Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 15 77 PC Minutes• 09 November 15, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul Peatross, Jr.; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent was Dr. James Moore. Other officials present were Mr. Robert 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. Minutes of October 25, 1977, were deferred until a later date. 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 unter Section 2-1-24(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. Barksdale moved that any action and discussion on this matter be deferred until November 29, 1977. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Jones asked that the history of the property be brought to the Commission. Mr. Tucker stated that this could be done at the public hearing. SP-77-73. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-373 ( a special use permit for an advanced wastewater treatment plant ) in order to amend one of the conditions of approval. The 49.52 acres involved is zoned A-1 Agricultural and located north of Interstate 64 at the confluence of Moore's Creek and Rivanna River. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 38B, Rivanna Magisterial District. At the request of the applicant, Col. Washington moved that the discussion and action be deferred until November 29, 1977. The motion was seconded by Mr. Easter, and carried by unanimous vote, with no discussion. Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro stated that this site plan had been deferred in order that the Highway Department representative should be present, and in order that the Highway Department study on the traffic light at the intersetion of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North could be completed. He briefly reviewed the history of the site plan for the Commission. He then read the letter from the Highway Department regarding the traffic signal evaluation, noting according to this evaluation, no traffic signal is warranted by the turning movements during the peak hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2Z1 Therefore, the Highway Department could not recommend the installation regardless of who would pay the cost of installation. Mr. Carr noted for the public and the Commission that this matter had been discussed on several occasions by the Commission and the public. He noted that this was not a public hearing on this site plan, and wondered how much discussion was necessary that evening. Mr. Peatross asked if the applicant's proposal shows traffic through Shopper's World as two-way. Mr. Montenegro said that it is two-way traffic shown on the plan. Mr. Jones established from Mr. Coburn, the Highway Department representative, that he was not aware of any recent accidents at Dominion Drive. Mr. James Cosby, representing the Berkeley Homeowners Assocation, stated that he wished once again to show the photographs of the Berkeley entrance. He urged that the Commission support the 29 entrance only concept. He reviewed his reasons for objecting to the other alternatives that had been discussed at the previous three meetings. Mr. Peatross asked if the staff has considered an exit -only from the site into Shopper's World. He felt that this might be safer by eliminating part of the hazard. Mr Graves said that she fears that a major intersection is ahead at Dominion because/Re* proposed entrance at Branchlands. Furthermore, she cited the fact that one crossover would be closed. 7 Mrs. Graves then moved approval of the plat subject to the/conditions recommended by the staff, with a 29 entrance only, and an exit only to Shopper's World. Mr. Jones seconded this motion. Mr. David Wood stated that this is unacceptable for any sort of successful commercial use. Furthermore, he stated that it is not legally possible to have an access -only from a state road. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it has the powers to regulate traffic for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Mr. Easter stated that the traffic in Shopper's World is already a problem and therefore, this motion concerned him, since it would put more traffic through the shopping center. The motion lost by a vote of 3-5, with Messrs. Carr, Easter, Gloeckner, Peatross, Barksdale dissenting. Mr. Easter then moved approval with the seven conditions recommended by the staff with the Dominion Drive Access only alternative, with no entrance/exit to the shopping center. Mr. Gloeckner asked for the staff opinion on this motion. Mr. Montenegro replied that the staff feels that this is best alternative, since it will in the long run have the least impact on Dominion Drive. The Highway Department also supported this alternative. Z2Z Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department agreed that this is correct. He said that technically the Highway Department would be required to give the developer access to Dominion Drive and Route 29 North. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Gloeckner then moved approval of the applicant's proposal with the seven condition, with a stacking lane at the entrance on Dominion, and with access only into Shopper's World Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which lost by a vote of 4-4. Those dissenting were Mrs. Graves, Col. Washington, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Carr. At this point Mr. Cosby interjected that the Berkeley homeowners support the access/egress only through Shopper's World. Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan with the seven condition, with a Dominion Drive access/only. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which lost by a vote of 4-4. Those dissenting were Mr. Carr, Mrs. Graves, Col. Washington, and Mr. Jones. At this point the Commission unanimously adopted a resolution of intent to send the site plan to the Board of Supervisors, stating that it had been unable to arrive at a decision. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has directed the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public haring to consider a proposed amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to establish a reservoir protective district as an overlay zone. The area under consideration is that land within the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir bounded by an arc of five mile radius from the water treatment plant intake pipe. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating in the following amendment proposals: (1) Zoning Ordinance - A new district - Reservoir Protective District - would be created which would overlay existing zones. The uses of the underlying zones would remain essentially the same, subject to environmental site development standards derived from the Comprehensive Plan and Betz Study; (2) An Ordinance for the Protection of Water in Public Drinking Water Supply Impoundments ( Run-off Control Ordinance ) - The run-off control official would review certain uses regardless of existing ordinance exemptions; (3) Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance - Stricter guidelines for grading on steeper slopes; provision for protecting immediate stream environs; (40 Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance - The Planning Commission may require cluster subdivision apporach over conventional subdivision if such would be beneficial. M ZZ5 The staff stated that it recommends that any zoning change measure intended to protect the Rivanna Reservoir should be applied to the entire watershed. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that approximately 31,700 acres will be removed from having any structures withing the 200' setback as currently covered by the Run-off Control Ordinance. Mr. Keeler read the proposed amendments to the Commission and the public. Mr. Jones asked if this amendment provides that construction can take place on slopes of 25% or greater under certain stringent guidelines, for instance a house built on pilings. Mr. Keeler stated that it does not. However, he did state that any provision setforth in the Zoning Ordinance is subject to waiver by the Board of Zoning Appeals under cases of extreme hardship. Mrs. Graves questioned how the degree of slope will be determined. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff will be recommending a 5' contour and the staff will have to provide a usable scaled map for the entire watershed. Otherwise, the expense to the property owner for a topographic map at this scale would be prohibitive. Mrs. Graves said that what she was thinking about was if an individual property owner would have to have a survey prior to building a single-fmaily unit. Mr. Keeler said that this is a technical question that will have to be established. Mr. Barksdale said that all information prior to this had been based on no buildings on slopes of 25% or greater, and if so, some type of inspection prior to its being done. Mr. Keeler stated that some density will be removed because of the increased slopes. Mr. Barkdale then asked the basis for determining the 15-25% slope being discussed in the proposed amendments. Mr. Keeler stated that the table is taken directly from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler further stated that the staff was directed to take the Comprehensive Plan and the Betz Study, put them together, and arrive at the necessary amendments. Mr. Barksdale asked if the Betz Study follows this line of thinking. Mr. Keeler said that the Comprehensive Plan does not state that construction cannot occur on slopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Keeler said that is the idea put forth in the Betz Study. It says that as far as slopes of 15-25% the Run-off Control Officer should really scrutinize the plan. Mr. Barksdale said that this could result in a drastic reduction in density permitted on R-3 land. Mr. Tucker said that this decision was based on the slope. Mr. Stallings said that the Betz Study had revealed that Morton is the prime contributor to problems with the reservoir. He said that this proposal would drive the cost of housing out of sight, and that Morton, in his opinion, should be taxed for the reservoir problem as opposed to development. He said that Morton has not been asked to do anything about this problem. He said that everything the County seems to do drives the cost of housing up. He suggested that this would likewise have a drastic effect on the tax base. Mr. Wendell Wood stated that this had been a topic of discussion, in one fashion or another, for the past five years. He suggested that the County attack its prime objective in a straightforward manner. He said that essentially this boils down to no growth in Albemarle County. He said that if the land around the reservoir were developed as zoned, it would have only an impact of 1% on the reservoir. He said that even the staff report in the past thirty days reflects this. He noted that this zoning and development would take the county to the year 2000 ( he was speaking of the 1% impact on the reservoir ). He noted that the majority of the land in the reservoir will be drastically affected. He noted that this will eventually affect the other watersheds in the county, as well as the Rivanna Watershed. Essentially it will have the effect of downzoning the entire county. He also suggested that no one has any idea of the effect of the Run-off Control Ordinance, and that ordinance puts most of the land in the county under a state that is already putting off more phosphorus than is permitted - he said that this is without "touching a leaf on it." Z2Y it He said that in the case of Panarama, his development on the reservoir, is already putting off more siltation and phosphorus, with trees growing on it, than is permitted in the run-off control ordinance. Mr. Carr advised Mr. Wood and other members of the public that the Commission never saw that ordinance. Mrs. David stated that that ordinance was drafted with the assistance of the Betz consultants. It was drawn up on the basis of their information and under their guidelines. Mr. Wood asked if anyone had tried to apply it to Albemarle County. Mrs. David stated that she did not know "why they should have." Mr. Wood said that the result of that ordinance is that there will be no growth in that area. However, he felt that the County has a responsibility to inform all the property owners what is being done to them with this ordinance. He said that what has essentially happened is confiscation, and this RPD will merely carry it to a greater extent. He further suggested that those persons who are interested in this matter should go to the County Engineering Department and see just exactly what can be developed in the County. He suggested that county taxes should be lowered to take care of all this. He again stated that this RPD would only protect the reservoir by lowering the impact upon it to in the next twenty-five years. Mr. Keeler said that the planning staff has requested that the engineering department review the figures that say only to will be affected, and that it certify if these fugures are accurate. Mr. Gary Kendall, an attorney representing himself, posed the hypothetical circumstances that a 10 acre lot in a subdivision within the watershed is now affected by this run-off control ordinance and proposed RPD. He asked if the County plans compensation for the landowner, because of his inability to use the property. He further noted that the zoning and subdivision had been approved by the county for that use. Mr. Payne did not see that as a problem under this drafted amendment. He said that proposed Section 20-4 makes a provision for existing lots. Mr. Wood asked if the property owner, in this hypothetical situation, would have to conform to the run-off control ordinance. Mr. Payne said that the run-off control ordinance is already in existence, and certainly he would have to comply with that. Mr. Carr said that he felt Mr. Wood's point is that development under the run-off control ordinance cannot occur on slopes in excess of 25%. Mr. Payne stated that in some cases here a landowner might have to be compensated. Mr. Keeler stated that first a landowner would have to prove he cannot meet the ordinance for his lot. If a piece of property can meet the ordinance, it certainly should. Mr. Keeler further stated that some exemptions should be developed. IR ZZS Mr. Frank Kessler asked if a 1.1 acre lot, over 25% in slope, can be built upon. If not, who can the owners see? He stated that he has a Health Department permit for the septic system. Mr. Carr stated that unless he currently has a run-off control permit he cannot built on it at this point, regardless of the RPD amendments. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff is attempting to draw up a list of exemptions. Furthermore, Mr. Keeler stated that this was probably a lot of record prior to the run-off control ordinance, and all lots of record can be used for single-family residences, and hopefully be exempt to the run-off control ordinance. Mrs. Garland stated that those who are going to be affected by the ordinance need to understand it as opposed to being told that exemptions,etc. are going to be worked on. She asked how something could be passed by the County that might be different after the exemptions are worked out. Mr. Carr stated that one of the reasons for the public hearing is to get input from the public, from the Commission, etc. in order that the proposal can be refined and so that everyone can understand it. Mr. Chuck Lebo stated that it appears from the discussion that each property owner who wants to do anything with his property must first employ an engineer to study the effects of that property's run-off under the run-off control ordinance. He felt as though other experts in various fields might also have to be employed, and this could become a rather costly affair. He said that with all these expenses soon it will become impossible to build a house in Albemarle County. Mr. Mat Rittberg, as an individual property owner on the reservoir, stated that he objects to any sort of conservation zoning with taxes remaining on the R-2 schedule. Mr. Carr said that he does not think that that step has been taken. Mr. Rittberg sad his home, a single-family unit, is located on R-2 land, and with the tax assessment, his land is worth more than his home. He felt any differences in tax assessment for previously zoned property should be made up to the property owners, if the conservation zone is adopted. Mr. Dick Bell asked what the 200' setback from streams was based on. He felt that the filtration of wooded lands is higher than open lands, and noted that this could certainly be applied to that land which grazes cattle. Mr. Keeler stated that the 200' setback was established by the "blue ribbon" committee, on which the State Water Control Board sat. Mr. Bell suggested that some study be done to determine if it is accurately applied to Albemarle County and to determine if it is even necessary. Mrs. Graves said that the Commission certainly needs a work session on this matter, in order to take on the public's questions, as well as other matters involving these proposed amendments. Mr. Steve Goodwin felt that one/?wotbasic concerns here is the eutrophication because of phosphorus. He felt that the studies should be further explored especially in view of Mr. Wood's statements made that evening. At this point, Mr. Gloeckner made a rather lengthy statement in which he noted that in his opinion these amendments would be a case of "over -kill", since the run-off control ordinance considerably diminishes what can be permitted on property within the reservoir. He said that he is concerned that pieces of property as they currently �Ww, exist - wooded with no development - are contributing more phosphorus to the reservoir that is permitted under the run-off control ordinance. He stated that many of the figures necessary to do the engineering computations are rather arbitrary in his opinion, and perhaps it should be ascertained how these figures were arrived at. zoo In Mr. Gloeckner's opinion, prior to any action on the amendments, the long-range effects and a detailed study should be done on the run-off control ordinance. He suggested that the Commission defer any action on these amendments until that is done. The Commission at this point decided that work sessions on the RPD would be necessary to address the points brought out by the public at this public hearing, and Mr. Barksdale moved that any further discussion and action be deferred until November 22, 1977, in order that the staff could be prepared at that time to address some of those points. Mr. Jones seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no furhter discussion. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m., with no further business. II I I r Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secr tary Lq