HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 02 77 PC MinutesAugust 2, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
August 2, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those in attendance were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Paul Peatross; Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Leslie Jones; Dr. James
Moore; Col. William Washington; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Others in attendance were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning;
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of July 5, 1977, were approved as submitted by the Chairman.
Minutes of July 18, 1977, were approved subject to the following change
on the motion of Mr. Easter, second of Mr. Gloeckner, and unanimous vote of the
Commi s s ion :
The motion forwarded to the Board of Supervisors by the Commission to be
amended in order that item number 2, Energy Conservation Objective Number 1 read
as follows:
Encourage land use arrangements and densities that facilitate an
energy -efficient transportation system and reduce the need for
and utilization of the private automobile.
Minutes of July 19, 1977, were approved as submitted by the Chairman.
Mr. Carr asked that minutes of July 12, 1977, be completed as soon as
possible and a copy forwarded to Mr. Kirtley. He asked that the secretary mark
these "unapproved" if they had not been reviewed by the Commission.
ZMA-77-06. Daniel A. and Lorene Robinson:
Mr. Keeler read to the Commission a letter from the Robinsons requesting
deferral for thirty days, and also noting their request to waive the right to a
p ublic hearing within thirty days from the first public hearing date. He also
read a letter from Mr. Don Holden, Secretary of the Montvue Citizens Association,
listing the communication between this citizen group and the applicant.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne if the letter is acceptable to extend the time
limit. Mr. Payne replied that the letter is in order.
Mr. Carr asked if there were any objection to the request for deferral.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the matter be deferred until September 6, 1977.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Jones, carried unanimously.
12 _.
ZMA-77-15. Frank Kessler and Joe Wright, III - request to rezone
14.403 acres from R-2 to RPN/R-1.
Mr. Carr asked if all adjoining property owners had been properly
notified. Mr. Montenegro responded that they had been.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting the recommended
conditions of approval. He showed Mr. Jones on the plat the lots infringing
on the 25% or greater slopes.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the location of the bike trails.
Mr. Montenegro stated that they would connect to the city bike trail and
to that bike trail recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Peatross asked if the bike trail is an easement for public use.
Mr. Montenegro replied that it will be an easement for public use to be
maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
Mr. Tucker stated that the County must eventually address who would maintain
such bike trails, since at the time of the bike plan's inclusion in the Comprehensive
Plan, the County had noted that it had no funds available for such maintenance.
He said that the only way the trail can be implemented is with individual site plans.
Mr. Carr questioned the trail being used by motor bikes and how this would
be governed.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Board needs to address this and include it in
the proper section of the code.
Mr. Payne stated that Section 15.1-16.2 of the code addresses this regulation.
He suggested it might be handled in terms of a tresspass if the easement states
is is for non -motorized vehicles.
Mr. Peatross said that he is not comfortable with a public easement being
privately maintained. He said that if the public uses it, it should be maintained
with public funds.
Col. Washington asked if the trail could be reserved, since this is just a
preliminary plan.
Mr. Carr said that in his opinion the Commission needs to generally determine
how this will be governed.
Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that there has been some concern
from city residents with regard to Wilder Drive area, specifically Cutler Drive,
a narrow street.
Mrs. Graves questioned if this is the same application as that made in December,
1976, that was withdrawn prior to the Commission's public hearing. She stated that
she was aware at that time of public concern and noted there had been gletter mailed
to the staff to be forwarded to the Commission. a
There was a discussion whether to hear any of these comments since it was
a different application. The chairman stated that at this time he did not want
to hear those comments. Mr. Peatross noted that the people had again been notified
_�1-3—
and given an opportunity for written comments.
Mr. Jones questioned condition #1 as recommended, stating that under certain
controlled conditions it should be permissible to build on slopes 25% or greater.
He suggested that perhaps there should be County Engineer approval, and soil
erosion plan review.
Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Jones, stating that with these proper conditions
it would be possible to preserve the open land, and use the hilly wooded land for
residences.
Mr. Keeler stated that this condition is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Payne pointed out that it is only a recommendation. Only land in the
area of the South Rivanna River Reservoir is covered by an ordinance.
Mr. Claude Cotton, speaking for the applicants, stated that this plan was
developed under the previous plan, however, the ownership has changed. He suggested
that it might be possible to change the slopes on the lots in question by grading to
make them less than 25% slope. This would make more adequate building sites. Due
to topography, he stated that the RPN is suitable to this property. The natural
barrier is Meadow Creek. Mr. Cotton informed the Commission that the applicant
is trying to make the land conform to what exists in the area. He asked that the
Commission reconsider the condition addressing the 25% slopes and the condition
addressing the bike trail. He said that in his opinion a publicly used trail should
not be privately maintained.
Mr. Bowman, a resident of 605 Wilder Drive, noted his concern with the exit/
entrance and suggested an entrance onto Park Street Extended. Mr. Bowamn felt
that the road as it is now cannot accommodate the existing traffic, much less more
traffic.
Mrs. Ann Carothers of 709 Wilder Drive agreed with Mr. Bowman. She said
that Wilder Drive is a very hazardous street.
Mrs. Mary Howard said that the road is not wide enough for two cars to pass.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the plan was presented to the City planning staff,
and they had commented that there is an existing 60 foot right-of-way along that
street. Furthermore, they would like to see Wilder Drive improved.
Mr. Montenegro said that there are two other access streets besides Wilder
to this land.
Mr. George Lyons, owner of Cochran's Mill, said that this is the first year
that this area has not been flooded. He pointed out that the 100 Year Flood Plain
is always flooded.
Mr. Earl Davis noted that traffic in this area going out Cottonwood Road is
already a problem.
Mr. Peatross felt the applicant should consider another access besides
Wilder Drive. He also pointed out that it should not be the responsibility of
the developer to upgrade a city street.
Mr. Cotton stated that physically, the elevation difference just does not
make another access possible.
Mr. Steve Phillips said that another access would require a great deal of
fill.
Mr. Bowman said that the city would not widen the road, and he maintains
the 30' right-of-way on his property.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the problem with this street could exist because
this had become part of the city with the latest annexation.
Dr. Moore told the Commission that there had been no input from the city/county
mutual boundary committee on this street.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. He said that it appears that the Commission
should consider the slope and the bike trail in its discussion.
Mr. Montenegro said that the staff would prefer houses on slopes of 25% instead
of grading to make the sites more buildable.
Mr. Easter questioned the cut lines into the lots.
Mr. Phillips said that the grade on the roads is 10-12%, and this would solve
the grade for the front of the lots, giving them a virtually flat front yard, thus
making the lots more buildable. The lots would then slope to the rear and provide
an opportunity for walk -out basements. He would also assist in the gravity flow for
the sewers. `said this
Mr. Easter pointed out that this 50 foot width of grading would take a lot
of the existing trees.
Mr. Phillips told the chairman that if the road is redesigned, 25-35% of the
lots will have slopes 25%.
Mr. Montenegro stated that a slope of approximately 40% is needed for walk -out
basements.
Col. Washington stated that would be the case only if no fill is done in the
front.
Mr. Carr again questioned the road cut.
Mr. Montenegro stated that according to the County Engineer's Office a
5 foot cut on each side is adequate.
Mr. Phillips said that aesthetically this did not appeal to him, though it
was certainly adequate. He said that he had arrived at this conclusion on
the basis of making the lots more buildable.
Mr. Carr ascertained that all the dirt from the grading would be moved
and not pushed onto the lots.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the only problem is saving the existing trees.
Mr. Cotton told the Commission that the developer would be willing to
replant some small trees for future growth.
Col. Washington questioned the soil analysis. Mr. Phillips replied that
the test borings showed no rock, only clay.
r%S -
Mr. Easter said that he could not support the homeowners maintaining the public
easement.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would rather ask him to reserve the land for a
bike trail instead of dedicating. That way the developer would receive some compensation.
Mr. Easter agreed.
Mr. Peatross asked if the property is in the flood plain, if this is a logical
place for the bike trail. Mr. Tucker responded that in the area the flood plain is
the only place for them. Mr. Peatross then expressed his concern for maintenance.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that if the developer did what he is entitled under
current zoning, the density would be much higher than what is proposed.
Mr. Peatross said that he is well acquainted with the area and that he is
hesitant to approve any more traffic for Wilder Drive, since there is an existing
safety hazard.
Mr. Easter asked if there would be anything gained by deferring this request
in order for input from the city on their plans for possible road improvements.
Mr. Cotton informed the Commission that he must note the applicant's time
table for marketing.
Mr. Peatross said that he could not support the proposal in its current form
and would move to defer any action until September 6, 1977, in order that there could
be a meeting among the county staff, the city staff, and the applicant regarding
the road and possible future improvements.
Mr. Carr advised the staff to be prepared to discuss the bike trail at the
next meeting.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously.
ZMA-77-16. Rivanna Estates Limited Partnership has petitioned the Board
of Supervisors to rezone 91.7 acres from B-1 Business ( about 5 acres )
and A-1 ( remainder ) to R-3 Residential ( 83.9 acres ) and B-1 Business
( 7.8 acres ). Property is situated on the east side of Route 29 North
near Piney Mountain.
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Bill Heischmann, owner of the property and the applicant, said that this
would be developed in a project similar to the VueLund proposal on the Robinson tract.
This application is made as a possible alternative to that site, as was recommended
by the Commission.
Mr. Tom Batchelor discussed the possible sites in the County that had been
considered by the applicant and his representatives. He noted the pros and cons
of each site, stating that this seems to be the best alternative.
_ It
Mr. Batchelor said that this site has all the amenities that a retirement village
needs: good views, isolation, and close access to necessary facilities.
This plan has been reviewed by the County Engineer, Service Authority, and Fire
Marshal. He asked how the staff would feel if this were recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ken
Mr. Phillips said that there are about 60 interested citizens from the
County and ACity who would like to see this project underway on this site. He
noted the peaceful setting, scenic area, and asked that the Commission approve
this request for rezoning.
Mr. Grant Woodford advised the Commission of the economic impact of this
project, provided that the rezoning is approved. There will be approximately $13-16
million in construction funds released in a two year period, all of which will be
obtained from private sources. The operation will be approximately $3.5 million
the first year and more in the following years. After the project gets under way,
approximately 100 full time employees will be necessary, and 100 part time employees.
$100,000 in tax benefits will go to the County, as opposed to a very small return
in taxes with the property currently zoned A-1. He said that aside from all the
financial benefits to the County, it is a worthwhile project that should become
a reality.
Mr. Max Evans discussed the proposed site plan. He located the central building,
the central drive to the clusters, the approach from Route 29, the small park overlooking
the proposed park, and the buffering landscape to other property in the area. Mr.
Evans also discussed the other land use percentages of the project.
Mr.Walter Heard, stating that he is an informal representative of the
Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, said that this is a needed facility in the
area and urged that the County approve this request and include the facility
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Barksdale asked why the applicant had not applied for an RPN.
Mr. Evans said that it was the time element, since the Commission had indicated
at the VueLund request that there might be some question as to the appropriateness of
such a use to the RPN.
Mrs. Graves said that if only 3.8 acres is to be used for the nursing complex
w by does the applicant propose 7.8 acres of business zoning.
Mr. Evans said the reason is to provide enough room for the central facility
which will sit between two knolls - the applicant wants to make sure that there is
plenty of room to properly locate it.
Mr. Peatross questioned the possibility of the applicant binding the application
to this plan, since he had mentioned it in his introductory comments and stated that
if the project is not accomplished in two yearslthat on his motion or the Board's
motion that the property be rezoned to A-1.
Mr. Payne said that if this property is rezoned to the applicant's current
request, the County is relying on three things: the good faith of this applicant,
the viability of this project, and the continuance of this project. He noted that
the Commission could not bind possible subsequent owners to Mr. Peatross's reference.
Mr. Batchelor stated that he does not feel a rezoning will affect the value
of the land one way or the other, only make the project possible.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the possiblity of a PUD, since a section of a
planned unit development would enable the applicant to have a certain portion of
the land area designated for commercial use.
Mr. Tucker said that 100 acres is necessary for a PUD.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that in his opinion an RPN is appropriate
for such a use, since this would be an institution to serve the residents of the
retirement village and not a public hospital.
Mr. Keeler stated that the original question had been if the entire project is
not commercial in nature and thus not appropriate to the RPN. However, he pointed
out that the Zoning Administrator and Mr. Payne had ruled this is appropriate to the
RPN.
Mrs. Graves said that according to the letter from Mr. St. John, the Board
of Supervisors has the final say on the appropriateness to this zone. She said that
she would be willing to consider an RPN/R-1 zoning for the residential use and a
separate B-1 zoning for the commercial use; or a PUD, since this would give the
County an opportunity to discuss the Camelot Treatment Plant.
The Commission advised the applicant of the time schedule for a reapplication.
The applicant stated that he had prepared an RPN for this property and had
distributed copies to members of the site review committee in hopes that they would
have time to review the plan prior to the meeting in two days. At that time they
would ask that committee to review the plan for possible public hearings in September.
Mrs. Graves stated that she could not support the R-3 request.
Mr. Tucker stated that the application is for R-3 zoning because of house type.
Mr. Barksdale said he could not support the R-3, but could support an RPN.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he does not feel the applicant can
take the possible RPN on this property to the site review committee at this time, noting
this would be unlawful because of the procedure outlined for applying for an RPN in the
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Batchelor said that if the project is not underway in the next two
years, the applicant is willing to move, or willing for the Board of Supervisors
to move, to rezone this property to A-1. He also said that the applicant is willing
for the County to rezone this property to either RPN or PUD.
Mr. Carr said that he finds no objection to such a community in the proposed
area. He noted that he has viewed the project similar to this in Pa.,that it is
highly desirable. He said that he finds a retirement village has general desirability
in this area and this outweighs the negative aspects of the proposed rezoning.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the County doesn't know about the sewer.
Mr. Peatross said that he favors the application with an RPN designation.
Mr. Gloeckner favored the PUD designation because of the commercial operation.
G
Mr. Gloeckner also felt that an RPN might set a precedent for other such requests.
Mr. Peatross felt it necessary to review each situation on its own
merits and felt the RPN is appropriate for the property on Route 29 North.
Col. Washington acknowledged that the Board limited the density in the
RPN at Brownsville, which is precedent setting for lowering the density in an RPN.
For that reason, he said that he favors the PUD approach.
Mrs. David stated the Board had acted in this fashion on the Brownsville
proposal because of the neighborhood.
Mr. Payne pointed out that if there is a PUD application that the County
will have to be more specific in the conditions of approval while the RPN naturally
limits the proposal to the residents of the community.
Mr. Carr said that he has a slight problem with the commercial use in the
RPN but he has worked this particular case out in his mind. However, he said that
he reserves the right to consider other RPN's commercial uses on their own merits.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to deny this specific application, noting that the
applicant can re -submit for a PUD or an RPN.
Mr. Heischman asked for a five minute recess to determine whether to proceed
with this application to the Board or to withdraw and resubmit for an RPN or PUD.
Mr. Carr granted the recess.
acting on behalf of Mr. Heischmann,
Mr. Russell ,,upon his return to the meeting, stated that he wished
to take his chances with the Board of Supervisors and asked the Commission to
move on this particular request for R-3 and B-1, since there is a time element
he has to consider.
Mr. Jones moved that the Commission recommend this request for approval.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Peatross moved that the application be denied. Dr. Moore seconded the
motion.
Mr. Carr stated that he would support the motion, however, his vote is not
lack of support for the project. He said that he would support the request in the
form of an RPN.
The motion to deny carried by a vote of 7-0-1, with Mr. Jones abstaining.
( Mr. Easter returned to the meeting. )
SP-77-46. Dale Curtis Hogue and Carolyn J. Hogue have petitioned the
Board of Supervisors to locate a gift, craft and antique store on 248.87
acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the east side of Route 231 about
� mile from the intersection of Routes 740 and 231. County Tax Map 66, Parcel
3A. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read the letter from the Highway
Department and one adjoining property owner who opposed the request. He said that
the Highway Department will require a commercial entrance here.
Mr. Peatross asked if the right-of-way is used by anyone else.
Mrs. Hogue said that after passing the gates, the farm to the right uses
about 100 yards of the road. She said that this farm has an easement to use the
road. At the present time, the house on that farm is unoccupied. She said that
the proposal would not generate much traffic, since there will be rather high-priced
merchandise. She said that she is agreeable to the conditions recommended by the
staff, but feels the condition addressing the sign is not necessary since there will
be no sign for the shop. She also felt that the road is currently wide enough to
satisfy the Highway Department.
Mr. Carr pointed out that it would be terrible to tear down the existing entrance.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Open to the general public on Saturdays and Sundays only for a period of one
year from approval by the Board of Supervisors. Thereafter, to be operated
by appointment only;
2. No sign advertising the gift, craft, and antique store;
3. Limited to the basement of the dwelling;
4. No employees.
Mr. Peatross asked if the applicant is agreeable to condition #1. Mrs.
Hogue said that she is agreeable to that limitation. Mr. Peatross seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-77-42. Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department has petitioned the
Board of Supervisors to locate a fire station on 14.27 acres zoned B-1
Business. Property is situated on the west side of Route 29 North
opposite Woodbrook Subdivision. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A,
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the Highway Department
recommends an entrance on the north side of the property as opposed to the existing
entrance, which they feel is inadequate.
Mr. Ed Cord, representing the fire department, stated that this is to be
a temporary site for training. However, they will be responding to calls after
the training period.
Mr. Peatross moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is for one year from the date of Board of Supervisors approval;
2. Highway Department approval to include appropriate warning signs or devices
on Route 29 North.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-77-47. The Crutchfield Corporation has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate a warehouse on 8.258 acres zoned Industrial
Limited ( M-1 ) pursuant to Section 8-1-27(10). Property is located
on the east side of Route 606 across from Cardinal Airlines. County
Tax Map 32, Parcel 17B. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Easter noted that it appears to be very straight -forward. He moved
approval subject to the following condition:
1. Site plan approval ( if required by Article 17 ).
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZTA-77-06. The Crutchfield Corporation has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to amend Article 8 Limited Industrial District ( M-1 )
to provide for travel trailer sales and service as a use by right.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, reading the possible amendment,
if approved by the Commission.
Mr. Easter questioned the 50,000 cubic feet, noting that it is certainly
a small area.
Mr. Tucker said that it is intentionally restrictive.
Mr. Payne said that in his opinion the applicant can store by right
what is manufactured in the M-1 zone.
Mr. Barksdale moved that ZTA-77-06 be denied.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZTA-77-05. Gelletly Properties, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend Article 9 General Industrial District ( M-2 ) to provide for
travel traler sales and service as a use by right.
Mr. Easter moved that any public hearing and action be deferred until Aug. 23, so
applicant could be present.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the setback requirements of the scenic highway designation to
permit telephone booths to be located within the required setback but no
closer to the highway than the established right-of-way.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Barksdale moved that Article 18 be amended to add the following
to Section 18-3-1:
Telephone booths may be located within the required setback but no cloer to any
street than the existing right-of-way line or right-of-way reservation line, provided
that:
(a) Such booths shall be equipped with an emergency service system;
(b) No costs or responsibility for relocation or removal including condemnation
shall be borne by the Commonwealth of Virginia or any other public agency;
(c) The location of such structures shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator
after consultation with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 8, and 9 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the minimum area requirements.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the public hearing and vote be deferred
until September 13, 1977.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. wit no further business.
C.
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - S cret v