Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 29 78 PC Minutes/y- August 29, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 29, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Huffman; Mr Peter Easter; Dr. James Moore; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-officio. Other Officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of March 7, 1978 were deferred to September 5, 1978. ZMA-78-12 Randall W. Barnett - proposed rezoning of 27.9 acres from A-1 to M-1; located on the northwest quadrant of Rt. 742 and I-64. Mr. Kegley, the applicant's representative, stated that the property is the old City dump. He commented that Mr. Barnett, the applicant, had acquired a farm equip- ment dealership which he wished to locate on this property. He said they requested rezoning the total acreage because of a suggestion from Mr. Dick, Zoning Administator. Mr. Tucker said that the reason for Mr. Dick's suggestion was to give the Com- mission an opportunity to look at the site as a whole. Mr. Kegly stated that he feels the only thing to do is to rezone the whole tract to M-1. ne commented that the land is unsuitabre for agricultural and he doesn't think it is suitable for residential either. Mr. Wiley, City Attorney, stated that the City is in support of Mr. Barnett's site plan and the City Council thought this would be a good use for thie property and be of economic benefit. He stated that the City was aware that a large part of the property would be unusable for at least 20 to 30 years. He said the buyer was aware of the problem with gas pockets that could form. He said that the City felt there was enough land that was stable enough to use for Mr. Barnett's business. He commented that the City would have some responsibility if the general public is. in jeopardy due to gas leaks. Mr. Keggly said that Mr. Barnett is aware of the problem and some things that could be done to improve this matter to some extent. Dr. Moore stated that he thought everything looks pretty much in order. Mr. Gloeckner noted that according to the site plan the area the building will be located on is stable. /5 ZMA-78-12 Randall W. Barnett (cont.) Mr. Keeler stated that this property would not even rate on an Industrial check list. He stated that the staff would like to have the owner prove the pro- perty can be used for industrial use before the County Engineer has to spend time on this. He said that he thought the Commission should just go with the rezoning of the part of the property that is usable. Mr. Easter asked if it would be a hardship if the usable part of the property is rezoned. Mr. Kegley stated that the rezoning of the property would prevent future prob- lems with the gas. Mrs. Diehl said she opposes anything being approved except for the usable area. She opposes placing the burden on the owner to maintain property that is not even buildable. Dr. Moore asked if there was any type of agency that could deal with the gas problem. Mr. Keeler stated that it will probably fall on the County Engineering Department. Mr. Wiley noted that the land is not usable as it is now, but there are somethings that could be done to stablize the land. He commented that the jail -is located on a portion of the land fill. Mr. Easter stated that he hopes the City does not leave the County with a problem, and will have someone checking the gas level at regular intervals. Mr. Wiley said that he doesn't feel the City will turn their backs on the problem. Mr. Gloeckner recommended that 550 feet from the frontage be rezoned and asked if this was agreeable with the applicant. Mr. Barnett said this would be adequate for his needs. Dr. Moore asked if the rezoning could be approved with a condition for monitoring for gas. Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not approve the rezoning without seeing at least one test for gas. Mr. Huffman noted that the problem will remain regardless of the zone and couldn't the acres needed be rezoned and then at a later date rezone the remaining acreage to M-1. Mr. Tucker stated that this is a reasonable alternative. Dr. Moore asked how many acres are usable. Mr. Keggly said it was roughly 14 acres. Mr. Easter asked what the Commission thought of rezoning 14 acres. Mr. Payne noted that something like the possbily of explosive gas should be addressed on the plan. 40 Mr. Gloeckner asked if the 14 acres that are safe can be rezoned and the remainder be zoned as conservation and be used as a buffer between this property and Willoughby. Mr. Easter asked if Mr. Barnett and Kegly_ would go along with the Commission's suggestion. Mr. Barnett stated that he could go along with that. Mr. Keggly asked what could be done with conservation. Mr. Keeler stated that a house could be built on five acres, but property would have to be approved by the Building Inspector. Mr. Easter stated that he thinks the City is leaving the County with a pig in a poke. Mr. Payne noted that the developer can be required to have the gas level monitored, or have a contract with the City to have this taken care of. Mr. Easter stated that this situation is absurb for the City to do this. He said that Mr. Barnett does not have the equipment or the experience to deal with a problem of this nature. Mr. Payne stated that the City is not involved in the rezoning and he feels that any problem with explosions should be the developers problem. Once the County has said that the monitoring must be done it is then the developers responsibility. Mr. Kegly said that such a condition could be added to the rezoning. Mr. Gloeckner noted that a condition can not be added to a rezoning. Mr. Keggly asked if they could rezone the part of the property that Mr. Barnett needs to get started with his business and take up the balance at a later meeting when something can be worked out with the City. Mr. Easter said that he doesn't feel that City has done all they could before turning this over to someone who isn't equipped to handle problems with the property. Mr. Wiley stated that to ask the City to give up their right to sell property that they have legal title to isn't right. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for what is shown on site plan plus and additional 10 feet is depth. Mr. Barnett commented that he couldn't agree to road being within 10 feet of his building. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for rezoning the property with the western boundary back 300 feet. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Mr. Payne noted that the Commission should make clear they are not approving the site plan. The rezoning was approved with a vote of 6-1. Mrs. Graves abstained because she was late arriving. (U.rs. Diehl dissented.) ZMA-78-13 James F. Walker and Blue Ridge Farm The applicant has requested deferral until September 12, 1978. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for deferral and was seconded by Dr. Moore. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. Allen H. & Theresa M. Shotwell Final Plat - proposed 4 lot subdivision; located on Rts. 747 and 640 near Gilbert Station. Mr. Lincoln, the applicant's representative, stated that the Highway Department entrance permit is for the entrance on Route 640 which has adequate sight distance and the lots are of equal size because of the division between the family. Mrs. Graves noted that the shared entrance should be shown on the plat. Dr. Moore moved for approval. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; 2. Health Department approval of septic facilities. Parcel J, Northside Industrial Park Site Plan The applicant requests deferral indefinitely. Mrs. Diehl moved for doterral. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Lovell Coleman Final Plat This plat was deferred to the end of the meeting to allow time for the applicant to be present. Mrs. Graves moved to defer to the end of the meeting. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. Bennington Woods Final Plat - proposed 26 lot subdivision; located at the end of Bennington Road between Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads. Mr. Johnson, an adjacent landowner, stated that basically he would like to see more intelligent design with the transition of the new lots in to the surrounding properties. He said he was also concerned with extending Bennington Road. Dr. Moore asked if the Commission approved the preliminary plat without a contiquous interesection. Mr. Tucker noted that part of the ea,ement is on the applicant's property and the pavement right-of-way will continue. ' Mr. Rotgin, the applicant's representative, noted that this plat has been on the agenda since January 5, 1978 and believes that 7 publi hearings have been held concerning this property. He commented that they have -revised the plan several N• times and are trying to cooperate with the neighbors. He commented that he has gotten in touch with the neighborhood association but had no response but he added, he had been busy this time of year. He noted that the pavement will be 20 feet (which it is now) but the right-of-way will be only 40 feet when road is ex- tended. He stated that they would still like to get 34 dwelling units in this area. Mr. O'Brien, an adjacent landowner, said he was concerned that the lots were not divided between single-family and duplexes as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker stated the Board only agreed upon lots 1-12 as being single-family dwellings and didn't specify the type of dwellings on other lots. Staff feels that the street plans are adequate and safe. Mr. Tucker also stated that the applicant has agreed to specify lots on the northern side for single-family dwellings. Mr. Rotgin said he didn't see where there would be a problem with lots 25,26, and 1-12 as single-family dwellings. He also added that even with the 26 lots, he would like to keep the 34 dwelling units. Mr. Tucker informed him that if he wishes to keep the 34 units he will have to come back with an amendment to SP-78-22. Mr. Rotgin said he would accept approval with 33 units and bring it back through for the 34. Mrs. Graves said she was concerned about the right-of-way if there were addi- tional improvements on Bennington Road. Mr. Roosevelt said 40 feet should be sufficient unless a volume of traffic is generated further down the road, then will need 50 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. County Engineering Department approval of adequate on -site and off -site drainage facilities (Board of Supervisors action, June 14, 1978 for SP-78-22); 2. Any improvements that may be needed on Bennington Road must be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation from Inglewood Drive to the end of the existing temporary turnaround on Bennington Road (Board of Supervisors action, June 14, 1978, for SP-78-22); 3. Approval is for 33 units on 26 lots, with lots 1-12, 25 & 26 developed as single- family detached dwellings; with the remaing lots developed as single-family de- tached and two-family dwelling units with a maximum of seven two-family dwellings; whose location shall be approved by the staff; 4. Site is subject to inspection by the Fire Official; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of proposed extension of Bennington Road; 6. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for water and sewage facilities; 7. Fee of $39.00 due. Solomon Court, Phase III, Revised Site Plan - proposed 50 dwelling with garden apartment complex; located off south side of Hydraulic Mr. Rotgin, the applicant's representative, stated that they have requested an rd. increase in density. He also commented that they have been concerned about dead-end (in case of and that is the reason for the loop. He also feels that /9 they have a sufficient amount of recreational facilities and they have no objection to connecting the jogging path with Westgate. He said they will provide better landscape plans on plat and want to vary parking area betwen 58 and 60 feet. Mr. Easter asked if anyone would like to comment on Condition #10. Mr. Tucker stated the only problem will be when the inspectors go out to inspect the site and the tree are removed they will be going by the plan and will say they are not building according to plan. Mr. Rotgin said he is agreeable to showing a. plan for curbing around the trees prior to completion of the parking area. Mr. Payne said he thought Mr. Rotgin disagreed with Condition U . Ms. Caperton said the staff's only concern was that there be 50 feet of recrea- tional space per dwelling unit. Mr. Huffman moved for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which was approved by 6-1 vote with the following conditions: (Mrs. Graves voted against.) 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance on Solomon Road (onto North Berkshire); 2. Site subject to field inspection from Fire Official; 3. County Engineering Department approval of drainage system (on -site and off -site), pavement specifications; 4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewage facilities; 5. Grading permit; 6. Handicapped facilities shall meet Director of Inspections approval including handicapped ramps; 7. Staff approval of recreational facilities; 8. Staff approval of more detailed landscape plan, or provide more details on present site plan (type, size, height, etc.); 9. Show connection of jogging path to Westgate and Barclay Place; 10. Staff approval of dimensions between curb faces and aisle width prior to actual paving of parking area. Mowinckel - Barclay Place Site Plan - proposed 188 multi -family units; located between Hydraulic and Georgetown Rds. off the west side of Mr. Rotgin stated that they have planned a tot lot, swimming pool, tennis Rt. 29. courts and basketball court and feels these are sufficient recreation facilities. He noted that they will correct the drainage problem that was mentioned in Gay Blair's letter. Mr. Rotgin also said it is very difficult to save trees and doesn't want to guarantee that the trees will live. He doesn't feel the staff should tell him how to save the trees, because he will do the best that he can. He said he would like condition #10 struck. He stated that he is greatly opposed to having a lift station installecbecause of the public sewer and he would also like to have condition #16 struck because of the way the parking is arranged to designate where each person can park. Mr. White, an adjacent landowner, stated that he would like to support Mr. Rotgin concerning the pedestrian walkway between the two developments because of motopeds and motorcycles that might also use it. Ms. Howard, an adjacent landowner, stated that she did not like the idea of a pedestrian walkway either. 20 Mr. Roosevelt, Highway Department, stated that the right-of-way is only 40 feet on Georgetowl?,oad which is adequate, but a taper of 340 northbound is needed to bring traffic against the Mowinckel property. He said the Highway Department will be able to make the northbound lane a left turn lane for southbound traffic. Mrs. Graves asked about the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road. Mr. Roosevelt stated Hydraulic Road will be widened and should be, which will be done in a year to a year and one-half when the Hydraulic -Road project is begun. Col. Washington saIC hE does not feel that tree wells help very much to save tree. Mrs. Diehl stated she would like to see the trees saved and possibly the condition could be changed so as not to be so stringent. Mr. Rotgin stated that any tree that has to come down they will be willing to replace. Mr. Tucker commented that he feels replacing the trees with something of similar type could be acceptable with the staff. He also said that he feels the condition is not unreasonable. Mrs. Graves said she knows that tree wells work. Mrs. Diehl said she agrees with Mrs. Graves concerning tree wells. Mr. Payne stated that the Service Authority has the power to require public water. Mr. Rotgin commented that :he feels the condition is unfair because there is no public water there now and the lift station will be required. He also noted that they had this problem before with Stonehenge. Mr. Tucker said that the site plan ordinance requires walkways between building and these also help when parking can not be found adjacent to your residence. Mr. Rotgin said he does not favor this because more trees will have to be cut down, and they will have to cut further into the woods. They want to tell people where they can park. Mr. Easter stated if the ordinance requires these walkways then the Commission doesn't have any choice but to require them. Mr. Tucker noted that the Commission could waive this requirement. Mr. Easter commented that if the ordinance says it has to be done then the walk- ways will have to taken care of. Ms. Caperton stated that the walkway between the two developments is mostly to keep people from walking down Georgetown Road. The walkway is chieflyor safety. Mrs. Graves asked who owned the utility easement. Mr. Tucker told her that the adjacent owners own it. Mr. Easter said he would not like to own the property that had the easement for such a walkway. 2-1 Mr. Rotgin stated that there are some areas in which he would not be opposed to the walkways and if staff could rework the condition so something could be worked out he would be satisfied. He also said he would be willing to stake and rope the 24 inch trees and maybe some of the smaller ones. Mi6a Diehl said that if the trees are only going to roped and staked all specified trees should be treated in this matter. Dr. Moore moved for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously with the following conditions: (Mrs. Graves abstained.) 1. Conditions 2 and 3 of SP-78-22 must be met, (drainage and dedication, i.e., County Engineer approval of drainage system and dedication for a 60 foot right-of-way along Route 656.); 2. Note that the Planning Commission is not approving the Barclay Place sign or its location; 3. Recreational facilities shall be approved by the staff; 4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewage plans; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance location and design; 6. Grading permit; 7. Staff approval of a separate landscape plan, or provide more details on present plan (size, type, height, etc.); 8. Site subject to inspection by Fire Official; 9. Handicapped facilities (including handicapped ramps) must be approved by the Director of Inspections; 10. During construction reasonable action shall be taken to protect and maintain specified trees with stakes and ropes; 11. Show pedestrian trail's connecting site to Georgetown Road along existing old road. (A sidewalk would normally be required but the applicant would rather dedicate adequate space for a sidewalk to be constructed at a later time when the road plans for Georgetown Road are completed); 12. The Service Authority may require that the office facility be connected to the public water septic system. If they do not, Health Department approval of the septic drainfield will be required; 13. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, pedestrian trails, and other physical improvements as shown on the site plan, are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; curb faces and aisle width prior to actual 14. Staff approval of dimensions between paving of parking facilities; 15. Staff approval of position of walkways between buildings (mulch, pine bark) for easier access from parking areas to buildings as required in Section 17-5-19 of the site plan ordinance; 16. Phasing of road development as follows: a) A right turn taper of 350 feet will be required with the development of the office facility; b) Full road frontage development from the office entrance to the existing entrance to Westgate will be required and a left turn lane in the office entrance will be required within the development of Barclay Place. Fray Division - located at the intersection of Routes 676 and 660. Mr. Foster, the applicant's representative, stated the reason the lots are elongated is because the ordinance requires 2 acres for building. Mrs. Graves asked if lot 5 has two dwellings why doesn't it have to be 4 acres. zZ Mr. Tucker stated that the lot should be 4 acres and doesn't feel it can be any smaller. Mr. Foster commented that he can't see any reason for changing an easement on paper when the road will be there anyway. (condition #4) Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Highway Department approval of a commercial entrance; 3. County Engineering Department approval of improvements to the Old County Road; 4. Maintenance agreement for Old County Road to be approved the County Attorney's office and recorded; 5. Waiver of scale requirement (1" - 1001, 1" = 200' shown); 6. Grading permit; 7. Owner's notarized signature needed on plat' 8. Fee due of $40.00. 9. Lot 5 to be combined with adjacent lot. Lovell Coleman Final Plat - proposed 2 lot subdivision; located off Route 604 near Earlysville. This plat was deferred because the applicant was not present at the meeting. Dr. Moore moved for deferral and Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. New Business - Mrs. Graves asked that the County Attorney address the Commission with the new legislation for proffer zoning. She asked if it had to be included in the Zoning Ordinance in order to be effective in Albemarle County. Mrs. Graves noted that flashing lights (the kind in use in signs on banks now) are not in the present ordinance, but she understood that new legislation in Richmond was allowing them so why was proffer zoning not automatically in effect too? Mr. Payne and the Planning staff will check into this matter. Mr. Keeler said he thinks something concerning these lights is in the proposed ordinance, but that the legislation passed in Richmond applied to the Highway Department. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Robe W. Tucker, Jr. - Secrlltary M