Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 11 77 PC Minutes14 January 11, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, January 11, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Kurt M. Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Leslie Jones; Paul M. Peatross; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Col. William Washington and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. order. The chairman established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to Minutes of January 4, 1977, were deferred until the next meeting. SP-96-76. Hickory Ridge Ltd. Mr. Keeler reported that the applicant had requested withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Barksdale moved that this request be accepted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carrried unanimously, with no discussion. ZTA-76-11. Elizabeth Washington has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend the A-1 Agricultural Zone of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for "Senior Citizen Group Home" by special use permit. MUD SP-97-76. Elizabeth Washington has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a Senior Citizen Group Home on 2.0 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located off Route 724 near Howardsville. County Tax Map 139, Parcel 8, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission review the two requests simultaneously. ( Mr. Jones entered the meeting. ) Mr. Keeler proceeded with the staff reports, noting that in the case of SP-97-76, he had received information that date from the Fire Marshal stating such a use would be reviewed under the same provisions as a hotel or motel. Mr. Barksdale questioned if the dwelling on the property would meet the Fire Marshal's requirements. Mr. Keeler stated that in his opinion, it would not, though he had not / someone from the Building Inspections Department view the site. had -15- Mr. Easter asked if the applicant were aware of the manner in which the Fire Marshal would review such an establishment. Mr. Keeler stated "no", that he himself_ had only found out that day. Mr. Gloeckner stated in his opinion two acres is too small to accommodate ten adults, who will occasionally have guests - in light of the fact that two acres in the ordinance is to accommodate a single-family dwelling. In that case 3.7 persons is the figure on which the acreage is based for utilities, etc. Mrs. Washington stated that her intent had been to provide a place for old people, where someone would be available to care for them. This is not to be a nursing home. Mr. Peatross questioned how much work would have to be put into the house to make it livable. Mrs. Washington stated that it is in a state of disrepair. However, she had considered putting two modulars on the property. Mr. Peatross asked if she understood that the Fire Marshal will have stringent restrictions, which would make for unexpected expenses. He stated that he did not want the applicant to be misled. Mr. Carr agreed that a need for what she described exists. However, he stated he is not informed about guidelines and restrictions that should be followed. Mr. Peatross asked if she has any plans for upgrading the road. Mrs. Washington stated that she has talked to a friend about this. Also she stated that a gentleman from the Health Department was supposed to meet with her on the property, however, weather conditions had not permitted such a meeting. Mrs. Graves suggested that Mrs. Washington meet with the Fire Marshal in order that he could explain to her what would be required. During the meantime, the Commission could discuss the possibility of amending the ordinance. Mr. Carr stated that small individually operated facilites for the elderly have a degree of desirability, but there are many rules and guidelines that have to be met. He pointed out that this is not a simple undertaking for an individual or for the County of Albemarle. Mrs. Graves suggested that Thomas Jefferson Planning District would have the guidelines for such a project, since they plan for the care of the elderly. Mr. Tucker suggested that Social Services of the County could also be helpful. Mr. Carr suggested that the proper agents should guide Mrs. Washington and tell her the ramifications. He asked if the staff could assist Mrs. Washington. Mr. Gloeckner also stated that he felt there should be a discussion on the proper zone for such a facility; the location, number of people, etc. should also be discussed. He pointed out that this is a whole new undertaking. Mrs. Graves suggested that in view of this the Commission did not consider such matters when the home for children came up for discussion. 0Xv. Mr. Carr stated that his feelings at that time had been that Tros-Dale Home for Boys had been an on -going agency who had experience and had been successful in its purposes. Mr. Easter stated that someone needs to address with the applicant the project's viability. Mr. Carr stated that an interested group with information on such projects should also be involved in that discussion with the applicant. Mr. Easter stated that he would put these suggestions in the form of a motion to defer until the applicant could discuss requirements with the Fire Marshal and until the proper agency with information and guidelines could meet with the applicant. He recommended that requests for ZTA-76-11 and SP-97-76 be deferred until then. He stated that the County needs to aid the housing for the elderly. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion to defer the two requests. The motion carried unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Carr stated that there is interest in such a project, but there is lots of authority on the controls for this. Mr. Peatross questioned the other problems in boarding houses addressed in the staff report. Mr. Tucker stated that this is a problem in housing where parts of a house are rented to University students. NEW BUSINESS: a. Staff request for a resolution of intent to amend the setback requirements as it relates to the Scenic Highway Ordinance: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that this is essentially the same thing as was done in the A-1 zone. He stated that this is a proposal to make structures existing at the time of scenic designation conforming. Mr. Jones asked if this would give them the right to rebuild in case of fire. Mr. Keeler replied that it would not. Mr. Payne stated that the B.Z.A. had that date addressed requests for three variances. At the hearing the B.Z.A. had brought up that it would be useful to exclude B-1 properties from the 150 foot building setback. They had also stated it would be a good idea to exempt pre-existing subdivisions. Mr. Carr stated that in the B-1, what they are suggesting is that the setback is too large and should be relaxed. He said that he did not necessarily agree with this. -17- Mr. Payne stated that one.of the reasons for this suggestion is that B-1 property tends to be more expensive per square foot and such a setback tends to act to the detriment of the developer. Mr. Keeler stated that this is an imposed scenic easement. Perhaps the developers ( or owners of the B-1 property ) should realize a tax break. He stated that the Zoning Administrator has been considering taking this matter to the Board. Mr. Payne stated that he would like to clarify that the B.Z.A. did not say it is going to ignore all the restrictions and grant a series of variances to business properties along scenic highways. Some provisions, they felt, should remain - those addressing signs, buffers to parking areas, etc. But they did find the 150 foot setback inappropriate. Mr. Peatross questioned the number of variances that had come about because of the provision in the Scenic Highway Ordinance. Mr. Keeler stated that he does not know, however, he had received a memo from the Zoning Administrator stating that he has spoken to a considerable number of businessmen and citizen homeowners who are confused as to whether or not they may further enlarge their exisitng structures that are found within the new scenic highway setback of 1.50 feet. He stated that a clarification would insure uniformity of application. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Tucker his feelings on the matter. Mr. Tucker stated that the proposal is to have a resolution of intent from the Commission. It was proposed by the staff in order to alleviate some of the problems the B.Z.A. has been dealing with. Mr. Carr said that before there is a resolution, perhaps the Commission should be informed about the number and kinds of problems that the Zoning Administrator and the B.Z.A. have had to deal with. Mr. Barksdale asked if it is possible that the Zoning Administrator will take the matter to the Board if the Commission does not pass a resolution of intent. Mr. Tucker stated that the Zoning Administrator anticipates some problems, and for this reason he may take the matter to the Board. However, he may wait until the problems actually arise. Mr. Gloeckner also felt that the Commission should wait to pass a resolution until it feels the pressure since it is possible that the Commission would be undoing some of the good it had tried to accomplish when it set the restrictions on setbacks in the Scenic Highway Ordinance. Mrs. Graves stated that if the B.Z.A. is granting variances that the Commission would not agree with, the Commission should state its feelings to this body. Mr. Carr suggested hearing directly from the Zoning Administrator. The consensus of the Commission was to have input from the Zoning Administrator and establish a need before a resolution of intent is passed. sm b. Clarification of Section 18-3-1 - staff request for resolution of intent: Mr. Keeler stated that in Section 18-3-1 it is the staff's opinion that the wording should be amended to read: " nor within one -hundred seventy-five feet of the centerline " rather than from the right-of-way. He explained that in the case of a 40 foot right-of-way, the setback would be 195 feet, whereas if the right-of-way were 150 feet, the setbackJ175 feet. He stated that the revision would be equitable. would be Mr. Easter asked if this were requested because the rights -of -way vary. Mr. Keeler stated this is the case. Mr. Carr said that one figure to control all circumstances is necessary. Mr. Peatross moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to make the suggested revision. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Mr. Carr asked that this matter be held until the previous item of discussion is settled in order that they might be put on the same agenda for the convenience of interested citizens. C. Staff Request for resolution of intent to amend the A-1 Zone to provide for Two-family dwellings as a use by right: Mr. Keeler stated that the staff suggests this be a use by right in the A-1 zone on a minimum lot size of four acres. He stated that the staff also requests repeal of Section 2-1-25(3A) which provides for two-family dwellings by special use permit on a minimum lot size of two acres. He presented several reasons the staff proposes this request: dwellings 1. Of the 30 special permit applications for two-familyo date, 17 have been for parcels 14 of four acres or greater; 2. Repeal of this as a special permit use would reduce Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and staff time spent in review; 3. The Health Department has recommended a minimum of 60,000 square feet ( approximatley 11i acres ) per unit without central water and sewer. Under the current zoning provisions, two-family dwellings are provided for at a density of one unit per acre; 4. Staff opinion is that two-family dwellings by right would not destroy the character of the A-1 zone. To the contrary, a two-family dwelling is less physically disruptive than two single-family units. Mrs. Graves questioned how many of the 17 have been approved. Mr. Keeler stated that he did not check since this is just a request for a resolution of intent. Mr. Easter stated that there have been some extenuating circumstances, but the County did not approve most of the requests. Mr. Carr asked if this addesses what most think of as two-family dwellings - common drive, one structure with two doors, common wall? He asked how many the County will see if it becomes a use by right. -19- Mr. Barksdale stated that he feels this is a good suggestion. Mr. Easter said that the matter merits discussion and input from the public and he moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend the ordiance and repeal Section 2-1-25(3A). Mrs. Graves seconded this motion. Mr. Carr stated that he has mixed feelings about this issue. The motion to adopt the resolution of intent carried unanimously, with no further discussion d. Mr. Tucker informed the Planning Commission that the Charlottesville Housing Foundation will hold a meeting to discuss low income housing in the County on January 19, 3:00 p.m. Mr. Carr appointed Mrs. Graves as the Planning Commission's representative to that meeting to later relate that information discussed to the Commission. e. Mr. Tucker stated that he has a request from one of the surveyors in the area regarding two plats. These plats were deferred at the technical meeting since the surveyor was not present. The surveyor now requests that since he has received all the input from the representatives on that committee, that the items be placed on this month's Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Tucker further explained that it has been the policy of Mrs. Scala, who conducts those meetings, to defer any action on the plats until the applicant or his representative is present. He stated that the ordinance allows the technical committee to make its own rules, though they are subject to review by the Commission. These rules have not been reviewed by the Commission, and thus he asked the pleasure of the Commission on this matter. However, he pointed out that the technical committee has deferred taking action on other applicants when their representative has not been present and it seems unfair to make an exception in this case. Mr. Carr stated that unless there was dissent, the Commission will not hear the two requests until the technical committee has properly reviewed them. There was no dissent. Mr. Payne suggested that the Commission endorse the rule in question that evening, since the surveyor has already requested if the procedure being followed is lawful. Mr. Easter pointed out that the technical review is generally for the benefit of the applicant. Mr. Carr requested that in the next week or two the Commission be given the rules under which the technical committee operates in order that the Commission could review them. Mr. Barksdale moved that if the applicant is not present at the technical meeting, that action be deferred by that committee until the applicant is present and the Planning Commission will hear a request only after proper review by this committee. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. -20- Mr. Tucker also encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt its own rules of procedure in order that these may be put on file in the Planning Noe Department. The Commission unanimously agreed to this suggestion. Mrs. Graves stated that the Commission needs to address notification of adjacent owners of the technical review meeting, since this is part of the ordinance. Mr. Easter also noted that the staff should bring to the Commission and Board all those items which are out-of-date and should be struck from the Zoning Ordinance. With no further business, the chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. or,ME rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec