HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 05 84 PC MinutesJune 5, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 5, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. James Skove; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson.
Other officials present were:. Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Jeff
Echols, Highway Department Engineer; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Bowerman.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of November 16,
1982 were approved as submitted.
ZMA-84-11 Woodbriar Associates - Request to amend previously approved ZMA--79-32,
condition No. 9, to provide relief from sidewalk construction on Austin and
Briarwood Drives, Heather. and Whitney Courts, and all future roads.within
Briarwood Planned Residential Development, County Tax Map 32G, inclusive of
all lots, parcels., sections, Rivanna District. Deferred from May 1, 1984.
Since the applicant was not present, this item was delayed until later in
the meeting.
ZMA-84-15 Southern Land Trust - Request to rezone 1.496 acres from Commercial
Office to Highway Commercial, Tax Map 61, Parcel 153A, Rivanna District.
Located on southern side of East Rio Road (Rt. 631) adjacent to Southern Rail-
road tracks.
The applicant was requesting withdrawal.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Gould, that the applicant's request for
withdrawal of ZMA-84-15 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-84-13 Edward H. Bain, Jr. - Request to rezone 17,500 square feet or 0.40
acre from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial, Tax Map 45, part of Parcel
22, Charlottesville District. Located at junction of Rts. 743 and 631
(Hydraulic and West Rio Roads), Rock Store.
(The Commission took five minutes to read minutes from September 6, 1983 which
were related to this application.)
(Mr. Keeler took this opportunity to discuss the agenda for June 12. Since
onlyoo}etem was scheduled, it was decided the June 12 meeting would be cancelled
and that item would be placed on the June 21 agenda.)
(Because Mr. Bain was not present, the Commission decided to hear ZMA-84-11
at this time.)
/Y7
June 5, 1984 Page 2
ZMA-84-11 Woodbriar Associates - (description previously stated)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff was recommending "at a minimum,
sidewalks along Austin and Briarwood Drives."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Willis Fennell. He stated that though
sidewalks were included in the original plan, two things have changed since
that time: (1) Requirements of the Highway Department have increased
frontage requirements on State roads, thus the number of developable lots has
been reduced by approximately 100 resulting in increased costs for the lots.
This adversely effects the developer's desire and ability to provide "affordable"
housing. (2) Lots now physically exist with houses on them and the vast
majority of homeowners do not want part of their already small yards "encroached
upon" by sidewalks.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition
to sidewalks except on the main roads, as suggested by staff: Mr. John Dawson;
?is. Shirley Crenshaw; Ms. Margaret Cooney; Mr. Ed Koontz; Ms. Edna Kusky;
and tics. Kathy Vandenberg. Ms. Crenshaw had conducted a survey which determined
that 75% of the homeowners were opposed to sidewalks except on the main
roads. Ms. Crenshaw read a breakdown of the percentage "for" and "against"
on each street.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt sidewalks were.needed`on the two main roads as a
minimum. Co:=iissioners Skove, Diehl .and Gould indicated agreement..
Mr. Gould expressed.concern that a substantial number of residents of the
development had not even been aware that sidewalks had been. required. He
felt the developer had not done his job.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission could advise the applicant that
if he would amend his road plans to show "those commercial entrances and
ending the sidewalk at that location," it would be acceptable to the Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked if the applicant could actually demonstrate that 100 lots
were lost. fir. Fennel responded that he did not have those figures in hand.
Mr. Gould asked that the fugures.be'submitted tD staff. Mr. Fennell confirmed
the loss of lots was due to increased frontage requirements and not
topographic restrictions of the property.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-84-11 for Woadbriar Associates, amending ZMA 79-32 to
require sidewalks along the southernly side of Austin Drive from Rt. 29N to
Briarwood Drive and along the eastern side of the entire length of Briarwood
Drive, be recommended -to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
00,
June 5, 1984 Page 3
ZMA-84-13 Edward H. Bain, Jr. - (description previously stated)
Mr. Keeler explained that this petition was essentially the same as ZMA-83-12
for G. Benton Patterson, heard previously by the Commission, and since
staff could find no change in circumstance to warrant modification of the
previous staff report, said report was to serve as the staff report for
this petition also. (Note: ZMA-83-12 had been unanimously denied by the
Commission and withdrawn prior to Board review.)
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant was currently seeking a rezoning
for the Rock Store.itself and.the vacant garage building and this.causes
staff some problems in terms of maintaining industrial use on the mobile home
park. He further explained that the request was for HC though the property
does not fit the locational requirements for HC. Staff was suggesting that
Cl was more appropriate.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Benton Patterson, owner of the property, addressed the Commission.
He explained that the property.had been vacant for two years and this
was presenting a problem with insurance. He stated that his insurance
was about to expire and could not be renewed. He stated further
that the property was difficult to lease because of the current zoning.
Mr. Ed Bain, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
explained that the original petition had been withdrawn before Board
review because it was thought that a user had been found. However, that
use had been determined not to comply with the current zoning. He
stated the applicant feels there -a -re some additional uses in HC thatare
not in C1 that'are not heavy uses and would still be compatible
with the surrounding area. He explained that 20 to 25 persons have expressed
an interest in leasing the property but none have followed through because
the property did not qualify for their proposed use. He stressed this
request was for only .4 acre.(of a b;g acre parcel) and that no buildings
were being added. He felt that 90% of the uses in the HC zone would be
an improvement for this piece of property. He also asked the Commission
how important a site plan was for the "development of this last building."
Mr. Cogan pointed out that nothing had changed from the previous petition
which the Commission had unanimously denied.
Ms. Diehl agreed and added that her feelings about the request had not changed.
However, she stated she would be willing to consider a rezoning request to
C1 after a site plan had -been submitted.
Mr. Michel stated that though he was sympathetic to the applicant, he
was concerned because the request was for such a small part of the entire parcel
and also because of the problems with the intersection.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he could find no reason to change his previous recommenda-
tion for denial.
Mr. Cogan indicated he too was sympathetic to the applicant but he felt
there was not sufficient justification to rezone to HC at this time.
June 5, 1984
Page 4
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-84-13 for Edward H. Bain, Jr. be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
:Ir. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-84-14 Thomas D.Payne, Jr. - Request to -rezone 1.18 acres from Rural Areas
to R-1 Residential, Tax Map 62, part .of Parcel 89B, Rivanna District. Located
east side of Rt. 20N, ±3,000 feet north of its intersection with Rt. 769.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.. Staff recommended denial for thefollowing
reasons:
(1) The proposed zoning is in conflict with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan; - .
(2) To rezone the property would be spot --zoning and could set a precedent
for future rezonings in the area;
(3) Approval of the subdivision plat would require several additional
waivers/variances and 'the cost of Highway Department improvements to the
road and entrance could be prohibitive;
(4) Staff recommendation for denial is consistent with another recommendation
for a similar rezoning request (ZMA-83-17).
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Payne addressed the Commission. Be .gave a brief historyof the property
and stated he had become aware of problems when he had attempted to pay his
taxes. He stated he had done everything to comply with the ordinances.
Regarding the possibility of road improvements, he pointed out that the.Board
of Supervisors had granted a waiver for the road four or five years previously.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Lee Schultz addressed the Commission. He spoke in favor of the request
and felt it was not contrary to the actual use of property in the area.
He felt it should not be considered spot-zoningbecause other properties
have .a.similar problem. (Mr. Schultz was an adjacent property,.owner.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Payne (the. Deputy County Attorney), explained that this situation was,the
result of the deed having been recorded in error, which happens occasionally.
Mr. Skove stated he was sympathetic to the applicant's position, but he could
not support the request because of the possibility of setting a precedent.
Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed with Mr. Skove.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-84-14 for Thomas D. Payne be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
-Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
/90
June 5, 1984
Page 5
SP-84-29 Daniel J. Veliky - Request in accordance with Section 10.5 and
10.2.2.9 to locate a mobile home subdivision consisting of 14 lots on 31.48
acres zoned Rural Areas, Tax Map 103, Parcels 23C, 23D, Scottsville
District. Located west side of Rt. 795, #2 miles south of its intersection with
Rt. 620.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Regarding recommended condition 2 [Property to be developed using
internal roads. No lots to have direct access .to Route 795.], Mr. Keeler
stated he was uncertain as to whether or not this was topographically possible
and the Commission might wish to amend this condition slightly if they chose
to approve the request.
It was determined the number of lots proposed was uncertain at this time,
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Veliky addressed the Commission. His comments centered an the Highway
Department's concerns about transportation of mobile homes to the site. He
pointed out that there were already nine mobile homes in the area with some
being the largest that are made.
Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Michel expressed some concern about the Soil Scientist's
report that the soils in the area were not conducive to drainfields.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Judy Huffman, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
She was concerned about devaluation of property.
Ms. Joan. Graves addressed the Commission. She was concerned about the property
not being served by public utilities. She asked if each lot would have to
meet area requirements. Mr. Cogan replied affirmatively and pointed out that
this request is for a special permit and Health Department approval will be
required with the subdivision plat.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, made some brief comments
on the road issue. He stated this was not a good road and was not suited for
transportation of this type vehicle. However, he stated that it was possible
that a permit could be issued provided no major problems were encountered.
Mr. Skove stated he generally supported the request because he felt there was
need for this type of subdivision.
Mr. Keeler felt there was some confusion about the request. He explained
that this is not.a mobile home park but.a subdivision and is treated like
any other subdivision.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not vote for either a special permit.or a
�G�
June 5, 1984 Page b
subdivision based on the Soil Scientist's report.
Mr. Cogan felt the proposal was marginal at best.
mr. Gould felt that though the applicant was "at risk," he felt the Commission
could grant the special permit and then "if it doesn't fly, it doesn't fly."
Mr. Skove moved that SP-84-29 for Daniel S. Veliky be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
Staff recommends approval, subject to Planning Commission.approval of subdivision
plat showing the following, in addition to matters otherwise required by the
Subdivision Ordinance:
1. Only those areas for mobile home location and other improvements to be
cleared. All other areas to remain in a natural state.
2. Property to be developed using internal roads. No lots to have direct
access to Route 795 unless Planning Commission shall determine that
access onto internal roads is not topographically feasible.
3. Maintenance of seventy-five foot (75') tree buffer along Route 795.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed 5:1 with Ms. Diehl casting the
dissenting vote.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Recorded by: Stuart Richard
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 11-88
() Sohn Horne, Secretary
1A