Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 08 85 PC MinutesJaunary 8, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, January 8, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. Election of Officers - Mr. Donnelly asked for nominations for the office of Chairman. Mr. Skove moved, and Mr. Wilkerson seconded, that Mr. Bowerman be re-elected chairman. There being no further nominations, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Donnelly asked for nominations for the office of Vice -Chairman. Mr. Skove moved, and Mr. Wilkerson seconded, that Mr. Cogan be re-elected vice-chairman. There being no further nominations, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Donnelly asked for nominations for the office of Secretary. Mr. Skove moved, and Mr. Wilkerson seconded, that Mr. Donnelly be re-elected secretary. There being no further nominations, the motion was unanimously approved. ZMA-84-27 R.D. Wade (Willoughby) - Request to amend SP-534 and SP-79-48, Willoughby Corporation, to reduce density from 208 dwelling units on 70 acres and delete internal road connection to un-developed commercial and high density residential area. Pro- perty, described as Tax Map 76M2, Parcels 48 (part), 63, 64 (part), 65 (part), is located on the east side of Route 631 (Fifth Street) at Harris Road. Scottsville Magisterial District. It was determined the application had not been through Site Review. Mr. Bowerman stated he was reluctant to review the item at this time without site review since that was the usual procedure. He asked for Mr. Keeler to explain why this had not gone through site review, and, if deferred, when it would be heard again. Mr. Keeler explained that the Site Review Committee had deferred action on the application because of a lack of information. He January 8, 1985 Page 2 stated if the applicant would submit all the materials by the next day (Wednesday, 9th), they could be mailed and scheduled for the Site Review Committee on January 24, to be heard by the Commission on February 12. Mr. Keeler further explained the way a plan usually develops. That is, as provided in the Ordinance, once a plan has all the information required and any necessary modifications have been made after receiving staff comment, then it is referred to the Com- mission for public hearing. However, the Ordinance also provides that at any time the applicant can request that the zoning petition be brought before the Commission. Quoting from Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Keeler stated: "At such time as further (staff) conferences appear unnecessary, or any time on request of the applicant, the commission shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the board of supervisors." It was determined that the plan was originally submitted to the Site Review Committee. Mr. Keeler stated that following the Site Review Committee date, a plan was submitted with additional information that had been missing at the time it had come before the committee. However, this additional information had been presented too late for it to be reviewed by the Site Review Committee before this public hearing. Mr. Cogan stated he felt time would actually be saved by deferring the application until it could be heard by the Site Review Committee, because the Commission would then have a much clearer picture of the proposal. Ms. Diehl indicated she was in favor of the application being reviewed by the Site Review Committee prior to Commission action, since that was what was originally intended. Mr. Morris Foster, speaking on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that, even if the plan could not be approved at this time, he felt the applicant needed some indication from the Commission as to whether or not the lower density was acceptable. Mr. R.D. Wade, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He confirmed Mr. Foster's statements and added that a matter of economics was involved. He indicated it would be difficult to proceed with getting everything in line for the Site Review Committee if the lower density was not going to be approved. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if the current staff report dealt only with the re -zoning request and not with the site plan. Mr. Keeler stated there were comments included in the report on the plan itself. He explained that basically what was being Xyl January 8, 1985 Page 3 asked was a change from a duplex -type development to single family detached, which, in terms of the land use, is very similar to a cluster subdivision. He stated he could not be sure that all the lots could be served by gravity sewer. He stated the Commis- sion was being asked to approve an application plan that is part of the rezoning, and, once approved, there can be minor modifications of the plan, but any substantial changes in the plan would require another rezoning. He added that the idea of the pre -application conference and the site review, etc. is both for the benefit of the general public and the applicant, since it provides a chance to request modifications or alterations of regulations. He stated that, in this case, the applicant has chosen to forfeit that opportunity and if the Commission chooses to approve the re- zoning at this time, the staff has indicated it will not be amenable at a later date to any relaxation or modification of normal regulations. Mr. Cogan indicated he had no objections to the rezoning in itself, but was concerned that later on it might be discovered that the new layout would not work. Ms. Diehl indicated she was in agreement with Mr. Cogan. It was determined the Commission was not opposed to the reduction in density. Mr. Keeler stated the Commission should be mindful of under- development, i.e. properties developing at much lower densities than that for which they are zoned. He pointed out that many properties are currently idled because of policy (e.g. Highway Department policy, etc.) or because of physical considerations such as inadequate sight distance, etc. He added that some properties are developing at lower densities than called for in the Comprehensive Plan, thus putting pressure on the rural areas. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Mr. Keeler stated he felt Willoughby was unique because of the topography. He added he felt this current proposal was an improvement over the original one. Mr. Bowerman indicated he would have no objections to the re- zoning request, based on the current information, but he was not willing to state he was definitely in favor of it at this time in the event that new information might have bearing on his decision. Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-84-27 for R.D. Wade (Willoughby) be deferred until February 12. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. I January 8, 1985 Page 4 Blue Ridge Forest Lots A & B Redivision Final Plat - Located on the west side of Ray's Ford Circle, off the north side of Route 660 adjacent to Fairgrove Subdivision. Proposal to exchange land between lots A & B, both 2.0 acres, to provide better building site. Tax Map 30, Parcels 27P and 27Q. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She added that after the staff report had been typed, the applicant's surveyor confirmed that the lot did not contain 30,000 square feet of contiguous building space. She stated that Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance grants the Commis- sion the authority to waive the requirements of Section 4.2.2 which states the area requirements. It was determined the Commission was being asked to grant a waiver (regarding the square footage requirements) and it was also established it was not necessary that the waiver request be in writing. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Anita Dunbar, the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated the reason for the request was due to the fact that she felt there was no suitable building site on lot B as it presently exists. She felt this was the only solution. As the owner of lot A also, she added she was willing to grant an easement across Lot A to lot B. The exact building space of the proposed lot was unknown. Ms. Dunbar stated she felt if a variance was granted from the 70- foot set -back requirement there would be adequate building space on the lot. Though Ms. Dunbar stated she was certain the other homes in the subdivision were not set back 70 feet, it was ascer- tained the homes were set back 30 feet from the private road, and those whose sides were on the public road were set back 70 feet from the public road. She also submitted a report from a soil specialist showing the location of possible septic systems. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the original lot lines had been drawn in 1979 when the land was subdivided. Mr. Keeler pointed out that at one time lots were created without much thought being given to their potential buildability. The main consideration was that they be two acres. Mr. Cogan stated that making this change 30,000 square feet requirement, and would problem of requiring a variance from the would not cure the create the additional set -back requirement. January 8, 1985 Page 5 It was determined the Commission was being asked to waive the 30,000 square feet lot size requirement and, if this was done, a variance from the 70 feet set -back requirement would be required to make the lot buildable. It was determined the set -back requirement at the time of the original subdivision was 75 feet. It was determined a house already exists on Lot A and Lot B is the one with the problems. It was determined the buildable space on Lot B was approximately 15,000 square feet (with the proposed realignment of lot lines). Ms. Dunbar pointed out there was an additional 10,000 square feet on Lot A which would accommodate the septic system. Mr. Keeler stated if this was approved, the following condition. could be added as condition h: Note on plat: Virginia Department of Health may limit building size due to septic drain field limitations. k1s. Joseph confirmed that staff could not recommend approval since it had been determined there was not 30,000 square feet of contiguous building space. In answer to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Wayland, surveyor for the applicant, stated there was approximately 18,000 to 20,000 square feet of building space on Lot B as it was originally drawn. Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Bowerman indicated they felt the proposal was unjustified since it would not solve any problems and would create new ones. It was ascertained that what was before the Commission at this time was only the redivision of two lots. Mr. Cogan moved that the Blue Ridge Forest Lots A & B Redivision Final Plat be denied. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. It was determined the application was being denied because the re -division would not solve the applicant's problem and would actually create additional. problems, i.e. it would create less building space and would also require a variance, and because it did not meet the 30,000 square feet requirement. The motion was unanimously approved. The applicant was informed she had ten days in which to appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors. January 8, 1985 Page 6 Mill Ridge Preliminary Plat - Located east of Waverly on the west side of Route 614, just west of the intersection of Route 678 and Route 614. Proposal to create five (5) lots with an average size of three (3) acres on a 16.5 acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 42, Parcel 37A. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. Referring to staff's condition d, (Issuance of a runoff control permit or, County Engineer and County Attorney approval of method of restricting impervious area to less than 5% of total site area.) Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if there was any practical way this could be achieved. Mr. Payne replied he did not feel this was really too much of a problem since the 4,000 square feet used by the County Engineer in his calculations was relatively generous. He stated he under- stood the County Engineer would not be concerned with 1% or 2% since it was not even close, and if it was 10%, he would go ahead and require a runoff control permit, but since this was right at %5, he was somewhat concerned. He stated that the County Engineer had indicated if it was necessary to comply with the Runoff Control Ordinance, it would not be a major undertaking since it would probably only involve creating grassy swales, etc. He stated it would probably be in order to put the lot owners on notice that if a certain lot causes the development to go over the 5%, then that lot would have to put in the runoff control measures (not the developer nor his neighbors). It was established this was not a part of Waverly and it was also established the approximate overall width of the sub- division was approximately 375 feet. Ms. Susan Riddle, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated the subdivision complies with all the county ordinances and nothing special is being requested. She stated the length of the road has been minimized in an effort to minimize the amount of runoff from the project. She stated she did not feel that the 4,000 square feet of impervious area per lot would be difficult to comply with, although she felt this figure was extravagant. She stated the applicant would have no objections to having a note to this effect placed on the plat. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. James S. Kennan, representing his mother Mrs. Virginia Hyde Kennan, addressed the Commission. He stated Ms. Kennan owns all the property on the eastern end of the plat, below the project, all the way to the Mechums River. Although he did not express opposition to the proposal, he asked the Commission to be mindful of the following points: (1) Complex drainage in the area and the probable negative impact on Mrs. Kennan`s property as a result of the removal of vegetation and replacement by im- pervious surfaces; (2) Requested that the property lines be designated by iron stakes; (3) Second lot appears to be in violation of the 25 feet setback from the property line; / 9/ January 8, 1985 Page 7 (4) Lack of sufficient ground water in the area; (5) The extremely dangerous situation that will be created by the proposed entrance to the subdivision; and (6) Is not Mill Ridge a part of Waverly and if so, why was it not included in the original plat, and connecting roads between the two included? Mr. Kennan concluded by stating he hoped the final plat would not be given administrative approval. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Ms. Joseph stated when the Waverly subdivision was created, this was the residue parcel. It was not included in the original plans. Mr. Payne confirmed the iron stakes would be put in place on the property lines since this is a requirement of the Ordinance. Regarding runoff control, Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any requirements the county could impose if the impervious area was under 5%. Mr. Payne explained there were two sets of regulations: (1) Soil Erosion (no relation to impervious area); and (2) Runoff Control (deals not with erosion specifically and not with the quantity of the water, but with the quality of the runoff). He stated the County Engineer did not see this as a major problem since it is relatively easily obtained by means of a good stand of grass, channeling the drainage in the right direction, etc. It was determined that under 5% is exempt from the Runoff Control Ordinance. Referring to the County Engineer's figure of 4,000 square feet, Mr. Cogan asked if it was possible for him to establish that anything over 4,000 square feet would fall under the Runoff Control Ordinance even though that 4,000 square feet would be less than 5%. Mr. Payne explained the 4,000 square feet was purely an arbitrary figure used for calculation. He stated the County Engineer's meaning wasthat if everyone in the subdivision developed exactly at 4,000 square feet, the impervious area would be right at 5%. He indicated he agreed with the applicant that this was unlikely to happen, though it was possible. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. Joseph pointed out the Highway Department's comments were on the bottom of page 4 of the staff report. She stated the Highway Department had indicated this would meet all of their requirements. Both Ms. Diehl and Mr. Michel expressed concern regarding the use of Whitehall Road in this area. Mr. Michel indicated he felt this proposal should include, at the least, some sort of decel- eration lane. i 9w January 8, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Keeler stated the Highway Department requirements vary, depend- ing on the road and the number of lots served. Mr. Cogan stated he disagreed with the Highway Department's evaluation. Mr. Michel agreed and indicated he was opposed to administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission can add additional require- ments beyond what the Highway Department recommends if they are on -site improvements, i.e. a turn or decel lane. Though unusual, Mr. Payne confirmed this was possible, if the Commission strongly feels that the situation justifies the additional requirements. Mr. Skove suggested that the Highway Department be requested to take a second look at this proposal. Mr. Payne stated a way to do this, since this is a preliminary plat, would be to approve it with staff's conditions, and then direct staff to inform the Highway Department of the concerns regarding the entrance. Mr. Cogan stated he was also concerned about the dimensions of lots 3 and 4 (being approximately 200' wide x 1,200' long). He said if these driveways were paved, or packed tightly with crusher run, each one would be over the 4,000 square feet of impervious area. He stated the Ordinance does deal with odd -shaped or elongated lots. The applicant pointed out that an easement had been provided for those two lots to share a common driveway. Mr. Payne read from Section 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance: Lots shall not contain peculiarly shaped elongations which are designed solely to provide necessary square footage or area or frontage on a public road and which would be unusable for normal purposes. Mr. Cogan explained if the common driveway were 101wide x 900' long (9,000 sq. feet total), this would equal 4,500 sq. ft./lot. Mr. Bowerman asked if it were possible for the Commission to require runoff control measures if, in the opinion of the Commission, the effect of the total development could be such as to be in- jurious to adjacent properties. Mr. Payne explained this is contemplated in the Runoff Control Ordinance, i.e. it is designed to take into account the entire development at the subdivision stage, and that is what Mr. Elrod County Engineer) is doing in this case. He stated that runoff control, at all times, considers the aggregate of the development. He again confirmed that the lot owner who "kicks it over the edge" will be responsible for putting in the control measures. A72 January 8, 1985 Page 9 Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern as to how a property owner could be made aware of the situation. Mr. Payne explained that a note on the plat would make a pro- spective buyer aware of the problem. He also stated this issue should be kept in perspective and emphasized that probably only minor adjustments would need to be made. Mr. Keeler, in an effort to clarify the issue, explained the Runoff Control Ordinance was not intended to protect adjoining properties from drainage, but there is a section in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 4.3) which deals with drainage. He stated that basically the Ordinance states that a property owner cannot grade the property in such a way as to change the drainage patterns and increase drainage on adjoining properties. Mr. Keeler stated it appears that only two of the lots would drain toward the Kennan property and those lots could be built on at any time without it ever coming before the Commission. Therefore, he stated the Commission's approval of the subdivision plat would probably not diminish the rights of Mrs. Kennan. It was determined the Highway Department's final recommendations would be available before the review of the final plat. Mr. Skove moved that the Mill Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions and with the additional proviso *,,, that staff obtain additional information from the Highway Depart- ment, particularly in regard to the entrance requirements, and with the final plat subject to Commission approval: 1. The final plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance, drainage, and road plans. b. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and com- putations. C. Issuance of an erosion control permit. d. Issuance of a runoff control permit or, County Engineer and County Attorney approval of method of restricting impervious area to less than 50 of total site area. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was approved with Messrs. Bowerman, Gould, Skove and Wilkerson and Ms. Diehl voting in favor, and Messrs.Cogan and Michel voting against. OLD BUSINESS Off -Site Road Improvements - Mr. Keeler presented a memo he had %ar written to the Commission regarding an approach he has developed for dealing with the current road -improvement dilemma. i9� January 8, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Keeler stated the Commission was aware of the Highway Department's policy regarding restrictions on the county in terms of requiring developers to make off -site road improvements. In addition to those restrictions, the developer is prohibited from proffering, as part of a re -zoning, to include conditions of payment for or construction of off -site improvements to roads. He stated his memo deals with a strategy that would be employed under a proferred zoning. He stated this approach, as outlined in his memo, appears to have advantages and no disadvantages to the developer. He asked if the Commission felt this was a strategy worth pursuing. Mr. Payne explained that the County cannot require off -site improvements, and the developer cannot offer it because the statute specifically prohibits that as an unenforceable proffer. This does not mean that the developer cannot improve the road if he so desires, but a developer is not likely to put a lot of money into improvements in the hope that the County will then approve a rezoning. He indicated Mr. Keeler's approach was a possible way of dealing with the situation. He explained the approach was very limited in circumstance since it was only applicable when a rezoning is involved. Mr. Michel indicated he felt this approach could potentially be of great advantage to the county. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff was seeking the Commission's approval of this approach. Mr. Keeler replied affirmatively. Mr. Payne stated he did not feel there would be any disadvantages to the County with this approach. Mr. Payne,explaining the essence of Mr. Keeler's approach, stated the developer would not be saying (proffering) that he is going to make certain improvements since this is prohibited in the statute, but he can say that he will limit the number of dwelling units he will construct until the road is improved. It was determined it was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Keeler's approach was a reasonable one which should be given consideration, but each rezoning should be reviewed and judged on its own merits. He pointed out that if a developer uses this approach, it may or may not be accepted by the Commission. Mr. Fisher's Letter of December 14, 1984 - It was determined the charge to the proposed committee, as outlined in Mr. Fisher's letter, was acceptable. The Chairman appointed Mr. Cogan and Mr. Skove to serve on the committee and Mr. Donnelly was directed to inform the Board of this action. It was the consensus of the Commission that the seventh member of the committee (to be chosen by the other six and to act as chairman) should be a person who was knowledgeable of the system, perhaps a professional from the University or a former member of the Commission. There being no further business, he meetg ad' urned at 9:25 p.m. James R. D elly, Secretary DS