Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 07 84 PC MinutesFebruary 7, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 7, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. 'those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Richard Cogan; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present: Mr. Keith Mabe, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Planner; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Pat Cooke, Fx-Officio. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and declared that a quorum was present. CPA-84-1 - Proposed amendment of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan with regard to "Map 25: Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002" as it affects property located on west side of Route 678 in Ivy. (Resolution of Intent adopted by Board of Supervisors on January 11, 1984) Mr. Mabe presented the staff report. The report stated that "staff has reviewed said Map 25 in the Comprehensive Plan and finds that it does not require any amendment at this time." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the staff report be endorsed and that it be recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the map not be amended on the grounds that it did not need to be amended. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Resolution of Intent - Mr. Mabe asked the Commission to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the "entire general map" so as to show areas that have been removed by the Board of Supervisors from the jurisdictional area. Ms. Diehl moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend Map 25: Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002 be adopted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-83-13 Charles W. Hurt, M.D. (Fontana/North Pantops) - Request to rezone 401.6 acres from Rural Areas, R-1 Residential, R-15 Residential and PRD to all PRD; proposal to create 192 lots for single-family units. County Tax Map 62, Parcels 27, 28, 28C, 107, 108, 123, 124; County Tax Map 78, part of Parcel 57, Rivanna Magisterial District. Located adjacent to Ashcroft and Franklin Subdivisions, north of Route 250 East and east of Route 20 North. .st'S! February 7, 1984 Page 2 Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial for the following reasons: (1) The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan regarding recommended densities, environmental standards relating to protection of special resources and the urban/ rural natural border concept; (2) Most of the plan is not located within theAlbemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area; (3) The proposal does not promote an economical and efficient land use; (4) The size, shape, topography, existing vegetation and soils recommend the site for forestal production; (5) The proposal will have a detrimental effect on the character of the adjacent agricultural/ forestal area. The applicant was represented by Mr. Roy Parks. He explained the proposal in some detail and stressed that the developer was asking only to be allowed to develop at a density that is similar to or less than the density of the surrounding property. He concluded his comments by asking that the item be deferred. The Chairman invited public comment. INis. Prince, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission and expressed concern about the dangerous condition of the roadway. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Scala confirmed that staff feels there are still a lot of unanswered questions. GIs. Diehl stated she was in agreement with staff's assessment of the proposal. There was a brief discussion about the proposed roads and existing roads. Mr. Cogan noted that though one PRD is proposed, it actually proposes three different entrances. He added that he would be more in favor of single-family units than multi -family. He also noted that he would like to see some of the lots a larger size. Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-83-13 for Charles Hurt (Fontana/North Pantops) be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Discussion: -Mr. Cogan noted that he felt the plan should be presented with individual zonings for individual sections. The motion for deferral passed unanimously. 341 February 7, 1984 Page 3 Because the meeting was running ahead of scheduled agenda time, Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to present any miscellaneous business at this time. Mr. Keeler brought the Commission up to date on Highway Department policy regarding construction of roads to their ultimate design standard. Mr. Keeler initiated a discussion about possible ways of reducing the length of Commission meetings. Various possiblities discussed included: Increase the number of meetings per month; Limit the number of items that are scheduled for meetings; Limit the number of items which would be accepted for processing each month; Initiate a Consent Agenda; Restrict subject matter requiring Commission review; Limit speaker time; Hold work sessions separately from regular meeting times. No decisions were made. There was a brief discussion about Mr. Payne's upcoming review of the Commission's rules and regulations. ZMA-83-23 E. I. Design Associates - Request to rezone County Tax Map 32, part of Parcels 20, 20A1, 20A2, and all of Parcels 20A, 20A3, 20A4, from RA to R-4; request to rezone County Tax Map 32, part of Parcels 20A1 and 20A2 from RA to HC; request to rezone County Tax Map 32A, part of Parcel 02-1B from HC to RA, Rivanna Magisterial District. Property located adjacent to 84 Lumber, t2/10 mile north of intersection of Rt. 29N and Rt. 649; also located on north side of Rt. 649,. t 2/10 mile east of its intersection with Rt. 29N. AND SP-83-92 E. I..Design Associates - Request in accordance with Sec. 10.2.2(8) to locate a mobile home park on County Tax Map 32, part of Parcel 20, consisting of 20.59 acres zoned RA, and on County Tax Map 32A, part of Parcel 02-1B,.consisting of 3.95 acres zoned HC. (Location given above) G1 SP-83-93 E.I. Desi&R Associates - Request in accordance with Sec. 15.2.2(8) to create mobile home subdivision on County Tax Map 32, part of Parcel 20, consisting of 12.95 acres; part of Parcel 20A1, consisting of 2.44 acres; Parcel 20A (2.5 acres); part of P20A2 (2.12 acres); Parcel 20A4, consisting of 3.38 acres; and Parcel 20A3, consisting of 3.719 acres, all currently zoned RA, proposed under ZMA-83-23 to become R-4. (Location given above. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff concluded: "Staff has attempted to provide a balanced report which identifies the need for a development of this type and County policies outlined in the Comprehensive flan on the February 7, 1984 Page 4 one hand; on the other, staff has attempted to identify inconsistencies of the proposal with the Land Use Plan and other plans based on it. Staff comments regarding the preliminary development plan would reduce but not eliminate these inconsistencies." The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert McLeod. He explained the reasons the applicant felt this property was appropriate for the proposed use. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons expressed their opposition to the proposal: M.aryJo Lovelace, an adjacent property owner; Ms. Lucille Lee; and Mr. Richard Ward, an adjacent property owner. Their reasons included: (1) Additional traffic on already congested roads; (2) Sets a precedent for extension of utilities outside the designated growth area; (3) will attract short-term residents who have little concern about the community; and (4) Devaluation of surrounding property. Mr. Mike Worthy, owner of Northwoods, expressed interest in the proposed buffer area. Mr. Keeler responded to his questions. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he test there was a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, i.e. the Ordinance recommends mobile home parks in the RA district and there are not many RA districts within the urban area and also few public utilities in the RA district, yet at the same time the Plan encourages this type of development. He was unsure how to deal with the conflict. He stated he was "on the fence" with this proposal because we are saying this type of develop- ment should be encouraged, but where are we going to put them. He felt suitable locations were almost impossible to find because of zoning and utilities requirements. He also noted he would liked to have seen a "less intense use" with more screening and planning. Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with ;ir. Cogan. Mr. Keeler stated that though there may be inconsistencies, it might be desirable to amend the Comprehensive Plan if this is believed to be an appropriate location and if the possibility of utilities is appropriate. He stated it would be much easier to amend the land use plan and jurisdictional areas than to amend ordinances. He said .it could be dealt with on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Commissioners Cogan and Michel but added that if there .is a need for this type of development then any inconsistencies with the Plan and Ordinance need to be addressed. Ms. Diehl noted that the increased density was not incompliance with the Comprehensive Plan and she also felt the development would be detrimental to the already -established neighborhood. She added that she would not be in favor of a conventional development at that density in this location without septic facilities. February 7, 1984 Page 5 Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-83-23, 511-83-92 and 5P-83-93 for E. 1. Design Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on the determination that the proposed density and the request for public utilities are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Skove stated he would not support the motion because he felt impact on surrounding properties could be minimized and the development could be made compatible with the adjacent properties. Mr. Bowerman stated he was uncertain of the ramifications of extending sewer to this area and because he felt there were more suitable areas available with utilities available he would not support the proposal. Mr. Wilkerson noted he was concerned about the impact on Hollymead School. Mr. Cogan noted he may have supported the proposal had it been less intensive. The motion for denial passed (6:1) with Mr. Skove casting the dissenting vote. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10 :15 p.m. Recorded by: Stuart Richards Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 7-89