Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 10 79 & 04 16 79 PC MinutesApril 10, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting, Tuesday, April 10, I 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Jim Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-Officio. Those members absent were Mr. James Huffman and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Other Officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; 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 20, 1979 -were approved as corrected. The minutes of March 13, 1979 were approved as written. WOODVALE LAND CORPORATION FINAL PLAT Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant had requested that his item be deferred. Mrs. Diehl moved for deferral until May 1, 1979. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. THOMAS LANE FINAL PLAT Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Foster, the applicant's representative, was present. Miss Caperton read the Highway Department's comments into the record, as follows: "Lots as shown have adequate sight distance for a private entrance. The 50 foot right- of-way which is retained at the western boundary does not have adequate sight distance for a commercial entrance if one were to be desired in the future. We recommend that frontage improvements be required by placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from the center line, with center of the ditch at 18 feet." (letter of 2/8/79) Mr. Foster noted that the only place that would have adequate sight distance for a commercial entrance was at the opposite edge of the property. He noted that his client objects to condition lb. because the average location for the a ditch, in this area, ranges from 15-16 feet. He noted that he could not see the purpose of tearing up the roadway to move the ditch 2 feet. Mr. McCann moved for approval with condition lb deleted. Mr. Skove made a substitute motion to include the following conditions: 1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: l�5 a) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance location; b) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improvements as recommended in their letter of February 8, 1979; c) Written Health Department approval; d) Shared entrances be located where possible subject to approval of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and that lot #1 have access off the 50 foot pipestem; e) Waiver of 50 foot pipestem granted. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Col. Washington noted that the Highway Department feels it is better to shift the road at the time of subdivision, than after yards and driveways have been established. Mr. Foster noted that sometimes he can understand the Highway Department requiring these frontage improvements, because in some cases they are necessary. He stated that in this case they are not necessary, because the Highway Department widened the road several years ago and the paved surface would not be changed now, just the ditch line. Mr. Foster noted that he believes each case -should be considered individually and not have a blanket recommendation. Mr. Skove's motion carried with a vote of 5-1. Mr. McCann dissented. There was no further discussion. ZMA-79-05. John W. & Elizabeth Carter have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 9.99 acres from R-2 to R-3 (with a proffer of 15 units per acres rather than the maximum density). Property is located on the northeast side of Route 631 (Rio Road) approximately � mile southeast of the intersection of Route 631 and 29 North. County Tax -Map 61, Parcels 124B, 124C, and 124D. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Wolfe, the applicant's representatives, were present. Mr. and Mrs. Carter, the applicant's, were present. Dr. Moore asked the density of Squire Hill. Mr. Tucker noted that he believes it is 18-20 units per acre. Mr. Perkins stated that the Carter's have lived on this property most of their lives. He noted that they have been distributed by the driving range, which is adjacent to them and all of the surrounding property has been rezoned to B-1 and R-3. Mr. Perkins noted that now the Rivanna Service Authority has informed them that their property is the best location to run a proposed water line through. He noted that the Carter's are now ready to sell their property and if they are allowed to rezone it, they will realize the highest and best possible use of the property. Mr. Perkins requested that the Commission grant the Carter's their proffered zoning request. Mrs. Diehl asked when this property was rezoned to R-2. Mrs. Carter stated that the property has always been zoned R-2. Mr. Carter noted that the garage, which was uses as a business, was zoned R-2 when it should have been zoned commerical. Mr. Skove stated that he feels the applicant's proffered zoning is appropriate for this area. He noted that the property is surrounded by R-3 property, close to shopping centers, and may bring public transportation to this area, which is badly needed. Mr. Skove moved that this item be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl noted that she would like to know how the air pollution problem, in this area, would be addressed. Mr. Keeler noted that the site plan/subdivision would have to be approved subject to State Air Pollution Control Board's approval. Mrs. Graves stated that she could not support this request. She noted that she feels 15 dwelling units/acre would have too much impact. She noted that she couldn't see approving a rezoning when air pollution problems could arise. Mrs. Graves stated that she could support a proffer for 10 dwelling units/acre . Mr. Skove's motion failed with a vote of 3-3-1. Mr. Vest abstained. Mrs. Graves moved to accept Staff's recommendations and deny this petition. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which failed with a vote of 3-3-1. There was no recommendation made to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Vest abstained. There was no further discussion. SP-79-08. Bennington Limited Partnership has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-78-22, in order to delete the pool and to use the Main House as a child and/ or adult day (and night) care facility. Property is located just west of the city line between Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads, and adjacent to Westgate and Solomon Court Properties (property is commonly known as the Mowinckel Tract). County Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A. Mr. Keeler presented the :staff report. Mr. Rotgin and Mr. Wagner, the applicant's, were present. Mr. Keeler noted that the nature of the day care center is such that the center must open when public schools close. He noted that the conditions attempt to allow for temporary access and parking until final site plan approval. Mrs. Graves noted that when the Commission reviewed SP-78-22, she thought the applicant had been required to add additional recreational facilities in Westgate. Mr. Keeler stated that at one time it appeared that some of the recreational facilities would be lots to the expansion of Hydraulic Road. He commented that each development .has recreational area in excess of ordinance requirements.' Mr. Wagner stated that Westgate, as it exists, has less than the required 50 feet per apartment of recreational facilities, but when Westgate IV is developed there will be more than the required amount of facilities. He noted that the main objective is to get this item approved so the center can open June 1. Mr. Wagner presented three /7 site plans to the Commission, with three alternative means of access. They are: First Site Plan - shows access from Georgetown Road, which was previously approved by the Commission. Second Site Plan - shows alternate access until access from Georgetown Road is constructed. Third Site Plan - shows an access through the adjoining property, if it can be purchased by the applicant's. A gentlemen from the audience asked if this is the old Mowinckel house and what type income level families will use the center. Mr. Wagner noted that this is the old Mowinckel house. He also stated that he feels the Joneses, the operators of the center, wish to operate a profitable business, but the request before the Commission is not limited to whether this is a profit or non-profit operation. Mrs. Diehl asked why nothing is in the staff report concerning an adult day or night care center. Mr. Keeler noted that an adult day or night care center would be considered a boarding house and it is the Zoning Administrator's opinion that this would be a use by right. Mrs. Jones stated that if the day care center should leave the premises, they would like the option to operate a center for ambulatory adults. Mr. Payne noted that the applicant is doing two things. They are deleting a use that was previously shown and are substituing the use of a day care center. Mr Payne stated that Mrs. Jones is asking for the alternative of having a boarding house as a use by right. Mr. Keeler noted that a boarding house is a less intensive use than a day care center. Col. Washington commented that he feels a day center is what is before the Commission and not a adult care center, since that is a use by right. A lady from the audience asked what the residents of the apartments would .think of all these children. Mr. Wagner noted that it is not their intent to put anything in this building that would be determental to the surrounding developments. Mrs. Jones stated that the facility will be moderate in cost and will probably operate on a sliding scale. Mrs. Graves asked if it might not be best to have a fence around the property. Mr. Keeler noted that the temporary and final site plan shows a fence with landscaping screening the fence, around the property. Mrs. Diehl moved that the item be recoma,iended for approval to the Board of Supervisors with the following conditions: 1. Amend the approved site plan of August 29, 1978; 2. County Engineering Department approval of adequate on -site and off -site drainage facilities; N 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities and adequate dedication for a 60 foot right-of-way along Route 656 frontage, including increasing the pavement depth of the existing Bennington Road to satisfy Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications from Inglewood Drive to the end of the existing temporary turnaround; 4. This site is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided that if any units are to have access from Bennington Road, they shall be 34 in number, with lots 1-12 developed as single-family detached and two-family dwelling units with a maximum of seven two-family dwellings, whose location shall be approved by the County Planning Staff. In the alternative, the area proposed for subdivision (as shown on plat dated 5/30/78 and initialled "RWT") may be developed in townhouses provided access is only through Georgetown Road; 5. At such time as access is established to Georgetown Road, permanent access for the day care center to Georgetown Road shall be provided; 6. a. The staff shall approve temporary access, parking and play area for the day care center (The following standards shall be used for the temporary plan: parking - 1 space/2 employees; 1 space/10 children enrolled; 2 spaces for the dwelling; play area - 75 square feet/child enrolled); b. In the event of sale of property on which the day care facility is located the County Attorney shall review written agreements insuring site plan cooperation; 7. The day care center shall be served by both public water and sewer to be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority; 8. Approval of the day care center by appropriate state and local agencies. Conditions stated are supplementary and nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude applicant of requirements and regulations by the Virginia Department of Welfare or any other agency; 9. Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. In the event of license expiration, suspension or revocation, the Zoning Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original licese and all renewals thereafter. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this special use permit; 10. Conditions 1,6a,7,8 and 9 shall be met prior to the opening of the day care center. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. SP-79-09. F. Anthony Iachetta has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a Home Occupation - Class B -on 8.30 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 643, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 22A. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Huckstep, the applicant's representative, was present and had no comments. There was no discussion amoung the Commission members. Mr. McCann moved that this item be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation Class B. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. /-9 Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for Commission review of all subdivisions in the urban area. Mr. Tucker noted that this amendment needs to be included in the Subdivision Ordinance, because a problem arises when an individual brings in a plat to be signed and is told it can not be administratively approved. He stated that since bringing these items before the Commission is an oral policy problems are arising that could be prevented if this policy is made law. Mrs. Graves moved that the Board of Supervisors amended the Subdivision Ordinance to require Commission review of all subdivisions in the urban area. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion, Resolution of Intent to amend Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for administrative approval of minor site plan amendments. Mrs. Graves stated that she has problems with allowing administrative approval of minor site plan amendments because of parking and buffer changes. She noted that these are things that should come back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Lambert stated that he is in support of this amendment. He noted that many hours are spent in these meeting waiting for a minor amendment to be approved, that are really not necessary. Mr. Skove moved that the Board of Supervisors amended Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for administrative approval of minor site plan amendments. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. NEW BUSINESS - Amendment to Chris Green Lake Park Site Plan - parking area Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Dave McCleary, the applicant's (Albemarle County) representative, was present. Mr. Keeler noted that the amendment is for an additional 128 parking spaces. The new parking will be located above the existing facility and a pedestrian walkway and a concrete walkway are proposed. Mrs. Diehl noted that she feels additional picnic tables are needed at the lake. Mr. McCleary noted that 20 additional picnic tables are proposed for sometime in the future. Mr. Tucker stated that the primary reason for the parking 'is to control the overflow parking, but does not think it would unreasonable to request additional picnic tables when this item goes before the Board. Mrs. Diehl moved that this item be recommended to the Board for approval and that additional picnic tables be included in the request. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. 150 M There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Robert W. T cker, Jr. - Secretary /5 / 19 April 16, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Monday, April 16, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Absent were Mr. Charles Vest and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Idette Kimsey, Planner; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Homer Cheavacci of the local Health Department. Mr. Tucker stated that he had been asked to speak specifically to drainfields under impervious cover, and tree cover that is appropriate to cover the drainfields; the maximum slope on which a drainfield should be located; and the effect of laundromats and funeral homes on septic fields. Mr. Cheavacci said that this county has had very little problem with septic systems, partially due to the fact that they are oversized. He said that two sites for drainfields are required in subdivisions over ten lots, and trees have to be 5-10 feet from the drainfields. However, he did point. out that trees such as pines, with a tap root, rather than a large root system, are permitted in the drainfield area. He said that laundromats require 500 gallons of water per day, and with all the other requirements, it is generally too expensive for them to meet the requirements to locate a private system on the property. The State WatE:r Control Board controls drycleaning facilities. He said that septic fields under impervious cover pose no problems and cited examples of the septic fields thus located in the Pantops area, noting the longevity of these systems. Since there is no industrial waste, funeral parlors are per- mitted to have septic fields. Mr. Cheavacci also stated that the Health Department prefers that septic fields not be located on slopes over 25%, but if the land is terraced where it is 25% or greater, the Health Iepartment will issue a permit. He noted that drainfields are sometimes as much as 8 feet deep. The soil is the important factor in the drainfields, and a septic tank should be pumped every three years or there will be problems. Mrs. Graves pointed out that the Health Department's pamphlet advises not to pave over septic fields. Mr. Cheavacci replied that that is addressing private residences. Mrs. Graves then expressed concern about approving lots that won't be able to acquire Health Department approval. Mr. Cheavacci replied that sometimes permits are denied, and the developer then expands the size of the lot. Mrs. Diehl questioned the kind of soil that is bad for drainage systems. Mr. Cheavacci replied that gray shale and yellowish clay will not drain. He also pointed out that the seasonal water table is a matter of concern when locating drainfields. The terrain, location, and soil are all areas that must be considered for private systems. /51_� Mrs. Diehl established that on slopes of over 25% the house has to be �ited for the Health Department to approve for septic system. Mr. Cheavacci said that Health Department approval is good for one year. Col. Washington established that if one drainfield can be located on an existing lot smaller than 2 acres the Health Department must issue a permit. Mrs. Graves established that there is no required maximum footage for septic fields. She also established that anything over 5000 linear feet is handled at the regional level. Mr. Cheavacci said that he does not think laundromats will ever locate on septic systems. Mr. Tucker pointed out that Fairfax County requires two drainfields for each housing unit in the county with a switchover every six months. He asked if this Health Department ever considers this. Mr. Cheavacci said that it is a good idea, however he believes Fairfax is doing that because of the poor soil in the area. Mr. Tucker pointed out that this concept is supposed to extend the life of the fields. Mr. Cheavacci acknowledged that health department permits are legal documents and the Health Department is therefore very particular about them. Col. Washington questioned if there is any action the Planning Commission could take, that it does not currently take, that would help the Health Department. Mr. Cheavacci replied that the Health Department feels it has full county support at this time. He did state that large lots are always more desirable. Mr. Cheavacci then pointed out that the Health Department does not permit pit privys, however it is possible to receive permission to repair an existing privy. He stated that the Health Department installs 600-800 tanks per month, and has very little trouble wit'z those. He also stated that there is no way to control the number of permits and the time for which they are issued. Upon questioning from Mr. Keeler, Mr. Cheavacci told the Commission that a certain number of lots will not saturate an area as far as successful septic systems. He said that the number in one particular area is not a problem as long as they are properly located. He reminded the Commission that septic tanks and drainfields are only a temporary measure and the only permanent method of disposal is the public system. GENERAL REGULATIONS: Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission will discuss off-street parking at a later date. Mrs. Graves questioned another meeting on the sign regulations. Mr. Tucker felt this would be appropriate, since the Commission may wish to wait on the recommendations of the Sign Committee. He pointed out that they are now meeting once a week and the Commission may not want to change anything until the report from that committee is received. Col. Washington felt that if the recommendations from that committee are not complete when the zoning ordinance if forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission could include the provisions in the existing ordinance. Mr. Payne covered the regulations, pointing out what has been included from the draft from KDA and some of his recommended changes. Col. Washington questioned Section 4.2.3, and Mr. Payne replied that the vehicle would have to be behind the front line of the building. section. Mr. McCann suggested that recreational vehicles be addressed in this Section 4.2.3 was changed to read as follows: 4.2.3 LIMITATIONS ON PARKING OF TRUCKS AND CERTAIN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. No truck with a gross vehicle weight of 12,000 pounds or more or dual wheeled recreational vehicles shall be parked in any residential district other than the AF and RR ( except for purposes of making pick-ups or deliveries ) in any location other than: a. Behind the nearest portion of buildings to streets; or b. In any approved off-street parking area. Mrs. Graves questioned Section 4.7.4, and had thought it would be a good idea for accessory uses to meet the setbacks of the primary buildings. She said that she is concerned due to the location of home occupations in such buildings as garages, etc. Or she said that this could be left as it is and address home occupations in a similar fashion to the current provisions for mobile homes in the A-1 zone. Col. Washington said that there seems to be no rationale for changing what exists now. ( Mr. Gloeckner arrived at the meeting. ) There was consensus that the wording for Section 4.7.4 be changed to read as follows: 4.7.4 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN REQUIRED YARDS No portion of any accessory building shall be permitted in any required yard; provided however, that if no utility or drainage easements are adversely affected, accessory buildings or portions thereof may be erected no closer than five (5) feet to adjacent lot lines, in the case of detached buildings, or to a common wall in the case of attached buildings; but provided further that no such building shall be located within any yard required by Section 4.8.3. l5� Mr. Payne pointed out that Section 4.12 has come out of the original draft because of its questionable legality. Mr. Payne then noted that the reference in Sections 4.8.3.1 and 4.8.5 should be changed to "Section 4.8.2.4". The Commission removed "in important views" from Section 4.10.1, and the remaining wording stayed the same. Mr. Payne advised the Commission of the revised wording in Section 8.2.3 from the draft proposal of KDA. Mrs. Graves recommended that Section 10.6 be re -written to read as follows: 10.6 WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS Any petition filed pursuant to Section 10.2.1 above, may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant any time prior to the submission of any public hearing notice for advertisement; provided, that if the request for withdrawal is made after the public- ation of the notice of hearing, such withdrawal shall be only with the consent of either the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors, whichever body has advertised the hearing, and sub- stantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of action, unless the respective body approving withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. There was Commission consensus to accept this revised wording. Mr. Payne then reviewed the provisions of 10.9, noting that this provides for quarterly review of rezonings, with the purpose of this section being a comprehensive look at the effect of the requested rezonings. Mr. Skove agreed that looking at them in total as opposed to a month by month basis gives a more adequate look at the total impact. Mr. Huffman suggested that inclusion of this section might be a tool to get the entire ordinance thrown out, and he suggesting dropping this section at this point. Mrs. Graves said that inclusion of this section would help adjust the zoning map to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that Mrs. Graves is correct, assuming that the zoning map is properly drawn in the first place. Mr. Skove felt that in the future the subdivision requests will be more controversial than rezoning requests. Mrs. Graves said that she would like to discuss rezonings reverting to the original zoning, if the land is not used within a certain time period for a new use, so that rezonings are not speculative. Mr. Payne said that he sees no legal justification for this suggestion. Mr. Gloeckner felt that it might be appropriate to look at Section 10.9 again after the Commission completes its work of the zoning map. 1Z E" There was consensus to strike Sections 10.9, 10.9.1, and 10.9.2 at this time. Mr. Tucker asked that the Commission address its plans for forwarding the ordinance to the Board. The Commission advised the staff that there should be mechanical editing, andnotification of county citizens through the public hearing process that there is a new ordinance to review. It also asked that 800 copies of the revised text be printed. Col. Washington felt that notification of individual property owners is a political decision. Mr. McCann said that if he owned property whcse zoning was to be changed he would certainly want to know about it. There was a discuss on whether to hold separate public hearings on the text and map, but no decision was reached. Some Commissioners felt that the map and text are a package and should be presented to the public as such. Other Commissioners felt that the public could be more objective about the ordinance if they reviewed the text separately from the map. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that he will be forwarding to the them a schedule of events for the annual VCPA meeting which will be held in Richmond from May 13-15. He said that if members wish to attend, he could probably find money in the Planning Department budget to fund the trip. Wiht no further business, the Commission adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary ),56 F!