HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 06 88 PC MinutesDecember 6, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 6, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms.
Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim
Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior
Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; 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 minutes of November 22, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Garden Patch Preliminary Site Plan (Revised) - Proposal to locate 5,760
square feet of building area on 1.1 acres. This site will have access through
the proposed service road, and will be served by 32 parking spaces. The
proposed use is a nursery. Property, described as Tax Map 45B(1), Parcel 4,
is located on the east side of Route 29, just south of the South Fork Rivanna
River adjacent to the south of Federal Express. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-88-96 James River Baptist Church - Petition under Section 10.2.2.35 for
issuance of a special use permit to allow a church on 14.0 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map.130, Parcel 35A is located in
the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 726 and Route 737 across
from Scottsville Shopping Center. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ronald Hancock. He offered no additional
comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Larry _McElwain, representing the owners of the Chester property, addressed
the Commission. He asked that a condition be added requiring access to the
church from Rt. 737, as the applicant has indicated is the intent.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Patterson stated a site plan
had not been submitted with the special permit request. She added that
staff did not feel a condition tieing down the access was appropriate at
this time because none of the necessary studies have been done.
/5%
December 6, 1988
Page 2
Mr. James Getton, Pastor of the church, stated that it was the applicant's
intent to access the property off Rt. 737 as suggested by Mr. McElwain.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to comment on the acceptability of limiting access
to Rt. 737. Mr. Patterson stated that "on the whole" Rt. 726 was a better
road because it had surface treatment .and was wider. She did not feel it
was possible to make a determination at this time because there were
arguments for both roads.
It was noted that 'VDOT had commented that Rt. 737 had better sight distance.
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was familiar with the area and agreed that
Rt. 737 offered superior sight distance.
It was determined the applicant did not contemplate day care usage. Mr.
Michel asked that the following condition be added:
f Approval is for worship and related church uses only. Day
care or other such uses will require amendment to this permit.
There was a brief discussion about limiting access to Rt. 737 at this time.
It was decided this would be addressed at the time of site plan review.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved. that S.P-88-96 for James River Church be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Sanctuary area limited to 1,200 square feet. The church shall be located
a minimum of 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route 737;
2. The property may not be.further divided;
3. Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant improvements shall
be cleared. All other areas shall remain in a natural state;
4. Approval is for worship and related church uses only. Day Care or other
such uses will require amendment to this permit.
Mr. Stark seconded the :emotion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-88-17 J. Todd Samperton Request in accordance with bection 3:3.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 6.226 acres from R1 to R10 Residential.
Property described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A1 is located on the north side
of Rt. 250 East, adjacent to the west of Glenorchy subdivision and to the
east of the proposed Westminister Canterbury. Rivanna Magisterial District.
M.s. Patterson gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion
is that R10 zoning would be in general accord with the Comprehensive Plan
and with zoning and intended uses to the west. There is a natural buffer
between this property and lot. density Glenorchy.to the east. Therefore, staff
recommends approval."
1-5-1�?
December 6, 1988
Page 3
The main item of discussion in the review was transportation. The staff
report stated:
"Free Bridge and U.S. Route 250 East are scheduled for major improvements
and widening. In this area, Route 250 will be improved to a four -lane
divided highway with a minimum 800 foot crossover spacing. This property
frontage is closer than 800 feet to the crossover to be established at
the Westminister Canterbury road. Therefore if. an entrance is established
on its frontage, there will be only right turns in and out. Staff
recommends that the applicant attempt to connect to the road for West -
minister Canterbury."
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson to comment on staff's position in the
event the applicant cannot get access through the Westminister Canterbury
property.
Ms. Patterson explained that it was her understanding that the applicant has
been working with the owner of the smaller piece of property to the south
(which has most of the frontage) and if that property is added it would be
possible to achieve the 800 foot separation needed for a crossover.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question as to whether there were any advantages
in relation to housing type in R10 zoning, Ms. Patterson indicated there
were no additional advantages beyond R6, i.e. once up to R6 it is possible to
achieve most anything possible with RIO except multi -family.
Regarding the issue of entrance location, Mr. Horne stated that the controlling
factor, if a development does not line up with a crossover but is located
on a divided highway, is the "500-foot rule" in the Site Plan Ordinance,
i.e. that "you either come out at a crossover or at least 500 feet away."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Horne stated that the Commission
only had the authority to require the 500 feet distance (for a site plan)
but could not require that an applicant take access across someone else's
property. He added: "You can require that they be at 500 feet either at
a crossover or at least 500 feet away." Mr. Bowerman asked: "But we
could not require them to be at a crossover if it was in the 500 feet?"
Mr. Horne responded: "No."
Mr. Michel asked if an applicant could be prohibited from going across
another property. Mr. Horne responded: "Probably not if the access point
they took still met the: provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
i.e. when they connected back to the highway they were either at a crossover
or at least 500 feet away."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Virginia Gardner. She indicated the
adjacent property owner was willing to work with the applicant to establish
an entrance. She stated that "Dr. Hurt -is interested in a shared entrance
at Westminister Canterbury and then coming across his property." She stated
the applicant would be "willing to proffer to do our best to make those
efforts." She stated the applicant would prefer to use the Westminister
/�ly
December 6, 1988
Page 4
Canterbury site for access if it can be worked out. In response to Mr. Michel'-,
question, she stated the applicant had no intentions of "going across
Glenorchy."
It was determined a proffer, such as mentioned by his. Gardner, must be in
writing.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman felt the access issue was vital to the rezoning. He added:
"I think without some sort.of agreement to get left and right turning access
preferably through Westminister, then maybe this application might be
premature." He stated that without a mechanism to address this concern,
then he was in favor of seeing the request again. He did not think it
should be passed on to the Board without a definitive recommendation
based on all the information that's available."
Ms. Gardner felt it might be difficult to secure an agreement at this point
in the project and asked if it could be addressed at the time of site plan.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would not be in favor of the rezoning unless good
access was a certainty.
It was determined the proffer his. Gardner referred to was one "to make every
effort." Mr. Bowerman stated that was not what he had in mind.
It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission that in order to
approve the rezoning there must be access for both east and west turning
traffic on Rt. 250.
Mr. Bowling indicated he did not agree with this approach because the
Commission was, in effect, telling the applicant what he must do. He noted
that it might be impossible for the applicant to comply particularly since
a third party would be involved.
Mr. Horne.stated his only concern was that he believed that the site plan
standard had been applied in the past --'.'it's 500 feet and we've established.
that that is safe access." He added that "it's always preferable to get to
a crossover but on divided highways, particularly if we're doing a minimum 800
feet between crossovers, I'm not sure it's going to be practical in the long
run, and it really hasn't been what we've applied in the past, to say everyone,
to achieve their Comp Plan density, has to come out at a crossover." He
added: "If you truly feel that the Comp Plan density, essentially along the
whole north side of Rt. 250 East, can only be done where access is directly
at crossovers--Ifajust pointing out that that is a little different than
the way you have approached it in the past."
Mr. Bowerman stated that a unified development plan had always been envisioned
for the other side and the desire that Rt. 29 North not be recreated in this
area. He added: "If part of that is dealing with these problems now, and
it means changing the ordinance to deal with them, I think that we should
contemplate that ... (while) we still have the opportunity to do that out
there."
/6 0
December 6, 1988 Page 5
Ms. -Gardner confirmed the applicant preferred that the item be indefinitely
deferred.
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-88-17 for J. Todd Samperton be deferred indefinitely.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
5P-88-97 Christ Community Church of Charlottesville - Petition under Section
14.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance for issuance of a special use permit to
allow a church on 7.63 acres zoned R-2, Residential. Property described as
Tax Map 45C-2, Parcel 6 is located in the Woodbrook Subdivision on the
east side of Idlewood Drive at the intersection with Brookmere Road south of
Brentwood Road. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Referring to the fact that the site was once a sewage lagoon, Ms. Diehl
asked Mr. Pullen to briefly review comments from the Inspections Department
and the Health Department. Mr. Pullen indicated that the Inspections
Department feels that the site will yeuitable for building if the proper
engineering practices are followed. He stated the Health Department has
commented that if the lagoon was "capped" properly, there should be no existence
of bacterial or viral elements. It was determined the Health Department had
made no specific comments on methane production.
Ms. Diehl asked whose determination it had been that the suitability of the
soil for development was not relevant to this review. Mr. Pullen responded
that it had been staff's position that this is an issue which is usually
addressed at the time of site plan.
Mr. Pullen explained that if any suspicion arises about the suitability of
the soils, the Inspections Department would then make an inspection. Mr.
Horne pointed out that Inspections has no jurisdiction until a building
permit is applied for.
Mr. Pullen stated that the applicant had already had a soil study done but
the Inspections Department has not reviewed that study. He confirmed that
if the soil report is certified by an Engineer, then the Inspections
Department would have no problems with it.
Mr. Pullen confirmed that staff had not addressed the soil suitability at
this time because of the fact that before any kind of development can take
place on the site the requirements of the Site Plan Ordinance will have to
be met. Staff simply felt it was premature to address this issue with
the special permit.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
December 6, 1988
Page 6
mr. Bruce Wardell, architect for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained that the soil report prepared by the soils engineer had
determined that the applicant would need to excavate to "solid bearing,"
varying from 2z to 4 feet across the site. The engineer felt that
after solid bearing is determined the site will be very suitable for the
church. additional comments included the following:
--The building will be placed far back on the site so as to minimize the
impact on the residences and the wooded area will remain.
--By-right residential development of the property could be increased
even more than indicated in the staff report through the use of
bonuses.
--The church would be a less intense use of the property than
residential development.
--It is not envisioned that the playing field will have backstops
and stands, and the church is not a member of the Church Softball
League.
--He felt that a church use should not be viewed in the same
terms as the usual commercial -type use.
--Churches cannot usually afford commercially zoned property.
--Construction would take place all at one time rather than over
an extended period as with residential development.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Sari Kaplan,. President of the Woodbrook Community Association, addressed
the Commission. Xr. Kaplan gave a lengthy presentation. He began by
presenting two additional letters of objection. fir. Kaplan stated he
was appearing as the result of a resolution adopted unanimously at a November
6, 1988 meeting. He strongly objected to the proposal on behalf of the
community organization and gave the following reasons:
--"Commission approval for construction of a church in an established
residential area has never before occurred and could therefore set an
undesirable precedent.
-- Staff estimates of traffic are too low by failing to account for
private events at the church and softball games.
-- Use of the softball field is likely to be extensive even if restricted
to church leagues.
-- Staff has failed to evaluate the impact on the health of the general
public of removal of large quantities of soil during the construction
.period. (Note: Mr. Kaplan called the Commission's attention to
an adjoining property owner who presently suffers from emphysema.)
-- Staff has failed to determine the impact on property values of being
adjacent to a playing field and lighted parking lot.
-- Character.of the district will be changed by addition of the only non-
residential building, other than Woodbrook Elementary School.
-y Granting of this permit is inconsistent with portions of regulations
1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, and 1.4.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
-- The church should be built in a place where it is consistent with the
growth trends of the area."
Mr. Kaplan felt a "reasonable alternative is to use the parcel as a green buffer
between Woodbrook and the higher -density residential and commercial development
to its south." 1,1'. Kaplan also felt the County should not be "in the business
of marketing swampland." (It was later determined that the lagoon was originally
constructed by the developer of Woodbrook who then deeded it to the Albemarle
County Service Authority.)
/4n;�
December 6, 1988
Page 7
Mr. Kaplan end lshis presentation by asking that those present who were in
agreement with remarks stand. Thirty-seven (37) persons stood (as counted
by Mr. Kaplan.)
The following persons also expressed their opposition to the proposal:
Mr. Gene Powell; Ms. Annette Gibbs; Mr. Ron Derby; Mr. Euclid Barbario; and Mr.
Jim Brewer. Additional reasons included. -
The property is subject to flooding.
-- The traffic problem will be magnified because there is only one access
to Woodbrook.
The following persons expressed they were in favor of the proposal: Mr. Bill
Long; Mr. George Amsworth, a pastor of the church; Mr. Carl Bowdin; Mr. Steve
Thomas; Ms. Mary Ann Costa; and Mr. John Manzano, Pastor of the church.
It was pointed out that it is difficult to find a suitable, affordable
building site.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Referring to a statement in a letter from Mr. Wardell to Mr. Pullen dated
November 22, 1988 which stated "We have already been in touch with the neigh-
borhood and made ourselves available to them to address their concerns and
have had a generally favorable feedback," Mr. Stark asked Mr. Wardell to
comment. Mr. Wardell responded that no negative attitudes from the
public had been detected until after the neighborhood association meeting.
He stated the letter had been written before said meeting.
Mr. Bowerman expressed concern about the possible flooding of the property.
He asked who would determine if a site is suitable for construction if it
lies within a floodplain, but has not been mapped by the Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. Pullen responded that he felt that the County Engineer had the
authority to require that the applicant demonstrate that there is not
100-year floodplain on the property, i.e. the applicant would have to
submit a Certified Engineer's Report.
There was a brief discussion about proposed improvements to the stream
channel.
It was determined the lagoon had been constructed by the original developer
of the subdivision and then deeded to the Albemarle County Service Authority,
the present owner. Mr. Bowling confirmed that the Service Authority is
separate from the City and the County.
Mr. Jerkins moved that SP-88-97 for Christ Community Church of Charlottesville
be denied.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Discussion:
/6.3
December b, 1988 Page 8
M.r. Rittenhouse felt this was a difficult issue. He indicated he agreed with
some of the objections and disagreed with others. He perceived the major
objections were related to traffic and safety concerns and to the presence
of the playing field. He did not feel a playing field was necessary to the
church's activities. He felt the "average" traffic flora for a church would be
less than for residential development and that traffic from residential devel-
opment would be more of a constant flow vs. a "peak" time flow with the church.
He sensed that the residents of the subdivision preferred that the
property "remain as it is, no development period." He was uncertain as to
whether it was a question of development.or development for a church function.
He pointed out that many of the residents had purchased their property with
the full knowledge that the sewage lagoon was in existence and he -felt it was
difficult to envision a church as being a less desirable neighbor than a
sewage lagoon. He stated he was sensitive to the needs of the residents,
"yet I find myself in the position of willing to support this application
with some restriction on the playing fields...."
Mr. Stark stated he had seconded the motion for denial based on safety
considerations.
Ms. Diehl stated she would support the motion for two reasons: (1) Placing
the church in an already established community would have an impact on
the community. She felt this was a different situation than having a community
grow around a church. (2) The undetermined suitability of the site for development.
She felt it would not be inappropriate to determine if the site is suitable
for any type of development, i.e. is it located in a floodplain and will
the improvements to the channel infringe on that area? She questioned
whether any property that must be excavated to 411 feet could provide a
suitable construction site.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that he felt the character of the district would be changed,
and the project was not suitable for this area.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Burdell (representative of the applicant) to comment
briefly.
Mr. Uardell stated the applicant was currently negotiating for "access from
the back." Mr. Bowerman stated that possibility could not be considered
because it had not been presented to the Commission and discussed in the
usual fashion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for denial.
The motion passed 5:1 with Mr. Rittenhouse casting the dissenting.vote.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
DS