HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 09 86 PC MinutesDecember 9, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 9, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould;
Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. 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. 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 November 25, 1986 meeting
were approved as submitted.
SP-86-13 Edward and Betty J. Hunt - Request to locate a single wide mobile
home on 2.831 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax
Map 72, Parcel 18 is located in the southeast quadrant of Route 635
and I-64, approximately 1.1 miles south of its intersection with Route 250.
Staff reported the applicant was requesting withdrawal of this application.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-86-13 for Edward and
Betty Hunt be withdrawn. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-86-85 Alexander Simpson - Request
16.9 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
side of Route 704, approximately 1/5
of Route 714 and Route 704. Tax Map
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
It was determined the applicant was
(Note: The applicant arrived later
had been deferred by the Commission.
would be rescheduled for January 6,
to locate a single -wide mobile home on
The property is located on the west
of a mile south of the intersection
121, Parcel 77. Scottsville
not present at the meeting.
in the meeting, after the application
He was advised that the petition
1987.)
Since there were members of the public present who wished to speak,
the Chairman allowed public comment.
Mr. and Mrs. James Banton, adjoining property owners, addressed the
Commission. They felt the mobile home would devalue property and
expressed their opposition to the proposal. They indicated they
would still be opposed even if a time limit were placed on the
permit.
Mr. Donald Hunt, representing the Tri-Country Riding Club, expressed
opposition to the application based on the belief that it would
devalue surrounding property. He, too, stated he would still be opposed
even if a time limit were placed on the permit.
,S2 9
December 9, 1986
Page 2
Mr. Don Charlebois, a neighboring property owner, expressed his
opposition to the application.
The Chairman explained that since the applicant was not present, it
was the Commission's policy to defer an application one time.
The staff report stated the mobile home would be used to provide housing
for a person who would care for the applicant's wife. Mr. Cogan
asked if this use was similar to a situation where a mobile home
is placed on a farm to provide housing for a farm worker. Mr. Payne
indicated it was somewhat similar, but explained that it was
more closely related to a provision in Fluvanna County's ordinance
which provides for the opposite of this proposal, i.e. "the needy
person lives in the mobile home and the person providing the services
lives in the house." Mr. Payne stated further the proposed use was
more analagous to the agricultural use described by Mr. Cogan, than
to "sole occupancy." Mr. Payne compared the suggested use to
servant's quarters.
Mr. Gould moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan, that SP-86-65 for Alexander
Simpson be indefinitely deferred due to the applicant's lack of
appearance at the public hearing.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mechums West Final Plat - Proposal to create seven lots, six of which will
be served by a new public road. Lots range in size from 5.3 to 11 acres,
with two lots of 21 acres each. Total acreage of the site is 85.65
acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on the south side of
Route 682 across from Ivy Woods Subdivision and approximately 1/4 mile south
of Route 250. Tax Map 57, Parcel 53. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report explained that the final
plat differed from the preliminary plat in the following respects:
(1) Road location; (2) Shapes of lots 5 and 6; and (3) Area
reserved for future road dedication. Staff recommended approval of
the final plat subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Morris Foster and Mr. Frank Hereford.
Regarding the issue of lots 5 and 6 possibly being considered as
"odd-shaped"lots, Mr. Foster felt this provision of the ordinance
applies more to suburban lots and should not be applied to lots of this
size.
The Chairman invited public comment.
(Note: At this point, Mr. Simpson, the applicant from the previous
application, addressed the Commission. It was explained to Mr. Simpson
that his application had already been deferred and would be
rescheduled again in January. Mr. Keeler followed Mr. Simpson out
of the meeting to make sure he understood what had taken place and
told Mr. Simpson his application would be rescheduled for January 6.)
,33&
December 9, 1986
Page 3
There being no public comment on the Mechums West Final Plat, the matter
was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman asked Mr. Steve Creswell, representing the County Engineer's
Office, to comment.He explained that because of the topography of the
property, his office has no objection to lot 7 accessing onto the state road.
He felt the Highway Department's usual recommendation that all lots access
onto an internal road would be "extreme" in this case and the County Engineer
"does not feel strong about making that a requirement." He stated he
feels the location of the road, as shown by the applicant, is probably
the best location because of the topography.
Mr. Michel expressed interest in the Highway Department's plans to
improve the road. Mr. Creswell stated he was not aware of any current
plans. Mr. Hereford added that he thought the Highway Department had
been planning to improve the road for some time, but there are some
neighbors who will not give the needed right-of-way.
Regarding Mr. Foster's comments about peculiarly -shaped lots, Mr. Payne
agreed that he did not consider this to be an odd -shaped lot. He added
that if the lot in question were only 2 acres, it would be a close
question, but for a 9-10 acre lot, he did not think it was even close.
He stated, "I don't think this is what's meant by the ordinance in
terms of peculiar elongation."
Regarding further subdivision, Mr. Payne stated, "I think the staff's
concern about any further subdivision is not meant to indicate in
any way that the staff's encouraging that. They are saying that they
can foresee an application being made, and, in fact, if anything, they
are saying that it probably wouldn't be well received. I don't think
the fact that staff has brought that out specifically whereas they
don't bring it out in other proposals doesn't mean they are in favor
of it or they are encouraging it."
Ms. Diehl moved that the Mechums West 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 road and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road and drainage plans and computations;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Parcels 1-6 to enter onto Mechums West Drive; Parcel 7 to enter
either onto Route 682 directly or onto Mechums West Drive.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
December 9, 1986
Page 4
Referring to the statement in the staff report which states,
"The applicant has agreed to deed restrictions to additional division for a
given time period, to be placed on lot 5," Mr. Cogan asked if that had
been pursued any further.
Mr. Payne explained that was not necessary as a condition. He stated
it would take a legislative act by the Board of Supervisors to allow
this re -division. He added that he thought staff was merely pointing
out that the applicant is giving up that right voluntarily, at least
for some period of time.
Mr. Payne confirmed that all the plats should show "No further subdivision
without Planning Commission approval."
The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
Boom Preliminary Plat - This is a proposal to divide 12.6 acres into
three lots for an average lot size of 3.84 acres. The proposal will be
served by an internal public road. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The property is located on the north side of Route 676, 1.5 miles west of
its intersection with Route 678. Tax Map 58, Parcel 1B.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that the applicant
has attempted to address the previous concerns of the Commission by
(1) reducing the number of lots to three, and (2) combining lots 1
and 2 to address the odd -shaped lot and access issue. The report
stated that the applicant is still requesting a waiver of Section 18-36(f)
to allow the original 7.5 acre lot 1 to continue to use the existing drive-
way, and to provide a new entrance to serve the three new lots.
The applicant was requesting this waiver out of concern for the present
owner of lot 1 (Mr. Norris). The applicant had submitted a letter
which stated: " In spite of the improved safety of the proposed new entrance
and reduced maintenance responsibility, Mr. Norris was concerned that the
closure of the existing driveway would diminish his property."
Regarding this issue, the staff report stated: "The applicant
has not met the intent of the access waiver request, (i.e.) the subdivider
must 'demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission that due
to existing development, topography or other physical consideration as
distinguished from a special privilege or convenience, alternative
access would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant
degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties."
The report stated also that "the applicant was aware that the existing
entrance does not meet commercial standards, and that standard would be
required with additional subdivision" and also "this segment of Route 676
is non -tolerable and this area has sight distance limitations, therefore
the number of entrances should be minimized." It was staff's recommen-
dation that "there be only one access point to serve this site and that
the waiver request be denied." Staff recommended approval of the
preliminary plat subject to conditions and with the understanding
that the final plat would not be signed until all aspects of the
conditions of the special use permit approval are addressed.
Ms. Diehl asked if it was necessary to describe the entrance more
specifically (condition No. 2 and l.h). Mr. Payne responded negatively.
He added, "It is clearly intended to be the existing entrance to the east."
December 9, 1986 Page S
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ethan Miller addressed the Commission. He asked that, in consideration
of the applicant reducing the number of lots, the Commission give
further consideration to the waiver request. He pointed out that
this request was mainly in deference to Mr. Norris.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. J.L. Meem addressed the Commission. He objected strenuously to
the 2-acre lot on the basis that it is incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood and will devalue property. He also pointed out
that the owner of this property is not from Albemarle County and has
no community connections nor interests. He felt the owner is
trying to "bleed" this property.
Mr. Bruce Norris, the current owner of original lot 1, addressed the
Commission. He asked that the waiver request be granted for the
following reasons: (1) His existing driveway has been approved as
a private entrance; (2) The proposed commercial entrance will limit his
driveway to one family; (3) The line of sight from his existing driveway
is equal to, or better than, the commercial entrance which is
across Rt. 676 (Ivy Brook Subdivision); and (4) He does not want his
property's entrance to be tied to this subdivision, over which he will
have no control.
Mr. Jehnich, owner of the farm west of the Boom property, addressed the
Commission. He expressed his objection to the proposal as he felt
alterations to the area will interfere with his business (breeding
Egyptian horses). He also askd that "the existing road" be allowed to
remain.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Michel pointed out that the Commission does not have the ability
to change the location of the road.
It was determined a commercial entrance had not been obtainable at
the existing entrance.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any members of the Commission were inclined to
grant the waiver request.
Mr. Cogan explained that while he would very much like to grant the
waiver, out of deference to Mr. Norris, he could not. He felt staff's
review of the situation was very accurate.
Ms. Diehl added that she agreed with the public, i.e. that the property
was purchased solely for development, but the proposal does meet the
requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman stated the applicant had addressed the Commission's previous
concerns.
3
December 9, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Ms. Diehl and added that "it's unfortunate
that the letter of the ordinance has to be carried out in full in
terms of the maximum number of developable lots in every case, and
certainly a 2-acre lot in this location isn't consistent with the
subdivision nor the surrounding area, but it does meet the terms of
the ordinance."
Ms. Diehl moved that the Boom 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. Health Department approval;
b. County Engineer approval of lawful building sites;
c. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
computations;
d. Right of way to be increased from 40-foot to 50-foot right of way;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road
and drainage plans;
f. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
g. Full compliance with SP-86-38 (F. Anthony Boom);
h. Existing entrance to be closed, or bond accepted for the
closing of the entrance.
2. The entrance must be closed at the time the proposed road is constructed.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Earlysville Forest Commercial Area, Final Plat - Proposal to create 4 lots
from a 3.7+ acre parcel, for an average lot size of .92 acres.
Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The property is located at the
intersection of Rt. 743 and Earlysville Forest Drive, in Earlysville.
Tax Map 31B, parcel C. Rivanna Magisterial District.
It was determined the applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
The reason for deferral was because the nature of the design of the septic
sites had made it necessary to get approval from Richmond, rather than
the local office.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan, that the Earlysville Forest Commercial
Area, Final Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
Montvue Right -of -Way Relocation - Request to locate a public right-of-way
(stub road) off the north side of Montvue Drive cul-de-sac, by a shift of
331 -
December 9, 1986
Page 7
20 feet to the east. The
the north side of Rt. 654
`err Tax Map 60, parcel 77, and
2C, parcel 1. Jack Jouett
property is located in the Montbue Subdivision off
(Barracks Road), ±0.5 mile east of Colthurst.
Tax Map 60B-Section 2A, parcel 13 and Section
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated that the owners
of parcel 77, lot 1 and 13 were requesting this shift for the following
reasons: (1) The residence on lot 13 is close to the existing
right-of-way (±40 feet); (2) The shrubbery and driveway for lot 13 are
within the right-of-way; and (3) A road in the proposed right-of-way
will result in less grading than in the existing right-of-way.
Staff felt reasons 1 and 2 were valid justification for the request and
recommended approval of the right-of-way shift.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Daniel A. Robinson who offered
no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined all property owners involved were in agreement on
this request.
Mr. Keeler explained that this was in the nature of a sale or exchange
between adjoining property owners, but because it involves public right-of-way
it must be reviewed by both the Commission and the Board.
Mr. Stark moved that the Montvue Right -of -Way Relocation, to locate a public
right-of-way (stub road) off the north side of Montvue Drive cul-de-sac, by
a shift of 20 feet to the east, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Robert Cross Site Plan - This is a proposal to locate two (2) additional
dwelling units on one parcel for a total of four (4) dwelling units on the
parcel. The total area of the site is 10 acres. The property is zoned
RA, Rural Areas. The property is located on Rt. 250, approximately one (1)
mile south of its intersection with Route 240. Tax Map 57, Parcel 41K.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that the additional
dwelling units are intended for rental purposes. The report explained
that "the submittal of a site plan is required when more than two
dwelling units are proposed for one parcel of land (and) the site plan
review is concerned with verifying that the proposed building locations
could allow for the future subdivision of the property consistent with
the County Subdivision Ordinance." The report stated that Health Department
approval had been obtained for septic field locations and the ultimate
location for a potential public road has been shown on the site plan.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
,33 ��
December 9, 1986 Page 8
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Cross addressed the Commission and asked that condition l.d. (County
Attorney approval of access easement) be tied to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy rather than the building permit. He explained
he would like to proceed as soon as possible and he was uncertain as
to how long it would take the County Attorney to go through the
process of approving the access easement. He explained that he owned
the entrance so there would be no problems involved, it was simply
a matter of time.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In relation to the access easement question, Mr. Payne explained that
it was a relatively simply procedure and if it were submitted to him
"this week" it could be approved this week. He felt it would be a
mistake to tie the access easement to the certificate of occupancy
rather than the building permit, because "as soon as the building is
under construction, the horse is out of the barn." He added that
certificates of occupancy for single-family dwellings are frequently
ignored, though they are almost never ignored for subdivision plats.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Robert Cross Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
are met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of a private street commercial entrance;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Planning staff approval of revised site plan noting source of
topography and datum, and reference benchmark;
d. County Attorney approval of access easement.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed for 10 minutes.
Key Estate Final Plat - Proposal to create 3 lots ranging from 2.01 to
3.22 acres, one of which is presently improved with a single family dwelling.
The applicant requests a private road be permitted for access (Section 18-36c).
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on the north side of Route 659 (SPCA
Road) adjacent to the Woods condominiums. Tax Map 45, Parcel 76. Char-
lottesville Magisterial District.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Murray who requested that the item
be deferred to January 13, 1986.
*00
33&
December 9, 1986
Page 9
2M
The deferral was sought because it has just been learned that the
development can be designed with a state road and staff has requested
extra time to review the proposal.
There were no members of the public present in relation to this application.
Mr. Michel moved that the Key Estate Final Plat be deferred to January 13,
1987.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous
City's Urban Design Task Force - The Commission asked that Mr. Huja be
made aware that the Commission would like to receive minutes from
this committee for any matters involving the County.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
DS
� 7 �%
I et, T-4
John Horne, S cretary