Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 22 80 PC MinutesJanuary 22, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, January 22, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Members who were absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. David Bowerman. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mrs. Idette Kimsey, Planner. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 22, 1979 were approved as submitted. The minutes of October 1, 1979 were approved as submitted. The minutes of December 17, 1979 were approved with additional information. The minutes of January 8, 1980 were approved as submitted. JOSEPH ANCONA FINAL PLAT - located off the west side of Route 616, south of Boyd Tavern. Property described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 22 in the Rivanna District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report mentioning that Health Department approval and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance has already been received. Mr. Ancona had no comment to make. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Payne said that by way of comment this plat is going to have to be recorded in Fluvanna County also because of the easement. Mr. Ancona said the plat will be recorded in both counties. Mrs. Diehl established a condition should be made to that effect. Mr. Payne gave the wording for the condition. Mr. Vest moved for approval with the following two conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. County Attorney approval of the road maintenance agreement; b. Plat must be recorded in Fluvanna County as well as Albemarle County. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. Ia BUCK MOUNTAIN, Lots 1-4 FINAL PLAT - located on the South side of Route 671 3.5 miles north of Free Union. Property described as Tax Map 17, Parcel 26 in the White Hall District. Mr. Max Evans reported that the plat is essentially the same as the Planned Community Plan that was submitted. He said that other plats in the area have been submitted in the past and they too have followed the master plan. He said applicants have chosen to submit parcels as the land is sold rather than plat the entire acreage. He said rights -of -way are provided for future roads. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Diehl established with Mr. Evans that when the PUD was originally approved, a Soil Scientist's report was not required. Col. Washington asked where this plan fitted in with the proposed impoundment of Buck Mountain -for the reservoir. Mr. Evans answered that the impoundment is further down the mountain on the northeast side. Mr. McCann moved for approval with staff's recommendations as follows: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Virginia Department of highways and Transportation approval of the commercial and private entrance and road plans for State acceptance; C. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the joint entrance on Lots 1 and 2; d. Correct Route 677 to Route 667 on the vicinity map. Mr. Vest: seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. BUCK MOUNTAIN, Lots 22-30 SECTION C FINAL PLAT - Located on the north side of Route 667, east of Route 601, 2.25 miles north of Free Union. Property described as Tax Map 17, Parcel 26 in the White Hall District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Max Evans, on behalf of the applicants, said plans for public roads and private access had been reviewed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation prior to submittal. of the Planned Unit Development. There is sufficient land for construction on lots with steep slopes. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Col. Washington pointed out that Lot 27 has a stream and with a 100-foot setback, the area for building will fall on the 25% slopes. Mr. Evans said he didn't think so as there was enough land left for building and for a septic system. Mr. Skove asked if the Highway Department was going back to recommending 15-18 (frontage improvements). f3 Mr. Payne answered that they never stopped. Mr. Evans said he would like to discuss one of the conditions relating to the ***✓ plat not be signed until the Highway Department approved the road plans for State acceptance. He said his office has done some design work on the two roads in the platted area but not construction drawings and the applicants are not ready to build the roads in their entire length. 2M Col. Washington said it makes sense to him but he doesn't know how the Highway Department will feel about it and he will have to make his pitch to the Highway Department. Mr. Evans said he just wanted it clear and on the record that he can't bring working drawings to the staff on that entire stretch of road. He said it may be four or five years before the road will be constructed. Mrs. Diehl moved approval subject to the recommendations made by staff: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for State acceptance and private and commercial entrances; C. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for joint entrance. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. UPPER PAGEBROOK FARM, LOTS 1-10 FINAL PLAT - Located on the west side of Route 710, south of Route 708. Property described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 13D in the Samuel Miller District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, says Mr. McClung says he will go with 8 lots instead of 10 lots. This will allow him to take advantage of 3 existing joint entrances. He said the lots are ideal building lots. Mr. Davis asked why they would be considered ideal. Mr. Gale answered that little excavation is needed and they are wooded. Mr. Skove asked why an easement wouldn't be appropriate. Mr. Gale said an easement is not practical financially as there is not enough enhancement with internal roads. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Diehl said she is very familiar with the area and this is the first strip development to come to the area with such small lots and she is very distressed to see this happen as it is poor planning. Mr. Gale explained that Mr. McClung could have subdivided his land into 10 lots but was more than willing to keep the number down to 8 lots. He said Mr. McClung intends to keep the lots in his family). Mrs. Diehl asked why not build internal roads if the purpose is to develop but not to sell. Mr. Gale answered that Mr. McClung might have to sell the lots in the 11440 future and getting involved in construction of internal roads now would be impractical. Mr. Davis established that the entrances already there are not active at this time with the exception of the one the Highway Department uses for storage of pipe and gravel on the property. Mr. Skove pointed out that under the proposed Zoning Ordinance, only 6 lots would have been allowed. Mr. McCann stated he understands that this is a classic strip development but it does meet all the conditions of the ordinance and he moved for approval subject to the recommendations made by staff as follows: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the private entrance; C. County Attorney approval of joint entrances maintenance agreements. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Payne to what extent the County is required to recog- nize more than one entrance on a State maintained road per parcel. Mr. Payne answered that he infers from Mr. Lindstrom's question that he is referring to that body of law that says you are entitled to one entrance but not more than one. He went on to say that subdividing is controlled by the Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions in it. The County could fail to recognize the three entrances in regards to this particular plat but it wouldn't accomplish anything as in essence you would be requiring 8 entrances instead of 4. He said he assumed the Highway Department. had granted permits for the private entrances. Mr. Lindstrom explained that the reason he brought this up was because of the policy of trying to protect the corridor north of the South Rivanna River by using the Subdivision Ordinance and the body of law that says you are entitled to one entrance, and one entrance only if the County chooses to do so, in order to protect the corridor. Mr. Payne said the Highway Department has given the County evidence that indis- criminate entrances onto high-speed highways cause a problem but he doesn't think that evidence has come to light with regard to something like this. Mr. Skove stated he also thinks this application meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and sees no way to vote against it but he thinks amending the Subdivision Ordinance doesn't seem to be a way to solve the problem of internal roads and is more of a matter for the Zoning Ordinance, if at all. Mr. Payne said he feels the problem can be addressed but the Planning Commission will have to be a little circumspect when telling a property owner he doesn't have a right to enter onto a public road, to limit his access onto a public road. /6 Mr. Davis commented that it bothers him to have to approve this application. Mr. McCann said the Planning Commission can turn the application down, but a court will approve it. Mr. Davis said he can't support it. Mr. Vest stated he thinks the applicant has done what the Subdivision Ordinance requires him to do. Mr. Davis said he then retracts his remark and wishes to state that he finds it hard to support the application. The vote was 4-0-2 with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Davis abstaining. FOREST HILL ASSOCIATES (HUNTER'S HALL) SITE PLAN - Located on the west side of Hunter's Way and north of Route 250 East (lot 2 in the Hunter's Hall Subdivision). Property is described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 4 in the Rivanna District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Paul Sweet, on behalf of the applicant, reported the handicapped space is already in place. The applicant, who did not give his name, reported that he can't make the street developer put trees on his own property. He said his site has trees and he doesn't want to remove any. Mr. McCann said he has a problem with the County doing landscaping for everybody as it is left wide open when it should be done through the ordinance. He said he has heard other applicants complain about this. Mr. Payne said there is no problem with trees as the road will be a State road and he suspects the Highway Department will decide on the matter of trees. Mr. Skove said he would prefer to leave the matter of trees with the staff. Mr. McCann answered by saying their idea of reasonable might not be the same as everyone else's. Col. Washington said that four years ago when he first came to the Planning Commission, they spent a lot of time arguing about trees. They turned the problem over the the staff and now Mr. McCann is saying the staff is too vigorous. He says he hesitates to put the Commission back into business of arguing about trees and shrubs on each and every site plan. Mr. Payne said if the Commission is worried about it, he would suggest wording Condition "C" as follows: Staff approval of landscape plans including reasonable tree buffer to be established and/or retained on subject property adjacent to Hunter's Way. The applicant agreed with Mr. Payne's wording but said he is rubbed the wrong way about the whole idea. 16 Mrs. Diehl moved for approval subject to staff's recommendations and Mr. Payne's rewording of condition "c" as follows: 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Grading permit; b. County Engineer approval of the commercial entrance according to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards; C. Staff approval of landscape plan including reasonable tree buffer to be established and/or retained on subject property adjacent to Hunter's Way; d. Show one handicapped parking space on the site plan. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the vote was unanimous for approval. ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD VEHICULAR MAINTENANCE FACILITY SITE PLAN - Located on the south side of Route 657 (Lambs Road) west of Albemarle High School and Hydraulic Road. Property described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 78A in the Jack Jouett District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Blankenbaker, representing the County, commented that the conditions had already been looked into and most had been met. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of buffer is planned for the side that is next to his constituents along the road. Mr. Skip Holt, also representing the County, said that there is already a natural evergreen tree line along the road and where there are gaps, more evergreens will be planted. Mr. Lindstrom asked what is planned for the western portion of the big parking lot. Mr. Holt answered that since the school will be sitting so high, they will be looking over the tree tops anyway, so it is planned to just seed that area. Mr. Bill Atwood, also representing the County, said the area is for summer storage of school buses and not a parking lot as such. Mr. Skove asked if the parking lot was to be paved. Mr. Holt answered there will be three different types of treatment. Where there is the most activity, there will be asphalt. Lesser activity will be surface treated and the large parking lot where there will just be summer storage will be gravel because it is less expensive and reduces the runoff. The drainage will be into an impoundment so as not to increase the runoff into the reservoir district. Mr. Robinson, an adjacent property owner, said he hoped the Planning Commission would be consistent and allow a like use if he desires should they approve this use. Mr. Robinson explained that he and his wife owned property on both sides of the school property. He said he is not opposed to this application as long as the Commission is consistent. Mr. Lindstrom established with Mr. Payne that the maintenance facility is permitted in the A-1 zone. Mrs. Joan Graves asked if this facility would infringe on a cemetery in the area. Mr. Holt answered that they have had the land surveyed and no cemetery showed up on the survey. He said he is not aware of one being in the area. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Diehl asked if a slope analysis had been done. Mrs. Kimsey answered that the area had been checked for 25% or greater slopes and there were none. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the reason for siting the facility on the edge is because the interior is so steep. Mr. Holt answered that there would be less excavation and less clearing. Mrs. Diehl established that all the parking areas and the impoundment area will be surrounded by chain link fencing. Mr. Lindstrom stated that a 70-foot buffer doesn't seem like a significant buffer between this facility and someone's private property in a particularly sensitive zone like A-1. He wondered what the feasibility would be of shifting to some extent the location of that parking lot to the east. He said he knows it can't be shifted too far but perhaps another 70 feet to give a somewhat more substantial buffer on the west. Mr. Holt said the problem would be that the more the area is shifted, the closer you get to the ravine. Mr. Lindstrom said that although the zoning ordinance provides for this specifically, it is an unusual use in the A-1 zone and he believes it is a sensitive area inasmuch as it is partially developed residential now. He feels care should be taken because of this unusual use and the County has an obligation to be very careful with how it uses the position it has under the zoning ordinance. He said he hasn't had anyone complain about this site plan but he feels very few people know about this site plan. The Planning Commission discussed at some length the feasibility of changing the site plan to increase the buffer. Mr. McCann stated he feels that given the topography of the site, the best job that can be done has been done and he moved for approval with staff's recommendations and additional wording and additional condition as follows: 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Note on the site plan the total acreage; b. Runoff control permit; C. Grading permit; d. Fire Official approval of the hydrant pressure flow and permit for the underground fuel tank; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; f. Staff approval of landscape plan and buffer; g. County Engineer approval of the commercial entrance according to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards; I] h. Show handicapped parking space, if needed. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. Mr. Lindstrom said he will ask the Board of Supervisors to look at this. He said he would not approve this for a private developer. E. L. SI.PE FINAL PLAT located on the north side of Route 22 East near Cismont. Property described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 10E in the Rivanna District. A request to divide 5 lots with an average size of 2.2 acres. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting.) c Col. Washington established that the reason for the prior deferral was because no one attended the Site Review meeting for Mr. Sipe. Mr. Sipe had no comment to make. Col. Washington established that the applicant has already gotten the right-of- way from Mildred Mitchell. Mr. Payne established with Mr. Sipe that he would be agreeable to a 75-foot setback on Lot 2 from the access easement. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following 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 deed book reference for the easement crossing Mildred Mitchell; C. Grading permit (if needed); d. Note on plat Lot 1 enters on Sipe Road; e. 75-foot setback on Lot 2 from access easement and 75-foot setback on Lot 5 from Sipe Road. Mr. Sipe complained that there is a gully on Lot 5 which would necessitate his having to put in a septic pumping system at great expense and he feels a pumping system is unsatisfactory. Mrs. Diehl said that if there is a hardship, she will remove the last part of Condition "e". Mr. Vest stated that he would second the motion after establishing the second part of Condition "e" had been removed. The vote was unanimous for approval. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to repeal Section 2-6-2 of the Zoning Ordinance with Mr. McCann abstaining from the vote. 19 Old Business: M Mr. Payne discussed a case involving United Land Corporation of America. He informed the Commission that a ruling was made in favor of the County sustaining Judge Turk. The complaint was dismissed. He informed the Commission that copies of the ruling would be made available to them if they cared to have a copy. Col. Washington reminded the Commission members that Conflict of Interest statements are due. Mr. Skove asked the Commission for comments on asking for Health Department approval and Highway Department approval on site plans before the applications are presented to the Planning Commission. He said he supported this. The Commission discussed the problems of recommendations being made by members of the Site Review Committee and not knowing why they are made at times. Col. Washington pointed out that the Highway Department has had no representative to the Planning Commission meetings in over five months. Mr. Davis established that if the applicant has met all conditions before coming to the Planning Commission meeting, it would inhibit the Commission from asking that any changes be made. The meeting adjourned at 9:30. W. Tucker, Jr. - Secr t /;.