Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198300048 Action Letter 2017-12-28APPROVED FILE FOUND: Bos LETTER MISSING 774 May 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to reconsider the vote. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board would consider a density of 10 units per acre instead of 15. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel it was appropriate to consider anything that is not formally before the Board. He asked the County Attorney for a clarification. Mr. St. John said there has been no case, nor any Attorney General's opinion, on the question. The Board is left with the language stated in the State Code and there is no prohibition against discussion of such a consideration. Mr. Dorrier said all of the discussion to this point has been concerned with density. He felt the Board should discuss the issue while it is before them to avoid the same discussion at some future date. Mr. Roudabush said he would like to suggest that the Board consider rezoning only Parcel 124D to R-3. Mr. Henley suggested that the applicant be questioned as to whether or not such action would be acceptable. Mr. Perkins said he would have to consult with his clients. Mr. Fisher said the motion has failed and the only question before the Board is whether to reconsider the vote. Mr. Roudabush suggested.rezoning only Parcel 124D and not the total acreage because there is a fairly substantial single-family residence on one of the other parcels that would probably be kept as a home. He did not feel it would be economically feasible to tear down this house and replace it with just a few dwellings. Parcel 124D does not front on Rio Road, so the character of the frontage on Rio Road probably would not be changed, therefore, there would be no significant changes in the character of the neighborhood. He said he feels this is a reasonable compromise and this zoning would act as a buffer. Mr. Henley again asked if the applicants were agreeable. Mr. Perkins said he had three issues to address. First, although there is considerable land in the area already zoned for R-3 (20 units per acre), the topography of the land would make it impractical to develop same at that density. Second, rezoning the Carter's land to R-3 would allow this property to act as a buffer to the B-1 on the adjoining property. Third, this rezoning request had been publicized by the press and by notices to the adjoining property owners, and there have been no objections. Mr. Roudabush said for the possibility of exploring the rezoning of only Parcel 124D, he would offer motion to reconsider the vote. Mr. Dorrier asked what access would be used for this parcel since it does not have frontage on Rio Road. Mr. Roudabush said since a road does not have to be. zoned, it could come through one of the other parcels. Mr. Dorrier then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he felt it makes less sense to rezone this parcel since It does not have frontage on Rio Road and he would not vote for the motion. Roll was called on the motion, to reconsider and same failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. At 9:10 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Perkins amendeddprofferdashis matter with follows: RezoneiParcelst124Cring the and 124Drecs. Th toe Rs3 andey delete Parcel 124B from the application, thus leaving the zoning on Parcel 124B as R-2. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney for an opinion on this amended proffer. Mr. St. John said the petition stands denied at this time. In order for the Board to formally consider the amended proffer, the Board would have to vote to reconsider the petition and then take the amendment. He felt that this is allowed under zoning statutes. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not care whether the Board reconsidered the question, but there were other applications on the agenda and he felt the Board should proceed with those items first. Mr. Roudabush and Dr. Iachetta also felt it would be appropriate to move this item to the end of the agenda. k4 rq,- Agenda Item No. 6. SP-79-08. Bennington Limited Partnership. To amend SP-78-22, in order to delete the pool and to use the main house as a child and/or adult day (and night) care facility. Property located west of the city line between Georggetown and Hydraulic Roads adjacent to Westgate and Solomon Court properties. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 1979.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "On June 14, 1978, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-78-22 for a total of 375 dwelling units. The following statement was in the accompanying staff report: "There is an existing residence on the site which is slated to be a clubhouse for the recreational facilities." In subsequent planning, a swimming pool was shown adjacent to the house. Since that time, the following has occurred: 1. The swimming pool and clubhouse in Westgate II will not be lost due to improvements to Hydraulic Road and therefore the applicant desires to delete the Mowinckel house as a clubhouse. 2. A day-care center desires to locate in the Mowinckel house either on the basis of lease or purchase. (While Bennington Limited Partnership is shown as the applicant in this petition, Sharon Jones would operate the day-care center.) 3. Bennington Limited Partnership (or Great Eastern Management) has indicated a possible revision to the overall plan at some future date. Given these circumstances, it may be easier to address the topics separately: a. Amendment of SP-78-22 with regard to recreational facilities; b. Establishment of the day-care facility. Recreational Facilities: Staff's initial concern was that adequate area and variety of recreational facilities remain for Barclay Place after the proposed amendment. The applicant has submitted a schedule of recreational facilities for Barclay Place and the adjoining Westgate and Solomon Court development. Staff opinion is that recreational facilities will be adequate in variety and more than adequate in area. May 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Day Care Center: Mrs. Jones, who would live in the dwelling, expects an initial enrollment of 45 children with an ultimate enrollment of about 90 children. The facility would be operated under state license. Access is being requested on a temporary basis through Westgate apartments with permanent access from Georgetown Road to be provided at a future date as the Mowinckel tract develops. Proposed hours of operation would be from 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. The dwelling is currently served by septic system and public water. In view of the population is this area, staff finds this an appropriate use and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the approved site plan of August 29, 1978. 2. County Engineering Department approval of adequate on -site and off -site drainage facilities. 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities and adequate dedication for a 60-foot right-of-way along Route 656 frontage, including increasing the pavement depth of the existing Bennington Road to satisfy Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications from Inglewood Drive to the end of the existing temporary turnaround. 4. This site is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided that if any units are to have access from Bennington Road, they shall be 34 in number, with lots 1 - 12 developed as single-family detached dwelling units; the remaining lots developed as single-family detached and two-family dwelling units with a maximum of seven two-family dwellings whose location shall be approved by the County Planning Staff. In the alternative, the area proposed for subdivision as shown on plat (dated 5/30/78 and initialled "RWT") may be developed in townhouses provided access is only through Georgetown Road. 5• At such time as access is established to Georgetown Road, permanent access for the day care center to Georgetown Road shall be provided. 6. a.) The staff shall approve temporary access, parking and play area for the day care center. (The following standards shall be used for the temporary plan: parking - 1 space/2 employees; 1 space/10 children enrolled; 2 spaces for the dwelling; play area - 75 square feet/child enrolled); b.) In the event of sale of property on which the day care facility is located, the County Attorney shall review written agreements insuring site plan:- cooperation. 7. The day care center shall be served by both public water and sewer to be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority. 8. Approval of the day care center by appropriate state and local agencies. Conditions stated are supplemepr ar and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude applicau°'oA" uirements and regulations by the Virginia Department of Welfare or any other agency. �- 9. Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. In the event of license expiration, suspension or revocation, the Zoning Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this special use permit. 10. Conditions 1, 6a, 7, 8, and 9 shall be met prior to the opening of the day care center. Mr. Tucker said on April 10, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the staff's conditions. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Tom Wagner, representing the 'applicant, was present and stated there were no objections to the conditions. It was previous thought that the Westgate Clubhouse would be lost by the Hydraulic Road improvements. However that has changed and there is not a need for another clubhouse. Mrs. Sharon Jones, the operator of the proposed day care center, said the building is adequate for a child care center and is in a good location. A need is evident for a facility of this type in the area. With,no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve SP-79-08 with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the follow] recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-79-09. F. Anthony Iachetta. Request for a Home Occupation - ilClass B - on 8.30 acres zoned A-1. Property on south side of Route 643, about 1.5 miles southeast of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 22A. Charlottesville District. i(Advertised in the Daily Progress, April 18 and April 25, 1979). Dr. Iachetta abstained from the discussion. Mr. Lindstrom also abstained since he had represented Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Tucker then read the following staff report: