Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 25 86 PC MinutesNovember 25, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 25, 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; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark; Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Gould. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the November 11, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. Harmony Final Plat - Proposal to create 20 lots with an average lot size of 3.56 acres. The development is to be served by internal public roads. The total area of the site is 81.4 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located on the south side of Rt. 614, adjacent to Olivet Presbyterian Church, near Owensville. Tax map 42, Parcels 46C, D, E, F and Tax Map 43, Parcels 4J, K, L, M, N. White Hall Magisterial District. It was determined the applicant had requested indefinite deferral. Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Harmony Final Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Grand Piano/Floor Fashions Site Plan - Proposal to locate two two-story buildings of 39,985 square foot building coverage, served by 115 parking spaces. Acreage of the site is 3.45 acres. Zoned C-1, Commercial. The property is located on the east side of Rt. 29 North, between Woodbrook Shopping Center and Greene Gardens. Tax Map 45, Parcel 104A. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Mr. Cogan asked for an explanation of how the plan has been downscaled from previously submitted plans. Ms. Patterson explained the applicant agreed to reduce the amount of area designated for retail sales or office area, thus they can reduce the number of parking spaces allowed. This change also allows loading spaces with circulation which staff could agree to. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant has no objections to any of the proposed conditions of approval. �G� November 25, 1986 Page 2 In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding the rationale for the proposed division of the two parcels, Mr. Osborne indicated the division was a result of the desire to have the parking for each building contained within that building's property so that "cooperative" parking would be unnecessary. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel indicated some concern about adequate parking should the use change at some future date. Ms. Patterson explained that it was the responsibility of the Zoning Department to review this and determine that parking is adequate before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Ms. Diehl asked Ms. Patterson if staff was satisfied that this is not an "over -building" on this site. Ms. Patterson responded, "The plan meets the zoning ordinance; it's a higher ratio building -to -lot coverage than we typically see, but it does meet the zoning ordinance." Mr. Bowerman again pointed out the concern that the parking might be inadequate for some future use. Ms. Diehl stated this is the second site plan the Commission has reviewed in this area which seems to be "over -built" for the site. She was concerned that this might become a trend. She indicated she would be interested in seeing a review of the zoning requirements to determine what is appropriate in such situations. She felt this could provide potential for future problems. Mr. Michel indicated he shared Ms. Diehl's concerns, but based on the staff report, he moved that the Grand Piano/Floor Fashions 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. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer line dedication; b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of retesting water/sewer system if necessary; C. Fire Official approval; d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations; e. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and com- putations; f. Issuance of an erosion control permit; 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Final Fire Official approval. 3. Administrative approval of the final plat. November 25, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Note: It was determined staff would study the requirements for maximum building coverage to ascertain if they are working efficiently. Thurston Lots No. 7 and 25 - Request for Direct Access to Thurston Drive - Subdivision Plat Amendment - Proposal to delete the note from the plat restricting Lots No. 7 and No. 25 to an internal stub road, thereby allowing a direct individual entrance to each lot from Thurston Drive. Acreage: Lot 7 is 2.76 acres; Lot 25 is 3.42 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Thurston Subdivision is on Up -east side of Rt. 810 north of Crozet, near the intersection with Rt. 789. Tax Map 40B, Parcels 7 and 25. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report which stated the following: "The applicant requests an amendment to the Thurston Subdivision plat signed December 2, 1977. The Commission must determine if they wish to reconsider the previous approval. It is the Commission's policy to be presented with the applicant's letter and to determine if due to a change in circumstance, they wish to reconsider previous action. If the Commission finds they can support this request, staff recommends that it be handled administratively if no major concerns arise after notification of adjacent owners." The applicant cited the following two reasons for the request: "l. Since Mr. Stowe has sold the training center, an easement would have to be obtained in order to use the 50' strip of land between lots 7 and 25 for a driveway to serve these two lots. 2. The way the houses are planned on the site due to the overhead power transmission lines, access is much better suited off of Thurston Drive." Though staff did not consider reason No. 1 to be valid justification for the request, they did concur with reason No. 2 in respect to lot No. 7 and, therefore, recommended approval of the request based on the following: "l. The number of lots in Thurston and correspondingly, the amount of traffic is almost half that originally proposed. Therefore, the volume of traffic on the road does not necessitate the note restricting access points. This is a change in cir- cumstance. 2. A combination of residential and commercial uses are recommended by our ordinance to be served by public roads. It is difficult to insure equitable maintenance costs and standards on a private road." Ms. Patterson reported that the Highway Department has no objections to the request. November 25, 1986 Page 4 It was a consensus of the Commission to entertain the request. Mr. Steve Melton was present to represent the applicant, but offered no additional comments. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan moved that staff be granted administrative approval of deletion of the note from the plat restricting Lots. No. 7 and 25 to an internal stub road. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Red Acres Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 231 acres into 16 lots; six (6) lots are a minimum of 21 acres each, and 10 lots are to be served by new public roads. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located on the east side of Rt. 677 (Ballard Road), approximately 1.5 miles south of Route 676, north of Route 250 West. Tax Map 59, parcels 27A, 27B, 28, 28B and 28C. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She also pointed out that this is by -right development. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ethan Miller who explained the rationale for the division of the property was based on a natural dividing line, a VEPCO transmission line. He also stated that the property could be divided into 20 lots by right, but only 16 lots are proposed because it was felt this was more "sensitive to the environment." The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Cindy Chandler , a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. She asked that the Commission give careful consideration to the preservation of agricultural land. She felt continually reducing the agricultural land was reducing the integrity of the area. Ms. Chandler was also concerned because the proposed public road would run adjacent to her property and one of the lots directly abuts her pastureland. She was concerned that having "backyard" neighbors could have an adverse effect on the horses she has stabled in that area. Mr. Brad Chandler addressed the Commission. He pointed out the very dangerous condition of Old Ballard Road. He also supported his wife's concerns and stated that he would object to any additional development that could not be done by -right. Mr. John Rogan, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He voiced his opposition to the proposal. He felt it was a desecration of the countryside. There being no further ,public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. jo� November 25, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Cogan suggested that it might be possible to move the road further to the east and eliminate the "wide sweeping" alignment. However, Mr. Mark Osborne explained that the possibility suggested by Mr. Cogan would not work because of inadequate sight distance and also because the topography will not allow it (too steep). It was determined division rights were not an issue in this proposal. The Chairman allowed a question from Mr. Rogan. Mr. Rogan asked if the dam which is to be constructed will stop the flow of the stream or will in any way effect surrounding properties. The Chairman asked Mr. Osborne to respond. Mr. Osborne explained, "It is required, when the dam is constructed, that we allow a certain minimum amount of water to come through and that we capture only the flood waters so that at all times there would be at least as much water in the stream with the dam as there would be without it. In a dry period, because there would be some water stored upstream from you, it might, in fact., from seepage allow there to be a little more water in the stream than might ordinarily be there." Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of a condition being added which would require that "where the entrance road is so close to the boundary line, there be some sort of a buffer strip, or some form of screening." He confirmed that could be extended to Lot 1, "anywhere the road is less than 75 feet from the boundary line." It was determined Lot 1 referred to by Mr. Cogan is parcel 27B3. Mr. Horne advised that the Commission needed to distinguish between "screening" and "buffer" since a buffer could mean simply the absence of any construction activity. Mr. Cogan stated he was referring to screening. Mr. Miller stated there is an existing tree line on parcel 30B and he asked that that be taken into consideration. There was a lengthy discussion about Mr. Cogan's proposal. There was some confusion as to exactly where the screening would be required, where it would begin and end, etc. It was determined the intent of such screening would be to protect the agricultural integrity of the adjacent property. It was determined a natural termination point for the screening would be at the creek. Mr. Michel expressed some concern as to how to actually define the screening proposed by Mr. Cogan. Mr. Cogan stated he envisioned "a natural buffer, which would be supplemented in places where it should be necessary to be supplemented for the purposes of adequate screening... with staff overseeing its approval." Mr. Horne suggested referencing Section 32.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to be used as the specification standards (the landscaping and screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.) November 25, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Cogan stated the area of concern was that from State Route 677 to the stream that divides parcels 27B3 and 27B2. Mr. Michel pointed out that was a distance of approximately 1/2 mile. He asked if Mr. Cogan was referring to that entire length. Mr. Cogan responded, "I am talking about doing it the whole length where the existing natural vegetation is insufficient to do the job." There was some confusion as to whether or not the distance from the boundary line to the road should be taken into consideration, as originally suggested by Mr. Cogan. Mr. Bowerman clarified, "I think the intent —is to provide a natural buffer, whether it exists or whether it has to be supplemented, to whatever depth is necessary to accomplish it." Mr. Payne suggested the following wording for the added condition addressing the screening issue: l.h. County Attorney approval of note on plat providing for maintenance of vegetative screening consistent with Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 32.8 to the reasonable satisfaction of Planning Staff in area to the north and west of proposed entrance roads between Ballard Road and creek%parcel 27B3. Mr. Horne noted that Mr. Payne's wording did not reference "enhancement of the natural. screening that is there." It was determined the words "and/or installation" would be inserted after the word "maintenance." Ms. Patterson asked for clarification as to the spacing envisioned by the Commission. She asked if the Commission was looking for street -tree type spacing or a real screen. Mr. Michel stated it was this aspect of the requirement that was causing him concern. In regard to existing vegetation, Ms. Chandler explained that some cedar trees and briars exist but that they do not provide a safe boarder in terms of the livestock that is kept in that area. Ms. Diehl suggested that the screening issue could be worked out before the final plat is reviewed. Referring to Section 32.8 of the Ordinance, Mr. Payne stated, "There seems to me to be quite a lot of flexibility in it. There is a provision —that favors the maintenance of existing vegetation,... and there is a standard specified in the alternative what constitutes screening and there is a provision of this ordinance that provides alternate methods of vegetative screening may be approved by the Director of Planning. So it seems to me that the ordinance provides considerable leeway for the staff to take account of the existing conditions and character of the neighborhood." Mr. Payne stated that was the best "that we're going to do tonight." He suggested that the condition should be left as read by Mr. Payne and staff would work it out before the final. ,310 November 25, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Cogan added that it would be unfair to require a screen similar to what would be required between commercial and residential. Mr. Payne added that the screening would have to be commensurate with the nature of the property. Mr. Cogan moved that the Red Acres 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. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of public road and drainage plans & computations; b. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans & compu- tations; C. County Engineer approval of dam design; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of certified building sites; f. Health Department approval of 2 septic sites on each lot; g. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the 50-foot easement and pond/dam. h. County Attorney approval of note on plat providing maintenance and/or installation of vegetative screening consistent with Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 32.8 to the reasonable satisfaction of Planning Staff in area to north and west of proposed entrance roads between Ballard Road and creek on parcel 27B3. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-86-67 Nettie Marie Jones (Ballard Ridge) - Request to divide 86.34 acres into four (4) lots; three (3) lots range from 2.08 to 6.86 acres, and the fourth lot is 73.18 acres. This is a request for three (3) additional lots than "by right." Acreage: Parcel 7B1=36.4 acres, of which 23.19 acres is original; Parcel 27A=14.32 acres portion of 97.33 acres; Parcel 28=35.67 acres portion of 112.55 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 59, parcels 7B1, 27A, and 28, is located on the east side of Rt. 677 (Ballard Road) approximately one mile north of its intersection with Rt. 250W. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the Ballard Ridge Subdivision as proposed, does not satisfy the Rural Areas criteria for granting a special use permit. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this petition." Staff's reasons for recommending denial were as follows: "I. Staff opinion is that, if this petition is approved, consideration of criteria related to 'agricultural area' vs. 'developed rural area' would be effectively negated in this area for future requests. Therefore, at issue is whether or not the agricultural objective of the Compre- hensive Plan is applicable in the Old Ballard Road area. 311 November 25, 1.986 Page 8 2. Staff cannot support a request on Old Ballard Road to increase traffic generation in a rural area of the County where only limited residential development is to be accommodated. 3. Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards is intended to promote devel- opment review consistent with adopted policy. The Ballard Ridge proposal does not adequately reflect Watersupply Watershed standards of the Com- prehensive Plan." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Ethan Miller, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He felt there were two main issues in this proposal: (1) Is this actually a request for 3 additional lots? Mr. Miller felt it was not. (2) If not, is it good planning to cluster 4 rights into the Ballard Ridge Subdivision or would it be better to spread them over Ballard Road and the Red Acres Subdivision. Mr. Miller disagreed with staff's interpretation of the Ordinance (Section 10.3.2) that 20-acre parcels had to be from parent parcels. Mr. Miller felt the proposal, to cluster 3 building lots on 86 acres, making use of an existing road, was good planning. Mr. Miller stated that if this proposal was denied, he would be left with 5 lots with 36 acres in residue and access on an internal public road. He pointed out that with this proposal, there are only two additional building sites, based on his interpretation. He suggested that denial of this plan would invite "strip" development along Ballard Road. Mr. Miller submitted copies of road construction bids for a small section of road to serve 5 lots (total $135,000). He was concerned about the marketability of the lots if $25,000 was added to each to cover the cost of the road. He felt this proposal supported the policy to "have internal public roads vs. strip development." Mr. Miller offered to place "permanent conservation easements" on the 73 acre residue. Mr. Miller pointed out that the plan would not create additional lots or traffic than would be created by -right. He asked that the Commission give careful consideration to the interpretation of the ordinance. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Chandler asked for a clarification as to the location of lots involved in this proposal. Ms. Patterson pointed out the location on the map. Ms. Patterson also confirmed that the road to serve these lots would not be same as the one serving Red Acres. Mr. Rogan again addressed the Commission and asked how he could obtain a copy of the staff report. It was explained that he could obtain a copy from the Planning Office and could study it before the Board review of the application. Mr. Chandler again addressed the Commission. He felt the applicant's attitude had been one of "Do as I say or else you are going to get something worse." He felt this was somewhat offensive. He indicated his opposition to the proposal and asked that the Commission follow the advice of the staff report. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 3i %v November 25, 1986 Page 9 Regarding the question of the by -right lots, Mr. Bowerman stated the following: "I think the Board has already spoken in the Hopewell case when they decided the applicability of this issue. I think the staff has interpreted correctly and I think that opinion has been upheld by Mr. Payne. I don't think that question is before us." Regarding Ms. Diehl's question about private wells, Mr. Horne stated some comments had been received from the Service Authority but because it was not based on firm data, staff felt it was not defensible and therefore had not presented it to the Commission. Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with the analyses, i.e. that there is only one building lot on the property in question, and she agreed with the staff report recommending denial. Mr. Michel voiced his agreement with the Chairman's statement regarding the question of the by -right lots. Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt the staff report was very thorough and moved that SP-86-67 for Nettie Marie Jones be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on December 3, 1986. NEW BUSINESS December Agenda Schedule - It was decided no meetings would be held on December 23 or December 30. Items scheduled for December 23 were to be moved to the December 16 meeting. The work session scheduled for the December 16 regular meeting was changed to 4:00 December 16, prior to the regular meeting. Urban Design Task Force for the City - Mr. Bowerman reported that Mr. Huja had requested a member of the Commission serve on this Committee. Though Mr. Bowerman stated it would be an honor for a Commissioner to accept this position, it was determined that due to other commitments and a very heavy Commission work schedule, it was not possible. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DS John Horne, Secretary /n� 2i3