Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 05 80 PC MinutesFebruary 5, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, February 5, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. James Skove; Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Member who was absent was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. ZMA-80-01. James and Irene Fretwell have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.23 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1 Residential. Property is located on the east side of Route 240, approximately 1/4 mile north of the intersection of Routes 250 and 240 in the Brownsville area. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 32C(1), White Hall District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report mentioning the existing dwelling is served by a well and that public water is available at the front property line. Mr. Fretwell stated he would like to keep the present water system. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Col. Washington commented that 60,000 square feet are needed for well and septic system and under the current ordinance 40,000 square feet are needed for public water. Therefore, if the applicant subdivides he will be 2900 square feet short. Mr. Payne stated that in order to subdivide, Mr. Fretwell would have to have a variance and he is not entitled to one. However, if Mr. Fretwell hooked up to the public water, he could subdivide. (Mr. Lindstrom entered the meeting.) Col. Washington commented that the applicant has three choices: hooking up to public water, asking his neighbor to sell him more square feet of land, or appealing to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. McCann said he had no problem with the applicant's request and moved for approval. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. ZTA-79-04. Monticello Memory Gardens has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 2-1-25(8) to include "crematoriums." Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. C. W. Rhodes, regional district manager for the company applying for the amendment, stated his company has 24 cemeteries in a three -state area and their long range plans are to build a crematorium and a mausoleum. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mrs. Diehl commented that this seems to be a logical addition. Col. Washington asked if the company had a technique for controlling odor. Mr. Rhodes answered that the entire process is very modern and that control factors are built in for odor. There are no environmental problems at all as vents and a charcoal filter take care of odor. Mr. Davis established that veterinarian's offices usually have crematoriums. Mr. McCann stated he would rather see a crematorium in a cemetery rather than in a business district anyway. Mr. McCann moved for approval of the application as written: 0 2-1-25(8) Cemeteries and adjunct crematoriums Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. SP-79-78. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate an electric power sub -station on 6.37 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the west side of Route 29 North just south of the intersection of Routes 763 and 29 North, and north of Camelot. County Tax Map 21, Parcel 12, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report noting that in September, 1979, the Commission had approved the location of this substation on property adjacent to the south. Since that time Rappahannock Electric (formerly Northern Piedmont Electric Cooperative) and G. E. have negotiated to relocate the substation to the north so that G. E. properties would not be physically separated. Mr. Leonard, representing the applicant, explained that this application was initiated by G. E. and it is not material to Rappahannock which lot is used for the substation. He stated the company has no objections to the conditions and for the time being this is a trade-off to help G. E. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Col. Washington said he felt the traffic would normally be quite low after construction is completed and wondered about the commercial entrance. Mr. Leonard explained they usually go along with the resident highway engineer's interpretation of what is needed. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the application subject to the following conditions: IN 1. Site plan approval to include: a. Sufficient berm on northern and eastern property line with evergreen trees (4' - 6' in height) on 15-foot centers on top of the berm in order to screen the substation from Route 29 North; b. Tresspass fencing around substation structures; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of an access; 2. Grading permit; 3. Access limited to Route 606. No access shall be permitted from Route 29 North; 4. Structures shall not exceed 40 feet in height. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. ZMA-80-02. B and T Properties have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 16.975 acres (with Proffer) from A-1 to RS-1. Property is located on the north side of Route 250 West at Ivy, approximately 600 feet northwest of the C and O Railroad overpass. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 84, Samuel Miller District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report explaining what a proffer is on an application before the Planning Commission. The proffer reads as follows: 1. If the request for rezoning is approved, B & T Properties will sub- divide the 16.975 acres in accordance with the preliminary plat of Locust Hill Subdivision, dated 10-26-79, revised 12-12-79, and prepared by R. 0. Snow and Associates. A copy of the plat is hereto attached as Exhibit 1. 2. B & T Properties will reserve for future relocation of State Route 678 the shaded area shown on the attached plat. 3. Water for the individual lots will be from private wells. 4. Sewage disposal for the individual lots will be through septic tanks and drain fields. 5. The only access for the proposed subdivision onto State Route 678 will be as shown on the attached plat. There will be no access from Lots 5 and 6 onto the existing right-of-way as shown on the attached plat. 6. All conditions of subdivision approval imposed by the Albemarle County Department of Planning will be complied with by B & T Properties in connection with the subdivision and development of the 16.975 acre tract. Mr. Jack Taggart, the applicant, stated that this is the same plan that was presented before and when it was taken before the Board, several members of the Board thought they could support it if it were proffered so that it would be running with the rezoning. Unfortunately, by statute the proffer could not be made after the public hearing started and they had to come back to this stage. Mr. Payne suggested that the first proffer would be better for the applicant if the word "substantially" were inserted between the words "acres" and "in". Mr. J. Marymor stated he owns property directly across from Route 678 and he has objections. He said the development as shown will place a driveway across from his driveway and there will be no room to turn around. He said it will be a dangerous curve with limited access and two right-angle turns within three -tenths of 36) a mile. He pointed out the fact that the property has a 6 to 8 foot bank and cars coming down the road will have blind spots. Also, when the heir living in Meriwether Lewis' house dies, the house will become an historical place of interest thereby increasing traffic. 140) Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Taggart stated he had had numerous meetings with the Highway Department and they have approved this road as being an acceptable relocation. He said he has also made a proffer for eventual improvement of the road. Mr. Skove established Route 678 has 1663 vehicle trips per day and is listed as non -tolerable. Mrs. Diehl said she is interested in the previous comments on site distance. Mr. McCann stated the Commission approved this before without a proffer and he moved approval with the proffer and the word "substantially" added to proffer #1. Mrs. Diehl protested she was still waiting for sight distance information. Mr. Tucker said he couldn't find anything in writing from the Highway Department but he remembers that in trying to flip-flop the plans to move the drive away from Mr. Marymor's house, there wasn't adequate sight distance and the Highway Department opposed the plans. Therefore, he said, he assumes this plan has adequate sight distance. Mrs. Diehl commented she was not willing to assume anything without something in writing. Mr. Payne said the problem is that if the Highway Department doesn't approve the entrance, even after moving it one way or another, the applicant can't get a subdivision plat. Mr. Davis seconded Mr. McCann's motion for approval with the proffer and the word "substantially" added to proffer #1. The vote was 6-0-1 with Mrs. Diehl abstaining. New Business: Flood Insurance Rate Stud Mr. Keeler reported that back in the '701s, the Army Corps of Engineers did a study of six rivers in the county and prepared flood plain maps, and in December of 1972 the County adopted Article 9a of the Zoning Ordinance which is the flood plain designation. These two events made the County eligible for the emergency program of flood insurance. In October of 1976, the County was notified by HUD and Corps of Engineers they were prepared to undertake studies that would qualify the County for the regular program of flood insurance. In August of 1978 the County received one set of flood maps, which are generalized maps, showing the 100-year flood plain for most of the streams in the County. In November of 1979, the County received the flood insurance rate maps from the Corps of Engineers. These are the most detailed maps that they provide. Mr. Keeler went on to say that the reason for this presentation is that S/ within the next several days there will be a legal advertisement initiating a three- month appeal period for the flood insurance rate maps. The appeals are made to Federal Emergency Management Agency which was formerly within HUD. The appeals are made through the Planning Department. This appeal period will run for ninety days. Following the ninety -day appeal period, the County has a six-month grace period in which to adopt the flood insurance rate maps in order to qualify for the program. Mr. Skove asked how the County Engineer is coming along on identifying flood areas. Mr. Keeler answered that the County Engineer is not working on identifying flood areas at present. He works on a case by case basis when a request comes in. Col. Washington asked how a property owner can find out where this flood plain is. Mr. Keeler answered that the advertisement that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is going to run in the newspaper will identify him as the person to contact for this information. Col. Washington asked how a property owner will know whether he is in the plain or on the fringe. Mr. Keeler said there will be maps for the public on display in the Planning Department for ninety days. Two public notices will be run. Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that eventually the Commission will see the maps for adoption into the Zoning Ordinance. He went on to say that the present maps are not as detailed as the new maps will be and in some cases the old maps do not correspond with the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion: Site Review Committee Mr. Tucker explained to the Planning Commission that the site review process has not been effective and,over the next several months, an experiment will be tried if the Planning Commission members agree. He listed the steps that will be tried as follows: 1. The technical committee will continue to meet at their regularly scheduled meeting dates in the Planning/Engineering Departments' Conference Room. 2. Applicants, their representatives or adjacent property owners will not be notified of the technical committee meeting. 3. Individual technical committee members will work with the applicant or his representative directly, if necessary. 4. Technical committee members will submit their recommendations in the following format: a. Those recommendations or conditions which should be met prior to Planning Commission action; and b. Those recommendations or conditions which could be made part of the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission. 5. Technical committee comments will continue to be forwarded to you after their meeting. Mr. McCann established that applicants can still come forward without meeting all conditions and be heard by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Diehl commented that if the Planning Commission is going to help the N� Site Review Committee, then the Commission will have to stop passing applications with a whole list of conditions. Mr. Skove agreed saying that he suspects there will be people coming in 1W and saying they are pressed for time and asking for approval without getting prior approval and if the Commission starts slipping up and granting approval, then everything will just go back to being the way it is right now. Mr. McCann commented that he would rather see a final anyway rather than a preliminary but he doesn't know whether he wants to see things tied down so that an applicant has to get everything done before the Commission will grant approval. Mr. Skove said he didn't know whether it could be done legally as that inter- feres with an applicant's right to appeal. Mrs. Diehl stated she feels there should be a policy or the Commission will end up quibbling over hay and straw. She said she would hope that by getting prior conditions met before coming to the Commission, the Commission won't nitpick. Mr. McCann commented that one of the problems was not accepting the Health Department and Highway Department recommendations and trying to do other things with these recommendations. Col. Washington established that Mr. Tucker was not suggesting this change be a part of the Ordinance but rather an experiment. Mr. Tucker went on to explain that legally, if the Commission wanted to be hard nosed, they could require that every condition be met before approval is granted. He said there is nothing in the Ordinance that says you have to condition anything. Mr. Payne commented that to be technical, he thinks that is what the Commission should do. Either approve or deny. In other words, if the Commission approves with conditions, technically the application should be denied. Col. Washington stated he never felt he was in a position to make a contribution when he was on the roster for Site Review for two reasons. One is the pot is still boiling and hasn't settled down at that time and second, as an individual, you cannot speak for the Commission. Another reason is that he said he didn't want to put his foot in his mouth at the technical review and box himself in two weeks later when more information is available and you are halfway committed to something. What he is really saying is he is not sure the Commissioners serve a useful purpose by being there. Mrs. Diehl found it most useful, she said, when she took notes on the properties as to the things the other people brought up and then could check on the things that had been suggested to see if they had been complied with. The trouble is when no one goes and there is no information about Site Review. Now that the Commission does not see Site Review minutes, there is no way to get the information needed. She said that is the reason she is willing to try this new method. Mr. Skove commented that he found some aspects of Site Review very helpful, especially about the recommendations - but he is not sure he couldn't have found a letter stating all recommendations just as helpful. Mr. McCann said he is willingto try Mr. Tucker's suggestion y and if it doesn't work out, the Commission doesn't have to continue with it. .53 The Commission members all agreed that they would like the Site Review technical comments about the Site Plans in their respective magisterial districts. Mr. Ed Smith asked if notices are still going to be posted so that adjacent property owners would know about the Site Review meetings and Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Tucker answered yes, the notices are to be posted but they will only be posted if the applicant's have the good intentions to do so. Mrs. Diehl asked if posting the notices was made part of the Ordinance, would compliance be better. Mr. Tucker said at least there would be a means of enforcement if posting was made part of the Ordinance as compliance now is very poor. He went on to say that five years ago, inspectors from the Inspections Department were sent out to post these notices and there would be many instances when the notices would be gone shortly thereafter. He said it is very difficult to insure the fact that the notices will be there. He suggested that if the notices are not posted as required, the Commission can only defer the item as a penalty and that means deferral letters must be sent out to all adjacent property owners which costs the County money. Mrs. Diehl said there have been Special Permit and Rezoning requests made and she has gone to the site and there have been no notices posted. She said this really bothers her and she doesn't care about the expense to the County. If the notices are not posted and people in the area who care about what is happening near to them do not receive letters because they are not directly adjacent to the property in question, then they are being short-changed. Mr. McCann moved that the new format for Site Review be tried temporarily and effective beginning in March. Mr. Lindstrom established that notices will be sent out as usual for Planning Commission meetings. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval of the new format. With no further business to discuss, and upon a motion by Mrs. Diehl and a second by Mr. Vest, the Commission unanimously voted to proceed into Executive Session. �4vvI r t W. Tucker, Jr.-- Secre ary f"