Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 28 89 PC MinutesNovember 28, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 28, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of November 9 and November 14 were approved as submitted. ZTA-89-16 JWK -- Request to amend Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to height requirements in regard to certain architectural features. Deferred from November 9th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. He summarized staff's position as follows: "If you were to approve this particular ZTA, which would allow for exceptions as to height limitations for agricultural museums, you should reevaluate that special use permit for this one agricultural museum you have already approved and reevaluate that as it relates to its height or any condition on height that you might want to impose." Mr. Bowerman asked if the special permit could have been granted with a 65=foot height limitation imposed on the building independent of what the Ordinance states. Mr. Wayne explained that that was not the case: "You would need this zoning text amendment in order to have approved a special use permit with the 65-foot height limitation." Mr. Rittenhouse raised the issue of fire protection.. He quoted the following from Section 4.10.2.1: "No building exceeding 35 feet in height above grade shall be erected without certification by the Albemarle County Fire Official...." He asked if that section was saying that "the height limitations of this chapter shall not apply," and "whether that overrides 4.10.2.1?". Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I would not interpret it that way because 4.10.3.1 is a subsection . of 4.10.3, Height Limitation Exceptions,and Fire Protection is a subsection of Fire and Safety Requirements and is a separate section of the ordinance." The applicant was represented by Fred Payne. Regarding the fire issue he stated the building would be sprinklered throughout, including the cupola. He stressed the purpose of the use was to promote this agricul- tural history. He explained the purpose of the building was solely for public display of "these" antique vehicles, carriages, etc. , and it was important that the building be historically correct. He stated the applicant felt that the building was "part of what makes this use compatible with the RA district." He felt the amendment had two ,;2.30 November 28,1989 Page 2 important limitations: (1) It was for this use only; and (2) It. -applies only to those agricultural museums that are designed to look like farm buildings. He stressed the only purpose of the cupola was to make the building historically accurate. He presented a drawing showing what the building would look like if it were designed to rieet the existing Ordinance. He also presented drawings of the structure with the proposed cupola. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. "fr. Michel indicated he had no objections to the request provided it was clearly understood that the facility was accessible to the public. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the definition of an agricultural museum states that it is "for public.display.". Mr. Michel stated he was not trying to .."set terms," but he would not support the request if it were going to be totally private. M.r. Stark stated he would have no concerns about the fire safety issue if thecupola is to be sprinklered as stated by Mr. Payne. Mr.! Rittenhouse explained that it was his understanding that the Fire Official would be required to address that issue. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed this was correct. In response to Mr. 3enkins questions, Mr. Cilimberg explained that barns and silos, as farm bui.ldi.ng$, are exceptions to the height limitation and they can be as high as 100 feet. Mr. Bowerman noted that it has always been the Co -mission's understanding that the facility would be open to the public, and the Commission's actions have been based on that understanding. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if at some time items were no longer for public display would this constitute a change in circumstance; Mr. Cilimberg commented that he felt this would be a violation of the special permit. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the question of public purpose was an important consideration at the time the special permit was granted. Mr. Rittenhouse stated.that when agricultural museum was added by special use permit to the RA zone, architectural considerations were contemplated. He continued: "With.the provisions that we can insure fire protection and safety to the public ... and with the assurance that, by definition, it will be a public facility, I am prepared to support the amendment..... We should allow the latitude to.make it an attractive andrepresentative historical structure for any historical artifact that it might house." Mr. Rittenhouse moved that ZTA-89-16 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors For approval as follows: 4.10.3.1 EXCEPTIONS --EXCLUDED FROM APPLICATION The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to as ear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission tov ers and cables; smokestack, ,Z51 November 28, 1989 Page 3 water tank, radio or television antenna or tower; provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no such structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above -designated structures now or here- after located on existing public utility easements. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Rittenhouse then moved that this change in zoning text be considered as a change in circumstance and therefore the special permit 87-98 should be reviewed again by the Commission and the Board. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZTA-89-17 Section 36.1 Violations - Add violations of conditions of approval of site plans as unlawful and subject to appropriate action by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-89-17 to amend Section 36.1 of the Zoning Ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows: Amend Section 36.1: VIOLATIONS - GENERALLY Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or contrary to any condition imposed upon any conditional _rezoning, issuance of a special use permit or approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or land which is conducted, operated or maintained contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or any condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use permit or approval of a site plan, shall be a violation of this ordinance and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful. The Zoning Administrator may initiate injunction, mandamus, abatement, criminal warrant, or any other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such erection or use in violation of any provision of this ordinance. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Taylors Auto Body Shop Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to construct a 4,000 square foot addition to the existing auto body shop. This proposal will require relocation of existing parking areas. A total of 31 spaces will be pruvideu. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels C, D, and E, are located on the east side of Brookway Drive, approximately 480 feet north of Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Zoned C-1, Commercial in the Rivanna Magisterial District. a3 .:2 November 28, 1989 Page 4 The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. tits. Diehl :roved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Taylors Auto Body Shop Major Site Plan Amendment be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-89-072 Crutchfield Corporation Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to construct a 28,000 square foot warehouse addition on 13.25 acres to be served by 33 new parking spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 9C, is located on the east side of Route 606 approximately .3 miles north of its intersection.with Route 649. Zoned LI, Light Industry in the Rivanna Magisterial District. ?1r. Tarbell preserted the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Crutchfield was present but offered no additional comments. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Crutchfield Corporation Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Route 250-64 Land Trust - Proposal to subdivide an existing 10.9 acre parcel into t-o lots of 9.5 acres and 1.4 acres. Properties are to have access to Rt. 250. Property is located on.the south side of Rt. 250 approximately 0.25 miles east of I-64 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Tax Map 78, Parcel 33B. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Staff was requesting deferral because revisions had not been submitted by the revision deadline. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Route 250-64 Land Trust be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. 103 November 28, 1989 Page 5 Taylors Mountain Preliminary Plat - Proposal to subdivide two existing parcels into lots with an average lot size of 6 acres. Proposed developments to be served by a proposed private road which will access Rt. 708. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcels 39C and 39D, is located on the west side of Rt. 708 approximately 1.5 miles south of 1--64. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report stated: "The applicant is requesting a private road to serve this development. Staff does not support the applicant's request and recommends that a public road be required. Due to the fact that the public road results in an alternative alignment and lot layout staff recommends denial of Taylors Mountain Preliminary Plat." The applicant was represented by Mr. Steven Key. He described the technical features of the proposal. In response to Ms. Diehl's Question, Mr. Key stated he had not compared the percentage of critical slopes disturbed by a privates. a public road. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel stated he, too, would be interested in the critical slopes question being answered. Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with staff's assessment of the proposal, i.e. she was concerned about the amount of road that would be in critical slope areas. She noted that one of the goals of the Compre- hensive Plan is to build on lower elevations to decrease the high visibility of disturbed areas. She stated she could not support the request. Ms. Diehl moved that the Taylors Mountain Preliminary Plat be denied for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Virginia Department of Forestry - For Information Only - Proposal for development of State of Virginia Office Complex to include the Department of Forestry and the Division of Mineral Resources: northeast side of Rt. 53/Rt. 20 Intersection. Tax Map 77, Parcel 25. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board was interested in receiving the Commission's comments and recommendation on the proposal, particularly which alternative was preferable. Mr. Cilimberg commented on staff's position. Staff favored Plan B. The Department of Forestry was represented by Mr. Covey. He offered little additional comment. In relation to staff's suggested design change for the road, Mr. Covey commented that the road is designed to direct public traffic into Lhe parking area and that the project has a design requirement for a "back - of -house -circulation." November 28, 1989 Page b There was a brief discussion about the trees on the property and the plan for replanting. Mr. Michel expressed the hope that as many of the existing trees as possible will be preserved, especially on the Rt. 53 side of the property. A representative of the applicant stated: "We plan to leave as mazy of the trees as we possibly can." Ms. Diehl expressed pleasure with the proposal to close the hospital entrance; however, she noted concern about all the hospital traffic funneling down to the next intersection. She suggested the possibility of a traffic light. The applicant's representative responded that this is being discussed with Highway Department to determine if a light is warranted. Mr. Jenkins suggested that consideration be given to planting a variety of trees so that the property could be used for field trips. The applicant's representative stated this was being considered. Mr. earner Sensbach, representing the applicant, explained that the University has agreed to set back a scenic easement of 150.feet from the center line of Rt. 53. Mr. Dan Jordan, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, addressed the Co: -mission. He stated that though the Foundation preferred Site Plan B, they still had concerns. He stated that though the Foundation would prefer that the project be far removed from Monticello, '"at Least it is no lop.ger at the doorstep." He noted that the applicant's architects have been responsive to the concerns of both the Foundation and the County. He stated it is the Fou:idation'.s goal to work with all parties to mitigate the intrusion upon a rural landscape. We concluded: "We ask for the Commission's best thinking about ho-w this project can be implemented with a minimum of violence to one of the County's loveliest settings." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he supported staff's position, primarily because of visibility from Routes 20 and 53. Mr. Michel expressed the hope that there would be a positive resolution to a parkway to Monticello. Ms. Diehl agreed. Mr. Bower::ian stated he felt the applicant had done a good job in coming up with an alternative design. However, he pointed.out that this was one of the areas that was recognized as needing joint planning by the City, the Gounty and the University, and joint planning did not..take place. He felt it was incumbent upon the three parties involved to arrive at a plan for land use for this entire area.PRIOR to "taking any portion of it and proceeding." He stressed that Monticello was one of the foremost historic sites in the country and the County has a responsiblity to protect thatto every degree possible. He stated he would not express his acceptance of either Plan A or B. He felt development of the property was premature. November 28, 1959 Page 7 Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could support Mr. Bowerman's position, i.e. "that joint planning take place before development take place. Mr. Bowerman stated: "We agreed to make our best effort in joint planning and the joint planning for this area has not commenced." There was some discussion as to why the joint planning had not taken place, how it could be started, and how long it would take. Mr. Stark stated he assumed that the joint planning process had already taken place. He expressed surprise that it had not. All the Commission agreed that the protection of Monticello was of utmost importance. There was a brief discussion as to how to make the Commission's concerns clear to the Board but at the same time make a recommendation as requested. Ms. Diehl moved that the following position be passed on to the Board: ''We recognize the magnitude of work involved and appreciate the cooperation of the architect with regard to the Department of Forestry and DMME/ DMR alternate master plans, but this area is of critical, historical and cultural importance and we feel the PAAC study for this region should be accomplished before Commission comment on any site plan. If this is not a feasible approach, the Commission prefers Plan B." Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. (Note: Mr. Jenkins asked if some mention should be made about the 150 foot setback. It was decided this would be a part of the joint planning process.) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. "e.