HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 15 87 PC MinutesDecember 15, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 15, 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. George St. John, County Attorney; Mr. John Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
and Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of December 1, 1987 were approved as
submitted.
Dunlora Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 275 clustered single family
lots at an average size of 0.38 acres with 125.0 acres in open space from
257.9 acre parcel, with a resulting density of 2.60 dwelling units per acre.
Proposal will be served by proposed public road system with two entrances on
to State Route 631 (Rio Road). Lots will be serviced by public water and
sewer. The parcel is located on the east side of Rio Road, adjacent just
north of Penn Park, across from the VoTec Center, adjacent to the Rivanna
River. Tax Map 62, Parcel 16. Zoned R-4, Residential. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler added additional comments
about the Meadowcreek Parkway issue. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. [Note: Ms. Patterson pointed out that the second sentence of No. 1
(Final plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The final plat
shall not be submitted to the Planning Commission until the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation has approved the traffic generation study.) was
no longer necessary because VDOT had already approved the traffic generation
study. She also stated No. 2e (Issuance of a Wetlands 404 permit, if applicable.)
was not necessary because it has been determined this property is covered
under the nationwide wetlands permit.]
In response to Mr. Stark's question as to why recreation area was not required,
Ms. Patterson explained that "it is only required if you have 30 dwellings,
or 30 lots or more and a density... exceeding 4 dwelling units per acre, and
they are not meeting or exceeding 4 dwelling units per acre."
Regarding the issue of emergency access, Mr. Keeler clarified that staff
was not recommending that a connection be made at this time, but rather that
provision be made so that when the Belvedere, or other properties, develop,
a connection can be made to provide the alternate access.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding the roadway crossing the
floodplain, Mr. Creswell, representing the County Engineer's Office, confirmed
that the road would be at an elevation higher than the 100-year floodplain.
Regarding the emergency access, Mr. Bowerman stated it was his understanding
that the applicant will be required to show a potential connection for
December 15, 1987 Page 2
emergency access "to the property line." He asked if it would then be
the County's obligation to complete the connection on to Free State Road,
off -site. Ms. Patterson responded, "Either that or if any of those
properties develop they would have to complete the connection." Mr.
Bowerman stated he was trying to envision the practical application of
this ordinance on this subdivision beyond simply requiring that the
applicant dedicate the right-of-way.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that he felt an area should be shown on the plat
as being reserved for emergency access connection which would comply
with condition 2i.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee who offered no additional
comment.
Mr. McKee stated there would be no problem with showing an emergency
access. Mr. Cogan pointed out that it Mould be "located in such a
way as to be as usable as possible under the circumstances," taking into
consideration what is off -site and where the emergency access might take
place most logically.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Virginia Gardner addressed the Commission. She was representing Dr.
Hurt, an adjoining property owner. She stated Dr. Hurt was in favor of
the proposal. She stated that Belvedere would be developed and asked 1000
that, if possible, the emergency access be located in such a way as to
allow connection between the two developments.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman expressed concern about roads that are built "to a property
line" and then never connected. He noted that this has created problems
in the past. He felt if an emergency access was going to be shown, it
should be built and not just shown on the plat.
Mr. Cogan stated he understood Mr. Bowerman's concern. However, he
felt that as the other properties develop it might be determined there is a
more logical place for a connection than might be shown at this point.
He felt the issue could be addressed through language on the plat to the
effect that the location of the access might be moved somewhat if a more
appropriate location is later determined.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that this seemed logical, but feared that "10 years
from now everything will be developed and there will be no connection."
Mr. Cogan felt building the road at this time would eliminate the option
of later moving it to a place where it might be more logically connected.
207
December 15, 1987
Page 3
Mr. Gould did not feel that either option was ideal, though he was
uncertain as to how to address the situation.
Mr. St. John stated he felt the road ought to be dedicated, and the applicant
has indicated agreement to such a dedication. However, he stated "You can't
reserve the option to move it around 10 years in the future" because this
would limit the potential building areas. The builder would not be able
to build anywhere where the road might be shifted. He stated that this
strip should be "dedicated at the most logical place for a road, topograph-
ically, ... and then when the next development comes before you, you can
mandate that the connection on that development meet the end of what's
dedicated here because of the provision in the Subdivision Ordinance that
subdivisions be designed so that public roads meet one another...."
Mr. Bowerman asked if this applied to "emergency roads" as well. Mr.
St. John responded that this would not be private road, but would be a
public one. However, Mr. Creswell stated that this was not necessarily
correct. Mr. Creswell added that "typically in situations like this we
are looking for emergency access that a fire vehicle could access, similar
to fire access lanes around buildings." Mr. Creswell confirmed that
this did not necessarily require a "dedicated road." Mr. St. John
then understood that what was envisioned was not a "dedicated road" but
rather an "easement."
Mr. St. John stated: "Whatever you require, whether it's a dedicated
road or an easement, the Planning Commission can see to it, when the
next development is before it, that these two easements, or roads, as
the case may be, meet one another and are aligned properly, unless
there is something that might be overlooked at this point where you would
put this segment of it where it is utterly impossible to meet it with the
next development."
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson to read the section of the Ordinance
dealing with second access to a public road.
Ms. Patterson stated that it is currently in the Zoning Ordinance for site
plans. She quoted: "For development of 50 or more residential units
reasonably direct vehicle access shall be provided from all residential
units to two public street connections. The foregoing notwithstanding,
the Commission, for any scale of residential development may require two
points of access to a public street where such access is deemed warranted
due to the character of the residence of such development, including
but not limited to the elderly, handicapped and developmentally disabled."
Mr. Bowerman stressed the term "reasonably direct access." He noted that
this did not speak to an emergency road or any other type of road, but
deals with just "access." He stated it was not clear whether the reference
was to a regular street or an emergency access. Ms. Patterson confirmed
this was accurate.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that he was just trying to avoid future problems.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the developers want "direct access", thus turning
essentially local streets into through streets. He felt that what was
actually being discussed was not an emergency access, but actually a
through road.
ev 0
December 15, 1987
Page 4
Ms. Patterson asked if Mr. Bowerman would feel the same way even if the
road was covered with sod and gated.
Mr. Keeler suggested this decision could be made ata future date when
future development occurs.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the intent is that the second access be within
the property itself, not go.eg through several other pieces of property.
He questioned how this would possible with this particular piece of
property.
Mr. St. John stated he felt it was a good idea to have a dedicated road,
aside from the emergency aspect, to provide eventual access from one
development to another. Mr. St. John added that he felt the two entrances
onto Rio Road met the requirements of the Ordinance.
Mr. McKee pointed out that the applicant has agreed to provide a
dedicated area for an emergency access, "period."
Mr. Cogan asked how wide a dedication this would require. Mr. Keeler
stated this could be worked out before the final plat. Mr. Creswell
confirmed this and stated the actual location. of the dedication would
be shown also.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if all the Commission was interested in was a
"dedicated strip" then he was agreeable, but he stressed that he felt it
would never be more than that. Commissioners Wilkerson, Gould and Cogan
agreed.
*404
Mr. Cogan noted that the word "of" in condition 2i should be changed to "for.""
(County Engineering approval of provision e€ for emergency access.)
Mr. St. John asked at what point the 3-party agreement between the developer,
the County and VDOT should be signed.
Mr. Keeler responded that this should be addressed just as soon as this prelim-
inary plaf nslacted upon. He stated that the agreement must be in place
before the�%plat is signed.
Mr. St. John asked if this should be a condition.
Mr. McKee stated it was his understanding thatthis agreement would only
be if the road was not built to its ultimate design capacity initially.
Mr. St. John stated he was not suggesting that�te a condition, but he
just "didn't want it to slip through a crack."
Mr. Keeler stated it was not necessary to add such a condition, because the
applicant has the option of submitting road plans that show the ultimate
design and then building it at the ultimate design.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Dunlora Preliminary Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. Final plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
December 15, 1987
Page 5
2. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a. County Engineering approval of public road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations, as applicable;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of:
1. Road and drainage plans and calculations including turn lanes, and
2. Plat showing required sight easements and right-of-way.
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Fire Officer approval, to include hydrant locations;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
g. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents;
h. County Engineering approval of provision for emergency access;
i. Planning staff approval of conservation plan (Section 15.4.1)
for density bonus of maintenance of existing wooded areas.
3. Approval of and compliance with SP-87-96 Dunlora Development Group.
4. No construction is permitted on critical slopes without a specific
modification of regulations (Section 4.2.5) authorized by the
Planning Commission.
5. Access to the Dunlora residue parcels (16A, 16C and 16D) is to remain as
shown on the plat until any development in the future. At that time,
the existing Dunlora private road may be relocated in whole or in
part.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
(It was decided that a vote would not be taken on the motion until after
the special permit request had been acted upon. Commissioners Wilkerson and
Bowerman agreed to tabling the motion.)
SP-87-96 Dunlora Development - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.2
of the Zoning Ordinance for a special use permit to allow the installation
of a culvert in the floodway fringe of the Rivanna River. Property,
described as Tax Map 62, Parcels 16 and 16B is located on the east side of
Rio Road approximately 2000' north of its intersection with Penn Park Road
(Rt. 768). Zoned R-4, Residential. (Rivanna Magisterial District)
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She stated that condition No. 2 (Compliance
with the Wetlands Act, if applicable.) was no longer necessary. Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee who offered no additional
comment.
14%W. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
r0"
December 15, 1987
Page 6
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. McKee stated that the roadway
had not been designed, other than the preliminary profiles. He stated
he believed that "minimally, there needs to be an 18" free board to the *4904
edge of the shoulder above the 100-year floodplain." Mr. Creswell
added that the design shown by the applicant "shows it clearly above
the 100-year floodplain." He stated he could not be certain as to what
would happen in a greater storm. Mr. Creswell added that he would
recommend that at least a "foot elevation above the 100-year floodplain"
be kept as a minimum to allow for settlement of the road.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-96 for Dunlora Development be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Road development in general accordance with the Dunlora Preliminary
Plat by Robert B. McKee and Associates dated October 1987, and with modi-
fication as may be required by Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
2. County Engineer approval of construction activity in the floodplain
in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Vote on previous motion for approval of the Dunlora Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Wilkerson again restated his motion for approval of the Dunlora Preliminary
Plat subject to the conditions of staff as amended (stated previously in
these minutes). Mr. Bowerman again seconded the motion. The motion for
approval passed unanimously.
ZMA-87-16 Seville Associates - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately 1.56 acres from RA, Rural
Areas to HC, Highway Commercial. Property described as Tax Map 78, Parcels
34 and 60A is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rt.
250E and I-64. Rivanna Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested deferral to December 17, 1987. (Mr. Keeler
explained that this item, along with the following item, SP-87-04 for Seville
Associates, could not be reviewed until action had been taken on a zoning
variance request. He stated that the December 17 date was incorrect and
that the items would possibly be rescheduled at the end of January. However,
Ms. Wills pointed out that the items were already scheduled for the December
17 agenda, so they could not be indefinitely deferred, or deferred to a
different date until the December 17 meeting.)
Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-87-16 for Seville Associates be deferred to December
17, 1987. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-94 Seville Associates - Request in accordance with Section 24.2.2(12)
of theZoning Ordinance for a special use permit to allow above -grade parking
in conjunction with a conventional facility adjacent to an existing Quality
Inn Motel. Property zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described
as Tax Map 78, Parcels 60 and 60A is located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Rt. 250E and I-64. Rivanna Magisterial District.
December 15, 1987
Page 7
Mr. Gould moved that SP-87-94 for Seville Associates be deferred to
December 17, 1987. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-87-15 Preston Stallings - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately 11.57 acres from RA, Rural Areas
to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels 109B
(part of) and 110A (part of) is located on the south side of Rt. 250W
approximately one mile east of the intersection with Rt. 240 at Brownsville.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-87-15 for Preston Stallings be indefinitely deferred
(at the request of the applicant). Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which
passed unanimously.
Acquisition of School Sites: Mr. Keeler reported that he and Mr. Sugg (Education
Department) had consulted the County Attorney's Office on the issue of whether
or not the Commission needs to review proposals for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan prior to acquisition of school sites. He stated that the
County Attorney's ofanae big responded that location is one of the considerations
in the Comp Plan review/He chool Board could acquire the property subject to
Commission approval, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, or the
School Board could seek Commission review prior to entering into a contract
for property. He stated that the Commission is not required to hold a
public hearing on such reviews, but he asked if it was the Commission's
desire that a public hearing be held.
It was the consensus of the Commission that a public hearing should be
held.
WORK SESSION - ZTA-87-03 Lot Regulations - Mr. Keeler explained that
currently the Zoning Ordinance is "somewhat at odds" with the Sub-
division Ordinance regarding lot regulations as it relates to frontage
and lot width measurements. Mr. Keeler explained that currently the
Subdivision Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to reduce lot frontage
on cul-de-sacs and also the Commission has consistently been approving
front and back lot subdivisions. He stated that there are no corresponding
provisirns in the Zoning Ordinance. To correct this inconsistency, some
amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance and to the Private Roads
Provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Keeler briefly explained
the proposed amendments. The Commission expressed no opposition to the
proposed amendments and authorized Mr. Keeler to schedule the matter
for public hearing on January 5, 1988.
WORK SESSION - ZTA-87-16 Open Space -
of Section 4.7.3 Open Space, Character
Space - Design Requirements.
OR
To amend Zoning Ordinance by Repealer
and Adoption of Section 4.7.3 Open
an
December 15, 1987
Page 8
Mr. Keeler reported that staff was requesting that the Commission adopt a
resolution of intent to amend provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to
open space. Specifically, staff was proposing replacement of Section 4.7.3
OPEN SPACE CHARACTER with a new provision - Section 4.7.3 OPEN SPACE - DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS.
Mr. Keeler presented a report which was also to serve as the staff's report
for public hearing purposes should the Commission choose to adopt the
request resolution.
The report stated the public purpose to be served by the amendment was to
update open space regulations to reflect current environmental policy and
to provide more reasonable and rational development regulation.
The Commission asked that staff provide further information on this issue,
including examples, before action on a resolution of intent was taken.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms
!�, 7- / /Z 0,/' i a,
John Hornet, Secretary
4A