Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 05 77 PC Minutes177 N April 5, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Paul Peatross. Also present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent were Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio, and Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman. order. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to SP-77-07. Joel and Nancy Schneider - request for stabling of light horses and ponies. Mr. Keeler reported that the staff had received a letter requesting deferral from the applicant, and that adjoining property owners had been notified by telephone. Mr. Barksdale moved that the matter be deferred, as requested by the applicant. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion The matter was deferred until May 3, 1977. ZMA-77-02. David Breeden - request for rezoning. Mr. Keeler reported that he had spoken with the applicant by phone, who requested another deferral for a period of one month. A letter was requested by the staff, however, it had not been received. Mr. Breeden arrived at the meeting, stating that he wished the matter to be deferred in light of another application he is doing for the entire tract of land. He said that he would probably withdraw this request after his latest request is acted upon. Mr. Barksdale moved action be deferred for a period of 30 days. He then amended the motion to state deferral for a period of 60 days. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion. Mr. Peatross stated that he was reluctant to vote in favor of this motion, when the applicant had not complied with the staff's request for a letter addressing the request for deferral. He said that he will not support such action on the part of the applicant the next time. The motion to defer for a period of 60 days carried unanimously. Minutes of the March 22, 1977, Planning Commission meeting were approved by the chairman as presented. 176 Thurston Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that the property is located on the east side of Route 810 north of Crozet, near the intersection with Route 789. The property is zoned A-1. He read the conditions of approval for the revised preliminary plat approved by the Commission on March 22, 1977. He stated that the proposal is to divide parcels totaling 329+ acres into 60 lots, the majority of which average 3.5+ acres. All lots are to be served by public water. The staff felt that this plan meets all the recommendations of the State Water Control Board and will therefore minimize any adverse effects brought on by development of this land. It was noted that the entrance has been moved approximately 400' to the north. The staff recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Highway Department and Engineering Department approval; 2. 8" water line be placed to serve entire development; 3. Grading permit; 4. Lots 2, 60, 7, and 25 are to enter off interior streets; 5. Waiver of frontage requirement granted for lots 17, 16, 15, 37, 38, 23, 22, and 21. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mrs. Graves inquired if the 25' strip on Route 810 is all that is required by the Highway Department. Mr. Montenegro stated yes, that plus the right-of-way. Dr. Moore seconded the motion for approval. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. ZMA-77-01. Frazier Bell has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 7.29 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is located on the north side of Route 649 (Proffit Road), 14 mile east of the intersection of Routes 649 and 29 North. County Tax Map 32A, Parcel 02-2, Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the applicant has amended his request for rezoning to CO Commercial Office. He stated that the Commission can act on this in view of the fact that the request is for a less intense zone. However, he pointed out that the staff feels the same reasons for denying B-1 zoning apply to CO zoning. Mr. Keeler presented the letter from the Highway Department and from the adjoining church to the Commission. Mr. Peatross questioned the rezoning to B-1 of other land in the area. Mr. Tucker replied that this was done prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Peatross then inquired what the Comprehensive Plan was addressing. Mr. Keeler said that he was under the impression that not a great deal of importance was given to the zoning map as it existed. Mr. Frazier Bell stated that it is his mother who owns the property. He /79 said that he feels as though a rezoning is in order, since the County has appraised the property for $65,000, and it has only a small one bedroom cottage that is not desirable for occupation. He said that with such an appraisal the minimum cost of lots if it were subdivided would be $12,000 to $14,000. He felt that this would make it impossible for subdivision. Furthermore, there is a church with a graveyard adjacent. He said that if the property were developed residentially, it would be financially out of sight. He felt that CO zoning would give nice office buildings to the area, as well as act as a buffer to a residential area; that is part of the purpose of CO zoning. Lastly, he emphasized that he felt it only fair that the property have zoning that is comparable to the County's assessment. Mary Joy Lovelace stated that she had been opposed to the B-1 request, but is not as opposed to the CO request. She pointed out that if the property is assessed at $65,000, she certainly could not see residential lots as the use with what they would cost. Furthermore, she said that she does not feel as though A-1 is a realistic use of the land in that neighborhood. Mrs. Graves asked if water and sewer are necessary for CO zoning. Mr. Keeler replied that the Commission has approved site plans without either. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is a 15" water line in the area. Mr. Peatross said that in view of the fact that the Comprehensive Plan did not address existing B-1 zoning in the area, he does not look to it for guidance in this matter. Mr. Carr said that the Comprehensive Plan had addressed what would be desirable for that area. He said that his position at this time is not to rezone this property, however, at some future date he feels it will have to be dealt with because of the 92 acres. Till there is a specific use for the property, he said that he is inclined to wait to rezone. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that this is likely to be the next pressure point because of the airport. He said that this seems to be premature at this time. Mr. Jones pointed out that it might be better for the County to rezone it to CO now as opposed to B-1 in the future. Mr. Carr said that is a matter for consideration. Mr. Peatross further pointed out that CO is supposed to act as a buffer to residential uses. Furthermore, whoever develops the 92 acres might try to purchase this property at a later date. Dr. Moore also agreed that CO seems to have some merit. When asked if the staff still has the same recommendation, Mr. Keeler replied that four of the five reasons for not rezoning to B-1 still hold. Mr. Keeler stated that in staff opinion, the 92 acres of B-1 is a mistake. Mr. Barksdale said that it will be difficult to attempt to downzone the 92 acres. Dr. Moore pointed out that this business zoning could serve the residents of the Proffit Road area. Mr. Peatross moved that the 7.29 acres be recommended for CO zoning. Mr. Jones seconded this motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Carr dissenting. M The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of 1 intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit flood control structures and devices in the A-1 zone by special use permit. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Jones moved that flood control structures and devices be permitted in the A-1 zone by special use permit as Section 2-1-25(40) Flood Control dams and impoundments. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-77-10. The Town of Scottsville has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to construct a dam to act as a flood -control impoundment on Mink Creek in Scottsville. Properties affected are in Mink Creek Valey, adjacent and northeast of the Town of Scottsville. County Tax Map 130A(2), Parcels 3F, 3G, 3H, and 6; and County Tax Map 131, Parcels 72, 73A, 77, 77C, 78, and 80. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the flood plain and flooding effect from Mink Creek. He pointed out that Mink Creek can flood with heavy local rains without the James River flooding. He read to the Commission the letter from Hadden Anderson. Mr. Thacker, Mayor of Scottsville, stated that this is part of an overall plan being funded by HUD, which has been approved by all federal and state agencies. He noted that the project has already begun. Mr. Carr questioned the time schedule. Mr. Thacker replied that this phase should be completed by late fall. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of SP-77-10 subject to the following conditions: 1. Any change in use, such as drinking supply, shall require amendment of this speical use permit; 2. Approval of appropriate federal, state, and local agencies; 3. Approval of County Engineer. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-77-11. United Virginia Bank of Charlottesville, United Virginia Bank of Richmond, and Mulberry Corporation have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-537 ( a Planned Unit Development ) on Parcel 18 of County Tax Map 45, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The 13.83 acres is zoned A-1 and is located on the west side of Route 743 ( Hydraulic Road ). Mr. Al Garrett noted that at the time of advertisement, the application had been in his name and the name of Mulberry Corporation. He said that the application should be shown in the name of United Virginia Banks of Charlottesville and Richmond. He said that he has been acting as agent for these banks. /8 When Mrs. Graves questioned the legality of a public hearing under these circumstances, Mr. Keeler replied that Mr. Garrett had signed as agent for these three corporations, and legally the staff feels everything is in order. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and recommended the Commission take no action on Condition #8, until it is properly addressed by the School Board. Mr. Carr asked if the staff feels this application to be in concert with SP-98-76. Mr. Montenegro stated that it is. Mr. Carr questioned condition #16. He noted that in the future any amendments made to either SP-98-76 or SP-77-11 would be considered as amendments to the entire Evergreen project. Dr. Moore pointed out that this applicant can do nothing about streets until the other part of the project has done something. Mr. Keeler agreed that this is correct. Col. Washington asked if there are not objections to parking facilities over the gas pipeline. Mr. Keeler said that this condition is a carry-over from SP-537 to both SP-98-76 and SP-77-11. Mr. Jones questioned condition #8. Mr. Keeler responded that the staff has submitted new information to the School Board which they will consider on April 18. Depending on the outcome of that meeting, the Board of Supervisors will address Condition #8 at the time of its public hearing. Mr. Carr said that he has no problem with this. He pointed out to the Commission that it has considered at great length these same conditions as placed on SP-98-76. Mr. Jones moved approval of SP-77-11 subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for 34 townhouse units. In the final approval process, open space is to be dedicated proportional to the number of units approved ( 11,236 square feet per unit ); and la round furniture ) 2. Specification of improvements proposed ( including park P Yg for the areas indicated as tot lots and recreation; 3. No dwelling unit or parking area shall be located on slopes of 25% or greater. The County Engineer may, after review of appropriate plans and after review of the Betz Study, recommend revision of this condition prior to final plan approvals; 4. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 5. Construction of all internal streets is to comply to the recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 6. All sidewalks adjacent to proposed public roads shall be constructed to design specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Staff recommends a pedestrial walkway be located along the south side of Oakcrest Court, subject to approval of design specifications by the County Engineer and homeowners' agreement for maintenance; 182 7. Approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's approval of: (a) construction specifications for all parking areas; (b) soil erosion and sedimentation control devices and overall storm drainage plan; In review of these itmes, the County Engineer shall be guided by the findings and recommendations of the Betz Study; 8. Approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County Service Authority's (a) approval of complete water and sewer plans; (b) acceptance of dedication of water and sewer lines; 9. Approval is contingent upon adequate available capacity at the Meadowcreek STP; 10. Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesville concerning the gas pipeline easement ( NOTE: As quoted in SP-537 ): (a) the contours on the plan indicate some grading and excavation on the easement, the plans for which have not been completed. These grading plans must be available for review and approval by the City of Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work; (b) reasonable ingress and egress to the full,length of the forty foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured; 11. No dwelling unit is to be located within. the gas pipeline easement; 12. County Attorney's approval of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association agreements; 13. No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for this property has been approved; 14. The locations of and acreages in the various land uses, rights -of -way, and pedestrian ways as indicated on the preliminary plan shall be adhered to, except in respect to those changes necessitated by conditions of approval of this petition. Submit two (2) copies of a revised plan reflecting conditions setforth in this petition. 15. While the properties under SP-98-76 and SP-77-11 are under separate ownership, it is the intent of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in approving these applicatnions that Evergreen Planned Community be viewed as a unit in subsequent procedures. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to approve subject to these conditions. It carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Carr questioned if the Commission as yet has the recommendations of the State Highway Department Planning Office in Richmond regarding Route 29 North. Mr. Tucker replied as yet these have not been received by the city, and as soon as the County Planning Office has a copy of these, they will be hand delivered to the members of the Commission. The staff requested that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend Section 18-2 of the Code of Albemarle regarding general language and definition of "subdivision." Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission adopt the resolution requested by the staff. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 9 /83 Mr. Tucker stated that he has questions regarding three site plans that he would like clarified by the Commission: I. W. F. Paulett Site Plan: Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant is requesting that he be permitted to add a canopy on the front to improve the appearance ( which has already been granted a variance ) and that he be able to relocate four parking spaces to the rear of the property. He asked if the Commission feels such a change as the parking spaces requires notification of the adjoining property owners, since it is an improvement to the site plan. Mrs. Graves asked if any trees will be cut. Mr. Tucker responded "no." Mrs. Graves said that she would support such an amendment to the site plan since the property is buffered by business uses, rather than by residential uses. There was a consensus of the Commission that this was an agreeable change. II. Golden Skillet Site Plan: Mr. Tucker said that the applicant has requested permission to shift the building 4-5 feet, and also requests that the parking be diagonal rather than vertical. Mr. Carr said that he felt this change would be good for the user. There was a consensus that this was an agreeable change to the site plan. III. Berkmar Associates on Berkmar Drive: Mr. Tucker explained that there is an entrance that will go into Charlottesville Hardware parking lot. He said that he sees no problem with this as long as Charlottesville Hardware is agreeable to it. He further pointed out that most of the time access between two business properties is required. Mrs. Graves pointed out that the original concern with this site plan had been with large trucks using more than one entrance. Mr. Tucker explained that this is the hardware store's service drive. The Commission agreed that such a change in the site plan is agreeable provided that it is agreeable to Charlottesville Hardware. Mr. Tucker requested that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to downzone 2 acres, known as Tax Map 128A(2) - 2 from RS-1 to A-1. This is due to the fact that one of the parties requested zoning changed to RS-1 a few years ago; however, it appears,according to information received by the staff, that he had no right to request this rezoning. the Commission The Commission stated that if there is a family dispute here, / does not wish to further this dispute. Mr. Payne pointed out that the original request for rezoning may have been improperly before the County. �B� The Commission felt that the person who has legal authority over the property in question should make application to rezone the property from RS-1 to A-1. Mr. Jones stated that based on the last public highway meeting, it will be at least 70 years before there is any upgrading of dirt roads in the county. 60% of these dirt roads, he stated, are in the Southern part of the County. He said that he wished to suggest some sort of moratorium on development and construction on dirt roads in the county for safety reasons. He asked that the staff give some thought to this matter. Mr. Barksdale suggested that if this becomes a reality, some sort of tax relief should be offeredto owners of property along such roads. Mr. Carr said that he would like to know how further penalizing people who live on, or own property along, dirt roads could be justified. Mr. Jones said that in order for roads to be built, everyone fronting along these roads must make dedications to the Highway Department. Mr. Gloeckner said that the Highway Department should perhaps change their policy, instead of adopting the proposed moratorium suggested by Mr. Jones. Mr. Peatross said that he had been under the impression that when these subdivisions come up, the Commission had been requiring the developer to upgrade the roads as much as possible. Mr. Carr said that perhaps in the future the matter could be discussed in regard to dirtroads and backroads and the Highway Department's policies toward these. Mr. Tucker said that first the problem must be identified, .the roads located, and the Highway Department's policies determined. The staff was instructed to study this matter and bring it to the Commission at the first opportunity. Col. Washington said that he would like to suggest that there be a 200' setback from the water line in all subdivisions and site plans that are in the Beaver Creek Water Impoundment. Mr. Payne suggested considering all water impoundments in the County with an ordinance which would address the same conditions, after the Betz Study has been reviewed. Mr. Carr agreed that hopefully the answer for this suggestion will come out of the guidelines for the Rivanna Reservoir. Col. Washington stated neiierthere are single-family units which could be built on 5-acre lots that/the Commission nor the County would have an opport- unity to review. Mr. Payne stated that under a general health and police ordinance the County does need general guidelines for development of any sort. /8S Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that in the packet passed out that evening there is a report from the Zoning Administrator addressing Albemarle Square. He stated that the Zoning Administrator had stated that Mr. Grimes and Mr. Powell have entered into a civil agreement, which is further explained in the memo. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. IR