Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 08 86 PC MinutesApril 8, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Meeting Room 7, 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. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark (entered at 8:15). Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the March 25, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. SP-86-10 Jeff Surguy and Ramona Deane - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 103, parcel 23C (part of). Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 795, ±3 miles south of its intersection with Rt. 620. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Mr. Benish pointed out that, due to the location of the creek on the property, the applicant would be unable to provide a 75-foot side setback from the northern property line without encroaching on the floodplain. (A 75-foot setback had been requested by the property owner to the north.) It was determined the applicant could locate the trailer approximately 30 feet further away from the northern property line without encroaching on the floodplain. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Surguy addressed the Commission. He indicated that it might be possible to shift the p]a--ement of the trailer somewhat. It was determined the lot was primarily wooded. Though Mr. Surguy stated the trees were mainly deciduous, it was later determined evergreens were predominant. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Daniel Velicky addressed the Commission. As the owner of the property (which he was selling to the applicants), he stated he felt there was room on the lot to locate the unit more than 25 feet away from the northern property line, as shown by the applicant. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. April 8, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Cogan suggested that the following condition be added: "The trailer shall be located no less than 50 feet from the , northern property line." The actual placement of the unit would be left up to the applicant provided this condition was met. It was determined it was Mr. Cogan's intent that the trees would remain as a buffer. It was decided the additional condition suggested by Mr. Cogan would be added at the end of condition No. 2 and would read: "...and a 50-foot tree buffer along the northern property line." Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-10 for Jeff Surguy and Ramona Deane 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. Maintenance of a 75-foot tree buffer along the frontage of Rt. 795 and a 50-foot tree buffer along the northern property line. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on April 16, 1986. James Walker Family Division (Preliminary Plat) - This is a proposal to create one five acre lot leaving a residue parcel of approximately 191 ± acres. This will be a family division pursuant to Section 18-56 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Total acreage of parent parcel is ±196. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. This property is located on Rt. 708 approximately two miles east of Rt. 29, in the Red Hill area. Tax Map 100, parcel 23, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that the applicant was appealing a condition of final plat approval, i.e. that the road be upgraded to the minimum de- sign standard outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Walker addressed the Commission. He indicated this application was unique in that he was already living on the property in a mobile home. He stated he wished to subdivide the property in order to build a permanent dwelling. He stated he was the only person living on the road and he has been responsible for the maintenance of the road. He pointed out that the road is quite wide and in good condition . There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. tom? 7 April 8, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Payne advised the Commission as follows: (1) The issue is for the Commission to determine if the road is adequate to serve the traffic on the road and whether or not there is a need for the road to comply with Table I, Section 18-36. He emphasized that the table does not apply to this division since it is a family division, but the reason staff feels it should be made to apply is "In the County Engineer's opinion, what is shown in the table is the minimum that is adequate to serve the development." He explained the difference between a regular subdivision and a family subdivision is that for a regular subdivision, Table I applies, but in this case, there is no standard except what the Commission finds to be adequate. Mr. Payne emphasized that the cost of the road was not an issue before the Commission. (2) "This is not a waiver. This is a matter for your determination as to what you consider to be adequate." Mr. Payne confirmed that in making this determination, the Commission did not have to refer to a table. (3) The fact that the Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend sections of the Subdivision Ordinance related to the private road requirements for family divisions has no legal standing at this point, though it may may have some bearing on what the Commission determines to be reasonable. Mr. Keeler pointed out that this subdivision, along with the one that would follow on the agenda (McNulty), were slightly different from previous family subdivisions. He explained that both the roads in these applications were used by traffic of an industrial nature (the Walker road being used by orchard traffic, and the McNulty road being used by a saw mill business). He stated that the table in the Subdivision Ordinance is based on residential usage. Therefore, Mr. Keeler stated, "Even if it's upgraded to the standard shown in the table, it may not actually be a standard adequate for this additional traffic." He added, "I have some question in my mind as to the utility of requiring the applicant to upgrade the road for what may be a brief period of time" since the Highway Department seems to regrade gravelled, state roads quite often. It was determined the road was reasonably level and approximately 12 feet to 14 feet wide. Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned that it the Commission required that the road be surface treated, the industrial traffic would "break it up," and it would be more difficult to keep an asphalt road in repair than a gravel road. April 8, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Cogan indicated he would be in favor of leaving the road as it is. n Ms. Diehl stated that since there would be no substantial increase in usage, she felt the road was sufficient. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. Mr. Cogan moved that the James Walker Family Division (Preliminary Plat) be approved, including administrative approval of the final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; b. Health Department approval of lot for septic site location. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Gordon McNulty Family Division (Preliminary Plat) - This is a proposal to create a five acre parcel leaving a ±25.7 acre residue parcel. This will be a family division pursuant to section 18-56 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The total area of the property to be divided is ±30.7 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. This property is located off OldBrock's Mill Road (private road) on the north side of Rt. 640, near Gilbert. Mr. Benish gave the staff report and pointed out that this application was almost identical to the Walker application, and the comments in the staff report were the same. The applicant was appealing a condition of the final plat approval, i.e. that the road be upgraded to the minimum design standard outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Kim McNulty Walker, daughter of the applicant, addressed the Commission. She pointed out that the septic system is already in and her house is already under construction on the property. She explained that four property owners use the road and have a verbal maintenance agreement which has always worked very well. She stated the road was in very good shape. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that the comments he had made regarding the Walker application, apply also to this NOO application. April 8, 1986 Page 5 OR cm Mr. Cogan stated he was familiar with the road and confirmed that it was well maintained. Mr. Cogan moved that the Gordon McNulty Family Division (Preliminary Plat) be approved, including administrative approval of the final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; b. Health Department approval of lot for septic site location. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposed on the east side of Route 20 North just south of the Orange County line, and is comprised of 1,136 acres as shown. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report which was to advise the Commission of the application and the schedule which would be followed for the proposal. No action was required of the Commission. The meeting recessed from 8:05 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. FHM Doctor's Court III Site Plan - Proposal to locate a two story building of 9,381 square feet served by 38 parking spaces. Acreage of site is 0.849 acres, zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property is located on a private road which connects from Hydraulic Road to Whitewood Road. This building will be in front of the other two FHM buildings, across from Albemarle High School. Tax Map 61, parcel 27, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --This site plan is a "rehash" of one done several years ago, with the only change being a slight enlargement of the building footprint and a re -working of the stormwater management system which takes into consideration properties downstream. --He explained the detention system as being 2 septic tanks to handle roof drainage and an underground pipe to handle runoff from the parking area. April 8, 1986 Page 6 --The County Engineer's office is aware of the stormwater management plans and approves them. --The applicant asks that he be allowed to "execute the sight distance easement" but at the same time be granted a waiver "from being required to do the grading and tree removal at this time." The applicant feels the Highway Department should make those improvements since most of the easement lies on state -maintained property. Regarding the sight distance issue, Mr. Payne stated the following: "The law is fairly clear, that the County and the Highway Department have a joint responsibility to make sure that an entrance is safe, and who does the work is immaterial. I don't think it would be consistent with your usual practice to say, 'We'll just let the Highway Department worry about that.'" Mr. Bowerman indicated he could not recall this particular issue being brought up before, He stated, "If sight distance is required and VDH&T approval of the sight easement is required, then it has to be done." Mr. Payne confirmed he felt this was the appropriate to deal with this issue. He stressed that, until the matter is resolved, it is the Commission's role to be sure the Zoning Administrator does not issue an occupancy permit. Mr. Payne stated that, unless he was misunderstanding the issue, he could see no reason to handle this any differently than usual. It was determined that condition 1(d)--VDH&T approval of sight distance at the entrances in accordance with letter dated March 6, 1986--addressed the issue adequately. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Dr. Forloines, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated the problem with the requirement for the grading for sight distance was that most of the land (approximately 80%) is on state -maintained property and he questioned if the sight distance could be maintained,once it is established, if the state does not keep up its maintenance. It was determined this was an issue between the applicant and the Highway Department and if the Highway Department was not fulfilling its obligations, a complaint should be made Ms. Jennifer Wilhoit, a neighboring property owner (Oakhurst Circle) addressed the Commission. She asked if the existing private home was a part of this site plan. Mr. Keeler stated that it was not. 26/ April 8, 1986 Page 7 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. ,%r Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Osborne why corrugated metal pipe (CMP) was proposed for use in the underground drainage rather than reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) since RCP is superior in terms of life expectancy and fewer future problems. Mr. Osborne indicated the primary consideration had been one of initial cost. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, it was determined condition l(d) also addresses the entrance requirements and Ms. Patterson stated the applicant has received entrance permits for each entrance and "the only thing lacking to complete the Highway Department's standards of that commercial entrance is sight distance." Mr. Cogan stated that since the cost of RCP is not much higher than CMP, he could see no reason not to use the RCP. It was determined the County Engineer had given preliminary approval to drainage plans and the runoff control plan has also been approved. Mr. Payne pointed out that this is still subject to Commission approval. *r In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Osborne indicated the applicant would have no objection to using RCP for the underground drainage. Mr. Keeler, referring to the RCP vs. CMP issue, stated, "If this is the uniform feeling of the Planning Commission, it may be appropriate for us to pass a memo on to the County Engineer's office that in the case of underground stormwater detention facilities (the Commission will be requiring the use of RCP pipe)." Mr. Bowerman indicated that, at least, a review of the matter was called for. It was determined the following would be added at the end of condition 1(a): "...including reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to be used for parking lot stormwater detention facilities." Mr. Osborne confirmed this was adequate designation. Mr. Cogan moved that FHM Doctor's Court III 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. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations, including reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to be used for parking lot stormwater detention facilities. j lJ,*1-1 April 8, 1986 Page 8 b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; C. Issuance of a runoff control permit; *4004 d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of sight distance at the entrances in accordance with letter dated March 6, 1986; e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire officer final approval; b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private easement and parking. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. n Horne, Secretary DS