Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 18 79 PC MinutesDecember 18, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, December 18, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Dr. James Moore. Commission members absent were Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; and Mr. Layton McCann. Also absent was Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Douglas Eckel, Planner; and Mrs. Idette Kimsey, Planner. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of October 22, 1979 were approved as submitted. Minutes of November 20, 1979 were approved as submitted. Minutes of December 3, 1979 were approved with correction. Minutes of December 4, 1979 were approved as submitted. Minutes of December 11, 1979 were approved as submitted. SP-79-64 - Mr. Douglas S. Thropp, Jr. - Request for a mobile home on 20 t acres zoned A-1, Agricultural. Tax Map 30, Parcel 4, approximately two miles east of Free Union on Route 665. Mr. Eckel presented the staff report mentioning that applicant has already applied for and received a setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for this location. Mr. Thropp explained that a zoning inspection was made on November 6, 1979. He said two parties with standing wrote the Planning Department to protest the application but one of the parties wrote a letter of withdrawal after coming to the property and the other withdrew but did not come to the property. All this occurred before Oct. 31st. Mrs. Anne Dixon, a neighbor, said she objects and pointed out that the property is on a scenic road and that mobile homes are not in keeping with the area. She said the applicant is asking for sacrifices on his behalf and that he already has one mobile home. She said there is a historical site nearby and she foresees more mobile homes coming if this one is approved. Mr. George Golden spoke saying he owns the adjoining land and he thinks a mobile home will damage his property's value. Mr. Lee Golden, another neighbor, agreed. Mr. Isaac Banks, another neighbor, said he owns nearby land and has no objec- tion. He pointed out he is the only one who can see the mobile home. " Mrs. Dixon said she could see the mobile home from her driveway. Mr. Houtz, another neighbor, said he withdrew his objection after talking with the applicant but that he has had a right-of-way for his property and that Mr. Thropp challenged this right-of-way and he how thinks nothing should be settled about the applicant's request until the right-of-way question is settled. Mrs. Graves asked if the permit for the existing mobile home is permanent or temporary. Mr. Thropp answered that in order to get housing for two families on the property, mobile homes was the only way he could go. He said this would be an unusual type agricultural operation inasmuch as they must live near the business. Mrs. Diehl asked if the mobile home application that is before the Commission tonight is a permanent tenant structure. Mr. Thropp said that one trailer will be moved and a temporary permit exting- uished. Mr. Payne commented that when Mr. Thropp's house is completed, one mobile home must be removed. Dr. Moore commented that he saw no significant changes pertaining to the right- of-way. Col. Washington stated that in his opinion the County does not have a firm basis to turn this request down. Mr. Huffman moved for approval with Staff's recommendation as follows: 1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Mrs. Graves stated she was afraid this will start a proliferation of mobile homes in this area. The vote was unanimous for approval. Mrs. Kimsey informed the Planning Commission that E. L. Sipe Final Plat has been deferred until January 22, 1980 since no representative came to the Site Review meeting. Mrs. -Kimsey also informed the Commission that Old Ivy Gardens Apartments Phase II, Revised Site Plan has been withdrawn as it meets the qualifications for administrative approval. HAMILTON HANEY FINAL PLAT - located on Route 606 near Piney Mountain. Proper- ty described as tax map 21, parcel 10 (pt. of) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Request to divide one lot with a size of 6.00 acres leaving a resi- due of 65.5 acres. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report noting that the Highway Department recommends frontage improvements. Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, said he had no comment to make at � �vC� this time. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Huffman asked if the business of recommending frontage improvements was going to be started up again by the Highway Department. Mr. Payne answered that the Highway Department can recommend frontage improve- ments but they cannot require them. dissenting. Mr. Vest moved for approval of the application with Staff's recommendations: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the private entrance. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the vote was 5 to 1 for approval with Mr. Huffman GILMER FINAL PLAT - located on the west side of Route 743 adjacent to the reservoir. Property described as tax map 45, parcel 31A (pt. of) in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. A request to divide one lot with a size of 5.08 acres leaving a residue of 5.82 acres. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Gilmer questioned the 75-foot setback and established with Mrs. Kimsey and Mr. Payne what it meant. He said he had no objection nor did he have any objection to a dedication along Route 743. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval subject to Staff's recommendations: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; b. Show a 75-foot setback line on the 5.08 acres parcel; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of dedication along Route 743. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Payne expressed doubt that the requirement for dedication would be more than 25 feet. Mr. Vest said he would like to require 25 feet definitely. #*Il✓ Mrs. Diehl said she would change her motion to read 25 feet dedication. OW Mrs. Graves withdrew her second. Mr. Vest seconded Mrs. Diehl's amended motion. The motion will read: "c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a 25-foot dedication along Route 743." The vote was 5 to 1 for approval with Mrs. Graves dissenting. LAKE HILLS FINAL PLAT - located on the east side of Route 743 adjacent to the Rivanna River. Property described as tax map 45, parcels 31U, 31V, 31T, 31M, and 31N in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. A request to redivide lots 2,3,8, and 10 creating an addition of two lots in the subdivision. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. James Gercke, the applicant, reported that he has a proposed revision of lot 8a and that he is sensitive to the shape of the lot and would like to gain access from Lockridge Lane. He said this is a division by right and that he had no inkling of opposition. He said he did not think this division is detrimental and that he has no desire to bring down property values since he owns eight more lots himself. Mr. David Dunroy reported he owns lot 6 and asked if the deed restrictions will still be met. He said the people who own lots in the area were under the impression that the restrictions would hold up and to approve the changing of the plat would be detrimental to the interest of the neighborhood. Mrs. Joan Palmer, another neighbor, said that everyone in the neighbor- hood has signed a _letter of opposition to this change. Mr. Benjamin Dick, attorney representing the neighbors, informed the Commission that there are private deed restrictions on some lots that perhaps Mr. Gercke and the Planning Department Staff did not know about. He said that it is possible that the narrow lots won't meet all the deed restrictions and that since lots 1, 9, 10 and 7 are subject to these restrictions, to approve lot 10's redivision would violate these restrictions. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Gercke said he didn't think the Planning Commission is being asked to review deed restrictions that he intended to comply with anyway and that he regretted this redivision being characterized as a "land grab." He said he feels this opposition is needless as he has always tried to comply with all conditions. Mrs. Graves asked if Milford Road is a private road and if it is restricted. Mr. Payne answered that Milford Road has been dedicated to public use but has not been built to public standards and therefore is restricted. Mr. Gercke said the road is under bond and that it has been built to State standards and is about to be accepted into the State system. Mrs. Graves stated she is concerned about this application inasmuch as 12 family units were to occupy 53 acres and now the Commission is being asked to approve something entirely different from the original intent. Mrs. Graves moved for denial. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if it was necessary to state the reason for denial. Mr. Payne answered yes, it is necessary. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Huffman moved for approval subject to staff's recommendations as follows: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Staff approval of plat revision showing the deletion of the pipe - stem on lot 8A; C. Show stream and the 100-foot setback on lot 8A. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if she is correct in assuming that the Planning Commission action has no effect on a court decision if this application should eventually go to court. Mr. Payne answered yes, she is correct. The vote was 4 to 2 for approval with Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Diehl dissenting. Col. Washington stated he was voting for approval but that he was in full sympathy with the existing property owners, however they were asking the Planning Commission to do something they needed to ask a court to do. HENRY HANSEN FINAL PLAT - located on the west side of Route 766 off of Route 614 West near White Hall. Property described as tax map 41, parcel 56C in the White Hall District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Benjamin Dick, attorney representing the applicant, reported the applicant thinks a commercial entrance is unreasonable. The present entrance has been there for 30 years. Mr. Dick showed the Commission some snapshots of the entrance and surrounding area. He pointed out that the major problem is that the road is unposted and could con- ceivably be assumed as having a speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Mr. Dick said the Sheriff's Department doesn't want to have to monitor the road so the Highway Department has not posted the speed at a lower rate. He feels his client is being very agreeable on all other requirements. Lastly, Mr. Dick said, the Commission needs to know that his client doesn't own the property where the Highway Department thinks a commercial entrance should be because it belongs to a private cemetery. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Diehl asked if the Highway Department won't post a road, could they furnish the Planning Commission with information concerning maximum safe speeds. Mr. Payne answered that as he understood it, sight distance is a function of the speed limit and the speed limit, if not posted, is 55 miles per hour in a rural area. a?��3 Mr. Huffman established that since 550 feet are required for sight distance on a road that is assumed to be limited to 55 miles per hour, then the applicant doesn't have adequate sight distance. Mrs. Diehl stated she is not willing to give up the commercial entrance approval per se but she would move for approval with the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entrance approval; Planning Commission suggests that sight distance be required consistent with maximum safe speed; C. Show stream and the 100-foot setback on the plat. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. McCANN FINAL PLAT - located on Westfield Road adjacent to the Oaklawn Trailer Court. Property described as tax map 61-W, parcel 1-C-1 (pt. of) in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Request to divide one lot with a size of 17,035 square feet leaving residue of 1.794 acres. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, commented that condition "a" in the staff report is addressed under Site Plan approval and is not necessary on a subdivision. (Pertaining to commercial entrance.) Mr. Payne commented that it doesn't make any difference because the property is zoned for business. He said there should be language on the plat addressing an ease- ment for joint entrance. Mr. Sinclair said he had no objection. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Huffman moved for approval, striking condition "a" pertaining to the commercial entrance, and subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Note on the plat the residue; b. Note on the plat reservation of easement for joint entrance with parcel to the north. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. McCANN DELIVERY SITE PLAN - located on Westfield Road adjacent to the Oaklawn Trailer Court. Property described as tax map 61-W, parcel 1-C-1 (pt. of) in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Request to locate a maintenance shop -office. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated he had no comment and no objections. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Diehl asked for comments from the Soil Scientist. Mrs. Kimsey said there were no comments. Mrs. Graves pointed out the location sketch was in error. Mr. Sinclair said an arrow was inadvertently left off. Mrs. Graves asked what was meant by "12-foot drainage easement" on the plat. Mr. Payne answered that it means someone can drain water off property using 12 feet of this particular property. Mr. Vest moved for approval with staff's recommendations as follows: 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Fire Official approval of the hydrant location; b. Grading Permit; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entrance approval; d. Landscape plan approved by the Planning Staff. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. CHARLES W. HURT, PANTOPS, FINAL PLAT - located on the north side of Route 250 East near the Odyssey Night Club. Property described as tax map 78, parcel 55D (pt. of) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Requested division of one lot with a size of 1.377 acres leaving a residue of 3.623 acres to be added to parcel 12. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report mentioning that the Highway Department recommended that access be from the existing 100-foot right-of-way. The Highway Depart- ment would address any design change of the entrance as site plans are developed. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, had no comment. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Huffman moved for approval subject to the following recommendation: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following condition is met: a. Health Department approval. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. - Discussion: Mrs. Graves suggested to the Commission that it has been the Commission's policy to recommend connection to the public sewer when it becomes available. Col. Washington asked Mr. Hill if he has an objections to such a condition. Mr. Hill answered that he had none. lv) Col. Washington asked Mr. Huffman and Mr. Vest if they had any objections and they answered they did not. The vote was unanimous for approval with the added condition as follows: b. Connection to sewer when it becomes available. CHARLES HURT, RIVERBEND, FINAL PLAT - located on Riverbend Drive at the junc- tion of Route 250 East and Route 20 North. Property described as tax map 78, parcel 17F1 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Request to divide one lot with a size of 1.00 acre leaving a residue of 1.00 acre which will be added to parcel 17F. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, said he had no comment to make other than the fact there is water already available to this lot but sewer pipes are not connected yet. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Graves moved for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Connection to sewer when available. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. PEYTON DRIVE FINAL PLAT - located on Peyton Drive off of Commonwealth Drive. Property described as tax map 61-W, parcel 4 and 5 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. A request to divide 6 lots with an average size of 11,114 square feet. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, said he feels it is fair to be asked to upgrade the road adjacent to their property but he doesn't think they should have to upgrade the road on other people's property. this. Col. Washington asked Mr. Payne if the Commission can make the applicant do Mr. Payne answered that yes, the Commission can require this for the Ordinance specifically provides for this. He said the Ordinance requires that any access road for a subdivision has to be built either to State standards or County standards if it is a private road. Mrs. Graves moved for approval subject to the conditions as recommended by staff: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer approval of Peyton Drive from Greenbrier Drive to Commonwealth Drive to be accepted and maintained in the State system; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer approval of sidewalks on Peyton Drive from Lots 1-6 tying at the proposed sidewalks at Commonwealth Drive from the Copperfields site; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer approval of entrances for Lots 1-6. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. HUNTINGTON VILLAGE PHASE III SITE PLAN - located on the north side of Old Ivy Road (Route 601). Property described as tax map 60, parcel 52 in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. A request to locate 64 rental units on 5.948 acres leaving a residue of 7.555 acres. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated the only problem he had was with Condition "E". He would like the first portion relating to the Highway Department omitted so that only County Engineer approval would be needed. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Diehl established that hydrants have already been approved by the Fire Official and she also established with Mr. Payne that fire walls, etc., will have to be approved by the building inspector. Mr. Huffman moved for approval, striking first part of Condition "E" and reading as follows: 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of drainage system; b. Grading Permit; C. Albemarle Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; d. Correct on the landscape plan reference of Route 754 to Route 601; e. County Engineer approval of sidewalks along Harvest Drive; f. Staff approval of landscape plans; g. Fire Official approval of fire lanes. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Graves asked how Mr. Sinclair proposed to speak to the 25% slopes. Mr. Sinclair answered that foundations will take care of the slopes and the Soil Erosion Ordinance will take care of what is left. The vote was unanimous for approval. XW Old Business: Whitewood Road, Lots 1-10 Final Plat Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report noting that the Planning Commission approved, on November 20, 1979, this application with conditions relating to the side- walks that were to be constructed. The applicant now wishes to construct the sidewalks out of the Virgin i a Department of Highways and Transportation's right-of-way and he wishes to put the sidewalks under a homeowner's agreement. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, pointed out on a plat what the applicant wishes to do. He mentioned that the Highway Department doesn't clear snow from sidewalks and that the homeowners have always had to clear their own sidewalks, so he feels sidewalks constructed and put under the care of the residents is the best answer. Mrs. Graves asked what the staff's opinion is on this request. Mrs. Kimsey answered that the staff feels the sidewalks should be left in the Highway Department right-of-way and not in the care of the rental units. Mr. Hill said since they have to have a homeowner's agreement anyway, they feel that sidewalks can be added to the agreement. Mr. Huffman stated he is in favor with the applicant's request and moved for reconsideration of the previous conditions relating to the sidewalks. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for reconsideration. Mr. Huffman moved to approve the applicant's request with the conditions to be worded as follows: 1. County Attorney approval of the homeowners' agreement with sidewalks included; 2. County Engineer approval of sidewalk design according to the sheet showing sidewalks out of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation right-of-way. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. National Bank and Trust/Pantops Site Plan (There was no staff comment on this request.) Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, explained that the applicant cannot get a permit from the Highway Department and therefore would like to go ahead and build the entrance according to Highway Department standards even though they can't get a permit. Mr. Payne reported he had talked with Mr. Hill earlier in the day and explained that the Highway Department would not issue a permit because the entrance is not on a State road inasmuch as the road has not been accepted into the State system. He said he feels that constructing the entrance according to State standards would accomplish what is necessary. Mr. Huffman moved for reconsideration of the condition requiring Highway Department approval of the entrance. NOW Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Col. Washington asked Mr. Payne to further explain why he believes the Commission could reconsider this request without incurring problems. Mr. Payne explained that the County should not be concerned that there is any difference because the road is bonded but that it makes a good deal of difference to the applicant. In order for the road to be brought into the State system, the entrances will have to be built to State standards. So it is only a matter of wording since the appli- cant can't get a permit from the Highway Department for the entrance at this time. Mrs. Graves said she would be willing to accept this on Site Plans that already have been before the Commission but not on any other lots. Mr. Sinclair, also representing the applicant, said that is all they are asking for. Mrs. Diehl moved for rewording Condition "B" of the National Bank and Trust/ Pantops Site Plan as follows: B. Commercial entrance to be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards plus one-way entrance only. 11:00 p.m. on Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. With no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission adjourned at FE 19 rn