HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 14 78 PC Minutes307
February 14, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
Tuesday, February 14, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William
Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Charles Vest;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Huffman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Timothy
Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of
Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum
was present. He presided in the initial absence of the Chairman.
Minutes of May 25, 1977, and January 10, 1978, were approved as submitted.
Minutes of January 31, 1978, were deferred until February 21, 1978, in order that
Mrs. Graves have sufficient time to review them.
SP-77-83. David Lee Spradlin has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a public garage on 5.514 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on
the northeast side of Route 620 near Woodridge, approximately 1 mile north
of the intersection of Routes 728 and 620. County Tax Map 104, Parcel 14E,
part thereof, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the request does not comply
with the County's Comprehensive Plan. However the staff did note that the garage
is located toward the center and rear of the property in low-lying heavily wooded area.
The garage is not visible from the road or from existing adjacent residences. He further
passed around a petition of support from forty property owners of the area, including
signatures from owners of lots 3 and 4 and lot 1. He read the conditions of approval
that should be attached to the special permit if the Commission decided to approve
the request.
Mrs. Graves questioned if a public garage in the A-1 zone carries all the uses
permitted for a public garage in the B-1 zone. She said that she is specifically
addressing painting.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that it is sometimes difficult to repair a car
without painting it.
There were no comments from the public or the applicant.
Col. Washington closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the
Commission.
Mr. Huffman said that though the use does not comply with the Comprehensive
Plan, he favored the petition becuase it would be helpful to the neighborhood.
He said that the nearest garage is Mr. Sweeney's and it is several miles from this
neighborhood. He suggested applying those conditions recommended by the staff
as part of the approval.
Mr. McCann said that with screening and because of the location, he also supported
the request. He said his only concern is that this does not comply with the Plan.
Mrs. Graves said that she could more easily support the request if it were just
a service station. She said that she remembers that the Hall and Taylor Body Shop
is located on M-1 property.
!
Mr. Vest asked the applicant if he intends to do body work. Mr. Spradlin
replied that he is not equipped to do any painting.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the request subject to the following
eight conditions because of the support from the neighborhood and because of the
remoteness of the property:
1. Only one sign located in view of Route 620;
2. Site plan paproval;
3. Building Inspections approval as a commercial use;
4. No automobile sales;
5. Approval is not for automobile graveyard as defined in Section 16-8 of Zoning Ordinance;
6. Notification to the Fire Inspector if spray painting is contemplated;
7. Existing wooded areas to remain in a natural state;
8. Approval of other appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves suggested that the County should look at the definition of
public garage for the new zoning ordinance.
( Mr. Easter entered the meeting. )
Col. Washington said that he could support the request because the building
is remote and removed from the property line.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-1, with Mr. Easter abstaining.
Mr. Easter assumed the chairmanship.
SP-77-45. Dr. Charles W. Hurt has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to permit a bridge within the General Flood Plain District (GP) pursuant
to Section 9A-4-2 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Property is located on
the South Fork of the Rivanna River between the Southern Railroad and the
confluence with the North Fork of the Rivanna River. County Tax Map 62,
Parcels 2 and 50E. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommended
denial of the request for the following reasons:
1. The request is not in compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan;
2. Staff opinion is that as the bridge disintegerates, it may pose a threat to
downstream properties;
3. The bridge obstructs free passage of canoes and boats. Staff opinion is that a
five foot culvert would not be appropriate for this purpose;
4. Staff opinion is that the structure may be a hazard to swimmers/waders;
5. The bridge traps debris and unless periodically cleaned, may obstruct passage
of aquatic life;
3�y/
6. The applicant has demonstrated no need for this structure except to fulfill
a contractual agreement. Staff opinion is that denial of this petition would
not foreclose the party interested in farming this area from applying for
a river crossing and demonstrating his need for such. Due to the high flood
plain in this area, staff would recommend that any private -use crossing should
be a river -bottom grade ford with secure foundation constructed so as not to
deteriorate or impair the general public's right-of-way by canoe or other
appropriate means.
Mr. Keeler passed out photographs to the Commission taken in August, 1977;
December, 1977; and January 31, 1977. He also read into the record the letter from
the Corps of Engineers.
( Dr. Moore entered the meeting. )
Mr. Charles Echols, representing the applicant, stated that this was an attempt
to upgrade an old roadway that was never abandoned, which led from Charlottesville to
Proffitt. He cited the Code of Virginia sections that permit this sort of structure.
He stated that he had visited the bridge site at 5:00 p.m. that day and had found
no traces of deterioration. He said that Dr. Hurt had been approached by the
Highway Department to use this bridge as a crossing in order to service one of their
own bridges. Thus the bridge will serve more than just his use. He said that he does
not feel the bridge is a hazard to the river itself. Portage is required 75% of the
time at this point, anyway, due to the level of the water. He said that this particular
stretch of the water is very difficult to canoe, etc. He asked on behalf of the applicant
that the permit be approved.
Col. Washington questioned the erosion on the approaches. Mr. Echols replied
that there might be a small amount of erosion on the south end approach, but one
morning's work with a front-end loader would take care of this.
Mr. Easter asked if this were a bridge for an old farm road only. Mr. Keeler
replied that according to the applicant's representative, the applicant feels it is an
old public road.
Mr. Easter then questioned the purpose of the bridge. Mr. Echols stated that
the primary purpose is a farm road.
Mr. Jim Hill advised Mr. Easter that the cost of the bridge was around $10,000.
Mr. Easter asked if the tillable land on the two parcels is controlled by
one farmer. Mr. Hill said that it is, totaling 400 acres.
Mr. Easter then asked for brief, concise remarks from the public.
Mr. John Larsen said that he anticipates a housing development in the area,
and this bridge would certainly enhance the value of that property. However, he said
that his concern is the lack of navigability of the river for canoes, etc.
Mrs. Elizabeth Murray did not feel that the Corps of Engineers has given any
sort of approval for the bridge, and noted that they have made no on site survey,
and have been concerned only with backflow. She stated that the level of the river
has not been considered. She said that this is not an admirable asset to the river.
She noted that any sort of responsibility has been passed on to the county government.
She feared that any approval of this bridge would set a precedent for any sort of
structure across a river. She further noted that the concrete on the approaches
has deteriorated and she felt that soon the bridge will be an eroded island.
,,3'-2-----
Mr. Ralph Gianinni said that he floats the river in summer and winter
and the bridge is very hard to get around. He said that it will catch branches,
logs, etc. He objected to the bridge, and also objected to the fact that the fine
for its construction without the proper permits had not been much more than a
parking ticket.
Mr. Ronnie Knoll said that the applicant is always doing something in the
county without the proper permits and it was time someone did something to stop
this.
Mr. Dan Fowley said that low water bridges are dangerous death traps for
those floating rivers.
Mr. Frank Kessler said that he hoped that everyone would remember that a lot
of the good things that have been done in Albemarle County have been developed by
this applicant. He asked that everyone remember this point.
Mr. T. W. Baxter said that betewen Route 29 and the Crofton Area there are
65 crossovers since colonial days, and hoped that this does not mean that there is
a potential for 65 low-water bridges. He also reminded the Commission that this
river is up for possible scenic designation.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the history of the property on both sides of the river.
Mr. Keeler replied that a Mr. Lewis Lamb has purchased the property on both sides
of the flood plain for farm uses.
Mr. Jim Hill stated that this was correct.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the application is properly before the Commission
if someone else owns the property at this time. Mr. Payne replied that Dr. Hurt
was the owner at the time of application and that the contract called for engineering
studies, etc. at the time of application.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Highway Department does not have access to their
bridge for maintenance purposes through property to the south. Mr. Hill said that
he does not know.
Mr. Easter asked what will happen to the bridge if the Board of Supervisors
denies the request for the special permit.
Mr. Payne replied that this would depend on the applicant. He can either
have the bridge removed upon the County's denial, or else he can challenge the
County's action in court.
Mr. Easter said that he is concerned that Dr. Hurt has taken it upon himself
to construct this bridge without the proper permits, since this breaks county law.
He said that he objects to this. He said that if this is definitely a matter of upholding
zoning and subdivision ordinances of the county he will certainly vote against the
application. He then asked if this bridge does indeed violate those ordinances.
Mr. Tucker replied that the staff's review of the request had been on
the merits of the permit, not upon the fact that the bridge already exists. He
said that staff comments addr6ss only the appropriateness of the structure in this
location and the design of the bridge.
3V3
Mr. Keeler agreed that the staff report addresses the nature of the structure
and public's right of passage.
Dr. Moore said that he had to speak against the request, and in his opinion
it makes no difference when the bridge was built, he did not feel it to be appropriate.
Col. Washington asked that the right of a canoeist be defined.
Mr. Payne stated that any member of the public can use a river
and the statute states that a river has to be free of artificial obstructions.
Mr. Gloeckner spoke against the application, stating that it has nothing to
do with personalities. He said that the proper type of structure would be a ford -
a river bottom crossing, and this would not obstruct water passage.
Mrs. Diehl agreed with Mr. Gloeckner and said that she feels this should
not be approved because it does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. McCann agreed with the two previous speakers.
Mr. Vest said that the bridge takes away the rights of many individuals and
he thus could not support it.
Mr. Hill cautioned the Commission that this river is not defined as navigable
by the Corps of Engineers since it has a dam above it and a dam below it.
Mr. Keeler stated that the navigability does not have to be defined by the
Corps of Engineers. Their definition is different, since it is in terms of commerce.
Mrs. Graves moved denial of the special permit. The motion, seconded by
Mr. Vest, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to repeal Appendix: Residential Townhouse Cluster of the Subdivision Ordinance
and to amend Article 5 - R-2 RESIDENTIAL and Article 6 - R-3 RESIDENTIAL
as they pertain to townhouses.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the density will be
whatever is permitted by the respective zone.
Mr. Tucker stated that the definition of setback will be explained by Mr. Payne.
He further noted that according to Mr. St. John the definition is not being properly
interpreted at this point. He urged that the Commission adopt the wording suggested
by Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne suggested that the wording for subdivision be changed to read
as follows:
"The distance by which any building or structure is separated from any street, road
or access easement adjacent to the front line of the lot, parcel, or portion thereof
on which such building or structure is located."
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this definition would then take care of single-family
and multi -family units. Furthermore, it would define the lot width for even pipestem
lots.
Mrs. Graves objected to taking out the number of townhouses permitted in a block.
9
.:?44
Mr. Payne said that the regulatory numbers are not appropriate in a definition,
and that if the Commission wishes to include this.,it should be in another section.
Mrs. Graves wondered the significance the parking regulations would have in
conjunction with these amendments.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if other amendments will be necessary to clarify pipestems.
Mr. Tucker replied that they would, and that a resolution is being requested
that evening regarding the amendments to the County Code.
Mrs. Graves stated that she was not ready to act on the matter that evening.
ready
Mr. McCann said that he was^ to vote, since he had had the information all week
and had compared it to what is currently in the zoning and subdivision ordinances.
He said that in his opinion the matter should be moved along.
Mrs. Graves said that she would like to hear the discussion of the old zoning
ordinance when limiting the number of units in townhouse groups was brought up. She
stated that she felt sure the rationale was fire protection and landscaping.
Mr. Keeler stated that there are two-hour fire walls between the units.
Mr. Tucker said that the landscaping questions could be looked at as an
advantage both ways.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that he is not opposed to including the
number of units in a group, but did feel it should be in a separate section from the
definition.
Mr. Keeler recommended the following wording to become Sections 5-8-3 and
6-9-3: "Townhouse building groups should consist of not less than three (3) dwelling
units, and not more than ten (10) dwelling units."
Mr. Payne said that he had a few other editions to make:
Under section 6-6-1, he felt the wording should be as follows:
"There shall be no height limit for permitted buildings; provided that any such buildings
over thirty-five (35) feet in height, with their accessory buildings, may cover not more
than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross lot area, ...; and provided further that
townhouse dwellings may be erected up to thirty-five (35) feet in height."
Another addition was to be in Sections 5-4-3 and 6-4-3 to read as follows:
"For each dwellling unit in a townhouse development, there shall be a lot width at the
setback line of twenty (20) feet or more for interior lots and forty (40) feet or more for
end lots."
In section 5-5-1, the wording should be amended to read as follows:
"... For a two-family dwelling or structure containing townhouses, the side yard shall
be a ten (10) feet or more at each end of each structure...."
M
FE
Section 6-5-1 should be amended as follows: For a two-family dwelling
or structure containing townhouses, the side yard shall be ten (10) feet or more at
each end of each structure..."
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the amendments to Articles 5 and 6 subject
to the changes suggested that evening. He also moved that Appendix - Residential
Cluster of the Subdivision Ordinance be repealed.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
The Commission took up no old business.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Land Use Plan, Housing
Element, and Draft of Virginia Outdoors Plan ( 1979 ):
(a) Land Use Plan:
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff reviewed the plan not only for compliance
with local planning efforts, but also for aspects which could be disadvantageous
to the County in the future. More specifically the staff was concerned about language
which does not accurately or fully reflect the character of Albemarle County or its
planning efforts to date and could encourage or foster intervention by other governments
or governmental agencies ( local, state, or federal level ) in the local affairs of
Albemarle County.
He stated also that the plan is before the Commission for comments and review,
however, it is not necessary they make any comments.
He reviewed for the Commission the comments and read the staff's recommended
amendments which should be adopted by TJPDC prior to County endorsement of the Plan.
After discussion by the commission, the staff decided to amend its comments on
pages 88 and 90 of the plan to say "localities may seek assistance from federal
and state governments in the acquisition of land or easements."
Mr. Huffman was concerned about the deletion of the Health Center ( outpatient )
in Esmont, since he felt this facility was greatly needed in that area.
The Commission members and the staff stated that the reason for doing this was
the problems that had arise with the "Meadows" in Crozet. The Commission had never
given approval of that location or exact piece of property last year at the time
of A-95 review, however were blamed for it during the public hearings.
Mrs. Harbaugh stated that HUD funds have been applied for and approved and
granted for the facility at Esmont. The staff decided that if this is the case,
perhaps they would not delete it. The Commission specifically stated that it did
not endorse this one way or the other.
(b) Housing Element:
Mr. Keeler reviewed the Housing Elemnet of the TJPDC Comprehensive Plan
for the Commission, recommending that the Housing Committee consult with the appropriate
local officials in order to obtain a better understanding of local ordinances and codes
9
317 (
(Appendix seven which deals with the Statewide Building Code has been transmitted to the
Director of Inspections for Albemarle for his comments ). The staff also stated that
it had recommended that Albemarle County prefers to select its representation on the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Housing Committee and that Housing
Committee members should report to their respective localities prior to reporting
to the full Committee or TJPDC.
(c) The Virginia Outdoors Plan, 1979 ( Draft copy - January, 1978 ):
Mr. Keeler presented the staff recommendations on this draft copy:
1. Albemarle County staff endorses COR's recommendations that U. S. Route 250 and State
Primary Route 53 ( as described in COR recommendations 5 and 6 respectively )
be considered for inclusion in the Virginia Byways System. Such consideration complies
with the recommendations of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, however this should
not be considered endorsement of designation.
2. COR Recommendation #7 concerning consideration of Route 712 for inclusion in the
Virginia Byways System does not comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan. ( The Commission did not adopt a resolution of intent to amend Map 19 of
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include Route 712 as a scenic road to
receive future consideration for designation. Mr. Huffman specifically stated
that he felt possible designation of this road would knock any kind of development
in the southern part of the County. )
3. The COR and the Albemarle County Planning Staff should continue to cooperate closely
in study of routes considered for scenic designation, whether state or local, to
insure compatible efforts in this respect and in order that efforts are in keeping
with the intent of state enabling legislation.
Mr. Easter then asked Mr. Tucker what kind of action, if any, the Comission
needed to take on these three items.
Mr. Tucker replied that the items were for the Commission's information and
that no action is necessary.
The Commission unanimously agreed to make no comments on the plan, but did
ask the staff to forward its comments and recommendations to the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District in order that they could have the County input requested. They specifi-
cally noted that they did not endorse any concept presented in the three items not
any particular locations.
Mr. Tucker stated that he is aware that the House Joint Resolution #141
which addresses billboards might be of interest to the staff and perhaps the county
would want to have some sort of official comment to make on this. He said that
the bill deals with how communities deal with billboards.
Request for Resolution of Intent:
Mr. Tucker stated that approximately 2 months ago the Planning Commission had
forwarded the definition of "subdivision" to the Board of Supervisors. He reminded
the Commission that at both its level and the Board level there was input regarding
private roads, and the Board approinted a committee to draw up an amendment regarding
these private roads. When this was presented to the Board of Supervisors, they
9
3�7
decided they wanted to eradicate pipestem lots, and this went along with the
private road concept.
Mr. Tucker said that they asked the Commission to review this package,
and he is asking that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to take this
to public hearing, in order to more briefly take care of the matter. He said
that the amendments deal with the definition of subdivision, the deletion of
pipestem lots, and provides for private roads to be built to certain minimum
standards.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent
to repeal Section 18-40 of the County Code and to amend Sections 18-2, 18-30, 18--36,
and 18-37(m) and (n) of the County Code in order to discuss those matters mentioned
by Mr. Tucker.
Col. Wasington seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. with no discussion.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m
Robe t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secre ary
v
M
19