Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 10 89 PC MinutesJanuary 10, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 10, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Diehl and Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of December 20, 1988 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Atlantic Coast Athletic Club Final Site Plan - Proposal to add 5,675 square feet building to the existing recreational facilities. Three outdoor volley- ball courts are also proposed. Facilities are to be served by 99 parking spaces. Properties described as Tax Maps 61X1, Parcels 4, 4A and Tax Map 61X2, Parcels 4B, 4C and 4D are located in the Four Seasons PUD at the Clubhouse on the east side of Four Seasons Drive approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Four Seasons Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-88-109 Glenn M. Davis - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a double -wide mobile home to be located on property described as Tax Map 85, Parcel 41. The property is located on the northwest side of Rt. 635, approximately 1 mile southwest of the intersection ofRt. 636 and Rt. 635. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Davis addressed the Commission. Regarding the issue of possible pollution of the stream, Mr. Davis explained that the drainfield would not drain towards the stream. (Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Fritz if the existing septic field was outside the stream setback area. Mr. Fritz did not know the location of the field.) Mr. Bowerman pointed out to the applicant that it would be up to the Health Department to determine if the current drainfield was adequate and up to standard, or if it needed to be upgraded. Mr. Davis confirmed he would be the occupant of the mobile home. go January 10, 1989 Page 2 The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal: :sir. Richard Ryder; Richard and !Margaret Hrabe; Mr. and Pars. Daniel Huddy; and Mr. Shelton Root. Their reasons included: (1) De- valuation of property; (2) Aesthetic and environmental considerations; (3) Establishment of an undesirable precedent for this area. Mr. Ryder expressed interest in the style of the mobile home., i.e. age, type roof, type foundation, etc. Mr. Huddy expressed concern about difficulty in screening the unit because it was sited on a hill and existing vegetation was.not sufficiently high enough to provide acceptable screening. It was determined the mobile home would be new, have a peaked roof and be placed on a permanent foundation. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There was a brief discussion about the elevation of the mobile home site in relation to the road. Mr. Fritz estimated the elevation difference to be roughly 80 feet with the mobile home sitting above the road. )tr. Fritz stated that existing pines would provide some screening but . plantings near the mobile home could be required for additional screening. '_sir. Bowerman envisioned that a requirement for additional screening would be handled at the time of the issuance of the permit. Mr. Bowerman felt that if the unit could be seen through the existing trees, then this could be addressed with screening around the mobile home at ground level with fuller evergreens. Based on the applicant's representation that the mobile home.would be placed on a permanent foundation, it was determined that condition No. 3 would be changed to read: • mobile home shall be sited on a permanent foundation. (Note: This was further amended later in the meeting to read: Mobile home shall be sited on a permanent continuous foundation.) Mr. Stark asked if condition No. 5 was sufficient to address the Commission's concerns about screening. Mr. Bowerman replied: "I think it is in terms of the minutes of this meeting and our desire that something in addition be planted if it's in clear view." Mr. Bowerman felt the condition was consistent with other like requests. til . Stark moved that SP-88-109 for Glenn M. Davis be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (1) Albemarle County Building Official approval. (2) Conformance to all area, bulk or other applicable requirements for district in which it is located. (3) Mobile home to be sited on a permanent continuous foundation. (4) Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local ,�pS January 10, 1989 Page 3 office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations. (5) Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. (6) Mobile home is to be located as shown on the attached plat. (7) Mobile home is not to be rented. (8) Mobile home permit is issued for use by the applicant only. (Note: After the motion was made it was decided the word "reasonable" would be removed from condition 4 and 5.) Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Mr. Keeler clarified the Commission's intent in relation to No. 5 as follows: "I assume it is the Commission's intent that once the mobile home is located on the site and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the Zoning staff .will attempt to view the mobile home from the public road and determine if additional screening is necessary." Mr. Bowerman affirmed this was correct. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Keene Transfer Station - 'Discussion of location, character, and extent of a solid waste transfer station to be located in the Keene area. The County Engineer was requesting a determination by the Commission that the transfer facility is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, presented a lengthy description and background information on the proposal, including a slide presentation. Mr. Moring stressed that the site will be attractively screened and will not be visible to neighbors. He explained it would be a small facility meant to accommodate persons who must haul their own refuse. He pointed out that the existing site had not been considered because of the expense involved in upgrading the road, which would essentially double the cost of the project. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Doug Wayne, owner of property opposite the proposed site, addressed the Commission. He felt Mr. Moring's slides had not accurately represented the area surrounding the site because they had shown only unattractive or undeveloped property and had omitted homes in the area. He stated that surrounding property owners had not been notified of the proposal. Mr. Wayne was very strongly opposed to the proposed site. He expressed concern about devaluation of property and felt there were other sites available which would be less objectionable to surrounding properties. 59 January 10, 1989 Page 4 Mir. Paul. Coleman addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal.. He, too, expressed concern about lack of notification to surrounding landowners. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the issue of notification, Mir. Cilimberg explained that there are not formal requirements for notification when a site is being reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan though "bordering" property owners had been notified in this case. Mr. Keeler added that the. Code of Virginia states that the Commission "may" and, at the direction of the Board, "shall" hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 15.1-431, which is.the same type of notice provided for rezonings and special permits. Mir. Rittenhouse, who had served on the Site Selection Committee, made additional comments. He explained that the Committee had had the interests of both the County and "that region" in mind. He stressed that this was not a landfill.but rather a "transfer" station which'is tangibly different. He stated that the facility he had visited in Powhatan County (which is the model for this site) had had no.apparent odor, insects or rodents. He felt that with the landscaping envisioned by the County the site would be completely non -visible to surrounding properties and from the road. He stressed that he was sympathetic to neighbors' concerns and it was difficult to allay those fears, but he felt they would be "pleasantly surprised." He pointed out that because this is the first of what will eventually be several such facilities in the County extra care will be taken to assure that this one is especially acceptable. He pointed out that the site is not actually in a residential area, but rather in a rural area adjacent to commercial -like development (post office). He felt the facility would not.be any more obtrusive than the post office. Regarding the issue of acquisition of the property, Mir. Stark asked how the fact that the owners of the property do not wish to sell it effects the County's position. Mir. Bowerman added to this and asked: "In the event that the County is unable to reach satisfactory* conclusion of the purchase of the property and a different site is selected, say within a mile of this location, does it require this review again? Is this review site specific?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think considering the nature of the facility that we would consider it site specific and bring another site to you." Mr. Bowling indicated he was not aware of any agreement related to the purchase of theproperty. between the County and the owners. . Mr. Bowerman stated that, for the sake of this review, it would be assumed that the property is obtainable. It was determined that the finding of compliance or non-compliance with the Plan rests solely with the Commission. 2a7 January 10, 1989 Page 5 There was some discussion about the owners' willingness to sell the property. Mr. Moring stated he had just become aware that the owners were not willing to sell. Mr. Wayne, a member of the public, asked what the "compelling reason" was to continue with this site proposal if it was going to involve litigation. He felt this was senseless. Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed and explained that though there was no "compelling reason" to put it adjacent to any particular property owner, any site selected might draw a similar response from any landowner. He stressed that the site selection process had been conducted with some sensitivity and it is not considered a garbage facility. It was determined a site plan would be required. Mr. Rittenhouse moved that the proposed site, near Rt. 20 south, for the Keene Transfer Station be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked if the public objections would be made apart of the motion. Mr. Bowerman explained that the objections would be a part of the public record and the public had the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the Board if so desired. Mr. Bowerman stated that though he understood the public's objections there would be no place in the County where the facility could be located where it would not produce like objections from some property owner. He stressed that the effects of the project would be significantly mitigated by proposed screening and landscaping. Mr. Bowerman concluded: "As sorry as I am for Mr. Wayne in the event that it does get located there, I think it is the appropriate location." Mr. Stark questioned whether this would be the final.site given the potential problems with obtaining the property. The motion to find the site in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS There was a brief discussion about the Board of Zoning Appeal decision to disapprove a request by Greater Eastern Management to reduce the parking setback for the Blue Ridge Shopping Center. Mr. Keeler explained that this was scheduled for Commission review January 17. There was some discussion about the procedural process, i.e. which should come first, the BZA hearing or the Commission hearing? Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the issue in question was the exception rather than the rule. There being no further business, the meet adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 1 4L_,, John Horne, Secretary DS