HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 12 87 PC MinutesMay 12, 1987
�ftw The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, May 12, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard
Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma
Diehl and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John
Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. Pat Ford, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner;
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. David Benish,
Planner. Absent: Commissioners Michel and Gould and Mr. Fred 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 April 28, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
SP-87-28 Evelyn Farish - Request to locate a single -wide mobile home on 1.0
acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 121, Parcel
93, is located on the west side of Rt. 715, tl mile south of the intersection
of Rt. 2.0 and Rt. 715. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Though this item was called atvarious times during the meeting, it was
determined the applicant was not in attendance. Therefore the item was
indefinitely deferred.
Northfields (Section 1, Block E, Parcel 11) Final Plat - Proposal to create 3
lots ranging in size from 1.1 to 1.4 acres, for an average lot size of 1.2
acres. The proposed access for one lot is from Rt. 651, and the other two
lots are to be served by a joint entrance from Rt. 631. Zoned R-2, Residential.
Property, located on the west side of Rio Road adjacent to the north of the
Northside Baptist Church, and just south of Northfields Road. The property
has southern frontage on Rt. 651. Tax Map 62A1, Parcel 1. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. DEFERRED July 1, 1986.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report which included the following
explanation:
"On July 1, 1986 the Albemarle Planning Commission deferred action on
this plat. The Commission noted the following concerns and comments:
1. No access to Rio Road;
2. Septic systems would be acceptable, if approved by the
Health Department;
3. House sites should be selected first.
The applicant wishes for the Commission to take action on this plat,
with no revisions/redesign from the July lst proposal. Planning
staff has on several occasions requested that the plat be redesigned
to show one lot entrance or no entrance to Rio Road. This has not
been submitted to date.
The applicant states that they have explored alternative means of
access to Rio Road. He also notes that they have determined that one
road to serve all 3 lots from Route 651 is not feasible due to the
fact that it 'would substantially reduce if no altogether destroy
106s
May 12, 1.987
Page 2
the suitability of Lot 11C as a home site thereby greatly reducing the
value of the property."
The report further stated the Commission's options in dealing with this
application as follows:
1. Approval of applicant's request (2 lots from Rio Road); or
2. Denial based on the grounds (Section 18-37(o)) that no lots shall
be permitted to access directly to Rio Road; or
3. Reaffirm the previous Commission consensus and defer the plat to
allow the applicant to redesign showing no direct access to Rio
Road (the purpose of the previous deferral).
It was determined there was currently no access to the parcel.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Duane Mehl, Pastor of Immanuel Lutheran
Church, the owner of the property. He explained the land had been
purchased by the church in 1981, at which time an attorney from the parish had
been retained who failed to detect a deed covenant restricting the
property to a single-family residence. Thereafter, attempts were made
to obtain a waiver for church construction, but these were not successful.
Subsequently, another attorney was engaged, Mr. John Taggart, who attempted
to obtain "quiet title" to the property, based on the intent of the original
developer, but that too was unsuccessful. The applicant then worked
with Dr. Hurt, the original owner of the property, and the result was the current
proposal, i.e. 3 lots with access from Rio Road.
Mr. Al Archer, the parish president, then addressed the Commission. He
explained that since the item was deferred the applicant has tried to
determine if other means of access were possible, including trying
to obtain access across neighboring property and also the possibility
of sharing an easement with the Northside Baptist Church. He stated
that the applicant has been unable to determine any other means of access
and feelsthe property is, essentially, "land -locked." He explained
that since the property cannot be used as was originally intended, the
church would now like to be able to simply recover what has been spent
on this property. He stated the applicant feels the property is useless
unless it can be subdivided and it cannot be subdivided without access
onto Rio Road.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated that nothing had changed since the Commission's last
review of the proposal. He pointed out that this issue has arisen
many times before, i.e. sometimes because of physical constraints a piece
of property cannot be developed to its fullest potential. Though he
indicated he was sympathetic to the economic hardship such a situation
created, that must, however, be weighed against the safety factor and
the concerns of the Highway Department.
/ 70
May 12, 1987
Page 3
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with Mr. Cogan. He added that his concerns
remained as they were when the application was originally reviewed. He
stated his major concerns were: (1) The proximity of the entrance
to Northfields; (2) The eventual widening of Rio Road; and (3) The
traffic light which will eventually be placed at this intersection.
He pointed out that the area is already extremely congested with
cars coming out of four intersections at one time. He felt that the
property could "legitimately" be divided into two lots, both served by access
onto Wakefield Road. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the matter be deferred
once again.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission might wish to approve the
application with two lots and then it would be up to the applicant
as to how to proceed.
Mr. Cogan stated he was not in favor of approving two lots at this
time since no plat has been submitted reflecting this possibility.
There was some discussion about access in the event the property were
not divided. It was determined the Highway Department would have
to Qrant access to a public road.
Mr. Stark questioned whether or not the applicant would actually
have much to gain by dividing into three lots instead of two since
it appeared one of the lots, due to steep terrain, was of questionable
usefulness. He stated he could support subdivision into two lots.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it still has not been determined
if a road could be constructed off of Wakefield to serve two lots
that would be useable, considering the steep grade.
Mr. Keeler pointed out, for the benefit of the applicant, that this
item, if deferred, would not be rescheduled until a surveyor has
done the studies that are requested. He stated that staff made
the current slope studies and this should have been the responsibility
of the applicant.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Northfields, Section 1, Block E, Parcel 11, Final
Plat be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Melvin Dixon, a representative of the applicant, pointed out
that the Highway Department had originally indicated one entrance from
Rio Road would be allowed, but now that has been changed and no entrance
to Rio Road is to be allowed. He asked if that interpretation was
correct. Mr. Cogan replied, "That's the impression I get from the
Highway Department's report." Mr. Cogan read a statement from
Mr. Roosevelt's letter addressing this issue: "Currently this is
one lot and the best place for access to this lot is on Route 651."
May 12, 1987
Page 4
Mr. Bowerman also pointed that since 1.981 the Squire Hill apartment
complex has further developed readting in a lot of change in circumstance.
University Village Marketing Center Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 3,220 square
foot one-story building to serve as a marketing center and model living unit
for the University Village Retirement Community. The site will be served
by 20 parking spaces. The total area of the site is 61.39 acres. Zoned
R-10, Residential with proffer (ZMA-82-11). Property, located on Old Ivy
Road, Rt. 601) adjacent to Huntington Village and the Ivy Gardens apartment
complex. Tax Map 60, Parcel 53. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested deferral to May 19, 1987.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Bowerman that the University Village
Marketing Center Site Plan be deferred to May 19, 1987.
The motion passed unanimously.
John W. Smith Site Plan Waiver, Subdivision. Waiver Request - Applicant is
requesting a waiver of the site plan requirement (Section 32.2.1(a)) in order
to construct a third dwelling unit on a 31.37 acre parcel (TM 18, Parcel 48); and fran
18-36(a) of the private road provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance in order
to construct more than one dwelling on parcels served by a private road.
The total of the two parcels combined, 52.91 acres (Parcel A, 21.18; Parcel
B, 31.73). Property, located on the south side of Rt. 641, approximately
1.5 miles east of U.S. Rt. 29. Tax Map 29, Parcels 48 (and Parcel 48B -
Not yet delineated on current tax maps).
Mr. Benish gave the staff report which gave the following explanation:
"The applicant is requesting two waivers from the Planning Commission:
(1) Waiver of 18-36(a) to allow more than one dwelling on parcels
served by a private road, and (2) Waiver of 32.2.1(a) to allow a
third dwelling on 31.73 acre parcel 'B'."
The report concluded: "The applicant has demonstrated to staff's
satisfaction that a total of three lots, two lots of 5+ acres and one lot
of 21+ acres with lawful building sites could be created to contain each
dwelling. Further, staff is satisfied that road requirements could be
met should either one, or both of the existing parcels be subdivided in the
future (60 foot access easement is already plotted for access.)" Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions.
There was some confusion on the part of the Commission as to the number of
dwellings in existence, their location, and which parcels require which
waivers. (Part of the confusion was due to a misprint in the staff report
which referred to Section 18-36(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance as
18-36(2).) Mr. Benish explained that a second dwelling on parcel A is
permitted without requiring a waiver from Section 32.2.1(a), but both parcels
require a waiver of 18-36(a) relating to private road provisions, and Parcel
B also requires a site plan waiver (Section 32.2.1(a)) to allow a third
dwelling. Mr. Benish also confirmed that Parcel B is not actually being
divided at this time, rather a third dwelling is being placed on it, but
the applicant had to demonstrate that the lot could be divided in the
future.
/7a
May 12, 1987
Page 5
Mr. Bowerman expressed some confusion regarding development rights.
It was determined that each parcel has two development rights which
r" could result in a total of 5 lots, i.e. 2 on Parcel A and 3 on Parcel
B. Mr. Cogan explained Parcel B could have 3 lots because it is
large enough for two five -acre lots and a residue parcel of 21 acres.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Smith addressed the Commission. He explained he had applied
for permits for the first cottage and log cabin before this property
was subdivided and at that time two dwelling units were allowed by right.
In answer to Mr. Bowerman's question as to the proposed use for the
dwellings, Mr. Smith explained the 21-acre parcel "in the back" was
for his own dwelling, the log cabin will be used as a guest house,
and the two existing cottages are rented.
Mr. Bowerman still expressed some confusion about the application. He
asked if the second dwelling unit on Parcel A was before the Commission.
Mr. Benish explained that it needed to be addressed only in regard to
allowing a second dwelling unit on a private road.
Ms. Diehl indicated she was unclear as to how the certificate of occupancy
was tied to the road improvements. (Condition 2 - A certificate of occu-
pancy will not be issued until the existing road is upgraded to the satis-
faction of the County Engineer.) Mr. Benish explained: "The road
currently is about 12 feet in width. What they would be required to
put in is a 14-foot wide gravel -based road. In lieu of doing full road
plans on that, which is normally the condition you see --County
Engineer approval of road plans --we tied it to the certificate of
occupancy for both dwellings."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that the John W. Smith Site Plan Waiver, Subdivision Waiver
Request be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
are met:
a. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the existing road
is upgraded to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. (Note: This
was amended later in the meeting.)
3. Waiver of Section 18-36(a) of the Albemarle County Subdivision
Ordinance for parcel "a" and "b" as shown on plat by Roudabush,
Greene & Gale, dated August 8, 1986.
4. Waiver of site plan requirement (Section 32.2.1(a)) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
17-5
May 12, 1987 Page 6
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
There was further discussion about condition 2. There was some question
as to whether the certificate of occupancy should be tied to both
dwellings or just the first. It was finally determined condition No. 2
would be changed to read: "A certificate of occupancy will not be issued
until the existing road on Parcel A is upgraded to the satisfaction of
the County Engineer."
The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously with condition
2 amended as stated above.
Jones and Spink Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 5.156 acre lot with a
residue of 41.83 acres. The five acre lot is to be served by a joint access
easement which will also serve the adjacent three acre parcel. The residue
will be served by an existing drive located along the eastern property line
of the proposed five acre lot. The total area of the site is 46.986
acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 4F,
is located on St. Rt. 676 between St. Rt. 660 and St. Rt. 601. Jack
Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Ford presented the staff report. A main issue of the review was a
proposed joint entrance. The report explained:
"As a result of the proposed subdivision, the residue will not have
any state road frontage. The applicant's proposal includes a waiver
of utilizing the existing private road to access State Route 676
and as an alternative, utilizing the proposed joint entrance from the
public road. The proposed joint entrance will serve Lot A4 and Lot
A5. The applicant requests that the existing farm entrance remain
separate to serve the farm and commercial stable (residue parcel).
... Since the best sight distance is obtainable at the location of
the existing private driveway, the Virginia Department of
Transportation recommends that all of the possible access to the proposed
lots should occur at this private street commercial entrance.
... The Subdivision Ordinance does not include any provisions for
serving a combined commercial and residential use on a private road.
The ordinance also does not include provisions and guidelines for
maintenance agreements between owners of commercial and residential
uses. Therefore, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the
preliminary plat and request for a joint access easement...."
The staff report also addressed the implications of the current proposal
in relation to the future division of a third lot from the residue.
The report explained:
"1. The existing farm road serves a commercial use. No provision in
the private roads section of the Subdivision Ordinance envisions
mixing of commercial and residential uses on a private road and
staff has opposed such proposals in the past. Therefore, to
further divide and utilize the farm road the applicant would
either abandon the commercial use or persuade the Commission
(over staff objection) to grant use of the farm road;
2. Adequate sight distance for a commercial entrance does not exist
at the proposed location of the joint entrance. Staff would not
/ '74
May 12, 1987
Page 7
recommend a sight distance waiver at this location to serve a
third lot;
3. The applicant could request an individual entrance for a third
lot. Permitting multiple entrances is contrary to County
policy, therefore, staff would recommend disapproval of such
waiver.
Mr. Keeler commented further on the issue of future subdivision, for the
benefit of the applicant. He explained that the implications of
the current proposal on future subdivision could determine whether or
not the applicant wishes to pursue the current proposal. Using drawings,
Mr. Keeler presented several possibilities that could occur with
future subdivision. He pointed out that this was a separate issue
from the proposal before the Commission and since these additional
comments were solely for the benefit of the applicant, the Commission
need not comment on this particular issue. Mr. Keeler stressed that
staff is recommending a joint easement, contrary to the Highway Department's
recommendation that this lot access over the commercial entrance,
because the Ordinance does not call for mixing commercial and residential
uses on a private road (unless permitted by the Commission). Mr. Keeler
pointed out that all of the schemes he had presented would require some
type of waiver. He added, however, that staff felt a third lot could
be divided from the residue if a public road is used.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
,. Mr. Jones addressed the Commission. He stated that Mr. Jim Kesterson,
a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation, had
visited his property and stated, verbally, that commercial sight distance
does exist at the proposed joint easement. He felt that the
Highway Department's original finding that sight distance could only
be obtained at the existing entrance was based on a misunderstanding
of the actual location of the proposed entrance. He stressed the
low impact of the activity at the existing stable. He explained that
it was not a commercial stable but there was no other classification for
this type of use in the Ordinance.
Mr. Steve Creswell, representing the County Engineer's office, stated
he felt there had been no misunderstanding about the location of the
proposed joint entrance at the time his office had meet with the
Highway Department concerning this plat. He felt that it should be
clarified as to whether or not it was later determined that sight
distance does exist.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Noting that he had visited the property, Mr. Stark stated that he thought
sight distance could possibly exist as stated by Mr. Jones. He added
that he felt the application was "perfectly in order."
Mr. Bowerman suggested that condition 1 (e) be added as follows:
"Existing entrance on Parcel A4 to be closed." (It was determined this
was a temporary construction entrance.)
al
May 12, 1987
Page 8
Mr. Stark moved that the Jones and Spink Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Planning Staff approval of technical items and notes on the final plat;
b. Health Department approval;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. County Attorney approval of joint maintenance agreement easements
is required;
e. Existing entrance on Parcel A4 to be closed.
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Heyward/Hedgerow Properties - Proposed Donation - Review
of proposed donation of open space easements to the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation. Request for Commission Comment.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a staff report which included the following:
"The County has recently been made aware of properties owned by Mr.
and Mrs. Heyward/Hedgerow Corporation which have been proposed by the
owners for donation as open space easements to the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation (VOF). ... Because some of the property lies in
the Urban Area and would be removed from development potential if
accepted as open sp tee -easement, VOF has requested input from the
County stating its position regarding this part of the proposal.
...Any recommendations or comments by the Commission will be
forwarded to the County Executive."
Mr. Cilimberg presented a map which showed the location of the property. He
noted that those properties designated as Areas B (55 acres) and C (228
acres) have been recommended by staff for removal from the Urban Areas
because of poor topography and flood plains. However, Area A (230 acres)
contains much of the Balmoral Heights Subdivision and other parcels considered
to be potentially developable. He also noted that Area A is within the
Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area and has access to
existing water and sewer lines.
Mr. Cilimberg stated issues to be considered by the Commission included
the following:
--Does Area A have merit as a part of the growth area of the Urban area?
VS. Is Area A, as a conservation area and part of what may ultimately be
a part of a larger group of open space easements in the rural area,
more important?
/ 4
May 12, 1987
Page 9
--Will a lack of County support for the easements in Area A discourage
others in the County from seeking such easements?
*40.1 --Is support of such an easement in part of an existing growth area
contrary to the County's growth management policies?
Ms. Tamara Vance, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed
the Commission and asked that the Commission support the proposal.
The following facts were determined about this type of proposal:
--Open space easements are not necessarily for public access.
--Property owners give up the right to develop their land and
donate conservation easements to the VOF, an agency of the
State government which currently holds conservation easements
on 30,000 acres in the Piedmont Region (2,000 in Albemarle County).
--The property owners continue to maintain the property and
retain title to the property.
--Landowners can make different arrangements with VOF for future
use of the property. Each contract is drafted individually.
--The donation is not rescindable. Ms. Vance explained that
the development rights are donated to VOF "in perpetuity"
and they are held by the Virginia State Government.
--The easement stays with the land forever, regardless of
a change in ownership.
--Any existing use of the property can continue.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Cilimberg how this area would fit in to that section
of the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg responded that because of the location
rw it would probably not develop at a high density and the degree of
development would depend on the willingness of the landowner.
It was determined this issue was before the Commission only because the
property is on the boundary of the growth area and the VOF Board is
seeking County comment before making a decision as to whether or not to
accept the easement. It was noted that the Commission's approval was
not required.
Though the Commission took no formal action on the proposal, it
expressed no opposition to the proposal since it was felt it would not
be a severe detriment to growth policies. It was the consensus of the
Commission to express support for the acceptance of the donation.
The Commission also expressed its appreciation of the Heyward family's
generous offer.
MISCELLANEOUS
--Mr. Keeler announced that Mr. Ford was resigning his position with
the staff to accept a position in the private sector.
--Mr. Keeler informed the Commissioners that they would be receiving an
addendum to a staff report on the Health Farm (scheduled for May 19)
which would address the issue of the relationship of the farm to zoning
rr districts other than the RA district (as was addressed in the original
staff report).
179
May 12, 1987
Page 10
--Mr. Bowerman expressed concern about recent news that, due to
rennovations, the City would be eliminating one of the softball
fields at McIntire Park. He stressed that one of the reasons
for the Rivanna Park had been the need for additional softball
fields. He felt if the elimination of this field had been
planned for some time, the County should have been made aware
of those plans.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
DS
/;e�_
S" 7/'Y
o n Horne, Secretary
l76