Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 05 89 PC MinutesDecember 5, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 5, 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; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Stark. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. SP-89-75 Astec - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for the pro- duction and testing of liquid chromatography columns. Property, described as Tax Map 77E2, Parcel 4, is located at the intersection of Rts. 1102 and 742 on the northwest corner. Scottsville Magisterial District. Deferred from November 9, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Noting that questions about slopes had been one of the reasons for deferral previously, Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cresswell, representing the County Engineer's office, to comment on this issue. Mr. Cresswell noted that there was no Ordinance requirement that a slope be 2:1, after construction, though that is the standard that is generally followed. He explained that stabilizing the slopes with crownvetch would not make them 2:1, but he stated his department had no major problems with the slopes and was "willing to recommend that it just be established with a vegetative cover like crownvetch." Referring to the requirement for an erosion control bond, Mr. Rittenhouse asked if maintenance of the groundcover was an issue. Mr. Cresswell did not feel maintenance would be a problem because crownvetch, once established, is quite hardy. Ms. Diehl expressed interest in the chemicals that would be used in the process. Mr. Tarbell explained that the applicant should address that question. The applicant was represented by Ms. Christine Conroy, an analytical chemist. She explained the nature of the process, i.e. a separation and purification process and no materials would be manufactured on the site. In response to Ms. Diehl's question about the variety of acids and bases, Ms. Conroy explained those would only be in the solvents and would be in very small quantities. She also explained that acetones would be used only infre- quently for washing glassware, etc. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about disposal of the residue, she explained that some would be disposed of through the sewer, after having been diluted, and others would be picked up and hauled away. a?37 December 5, 1989 Page 2 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was still concerned about the existing steep slopes which show very little evidence of having been fine graded or re -seeded or landscaped. He felt that the crox%Tnvetch would at least be an improvement. In response to Ms. Diehl's question about discharge into the sewer system, Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant would be required to obtain a Industrial Discharge Permit from the Service authority and said permit would also be reviewed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Michael Woodwwd, representing the applicant,. interjected that the applicant has been advised by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority that a permit will not be necessary because the levels being discharged are below those requiring a permit. Mr. Keeler stated staff would consider that condition satisfied upon receipt of a letter, verifying Mr. T;oodward's statement, from the RWSA. Mr. Michel :roved that SP-89-75 for Astec be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This special use permit is issued to the applicant for Biotage, Inc. Any change in occupancy subject to Section 27.2.2.1 shall require amendment of this special use permit. 2. Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority approval prior to discharge to sanitary sewer system. 3. All chemicals listed in Appendix A of the Certified Engineer's report on Performance Standards shall be secured in a manner to prohibit vandalism. !+. Approval is based or. compliance with performance standards as submitted by Biotage, Inc., prepared by Pleasants Associates, Inc. dated October 5, 1989. Any changes or modifications governed by these standards shall be approved by the County Engineer who, at his discretion, may defer such approval to the Board of Supervisors. 5. An erosion control bond shall be posted to insure the seeding of crownvet.ch in accordance with the site plan dated November 28, 1989. The bond shall be posted prior to occupancy of Biotage, Incorporated and the seeding shall be completed by May 15, 1990. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-96 Christian Retreats - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2 05) and 10.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for the addition of a 2,300 square foot building to operate a private school. Property, described as Tax Map 7, Parcel 22, is .located on the east side of Rt. 610 near the Greene County line. White Hall Magisterial District. '_+err. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. December 5, 1989 Page 3 The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob French, pastor of the church. He asked that the applicant not be required to relocate a stone wall as recommended by the Highway Department. He did not feel this was necessary for the upgrading of the entrances. He also disagreed with the Highway Department's traffic figures. He felt they were much too high. In response to Mr. Keeler's question, Mr. French explained that the existing accesses to the site were designated as being one for entrance only and the other for exit only. Mr. Keeler explained that upgrading the easternmost entrance to commercial standards would not require removal of the entire stone wall, but only a pillar of it which could be relocated. Mr. Keeler also stated that staff would be willing to go only with only one commercial entrance if the applicant would agree to close the other entrance. Mr. French noted that Mr. Keeler's suggestion was acceptable, though it might involve having to obtain an easement onto adjoining property. (He explained that the pillar had marked the boundary line of the.church's property.) Mr. Bowerman explained that the Commission did not have much discretion because a commercial entrance is required when more than two dwellings share a driveway. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler clarified staff had.no problem with either the upgrading,of both accesses to commercial entrances OR the upgrading of only one provided the other was permanently closed. Mr. Keeler stated he felt this issue could be handled at the time of site plan review. Mr. Keeler also stated that staff was not requiring a "full-fledged site plan under Article 32." He explained: "They have a physical survey that shows the location of -all the existing buildings and with an accurate location of the proposed building on that plat, at the appropriate scale, I think compliance with (a) through (d) under Condition 3 would satisfy what we'd be looking for in a site plan anyway. So we're not talking about them spending a lot of money to develop a site plan drawing." Ms. Diehl asked if the Health Department should include in their review a determination as to whether or not the existing facilities for the building are adequate for the use of the structure as a church. Mr. Keeler responded: "We'll include that; this basically acts as a church on Sunday mornings." He confirmed this could be tied to the site plan. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-96 for Christian Retreats be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is not trans- ferable; 2. Enrollment limited to thirty (30) students; 3. Administrative approval of site plan approval to include: a. County Engineer approval under Runoff Control Ordinance to include all impervious coverage on site: �37 December 5, 1989 Page 4 b. Health Department approval; c. Fire Official approval; and d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance. 4. Building shall be constructed with brick face in accordance with the schematic side elevation sketch submitted October 27, 1989. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-97 Trinity Presbyterian Church - Request in accordance with Section 13.2.2 (7) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to use existing Sunday School rooss and related support facilities for a preschool. Property, described as Tax yfap 76, Parcel 17C1, is located on the West side of Old U.S. 29, north of the I-64, Exit 22 interchange. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-89-97 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Redfields - Mr. Keeler explained that staff had received a request from an applicant to move the January 4th meeting to Tuesday, January 2nd. Mr. Keeler noted that staff had no particular preference for one date or the other. He added, however, that staff still had some problems with the application because recommendations for changes have not been made, and at this time, it appears that staff would not be able to make a favorable recommendation. Mr. Gaylon Bates, representing Redfields, addressed the Commission. His reasons for the request were as follows: (1) The project has been in the making for approximately two years and the existing Commission is familiar with the plans for this area, whereas a newly appointed Commission (appointed on January 3rd) will not be familiar with'the history of the project; (2) Upcoming changes in VDOT standards may result in the road which has been designed not meeting the new requirements and any deferral of the application could :sake it impossible for the road plans to be submitted before the changes become effective; and (3) A new Commission poses a greater risk of deferral. The Commission discussed the applicant's request. It was determined there was some uncertainty as to whether or not a quorum would be present on January 2nd. Mr. Rittenhouse also stated he did not like the implication that a new Commission would not be able to give the application a fair review. It was the consensus of the Commission that the meeting date not be changed, i.e. the meeting would be held January 4th. 0 December 5, 1989 Page 5 Hollymead Growth Area -- Mr. Benish advised the Commission that they would soon be receiving a status report on the proposed changes to the Hollymead Growth Area. He explained that staff would be asking the Commission for guidance as to how to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There was a brief discussion about the Virginia Department of Transportation Transportation Study. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. DS aw