Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 18 84 PC MinutesDecember 18, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, December 18, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. James Skove. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the December 4, 1984 meeting were approved as written. SP-84-79 Charles W. Hurt - Request to locate a double wide mobile home on 3.0 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 115, is located on the west side of Route 784, ±0.3 mile south of its intersection with Route 640. (Near Stony Point). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Hill, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hill presented photographs showing the type of mobile home proposed and stated it would have a brick facade and a permanent foundation. He stressed that a double -wide unit was proposed in an effort to be more consistent with the other subdivision homes. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Harold Brindley, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated his opposition to the proposal because the proposed mobile home would be in sicht of his home and because he felt it would not fit in with the other homes in the sub- division. He also expressed concern that the unit would be a rental property. He indicated if the home was owner occupied and on a permanent foundation, he would be less opposed. Mr. Felix Bodroza, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the proposal and was particularly disturbed because he had been told by the Zoning Administrator in 1980 (Mr. Dick) that he could not locate even a temporary mobile home on his lot while he was build- ing his home. He also questioned when the zoning had been changed from RS-1 to RA. December 18, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Bodroza also asked what the large pipes were that appeared in the photographs. Mr. Don Rudischhauser, representing Ms. Barbara Bell, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated Ms. Bell was opposed to the mobile home because she felt it would be a detriment to the neighborhood and also because her home would be looking directly at the back of the unit. Mr. Brindley once again addressed the Commission and stated seven of the eight residents of the subdivision had expressed opposition to the proposal. He had not been able to reach the eighth resident. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Keeler explained that prior to December 10, 1980 the property had been zoned RS-1 under the old zoning map. He further explained that the Commission and the Board had held public hearings and work sessions over a period of two years on the zoning ordinance and zoning map, and before the final public hearing was held notice had been sent to all county property owners. After that hearing in December, 1982, a new map was adopted and this subdivision was changed from RS-1 to RA. He confirmed that under the RS-1 zoning mobile homes had not been permitted. (RS-1: Rural Suburban) Mr. Keeler confirmed the other subdivision homes were set back farther than the proposed mobile home and the lots were wooded. Mr. Keeler also stated there were no other mobile homes in the subdivision and, to his knowledge, there were none on Rt. 784. Mr. Keeler also stated the double -wide unit would be smaller than the existing homes. In answer to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Hill confirmed the unit was to be owner occupied. In answer to Mr. Bodroza's question about the pipe shown in the photographs, Mr. Hill stated the pipe was to replace a smaller pipe that exists in a stream, and he explained that the pipe would be shortened so that it would only be installed on the applicant's lot. Mr. Bowerman determined the intention was to make the road over a gulley, using the culvert pipe. Mr. Bowerman indicated he shared the concerns of the residents of the subdivision. Ms. Diehl indicated she was hesitant to place a mobile home in an established subdivision with small lots, though she recognized the fact that a double -wide was somewhat different than a single -wide unit. Mr. Keeler agreed that he could not recall a mobile home having been approved in a subdivision of this size before. Mr. Michel indicated he shared Ms. Diehl's concerns. December 18, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Cogan stated he could appreciate the trouble and expense the residents of the subdivision had gone through in putting two lots together in an effort to create a pleasing, established neighborhood. Mr. Cogan also expressed concern that if this was approved, similar requests would follow. He also indicated he understood and appreciated what the applicant was trying to do in making the unit fit in with the surroundings as much as possible, but he felt the scales were tipped slightly against the proposal. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-84-79 for Charles W. Hurt be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, December 19. Robert Walker RPN-Lot 14, Phase I, Final Plat - located on the north side of proposed private road Arrowhead Drive, off the east side of Route 743, ±0.5 mile north of its intersection with Route 676. Proposal to create one lot of 1.384 acres, in accordance with ZMA-80-17. Tax Map 45, Parcel 31. Zoned Planned Residential Development, P.R.D. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She confirmed that all that is being dealt with at this time is one lot of an approved RPN. She also confirmed staff's concern regarding the building of the road at this time might cause future problems which could entail re -alignment of the road or restructuring of some of the lots, but the applicant would be bound with this configuration. Mr. Walker, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the turn lane required by the Highway Department, Mr. Walker stated a great deal of dirt would have to be moved to provide for this lane, and he offered to donate the dirt to the County. He stated the land had been subdivided as a matter of estate planning. He indicated his only desire was to build one house on the land at this time and stated he had no further plans for the property in the immediate future. Mr. Jeff Echols, representing Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, addressed the Commission and asked for clarification as to whether a private or commercial entrance was proposed. The applicant indicated it was up to the Highway Department. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined staff understood the road would be built to its ultimate design, i.e. a commercial entrance. December 18, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Payne entered the meeting at 8:15. Ms. Cooke requested clarification from Mr. Walker as to her role in this matter, referring to Mr. Walker's earlier statement. Regarding the severe curve on this section of Rt. 743, Mr. Echols stated there are no current plans to straighten this curve. He confirmed there would be additional expense in such a project beyond the purchase of the necessary fill dirt, though the dirt would be a significant item. Referring to the offer of the fill dirt from Mr. Walker, Mr. Echols stated it would be a while before the dirt would be needed. Mr. Keeler pointed out that Mr. Foster has attempted to dedicate the right-of-way in excess of what is required and this would seem to indicate that he envisions a re -location of the road as has been discussed. In an attempt to answer Ms. Cooke's earlier request for clarification, Mr. Walker stated he had been told by the Highway Department that nothing could be done (referring to straightening the curve and using the fill dirt) without it first being reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and the area was in Ms. Cooke's district. Mr. Bowerman, stating he felt there was a real benefit to be de- rived from Mr. Walker's offer of the fill dirt, suggested it would be desirable to try to work this out in such a way as to take full advantage of this offer. Mr. Walker indicated he would have no objection to a deferral until such a time as Mr. Foster is available to work with staff and the Highway Department further. He explained that he would like to be able to record the road and turn lane plans as approved, but he emphasized he has no intention to divide the property. His main concern was that the property be dealt with in such a way that, by trust or by will, it could pass to his heirs equally and simply. Mr. Cogan stated that even though this would in effect be a driveway built to road specifications, it was only serving one lot, and he felt it would be sufficient to state that no further division would be permitted until the Highway Department had clarified the entrance requirements. He added that since Mr. Walker had indicated he had no immediate plans to divide the property, there would be sufficient time for the matter to be worked out. Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in favor of deferring the matter. It was determined a second public hearing would be required if the matter were deferred. Mr. Walker stated this would seem to be re -tracing the steps that have already been taken. Mr. Walker asked if the matter could be approved pending resolution 4000 of the turn lane question. i /7/l December 18, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Keeler stated he did not feel any additional language was needed for approval since the plat being reviewed at this time was for one lot and any further subdivision would have to be reviewed by the Commission in any case. Mr. Cogan stated he felt a condition should be added which would say that no further subdivision would be permitted without Highway Department approval of commercial entrance. Mr. Keeler offered an alternative condition which would state that not more than one dwelling shall be constructed on the residue acreage without Planning Commission approval. Ms. Diehl, referring to the request for administrative approval of the rest of the lots, stated she felt that this would need to be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Cogan indicated agreement. It was determined that the alternative condition as stated by Mr. Keeler was to be placed on the plat. Mr. Cogan moved that the Robert Walker RPN - Lot 14, Phase I, Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions with the understanding that further subdivision may not be administratively approved, but must be approved by the Planning Commission: 1. The final plat can be signed when the following condi- tions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans. b. Issuance of erosion control permit. c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance. d. Compliance with ZMA-80-17. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of roads, open space, drainage and appurtenant structures, and with special attention given to protection of the natural buffer on the Rivanna Reservoir. e. only those areas where structures, roads, utilities, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed, all other land shall remain in its natural state. f. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot prior to final approval. g. County Engineer approval of private road plans prior to final approval. h. No buildings or septic fields shall be located on 25% or greater slopes. i. Note on Plat: Not more than one dwelling unit shall be constructed on the residue acreage without Planning Commission approval. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. December 18, 1984 Page 6 ICFA Office Building Site Plan - Located south of Route 250 West at Ednam Forest. Proposal to locate 15,400 square foot pro- fessional office building on 1 acre. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Tax Map 59D(2), part of parcel 01-17. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. It was determined that originally a 200' turn lane and 200' taper lane had been approved but the applicant had requested a reduction of those requirements and they had been reduced to a total of 200' for both the turn and the taper. It was determined the improvements to the turn and taper lane were tied to the building permit and Mr. Keeler stated he did not believe the building permit has yet been issued, though a lot of site work has been done. Mr. Charles Ancona, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He presented a drawing showing the turn and taper land to be 200' + 200' as originally recommended by the Highway Department, though after working with the Highway Department, the location of the lane has been changed. He explained it was within the right-of-way currently owned by the Highway Department, but is on the opposite side of the road. He stated there had been problems with grade and ownership on the _ applicant's side of Rt. 250. Regarding staff's concern that future expansion of Rt. 250 would cause problems with the parking lot, he stated his engineer did not feel there would be a problem since the location of the building is eight feet different than what it was originally shown to be, there having been an error in the location of the building on the original drawing. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Echols confirmed he had discussed the change in the location of the turn and taper lane and he indicated what was proposed seemed acceptable, though it would have to be reviewed for compliance with Highway Department standards. Mr. Keeler confirmed the site plan being reviewed at this time did not reflect the re -siting of the building. He said this plan had not yet been submitted to staff. A representative of the applicant stated the 8 or 9 foot difference would make very little difference on the plan because of the small scale. Mr. Payne indicated there is a precedent for requiring an amended plan showing compliance with the conditions, and that it is important that this be done. VOO / rT December 18, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Bowerman, referring to the fact that this is a scenic highway, asked if any consideration had been given to moving the building closer to the lake, thereby moving it back from the highway. The applicant responded that surrounding property owners had requested that the building be placed in this position in order to keep the road in alignment with the existing road that leads from Ednam Drive to the lake. He further explained that moving the building to allow parking behind the building, without having sought a variance, would place it in the middle of the green area. This would also interfere with the underground utilities that are already in place. It was determined the normal set -back for parking along a scenic highway is 50 feet, and a 35 foot variance had been granted in this case. It was pointed out this was 35 feet from the reserved right- of-way. Referring to the variance, Mr. Michel expressed concern that the Board of Zoning Appeals may be setting a precedent for granting variances on scenic highways. Mr. Payne stated the Board of Zoning Appeals have historically been liberal in granting variances on scenic highways. Mr. Michel stated he felt there w-m some grounds for a variance in this case because of the topography. Mr. Payne stated he could not recall a variance ever having been denied on a scenic highway. Ms. Diehl stated it was her understanding that the granting of a variance was based on hardship. Mr. Payne confirmed that this was so. Mr. Keeler stated the Zoning Administrator had recommended denial of the variance since he did not feel a hardship existed. Mr. Payne explained that regardless of what the grounds may have been, the variance has been granted and it is final. He further explained that the Commission had no choice but to recognize the variance, but that it could require additional screening. It was determined the building was not facing the scenic highway and the parking would be behind the building. Mr. Keeler expressed concern regarding the shifting of the building in relation to retaining adequate sight distance. He stated if the Commission approves the plan, he felt it should be subject to County Engineer approval. i­/':2, December 18, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Bowerman, referring to the amount of time involved in the approval process, stated that everyone would benefit if the plans are as accurate as possible when first submitted for review. Mr. Cogan stated that if the Commission approves the plan, a condition should be added stating that an amended plan would have to be filed showing the 8 foot shift to the south and that any traffic flow or other facility affected by this shift would have to be approved by the County Engineer. It was determined the added condition of approval would read as follows: Planning Staff and County Engineer approval of amended plan showing improvements shifted to reflect 15 foot separation from reserved right-of-way from U.S. Rt. 250, and County Engineer approval of any traffic flow or facility affected by any change or movement in the site plan. Mr. Cogan moved that the ICFA Office Building Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met. a. County Engineer approval of storm sewer plans and com- putations from the lake to the upper end of the existing storm sewer to which it connects. b. Issuance of erosion control permit. C. Show pipe connecting to drop inlets between building. d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance and accessment of parking lot proximity to reserved right-of-way. e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan. f. Service Authority approval of water and sewer connections. g. Fire official approval of fireflow and hydrant location. h. Planning staff and County Engineer approval of amended plan showing improvements shifted to reflect 15-foot seperation from reserved right-of-way from U.S. Rt. 250, and County Engineer approval of any traffic flow or facility affected by any change or movement in the site plan. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire official final approval of fireflow. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved with Messrs. Cogan, Bowerman and Michel voting in favor, and Ms. Diehl voting against. It was determined that approval of the taper and turn lane was included in condition d. Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the motion because she felt the development was not consistent with the Scenic Highway. The meeting recessed at 9:07; reconvened at 9:20. December 18, 1984 Page 9 Goodyear & Floor Fashions Site Plan - Located on east side of Route 29 North, between Woodbrook Shopping Center and Green Gardens. Proposal to locate two buildings totaling 23,630 square feet for a Goodyear Tire and Auto Service Center and Floor Fashions of Virginia retail sales and warehouse on a 3.45 acre site. Tax Map 45, Parcel 104A. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Blake Hurt, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He asked if staff condition d--Issuance of an erosion control permit for this site and Green Gardens-- required a permit for Green Gardens also. Mr. Elrod explained the latest plan was different than the one his comments were based on and he felt it would be possible, with the new plan, to issue one permit for this site. Mr. Hurt continued and stated the applicant was opposed to the Highway Department's request that curb and gutter be installed all the way to Green Gardens for two reasons: (1) Expense. The applicant felt this would be of no value and did not feel he should be required to improve the neighbor's property in addition to his own; and (2) The applicant did not feel the Highway Department had given sufficient justification for this requirement. He stated he did not feel the Highway Department was certain as to what type of problem may or may not exist, and the applicant objected to having to correct a problem that may not exist. Regarding the drainage easement on lot 10, he stated the plan had been altered at the request of the County and the slope of the bank had been moved back. Since no adjacent property will be disturbed by this change, the applicant did not feel it was necessary to show this on the plan. He strongly requested that the Commission approve the plan at this time so as not to cause further delays. Referring to the fact that the applicant is running out of both time and money, Mr. Hurt asked that the Commission grant staff the authority for administrative approval of any minor modifications to this plan. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Don Wagner, speaking in favor of the application, requested that the Commission approve the plan subject to the County Engineer's approval. Ms. Catherine Womack, attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Commission and strongly urged that the Commission grant approval of the plan at this time since the option to purchase the property expires at the end of the year. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked for comment from the Highway Department,, partic- ularly in regard to full frontage improvements, including off -site improvements. f '71, December 18, 1984 Page 10 Mr. Echols explained that he had recommended tying in with Green Gardens, mainly in keeping with the recommendations for the Rt. 29 corridor study, but it was not required. He further explained that the regrading shown by the applicant will actually decrease water on Rt. 29, but since there will eventually be some sort of storm sewer system along Rt. 29, it would be more con- venient for the applicant to construct this now and avoid having to tear up the entrance at a later time. Mr. Keeler clarified will tie in with the the deceleration lan, lane. Thus the only and gutter southward the Commission could specifically occasio that the third lane that is shown on the plan acceleration lane for Green Gardens and a for Woodbrook, making a continuous third matter at issue is the extension of the curb to tie into Green Gardens. He stated he felt require this curb and gutter if it was ned by this development. The Chairman asked for comments from the County Engineer. Mr. Elrod addressed the Commission. Regarding the applicant's proposal to construct a channel rather than a pipe for drainage, he stated he has not finished reviewing the proposal and could not give final approval at this time, but he indicated he felt the matter could be taken care of, one way or another. He stated he would not approve any major changes without review by the Com- mission. It was determined he was recommending approval of the site plan subject to his approval of the final design. It was determined staff was satisfied with the proposed landscaping plans. It was determined that condition f--Issuance of permit for grading and/or trimming trees within Highway right-of-way, if deemed nec- essary --was not necessary since this was a Highway Department requirement anyway. It was determined condition d, as previously stated, would remain since Mr. Elrod had indicated this could all be done under one permit. Mr. Michel moved that the Goodyear & Floor Fashions Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions and with the understanding that condition e would not include curb and gutter beyond the site: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following con- ditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval putations; b. County Engineer approval plans and computations; C. County Engineer approval and computations; of drainage plans and com- of stormwater detention of retaining wall design i 7f.� December 18, 1984 Page 11 d. Issuance of an erosion control permit for this site and Greene Gardens; e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance and frontage improve- ments (curb and gutter to be on site only). f. Recordation of grading and/or drainage easement on Lot 10 in Woodbrook, if deemed necessary; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; h. Completion of industrial waste survey; i. Issuance of oil tank permit; j. Fire Official approval of special construction for any building within 15 feet of property line, dumpster location and screening, handicap parking, and hydrant location. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official final approval of fireflow. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. John Graham Preliminary Plat - Located on the south side of Route 614, -1600 feet west of the intersection with Route 678. Proposal to •*,,,, divide 22.77 acres into two lots of 7.77 acres and 15.00 acres served by a 30 foot access easement. These lots never received subdivision approval but have been deeded as they are proposed. They exist as Tax Map 42, parcels 37F and 37H. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the main issue was the entrance. He explained the current entrance is on the eastern end of the property and has been in use for a number of years. The proposed new entrance is on the western end.He stated an additional entrance is being proposed because of the topography which he felt was justification for the second entrance. Mr. John Graham, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained this was a unusual situation since the two pieces have been treated separately and taxed separately since January 1978, the result of a divorce settlement. He stated that it was his understanding that he was requesting a driveway, not a roadway. Mr. Keeler, in an attempt to explain the situation, stated the back parcel had been purchased separately and added to the front parcel, becoming one tract. The attorney handling the divorce settlement had referred to the earlier plat for the description of the land and had, in effect, illegally subdivided the property. 177 December 18, 1984 Page 12 Ms. Mary Graham Bergin, former wife of Mr. Graham, and the owner of the front parcel of land, addressed the Commission. She asked that the Commission approve a separate entrance to the back parcel and at the same time allow continued use of the current entrance for the following reasons: (1) The current owner has made expensive improvements to the current entrance. (2) Use of the current entrance for the back parcel would infringe on the owner's privacy. (3) The current entrance would have to be extended several hundred feet and would require crossing a septic field, a steep pasture and a heavily wooded area. (4) If the current owner were forced to use the proposed new entrance (closing the current entrance), she would be forced to pass her own house, make several turns, and drive up a steep grade. (5) Devaluation of the front parcel of land. (6) The original granting of the easement across Ms. Bergin's land to the back parcel was to provide private entrace to the parcel. (7) The deeds are recorded separately. (8) She did not feel the two owners of the property should be held responsible for the divorce attorney's mistake. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the commission. Mr. Echols of the Highway Department indicated there were no problems with having two individual entrances. He stated there were some problems with sight distances, but that it would be possible to achieve proper sight distances. Ms. Diehl moved that the John Graham Preliminary Plat be approved, granting a waiver of Section 18-36f, and subject to the following conditions, and with administrative approval of the final plat: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of private road to parcel 37H; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit for road construction; C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance(s) to include sight easement, if needed, and upgrading existing entrance to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards; d. Planning staff approval of corrected development rights note. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Keeler stated the January 3rd meeting had been cancelled and the first meeting in Jaunary would be Jaunary 8. / 7,P December 18, 1984 In Page 13 Letter from Mr. Fisher - Ms. Cooke presented a letter to the Commission from Mr. Fisher which attempted to clarify exactly what was being asked of the Commission in regard to Mr. Lindstrom's original letter. It was determined the Commission would reply to Mr. Fisher's letter by January 16 or 23. Mr. Bowerman indicated he would be in touch with Mr. Fisher to clarify the dates. Mr. Payne stated he felt the Commission had erred in approving the two entrances for the Graham proposal since there was no reason why both lots could not use the new entrance. He pointed out the county still views this as one parcel since it has not been legally subdivided. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. James R. Donne , Secretary DS / %79