Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 11 86 PC MinutesOR February 11, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 11, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and Mr. Tim Michel. Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the January 28, 1986 meeting were approved as written. SP-85-92 Harvey Hill and Barbara Tapscott - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(22) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a country store on 6+ acres, existing use as a single family residence. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 135, parcel 15B, is located on the south side of State Rt. 726 approximately 1/2 mile east of the intersection with Rt. 627 near Warren. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Stark's question about a right -of way to the "back area", Mr. Keeler explained the applicant would have to provide an easement back to the rear lot. In response to Ms. Diehl's request, Mr. Payne read the following definition of "country store:" A retail store, the ground floor area of which is 4,000 square feet or less and which offers for sale a wide variety of goods. In response to Mr. Gould's question, Mr. Keeler stated there are no living arrangements proposed for the facility. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the property could further subdivided. Mr. Cogan asked how detailed the site plan would be. Mr. Keeler responded, "In this particular case, unless there is public interest, you may want to authorize us to approve the plan administratively." _1D / February 11, 1986 Page 2 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. and Mrs. Tapscott were present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan noted that the staff report had indicated no anticipated problems with the proposal. He added that the fact that this is "new" construction is encouraging because the facility will have to meet current building code and ordinance requirements. Mr. Stark recommended that SP-85-92 for Harvey Hill and Barbara Tapscott be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval to include demonstration that the property can be subdivided consistent with local ordinances; 2. Building area limited to 2000 square feet. Building expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl noted that the motion had not included administrative approval of the site plan. She stated her only concern was with the possibility that there might be public comment at a later date. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the site plan will be advertised, and adjoining property owners will be notified. Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Diehl if it was acceptable to her that staff be authorized approval of the site plan unless there is public concern, in which case staff will make those concerns known to the Commission and it can be decided whether the Commission should review the plan. Ms. Diehl stated she felt any public concern deserved to be heard. Mr. Keeler pointed out that it would lengthen the approval process to handle it as Mr. Cogan had suggested, i.e. it would involve two meetings rather than just one. Mr. Stark asked, "What does that mean to the applicant?" February 11, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Keeler explained, "It means they will have to develop a site plan that is consistent with our ordinances and they will have to get Highway Department approval of a commercial entrance, Health Department approval of a septic system if they intend to have one, Fire official approval of the installation of the gas tanks, etc." He explained this was normal procedure. Mr. Cogan clarified that Mr. Stark's question was "What difference does it make to the applicant whether it is approved administratively or approved by the Commission?" Mr. Stark confirmed this and asked what kind of time delays would be involved in order to address Ms. Diehl's concerns. Mr. Keeler responded, "The time delays may not be substantial. Sometimes when we approval a plan administratively, we approve a plan that has lesser requirements than the ordinance in terms of the technical drawing of the plan, i.e. rather than bringing a plan before you that has the engineered commercial entrance, the Highway Department would just specify to the applicant what they needed to do for the commercial entrance and they would get a permit for that." Mr. Cogan called for a vote on the previously -made motion for approval of SP-85-92. The motion for approval passed unanimously. The matter was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 1986. Regarding the issue of site plan approval, Mr. Cogan stated he felt Ms. Diehl was concerned because this was a commercial use in an area where there has never been a commercial use before, i.e. it is proximal to the agricultural forestal district and large farms, and thus there should be an opportunity for the public to be heard at the time of the site plan. Ms. Diehl confirmed this explanation and indicated that concerns which could be addressed easily by staff, e.g. a buffer that could be accomplished with a row of trees, etc., could be handled by administrative approval. She stated, however, that she would be "reluctant to see any public comment not addressed by the Commission." Mr. Horne suggested that at such a time as a plan is drawn sufficiently to provide meaningful information, then adjoining property owners will be notified and given the standard time period to respond. If no comment is offered, then staff will approve the plan; if there is public concern then the staff will schedule the site plan for the Commission's review. -W) q February 11, 1986 Page 4 In response to Mr. Cogan's question about another agency which approves AF districts, Mr. Horne explained there is an Agricultural Advisory Board which advises the Commission and Board as to the establishment of such districts. However, once established, he stated that "they do not necessarily oversee it." Mr. Horne confirmed that he felt notice of adjoining property owners was sufficient since "in an area such as this, news travels fast." There was no objection from the Commission in relation to Mr. Horne's suggested procedure for the site plan approval. SP-85-96 Hallie M. or Junior B. Gibson - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a single -wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 17, parcel 41. White Hall Magisterial District. The property is located on the southwest side of Rt. 667, ± one-half mile south of its intersection with Rt. 766. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. He explained that a letter of opposition had been received from the Wellons who own adjacent properties, but who actually live in Illinois. He further stated that the dwelling which is visible from the proposed mobile home site is renter -occupied. In response to Mr. Gould's question about screening, Mr. Benish indicated that the house is so far away, he did not think screening would be needed, but that would be left up to the Zoning Administrator. He indicated there was no natural screening since adjacent areas were fields. Mr. Stark stated the possibility of this setting a precedent, as suggested in the letter of opposition, was not an issue since there are already two mobile homes in the area. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The Gibson's daughter, who wishes to occupy the mobile home, addressed the Commission. She presented photographs showing the proposed site. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated his only concern was the lack of a "location map." However, Mr. Benish located such a map in the file and presented it to the Commission. It was determined that the map was somewhat inaccurate. Mr. Cogan felt if a problem with screening should arise, it *410 would be covered with condition No. 2. February 11, 1986 Page 5 Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-96 for Hallie M. or Junior B. Gibson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining landowners. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 1986. Ralph Hall Site Waiver Request - This is a proposal to locate a third dwelling unit on a 54+ acre tract. The applicant is requesting a waiver of a site plan requirement pursuant to Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. A temporary mobile home will be used on the site until the permanent home is completed. The property is located on the north side of Rt. 641, approx- imately one mile from its intersection with Rt. 20. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 35, parcel 41A. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. In addition, he read a portion of a letter from Mr. Boucheron who was objecting to the placement of a mobile home on the property, though not to the location of a third permanent dwelling on the property. Mr. Benish explained where the permanent dwelling would be located as well as the location of the temporary mobile home. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Beery Davis, who will be occupying the temporary mobile home while he is constructing the permanent dwelling, addressed the Commission. He explained that it has always been his intention to place a permanent dwelling on the property and he has already had some building materials delivered to the site. He stated he has been renting a house nearby and has recently received notice to vacate the house by March 1. He explained that, after considering his options, he felt the current proposal was the most economical arrangement. He pointed out that the well, septic system, etc. that will be necessary for the mobile home, will be the same as will be used by the permanent dwelling. Mr. Davis indicated that when the permanent dwelling is complete, the mobile home will be sold and removed from the property. Mr. Davis added that Mr. Boucheron could not see either the permanent dwelling or the mobile home from his home at any time of the year. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if the process for a temporary mobile home was the same as for any mobile home. February 11, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Payne responded that the process for a temporary mobile home was a much more abbreviated procedure. He confirmed that even if there were objection to a temporary permit, it would not require Commission review. Mr. Payne pointed out that the temporary mobile home was not the issue in this case, but rather a site plan waiver request. Mr. Davis explained that the reason for requesting a site plan waiver was to speed up the process since they must vacate their current dwelling shortly. It was determined the property is primarily wooded. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he felt this was an "irregularly shaped lot" as defined in the Ordinance, and, if so, are there other ways to divide the property. Mr. Benish explained that the lines shown had basically been drawn by himself, based on dimensions furnished him by the applicant. He indicated he did not feel it was irregularly shaped. Mr. Payne added, "When you have an L-shape that is 300 feet on a side, it would be hard for me to say that that is not useable for ordinary purposes. That's the standard in the Subdivision Ordinance." Ms. Diehl moved that the Ralph Hall Site Waiver Request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary mobile home permit will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a) Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of proposed entrance. 2. Compliance with section 5.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Cogan called for a motion to go into executive session to discuss purchase of property. Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.1-344(a)(2), Ms. Diehl moved the Commission go into executive session. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission went into executive session at 8:15 p.m. February 11, 1986 Page 7 At 8:55 p.m., Mr. Stark moved, Mr. Gould seconded, that the executive session be ended. No action was taken during the session. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. DS John Horne, Secretary 101 9