HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 11 78 PC Minutes5�/ 4
July 11, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
July 11, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William R. Washington,
Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James L. Huffman, Jr; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex -official. Absent
was Dr. James W. Moore. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quroum was present and called the meeting to order.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission of its work session on July 13, 1978, at
4:00 p.m. in the Board Room. He also stated that there is to be a joint meeting of
the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission on August 10, 1976, at the
Holiday Inn -South.
ZMA-78-10. HARLEY C. EASTER AND ASHBY KENNON have petitioned the Board
of Supervisors to rezone 120,000 square feet from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1
Residential. Property is located at the end of Westover Drive in Westover Hills.
County Tax Map 41, Parcel 66 ( part thereof ). White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and the noted the letters of opposition
to the request that had been handed out to the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl established that the adjoining parcels at the end of the cul-de-sac
are owned by the applicants.
The applicants stated that at that time they had no comments to present.
Mr. Robert Spence said that he is concerned about what happens after the property
is rezoned. He said that his desire is to have the Highway Department and the County
requirements met. He noted that there are various things that have not been done
to date that were previous requirements of the Highway Department. He said that he
feels that it is only proper that the developer maintain his obligations for the sake
of the adjoining property owners.
Mrs. Frances Wade said that the developer has never maintained the turn -around.
She said that if the property is rezoned, the road and turnaround should be taken over
and maintained by the state.
Mr. Easter asked if the public's concern is that the road requirements be met.
Mr. Spence replied that this is correct and he said that he wants the county's assurance
that this will take place.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it is not possible at this time to condition
a rezoning. He did note, however, that it would be necessary for the developer to
bring the road up to standards in order to further develop the property. This would
take place at the subdivision review level. At this time, it would be the only
stage of development that the county could require such improvements.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing, since there were no further public comments.
5(D s-
Col. Washington said that there is possibly some alternative that would
permit the Commission not to favorably consider the request until all the prior
conditions placed on the road have been accomplished.
Mr. Keeler read the letter from Mrs. Scala which stated that the Highway
Department had said that the road was built to state standards.
Mrs. Wojohowitz asked the County to reqire a bond of good faith to assure
the road maintenance.
Mr. Gloeckner emphasized Mr. Keeler's comment that the problem is that
the Highway Department had accepted the road prior to the turnaround's being improved.
Col. Washington moved that the rezoning request be deferred to July 25, 1978,
in order to have direct Highway Department input.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
SP-78-33. ALBERT AND PERCY CLARK have petitioned the Board of Supervisors
pursuant to Section 2-1-25(14) of the Zoning Ordinance, to locate a country
store on 1.300 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the north side of
Route 6, at the intersection of Routes 6 and 800. County Tax Map 126, Parcel
33D, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the comments from the Highway
Department.
Mr. Clark said that the store has been :in operation for 15 years and burned
in the spring; he stated that he would like to get back in operation as soon as possible
and noted the petition of 500 signatures of support.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Huffman stated that there is no one in that community the least bit opposed
to this request and would welcome it opening again as soon as possible.
Col. Washington asked about the limited access recommended by the Highway
Department and asked if it were a problem.
Mr. Clark replied that it is a problem since it would affect the gas pumps.
Mr. Keeler said that the variance granted by the BZA was conditioned upon
conpliance with the recommendations of the Highway Department. Unless the applicant
returns to the BZA, the condition cannot be waived.
Mr. Huffman moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions imposed in variances by the BZA;
2. Site plan approval to include Planning Commission approval of landscaping;
3. Highway Departmentapproval of entrances;
4. All signs to comply with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance;`
5. Engineer's stress testing of walls to the satisfaction of the County Engineer
and Director of Inspections;
6. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
7. Fire Official approval of self service gas pumps.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
ZTA-78-07. JAMES W. GERCKE has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
amend the B-1 zone of the County Zoning Ordinance to provide for contractor's
office and equipment storage yard as a use by special use permit.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report noting the recommended wording of
the amendment.
Mr. Sandy Lambert, on behalf of the applicant, stated that he had no comment
other than he feels it is an appropriate use with site plan approval by the county.
There was no public comment.
Mrs. Graves said that the M-1 zone is compatible with residential uses
and feels that this use could be a problem, since special use permits are seldem
turned down.
Col. Washington asked if the contractor's office could include a mobile unit.
Mr. Keeler replied that it could not.
Mr. Gloeckner said that his only concern is the type of contractor, since
the equipment could vary considerably in size.
Mr. McCann noted that the County will have to be very careful with screening
since storage yards can be quite messy. If this could be accomplished with relatively
few problems, he said that he supports the amendment.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is concerned about "equipment storage yard" and suggested
this term be modified.
Mr. Lambert said that he understands this concern and that more modified language
would be agreeable to the applicant.
Mr. Payned said that it appears that the Commission's concern is the idea of
outside storage and if the word "yard" were eliminated it would be possible to determine
at a later date if outside storage is a good idea.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he minds only the magnitude of the outside storage.
Col. Washington said that he would like to get rid of any possibility of unuseable
materials being left on the property to deteriorate.
Mr. Easter said that he could support the amendment if the special permits were
carefully scrutinized.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the zoning text amendment as follows:
Section 7-1-42(15) Contractor's Office and equipment storage yard.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-3, with
Mrs. Graves, Mrs. Diehl; and Col. Washington dissenting.
Mr. Payne established that the intent of the Commission is that storage would
be possible.
SP-78-35. CALEB N. STOWE AND RAYMOND V. LONG have petitioned the
Board of Supervisors for a contractor's office and equipment storage
shed on 1.62 acres zoned B-1. Property is located in Berkmar Center
on the east side of Berkmar Drive. County Tax Map 61U, Parcel 2-7 and 8,
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Lambert stated that some of the things that would be stored on the property
would be backhoes, straw, trucks, etc.
Mrs. Diehl said that the way she understands the approval of the zoning text
amendment, material storage would not be permitted.
Mr. Easter said that he was voting to approve material storage.
Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission clarify its intent.
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission reconsider the zoning text amendment.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Diehl and
Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. McCann then moved that the following wording be approved as the amendment:
Section 7-1-42(15) Contractor's office and equipment and material storage yard.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-3, with Col.
Washington, Mrs. Diehl, and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mrs. Graves said that in regard to the special use permit, there has been
a lot of soil erosion on the adjacent property and special attention should be
given to this problem if necessary. She noted that it has been several months
since she has viewed the site.
Mr. Keeler said that he would ask the Zoning Administrator to check into this.
Mr. Vest then moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Site plan approval to include Commission approval of landscaping/screening;
2. All equipment shall be stored in an enclosed building;
3. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
4. Outside storage shall exclude debris and inoperative equipment.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Col. Washington felt that the lot should be fenced for security purposes.
Mr. Vest amended his motion to include the following 5th condition:
5. Security fencing shall be provided to the satisfaction of the staff.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with
no further discussion. Dissenting votes were cast by Mrs. Diehl and Mrs. Graves.
5&$
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend the County Subdivision Ordinance to require central
well systems in those subdivisions which are exempted under present
ordinance requirements.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the letter from W. W. Stevenson
and the memo from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, regarding this matter.
Mr. Bailey re -iterated his comments from the memo to the Commission and public.
Mr. Lindstrom explained to the Commission the series of events leading up
to the Board's asking the Commission to review this matter. He noted that it grew
out of the review of Whippoorwill Hollow and one of the Board members had felt that
there might be protection in the number of lots using a central well.
Mr. Payne said that he sees a problem if this amendment is adopted. The
County Engineer is the individual who would have to deal with the matter, and the
County. Engineer has stated that he does not have the factual information available
to require a central well.
Mr. Preston Stallings said that the cost of central wells would be exorbitant
and would increase the cost of housing considerably. With a central well one would
have no control on one's neighbors. Another problem would be replacing the well if
it runs dry.
Mr. Randy Rinehart agreed that the consumer will bear the burden.
Mr. Mike Boggs said that individuals are more confortable with maintaining
their own water systems.
Mr. Goode Love said that this appears to be another way that the Board is
trying to suppress growth in Albemarle County and also get free lines for the County
Service Authority.
Mr. Tom Forloines said that the County should not pass anything that adds
a burden and cost to the consumer and that ultimately does not do that much good.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing since there was no further public comment.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he has heard nothing that supports this amendment.
Mr. McCann agreed, noting that many central wells do fail.
Mr. Easter said that he feels the County should certainly rely on the comments
made by the County Engineer.
Col. Washington moved that the Commission not recommend this amendment to the Board.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 18-22 of the County Code and Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning
Ordinance to establish performance standards for off -site and on -site drainage
facilities.
5_69
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that if the Commission adopts
this, design aspects should be included as part of the amendment.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, addressed the matter, and noted
that downstream run-off effects can be calculated and thus upstream developers could
pay their pro-rata share. He said that it will be a rather cumbersome thing to imple-
ment, since there is no way to estimate when downstream facilities will need up -grading.
If this amendment is adopted it will add some cost to development, however the necessity
for some type of control is evident. Mr. Bailey further cited an example where this
type of ordinance could preserve existing drainage structures, noting that the County
already has an ordinance that addresses the quality of water downstream. He said that
the Engineering Department supports the passage of this ordinance.
Mr. Easter asked if compared to other parts of the state, if this is a reasonable
expense to impose on the developer.
Mr. Bailey said that the only place in the state �,,here this is done is Arlington.
He stated that this is not cost effective for every project, however it is cost effective
when the entire drainage basin is considered. He stated that he has been advised that
the developer downstream can size his drainage facilities on today's conditions and
does not have to live in jeopardy of what will happen in the future.
Mrs. Graves questioned if some of the restrictions would be bonded.
Mr. Bailey said that this could be possible for some brief period.
Mr. Tom Forloines questioned Mr. Bailey regarding the downstream improvements
that would be required of a developer upstream if this ordinance were adopted.
Mr. Bailey said that if the runoff is controlled, no major improvements
will be necessary downstream.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the only thing that bothers him is the size of the
control features on a large piece of property.
Mrs. Huckle asked about the inspections that might be necessary.
Mr. Bailey responded that this could be done by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Lindstrom questioned if all the run-off control facilities would be
concentrated in one area, and if so, could they cause serious problems for the
adjoining property.
Mr. Bailey said that all the control facilities would not be concentrated on
one area - at least they would try to prevent this from happening.
Mr. Forloines said that this ordinance will require a. lot of engineering.
He noted that it would certainly cut down on the number of lots in each subdivision
and a lot of land will be used for these drainage facilities.
Mr. Sandy Lambert questioned "zero run-off." He pointed out that even the
construction of a house can change the runoff patterns and therefore, he does not see
this amendment as practical. Those individuals develping at the end will pay for the
problems caused by all.
Mr. Mike Boggs said that to permit no increase in run-off is too restrictive
and he suggested further study prior to enacting the ordinance.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that there is a provision in the ordinance that permits
exception.
570
Mr. Preston Stallings said that developers and landowners need to know before
the ordinance is enacted how much this will increase the costs of development. He
said that as the ordinance is currently written, he does not feel anyone will be able
to live with it and he too asked for further study.
Mr. Randy Rinehart said that he feels this ordinance has serious implications
for the future and could not support it as written.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said that in his opinion there is not a county -wide problem
with drainage, and noted that most of the area that would cause problems is already
developed. He said that approval of the amendments would be a significant step
without further study. He said that it is not possible to apply the same standards
to development in the urban area. as should be applied to the rural areas. Furthermore,
he noted that even the Highway Department can have a substantial impact on runoff
from a piece of property. He felt that the amendments could in effect downzone some
property in the county, would be costly to the public to monitor, and therefore asked
that further study be done prior to any enactment.
Mr. Bailey said that he is certainly agreeable to having more data and illustration
on the effects of the ordinance prior to the County enacting it.
Mr. Easter said that this certainly appears to be an encompassing matter and would
thus prefer more input. He suggested that the staff work on this, and if at a later
date a committee should be formed to do study on the matter, he would also support that.
He encouraged the community to give to the county engineer their comments at this
time.
Col. Washington said that he feels that any action on this matter can wait,
and noted that this is a problem with a potential bigger problem in the future.
Mr. Bailey advised the Commission that he would like at least 60 days to
study the matter in depth.
Col. Washington moved that the public hearing be continued on September 12,
1978. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend Sections 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 to establish zoning inspection
fees and to require notification by the developer to the Zoning Administrator
for phased site inspections.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. McCann asked if this means fewer inspections with a fee where there had
been no fee at all.
Mr. Keeler again explained the intent, noting that this would work better for
the developer as well as the inspections department.
Mr. Forloines said that he feels that the same problems will occur in the future
and that a $10.00 fee will not be sufficient to make the entire inspection fee more
satisfactory. He suggested that a staggered fee be recommended such that if the
developer does not do as he is supposed to in the notification process, that he will
be substantially penalized. He also reminded the Commission that if a developer does
not call for an inspection at the proper time and proceeds without that inspection,
57I
technically the county can make the developer rip out whatever he has done to
make the necessary inspections.
Mr. Mike Boggs said that inspections are needed, especially timely inspections,
which this will assure. But a fee schedule would not be necessary to make a timely
inspection.
Mr. Keeler explained that the fee will cover inspection of those items listed
on a site plan that have to be accomplished.
Mr. Rotgin felt that the items that will be inspected should be enumerated in
the amendment as well as the time they need to be inspected.
Mr. Easter agreed that it seems that a check list is necessary so that the
developer will know when to call the zoning administrator for the inspection.
Mr. Payne noted that this is an administrative matter that will be difficult
to word in the amendment.
Mr. Forloines suggested that a check list be included at the time of site plan
approval.
Mr. Sandy Lambert said that he feels as though it is spelled out in the amendment
and the only difference is the scope of the project.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission defer the matter for two weeks in order
that the zoning administrator can promulgate what will be inspected.
Mr. McCann said that it should be easy to define the problem areas.
Col. Washington moved that action on the amendments be deferred until July
25, 1978. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
New Business:
Mr. Keeler asked that the Planning Commission consider a slight change in
the warehouse site plan at Northside Industrial Park for use by General Electric.
He stated that when the developer began his grading, he encountered a great deal of
rock and now requests permission to shift the items on the site plan downward. Mr.
Keeler showed the proposal through an overlay. He said that all site plan requirements
would remain the same.
There was a discussion regarding whether members of the Commission felt the
developer should be present for amendments such as these and if the adjoining property
owners should be notified. Mr. Easter asked at the end of the discussion that the
staff request the developer to be present in the future. Col. Washington suggested
modifying this so that the staff requests he be present only if the change is of such
significance that the Planning Commission may disagree with the requested amendment.
The Commission agreed that the developer should be present if problems are foreseen.
Mr. McCann established that the only change is the shift of the buildings.
He then moved approval of the requested amendments to the site plan subject to the
original conditions plus the requirement that the developer submit three additional
copies of the site plan with the proposed amendments and the condition that the
County Engineer and the Zoning Administrator review the grading plans to ascertain
if a revised grading plan will be necessary.
5! Z
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0-1, with Mrs. Graves
abstaining.
Mel Dixon Office Building Site Plan:
After a brief discussion, Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission review this
the following meeting under Old Business. The Commission agreed.
Col. Washington advised the Commission and staff that he looks as the work
session on the 13th as an orientation and would like to know the state and county
statutory requirements of the Commission and why some items are considered by public
hearing and others are not.
Mrs. Diehl said that some of her points to discuss involve implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan and some questions for general information.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
IR
19