Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 06 86 PC MinutesNovember 6, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, November 6, 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. Richard Gould; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Stark. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 21, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. ZMA-86-8 Bruce Campbell - Request to rezone a 5.5 acre parcel from RA, Rural Areas to CO, Commercial Office. The property described as Tax Map 58, parcel 68, is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Routes 676 and 678 adjacent to Meriwether Lewis School. Samuel Miller Magis- terial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the petition for the following reasons: 1. The property is located outside of a designated growth area and therefore, the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Since adoption of the 1980 zoning ordinance and detailed Land Use Plan amendments, no rezoning from RA, to another zoning category for establishment of a new use not already in the area has been approved outside of a designated growth area within the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir watershed. 2. The area north of Ivy is not remote from medical services available in the urban Charlottesville area. If the immediate Ivy area were to be shown to be in need of medical services, those services could be provided by a facility within the designated Village of Ivy. 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that "both Rtes. 676 and 678 are currently non -tolerable. The Commercial Office zoning generates more traffic than the Rural Area Zoning. The Department is against the rezoning if it would generate more traffic than is allowed by right under the Rural Area zoning." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Wendall Winn, Jr., attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that the applicant had surveyed the Ivy residents to determine the need for "satellite" offices in the Ivy area and had received an overall favorable response. He stated the applicant did not feel there is a suitable location for the office within the Village of Ivy as suggested by staff. He stated the applicant is sensitive to the opposition shown by some area residents, but feels that he must pursue the application because of his committment to the current owner (the seller) of the property. .,, .1✓ November 6, 1986 Page 2 The applicant himself offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Elsie Simmons and Ms. Debora Sabotini addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the petition. Ms. Simmons presented a petition of opposition which contained 100 signatures. The reasons for opposition included: --Were opposed to rezoning residential property to commercial because of future implications; --Inadequacy of road system to handle additional traffic; --Proposal is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan; --Would detract from the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. Ms. Simmons stated that most residents were not opposed to the idea of a doctor's office but were opposed to the proposed location. She suggested that "downtown" Ivy would be a more appropriate location. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl stated she felt it was a commendable objective but she could not support locating such an office outside the designated growth area. Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl and added that the reasons stated by staff were strong reasons for denial of the petition. Mr. Wilkerson asked Dr. Campbell if the proposed location for the office had been stated in the letter which he had circulated to the Ivy residents. Dr. Campbell indicated a location had not been decided upon at that time. He added that he had finally chosen this location because it was adjacent to a school and therefore would not be considered a quiet area. Mr. Cogan indicated he was in agreement with Ms. Diehl and moved that ZMA-86-8 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on November 19, 1986. ZTA-86-7 FHM Partnership - Request to amend CO, Commercial Office and 3.0 Definitions sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for "school of special instructions" as a use by right together with definition. Also, to include the sales and services of musical instruments clubs and lodges and other semi-public establishments in CO, Commercial Office. It was determined staff was requesting deferral to November 18. Mr. Cogan moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that ZTA-86-7 for FHM Partnership be deferred to November 18. The motion passed unanimously. SP-86-66 Owensville Pentecostal Church - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2 0 5) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for construction of a church on 1.4+ acres. Property, described as Tax Map 43, parcels 31, 31A and 31B is located on the south side of Rt. 601, approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of Rt. 676. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. ,4 November 6, 1986 Page 3 OR It was determined staff was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Cogan moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-86-66 for Owensville Pente- costal Church be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Because the meeting was running ahead of scheduled agenda times, Mr. Keeler led a discussion related to RA special use permits and rezoning petitions outside the designated growth areas. He stressed that all of the 9 rezonings which have been approved outside of designated growth areas had extenuating circumstances. Ms. Diehl asked about the current status of family divisions. Mr. Payne explained that as a result of recent "opinions" at the state level, some revisions will be made to the family divisions ordinance and when these amendments are made there will be no planning issues left because there is not much statutory authority for such issues. He was uncertain as to when he would be able to work on these revisions. Regarding Highway Department authority in relation to family divisions, Mr. Bowerman stated that the Highway Department could require anything they could require normally in regard to access to a state highway. Mr. Payne stated that, "in a nutshell" the subdivision ordinance would not apply to family divisions, but everything else would apply, i.e. zoning ordinance, Highway Department approval, Health Department approval, etc. Mr. Payne reported that the S.L. Williamson issue has been resolved. He stated that the Commission would receive his report on the matter shortly. He stated that the applications have been withdrawn and the "applicant has noted that he has no objection to the Board repealing the zoning and revoking the special use permit and (the applicant is) noting that he is abandoning the activity effective immediately." Gentry Final Plat - Request for approval for the development of property located approximately 3/4 miles south of the Route 664 intersection with Route 671. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 9, Parcel 11. White Hall Magisterial District. The applicant is proposing to create a 6.08 acre parcel, leaving a 8.75 acre residue. The applicant is proposing to use separate 30 foot access easement to Route 664 to serve this site, which will require Planning Commission approval. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. The applicant was requesting a waiver of Section 18-36(f) to allow a new private road to serve the proposed lot. Staff recommended approval of the waiver. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, he explained that the existing driveway for Mr. Wood's house is approximately 200 feet and the area from his property line to the driveway is densely wooded making it impractical for him to consider trying to make a new connection. He also stated that all the neighbors are in favor of the proposal. rn November 6, 1986 Page 4 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan expressed concern about the number of possible entrances onto the road in a short distance. It was determined the Highway Department had approved the entrance location. It was not known if the Highway Department had made any statement about the number of entrances. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Gentry Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Planning staff approval of technical items; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private entrance. 2. Waiver of Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting recessed briefly. SDP-86-045 Rivanna Park Master Plan - Proposal to construct an urban district park on approximately 100 acres. This property is located west of Rt. 20 North, north of Rt. 1421 (Elk Drive) and east of the Rivanna River. Tax Map 62, parcel 23; Tax Map 78, parcel 1. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report pointed out the two main issues in this project are the floodplain and access. Staff presented several options to address the problem of access and indicated the most favorable and workable solution was to abandon a portion of Elk Drive public right-of-way, envisioning a cul-de-sac just south of tPe park entrance. Regarding the floodplain issue, the report stated that the "County Engineer has reviewed the master plan and proposed rough grading and determined that a special use permit is not necessary." The staff report stated: "Providing that the Commission is satisfied with the resolution of these issues, staff recommends administrative approval of the individual detailed site plans." It was determined that if staff's favored solution to the access problem was adopted, approximately 3 or 4 residences on Elk Drive would have to use the park entrance. Mr. Bowerman stated he was in favor of option c (as favored by staff) as a solution to the access problem. Mr. Michel agreed, but noted that if there was opposition from the residents or difficulty in abandoning the right-of-way, he would then prefer option a (i.e., to close the entrance to Elk's Drive at Route 250). Mr. Bowerman agreed that it was a good idea to indicate two alternatives. 19 November 6, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Wilkerson agreed that a second option was desirable, but he was not in favor of closing the entrance to Elk's Drive at Rt. 250. He suggested the possibility of making it "one-way". There was some question as to how effective this would be since it would have to rely on signage to be workable. Mr. Wilkerson felt a DO NOT ENTER sign is highly effective. Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, stated that one-way streets are seldom used in rural areas. He noted that because of the length of the road and the number of entrances onto the road, it would be difficult to enforce. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Roosevelt stated he would choose option a also as a second choice because it would be easier to enforce. It was determined that it would probably be easier to close the entrance to Elk Drive at Rt. 250 (option a) than it would to install a cul-de-sac (option c) because the entrance could be closed by the Highway Department without having to take legal action, while cul-de-sacing has some legal questions. Mr. Bowerman stressed that the Commission did not want the park to open with an access to Rt. 250. Those Commissioners present indicated their agreement to this statement. Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt option c (To abandon a portion of Elk Drive public right-of-way and construct a cul-de-sac just south of the park entrance) should be dealt with immediately by the Board of Supervisors. He felt this was the only practical and safe solution to the problem. This was determined to be the consensus of the Commission and its recommendation to the Board. The following was determined to be the Commission's order of preference for the solution to the access question: (1) To abandon a portion of Elk Drive public right-of-way and create a cul-de-sac just south of the park entrance. (option c on staff report) (2) Close the entrance to Elk's Drive at Route 250. (option a on staff report) (3) Permit only right turns onto Elk Drive from Rt. 250 and out of Elk Drive onto Rt. 250. (option b on staff report) The Commission stressed, however, that preference 1 was felt to be the only practical and safe solution to the problem. There was some discussion about the possible flooding of baseball field No. 4. It was determined that it is not known how frequent or extensive such flooding might be. Mr. Horne stated that staff would definitely address this issue at the time of site review. In deciding the question of whether or not to grant staff administrative approval of subsequent site plans, it was determined that the public will have an opportunity to address the question of abandonment of the right-of-way at a separate meeting and also that the City and County have agreed on the content and phasing of the project. Therefore,it was determined that staff would have administrative approval of subsequent site plans provided there are no significant alternations from what has been shown on the master plan. n L'T1 November 6, 1986 Page 6 The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Jean Cranston, a resident of Elk Drive, addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the traffic situation and asked if consideration was being given to the installatiaz of a traffic light. Mr. Roosevelt responded that presently the traffic counts do not justify a traffic light. There was no further public comment. Mr. Horne explained that the access issue would be taken up with the Board of Supervisors. He stated that the Board is not required to approve the Master Plan. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan - Discussion of Rural Development (particularly rural area zoning) Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report assisted by Mr. Keeler. Significant comments and issues included the following: Mr. Cogan offered the following ideas regarding rural area growth. --The establishment of a suburban "ring" which would be a buffer between the urban and rural areas. He suggested two possibilities: (1) A "ring" without utilities with 2-4 acre lots, or (2) a "ring" with utilities with 2-1 acre lots. --Further incentives should be created to encourage village development. He suggested such things as commercial neighborhood shopping centers and schools. --He suggested a 5-acre minimum lot size in the watershed areas as opposed to a 10-acre minimum as recommended in the Plan. He stated that it would be financially difficult to construct roads with the 10-acre requirement and 10 acres is using a large amount of land but isn't large enough to be used for farming. --He suggested the possibility of voluntary consolidation of tax parcels which are under the same ownership. --He suggested the possibility of setting up separate zones in the rural area for suburban -type development with certain criteria to be established to determine where those zones would be located. He gave the following as examples of criteria: presence of tolerable roads, schools and services. Ms. Diehl expressed interest in the number of exempt lots which were created annually from 1980-1985 (out of the total of approximately 206/year). Staff indicated they would look into this, but pointed out that it would be very labor intensive to determine this figure. Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt it was of primary importance to determine the reason for the extremly high amount of rural development. Mr. Blake Hurt, a local developer, indicated that people who come to this area wish to take advantage of its scenic beauty and they also desire the privacy afforded by the rural areas. He added that he felt Mr. Cogan's suggestion for a "suburban ring" was a good one. Mr. Hurt also stated he felt the public seems to prefer 2-acre lots. November 6, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Hurt felt a suburban ring with 2-acre lots would attract many people. Mr. Cogan felt that an advantage of a suburban ring is that it would be competetive with the rural areas that need to be protected since it would offer a convenient location. He stated that an added benefit would be having some control over "where rural growth is going." Ms. Diehl felt that while the marketplace must be considered, it should not be the primary factor in the evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Michel stressed that it is still the consensus of the Commission that rural area preservation is still a desired goal. He also pointed out that a 13% rate of growth should be viewed as a "goal" and not a "limit." In conjunction with the suburban ring idea, Mr. Cogan suggested that the minimum lot size for the rural areas should be increased, i.e. for the remaining rural areas outside the ring and the villages. No public comment was offered at the meeting. No formal actions were taken at the work session. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Recorded by: Janice Wells Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 0 hn Horne, Secretary t%V�- % -1759 9 9 9