Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 04 77 PC Minutes14; October 4, 1977 M The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, October 4, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those in attendance were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-officio. Absent was Col. William Washington. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Carr asked that the Commission first consider possible ways of improving Commission agendas, in order that the meetings could be more workable for the citizens who attend the meetings and for Commission members. Mr. Tucker addressed the Commission, stating that the staff has been noting approximate time schedules for each item listed on the agendas. He said that these time periods are carefully considered prior to placement on the agendas, based on data collected prior to the Commission meetings. He suggested that the members of the Commission back the chairman in sticking to this time schedule. He also asked that the Commission direct the staff of the preferred adjournment time for the meetings. He said that limiting discussion at some point is the only way that the Commission can do justice to all items placed on the agenda. Mr. Tucker also suggested that the Commission attempt to act on each item placed on the agenda, as opposed to deferrals, though he noted that there are a few times when more information is necessary and a deferral is inevitable. He stated that from now on the staff is going to shorten its presentation to the public, and will be giving only the staff comment and staff recommendations. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that when an item is deferred to another meeting that as little public input as is necessary take place, answer the questions that called for the deferral, and then move the item along. Mr. Easter felt that the suggestions made by Mr. Tucker were good, and stated that it might even be necessary to extend the written reports mailed to the Commission that are also available to the public at the Planning Office. Mr. Gloeckner also suggested that the note on the top of all agendas remain, in order that the public know that scheduling is tentative; that way if the Commission does happen to be ahead of its schedule, it need not wait on the applicant. There was a consensus that all these suggestions should be taken. Planning Commission minutes of June 28, 1977, August 23, 1977 were approved as submitted. Minutes of May 31, 1977; August 30, 1977; and September 13 were approved as corrected. IR &P SIGNS - Resolution of Intent to Provide for Signs in the Commercial Office and Conservation Districts: Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, reviewing that this item had vi been deferred in order that the Sign Commission could have any input on the proposed amendments they felt necessary. He stated that originally it had been an oversight that signs had not been included in these two sections of the ordinance. He stated that the signs proposed for CVN District were the same as those provided for in the A-1 Zone. Signs proposed for the CO District are basically the same provisions as for the B-1 Zone, though the aggregate area had been decreased by approximately one- half. Mr. Mike Gleason, Chairman of the Sign Commission, stated when the Sign Commission was formed, it had requested that the Board of Supervisors make it aware of any pending items regarding signs prior to official action. He stated that he did not pole the members of his committee, and is therefore not ready to address the proposed amendments and does not want to interfere in this matter. He felt that there should be some provision for signs in these two zones, though. Mr. Tucker stated that these amendments would fill an existing gap. Mr. Carr stated that if these amendments were adopted, they would also come under the review of the Sign Commission. Mr. Easter felt it wise for the Commission to support the amendments, and moved approval of the following amendments: Conservation District 15A-1 SIGNS PERMITTED. 15A-1-1. BUSINESS SIGNS. (Free Standing or Projecting Signs) Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color - changing or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) no portion of such sign shall be greater than thirty (30) feet from ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building located on the premises upon which such sign is erected, whichever is greater; (d) no more than two (2) free standing signs on any one lot or premises; (e) no more than three (3) projecting signs. 15A-1-2. BUSINESS SIGNS - WALL. Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color changing, or exposed bare or uncovered neon illumination or lighting (b) the aggreage area of all such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) no portion of such sign shall be greater than 30 feet from ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building located on the premises upon which such sign is erected, whichever is greater. 15A-1-3. HOME OCCUPATION SIGNS: If illuminated, no flashing, blinking, color -changing or neon lighting. 15A-1-4. LOCATION SIGNS: Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking or color -changing or neon illumination or lighting; (b) the area of the sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet; (c) no portion of the sigr shall be greater than thirty (30) feet from ground level; (d) no more than six (6) such signs directing attention to any one (1) establishment is permitted; and (e) provided further that no such sign shall be closer to another such sign than 1500 feet on the same side of a right-of-way. /6e 15A-1-5. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: Provided: on them the same name. 15A-1-6. TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS (a) no more than four (4) such signs have 15A-1-7. IDENTIFICATION SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than four (4) square feet in area; (b) not more than two (2) on any lot or premises. 15A-1-8. TEMPORARY EVENT SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen (16) square feet in area; (b) not more than two (2) on any lot or premises. 15A-1-9. SALE OR RENTAL SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen (16) square feet in area unless the sign be more than 600 feet from a public road, in which event such sign may be as much as, but no greater than sixty (60) square feet in area; (b) not more than one (1) on any lot or premises unless the same be fifty (50) acres in area or more and have frontage on two or more public roads, in which event one (1) sign may be erected for each road on which such lot or premises has frontage. 15A-1-10. AUCTION SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than thirty-two (32) square feet in area; (b) not more than one (1) on any lot or premises. 15A-1-11. PUBLIC SIGNS. 15A-1-12. SUBDIVISION SIGNS. 15A-1-13. HUNTING, FISHING OR TRESPASSING SIGNS. 15A-1-14. POLITICAL SIGNS. AND Commercial Office, 15A-6.1 SIGNS PERMITTED. 15A-6.1-1 BUSINESS SIGNS. ( Free Standing or Projecting Signs ) Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color - changing or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed 50 square feet; (c) no portion of such sign shall be greater than thirty (30) feet from ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building located on the premises upon which such sign is erected, whichever is greater; (d) no more than two (2) freestanding signs on any one lot or premises; (e) no more than three (3) projecting signs. 15A-6.1-2 BUSINESS SIGNS - WALL. Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color changing, or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination, or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) no portion of such sign shall be greater than 30 feet from ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building located on the premises upon which such sign is erected, whichever is greater. 15A-6.1-3 BUSINESS SIGNS - ROOF: (a) Sign shall in no manner be illuminated; (b) the aggregate area of all signs for any establishment shall not exceed 50 square feet; (c) sign shall be in vertical plane; (d) project above the roof peak, including mansard and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet wall, sign shall not project above the parapet wall; (e) no more than three signs, including roof signs, shall be permitted for any establishment. 15A-6.1-4 SALE OR RENTAL SIGNS: Provided: not more than two (2) signs with an aggregate area of 64 square feet and limited to 16 feet in height. 15A-6.1-5 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: Provided: (a) no more than two (2) signs have on them the same name. 15A-6.1-6 TEMPORARY EVENT SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen (16) square feet in area; (b) not more than two (2) on any lot or premises. 15A-6.1-7 PUBLIC, NO TRESPASSING, HUNTING, FISHING AND POLITICAL SIGNS. 15A-6.1-8 LOCATION SIGNS: Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking or color -changing or neon illumination or lighting; (b) the area of the sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet; (c) no portion of the sign shall be greater than thirty (30) feet from ground level; (d) no more than six (6) such directing attention to any one (1) establishment is permitted; and (e) provided further that no such sign shall be closer to another such sign than 1500 feet on the same side of a right-of-way. 15A-6.1-9 AUCTION SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than thirty-two (32) square feet in area; (b) not more than one (1) on any lot or premises. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jones said that he feels directional signs and location signs should be larger and different in color from what exists now in the county. The motion carried unanimously. SP-77-61. ROBERT SWEENEY has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to make an existing nonconforming public garage, with the sale of used cars, conforming under Section 2-1-25(23) on 7.75 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 53. County Tax Map 93, Parcel 47E, Scottsville Magisterial District. At the request of the applicant, Mr. Gloeckner moved that any discussion and action be deferred until November 15, 1977. The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously. SP-77-63. THE TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-77-10 ( for a flood control impoundment ) to provide recreational facilities on Mink Creek Impoundment. Property is located in Mink Creek Valley, adjacent and northeast of the Town of Scottsville. County Tax Map 130A(2), Parcels 3F, 3G, 3H, and 7; and County Tax Map 131, Parcels 72, 73A, and 77. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, and noted the recommended conditions �J of approval. He read the letter from Mr. Ed Roseberry, and noted that in a telephone's conservation with Mr. Roseberry that no specimens have been taken because of the low level of the creek. / 7a Mr. Thacker, representing the Town of Scottsville, stated that the flood impoundment is scheduled to be completed by the end of the following week. He stated that the Town is willing to work with the County on some sort of long term lease if the County wishes to use the flood impoundment as a recreational area for the southern part of the County. He feels that the County could save some money by stating its desire to do so at this particular time. Mr. Armistead Anderson, a trustee for Union Baptist Church, said that he is concerned about the entrance to the facility and the location of the lake in relation to the church. Mr. Thacker stated that the entrance would be close to the church, and might thus need to be screened, or it might need to be moved. However, the recreational facilities and beach will be at least 1500 feet from the church. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Commission might want to address this screening or the road at site plan level; he said that it might also be desirable to limit the hours of operation. Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission will later be involved in capital expenditures, and condition #1 being met will determine monies being spent or appropriated for the park. Mr. Jones said that he certainly does not feel that this project should be killed just because a water quality analysis has not been done. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the site plan should be approved simultaneously with review of bacteriological tests. Mr. Bradley Peyton, representing Mrs. Brown - an adjoining property owner, acknowledged her opposition to the facility. Mr. Thacker replied that her house is far removed from the proposed recreational facilities. Mr. Peatross questioned why the Town wants approval of the special permit without knowing the suitability of the water for swimming. Mr. Thacker stated that it, is cheaper to construct the beach at this time as opposed to later, when it is filled with water. Mr. Peatross said that he feels the request is premature in view of the lack of appropriate bacteriological tests, without waterflow, etc. Mr. Carr agreed that the question is certainly when it is appropriate for the County to approve the recreational facilities. Mr. Easter moved approval of the special permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Health Department analysis of water quality to determine if Mink Creek is suitable for swimming. This study should also address potential for stagnation so the County may evaluate the appropriateness of capital expenditure versus available user -days per season; 2. Site plan approval; 3. Should results of the water quality analysis prove the water inappropriate for swimming, boating and fishing will be permitted; 4. Screening of the entrance road off Hardware Street from Union Baptist Church. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. 171 Discussion: Mr. Peatross again stated his reasons for thinking the request premature. The motion carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Peatross dissenting. The Commission noted that it is aware that funding is not something within its power to discuss. ZMA-77-19. LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 5.0 acres from R-1 Residential to A-1 Agriculture. Property is located on St. Rt. 726, � mile northwest of Scottsville. County Tax Map 130, Parcel 37, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report. There were no comments from the applicant or the public. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the rezoning. The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-77-56. MARY V. HARLOW has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home park ( for 10 lots ) on 10 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 729. County Tax Map 105, Parcel 29, part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report. He said that the access road is about � mile from the state road, and the property is totally secluded. He also explained to Dr. Moore that though the mobile homes are to be situated on one acre, the entire 10 acres is covered by the special permit and all the requirements of Section 11-9 will have to be met. Mr. Harlow informed the Commission that he owns 43 acres back of the 10 being discussed. He said that he can meet all the requirements of Section 11-9 and that he is willing to abide by them. He said that he plans central water and central sewer. Mr. Jones said that he feels it inappropriate to act on this request without seeing a site plan. Mr. Carr explained to Mr. Jones that the site plan is part of the conditions of approval, and will come later. The site plan must meet all the requirements of the special permit in addition to the requirements of Section 11-9. Dr. Moore questioned the maximum number of mobile homes that can be allowed on the 10 acres. Mr. Tucker replied that this depends on the utilities, and again pointed out that the entire 10 acres are committed to the mobile home park. Mr. Harlow presented an approval from the Health Department and stated that he has called Lexington about the water situation. Mr. Tucker noted for the benefit of the Commission that the County Engineer also has to approve the central water and sewer systems. Mr. Easter moved approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 17,4 1. Approval is for a maximum 10 mobile home spaces, however, the number of spaces finally approved shall be governed by conditions setforth in this petition; 2. Compliance with requirements of Section 11-9 MOIBLE HOME PARKS of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Site plan approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0-1 with Mr. Jones abstaining. SP-77-60. PEACOCK HILL LTD. PARTNERSHIP has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend the Open Space Plan of SP-253 - a special permit for Peacock Hill Planned Unit Development. The 332+ acres involved are zoned A-1/PUD and are located in the northwest quadrant of I-64 and Route 708. County Tax Map 73, Parcels 29, 29D, and 29F. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that due to the wording of the advertisement, the applicant is requesting more than is presented in the report received by the Commission the previous week. He said that the Commission will have to determine if it is appropriate to act on this. He stated that not only is the applicant proposing to subdivide a 40,000 square foot loin on which the manager's house is located ( currently shown as open space ), he is also requesting to subdivide nine 5 acre + lots along the upper ridge of the property, rather than clustering the units along that ridge as originally proposed. Mr. Tucker reported that the open space is still more than adequate for the PUD. Via the plan, Mr. Frank Smith presented the proposal. He said he had met with all the owners in Peacock Hill and they are in accord with this proposal. Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions( the motion address- ed both requests of the applicant ): 1. Conditions of approval of SP-253; 2. No construction on slopes of 250 or greater; 3. Open Space Plan dated September 16, 1977, to become the open space plan of Peacock Hill. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Article 17 of the County Zoning Ordinance and Section 18-39 of the Albemarle County Code to require off -site road improvements when such improvements are deemed necessary due to proposed development. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report. He stated that with this provision the Commission would have to determine if the existing is inadequate to enforce off -site improvements. Mr. Gloeckner felt that a problem would result in attempting to have the Highway Department be specific. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that any off -site requirements would have to be based on the recommendations of the Highway Department and the staff; he felt the main agency to depend upon is the Highway Department. /73 Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt there will no doubt be some legal confrontations over this, if adopted. Mr. Payne pointed out to the Commission that this is a significant change, but it does essentially legalize the practice the County has been following if it is determined that a safety hazard exists. However, danger does not have to be proved with this amendment, since this could likewise address coordination of traffic and congestion. Mr. Jones stated that he favors the amendment. He also asked the source for finding the history of accident rates in specific areas of the County. Mr. Tucker replied that the Highway Department and the County Sheriff's Department could supply this information, however, he pointed out that not all accidents are reported. Mr. Goode Love said that this amendment would afford too much power. Because the proposal is rather general in nature, he felt it leaves too many loopholes for the future. If adopted, he felt it should address who will make the decision, the length of roadway that could possibly be required to be upgraded, the standards, etc. Mr. Gloeckner felt that it would be difficult to be equitable. Mr. Barksdale agreed, noting that: every case where there is congestion could become the subject of possible upgrading. is Mr. Peatross said that what Mr. Love is asking,if the County needs additional power to do this. In his opinion, each case must be considered individually. .1440 Mr. Carr said that if this is adopted, he certainly hopes the County will use good judgement when applying this amendment. He felt that the decision will be made by the County, based on the recommendations of the Highway Department. Mr. Love stated that with the gasoline tax paid by all citizens, the Highway Department is supposed to build roads across the state. And if a developer has to upgrade a road, the cost is eventually passed on to the homeowner. Therefore, the citizen pays twice. Mrs. Graves said that the Commission in the past has felt constrained about requiring road upgrading off -site. If this amendment is adopted, it can be used when necessary. She agreed that it would have to be viewed on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Barksdale said that he would certainly feel better about the amendment if it were based on safety as opposed to congestion. Mr. Tucker said that in his opinion it addresses all road inadequacies - safety, congestion, etc. Mr. Gloeckner suggested having either the County or State share in one-half of any expense that is required of a developer. Mr. Peatross said that this is not legally possible. Mr. Payne agreed that there are stringent regulations on what the County can do as far as road improvements. He also noted that any improvements required of a developer would be necessitated because of the impact of a development. 1'7� OR Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission recommend the following amendments to the Board of Supervisors: Amend Section 18-39 of the Albemarle County Code by the addition therein of subsection (o) to read as follows: Improvement of public streets prior to the approval of any subdivision plat. The Planning Commission shall consider whether existing public roads that will serve the proposed subdivision are adquate to accommodate the increase in traffic which may reasonably be expected to result from the development of such subdivision. In the event that, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, such roads will be inadequate therefor, the Commission may require that such roads be improved so as to accommodate such resulting traffic as a condition precedent to approval of such plat. AND Amend the Albemarle County Ordinance by adding Section 17-5-8.1 to read as follows: The Planning Commission shall consider whether existing public roads that will serve the proposed development are adequate to accommodate the increase in traffic which may reasonably be expected to result therefrom. In the event that, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, such roads will be inadequate therefor, the Commission may require that such roads be improved so as to accommodate such resulting traffic as a condition precedent to approval of such plan. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Easter asked if this were any different from what has been the policy of the Commission. Mr. Payne said that it is different in that it lessens the burden of proof of a safety hazard. Mr. Easter said that he is not as sure about this as he would like to be, however hopes that it cleans up the wording of the ordinance and makes action of the County easier to defend. The vote was 6-2, with Messrs. Barksdale and Gloeckner dissenting. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 15-3 and 11-1-2 of the Zoning Ordiannce as they relate to the duties of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, stating that these are merely "housekeepping" amendments to clean up the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of Section 15-3 to read as follows, and repeal of Sections 11-8-A-1 through 11-8-A-8: The Administrator shall have all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body to administer and enforce this ordinance, including the ordering in writing of the remedying of any condition found in violation of the ordinance, and the bringing of / 7.5 legal action to ensure compliance with the ordinance, including injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding. In addition, the administrator shall maintain the official zoning map, and such map shall be kept current and shall reflect amendments as soon as practicable after adoption by the governing body. Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Easter moved approval of Section 11-1-2 to read as follows: The Zoning Administrator shall review each application for a building permit to insure that the building or structure proposed is in accordance with the terms of this ordinance. No permit shall be issued for any construction for which a site plan is required to be approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with Article 17 of this ordinance unless and until such plan shall have been so approved. Thereafter, any item shown on such plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie in accordance with the terms of this ordinance. Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Tucker asked that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to repeal Section 11-8-A of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the Soil Erosion Ordinance has become part of the County Code, this provision in the ordinance is unnecessary. Mr. Easter moved that the Commission adopt the resolution requested by the staff. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. i :,t W. Tucker, Jr. - SecrNtary 19