Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 06 79 PC MinutesMarch 6, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting Tuesday, March 6, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Jim Skove; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-Officio. Other Officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of February 28, 1979 were approved as corrected. ZMA-79-03. William W. Stevenson and Alton F. Martin have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 13.15 acres from R-2 to B-1. Property is located on the northwest side of Route 29 North, just north of the intersection of Route 631 and Rt. 29 North. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 94. Mr. Keeler presented the Staff's report. Mr. Stevenson, the applicant, and Mr. Bain, the applicant's representative, were present. Mr. Bain noted that his client is proffering for 400 vtpd. He noted that this figure will apply as long as Rt. 29 remains four lane. He noted that when Rt. 29 is widened to six lanes the proffer will change. He noted that this allows for flexibility of the property, as a whole. Mr. Bain stated that this plan is in compliance with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that as proffered this property will have fewer vtpd than if the property is developed as it is presently zoned. Dr. Moore asked where the applicant intends to locate the two entrances. Mr. Bain noted that the existing entrance would be used along with a possible entrance to the south. He stated that this entrance may have to be relocated to the north because of inadequate sight distance. Mr. Skove asked how many entrances the applicant could have -by right. Mr. Tucker stated that the actual control of access is done during the subdivision or site review process. Mr. Keeler noted that due to the frontage and shape this property could be divided into 4 or 5 parcels with an entrance for each parcel. He commented that with this proffer they are limited to 2 entrances. Dr. Moore suggested that this property have one entrance and then an additional entrance would be shared with the Farm Implement business. He noted that he feels this is the best approach. Imm /� Mr. McCann stated that he feels the applicant's proffer recognizes the traffic problem on Rt. 29 much better than the previous request. He commented that he feels the Commission should rely on the Highway Department for guidance to direct these entrances. Col. Washington asked if the proffer states there will be no more than 2 entrances can this be changed to only one entrance at the time of the site plan. Mr. Tucker noted that this is possible. Mr. McCann moved to recommend ZMA-79-03 for approval to the Board of Supervisors, subject to following proffers: 1. There shall -be :no more than two commercial entrances to U. S. Route 29 North along the entire 938 foot frontage. 2. Access easements will be provided to the adjacent property owners, being Tax Map 45, Parcel 105 and Tax Map 45, Parcel 108, at locations to be determined at time of site development. 3. Landscaping shall be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Albemarle County Planning Commission between the B-1 property and all adjacent residential property. 4. Shrubbery along the frontage of the property along Route 29 for the beautification of Rt. 29 shall be provided at time of site development to the reasonable satisfaction of the Albemarle County Planning Commission for the purpose of beautification; and not for the purpose of the screening of any legitimate business uses. 5. Vehicle trips per day shall be limited to 400 per acre of business property so long as Rt. 29 North remains in its current status of two through lanes of traffic. Mr. Gleockner seconded the motion. Mr. Skove stated that he dislikes allowing further commercial development along 1.04 Rt. 29, but this proposal is better than stripping the roadway with narrow development. Mr. McCann's motion, carried unanimously, with no further discussion. ZMA-79-04. Ronald L. Smullen has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 10 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1 Residential. Property is located on the east side of Route 678 approximately 500 feet north of the C & 0 Railroad. Mr. Keeler presented the Staff's report. Mr. Smullen, the applicant, was present. Mr. Smullen noted that he only intends to have six lots and will keep three acres with the existing dwelling, as is. Mr. Shannon, an adjacent owner, stated that he and some other owners, who live along this section of Leeds Lane, had requested that this section of Leeds Lane be abandoned. He noted that this section of the road had fallen into disrepair. He noted that some of the liability for this road should be placed with the developer. Mr. Shannon commented that he would rather not see six additional lots, but the lots do conform with other lots in the area. Mr. Tucker stated that Leeds Lane was dedicated when the subdivision plat for Meriwether Hills was approved. He noted that it was Mr. Cushman's intent to buy Mr. Smullen's property and extend Leeds Lane. Mr. Tucker commented that the Board tabled this item until Mr. Smullen's request came before them. He noted that Mr. Smullen will be required to upgrade this portion of Leeds Lane as well as his own road Y3 to be accepted into the state system. Mr. Smullen stated that he would agree to upgrading this portion of Leeds Lane also. Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Smullen when he intends to develope. Mr. Smullen stated that he will develope as soon as possible. Mr. Gloeckner moved that°ZMA-79-0''be recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors, subject to the applicant's proffer to upgrade Leeds Lane from Section II, Meriwether Hills to state standards prior to approval of a subdivision plat. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. NEW BUSINESS - Planning Commission Meeting Procedure Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Staff met with several members of the Commission, who served as a committee, to set procedures for the Planning Commission meetings that would shorten the time spent on each item. He stated that the committee outlined criteria for site plan and subdivision staff reports and procedures for the Planning Commission meetings. (attached) Col. Washington stated that he feels the Commission should be told why a particular item is before them, because it helps to focus thought. Mr. Payne suggested that it might be helpful to state why a particular item does not comply with the ordinance. Mr. Tucker asked the Commission if they would like to see the vptd on the roads involved, in the staff reports. (The consensus was that the Commission would like to see the vtpd.) Procedure During Planning Commission Meetings Mr. Payne suggested placing a definite time limit on each meeting. He noted that this would required changing the rules of the Commission to allow the Chairman and the Secretary to set a time limit. Mr. Payne noted that when the time limit is reached the rules of the Commission would have to be suspended, with a 2/3's vote, in order to continue the meeting. If this is not done the remaining items would be deferred. Mr. Gloeckner noted that implementing the second suggestion would solve the time limit problem. He noted that getting a motion on the floor prior to discussion of the item would cut out uneccessary discussion. Col. Washington noted that he would be concerned with making a motion before the Commission members have finished asking questions of the Staff. Mr. McCann suggested that a reference date noting any prior action be placed in the staff report. He noted that then the Commission could check past minutes and staff report's Mr. Tucker noted that these suggestions should be put to use, to determine if streamlining the meetings will help. Mrs. Deihl stated that she would rather not set a definite time limit on the meetings, but would rather use some of the,other suggestions to see what affect -they will have. Mr. Tucker noted that the Staff will attempt to have copies of the staff reports to the Commission members prior to the meetings. Mr. Gloeckner stated that if a Commissioner has a specific concern about an item they should discuss it with the Planner prior to the meeting. Mr. Payne noted that if questions and answers are directed through the Chair it would prevent the public from entering the discussion after the public hearing has been closed. Mr. Tucker noted that conceptual items should not be discussed during the meeting, but deferred to the end of the meeting or a work session. He also noted that the motion should be restated to be sure it was recorded correctly. Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission agrees on this concept they should adopt it into the rules of the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner asked if these new procedures could be used on a temporary basis to be sure they are necessary. Mr. Payne noted that these pro-edures should be within the rules, because that would be the only way to enforce them. Mr. Tucker commented that the Committee suggested that work sessions be held on the following 1. Reading and understanding subdivision plats; 2. Legal responsibility of the Commission; 3. Private road ordinance. There was no further discussion. OLD BUSINESS -.DECISION ON THE ;AGR DISTRICT Col. Washington noted that he had spoken with Mr. Tucker and the Staff, and they had noted that they would like more =ime to anaylize the various proposals on the AGR District. Mr. Tucker noted that the Staff intends to look at various proposals plus some different alternatives for the AGR District. He noted that this would change the March schedule for work sessions being held on the proposed ordinance. He noted that the earliest date the Staff would have any additional information for the Commission would be the following Wednesday. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he is not sure whether it wouldn't be best to look at the present A-1 District and amend it, rather than continuing with the consultants proposals. Mr. Thropp stated that any planning decision is based on presumption. He noted that Albemarle County has gone from 20 to 5 dairy farms over the Past years. He also stated that in North Carolina, GenercLl Foods is growing vegetables in multi -storied, windowless buildings,. He noted that if the -intent is to perserve land for future fo olmol needs then what har-m,is.the existing A-1 zone doing._.-He..noted that with the private road ordinance and run-off control, ordinance, the County, has ruined development anyhow. MOUNT W. TUCKER. JR. OIRECTOR or PLANNIme MEMORANDUM Date: February 21, 1979 01*j OF ALB e'Mq CP A "4F Planning Department 604/296-5623 414 EAST MARKET STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission From: Committee to Improve Planning Commission Meetings' Procedure Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mrs. Joan Graves, Mr. Charles Vest RONALD S. KEELER AGEIETANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DONALD A. GASTON GENION PLANNER N. MASON CAPERTON PLANNER The Committee appointed by the Chairman to review and recommend procedures to improve the format of Planning Commission meetings has met and recommends the folloiwng measures for discussion and confirmation by the Commission. Outline of Staff Reports for Site Plans and Subdivision Plats: -Name of Proposal -What proposal entails -Location of proposal -Topography of area ( from USGS quadrangles ) -Road conditions serving proposal ( tolerable or intolerable ) -Soil types for permeability -Within which watershed impoundment is proposal located, if applicable ( South Fork of Rivanna or Totier Creek ) -Comprehensive Plan recommendation for proposal area -Flood Plain, if applicable - Groundwater(whether proposal is within an area which has historically had water problems) -School impact -Type of utilities being utilized -Statement of those recommendations from the Site Plan Review Committee which has not been complied with Commission Procedures to be followed during meeting -Set a definite time for the meeting to end and adhere to that time -Discussion by the Commission, on a proposal, shall not begin until a motion has been made and seconded -Applicant shall be permitted to speak after the public hearing of public discussion has been closed -Poll the votes of Commission action The Committee also suggested that a work session be held to discuss the following items: -reading and understanding subdivision plats ( Mr. Gloeckner volunteered to review F m Albemarle County Planning Commission February 21, 1979 Page 2, the technical items with the Commission ) -legal responsibilities of the Planning Commission -private road ordinance The first two subjects of this memo - outline of staff reports and Commission procedures - have been scheduled for March 7, 1978, under new business. A date for the suggested work session could be determined on March 7. ti� Mrs. Melcher, League of Women Voters, stated that they would like to second Mr. Tucker's request to defer a decision on the AGR District for one week. Mr. McCallum stated that Mr. Payne's suggestion of March 5, 1979, saying that someone who wished to subdivide 400 acres into four 100 acre parcels would have to have a special use permit, was absurd. He noted that the.County is trying to control through zoning what is better controlled through other policies. Mr. McCann asked if the Commission is discussing agricultural land or open space. He noted that he feels the entire County should have one zone with the density of various areas worked individually. He commented that there has been discussion of extending public utilities and creating a public works department. He stated that it seems the Commission is discussing an urban county and not a rural county. Mr. Skove stated that he does not feel the proposed ordinance will save the County, but it is a tool that hopefully will work to the good of the County. Mrs. Graves moved for deferral for two weeks. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mr. Payne noted that the Commission needs to state whether they are proposing to protect agricultural land or open space, because different sets of regulations would be required. Col. Washington commented that the Comprehensive Plan does not speak to farms, but to agricultural land which covers a vary of uses. Mrs. Graves' motion carried with a vote of 8-1. Mr. Gloeckner asked how the AGR District will be designated on the zoning map. Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff used the SCS and soils map and the land use taxation maps. He also noted that two farmers in the area identified the active farms in the County. (How delineated BAS District) There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 10:05. 09 PE F9 RIA