Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 05 79 PC MinutesJune 5, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, June 5, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. No --ma. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; and Mr. Tim 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. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of May 9, 1979, were approved by the chairman as submitted. SP-79-17. William Lewis Gardner has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 4.00 acres zoned A-1. Property is located east of Route 640, approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of Routes 640 and 22. County Tax Map 66, Parcel 71, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the request is before the Commission because of an objection from an adjoining property owner. There was no public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public }fearing. Mr. Skove established that the mobile home could be located so that it is reasonably screened. ( Mrs. Diehl entered meeting. ) Mr. Vest established that there are two other mobile homes in the area. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintenance of woods to screen mobile home from adjoining properties; 2. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the zoning Ordinance. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-0-1, with Mrs. Diehl abstaining. SP-79-24. John L. Barnes to locate a mobile home on 2.00 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 622, at the Fluvanna County line. County Tax Map 131, Parcel 47C, part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the request is before the Commission because of an objection from an adjoining property owner. 0 Mr. Barnes stated that there are two mobile homes that have been in the area before the construction of the new houses. He agreed to the screening recommendations, stating that he plans to locate the mobile home in the open field and plant white pines in front of it. 14a), Mr. Stallings said that he voiced his objections with reluctance. He said that he would favor the construction of a single-family dwelling, though the applicant and his family have owned property in the area longer that he has. Mr. Barnes said that he is only asking for a place to live, and at this :point cannot afford to construct a conventional dwelling. Mr. Vest moved approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. Screening with evergreen trees from Route 622 to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; 2. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Payne cautioned Mr. Barnes about the specific location of his mobile home, because of the lack of provision for mobile homes in Fluvanna County. Mr. Barnes said that is the reason for locating the mobile home in the open field. desires. SP-79-26. Norman O. Dailey has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a Home Occupation Class B on 5.42 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 250 East approximately � mile west of the Fluvanna County line. County Tax Map 95, Parcel 15, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if this will be tied to use of the garage. Mr. Keeler said that could be a condition of approval if the Commission Col. Washington established that all storage will be indoors. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the Fire Official has reviewed and approved this use. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mrs. Graves moved approval of the special permit with no conditions. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Skove asked if the intent is to leave off compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation Class B. Mrs. Graves felt that would automatically follow. The motion for approval carried unanimously. ZMA-79-14. Holly Memorial Gardens has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 2 acres from A-1 Agriculture to B-1 Business. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 29 North, approximately 1/3 mile southwest of the intersection of Routes 649 and 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 42G. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and read the comments from the Highway Department. Mr. Leroy Hamlett, on behalf of the applicant, had no comments at that point. Col. Washington said that he feels this could lessen the traffic onto Route 29 North. There was no public comment and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mrs. Graves said that the adjoining property owners should be shown on the plat. Mr. Skove said that though he does not oppose the use that is planned, he is bothered by the fact that the B-1 zoning will not limit the property to this use. Mrs. Graves reminded the Commission that the property adjacent to Aldersgate Methodist church had been purchased by the same applicants for a funeral home,. and the property had been rezoned to B-1. However it has never been used for a funeral home. Mr. Hill, one of the applicants, said that the property mentioned by Mrs. Graves is being sold back to Aldersgate Methodist. Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels the land is a perfect location for a funeral home, and he believes the gentlemen will follow through. He moved approval of the request. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the request because it would be spot zoning. Mr. Hill said that he and Mr. Wood have an agreement with the cemetery that if the property is not used for a funeral home it must be re -sold to the cemetery. Col. Washington told Mrs. Graves that he feels the use is related to the cemetery and is therefore not objectionable. Mr. Skove said that he could certainly support the request if the zoning were limited to a funeral home. Col. Washington noted the proffer provisions in the zoning ordinance and asked if the applicants had considered that alternative. Mr. Hill assured the Commission that he is not looking at the property from a speculative point of view, however he feels that limiting a piece of property to one use is not a sound investment. Mr. McCann said that he does not feel that every rezoning has to have a proffer, and he reminded the Commission of its discussidn-at the time of including the provision in the Zoning Ordinance. He said that if he had known it would be held as a club over every rezoning application, he would never have supported the F.mendments. Mr. Huffman said that he can certainly support the motion, that he does not want to force every applicant to proffer. He pointed out that it is an obvious place for the use and therefore considers it a legitimate rezoning request. He pointed out that the county has to trust people to do what they say that will do. Mrs. Diehl said that there could be a change in circumstances and that property owners might not be able to use the land for a funeral home. Dr. Moore agreed with Mrs. Diehl. Mr. Vest said that he would like the proffer but does not feel strongly enough about the proffer to vote against the motion. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the citizens are expected to have faith in their government and the government should also have faith in the citizens. He called for the question. The vote of 4-5, with Col. Washington, Mrs. Graves, Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Skove, and Dr. Moore dissenting. Col. Washington said that he is opposed to a general business zone and noted that the applicant has the option of considering and making a proffer prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. ( Mr. Lindstrom entered the meeting. ) The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the definition of subdivision as it appears in Chapter 18 ( Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance ) of the County Code and to provide for dedication along certain lots. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read into the record a letter of objection to the proposal from Mr. Thomas Blue, a local engineer and surveyor. Mr. Skove questioned if the reservations regarding the 10 acre limitation are the same as for all lots. Mr. Tucker said that as one approaches the 10 acres size, the exemptions may not be as good. Mr. Huffman said that in view of the ramifications discussed inthe staff report, he does not think that 100% of the Commission would have supported this resolution if they had understood it. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. 9- �9 Mr. Skove said that one benefit of the amendments is that denial of subdivisions because of lack of right-of-way would not occur. He said that without the amendments there will be times when a subdivision will be denied because a road cannot be improved due to lack of right-of-way. There was no public comment. Dr. Moore said that he is not ready to withdraw the resolution of intent until he knows what can be done about the Commission's original intent. Col. Washington cited the example where land is divided along a road into five acre tracts and then has to have Commission review to divide the rear of the property. He said that in many cases the right-of-way is then impossible to obtain. He felt that under these circumstances the county is being deliberately boxed in by the way the property is being managed before it comes to the Commission for review. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the cost to landowners would be tremendous since the money, in terms of land value, would be given to the state. Dr. Moore pointed out that there are certainly some cases where land dedication increases the value of the land in the long run. Mrs. Graves questioned the impact of this amendment on the proposed AF district. Mr. Tucker responded that the only reasons the staff might be able to support the 10 acre prcvision is that 10 acres is the density provided for under the proposed Agricultural -Forestry district in the zoning ordinance draft. people Mr. McCann said that he cannot support making ask to do everything. Mr. Keeler said that though the staff would review these plats, the landowner would still have to get Highway Department approval, Health Department approval, etc. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that prior to withdrawing its resolution, it should consider adopting languane for Section 18-8, where more than 50' can be required where the Planning Commission determines the increase will benefit the residents of the area and will assist traffic which may be generated. Mr. Tucker advised the CoBinhwon that the staff does support this particular section , since one can justify it, on the need and benefits to the public. Mrs. Graves offered a substitute motion to defer until June 12, 1979, in order for the staff to further study the original intent of the Commission and possibly come back with suitable wording. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-3, with Messrs. McCann, Huffman, and Gloeckner dissenting. C. E. Leaman Final Plat - located south of Route 654 at the intersection of Routes 601 and 654: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the staff sees no need for requiring the turning pad recommended by the Engineering Department. ,3o Mrs. Leaman said that it'was no fault of the landowner that the plat was not recorded when originally approved. They were out of town and had thought everything had been taken care of. She said that she hones the turning pad will not be required. Mr. Peter Bernhardt said that he assumes this is an exclusive easement and at no time will these lots be permitted entrance from Route 631. Mr. Keeler said that under the private road provisions in the ordinance, the property is permitted access only by the private road. Mr. Bernhardt then established that any further subdivision will require Planning Commission approval. Mr. Gloeckner questioned why no frontage improvements to Route 631 were recommended by the Highway Department. He pointed out that Route 631 ( Old Garth Road ) is one of the worst roads in the county. Mr. Keeler said that perhaps the reason is that the road alignment has not been decided upon. Mrs. Graves moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private road ordinance, following: 1. County Enigneer approval of the road, excluding the turnaround pad; 2. Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney. b. Approval by the Health Department; C. Note on plat the 100 foot septic setback lines; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the reservation in accordance with the plat. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Lochridge Final Plat: Mr. Tucker said that this is a request to move the setback of one lot fronting the reservoir from 150 feet to 100 feet. He said that at the time of approval 200 feet had been required by the ordinance, but through a compromise between the applicant and the staff, and in order to properly locate the building site, 150 feet had been required. Under current ordinances, 100 feet is all that is required. He showed the location of the house and the septic field on the plat. Mrs. Graves mentioned a schematic sketch she had seen in the Building Inspections office that day, noting that the building permit said nothing about 150 feet. She said that the house appeared to be about 125 feet from the reservoir, and the septic field about 100 feet from the reservoir.. Mr. Gloeckner said that what she has seen is a sketch done by the Health Department. Mr. Payne said that he feels sure the building permit has not been issued since he reviews permits that are located in the watershed area covered by the runoff control ordinance. 1"?131 Mr. McCann said that since the lot has not been built upon, it would be fair to permit the setback called for under existing ordinances. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he does not feel the requirement of 150 foot setback can be legally defended. There would have to be a reason to treat this owner different from others. Mrs. Graves said that the owner agreed to the 150 feet at the time of original approval. Mr. McCann felt that was unimportant due to the change in the rules. He moved approval of the request to show the setback as 100 feet. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. There was a brief discussion resulting from -a member of one of the neighborhood plans regarding density as proposed by the new ordinance. The Commission decided to ask the concerned party to appear before the Commission when that section of the map is discussed. They further decided to have a joint meeting of all the neighborhood groups prior to adopting the map, since the recommendations of those groups is different from the Comprehensive Plan. Upon the motion of Mrs. Diehl, and second of Mr. Vest, the Commission proceeded into an executive session. The Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. rt W. Tucker, Jr. - S cret 0