Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 02 79 PC MinutesOctober 2, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 2, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman, who presided in the absence of the Chairman, Col. William Washington; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Dr. James Moore; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. James Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Member who was absent was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of September 24, 1979 were approved as submitted. Minutes of September 10, 1979 were approved with corrections. Minutes of September 17, 1979 were approved with corrections. Minutes of August 14, 1979 were approved as submitted. (Mr. Skove entered the meeting.) Resolution of Intent: Amend Subdivision Ordinance to Provide for "Family Division" - The Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to recommend amendment of the subdivision ordinance to include provisions for "family divisions." This action was prompted by amendment of the Code of Virginia which requires counties to make "reasonable" provisions for this purpose. Mrs. Diehl stated that it was suggested to her earlier in the day that since Col. Washington had instigated some new language in the ordinance, the Commission might consider waiting and acting on this resolution at the work session on Monday when Col. Washington would be present. She asked for the Commission's opinion on this suggestion. (Mrs. Graves entered the meeting.) Mr. Huffman commented that he knew of some people present who had driven 25 miles or more to hear the resolution discussed. Mr. Keeler read the suggested changes that have been proposed by Col. Washington. Mr. Huffman asked if provision "h" was supposed to preclude frontage improve- ments. Mr. Keeler answered that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation cannot require frontage improvements unless there are more than three parcels with a single access. Mr. McCann asked for the purpose of item "d". Mr. Payne answered saying the importance of item "d" is a matter of degree. Ias He said the idea is to prevent proliferation of small parcels where they are not needed for use as individual parcels by a separate property owner. Mrs. Page Massie stated to the Commission that everybody wants road frontage but asked what happens if several children got a share of property with road frontage and part of the original tract was further down the road. Could the children also get a share of that portion since it was all one tract. Mr. Payne answered that the rules apply as they are worded in the State Statute. They cannot be changedbythe Commission. Mr. Huffman said that item "c" could create difficulty if land was left to be divided and each child got a parcel but each child had to also assume the obligations of the parents' bills. If the children were not well off, they would have to sell the land to pay the bills. Mr. Payne said it could be construed that the subdivision ordinance amendment doesn't apply to a testamentary gift. Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing. Mrs. Graves stated she would hate for Albemarle County to be a pioneer in this. She suggested waiting awhile to see what other counties do and learn from their experience. Dr. Moore asked how long that would take. Mr. Payne answered it was extremely likely there would be no State Supreme Court experience in the foreseeable future. Mr. McCann said he hated to tie people up with language in the ordinance prohibiting people from doing what they have a right to do. Mr. Huffman stated he can't support items "c" and "d". Mr. Skove said he can support the amendment and he does not think it is onerous. He moved for approval of the amendment as written. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said this is overkill and he can't support the amendment. Mr. Huffman stated he did not think the amendment is doing what the legisla- ture wanted done. The vote was 4 to 3 for approval with Messrs. Vest, Huffman and McCann dissenting. (A copy of the amendment is attached.) SP-79-53 - Ernestine B. Witherspoon. Request for a mobile home on 13.084 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Located approximately two miles north of Earlysville at the intersection of Routes 743 and 664, tax map 19, parcel 27. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report acknowledging the receipt of three letters of objection from neighboring property owners. He mentioned that a delapidated structure presently exists but will be removed to provide space for the mobile home. This site cannot be seen from 2 of the 3 residences of the occupants who objected. Mrs. Witherspoon said just a small portion of the mobile home would be visible as there is a hedge directly in front. Mr. Neil Borden, an adjoining property owner, stated he wished to register strong objections as he feels the mobile home will be visible. He said trees should not be considered permanent as they could die or be removed and that he feels the mobile home is not proper and fitting use of the land. Mr. Amon Williams, another adjacent property owner, said the property is an open field. The site can be seen from Rt. 664 and the next nearest trailer is 2 miles away. Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing. Mr. Skove asked if the trailer will be located on the same site where the delapidated house is now. He mentioned he couldn't see the house when he drove by. Mrs. Witherspoon said the old house was two stories and the trailer won't be as tall so you shouldn't see it at all. Mrs. Diehl mentioned she drove by and could see the house only from the driveway. If the landscaping remains as it is now, the trailer should not be particularly obvious. Mr. Vest moved for approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff as follows: 1. Removal of the existing, delapidated residence before occupancy of the site; 2. Maintenance of existing vegetation surrounding the proposed location; and 3. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. SP-79-58. Rehoboth Mennonite Church. Request for a public cemetery of about 200 plots on 1.037 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture, and located on the north side of Route 6 approximately � mile west of Route 630. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report noting a letter of objection which was received on behalf of Mrs. Bessie Morris, a neighboring property owner. Mr. William Reid, on behalf of the Rehoboth Mennonite Church, informed the Commission that there is already one grave present and that belongs to the family that gave the property to the Church. Since one family member is already buried there, the cemetery could continue to be used by the same family. He also said he spoke with Mr. Coburn who told him it would be advisable to allow the highway department to use their discretion with regard to the entrance. Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing. Mrs. Graves asked how this parcel would appear on future subdivision maps. She wanted to know how this parcel could be marked as a cemetery. Mr. Payne answered that there is a statute that deals with perpetual care associations and a statute that deals with church run cemeteries but he is not familiar with either statute. He said he is unsure exactly as to what Mrs. Graves wants to know. Mrs. Graves said she would speak to her concern with an added condition. She moved for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of circulation and parking; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; 3. Deed of record to show cemetery to be held in perpetuity by the church. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Mr. Huffman said he will support the motion but he thinks condition number three is unnecessary. Mr. McCann said he will also support the motion but he doesn't understand condition number three, however he said he doesn't think it will do any harm. The vote was unanimous for approval. SP-79-59 Dr. and Mrs. Reynolds Cowles. Proposal to raze an existing barn and construct a treatment/laboratory facility in its place in order to pro- vide on -site treatment for horses only. Property located on the northeast side of Route 667 about 1 mile north of its intersection with Route 665 and approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Free Union. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report mentioning the entrance to the property was of some concern. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has said a commercial entrance is required and some grading will be needed. Dr. Cowles explained there will be a on -site treatment room approximately 24 feet by 24 feet for horses. Once or twice a week a horse van will enter the property which would not cause a significant increase in traffic. He said this will not be a veterinary hospital - just a treatment room and office. Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing. Mr. McCann said he supported the highway department's recommendation for the entrance to cover future needs. He then moved for approval with the following staff recommendation: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation re-evaluation and approval of entrance facilities. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. SP-79-61 Bradford S. Howard. Property described as tax map 45, parcel 59K(1), located on the east side of Route 743 about 400 feet 479 north of its intersection with Route 844. Proposal to operate a land- scaping service using this site as a base of operation. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report noting the property is served by a pipe - stem. He mentioned that an adjoining property owner has expressed concern that the pipestem may be used to store equipment. Mr. Howard stated he does not anticipate storing equipment on the pipestem. Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing. Mrs. Diehl commented that upon seeing the property, she noted that the road into the property is a long road but the interior is heavily wooded. Mrs. Graves established the property is not in the watershed. Mr. Huffman moved for approval subject to staff's recommendations as follows: 1. Staff approval of area for outdoor storage; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrance onto Route 743; 3. Compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation: Class B except as noted in Condition 1. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. a ' ZMA-79-33 Albemarle Land Corporation. Request for rezoning to R-1 Residential Limited 86.3 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture at present. Property located north and adjacent to Hollymead Planned Community, tax map 46, parcel 29 (part thereof). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report mentioning the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that an access to a public road in addition to the road across the dam would be required. If such access is to Rt. 29 North, the existing crossover north of Holly Memorial Gardens should be closed and relocated to the north. Mrs. Diehl asked if this area was part of PUD. Mr. Keeler answered no. Mrs. Graves asked if this was known as Hollymead, Phase 2. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, answered that actually this is Phase 4. He said the applicant's intention is to connect the area to Route 29. Mrs. Diehl asked for an explanation of how to address compensatory reduction. Mr. Keeler said the applicant owns considerable property in the Hollymead area and he wouldn't rezone any more property for more intensive purposes. Mrs. Graves asked where the proposed school site was located. Dr. Moore said he recalled it was considered moving the site to Proffitt Road. si Mr. Keeler said there is an existing school on Proffitt Road and the proposed school site was chosen by the Board of Supervisors to be located on Route 643. Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing. Mr. McCann stated the area seems to fit in with the growth area of the county and there are proper support utilities out there and he moved for approval of the petition. county. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. Mr. Skove said he agreed that the area fits in with the growth area of the The vote was unanimous for approval. ZMA-79-34 Charles W. Hurt - Petition to rezone 161� acres from M-1 Light Industrial to M-2 Industrial General. Property located on both sides of Broadway Street in the Woolen Mills area, tax map 77, parcels 40D and 40C (parts thereof). 9 Mr. Keeler presented the staff report mentioning that even with the physical separation of the railroad and the required 100-foot setback, uncontrolled M-2 zoning could have a detrimental impact on residential uses in the area. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, stated the firm interested in buying property for a business is a firm that makes safety bolts for a German boat manu- facturer. He said the firm must use 15 horsepower motors which are electric in the making of the bolts. The use of 15 horsepower motors requires M-2 zoning. He said the land had been used by the YMCA but is in limbo now. They (the applicant) feel the firm interested in the land has a clean operation with no heavy trucks but no one wants to upset the neighbors. Mrs. Diehl established the firm has an option of 6 acres on the right side of the road. Mr. Laurence Brunton read a resolution from the City Council to the Commission. The resolution requested the Commission to consider all reasonable alternatives to protect the residential areas which are adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Benjamin Dick, representing the citizens of Woolen Mills, told the Commission he had a petition for the Board of Supervisors with 264 signatures on it of people who were aqainst this petition for a rezoninq. He said that once M-2 zoning is passed, it opens the door for all kinds of uses. M-2 zoning is not compatible with residential neighborhoods. His clients bought homes in the area knowing they were surrounded by M-1 zoning. Now they are worried that the entire parcel will be zoned M-2. He pointed out that the roads are not adequate to carry heavy traffic. Mr. Mike Van Yahres, a resident of Woolen Mills, complained the parcel is very prominent and even though the residential neighborhood is separated from the parcel by the railroad, it is still very highly visible. The present businesses in the area are good neighbors, but the residents don't necessarily wish for more of the same. The residents are concerned about uses "by right" that M-2 permits. Christopher Murray, a resident of the County, said his property is 10 feet within the County. He said all the area to the north and the west is residential. The J qi) M streets are not suited at the present for the trucks that are already there and using them. Mr. Roy Baltimore, a resident, said he was wondering what would happen if the business that makes the safety bolts was not profitable. He wondered what protection they had from another business buying the property that was even worse. Other residents of the Woolen Mills area spoke against the petition listing their reasons for opposing the rezoning. Mr. Benjamin Dick spoke again saying the residents are concerned about heavy industrial use. He said M-1 zoninq can be lived with but M-2 zoning is too much. Mr. James Hill, representing the applicant, stated the applicant is here to help the County. He said they don't mind taking off some of the M-2 uses from the petition, they just want to co-operate with the city and county and put the land to use. Mr. Dale Reese, a resident of Woolen Mills, stated he had been a welder for 26 years as a maintenance mechanic, and he works with 25 horsepower motors where he works. He said that the firm making the bolts must use hydraulic power and it will sound like a jet engine. Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing. Mr. McCann said he thinks this is a situation where a proffer can be used. But he said he cannot support the present application. Mr. Skove said there is no guarantee the land will be used as the application is now. He can't support at this point. Mr. Hill stated the applicant wouldn't mind taking just six acres and having it rezoned M-2 and leaving the rest M-1. Mr. McCann said there is as much traffic with M-1 as M-2. Dr. Moore said he agreed with Mr. McCann. Mrs. Graves commented that she had lived in the Woolen Mills area 30 years ago and cannot support the rezoning petition. Mrs. Diehl said she feels the same. The area to the south could be developed with a buffer but she can't support this petition at this time. Mrs. Graves moved for denial of the petition. Mr. Skove seconded. The vote was unanimous for denial. With no further business to discuss, the Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m. l�� Robert W. Tucker, Jr. qcrVary 9 19 /3,7