Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 09 1996 PC MinutesJ U LY 9, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 9, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair;; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Huckle and Washington. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of June 18, 1996, were unanimously approved as amended. SP 96-18 Richard Allan - Petition to establish a home occupation class B on 11.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 55, parcel 26 is located at the end of Route 707 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated development area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Fritz presented staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant, Mr. Richard Allan, addressed the Commission. He said he had spoken with his neighbors and no objections were expressed. He presented a letter from his nearest neighbor, Mr. Sprouse, which stated he was satisfied with the driveway maintenance and he had no concerns about the proposal. Mr. Allan also referenced a second letter of support from another neighbor. Answers to Commission questions included the following: --The building will be 1,800 square feet--1,100 of which will be used for the Class B occupation. An additional 150 square feet, within his dwelling, will continue to be business related. The other portion of the building will be used for a small hobby wood shop and for family storage. --No expansion of the business is envisioned. --Materials which he imports from India are distributed within the states through catalog and telephone sales. To address potential concerns about traffic, Mr. Dotson wondered if a cap should be put on the number of deliveries allowed per month, and the number of UPS pickups per week. Mr. Fritz said this issue had been raised with a previous home occupation application. At that time the Zoning Administrator said it would be difficult to enforce such a restriction. Mr. Tice noted that by -right development of this property could result in 40 vehicle trips/day. ig6o There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Tice seconded that SP-96-18 for Richard Allan be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No outdoor storage. 2. Not more than one employee who is not a family member living on site shall be permitted. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-19 John Hocutt - Petition to establish a hotel on approximately 2.6 acres zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 11 is located south of and adjacent to Applebee's Restaurant in the Branchlands development. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He said no issues had been identified by the Site Review Committee. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Noting past concerns about runoff in the Branchlands Development, Mr. Dotson asked if staff could say this proposed use would generate no more runoff than would an office use. Also, has the runoff been taken into consideration in the calculations for the stormwater capacity. Mr. Fritz said the Engineering Department had reviewed the site plan and had noted no special concerns about runoff from the site. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, gave a brief history and explanation of the drainage improvements in the Branchlands development. He said calculations had been based on the full commercial development of the property. He confirmed that whether or not the use on this site is an office or a motel is insignificant. Mr. Kelsey said Engineering will be checking the final drainage calculations for any piping systems to ensure that the downstream system is able to properly convey the water without causing any water to back up in the pipes. The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Dailey, who represented Fairfield Inns/Marriott. (He was accompanied by Mark Dowdey.) Public comment was invited. Mr. James Moore, owner of Seminole Trail Lodge (directly opposite Rt. 29 from this proposal), expressed opposition to the request. He felt there are presently too many hotels in the Charlottesville area and this additional hotel will have a negative impact on his revenue. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 2C / Given the limited food service which will be available at the proposed motel, Mr. Dotson asked staff about nearby restaurants and pedestrian access to those facilities. Mr. Fritz said the Branchlands development has a sidewalk network and there are restaurants which are easily accessible from this site. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-19 for John Hocutt be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Use is limited to a 121 room hotel. 2. Submittal and approval of an intersection analysis to insure that the traffic generated by this site accessing Branchlands Blvd does not result in a reduction in the level of service. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-96-007 Church Hill (also called "Woodchase") Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 5 lots averaging 3.0 acres on a 16.7 acre parcel, to be served by a public road. Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29D is located on the north side of Route 240, just east of the Route 240/Route 802 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is zoned Rural Areas and is not in a designated development area. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to conditions. Staff also recommended approval of the request for a private road joint access easement to serve lots 4 and 5. Regarding the dispute as to an access easement to an abutting property, the staff report concluded: "Staff has been advised that this is a matter for resolution by the courts, not the County." The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. He said he has been unsuccessful in trying to obtain a copy of an access easement from Mr. Clayton (the abutting property owner). He offered (at the applicant's expense) to "build a decel lane, from the applicant's entrance --east, across his property." He said that would solve the problems he has with his mailbox and also would improve his sight distance. Public comment was invited. Mr. Fran Lawrence, representing the Claytons, addressed the Commission and explained his clients' position. He said the Claytons are "neutral" on this proposed subdivision. Their only concern is with the right-of-way issue. They believe they have a right-of-way, which has been in existence for 40 years. He said: "It would have been ,_� C, :�- established after 20 years of adverse possession." He said the "ultimate legal status of �..- the right-of-way is unknown" at this time. He acknowledged that this is not a matter to be resolved by the Commission, but said: "We don't want to lose ground. We will either work it out with the developer to suit everybody, or the court will resolve it." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said the staff had accurately addressed the easement issue and it is not the Commission's role to rule on that question. He noted that the applicant has offered what appears to be a viable solution to the problem, at no expense to the adjoining property owner. Mr. Dotson agreed with Mr. Nitchmann and said the Commission's action is independent of the dispute between the applicant and the adjoining property owner. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Church Hill (Woodchase) be approved, subject to the following conditions, and that sa private road be approved to serve lots 4 and 5: The final plat shall not be accepted for signature until the following conditions have been met: 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan. 2. Albemarle County Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit. 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final public road plans and drainage computations. 4. VDOT approval of final public road plans and drainage computations. 5. Health Department approval in accordance with Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Staff approval of private road maintenance agreement for Lots 4 and 5. 7. Staff approval of public road name. The motion passed unanimously. Presentation - Crozet 2000+ M Mr. Bob Kirschmann gave a slide presentation of a "vision" for the Crozet community. The vision was for a "town center" which would allow for the clustering of businesses similar to that of "a small town in its heyday." A significant factor of the vision was a "metro link" which would be a rail link to surrounding communities (Charlottesville, Staunton, Waynesboro). (Models studied included the St. Louis metro link system, and the Staunton Wharf area town center. ) Mr. Hunter Craig, a major residential developer in the Crozet area, was asked his opinion about the presentation. He found the presentation very interesting and said he often considers this concept for the Crozet area. However, he said presently, "the critical mass" does not exist in Crozet to make this economically feasible for developers. He made the following suggestions which he felt would help to "funnel the critical mass to downtown": --Do not construct a connector road from Rt. 240 to Rt. 250, (which would make access to Rt. 250 easier). --Form a committee to speed the construction of a walkway leading to Lickinghole Creek. This would funnel pedestrian traffic to downtown Crozet, lessening the need to use Rt. 240. This type of amenity draws people to a particular community. He said he was willing "to pay our fair share." Questions raised by the Commission included the following: --Is it felt the major challenge facing Crozet is the downtown area? --How can this idea be sold to businesses, given the fact that the population in Crozet, at this time, is probably not large enough to entice businesses to locate there? How do you overcome the economics? How can the commercial areas survive? --How do the Crozet citizens feel about development on Rt. 250W? --How will this type of information be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update which is currently taking place? --Are there County regulations and recommendations presently in place which would impede this type of approach? --How do we form a 'partners in progress' attitude so that the citizens of the community can sell this idea to potential developers? --What is the County's position on the construction of a walkway as suggested by Mr. Craig? --Could this study be used as a model for the development of other parts of the County which will be experiencing growth in the future? Perhaps the County could meet with developers to discuss some of these ideas. The Commission was very intrigued by some of the ideas presented and asked staff to schedule a work session, in the next 60-90 days, to discuss these ideas in more depth. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ,90'