HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 27 86 PC MinutesMay 27, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 27, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development;
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr.
David Benish, Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the May 13, 1986 meeting
were approved as written.
Capital Improvements Program 1986-87 through 1990-91 - Planning Commission
recommendations for priorities of 53 project requests and recommendations
for funding.
The Chairman recognized the large citizen representation at the meeting and
explained the procedure that would be followed for the public hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report and called the Commission's attention
to a memorandum relating to the relocation of Rt. 678 project. The memo
1gww explained that this project had been reinstated in the CIP funding for FY 1986-87
at an estimated amount of $150,000. He confirmed this project would be handled
differently than the normal Six -Year Plan procedure.
Because of its relation to the Ivy School project, Mr. Bowerman suggested
that this project be reinstated in the CIP as item l.a., following
the Ivy School.
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the Commission's recommendations for the ranking of
the projects.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission to stress the urgent need for
the renovations of Burley School and to urge that that project be given a
top priority:
Mr. James Able: He stressed the inequity of the Burley School facility as
compared to other middle schools.
Ms. Patricia Golsen Martin
Ms. Sue Knolls
Mr. John Walls
Ms. Brenda Hollow: She stressed the extreme heating and cooling problems.
Ms. Paula Liske
Mr. Ronald Broadbent, Principal of Burley Middle School: He stressed
the safety concerns caused by water coming through electrical
fixtures, leaking roofs and inadequate bathroom facilities.
Mr. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent of Albemarle County Schools: He
stressed the urgency of this project.
May 27, 1986
Page 2
The following persons addressed the Commission to stress the urgency of
the Stone Robinson project due primarily to overcrowding caused by
unanticipated population growth in the area: Ms. Barbara Pemberton;
Mr. Pete Craddock; Mr. Bill Brent; Mr. William Orr; Mr. Bill Mallory;
Mr. Ronald Broadbent; and Mr. Andrew Overstreet.
The following persons addressed the Commission and requested that the
Rose Hill Elementary project, primarily the air conditioning, be given
a higher priority. It was indicated that Rose Hill's problems are similar
to those at Burley: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Bill Strickland; and
Mr. Gerald Terrell, Principal of Rose Hill. (This project was ranked No. 32.)
Mr. Mark Timberlake and Mr. Bill Strickland addressed the Commission to
urge that the Rio Heights Channel project (ranked as item No. 23) be
given a higher priority since there are power and sewer lines exposed,
causing a serious safety problem. Regarding this project, Mr. Mike Armm,
the County Engineer, addressed the Commission and explained that the
conditions with this channel are similar to those at the Bennington
Channel and since there is the possibility of some of the sanitary sewer
lines being washed away, the project should be given a higher priority.
He stated that the neighbors are willing to grant the necessary easements.
Mr. William Bibb and Ms. Evelyn Yostem addressed the Commission to request
that the King George Channel project (ranked as item No. 26) be given a
higher priority.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman summarized the public's comments and stated that three projects
had been requested for a higher priority: (1) Rose Hill air conditioning ( No. 32);
(2) Rio Heights Channel (No. 23); and (3) King George Channel (No. 26).
Mr. Bowerman stressed, as pointed out earlier by Mr. Overstreet, that this
was a five-year plan for the schools and the Commission had been very mindful
of that when making their recommendations. He indicated he was not in favor
of moving up the Rose Hill project.
Regarding the Rio Heights Channel project, Mr. Cogan stated he was very
concerned about the exposure of the power and sewer lines. He was in favor
of moving this project up.
Ms. Diehl asked the County Engineer if he was aware of any other exposed lines
with the other channel projects. Mr. Armm replied that the only similar
situation was the Bennington Channel which is already listed as urgent.
Regarding the King George project, he stated there were no exposed lines,
but there was a very steep ravine involved. He indicated he did not feel
the King George project was as urgent.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was justification for moving the King George
project above the Berkshire project. Mr. Armm replied that the four
projects in question fall into two categories: Bennington and Rio Heights
are health hazards; King George and Berkshire are erosion problems. Mr.
Armm confirmed he felt the Bennington and Rio Heights were more urgent because
of the health/safety aspect.
May 27, 1986
Page 3
y,M It was decided that the Rio Heights project would be moved to position No. 20
and included in the Urgent requests for 1986-87, and the King George and
Berkshire projects would remain as originally ranked under Necessary
requests for 1987-88.
It was also decided that the relocation of Rt. 678 would be included as
item l.a. under Urgent Requests for 1986-87.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Capital Improvements Program for FY 1986-87
through 1990-91 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
as follows:
URGENT REQUESTS - Recommended for Funding in FY 1986-87
1. Ivy Area Elementary School
l.a. Relocation of Rt. 678
2. City -County Urban Park
3. Stone Robinson Elementary School - Major Renovations
4. Crozet Elementary School (Safety improvements and planning for a
Crozet Community Elementary School expansion only; parity improvements
and possible expansion in FY 87-88)
5. Burley Middle School - Roof Replacement
6. Burley Middle School - Energy Improvements
7. Volunteer Fire Companies - Advance Allocation Program
8. Scottsville Rescue Squad - New Vehicle
9. Albemarle High School - Roof Replacement
10. Ivy Creek Tenant House Improvements
11. Scottsville Community Center - Roof Repair
12. County Office Building - Interior Renovations
13. Southern Regional Park (Planning & Land Acquisition only)
14. Western Albemarle Field Development
15. Fire Service Training Center
16. Bennington Channel
17. County Computer Upgrade (purchase/lease agreement payments only)
18. Albemarle High School (paving of road only)
19. Western Albemarle Tennis Court Resurfacing
20. Rio Heights Channel
NECESSARY REQUESTS - Recommended for Funding in FY 1987-88
21. Automation of Court Services
22. Hydraulic Road Pathway
23. Albemarle High School Parking Lot
24. Berkshire Channel
25. Crozet Park Buildings and Grounds
26. King George Circle Channel
27. County Office Building Exterior Renovations
28. Hollymead - Roof Replacement
29. Red Hill - Roof Replacement
30. Albemarle High School - Handicapped Improvements
31. Albemarle High School - Electrical/Mechanical
May 27, 1986
Page 4
NECESSARY REQUESTS - Recommended for Funding
32. Rose Hill - Electrical/mechanical;
33. Stony Point - Major Renovations
34. Yancey - Major Renovations
35. Woodbrook - Electrical/mechanical
36. Hollymead - Media Center
37. Hollymead - Electrical/mechanical
38. Jail Expansion
39. Greenwood - Basketball
40. Mint Springs - Handicapped
41. Red Hill - Baseball
42. Beaver Creek - Handicapped
in FY 1988-89
Library; air conditioning
DESIRABLE REQUESTS - Recommended for Funding in FY 1989-90
43. Woodbrook Channel
44. Burley - General Improvements
45. Henley - Electrical/mechanical
46. Henley - Addition
47. Greenwood - Playground
DEFERRABLE REQUESTS - Recommended for Funding in FY 1990-91
48. Brownsville - Electrical/mechanical
49. Walton - Electrical/mechanical
50. Jouett - Electrical/mechanical
51. Greer - Electrical/mechanical
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed brieflv.
Comprehensive Plan Work Schedule - Mr. Bowerman went over the upcoming
Comp Plan work schedule. It was determined Messrs. Cogan and Michel could
not attend the June 10, 4:30 meeting. A June 17th work session was
scheduled at the regular meeting time of 7:30.
Ms. Diehl asked if it would be possible for staff to notify Commissioners
of topics to be discussed at committee meetings. Mr. Cilimberg indicated
it would probably be possible to draft a tentative agenda for these meetings.
Mr. Cilimberg added that staff will be making reports on committee activities
to the Commission from time to time.
Taylor's Auto Body Shop - Request for Relief from Condition - Request for
relief from site plan condition, to permit a door to the spray booth to be
located in the rear of the building. The plan proposed an 8,000 square foot
auto body shop served by 21 parking spaces. Acreage 0.75 acres (32,774
square feet). Zoned C-1, Commercial. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report which explained that the 9'x7' door to
the spray booth was not shown on the building plans and the applicant had not
considered the door to be a violation of the original condition (No entrances
or exits to the rear of the building) because it was not an opening to a
work bay. An adjacent owner had requested that the matter be investigated
by the Commission.
May 27, 1986 Page 5
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor stressed out that he had not agreed there would be no doors to
the rear of the building, but rather that there would be no doors to "open
work bays," which he himself had suggested.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that "both the site plan and the conditions state
that there would be no exits to the rear of the building, period." Mr.
Tyalor responded, "I understand that, but after spending about seven or
eight months trying to get a site plan approved, I didn't want to go back
and try to change something again. I was getting desperate to get a building
permit to start this project."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was some discussion as to why the door had not been questioned by the
building inspector since it had not been shown on the building plans. Mr.
Cogan stated it was doubtful that the building inspector would have been aware
of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Stark stated he felt the applicant had "met the spirit" of the neighbors
concerns, i.e. to control the noise. He felt the usage of this particular
type of door would not violate that spirit. He pointed out that the door
would be open only briefly as cars were driven out.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Stark but added he was concerned that the
Commission was presented with the problem "after the fact."
Commissioners Cogan and Wilkerson expressed concern as to why the door
had not been shown on the original building plans. Mr. Taylor explained
that the original plan had shown rear exit doors for all the service bays,
but when those had been disallowed, he had instructed the engineer to
remove those service bay doors from the plan. The engineer had mistakenly
removed all the doors to the rear except the fire door.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the applicant had not handled the matter in the
proper fashion, but he agreed with Mr. Stark that the "spirit" of the
Commission's intent in relation to noise control, had not been violated.
He stressed, however, that he was uncomfortable with the manner in which the
matter had been handled.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he felt the original condition had been very clear
and the applicant had agreed to that condition.
Mr. Gould stated he felt Mr. Taylor's explanation had not helped his cause
and he indicated he felt it seemed like a "willful violation" of the
conditions passed on by the Commission and the Board. However, Mr. Gould
agreed that the "spirit has, to some degree, been observed, even though
the letter has been broken." He indicated he was willing to approve the
applicant's request, though he was "upset" by the applicant's comments.
Ms. Diehl agreed with Mr. Gould.
1��
May 27, 1986 Page 6
Mr. Stark moved that the original condition l.f. (No entrances or exits to
rear of building) for Taylor's Auto Body Shop be modified as follows:
Entrances to rear of building limited to existing fire door and existing
spray booth door only.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved (6:1), with Mr. Wilkerson
casting the dissenting vote.
It was emphasized that this did not allow the opening of the service bay areas.
Lynn Aeschliman Final Plat - Proposal to create 3 lots ranging in size from
18 to 23 acres, for an average 21 acre lot size. One additional development
right each is assigned to tracts A and B of ±23 acres each. Tract B is
presently improved with a single family dwelling. Acreage of site is
64.882 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report which stated that the applicant was
requesting a waiver of Section 18-36f to allow for two (2) entrances
due to inadquate commercial sight distance for one entrance. Staff was
not in favor of granting the waiver for the following reasons: (1) Two
entrances may necessitate one additional stream crossing; (2) Rt. 668 is
presently a non -tolerable light surface road which begins to curve just east
of the proposed entrance; and (3) There are two additional development rights;
therefore it will be necessary in the future to either achieve a private
street commercial entrance; or to grant a waiver of the commercial sight
distance requirement, or to deny any further subdivision. The staff report
recommended denial of the plat on the grounds that it did not meet the justi-
fications for a waiver of Section 18-36f of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated the applicant had contacted the neighboring property owner,
Mr. Gercke, in an effort to obtain sight distance easements, but Mr.
Gercke was not agreeable to granting an easement. Mr. Foster did not
think the stream crossing should be an issue because it would be a "simple
driveway stream crossing." He explained there is not sufficient room
to do a commercial entrance without an easement from Mr. Gercke. He
felt that two entrances on this particular road would not create an
unsafe situation since the alignment of the road makes it difficult for
it to be travelled at high speeds. He explained the applicant was trying to
create 3 large parcels of land for three reconstructed historic homes and
it is her intent to keep the rural nature of the property. He explained the
purpose of the wide easements is to allow for landscaping along the roadway.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Foster, "What was your finding in reference to the nuisance
strip alleged by Mr. Gercke?" Mr. Foster replied, "My finding was the same as
it was originally. There is a strip lying between the centerline of Rt. 668
and the boundary line, but there is no strip lying between the easements."
Mr. Foster confirmed that there is none of Mr. Gercke's property between the
highway easement and the applicant's boundary line.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
ZLI
77