Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 28 82 PC MinutesSeptember 28, 1982 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday, September 28, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. Tim Michel, Mr. James R. Skove and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other officials present were Ms. Ellen V. Nash, ex-Officio, Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner, Ms. Katherine L. Imhof-, Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Mr. Tom Trevillian, Engineer. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. Jehovah's Witnesses Church Site Plan - DEFERRED FROM SEPTEMBER 21, 1982. located on the north side of Route 6, across from St. Anne's Rectory and northwest of the Town of Scottsville; proposal to locate a 2,800 square foot church on 2.0 acre site. Scottsville Magisterial District. Tax Map 130, portion of parcel 25. Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mr. Tom Trevillian, Engineer, stated that pavement of the entrance road and parking area is recommended to be a minimum of 6" of stone with prime and double seal surface treatment. He noted that prime and double seal would not decrease the quality of the runoff significantly but would aid in the proper drainage of the site. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Mr. Powell stated that they propose to prime and double seal the entrance road and to have compacted gravel in the parking area. He asked that the Commission consider the cost factor involved and approve their request for a gravel parking area. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Michel noted the recommendations of the County Engineer and stated that he felt the Commission should follow these recommendations. Mrs. Diehl noted that this property is located in the Totier Creek Watershed. Mr. Davis noted the cost to prime and double seal the parking area and stated that he did not feel this was necessary. Mr. Cogan noted that a crushed stone parking area has the tendency for weeds,etc. to grow in, however, in this case the parking area will not be in full view because it is bordered by woods. With this in mind, Mr. Cogan stated that he would be willing to allow the parking area to be graveled at this time, noting that this could be prime and double sealed when the funds are available. Mr. Davis asked how the parking spaces would be marked if a gravel parking area is allowed. Mr. Powell stated he could not speak to how the spaces would be marked but noted that there would be a median between the general area. Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support a gravel parking lot in this area, noting that it is located in a watershed area. She also pointed out that the Mr. Trevillian has stated that even though the parking area meets the requirements of the ordinance, water quality and channeling of the water would be improved with paving of the parking area. Mr. Skove stated that he agrees with Mrs. Diehl's comments and noted that he felt the Commission should support the recommendation of the Engineering Department. Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Note on plan any watercourses or drainage ways; b. Note correct front building setback; C. Label dimension of drainage pipe; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance; e. Construction of roadway and parking areas (to be 6" of stone with prime and double seal surface treatment) as per plans to be approved by the County Engineer; f. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans; g. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; h. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 2. A certificate of occupancy can be obtained when the following condition has been met: a. Planning staff approval of landscaping plan, if deemed necessary by the Planning staff after field inspection of site. 3. Please note that the Planning Commission is not approving the sign or its location. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-2. Mr. Davis and Mr. Kindrick voted against the motion. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1982- 2002 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. stated that a public hearing was held earlier this year on the goals and objectives for the Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that staff is required to update the Comprehensive Plan every five years. He noted that Mr. Keith Mabe has been working on this update and stated that he would turn the meeting over to him. Mr. Mabe noted that the plan is divided into four major parts: 1. Inventory and Analysis 2. Goals and Objectives 3. The Plan 4. Implementation. Mr. Mabe explained the changes and/or purpose of each of the four parts of the plan, as follows: 1. Inventory and Analysis: The major change is the population projections. Emphasis has been added on community development subsidies and housing that wasn't reflected in the previous plan. 2. Goals and Objectives: The goals and objectives are grouped in three subject areas: natural resources, human resources and development. With regard to human resources, there is emphasis on providing adequate housing and social programs for the County. The goals and objectives for development are basically the same, the growth area concept and the establishment of a balanced residential neighborhood. Mr. Mabe noted that the goals and objectives from the Charlottesville Transportation Study have been included in this plan. 3. The Plan: Mr. Mabe pointed out that more detailed standards for several areas such as environmental areas and growth areas have been addressed. The land use plan for each of the growth areas is basically unchanged, plan calls for seven neighborhoods surrounding the urban area, interstate interchanges, rural areas scenic roads, rivers and streams. Mr. Mabe noted that development on Rio Road (Neighborhood 2) needs to be tied in with improvements along this road. With regard to the communities, there is no change in Hollymead. The Community of Crozet has the following changes: • establishment of Rt. 250 as a southern boundary • addition of commercial office plans. T Mr. Mabe noted that the following villages are included in this Comprehensive Plan: • Village of Ivy • Village of Scottsville • Village of Piney Mountain • Village of North Garden • Village of Earlysville Mr. Mabe noted that the Village of Stony Point has been deleted from this plan. Mr. Mabe noted that the establishment of the Community Development Plan is a new addition to the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that six strategy areas have been established. Mr. Mabe noted that the transportation plan was ommitted from the Comprehensive Plan during the initial preparation because the Commission was working with the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study. He noted that a copy of this plan is included in the Commission's packet and pointed out that this deals with secondary road six year plan, rural road deficiencies, highway department recommendations, etc. Mr. Mabe also noted that there is a handout included in the Commission's packet which speaks to the Buck Mountain Reservoir. He stated that the language is the same as recommended for adoption by the Commission in the old Comprehensive Plan. 4. Implementation: This section deals with a thorough discussion o tools the County has to implement the plan, many of which are already in use and others may need to be considered in order to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mabe noted that other changes in the Comprehensive Plan include a glossary of planning terms, index, and a chart concerning the history of planning in Albemarle County. Mrs. Diehl stated that the meeting is now open for public comment. Mr. Andrew Heatwole, Vice President of John Yancey Company, stated that he is representing the owner of the twenty acre parcel located at the intersection of Rt. 250 and Rt. 635. He stated that it is his understanding that it is now designated as open space which is arbitrary given the location of the land. He stated that in his opinion this is a no growth area pointing out that there is no economic possibility of using this land for agricultural purposes. He pointed out that he feels the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to include growth along the southern portion of Rt. 250. He also noted for the benefit of the Commission that this property is located within the Albemarle County Service Authority project area for water and sewer. 346- Mr. Heatwole noted the concern that this property will continue to be down zoned. He asked what the rationale was for using Rt. 250 as an arbitrary line. Mr. Mabe noted the existing commercial development in the area pointing out that this is one reason why Rt. 250 was used as a dividing line. He noted that the "old" Comprehensive Plan recommended the area around Rt. 250 and Rt. 635 for medium residential development. He stated that because of the existing topography, staff felt this was infeasible. Dr. Charles Oseroff, representing Virginia Solar Energy Association, stated that the Plan should speak to more specific information regarding energy conservation and energy sources. He noted that the intent of the plan is to encourage solar energy, but felt that more information such as types of tax benefits for solar energy, increased installation, solar orientation, etc., should be provided. With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that incentives for extra installation do not reflect any federal standards. Mr. Skove asked if the County had adopted a plan/proposal which spoke e•► to solar equipment and the taxing involved. Mr. Tucker noted that a study was done on solar energy and may be included in this Comprehensive Plan. He noted that energy has not been a major goal or issue in this area, but pointed out that there is available a study which provide definitive types of objectives. Mr. Cogan stated that with regard to the property in Crozet (Benn property) perhaps the Commission may consider a line parallel to the highway, taking into consideration the 150' setback, and running from Rt. 635 to the Western Albemarle High School boundary line; be used as the boundary for this property. Mr. Cogan noted that the property along the eastern side of Rt. 635 has loose fill and topographic problems. Mrs. Diehl noted her concern regarding development in this area pointing out that sewer is not available. She noted that the site plan for the shopping center in this area was approved with a septic system. She stated that she cannot continue approving plars for this area, when sewer is not available. Mr. Cogan questioned the reasoning behind zoning property on opposite sides of the highway differently. Mrs. Diehl stated that the majority of the development in this area was existing, pointing out that there is not alot of designated land that is not developed. `` WN Mr. Kindrick noted the concern of citizens that as agricultural zones are established, existing industries and businesses are not recognized. He stated that citizens are concerned that legislature may change the reference between the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan thereby establishing some businesses as non -conforming. Mr. Tucker stated that under the old zoning ordinance if a certain percentage of a non -conforming structure were destroyed it could not be rebuilt. He pointed out that this section of the ordinance was amended by the Board of Supervisors and this section now reads "any non -conforming structure or use if it is completely destroyed can be rebuilt in the same way." He stated that non -conforming businesses would be recognized under this section of the ordinance. He also pointed out that there is always the possibility that property may be rezoned. Ms. Nash questioned the institutional use shown in Neighborhood 4. Mr. Mabe stated that the institutional use in Neighborhood 4 is for a school system (Biscuit Run area) which has been maintained in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker noted that Earlysville Forest was not included in the Village of Earlysville because of the density. He pointed out that village residential density calls for one and one-half (12) dwelling units per acre and the density in Earlysville Forest is two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Mabe noted that with regard to solid waste, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is preparing a regional solid waste plan. He explained that landfill locations are proposed to service a five (5) mile area, but pointed out that this would be infeasible in the urban area. He explained that staff is working on more appropriate language (regulations) for landfills. Ms. Nash ascertained that small scale maps showing the service authority's jurisdictional boundaries (with regard to water) are included in the Comprehensive Plan. CONCENSUS: THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT THIS MEETING,, ALLOWING MORE TIME FOR THEIR REVIEW AND STAFF INPUT. JZ/1 GR Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS): Mr. Tucker noted that a public hearing regarding the CATS Study has been held and a staff report presented at that meeting which outlined the recommendations of the CATS Study and how this may be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker stated that unless the Commission has changes they would like to make to this staff report, he felt that this report should be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their review. Mr. Bowerman noted that it is the general feeling that a western bypass will be necessary and stated that he felt the problems related to this (i.e. location, community impact) should be dealth with as soon as possible. Mr. Skove moved to submit to the Board of Supervisors the staff report relating to the CATS study (copy attached) for their review and approval. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Mrs. Diehl stated that she has received a letter from the University of Virginia inviting the members of the Planning Commission to a meeting on October 1. She noted that the purpose of this meeting is to present the development plans for the University. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.. ert W. Tucker, Jr. - ecre ry