HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 06 1996 PC Minutes5-6-96
AUGUST 6, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 7, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr.
David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr. William Finley.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Claudia Paine, Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner;
and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Nitchmann.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of July 16, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted.
SDP-96-062 Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct
60 one -bedroom units and 6 two -bedroom units on 4.96 acres zoned R-15,
Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C(8) is located at the end
of Colonnade Drive, on the south side of Rt. 250 West in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
' District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling
units per acre) in Neighborhood 6. Deferred from the July 23, 1996 Commission
meeting.
Ms. Paine presented the staff report. In response to issues raised by the Commission
at the previous hearing, she distributed to the Commission the following additional
information:
(1) The Zoning Administrator's comments on a variance for parking
requirements -- It was the Zoning Administrator's determination that a change in
parking requirements would require approval of a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
(2) A copy of a letter from the applicant to Ms. Julia Campbell, a nearby
property owner.
(3) A copy of a letter from the applicant to Ms. Paine explaining why the
applicant feels the proposed building layout is the best for the site.
Staff recommended approval of the waivers requested by the applicant (for critical
slopes and access aisle grades), and, subject to approval of those waivers, staff
recommended approval of the preliminary site plan, subject to conditions.
Ms. Paine noted that the amount of critical slopes being disturbed had been revised
by the Engineering Department to 22% (not 26% as previously reported).
The applicant was represented by David Anhold. He said the applicant feels a
variance from the BZA would be "a long shot," because it would be difficult to show a
hardship as opposed to special privilege. To address one of Ms. Campbell's
Im
8-6-96 2
concerns, the applicant has agreed to change the name of the project. Regarding the
issue of a reduction in parking, he said the applicant feels, from a "marketing/financial
standpoint", the amount of parking cannot be reduced. He stressed that the project
has been drastically changed from a previous plan so as to stay away from the critical
slopes as much as possible. He said he did not think visibility from 250 should be a
concern because it will be "tucked in" behind existing development at University
Village. He stressed that the property is zoned R-15 and fits the County's desire for
infill development.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huekle said she had not changed her position about encouraging infill
development. However, she thought it was premature to begin granting waivers on
critical slopes before criteria has been developed which will pertain to infill
development. She noted the large amount of critical slopes involved in this instance
and the fact that they are in an area designated for special consideration in both the
Open Space Plan and the Lewis Mt. Neighborhood Study. She felt this would change
the character of an area which is a focal point of the community.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Ms. Huckle's position. In addition, he said he had
concerns about the visibility of this project from Rt. 250.
In response to Mr. Tice's request for an explanation of the Zoning Administrator's
position on the parking requirements variance, Ms. Paine said the Zoning
Administrator feels it would be very difficult to obtain a variance because the applicant
would have to prove the property has unique characteristics which create an undue
hardship. Mr. Kamptner explained that the undue hardship criteria considers whether
denial of the variance would deny the owner the reasonable use of the property, i.e.
would the denial of the variance constitute a taking or confiscation of the owner's use
of the property?
Mr. Dotson asked if there was any district which would allow parking requirements to
be set on a site -by -site basis. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The parking
requirements ... cannot be varied beyond what standards are associated with the
Planned Development Shopping Center District, which does allow for consolidation of
parking different from looking at the uses individually. Parking is fairly standard as it is
set out now in the Ordinance."
Mr. Mice noted that a large percentage of the encroachment on critical slopes (at least
50%) was caused by the access to the water tank. (Ms. Paine confirmed the
accuracy of his comment.)
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that the request for a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 (to allow
earth -disturbing activity on slopes of 25% or greater) be denied for the Lewis
Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan.
Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion.
09
8-6-96 3
Discussion:
Mr. Tice asked if there was any way to avoid the critical slopes for the access road to
the water tank. He asked if a portion of the existing gravel road could be used. Mr.
Anhold said it would not be possible to just "link up" to the gravel road because of the
differences in elevation between the existing road and the new road which will run
through the project.
Mr. Tice said it was his understanding that the motion for denial of the waiver was
based on the belief that the amount of disturbance on critical slopes proposed was not
acceptable in an area which has been identified in the Open Space Plan and the
Lewis Mt. Neighborhood Study as being a "special area." He quoted from the
neighborhood study: "The mountain is the most prominent feature of the study area.
It's slopes are visible from a great distance in most directions. Preservation of this
physical landmark in its natural state is a primary concern:'
Mr. Dotson noted that any development on this property will have an impact, so the
question becomes "Is this the least impact that we could have developing this area?"
He noted that the Camp Plan calls for residential usage of the property and the staff
report pointed out that the County is seeking infill development. However, this is a site
of a "special nature." He said he has not been fully convinced that this proposal is
one which will result in the least possible impact.
The motion for denial passed (4:1:1) with Commissioners Dotson, Loewenstein,
Huckle and Tice supporting the motion for denial and Commissioner Washington
voting against the motion. Commissioner Finley abstained because he had been out
of town and had not received the staff report.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Lewis Mountain
Apartments Preliminary Site Plan be denied because without approval of a waiver of
Section 4.2.3.2 it does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion for denial of the preliminary site plan passed by a vote of 4:1:1 with
Commissions Dotson, Loewenstein, Huckle and Tice voting for denial and
Commissioner Washington voting against. Mr. Finley abstained.
SP-96-29 Lo+we's Companies, Inc. - Proposal to establish outdoor storage and display
in conjunction with the proposed building [30.6.3.2(b)] on 22.13 acres zoned HC,
Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described
as Tax Map 45, Parcels 93A, 109 and 109D, is located M the northwest comer of the
intersection of Route 29 and Woodbrook Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This is
the location of the existing Lowe's building.) This site is located in Neighborhood 1
� and is recommended for Regional Service.
The applicant was requesting deferral to August 13, 1996.
I
8-6-96 4
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP-96-29 be deferred to
August 13, 1996. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 96-27 ML Zion Baptist Church - Proposal to expand the existing church
[10.2.2(35)]. Property, described as Tax Map 20, Parcels 44A and 44B, is located on
the east side of Route 743 approximately 1,500 feet south of the Greene County line
in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated
development area, (Rural Area 1). This proposal also includes a request to waive the
requirement of a site plan,
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the special permit
subject to conditions and of the site plan waiver request.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Reed, pastor of the church. He answered
Commission questions about the request.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP-96-27 for Mt. Zion
Baptist Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
114. the following conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the plan titled Mount Zion Baptist
Church, Advance Mills, Virginia, and initialed WDF 7/24/96 except as amended to
address requested revisions of the site review committee.
2. Approval of this permit shall not constitute approval of a day care/nursery school.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the site plan waiver
request for Mr. Zion Baptist Church be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. No building permit or grading permit shall be issued until the plan of development
is approved. No plan of development shall be approved until the plan addresses the
following:
a. The entrance must be moved to serve the parking area. The frontage along
Rt. 743 must be altered with landscaping, timbers, curbing or other barriers to allow
access only through the designated entrance. Dimensions must be shown on the plan
for the entrance, including width, taper length and depth, entrance radii, and
specifications for an entrance culvert. Available sight distances from the entrance
must be indicated on the plan.
b. Show the location of existing sanitary facilities on the plan.
c. Show dimension of the parking lot travelways aisles on the plan.
Y
8-6-96
d. Provide specifications for the type of surfacing in the entrance and the
parking area on the plan. Indicate the expected traffic. If traffic exceeds 350 vehicle
trips per week, the parking area must be surfaced with 6 inches of aggregate base
and Type D blotted seal surface coat at a minimum.
e. Provide conceptual drainage on the plan. Show the roadside ditch along Rt.
743 and provide a culvert under the entrance. Indicate the destination of drainage off
the building and parking areas, and the direction of flow on the plan. Show any
ditches, pipes, or channels on the plan. If surfacing is required as a result of item "d"
above, drainage improvements and supporting computations for handling the
increased runoff may be required.
f. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan will be
required if the land disturbed activity exceeds 10,000 square feet.
g. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of an entrance permit to
include those items contained in the letter from VDOT dated June 5, 1996, and
included as Attachment E.
h. Health Department approval.
i. Building Official approval of handicap parking.
j. Zoning Administrator approval of amount of provided parking.
k. Minimum setback for parking shall be 10 feet from the edge of the right of
way for Rt. 743.
I. Planning Department approval of landscape plan in accord with the
provisions of Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 96-004 Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 5 lots averaging 4.34 acres
plus 4 lots averaging 21.65 acres for a total of 9 lots on a 110.26 acre parcel, to be
served by a public road. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 21 is located on
the South side of Route 637 just West of Route 662 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. This property is zoned Rural Areas and is not located in a designated
development area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Staff answered Mr. Loewenstein's questions about elevation and the slope of the road.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Greg Baldwin. He said the applicant has
addressed all issues raised by the Site Review process. Answers to Commission
questions included the following:
--The stream on the property, Pounding Branch, flows away from the landfill. It
is located on the opposite side of Rt. 637 and does not cross the landfill property.
--The applicant will develop the lots, which will be made available for purchase
to the general public.
--The applicant is not aware of any problems with groundwater supply in the
area.
--'The applicant feels this proposed use of the property is preferable to a Rural
Preservation Development. An RPD was considered but was not pursued because of
economic considerations. Purchasers of this type of property are looking for rural
atmosphere and views.
Mr. Roger Ray, surveyor for the applicant, addressed the Commissioner. He
answered the Commission's previous questions about grade and slopes. The grade
on the road leading to the cul-de-sac will be less than 10%. The maximum grade
allowed can the public road is 10% The public road will terminate at the cul-de-sac
and two lots (5 and 6) will be served by a private road and individual private
driveways. Tentatrm driveway locations for lots 5 and 6 will not exceed 16%. He
confirmed that the residents of lots 5 and 6 will be responsible for maintaining the
private drives and bridge which will serve these two lots. (16% grade is the maximum
allowed by VDOT in its mountainous terrain standards.) The applicant will build the
private road that will lead to the private driveways on lots 5 and 6.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Sarah Halt, a nearby property owner, addressed the Commission. She
expressed opposition to the proposal. She stressed that Rt. 637 is a very narrow,
unpaved road which also serves the landfill. She pointed out this property is less than
1 mile from the landfill. She urged the applicant to consider a rural preservation
development. She questioned the existence of "legal" building sites on some of the
property given the fact that it is very steep.
Ms. Prances Lawson, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. She
said the existing road is a right-of-way which is described in her deed. (Mr. Baldwin
said he was aware of the road issue and he has dedicated 25 feet, across the front of
the property, for improvement of the road.) She objected to additional traffic on Rt.
637.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined this item was before the Commission because of the private road
issue and because it had been called up by a Commissioner.
Mr. Dotson asked if the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, which is presently being
studied, would have had any impact on this proposal. Mr. Tice, who is serving on the
committee which is developing this ordinance, explained that the proposed Mountain
Overlay District will follow the same guidelines as the Open Space District, thus it
would only apply to that area above the 900 foot contour interval. Almost all this site
would fall outside the overlay district.
Mr. Tice pointed out that one of the recommendations of the Mountaintop Protection
committee is that driveway grades be limited to no greater than 16%. He said it was
8-6-96 7
his understanding (from Mr. Ray's comments) that the driveways have been limited to
no greater than 16%. However, because the driveway locations are tentative, he
wondered if a condition should be added stating "Driveway grades shall not exceed
16%."
Mr. Tice expressed disappointment that a rural preservation development was not
proposed. He thought it would be possible to design a rural clustered development
which would still give homeowners the feeling of larger lots. However, he said he
could support the proposal if a condition restricting the driveway grades, as stated
previously, were added.
Ms. Huckle said she felt this property was perfect for an RPD development. She said
this proposal is the result of the developer's desire to "make more money." She said
she would hate to see mountainsides denuded.
Mr. Finley said he would rather see mountainsides denuded than farmland. He
pointed out this development is below the 900 foot elevation point. He also pointed
out that whether or not a developer chooses to develop his land in an RPD is an
"owner option," and is not for the Commission to decide.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved that the Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat be approved, subject to
those conditions listed in the staff report dated August 6, 1996.
Discussion:
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the motion included the limitation on driveway grade as
suggested by Mr. Tice.
Because the restriction on the slope of the driveway grade is "beyond the scope of
the review," Mr. Kamptner asked if the applicant was agreeable to such a condition,
which would apply to the driveways on the two "lower lots" (5 and 6). Mr. Kamptner
explained that usually the criteria for private driveways is a certification from the
surveyor that the driveways provide reasonable access.
Mr. Ray disagreed with Mr. Kamptner's statement. He said: "I believe my certification
for the accessibility of the driveway will only be from the cul-de-sac for that part which
is called the 'private road.' The surveyor does not certify for the access to the private
driveway." Mr. Ray added, however, that he believes the private driveways can be
constructed at no more than 16% grade, based on the accuracy of the USGS maps.
Mr. Baldwin was reluctant to agree to a condition restricting the driveway grades to a
maximum of 16%. He said: "I hate to set a precedent where the developers are
dictating where homeowners place their driveways. By agreeing to a 16% maximum, I
am answering questions for the new owner." He felt the County Engineering
restrictions are adequate to address this issue.
OR
M
09
E.
Mr. Dotson asked for the County Attorney's advice as to whether or not to add such a
condition, given the fact that the applicant has indicated he is not agreeable. Mr.
Kamptner stated: "My advice is that we not impose that condition."
Mr. Finley said his motion was as originally stated, for approval subject to those
conditions recommended by staff, with no additions.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Tice asked for an explanation of the County Attorney's opinion. Mr. Kamptner
explained: "I think it is beyond the scope of our review to require other than existing
requirements for driveways." Mr. Tice called attention to condition 1 (d) which requires
County Engineering Department approval of, among other things, "construction of the
access road and private drives serving the buildings sites for Lots 5 and 6." He
questioned why the 16% grade could not be considered as a part of that condition.
A member of the County Engineering staff addressed this question. He explained the
E & S plan will be considering whether the road can be constructed without major
degradation to the remainder of the parcel. The E & S plan will also ensure that any
disturbed land is stabilized at the completion of the project. "That is as far as they can
go. If the grades are steeper than 16% and the area cannot be stabilized, then a
violation will be issued until the area is stabilized"
Mr. Tice recalled that studies by county staff (during the development of the
Mountaintop Protection study) had determined that driveways with a grade steeper
than 16% can have real problems.
Ms. Huckle expressed surprise at the applicant's statement regarding the driveways.
She pointed out that many developments have restrictive covenants.
The motion for approval of the Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat failed to pass by a vote of
2:4, with Commissioners Dotson and Finley voting for the motion and Commissioners
Huckle, Tice, Loewenstein and Washington voting against. The preliminary plat was,
therefore, denied.
Discussion continued.
Mr. Tice expressed a lack of understanding as to why condition 1(d) could not be
amended to restrict the driveway grades, given the fact that it would be tied to the
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.
Mr. Baldwin offered to agree to a limitation of a 20% grade on the driveways for lots 5
& 6. He again said he had a problem with dictating to a potential property owner what
they can do with their property.
8-6-96 9
Mr. Kamptner said the applicant has the right to appeal the Commission's action and
the Commission has the ability to reconsider a prior action, upon a motion and second
by a Commissioner.
No alternative motions were offered.
Mr. Baldwin pointed out that if he had extended the public road to serve all the lots
(including 5 & 6), then he could have developed the property by -right, without
Commission review. He asked if his request was being denied only because he was
not agreeing to limit the grade on two private driveways to no greater than 16%. (Mr.
Cilimberg explained to Mr. Baldwin that even without the private road waiver request,
the item could have come before the Commission if so requested by a Commissioner,
in which case it could be subject to the same action.)
Mr. Kamptner asked for clarification of the grounds for denial of the request. He
asked if the denial was based on the Commission's finding that the proposal could not
meet the criteria for a private road as set forth in Section 18.36 of the Ordinance.
Those criteria are: (1) Approval of a private road will alleviate a clearly demonstrable
danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent property
which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads in the same
alignments; (2) No alternative public road alignment is available to the subdivider as of
the date of the adoption of the ordinance; and (3) No more lots are proposed on such
private road than could be realized on a public road due to right-of-way dedication.
Mr. Cilimberg explained to the Commission that if the private road is the reason for
denial, it does not really speak to the issue of the driveways. Thus, if the applicant
were to present another proposal which would extend the public road, eliminating the
private road section, the driveway issue would not have changed.
Mr. Dotson felt the reason for denial was more related to environmental impact, than
to a private road.
Mr. Loewenstein called attention to condition 1(a) which states that "Certification on
the final plat that the private road and driveways to Lots 5 and 6 will provide
reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by Section 18-36 of the Albemarle
County Code." He felt the Commission's discussion had revealed that "above 16%
grade presents difficulties" as identified by the County's own Engineering Department.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized: "It's possible then that the decision is based on a concern
that reasonable access could not occur from the private road along the driveways to
the building sites (on lots 5 & 6). That is your reason for denial."
Mr. Loewenstein said Mr. Cilimberg's statement was accurate in terms of his
understanding. Mr. Dotson and Ms. Huckle agreed.
WORK SESSION - CATS Plan (Charlottesville Area Transportation Study)
10
Mr. Benish, assisted by Hannah Twadell of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, presented a report on the status of the CATS, which is presently under
review. The citizen committee working on the review has completed a draft plan and
is presenting it to the City and County Planning Commissions to gather their
comments and input before finalization.
Ms. Twadell described how the study has been conducted and answered the
Commission's questions.
There was a brief discussion about bike routes. Ms. Huckle was strongly opposed to
bike routes being designated in the rural areas.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if consideration could be given to additional maps.
The Commission was to provide their written comments to the staff by August 16.
Staff will organize the comments and pass them on to Ms. Twadell, who will pass
them on to the CATS Study Committee.
There being no further business, the
M
mo
cm
meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
b, (� L /,." -1%
V. Wayne ilimber ecre ary
16,