Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 12 82 PC Minutesin OCTOBER 12, 1982 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 12, 1982, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Va. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Allen Kendrick; Mr. Mike Davis: Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Jim Skove; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Staff members present were: Mr. Ronald Keelerr, Mr. Keith Mabe, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 30, 1982 and March 2, 1982 were approved as submitted. MagisterialSP-82-60 Elite Construction Company, Inc. and Harkins Associates - Request for a special use permit (resubmittal so that notification sign will be posted for 21 days in accordance with Section 31.2.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance), in accordance with Section 17.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, to establish a nursing home in conjunction with a 260-unit continuing care retirement facility on 33.549 + acres currently zoned R-1 Residential and requested to be rezoned R-10 Residential under separate petition ZMA-82-11. Property is located on north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road). County Tax Map 60, Parcel 53, Jack Jouett District. Mr. Michel excused himself from the hearing due to a possible conflict of interests. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr. Lee Middleditch. He explained the history of the application. He explained that the applicant had not been aware that the posting requirements were different for special permits than for zoning amendments. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Thomas Robinson, representing the Huntington Village Homeowners' Association, addressed the Commission. (Huntington Village adjoins the subject property.) He expressed concern about inadequate roads. He was opposed to the application until road improvements could be made. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the Board had not acted upon either SP 82-52 or the rezoning. It had been delayed until - the proffer could be clarified. The current SP will replace BP- 82-52. 10-12-B3 2 Mr. Keeler explained the schedule for the hearing of the proposal. He also commented on emergency vehicle service to the property. There was a brief discussion about the underground water storage tank (300,000 gallons). The storage tank was needed to meet fire flow requirements. Mr. Keeler stated the tank would not effect surrounding properties. Mr. Skove stated that if the applicant was willing to bear the cost of the storage facility alone, then that was his choice. Though a cooperative effort with surrounding properties might be preferable, the applicant could not be forced to provide a cooperative effort. Mr. Bowerman noted that one community tank to serve several areas would upgrade the water needs of the entire area. There was a discussion about anticipated traffic volumes. Mr. Skove maintained his previous position that peak hour traffic would not inrease over what it would be under R-1. He felt the proposal was as "good as we're going to get" for this piece of property. Mr. Cogan wondered if it might be better planning for all 1%1W property owners to get together to address the utility question with a unified plan. All agreed that would be preferable, but that is not the case. Mr. Keeler clarified that the rezoning petition was not before the Commission, only the special permit. Mr. Davis moved that BP-82-60 for Elite Construction Company, Inc. and Harkins Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Support uses shall be limited to such uses as: housekeeping and laundry services; nursing and hospital facilities reasonably necessary to serve the residents; retail stores and shops, professional offices, and food services, all of which are designed and intended to serve the residents of the development; and common areas where residents may engage in recreational, education, and cultural activities. 2. Approval of all appropriate State, local and Federal agencies prior to issuance of an certificate of occupancy. 3. Site plan approval. 4. Fire Official approval. '*WW Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion which passed (6:0:1) with Commission Michel abstaining. En 10-12-82 3 Mr. Michel returned to the meeting. ZTA-82-12 - Building Separation and Side Yard Requirements - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend or to add the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to building separation and side yard requirements in order to provide a minimum building separation of thirty (30) feet: 5.3.3, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3, 18.3, 15.5, 16.7, 17.7, 18.7, 19.8, 20.8.5, 21.0, 26.0, 21.9 and 26.13. AND ZTA-82-13 - Accessory Structures in relation to Lot Lines - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend Sections 4.11.2.1 and 4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to location of accessory structures to lot lines. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that the proposal would "change the side yard requirements in certain residential districts from 10 to 15 feet and permit side yards to be reduced to 10 feet in certain circumstances." Mr. Keeler explained the results of the amendments in detail and gave examples. He explained they would apply "almost exclusively in the urban area, Hollymead and Crozet." Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire Official, explained the purpose of the amendments is to try to separate buildings more than presently required so as to make them safer from spreading fire. He explained that present BOCA regulations allow a 6-foot separation. He explained that the amendments were to protect lives, property and even the tax base. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Don Wagner, representing Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, read a letter supporting the proposed changes. He expressed concern, however, because there is no map which indicates available fire flows. He suggested the addition of some wording which "would allow relief at the discretion of the Fire Official or Planning Commission in marginal situations or situations where improvements in fire flow are imminent." He suggested that action be deferred to allow time for this concern to be addressed. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment about Mr. Wagner's suggested change. Mr. Cortez confirmed he was satisfied with the language as it was presented by staff. ..35� 10-12-82 4 Regarding the possibility of a map, Mr. Cortez indicated he felt fire flow issues should be addressed on a case -by -case basis. He stated he would like to see a map, but in most cases, the fire flow is a "guess." He noted that the age and condition of the pipes, and the number of elbows, etc. effects flows and since pipes are underground those things can often only be guessed at. Regarding Mr. Wagner's suggestion that relief be provided at the discretion of the Commission or the Fire Official, Mr. Cortez stated he felt that is already the case. The Commission expressed no opposition to Mr. Wagner's suggested change. The Chairman asked Mr. Payne to comment. Mr. Payne did not agree that it should be discretionary --he felt there had to be some standard. He suggested that perhaps the measuring technique should be better defined. He stated that if the ISO standard is 40% to 50% variable (as stated by Mr. Cortez) then perhaps it should not be used at all. Mr. Bowerman interpreted that Mr. Payne felt that the Fire Official could change from time to time and thus the ,*Aw interpretation could change also. Mr. Bowerman felt the proposed wording provided adequate flexibility. Mr. Cortez disagreed with Mr. Payne. He stated: "Everything in every code is at the discretion of the authority having jurisdiction." He stated that there are no absolutes in building codes. He gave examples to emphasize that "it is not a hard, fast law." Mr. Payne strongly felt that determinations should not be left to the discretation of any official without some kind of guidelines. Ms. Diehl noted that these are the best guidelines which exist at the moment. Mr. Skove moved that ZTA-82-12 and ZTA-82-13 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff. (See file for final draft.) No changes to the wording were recommended. Mr. Davis seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Board direct to study comprehensive fire protection. The motion passed VOW unanimously. �4 10-12-82 5 ZTA-82-14 - Amusement Games -The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend or to add the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to amusement games/devices and amusement centers: 3.0, 22.2.2.1. 24.2.2.1 and 25.2.2.1. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Kendrick, that ZTA-82-14 , related to amusement games and centers, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff. (See file for final draft.) No changes were recommended. The motion passed unanimously., ZTA-82-15 - The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the definition of "person aggrieved" in section 32.7.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and to amend Section 32.3.3 as it relates to review of public areas, facilities and uses for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Payne expounded on the origin of the proposed amendment and explained the route an appeal would take as a result of the amendment. There was a discussion about the fact that a member of the Commission (with the exception of the Chairman) would not be able to instigate an appeal (as had been allowed previously). Commissioners Skove and Cogan expressed concern about this change. Mr. Skove suggested that the language be changed to address this concern, i.e. add the words "or any member thereof." Mr. Skove moved that ZTA-82-15 related to "person agrieved" be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff and as amended by Mr. Skove. (See file for final draft.) Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously. STA-82-3 - The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolution of Intent to add a definition of "person aggrieved" .3ls► d 10-12-82 M to Section 18.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance and to add Section 18-17.1 to provide for review of public areas, facilities and uses for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. There was no public comment. Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that STA-82-3 related "person agrieved" be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution of Intent - Mr. Skove moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 18-36, and other pertinent sections, to provide for certification of completion of private roads by the County Engineer and to establish fees, etc., be adopted. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Comprehensive Plan - A82 - 2002 - Mr. Mabe presented changes which the Commission had discussed at a previous public hearing, primarily editorial and map changes. There was a brief discussion about pending legislation which would require that the Zoning Ordinance be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. that the Zoning Map be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Payne felt it extremely unlikely that the proposal would pass, but even if it should pass, localities will have several months' warning. He advised the Commission that they should monitor the legislation, but that they should take action on the proposed Comprehensive Plan as though the legislation does not exist. (The meeting recessed from 9:45 to 10:00 p.m.) (NOTE: Reference was made to a letter from Mr. Heatwole (?) which was to be made a part of the public record. At the time of transcription of these minutes --December, 1991--no such letter could be found.) Mr. Mabe answered questions about roadway improvements and the CATS recommendations. It was noted that apparent discrepancies were the result of differences in scale and that the alignment (in the Comp Plan) should be slightly to the left. Mr. Cogan suggested that the "old" Crozet area be re -instated given the fact that the Crozet Inteceptor funding has almost been %"W finalized. (No other Commissioners indicated any support for this suggestion.) Mr. Mabe noted that some of the area would not be 10-12-82 7 in the service area and soils are very poor, many not suitable for septic fields. Some areas that are in the service area would require pumping over a ridge line. Mr. Skove noted his support for the encouragement of the development of the downtown Crozet area. The Chairman allowed public comment. Mr. Heatwole addressed the Commission. He suggested that the Commission follow the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the Albemarle County Service Authority Project area (in relation to the Crozet area). He also suggested that a privately owned tertiary treatment plan be given consideration for the Crozet area. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. (Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he questioned the legality of allowing further public comment after closing of the public hearing.) Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, that the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County 1982-2002, plus the "errata" sheets presented by staff dated October 12, 1982, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for adoption as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Monitor of Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Mabe presented a proposed plan (developed by himself, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Skove) for a more formal process for annual monitoring of the status of the Comprehensive Plan. No action was required. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Recorded by: Stuart Richard Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw 1L-71 .94 z