Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 01 80 PC MinutesJuly 1, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, July 1, 1980, 7:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles Vest, Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; also Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner. Those absent were: Mr. Layton McCann, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. David Bowerman, and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio. The Chairman, Col. Washington, called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. SP-80-32 Peter A. Agelasto, III Petition to the Board of Supervisors to bring an existing duplex into conformance. The 3.03 acres of A-1 land is located on the west side of Route 743, approximately 4 mile northeast of the intersection of Routes 676 and 743. Tax Map 45, Parcel 31H, Charlottesville District. The staff report was made by Mr. Keeler, who also stated that the approval of the petition would not permit further development. The Highway Department has an 80 foot right-of-way across half of the frontage, then the right-of-way is 40 feet. Col. Washington ascertained that the reservoir was the body of water adjacent to the site. The applicant, Peter A. Agelasto, asked Mr. Keeler if the additional right-of- way dedication was for a planned improvement to the road or a matter of routine. Mr. Keeler replied that it was a routine dedication. Mr. Agelasto asked if the condition about Health Department approval were not satisfied, would his application to bring the duplex into conformance fail. Mr. Keeler stated that the application would fail. Mr. Agelasto stated that the duplex had been there since 1969. One acre was taken for the reservoir. The Highway Department had also taken land for Route 743. He does not mind dedication of the additional right-of-way. He said he has no further plans of development. Mr. Keeler said that the Health Department stated the drainfield is 200 feet from the reservoir. Mr. Ed Bain, speaking on behalf of the Tegtmeyers, stated that they want no further development of the property, however, they had no problem with it being put into conformity, they just oppose additional development. There was no further comment from the public, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Skove found on questioning that there was one drainfield for the two dwelling units. He asked that Mr. Keeler read the first condition again. a At Mr. Vest found on inquiry that the second drainfield is not required to be installed now. Mrs. Diehl queried whether the second system was to be built or just to have sufficient area available. Col. Washington replied that it was to have the potential available. Mr. Keeler staged that if the property were four acres and being divided, it would have to have two drainfields per lot. It is in the watershed area and the condition is intended to insure adequate area for a second drainfield if needed in the future. Mr. Davis said that a drainfield large enough for a two family dwelling is larger than a drainfield for one dwelling. Mr. Keeler said the existing drainfield is about 2000 square feet. Mr. Skove inquired if this were to be sold, could only half be sold. Mr. Payne stated that it could be sold as two condominiums. In answer to Mr. Davis' inquiry, Mr. Payne said that this could be done in A-1 zoning. He further stated that the statute reads that condominiums are to be treated identically with other physically identical development (the key is physically identical). So if the condominium is sold the division is of the building, rather than the land. Mr. Davis questioned whether there was any way to divide the land. Mr. Payne replied that a line could not be drawn down the middle and have the land in two lots. Mr. Davis said he would not mind one septic system, if the Health Department could be sure this was adequate. Mr. Payne said the staff is consistent as this is the same requirement they would have for anything in this same location. Mr. Skove stated that the question seemed to be with the septic field; that it really did not have anything to do with the fact that this was a duplex. Both can be served with one septic field. Mr. Payne said that a maintenance agreement would be needed, this would be a common unit, if it were sold. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Current Health Department review to insure area adequate for a second septic drainfield; 2. Dedication of 25 feet from center line of Route 743. Col. Washington suggested that the Commission needed to make sure the drainfield was suitable for a duplex. Mr. Keeler said that the drainfield is oversized and the second also would be oversized. Mrs. Diehl said she would be satisfied to add "suitable for a duplex" to the first condition. Mr. Vest seconded the amended motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. This will go to the Board of Supervisors on July 16th. _ZMA-80-12 John Boseley and S. L. Wynne Request to change zoning from A-1 Agriculture to B-1 Business. Property is located on Route 616 in the southeast quadrant of the I-64/Route 616 interchange; described as Tax Map 94A, Parcel A(1). The staff report was given by Mr. Keeler The applicant stated that the first lot is in the I-64 interchange area and is only suitable for Highway Commercial use. When Col. Washington inquired as to the kind of use, the applicant replied that he no longer had a sale for the property, though it had been for sale. There was no further public comment and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Skove stated that the property seemed to be isolated from surrounding land and would not be much use other than business. Col. Washington ascertained that the property could not be seen from I-64, there is tree growth, it is most visible from Route 616. Mrs. Diehl said that there are 24 acres in that area zoned B-1 and not being used. She also said if that is near the auction house, that property is for sale. The applicant said that the property adjacent to the auction house is for sale. Mr. Davis felt that he would be more satisfied with the applicant's request, if he knew what the use would be for the property. Mrs. Diehl stated that she had voted against this request last year, since a great deal of B-1 is not being used in that area, she does not want to zone anymore to that classification. In answer to Col. Washington's question, Mr. Keeler stated that this application had been brought in on July loth of last year. The one-year rule is to keep the same application from being brought in every month. The Board of Supervisors will consider this item on July 16th. There were two meetings to consider special use permits and zoning change applications last year. This year, there is just one meeting for consideration of these items. Scheduling is through no fault of the applicant. Mr. Skove found out on inquiry from the applicant that there is a brick residence on the south side of the property in question, business zoning behind and to the north, on the east a commercial lot behind on Mechunk Road, and on Route 616, Texaco owns commercial land across the road, an auction house beside that, and between the property and I-64, another unused commercial lot. Mr. Davis said he felt that B-1 pressure is on the property and that it is suitable, but without the prospective use being known, he cannot support rezoning. Mr. Skove motioned for approval, because he felt that no other uses were possible. Mr. Vest seconded the motion and agreed with Mr. Skove's statement. The vote was 3-2, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Davis opposing the motion. The Board of Supervisors will consider this item on July 16th. RESOLUTION OF INTENT: Amend ZMA-78-08 (Wildwood RPN) to delete Condition #8. Staff report was given by Mr. Keeler. The applicant was not requested to be present, since this is a resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this was a disturbed area within a cul-de-sac. Mr. Vest moved for the deletion of condition #8: Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of disturbed areas. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Diehl. The vote for the motion was unanimous. SP-80-37 Swift Air Delivery, Inc. Request for a truck terminal, located on the north side of Route 649 east of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E, property is the former Benoit Nursery. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The applicant, Mr. Forrest, said the Swift Air Delivery had been operating downtown, there is no place on the airport grounds for them. This area is about 300 yards from the airport and it would be helpful to be located near the airport. Col. Washington established that the size of the Swift Air Delivery fleet was one 1 ton package van, four econoline trucks and two more trucks stationed in the valley. They haul light freight, not any big freight; this is not a large scale operation. There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. Col. Washington said he gathered from the staff comments that expansion may occur. He questioned the interpretation of this, if further expansion would need reviewing. Mr. Keeler stated that this application is on the entire 10 acres, so it would not require another special use permit, but it might require a site plan. Mr. Skove questioned the need of a site plan when there was an existing building and found that this building is a temporary location. � 17 Mr. Payne said that permission might be needed for an entrance, if the facility were expanded. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if the property were divided into parcels, Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation would then have a chance to review the entrance. There is adequate parking for both uses. Mr. Keeler said he had talked with Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department on the phone and found that the.physical design of the present entrance for increasing usage at this time would not entail turn lanes, etc. Mrs. Diehl said she would like for the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to review this application with the potential of development form 1200 to 4000 square feet in mind and its effect on the entrance. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval of the application, subject to: 1. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation review of entrance. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Col. Washington said it might be reasonable to put on a condition for further review of the Commission for further use. He saw no problem with it right now, but did not like it open ended. Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove agreed; the increase from 1200 square feet to 4000 square feet, the problem was the implied traffic increase. Mr. Keeler said the Commission had in the past conditioned for expansion. Mr. Payne found that the concern was the possibility of increased traffic and larger vehicles and the need for a turn lane. He suggested a condition to read: 2. No expansion to building beyond 1200 square feet without Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of amended entrance in accordance with Highway Department standards. Mr. Skove amended his motion to include this condition. Mrs. Diehl found that any other use would have to come before the Commission. Mr. Keeler said that the applicant has a preliminary plat on this property which may be reviewed by the Commission in the near future. The vote for approval was unanimous. Mr. Keeler said this will go before the Board of Supervisors on July 16th. NEW BUSINESS: Work Session - PARKS & RECREATION FIVE YEAR PLAN Mr. Douglas Eckel gave the summary of recommendations chapter of the preliminary draft of the Parks and Recreation Plan. Mr. Pat Mullaney, one of the directors of the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department, was present to answer questions. a �� Mr. Eckel stated that a survey was done for the five year master plan in 1977 to assess the need for parks. The figures are based on having a park for every so many people, these figures come from books on the subject and from the Comprehensive Plan. It is also based on the area where there is the heaviest demand and where the park will receive the most use. Mr. Payne said he had observed from friends that use Chris Green Lake Park, that a number of people who use the park facilities are non -county residents. There was a suggestion that there be fee sharing and that a higher price be charged for non -county residents. Also he felt the County needed to do something about softball fields; there are a large number of county .residents in the city softball leagues and the city could end up cutting off some of the county use. Mrs. Diehl suggested that other programs in the county had already been done on a fee schedule with a sliding scale; county paying to city for the use of facilities; also non -county residents paying more to the county. Mr. Skove said he could vouch for the great softball use of the parks. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the neighborhood parks would have lights. She said that she noticed that Pen Park had softball fields but was not lighted. Mr. Skove suggested the use of county school buses for transportation to the parks. Mr. Mullaney said that the use of the school buses was up to each individual school board in a locality. He was not sure that the Parks and Recreation Department would be allowed to use the school buses. Mrs. Diehl suggested that this be taken before the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Mullaney said that what the Parks and Recreation Department is using now is a bus that the school board has gotten rid of to get new buses. Mrs. Graves ascertained that the Grace Memorial Park is still under consideration. Mr. Davis felt that the County added more fuel to city annexation if the County did not do its part on providing parks and recreational areas. Mrs. Graves stated that Burley School was used. It is in the City, but belongs to the County. Mr. Mullaney said that the City Parks and Recreation Department had been discussing possible joint use of parks and possible merger of recreational teams. There are 180 softball teams with 60% county residents playing, and one game per week. There is no practice space, one field is being used at Piedmont Community College, there are 20 new teams each year. The county would have 100 teams, if the city cut off use of its parks. Mr. Skove ascertained that county residents may use the indoor pools. Col. Washington questioned the use of the revenue from federal parks. He felt the revenue from these parks should be used in the County where the park is situated rather than taxes being used. Mr. Mullaney said that all revenue that comes in goes into a general fund. If the revenue from the federal parks could be used in Albemarle County, the Parks and Recreation Department would be self-supporting. Col. Washington said that the Parks & Recreation Department ought to get credit from the revenue for Shenandoah National Park. Mr. Skove suggested that the Parks and Recreation Plan add something to the effect that school buses should be used. Mr. Tucker suggested that use of both school and school buses be added. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that volley ball is considered more of a winter season sport, would take a small space, and needs a hard surface; the black top at the school grounds could be used. For indoor volleyball, the gymnasium should be used. Mr. Eckel said there is demand in the city for volleyball. Col. Washington said that the Greenwood School has a ball diamond, basketball court, which is used, and a gynasium, whidiis not used. Mr. Mullaney stated that the Greenwood Community Center has a gymnasium which will probably be used; if Scottsville School is closed, the Parks and Recreation Department might be able to get permission to use this area; possibly Greenwood can be used also. Col. Washington suggested that the pool at Greenwood Community Center could be used; if the well water is good enough to drink, it ought to be good enough for the pool. Mr. Skove questioned mini -parks; possibly in conjunction with the city . He questioned if these overlapped other small parks. Mr. Eckel said these do not overlap with small parks and playground areas. Mr. Skove asked if the county could cooperate and coordinate with the city in the capital investment program for parks. Mr. Eckel said this is very feasible for parks and playfields. Not only are these parks accessible by automobile, but McIntire Park is very accessible by both cars and bikes. Both ends of McIntire Park have bridges and entrances usable for bikes, this is great for all the kids. Col. Washington questioned the effect of annexation on capital improvements, such as parks and sidewalks. Mr. Payne stated that all of this is taken into consideration by the court when the annexation order is finally signed. Financial arrangements by annexing city are made to ease the transition. Any bonds for water lines, or anything of that kind the county does not take a loss. The County keeps ownership of its schools, parks, etc. Sidewalks are a little different; they are usually done with highway funds or local assessment. He is not sure of the court's answer on sidewalks. However, Mr. Payne said that if the county is serving the area with urban type facilities, the court is less likely to support annexation than if it is not.doing so. In answer to Col. Washington's inquiry, Mr. Tucker said that this matter had been brought before the Commission for more input as to the recommendations and unless there are objections, a resolution of intent to go to public hearing with the Parks and Recreation Plan, as we are considering this as a part or an element of the Comprehensive Plan and take it to the public and see what they have to say about it. Mr. Skove questioned Item #4 on the Five Year Capital Plan: "construction of a neighborhood park preferably within the Urban Area, .....(an attempt should be made to interest the City of Charlottesville in sharing the cost of such a facility)." He was questioning particularly the part in parentheses and felt the cost sharing was a good idea. Mrs. Diehl asked if there were current legal advantages to this. Mr. Payne said that without looking into new materials on the annexation his idea was that this would tend to help the county - that you would end up with the facility being there. Now facilities are owned outright by the city, if the facility were funded on a fifty-fifty basis, this would be in the county's favor. Mrs. Diehl stated that this would not be as strong as one funded by just the county. Mr. Davis said that any facility is better than no facility. Mr. Payne said that a really nice park funded by the county and the city - at least the county is participating in it and this is better than not having anything, because the county did not have the funds to build the park itself. 144) Mr. Skove said that he hoped a Parks Authority could be created serving the two jurisdictions. Col. Washington did not favor merger, feeling that the rural section has a lower priority under those circumstances. Mr. Skove felt it was ineffective to build two parks so close to each other. Mrs. Diehl said she was happy with the way the plan for Parks and Recreation is written. She questioned what areas had the highest priorities for a playfields park. Mr. Eckel said there was no areas that were not served. The location is based on access to the largest number of people, which would be the urban area, and no specific location or site has been chosen. Mrs. Diehl questioned if when an area is being selected, would consideration be made of whether it can be served by a school field. Mr. Eckel said the selection depended on other criteria, such as: accessibility, the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, etc. Mr. Skove found on inquiry that a neighborhood park consists of playfields or tennis courts and not necessarily swimming area. Mrs. Diehl said that she hoped that Lake Reynovia would be used. This area was looked into when addressing the amendments and it was the only area with adequate water facilities that could be used and also adequate land area. aa/ Mr. Davis said the last price tag he had heard was six million dollars for the property. Mr. Tucker said that would be the price for all the land, but he understood that the owner was not interested in selling now, though the part north of the lake was being sold now. Mr. Eckel said the owner was not interested in selling now, but would like to be approached by the county to see about joint operation with the county or something of that sort. Mrs. Diehl said that she would be willing to add this to the Parks and Recreation Plan. Even if the owner is not interested in selling, she should be approached about operation. Mr. Eckel said he suggested that the recommendation be that the county seek out a joint maintenance and joint operation agreement with Lake Reynovia. Mr. Payne said he would not suggest being as specific as a joint maintenance agreement. Private owner is liable for his own negligence, a county is not. He said that maybe you want a term such as county participation in the operation of Lake Reynovia, which would not rule out joint operation, if feasible, but would not tie you to it either. Joint operation is not a practical idea. Mr. Eckel suggested that it read: Initiation of a lease -type agreement for continuing operations at the Lake Reynovia picnic and swimming facility. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for the resolution of intent to take the Parks and Recreation Plan to public hearing. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Unanimous approval was the vote on the motion. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. a�C-;�'