Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 26 85 PC MinutesMarch 26, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, March 26, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Richard Gould. Other officials present were: Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Frederic Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Acting in Mr. Wweman's absence, Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the March 12, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Cronemeyer Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 20.4 acres into 4 lots ranging from 3.14 to 6.98 acres, for an average 5.1 acres. Two lots to be served by individual entrances off the state road, and request a waiver of Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance to do so. Two lots to be served by proposed private road off an existing private road. Property is located off the north side of Route 676 East, approximately 0.2 mile east of its intersection with Route 614 at Ownesville, Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 43, Parcel 6, Jack Jouett Mag- isterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Frank Shepard, the contract purchaser, addressed the Commission. He explained that there is over 300 feet of frontage on Barracks Road, which exceeds the minimum required in order to access a public road with a 2-acre lot, i.e. when access to a public road is available, a 2-acre lot is allowable. However, at Site Review it had been suggested that this road not access to Barracks Road, but that an attempt be made to access the exist- ing private road, thus allowing only one entrance onto Barracks Road, and under those conditions, the lot must be five acres. He indicated the applicant was agreeable, but are requesting that they be allowed to keep the smaller lot (3.14 acres). He stated he felt the configuration of the lots was preferable since realigning them to make the smaller lot five acres would be giving land to a lot which was of no benefit to that lot, but would be detrimental to the lot from which the land was being taken away. Mr. Tom Gale addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the main negative aspect of the subdivision is that the road will be steep (18%). He stated he felt Mr. Shepard's alignment of the lots was a logical one. He stated that though there is enough acreage to make lot 2 five acres, he felt it was more sensible to March 26, 1985 Page 2 leave it as is. He stated the applicant proposes to prime and double seal the road from the entrance to across the creek. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Joseph explained staff feels this proposal is contrary to reservoir protective efforts because the road is so steep and crosses the stream, thus damaging the quality of the stream water. Referring to the existing lot with the private driveway, Mr. Cogan stated that historically the Commission has required that all lots use the same road. This would mean closing off the existing driveway. He explained the reason for this is to reduce the number of entrances onto the state road as well as to eliminate having too many entrances close together. With that in mind, and the fact that no waiver would be required if lot 2 were five acres, and because of the steepness of the road, Mr. Cogan stated he felt this proposal needed to be revised. It was ascertained that the Highway Department has recommended that Lot 2 have access off the private road and not Route 676. i.e. to use the existing private road. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Ms. Joseph indicated there was no reason why Lot 2 could not have a joint driveway with Lot 1. Mr. Payne confirmed this number of lots is allowable on a private 140 road, but stated that is not the question in this case. The question is the design of the road, Mr. Michel stated he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan that the proposal needed to be revised. Mr. Skove stated he could see no compelling reason to make an exception in this case, i.e. to allow a private road for a lot under five acres. It was determined there was no opposition to allowing Lot 1 to continue to use its private driveway. Mr. Payne pointed out that allowing this driveway would be an exception to the ordinance. He said the issue should be if there is a good reason to allow the driveway. With that in mind, Mr. Cogan stated he felt an arrangement would have to be made for Lot 1 to access onto the new private road, requiring that the existing driveway be closed. Mr. Skove moved that the Cronemeyer Preliminary Plat be denied on the grounds that it is not incompliance with the Subdivision Ordinance, Lot 2 is undersize, and the proposal is contrary to reservoir protective efforts. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. _;3(0 March 26, 1985 Page 3 rrr Burr Video and Record Kiosk Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 100 square foot building with drive-in window for video and record sales, to be served by four parking spaces, on a 42,420 square foot lot. Property is located on the east side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) at its intersection with Georgetown Road (Route 656) and adjacent to Arbor Crest Apartments. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Tax Map 61, Parcel 40. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, stated stormwater detention is not required because the proposal is for less than 20,000 square feet. He stated he felt it was preferable to allow this drainage to go through the neighboring pond (if there is no objection from the owners) than to route it around the pond and thus have no detention at all. He added he was not familiar with the maintenance requirement for the pond since that was not his requirement. He stated he did not see why the County would get involved in a maintenance agreement since that should be between the two owners. He emphasized that the owners of the neighboring detention pond were under no obligation to allow the applicant to use their pond. He indicated this is not an unusual situation and he did not see it as much of a problem. Regarding staff condition 2(b)--Staff approval of planted screening from Arbor Crest Apartments property to the north, if required. -- it was determined the words if required should be deleted, since staff is recommending plantings, regardless of its eventual development. There being neither applicant, nor public, comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the screening on the southside, it was determined that the following condition should be added: • Staff approval of landscape plans. It was determined that conditions 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) could be deleted. However, Mr. Payne pointed out that it would be in the applicant's best interest to follow through with these recommendations even though they were not requirements. Mr. Cogan explained to the applicant that he must still secure the approval of the Board of Supervisors on the special use permit and this approval is subject to the approval of that special use permit. The applicant indicated he understood. Mr. Michel moved that the Burr Video and Record Kiosk Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Planning staff approval of technical items. C. Staff approval of landscape plans. 3317 March 26, 1985 Page 4 (2) A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official final approval. b. Staff approval of planted screening from Arbor Crest Apartments property to the north. (3) Approval of and compliance with Special Use Permit 85-6. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Fox Hill Site Plan Waiver - Request to waive site plan requirements for third dwelling on 210.08 acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 80, Parcel 164. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Neil Bell, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the apartment will be above an existing structure and will be used by one of his employees. He stated the guest cottage is only for guests and is not occupied most of the time. He indicated he would have no problems meeting the Highway Department's requirements, and the Health Department has given approval for use of the existing septic field. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Henrietta Walton, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. Ms. Walton seemed to be under the impression that some sort of single-family subdivision was being developed on this property, and she asked why construction vehicles were seen coming and going, using a private road which is owned by her cousin, when the neighboring property owners had never been informed of such a development. She indicated the private road that is being used by these vehicles is being damaged and suggested no permission was obtained from the owner of the road for its use. It was determined the development to which Ms. Walton referred was actually the Mechunk Creek development which is behind Mr. Bell's property. Mr. Cogan pointed out to Ms. Walton that if someone is trespassing on her cousin's property (i.e. unauthorized use of the road), the matter should be taken up with the police. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the Highway Department's recommendation that the two existing entrances be upgraded to private street commercial entrances, it was the consensus of the Commission that this was a fairly stringent suggestion. 339 March 26, 1985 Page 5 It was agreed that condition 1(c)--Virginia Department of High- ways and Transportation approval of entrances --could be deleted. Mr. Michel moved that the Fox Hill Site Plan Waiver be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Health Department approval. b. Fire Officer approval of building. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mechums River Pump Station Site Plan - Proposal to locate a pump station in conjunction with the Crozet interceptor. The 540 square foot pump station will be located on .5663 acres of a 47.88 acre parcel. Property is located at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 736. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 57, parcel 79A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. Mr. Williams, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated there were no objections to any of staff's recommendations. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Williams confirmed that this had been added after the initial site plan had been approved for the overall Project. He stated the change involves about a 500 feet difference in regard to distance. He confirmed that many meetings had taken place with property owners and community members and an acceptable solution had been reached. Mr. Cogan asked for an update on the project. Mr. Williams explained the project has been developed in three segments: The first segment, from Moores Creek to Boar's Head is complete and in operation; the second segment, from Boar's Head up to a point just beyond Ivy, is under construction; and this Mechums River Pump Station is in the third segment. He stated completion is expected in Spring 1986. Mr. Williams also stated the South Rivanna Hydro Project (for hydro -electric power) is currently in the making. Mr. Skove moved that the Mechums River Pump Station be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and that the site plan for said pump station be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Planning Staff approval of technical items. March 26, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS Annual Report - Mr. Cogan gave a brief report on his and Mr. Wilkerson's work on the annual report. He outlined the special projects that the Commission has undertaken in the past year as follows: CIP, Bonus Provisions, Mobile Home Parks/Subdivision, Streamlining, Land Use Regulation Committee, East/West Connector Road South of I-64, MPO, Housing. No additions to this list were offered. OLD BUSINESS Streamlining Update - Ms. Scala presented a review of the effective- ness of procedures implemented to date, the results of a question- naire completed by the members of the Site Review Committee and recommendations for additional procedures. The Commission was in favor of staff advising applicants that no staff report will be written on incomplete plans. Ms. Scala explained that Mr. Payne has advised staff that they cannot deny a plan, since an applicant has the right to submit a plan (even though incomplete) to the Commission. Mr. Michel indicated he liked the recommendation for automatic deferral by the Site Review Committee, i.e. a plan lacking the minimum requirements would automatically be deferred by the Site Review Committee, and no staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Cogan stated he felt incomplete submittals were a key problem of this issue. Mr. Payne explained that neither the staff nor the Site Review Committee has the authority to deny a plan. Mr. Cogan stated it was not being suggested that staff deny a plan, but that staff advise an applicant that before the process can be carried out, i.e. Site Review Committee, staff report written, Commission review, the submitted plan must be complete from the outset. Mr. Payne stated this was acceptable within the statutory time frame. He also stated the Site Review Committee has the authority to set its own rules. E.g., they can rule that they will not consider in a plenary fashion any plan which is significantly deficient. He indicated the term "significantly deficient" needs to be defined. However, he added that the Commission has a statutory obligation to review a plan within the 60-day period. Mr. Payne further stated that he had advised the staff that he did not feel there was a necessity ,AID March 26, 1985 Page 7 wrr for any amendment to the ordinance. He explained that if a developer brings in a deficient plan, staff should point out the deficiencies and advise that though it can be taken to the Site Review Committee, that committee will not act on the plan with those deficiencies because their rules prohibit action. He said if the developer goes forward anyway, then it must be taken to the Commission within a 60 day period, but he had advised staff to forward it to the Commission with a perfunctory staff report, stating the deficiencies and recommending denial. Mr. Skove pointed out that the public hearing in such a situation could still take a great deal of time. Mr. Payne agreed. Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of letting an applicant know that if the plan was incomplete, he would be losing a lot of time in the p`ocEm,thus creating an incentive for a completed plan. Mr. Payne stated this is possible and has happened in the past. He added that the obvious way to solve this problem is: (1) To give staff administrative approval; or (2) When staff presents a deficient plan and summarily recommends denial, then the Commission, after securing the applicant's confirmation that the plan is deficient, should end the discussion at that point, and not allow it to go any further. Mr. Payne emphasized that the Commission would have to be careful not to allow itself to be seduced by developers' excuses in such cases. He stated if this course were followed, he felt the problem would be reduced because developers would soon get the message. Mr. Skove asked if it would be possible to write an amendment to the ordinance which would allow staff the right to reject a submittal that is deficient, without deleting Commission approval. Mr. Payne stated he felt this would be very difficult. He stated a possibility would be to devise a way which would allow staff to deny plans under certain conditions, but not allow staff approval. He stated this would have to be very specific, otherwise, in effect, it would be administrative approval. Mr. Michel suggested the possibility of developing a minimum requirements checklist. Mr. Payne stated the difficulty in this would be which items to place on staff's checklist, and which to leave on the Commission's checklist. Mr. Michel stated he felt this could be worked out; Mr. Payne agreed, but felt that it would be very difficult. Mr. Payne envisioned a problem if staff should give preliminary approval to a plan and then the Commission denied it. Mr. Cogan stated he was interested in working out a method to deal with deficient plans before they get to the Site Review Committee. March 26, 1985 Payne suggested that the Commission members who serve on the Site Review Committee should bring this matter up at the Site Review meeting. It was determined the Commission was in favor of lengthening the review procedure by one week as suggested by staff. This would allow the Commissioners longer to review plans before meetings. It was determined the Commission was pleased with the new, condensed staff reports. Willow Lake Development Site Plan - Preliminary plat has expired and the applicant is requesting that the final plat be approved within 30 days so that they can proceed with the soil erosion plan review. Ms. Joseph explained that the preliminary plat has expired, thereby stopping action on soil erosion review and grading plans review. Therefore no grading permit can be obtained. She stated the applicant desires to submit a final plat within 30 days for administrative approval. She explained that a soil erosion control permit must be obtained before the final plat can be signed and the County Engineer will not take any action on the grading permit because the preliminary plat has expired. It was determined that at the time the preliminary plat had been approved, the Commission had specifically requested that the final plat be approved by the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission that no administrative approval be granted and that the final plat must be submitted to the Commission. WORK SESSION Landscaping and Screening Requirements - Ms. Scala presented a proposal for the addition of Appendix A to the Zoning Ordinance along with recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to landscaping and screening. Ms. Scala explained that though she had originally intended that the proposal be added as an appendix to the ordinance, Mr. Payne has suggested that it be incorporated as a part of the ordinance and not as an appendix. She suggested the proper place would be at the end of Article 32. Mr. Payne indicated it would not make much difference, but he was generally not in favor of appendices. Ms. Scala explained the proposed amendments are intended to delete existing landscape and screening requirements which are not consistent. n In March 26, 1985 Page 9 In reference to the requirement that "...the landscape plan shall indicate existing landscape features on the site (and) the Planning Commission may require that any or all such features be preserved if it determines that the features contribute significantly to the character of the Albemarle County landscape...", Mr. Payne emphasized that this power should be used sparingly and he added that the Commission should be mindful of the fact that there should be no intimation that this requirement is being used as a device to prevent the development. Ms. Scala stated that an additional section has been added under "Administration" which was not included in the staff report. This section would allow appeal of a decision made by the Planninq Staff to the Planning Commission. She explained the wording would be similar to that used for appeals of Commission decisions to the Board. Regarding the requirement for shrubs for screening or street planting, she stated the minimum height had been changed from 2'-3' to 15"-18". Regarding the street trees requirements, Ms. Scala pointed out that for a single-family development which does not require a site plan, no street trees could be required. She stated if the Commission wished to require this later, it would have to be included in the Subdivision Ordinance. Regarding the parking lot landscaping requirement for low street shrubs, Ms. Scala stated the recommendation has been changed from "a double, staggered row on 10-feet centers" to "a single row on five -feet centers." Commission Comment: Mr. Cogan suggested that the words "or if requested by the Planning Commission" be added at the end of the last sentence in the first paragraph under "Administration". Ms. Scala stated that if a site plan was submitted without a landscape plan she felt the Commission could request a landscape plan before making a decision on the site plan. Mr. Michel stated one of the reasons for doing the study had been to attempt to give staff and, to some degree, the applicant more flexibility. He indicated he felt the proposed requirements could be interpreted as being somewhat ambiguous. He stated it had been his intent that flexibility would be built into the staff's function. Ms. Scala stated if the requirements were too flexible, the developers would not know what was required, whereas with this proposal, they would know exactly what was required ahead of time. However, she stated if for some reason these ``'W requirements could not be met, the proposal allows room for flexibility. March 26, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Cogan stated he felt the proposal was an attempt to outline specifics so that developers will know what is expected; however, some latitude for unusual circumstances is expected, and staff will present plans with unusual circumstances to the Commission. Mr. Michel stated he was in favor of staff being able to make changes without having to bring them to the Commission. Mr. Michel stated he was also concerned aboutthe list of trees and shrubs being too restrictive. Ms. Scala pointed out the list will not be included in the ordinance and is intended to serve as a guide. She said if a tree or shrub was suggested which was not on the list, then the developer would just have to ask staff for specific approval. Mr. Cogan pointed out that staff does not have the authority to waive any section of the ordinance. The Chairman allowed comments from Mr. Blake Hurt. Mr. Hurt raised the following questions: -He questioned the logistics of Mr. Cogan's suggestion that the Commission might require that a landscape plan be submitted "concurrently" with the site plan. Mr. Cogan stated he understood Mr. Hurt's concern and hoped it could be worked out so that two meetings would not be needed for the same site plan. -Regarding the requirement that the landscape plan show existing significant landscape features, Mr. Hurt indicated that the developer's desire to maximize his profit could possibly influence his determination as to what features were significant. He felt that the language (i.e. "... Commission may require that any or all such features be preserved...") was too stringent. Mr. Payne stated he felt Mr. Hurt had a point and it might be desirable to change the wording somewhat. Ms. Scala pointed out that the whole point is to make the developer more sensitive to what already exists. -Regarding "substitutions being subject to Planning staff approval", Mr. Hurt asked if this referred to height and number. Ms. Scala stated this was intended to mean substitution of one specie for another. Mr. Hurt suggested that staff be flexible with this and include substitutions of height and number requirements in certain cases. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he felt staff should stick with their original intent since substituting 24 six -feet trees for 12 twelve -feet trees would not achieve the intended result. Mr. Cogan pointed out there are times, however, when it might be necessary to take into account the topography of the area. -He asked if the conservation plan is the same as a soil erosion plan. It was determined the two are not the same. He asked if it would be possible for the staff to make available the pertinent sections of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook so that the engineer could "cut and paste" together an acceptable plan. R In _144�4 March 26, 1985 Page 11 It was pointed out to Mr. Hurt that this handbook was to be used for the protection of the trees during construction. Ms. Scala stated if this were permitted for soil erosion (i.e. "cutting and pasting"), then she did not see why it would not be acceptable for the conservation plan, though it might be necessary to be more specific in certain cases. Mr. Hurt suggested that staff prepare a guideline of standards that are desired. -Regarding the easement arrangement for street trees, Mr. Hurt felt the meaning was unclear. He asked how this would be depicted on a plat and how this was in excess of what is already done. Mr. Hurt felt this was more easily accomplished in the homeowners' association agreement. Mr. Payne pointed out that it only had to be placed on the plat if the trees were to be protected through an open space, and if not through an open space then all that is required is that an adequate description be included in the deed or certificate of subdivision or whatever instrument is used. Mr. Payne confirmed that the homeowners' agreement could be used for this purpose, depending upon the situation, and this is the way it is ordinarily done. -Regarding the requirement for screening around detention ponds, Mr. Hurt stated there might be situations where this is not possible. He asked if staff would have the authority to waive this requirement. Mr. Cogan stated he felt this would probably have to be brought to the Commission since the majority of such ponds are subject to screening. -Regarding the recommended amendment that "No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur in this buffer area" Mr. Hurt stated he felt this was good intent, but wrong technique. He indicated this would mean that a retaining wall would have to be constructed. Mr. Payne stated he felt it would be possible to preserve the intent of this section by adding language to the effect that "no grading except that if grading is necessary, landscaping shall be restored to a substantially similar condition". If the landscaping could not be replaced, then grading could not take place. Ms. Scala suggested that it might be possible to allow grading if specific approval is given to grade, on a case -by -case basis. Ms. Lisa Sessoms suggested that staff should check with the County Engineer to see what his requirements are for screening detention ponds so as to avoid possible conflicts between offices. March 26, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Cogan stated that historically landscaping has been left to staff approval and he did not anticipate any change in that procedure. He stated the Commission would only see those plans which required a waiver from these requirements. The Commission took no formal action on staff's proposal or recommended amendments. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15. �m IIAOL-0 (IL,-- A James R. DonnellU ecretary DS in