HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 07 80 PC MinutesM
October 7, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
October 7, 1980, 7:30 p.m., County Office Building, Third Floor, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Alan Kindrick;
. David Bowerman; Mr. Corwith Davis. Absent were Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James
Mr.
Mr. and ow Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert
SkoW. Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of
Planning; Mr. Doug Eckel- Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County
Attorney.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum was present.
SP-80-48. Herbert C. Jones
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Gloeckner moved the Commission accept
the withdrawal of this application. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously, with no discussion-
L. C. Parrish Plat:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that it was submitted as a
final plat, however, only preliminary conceptual approval is sought at this
time. Staff's concern involved the number of entrances to Route 810 which are
possible in this area. Staff opinion was that it would serve the public interest
to serve the 8 lots with one entrance rather than three entrances
inthe clofinal plat
proximity. He presented the recommended conditions of approval
review.
Mr. George McCallum, attorney, was present on behalf of the applicant.
A fifty -foot access serves as a common access to the two 6-acre lots and the
22.709 acres. He said that the 22.709 acre parcel will probably not be divided
because of topography. At this point it has not been possible to reach an pointedagreeme
Mr. McCallum
with the owner of Hatfield Farm for any sort of maintenance.
out that this is an estate division. The two 6-acre lots are each selling for
$5,000, which will provide some low cost housing for the county.
There was no public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public discussion.
Col. Washington questioned why the 50 foot pipestem could not accommodate
five lots.
Mr. Keeler replied that it could, however, two of the parcels are not before
the Planning Commission.
Col. Washington said that his premonition is to defer any decision until
a single entrance can be worked out.
Mr. McCallum said that it is not possible to say at this point that a single
341
entrance is impossible. He hoped that such an entrance could be worked
out by the time the Commission reviewed the final plat. He questioned what
the Commission's decision would be if such an agreement is not possible.
Mr. Payne noted for the record that depending on when Parcel 35J was
subdivided, a subdivision plat violation may exist. If that is the case, it is
an on -going violation and that could change the entire matter before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl moved deferral until the possible problem discussed by Mr. Payne
could be investigated and until a more reasonable entrance for the properties is
devised.
Mr. Bowerman asked that one drawing of all the properties could be shown
to the Commission at the next review date so that the relation of one piece of
property to the next can be determined.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
SP-80-53. Frank Hereford - Contractor's office andequipment storage yard:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read the comments from the
Highway Department.
Mr. Hereford was present to answer questions.
Mr. McCauley, an adjoining property owner, felt that the private road
to Berkmar should be either closed or cleaned up, noting that many residents of
the area use it as a dump as well as a gathering place.
There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman established the location of the commercial entrance recommended
by the Highway Department.
Mr. Davis questioned if the applicant intends to use the entrance at
Berkmar.
Mr. Hereford replied that he doubts he will use that entrance, however he
would like his options left open.
Mrs. Diehl determined that the applicant intends public water and sewer.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the entire site has been cleared.
Mr. Hereford stated that at this point he has not developed a site plan;
he preferred to do that only after approval of the special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman expressed concern for the history of erosion problems
especially in view of the private road.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special use permit subject to the
following conditions:
3*1
1. No building permit including special footings permit shall be issued until
the applicant has obtained a grading permit and posted bond in an amount
adequate to insure compliance during and after construction;
2. There shall be no outside storage of materials or equipment by the applicant
or tenants, except for normal on -the -road type vehicles;
3. Site plan approval including Planning Commission approval of screening from
adjoining residence;
4. Compliance with urban stormwater detention ordinance ( Section 17-5-13 of the
Zoning Ordinance );
5. Building shall not exceed 30,000 square feet and shall not contain more than
four establishments;
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance on Route 631 in accordance with current standards. The entrance at
Berkmar Drive shall be removed and property within the public right-of-way
shall be restored to the satisfaction of Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation;
7. County Engineer approval of road specifications;
8. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement;
9. Special use permit will require use of public water and sewer;
10. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans prior to Planning
Commission review of site plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
further discussion.
SP-80-58. South Pantops Land Trust - request for R-3 Residential
uses on 18.0 acres zoned B-1:
Upon the request of the applicant, Mrs. Diehl moved that discussion and
recommendation be deferred for 90 days.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler noted for the record that due to the fact that no schedule
has been done for the 1981 year, the petition will have to be readvertised
and all affected property owners re -notified.
Windham, Inc., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a sewer
package treatment plant on 27.14 acres zoned A-1. Property is
located on the west side of Route 240 at Powell Creek in Crozet.
Tax Map 56, Parcel 11, White Hall District.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by
leaving the room.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the various letters of
opposition and concern that had been received in the past few days. He read
the comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority. He also noted for
the record that it has been determined that it may be possible to locate everything
underground except for the maintenance shed.
Col. Washington questioned why the county is again reviewing this, since
there is an existing approved special use permit.
3't3
Mr. Keeler said that to his knowledge it is a matter of business negotiations.
Mr. Rick Richmond, attorney on behalf of Windham, said that there is
no significant difference in this structure and plant from the previous application,
and it seems that most everything can be located underground. He said that the
relocation is proposed because cost to the County and to the owners of Windham
will be less with this proposed location, and because the requirements of VDH&T
for the entrance standards can be met with this location, where they could not be
with the previous location.
Mr. V. Shackelford, attorney for the Moyers, expressed concern for the
appearance and the aesthetics.
Mr. Mark Osborne, engineer for the project, said that depending upon the
groundwater depth, it will probably be possible to bury the tank completely.
There will be no site clearing, except at the entrance and for the roadway.
Mr. Shackelford recognized the need for the facility, however again expressed
concern for the aesthetic impact.
Mrs. Moyer felt that the tank could be buried if the owner is willing to
do it, according to her conversations with Mr. Peaseley, the head of Centrox in
Richmond.
Mr. Richmond felt that condition #4 recommended by the staff addresses
Mrs. Moyer's concerns.
Mrs. Moyer said that her house sits on a rise and she will therefore
be looking down on the site, thus adequate screening would be difficult.
There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Davis noted that the tank will be dug up and the entire site cleaned
up and abandoned when the Crozet Interceptor is completed. He also pointed to the
27.14 acre size of the tract.
Col. Washington stated that the bottomland is in the floodplain.
Mr. Osborne stated that the tank will be located approximately 3/4 way
down the hill, if possible, and then it will be buried. He said that he has taken
great pains to see that everything is self-contained and underground as much as
Possible. This will eliminate the sound and odor problems that sometimes go along
with package plants. He then described the entrance to the property in the curve
of the road, and analyzed the previous site to the current proposed site.
Mr. Davis established that by the time of site review the engineer will
know whether the tank can be buried.
Col. Washington felt that the tank should be near the top of the hill
without being in the floodplain.
Mr. Osborne said that borings will be necessary, wherever the tank is
located.
Mr. Kindrick said that setting the tank on rock could mean saving the
expense of concrete ballasts.
34�
Mr. Davis moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval including screening from adjacent properties by landscape
plantings, earth berming, and/or opaque fencing;
2. County Engineering review to insure that plant is not located in the floodplain
or otherwise prone to flooding;
3. Approval of appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. The Albemarle County
Service Authority shall request such agencies to emphasize in their reviews
the minimization of odors and noise generated by the plant;
4. The plant shall be located below existing ground level to the maximum possible
extent provided such location shall not be contrary to Condition No. 2;
5. The plant and all appurtenances shall be dedicated to the Albeamrle County
Service Authority and operated thereafter in accord with the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority's four-part agreement;
6. The plant and all appurtenances shall be constructed by the applicant at his
expense in accordance with plans approved by the Albemarle County Service
Authority;
7. Connections to the package plant shall be limited to the proposed convalescent
center and existing connections to the Crozet Sewer Company. No further
connections shall be allowed unless so ordered by the Health Department or
State Water Control Board to abate existing health hazards;
8. Connection shall be mandatory for all Crozet Sewer Company connections unless
some other approved means of sewage disposal could be provided;
9. Approval is contingent upon acceptance of the system by the State Water Control
and Virginia Department of Health as an interim measure until the Crozet
Interceptor is operational;
10. The package plant shall be removed and the site regraded within six months of
the time when the Crozet Interceptor becomes operational;
11. Only low phosphate soaps and detergents shall be used by the convalescent
center; unscheduled monitoring of the raw phosphate discharge from the convalescent
center shall be conducted by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the cost of
this monitoring shall be borne by the convalescent center. In the event that
total raw phosphorus output contributed by the convalescent center exceeds
0.153 lb/day for three tests over a thirty -day period, the applicant will be
required to install additional treatment facilities at his expense to achieve a
level less than or equal to 0.153 lb/day. Compliance by the applicant
all
be accomplished within 180 days after a written order to that effect by the
Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Col. Washington said that he would like to be more specific with Condition #4.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if the floodplain is established, the tank can be
moved up the hill and completely buried.
Mr. Osborne stated that buoyancy is important for the tank only with the
evacuation of the tank.
Col. Washington said that he would like to off -set any human error that
could occur when the floodplain is calculated.
Mr. Osborne then said that the 100 year flood level could be determined
and the tank could be located three feet above that.
Col. Washington said that he had seen that valley flood, and not just because
of Powell Creek. He noted the other on -site stream.
345
Col. Washington suggested that Mr. Osborne get the facts and not locate the
tank in the floodplain.
Mr. Richmond noted that Condition #2 covers Col. Washington's concern.
Mr. Davis questioned if the 100 year flood plain level could be demonstrated
at site plan review.
Mr. Osborne replied that it could.
To off -set any concerns expressed by Col. Washington, Mr. Bowerman
asked that the motion be amended to include the following 12th condition:
Site plan to show 100 year flood plain of Powell Creek and other on -site
streams, the groundwater level at the tank site, and the depth to which the
tank will be buried.
Mr. Davis accepted this condition.
The motion carried unanimously, with no additional discussion.
SP-80-60. Wellagain Ltd. Ptrn. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
for an 80-bed residential care center on 6.6+ acres zoned B-1 and R-3.
Property is located on the east side of Route 780, northeast of its
intersection with Route 631. Tax Map 76, Parcels 54 and 46A, Scottsville
District.
( Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the meeting. )
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read the VDH&T comments.
Mr. Fred Russell, attorney for the applicant, stated that if the Highway
Department comments are part of the requirements of the special use permit, he
would object to the condition. He said that this will be a nice facility that the
neighborhood won't even realize is there.
Mr. Gaston Fornes, adjoining property owner, said that his property is
across the street, looking down on this site. He questioned the necessity for
that number of employees. He felt that the road is dangerous from this site
to Fry's Spring. He also expressed concern about the availability of sewer,
since he stated that sewer is on his property, not on the road. He noted that
many years ago he paid for that sewer. He questioned if there is a similar facility
to this in the area, what will be done here, and any other information that would
be a help to the general public. He felt that the information at this point is
sparse.
Mr. Russell noted that this property can be used for much more intensive
uses than is proposed here. He also stated that sewer is available, according
to the Service Authority.
With no additional public comment, Col. Washington closed the public
hearing.
Col. Washington questioned the meaning of the VDH&T letter.
15M6
Mr. Keeler suggested that this could be addressed prior to the Board
of Supervisors review and the Commission could just leave that condition off.
Col. Washington said that he would like to see a sketch with the roads
dotted in prior to making a decision.
Mrs. Diehl questioned what percentage of the B-1 property in that area
this property represents. She said that she is also interested in the type of care
and the type of patients that will be treated here.
Mr. Russell said that this is proposed for the treatment of alcohol and
substance abuse. Previously, such patients have been treated aroximaralyhospitals
8 days
and psychiatric hospitals, at great expense. There will be app
of treatment for in -patients". He noted that since this is proposed as a regional
facility, there will be some public funding.
Mr. Bowerman said that he feels public sewer is a necessity for this project.
Mr. Davis said that he feels this is a poor location for a regional facility
because of the road and the access, and he expressed concern for the neighborhood
residents. He felt d eption,is athoughsignificant
wasdifference
prepared toalcohol
draw thatcli�e.and
some types of drug a
Mrs. Diehl also felt there were a number of unresolved issues, such as
the road alingment and the dedication, the sewer connection, and the kinds of
facilities that will be called upon to support such a project.
Mr. Russell pointed out that Western State Hospital is closing 40 beds in
July of 1981, and this facility would like to be in a position to negotiate for
those beds. He said that the applicant is willing to accept public water and sewer
as a condition on the special permit.
Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to determine if sewer is available.
Mr. Russell said that he has a certificate from the Service Authority that
was presented to the State Health Department as part of the Certificate of Need
which says that public sewer is available.
Mr. Davis said that he would like to know the status of Route 780 and the
number of additional vehicle trips per day this facility would bring about.
Mrs. Diehl moved that action and further discussion be deferred until
the following week, October 14, 1980.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
SP-80-61. Antonio Martinez has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
for a Home Occupation - Class B - on 35.421 acres zonedA-1. Property
is located on the east side of Route 20, approximately 2
rtheast
of Carter's Bridge. Tax Map 102, Parcel 32A, Scottsville District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Martinez was present to answer questions.
C /_7
Col. Washington expressed concern about night work and possible use
of power tools that would disturb neighbors. He suggested limiting
the hours from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Keeler read the conditions of Section 16-44.1 of the zoning ordinance
regarding noise created by a home occupation.
Mr. Davis moved approval of the special use permit subject to compliance
with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation Class B of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1, with
Col. Washington dissenting.
Col. Washington stated that since the special permit runs with the land, and
not with the applicant, he could not support the motion without any night restriction.
Work Session - Parks and Recreation Plan:
Mr. Eckel presented the staff report noting that he had talked with
the Commission on Outdoor Recreation in Richmond, who had suggested that
.this be an interim plan for a two year period in order to encourage citizen
participation during that time. He noted the table of contents and discussed
the summary of recommendations and the recommendations for programming. He noted
that the owners of Lake Reynovia were present, as well as members of the Parks
Department to answer any questions. He asked if the Commission would guide
him by stating they felt the plan was ready for public hearing, or what changes
or additions should be made.
Mrs. Diehl felt that it adequately expresses what the Commission discussed
at the last meeting.
Mr. Davis said that he had talked with the owners of Lake Reynovia who
are interested in a lease -type arrangement with the county to make the park
a public facility. He said that the park will be closed unless the county
indicates some interest.
Mrs. Barbara White said that Lake Reynovia has been operated for 30 years
and 1980 is the first season it has been closed. She said that it has camping,
swimming, and fishing facilities. It is spring fed and a very clean body of water.
She said that it cannot compete with the public facilities, though admission for
swimming was only $1.00.
Mr. Davis established from Mrs. White that the lake itself is 8 acres
and the acreage of the facility is approximately 40 acres, which is part of a 100-acre
tract.
Col. Washington felt that the staff had compiled the ideas presented at
the last meeting very^ ancF felt the plan is ready for public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman agreed, noting that this plan provides the community with
an opportunity to decide what it wants and when it wants it.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like Lake Reynovia as a top priority.
Mr. Eckel said that as it stands now, it is the second priority.
0
Mr. Bowerman noted that use of Lake Reynovia as a public facility would
promote conservation in the southern part of the county, thus meeting a goal
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that perhaps use of Lake Reynovia as a public facility
should be a city/county effort.
Mr. Tucker established from the Commission that it would like another
facility in the southern part of the county to remain a part of the plan at this
time, in case it is needed sometime in the future.
There was no further business, and Mrs. Diehl moved that the Commission
adjourn into an executive session to discuss a personnel matter and to discuss
possible litigation.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
3J/9