Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 01 77 PC Minutes211 November 1, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 1, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were David, Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter; Paul Peatross; Kurt Gloeckner; Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Col. William R. Washington; and Leslie Jones. Mr. Roy Barksdale was absent. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of October 18, 1977: Col. Washington and Mrs. Graves noted changes in these minutes. Mr. Carr stated that these minutes stand approved with the recommended changes. PIZZA INN/MR. DONUT SITE PLAN Mr. Carr stated that the applicants for the above mentioned item have requested deferral of this application until the meeting of November 15, 1977. Mr. Keeler stated that at that time, the Highway Department's study on the traffic light should be completed. Mr. Keeler noted that the Planning Commission has requested that Mr. Roosevelt be present at this meeting. Mr. Gloeckner moved that this item be deferred until the meeting of November 15, 1977. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. BENTIVAR SUBDIVISION SECTION II Mr. Ray Snow, surveyor, at the request of the applicant's attorney, was present. Mr. Keeler noted that this plat is before the Commission again because the date on the plat has expired, and further, there has been some attempt to further subdivide. Mr. Keeler said that Mrs. Scala had been on the site and counted 23 lots staked off, excluding Parcel F, the large parcel at the end, each lot being 4+ acres. Mr. Keeler, stated, however, if the Commission chooses to approve this plat with the conditions recommended by the staff, it will be impossible to further subdivide without the Planning Commission's approval. Mr. Keeler stated the staff's recommended conditions of approval as follows: 1. Note on plat stating, "No further division without Planning Commission approval"; 2. Change the building setback lines from 30' to 75'. Dr. Moore noted that this item had been deferred due to the absence of the applicant. Mrs. Graves asked if it is the Commission's intent to approve the road and is the road adequate to handle further subdivision. Mr. Keeler said that the conditions z/Z- BENTIVAR SUBDIVISION SECTION II, continued of approval recommended by the staff will address that issue. He stated that one of the original conditions of approval was Highway Department approval, which has been met. Mr. Carr stated that the approval of a lesser road may keep the lots where they are; the requirement of a better improved road, will likely promote more subdivision. Mr. Snow, the representative of Charlottesville Associates, stated that he had not been on the site for five to six weeks, and stated that if any more surveying of this property had taken place, he had not done it nor had he had knowledge of such work. Mr. Easter stated that if this application is approved with a road that would be satisfactory for further subdivision, then this will be used as a wedge to get approval by other developers in the future. Mr. Jones asked what the estimated cost of the road is that is existing. Mr. Snow stated that he does not know the cost of construction of the road; none of the bids, between $30-68,000. were accepted. Mr. Keeler stated that the County had held a bond of $40,000, $15,000 of which has recently been released. He stated that there remains approximately $25,000 worth of construction for the road. Mr. Peatross stated that the developer is locking himself in on the lots; if he subdivides some other way, he will not be able to obtain certificates of occupancy on houses that are built. Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Keeler if this road is any way related to the road which is an extension of McIntire Road to Proff it Road. He stated that Dr. Hurt had presented a plan, showing McIntire Road extended to Rio Road and from that point, extended to Proffit Road, which would be a road in lieu of the by-pass. Mr. Keeler stated that he believed this road may be part of that alignment. He stated that it is in the approximate location of the river crossing, which is part of that alignment. Ij Mrs. David entered the meeting. Mr. Gloeckner stated that if this is part of the alignment for a major road, this particular right-of-way would be inadequate. He noted that the Highway Department's standards are based on a range of vehicle trips per day; as long as the road is designed to meet the maximum of this range, it will be adequate. Mr. Carr stated that he feels the Commission should take another look at this application to determine exactly what the developer's intentions are. Mr. Carr instructed Mr. Keeler to put it in writing to the owner_:._ that the Commission wishes to know h2s intentions regarding this issue; there is concern that there is further subdivision of this property. Mr. Snow stated that the owner of this property will sell it in accordance with the division,he, as surveyor, has made. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Carr if the Commission could put a comment on the plat to the effect that the plat could not come back before the Commission for further subdivision, and in addition, that the Commission recognizes the expense the developer has incurred in the construction of this road. Mr. Snow stated that the developers knew of the expense nearly a year ago. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Snow if this property would be sold separately. Mr. Snow stated that the property will be sold to one purchaser. Mr. Peatross stated that the idea is, its his opinion, fruitless because if he came in tomorrow and said that he wanted two - acre lots on this road and the road met all requirements as well as the lots meeting all subdivision requirements, how could the Commission turn him down. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission could not turn him down. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the facts are that the Subdivision Ordinance allows two -acre lots on state highways. Mrs. Graves �3 BENTIVAR SUBDIVISION SECTION II, continued said that the Commission could require a 120' right-of-way to avoid buying that part of the road. Mr. Easter said that if the road is to be a limited access road, how will these lots have access? Mr. Peatross stated that it has not been determined if this road is part of that alignment as yet. He noted that Dr. Hurt had stated that he owned all the land from Rio Road to Proff it Road, except two acres. Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission could impose one more condition, that is that this road may only serve these parcels being divided. That would provide that an easement could not be granted across Parcel F to serve other properties on this road. Mr. Jones asked that if this road were to be upgraded, how much land would have to be given up be the landowners on each side of the road. Mr. Carr stated that this road is a major collector; Mrs. Graves may be right, that 120' feet could be required. He reiterated that there is not substantial evidence that this road is, in fact, a part of that alignment. Mr. Payne stated that he has question as to whether the third condition recommended by Mr. Keeler is a lawful condition. He stated that this is a public road that is dedicated and accepted by the Highway Department. If any of the owners of these lots choose to put an easement across their property to property away from this road, there will be no way the Commission can stop him from doing that. Mr. Carr stated that there is no way the Commission can freeze these lots when the road that serves them is adequate. Mr. Payne stated that is correct. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he is still concerned that the Commission has requested to know what is going on with the development of this property. Mr. Easter asked if all the proper permits had been obtained for the construc- tion of the road. Mr. Easter stated that he would like to move for deferral on this application, in order that the Commission can be clearly informed as to the intentions of the developer. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. The motion lost, 5-3, with Mrs. Graves, Mr. Gloeckner, Col. Washington, Mr. Peatross and Dr. Moore opposing. Mr. Gloeckner motioned that this application be approved with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Keeler stated that the first condition should be changed to read, Note on all three sheets of plat stating, "No further division without Planning Commission approval." Mr. Gloeckner accepted the wording to be included in his motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Easter and Mr. Jones opposing. Mr. Gloeckner asked the Commission how strong the County's defence is in what the road may serve. Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance has recently been amended to require improvement of adjacent roads to serve, and this is a case for its use. There was no further comment or discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Section 18-2 of the Code of Albemarle - General Language and the Definition of Subdivision. Mr. Keeler read the staff report to the Commission stating the proposed amendments to Section 18-2 of the Code of Albemarle regarding the general language and the definition of "subdivision", as prepared by the staff. Mr. Keeler stated that it has been requested by the chairman of the Board of Supervisors that these amendments be prepared by the staff and presented to the Commission. 17/, PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued Section 18-2 of the Code of Albemarle, continued The proposed amendments are as follows: 18-2. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, terms used herein shall be interpreted and defined as follows: The word "approve" shall be considered to be followed by the words "or disapprove". The word "current" shall mean the point in time at which a matter is under consideration and shall not mean the date of adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. Any reference to.this chapter includes all ordinance amending or supplementing the same and the date of their additions or deletions. All distances and areas refer to measurement in a horizontal plane. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, any term contained herein which has an established meaning at common law shall be deemed to have its common law meaning and any definition thereof shall be deemed declarative of the common law and shall be construed in accordance therewith. Subdivision. The division, including resubdivision and the establishment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land into two or more lots, parcels or units, any one of which is less that five (5) acres, for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development; or, if a new street ar aeeess easement an access easement or new street is involved in such division, any division of a parcel of land. But the following shall not be deemed a subdivision; 1) The sale and and/or exchange of pareels property between adjoining landowite,irs ovkere-saciz-sale-er-exci�ange-noes-not-create-additional-banding sztes-pro ided-tizat-no-resulting-pareei-is-lase-ti�an-five-{�j-acres-in area; and __ovided_fu_rth_er_that the land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by the plat of division and/or the instrument of -conveyance thereof and the total number of parcels remain unchanged. 2) lire-release-of-a-portion-of-tire-secargtq-a-anp-mortgage-or-dead-of-trast- 3� 2) The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of eminent domain by any public agency. Mr. Reeler presented a memorandum from Clover Realty Company, Inc. to the Commission. The letter stressed Mr. Clover's plea for private roads to be permitted under certain conditions. After general discussion among the Commission members, Mr. Easter motioned that it be recommended to the Board of Supervisors that Section 18-2 of the Code of Albemarle regarding the general language and the definition of subdivision be amended according to the staff's proposals. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 9 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued Section 11-8-A SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Mr. Payne stated that this is an oversight that should have been taken care of in 1975; the soil erosion provisions of the zoning ordinance were never repealed when the soil erosion ordinance was adopted. Mr. Carr asked for public comment. Mrs. David asked Mr. Payne if there was a state legislation that took soil erosion control out of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne stated, in effect, yes. Mr. Easter moved for approval to repeal Section 11-8-A SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. There was no further discussion or comment. Resolution of Intent to Amend Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 8, and 9 as they relate to minimum area requirements Mr. Keeler stated that the proposed amendments will bring the area requirements for parcels served by other than both public water and sewer, in line with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance based on recommendations of the Health Department. Mr. Keeler stated further that upon recommendation of the Health Department, minimum area requirements in the subdivision ordinance were established as follows: 1. A minimum area of 60,000 sq.ft. per dwelling unit served by individual well and septic system; 2. A minimum area of 40,000 sq.ft. per dwelling unit served by either a central sewer system or a central water supply. The Commission was given an addendum to the staff report stating Mr. Payne's proposed amendments for application of these minimum requirements to the RS-1, R-1, R-2 residential zones. In addition, the staff prepared new language for the B-1, CO, M-1 and M-2 zones to update area provisions, and was presented to the Commission. Mr. Payne stated that the record should reflect that the proposed amendments are to Sections 3-2-1, 4-2-1, 4-2-2, 4-2-3, 4-2-4, 5-2-1, 5-2-2, 5-2-3 and 5-2-7. Sections 5-2-4, 5-2-5 and 5-2-6 are proposed to be repealed, and the amendment of Section 7-2, 7.1-4(a), 8-3, and 9-3. Mrs. Graves moved for approval with Mr. Payne's wording of the motion. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There were no further comments or discussion. NEW BUSINESS: (a) The Albemarle County Service Authority's Jurisdictional Areas' compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating that the Board of Supervisors has requested the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to review the jurisdic- 21(.. tional boundaries for service areas. The Albemarle County Service Authority has determined that these service areas conform with the proposals of the Comprehene eve Plan. The expansion of water facilities to areas, outside the present jurisdictional boundaries should also be discussed. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that their findings should be communicated to the Board of Supervisors prior to November 16, at which time it will be discussed in reference to the rezoning request of Liberia Development Corporation. Mr. Keeler presented a map to the Commission outlining the jurisdictional areas as determined by the Albemarle County Service Authority. He said that in reference to the Crozet interceptor, the plan states, quote, "it is strongly recommended that access to the interceptor between the force main section east of Crozet and the urban area boundaries be either prohibited or severely restricted during the planned period." The absence of such prohibition or restriction will permit the scattered residential development to occur along the entire western 250 quarter in the Ivy area which will result in an unplanned linear extension of the urban area, which is not desired by the county. Mr. Keeler explained that the existing service areas generally encompass greater areas than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, and in some cases would serve areas proposed to remain rural. He stated that the staff is reluctant to endorse either water or sewer service areas where rural densities are proposed to be maintained because of pressures to upzone for higher densities. With respect to expansion of water facilities, the staff is reluctant to endorse the expansion of water facilities outside of the existing service areas due to increased pressures for higher density zoning. Mr. Keeler stated further that while provisions for fire protection and public water to two -acre lot develop- ments would be advantageous, staff opinion is that constant resistance by the County to more intensive zoning may be an optimistic outlook. The Ivy area is the only area the staff can support a water -only service area due to existing facilities in that area and a history of ground/water problems. The Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated no desire to have separate water and water and sewer service areas. Mr. Keeler continued, stating that the staff's recommendations for the urban area would be a water and sewer service area which complies with the Comprehensive Plan, with the addition of Pantops, which should have been included due to error in map preparation. For Camelot, the staff recommends water and sewer service areas in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan with the addition of the University Village area and the addition of a limited area around the existing water main. For Crozet, the staff recommends a reduction in the existing service areas generally to comply with the proposed community and to include the high school and the existing water treatment plant. For Scottsville, the staff recommends an expansion of the KDA proposal to incorporate the shopping center, in the case of commercial zoning. Mr. Keeler stated that Hollymead is included in the urban area service proposals. The Ivy area was previously addressed by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that the Albemarle County Service Authority is opposed to any reduction in the existing service areas. The Service Authority would prefer to expand its service areas south of Charlottesville in an east/west fashion, running over the ridge line of Carver Mountain, expanding Service Area V . Mr. Thompson of the Service Authority has stated that this area can be served by gravity -flow sewer. Mr. Keeler reiterated to the Commission that the staff's recommendations are based on the Comprehensive Plan and on existing facilities, without the benefit of any input from the task force committees in regard to any land use revisions that may occur in the future. Mr. Carr expressed his opinion, in reference to Service Area #7, that the stub -out that is proposed for gravity -flow sewer has limitations. 9 2/7 After extensive discussion among the Commission members, Mr. Faster motioned that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional areas be made to comply with the recommenda- tions of the Comprehensive Plan; the County must be consistent in its recommendations. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. After further discussion, Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Easter to amend his motion to include existing service and facilities. Mr. Easter and Mr. Gloeckner accepted the amendment. The motion carried unanimously with no further discussion. (b) Uses in the M-1 and M-2 zones: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating that during a recent review of a zoning text amendment (Skip Gelletly) the Planning Commission instructed the staff to study the possibilities of providing all M-1 uses in M-2 zone. Mr. Keeler presented to the Commission members, a listing of M-1 uses NOT currently provided for in the M-2 zone. Mr. Keeler stated that the amendments proposed by the staff are as follows: To provide for M-1 uses by right in the M-2 zone: Section 9-1-24 Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this article, USES PERMITTED in Article 8 Limited Industrial District M-1. To Provide for starred uses (as shown in listing) by special use permit in M-2 zone: Section 9-1-23(2.1) Airports; Section 9-1-23(9.1) Drive-in theaters; Section 9-1-23(10.2) Go-cart and trail bike tracks; Section 9-1-23(20) Veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels Mr. Keeler instructed the Commission that a resolution of intent to amend is appropriate, if agreed with the staff's recommendations. Mr. Easter motioned that a resolution of intent be adopted by the Board of Supervisors to amend the sections mentioned above. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. (c) Information on the Board of Supervisors Actions on the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Keeler stated that the Board of Supervisors adopted all of the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan. One change was the urban expressway - it was shown to cross Route 29 and go behind Albemarle Square Shopping Center and tie into Michie Drive extended; it has been re-routed to come behind Albemarle Square Shopping Center, along Rio Road to McIntire Extended and then into the city. Mr. Keeler stated that Michie Drive will remain on the map and will remain as a residential collector. Mr. Keeler stated further that from Berkeley to Rio Road was deleted and will tie into Berkmar Drive to provide fire access for the Seminole Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Keeler said that the Board deleted the industrial area at the railroad and Proffit Road. In Crozet, the area that is proposed for industrial development was reduced so as not to incorporate any areas that are existing residential development; the commercial area across from The Meadows was also reduced. There was no discussion among the Commission members. OR 215 Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like the Commission to discuss the RPN zoning at some future date; in reference to institutions. Mrs. David stated that for the Commission's information, there will be a meeting at Walker School on November 17, Public Exposure to the Joint Charlottesville -Albemarle Transportation Study, 7:30 p.m. Mr. Keeler stated that since the Discussion of Street Lights was not on the agenda, it cannot be discussed at this meeting. Mr. Easter pointed out that he has had discussion with Mr. Tucker; the staff feels that the present county policy on street lights has had no recommended changes. ja/ There was no further discussion or comments. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. v---v v V • i wv. `;-- Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Direcd6T ofPlanning Secretary