existing trees."
Mr. Johnson's concerns and suggested changes were discussed.
It was determined that the figures about which Mr. Johnson
was concerned (the 20 feet height and 2,600 square feet)
had come directly from the applicant. The applicant
confirmed that it was his intent to stick to these figures
though this was a preliminary drawing.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that it was difficult to define terms
like "latitude" and "approximate." He stated he had a
problem with the term "approximate."
Ms. Huckle stated she saw no reason to change what the
applicant had offered. Mr. Rittenhouse added that these
were restrictions which the applicant had placed on himself.
Mr. Johnson suggested changing the numbers to definitive
figures; he suggested possibly 1125 feet and 3,000 square
feet."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was comfortable with what the
applicant had offered.
Though the Commission was not in favor of changing the
figures in condition No. 1, it was decided that condition
No. 6 would be changed to read: "Building shall be
constructed in general accord with elevations provided in
Attachments E and F."
Mr. Wilkerson stated that he felt the merits of the proposal
outweighed the unfavorable aspects and therefore he moved
that SP-90--115 for James and Sue Willis be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Day care center shall be limited to 20 feet in height
and 2,600 square feet.
2. Access shall be established at a point as far on the
west of the parcel as will be approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance permit.
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the zoning ordinance:
14s,
January 10, 1991
Page 4
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by
the Virginia Departmeny of Welfare as a child care
center. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator
a copy of the original license and all renewals
thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of
any license expiration, suspension, or revocation
within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so
shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be
made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire
Official for such inspeciton shall be deemed willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
C. These provisions are supplementary and
nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or
any other local, state or federal agency.
5. Administrative approval of site plan.
6. Building shall be constructed in general accord with
elevations provided in Attachments E and F.
7. Enrollment shall be limited to thirty (30) students.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson asked that the record show that an "effort be
made to retain the existing large trees to the maximum
extent feasible."
Staff indicated understanding.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-90-107 Unity Church in Charlottesville - The applicant is
requesting a permit for a church (sanctuary and offices
only) [10.2.2(35)] on 5.5 ± acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The property described as part of Tax Map 46, Parcel 22
(part) is located on the south side of Rt. 643 approximately
1 1/2 miles east of its intersection with Rt. 29 in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not in a
designated growth area (RA II).
/4(
January 10, 1991
Page 5
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about possible
drainfield encroachment into the floodplain, Mr. Fritz
explained that the site is above the floodplain and
drainfields cannot be located in floodplain areas.
Mr. Fritz explained that three development rights would
remain on the residue acreage.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tony Roebuck, Pastor of
the church. He presented staff with a copy of an approval
letter from the Health Department. (Staff had not been
aware that official Health Department approval had been
received. Mr. Fritz later confirmed that the letter was the
usual form -type approval letter though it did not state
specifically that approval was for a 300-seat church.)
Regarding the issue of the existence of another church on
adjoining property, Mr. Roebuck pointed out that his church
meets at 10:30 (rather than the usual 11:00 a.m.) on Sundays
and this might alleviate some of the traffic concerns. He
stated also that two Sunday morning services are held during
the summer and this would split the traffic further.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about traffic at the
intersection of Rt. 643 and 29 North, "in view of both
churches letting out at the same time on a Sunday." (Mr.
Fritz stated he had not been able to find answers to all of
Mr. Johnson's questions. However, he had spoken with the
Virginia Department of Transportation whose representatives
informed him that they were unable, without the submittal of
an extensive transportation study from the applicant, to
provide specific information about the impact to Rt. 29.)
Mr. Johnson stated he had performed his own calculations,
the result being that the two churches could possibly result
in the release of 440 cars at the same time on Sunday
morning, resulting in a 70+ minute traffic jam.
Mr. Keeler stated staff is reluctant to provide traffic
figures for churches because the ITE Handbook is not
applicable to the County. He explained that County
ordinances require one parking space for four seats for
churches and that has always been adequate. (This would
mean a total of 200 parking spaces for the other church and
75 for this church for a maximum total of 275 cars, not 440
as calculated by Mr. Johnson.) He also noted that there is
usually a large difference in the seating capacity of a
church and the actual attendance. Mr. Keeler noted also
147
January 10, 1991
Page 6
that the traffic would backup on Rt. 643 and would not
effect Rt. 29. Mr. Keeler stated that it traffic should
become a problem, the churches may have to arrange for the
Police Department to direct traffic at peak times.
Mr. Wilkerson stated that though he understood Mr. Johnson's
concerns, he felt if traffic got to be a problem, the two
churches could cooperate in alleviating the problem by,
perhaps, setting staggered meeting times.
Mr. Johnson asked if any condition could be placed on the
permit requiring that the churches bear the costs of any
type of police traffic regulation. (It was pointed out that
no such requirement could be placed on the other church
because it had already been approved.) Mr. Johnson noted
that the minutes would show his concern and he hoped that
the churches would work together to fund whatever solution
might become necessary.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-107 for Unity Church in
Charlottesville be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Church is limited to 300 seats.
2. Approval is for worship and church related activities
only. Day care or other usage shall require amendment of
this special use permit.
3. Health Department approval shall be obtained prior to
review of the site plan by the Planning Commission.
4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
commercial entrance permit prior to review of the site plan
by the Planning Commission.
5. Site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
6. Property shall be limited to a joint entrance serving
the church and residue acreage. A joint access easement
shall be shown and reserved for dedication upon request of
the County.
7. Staff approval of maintenance agreement. The
maintenance agreement shall require that the entire cost of
maintenance for that portion of road used by this church and
the previously approved church shall be borne by the
churches only.
8. No part of the structure including steeple shall be
greater than 40 feet in height.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ME
January 10, 1991 Page 7
SP-90-105 J.D. Catlett - The applicant is requesting a
permit for a public garage [10.2.2(37), on 2 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. The property described as Tax Map 131, Parcel
39A is on the east side of Rt. 795 in the northern corner of
its intersection with Rt. 622 in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. This site is located within a designated growth
area (Community of Scottsville).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
denial of the request for the following reasons: " (1) The
Comprehensive Plan recommends the site for low -density
residential use; (2) The area is adequately served and
additional garages could be established in nearby areas
recommended for commercial use; (3) The existing structure
does not meet the minimum setback; (4) The existing
structure has limited existing value as a public garage; and
(5) The property can be reasonnably used for residential
purposes."
Mr. Fritz explained in more detail the proposed waste oil
furnace.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about setbacks, Mr.
Fritz stated that the existing setbacks are approximately 20
feet and 30 feet, whereas 75 feet is required.
The applicant, Mr. Daniel Vanderploeg, addressed the
Commission. Regarding setbacks, he noted that though the
setback is not 75 feet, the building is not visible "as you
come up the road because the road is over your head." He
felt his proposal would be a favor to the community because
it would improve the appearance of the property. He
described the waste oil furnace in more detail. He noted
that it was approved by the EPA.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons (neighboring property owners)
expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr. John Desio,
representing Herman and Nancy Lam; Ms. Claudia Summers; Ms.
Anne woody; Mr. Rip Thompson, representing the Paulette
family; and Mr. Eugene Johnson. Their reasons included the
following:
--Visibility from existing residential properties.
--Noise.
--Increased traffic, including heavy equipment which
the garage will cater to.
--Radio and T.V. interference caused by machinery in
the shop.
--Use not in character with the rural area nor with
residential area.
--Parked vehicles on the property will interfere with
sight distance.
--Runoff from this site will drain onto the Lam
property.
/bq
January 10, 1991 Page 8
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the commission.
Mr. Wilkerson stated that he agreed with staff's assessment
of the request and, taking into account the public's
comments, he moved that SP-90-105 for J.D. Catlett be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion and noted that the proposal
was not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated that he would support the motion.
However, he noted that he could "fully vouch for the
statements made by the applicant relative to the site from
Rt. 622 and also the current condition of the property." He
added that in the event the Board should choose to look
favorably on the request he felt the conditions of approval
should be amended as follows: "No. 2 should be amplified to
restrict any operation to the existing garage with no other
buildings authorized. ...Provision No. 4 be amplified --that
the parked vehicles awaiting repair be screened from
off -site view. ...Add to No. 7 'and landscaping.' ...the
addition of a 12th provision that the exhaust from the
furnace meet EPA requirements."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support the motion because
the proposed use was not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and though rennovation of the existing
structure would make it more attractive as a garage, that
rennovation could not satisfy minimum setbacks, and a
commercial use would be injected into an area designated by
the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential without
the opportunity to provide the minimum setbacks appropriate
to that use.
The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
CIP Work Session - A work session was set for Tuesday,
January 29th prior to the regular public hearing.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:00 P.M. ?
//,)
Y. Wayne Cilimberg, Se retary
DB
/7Q