Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 02 84 PC MinutesOctober 2, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 2, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Build- ing, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Develop- ment; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 11, 1984 and September 18, 1984 meetings were approved as written. Ms. Imhoff addressed the Commission and presented the Work Program for the Division of Community Development for the current fiscal year. Mr. Bowerman requested that Ms. Imhoff's notes be typed and distributed to the Commission. Mr. Keeler, in reference to the Rt. 29, Eastern By -Pass Study, stated that a map is currently being drawn showing the alignment of that road, and said map will be presented to the ppCommission within the next few weeks. Mointayne, stating a conflict of interests, left the meeting at this p. ZMA-84-21 MARGARET & MICHAEL VAN YAHRES, ET. AL. - Request to rezone four (4) parcels, totalling 2.741 acres, from LI, Light Industrial to R-4, Residential; and one (1) parcel of 0:3 acre from LI, Light Industrial to R-15, Residential with a proffer. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 21-B, parcel 21-A; Tax Map 77-A, parcel 78; Tax Map 77-A, parcel. 77; and Tax Map 78, parcel 21-C, respectively, is located on East Market Street (Woolen -Mills Road), adjacent to the Corporate City Limits, and west of the Rivanna River. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Ronald Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Lawrence, representing himself and the Van Yahres', addressed the Commission. He stated he was prepared to offer an additional proffer on behalf of all the property owners involved. He stated this proffer as follows: "Use of parcel 21B (Tax Map 78) for a duplex is contingent upon adequate off-street parking ." Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant would need to put this proffer in writing before it was presented to the Board of Supervisors. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. �3 October 2, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Cogan asked if the Commission could make a Zoning Map Amendment while the Board of Supervisors is in the -process of dealing with.a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Keeler replied that the Board had deferred action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until these zoning petitions had had a chance to catch up. Mr. Skove moved for approval of ZPIA-84-21 Margaret & Michael Van Yahres, et. al. with the following proffers: 1. Under the R15 zoning, the building on parcel 21C (Tax Map 78) will remain with three (3) apartments until adequate land can be acquired to provide the proper amount of off-street parking for four (4) apartments. 2. Use of parcel 21B (Tax Map 78) for a duplex is contingent upon adequate off-street parking. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 17, 1984. Mr. Payne re-entered the meeting. SP-84-58 DAKIEL D. SHIFFLETT - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(2.2) of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a country.store, gift shop with three (3) gasoline pumps, and a dwelling unit (Apartment) on 21.044 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 40, parcel 12, is located on the west side of Route 810, approximately 1,000 feet south of Route 811. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. James Donnelly gave the staff report. In addition, Mr. Donnelly read a letter from the Highway Department which stated that the existing entrance to this property, along Route 810, was.not acceptable, and that while it might be possible to meet the minimum sight distance requirements by relocating the entrance, this could necessitate obtaining a sight easement from adjacent property owners. The Highway Department recommended that a site plan be required. Mr. Daniel Shifflett, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated his feeling that his proposal would be a better use for the building than currently exists and that it was his plan to make the building fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he had been in contact with the Fire Marshal and was certain he could meet fire prevention requirements. He stated it would be difficult to meet the time limitations as recommended - by staff (Monday - Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.),'since he would need longer hours in order to be competitive with existing businesses. Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment. October 2, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Stewart Carwile, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission, and stated his opposition to, the proposal for the following reasons: (1) Inconsistency with the character of the surrounding area; (2) Inconsistency with the Village concept in the Comprehensive Plan; (3.) Lack of need for this type of business in this area; (4) Dangerous section of Route 810. He also stated he had a petition signed by six other property owners in the area stating their opposition to the proposal. Mr. Thomas W. Henley, a resident of the area, addressed the Commission, and stated he was in favor of the proposal. Mr. Arthur Baker, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission, and stated his opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: (1) Inconsistency with the character of the surrounding area; (2) Detrimental to the value of the surrounding property. Mr. Chris Rembold, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission, and stated his opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: (1) Inconsistency with the character of the surrounding area; (2) Concern over possibility of gas leakage into the reservoir; (3) Difficulty in creating sewer facilities since the building is located on the lowest part of the lot, making it necessary for the sewage to be pumped up to a drain field. Mr. shifflett, the applicant, presented a petition on which he had obtained 281 signatures of area residents demonstrating their approval of the proposal. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Keeler stated the speed limit along that section of highway was 55 mph. He added that the Highway Department had said that the parking area access would have to be installed on the north side (rather than on the south as currently exists) and this would necessitate obtaining a sight distance easement from an adjacent property owner. It was determined that the building was currently owned by Phillips Building Supply and was being used only for storage. Mr. Bowerman stated he did not feel the proposal was consistent with the character of the area and that it was not in compli- ance -with the Ordinance in terms of allowable square footage. Mr. Skove moved that SP-84-58 Daniel D. Shifflett be denied. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the proposed use was too intensive, but that she did feel the building should be used for something. Mr. Cogan stated that the building.'s proximity to the highway 6Y October 2, 1984. Page 4 created a serious hazard, pointing out that this road was heavily used by school buses. The motion to deny was approved with Messrs. Bowerman, Cogan, Wilkerson, Michel and Skove and Ms. Diehl voting in favor; and Mr. Gould voting against. SP-84-58 was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 17, 1984. SP-84-65 M. CLIFTON McCLURE, ET. AL., TRUSTEES - MECHUNK CREEK STABLES LAND TRUST - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a private ;goad to cross a stream with multiple culverts and associated landfill serving 10 large acreage tracts. Property, described as Tax Nap 81, parcel 11A, (part of), consists of 284.31 acres and is.located on the south side of Route 648, approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the C & O Railroad. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report. He added that comments from the County Engineer had been received and were as follows: Recommended approval subject toz (a) County Engineer approval of plans and computations for drainage structures and fills; and (b) Issuance of an erosion control permit. The county engineer's report had also noted: (1) The existing floodway and floodway fringe have not been determined for this area. Only the approx- imate floodlimits are known. The floodway and floodway-fringe will have to be determined; and (2) No increase in the flood height that would affect other properties will be allowed. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the. Commission. He stated the road is to be privately maintained and will serve ten (10) large acreage tracts. He stated that the normal width of the stream channel as this point (upper reaches of Mechunk Creek) is six (6) to eight (8) feet and that it is subject to flooding under 100-year conditions. He explained that the flooding is due to the fact that there is a high rise on one side of the stream and a very flat plain on the. other side, and the rise in the scream channel (a couple of feet) will flood some sixty (60) feet to the west. He stated the basis for the design of the culverts would be so that no increase in upstream flooding would occur. He stated that subdivision, road plans, etc. would have to be reviewed by the County Engineer. Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment. Mr. Neil Bell, owner of Foxhill Farm, east of the proposed area, addressed the Commission. He felt the proposal was "putting the cart before the horse" since the development of this particular area has been proposed twice, and the meetings have been cancelled. He was concerned that this was a tactic that was being employed. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 64�, October 2, 1984 Page 5 In answer to Mr. Bell'G concern, Mr. Keeler stated the subdivision plan as presented required a special use permit to cross a flood plain, and it is not the Planning Commission's policy to.take action on a proposal that requires prior action of the Board of Supervisors; therefore, based on planning staff action, the subdivision was deferred. Mr. Michel asked for clarification as to why this was before the Commission. Mr.Keeler responded this was due to the flood hazard involved in a stream crossing. He referred to Section 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Ordinance regarding the Flood Hazard Overlay District. He explained the new Ordinance operates under regular flood insurance (prior to 1980 it operated under an emergency program and only major rivers had flood plains mapped), and under the current program any stream that has a watershed of one (1) square mile or greater is mapped. Therefore, any crossing of any streams that are mapped requires a special use permit. He stated the Commission might wish to consider making a stream crossing where the stream has no public usage,a use -by -right subject to County Engineer approval. The Commission would then only deliberate those cases where a possible stream crossing could interfere with the public's use of the stream (i.e. canoeing, fishing, boating, etc.). Mr. Michel stated he would be very much in favor of that. It was noted that Mr. Cortez's recommendation regarding the capability of the road to support 15 tons of gross weight did refer to the road and not the bridge. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the bridge would have to Beet this recommendation also since it would have to support construction vehicles (i.e. concrete trucks, etc.). Mr. Wilkerson moved for approval of SP-84-65 M. Clifton McClure, et. al. subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. SP-84-65 was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 17, 1984. SP-84-66 SUZANNE J. STATON - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a culvert to cross a stream on 3.854 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 60, parcel 4b, part, is located on the east side of Route 601, approximately 3,000 feet south of Barracks Road_ Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Jack Jouette Magisterial District. 126-7 October 2, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that comments from the County Engineer have been received and are as follows: Recommended approval subject to: (a) The portions of the driveway and fill slopes that are subject to being overtopped by the 10-year storm are to be paved and stabilized to prevent washouts as approved by the County Engineer; and (b) County Engineer approval of revisions to the driveway profile, the culvert slope, and inlet and outlet erosion control protection. In response to iris. Diehl's question, fir. Keeler stated the original seven (7) acre tract had probably been approved sometime in the mid-170's and the division of this seven (7) acres had been approved administratively in August. Ms. Diehl stated her concern regarding the possibility of accelerated erosion resulting from entrances of these lots. Mr. Keeler said he did not think that had been a consideration when they were approved (eight or ten years ago). Mr. Jim Boyd, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that although the applicant had originally planned to use the Tenney entrance, it was determined that, due to sight distance problems, it was much safer to cross the stream. He added that Mr. Roudabush's office had designed the stream crossing and that Mr. Tenney has obtained an easement across Ms. Staton's site. He concluded by saying that no further crossings would be needed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that both parcels would use this crossing and that the current access would be permanently closed. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-66 Suzanne J. Staton be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in flood plain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and State Water Control Board; 3. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 17. .3`9 October 2, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Bowerman stated that the Work Session scheduled for October 11 had been cancelled and rescheduled as a part of the regular meeting on October 16. It was determined that the Commission would not meet on election day, November 6. Under NEW BUSINESS, Mr. Michel stated he felt Mr. Keeler's suggestion regarding administrative approval of stream crossings was a good one, provided the stream in question was not a public resource. Mr. Keeler stated if the Commission wished to do this, the streams that are "floatable" would be mapped. In relation to this, Mr. Bowerman commented that the Commission would need to be mindful of not creating future problems, i.e. as land is rezoned and use becomes more intense. Mr. Keeler recalled when working with the Corps of Engineers on developing the Flood Maps, up -stream development was anticipated. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Keeler stated there have been six or eight of these requests since the Ordinance was done. Mr. Keeler indicated he would look into the matter further. Mr. Michel stated concern in regard to how many areas exist in the county which are zoned LI or HI and do not have public utilities. Referring to the former UNOGEN proposal, he said he would not like to see the Commission put in that position again. Other Commissioners agreed that this was a concern. There being no additional business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. James R.- DorerL5,llyX Secretary DS