Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 12 79 PC MinutesJune 12, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, June 12, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Mrs. Norma Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairm loan; Mr; Mr. James Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt GHuffman; Mrs. Joan Graves; 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 and Miss Mason Caperton, Planner and Mr. Doug Eckel, Planner. Commission members who were absent were Dr. James Moore and Mr. Layton McCann. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of May 22, 1979, were approved by the chairman as submitted. iinates of iyiay 29, 1979,_were approved by the chairman as submitted. Minutes of June 4, 1979, were approved by the chairman as submitted. Minutes of June 5, 1979, were approved by the chairman as submitted. ZMA-79-15 and ZMA-79-16 ZMA-79-15. Hunter Faulconer has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 33.8+ acres from A-1 to R-3, B-1, and CO. Property is located on the east side of Route 250 West and has a small amount of frontage on Route 754 (Old Ivy Road). County Tax Map 60, Parcels 50 and 24 (part thereof). Jack Jouett Magisterial District. ZMA-79-16. S. W. Heischman has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 33.549 acres from A-1 to R-3 and B-1. Property is located on the north side of Route 754 (Old Ivy Road) approximately 4 mile north- west of the city limits. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 53, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that these two parcels of land adjoin and suggested the Commission consider them together as they are being developed in conjunction with one another. However, inasmuch as there are two separate owners, the requests should be voted on separately. Mr. Keeler also noted the school impact reports and then presented individual staff comments. A letter in support of the requests from Mr. and Mrs. DuBose was noted. Comments from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation were read. Mr. Skove questioned the statement from the University of Virginia. Mr. Keeler replied that the University of Virginia has no interest in sharing those roads that are currently part of their interior road system. Mr. Skove questioned whether the University buses could use the roads - if they are internal roads. Mr. Tucker replied that the University could expand their service area to include these roads if they wanted to. Mr. William Perkins, representing the two applicants, stated that Mr. John Nokes will be filing application for commercial zoning and therefore he supports these applications. Also, Mr. Perkins said Dr. McGavock has no objections and he is the other major landowner in the area. He also noted the revised school impact reports and the reduction in student projections. He said the area would be primarily populated by University students. Mr. Heischman commented that if the school impact reports were followed, it would mean Ivy Garden had only 5 school age children, University Heights had only 8 school age children and Huntington Village had only 8 school age children. (Mrs. Diehl entered the meeting.) There was no public comment and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Skove asked if the impact might not be greater for the lower school. Mr. Tucker replied that he felt the staff criteria takes that into account. Mrs. Graves asked if any thought had been given to the proposed Birdwood impact and the lack of need for this sort of project. Mr. Tucker answered that the initial phasing is for a golf course and there has been no further exploration on this matter with the University. Mr. Perkins stated it would be unfair for the private sector to be held back from assisting in the needs of the community. Mrs. Graves replied that the neighborhood committee was generally not in favor of exposing business areas to the bypass. Mr. Tucker said the decision is whether to have dwelling units on the bypass and more centrally serve the apartments, or permit the business zoning on the bypass. Mrs. Graves stated she couldn't consider A-1 to CO zoning as there is no road access. Mr. Keeler replied that this is not a separate parcel because Mr. Faulconer owns it all and can put in a driveway. Col. Washington established that there is no access to the bypass. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of ZMA-79-15 as submitted. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion favoring commercial property on the bypass. Discussion: rezoning. Mr. Skove said he would prefer waiting to rezone 1.3 acres at time of Nokes Mr. Gloeckner replied that the expense and delay to the applicant is unnecessary in his opinion. Mrs. Graves stated she can't support A-1 to CO - noted staff comments about setbacks from A-1. C�.415 Mr. Payne stated if the Nokes property is not rezoned, this 1.3 acres would be made worthless by the applicant's own request. He could not request a variance, since it would be a self-imposed hardship. The vote was 6-0-1 with Mrs. Diehl abstaining. (ZMA-79-16) Col. Washington questioned whether there were problems with sewer. Mr. Keeler answered the Advanced Water Treatment (A. W. T.) plant can proceed only as fast as the local funding. Rezoning does not in any way obligate the County to provide sewer capacity. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of ZMA-79-16 as requested. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 6-0-1 with Mrs. Diehl abstaining. 4 ZMA-79-17. Common Source (Great Eastern Management Company, Inc.) has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.467 acres from R-1 to R-3; 0.761 acres from R-1 to B-1; 1.203 acres from R-3 to B-1; 0.204 acres from R-3 to B-1; and 6.453 acres from R-3 to R-2; all with a proffer. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 656, just southwest of the intersection of Routes 656 and 743. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A; County Tax Map 60A, Parcel 9(2); and County Tax Map 60A, Parcel 9(3). Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, calling attention to the proffer. Mr. Gloeckner stated that when you get down to it, this request is really to include some business zoning for the area. zoning. (Mr. Tim Lindstrom entered the meeting.) Mr. Skove established that a little over 2 acres is requested for B-1 Mr. Keeler introduced a letter from Gay Johnson Blair. Mr. Payne noted the limitation of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the area of R-3 proffer and area with the house on it. Division would be creating two non- conforming parcels and there is concern about the subdivision and its further use. The upper parcel could be joined with Parcel A of the Mowinckel Tract. Applicant would not agree with this and the wording of the proffer does not reflect his statement to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Parcel A must be developed with water and sewer. Mr. Keeler noted that if the plan is approved, the Planning Commission should state it is in no way approving a septic field. Mr. Gloeckner asked why the applicant was willing to proffer when essentially he is doing what is permitted by right. He could later request B-1 but limit the Ak use to CO uses. Mr. Rotgin stated the property should the zoned the way it is used. Mr. Wagner reported that in going to B-1, some areas of CO and B-1 would both be permitted. He requested deleting "theatre" from B-1 proffer. Mr. Rotgin reminded those present that in addition, .761 acres of parcel (9)3 would be combined with that portion of the former Mowinckel Estate that fronts on Georgetown Road to improve the entrance to Barclay Place and to allow the construc- tion of additional commercial space. of her letter Gay Johnson Blair commented it should be realized the 3rd paragraph is inappro- priate this evening. Mr. Rotgin agreed to a catch basin in Westgate stating they were aware of the runoff control ordinance and intended to comply with it. He stated they were working on a severe problem. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Skove commented he saw no problem with the residential area. Mr. Wagner stated B-1 is not proferred for as only one use. Mr. Gloeckner said if sewer is a problem, can require a pumping station at the site plan level. Mr. Huffman moved approval, noting deletion of theatre from B. Mr. Wagner noted the rezoning of Bennington Woods Subdivision from R-3 to R-2, and limitations of the total number of dwelling units in the subdivision to 33. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Graves commented she did not feel the area would support septic fields when the time comes. Mr. Rotgin stated they would delete from the plan that which deals with office space, other than the entrance. The vote was unanimous. (Mr. Huffman left the meeting.) Old business - deferred item: Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for dedication along certain roads. Col. Washington noted his suggestion of a dedication on the basis of 250 feet. He noted the minimum frontage for a subdivision in the new zoning ordinance is 250 feet. 114) Mr. Payne noted changes in the wording of the proposed amendment to the sub- division ordinance. He stated he favored the 10-acre change. He also said the ,-,?-4% 250-foot frontage with the larger lot subdivision is an arbitrary figure and there is no need for 250 feet. He stated it won't serve the need that the Planning Commission is trying to accomplish here. Mr. Keeler commented that it hinges on what the Planning Commission is trying to do. If they feel the public is intentionally subverting the subdivision ordinance and then developing residue, then only the original proposal will remedy this. If a dedication is required, it would be assuming that 10 acres requires a dedication. Mr. Payne commented the Planning Commission has already committed itself through Agricultural -Forestry - that a division of less than ten acres is a commercial subdivision. Col. Washington stated he feels there have already been enough occasions of the developing of the front of a large estate before coming to the Planning Commission. He said he also feels that if you cause the dedication, you can't deny the subdivision. He feels we could designate roads we would like developed, but this might not be possible. Mr. Gloeckner stated he agreed with Col. Washington on his last two statements. Col. Washington said that at this time he would like to support the 10-acre provision. He would also like to see more discussion relating to extending water and sewer and discussion of roads where development should occur. Mr. Payne explained that a reservation is an additional setback which cannot be used for building. Mrs. Diehl asked if the matter could be approached from a reservation basis. Mr. Payne stated that nothing can be done unless the subdivision ordinance applied to the owner. Reservation does not make land available for use. Mr. Skove moved approval of Section 18-8 of the subdivision ordinance to be amended in the following fashion: Section 18-8 Right-of-way additions. Where the comprehensive plan indicates a proposed right-of-way greater than that existing on the boundaries of a subdivision or lot, such additional right-of-way shall be reserved for public use, when the plat is recorded, by the requirement of an additional setback in keeping with the comprehensive plan. Where a subdivision has occurred on public streets less than 50 feet in width, additional right- of-way shall be dedicated in order that the public street or right- of-way shall be at least 50 feet in width; provided, however, that in any case in which it shall be determined by the commission, or the agent, that a right-of-way in excess of 50 feet will be necessary to serve the traffic which may reasonably be expected to be generated by such subdivision, such greater width of right-of-way may be required by the commission, the agent, or the Board of Supervisors, as the case may be. Also, Mr. Skove moved the Commission withdraw its resolution of intent to amend Section 18-2 of the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m. t Rob rt W. tucker, -Jr. - Secr ary r 19 19 �y9