HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 13 79 PC MinutesNovember 13, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
November 13, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James
Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James Huffman; Mrs. Joan Graves;
and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum was present.
Minutes of June 11, 1979; June 18, 1979; June 19, 1979; September 25, 1979;
and October 29, 1979 were approved as submitted. Minutes of October 30, 1979,
were approved subject to corrections.
SP-79-63. Adrian Pols has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a
public garage on 1.69 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the
west side of Route 20 at Eastham. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 5A,
Rivanna District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Pols stated that the use will be temporary, and a small operation.
Eventually he hopes to move the garage to a town location. He noted that he and
his wife live in the house. Mr. Pols felt that the Highway Department requirements
are excessive in view of the fact that this is a temporary use. He noted that
only a small volume of traffic will result from this business, and the existing
entrance is adequate to handle it. He felt that a large commercial entrance would
ruin the appearance of his property and would also defeat the purpose of having
a temporary location here. If he made that investment, he would be forced to
make that a permanent location.
There was no public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing.
Mr. Skove established that Mr. Pols is currently operating the garage
on a part time basis and did not realize until lately that an individual needed
clearance to do this sort of thing on private property.
Col. Washington noted that the commercial entrance is quite different from
turn lanes and tapers.
Mr. Pols felt that he could work something out with the Highway Department.
Mr. McCann said that he could support a standard commercial entrance to
the property, but nothing else.
Mr. Payne noted that condition #9 addressing the number of vehicles is
defensible in court only if the Planning Commission explains its reasons for the
limitation or if the applicant is agreeable to the condition.
1H
Mr. Pols said that four vehicles stored outside would be more agreeable.
Mr. Keeler explained that the condition was placed on the special permit
to keep it a limited use.
There was Commission consensus to maintain the condition changing the number
of vehicles to four, based on the applicant's statement.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by
the staff, amending Conditions 8 and 9 as follows:
8. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standard entrance approval, with
no deceleration lane;
9. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property
at any one time.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves offered a substitute motion, noting that she does not feel
the Highway Department should be limited in its approval, noting that conditions
8 and 9 would read as follows:
8. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation entrance approval;
9. Not more than two (2) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property
at any one time.
She also noted that the applicant has not discussed the entrance with
the Highway Department, and he will have the opportunity to do that prior to
Board of SupervisorsIreview. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. McCann said that he could not support condition 8.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Planning Commission has the right to determine
if a commercial entrance with tapers, etc. is necessary for a two-year permit.
Mr. Keeler said that he had requested a cost estimate from the Highway
Department on its recommendations, and had not been provided with that estimate.
The motion failed by a vote of 3-6, with Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves,
and Dr. Moore supporting the motion.
Mrs. Diehl said that she could support the motion made by Mr. Gloeckner
if condition 8 included "standard commercial entrance."
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. This special use permit and all authority granted herein shall expire two (2)
years after approval by the Board of Supervisors;
2. No signs shall be permitted;
3. No employees shall be permitted;
4. All work is to be conducted within the garage;
5. No outside storage of parts including junk parts;
6. Fire and Building official approval;
7. Staff approval of site plan;
8. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standard commercial entrance
75
approval, with no deceleration lane;
9. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property
outdoors at any one time.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
SP-79-65. Alfred Cobianchi to locate a mobile home on 5.018
acres zoned A-1. Property is located on northeast side of Route
620, approximately 0.1 mile north of the intersection of Routes
728 and 620. Tax Map 104, Parcel 26, Scottsville District.
Mr. Eckel presented the staff report. He said that there seems to
be some question from the adjoining property owners about the visibility of the proposed
mobile home.
Mr. Cobianchi said that he has no problems with the recommended conditions
of approval.
Mr. Raymond Jackson questioned the recourse residents would have if the
mobile home is visible after it is located on the property.
Mr. Cobianchi offered to show area residents the proposed location.
Mr. Payne noted for the record the buffer of vegetation provided by
condition #1 as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Hadden Scruggs said that he has granted access over his property to
Mr. Cobianchi. He said that all other residents of the area have conventional
dwellings and they wish that Mr. Cobianchi would also construct a conventional
dwelling.
Mr. Bernard C. Spencer said that the objection is certainly to seeing the
mobile home. He also expressed concern about the location of the septic field
since it could have the potential to drain into the lake if located on the slope.
He said that he lived in a mobile home while he himself constructed a conventional house.
Mr. Spencer said that he is concerned about property values if the mobile home is
in the neighborhood.
Mr. Cobianchi said that an inspector from the Health Department will have
to determine the location for the septic field. He also noted that he cannot afford
a conventional dwelling, so he chose to live in a mobile home.
Col. Washington closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl established that the mobile home will be vacant until the
applicant moves here permanently from New York.
Mr. McCann said that this application does not seem to differ from other
mobile home applications and moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Maintenance of a buffer of vegetation surrounding the proposed site; and
2. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Dr. Moore seconded th motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
ZMA-79-35. Renata Tosti-Noc has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 4.00 acres from B-1 to A-1. Property is
south of I-64 and approximately 600 feet north of the Southern
Railway and Route 29. County Tax Map 75, Parcel 53A, Samuel
Miller District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that Mr. Hockman had
telephoned an objection to the rezoning and kennel that afternoon. He also
read the Highway Department comments.
Mrs. Tosti-Noc said that the kennel is the only means she has of
supporting herself.
Mr. Edward Jackson, on behalf of himself, Mr. Leonard Winslow, and
Mr. Barnes, objected to the zoning change to A-1, though he said he would support
an amendment to the zoning text to provide for commerical kennels in the B-1 district.
There was no additional comment from the public, and Col. Washington
closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Tosti-Noc told the Commission the number of dogs that she
would be able to board on her property and the number of personal dogs she
keeps on the property.
Col. Washington noted that this rezoning, if approved, would not
permit her to board dogs, though she could keep her personal dogs. He said
that she would have to apply for a special permit for a kennel to board other
dogs.
Mr. Huffman noted that she can license her own dogs under a commercial
permit, in view of the number.
Mr. McCann felt that to approve this application would be contrary
to other actions the Commission has taken with regard to spot zonings. With
a new zoning map, which would designate this property Rural Residential, Mrs.
Tosti-Noc could apply for a special permit for a commercial kennel.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support an amendment to the B-1
text to provide for commercial kennels.
Mr. Vest said that he has problems taking away any source of personal
livelihood.
Mr. Skove said that rezoning would be a classic case of spot rezoning,
though he noted his sympathy for someone trying to earn a living.
Mrs. Graves said that in order to get rid of an unsightly mess on
Free State Road the Commission had approved a spot zoning. And she said that
with a special permit the use would be conforming. Mrs. Graves moved approval
of the rezoning.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. McCann said that he could not support a spot zoning
request in view of previous Commission actions. Mr. Vest said that he preferred
to wait for the new zoning map and text, however he would support the motion.
'/ �vT
0
The motion carried by a vote of 7-2, with Mr. Skove and Mr. McCann
dissenting.
Mrs. Graves advised the applicant that if the rezoning is approved by
the Board of Supervisors, it would be necessary for her to apply for a special
use permit for a commercial kennel in order to board dogs.
ZMA-79-36. Richard and Madeline M. Dickman have petitioned the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 0.025 acres from R-1 to R-2. Property
is located on the north side of Route 702, north of the I-64 interchange.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 15A, part thereof, Samuel Miller District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Dickman stated that the rezoning is necessary to correct an
existing zoning violation, and not to satisfy the terms of a lending institution,
as stated in the staff report.
There was no public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing.
Mr. Skove moved approval of the rezoning request.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, and carried unanimously,
with no discussion.
ZMA-79-38. Frank C. McCue, III, and Clifton L. Wright have petitioned
the Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.139 acres from A-1 to B-1,
with a proffer. Property is located on the east side of Route 29
South, approximately 600 feet northeast of the intersection of Rotues
29 South and 692. Tax Map 99, Parcel 2, Samuel Miller District.
ZMA-79-39. Fank C. McCue, III, and Clifton L. Wright have petitioned
the Board of Supervisors to rezone 0.686 acres from A-1 to B-1, with
a proffer. Property is located on the east side of Route 29 South,
approximately 300 feet northeast of the intersection of Routes 29
South and 692. Tax Map 99, Parcel 1A, Samuel Miller District.
ZMA-79-40. T and D Enterprises, Inc., has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 0.737 acres from A-1 to B-1, with a proffer.
Property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Routes 29 South and 692. Tax Map 99, Parcel 1, Samuel Miller District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that three separate
actions are necessary, though the Commission would probably want to consider the
requests together since the parcels adjoin. All three applications were submitted
with the following proffer:
1. USES TO BE EXCLUDED:
7-1-2 Automobile sales, service and rental.
7-1-17 Hotels and motels.
7-1-21 Newspaper publishing.
7-1-29 Public utilities: office, equipment, storage, dispatch centers and
warehouse facilities.
�7s
7-1-39 Theaters ( indoor ).
7-1-42 Motor vehicles sales, service and rental.
7-1-43 Printing shops.
7-1-44 Condominiums with site plan approval.
7-1-46 Retail sales and service of fire extinguishers and safety and
security products.
7-1-48 Assembly and testing of electrical appliances , electronic instruments
and devices, radios, and phonographs. Also the manufacture of small
parts such as coils, condensors, transformers, and crystal holders.
7-1-42(2) Drive-in theaters.
7-1-42(3) Machinery sales and service.
7-1-42(4) Veterinary or dog or cat hospitals.
7-1-42(5) Wholesaling and processing not objectionable because of dust, smoke, noise,
odors, or heavy traffic.
7-1-42(6) Mobile home and travel trailer sales and service.
7-1-42(7) Private educational institutions.
7-1-42(10) Warehousing, light.
7-1-42(12) Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this Article USES PERMITTED
in Article 6, RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT R-3, in compliance with
regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed
pursuant to Section 11-13.
7-1-42(13) Helistop.
7-1-42(14) Contractor's office and equipment and material storage yard.
2. USES TO BE MODIFIED:
7-1-19 Laundries, coin -operated (provided that an attendant shall be on duty
at all hours during operation).
7-1-42(9) As stated, but excluding multi -legged tower structures.
Mr. Keeler read the comments from the Highway Department, and the
letter from Mr. Randolph objecting to ZMA-79-38. He noted that Mr. Randolph
supported ZMA-79-39 and ZMA-79-40.
Mr. George McCallum, on behalf of the applicants, noted that Cross Roads
area is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as a Type I Village and these uses
and the proposed rezonings comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan. He noted that these uses proffered would also be contained in the C-1 text
of the proposed zoning text.
Mrs. Bell Woodson, an adjoining property owner, stated that her house
is very close to the Sutherland house, on which ZMA-79-38 application is made
and she said that she objects to this rezoning. Her house is located 15 feet from
the property line and three bedrooms face this lot. She felt that this area
will become a small shopping center if the land is rezoned, and North Garden
will be greatly changed. Mrs. Woodson felt that traffic in the area will increase.
Furthermore, she noted that the Sutherland house was built around 1830 and is
an historic house in the area which she would like preserved. She said that she
did not oppose rezoning the land with the store, and was ambivalent on the middle
parcel.
Mrs. Annie Woodson stated that the Sutherland house should be left as
a buffer between the existing houses and store.
Mr. Ronnie Cutright said that he wants what is good for the neighborhood
however felt there is insufficient depth to adequately develop the property
commercially.
F�
There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed
the public hearing.
Mr. McCallum requested approval of the rezonings subject to the proffers
submitted with the applications. He said that without the Sutherland property
it would be difficult to have some sort of uniform commercial development.
Mrs. Diehl said that she could not support ZMA-79-38 because of the
unique house. She felt that this rezoning would approach strip development.
She moved that ZMA-79-38 be denied.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, noting the closeness of the Woodson
house and the need to protect what is existing.
Mr. Skove said that he prefers to work with all three parcels for a
commercial development.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed.
Mr. McCann said that this area was designated as a growth area, and
this rezoning request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Vest said that there is a need in the community for commercial development,
however he prefered to see it on the old Williams property.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the store should be taken down for sight distance
for proper access.
Mr. McCann said that when there is a need for the property to develop, it
will and the rezoning will have little effect on that.
Mr. Huffman pointed out that the uniqueness of the tavern did not keep
the Commission from designating that area for commercial zoning on the proposed
map and in the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion failed by a vote of 4-5, with Mrs. Graves, Mrs. Diehl,
and Messrs. Moore and Washington supporting the motion.
Mr. McCann moved approval of ZMA-79-38 according to the applicant's
proffer.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-4,
with Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves, Col. Washington and Dr. Moore dissenting.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of ZMA-79-39 subject to the proffer submitted
by the applicant.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
Mr. McCann moved approval of ZMA-79-40 subject to the applicant's proffer.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
M
SP-79-67. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative has petitioned
the Board of Supervisors to locate an electrical distribution substation
on 0.53 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the northeast side
of Route 602 near Schuyler. County Tax Map 132, Parcel 5, part thereof,
Scottsville District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
A representative from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative stated
that no additional right-of-way acquisition is necessary.
There was no public comment and Col. Washington closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Route 602 by plat or deed;
2. Site plan approval by staff to include landscape screening and tresspass fencing;
3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance;
4. Removal of equipment and structures and reforestation of site to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator should the site be abandoned or
service discontinued.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to control access from private property
to multi -lane dividied highways.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report noting that the primary purpose
of these amendments is to control access within 500 feet of a median crossover
as a matter of highway safety. Such provision would reduce rapid cross -cutting,
limit side friction near crossovers, reduce U-turning movements, and generally
protect the functional integrity of crossovers through controlled access.
Additionally, these amendments would codify Commission review and approval of
access to public roads.
Mr. Payne explained that the difference in wording is that the
Commission has the power to vary provisions of the subdivision ordinance and
the additional wording in the zoning ordinance amendment would provide the
same flexibility.
Mr. Rotgin said that he would like the amendments to read so that
the recommendations of the Highway Department are not "cast in stone."
There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed
the public hearing.
Dr. Moore felt that in general, safety is
He felt that some additional language to the effect
crossovers, shall be permitted unless it is over 500
would be appropriate.
accentuated at crossovers.
that "no entrance, not at
feet away from crossovers"
Mr
9
�O
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the language should be linked to speed limits
and not just to four -lane highways; otherwise the language is too restrictive.
Furthermore, he felt that if the Commission is going to address Route 29 North,
perhaps only that area to the river should be addressed.
Dr. Moore did not favor limitations on Route 29 North as far as distance.
Mrs. Diehl felt that the wording is flexibile enough to give the
Commission some discretionary power.
Mr. Gloeckner opposed the fact that the Highway Department will be the
dictating force.
Col. Washington established this would apply only when there is Commission
review of subdivision plats.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that there is no need for the law, since this
is what the Commission has done in some cases.
Mr. Payne advised that anytime it is possible to codify what the
Commission is doing, it is more desirable.
Dr. Moore moved approval of the amendments to the subdivision and
zoning ordinances, including revised wording recommended by Mr. Payne, with
the following wording:
(Subdivision Ordinance) - Section 18-37 General Standards of Design.
(o) Entrances onto public roads. Each entrance onto any public road
for vehicular traffic to and from such subdivision shall be subject to the approval
of the Commission upon the advice of the Highway Engineer and shall be constructed in
accordance with the design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation. In the case of any multi-laned divided highway, no such entrance which
is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall be permitted
within 500 feet of any such crossover.
(zoning Ordinance) - Section 17-5-8.01
Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from each
development shall be subject to the approval of the Commission upon the advice of
the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and
shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards of the Virginia Department
and Transportation. In the case of any multi-laned divided highway, no such entrance
which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall
be permitted within 500 feet of any such crossover except upon findings by the
Commission that (1) there is no other reasonably practicable access to such development
except within 500 feet of any such crossover; (2) that no reasonable means of alternative
access is available to such development; and (3) that the provision of an entrance
within 500 feet of any such crossover will be consistent with the public health,
safety and general welfare.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-1, with
Mr. Gloeckner dissenting.
/y,;_
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include
the Camelot area as a community.
Mr. Eckel presented the staff report and visual concept of the proposed
land use map.
Dr. Moore questioned if a community advisory panel has been formed
in this area.
Mr. Eckel replied that one has not been appointed, however, he has received
input from residents of Camelot as well as from other area landowners.
Mr. Bob Silcot, a resident of Camelot, pointed out R-1 land that is
shown as R-2 on the general land use plan. He proposed a committee of area landowners
be formed. He expressed concern about land immediately adjacent to Camelot and
the strip of commercial land along Route 29. He felt that recreational facilities
should be available to the area and questioned why densities are concentrated on
the steepest slopes. Mr. Silcot felt that the topography could establish the
different zoning categories.
Mr. Bob McKee, on behalf of Mr. Wendell Wood, proposed a schematic
layout for the neighborhood, noting that approximately 5000 people would eventually
be employed in that area between the industrial park and General Electric.
He pointed out that people like to live where they work, and it is likely that
those living in the area could walk to work.
There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed
the public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is not prepared to address such a large area
at this time.
Dr. Moore noted that with the exception of the small gaps, this is just
one long community, this area primarly an extension of Hollymead.
Mr. Gloeckner preferred to expand Hollymead on one side of the road
where the utilities are up to Route 606. He said that the east side of the road
may not even be developable because of the topography.
Mrs. Diehl expressed the desire for internalization of traffic as much
as possible.
Mr. Skove did not favor stretching a community along only one side
of the road.
Mrs. Diehl agreed that on the map it did look peculiar to have development
proposed for only one side of the road, but essentially most of what is proposed
is already on the west side of Route 29.
Mrs. Graves felt that area residents and property owners should have the
opportunity to work on the concept with the Planning Staff.
Mr. Huffman pointed out that the Commission may be in a position where
its recommendation has a bearing on what happens to the Bicuit Run area.
110
Mr. Gloeckner said that basically all the Commission will be approving
here is what already exists.
Mr. Skove felt that the community should be more centralized.
Mrs. Graves moved the Commission defer further discussion and action
until a neighborhood committee could be formed and made a recommendation to the
Commission.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1-1,
with Mr. Vest abstaining, and Mr. Gloeckner dissenting.
The Commission adjourned at midnight.
19
FE