HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 14 86 PC MinutesOctober 14, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 14, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr.
Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John
Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish,
Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 30, 1986 meeting were
approved as submitted.
SP-86-60 Cistercians of the Strict Observance in Massachusetts, Inc. - Request
in accordance with 10.2.2(35) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow
for a church building and adjunct cemetery with living quarters (convent).
Property, described as Tax Map 27, parcels 40A and 40 is located on the north
side of Route 674, two miles east of White Hall. White Hall Magisterial
District.
Mr. Horne explained that both Mr. Payne and counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Murray, were of the opinion that the appropriate way to handle this matter
was for the Commission to pass a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for convents and monasteries by special use permit in
the RA district. He stated this would distinguish this use from churches
and the applicant will then make application for a special permit for a
convent. Mr. Horne confirmed it was appropriate to indefinitely defer the
application at this time.
Mr. Murray confirmed that he was in aggrement with this approach.
Mr. Horne felt it would be possible for both the ordinance amendment and
the special permit to be dealt with by the end of November. Mr. Payne
noted that the matter should be given expeditious treatment. The
Commission agreed. It was determined the ordinance amendment and the
special permit application could both be dealt with at the same
Commission meeting.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-86-60 for Cistercians of the Strict Observance in
Massachusetts, Inc. be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Resolution of
Intent - Mr. Cogan moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution
of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include as a special use permit
in the RA zone, convents and monasteries.
In response to Mr. Payne's question, Mr. Cogan confirmed that his motion
o�vw
October 14, 1986
Page 2
included "whatever definition was necessary" to accommodate the intent of
the amendment.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Moorman's River District is
proposed on the north side of Rt. 614, Garth -White Hall Road between Owensville
and Rt. 671. Other parcels are located on Routes 675 (Albemarle Lake Road),
680, 678 (Ridge Road), 665, 671, and 821. Most of the proposed district lies
between the Moorman's and the Mechum's Rivers and is comprised of 3,114 acres.
The Planning Commission must, at this time, refer the proposal to the Advisory
Committee. Public notice has been provided in the newspaper and on site.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She pointed out the location of the
proposed district and explained that the Advisory Committee would meet on Tuesday,
October 28 and the Committee's report will be presented to the Commission at
a public hearing on November 11. Thereafter the Board will hold the final
public hearing. She pointed out that some parcels had been removed from the
proposal because they were located greater than one mile from the "core"
acreage.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District be
referred to the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Boom Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 12.6 acres into 4 lots with an average
2.85 acre lot size. All lots are proposed to be served by a new public road.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. There are no division rights remaining with any proposed
lots. The property is located on the north side of Rt. 676, 1.5 miles west of
its intersection with Rt. 678. Tax Map 58, parcel 1B. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained:
"On September 25, 1985, Planning staff signed an administrative
plat which created this 12.6 acre lot and a 7.5 acre lot on a joint
driveway. With this plat, the 12.6 acre lot retained 4 development
... The applicant proposes to allow the original 7.5 acre lot 1 to
continue to use the existing driveway, and to provide a new entrance
serve the 4 new lots. In so doing, it is necessary to obtain a
waiver of Section 18-36f to allow for an additional entrance....
Staff recommends denial of the request to waive Section 18-36f, and
therefore denial of this subdivision proposal. Approval of this
waiver encourages the continuation of poor pre -planning and is
contrary to the goal of orderly development of the County."
An addendum to the staff report stated the following:
rights.
"Until and including the time of the writing of the staff
report, the applicant maintained that he could not close the existing
entrance. The discussion of the staff report focused on the issue of
access. Late Friday afternoon, October 10, a revised plat was
submitted showing a proposed access easement to existing Lot 1 with
to
�-2 -7q
October 14, 1986
Page 3
a note 'if required by Planning Commission existing driveway will
be closed.' ... Now that the applicant has addressed the access issue
according to staff recommendations, there are two design issues for the
Commission to consider: (1) Lot 3 remnant; and (2) Private access
easement for Lots 1 and 2."
The report stated that the Ordinance discourages remants or outlots which are
practically unusable. Staff was recommending that part of lot 3 (which
as shown is bisected by the proposed public right-of-way) be added to adjacent
lot 2. The report stated that minor lot line shifts would still provide
minimum acreage and buildable area for lot 3 without compromising other lots.
The report stated that the plat shows the public road terminating on the southern
border of lot 2, and a joint access easement extending to serve lots 1 and 2.
"The Commission must consider if this joint access easement meets the intent
of the private road regulations."
Mr. Cogan pointed out that staff's suggestion for adding part of lot 3 to
lot 2 would result in lot 2 being L-shaped.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the applicant was still requesting a waiver, but
if the Commission chose not to grant the waiver, he has shown that he
"could comply with the Subdivision Ordinance."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ethen Miller, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His
comments included the following:
--The applicant is flexible in regard to the shape of the lots
--The topography dictated the drawing of the lot lines.
--The applicant will provide not only an access easement for Lot 1,
if the existing driveway must be closed, but will also construct
a replacement for the driveway.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated that the steep slopes on the property dictated the location of the
road.
Mr. Keeler clarified that the shaded areas on the drawing indicated areas
with slopes of less than 20%, those areas which are available for
septic systems, and not slopes less than 25% which is the area available
for building sites.
Mr. Miller clarified that the applicant was still asking the Commission to
grant a waiver of the requirement to close the existing driveway. He explained
that he was requesting the waiver "out of respect for Mr. Norris' feelings."
(Mr. Norris is the owner of Lot 1.) He stated Mr. Norris would prefer that
his driveway remain open and not enter through a new access.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bruce Norris, the owner of Lot 1, addressed the Commission. He expressed
a lack of understanding as to how staff had the authority to recommend that
his driveway be closed. He explained that his current entrance is as
good as what might be re -constructed. He stated he was prepared to maintain
the driveway. He pointed out that there have been no accidents associated
with his driveway. He stated he was unclear as to his rights in the matter
October 14, 1986
Page 4
and asked for an explanation of Section 18-36(f).
Mr. Doug Cox, a neighboring property owner, expressed his opposition to
the proposal. He stressed the non -tolerable condition of the road and
the sight distance problems. He also felt the topography of the property
was such that it could not support this number of homes.
Mr. Ramsey Martin, former owner of the property, addressed the Commission.
He felt it was very unlikely that the property could support what was
proposed. He pointed out that the property has a lot of marsh and spring
areas. Because of the drainage of the property, he was also concerned
about preserving water quality.
Mr. Jenichs, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He
expressed his opposition to the proposal. He stated that the owner of
the property, Mr. Boom, had indicated to him that the property was
unsuitable for development. He presented a petition of opposition
which contained the signatures of several neighboring property owners.
Ms. Jenichs expressed her opposition to the proposal and stressed that
those who had signed the petition (she made reference to 39 people) were
very much opposed to the development.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman requested that Mr. Benish explain to Mr. Norris how the
applicant can close his existing entrance. Mr. Benish explained, "18-36(f)
of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that any lot fronting on an existing
driveway shall access that driveway. So, by dividing the property down that
driveway line, for two reasons he is really limited to the use of that road
for his access. One, because he fronts it. The second reason is because
lot 1 could not stand on its own as a separate parcel because it has
inadequate road frontage. It would be required to have 250 feet of road
frontage; it has about 160-170 feet as it was divided. So, you could also
think of it as two lots being served by a private road where the frontage
is measured off the internal road. The only way that that division could
have occurred in that way was to require both parcels to use that access."
Mr. Cogan expressed concern about staff's suggestion to add part of lot
3 to lot 2. He felt this would then make lot 2 an "odd -shaped" lot and
nothing would really be gained.
It was determined that lot 3 was one parcel with an "intervening ownership."
Mr. Cogan felt that the situation with lot 3 (i.e. the fact that it is
bisected by the proposed public road), along with the proposed easement
crossing lot 2 to access lot 1, made this a "poor plan." He felt the
applicant was trying to "get too much out of too little" and that the
topography would not sustain that type of development.
Commissioners Diehl, Gould and Michel indicated their agreement with Mr.
Cogan.
1!9a
October 14, 1986
Page 5
To clarify staff's position, Mr. Horne stated, "There are some valid
environmental reasons why extending the public roadway up through lot 2
would be somewhat damaging to the property. That's independent of the
policy question."
Mr. Cogan pointed out that it appeared that the cul-de-sac, alone, was on
a 25% slope which would involve a tremendous amount of grading.
Mr. Michel stated he agreed that the proposal was too intensive; however, it
was his understanding that the owner had the right to do 4 lots.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne the following question: "Development rights
that accrue to a piece of property, do they necessarily imply that the
property can be divided into that many lots?"
Mr. Payne responded, "No."
Mr. Bowerman asked, "It was never contemplated that it was a right that had
to be accomplished?"
Mr. Payne replied, "I don't think that that enters into this discussion
because I think the fact that you're considering it presupposes the proposition
that the proposal meets the zoning ordinance. But the issues that are raised
here are subdivision ordinance questions and they would apply regardless
of what district you're in, whether they have a special permit or not, or
any of those things."
Mr. Cogan moved that the Boom Preliminary Plat be denied for the
following reasons:
--Proposal is too intensive considering the topography of the property;
--Irregularly shaped lots;
--Access problems.
He stated that the plat could possibly be approved if the plan were re -worked to:
--Eliminate access easement from the cul-de-sac to lot 1, possibly by
combining lots 1 and 2;
--Reduce the intensity of the development;
--Eliminate the odd -shaped lots.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion for denial.
Mr. Payne clarified, "If the applicant brings back a plan which embodies the
changes Mr. Cogan has suggested in his motion, assuming there is not something
else wrong with it, the Commission would be obliged to approve it."
It was determined that denial of the proposal would render the waiver question moot.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
SP-86-57 Richard T. & Donna M. Harry - Request to locate a mobile home
(double wide) on 60.38 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located
on the south side of Rt. 618, approximately 1/4 mile east of its intersection with
Rt. 729. Tax Map 105, parcel 20E. Scottsville Magisterial District.
.ry 3;-q
October 14, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report pointed out that the
mobile home would be owner occupied.
The staff report stated three letters of opposition had been received.
Mr. Benish indicated the property owners who have objected do not
actually live on their properties currently.
(Mr. Payne noted that his firm has represented Mr. and Mrs. Gibbs,
objecting property owners, on occasion,but has no continuing relationship
with them and nothing which is related to this petition.)
Staff indicated that the mobile home would not be highly visible to
those properties from which objections were received.
The applicant was present, but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to why the unit was to be placed
so close to the edge of the property when there was such a large area
to choose from (60 acres), Mr. Harry explained he had chosen the site
because of its view and its easy access.
Mr. Cogan stated that screening appeared to be adequate and he had no
problem with the application.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-86-57 for Richard T. & Donna M. Harry 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. Existing vegetation within 75 foot front setback and 60
foot corner lot setback (eastern boundary) shall be maintained
as an undisturbed buffer area.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 15, 1986.
MAMA-1ibM06X
Mr. Cogan reported that he had met recently with the Crozet Community
Association in regards to the Comprehensive Plan Review. He asked the
Commission to consider that if Crozet is still to be designated as a
growth area, close attention must be given to improving the existing
roads and adding new ones. He stated that the Crozet community is
not opposed to growth in their area, but is very concerned that
issues such as the roads be dealt with first.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Jo n Horne, Secretary
DS i