Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 10 85 PC MinutesSeptember 10, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 10, 1985, Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; 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. The minutes of the August 27, 1985 meeting were approved as written. U.S. Post Office, Keene, Virginia Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 678 square foot building to be used as a post office served by 8 parking spaces. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 712 directly west of its intersection with Rt. 20. Tax Map 121, parcel 91. Scottsville Magisterial District. Site Plan deferred (at request of applicant) from September 3, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that Health Department approval has been received and a revised site plan has been received which incorporates Site Review comments. She also confirmed that staff has had sufficient time to review the revised plan. She also added staff has approved the loading space. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. James Murray, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant has made an effort to comply with all site review recommendations and asked that the application be approved. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove moved that the U.S. Post Office, Keene, Virginia, 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. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Rts. 712 and 715, if not previously done; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance, to include sight easements as necessary; C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of 50 foot taper to the north of the z211- September 10, 1985 Page 2 intersection with Rt. 715; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; b. Fire Official approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. SP-85-60 Nettie Marie Jones - Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to subdivide parts of three existing parcels into twelve lots, average size of 2.42 acres. Located on the east of St. Rt. 677 approximately one mile north of its intersection with Rt. 250W. Tax Map 59, parcels 7B1, 20 and 28 (part of). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Deferred (at request of applicant) from September 3, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Michel's question concerning the residue, Ms. Patterson stated it was her understanding the residue would be held as property with perhaps one dwelling unit placed on it. Mr. Cogan asked if the division line shown on the map going from point B to point D was the line between the two tax map parcels. Ms. Patterson confirmed this. Mr. Cogan asked if all the lots being on one tax map is being contemplated. It was determined the applicant could answer this question. Mr. Michel asked why the railroad was used as a cut-off. Ms. Patterson responded it was felt that was the boundary that was intended. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Ethan Miller, representing Ms. Jones, addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --Applicant owns a 113 acre parcel adjacent to this parcel and other parcels which are also adjacent. Had those other parcels been included in the proposal the average lot size would have been 13 acres. Perhaps the applicant had erred in not including the other parcels in the proposal. (The Chairman pointed out to Mr. Miller that the current appli- cation is for 60 acres only and his comments should be confined accordingly.) --Regarding the addition of an additional lot, he stated the applicant is willing to proffer that there will be no building on the residue parcel. September 10, 1985 Page 3 --The applicant has the right to place 6 lots on one parcel and 5 on the other, but this application ties the lots all together and clusters them on the extreme southern edge of a large parcel of farmland (owned by the applicant) in an effort to preserve the farmland. --The land is not suitable for agricultural use because of the extreme wet nature of the property. --There are no plans for development of the adjacent properties which are owned by the applicant. --He presented two alternative plans showing how the property could be developed by right and pointed out the disadvantages. --The current proposal is preferable from a standpoint of aesthetics and marketability. --The disadvantages of the by -right development alternatives include the necessity for several stream crossings to provide accessability to the lots and the rendering of the residue parcel (which would lie between the two sections) as unfeasible for farming. Mr. Mark Keller, landscape engineer on the project, addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: --The main issue in this proposal is the placement of all lots on parcel 20B as opposed to 5 lots on each parcel. --Referring to the request for an additional lot, he stated the owners of the several large contiguous tracts propose 4/5 of the existing development rights from a parcel that is on the extreme north in exchange for a similar right on this subdivision. Should the Commission agree to this part of the proposal, the applicant would prefer to retain the right to exercise this option pending further site investigation as part of the final plat submission. --He requested that the following issues be addressed: (1) Compatability of this development with existing uses; (2) Traffic situation. --This proposal would generate no more traffic than by -right development. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Jordan addressed the Commission and questioned the proposed lot size since he was under the impression it was 2.4 acres while the staff report had stated it was 5.0 acres. Ms. Patterson explained that the average size of the 11 lots is 2.4 acres, but if the residue lot is included, the average size of the 12 lots is 5.0 acres. Mr. John Zigler, an adjacent property owner, addressed the 161,,,,r Commission. He was opposed to the application for the following ZZ( September 10, 1985 Page 4 reasons: (1)A "strip" residential community development is developing along Rt. 250; and (2) Questionable adequacy of groundwater to support individual well systems. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel stated that while the applicant's proposal has some strong points (keeps the development out of the floodplain, limits access onto a bad road and clusters the development by an existing subdivision with similar lot size), he would be "hard put" to support it because of concerns about sufficient groundwater and compliance with the Highway Department's recommendations for a taper lane. He stated he could support the proposal for only 11 lots and if Highway Department recommendations were followed. He added that he felt this was on the edge of Flordon and is not an intrusion into an agricultural area. Mr. Skove stated he was in agreement with Mr. Michel; however, he felt there were not adequate grounds to make an exception and he could not support the proposal. Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned about cutting in half the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for an average lot size of ten acres. He added he questioned whether or not this land could support eleven lots when consideration is given to floodplain problems, streams, septic approvals, etc. He pointed out that although there is the right to 11 parcels, they would have to be split between the two tax maps instead of all put on one as is being proposed. Mr. Bowerman stated he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan. He also asked at what point the purchaser of a lot determines whether or not water is available on the lot. Mr. Cogan stated there is no requirement to make that determination at all, it being left up to the purchaser. He added, however, that it might be possible for a purchaser to have this added as a contingency in a contract of purchase. He stated this is nothing over which the Commission has control. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for 10 acre lots, there is a better chance for locating water than there would be on a 5 acre lot. (At this point there was a brief discussion about the audience's inability to hear what was being said. Mr. Bowerman apologized to the audience explaining that the sound system was inadequate, but it had been necessary to meet in this room because of the large turnout that was expected for the Sherwood Commons application.) ZZ 7 September 10, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-60 for Nettie Marie Jones be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Mr. Michel casting the dissenting vote. Sherwood Commons Site Plan - Proposal to locate 360 apartment units in twenty 3-story buildings on 24 acres, served by 631 parking spaces with a swimming pool and tot lot. Property is adjacent to the west of Sherwood Manor, north of Country Green Apartments, and east of Rt. 781. Tax Map 76P, parcel 46C. Zoned R-15, Residential. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Mr. Bowerman explained to the audience that the current proposal is a site plan. The zoning on the property is R-15 which allows the type of development proposed by the applicant. He asked that the audience confine their comments to the issue of the amenities, etc. in relation to the actual proposal and not to the zoning.) Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Keller, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: --This plan could be considered by -right development of this parcel consistent with the densities reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. --Much of the feedback desired by the applicant will result from this public hearing. --The existing plan can be "massaged" to accommodate the aesthetics. --Guidance is needed in relation to traffic, erosion problems and density before a large amount of time and money is spent on the project. The Chairman invited public comment. The following people addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr. Kevin Ryan (President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners' Association); Ms. Betty Siegner; Mr. John Dobbins; Mr. Tim Makin; Ms. McDermott; Mr. McLafferty; Mr. Jack Abgott; Mr. Steve Colazar; Ms. Barbara Stein; Ms. Helen Stiller; Mr. David Moody; Mr. George Hudson; Mr. Kent Foley; Mr. Bill McDermott; Mr. Gary Sterns. Their reasons for opposition included the following: --Increased traffic on already inadequate and unsafe roads; --Drainage problems; --Inadequate sewer capacity (The neighboring residents are not prepared to grant easements for a sewer line at this time); ZZ-� September 10, 1985 Page 6 --Already an excess of apartments in the area; --No public benefit to be derived from the development; --Property devaluation (if the apartments are to be subsidized housing). The public also raised the following issues: --Mr. Abgott presented a petition signed by 133 residents of the neighborhood who oppose the development; --If the development is approved, Sunset Blvd. should be made a dead-end road; --If the developer can address the concerns of staff, why has a revised site plan not been submitted? --The amenities proposed (pool, tot lot, etc) should be included in Phase I of the development. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr.Bowerman began the discussion by stating that the Commission relies very heavily on staff input. He explained that staff makes recommendations to an applicant in regard to certain minimal requirements and it is incumbant upon the applicant to address these issues before the item is presented to the Commission. He stated he felt the current proposal has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, and a conceptual plan should not be presented to the Commission. In answer to Mr. Cogan's question regarding access, Mr. Keeler stated that because of the size of this development, staff feels it should have access to more than one public road. He stated the road issue needs to be looked into more deeply, particu- larly in regard to the safety aspects of the road. He added that after that is done, the staff may have a different recommendation. With that in mind, he stated he was concerned about the Commission making comments that could be deemed "promisory." Ms. Diehl stated she felt the application was not complete and was before the Commission unnecessarily. Ms. Diehl moved that the Sherwood Commons Site Plan be denied based on the addendum presented by staff. The reasons for denial are as follows: (1) Public road access is inadequate; (2) Internal circulation design is not in accordance with sound engineering practice; (3) Recreational facilities do not provide appropriate location and accessibility to residents; (4) Drainage plan inadequate; (5) Inadequate sanitary sewerage. The following changes will allow the project to be approved (note: this was amended later on in the meeting): (1) Provide safe access to State Route 781; (2) Redesign internal circulation patterns; (3) Redesign recreational areas to make them more centrally -located and with safe pedestrian access for intended users; Zz9 September 10, 1985 Page 7 Om (4) Complete and/or redesign drainage and stormwater facilities to provide safe and adequate disposition of surface water runoff; (5) Redesign wastewater line to reasonable satisfaction of Albemarle County Service Authority. (6) Locate recreational facilities during Phase I. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Skove stated he supported denial for the reasons stated but he wanted to point out to the public that none of the conditions stated to make the plan approvable addressed the issue of roads and he did not want to hold out hope to the public that the development could be turned down because of the road issue. Mr. Bowerman stated the facts would have to be viewed as they exist at the time. Mr. Skove stated that if the application meets the requirements, the Commission will have no choice but to approve it. Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission is limiting itself to requiring only those changes which are listed in the motion. Mr. Payne replied affirmatively and stated if the Commission has any further concerns they must be stated in the motion. He acknowledged,however, that another plan might raise new issues and then would be considered new business. Ms. Diehl amended her motion to include the following statement: The following changes will allow the project to be approved according to the data available at this time. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the amended motion. Regarding the parking question, it was determined this could be addressed at staff level. Mr. Cogan indicated it was not the Commission's job to essentially submit a site plan for an applicant. He was very concerned about this possibility. Mr. Payne confirmed that when a site plan is denied that is by -right development the Commission must state the reasons for denial as well as what can be done to make the plan approvable. Mr. Cogan asked how specific the Commission must be. 7150 September 10, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Payne stated it is certainly not required that staff or the County prepare a site plan. Mr. Skove asked if it were possible to add any requirements concerning roads, e.g. dead -ending Sunset Ave. Mr. Payne indicated that would be difficult because the developer does not have the power to dead-end Sunset Avenue. He pointed out that at least three so�.ereign bodies would be involved in such an issue, i.e. the City, the Board of Supervisors, and the Highway Department. However, he added that it is not an issue the Commission needn't be concerned with and it is something that the Commission might recommend be done by the appropriate authority. Mr. Skove asked if the petition should come back to the Commission would it be possible to defer it until this issue is resolved. Mr..Payne responded that if the Commission is concerned about this issue, it has the authority to initiate action on its own and should do so, independent of this proposal. Ms. Diehl asked if such action should be initiated after a site plan is submitted. Mr. Payne responded it depended on how the Commission views the problem, i.e. if it is felt the problem is integrally related to a high density development in this location, then it would not be necessary to cul-de-sac it until this property is developed. He added that some members of the public feel this problem is in existence now, regardless of whether this property is ever developed or not. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion on the floor. The previously stated motion for denial of the Sherwood Commons Site Plan, as amended by Ms. Diehl, passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:20; reconvened at 9: 35 in Meeting Room 7. Ms. Cooke did not return after the recess. Emerald Forest Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 37.85 acres into 6 lots ranging from 5-10 acres, with an average 6.3 acres lot size. Lots are proposed to be served by a new private road off an existing private road. Property is located on the west side of Rt. 635, adjacent to the south of Western Albemarle High School. Tax Map 56, parcel 19 and part of parcel 19B. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson explained the applicant had requested deferral until September 24 to allow time for further engineering information to be gathered, particularly in regard to the public vs. private road issue. Z 3! September 10, 1985 Page 9. Mr. Michel moved that the applicant's request for deferral until September 24 be approved. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Robert Maupin Final Plat - Proposal to divide 33.92 acres into 3 lots ranging from 10 to 13.0791 acres, with an average 11.3 acre lot size. Lots are proposed to be accessed by an existing private road. Property is located adjacent to the south of the Emerald Green Preliminary plat. Tax Map 56, parcel 19B. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. It was determined that this plat had been previously approved but the time had expired. Ms. Patterson stated the only change has been a minor lot line shift. Regarding the connection of this proposal to the Emerald Forest proposal, Mr. Payne explained that this plan is capable of standing completely on its own merit. He added it is not proper for the Commission to require a public road in contem- plation of the next development when this proposal in itself would not generate the need for such a requirement. Mr. Payne stated further that the only advantage of having this approved is so that it can be put to record. If the Emerald Forest development is approved, then this plan will have to be amended because one of the lots in Emerald Forest comes out of this development. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Edwards addressed the Commission and stated the applicant has no problems with the conditions of approval. He added that the person doing Emerald Forest will buy Lots 1 and 2 so there will be no problems with the road. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the Robert Maupin Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and computations; C. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement; d. County Engineer and Watershed Management official approval of flood plain dilineation; ZSZ September 10, 1985 Page 10 e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance, to include sight easement if necessary; f. Planning staff approval of road name. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. It was determined the Commission was making no committment as to what type road might be required for future development. The above stated motion for approval was unanimously approved. The Players Club Site Plan - Proposal to locate a raquet and fitness club comprised of 8,450 square feet of existing structure and 25,500 square feet of proposed expansion on 11.94 acres. The expansion includes raquetball courts, offices, gym, whirlpool/ sauna/steam rooms. Property, is located in Four Seasons off Four Seasons Drive on the site of the existing pool, tennis courts and clubhouse. Tax Map 61X1, parcel 4. Zoned PUD, with ZMA-85-15 (to expand recreational building). Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson explained the applicant had requested deferral until September 24 to allow time for parking provisions to be worked out with the Zoning Administrator. She added, however, that Mr. Greg Johnson, President of the Homeowner's Association had not been informed of the deferral, and was present at the meeting. She suggested it would be useful to hear Mr. Johnson's comments. The Chairman invited comments from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson stated his organization was satisfied and did not object to deferral. Mr. Cogan moved that the applicant's request for deferral to September 24 be approved. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS GLECO Mills - Mr. Keeler reported he had made a mistake on this matter at the previous week's meeting when he had stated that the applicant was requesting a 6 month extension. He explained the applicant's request had been for an extension to December 31, 1986. He stated he had informed the appli- cant that a site plan had never been extended for that length of time, but that he would request that the Commission extend it for one year. Z33 September 10, 1985 Page 11 Mr. Cogan indicated he was concerned about this request because nothing had been with the property, and what the applicant had proposed to the Commission has not been done. Mr. Michel stated he shared Mr. Cogan's concerns and indicated he felt the applicant had misrepresented his intentions for the property. The other Commissioners indicated they were not aware of this situation. It was the consensus of the Commission that no further extension be granted. State Farm Insurance Building Expansion - Mr. Keeler explained that the proposed expansion, while sizeable, will be used for storage and will cause no increase in employees or in traffic. He requested that staff be allowed to administratively approve this expansion. The Commission had no objections to staff approval of an amended site plan. NEW BUSINESS Ancona Project at Boar's Head - Mr. Michel reported he was concerned about the amount of construction that is taking place on this project, with several structures almost ready for occupancy, yet no improvements to the highway have begun as were required. He stated he was opposed to a certificate of occupancy being granted until improvements have begun. The Commission agreed. It was determined that Mr. Keeler would advise the Zoning Administrator that it was the Commission's desire that nothing other than a regular CO (not a temporary one, etc.) be issued until road improvements have been made, and not just bonded. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. DS r4� Z3V