Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 23 86 PC MinutesSeptember 23, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 23, 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. Richard Gould; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 9, 1986 were approved as corrected. Robert Cross Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to locate 2 additional dwelling units on a parcel for a total of 4 dwelling units on a single parcel. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the site plan requirements pursuant to Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The total area of the site is 10 acres. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located south of its intersection with Route 240. Tax Map 57, Parcel 41K. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following formation: --The new dwellings are intended to be rental units. --The applicant has demonstrated that a total of 4 lots in excess of 2 acres, with a lawful building site, could be created to contain each dwelling unit. --Should this parcel ever be subdivided, the road requirement would call for a public road to be installed, since all the lots are under 5 acres. Therefore, the applicant must provide an access which could allow a public road to be installed in the future. The Highway Department will also require a private street commercial entrance and will also require that the entrance be relocated so that it will intersect Rt. 250 at a 90' angle. The applicant has agreed to plat an additional 50-foot easement on this property to serve parcel 41K, which would allow for a public roadway to be installed to serve this site should it ever be subdivided, and has also agreed to relocate the entrance and roadway as necessary. --A soil scientist report will be required by the Health Department. Mr. Benish explained the applicant had not yet obtained a soil scientist report because "the applicant wished to determine if the proposal was feasible before he did the up -front costs." Mr. Bowerman asked how often such proposals occur, (i.e. 4 dwelling units on one parcel). Mr. Benish indicated that 5 dwelling units are the limit on a parcel, but the usual proposal on a site plan waiver of this type is for an additional third cottage. He stated they typically are on large parcels of land. He stated this proposal was "difficult" for staff because the "lot size is so tight." Mr. Bowerman indicated he was under the impression this type of proposal was usually for farm help or relatives. He could not recall one of this nature. Mr. Cogan agreed. WELM September 23, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Keeler stated, "There is no restriction on the construction of rental units in the rural areas except in the way that the rural areas ordinance is constructed. It limits you to not more than five dwelling units on any given parcel of land regardless of the size of the parcel of land. There is no prohibition in the ordinance, currently, towards rental units in the rural areas." Mr. Payne explained that while this is not the usual proposal, "in concept, there is nothing illegal about this." Mr. Benish confirmed that the Commission is "being asked to waive all the requirements of a full-blown site plan." Mr. Keeler further explained that most requests for site plan waivers in- volving dwelling units have been for one additional dwelling on a large tract of land. He stated, "I can't recall, since we put that provision in the ordinance, where you have been requested to waive a site plan for more than one unit, or specifically, rental units." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Cross addressed the Commission. He stated he had no objections to the proposed conditions of approval. He pointed out that he has had no complaints about any of the other rental units on the property. It was determined Mr. Cross occupied one of the dwellings on the property. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Stark's request, the applicant presented a topographical map of the property. Mr. Cogan indicated he was in favor of seeing Health Department approval and also verification of the existence of 30,000 square feet for suitable building sites on the lots. He stated he did not feel a soil scientist's report would be overly expensive for the applicant. He indicated he had reservations about granting a site plan waiver since there were several undecided factors involved, such as the location of the road. He felt this was different from similar proposals in that it was more a commercial -type venture. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He stated he would like to see a site plan. The applicant indicated he was eager to begin building and asked if staff could be granted administrative approval after he has had a chance to address the concerns of the Commission. Because of the number of conditions of approval involved, Mr. Keeler stated he did not feel there would be much difference, time -wise, in administrative approval vs. Commission approval. Mr. Cogan moved that the Robert Cross Site Plan waiver request be denied. Mr. Cogan stressed that his motion for denial was for the waiver request only and did not mean that the eventual site plan would not be approved. Mr. Gould seconded the motion for denial which passed (5:1). Commissioners Wilkerson, Cogan, Bowerman, Gould and Stark voted for the motion for denial; Commissioner Diehl abstained. .Vn /) September 23, 1986 Page 3 The Homestead (Shelter Associates) Final Plat - Proposal to create 12 lots; two larger tracts A and B are 21 and 22 acres, and the other range from 2.6 to 5.7 acres. Lots 1-8 and Parcel A will utilize proposed public road, Oldfields Road; lots 9 and 10 will share a driveway off Route 665, and Parcel B will have an individual entrance from Route 665 or Route 601. The acreage of the site is as follows: 92.097 acres total; Parcel 4A = 69.355 acres and Parcel 4B = 22.742 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas with Special Use Permit 86-18 Shelter Associates. The property is located on the north side of Route 609 and Route 665, and the west side of Route 601, approximately 0.4 mile west of Free Union. Tax Map 29, Parcels 4A and 4B. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Morris Foster. Regarding recommended condition l.c. (VDH&T approval of entrance for Parcel B; if access from Route 665 is desired, either a private street commercial entrance must be installed, or the Free Union Church must not use the entrance), Mr. Foster asked that that not be a condition of approval since Parcel B has "adequate entrances, by the Highway Department's approval, either on Rt. 665 or Rt. 601." He felt this should not be a condition of final plat approval since it is essentially a private matter. He explained, "The owner of that property could either work in conjunction with the church, i.e. if the church still wanted to enter at that point he could work with them as far as them being willing to upgrade it to commercial entrance for joint usage, or he has every legal right to tell the church that they cannot use that entrance. It's private ownership." He felt that could be worked out between the two parties and did not feel it was an important issue. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl indicated some confusion as to why the applicant was objecting to condition l.c. Mr. Foster responded, "I just want to make sure that the approval of the final plat is not withheld pending some agreements between the church and the owners of Parcel B, as far as the working of that entrance." Mr. Payne stated he did not interpret l.c. in that way. He explained, "I think all it says is that the owner can put his driveway on either road he wants to, but if he chooses to put it on Rt. 665, he has to do one of those two things, either upgrade the entrance or cut the church off. I don't think that'sinconsistent with Mr. Foster's position." Mr. Keeler recommended making condition l.c. a note on the final plat. He explained that Mr. Foster is concerned that this must be decided, i.e. the location of the entrance, before the final plat is signed. Mr. Payne confirmed that "that would be sufficient." He added, "You don't want to have it being a problem with getting the plat signed because it may very well be the case that the property may be sold before an entrance W permit is sought." ,;/b / September 23, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Cogan and Mr. Bowerman indicated they understood the applicant's position. Mr. Keeler added that putting a note on the plat would give the applicant, or a subsequent purchaser of the property, the maximum flexibility. Mr. Payne confirmed that he felt this was probably a good idea. Mr. Cogan expressed some concern about the placement of the drainfield on lot 2. He noted that it appeared that the drainfield would have to be located uphill from the building site. Mr. Foster acknowledged that the Health Department had commented that very careful placement of the house would be required for that particular lot and, depending on the placement, pumping might be necessary. Ms. Diehl moved that the Homestead (Shelter Associates) 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. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and calcu- lations; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; c. NOTE ON PLAT: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance for Parcel B; if access from Route 665 is desired, either a private street commercial entrance must be installed, or the Free Union Church must not use the entrance; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; plan to be reviewed also by the Watershed Management Official; e. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for joint driveway serving lots No. 9 and 10. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. First Virginia Bank Final Plat - Proposal to divide a 1.7 acre lot into 2 lots: 0.5 acre vacant, and 1.2 acre improved with the First Virginia Bank. The new 0.5 acre lot is proposed to access from an individual entrance on Westfield Road. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Route 1452 (Westfield Road), across from an Exxon Station and Montague Miller. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The applicant offered no additional comments. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Jn September 23, 1986 M Page 5 Mr. Wilkerson moved that the First Virginia Bank 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. Planning staff approval of technical items; b. Note and show "Joint access easement to be reserved pending site plan approval on lot E-1; at that time the Commission may permit an individual entrance onto Route 1452 or require use of a joint entrance." Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Rivanna Park - Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that staff would be presenting the master plan of the park to the Commission in the near future. The plan would show how the park is to be developed, including all the uses and their locations, but would not be a detailed site plan with all the engineering information. He stated that staff would be seeking administrative approval of the technical and engineering details. He confirmed that the consultant is aware of the Commission's concern regarding the access and stated this should be reflected on the master plan. Mr. Keeler explained that the Commission could treat the master plan as a site plan in that if there are still concerns over access, or whatever, the Commission can defer the matter. Joint Meeting with Board of Supervisors - Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission of the upcoming meeting with the Board, October 1, 1986, 4:00 p.m. September 30 Meeting - Mr. Keeler reviewed the agenda for the Work Session scheduled for 4:00 p.m., September 30, and also the agenda for the regular public hearing scheduled for 7:30, September 30. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. John Horne, Secretary I DS ,c70_`S