Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 13 77 PC MinutesZG 15 December 13, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 13, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were David Carr, Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Joan Graves; Roy Barksdale; Peter Easter; Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Leslie Jones and Layton McCann. Other officials present were Mrs. Opal David, ex-officio; Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; and Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Layton McCann, representing the Rivanna Magisterial District and replacing Mr. Paul Peatross of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, was introduced to the Commission. Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney was also present. REVIEW OF MINUTES, November 22, November 29 and December 6: Mrs. Graves stated that in the minutes of November 29, Wilco Gas Site Plan, the minutes should reflect that fire service will be required on the east side of Route 29. She stated that she had discussed this with Mrs. Gloeckner. The Commission had no further comments regarding these minutes and approved all three sets unanimously. (a) Discussion of possible reconsideration of Wilco Gas Site Plan Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission reconsider the Wilco Gas Site Plan. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion which carried 6-2, with Mr. Jones and Mr. Gloeckner opposing and Dr. Moore obstaining. Mr. Carr stated that this item will be heard as soon as conveniently possible. He stated that those interested will be advised. (b) Lewis Hill Section III Final Plat Mr. Tucker stated that he was not present at that particular meeting, but was informed by his staff that the Planning Commission has requested the staff to consult the Board of Supervisors for their policy on requiring public water systems in juris- dictional areas, and the requirements of public water systems on two -acre lots.. Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that this item should have been on the Board's agenda for discussion last Wednesday night, however the agenda was too full for discussion on this matter at this time. He stated that it will be heard tomorrow morning at their all day meeting. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Commission defer this item for one more week in order to get the Board's reaction. Mr. Tucker stated that it is the staff's feeling that this site is within the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and is located within one of the villages in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker stated further that whether or not the County can require public water hinges on the question of whether or not the water is reasonably available; as was indicated in the letter to Mr. Agnor, Mr. Tucker stated that this can be determined only on a case to case basis. The staff has made an attempt to do this by requesting of the applicant, an estimate of the cost of providing public water from the nearest public water line, which in this case, lies within West Leigh Subdivision. Mr. Tucker noted also that the staff (b) Lewis Hill Section III Final Plat. continued has requested the Engineering Department to make a comparison between providing public water and providing individual wells, as was originally intended by the applicant. Mr. Tucker called the Commission's attention to a memorandum from Mr. Williams, Assistant County Engineer, indicating that the Engineering Department had used the estimates prepared by Mr. Roudabush's office, however some of the cost estimates were deleted dealing with roads and erosion control plans which would have to be done regardless of the type of water system. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Williams' estimate was $55.000, an average of $1,375 per lot (40 lots) for public water, as opposed to Mr. Roudabush's figure of $98,5.77. , Mr. Tucker continued.stat.ing,that. Mr. Williams had also. contacted several well drillers in the area who gave him an estimate of $1,800-$2,000, which.includes the well, the lines to the house and the pressure tank, for individual wells. Mr. Tucker stated that, in view of these facts, he and his staff feel that in this instance, it would be cheaper for the developer to provide public water than it would to provide individual wells. Further, the staff feels that public water is reasonably available in this particular case and should be provided in this instance. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Tucker if he had any reason to dispute Mr. Williams' estimate. Mr. Tucker stated that he did not. Mr. Tucker stated another item of interest to the Commission, a memorandum from the Albemarle County Service Authority indicating that public water is available to this site. The letter further indicated that the Service Authority had adopted. an off -site construction policy providing for financial assistance in off -site water line construction. Mr. Tucker noted that in conversation with officials of the Service Authority, it was unveiled that this policy has not, in fact, been adopted but is proposed and should be under consideration in the near future. The Service Authority stated that the policy, if adopted, will provide 25% financing of off -site water line and installation of water line. Mr. Tucker stated that this 25% will be taken off tap fees. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Tucker if he knew the amount of the tap fees. Mr. Tucker stated that he did not know. Mr. Keeler stated that the cost is between $350-$450 per tap. Mr. Easter stated that this amount should be added to Mr. Williams' estimate. He reiterated that the staff and the Commission should wait for the Board's reaction on this matter. Col. Washington stated that private wells are not necessarily the answer; public water is a problem also. Mr. Barksdale motioned that this item be deferred until the Board of Supervisors could discuss this matter. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker stated that it could be heard at the meeting of December 20, 1977. .)ISCUSSION: David Kuuravetz, attorney for the applicant said that he has reason to dispute the estimates submitted by the County Engineering ottice. Mr. Carr welcomed his estimates to be submitted to the Commission. Mrs. David suggested that this information be before the Board of Supervisors at their all day meeting beginning tomorrow morning. There were no further comments or discussion. 9 .a�5 December 13, 1977 ZTA-77-09 Robert Boyle: - Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator, entered the meeting. Mr. Keeler stated that this item had been deferred from a previous meeting in order that the staff and the applicant could organize an amendment to the conditions of approval to permit this structure to be used and at the same time not to con- sistently permit the development of restaurants in the A-1 zone. Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 2-1-25(28) of the Zoning Ordinance which provides for restaurants in the A-1 zone by the deletion of the wording "located on or adjacent to motel premises." Mr. Keeler stated that if the Commission chooses to recommend approval of this petition, the staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period; 2, No expansion beyond the original limits of the structure; 3. No off -premises license for sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted; 4. This shall be a sit-down restaurant. No take-out food service or stand-up eating shall be permitted; 5. No admissions after 11:30 p.m.; 6. The DbA level at no time, when measured at the residences now located adjacent to Boyd Tavern property, shall exceed the DbA level produced by the motor vehicular traffic on State Route 616; 7. Site plan approval; 8. Building and fire inspections approval; 9. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. Mr. Keeler noted that the same request was made earlier in the year as ZTA-77-04, Frieda Agee. The staff's objection in that petition was the further commercialization of the A-1 zone. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommends denial of this petition. Mr. Jones asked the Commission if any member had researched the history of Boyd Tavern. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he had not reviewed the history, but that he had checked the site personally. He stated that the structure is in need of extensive repair.. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff has information on historic structures in Albemarle County on file in the Planning Department. He stated that his research has indicated that the structure had burned in the mid or late nineteenth century and has been restored and reconstructed. Mr. Barksdale stated that the staff's wording of the proposed amendment to the ordinance, is exactly what he and Col. Washington had in mind when it was requested of the staff. Col. Washington added that the language does look reasonable to him; however, if this petition is recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, it will be a reasonable change to the ordinance. He stated that he has no knowledge of a competing place to Boyd's Tavern for this same petition; he further stated that he has reasonable doubt that Boyd's Tavern is of sufficient size in structure that it would be financially sound. He stated that he is in favor of changing the ordinance. Mr. Easter stated that he is generally opposed to changes of the ordinance for one specific case; he stated that he is very concerned over this application and cannot support the idea of changing the ordinance to permit restaurants at random in the A-1 zone. Mr. Jones stated that he agrees with Mr. Easter's opinion. Mrs. Graves stated that "restaurants" should be defined more specifically. 2 7 ZTA-77-09 Robert Boyle, continued: Dr. Moore stated that the Commission should consider how many landmarks this amendment, if adopted, will speak to. Mr. Carr opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. Mr. Barksdale moved that the zoning ordinance be amended, recommending approval of ZTA-77-09, as written by the staff. Col. Washington seconded the motion. Mr. Gloeckner added that in his opinion the ordinance should not be changed. Mrs. Graves agreed with Mr. Gloeckner, stating that the staff and Commission should take a closer look at non -conforming uses. The motion lost 7-2, with Col. Washington and Mr. Barksdale supporting the motion. SP-77-76 Robert Boyle: Robert P. Boyle has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to restore Boyd Tavern to be used as a restaurant on two acres zoned A-1. Property is located on State Route 616, approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection of Routes 616 and 250 East. County Tax Map 94, Parcel 25, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Easter moved that this petition be denied. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. which carried 7-2, Mr. Barksdale and Col. Washington opposing. There were no further comments or discussion. 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) The Albemarle County Planning Commission will review Sections 2-1-27, 3-1-15, 2-1-14, 5-1-17, and 6-1-22 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to Accessory Tourist Lodging, as well as Section 16-2-1 ACCESSORY TOURIST LODGING (Definition) for possible repeal. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, with an accompanying letter from the Bicentinennal Center, stating projections foreseen as to the number of travelers and tourists in Albemarle County this year. Mr. Keeler then read a memoradum from the Chamber of Commerce, indicating desire not to repeal Section 16-2-1.Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. Mr. Carr asked the Commission if they wished to continue the language presently written into the ordinance and whether a waiver is desired of the yearly review of accessory tourist lodging. Mr. Barksdale moved that the language presently written into the ordinance, remain. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried 7-2, with Mr. Easter and Col. Washington opposing. Mr. Jones motioned to waive the yearly review, which was seconded by Mr. McCann. The motion carried 6-3, with Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. Barksdale and Dr. Moore, opposing. There was no further comment or discussion. (b) SP-77-45. Dr. bridge within the General County Zoning Ordinance. the Southern Railroad and Tax Map 62,Parcels 2 a Charles Hurt has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to permit a Flood Plain District (GP) pursuant to Section 9A-4-2 of the Property is located on the South Fork of the Rivanna River between the confluence with the North Fork of the Rivanna River. County nd 50E. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler stated that the Planning Staff had received a request in writing from the applicant for deferral of this item, in order that more information from the Corps of Engineers could be received. Mr. Keeler noted that this request had been received late in the afternoon; the staff had not had the opportunity to inform those concerned. Mr. Keeler noted also that the letter was from Mr. Echols, representing Dr. Hurt. Mr. Jones stated that the Corps of Engineers should have inspected the slabs of concrete that were intended for use in the dam, at the time of construction. Mrs. Graves stated that if the Corps were to approve the dam, the County could still disapprove it, denying the special use permit for this application; in turn if the County approves it, the Corps could still deny it. Mr. Payne stated that he is not completely versed on the law applicable to the Corp; since the bridge was there before the Corp took jurisdiction, the question is whether or not modification is subject to their review. Dr. Moore asked if the Corp or some other agency took that responsibility. Mr. Payne stated that the Virginia Statute covers this subject; the agency responsible for enforcing such review would be the Commonwealth's Attorney or the State Water Control Board. Col. Washington commented that the nature of the Corps responsibilities were expanded on July 1, 1977, but that he is not certain of their requirements. Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. Mr. Easter motioned that this application be deferred at the request of the applicant. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. Discussion rs. Graves commented that there are numerous interested persons in the audience who have attended this meeting in interest of this application. Mr. Carr stated that those interested in the date of deferral of this application may contact the Planning Office for that information. All concerned parties will be advised of that hearing date. Col. Washington expressed his opinion that he is in favor of deferring this application at the request of the applicant, however at the time this application is zr k SP-77-45. Dr. Charles W. Burt, continued considered, the Commission should be thoroughly versed on the State and Federal Code. The motion carried 7-2, with Mr. Jones and Mrs. Graves opposing. There was no further discussion or comment. (c) SP-77-78. Henry Maclin Properties Ltd. Ptn. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors t^ operate a swim club on approximately 4.35 acres zoned R-3. Property is located on the northwest side of Peyton Drive. County Tax Map 61W, Parcel 03-1, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Henry Maclin, the applicant was present. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report to the Commission stating that the applicant desires to operate the pool and clubhouse in the Westfield Club Apartments on a membership basis in order to support the expense of a full-time pool manager. Renters within Westfield Club would be automatic members and other memberships would be available to residents of the area. The swim club would be operated on a non-profit basis. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommends approval of this petition since the club approach will provide for maintenance and improvement of this facility. Mr. Jones asked if there will be lifeguards on duty. Mr. Maclin stated no, except at the Tudor Court Apartment complex, adjacent to Westfield Club. Mrs. Graves asked if the club would be applying for an A.B.C. license. Mr. Maclin stated that it will not. After considerable discussion among the Commission members, Mr. Easter motioned that this application be approved, adding the condition that membership be limited to occupants of Westfield Club and not more than 100 off -premises individual memberships. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which csrried unanimously with no further discussion. (d) SP-77-80. Gilbert Scruggs has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a gift, craft, and antique store with small woodworking shop on 16.9 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on Route 20 North, approximately 10 miles from Charlottesville at first junction of Routes 20 and 600. County Tax Map 48, Parcel 11, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. and Mrs. Gunn, the operaters of the proposed shop were present. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommends approval of this petition with the following conditions: County Engineer approval of paving specifications; Railroad ties are to be used to delineate the various parking spaces; Signing limited to wall signs not to exceed an aggregate area of 30 square feet; Compliance with conditions of approval of original site plan. Mr. Jones motioned that this application be approved with the conditions recommended by the staff. After considerable discussion, the Commission added a fourth condition of approval, that the four gasoline pumps be removed from the site within 90 days of the Board of Supervisors approval of this petition, to be scheduled before them on January 4, 1978. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion. NEW BUSINESS: Request for resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan in relation to the jurisdictional areas of the Service Authority. Mrs. Graves so moved. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Discussion of Run-off Control Ordinance as it relates to site plans and subdivisions. Mr. Keeler presented information to the Commission regarding this item, a from the County Engineer's office. After considerable deliberation, the Commission unanimously adopted the following policy for subdivision approval within watersheds of public impoundments: A. Minimum 40,000 square feet outside of 200' setback when central wells are utilized; B. Minimum of 40,000 square feet outside of 200' setback when individual wells are utilized provided the well is located within the 200' setback and meets Virginia Department of Health requirements and setbsks from septic f acilities otherwise, a minimum of 60,000 square feet outside the 200' setback will be required. At this time, it appears that applicat t-z- of the Run-off Control Ordinance to a site plan may, in some cases, significantly alter the plan. In such cases, Planning Commis- sion review of plans prior to review by the Run-off Control Official may be fruitless. If the Run-off Control Ordinance significantly alters the plan, a second review by the Planning Commission would be required. One alternative to this approach would be to require approval by the Run-off Control Official prior to Planning Commission review. Staff does not recommend this approach because development of a run-off control plan is expensive and time consuming. This would be unwise without general guidance as to the Planning Staff's recommendations and requirements may also significantly alter the plan or even render the project economically infeasible. Since development of a run-off control plan is expensive, the Planning Commission may be hesitant to impose requirements which would alter the site plan and require amendment of the run-off control plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission may feel a loss of flexibility in review of such plans. This issue has been discussed in reference to requiring final road plans prior to Planning Commission approval of subdivision plats. Mr. Keeler noted that the staff recommends the requirement of a preliminary site plan in such cases where a run-off control permit may be required. No final site plan would be accepted until review of the preliminary plan has taken place between the applicant and the Planning and Engineering Departments. The Engineering Department could review the applicant's preliminary plan and calculations and guide the applicant as to the level of pollutant removal required and the economics of such removal. The Planning Staff could inform the applicant as to what recommendations would be made to the Planning Commission and give him a history of action in similar situations. In this 2 7a fashion, the applicant would have an idea of what would be required in both the run-off control and site plan procedures and could evaluate the viability of his proposal accordingly. Comments provided in this preliminary review would serve as a guide and would not be considered binding on the applicant or the County. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that if the this approach is agreeable, a resolution of intent to amend Section 17-3-1 to require a preliminary plan for development in cases where a run-off control permit is required would be in order. The resolution should include provision for appropriate administrative procedures and content of the preliminary plan. After considerable deliberation on the part of the Commission, a resolution of intent was unanimously adopted to amend Article 17, Site Development Plan of the Zoning Ordinance to require a preliminary plan in cases where a run-off control permit is required. The proposed amendments can be found in the file. Mrs. Graves motioned for the amendment, which was seconded by Mr. Easter. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. ,Secre*pry i