HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 09 87 PC MinutesJune 9, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 9, 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 Develop-
ment; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr.
Frederick 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 May 26, 1987 were approved as
submitted.
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. Deferred from May 26, 1987 Planning
Commission Meeting.
It was determined that staff had recommended deferral to the applicant,
and the applicant had agreed.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Bowerman that the Key Estate Revised
Final Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
Landfall & Tract A (Bruce Van der Linde) Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 5 parcels ranging from t21 to t45 acres, with a t143 acre residue.
Tract A and the residue are proposed to be served by Helios Path, a private
road in Solaris Subdivision; Parcels No. 1-4 are proposed to be served by
a new private road off Rt. 641. Property is located off the south side of
Rt. 641, t0.5 mile east of its intersection with Rt. 640. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Tax Map 34, Parcel 50. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report pointed out two issues to
be resolved by the Commission: (1) Access point for Parcels No. 1-4 by
new entrance to Route 641 or by Helios Path; and (2) Standard of road serving
proposed subdivision to be considered once the issue of access is resolved.
Regarding the issue of the waiver request the staff report stated:
"The Subdivision Ordinance prvision to limit the number of entrances
to state roads requires 'any lot fronting on any such (private) road
shall enter only onto such road and shall have no immediate access onto
any public street...' (Section 18-36f). Relief from this requirement
shall be based on the following: 'due to existing development, topog-
raphy, 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."
� /6
June 9, 1987 Page 2
The staff report listed several of the applicant's justifications for
requesting the waiver including the fact that "the proposed private road would
avoid significant degradation of the environment and topography by not
having to create switchbacks to these proposed parcels." Other
justifications included: the proposed access woud reduce the impact of
farm traffic to families in Solaris; the proposed access would be more direct
to a state road; easements and additional property have already been
obtained for a private road; and the 30-foot private drive has always
been used to access this farm land.
The Virginia Department of Transportation commented at Site Review:
"The best access for this residue is at the intersection of Helios Path
Road and Route 641. Therefore, the Department recommends that
Condition D remain as is in accordance with the previous approvals."
The staff report concluded:
"Planning, Virginia Department of Transportation and Engineering
staff recommend denial of the access waiver to allow a new road to
serve parcel No. 1-4, and instead recommend access for all proposed
parcels to be limited to Helios Path. This is based on the facts
that a) the provisions for approval of such waiver have not been adequately
demonstrated, and b) minimum sight distance may not be obtainable
in cases deviating from the average vehicle height, position, etc.
Planning and Engineering staff recommend that Helios Path be upgraded to
be accepted into the State secondary road system. "
Assuming that the Commission agreed with staff's position, staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Deviating from the usual format, the Chairman invited public comment
before receiving applicant comment.
Ms. Margaret Andrew, whose residence is directly across from the proposed
entrance, addressed the Commission. She was concerned about the suggestion
that it would be necessary to remove a large tree to gain sight distance.
She felt the tree is question was on her property. She was also concerned
about the dangerous alignment of the road.
Mr. Robert Thraves, a resident of Helios Path, addressed the Commission.
He was concerned that what was once a very rural area is now becoming
very congested. He, too, expressed concern, about the dangerous
alignment of the road. Mr. Thraves questioned whether the residents
of Helios Path are aware of the current purposal. Mr. Thraves was
concerned about the loss of farmland in the. County as a result of
proposals of this nature.
There being no further public comment, the Chairman invited applicant
comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
19
,:V1%
June 9, 1987 Page 3
Mr. Foster confirmed that there are no further division rights on
the parcels, unless the County should change the Ordinance. He
explained one of the reasons the applicant would prefer two entrances
is to separate farm traffic from residential traffic. He pointed
out that the entrance to Solaris has been greatly improved as a
result of the applicant's efforts. Mr. Foster was somewhat
"bothered" about the concern over "minimum" sight distance. He
stated that the entrance can meet the sight distance requirements
and "When you meet the minimum, you've met the minimum." He felt
this proposal made for "better planning" and the nature of the
development dictated a private road.
The Chairman invited comments from the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Jeff Echols addressed the Commission. In response to Mr. Cogan's
question as to whether or not a safe private street commercial entrance
can be constructed, Mr. Echols conceded that "minimum" sight distance
exists at the proposed entrance. However, his department feels that
the "best access is at the entrance to Solaris Subdivision where Helios
Path ties in." He pointed out that his department's position has
remained consistent over the years. Regarding the tree referred to
by Ms. Andrews, Mr. Echols indicated the tree appeared to be in the
right-of-way.
Mr. Steve Creswell, representing the County Engineer's Office, addressed
the Commission. He stated his main concern was the necessity for a
V40r "sign island." He questioned how effective the island would be since
there would always be the temptation for people to cut in front of it.
Regarding the question of the tree, he indicated it appeared a
portion of the tree (the back side) might possibly be on private property.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Since Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Gould had visited the site, the Chairman,
invited their comments.
Mr. Gould stated that, assuming the issue of the tree can be resolved,
sight distance can be obtain, though it will be "close." He felt the
matter was more a policy issue which must be decided by the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Gould. He stated the main issue is that
of access. He indicated he was sympathetic to the applicant's efforts and
understood the environmental considerations. He added: "On the other hand,
we have very clear standards in the Ordinance regarding this very question.
We changed the Ordinance a couple of years ago to try to come up with some-
thing that we could live with and, to this point, we have been pretty
successful.... I'm speaking of the public road and the public road
standards.... The standards for a public road were based upon some very
well -thought-out criteria, one of which was the number of lots it served.
For a private road to be maintained with this number of lots would be
very difficult. If we are to approve the subdivision...I don't see what
choice we have but to require the public road with the entrance maintained
at Helios Path." He confirmed that he felt that Helios Path should
J/Y
June 9, 1987 Page 4
be upgraded to a state road. He pointed out considering the number
of lots served and the fact that it does not meet the criteria in
the Ordinance for a private road, "we really don't have any latitude."
He added, "The parcel as it was subdivided four years ago had internal
access to Helios Path and to create another access to it circumvents
the Ordinance and our original approval."
Mr. Stark asked if the person on whose property a portion of the
tree might be standing could prohibit the removal of the tree.
Mr. Payne indicated he had had no experience with such a situation,
but he felt Mr. Stark's statement was accurate.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the proposed entrance could meet all the
requirements and the issue of the tree could be resolved, he would
have no problem with a private road serving the four lots in question.
Mr. Horne pointed out that if the tree could not be removed, it would
be impossible to get sight distance.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Gould to clarify his position once again.
Mr. Gould stated that Mr. Van der Linde was a very conscientious
developer and he would be inclined to support the private road,
considering there are no further development rights with the property,
with the understanding that any further development would have to access
Helios Path.
Ms. Diehl asked on what justification a waiver could be granted.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he would find it difficult to "force the issue"
considering the fact that all the county staff was opposed.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that he could view this as two separate types
of development, coincidentally with the same owner. He agreed that
the wording in the Ordinance did not seem to fit this waiver request.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Gould's statement regarding Mr. Van der Linde's
reputation and intentions and again stressed he was sympathetic.
However, he recalled that at the time of the original subdivision
access was required off Helios Path and "at that time we set the future
course for that parcel." He pointed out, "It wasn't subdivided before
the Ordinance, it was subdivided by us and we said no further
subdivision without our approval and we had a very clear idea of how
that parcel was going to be served five years ago, and nothing has
changed in circumstances except that that parcel is now going to be
divided by right. Emotionally, I would like to approve it, because
I think that there are benefits to be gained from letting it have its
own access, but I dont't think under the requirements of the Ordinance
that I can do that."
Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed.
June 9, 1987
Page 5
Mr. Foster, referring to Section 18-36(f), part 2, felt that the applicant's
request would better serve the public.
Ms. Diehl disagreed, stating that adding another access which has
questionable sight distance would not serve the public interest.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Landfall & Tract A (Bruce Van der Linde)
Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Access for all parcels is limited to Helios Path. Helios Path is to
be upgraded to public road standards and dedicated for acceptance into
the State secondary road system.
2. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and
calculations;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
d. Planning staff approval of technical notes to plat.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Payne to comment on the two choices for approval,
i.e. with access limited to Helios Path or allowing the waiver.
Mr. Payne responded: "It is purely a question of whether you find, as
a matter of fact that the conditions outlined at the top of page 2
of the staff report have been satisfied. Like any one of these
decisions that you make, if you are satisfied in your own mind that
'due to existing development, topography, or other physical considerations,
alternative access would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of
significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent
properties' then you can approve it. If you are not satisfied that
that has been established as a matter of fact, you can't do it. I
think the presumption is against the new entrance."
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion.
The motion for approval passed, 6:1, with Commissioner Cogan casting the
dissenting vote.
Cedar Hill Mini -Storage Site Plan - Proposal to locate a mini -storage warehouse
in two buildings. Property, located on the west side of Rt. 29N, near
Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Tax Map 32,
parcel 331. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report explained that the
existing office trailer for the Cedar Hill Trailer Park will be used as
an office for the proposed warehouses. The report also stated that the
,,. applicant was requesting a waiver of Section 26.10.3 of the Zoning
Sao
June 9, 1987 Page 6
Ordinance, to allow grading within the 30 foot buffer zone adjacent to
residential zoning. Staff recommended approval of the waiver for the
following reasons: (1) "Due to the topography, area and shape of the
light industrial zoning, it would be difficult to locate the proposed
buildings without a retaining wall or without the proposed grading;
(2) The proposed development will not be fully visible to the two mobile
homes within sight due to the grade difference; and (3) Proposed new
trees will be more effective screening than. that which exists."
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
11s. Patterson stated that condition l(c) related to stormwater detention
plans was not necessary since the Stormwater Detention Ordinance
does not apply. In place of 1(c) she suggested a new condition
should be added addressing the access road. The following
wording was decided upon for this condition: "County Engineer approval of
access road to, and two parking spaces for, office trailer."
It was determined the trailer to be used as office space would have
no restriction placed upon it because it predates the Zoning Ordinance
and is, therefore, non -conforming. Mr. Payne clarified this
meant "no chronological restriction."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Marcia Joseph, representing Mr. Beard, the applicant, addressed the
Commission. Addressing the question of amount of grading required,
she explained that both cut and fill would be involved but she pointed
out that the existing vegetation is "scraggly" and the proposed
landscaping would be an improvement. She also explained that the
existing mobile home office would not be expanded. She stated that
the Health Department has visited the site and found the existing
septic facility for the office trailer to be adequate. Regarding
the stormwater detention issue, she stated: "The reason (c) has
been deleted is because if the existing pipe is sized incorrectly
for the runoff that's coming from there, we will have to comply with
the Enrosion Control Ordinance and stormwater detention will be
required."
Some Commissioners were concerned about the travelway being blocked
easily, but it was determined the storage units have very few cars
visiting at any given time and it is possible to approach the
building from either side (i.e. if one side is blocked, it is possible
to go around the other way). Regarding the size of screen trees,
Ms. Joseph stated the smallest size allowed would be used unless
something larger is required.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
9
aai
June 9, 1987 Page 7
Mr. Michel indicated concern about the large amount of cut that
1�w would be necessary adjacent to residential property. He felt a
larger size screening tree should be required. It was determined
condition 1(h) would be added as follows: "Staff approval of landscape
plan to include 6-8 foot screening trees."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Cedar Hill Mini -Storage 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 cal-
culations;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
improvements in accordance with letter of April 9, 1987;
c. County Engineer approval of access road to, and two parking spaces
for, office trailer.
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans;
f. Fire Officer approval;
g. Recordation of plat dedicating additional right-of-way, if
necessary;
h. Staff approval of landscape plan to include 6-8 foot screening
trees.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-38 Mediplex of Virginia (Mountainwood) - Request in accordance with
Section 23.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to amend SP-80-60 to allow
an addition of 3,300 square feet for admitting, and modified parking.
Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F is located on the east side
of Rt. 780 (Old Lynchburg Road) just south of I-64. Zoned CO, Commercial
Office. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Landess and Ms. Judy Gooding,
Executive Director of Mountainwood. Mr. Landess pointed out that
this request would not increase the number of beds in the facility
but is strictly an administrative -type expansion. Ms. Gooding
explained this addition will locate those people who work closely
together in one area. She explained that the present admitting
area will be used for staff offices and the nurses station will
probably be converted to a patient lobby.
M.
June 9, 1987
Page 8
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-87-38 for Mediplex of Virginia be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Administrative approval of site plan;
2. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-60.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-44 Braeburn Limited Partnership - Request in accordance with Section
5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a double -wide mobile home on
property described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 66, White Hall Magisterial
District. Property, located one -tenth of a mile on the north side of Rt.
240, ±.3 mile east of the intersection with Rt. 810 and Rt. 788.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained that the mobile
home would be used for a full-time farm employee. Mr. Benish stated
that 5 letters of opposition had been received.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question about a mobile home being
permitted by right for use by a farm employee, Mr. Payne explained
this was allowed only if the owner lives on the site.
In response to Mr. Michel's concern about the proposed location
being very close to the boundary, Mr. Benish explained that the
existing vegetation is very mature trees and therefore the screening
is "high", so even if the location were changed, the unit would still
be visible. However, he indicated minor adjustments were possible.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Patrick Neusch. He explained
that the mobile home would look very similar to a conventional
dwelling and would be placed on a concrete foundation. He presented
photographs of the proposed unit. He stated the applicant was
willing to negotiate the location and screening of the unit.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Betty Clayton, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
She was concerned that approval of this request would invite more
mobile homes to be placed on the property. She was also concerned
about the devaluation of property.
Mr. Joe Barber representing himself and his sister, Mary Barber,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Barber was concerned that this
property could eventually become a mobile home park. (Mr. Horne
explained that the Zoning Ordinance would not allow a mobile home
park on this property.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
a-?3
June 9, 1987
Page 9
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the proposed unit was a double -wide
and would resemble a conventional dwelling. He also pointed out this
%rr/ was "for the furtherance of an agricultural activity." He added that
he hoped the Zoning Administrator would be "very discreet" when
determining the location and screening for the mobile home.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-44 for Braeburn Limited Partnership
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Screening and/or location of mobile home to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was
to be heard by the Board on June 17, 1987.
SP-87-35 Mary K. Wood - Request in accordance with Section 5.6.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on property described
as Tax Map 31, Parcel 14H, White Hall Magisterial District. Property,
located on the west side of Rt. 743, .2 mile northwest of the intersection
with Rt. 660.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following
statement: "Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal represents
*MW an improvement over existing conditions though some additional screening
may prove warranted."
Mr. Cogan asked if a condition should be added addressing the issue
of location. It was determined that condition No. 2 would be changed
as follows: "Maintenance of existing vegetation and installation of screening
from Rt. 743, and location of mobile home, to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Franklin Sprouse was present to represent the applicant. He offered
little comment except to say that he was agreeable to whatever conditions
the Commission chose to impose. He acknowledged he was familiar with
the setback referred to in the staff report.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern that the existing vegetation might be
removed. It was at this point that Mr. Horne suggested the wording
for condition No. 2 as stated above. Mr. Horne felt this would
address Ms. Diehl's concern.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-35 for Mary K. Wood be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
OR
June 9, 1987
Page 10
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance:
2. Maintenance of existing vegetation and installation of screening from
Rt. 743, and location of mobile home, to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator.
3. Existing mobile home to be removed prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was
to be heard by the Board on June 17, 1987.
OLD BUSINESS
Virginia Scenic Byway (Public Hearing) - Mr. Cogan reported that this
hearing had alreadyleen held so it would not be necessary for the
Commission to hold a hearing. (Mr. Horne stressed that this was a
completely separate issue from the Scenic Highway designation which
is a rezoning action.)
Secondary Road Budget - 1.2 Million Dollar Upgrading of Rio Road,
Rt. 29 to Rt. 650 - Mr. Horne explained that the City had issued a statement
in opposition to this project and a meeting was scheduled for June 10, 1987
to discuss the merits of the project. Mr. Horne stated that one of the
concerns is the timing of this project with the Meadowcreek Parkway project
and the re-routing of traffic that will result. He stated staff
supports the implementation of the Six -Year Plan as approved by the
Board (i.e. with the Rio Road project funded). Mr. Cogan stated he
had received no notice of a joint meeting as described by Mr. Horne.
Mr. Bowerman felt this was a critical area and should be funded.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
61 John Horne, S c etary
DS
19
ass