HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 08 86 PC MinutesJuly 8, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 8, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, VA. 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. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. David Benish, Planner.
Absent: 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 June 24, 1986 meeting
were approved as submitted.
Forest Glen Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create five lots ranging in
size from 5 acres to 21.9 acres, for an average lot size of 9.86 acres.
Total area of the site is 49.3 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
property is located on the south side of Rt. 250, adjacent to
(and west of) Western Albemarle High School. Tax Map 55, parcel 106A.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that "a preliminary
plat for this subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on
July 26, 1983 and a final plat was approved on September 21, 1983. The
present proposal closely resembles this previously approved final plat."
In response to Ms. Diehl's question as to why this was before the
Commission again, Mr. Benish responded, "The approvals are now void and
they never went forward on them. It's essentially a re -approval; most
everything's the same. The road has been changed slightly and some of
the lot lines." Mr. Benish also added the following to condition l.c.:
...which includes full -width right -turn lane serving Rt. 9570 being
extended 100 feet and existing taper length be maintained and rebuilt.
Mr. Benish explained that the termination point for the road had been
decided upon so as to avoid getting into 25% slopes.
It was determined tract 4 would have one stream crossing, and possibly two.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
confirmed that the proposal was basically as previously approved with
a few improvements having been made, i.e. the road is shown on this plan
and some of the lots are more accessible. He stated the applicant is in
agreement with the recommended conditions of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
July 8, 1986 Page 2
Mr. Gould moved that the Forest Glen Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and computations
(including driveways crossing streams);
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
private street commercial entrance, which includes full -width
right -turn lane serving Rt. 9570 being extended 100 feet and
existing taper length be maintained and rebuilt;
d. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement.
2. Planning Commission approval of a private road to serve this development.
3. Planning Staff approval of the final plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ednam Forest Lake Cottages Site Plan - Proposal to locate 15 hotel lodging
units to be served by 38 parking spaces. The total area of the site is
6.24 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the
south side of Rt. 250W, and northwest of Ednam Drive. Tax Map 59D2, parcel
2 (part of). Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated: "This proposal was
previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on January 24,
1984. That approval has expired, therefore, the applicant is requesting
re -approval of this plan." The report also stated: "The applicant is
requesting waiver of Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
grading to occur in one portion of the buffer area. The grading is needed
as part of the construction of the access road to the cottages. Staff
recommends approval of this waiver request."
Regarding the buffer area, Mr. Benish stated, "Nothing was really shown on
the previous plan. What we've had them do is show the 20-foot buffer now,
as it pertains to the current ordinance." He referred to a large map
showing the landscape plan.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that the original approval had required a VDH&T
commercial entrance on Rt. 250, but the Board of Supervisors deleted that
condition. He asked if that question was now moot. Mr. Benish stated,
"They've gotten their permits."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ancona, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
confirmed that the permit has been obtained from the Highway Department,
and the bond has been released.
July 8, 1986
Page 3
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the words or greater be added to condition l.b., thus
the condition would be: County Engineer approval of building on 25%, or
greater, slopes. This was agreed to by the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Ednam Forest Lake Cottages 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;
b. County Engineer approval of building on 25%, or greater, slopes:
c. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans.
2. Waiver of Section 21.7.3 of Zoning Ordinance for grading in
buffer area.
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition is met:
a. Fire Officer Approval of fire flow.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Berkmar Drive Lots 1 and 7A Site Plan - Proposal to locate two office/
commercial (retail) buildings to be served by 69 parking spaces. The
total area of the buildings is 18,000 square feet. The total area of the
site is 1.232 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is
located on the east side of Berkmar Drive adjacent to the Village
Offices Limited Partnership property. Tax Map 61-M-U(1), parcel 1 and
7A. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following
statement: "This site is located adjacent to the proposed regional
stormwater detention facility. The applicant, and other adjacent
property owners will be dedicating property to the County in order to
establish this facility. Once this agreement is completed the appli-
cant will receive a portion of the adjacent property (Spangler, Tax Map
61, parcel 120F) which has been shown as part of this proposed devel-
opment. Building permits will not be issued for any construction on
this site until the exchange of this property has occurred."
The Commission was somewhat concerned about the proposed property transfer
between the applicant and the County. Mr. Benish explained that this would
be a rather complicated transaction where the applicant would be "dedicating"
a large piece of the property to the County, but since the County does
�k✓ not need all the property for construction of the basin, the applicant
will get some of it back. Mr. Keeler stated that "dedicated" was not
/n �
July 8, 1986 Page 4
an accurate term because there would be payments involved. There was
some interest as to how the sums would be arrived at. Mr. Gould
stated, "If it's not independent, then I think there's some problem
with it." Mr. McKee, representing the applicant, explained that the
arrangement was partially a result of sight distance and access problems
encountered with parcel 7A. Mr. Stennet, also representing the applicant,
explained further that'�he Spangler property was priced by Mr. Spangler
at $250,000 and the County had a budget for land of $125,000. Mr. Stowe
agreed to take a contract to purchase the residual part that the
County didn't need so there was a number of considerations off -site
irrelevant to this particular transaction."
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the Board of Supervisors would have to approve
the expenditure.
Mr. Benish stated the agreement between the parties has not yet been
executed, thus the reason for condition l.c. (All agreements between the
County and the developer regarding the transfer of properties and granting
of all necessary easements for the construction of the Berkmar regional
detention basin have been executed). He confirmed that, with the
inclusion of condition l.c., staff foresees no problems with the application.
Mr. Benish also stated, "If the agreement never comes off, if there is
a dispute over prices and everybody bails out, we can't really go forward
with this site plan because they won't have the property that most of
the improvements are on. All the other issues are basically technical
issues."
Mr. Cogan voiced some concern about the wording of condition 2.a. It
was determined the words and receipt would be added, thus the condition
would read: County Engineer approval and receipt of $8,970.00 payment
to the County in lieu of stormwater detention facilities.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the agreement between the County and the developer
would be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keeler responded, "The
Board acquires all properties." Mr. Keeler indicated he was not familiar
with the current status of the agreement and explained that most
land acquisitions occur in Executive Session. Mr. Benish added that
he felt fairly confident that the Board had approved the concept of the
agreement, but "the actual transactions have not occurred because there
are some details to be worked out about exact dollar amounts."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Though Mr. Stark suggested that condition l.c. be made condition l.a. since
all the other conditions hinged on this condition, it was decided it was
not necessary to change the sequence of the conditions.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Benish explained that the
figure in condition 2.a. was a "concrete" figure and was a separate issue
from the property transfer agreement.
9
July 8, 1986
Page 5
Since the Commission would not be a party to the property transfer agreement,
Mr. Keeler suggested that they might wish to include the following at
the end of condition l.c.: "Planning Commission approval of site plan
in no way to be deemed to be an endorsement of the proposed property
transaction nor shall it be deemed to be a recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors to pursue such transaction."
Mr. Gould indicated he was skeptical of the agreement and stated, "While I
agree, I think that the way this is put together is probably the only way
that site plan can survive, I am still uncomfortable with the transaction.
I don't think it could stand the light of day, particularly because of the
people involved." He added, however, that Mr. Keeler's suggested
addition to condition l.c. addressed his concerns.
It was determined the County Attorney's office has been involved in the
transaction.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Berkmar Drive Site Plan, Lots 1 and 7A, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
are met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. All agreements between the County and developer regarding the
transfer of properties and granting of all necessary easements
for the construction of the Berkmar regional detention basin have
been executed; Planning Commission approval of site plan in
no way to be deemed to be an endorsement of the proposed property
transaction nor shall it be deemed to be a recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors to pursue such transaction;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer lateral
connection and water meter size;
e. Establishment of access easement for parcels 1 and 7A;
f. County Attorney approval of cooperative parking agreement;
g. Staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition is met:
a. County Engineer approval and receipt of $8.970.00 payment to
the County in lieu of stormwater detention facilities.
3. Approval of the use of cooperative parking.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
1--6
July 8, 1986 Page 6
SP-86-35 Melvin Morris - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a stream crossing which will serve
32.77 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 103, parcel 23 (part of)
is located on the east side of Rt. 795 approximately 1 mile north of
Blenheim. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
Ms. Diehl asked if it would be possible to add a condition stating that the
crossing would be for the use of one dwelling only. Mr. Benish stated
that this parcel had no further division rights so there could be no
other dwellings. He confirmed, however, that the adjacent parcel could
possibly use the crossing also. it was determined the adjacent parcel
has no remaining division rights either.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris addressed the Commission. He indicated he would like for the
adjoining property owner to be able to use the same crossing. Mr. Morris
stated he had not been aware that a permit was required. (Mr. Keeler
explained that this was not uncommon.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding Ms. Diehl's previous concern about only dwelling being able to
use the crossing, it was determined that it was preferable to have one
crossing rather than two (as would be the result of requiring the other
parcel to have a separate crossing).
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-86-35 for Melvin Morris be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 16, 1986.
SP-86-39 Melvin Morris - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of
the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on property
described as Tax Map 103, parcel 23 (part of). The property is located
on the east side of Rt. 795 approximately 1 mile north of Bleheim. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that two letters of
objection had been received. One objection was to the use of the mobile
home on this site and the second (from the property owner to the rear
and north) was concerned about the proposed location on the property
(100 feet and 140 feet from the adjacent owner's property line). The
report stated that staff was recommending that the mobile home site be
located further off the rear property line thus placing the site at a lower
grade relative to the adjacent owners' residence and more successfully
obscuring the visibility of the mobile home.
1 -, °7
July 8, 1986 Page 7
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris again addressed the Commission. He indicated he agreed with
staff, i.e. to move the location 160 feet further from the rear property
line would make the unit non -visible to the objecting owner. He
confirmed that he would not remove any of the currently existing trees.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Robert Sullivan, adjacent property owner to the rear and north,
addressed the Commission. He expressed his strenuous objection to
the location of the mobile home on the property. He indicated he felt
it would not be consistent with his plans for the future use of his
property. He also questioned the validity of the proposal since
he had been unable to find any records indicating that one of
the owners of the property had conveyed their half of the property to
the other.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl suggested that the following condition be added: "Existing trees
within 300 feet of the rear property line and 100 feet of the north side
property line to remain as a natural buffer."
Regarding Mr. Sillivan's accusation that the proposal was of questionable
legality, Mr. Benish stated, "The application pertains to whatever property
that the mobile home is to be sited on. At the time Mr. Morris came in,
he had a subdivision plat proposed that divided the property, which was subsequent-
ly signed by our office. Whether it's actually been recorded or not,
I'm not sure. That's up to Mr. Morris. He has 6 months to record it.
It was a basically a matter of convenience for the staff and the Commission
that we reviewed the mobile home. I felt to review the mobile home
location as to the site it was supposed to be on, instead of reviewing
it on a 65 acre parcel, to review it on a 32 acre parcel (was preferable)."
He stated the subdivision plat had been reviewed two weeks previously.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Morris stated it was his
intent to build a permanent dwelling at some future date, but he was not
certain as to when this would be done.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-86-39 for Melvin Morris 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. The mobile home site shall be located on a site more internal to the
property which is to be a minimum of 300 feet from the rear property
line and 100 feet from the northern side property line.
3. Existing trees within 300 feet of the rear property line and 100
feet of the north side property line to remain as a natural buffer.
July 8, 1986
Page 8
Regarding the possibility that there might be some "infirmity" with the
application, Mr.. Keeler read the following letter from the file: *00
To the Honorable Board of Supervisors:
We agree with the division of parcel A, Tax Map 103, being
divided into parcels Al and A2. Gerald W. and Susan S. Easton
will be the owners of parcel Al and Melvin L. Morris will be
the owner of parcel A2. We also want Melvin Morris to be
granted a Special Use Permit to cross the creek and install
a mobile home.
/s/ Gerald W. Easton
/s/ Susan S. Easton
Mr. Keeler stated he felt that "took care of the issue" and he could
find no infirmity with the application.
Mr. Cogan seconded Ms. Diehl's motion for approval.
The motion passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board
on July 16, 1986.
(There was some indication from Mr. Sullivan's son that he was not
in agreement with Mr. Keeler's statements. He was advised that if
this was indeed an issue (i.e. the validity of the proposal)
the County Attorney would be able to address it at the time of Board
review. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the proposal was properly before
the Commission.)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
DS