HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 26 87 PC MinutesMay 26, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 26, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David
Bowerman; 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; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner;
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney (entered the meeting at 8:20).
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a
quorum was present. The minutes of May 12, 1987 were approved as submitted.
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. Property located on Old Ivy Road
(St. Rt. 601) adjacent to Huntington Village and Ivy Gardens Apartment
Complex. Tax Map 60, Parcel 53. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Deferred from May 19, 1987.
rrr Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Mr. Benish made the following
correction to the staff report: "The proposal calls for a total of 260
residential units, of which 30 are townhomes and 230 are mid -rise
condominium units." (The staff report had stated 51 townhomes and 209
condominiums.) Mr. Benish stated the application had been deferred
previously to allow right-of-way issues to be clarified. He explained
there is an existing roadway which serves as access to some of the buildings
in Ivy Gardens and also ser-�es adjacent properties (McGavock property and
University property). The location of the proposed road would cut off
access from the existing road, which is the adjacent properties'
access to Old Ivy Road. He stated that staff had attempted to obtain
written verification from adjacent owners that this would be acceptable,
and though he had received written comment from owners of the McGavock
property, "they were reluctant to give written approval at this time."
He stated the McGavock's concerns were related to this phase of devel-
opment and included: concern about how the road will ultimately be
aligned; proximity of the security building to the McGavock property;
and screening and buffering issues. Mr. Benish suggested the addition
of the following two conditions to address the access issue:
1.(h) County Attorney approval of agreement by adjacent property
owners for the re -alignment of access easement and roadway
for this phase of development, if determined necessary by the
County Attorney.
1.(i) County Attorney approval of perpetual access easement for adjacent
property owners with current right-of-way over this property.
/s 7
May 26, 1987
Page 2
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question as to what would happen if
approval cannot be obtained, Mr. Benish explained that approval
was necessary for this particular design, but there are a number of
engineering alternatives which eliminate the need for such approval.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Tom Wyant, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated the proposal represents what the applicant feels is the
best entrance to the property, but if the Commission so directs, the
applicant will change the alignment of the roadway so that "improvements
fall within the existing right-of-way." He stated, "We will guarantee
free access by automobile at all times. He stated the applicant had
no intention of doing anything to detract :from the McGavock property
and would not impede her entrance. He stated the applicant had no
objections to the suggested conditions of approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the McGavock property, addressed the
Commission. He spoke in length regarding the McGavock's concerns
about this application. His comments included the following:
--The McGavocks are not requesting a change in the proposed
alignment.
--The McGavocks'main concern is that their property be protected.
--He asked that a condition be added which would require a "proper
document" clarifying the right-of-way issue.
--He asked for a clarification of the "moving of the right-of-way
to this new location."
--The McGavocks recognize that this new road would be an improvement
of this section of the existing right-of-way to the McGavock property.
--He expressed concern about the "alignment just beyond this project for
linkage back into the McGavock property."
--The McGavocks are concerned about buffering and screening of the project
from the McGavock property.
Mr. Evans presented a series of diagrams to explain in detail the above -
listed concerns. He also presented photographs of the McGavock property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to whether or not Mr. Evans had
discussed his concerns with Mr. Wyant, Mr. Evans indicated he had not
had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Wyant
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the conditions of approval would adequately
address those concerns listed by Mr. Evans. He suggested that Mr.
Evans work with Mr. Wyant and staff in order to come to a better understanding
of these issues.
9�
May 26, 1987 Page 3
Mr. Bowerman expressed confusion about the proposed roadway and its relation
� to the concerns of Mr. Evans regarding the next phase of development.
It was his understanding that if the roadway remains as presently
proposed, it would preclude changing the alignment to accommodate Mr.
Evans' concern on the next phase. Mr. Benish stated that was not correct.
Mr. Horne explained: "The change in alignment that is proposed by Mr.
Evans does not take place on the road as shown on the preliminary plan.
It would take place beyond where that road is now."
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Wyant stated he anticipated
no problems in meeting with Mr. Evans and addressing his concerns.
He felt all items could be worked out easily with the exception of
the suggestion that the Ivy Gardens Fire Exit be closed. (He stated he
had no authority to close an exit in Ivy Gardens.)
Mr. Cogan suggested that it be left up to the County Attorney to determine
if the road should be moved into the existing right-of-way, as prescribed
in the conditions. He suggested that staff be granted administrative
approval of any type of site plan amendment which might be required.
Mr. Michel stated he felt staff could come back to the Commission "if
indeed that comes to pass."
Mr. Michel seemed to indicate that he would prefer to see the application
again if the road should be moved back into the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Cogan stated he had no objection to staff approval, though he was
agreeable to seeing the application again if the Commission so desired.
Mr. Michel moved that the University Village Marketing Center Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are
met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calcu-
lations;
C. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
computations;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance
as per their letter to Mr. David Benish, dated April 9, 1987.
Site distance requirements to be based on ultimate road design for
Old Ivy Road;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
h. County Attorney approval of agreement by adjacent property owners
for the re -alignment of access easement and roadway for this phase
of development, if determined necessary by the County Attorney;
i. County Attorney approval of perpetual access easement for adjacent
property owners with current right-of-way over this property.
/ 9/
May 26, 1987
Page 4
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until. the following
condition is met:
a. Fire Prevention Officer final approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Capital Improvements Program - Planning Commission's recommendations regarding
the proposed 1987-88 through 1991-92 Capital Improvements Program for Albemarle
County.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. He explained there were 55 projects
in this year's CIP request, totaling $18,005,134, of which $3,526,312 were to
be funded in the 87-88 fiscal year.
After a series of work sessions, the Commission's endorsed list would
fund $17,997,919 over the five years with $2,894,860 being funded in
FY 87-88.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly went over 24 projects which the Commission had
clasified as "Urgent." He noted that item No. 5 (Volunteer Fire Departments/
Advance Allocation Program) had been withdrawn at the direction of the
County Executive's Office and is to be funded in future years out of existing
Revolving Loan Funds. Mr. Cilimberg also noted that the Stone Robinson
Elementary School/Major Renovation needed to be added to the Urgent projects.
After a brief discussion, it was decided this project would be given
No. 2 priority.
Mr. Cogan turned the meeting over to Mr. Gould who had acted as Chairman
for the CIP Work Sessions.
Mr. Gould called for public comment on the list of projects read by Mr.
Cilimberg. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
There was some question as to the placement of item No. 20 (County Office
Building/Grounds). Mr. Gould recalled that this item had been placed
at the bottom of the list. After a brief discussion it was determined
this item would become No. 24, at the bottom of the list.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Stark moved that the following list
of Urgent Projects be recommended for funding in the FY 1987-88:
1. Route 678 Relocation
2. Stone Robinson Elementary School/Major Renovation
3. Rivanna Park, lst Phase Construction
4. Burley Middle School, Phase I
5. Crozet Elementary School/Replacement School
6. Keene Transfer Station (Planning only)
7. Bennington Channel (Recommend funding by Albemarle County Service
Authority)
8. Albemarle High School/Facilities Study
9. Whitewood Pathway
May 26, 1987
Page 5
10. County Computer Upgrading
11. Berkshire Channel
12. Smithfield Road Storm Sewer
13. Jail Expansion/Joint Security Complex (Planning only)
14. Crozet Park
15. Ivy Creek Natural Area/Tenant House Improvement
16. Greenwood Community Center/Building Repair
17. King George Circle Storm Sewer
18. Scottsville Community Center/Basefield Field
19. Mint Springs Valley Park/Middle Dam Riser
20. Stony Point Elementary School (Planning only)
21. Yancey Elementary School (Planning only)
22. Four Seasons Detention Basin
23. County Office Building/Interior Renovations
24. County Office Building/Grounds Maintenance Facility
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Covesville Post Office Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 1,168 square foot
post office building on a 2-acre lot which shall be served by 8 parking
spaces and 1 loading space. The site plan indicates the proposed division of
2-acre lot from a 5.14 acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 34C1, is located on Rt. 633, approximately
1/4 mile east of its intersection with Rt. 29 in Covesville. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Benish also pointed out the following: "This is a public use, and
under the Rural Areas district, the Planning Commission must make positive
finding that this use is consistent and is substantially in accord with
the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Bowerman asked about the expected vehicle trips/day. Mr. Benish explained
this would probably be based on the number of boxes in use at the facility
and the new facility proposes to have 250-255 boxes.
It was determined the present facility is operating from a trailer located
at the store which is the "village center."
Ms. Diehl asked it if was not customary to make a determination as to
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan at a meeting prior to review of
a site plan. She felt the two were separate actions.
Mr. Payne responded that it has been done "both ways." He stated: "I
don't think there is anything that prohibits you from acting on both issues
at the same time."
Ms. Diehl felt that the issue of compliance, or noncompliance, was the
first, or principle, action to be taken.
Oil
May 26, 1987 Page 6
Mr. Payne responded: "Yes. The first matter is really a policy matter.
The second matter is more of a technical nature. So, if you determine
it is not in accord with the plan, then the site plan would be moot."
Mr. Payne added: "If you choose to approve the site plan, you would
necessarily be recognizing it to be substantially in accord with the
plan. You don't have to forget about that issue, but it may be that it
is so obvious that it does accord with the plan that you would just
include that with your other approval. ...I'd say this is a small enough
use that it not necessarily take two distinct considerations."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. A.G. Small, representing the Post Office Department, addressed the
Commission. He offered no additional comment.
The Chairman invited comment from the Postmaster.
Mr. Curtis Drumheller addressed the Commission. He answered questions
from members of the Commission. His comments included the following:
--It was very difficult to find property on which to locate the
proposed facility since there is very little land available
in the Covesville area .
--Hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m., with the lobby remaining open 23 hours a day.
--Truck deliveries are made at 6:15 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
--The facility will be built by a contractor and then leased by the
Post Office for 30 years (15 year lease with 15 year option).
--Approximately 85-90 vehicles visit the facility each day.
--Current: site is not large enough.
--A dawn -to -dusk light will be used on the facility.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following residents of the Covesville area addressed the Commission
and expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr. John Shiflett; Mr.
David Allen; Mr. Robert Campbell; Mr. Powell. Their reasons for
opposition included the following:
--Facility is too close to residential dwellings; landscaping
and screening will be ineffective.
--Excessive noise and traffic.
--Bright lighting.
--Possible pollution of wells which are downgrade from the
proposed facility's drainfield.
--Facility will no longer be situated in the main community of
Covesville.
Addressing the issue of lighting, Mr. Small. explained that outside lighting
would consist of three 70-watt bulbs approximately 10 feet high.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
R
1171V
May 26, 1987 Page 7
Mr. Cogan stated the first issue to be addressed was whether this
use was in compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and whether it will be conducive to the surrounding area.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt this was not an appropriate location for
this facility. He pointed out that this is a residential area
and though the use proposed is a public use, it is still a
commercial use.
Ms. Diehl stated that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
is to "center" services at villages and the present proposal would
be "dispersing" the uses to which the Covesville residents must
go each day. She stated, "I don't feel it's in compliance in that
respect. ... A Post Office should be located in a central location
adjacent to the other services that are being provided, rather than
in a residential area, out of the center."
Mr. Horne pointed out that if the Commission wishes to make a
statement regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, that
would be perfectly appropriate.
Mr. Cogan stated he agreed with Ms. Diehl.
Mr. Michel stated he agreed, but he was unsure as to how to
"word" an action. Mr. Wilkerson indicated agreement.
Mr. Cogan stated it was his understanding that if a site plan is to
be denied the reasons for denial must be stated and it must also
be explained what steps can be taken to make the plan approvable.
Mr. Payne stated it would depend on what objection the denial was
based. He explained that if the objection was to some feature of
the site plan not being in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
then Mr. Cogan's observation was correct. However, since this is
a public use, the issue of compliance with the Comp Plan under
Virginia Code Section 15.1-456 (if it is determined that is the
controlling review), then the issue is "whether the general or
approximate location, character and extent of the proposal is
substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan."
He stated, "If you find that it is, then you approve it; if you
find that it's not, then you disapprove it."
Mr. Horne asked for the Commission's guidance as to "specific other
types of locations that would be more appropriate." He explained
that the staff will aid the Post Office in trying to locate an
appropriate site. He pointed out that the Post Office will not
continue to operate in an inadequate facility and if an acceptable
site is not found within a reasonable time the facility will be
closed and services moved to the North Garden branch.
Mr. Cogan suggested the possibility of the intersection of some
of the secondary roads with Rt. 29 and Ms. Diehl stated it should
be near "downtown" Covesville."
/ PJ
May 26, 1987
Page 8
Ms. Diehl suggested that it might be advisable to defer the matter to
allow staff time to explore other possibilities. However, Mr. Cogan
did not think that would be appropriate since the issue in question
is the location and not the actual site plan and a new location would
require an entirely new site plan.
Mr. Horne suggested that if this should be found not to be in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, and then it is determin'd another site
cannot be found, this same site plan could be reviewed again "in light
of the circumstances and in light of the general need to provide
services to your rural area." He added, however, that it would be
awkward to bring it back in such a fashion.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Covesville Post Office Site Plan be denied
based on the fact that the site plan was not in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan in respect to location.
(Mr. Horne explained that this action would render the site plan moot.)
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioners
Wilkerson, Cogan, Bowerman, Diehl, Michel and Stark voting for the
motion and Commissioner Gould abstaining.
The meeting recessed from 9:15 to 9:30.
Huntwood Homeowners Association, Request for Amendment to Delete
Recreation Facilities - Request to amend the required recreation facilities.
The total area of the site is 6.35+ acres. Phase 1 is zoned R-15 and Phase
II is zoned R-6. Property, located on the north side of Barracks Road
(Rt. 654) approximately .10 of a mile west of the intersection of Barracks
and Georgetown Road (Rt. 656). The development is described on Tax Map
insert 60A(2). Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report which included the following
information:
"The Huntwood Homeowners Association is requesting the
deletion of the recreation facilities approved as part of the Huntwood
Townhouses, Phase I and Phase II Site Plans.
...The County is presently holding a bond from the developer for these
improvements. To date none of the equipment has been installed within
the development. Should the Commission. decide to require these
facilities, they will be installed by the developer (Huntwood, Inc.-
R.E. Lee & Son).
...The recreation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at the time
these site plans were approved required the establishment of
50 square feet of recreation area per dwelling unit .... The site
approved by the Planning Commission did include the provision of
recreational equipment; therefore, these facilities must be
provided by the developer unless the Commission allows the site
plan to be amended to delete these facilities."
/ 9(,
May 26, 1987
Page 9
The staff report explained that the Homeowner's Association had conducted
a vote and of 55 existing homeowners, 20 voted to delete the recreation
+' facilities and 14 voted in favor of providing the facilities. The
primary concern of those voting to delete the facilities was the
amount of limited open space available. The homeowners felt that
the available open space would require the facilities to be located
relatively close to some dwellings. However, staff was of the opinion
that the facilities could be located in such a fashion as not to
cause a significant detriment to any residences.
The staff report concluded:
"Staff does not recommend approval of an amendment to this site plan
to delete the tot lot and recreation equipment. However, staff is of
the opinion that the basketball goals are not appropriate in the parking
lot as proposed. Given the limited area available in this development,
the courts could not be easily relocated, therefore staff is recommending
that these basketball goals be deleted from the plat."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Henry Braswell, President of the Hunt -
wood Homeowners' Association. He stressed that every effort has been made to
locate a suitable place for the recreation facilities,without success.
He stated the only place possible, that would not encroach on someone's
property, would be a drainage ditch that is full of snakes and mosquitoes.
Mr. Braswell confirmed that all open space areas had been considered.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following residents of Huntwood addressed the Commission and asked
that the requirement for recreation facilities be deleted: Mr. Mickey
Hendrix; Mr. William Roberts; Ms. Sally Wright, representing Ms. Carol
Hendrix; Mr. Larry Fielding; and Ms. Jean Haley Roberts. All stressed the
lack of an appropriate safe site for the facilities. All felt that the
detention basin area was not a suitable place because of safety considera-
tions. Several of those who spoke in favor of the amendment also pointed
out there were a number of other deficiences in the site as well, including
inadequate roads and parking facilities. Mr. Hendrix also questioned the
legality of requiring the developer to install the facilities at this
point since he no longer owns the open space (it is now owned by the
homeowners). There was also concern abott the increased homeowner's main-
tenance fee and insurance costs in connection to this facility.
Mr. Keven Dougherty addressed the Commission and spoke against the
amendment to delete the facilities. He suggested that some of those
voting had been misinformed about the situation and probably would
change their vote if given the opportunity. Regarding the safety
issue, he stated that the age of the children using the facilities
would be such that they would not be playing there unsupervised.
Mr. Dougherty also suggested that allowing this deletion would be
setting a bad precedent for future plans.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
May 26, 1987
Page 10
Mr. Stark questioned the appropriateness of the issue being decided
by only 20 people (out of 60 possible). However, it was determined
a quorum was present at the meeting and staff confirmed they felt
the vote taken was a legal one.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Benish to comment on whether or not space is
available for the recreational facility.
Mr. Benish stated that the area available was "marginal" and would
not meet current requirements for this type of facility. However,
he stated, "There is adequate area, given the latitude to choose
the appropriate type of equipment, to provide for some type of
facilities." He stated the area being considered is "to the north
of the detention basin." Mr. Benish stated that it might be
possible to fence the area as well as screen it from surrounding
properties. Regarding the staff's authority in choosing the
type of equipment, Mr. Horne stated: "Under current requirements
we have a specified type of equipment, but there is latitude
as long as you provide the same recreational amenity as that
specified group of equipment, and I am empowered to decide if that
is an equivalent amenity. If you choose to leave this in, and
I think David is right --the area is marginal, we would hope you would
provide us that latitude."
Ms. Wright, who had spoken earlier in the hearing as a representative
of Ms. Hendrix, asked how the area indicated by Mr. Benish could be
reached without trespass across Ms. Hendrix's land. Mr. Benish responded
that the area could be fenced or screened. Mr. Benish noted that access
to tot lots is always a problem and in this particular development
lot lines are not clearly defined.
Mr. Stark asked if it might be possible to move the detention basin
somewhat to create a larger area for this facility. Mr. Benish
stated it might be possible, with some minor grading in certain areas,
to make the area wider.
Mr. Stark stated he was not in favor of changing the requirements at
this time though he was sympathetic to some of the homeowners' concerns.
He stated he was in favor of deferring the issue to allow time for
further studies to be made.
Mr. Cogan stated that though Mr. Stark's suggestion had some merit, he
did not want to see staff get involved with "design work."
Mr. Stark had some question as to what the bond actually covers. Mr.
Horne stated the bond was only of an.amount that would cover installing
equipment and was not adequate to cover any regrading or rearrangement
of the site.
Mr. Gould stated he would not support the amendment to delete the
recreational facilit f He felt it was an established County policy
and he would support even though it might not be possible to provide
the quality that would be required by current standards. He stated,
however, that he would support the deletion of the basketfield goals.
/ ?If
May 26, 1987 Page 11
Mr. Michel stated he agreed with Mr. Gould with the understanding that
staff have the widest discretion possible as to type of equipment and
placement. Mr. Gould agreed.
Mr. Cogan stated his only concern was the use of the term "marginal."
He stated he would not like to see a tot lot constructed with
"inadequate safety features." Mr. Horne stressed that should the
Commission endorse the placement of the recreational facilities, staff
"will not put in an unsafe tot lot." He stated, "We will amend the
equipment somehow to put in whatever it is in a safe manner."
With that understanding, Mr. Cogan stated, "I believe it is incumbent upon
the developer to do what he promised to do."
Mr. Keeler pointed out, for the record, that the current builder is
not the original developer. Mr. Cogan remarked, "He bought it with
his eyes open."
Mr. Stark moved that the Huntwood Homeowners Association Request for
Amendment to Delete Recreation Facilities be denied and that staff be
authorized to determine the type and location of equipment for
maximum safety.
Regarding the issue of the basketball goals, Mr. Payne interpreted
Mr. Stark's motion as not specifically deleting the basketball goals,
but rather would leave to the staff all the equipment, including,
possibly,basketball goals in another location.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Horne noted, for the record, that recreation requirements have been
completely overhauled within the last couple of years and they are
much more specific now as to usable area and equipment.
Mr. Keeler also noted that it might be desirable to develop a
policy regarding when this type of facility is to be constructed,
e.g. after 10% of the units are constructed, the facilities go in,
with no bonds or extension of bonds allowed. He stated he would
study this issue further.
South Pantops Drive Final Plat - Proposal to create 2 lots from an existing
parcel and create a residue which will be added to an adjacent parcel.
Lot 1 and Lot 2 are 1.492 and 1.259 acres respectively. Lot 1 has an
existing 2 story building. The 1.416 acre residue is to be added to an
adjacent parcel. 4.167 total acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C2 is located on the south side of
South Pantops Drive, immediately east of its intersection with Riverbend
Drive. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff reports. She explained there were two staff
reports for this item because at the time they were written there were two
seperate plats which, since that time, have been incorporated into one
plat. She noted that the conditions of approval were the same on both
/ q%
May 26, 1987
Page 12
staff reports with the exception of one additional condition (1-f)
on the report related to parcel 15C. She stated the applicant
could be given the option of doing it in two phases or combining the
approval into one with the second set of conditions (for parcel 15C)
being applicable.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He stated the
applicant had no problems with the suggested conditions of approval.
Regarding the "existing building that is close to the line," he
pointed out that was "per the approved site plan that was done for
that lot." Mr. Edwards attempted to explain the present situation
related to the second entrance on lot 2. Mr. Cogan summarized his
explanation as follows: "What you're saying is that you feel the
entrance to lot 2 will remain as it is, but it is questionable
as to whether or not Mr. Bressan will have the use of it?" Mr. Edwards
confirmed this was correct. Mr. Edwards indicated Mr. Bressan
was being allowed to use the entrance now as a courtesy.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that South Pantops Drive Final Plat, Parcel 15C2 and Parcel
15C and South Pantops Road Dedication be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plat can be signed when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of easement locations;
c. Real Estate Department approval of residual acreages as noted;
d. Planning staff approval of technical items;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of South Pantops
Drive road plans;
f. Building Inspections Department approval of fire separation of building
located on Lot 3 near property line.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ednam Section B Site Plan - Proposal to locate a total of 30 dwellings in 8
buildings comprised of 7 quadraplexes and 1 duplex. The buildings will be
served by 90 parking spaces, all but 8 of which are underground. Total
acreage of site is 6.3 acres. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development.
Property located within Ednam PRD on south side of Worthington Drive,
adjacent to Ednam Village and the Boar's Head Inn. Tax Map 59D2-6, Parcel 1.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report pointed out that the site
plan was not granted administrative approval because there was some confusion
over proposed building elevations and finished grades. The Commission
asked that the applicant present elevations and a cross-section to clarify
the issue at the time of site plan review. 400
-9Od
May 26, 1987
Page 13
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
,%me Mr. Bob McKee was present to represent the applicant. He called the
Commission's attention to several cross sections which showed the
elevation of the buildings.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Ednam Section B 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. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention facility;
d. County Engineer approval of entrances to Worthington Drive;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
f. Fire Officer approval;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan and notes to site plan.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Key Estate Revised Final Plat - Proposal to create three lots from 7.91
acres. Lot size served by a public road ranges from 2.0 to 3.1 acres, and
served by a private road ranges from 2.01 to 3.22 acres. Proposed Lot C
is presently improved with a single family dwelling. The applicant requests
a special case for a private road to be permitted (Section 18-36c).
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on the north side of Rt. 659
(SPCA Road) adjacent to the Woods Condominiums. Tax Map 45, Parcel 76.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report explained that the
applicant felt a private road should be permitted because "it will
create far less earth disturbing activity in the reservoir watershed and
it makes for a far more logical and common sense sort of development."
The report also explained that if the Commission would not support a private
road under Section 18-36c, the applicant was requesting approval of three lots
served by a public road. Regarding this issue, the staff report stated:
"Prior to any discussion of whether a private road will be
permitted in this case, it must be determined that the proposed sub-
division served by a public road would comply with the Zoning and Sub-
division Ordinances. Otherwise, approval with a private road would
solely serve the proprietary interests of the applicant. Planning staff
May 26, 1987
Page 14
is of the opinion that the proposal showing three lots served by a public
road should be denied; therefore, this special case for a private road
should effectively be denied." *40
The staff's reasons for recommending denial of three lots served by a
public road included the following:
"The creation of three lots from this property is marginal at best,
and required substantial study to meet septic, road, lot area and building
site requirements. The County Engineering Department has noted that the
installation of either a public or a private road for three lots will
promote further degradation of reservoir water quality. Planning
staff is of the opinion that proposed Lot C served by a public road is
an odd -shaped lot for the sole purpose of meeting the minimum 2.0
acre lot area requirement. Section 18-29 of the Subdivision
Ordinance states 'Lots shall not contain peculiarly shaped elongations
which are designed solely to provide necessary square footage of area
or frontage on a public road and which would be unusable for normal purposes.'
This alone is basis for denial of this plat."
The staff report stated: "If the Commission concurs with staff, it appears
that a two -lot subdivision could be administratively approved in compliance
with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances." (The report also listed
conditions of approval if the Commission chose to approve this plat
with a public road.)
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. James Murray. He stressed that this —"
is "a division of property by -right." He listed the following two issues
as being significant to this review: (1) Staff has recommended denial
on the grounds that Lot C is odd shaped; and (2) If approved, should
a public or private road be allowed? Regarding the issue of the odd -shaped
lot, he pointed out that the Ordinance states that "odd -shaped lots are not
illegal" unless they are elongated solely for the purpose of obtaining
road frontage or area. He stated that road frontage was not an issue and
he suggested several ways to redesign the plat so that the acreage for lot
C could be met. He stated the reason the lot is odd shaped is (1) to provide
access to the reservoir; and (2) a circumstantial happening unrelated
to area in which many years ago a lot was cut out of the corner. He
stated that the lot was not odd just to get area since there is plenty
of area, 2.2 acres. He stated: "The oddness of its shape is not
dictated by area. The oddness of its shape is dictated by the way
the land lies. That is not a legal reason to deny the lot. It is a
legal lot under the terms of the ordinance." Regarding the issue of
public vs. private road, he stated the applicant has requested a private
road on the grounds that "it would alleviate a clearly demonstrable
danger of significant degradation to the environment." He pointed out
that the County Engineer recommended that the request be denied because
"the applicant has not provided a convincing enough argument to justify
a private road." At this point Mr. Murray distributed a copy of a
report which evaluated the two road alternatives (prepared by Mr.
Robert McKee). He stated this report had just been received.
(Note: Report distributed by Mr. Murray was dated May 26, 1987.)
Mr. McKee's report concluded: "The environmental impact from construction
of the VDOT road would far surpass that from construction of the
private road."
F_MR-1
May 26, 1987 Page 15
Contrary to the statement of the County Engineer, Mr. Murray felt
this engineer's report was a "convincing argument." He explained
►' the report had not been provided earlier because the County
engineering staff had repeatedly advised the applicant that such
a report was not necessary since there was no difference between
the two types of road. (Note: The report distributed by Mr.
Murray pointed out several differences between the two types of
road.) Mr. Murray stressed that the engineering staff had encouraged
the applicant not to have such a study made of the two road
types. Mr. Murray stated that when he had sought an explanation
as to why a study was not necessary, he had been told by the
engineering office that the "staff really wanted to reach the
conclusion that we ought to have two lots here and he had been
encouraged to reach that conclusion." Mr. Murray stressed that
this was a by -right development and the applicant has carefully
obeyed all the rules. He indicated that if the Commission wanted
to change the density on the property, the proper way was through a
rezoning. He concluded: "I do not believe that it is fair to the
owners of this property to stretch the Ordinance, to deceive the
public about engineering data, and to deny what is a perfectly lawful
development."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. James Cosby, attorney for the Key Estate, the contract sellers of the
property, addressed the Commission and expressed his support for the
petition.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Steve Creswell, representing the
County Engineer's Office.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Creswell to elaborate on what he believed to be
a setback discrepancy. However, Mr. Creswell deferred the question to
Mr. Payne since he was not familiar with zoning requirements.
Mr. Murray offered the following explanation: "There is a non -conforming
setback because the house was originally located under the old earlier
setback ordinance. The old setback applies with respect to the existing
house." He explained that at one point during this process the Zoning
Administrator had ruled on this issue. Mr. Payne added: "There was a
provision adopted in this ordinance which would allow certain subdivisions
to be deemed to be conforming if they met the setback and yard requirements
which were in effect when they were approved rather than the ones that are
in effect under this ordinance.
Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to a letter from the
Zoning Administrator which addressed this issue. He added: "Whether or
not Mr. Payne agrees with (this determination) or whether the Planning
Staff agrees with that opinion, the applicant was given that opinion some
time ago by the Zoning Administrator who is authorized to interpret
the Ordinance." Mr. Cogan asked if that opinion was that the 30-feet of
frontage would apply, only on SPCA Road or also to the new road?
Mr. Payne stated: "I have a lot of doubts about that because the road
doesn't exist; it's proposed but it doesn't exist now."
a O�
May 26, 1987 Page 16
Mr. Payne further explained that this section of the Ordinance was adopted
for approved subdivisions which would be made unbuildable by amendments
to this zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne stated: "My reaction is that this
30-foot thing is not correct." He pointed out that he was not familiar
enough with this issue to know whether or not it was critical.
Ms. Patterson interjected: "The correct setback should be 60 feet, 80%
of the front for the side directly adjacent to the new 50-foot right-of-way
and the closest edge of the house should vary marginally, but should
meet that 60-foot setback." She stated this had been discussed previously.
She added: "The front setback is existing; it is non -conforming. The
only thing we're changing in the front property line is requiring
dedication and the Zoning Administrator said that it's not going to be
deemed to be more non -conforming because it's our requirement far
dedication." She confirmed that even if it were to go to 60 feet, the
house would still be within the proper distances.
Mr. Keeler concluded: "This opinion aside, whether you go under this
opinion or under the ordinance, it does not effect this dwelling in
any material fashion."
Mr. Cogan noted his only concern was that the plat be filed correctly.
Mr. Cogan asked for comment from Mr. Creswell.
Mr. Creswell addressed the Commission. He disagreed with Mr. Murray
that the property lines could be moved in such a way so that the
lot would not be elongated. He stated the plat has been "worked and
re -worked to barely squeeze three building sites out of the existing
high ground." He felt it was an attempt "just to meet the area
requirements." Regarding the roadway alternatives, he stated his
comments were based on a 13% private road vs. a 13% public road.
He pointed out that the applicant has submitted a private road
which has been steepened to 18% to avoid a great deal of fill.
He agreed that more area would be disturbed with a public road, but pointed
out that the area would be stabilized afterward. He explained the major
difference is in the amount of impervious area, i.e. a public road is
four feet wider. He stated that it is unlikely that a gravel road
established on 132% grade would stay in place. He also questioned
whether or not an 18% road would be allowed. Mr. Creswell stated
he took exception to Mr. Murray's accusation that he had been
encouraged to deny the plat. He stated: "We made our evaluation
based upon proximity to the reservoir and the concern of trying
to squeeze the absolute maximum development using very, very marginal
lots."
Mr. Murray noted that Mr. McKee's report did refer to "hard surfacing
the private road." Regarding the issue of maintenance for a private
road, he stated, "I cannot imagine that the one owner who is going to
use this private road as a driveway would ever come back to you and
ask that you make his driveway into a public road." He also pointed
out that the entire 18% slope is on one man's driveway.
May 16, 1987 Page 17
The Chairman closed the public hearing and placed the issue before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to comment on the Ordinance statement
regarding odd -shaped lots.
Mr. Payne stated the issue is not whether there is a peculiar
elongation, but whether its not usable for ordinary purposes but
on the contrary it is designed solely to provide, access, road
frontage, or lot area. He agreed that frontage was not an issue
in this case, but rather whether the elongation was necessary to
provide the lot area. He explained that if the Commission
determined that this is not a permitted lot under the Subdivision
Ordinance, then the staff analysis is correct. He stated, "In
that case, then the plat you see with the public road is
simply not a lawful plat. If that's the case, the private road
plat isn't really an alternative to it because you can't have
an alternative to nothing." He stated the issue is "What is
the purpose of that elongation?" He stated it was his understanding
that Mr. Murray felt the lot lines could be rearranged in a number
of ways, whereas the County Engineer disagrees.
Mr. Payne pointed out that staff correctly stated that the
only way a private road is permitted for 3 lots with less than five acres
is if there is some peculiar environmental advantage to the private
road. Mr. Payne attempted to clarify staff's position regarding
the two plats presented, i.e. one with a public road and one with
a private road.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission must first determine if
Lot C is a peculiarly elongated lot, because "the issue of
environmental impact is irrelevant if it is determined that the
private road is the only lawfully feasible alternative." He
added, "If it is, then I think staff is correct that it doesn't
meet the Subdivision Ordinance. It is only if you determine
that the one of the left would be approvable; if that's approvable,
then I think you can and should consider Mr. McKee's report."
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson what the buildable area was for
the middle lot. Ms. Patterson could not answer precisely but
stated that it met the minimum of 30,000 square feet, with the
setbacks not excluded. She did not know what it would be
exclusive of the setbacks. Mr. Bowerman felt this was a critical
issue since if it should come up exactly 30,000 square feet, then
"Mr. Murray's point is probably not well taken, but if it's
45,000 square feet the lot line could have been shifted further."
Mr. Bowerman felt it was critical to determine how arbitrary the
lot lines are.
� Uu
May 26, 1987
Page 18
Mr. Keeler agreed this was a controlling issue at this point.
Mr. Payne suggested the Commission could take one of three actions:
(1) Determine this is a peculiarly -shaped lot; (2) Determine this is
not a peculiarly -shaped lot; or (3) Defer it to allow further study.
It was determined that further study would be done by the staff in
conjunction with the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that two representations of the same plat
have been presented with a difference of opinion as to where the
lot lines can be drawn. He felt this question me&dto be answered
before a determination could be made as to whether or not the
lot was odd -shaped.
Mr. Michel moved that the Key Estate Revised Final Plat be deferred to
June 9, 1987.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
0�0(0