Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 06 90 PC Minutesr FEBRUARY 6, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, VA. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The approval of minutes for January 23 was deferred to February 13. CONSENT AGENDA - Ms. Scala presented a preview of items which would appear on the February 13 Consent Agenda. No discussion or action was required. SE-20-06 JWK Properties - Request to amend SP-87-98 JWK Properties to increase the height of the already approved Albemarle Carriage Museum (10.2.2(43)) from current limit of 42 to a proposed height of 75'. Property is located on the east side of Rt. 20 south of Carters Bridge in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 112, Parcels 20, 21, 33A, and 37D, and Tax Map 113, Parcel 6A and is zoned RA, Rural Areas with SP-87-81 and SP-87-98. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Staff noted that the conditions suggested were the same as had appeared with the two previous special permits with the addition of a seventh condition. He also noted that the 75 feet height stated in condition (7) should be changed to 65 feet. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the 65 feet height was measured from the ground. Mr. Rittenhouse briefly reviewed the history of the Zoning Text Amendment which had allowed the cupola. Mr. Johnson asked by what authority public access and the use of the cupola could be restricted. Mr. Fritz explained that Section 4.10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance addressed this issue. The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne. He pointed out that even though the staff report referred to this as a "change in the plan," it was always the applicant's intent that the structure have a cupola of this type. He noted that the Ordinance would permit a cupola of up to 100 feet but that is not February S, 1990 Page 2 the applicant's desire_ Mr. Payne explained the difference in the drawings that were displayed. He stated the applicant had no objection to the restricted use of the cupola. In response to Ms. Huckie's question, Mr. Payne stated that the 65 feet did not include the weather vane which was already exempt under the Ordinance. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Julie McGowan, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission and expressed her opposition to the proposal. She felt the applicant's request was challenging the integrity of the zoning designation. She felt this could lead to an undesirable precedent. She questioned why the building was positioned as is proposed. She was concerned about the possibility of interference with a possible aquifer. She was also concerned about possible future uses for the structure, should this use cease. (Mr. Rittenhouse explained that a different use would require a separate permit.) She presented photographs of other cupolas and noted that none were as high as that proposed. She felt the proposed design was out of proportion with the rest of the building. She asked if the structure would be lighted at night. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the applicant was not requesting a waiver of the Ordinance since it has been amended to allow this structure. He pointed out that even before that amendment a barn used for agricultural uses could have had a cupola by right, but an amendment was required because this structure was to be used as a museum. He noted that the only reason this issue is before the Commission again is because the Commission asked to see it again. Ms. Jacquelyn McGowan expressed her opposition to the proposal There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. he'ght of the Ms. Huckle stated she could not support thellcupola because she felt it had no connection, architecturally or otherwise, to agriculture. She felt it was out of proportion and was designed solely to call attention to a commercial enterprise. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that this issue had been reviewed thoroughly. He felt the aesthetic appeal of a cupola was not an issue before the Commission but rather whether or not this proposal was in compliance with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. He also stated that it has already been determined that this is a bona fide agricultural museum. He pointed out that cupolas are allowed on farm buildings, without restriction on appearance, by right. He felt the proposal met the intent of the Ordinance as it was amended, and therefore he was prepared to to support the request_ S6 3 February 6, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-06 for JWK Properties be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance with right and left turn lanes. 2. Appropriate local and state agency approval of the provision of sewage disposal and water supply. 3. Museum gift shop is permitted for the sale of material related to museum artifacts; sales area shall not exceed 10% of the total museum building area; 4. Landscape screening shall be provided from Route 20 in accordance with Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. This special use permit is for the use described by the applicant in a letter dated November 28, 1988, addressed to Mr. John Horne, signed by Phillippe de Villegas, Director, Albemarle Carriage Museum and Driving Center. 6. The agricultural museum shall be operated in conjunction with an agricultural use related to the purpose of the musesum. 7. The cupola to be constructed as indicated by applicant's architectural drawings and not to exceed 65 feet in height. The cupola shall not be used for sleeping or housekeeping purposes nor for any commercial or industrial purpose. Access by the general public shall be prohibited. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. SP-89-103 Henry J. Oswald - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(4) and 24.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a recreational facility to be located on a vacant 12.42 acre parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Patcels 20, 20A3, 2GA4 (part) zoned RA, Rural Areas and Tax Map 32A, Parcel 1B zoned HC, Highway Commercial, is located on the east side of Rt. 29N, approximately 1/4 mile north of its intersection with Rt 649. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal exceeds the minimum requirements and is superior to the existing buffer on Parcel 11D1. Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-22 Reynovia Land Trust with a reduction in area to only Tax Map 77, Parcel 11D1 subject to (the applicant's proffer)." Mr. Fritz responded to Mr. Johnson`s questions about buffer. -IA 44 February 6, 1990 Page 4 The applicant, Mr_ Henry Oswald, addressed the Commission. He explained that existing hardwoods and evergreens will act as a natural buffer because they are approximately 100 feet above the driving range. He explained that the miniature golf course would actually be located on the opposite side of the road than is shown on the plat. He asked that loudspeakers be allowed on that side of the road. He explained that most recreational uses of this type play soft music during playing times. He felt this was an essential part of the business. Mr. Oswald responded to Ms. Huckle's request to point out the location of the driving range - There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if it would be possible to condition the use of the loudspeakers to only the HC zoned area. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively and added that Section 5.1.16(c) addresses the issue of noise levels: "The sound from any radio, recording device, public address system, or other speaker shall be limited to 40 decibels at the nearest residential property line." However, Mr. Fritz added that it is difficult to measure decibels. Mr. Grimm asked if the HC part of the property is in that area where the loudspeakers are proposed. Mr. Oswald replied affirmatively and explained they would be on the "far side next to 84 Lumber" and the closest residential property line would be approximately 150 feet from the loudspeakers with a 20 foot tree buffer in between also. Mr. Oswald confirmed he would like to be able to use the speakers throughout the day, until closing, but only in the miniature golf course area. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the "effect on the area" and referred to a recent newspaper article about the "hodge-podge of Pantops." He wondered if the same would happen to Rt. 29. He expressed an interest in the nature of the buildings which will be constructed. He asked what would happen to these structures when the lease expires. He also wondered if some of the restrictions being proposed would have a negative effect on the possible success of the business, i.e. such as lighting restrictions. He concluded: "I find it difficult to go along with it as defined here." Ms. Huckle asked if a special permit could be limited to a certain number of years. Mr. Bowling responded that he did not think it was possible to put a time limit on a commercial venture. Mr. Fritz added that the only time a time limit is imposed is if the use is to be temporary in nature and the applicant has proposed a time limit. Ms. Huckle noted that the applicant has stated he will have a five-year lease. Mr. Oswald indicated it was his intent to purchase the property at the end of the five --year period, but he could not afford to do .4os, r February 6. 1990 Page 5 that at this time. Regarding the appearance of the site, he explained that it would be well landscaped with only very small buildings which will be removed in the event the lease should be terminated. Mr. Johnson stated he felt the nature of the business was such that it could become unsightly if ever abandoned. He asked if the Commission had the authority to request information about the nature of the buildings which were proposed. (Staff pointed out that the applicant would have to present a site plan and further conditions would only be necessary if the Commission felt the site plan provisions of the Ordinance were inadequate.) There was a brief discussion about the topography of the property. Mr. Fritz explained that most of the property was flat with the exception of an insignificant swale. He stated little grading would be required. Ms. Huckle asked if any special permit would be required from the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Cilimberg explained that those types of permits were only required when a floodplain is identified. Ms. Huckle asked if a non --tidal wetlands" would not fall under some type of review. Mr. Cilimberg stated that would be an issue for the Engineering Department to address. It was confirmed these issues would be addressed at the time of the site plan. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he agreed with recommended conditions (1) and (2) but he felt (3) should be discussed further. Ms. Huckle stated she felt it would be very difficult to live next to constant speaker noise and, therefore, she was in favor of condition (3) remaining. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that this part of the property was zoned for Highway Commercial uses and he was aware that music is a part of this type of family recreational facility. Ms. Huckle asked if staff had some idea of how loud 40 decibels actually is. (Mr. Muncaster, an engineer present at the meeting, responded and stated that it could be compared to a whisper.) Mr. Rittenhouse noted that it appears that the Ordinance does address this issue and would give a landowner recourse if the Ordinance should be violated. Mr. Fritz suggested that condition No. 3 be changed as follows: "There shall be no loudspeakers on the east side of the access easement and sound from any radio, recording device, public address system, or other speaker shall be limited to 40 decibels at the nearest residential property line " ,3D6 February 6, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could support the application with the amendment to condition 3 as suggested by Mr. Fritz. In response to Ms. Andersen's questions, Mr. Rittenhouse explained that any change in the use would require an amendment to the special permit and would require Commission review. In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to whether or not the Commission would see this proposal again, Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Commission will not see the special permit again, but if the Commission recommends approval and the Board also recommends approval, the applicant will then proceed with a site plan which will require review. Ms. Huckle asked how this proposal differed from the one which was previously denied. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the previous one had not been denied but rather had been deferred to allow the applicant time to make some suggested changes. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-69-103 for Henry J. Oswald be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission approval of site plan in general compliance with Attachments A & B to include a 100--foot undisturbed buffer around the driving range. 2. There shall be no lighting of the driving range. 3. There shall be no loudspeakers on the east side of the access easement and sound from any radio, recording device, public address system, or other speaker shall be limited to 40 decibels at the nearest residential property line Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle expressed continued concern about the loudspeakers and the difficulty with monitoring possible problems. Mr. Johnson asked if the reference to A & B should be changed to reflect the applicant's comments. Mr. Fritz explained that the location of the batting cages or the golf course, i.e. whether they are on one side or the other, is immaterial. Mr. Cilimberg stated staff would ask the applicant to revise the sketch plan to show the intended use before the Board hearing. Mr. Rittenhouse stated the record would show "we re talking about -3z)7 February 6. 1990 Page 7 general conformance with attachments A & B with a contemplated switch on the part of the applicant within the HC zone. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. ZMA 89-22 Reynovia Land Trust - Request in accordance with Section 20,11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend ZMA-85-29 Mill Creek to permit disturbance of the 30 foot buffer zone required under Sections 26.10.2 and 28.10.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcels 11 and 11D1 (25.38 acres), is located on the west side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) adjacent to the National Guard Armory. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal exceeds the minimum requirements and is superior to the existing buffer on Parcel 11D1. Therefore staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-22 Reynovia Land Trust with a reduction in area to only Tax Map 77, Parcel 11D1 subject to proffer." In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Fritz pointed out the location of the buffer. Mr. Fritz explained landscaping requirements. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He offered no additional comments except to say the applicant was in agreement with the staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-22 for Reynovia Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as recommended by staff, i.e. a reduction in area to only Tax Map 77, Parcel 11D1, and subject to the applicant's proffer as follows: 1. Planting of two rows of 6'-8' white pines on 15' staggered centers with a finished grade of not steeper than 3:1. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-BS-109 William E. & Janet Jackson - Request in accordance with Section 15.2.2(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a day care center to be located on a 0.48 acre parcel zoned R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 60A, Section 3, Parcel 7, is located on the north side of Angus Road immediately across from Angus Court. Charlottesville Magisterial District. .�Oy February 8. 1990 Page 8 The applicant was requesting withdrawal of the petition. No action was required of the Commission. SP-89-11R Falls River __Wilderness Center - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2 (20) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a day camp facility to be located on 79.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 85, Parcel 3A, is located on the south side of St. Rt, 636 approximately one mile west of its intersection with Rt. 635 near Batesville. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. There was a brief discussion about the possible need for sight easements. Mr. Fritz explained that VDOT believes the sight easements can be obtained from the applicant's property and all clearing can be done within existing right-of-way. Mr. Fritz explained that staff will require a more adequate sketch plan than that already submitted by the applicant and if there are any problems, staff would return the matter to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg noted that a site plan would not be required. Commenting on the two entrances to Rt. 636, Mr. Fritz stated that those are existing entrances and if VDOT determines that there is no problem with providing safe and convenient access, then staff has no reason to recommend closure. Regarding the issue of outdoor fires (Condition No. 2), Mr. Fritz explained this would involve the Fire Official malting an initial inspection once and then periodically thereafter, but would not require a separate approval each time an outdoor fire was planned. Mr. Fritz noted that this provision, along with the provisions for Health Department approval, come from the Supplemental Regulations governing Day Camps. It was determined the Health Department has not yet decided if sanitary facilities will need to be provided or if existing facilities are adequate. Mr. Fritz explained that the Zoning Administrator had determined that this use would fit in the category of Day Camps and that said definition was broad enough that it did not have to be "made to fit the use_" The applicant was represented by Ms. Betsy Dalgliesh. She noted this was the only use of this kind in the County. She explained the nature of the use and how it would function, i.e. 3oi February $, 1990 Page 9 approximately 30 teams (10 persons per team) would use the course per year, one team at a time. She stated both owners involved were dedicated to making very little impact on the land, and therefore, she asked that the condition requiring a commercial entrance be deleted. She stressed only 300 people would be using the facility per year. Mr. Rick Howe, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He, too, asked for relief from the requirement for a commercial entrance. He also noted that the facility would likely be used only Saturday mornings from May through October. Mr. Howe also pointed out that construction of a commercial entrance would be in direct conflict with condition No. 3 because it would require additional grading and clearing, The Chairman invited public comment. Two neighboring landowners addressed the Commission to express their support for the proposal: Mr. Ed Robb and Mr. Tom Gathright. They, too, asked that a commercial entrance not be required. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Andersen stated she had visited the site and felt a commercial entrance would detract from the property. She compared the use to having friends visit on a Saturday afternoon. There followed a discussion about VDOT requirements for a commercial entrance and whether or not there was any flexibility in these requirements. (Note: Staff repeated several times that VDOT could not require a commercial entrance --they could only recQmend.) The possibility of a residential entrance was discussed since VDOT only has those two standards, i.e. commercial or residential. Mr. Fritz explained that staff had not recommended a residential entrance because of the possibility of future expansion of the use and the difficulty with enforcing a certain number of vehicle trips. Mr. Fritz added that if the Commission chose to recommend a residential entrance, it would be consistent with the vehicle count from two dwelling units, but there is no provision to limit the vehicle trips to a certain number. Mr. Grimm asked if the Commission could delete the requirement for a commercial entrance (condition No. 4). Staff responded affirmatively. Mr. Grimm stated he had visited the property and he did not feel there was a need for a commercial entrance. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the entrance issue was one of safety and takes into consideration the intensity of the use. He stated he was concerned because "we are being asked to recommend approval of a special permit without any restrictions on Vo February 6, 1990 Page10 intensity." He pointed out that though it may not be the intent of the applicant to increase the intensity, it could, conceivably, increase at some future time if restrictions aren't placed on it. He felt this possibility should be considered. Ms. Andersen asked if it would be possible to limit the intensity of the use as opposed to requiring the commercial entrance. There was discussion with the applicant as to what the expected usage would be. Ms. Dalgliesh responded that the expectation was 30 sessions per year, 10 persons per session. Mr. Cilimberg indicated it would be very difficult to monitor this type of restriction. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would like to have a better understanding of the differences between a commercial entrance and a residential entrance, e.g. how much more grading, sight distance, gravel surface, etc. would be required? Mr. Fritz did not know the requirements for a residential entrance but stated that "for a commercial entrance the point of contact is 30 feet in width." Mr. Fritz explained further that condition No. 4 had been based on passed actions, but if the Commission finds this use to be "unique and self -regulatory" to the extent that the vehicle count will be similar to that for two dwellings, then a residential entrance may be appropriate. There was a discussion about how vehicle trips are counted Mr. Johnson stated he did not feel the road could support any additional traffic. He felt it was "ludicrous" to discuss the entrance when the road should be the main issue. He also questioned the fact that this property has applied to be in the proposed Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. He felt this was a commercial use with no conneciton to agriculture or forestry. He felt it was "out of line to consider these two together." Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that a special permit is before the Commission, not a request for inclusion in an agricultural/forestal district. He added that the use would, indeed, be taken into account to see if the property does qualify for an ag/forestal district and the use could possibly effect that determination. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that this was being considered under the definition of a day camp and that could effect the health requirements, etc. He felt there was more to the request "than meets the eye." 2�� February B, 1990 Page 11 r Mr. Fritz pointed out that condition No_ 3 [No subdivision or additional residential development shall occur without amendment of this special use permit.] may, in the long term, reduce the potential vehicle trips on the road. He added: "Clearly, full development of the parcel would result in more traffic than would this proposal." Mr. Johnson felt this was "superfluous" because a subdivision has not even been mentioned. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it is sometimes helpful to examine what the traffic generation would be in a by -right situation. There was a brief discussion about the possibility of deferring the request to allow time for the Highway Department to comment on exactly what would be required for a commercial entrance. Mr Fritz pointed out that VDOT has "recommended" a commercial entrance --it is not a "requirement." Mr. Cilimberg added that staff almost without exception abides by VDOT recommendations because VDOT relies on the County, at least in part, "to protect the integrity of their road system --in particular to make sure there's safe and convenient access." There was a brief discussion about the possibility of the use falling under some other definition. Staff pointed out the Zoning Administrator had already determined this to be the most appropriate category and only the Zoning Administrator could change that decision. Mr. Jenkins asked if No. 4 could be changed in such a way as to limit the intensity based on the usage described by the applicant. It was finally decided No. 4 would be changed to read: "Use shall be limited to 30 (thirty) sessions per year, 10 (ten) persons per session." It was noted that the record should show that it was the Commission's intent that a residential entrance was acceptable. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-110 for Falls River Wilderness Center be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the Virginia Department of Health. 2. outdoor fires shall be approved by the Albemarle County Fire Official. 3. No subdivision or additional residential development shall occur without amendment of this special use permit. 4. Use shall be limited to thirty (30) sessions per year, ten (10) persons per session. 13/9 February 6, 1990 Page 12 5. No additional grading or clearing of property. 6. Sketch plan showing location and description of activities to be submitted within 60 days of the issuance of this special use permit. 7. No additional activities shall be installed without amendment of this special use permit. Ms Huckle seconded the motion Discussion: The applicant noted that he felt there was considerable control built into the conditions. Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant understood that this use could effect the decision as to whether or not the property would be accepted into the agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Howe acknowledged his understanding of this possibility. Mr. Johnson also asked if the applicant understood that the Health Department might have additional requirements since this was being reviewed as a day camp. Mr. Howe responded that the Health Department's representative had already visited the site and indicated that he would approve a privy because this is such a primitive area. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously MISCELLANEOUS ]dill Creek Phase II - Mr. Fritz explained that the preliminary plat has expired. He noted that at the time the preliminary plat was approved staff had been granted administrative approval of final plats. He stated the final plat has been submitted. He also explained that the delays have been caused by the County Engineering Department and the Virginia Department of Transportation and were not the fault of the applicant. It was determined the Commission had no objection to extending the preliminary plat for three months. Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the preliminary plat for Mill Creek Phase II be granted a 3-month extension The motion passed unanimously. It was clarified that the period would be "three months from today." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. ti . TnTay Ci imberg, DS