Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 02 83 PC MinutesAugust 2, 1983 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, August 2, 1983, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Allan B. Kindrick; Mr. James R. Skove; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Timothy M. Michel; and Miss Ellen V. Nash, Ex-Officio. Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman, and Mrs. Norma A. Diehl were absent. other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning Division; and Mrs. Joan S. Davenport, Planner. Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Keeler explained that the Board of Supervisors, on June 8, 1983, set a public hearing date of August 3, 1983, for review of the proposed rezoning of certain parcels in Crozet, Ivy, Earlysville and Scottsville communities in order to bring these properties into conformance with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler further explained that the Planning Commission already had eight or nine regular items on its August 2 agenda and for this reason time for review of the proposed revisions to the communities had been limited to about an hour. Mr. Keeler proceeded to give a brief Staff Report, explaining that after giving the general background on the proposed changes, he would provide more specific details on each community, utilizing the exhibited large-scale maps. Mr. Keeler distributed copies of the Staff Report to interested persons attending the public hearing. Mr. Cogan explained to those present that the Planning Commission would discuss each individual community and then take public comment. He cautioned members of the public that it was unlikely that the Commission would be able to complete its review of the proposed rezoning tonight. In addition, he requested that anyone wishing to make a statement for the public record identify himself. Community of Crozet Mr. Keeler distributed copies of the July 14 memorandum from the Clerk of the Board, summarizing the results of a work session on July 13, to each member of the Commission. (Attached) Mr. Keeler explained that it was the Board's intent to continue the existing zoning in Areas 1 and 2, reflecting the zoning changes of 1980. He added that in Area 3 properties currently zoned Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial, plus some larger tracts zoned R-2 but not developed to that intensity (including a rezoning and special use permit for the Crozet Veterinary), were intended to be rezoned Rural Areas. Mr. Keeler explained that Area 4, outside the growth area as currently designated, drains to the Lickinghole Creek impoundment and would retain the Light Industrial zoning from the 1980 zoning map. Mr. Keeler said that properties on the south side of Route 250 West, identified as Area 5, currently zoned R-4 (including the pending rezoning request of William Lynch) were intended to be rezoned to Rural Areas. Mr. Keeler also mentioned that across Route 635 there is a property designated R-4 (about which Mr. Heatwole has spoken to the Commission), illustrated on the map as Area 6. Mr. Keeler told the Commission that Area 7 consists of property zoned PD-SC, on which a site plan has expired. He added that another site plan had been resubmitted last October, the applicant had requested indefinite deferral, and that this site plan was now scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission on August 16. Mr. Keeler indicated that the Board wished to rezone these three areas to RA Rural Areas. Mr. Keeler explained that Areas 8 - 13 were internal to the development, illustrated on other maps and calling for higher density residential and additional commercial or industrial land; he said that the Board had chosen to make no changes to these areas at this time. Mr. Keeler stated that the yellow line on the map outlined the current growth area of Crozet; he said that it was basically the Board's intent to accommodate all new development within the Lickinghole Creek watershed. He added that those properties north of 250 West, located within the growth area but draining away from Lickinghole Creek, include a single family dwelling, a portion of the school property, about 15 acres of undeveloped land, an Exon station, some commercial property and a few miscellaneous dwellings. Discussion of Community of Crozet Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler whether, using 250 more or less as the boundary line, there are certain areas to the east of 635 that due to the topography do not necessarily follow the highway as far as drainage is concerned. Mr. Keeler concurred that this was correct as well as to the west of Route 635; he reiterated that with the exception of frontage along the school property and a dwelling that drain under Route 250, within the growth area everything on the north side of Route 250 drains into Lickinghole Creek. Mr. Cogan inquired as to whether the purpose of putting growth within the Lickinghole Creek watershed was because a large detention basin to withhold sedimentation and pollutants was planned. Mr. Keeler replied that this was his understanding, that this was one of the Board's prime considerations, as well as to have sewer systems in this area be served by gravity if possible. Mr. Keeler indicated that he and a representative from the Service Authority had visited a portion of Area 7 and determined that it could possibly be served by the existing sewer line to the school, although at this time that line was intended only for use by the school. a&7 Mr. Cogan asked members of the Planning Commission whether they wished to ask Mr. Keeler any questions. Mr. Skove asked whether it was correct that these proposed changes did not materially affect the numbers projected for the Crozet community in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler responded that this was correct, with an estimated 12,000 or 13,000 envisioned. He explained that the shifts in residential density and commercial and industrial zoning did not affect the population figures. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler to demonstrate on the map where the proposed thirty -acre expansion of commercial zoning would be located. Mr. Keeler indicated southward and westward of Crozet. Mr. Tim Michel stated that he was ready to hear from the public. Mr. Cogan said that before opening the public hearing to comment, he would like to say that it was his recollection when the Comprehensive Plan came before the Commission last September, there was some question as to whether amendment of the Plan would mean that certain properties would lose their zoning. Mr. Cogan continued that although he did not have a copy of those minutes, he believed the consensus of the Commission at that time was that properties would not lose their zoning, and he was concerned at this time to see such a possibility. Mr. Cogan opened the meeting to public comment at this time. Mr. B. Allen Benn addressed the Commission as the owner of a 38-acre tract of land adjacent to Western Albemarle High School. He posted the current zoning map of Waynesboro and a color -coded map of Crozet. (See complete statement of Mr. Benn attached.) Mr. Roy Patterson, speaking both as an individual resident of Crozet and as President of Citizens for Albemarle, stated that he endorsed the proposed rezoning presently before the Planning Commission. He said there were several points that persuaded him that such changes are desirable: 1. The area north of the C & O Railroad in Crozet is in the Beaver Creek watershed and development there should be discouraged; he added that no one wanted Beaver Creek to become the problem the Rivanna had become. 2. Mr. Patterson remarked that with three schools in the vicinity, there would be an unfavorable impact from an adjacent large-scale development. 3. Mr. Patterson stated that a large-scale development on Route 250 would have a definite impact on downtown Crozet and make 250 another Route 29 North. He said that his preference is to preserve the independent, self-contained character of Crozet; he also told the Commission that he believed should future development be warranted, the village of Crozet had room for additional commercial growth. In closing, Mr. Patterson urged the Commission to adopt the Staff Report. Mrs. Elizabeth Haslam said that she and her husband own property on Route 240 directly opposite Acme Visible Records, adjacent to Morton's. She explained that when they purchased this property it was zoned 011 Light Industrial, and was part of the existing Comprehensive Plan and priced according to its zoning. She added that it had been her understanding from Mr. Tucker that this zoning would not be changed. Mrs. Haslam indicated that part of their property had already been zoned for the Crozet Veterinary. She requested that the remainder of their property, abutting Route 240, remain as Light Industrial rather than zoned to Rural Areas. Mr. David Pettit spoke as attorney for William A. Lynch, Jr. He gave a brief history of his client's property, which he described as being located in the southeast quadrant of the 250 - 240 intersection. Mr. Pettit said that when Mr. Lynch purchased this property in the 1970's it was zoned B-1; Mr. Pettit said that it was purchased by Mr. Lynch as an investment with no immediate plans for actual development. Mr. Pettit stated that in 1980 it was rezoned from B-1 to R-4 and subsequent to that Mr. Lynch made a proffered rezoning request for C-1 zoning, currently pending before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Pettit said that Mr. Max Evans would speak next on topography, soil and site characteristics. Mr. Evans addressed the Commission, stating that he belived the B-1 zoning designation was very logical, due to the location of the property at the intersection of two major roads. Topographically, he stated that the property was not a good living environment and not appropriate for residential use. Mr. Evans said that with Rural Areas zoning you would be required to have two acres per dwelling unit, thereby limiting the use of this property to one single family residence. Mr. Evans told the Commission that there was commercial development across the street from this property which drains onto the Lynch property. Mr. Evans said that his client would be retaining not only runoff from his own property but in addition runoff from this other property. Mr. Evans said that a proffered plan for some limited commercial use of the property had been prepared after study of soil, vegetative cover, access to the property, etc. He added that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation had approved two entrances. Mr. Evans told the Commission that the County had two strong ordinances in effect, the Erosion Control Ordinance and the Runoff Control Ordinance, which adequately protect the environment. He specifically sited the requirement that the rate of runoff must be the same after development as before. Mr. Evans said with regard to the proposal for Lickinghole Creek, that it was very sound and typical. Mr. Evans added, however, that he did not know why a large impoundment was needed when the two existing ordinances regulated site development on an individual basis. Mr. Evans stated that he believed there would be poorer site development and environmental control with one large catch-all. Ile said that he believed it was better to have each site required to control its own sedimentation and runoff rate. He also said that where the Rivanna Reservoir is today is a typical kind of mistake; he said that the County would have been better off to have had a number of smaller reservoirs at higher altitudes, thereby affecting only a small portion of County drinking water if anything went wrong. Mr. Evans contended that the same thing could go wrong with a large impoundment - multiple problems from various kinds of development. Mr. Evans concluded that the Lynch property was ideally suited for commercial development, located at the crossroads with very good accessibility to two major roads, roads that are heavily traveled. Mr. Evans said that this property was otherwise limited in use and that it lent itself to certain commercial uses only. He added that his client's property values would be taken from him if rezoned. Mr. Evans also stated that the property was well buffered from 250 by natural vegetation and setback regulations. He ended by saying that it would be very unfair to Mr. Lynch to take away his current zoning. Mr. Bill Lynch explained to the Commission that he was not a land developer and had never intended to be one. He said that he purchased this property ten years ago when it was zoned B-1. Mr. Lynch said that it had previously been rezoned R-4 and was now proposed to be Rural Areas, a gross injustice to both him and his wife. He stated that they have $50,000 invested in this property, which he understood from talking to realtors might be worth about $15,000 as R-4 and probably half that if zoned Rural Areas. Mr. Lynch said that a store existed on the front of this property, which had applied for gas and was now a filling station and general store. He terminated by saying that he did not understand why his property was downzoned in the first place. Mr. Pettit concluded by telling the Commission that it could see from Mr. Evans' comments that this property was more properly designated R-4 or even commercial rather than Rural Areas. Mr. Pettit stated that the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, as required by the Code of Virginia, should be designed to encourage development and economic growth and preserve property values and at the same time provide for the public health, safety and welfare. He said that he believed the burden rests with the County to show either a change in circumstances or an earlier mistake in previous zoning to justify the current proposed rezoning. Mr. Pettit said that he believed the argument had been put to the Commission that runoff and drainage issues had constituted a change in circumstances. However, Mr. Pettit, continued, he believed the public health, safety and welfare were being and would continue to be protected by the existing County ordinances in effect. Mr. Pettit said that he agreed with Mr. Evans that there is no need to further ban residential or commercial development on this property to prevent runoff because it can be controlled under the present ordinance. Mr. Pettit stated that there are other properties in this vicinity that drain not into Lickinghole Creek but into Stockton Creek, including property directly across the street from the Lynch property. Mr. Pettit added that drainage from this property would be controlled through anti -runoff measures on the Lynch property. Mr. Pettit stated that other than the proposed plans for a sedimentation basin, he was unaware of any changes since 1980 that could justify this rezoning; he added that there have been no changes 410 in population projections, surrounding areas, roads, etc. Mr. Pettit suggested that in order to support the anticipated growth in the Crozet area, there exists a certain need for medium -density or greater development. He said that lie did not believe the public interest warranted this rezoning and strongly urged the Commission not to rezone the Lynch property, which he added works an undue and extremely unfair hardship on Mr. Lynch, whose every efforts have been thwarted. Mr. Jim Duffey of Greenwood said that he lived about four miles from this planned development at Routes 240 and 250. He spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning and read directly from the land use section for Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Duffey indicated that the main thrust of the proposed rezoning was to strengthen the downtown area of Crozet. He stated that he believed the proposed rezoning to be quite consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Duffey said that he believed a shopping center at the proposed location would hurt the downtown area and that the road could not handle any more intensification of traffic. He explained that anyone presently taking children to either Henley or Western would agree with this statement. Additionally, Mr. Duffey contended that a shopping center adjacent to a school would have a detrimental effect on school children, whom he predicted would be spending money in penny arcades on the site. Mr. Duffey stated that philosophically it was not an issue of growth versus non -growth, but rather sane, controlled growth versus random urbanization. He stated that there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that indicates the identify of existing communities would be compromised by growth; however, he continued, should the area along the periphery of Crozet be developed, the integrity and identity of Crozet would be damaged. Mr. Duffey concluded by saying that he strongly supports the proposed rezoning. Mr. Jim Crosby introduced himself as speaking not as a journalist but as a Crozet businessman. He said that his analysis of the proposed downzoning of commercial areas in Crozet is that it would severely shortchange citizens in their shopping opportunities. He explained that a number of people shop in Waynesboro, their retail dollars accruing to Agusta County. Mr. Crosby stated that at the blinking light at Routes 240 and 250, on the west there is a sign saying 13 miles to Waynesboro and on the east a sign saying 13 miles to Charlottesville. He urged the Commission to take a careful look at the situation and consider the growth forecast for Crozet, saying that the Commission should realize by this rezoning the economic growth of Crozet would be severely limited. Community of Ivy Mr. Keeler explained that in Area 1, under the old Zoning Ordinance, the front of the property was rezoned R-1 to a depth of about 400 feet. He added that in 1980, when the new zoning map was adopted � 7/ the new R-1 was not comparable to the old R-1. Mr. Keeler explained that subsequent to adoption of the new map in 1980, some provisions were added to the Zoning Ordinance that basically say subdivided lots adhere to setback, rear and side yard requirements of the zoning in effect at time of development. Therefore, Mr. Keeler said, the 1980 zoning was recognized but not now. Mr. Keeler explained that since no subdivision plats had been submitted by properties zoned VR in 1980, these areas were currently proposed for zoning back to Rural Areas. Mr. Cogan asked whether any Commissioners had questions for Mr. Keeler at this time. Miss Nash ascertained that when Mr. Keeler referred to the map of 1980 he was referring to the zoning map. Mr. Cogan determined from Mr. Keeler that, in effect, there had been no village residential development since 1980 and that prior to that date virtually all of this area had been zoned Rural Areas. The 1980 rezoning, he continued, was actually an upzoning and the current proposal would mean a restoring of Rural Areas designation to Area 2. Discussion of Community of Ivy Mr. Cogan opened the meeting to public comment at this time. Herbert Tull identified himself as the owner of a parcel within Area 1, which he said was zoned R-1 for the protection of neighbors and at their request at the time of the establishment of the industrial park. He questioned the fact that because part of the parcel was developed and part not, the zoning should be affected. Mr. Tull explained that his affected property was not a complete parcel and the rest of the same parcel is zoned industrial. Mr. Tull asked whether it was property to have a two -acre zoning requirement next door to a school, backed up to an industrial park and across the street small residential lots and adjacent more small residential lots. Mr. Tull said that he therefore requested that his zoning not be changed; he added that it was the only piece of property in Ivy that was not upzoned by the 1980 rezoning that would be downzoned now. Erich Buschman identified himself as the owner of Parcel 94, consisting of 5.7 acres located approximately 300 feet from the center of Ivy. He stated that he bought this property about the time it was zoned VR and had spent three years cleaning up the jungle of poisen ivy and honeysuckle. Mr. Buschman said that it consisted of too much land to maintain and he wished to sell off a lot. He explained that under its present zoning the property could be divided into 2 lots. Mr. Buschman said that the topography was very rolling with part located in the floodplain, making it difficult to divide into 2 lots. He said that if rezoned, he would not have the required road frontage or acreage for 2 lots. Mr. Buschman said that in the event of such a rezoning he would be forced to let the property return to its jungle state, which his neighbors would protest. 4111a Mr. Keeler indicated that Mr. Buschman had called the Planning Office and that Mr. Keeler had driven by the property and determined that it did indeed appear to be steep and to have topographical problems. Mr. Robert Craft introduced himself and his wife, Evelyn, owners of Parcels 64D(1) and 64D(2). Mr. Craft said that Mr. Buschman almost spoke for him and his wife, because of their three or four acres most was steep, some was located in the floodplain and some had a Highway Department culvert running through it. Mr. Craft said that previously they had requested zoning for a two-family dwelling on two acres, which was feasible on the part of their land bounded by 250. Mr. Craft said that they thought they had approval for the construction of this dwelling but in applying for a final inspection were informed that the acreage had to be increased to four acres. Mr. Craft showed Mr. Keeler his plat and it was determined that a portion of the property on the north side of the creek is currently zoned Rural Areas, while the residue of 64D(1) is Village Residential. Mr. Keeler indicated that on the proposed map the entire property would be Rural Areas. Mrs. Craft asked to speak, saying that the problem really had been hers. She explained that when the property was purchased in January of 1979 it was one parcel. She added that at that time Mr. Craft had cancer and her mother was sick and they decided to build another house. Mrs. Craft said that they were told it could be built on two acres, so two acres were divided off, including part of the creek and land in the floodplain. She said that after construction of the dwelling, they were informed that it had to be on four acres. Mrs. Craft said that it was very confusing to have three different zonings on what was originally one piece of land. She stated that in order to get an occupancy they had been required to resurvey the land and had incurred numerous recording fees. She said that it was a difficult piece of property to divide, but they very much wanted permission to keep the new dwelling on two acres and have a separate six acres. Mrs. Craft said that although the culvert drains onto part of the property, they would like to install a pond, if permissible. She said that not much development could take place on the property in any event, since there appeared to be a water shortage. (She said that four holes had been dug to find one water well.) In closing, Mrs. Craft asked to have their particular situation clarified, specifically with regard to the acreage requirement for the dwelling, more definite information on which portion of their land is located in the floodplain, and an overall stabilization of the zoning. She also indicated ongoing confusion with regard to identifying the two parcels with County Staff and stated their desire to cooperate with the County in clearing up the matter. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler to have the Zoning Administrator get in touch with the Crafts in order to clarify these issues and respond to the Crafts' questions and. concerns. Mrs. Craft asked to add that Ivy Meadows, located about one and a quarter miles from their property was approved for duplexes on less than two -acre lots and Locust Hill, across the street from them, is developed with large single-family residence on 1.5 acre lots. Mrs. Craft indicated that therefore, their use of the property was not inconsistent with development in the area. Louis Eaton identified himself as one of the largest property owners in Ivy affected by the proposed downzoning. He added that he was not present so much to speak in opposition to the proposals but to state his concern that it could be done in so haphazard a fashion. Mr. Eaton suggested that it would have been appropriate to consult with a landowner of some twenty-two or twenty-three acres and might have been more reasonable to suggest rezoning a portion of the property. Mr. Eaton stated that he believed his property to be valuable, although part of it was located in the floodplain and part would be affected by having the interceptor running through it, something he recognized that he had no control over. Mr. Eaton said that he questioned such a zoning change in two or three years and did not believe it made sense. He asked for the Commission's reconsideration, suggesting that downzoning a portion of his property might be more fair. Mr. Eaton also stated that he was among that percentage of County residents who shopped in Waynesboro. He called obsurd the notion of comparing Route 250 with a couple of shopping centers on it to the present Route 29 North. Mr. Eaton declared that logic had gone out the window and that he did not believe the citizens of Ivy or Crozet were being considered at all. Mr. Cogan asked whether Mr. Keeler could provide a brief history of the zoning on Mr. Eaton's property. Mr. Keeler responded that he did not have that information on hand this evening but recalled it had probably been A-1 Agricultural prior to 1980, or possibly R-1, and had currently been zoned Village Residential since 1980. Mr. Russell Seltzer identified himself as the owner of property located along Route 738, in front of the industrial sector. He stated that his main concern was the downgrading of his property from R-1 to Rural Areas and how this change might affect property values. He said that he bought his lots two years ago and that they were less than two acres (.73 acre). Mr. Seltzer questioned whether the lots were in conformance with R-1 subdivision. He asked for information on what different regulations applied to Rural Areas, such as setback requirements and limitations on development. Mr. Cogan responded that much of this information was available in the County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler determined that Mr. Seltzer had called the Planning office previously and that they had spoken together at length. Mr. Keeler explained that there was a peculiar provision in the Zoning Ordinance in the section covering nonconforming lots, which states that one must conform with setback, side and rear yard requirements which were in effect under zoning at the time the lots were put to record. Mr. Keeler said, therefore, while nonconforming, the Zoning Ordinance treats such a situation as conforming. He mentioned Squirrel Ridge as an example of such a circumstance. Mr. Keeler said that the current proposed c:27�4 zoning change would not represent a change essentially, except that the property could not be further developed. He added that he did not know how a lending institution would view the change. John Dutram identified himself as being a neighbor of Mr. Seltzer's, explaining that his property on Route 738 is located behind B-1 land (Edward D. Morris). He asked how the rezoning might affect his property in the long run and additionally, whether property owners affected by the interceptor would be able to hook up to it. Mr. Cogan requested Mr. Keeler to respond to Mr. Dutram. Mr. Keeler explained that requirements for setback and the like would remain unchanged whether Mr. Dutram's property were zoned R-1 or RA in relation to the industrially zoned property adjoining his. Mr. Keeler said, regarding the interceptor, it was his understanding that the Board of Supervisors did not intend to allow hookups in the Ivy Area. Community of Earlysville Mr. Keeler explained the proposed changes for Earlysville as illustrated on the exhibited maps. He stated that the M.O. Whyte store, currently zoned C-1 was to be added to a list accompanying the zoning map, which states "due to existing development and/or approved plans, zoning designations may not comply with land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Keeler said that he had spoken to several people, including Mr. Whyte, who had purchased property since 1980. He said that Mr. Whyte had indicated his purchase of Village Residential property was for the purpose of replacing his existing garage and adding a parking area. Mr. Keeler stated that the proposed zoning changes did not affect most of this property, which could not under current zoning be further developed. He specifically mentioned that the Earlysville PUD would remain unchanged. Mr. Keeler took this opportunity to mention that several Staff members had received calls from persons concerned that for some twelve years their property had been zoned rural, then for two or three years it had been zoned Village Residential, and was now proposed to be restored to Rural Areas zoning. Mr. Keeler said that several of these callers asked about the possibility of being refunded for the taxes they had paid for those two or three years of Village Residential zoning. Mr. Keeler said that although he did not believe provision existed for reimbursement or tax refunds in these cases, it was an issue for the Real Estate department to address. Mr. Keeler further explained that it was his understanding that taxes were based on the developability of the land, so, for example, in the Subdivision The Pines, where no further development would be permitted under either zoning, ostensibly taxes would not be increased. 4916 Miss Nash asked whether a piece of land currently zoned Rural Areas and in a rural state, proposed to be rezoned Village Residential, could still be maintained as rural. Mr. Keeler replied that it could but taxes might still be affected and the value of the land might increase. He mentioned the case of an older man who was concerned that his rural property, if rezoned Village Residential, could be taxed at a higher rate, which disturbed him since he had no intention to develop the land. Mr. Keeler made a general statement to the effect that Village Residential was really a more restrictive designation than Rural Areas, which covers many more uses and more of the County land area (commercial uses as well as residential, many by special use permit) . Miss Nash asked whether someone currently operating a pig or chicken farm could continue to maintain it if his property were rezoned. Mr. Keeler said that this concern had occurred in 1980 and for this reason an additional permissible use had been added under Village Residential in the Zoning Ordinance to cover certain agricultural activities, some by special use permit. Mr. Cogan opened the meeting to public comment. When it was determined that there was none, Mr. Cogan directed Mr. Keeler to proceed to Scottsville. Community of Scottsville Mr. Keeler pointed out each area on the exhibited maps, along with specific properties to be added to the list stating that they were zoned in 1980 to reflect their existing use. Mr. Cogan asked whether there was never any industrially zoned land west of Scottsville. Mr. Keeler concurred that this was a new zoning designation, but added that there may have been previous recognition of Uniroyal on an earlier map. Miss Nash stated that there had always been some industrial designation to the north and east of Scottsville, even before she became a member of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cogan opened the meeting to public comment at this time. Mr. Lester Bailey stated that he owned Parcel 25B on Route 6 West. He said that he is concerned about the proposed change in zoning of his property from Village Residential to Rural Areas, because it was located in the same vicinity of where the Board had previously encouraged industrial uses, which he had been opposed to. Mr. Bailey added that he bought adjacent property so that he would have enough for two lots; he said that each year as he cleaned and cleared his land his taxes would go up about a thousand dollars. Mr. Bailey said that if rezoned, this property would be useless to him and he would be forced to sell it. He also ,; 2760 mentioned that he had a daughter in Anchorage, who with her husband might want to retire on this property. Mr. Bailey said his complaint was being put in this position of either having to reduce his income to qualify for no taxes or to sell the land. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler whether Mr. Bailey had in effect two buildable lots. Mr. Keeler explained that this was correct if Mr. Bailey did not add the second purchased lot to his original lot. Mr. Cogan suggested Mr. Bailey look into the matter, but he believed he would find there was no problem. When there was no further public comment on the Scottsville Community, Mr. Cogan announced that the public hearing on the entire rezoning proposal for all communities was hereby closed. Mr. Cogan added that there would be further presentations and discussions among the Commission and every effort would be made to keep the public informed of future meeting dates. Mr. Cogan said that at this time the matter was before the Commission, although no conclusion could be made tonight. Mr. Cogan asked the Commission to express its views on the proposal up to this point. Mr. Skove said that he tended to agree about not rushing into a decision tonight. Mr. Michel agreed and said that he felt very hampered by not having maps available. Mr. Kindrick said that he would like the benefit of maps and the minutes of this public hearing before proceeding with discussions. Mr. Cogan said that he would like to see some more detail on the maps as to how their property might be affected and the reasons behind the proposed rezoning. Miss Nash asked about a portion of the property that was added to the Agricultural/Forestal District, zoned Village Residential. She said that she believed it had not been intended to be added to the A/F district. Mr. Keeler said that he believed this was correct, as recommended by the Commission. miss Nash said that the Board never saw a list and a mix-up might have occurred. Mr. Keeler suggested that if an error in the establishment of the A/F district had occurred, Miss Nash might want to take the matter up with the County Attorney's office. Miss Nash asked whether this action would affect the proposal before the Commission now. Mr. Keeler responded that this was true, if the property had not been part of the A/F district, Staff would not have pointed it out to be rezoned Rural Areas. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler for the zoning history on the individual parcels that were addressed tonight. 0'11 Mr. Michel asked whether Staff would follow-up on questions raised by those present, such as Mr. Bailey and the Crafts. Mr. Keeler responded that it was his understanding from Mr. Cogan that in effect a Staff Report was needed on each of the parcels in question and copies of those Reports could be sent to the individuals who spoke tonight. He added that many of the questions raised by property -owners tonight would more appropriately be addressed by the Zoning Administrator, as some issues involved interpretation. Mr. Keeler suggested that concerning developability of property, location in floodplain, topographical features, Staff could sit down with individuals and look at USGS maps, but in general it was the responsibility of individuals to consult with engineers and surveyors. He added that Staff would be happy to explain the subdivision process to anyone. Mr. Cogan concurred that it was necessary to clarify between the question of the zoning change itself and what regulations would apply. Mr. Cogan asked for a consensus on when to next meet. Mr. Keeler suggested that the next two meetings were full and it would take some time to prepare the history on these parcels. He suggested that no meeting was presently scheduled for September 13. Mr. Skove asked whether a work session was needed before a final meeting. Mr. Cogan said he believed so. Mr. Cogan complimented Staff on visual aids and reiterated the importance of additional sets of the maps, for the work session. Mr. Keeler suggested August 30 for a work session; he asked Mr. Payne whether a separate work session and later date for another meeting could be scheduled without notifying people again. Mr. Payne responded that he believed this could be done, since the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Cogan said that he would want the property owners to be able to attend the September 13 meeting. Mr. Keeler determined that there was a consensus to hold the work session on August 30, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. and continue action on the proposal at the meeting of September 13, 1983. Mr. Cogan declared a seven -minute recess at this time. (9:30 p.m.) ,,278 CONTINUATION OF AUGUST 2, 1983, MINUTES: The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:40 p.m. and continued with the agenda. SP-83-42 Nancy Shotwell - Request to locate a mobile home on 2.863 acres zoned Rural Areas, County Tax Map 33, Parcel 4113, Rivanna Magisterial District. Located on the south side of Route 747, about 600 feet southeast of Route 640. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Cogan opened the meeting to public comment. When there was none, he declared the matter to be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis asked Ms. Shotwell whether the mobile home would be her primary residence. She replied that she would be living in the mobile home for the three to five years it might take to build a home. Mr. Davis asked the applicant whether she would object to an additional condition requiring the removal of the mobile home upon occupancy of the home. She indicated that she did not object. Mr. Davis moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the three conditions recommended by Staff and an additional fourth condition; Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Mobile home to be located as descrived on plat submitted with special use permit application; 3. Maintenance of tree buffer to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; 4. Mobile home to be removed within thirty days of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for permanent dwelling. Mr. Michel asked whether the applicant had considered applying for a temporary mobile home permit. Mr. Keeler replied that this issue had been discussed with Ms. Shotwell and that she did not feel she could in good faith apply for a temporary mobile home permit. A vote on the motion was then taken, and it passed unanimously. SP-83-45 Margie Thacker - Request to locate a mobile home on 2.82 acres zoned Rural Areas, County Tax Map 26, Parcel 1413, White Hall Magisterial District. Located on the north side of Route 674, about one-half mile north of Route 614 in Sugar Hollow area. Mr. Cogan excused himself from the meeting, saying that he was an adjacent property owner. He asked Mr. Skove to chair the meeting on his behalf. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Skove asked the applicant whether she wished to speak at this time. When she did not, Mr. Skove opened the meeting to I*ftWI public comment. When there was none, he declared the matter to be before the Commission. Mr. Michel asked whether there were other mobile homes in the vicinity. Mr. Keeler replied not in the immediate area. Mr. Skove determined from Staff that the mobile home was not visible from existing houses in the area. Mr. Davis asked whether the applicant intended the mobile home to be her primary residence. Ms. Thacker replied that she intended to live in the mobile home, not rent it. Mr. Davis moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the three conditions recommended by Staff: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Mobile home to be located as described on plat submitted with special use permit application; 3. Maintenance of tree buffer to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which passed with four ayes and one abstention (Mr. Cogan). Mr. Cogan presided again over the meeting. SP-83-46 Dan Bucca - Request to locate a mobile home on 18.368 acres zoned Rural Areas, County Tax Map 55, Parcel 41B, White Hall Magisterial District. Located on an access easement about one half mile west of Route 684 near Crozet. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Cogan asked if a railroad right-of-way would actually remain densely vegetated. He stated that in his experience with the Southern Railroad, right-of-ways were cleared of vegetation periodically. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler about whether the C & O might not clear the buffer of vegetation. Mr. Bucca indicated that even if the railroad did clear its right-of-way, his property included the hardwood trees along the top of the bank and would still act as a buffer or screen. Mr. Cogan opened the meeting to public comment. When there was no public comment, he declared the matter to be before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Bucca to clarify the proposed location of the mobile home and cautioned the applicant not to corner himself, since he such a big piece of land on which to place the mobile home. NE Mr. Bucca indicated that the mobile home would be placed seventy-five feet from the right-of-way and twenty-five feet from adjacent property and this would not alter the elevation or screening of the mobile home. Mr. Keeler suggested that the Planning Commission could add a third condition addressing the issue of maintaining a buffer. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the two conditions recommended by Staff and a third condition with wording as stated by Mr. Keeler: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Mobile home to located as described on plat submitted with the special use permit application; 3. Maintenance of tree buffer to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with no further discussion. SP-83-48 Charles R. and Sharon L. Jones - Request to allow continued use and addition of private elementary school at Old Dominion Day School, .652 acre zoned R-15, County Tax Map 60A1, Parcel 27, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Located at 400 Georgetown Road (Route 656) on eastern side, between Georgetown Court and the Westgate Apartments. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Cogan asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mrs. Jones told the Commission that she believed the proposed use was compatible with the current one and would involve the same aged children. Mr. Cogan asked whether there was any public comment. When there was not, he declared the matter before the Commission. Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the condition recommended by Staff: continued compliance with applicable conditions of approval of SP-79-08 (i.e., Conditions 5 - 10). Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. SP-83-49 David L. and Glenda F. Pack - Request to locate day care, child care or nursery fac?lity on 4.069 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, County Tax Map 57, Parcel 82J, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Located on the northeast side of Route 787, about 2/10 mile south of its intersection with Route 682. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Cogan asked whether the applicants wished to speak at this time. Mrs. Pack told the Commission that, at Mr. Keeler's suggestion, she had taken photos of the play area. She passed the snapshots as well as a list of proposed activities around to the Commission. Mrs. Pack stated that she would prefer not to fence the play area HIM in, at least not with a chain -link fence. Mrs. Pack indicated that the Highway Department was requiring a widening of their entrance off Route 787 by two feet. She stated that they did not oppose this improvement but did not want a commercial entrance. Mrs. Pack said that some vegetation had been cleared. Mr. Cogan explained the position of the Highway Department in requiring a widened entrance. Mrs. Pack responded that she and her husband were a little upset that the Highway Department could impose this improvement on them but did not improve or upgrade Route 787. Mr. Cogan asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was no public comment, he declared the matter to be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis asked the ages of the children who would attend. Mrs. Pack answered they would be three, four and five years old, in addition to their daughter who is two. Mr. Michel asked whether most of the students would be from the immediate area. Mrs. Pack replied that a few were from Crozet and Glen Aire; she explained that during the year that she had run a school there had been a car pool in effect, meaning that one car came to the school each day. Mr. Davis questioned how one adult could supervise ten children. Mr. Keeler indicated that State regulations for licensed child care facilities required one adult per ten children and fenced play area. Mr. Skove said that although he had some sympathy for the applicant not wanting to fence in the play area, he did have a problem with not fencing in the children. Mr. Michel voiced his concern over the intolerable condition of Route 787, saying that he doubted that it would be improved. Mr. Cogan stated that he agreed with Mr. Skove concerning the need to fence in the play area and that he would be in favor of some type of fencing subject to Staff approval. Mr. Kindrick concurred that with ten children fencing was desirable. Mr. Davis asked Mrs. Jones (of Old Dominion Day School) what her practice was regarding adult supervision. Mrs. Jones responded that two adults were on the premises even if only one child was present. She added that her ratio was one adult per ten children for children over three years of age and one adult per four children for those under three years of age. Mr. Cogan stated that he believed a consensus existed among the Commissioners to require fencing and that due to the precarious condition of the road and drive, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation requirement should be abided by. Mr. Keeler added that he belived the Highway Department was well aware of the condition of Route 787. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the six conditions recommended by Staff: 1. Enrollment shall be limited, to ten children per day; 2. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; 3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations; Section 5.1.6(a) waived; 4. Staff approval of outdoor play area including a gated fence surrounding play area; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of sight distance and entrance improvements in accordance with written comments of July 19, 1983; 6. County Engineer approval of driveway improvements, parking area for three vehicles, and turn -around provisions. Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. SP-83-50 Swift Air Delivery, Incorporated - Request to locate a truck terminal on .99 acre out of 10 acres zoned LI Light Industrial, County Tax Map 32, part of Parcel 17E, Rivanna Magisterial District. Located on the north side of Route 649, about 3/4 mile west of Route 29 North. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Cogan asked whether the applicant's representative wished to speak. Mr. Roudabush responded that he would have no comments at this time but would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Skove asked whether Lot 2 was the part of Parcel 17E in question. Mr. Keeler responded that Lot 2 was the site of the current location of Swift Air. Ms. Plash asked whether Lot 1 was owned separately and whether it was served by a private road. Mr. Keeler replied that it was and this was an industrial subdivision with lots for sale. Mr. Cogan asked whether Swift Air intended to retain the existing building. Mr. Roudabush replied that the present building is owned by someone else. Mr. Roudabush stated that Mr. Forrest of Swift Air was present, should the Commission desire further information. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the special use permit, Mr. Davis seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously with no further discussion. a 83 Swift Air Delivery Site Plan - Located off the north side of Route 649, about 1 2 mile east of the Charlottesville - IkkW Albemarle Airport; proposal to locate a 3,600 square foot air freight trucking terminal and office building on a .99 acre parcel. Rivanna Magisterial District. (County Tax Map 32, part of Parcel 17E). Mrs. Davenport gave the Staff Report. Mr. Cogan asked whether the applicant's representative, Mr. Roudabush, wished to add any further comments. Mr. Roudabush replied that the applicant agreed to all the conditions. He added that he did not believe public sewer was available to the site. Mr. Cogan asked whether the number of employees was known yet. Mr. Robert Forrest, of Swift Air, replied that there would be six, including himself. Mr. Cogan determined from Mr. Forrest that there would be no need for any provision for unusual sewage disposal. Mr. Skove asked for a clarification on the County Engineer comments. Mr. Payne responded that the reference in the Staff Report to policy practiced by the County Engineer was an internal matter that would be addressed later in the meeting. Mr. Roudabush indicated that all plans and specifications had been submitted to the Engineering Department. Mr. Cogan asked how that might affect the conditions of approval. Mr. Roudabush responded that he did not know whether all approvals had been obtained or not. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the site plan, subject to conditions as outlined by Staff: 1. A building permit may be issued when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a) Planning Department approval of final landscape plan, including a schedule of planting noting caliber of materials; b) County Engineer approval of soil erosion plan; c) County Engineer approval of drainage plans; d) Change note on site plan to correct current zoning of adjacent parcels (Tax Map 32, Parcel 17A, is currently zoned LI); e) County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and curbing (if deemed necessary); f) Compliance with SP-83-50. 2. A Certificate of occupancy may be issued when the following conditions have been met: a) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance along Route 649; b) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of as -built waterline plans, including hydrants; A c) Fire Official approval of fire flow. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with no further discussion. ZMA-83-11 T. Thomas Kangur, D.M.D.,M.S. and Helge T. Kangur - Request to rezone 1.948 acres out of 2.33 acres from R-4 to CO Commercial Office. County Tax Map 61, part of Parcel 27A, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Located on the eastern side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743), about 300 feet south of Lamb's Road (Route 657), across from Albemarle High School. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He gave additional information on the drainage of the property, which he explained ran under Route 743, and emptied behind the High School. Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance would have to be met in any event. Mr. Cogan asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. When he did not, Mr. Cogan opened the meeting to public comment. Mrs. Jones (of Old Dominion Day School) identified herself as a resident of Oak Forest and said that she had no objection to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Stephen Wilhoit, an adjacent property owner, asked about having a condition requiring a buffer of vegetative covering. Mr. Keeler replied that there could be no conditions on a rezoning petition. He added, however, at site plan stage it would be advantageous for Dr. Kangur to preserve the existing natural vegetation on the property. Mr. Cogan asked whether in fact such a buffer existed. Dr. Kangur responded that although he could not guarantee that the existing tree line buffer would not be changed, he had at the present no plans to do so. He explained that the parking area would be on on the other side of the existing building and adjacent property was zoned R-4. Mr. Michel asked whether Old Oak Forest is zoned R-4. Mr. Keeler replied that he believed so. Mr. Michel asked what other uses would be permitted under CO zoning, such as drive-in facilities. Mr. Keeler replied that a drive-in type use such as a bank would be allowed, but no fast food. Mr. Michel expressed concern that this rezoning might be creating a bad thing. He pointed out that the little drives and roads on this site were already used by people cutting through from Hydraulic and Whitewood Road. He added that the site was relatively steep and that a commercial hub was potentially forming in front of the High School. ash" J/ Mr. Skove concurred that the site had an awful drive going up the hill; he also wondered whether residential zoning might not be more appropriate. Mr. Cogan remarked that the site was basically surrounded by R-4 zoning; Mr. Skove observed that there was commercial zoning on property to the north. Mr. Keeler said that concerning traffic generation, figures for Commercial Office were not significantly different from R-4. He stated that Commercial Office uses were very limited and not of the type to generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Davis observed that the proposed use was not inconsistent. Dr. Kangur asked Mr. Michel to clarify his earlier remarks concerning Whitewood Road. Mr. Michel explained that the driveways on the property interconnect and that it was already a common practice for people to cut through and create potential problems. Mr. Michel added that his real objection was not so much the traffic but the R-4 situation on Whitewood Road; he said that to have close to four acres zoned commercial in the midst of the R-4 residential area and across from the Albemarle High School concerned him. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the rezoning request, which Mr. Davis seconded , and which then passed with four ayes and one naye, Mr. Michel. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Keeler asked the Commission for permission to administratively approve subdivisions in Rio Heights, where duplexes are being developed. Mr. Skove asked whether the only reason the Planning Commission would be reviewing these subdivisions was because Rio Heights is located in the Urban Area. Mr. Keeler confirmed that this was so. It was established that the roads in this subdivision are State roads. There was a consensus to permit administrative approval, as requested. Mr. Keeler explained that due to Staff changes and refinements to streamlining the review process, issues still remained to be resolved. He said that the Site Review Committee was expected to provide information to Staff, even if only through a checklist format. Mr. Keeler suggested that Staff had difficulty with the Engineering Department's "silence is approval" approach and that this practice would not continue. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. A