HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 22 87 PC MinutesSeptember 22, 1987
OR
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, September 22, 1987, Meeting Room 5-6, Albemarle County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl;
and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr. John
Pullen, Planner; Mr. George St. John, County Attorney; and Ms. Laura Hill,
Planner. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 10, 1987, were
approved as submitted.
SP-87-67 Clyde and Doris French - Request for the issuance of a special
use permit (10.2.2.37) for a public garage on 48.3 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 93, Parcel 26, is located
on the north side of St. Rt. 53, approximately three quarters of a mile
from its intersection with St. Rt. 729. Scottsville Magisterial
District. Deferred from September 15, 1987.
Mr. Keeler reported that this item had been deferred at the
September 15th meeting because some questions had arisen as to the
exact nature of the business proposed by the applicant. Mr. Keeler
explained that during the public hearing it had come to light that
Mr. French has been operating for a number of years, primarily
servicing neighbors' farm machinery and farm equipment. He
stated that the Zoning Administrator, after reviewing the proposal
in greater detail, is prepared to issue a zoning clearance for this use
as an agricultural service occupation, based on other uses that have
been approved under agricultural service occupation, and based on
the applicant's representation of the amount of business that he does
that is farm related. Therefore, no special permit is required. Mr.
Keeler asked that the Commission dismiss the application.
The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. French was present but
offered no significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
commission.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-87-67 for Clyde and Doris French be dismissed.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-37 Sprigg Lane - Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation petitions the
Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit in accordance with
M
September 22, 1987
Page 2
Section 23.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of
parking deck. The property is located on the north side of Rt. 250W,
just west of the Rt. 29/250 Bypass and adjacent to Piedmont Tractor
Sales. Tax Map 60, Parcels 25 and 25C. Zoned CO, Commercial Office.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Deferred from June 16, 1987
Meeting.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report concluded:
"The applicant is requesting the Commission and Board grant
administrative approval of the site plan. The plan has been
submitted and reviewed by the Site Review Committee.
There do not appear to be any major problems or complications.
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to (conditions)."
In response to Ms. Diehl's question as to why this proposal was submitted
seperate from the site plan, Mr. Benish explained that the parking
deck required a special use permit, but because staff needed a site
plan in order to review the proposal, "we recommended this simultaneously."
Mr. Benish explained that the expansion of the office building would
be primarily for additional library facilities and storage.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale and Mr. Tom Lynch. They
offered no additional comment.
*400
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined the site plan for the office addition had already been
submitted and been reviewed by the Site Review Committee. Mr. Benish
confirmed that staff was requesting administrative approval for both
the parking deck and the site plan. He also confirmed that the site
plan was "substantially in accordance with the site plan" which he
had distributed to the Commission along with the special permit.
Regarding stormwater detention plans, Mr. Benish explained that currently
the property has no stormwater detention requirements because it was
built before detention measures were required; however, he stated that
for the addition detention would be underground and the County Engineer
has commented that the method proposed is acceptable though calculations
have not yet been approved. Mr. Benish confirmed that the addition
would have to meet current runoff control requirements.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-87-37 for Sprigg Lane be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Parking deck size and location shall be as shown on site plan for
Sprigg Lane Building Addition and Parking Deck, by Roudabush, Gale
& Associates, dated May 26, 1987.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
146-
September 22, 1987
Page 3
M
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-87-03 Amend 4.6 LOT REGULATIONS as it relates to frontage and lot
width measurements. Originated by the Zoning Administrator and Planning
Staff to provide uniform zoning and subdivision ordinance regulations.
Mr. Keeler reported that the language of this amendment needs further work
and requested that the matter be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA 87-03 be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Stark
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA 87-07 Amend 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES of the Zoning Ordinance. Origi-
nated by the Watershed Management Official, County Engineer, and Planning
Staff to clarify ordinance language and redefine building site in
accordance with other regulations.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He.made the following correction in
the proposed amendment: Section 4.2.4.1--The reference at the end of
the statement should be 4.2.1 (not 4.2.2).
Mr. Keeler explained changes as follows:
--Section 4.2.1: Excludes from the definition of building site the
setback area that is required in reservoir watersheds, which is
not currently excluded.
--Section 4.2.2.1: Describes how the shape of a building site is
determined.
--Section 4.2.4.1: A new section which requires that septic systems
be located within the building site, which is not specifically
required currently. Also allows the Health Department to
authorize location elsewhere provided it is not in an area that is
specifically excluded (i.e. 25% slopes, 100-year floodplain, or within
the reservoir setback area).
Mr. Cogan expressed some confusion as to whether or not a drainfield
could be located in an area that was not "contiguous" to the 30,000 square
foot building site. Mr. Keeler read the following portion of Section
4.2.4.1 in response to Mr. Cogan s concern: No septic system or any portion
thereof shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a
building site, provided that the Health Department may authorize location
in an area other than a building site upon finding that such area is not
expressly excluded from the term "building site" under Section 4.2.1." He
added, "So there's no area requirement attached to this other area; obviously
it would have to be a large enough area to accommodate the drainfield."
He explained that the drainfield area would not have to be contiguous to
the building site, but the area less than 25% slope has to be contiguous.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that both the
primary and alternate drainfields could be outside the building site "so
long as they meet the other three criteria."
� / w
September 22, 1987 Page 4
Mr. Keeler distributed a letter from the League of Women Voters
which was indirectly related to the issue before the Commission. He
explained that the League was suggesting substantially more extensive
changes than presently proposed and the Commission may wish to discuss
their suggestions at some later time.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Tamera Vance, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
addressed the Commission. She asked if the suggested amendments
meant that drainfields now do not have to be located within the
building site. Mr. Cogan responded that that has always been the case,
provided the area has Health Department approval. Mr. Keeler
explained: "The current regulations do not require that the drain -
field be installed within the building site. This will require that
it be installed within the building site unless, for some reason,
the Health Department authorizes it elsewhere.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-87-07, to amend Section 4.2, Critical Slopes,
of the Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows:
4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES 1140
These provisions are created to implement the
comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving
steep hillsides and in recognition of increased
potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water
pollution and septic disposal problems associated
with the development of those areas described in
the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. It is
hereby recognized that such development of
critical slopes may result in rapid and/or
large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive
stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and
man-made bodies of water; and in the event of
septic system failure, a greater travel distance
of septic effluent, all of which constitute
potential dangers to the public health, safety and
welfare. These provisions are intended to direct
building and septic system locations to terrain
more suitable to development and to discourage
development on critical slopes.
FFA
15�1%
September 22, 1987 Page 5
M
M
M
4.2.1 BUILDING SITE REQUIRED
No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1)
building site. For purposes of this section, the
term "building site" shall mean a contiguous area
of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25)
percent as determined by reference to either
topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological
Survey - U. S. Department of Interior (contour
interval 20 feet) or a source determined by the
county engineer to be of superior accuracy,
exclusive of:
such area as may be located in the flood
hazard overlay district or which is.located
under water.
such area as may be located within two
hundred (200) horizontal feet of the
one -hundred (100) year floodplain of any
public drinking water impoundment or within
one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edg
of anv tributary stream to such impoundment.
4.2.2 AREA REGULATIONS
Area re
to the
as for buildinc
shall conform
4.2.2.1 For a use served by other than a central sewera
system, the building site shall have an area of
thirtv thousand (30,000) square feet or greater
- and shall be of such dimension that no one
dimension shall exceed any other by a ratio of
more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a
rectanale inscribed within the building site.
Such building site shall have adequate area for
location of two (2) septic drainfields as approved
by the Virginia Department of Health.
4.2.2.2 For a use served by a central sewerage system, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the building site
is of adequate area for the proposed development.
September 22, 1987
Page 6
4.2.3 LOCATION OF STRUCTURES
The provisions of this section shall apply to the
location of any structure for which a permit is
required under the Uniform Statewide Building
Code.
4.2.3.1 No such structure shall be located on any lot or
parcel in any area other than a building site.
4.2.3.2 No such structure shall be located on slopes of
twenty-five (25) percent or greater.
4.2.4 LOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS
4.2.4.1 No septic system nor anv portion thereof shall be
located on any lot or parcel in any area other
than a building site; provided that the Virginia
Department of Health may authorize location in an
area other than a building site upon finding that
such area is not expressly excluded from the term
"buildings site" under 4.2.1.
4.2.4.2 In the review for and issuance of a permit for the
installation of a septic system, the Virgin-ia
Department of Health shall be mindful of the
intent of this section, and particularly mindful
of the intent to discourage location of septic
tanks and/or drainfields on slopes of twenty (20)
percent or greater.
4.2.5 MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS
As part of the review of any plat or subdivision
or site development plan, the commission may
modify any regulation and requirement of this
section in a particular case, subject to the
following limitations:
4.2.5.1 The applicant shall demonstrate to the commission
that such modification is consistent with sound
engineering and design practice and that the
public interest and the intent of this section
would be served to at least an equivalent degree
by such modification.
4.2.5.2 No such modification shall be granted until the
recommendation of the county engineer, Virginia
Department of Health, and other appropriate
officials with regard to such modification shall
have been considered by the commission.
Wq
September 22, 1987
Page 7
4.2.5.3 In granting such modification, the commission may
impose such conditions as it deems necessary to
1r" protect the public interest and to insure that
such development will be consistent with the
intent of Section 4.2.
4.2.6 EXEMPTIONS
4.2.6.1 Any structure which was lawfully in existence
prior to the effective date of this ordinance and
which is non -conforming solely on the basis of the
requirements of Section 4.2, may be expanded,
enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed
as though such structure were a conforming
structure. For the purposes of this section, the
term "lawfully in existence" shall also apply to
any structure for which a site development plan
was approved or a building permit was issued prior
to the effective date of this ordinance, provided
such plan or permit has not expired.
4.2.6.1 Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a
lot of record on the effective date of this
ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of
Section 4.2 for the establishment of the first
single-family detached dwelling unit on such lot
or parcel; provided that Section 4.2.3.2 shall
r apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall
contain adequate land area in slopes of less than
twenty-five (25) percent for the location of such
structure. For the purposes of this section a
mobile home shall be deemed a single-family
detached dwelling unit.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on Routes 743, 660,
664, and 665. Comprised of Tax Map 18, Parcel 40; Tax Map 19, Parcels
25 and 25A; Tax Map 20, Parcel 7A; and Tax Map 32, Parcels 16, 16B,
44C, 45, 45B and 45C. The proposed district contains 737.212 acres.
The Planning Commission must take action to refer the proposal to the
Advisory Committee for its recommendations. The Committee is to meet
on Tuesday, September 29, 1987, 7:30 p.m., Department of
Planning and Community Development Conference Room.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. He asked that the Commission take
action to refer the proposal to the Advisory Committee.
It was determined part of this proposal overlapped into the
Village area. Ms. Vance reported that the proposal by the
br remains the same. She added it was her understanding that
was considering changing the boundaries of the Earlysville
accommodate this proposal.
Earlysville
landowners
the Commission
Village to
��b
September 22, 1987
Page 8
After a brief discussion, it was determined that though the Commission
had considered allowing that portion to be taken from the Earlysville
Village area and adding another area to Earlysville, no definitive
action had been taken.
The Commission asked that the Advisory Committee be made aware of the
Commission's position that if the Earlysville Village boundary line is
not adjusted, then that portion of this proposal which lies within the
Earlysville Village should not be included in the Agricultural/Forestal
District.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Jacob's Run Agricultural Forestal District
be referred to the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(Note: There was no public comment.)
Mr. Keeler introduced a new planner to the Commission, Ms. Laura Hill.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
DS
o-
i/
r" John Horn , Secretary
qIf I