Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 23 85 PC MinutesJuly 23, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 23, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Richard Cogan and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. CPA-85-3 South 29 Land Trust and Sariandale Corporation - Request for a resolution of intent to amend the Land Use Plan of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, 1982-2002 as it relates to approximately 25 acres adjacent to the south side of Fontaine Avenue. Applicant is requesting a change in the recommended land use from medium density to commercial for a planned commercial shopping center. Tax Map 76, parcel 17B. It was determined the staff was requesting clarification of the action taken by the Commission at the July 16 meeting in relation to this item. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She recalled that the Commission had adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it related to the Fontaine site at the July 16, 1985 meeting. However, she stated the action had not included clarification on the Comp Plan amendment policy. She suggested that it might be necessary to amend that action to include some statement on the policy. She added that staff feels that there is a need for guidelines to help determine when Comprehensive Plan amendments should be considered. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff was seeking clarification of the criteria on which the Commission had based their action. Ms. Imhoff stated that one reason staff had not supported Fontaine was criteria (e.)--"A change in circumstances occurs or updated data is available or a portion of the plan is found to be incorrect." She stated staff had interpreted Mr. Skove's motion as based on the fact that the Rt. 29 North Corridor situation would substantiate the staff examining commercial areas south of Rt. 29, and that was his reason, in this instance, for waiving the policy. She stated that staff felt this was acceptable, but in terms of future Comp Plan 1%we requests, some clarification was called for. Mr. Gould stated that he felt it had been intended that the burden be placed on the applicant, originally, but the action iA13 July 23, 1985 Page 2 taken by the Commission at the July 16 meeting had changed that and taken the burden off the applicant. r, Mr. Bowerman confirmed that Mr. Gould was correct, and it is now up to staff to prepare a report and examine the issue. Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt Mr. Skove's argument for supporting the resolution of intent had been a good one and he still supported the action. Mr. Gould stated he could not take that position until the policy has been changed and it seemed the "policy had been changed in mid -air." Mr. Skove agreed that the policy had probably been changed, and that was what he had intended, since he did not feel the present policy is working. Mr. Skove clarified that he meant the policy for Rt. 29 North was not working (not the policy for Comp Plan amendments). Mr. Bowerman stated that staff is trying to determine on which of the criteria the Commission based their adoption of the Resolution of Intent, and that perhaps "except as otherwise provided" might be be the "place to bring this up." He added that the development along Rt. 29 North warrants this issue being brought up at this time, which is a unique situation for this particular policy. too Ms. Diehl stated that, although she had not been present at the July 16 meeting, if the plans for 29 North are not working then it should be necessary to show a direct relationship to this change. She added that she did not feel that this relationship has been made clear. Mr. Skove stated he felt there is a direct relationship because "commercial development either goes here or it goes on 29." Ms. Diehl pointed out that it would not change the commercial development that already exists on Rt. 29 North and is free to develop, and all that the action related to Fontaine is doing is creating another commercial area that will need to be studied further. Mr. Skove stated that he felt it would change the development on Rt. 29 North, if it is followed through. He pointed out that there is a current request, possibly several, for a rezoning on 29 from residential to commercial. He felt such proposals should be denied and no further commercial land added to 29 North. Mr.Michel stated that he had voted for Mr. Skove's amendment, but he did have a difficult time tying it into these criteria. He felt this would be the case with many of these requests, i.e., that they would be in the "gray area." lV4/ July 23, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Michel stated that he did not think the policy should be changed "willy-nilly" every time one comes up that is in the gray area. He added that he was in favor of a well -worded "out" which would allow the Commission to be able to respond to major concerns of the County, regardless of the issue. He added that he felt staff had been correct in their interpretation of the adopted policy. Mr. Skove stated there seems to be a difficulty in trying to tie a basic change in policy to a site -specific request. Mr. Gould stated he felt it was an opportunity to look at the policy, and that while he was sympathetic with Mr. Skove's concerns, he felt the Commission had erred in their handling of the matter. He added that he, too, felt staff had been correct in terms of their recommendation. He stated he felt the Commission had done an "about-face." In an effort to clarify what staff was seeking, Mr. Bowerman stated that staff is hoping for a statment of substance relating to the action that was taken, or, alternatively, possibly revoking the resolution and looking at the question under the I-64 Interchange Study. Ms. Imhoff stated she could offer one other alternative, i.e. the possiblity of fitting it under criteria (e.) since updated information is available. With the new studies that have been done on Rt. 29 North, she stated there is more information available which substantiates Mr. Skove's position. Mr. Michel stated he was not in favor of adding a sixth item under criteria (e.), nor of the highway interchange. Mr. Bowerman asked if those Commissioners who had supported the Resolution at the July 16 meeting could base their reasoning on a change of information. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he felt that was what had been done at the July 16 meeting. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt this would give staff the rationale they were seeking in order to consider this. He asked if this meant staff would also study the 29 North Corridor policy issues. Ms. Imhoff stated that staff would study all the commercial areas in general and try to substantiate whether, in fact, the change would pull traffic from Rt. 29. She stated it would be a comprehensive look at the Comp Plan, and would not be site -specific, but rather the entire urban area. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt this had been Mr. Skove's intent and he had supported the motion based on this intent. July 23, 1985 Page 4 Ms. Imhoff presented copies of the Pedestrian Obstacle Study to those members of the Commission who had not been able to attend the session earlier in the evening. She stated she would like to go over the study with those people at 7.:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 30. She also presented the Division of Community Development's Work Program for July and August. Leylight Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 28.85 acres into 2 parcels, 9.5 and 16.35 acres. Request for a waiver of Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow a separate entrance for each proposed parcel; (one entrance is existing). Property, is located on the west side of Route 662, ±0.3 mile west of the intersection with Route 660. Tax Map 30, parcel 15. Zoned,RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She explained several different entrance proposals and indicated that what staff is recommending is different from what the applicant is proposing. Staff is recommending a new separate entrance for lot 2 (re- quiring a waiver of 18-36(f), and relocation of the entrance for lot 1 to obtain adequate sight distance. The Chairman invited applicant comment: Mr. David Watson, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He commended Ms. Patterson for her work on his application as follows: A lot of times we tend to criticize the Planning Department when we don't like things that are done. Very rarely do we acknowledge a job that's well done. I would like to take a minute to commend Amelia for the job she has done working with us. She has gone through numerous meetings, telephone calls, site visits, etc., trying to work out the best solutions for everybody. I would like to publically acknowledge our appreciation for this . Mr. Watson then read a prepared statement as follows: In this Waiver Application, we initially -looked at four alternatives. The Planning Department has recommended that a separate entrance for lot 2 be allowed, but that the existing driveway serving lot 1 be relocated for better site distance. I would like to address my comments to last issue. W M July 23, 1985 Page 5 1. The first point I would like to make is that the Shiffletts, the owners of the property, have a very strong sentimental attachment to this land. Mrs. Shifflett was raised from childhood on this property. The reason they decided to subdivide and sell a portion of their property was not out of obtaining a monetary profit, but rather to raise enough money to fix up their house without having to borrow money and go into debt. I, for one, believe that this is a very commendable philosophy that more individuals, organizations and governmental bodies should perhaps consider. 2. The second point I would like to make is that in reviewing the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, a strong point is made of "providing for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands This property is Current- ly under Agricultural Land Use Taxation. The impact of the plan, labeled "Alternative #111, that the Planning Department has recommended is better than either of the Alternatives that required a single commercial entrance, but in requiring the Owners to relocate their existing driveway entrance, over two times the amount of land area would be disturbed and taken out of agricultural use. The configuration of the topography and the alignment of the driveway would potent- ially eliminate even more land than this. We believe that the Planning Department did what it was required to do in giving its technical recommendation. We do not argue that technically there is not 250 feet of site distance for the existing entrance. The issue, we believe, is a delicate balance between what constitutes public safety and the imposition of a financial burden and hardship on an individual landowner when the use of his driveway and the traffic generated by it have not changed in over 20 years. We request that the original proposed location in the Waiver Application be accepted and the Shiffletts not be required to relocate their entrance at the present time. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that the owners of the remainder of the property (the Shiffletts) have no plans to further divide the property at this time. /h/% July 23, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman pointed out that if the property should be divided further at a later time, then the entrance would have to be relocated to get Highway Department approval. Ms. Patterson confirmed that even if the property were divided as a family division at a later time, Highway Department approval would still have to be obtained for the entrance. Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in favor of -dis approach, i.e. allowing the current entrance since only one parcel is being served at this time, with relocation being required if the property is divided at a later time. This was the consensus of the Commission. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a note could be placed on the plat alerting any future buyer of this requirement and Mr. Payne confirmed that this was acceptable, though he felt it would not really make much difference. ht`was the consensus of the Commission that a note on the plat "couldn't hurt." Ms. Diehl moved that the Leylight Farm Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: 1400 a. Issuance of an erosion control permit for the road and house construction areas; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of new private entrance for lot 2. (The applicant is put on notice that it is advisable to obtain adequate private street commercial sight Distance for the relocated entrance for lot 1 because any further division will necessitate it.) C. The private driveway serving lot 1 is to be an exclusive access easement, and therefore a road maintenance agreement is not necessary at this time. d. Note on plat: Further subdivision of lot 1 will necessitate entrance re -location. 2 Waiver of 'Section'i8-36(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow two existing dwellings on lot 1. 3. The final plat may be administratively approved. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Gentry's Garage Site Plan - Request in accordance with SP-83-71 „, to utilize an existing garage as a public two -car garage. The garage of 672 square feet is located on a 5.0 acre parcel on which a single family dwelling exists. Property is located on the west side of Route 631, ±1,800 feet south of Route 706. Tax W July 23, 1985 Page 7 Map 16, parcel 52B. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. White Hall Magisterial The applicant was present and presented a letter to Ms. Joseph which explained how waste fluid pickup would be handled. Ms. Joseph read the letter aloud which explained the company and schedule which would be used for the pickup. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Gentry's Garage Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a) Watershed Management Official approval of specified time interval for waste fluid pickup. b) Planning Staff approval of technical items. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Lynn Aeschliman Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 65.7 acres into 5 lots served by private roads, with an average lot size of 13 acres. Property is located on the south side of Route 668, 0.5 mile west of the intersection with Route 601. Tax Map 16, parcel 52B. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. It was determined that staff was not in favor of the pipestems as shown by the applicant, but rather of an easement to serve the back parcels. It was also determined that the applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance which would allow the peculiarly shaped lots (pipestems). It was also determined if the Commission approved one easement (as suggested by staff), no waiver would be required, but if two easements were approved, a waiver of section 18-36(f) would be required. It was determined the Highway Department's comments had been based on a previous plat which had shown five lots, instead of three. The Chairman invited applicant comment. j 449 July 23, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that the applicant is reconstructing old, historic homes from different areas on these sites. He added that though the property had five development rights, it was found that part of the lots did not seem to be buildable because of percolation problems, thus the current proposal for 3 lots. He questioned whether it was the intent of the ordinance, in relation to peculiarly shaped lots, to apply to large tracts such as this one. He indicated the sites could be accomplished with access easements in lieu of the pipestems. He stated that the physical aspects of the property would remain the same, whether with easements or pipestems. He stated he was in agreement with the County Engineer's comments regarding the road. He added that he did not want to use the old road bed because it would necessitate the removal of several trees, but rather construct a new road parallel to the old one. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. James Gercke, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated he had not received notification of this application and had only become aware of it on July 22. He stated he did not feel the applicant had any frontage on Rt. 668, as he was the owner of 668 and a piece of property between the applicant's property and 668. He explained the road goes through his property and is not a dedicated road. He did not feel the tract had any frontage on the road. He stated his understanding of the law was that the applicant is entitled to access by virtue of a Highway System Act of 1920 or 1930, which mandated an easement for any property within 15 feet of the center line of an existing highway. He stated when he purchased the property he had paid for the area that the road rests on and was surprised to learn that the road was not a fee simple road. He felt there is confusion as to the frontage condition which exists. He stated his plat indicates there is no frontage for the Aeschliman tract and the road rests on his land and he is, therefore, opposed to a division until this issue is clarified. Mr. Foster responded to Mr. Gercke's comments and stated that he had worked from the same survey (done by Roger Ray) that Mr. Gercke had based his comments on. Based on those figures, he stated he felt the boundary line would fall within the 15 ft. perscriptive easement of the Virginia Department of Highways. He stated it was his understanding that that prescriptive easement (the Byrd Act) gave the public right anywhere within the 30 ft. right-of-way. Ms. Page Laughlin, an adjoining property owner and seller of the property in question, addressed the Commission. She stated she was opposed to the proposal as she felt it would infringe on her privacy. She added that had she known Iwo the applicant's plans for the property, she would not have sold it to her. i6n July 23, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Van der Linde asked if only three houses were to be built on the property. This was confirmed by the applicant. Mr. David Maupin expressed concern that the road to the serve the property was inadequate. Mr. Bill McGee,the realtor involved in the sale of the property to Ms. Aeschliman, stated he was opposed to the proposal and that he did not know what was intended when he sold the property. The applicant, Ms Aeschliman, addressed the Commission, and expressed surprise at the opposition that had been presented. She indicated she had not been aware there was any opposition to her proposal. She also stated her realtor had led her to believe that the sellers were aware of her intent. Ms. Page McGee (mother of Page Laughlin) addressed the Commission and expressed her opposition to the proposal. Ms. Sarah Gwaltney, adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. She indicated she was not opposed to the proposal, but asked if the tract could be further divided at a later time. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comments from Mr. Payne in regard to the question of access to the property. Mr. Payne stated that though he had not done extensive research on the matter, he could make an "educated guess" as to the reason for the discrepancy. He explained that old roads (as the one shown on the plat) sometimes become slightly re -located, either through use or intentionally, and the one shown is probably an old alignment of Rt. 668 or a predecessor. He stated this situation is not uncommon in the County. He stated if that deduction is correct, then the old road itself is a public road, and the easement is drawn from the center line of the old public road. He added if that is the case, then there should not be any problem with this property being "landlocked." He stated this would also explain why Mr. Gercke's property is where it is, i.e. it is defined by the center line of the old public road instead of the center line of the new one. He added that the old road would not cease to be a public road even if there were a re -alignment unless there was an affirmative act by the County governing body at the time. He said the old road probably was not abandoned. He also pointed out that the 30 ft. width is not an absolute figure, but a statutory presumption. He stated the statute states that in the absence ,. of proof to the contrary, the road is presumed to be 30 feet. He felt if there were, in fact, an old alignment which was not abandoned, this would constitute proof to the contrary. 1 S/ July 23, 1985 Page 10 He stated there did not seem to be a great deal of difference between the two plats he had examined and both had reference to the old road. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Payne indicated he felt deferral might be in order to allow this issue to be resolved. Mr. Michel pointed out that staff's recommendation had been very strongly negative and had nothing to do with the boundary issue. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Payne stated that his guess would be that Ms. Aeschliman does have access to Rt. 668. Mr. Gercke pointed out that his comments were based on a plat done by the same surveyor as had done the Aeschliman plat, though the two plats were in conflict. He indicated he was not opposed to Ms. Aeschliman accessing her property legally, but he did want the matter clarified as to who owns what. Mr. Payne stated that his point is that even if Mr. Gercke does own the area in question, if the old road is a public road, there is a public easement over it. He emphasized that he was not certain this is the case. There was confusion among the Commissioners as to what the Highway Department was recommending in regard to the entrance requirements. Mr. Foster pointed out that the two entrances, as proposed, have been approved by the Highway Department. Mr. Gould asked for clarification from the applicant as to future development rights. (There being five development rights, with only three being used currently.) Mr. Payne confirmed that the other two rights could be used. Mr. Bowerman stated that the concern of the public was noted, but the Commission could not address the two rights that remain. Mr. Skove stated he could support the application with two easements. Mr. Michel stated he had a problem with the application and felt that it was not in proper form. He stated he would not be in favor of the two easements at this point since he was unclear as to the Highway Department's recommendation. Mr. Bowerman explained to the applicant that the Commission would not approve the proposal with pipestems, and if the proposal was acted on at this time, it would probably be denied. He asked the applicant if she was in favor of deferral to allow time for the concerns of the Commission to be addressed, or if she was in favor of denial. July 23, 1985 Page 11 The applicant indicated she was in favor of deferral. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he did not know what the Commission's action would be if the proposal is brought back at a later time. Ms. Aeschliman also stated that drainage problems on the property would preclude there ever being five lots. Mr. Foster stated he did not think it would be possible to clarify the entrances any further since they are already approved entrances, one being an existing entrance and automatically approved, and the other was approved by the Highway Department as a private entrance. The comments were relating to a commercial entrance. Mr. Skove moved that the Lynn Aeschliman Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred to allow time for the following: --Clarification of Highway Department comments on private entrances; --Site to be redesigned so as to eliminate pipestems; --Clarification of boundaries. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Michael Barrett Modification Request - Request to waive building site requirement of less than 25% slopes for dwelling on 16+ acres. Tax Map 46, parcel 26C. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Mr. Bowerman noted that this was Ms. Joseph's last meeting as she had taken a position elsewhere. He commended her for her work. He stated that he would see that a letter of recommendation from the Commission was inserted in her personnel file.) Ms. Scala gave the staff report on the Barrett Request. It was determined that staff does not see a justification for this request. Ms. Scala added that staff was concerned that granting this request, without sufficient justification, could set a precedent. Ms. Scala further explained that this plat had already been approved and had been assigned three development rights. The applicant had been advised at the time that all three rights might not be useable if building sites could not be located; however, a plat need have only one building site to be approved. She explained that the current proposed building site is not one of the two that were originally approved. It was determined the applicant is requesting a waiver to site his house in an area of greater than 25% slopes /S 3 July 23, 1985 Page 12 It was determined that the County Engineer has stated that the site can be buildable. The Chairman invited applicant comments. Mr. Barrett stated he was willing to follow the County Engineer's recommendations. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned about setting a precedent. Ms. Diehl indicated she was in favor of seeing a more complete plan. Mr. Bowerman stated that there is no piece of land that can't be built one if proper engineering practices are followed. However, he did not feel this was the intent of the ordinance. He stated he felt it was a question of policy and what that policy was intended to accomplish. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment about the possibility of setting a precedent if this waiver request were granted. Mr. Payne stated he did not feel this was a waiver in the technical sense since the Zoning ordinance contemplates this as a possibility. He stated Mr. Bowerman's comments were correct. He stated this was more a modification than a waiver, since a waiver is a situation that is not contemplated in the ordinance. The applicant stated that if this request is not approved, he will have to construct a very long road over very difficult terrain which would cause much greater erosion than allowing his proposed building site. Mr. Bowerman stated he understood the applicant's position; however, he stated that when property is subdivided there is no guarantee that any building sites exist on any particular parcel of land. He added that he did not feel the applicant's reason for desiring this location, i.e. to avoid having to build a long road, was proper justification to violate the spirit and the principle behind the ordinance which was intended to prevent this type of activity. Mr. Payne quoted from the Critical Slopes section of the ordinance (Section 4.2) as follows: 4.2.5 Modification of Regulations As part of the review of any plat of subdivision or site development plan, the commission may modify any regulation and requirement of this section in a particular case, subject to the following limitations: July 23, 1985 Page 13 4.2.5.1 The applicant shall demonstrate to the commission that such modification is consistent with sound engineering and design practice and that the public interest and the intent of this section would be served to at least an equivalent degree by such modification. 4.2.5.2 No such modification shall be granted until the recommendation of the county engineer, Virginia Department of Health, and other appropriate officials with regard to such modification shall have been considered by the commission. 4.2.5.3 In granting such modification, the commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public interest and to insure that such development will be consistent with the intent of section 4.2. Mr. Payne stated the Commission should consider the request in the following way: (1) The property does have a building site without this modification; (2) Does the applicant's proposal satisfy the intent of the ordinance to an equivalent degree as would be satisfied if the already approved building sites were used; and (3) Is it consistent with good engineering practices. He added that the ordinance is written in such a way as to place the burden of proof on the applicant. Ms. Diehl stated that she was in agreement with staff and before she would consider the modification request more infor- mation is needed regarding a grading plan with house, septic and future road locations, and approval from the Health Depart- ment is also needed. Both Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Michel indicated they felt that just because the proposal is possible is not justification for granting the request. They indicated further that they would not look favorably on the application even with more information. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he did not agree in view of the applicant's description of the road that would have to be constructed if this proposal was not approved. Mr. Michel indicated he did not feel this was a legitimate argument since that road will have to be built in the future anyway when the back parcels are developed. Mr. Michel moved that the Michael Barrett Modification Request be denied. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. /ST- July 23, 1985 Page 14 The Chairman advised the applicant that he had ten days in which to appeal this action to the Board of Supervisors. The Chairman announced there would be a meeting with the City Planning Commission on September 10, 1985, 4:00 p.m., in Rooms 5 and 6. He confirmed that an agenda would be prepared for the meeting. Two items which are to be discussed are Rt. 29 North and Run -Off Control. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. DS Secretary IR AE 'Z