HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 03 83 PC MinutesNovember 3, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 3, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Cogan;
Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Jim Skove; and Ms. Norma
Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Dan Roosevelt and
Mr. Jeff Echols, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and
Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Official. Absent: Commissioner Kendrick.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of April 5, 1983 were approved as
submitted.
ZMA-83-14 Lucille Tirrell - Request to rezone 5.0 acres (Parcel 9D) and
4.020 acres (Parcel 9E) from Light Industrial to Rural Areas, County
Tax Map 32, Rivanna Magisterial District. Property is located off a
private easement ±600 feet east of Route 606, ±2,200 feet north of its
intersection with Route 649.
AND
ZMA-83-16 Ruth Morris - Regeust to rezone 2.30 acres from Light Industrial
to Rural Areas, County Tax Map 32, Parcel 9D(1), Rivanna Magisterial
District. Location as above (ZMA-83-14).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Though the staff report stated
that, based on a strict analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, the Airport
Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, they couldnot recommend favorably
on these petitions, it also stated that staff felt the issue was reasonably
debatable and listed reasons as to why it was debatable.
The applicants, Ms. Tirrell and Ms. Morris, both addressed the Commission.
Each stated they had not been aware of the rezoning which had designated
this property as LI. Both explained briefly their plans.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked staff to explain the following statement contained in the
staff report: "Staff would recommend that subsequent residential
development of these properties be available only to the extent necessary
to accommodate the applicants' family." Mr. Keeler explained that
industrial zoning is probably more suitable to this property than
residential usage. However, staff has taken the position that the property
has been in the Tirrell family for a number of years and the purpose of
the rezoning is to accommodate that family on the property. He added:
"That would be a very narrow posture to take in terms of the rezoning. If
the Commission and Board chose to rezone it to accommodate the Tirrell family,
I think that is substantially different from rezoning a piece of property
for commercial type of residential development."
En
November 3, 1983 Page 2
Mr. Davis indicated he had no problem with the request.
Mr. Cogan felt it was important that the applicants understand that at
some time in the near future they may have industrial activity nearby.
Ms. Diehl asked if the were approved would the property continue to be
shown as LI on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Payne responded affirmatively.
He noted that this is a good example of the fact that the Plan is meant
to be general in nature.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-83-14 for Lucille Tirrell and ZMA-83-16 for Ruth
Morris be recommended to the Board ofSupervisors for approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-83-15 Gleco Mills, Incorporated - Request to rezone ±1.8 acres from
Rural Areas to Light Industrial, County Tax Map 88, Parcel 26A, Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. Property is located on the east side of
Route 29 South at Gleco Mills.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report summarized: "Staff
opinion is that unrestricted Light Industrial zoning is inappropriate
and contrary to the public interest and therefore recommends denial of
this petition. Five variances from zoning regulations regarding
industrial development were required in order to present this petition to
the Commission and Board, indicative that industrial use of the property
would be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. "
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant had submitted a proffer (late
today), but staff had not had opportunity to review the proffer. Therefore,
the staff report was presented as though no proffer had been submitted.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Bain, Mr. Paulette, and Mr.
McVey. Mr. Paulette reviewed a history of the use. Mr. Bain explained
the purpose of the request and the proffer. He pointed out that this would
be a "low volume" industrial type use, i.e. low in terms of traffic, pollution,
etc. Mr. McVey explained that the maximum effort had been made to
market the property, not only as a mill, but for any type of use.
Therefore, he felt that a use with RA zoning may not exist.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. David Van Roijan addressed the Commission. He felt the uses for the
property should be severely restricted. Though he expressed no objection
to the proposed landscape business he felt the proffer was too broad.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission. Because of the lack of public
utilities, she felt the property should be restricted to only one use.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
IM
(pl
November 3, 1983 Page 3
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, addressed the Commission. He discussed the issue of
sight distance. He explained that though traffic on this road will
probably never by heavy, commercial entrance requirements for sight distance
are not based on traffic volumes. Therefore, the Department's only
recommendation can be that commercial entrance sight distance requirements
be met. Regarding the entrance on Rt. 29, he stated that if this should
be approved subject to Highway Department standards, there should be no
problems.
The Fire Official, Mr. Ira Cortez, addressed the Commission. He felt the
occupancy issue for this building was a very difficult one. He noted that
grain mills are second only to fuel tanks in terms of hazardous occupancy.
He stated that any occupancy would be preferable to a grain mill or to the
current vacancy of the building. He stated he had no preference to the
type of occupancy.
Mr. Bain addressed Mr. Roosevelt's comments. He stated it would be
cost prohibitive to try to improve the sight distance and it didn't
make a lot of sense to construct a commercial entrance on a gravel road.
Mr. Davis stated he felt the proposal would be a good use for the property.
Mr. Cogan agreed but stated he could not support a blanket LI designation
for the property. He felt a site plan should be submitted which would
answer questions such as what type materials will be stored outside, etc.
He stated he would not hesitate to grant the LI zoning "if I knew what
was going to be there and I knew it could fit on the piece of property with
the restrictions that the applicant himself has proffered."
Mr. Skove noted that he felt an RA designation was not appropriate for this
narrow piece of property between the railroad and the highway.
Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with everything that had been said. However,
she stated she would not be comfortable taking action until more information
was available: (1) Health Department comments; (2) Resolution of site
distance issue; (3) Staff evaluation of the proffer.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with both Mr. Cogan and Ms. Diehl. He noted that the
fact that the property had to receive five variances was indicative of the
problems with the parcel. He added that he would be more comfortable with
knowing the proposed use and having a proffer which dealt with that use
particularly.
Mr. Keeler commented on the implications of the proffer and items that
should be addressed in a proffer.
It was determined the Commission was in favor of a deferral to allow staff
time to evaluate the proffer more fully.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-83-15 for Gleco Mills, Incorporated be deferred
to November 15, 1983. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
OR
November 3, 1983 Page 4
SP-83-71 Dallas F. Gentry - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(37)
of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a public garage on 5.0 acres zoned
Rural Areas, County Tax Map 89, Parcel 83, Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. Property is located on the west side of Route 631, ±1,800 feet
south of its intersection with Route 706.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Gentry was present but offered little comment. He noted only that
only minor repair work was envisioned and there would be no body work.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The applicant confirmed that he felt he could meet the entrance require-
ments.
Ms. Diehl expressed some concern about the issue of precedent.
Mr. Bowerman noted he had no problems with the request.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-83-71 for Dallas F. Gentry be recommended to the
Board of supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping
of vehicles. No bodywork or spray -painting of vehicles shall be
permitted. No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall
be permitted.
2. All work shall be conducted with the garage;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars.
Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
4. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on
the property outdoors at any time;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
7. No operation until site plan approval has been obtained and
improvements completed or bonded. Site plan to include buffering/
screening as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
Conditions No. 5 and No. 6 shall be met prior to Commission review
of the site plan;
8. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
and no operation of the garage on Sunday.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
19
_ 7v
November 3, 1983
Page 5
SP-83-77 Willis J. or Margaret M. Martin - Request in accordance with
1�40r Section 10.2.2(37) of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a public garage on
1.3 acres zoned Rural Areas, County Tax Map 102, Parcel lI (One I),
Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is located on the south
side of a private easement, ±1,000 feet west of Route 20 South, just
south of Wood's Store.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Martin addressed the Commission. He explained that he did some body
work and painting but most of his work was "small stuff." He stated he
could not afford to put in an entrance.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. and Mrs. Wood, neighboring property owners, expressed their
support for the request.
(Another person spoke in support of the proposal, but his comments were
practically inaudible.) He was later identified as William Tooley.
Mr. Richard Hunter expressed support for the proposal.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was some discussion as to whether or not this could be considered a
home occupation. Mr. Keeler noted that even if it were a home occupation
it would still have to meet VDH&T entrance requirements. Mr. Payne
stated it could not be a Class A Home Occupation because it involved
an accessory building. There was comparison to this application and the
previous one. Mr. Cogan noted the difference was that the previous
application involved work done solely for other persons, while this
one involves work done for the applicant himself. There was some question
about this interpretation.
Mr. Ira Cortez, the Fire Official, stated that if this is made a commercial
occupancy, the Fire and Building officials get involved and spray painting
is not allowed in a type 4-B building. He stated the only way to
avoid fire prevention requirements is for this to be considered a home -
occupation and the public will not be "invited" into the building.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Martin explained that he
performed 2 or 3 small jobs for other people during the week, and the
rest of his work was on his personal items.
Mr. Michel noted that there did not appear to be a way for the Commission
to approve the request without staff's conditions, but by so doing the
applicant would not be able to operate because of the cost involved in
meeting the requirements.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, noted that it
was the Commission's option as to whether or not to require the upgrading
,%WW, of the entrance, but his recommendation remained the same.
.9-%12-
November 3, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Payne disagreed with Mr. Roosevelt's statements. He explained: "It's
not going to be lawful to have this entrance without doing what Mr.
Roosevelt is telling you. He may choose not to enforce this particular
regulation in this case."
Mr. Payne went on to say that if the Commission were to approve the
application without the requirement for the entrance, it would be "incon-
sistent with prior actions and is of questionable legality."
Mr. Davis moved that SP-83-77 for Willis J. or Margaret M. Martin be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. No gasoline sales or sale of rental of vehicles shall be permitted.
2. All work shall be conducted within the garage.
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars.
4. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on
the property outdoors at any time.
5. Fire and Building Official approval.
6. Health Department approval.
7. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road
plans and commercial entrance.
8. Current operation shall cease until site plan approval has been obtained
and improvements completed or bonded. Site plan to include buffering/
screening as deemed appropriate by the Plannirg Commission. Conditions
No. 5, 6 and 7 shall be met prior to Commission review of the site plan.
9. Hours of operaticn shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and
no operation of the garage on Sunday.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-83-3 - Amendment to Section 4.12.6.5(e) of the Zoning Ordinance as
related to handicap parking provisions. (Resolution of Intent adopted
10/11/83.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and explained the purpose of the
amendment was to comply with 1983 BOCA requirements (Uniform Statewide
Building Code).
There was some discussion about signage for handicapped parking.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Skove, that ZTA-83-3, to Amend Section
4.12.6.5(e) of the Zoning Ordinance as related to handicapped parking
provisions, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as
follows:
3.73
November 3, 1986
Page 7
4.12.6.5(e) The-eegeag-xe6a}hseadsg The minimum width for
handicapped parking spaces shall be twelve-fl2} eight
(8) feet with an adjacent five (5) foot wide access
aisle. The-at�xthe-she��-he-n-aeeedeaee-baih-the-$A6�4
sere-eat-laee��aa-e€-sneh-spaees-she�l-he-sr�h�ee�-�e
�41be�e�e-Eet�a-€}tee-a€€tee}e�-a�pe�a�. The number,
location, signage, and other specifications of handicapped
parking shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official
approval in accordance with Uniform Statewide Building
Code requirements.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA-83-6 - Amendment to Section 5.6.1.1(d) of the Zoning Ordinance as
related to notification for mobile homes. (Resolution of Intent adopted
10/11/83.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and explained the purpose of the
amendment was to maintain existing schedule of review.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that ZTA-83-6, to amend Section
5.6.1.1(d) of the Zoning Ordinance as related to notification for mobile
homes, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
5.6.1.1(d) By publication on at least one occasion in a newspaper
of general circulation in the county not less than
th:rty-�38} fifteen (15) nor more than
thirty (30) days prior to the proposed date of issuance of
such permit.
The motion passed unanimously.
Private Roads - Mr. Skove moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to private roads be adopted. Mr. Michel
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There was a brief discussion about the upcoming joint meeting with the
Board of Supervisors.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
i
�. Wayn ilimberg, S cre ary
Recorded by: Stuart Richard
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 3-90 C
.37`f