Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 18 80 PC MinutesMarch 18, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 1980, 7:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; fir. James Skove, Mr. David Bowerman. Members who were absent were: Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Col. William Washington, and Mr..Corwith Davis. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mrs. Idette Kimsey, Planner. Vice -Chairman Mrs. Norma Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 4, 1980 were approved after one correction. The minutes of March 11, 1980 were approved after one correction. SP-80-03 DEWEY L. HICKS Petition to the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 5.0 acres zoned A-1. Property is located approximately 3/4 mile northwest of Route 630 at Bingletown. County Tax Map 119, Parcel 50A(l), Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Eckel presented the staff report. The applicant had no comment. Mr. Skove asked where the home of the opposing property owner was located. Mr. Eckel said it was on a large wooded tract to the north of the proposed location. There was no further comment by the Commissioners. Public hearing closed. Mr. McCann moved for the approval of. the petition, subject to compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. Mrs. Diehl asked when the Board would hear the petition. Mr. Eckel said it would be heard by the Board the following evening. RICHARD COGAN FINAL PLAT Located on the south side of Route 250 west about 1 mile east of Ivy. Property is described as Tax Map 58 & 59, Parcel 12F and 91 in the Samuel Miller District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. There was no public comment. Closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl asked if the necessary area was available after set back. Mrs. Kimsey replied yes. 6 Mr. Vest moved for approval of the plat subject to staff recommendations: I. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: 1. Compliance with the private road provision, including: A. County Engineer approval of the road; and B. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement. 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance as stated in the V.D.H.&T. letter of March 12, 1980, including a right turn lane to be provided at such time as further division of intensification of use occurs. 3. Grading Permit. 4. Locate or bond the street sign for "Oak Knoll" Road at the entrance off of Route 250. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously for approval. NETTIE MARIE JONES FINAL PLAT Located off the west side of Route 601 east of Owensville; Property described as Tax Map 43, Parcel 18E in Samuel Miller District. Staff report was given by Mrs. Kimsey, Applicant had no comments, but stated that questions would be answered gladly. There was no public comment, and the hearing was closed to public discussion. Mr. Skove asked when a commercial entrance is required by the Highway Department. Mrs. Kimsey replied at 3 units or more. Mr. McCann moved for approval of the final plat subject to the recommendations of the staff: I. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: 1. Compliance with the private road provision, including: A. County Engineer approval of the road; and B. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement. 2. Health Department approval. 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entrance approval as stated in the Site Review letter of March 4, 1980. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. tr OFFICE FOR RUSTIC LIVING, INC. SITE PLANS Located off the north side of Rio Road West, on Greenfields Court. Property described as Tax Map 45H, Parcel 3 and 4 in Charlottesville District. Staff report presented by Mrs. Kimsey. Mr. Ivan Moyer of Rustic Living said he would be glad to answer any questions. Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission agreed to discuss the drainage when the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan. She noted that the drainage provisions appear sufficient. Mr. Skove said that there seemed to be no retention problem and that it shouldn't require drainage plans. Counsel for Rustic Living, Mr. Larry McIlwain, arrived. Mr. McIlwain said that Rustic Living had tried to address two issues in the site plans: the status of the road and the run off water. The plan had taken this into account, but it can not alleviate the entire problem. The plan called for location as far back toward the river as possible. The State should receive the road; Rustic Living has offered part of the property to the State to change the arc in the road. Mr. Skove asked why the rip -rap had originally been put in the conditions. Mrs. Kimsey said it was hoped that curb and guttering would take care of this. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Condition 4 be amended to read: Note on the Site Plan: The height of plants to be planted and the depth of gravel on the parking lot and driveway. Mrs. Diehl asked for clarification of alternatives for Highway Department approval. Mrs. Kimsey explained the Highway requirements reading from their recommendation. Mr. McCann said it seemed there were several alternatives. Mrs. Kimsey read the conditions again. The Commission discussed the recommended conditions of approval. Mrs. Diehl said the Planning Commission did speak of inclusion of the road into the State system. Technical direction is needed - the curve or arc needs to be moved in the other direction. Mr. McIlwain said the property on the other side would have to be condemned to do this. Twenty feet set back is provided on the site plan. Mrs. Diehl asked if the area across the road is developed. Mrs. Kimsey said no and indicated the zoning. The arc and radius of the road and what was on the other side was discussed. Mrs. Diehl said that the applicant has no jurisdiction on the radius of the road. IN Mr. Bowerman established that no one is responsible for the road at this time. Mr. McCann asked Mr. Payne if the Planning Commission can require all of this on roads dedicated to public use. Mr. Payne replied in the affirmative. Mr. Skove also asked Mr. Payne if the Commission could require the road to be brought into the State system. Mr. Payne said he didn't see why not. The new provision in the code says the adjoining property owners can be assessed. A person having a speculative interest and the adjoining property owners can get together and get the road fixed. Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission could attach this condition. Mr. Payne replied that if the Commission required anything less, the Board should be advised that the road should be abandoned. Mrs. Diehl asked if information was available on the amount to be done to bring this road into the State system. Mrs. Kimsey said there was not. Mr. Payne suggested that the subdivision plat be vacated as to this road. Mr. Vest inquired about the trailer park, if the road is abandoned. Mr. Payne said that the trailer park would need an easement, or they would be cut off. Mr. Vest then asked about the ownership of the mobile park: is it a one -person ownership, or does each person own his own lot. Mr. Skove replied that it was owned by one person. When it was rezoned, did the rest remain R-3. Mrs. Kimsey said that the rest remained R-2, zoned as business. Mr. McCann felt that the staff requirements were excessive for only two lots. He felt that the road should be upgraded to State standards and let it go at that. Mr. Bowerman inquired if this had been discussed with the other property owners on this road. Mr. Moyer said that other property owners had been contacted and they were not interested, it was not feasible. Mr. Bowerman said that it seemed difficult to make the applicant responsible for all the work on the road. Mr. Moyer said that Rustic Living was willing to patch the road, after all they are interested in getting traffic to their area. 1140) Mrs. Diehl suggested that it was time to reach a consensus of the Commission. The meeting was closed to public discussion. ;16 Mrs. Kimsey suggested an alternative plan for the road - County Engineer approval of the paved ditch across the frontage of the property, a commercial entrance at the site and pavement improvement of road to State standards (on that side of the road). Mr. Payne suggested a possible cul-de-sac into the property. He said that the ordinance says road dedicated to public and build to State approval. Private use is to County Engineer's standards. Mr. McCann made the motion that the Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: I. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: 1. County Engineer approval of the paved ditch across the frontage of the property; commercial entrance at the site; and pavement improve- ment in front of the property from the center line acceptable to State standards; and patch the present pot holes from the back of the property all the way to Rio Road. 2. Compliance with the Stormwater Dentention Ordinance. 3. Grading Permit. 4. Note on the Site Plan: The height of plants to be planted and the depth of gravel on the parking lot and driveway. 5. Fire official approval. 6. Health Department approval. 7. Note on the Site Plan: "Only those areas of parking, office building site, dentention pond and drainfield shall have tree disturbance." The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest. The vote for approval was 3-2, with Mr. Skove and Mr. Bowerman dissenting. MONTICELLO MEMORIAL GARDENS MAUSOLEUM SITE PLAN Located: Off the north side of Route 53 within Monticello Memorial Gardens. Property described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 33 in Rivanna District. Staff report was presented by Mrs. Idette Kimsey. Applicant was present to answer questions, but made no comment at this time. Mr. Mailloux, a nearby resident, said that his property looks at the back of the proposed building. He asked Mrs. Kimsey the distance from the existing building to the proposed site. Mrs. Kimsey said that it was 129 feet. Mr. Mailloux said that this made it about 129 feet from the back of his house, looking at the proposed building. Mrs. Kimsey said that Phase I is 129 feet; Phase III is only 66 feet. Mr. Mailloux said that he felt this was out of keeping with the historic nature of the neighborhood. 7/ Mr. Max Kennedy, an attorney representing Mr. Dettor said that Mr. Dettor opposed the proposed site plan and felt the building could be located elsewhere on the property. Mr. Greg McDonald, representing Michie's Tavern, opposed the site plan also. Mrs. Grace Mailloux said she was concerned about the historic nature of the area and felt this was just the initial step in the development. Mr. J. J. Bear, curator for Tonticello could be seen from Route 53. Mrs. Kimsey replied in the affirmitive. , asked if the proposed building Mr. Bear opposed the site plan and said he felt this was just a beginning of the commercialization of the area. Mr. Chuck Rhodes, representing Monticello Memorial Gardens, said this property was purchased last April. This Company has 84 cemeteries in a three state area. They always build something compatible to the area. He passed around photographs to the Commission of what the proposed building structures will look like. Mr. John Fowler, representing Mr. William T. Tedder asked if Mr. Rhodes could give a time schedule on the buildings that were proposed in the phases. 19 Mr. Rhodes said that Phase I would cost about three-quarters of a million dollars. He said he probably would never see Phase II and Phase III in his lifetime. Mrs. Diehl said that there then must be no proposed time schedule. Mr. Rhodes said no, there was not. Closed to public discussion. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Rhodes if there were indeed to be phases, or additions. Mr. Rhodes replied in the affirmitive. He also said that there will not be an increase in traffic into the cemetery. Mr. McCann asked the condition of the existing roads. Mrs. Kimsey said the roads were in good condition, but that they needed to have shoulders built to keep the cars that pulled off the road from disturbing the soil. Mr. Bowerman asked if any of the phases included a crematorium. Mr. Rhodes said he had an application for a crematorium, but did not think this pertinent to this meeting. The Commission discussed the conditions for approval. Mr. McCann asked if there were any objections to the Condition 1 on the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of sight distance and the necessary right-of-way from Michie's Tavern. Mr. Rhodes said they would object to changing the historic entrance to the cemetery. Mr. McCann objects to Condition 1 and says this worries him. ra" Mr. McCann moved for the approval of the Site Plan, with the elimination of Condition 1, but requiring all of the other staff recommendations: I. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: 2. Health Department approval. 3. Grading permit. 4. Show on the site plan, the septic location for the existing office building. 5. Staff approval of landscape plans. 6. County Engineer approval of existing internal roads. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission recognized the concern of the adjacent property owners, but that this site plan is within the ordinance. The vote for approval was unanimous. HUNTWOOD TOWNHOUSE - PHASE II - SITE PLAN Located off the north side of Barracks Road, just west of Georgetown Road. Property described as Tax Map 60A, Parcel 13 in the Charlottesville District. Mrs. Kimsey presented the Staff Report. requirements. Mr. Sinclair expressed his opposition to the 25% slopes He also objected to the requirement to build a sidewalk along Barracks Road. Mr. Robert Cooper, an adjacent property owner, noted that to move any of the apartments back would put this in his back yard. He also noted a bad erosion problem and the need for screening, which he feels should be put in the requirements. Mr. Payne noted that if these units were to be sold, they will need to have a subdivision plat approved. The 25% slope condition is in the ordinance. He also noted that the Phase I permit had expired and that the recreation area is a specific requirement. After Commission discussion, Mr. Skove made a motion to defer the site plan. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Mr. Payne noted that the applicant should be aware that a State road will be required for a subdivision. the concept of a The Commission discussed Aprivate or public road to the area. Mr. Sinclair asked what the requirements will be made when the site plan is re -submitted. Mrs. Diehl and the Commission suggested the following: Phase I road alignment and recreational facilities Specific location for the stormwater detention pond and the recreational facilities. Provide additional buffering for the neighborhood behind Units 9-18 7-3 Provide evidence to satisfaction of Planning Staff that units will not be located on slopes 25% or greater Commercial entrance with curb and gutter; and a 200 foot right turn lane and taper with curb and gutter along the turn lane portion the site plan Mr. Payne suggested that the Staff should bring back to the Commission when these conditions have been addressed by the applicant. The vote to defer was unanimous. Old Business Mrs. Kimsey showed a subdivision plat of Whitewood Road to show the Commission what was happening on this - Six is not to be built on yet; One, two &: three have been approved, having met all conditions. There was no new business. Mr. McCann made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. .91. Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec et:ar FE 19 74