Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 10 88 PC MinutesMay 10, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 10, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner. Absent: Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 26, 1988 were approved as submitted. SP-88-25 Thomas Vincent -- Thomas Vincent petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit in accordance with Section 10.2.2.(31) of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a woodworking shop to be located on existing 83.04 acre parcel. This property is located on the northside of Route 692, ± 7/10 mile west of its intersection with Route 696. Tax Map 86, Parcel 16. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In reply to Ms, Diehl's question, Mr. Pullen confirmed that the proposed woodworking shop was a Class B home occupation which allows 2 employees. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Vincent addressed the Commission. He read a letter from Mr. Peter Brass, an adjoining property owner, which stated that Mr. Brass was not opposed to the woodworking shop. It was determined Mr. Vincent's usual business hours were 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. It was also determined the current building being used by Mr. Vincent is an old barn and the proposed building will be poured concrete. Mr. Vincent stressed that his primary interest in the property was not commercial, but rather residential as he intended to build his home on the property. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Frank Elliott read a letter from Dr. John Bougeois, an adjoining neighbor, who expressed opposition to the application. His reasons were concern about noise and the possibility of setting a precedent for a commercial venture in an otherwise agricultural area. Mr. R.B. Rogers, owner of property across from the applicant, addressed the Commission and objected to the application. He felt that the proposed use was contrary to zoning regulations which were developed to restrict certain uses in certain designated areas. He felt the use would be incompatible with the character of the area -and would devalue property. 1(010 May 10, 1988 Page 2 31rs. Frank Elliott expressed concern about the applicant's source of water and whether or notany harmful chemicals were used in his woodworking process. Mr. Frank Elliott expressed an interest in knowing the number of people Mr. Vincent had employed at his previous shop in Colorado. He also asked how large a cottage industry can become before a limitation is placed upon it. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman asked the applicant to address the issue of chemical usage in his operation. Mr. Vincent explained that he uses only a water --based lacquer and no other type of toxic solvent. He stated there would be "no water pollution whatsoever." F.e also stated that he had no employees in his Colorado shop. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Pullen if he wished to add any other comments to the requirements of Section 5.2 other than the limitation to 2 employees and 1,500 square feet. Mr. Pullen stated .that the applicant would be required to conform to Section 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS which limits hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that this is a special use permit and the Commission can add conditions if it is felt necessary. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about the facade of the proposed structure, Mr. Vincent explained that he hopes to make the .building "earth -sheltered," and noise should not be a. factor. Mr. Pullen explained that Section 4.14 discusses maximum permitted sound levels and states "all sources of noises must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the value specified in the maximum permitted sound levels." He added that the section refers to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. It was determined that Dr. Beaugo.is' home was possibly 1,000 feet from the applicant's proposed dwelling and the area is heavily forested. Mr. Bowerman stated his only concern was the fact that the property is currently undeveloped and the special permit will cause the construction of not only a dwelling but also a "use." He explained that usually this type of proposal is made after a dwelling is alreadyin existence and the Class B use is either in the dwelling itself or a proposed outbuilding. He said he had no problem with the use itself. Mr. Michel asked if Mr. Bowerman felt this would be setting a precedent. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the staff report stated this had been done once before. He stated he did not feel strongly about it. In response to Ms. Diehl's request, 'Ir. Keeler recalled a previous similar application. He explained that the previous applicant had not intended to live on the property and because the Commission had placed a condition on the permit requiring that he live on the property, he had withdrawn the application. ;2 Q May 10, 1988 Page 3 It was determined the applicant intended to build his dwelling and shop at the same time. He stated it was clear to him that he must have a residence before he can have a home application. Mr. Jenkins asked if the Section referred to in the conditions of approval limits the number of employees. Mr. Keeler stated the Zoning Ordinance limits the employees to "not more than two people who are not family members." He stated the Commission could delete that provision if this issue was of concern. Mr. Jenkins asked if a limitation of one employee was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Vincent replied that he would prefer one to none. It was determined Mr. Vincent's work would be 'one -of -a -kind furniture products" and he expected approximately 8 customers a year. Mr. Jenkhs moved that SP-88-25 for Thomas Vincent be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance. 2. Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Albemarle County zoning Ordinance. 3. A single-family dwelling shai.l be constructed and have received A Certificate of Occupancy within 18 months of approval of this petition by the Board of Supervisors. Failure to comply with this condition shall be deemed abandonment of this special use permit and all authority granted herein shall terminate. No conduct of the requested home occupation, including the storage and/or maintenance of machinery related thereto, shall occur on the premises until the dwelling has received a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. No operation except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 5. Notmore than one employee other than family members. (mote: Conditions. 4 and 5 were added later as explained below.) Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Mr. Michel asked that a condition be added addressing hours of operation. Thus condition 4, as stated above, was added. Mr. Wilkerson asked that a condition be added addressing number of employees. Thus condition 5, as stated above, was added. Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Stark accepted these additions to the motion. The motion for approval passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on May 18, 1988. 01Gz May 10, 1988 Page 4 ZMA-87-09 Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge - Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 25.73 acres from R-6 and R-15 Residential to PRD Planned Residential Development to permit development of a retirement community. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A (part), 55A5 (part), and 55A4 (part) is located on the north side of U.S. Rte. 250E between La Hacienda Restaurant and Ashcroft PRD in.the Rivanna Magisterial District. Commissioners Bowerman and Michel disqualified themselves from hearing this petition due to possible conflicts of interest. They left the meeting. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He made the following corrections.to the staff report: Page 2 last paragraph: "The main building and apartments would be taller structures with heights to 65 62'k feet." "Staff would note the current R-10 R-15 zoning on a portion of the site permits a 65 foot building height." The staff report stated: "Staff opinion is that the Westminister Canterbury of the Blue Ridge PRD generally satisfies the requirements as to findings by the Commission under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance." Staff recommended approval subject to certain revisions, modifications, and agreements. Ms. Diehl conducted the meeting in Mr. Bowerman's absence. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if conditions could be attached to this application since it is a rezoning request. fir. Keeler responded: "Yes. In this par- ticular case, the way the planned development is set up is that the applicant and the County come to a series of agreements as to how the property, is to be developed." He stated he felt the Commission could separate the two conditions suggested by staff because the Commission has the authority under condition i to limit the access as suggested and.condition 2 is actually just staff's request for administrative approval of the site plan. Mr. Keeler added that all changes negotiated with the Site Review Committee have already been made to the plan. Mr. Wilkerson asked if construction on this proposal might cause the entrance to Ashcroft to be closed or made inaccessible.. If this was to be the case, . he asked about the status of Lego Drive. Mr. Keeler explained that Lego Drive is under construction with.approximately .4 mile left down to the frontage road which has been rough graded. He stated that utility lines have been moved to accommodate the road. He added that it was his understanding that substantial work would be required to obtain sight distance at.the frontage road. He stated it is anticipated that, the road will be completed in June. Mr. Wilkerson asked if Lego Drive was being built to a standard which would make it acceptable into the State system. Mr. Keeler was unsure. Mr. Keeler explained that the issue of access to Ashcroft and Lego Drive was a very complicated issue . '2G3 May 10, 1988 Page 5 The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Richmond. He introduced other applicant representatives. He explained the nature of the development. He stated the proposed development was adaptable to the site and would be an asset to the community. He stressed the need for housing for the elderly in the area. The Chairman invited public comment. Several persons addressed the Commission. Though none expressed objection to the proposal, several concerns were expressed. Those speaking were: Mr. Milton Adams, President of the Ashcroft Neighborhood Association; Mr. Bob Beeble, representing the owners of property directly across Rt. 250; Ms. Barbara Taylor, a resident of Walnut Lane; Ms. Pam Kemp, a resident of Walnut Lane; Mr. Norm Broadbent, a resident of North Pantops Drive; Mr. Bill Taylor, a resident of Walnut Lane. Their concerns were as follows: --The possibility of access to Ashcroft being cut off before Lego Drive is complete; --Proposed height of buildings will interfere with views; --Unknown future of 400-foot strip of residentially zoned land between this property and Rt. 250; --Water source for development; --Possible need for blasting. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the major issues of concern were: the height of the buildings; the status of the access road; possible blasting; and water usage. Mr. Billy Allman, architect for the project, attempted to address some of the a concerns. Regarding the building height, he explained that the only paor / uhding which would reach 6231 feet was the center increment and the remainder of the building would be only 45 feet. He pointed out that the developers are reducing the grade from 632.feet to 612 feet, thus construction would start at a "negative 20" elevation, which puts the top of the building "about 5 feet above the ground level of the lowest lot on Walnut Lane." Regarding water, he explained water would be taken from the storage tanks above Ashcroft which have adequate volume of water, but a booster pump will be installed to provide the necessary pressure. Regarding blasting, he explained that 40 borings had been taken on the site and the "worst.case condition was 22 feet bedrock." Mr. Keeler confirmed that construction on this project should not begin until after Lego Drive has been approved for access. He added, however, "We have no control over that," but "Mr. Buyer is hopeful of completing Lego Drive by June." Referring to a concern about notification which had been raised by a member of the public, Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to comment. Mr. Keeler replied: "The Ordinance requires posting of signs 15 days prior to Commission hearing. I think what occurred on this project was ... signs were given for the original May 10, 1988 Page 6 set of hearings and then the project was deferred at site review and it was never legally advertised in the newspaper at that time. It has been advertised in the newspaper, adjoining property owners have been notified and the Ashcroft Neighborhood association, Inc. was notified, and then there was a list of other property owners. ...If Mr. Jenkins stated he was concerned about the road issue. M-s. Diehl stated she was also concerned, but she was unclear. as to how that was germane to this application. Mr. Keeler stated this issue had been discussed. with Mr. St. John, the County Attorney. He stated: "It is ti1r. St. John's opinion that this is in the nature of a property dispute between various property owners. The County acted in good faith with the information that was presented to us in the original approval of Ashcroft ... and in regard to the rezoning the issue of North Pantops Drive is not an issue. The road does not exist so far as this zoning is concerned because approval of this zoning is not interferring with anyone's property rights because apparently no one has any right to use that road. They were just permitted to use the road. It was the representation that, I believe, was generally acceptable. ..." �1r. Jenkins asked: "If the applicant sees fit to close that road and the other road is not open, is there a way around the applicant's property so those people can get in and out?" Mr. Keeler responded: "Again, I think that's a matter for the various property owners to address and it's a matter for the courts to resolve." Mr. Jenkins indicated he was concerned about this issue. his. Diehl agreed but added "I'm not sure that we can address that at this point." She did not think it would be correct to hold up this application due to that particular issue. Mr. Keeler suggested that if there was some concern about the legal matters, the Commission might wish to defer the application until Mr. St. John was present. X.r. Jenkins.stated he did not feel fir. St. John's presence would alleviate his concerns. He was.questioning how "proper" the situation was and not its legality, Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern that the signs were not posted and therefore some residents were not aware of the proposal until today. Regarding notification, sir. Horne stated: "As far as we can determine, there has been adequate legal notification if you want to take action; if you feel that there hasn't been adequate notification to, in your good conscience, take action, that's a decision that the Commission can make." He added: "That is absolutely the sane situation with North Pantops Drive. We are satisfied with our discussions in detail with the County Attorney that there is no legal impediment to your taking action on this application tonight. If you feel there is a practical problem or you, in your good judgment, wish not to until you have a direct discussion with Mr. St. John himself, then that's perfectly proper. We did discuss this in great detail with him --this specific issue --How does North Pantops and its some- what nebulous.existence, directly relate to your ability to act on this tonight? --and he felt very directly that you could take action and it was a private property matter as far as he could determine." 465, May 10, 1988 Page 7 It was the consensus of the Commission that the application could be acted upon. Mr. Stark asked Mr. Richmond what the developer's plans for construction were if the application were approved. The Project Manager responded and stated the applicant wishes to cooperate with the Ashcroft residents and the schedule for construction will depend on the financial package and construction could begin as early as late summer or it may possibly be early or late fall. He stressed that the applicant was "not going to go in and strip out the Ashcroft Road ... and leave them with an unfinished Lego Drive." Mr. Wilkerson asked about a previous approval for North Pantops Subdivision which had included an emergency access which would come into Ashcroft. Ms. Diehl asked that the Commission address the present petition. Mr. Jenkins asked if blasting, should it be necessary, would present. a problem. Mr. Keeler stated it appeared that blasting would not be necessary. Ms. Diehl asked it this could be addressed in a condition. Mr. Horne stated it would be peculiar to make a condition on construction methods. He pointed out that the Commission was not approving a site plan, but only the application plan. Mr. Wilkerson asked if the tallest building could be re -located. Mr. Richmond responded that he did not think it would be possible and that the applicant had resolved the issue of interference with views by bringing the grade down. Mr. Allman added that residents would only see a rooftop which would not obstruct their views. It was determined the Commission wished to review the site plan, thus condition 2, granting staff approval of the site plan, was deleted. Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-87-09 for Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following: 1. Planning Commission approval of subdivision plat to include restriction of access for future development -of all parcels resulting from parent tracts identified as Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A, 55A5, and 55A4 to Westminster Canterbury access road except as may be otherwise permitted in a particular case. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Keeler advised the public that the same persons would be notified when the site plan is scheduled for review. Mr. Keeler stated that if Mr. Adams, President of the Ashcroft Association, wished to receive notification, he should send a letter to the Planning Department requesting notification. The motion for approval passed unanimously. May 10, 1988 Page 8 The meeting recessed from 9:15 to 9:20. Mr. Michel and ti1r. Bowerman returned to the meeting. WORK SESSION - CIP Mr. Cilimberg presented staff's recommendations on CIP priority, and adoption of Planning Commission priorities. After some discussion the Commission accepted the list as presented by staff with the following changes: Delete Item No. 6 - Crozet Elementary School - Replacement Delete Item 'o. 15 -Route 810 Improvements (Crozet School) The.Commission asked that the Board of Supervisors be advised of the Commission's position that items 6 and 15 not be funded until a more complete picture of enrollment projections is completed, up to 1992. Other significant comments included: Rivanna Park: The Commission suggested that improvements in the bidding process :night save money. Also they suggested that the shelters be done in two .stages and that there be some unrestricted public use of some facilities. County Computer Upgrading: Commission_ asked that the $18,000/year/5 years be deleted since this would not keep the computer from "going down" but would only allow it to work for an additional 15 minutes. The Commission confirmed that they felt there. was a direct interrelationship between policy decisions interrelating the decision on a new school at Free Union, expansion at Broadus Wood, the size of Crozet and the future of Murray Elementary. Public hearing was scheduled for May 31, 1988. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. DS 61 John Horne, Secretary QW!