Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 12 77 PC Minutes-57- July 12, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a regular meeting on July 12, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. Peter Easter, acting Chairman; Mr. Paul Peatross; Dr. James Moore; Col. William R. Washington; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mrs. Joan Graves. Mr. David Carr, Chairman, was absent. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos M. Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mrs. Opal David, ex-officio was also present. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. tie stated that there are no minutes to be reviewed. ZMA-77-12 JAMES MAUPIN Mr. Max Evans, architect, was present. Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that this item was considered and deferred by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 28 in order that the staff, the developer and the area residents could work out the problems regarding the entrances and the general lot layout. He stated that the plan has been revised showing three entrances all served off of Route 691, the applicant has rearranged the open space and increased the front buffer. Mr. Evans stated that this plan is more advantageous in that he has attempted to preserve as much open space without interruption as possible. Further, the number of entrances has been reduced to three, rather than eight as shown on the previous plan; the buffer along the road has also been increased. He stated that this plan shows three fire hydrants with direct access to the driveway. Mr. Jones asked if the fire trucks will have access across the open space. Mr. Evans stated that the land is level enough to allow for fire access. Pair. Gloeckner asked if the house siting will be the same as on the other lots. Mr. Evans said that he has attempted to stagger the housing, creating a cluster affect; the house siting will be basically the same. Mrs. Graves noted that the staff had commented that a joint entrance is recommended off of Route 684. Mr. Montenegro said that the one entrance on Route 691 was closer to Route 684, but has been moved. Mr. Charles Mott, from the public, asked if the staff could give some indication of the amount of traffic increase to occur from this plan proposing 22 houses as opposed to the existing plan of 14 houses. Mr. Montenegro stated the figures as follows: 102 vehicle trips per day under the existing plan, 160 vehicle trips per day under the proposed plan. Mr. Mott noted that this proposed plan would create too much traffic and suggested that one of the entrances be moved to Route 684, however the Highway Department has indicated that the sight distance at this location is inadequate. Mr. Montenegro noted that these entrances will become commercial entrances and will require a permit. Col. Washington explained the difference between a commercial and private entrance to the public. Mr. Mott asked if these entrances will allow the delivery of mail to the 22 houses. He stated that if the mailboxes were not placed within the subdivision they would have to be put on the south side of Route 691 which is a very dangerous road. Mr. Evans stated that the boxes will probably grouped in three clusters at each driveway. Mr. Easter temporarily closed the public hearing in order that the Commission could discuss this proposal. Mr. Jones asked if the same nine conditions of approval would have to be met. rir. Montenegro stated that they would. Mr. Jones moved for approval of this proposal with the nine conditions listed by the staff. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion which carried unanimously with further discussion. Col. Washington expressed his concern in that the mail delivery and school bus stops should be considered fully by the staff. He suggested a wide enough place at the entrances to accommodate vehicles having to pull over. Mr. Evans said that it was generally agreed that the three entrances would serve better, in view of safety. He stated that the entrance could be 50' full width with a 50' taper which would be adequate for vehicles pulling over and coming to a complete stop. Mr. Tom Batchelor, representing Mr.Maupin , suggested one central stop within the subdivision for the safety of the children. Mr. Charles Mott, of the public, suggested one road throughout the subdivision, however this has not been pursued due to the cost of its construction. He said that this would be the safest possible way to construct the roads in this development. He stated further that the staff and Commission should request the developer/builder to bring in an estimated cost of putting one road into the subdivision that would, by law, have to meet the minimum State Highway Department standards for safety and compare that cost with the way the development is now proposed. Col. Washington asked Mr. Jones to amend his motion to include an additional condition of a 50' stacking lane with a 50' taper at each of the three entrances. Mr. Montenegrc noted that the Highway Department did not mention a deceleration lane for this development, however if it is required, it will be 150' on all the entrances. He suggested that this would be a good idea. Mr. Evans stated that he will agree to the condition that the entrances be constructed to allow a 25' stacking lane with a 25' taper. Mr. Jones amended his motion as such, unless the Highway Department requires more. The application was approved unanimously. Mr. Easter added that this item will be heard by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on July 20, 1977. Mr. Easter told Mr. Mott that the Commission is trying to encourage the developers to lessen the number of driveways, avoiding stripping along the main roads. There was no further discussion. RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY SITE PLAN Mr. Mike McGovern, the applicant, was present. Mrs. Scala presented the staff report stating the proposal and history of this development to the Commission. She noted that the applicant had to obtain a second variance, which was granted on this day, which is a variance of 31 1/2 feet from the front yard requirement of 75' for the monorail for chlorine tank loading, to be located 43 1/2' from the right-of-way. Mrs. Scala further stated that this plan has been revised to include loading and unloading facilities for the heavy chlorine tanks from the trucks. She stated that the Zoning Administrator has indicated that the debris has been removed from the sit6.i: Further, the Highway Department has recommended a combination deceleration/turnaround lane to serve the existing eastern entrance to the plant, for the tractor trailers that make infrequent chemical deliveries to the site. Mrs. Scala noted that no screening is proposed on the west side of the lagoons due to existing adjacent woods. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval of this proposal subject to Highway Department approval, a grading permit and dedication of 25' from the centerline of Route 240 on Parcel 29B. Mr. Barksdale moved for approval of this plan subject to the three conditions of the staff. Mr. Gloeckner added a fourth condition, that if any of the white pines should die, they will be replaced. Col. Washington seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SHELTER ASSOCIATES SP-77-36 Miss Ann Christhelf, the applicant was present. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report to the Commission noting that the applicant wishes to amend the previous special use permit that was granted last year solely to add acreage to this development. He stated that approval of this petition will permit the applicant to expand the existing craft shop activity on this property by 0.467 acres, for a total of 0.909 acres. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the conditions of the previous application SP-100-76. Mr. Easter asked if radial and electrical saws will be used in this shop. The applicant stated that they will be used, they will be inside the shop and will not create noise and disruption to adjacent property owners. Mr. Peatross asked the hours of operation. The applicant stated 8:00 a.m. til 4:30 p.m. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval subject to the conditions of SP-100-76. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Easter added that this item will be heard by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting of July 20, 1977. There were no further comments or discussion. IM SHELTER ASSOCIATES SITE PLAN Mrs. Scala presented the staff report to the Commission noting that this site plan is for the same project as the special use permit application. She stated the brief history and location of this development as described in the previous item of the agenda, noting also that this is a proposal for the renovation of an existing shed for a woodworking shop. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff has commented the existing screening on the property lines and the conditions of the special use permit will provide adequate protection; the Highway Department has indicated that a commercial entrance will be required. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval of this plan subject to Highway Department approval. Mrs. Graves asked the staff if there are setback requirements for a woodworking shop in the A-1 zone. Mrs. Scala noted that both structures are existing and therefore non -conforming. Mr. Barksdale motioned that this item be approved subject to Highway Department approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion. BILL EDWARDS REVISED SITE PLAN Mr. Bill Edwards, the applicant entered the meeting. Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report to the Commission noting a brief histor14� y, the location and proposal of the development. tie noted that this is a brief revision, in that the applicant wishes to reduce the intensity of the use. He stated that this proposal is requesting that the same basic site plan be approved excluding one wing of the building. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff recommends approval of this plan subject to three conditions: 1)staff approval of all landscaping items; 2)landscape items must be replaced if they should die; 3)no pennants nor plastic spinners will be allowed on the site. Mr. Jones recommended approval of this plan subject to the three conditions of the staff. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There were no further comments or discussion. JOEL POLLARD - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT - STONEHENGE SUBDIVISION Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report to the Commission noting that the applicant wishes to extend his deck an additional 8 feet which will require a waiver of the setback requirements. Mr. Easter asked if this area is permanent common area by homeowner's agreement. Mr. Montenegro stated that is correct. —lam / — JOEL POLLARD - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT - STONEHENGE SUBDIVISION, continued Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff recommends approval of this waiver subject to one condition: that privacy fences be erected along both side lot lines of this lot, extending to the rear lot line. Mr. Gloeckner moved that this item be approved subject to the one condition recommended by the staff. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion. TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE - PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Mr. Tucker noted that the town attorney, Mr. Joyner, has been notified that this item would be heard by the Planning Commission today. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report to the Commission noting the history and proposal of this item. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommends denial of the Subdivision Ordinance of the Town of Gordonsville within Albemarle County. Mr. Payne stated that the Town of Gordonsville did not notify Albemarle County that their Ordinance would be amended, and sent a copy of it to him on May 23rd of this year. Mr. Payne stated further that he didn't think the Commission would have to review this item again, but with further reflection, it appeared that under the Statute, if action was not taken by the Commission, it would stand approved. He said that the Town of Gordonsville did not formally request that this item be placed on our agenda, he stated that he put it on the agenda to protect the County of Albemarle and informed the County Attorney of Gordonsville that this had been done. Mr. Payne informed the Commission that if this ordinance is disapproved by the governing bodies of Albemarle County, our ordinance would be effective unless the Town of Gordonsville choses to take this item to the circuit court for consideration. Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Payne if the Commission and the Board decide to disapprove this ordinance, what action can the Town of Gordonsville take. Mr. Payne stated that the Town of Gordonsville will have the right to petition the circuit court of Albemarle County to resolve the differences. Mr. Gloeckner noted that if this item was of such concern to the Town of Gordonsville, a representative would be present to speak on this matter. Mr. Payne added that the Statue was amended last year to require that all localities have a subdivision ordinance by July 1, 1977. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Gordonsville be disapproved. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SCENIC HIGHWAY DESIGNATION Mr. Easter noted that Mr. Kirtley, a person interested in this matter, is present. Mr. Payne opened the discussion stating that this item has been placed on the agenda due to numerous problems which have arisen in the applications of variances brought before the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that this item will require some recommendations of the County Attorney, and suggested that this item be discussed in executive session. It was decided that if any Commission member feels it necessary to go into executive session, it would be done. Mr. Payne stated that the scenic highway designation requires 150-175' setback. He stated that there are a number of parcels, of all types of zoning and use, that front on scenic highways; those in question being Route 6, 20 and 250 West. There have been a number of variance requests from this setback, until about 4 weeks ago, these were almost uniformly existing buildings except two residential lots. He said that the Board of Zoning Appeals has been approving these requests uniformly. He stated that there are two requests that have been approved in question at this point, one being Mr. Kirtley's application for an office use in the M-1 zone, and the other Mr. Javor's application for a veterinary hospital in the B-1 zone. He stated that the variance was granted for 76', making the setback approximately 75' from the scenic highway. Mr. Payne stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals does not agree with the setback requirement, as it applies to business and/or industrial property and especially in the case where land is partially or completely developed. Further, the Board of Zoning Appeals has stated that they will not allow the setback requirement to be enforced, in the cases which have been presented. Mr. Payne said that if these two variances are allowed to stand, it will be substantially impossible to deny any application for a variance from the scenic highway setback. Mr. Payne stated further that, in his opinion, there are three alternatives 1) tb. accept the fact that if variances are applied for, they will be granted; 2) to appeal the two variances in question, on the grounds that they are peculiar - the only two non-residential developments requesting a variance for scenic highway setback requirement and 3) to amend the scenic highway ordinance to some way accommodate the concerns of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Gloeckner asked on what grounds the Board of Zoning Appeals can grant the variance. Mr. Payne read from the statute that 1) strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship 2) that the hardship is not shared generally by other properties of the same zoning district and the same vicinity and 3) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. Mr. Gloeckner asked in these two particular cases, is the Board of Zoning Appeals justifying their variances by these rules. Mr. Payne stated that he had advised the Board of Zoning Appeals that the granting of both variances was in his opinion, unlawful. Mr. Easter stated that he has been concerned about the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals for some time. lie stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission should try to meet at some time to discuss the differences. Mr. Peatross asked if the non -conforming uses are considered in the ordinance. Mr. Payne stated that they are. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the intent of the scenic highway designation is to protect the highway, requiring the setback to be such that the character of the highway will be in no way disturbed. Mr. Keeler added that in the discussion of the scenic highway designation, there were three methods presented to protect the character of the highway 1)setback and screening, 2)signs and 3)rezoning. Mr. Barksdale recommended the amending of the ordinance to conform with existing and future developments. Mr. Payne added that that is most commonly used in city zoning ordinances. Other possibilities would be to either change the designation of the highway or to change the application of the ordinance itself so that the setback will apply in whatever case is being presented. Mr. Gloeckner said that this would be infeasible, as the cutoff point could not be fairly designated. Mr. Jones said that the point will continue to grow and cause more problems in the future. Dr. Moore added that the intention of having a Board of Zoning Appeals appears to be in this case, the power to veto over the elected officials. Mr. Easter opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Kirtley, from the public, noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted Mr. Javor's application for a variance of the setback requirements because of the B-1 zone. He stated that his application is peculiar, in as much as he couldn't build anything on his property, zoned M-1, except those that are required to remain 150' setback from the highway. He stated that he has requested to put office buildings on the front of his property and to utilize the remaining portion of the property for business use. He told the Commission that he begun construction on this property in 1969 with the intent of using the property for M-1 uses. He stated that he has since added to that construction by building roads and an access road to it, and graded it in its entirety to be used as M-1. Further, Mr. Kirtley stated that he has appeared before the Board of Supervisors; the attorney at that time indicated, in a non -official way, that Mr. Kirtley did have a right to an exception in this case. lie stated further that up until 1976 he had no other way to use this property except for M-1 purposes. He stated that when the scenic highway was constructed, he was required to dedicate 150' of his property, leaving him 150' of land which is hardly useable because of the terrain. Mr. Kirtley said that he is not satisfied with the Board of Zoning Appeals action, and feels that this should be settled in circuit court. Mr. Stuart Carwile, attorney, representing Mr. Kirtley, stated that he had not heard the Board of Zoning Appeals say that they did not feel 150' setback was inappro- priate for industrially zoned land, neither in their deliberations of this day nor at their meeting of June 15th. He stated that the Board did take into account with respect to this particular piece of property, the topography of it, the fact that it has been utilized for some time, Mr. Kirtley's need to expand the rear property in the future and his willingness to put a buffer along Route 250 with the construction of attractive office buildings, which will be more attractive than using the land for industrial use. Mr. Carwile stated that he does feel the Board of Zoning Appeals looked at some of the other setback requirements of existing buildings in this area. Further, he noted that if the County does attempt to appeal the variance that was granted to Mr. Kirtley, and he is forced to go back to the 150' setback requirement, Mr. Kirtley's only alternative would be to use the entire property for industrial use, which is something he does not wish to do. Mrs. Seldon, from the public, stated that although she disagrees with what Mr. Carwile has interpretted the Board of Zoning Appeals action to be, she stated that she does feel the Board of Zoning Appeals continously contradicts the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. She stated that she does agree with the conclusion, and .agrees that Mr. Kirtley's proposal for the use of this land is in the good interest of __6,V -- the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Carwile added that the variance that was granted to Mr. Kirtley was limited to an office building useage. He agreed with Ms. Seldon that this development will be in the best interest of the County. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Payne what setback was granted for Mr. Javor's development. Mr. Payne stated that he was granted 74'. Mr. Payne further stated that if these two cases are allowed to proceed, the next case that comes before the Board of Zoning Appeals, may not be in as best interest of the County as this particular development is, and there will be no legal basis to distinguish between the two. Mr. Barksdale suggested that the map be amended to include the properties as far as the dinner theatre on Route 250. Mr. Payne stated that is possible, but not practical; the problem is not being solved, the locality is being changed. Mrs. Graves asked if the variance has a time limit as to when it is to be executed. Mr. Payne said that he was not sure. Mr. Gloeckner stated that from Mrs.Seldon's conversation, the Board of Zoning Appeals is compromising, rather than abiding by the ordinances that the Board has set forth. Mr. Keeler told the Commission that recently Mr. Dick, the Zoning Administrator, has requested the Planning Staff to assist his department in the preparation of his agendas for the Board of Zoning Appeals meetings. Further, he stated that these three governing bodies of Albemarle County, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors must meet some understanding as to the scenic highway designation. Col. Washington stated that all other ordinances have provisions for variation of setback requirements, depending on what type of zoning the land is, why is this not a provision of the scenic highway ordinance? Mr. Easter stated that is because the scenic highway is to be as undisturbed as possible. Mrs.Seldon stated that is correct. Mr. Jones stated that the ordinance should be amended rather than to deal with the variances individually as they are presented. Mr. Gloeckner added that there would be considerable question as to what distance to require. Mr. Peatross said that he does not have enough facts to consider this item further. Mr. Easter agreed. Dr. Moore stated that he doesn't think the Board of Zoning Appeals should have the power to nullify what the elected officials decide. Mr. Gloeckner said that he thinks this item should go to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Mrs. Graves stated that she would like to Commission to go into executive session to discuss points of litigation. Dr. :-oore seconded the motion'which carried unanimously. Mr. Payne described the motion in the -oper legal terms. Mr. Carwile stated that Mr. Kirtley's attempt to use this property as office use was a marginal one. Mr. Carwile further stated that Mr. Kirtley will surrender the variance that was granted to him today and proceed to develop his property in the existing M-1 useage. The Commission adjourned to executive session at 10:10 p.m. 9 Mr. Easter reopened the public hearing. Mr. Peatross made a motion that the Commission authorize the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Payne, to appeal the Kirtley and Javor decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried five to three, with Col. Washington, Mr. Barksdale, and Mr. Easter dissenting. Mr. Keeler presented new business to the Commission. He stated that it has come to the staff's attention that there are no sign provisions for the conservation or the commercial office districts. IIe stated that some correspondence was received a time ago from the Sign Committee requesting that the staff not to further amend Article 15-A, Signs. Mr. Keeler stated further that the staff will be reviewing a site plan in a commercial office district very shortly; if there are no sign provisions, the applicant does not wish to wait for the Sign Committee to make their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keeler asked the Commission for a Resolution of Intent to amend Article 15-A to provide for signs for the conservation and commercial office districts. Mr. Gloeckner so moved. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. There were no further comments or discussion. The meeting adjourned. rr' Ig"6 Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr., Direc r of Secretary nning