HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 02 80 PC MinutesDecember 2, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
December 2, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. David
Bowerman; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Corwith Davis. Absent were Mr. Allan Kindrick;
and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner; and Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Col. Washington called the
meeting to order.
Minutes of October 21, 1980, were deferred until December 9, 1980.
Mr. Keeler noted for the record that the two applications of the Fruit Growers
Coop. scheduled for public hearing on December 9, 1980, will not be heard on that
date due to request by the applicant for indefinite deferral, in order to present
a site plan to the Planning Department.
Parrish/Loker Plat:
Mr. Keeler reviewed the staff report, noting that the application involves
an illegal subdivision plat. He said that since the previous review, the Loker plat
was submitted for Planning Commission review. Lot 1 of the Pratt property has a
pending mobile home permit scheduled for administrative approval on December 17, 1980.
As the plat is currently presented, Mr. Keeler advised the Commission the staff
recommends denial. He noted on the plat the locations at which the staff feels entrances
onto Route 810 are appropriate.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if the applicant has discussed the entrance matter with
the Highway Department.
Mr. Roosevelt, resident engineer of the Highway Department, replied that various
alternatives have been discussed, none of which are very good. He stated that he prefers
not to see the property develop.
Mr. George McCallum, attorney for the Lokers, reviewed the history of the property
for the Commission. He suggested withdrawing the Parrish preliminary plat and returning
everything to status quo. He noted that the Lokers have a house, with a certificate
of occupancy granted by the county in 1979, on their property. He noted that Mr. Pratt
has a signed and recorded plat (accomplished in 1978), the bond on the property has
been released, and the commercial entrance was constructed under the auspices of the
Highway Department, and granted their approval. At the time of submission of the
Parrish Estate preliminary plat, it was discovered that the Loker plat is in violation
of the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Pratt said that after all this time he certainly hopes the matter can
be resolved by the Planning Commission at this meeting. He also noted the pending
mobile home approval on December 17, 1980, on lot 1 of his property.
141V
Mr. Thurl Raines said that he is quite familiar with the property, and it
certainly needs to be developed.
There was no additional public discussion.
Mr. Keeler said that in view of the withdrawal of the Parrish Estate
preliminary plat, he recommends redrawing of the plat to include both the Parrish
and Loker plats, since the Parrish property will be the residue from the Loker
division. He said that the subdivision ordinance also requires dedication of 25 feet
from the centerline of Route 810 for both properties.
Mr. McCallum stated that the Lokers have no objection to one dwelling being
located on the Parrish property, and that residence sharing a drive with them
on the extreme eastern side of the Loker pipestem. That way there will be only
two entrances for the Parrish Estate, and the Loker and Pratt properties.
Mr. Davis said that the applicant's proposal in this case seems fair.
Mrs. Diehl moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Note on the plat: "Not more than one (1) dwelling per parcel and no
further division without Planning Commission approval and Virginia Department
of Highways and Trnasportation approval of a commercial entrance."
b. Shared entrance to serve the Parrish and Loker properties to be located
at Loker's current entrance;
c. Compliance with the private roads provisions including:
1. County Engineer approval of shared entrance/road specifications;
2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no additional
discussion.
ZMA-80-21. River Heights Associates - request to rezone approximately
11.5 acres from R-3 Residential General to B-1 Business.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the letter of support from
Mr. ,Tim Price, an adjoining property owner. He pointed out that since the previous
public hearing, the applicant has submitted a written proffer. He said that the
application was deferred to discuss the feasibility of a crossover. It has since
been determined that because of future construction of the bridge, a permanent crossover
for this property does not appear feasible.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, resident engineer of the Highway Department, stated that
this is in the immediate area of the western bypass, as proposed by the Charlottesville -
Albemarle Transportation Study. Also the Route 29 North Corridor Study, approved
by the Board of Supervisors, recommends changes in the grade of the southbound lane.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the existing crossover could be closed and a
new crossover constructed at the edge of this property. Mr. Roosevelt did not
feet this would be possible because of the difference in grade between the two
lanes.
Mr. Bowerman questioned this development as opposed to development of the
property under existing zoning., and the resulting traffic impact from both.
Mr. Roosvelt quoted vehicle trips per day for development under both
zones.
Mrs. Diehl established that at the time of preparation of road plans,
the Highway Department tries to use as many existing crossovers as is possible.
Mr. Wendell Wood noted the support from the adjoining property owner. He
said that just a few years ago the County extended the depth of B-1 zoning from
Mr. Jim Price next door. He reminded the Commission of the proffer, and felt
this proposal is better than a by -right use because of the,projected traffic volume.
There was no public comment and Col. Washington closed the public hearing.
Mr. Wood showed a schematic of the development with and without the additional
B-1 depth.
Mr. Roosevelt stated at this time that either proposal will interfere with the
future western by-pass. If there is any extensive redesign of the road plans, the
road will become very expensive.
Mr. Davis felt that the plan is very good, especially with the proffer. He
noted that one never knows about future road plans.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that it could be that the .interchange and the western
by-pass should be reconsidered, since it may be too far south. He also said that the
added depth of B-1 zoning gives better design flexibility to the developer.
Mr. Davis moved approval of the rezoning subject to the applicant's proffer,
as outlined below:
1. Limit access to two entrances;
2. Agree to Commercial Office zone for 6.35 acres;
3. Agree to submit a site plan within 60 days of Board of Supervisors approval;
4. If ground has not been broken within 6 months of site plan approval existing
zoning will prevail.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Roosevelt said that he has given no thought to the length of the turnlane
up to this point, since he has been working toward an interchange and a western bypass.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if the Commission can require a crossover to serve
just this property as part of the site plan approval process.
Mr. Paye replied that this is probably possible, but if the Highway Department
won't accept the plan, there is not much use in trying to get the applicant to do it.
Col. Washington did not oppose the rezoning, however stated that he hopes the
site plan can accommodate both the crossover and the interchange for the bypass, even
if additional B-1 depth is needed at a later date.
The motion carried unanimously, with no additional discussion.
SP-80-69. Garfield Peck has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a mobile home on 4.975 acres zoned A-1. Property is located
on the east. side of Route 620, approximately 1/10 mile southeast of
Woodridge. Tax Map 115, Parcel 22C, Scottsville District.
Mr. Mable presented the staff report, noting the recommended conditions
of approval, noting that the applicant has agreed to locating the mobile home in the
center of his property.
Mr. Peck agreed that the report is an accurate representation of the situation.
Mr. Barrett Quelland, an adjoining property owner, objected to the mobile
home on the basis that it will decrease the value of his own property, on which he
has constructed a dwelling. He said that special permits proceed with the land as
opposed to the owner and there is therefore no way that he cannot oppose the
request. He suggested a temporary permit until the applicant is able to construct
a house.
Mr. Mitch Thomas expressed the same concerns as Mr. Quelland.
There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Peck said that if anyone other than Mr. Quelland could see the mobile
home, they would be tresspassing on his property. He felt Mr. Quelland will be
able to view the mobile home only in the winter months.
Mr. Davis said that five acres is ample acreage on which to locate a house
of any description. He felt that safeguards are built into Section 11-14-2 of
the Zoning Ordinance, and he supported the petiion.
Mr. Vest moved approval of the permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Location of the mobile home near the center of the applicant's property.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no discussion.
ZMA-80-22. O. Goode Love -
Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant requests deferral of this petition until
January 6, 1981.
Mrs. Diehl moved for deferral until that time. The motion, seconded by
Mr. Bowerman, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
� 7
SP-80-67. Northwest Limited Partnership has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors for R-3 Residential uses on 2.099 acres zoned B-1
Business and R-3 Residental. Property is located on the west side of
Commonwealth Drive, north of the intersection of Route 743 and
Commonwealth Drive, north of the intersection of Route 743 and
Commonwealth Drive. Tax Map 61, Parcel 45, Portion thereof. Charlottesville
District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Heischman, the applicant, was present to answer questions.
There was no public discussion, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing.
Mr. Skove moved approval of the petition without any conditions.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Davis questioned why the applicant did not just request a rezoning.
Mr. Keeler replied that if the petition is granted, the corresponding
residential district to R-3 will be placed on the proposed zoning map.
The motion carried unanimously, with no additional discussion.
ZTA-80-06. Great Eastern Mamangement Company has petitioned the Board
of Supervisors to delete Sections 5-4-3 and 6-4-3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
and to amend Sections 5-8-2 and 6-9-2 to change the 30 foot side -to -side
separation requirements to 20 feet.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He said that if the proposed ordinance
were in effect, there would be no problem and no amendment would be necessary.
Mrs. Diehl felt that the petition made sense and moved for repeal of
Sections 5-4-3 and 6-4-3, and moved that Sections 5-8-2 and 6-9-2 be amended to
read as follows:
Minimum distance between townhouse groups shall be:
Twenty (20) feet side -to -side;
Thirty (30) feet side -to -rear;
Forty (40) feet front -to -side or rear -to -rear.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Skove and carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Tom Brown at this time presented a slide presentation
on Community Education to the Commission.
if /r
There was no additional business and the Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
4o