HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 10 84 PC MinutesJuly 10, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 10, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Butch Wilkerson;.
Mr. Jim Skove; Mr. Richard Gould; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. James Donnelly,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bob Tucker, Deputy
County Executive; and Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Donnelly who had recently been appointed as
Director of Planning and. -Community Development.
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department - Located on the north side of St. Rt..240,
tl900 feet east of its intersection with St. Rt. 810 (School Road). Proposal to
locate a 9,600 square foot fire station and t79 parking spaces on 1.138 acres.
Tax Map 56A(2)-1-35. Zoned C-1, Commercial. White Hall Magisterial
District. Deferred from June 26, 1984.
Staff requested deferral to July 17, 1984.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department
be deferred to July 17, 1984. The motion passed unanimously.
Bailey Realty Office Site Plan - Located on the northeast side of St. Rt. 631
(East Rio Road), 800 feet northwest of St.'Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road). Proposal
to locate offices for Bailey Realty in existing 2,072 square foot building, to
be served by twenty-one (21) parking spaces. Tax Map 61, Parcel 128. Zoned
R-10, Residential; with special use permit. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Deferred from June 19, 1984.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Lisa Sessoms was present to represent the applicant. She indicated the
applicant was agreeable to all suggested conditions and was willing to work
with staff to resolve screening questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Ms. Sessoms explained that the present
proposal was for an additional 2,400 square feet, in two floors, to be
added to an existing building of 2,072 square feet. She stated the figures
did not match the density land use chart because bathrooms, hallways, etc.
were not included.
o:2/00
July 10, 1984
Page 2
M-r. Michel noted that.there seemed to be a mistake, i.e. the plan indicated
4,270 square .feet which should have been 4,472. 'sir. Michel asked if this
was correct would it make a difference in the parking requirements? Mr.
Keeler responded that parking was based on the net office area.
yir. Michel moved that the Bailey Realty Office Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
A. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have
been met:
1. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations.
2. Issuance of an erosion control permit.
3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance in accordance with comments of May 3, 1984 to
include:
a) widening of entrance;
b) taper and turn lane installation;
c) maximum grade of entrance not to exceed Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation requirements.
4. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority approval .for wafer tap.
5. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer plans.
6. Staff approval of screening.from property to the south, if required.
B. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until:
1. Fire Official. approval.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
W.L. Collier Final Plat - Located end of Rt. 621 off of Rt. 20 North. Proposal
to create 3 new parcels of 18.31 acres, 30.64 acres and 55.1 acres andto
increase the size of two existing parcels to 25.36 acres each. Four of the
five parcels will fronton a private road. Request to defer improvement of
the private road. Request to defer improvement of the private road until
building permits are sought. Tax Map 62, parcels 19, 19B, 19C. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The staff report pointed out that the applicant
did not intend to develop the parcels at this time and therefore was requesting
tha the required private road improvements be tied to future building permits.
Ms. Scala pointed out that the applicant should be aware that if the Commission
chose to approve.this request, the development would be subject to the
requirements in effect at the time the property is developed.
In response to Mr. Gould's question as to whether or not parcel X was part of
parcel E, Ms. Scala explained that a boundary dispute exists and it has
not been settled as to whether or not it is the applicant's property or part
of the adjacent property. She pointed out that the applicant.does not intend
to give up the rights to parcel X by this plat and if it is later determined
that the applicant has the rights to that parcel, it should be added to
parcel E because it cannot stand alone as a separate building lot.
o19
July 10, 1984
Page 3
There was a brief discussion as to how many houses were presently in existence
on the property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roger Ray represented the applicant. He explained that the Colliers, an
elderly couple, were make this request in preparation for giving the land
to their children. Mr. Ray described the status of each piece of property.
Regarding parcel X, he stated it was not a matter of the boundary being
in dispute, but rather there was some question as to the ownership of
the parcel. He stated the use of the property indicates that the applicant
is the owner but very old surveys seem to indicate otherwise. He asked
that'item No. 1, on the second plat, showing parcels D and E" be changed,.
to say "No building permit shall be issued on parcel D or E without
Planning Commission approval." He pointed out that in 1982 the Commission
had approved a plat waiving the requirement for building the private road
under that exact wording. He presented copies of the 1982 plat to
the Commission.
Mr. Collier (son of the applicant) addressed the Commission and explained
that his parents would keep control of the property throughout their
lifetimes. He explained he had no current plans to build on the property.
He did not think he should be required to build a road that there may
never be any use for.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Scala stated she agreed with Mr. Ray's point about note B. She stated
she could understand the point about not including parcels B & C because
they are existing parcels that are just being enlarged. She agreed that
condition (b) could be changed as suggested by the applicant, i.e. "No
building permit shall be issued on parcel D or E without Planning
Commission approval."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Ray to clarify if he had been referring to "Note 1
or item (b) in the staff report." Mr. Ray responded: "I think it would
serve the same purpose if we took Note 1 off and substituted the note that
I read to you off the other plat." Mr. Cogan added: "He wants to remove item
(b) as a condition and change Note 1 on the plat."
Ms. Diehl asked if it was the applicant's suggestion to remove any reference
to the private road construction from the note on the plat. Mr. Cogan
pointed out that when the applicant applies for a building permit on parcels
D or E, then the private road requirements could be imposed. Ms. Diehl felt
there should be some reference to the private road on the plat to put prospective
buyers on notice that the road has not yet been constructed.and will have
to be constructed before a building permit can be issued.
Mr. Gould agreed.
Ms. Scala stated that condition (b) as originally stated addressed the
Commissiods concern by simply deleting parcels B and C.
July 10, 1984
Page 4
Ms. Scala pointed out that if the condition is stated as worded by staff,
the applicant would not need to return to the Commission because it could
be handled administratively.
It was determined condition (b) would replace item No. 1 on the plat
and would not be listed as a condition of approval.
Ms. Diehl asked what the implication would be if road improvements are
not addressed until a subsequent request, i.e. could this set a precedent?
Ms. Scala responded that this happens occasionally and she was not particularly*
concerned in this case because this is "tough land and large parcels" and
a private road is probably called for in this location.
Mr. Michel felt this would not set a precedent because it was a family
division.
Mr. Cogan moved that the W.L. Collier Final Plat be approved subject to the
following condition:
a. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement to be recorded
with these plats.
AND
that the following be substituted for Note No. 1 on the plat showing parcels D and E:
No building permit for a new residence shall be issued on parcel D or E
until such time that the private road is constructed in accordance with
the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the private road
entrance is improved in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standards.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - Albemarle County intends to apply
for $700,000 in CDBG funds through two separate grant applications --local
and regional. The purpose of both grants is to assist in housing rehabilitation
in the County's Housing Strategy areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan
1982-2002 -- Esmont/Porters, Blenheim/Woodridge, Covesville/Albemarle/ north
Garden, Montfair/Boonesville, Dudley Mountain, and Cismont/Keswick.
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report accompanied by Jane Saunier.
There was some discussion about the amount ofthe grant, the cost per unit,
and the amount of units that would be involved. It was finally determined the
figures were not accurate, i.e. 55 units could be done, but the average cost
needed to be recalculated.
Mr. Gould moved that the Commission endorse the County Grant application
and the Regional Grant application.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
0
July 10, 1984 Page 5
Mr. Tucker pointed out that public comment had not been received.
The Chairman invited public comment; there being none, he placed the matter
before the Commission and called for a vote on the motion for approval.
The motion passed (6:0:1) with Mr. Skove abstaining.
Mr. Tucker took this opportunity to announce that Ms. Imhoff had recently
beaipromoted to the position of Chief of Community Development, replacing
Mr. Keith Mabe.
SP-84-36 Susan G. Smith - Request in accordance with Section 1U.2.2.5 for
temporary operation of the Free Union Country School in the existing Ivy
Creek Methodist Church. Property consisting of 1.6 acres and zoned Rural
Areas, is located on the north side of Route 676 approximately 1/2 mile east
of Route 660. County Tax Map 44, Parcel 14; Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff concerns about this application
included the following: (1) Inadequate sight distance; (2) Reluctance to
recommend measures which would result in expenditure for a temporary use
since such expenditure could complicate subsequent review; and (3) A waiver
for sight distance could not be recommended even for a temporary use because
it would be contrary to the.public safety.
The Chairman invited applicant comments.
The applicant was represented by Susan Smith. Ms. Smith asked some questions
about required sight distance. Mr. Keeler responded to these questions.
She presented some photographs of the site.
Ms. Bertha Durbin, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
Regarding the possibility of an easement on the property across the road,
she stated the owners of that property would not be willing to grant
an easement to allow grading because it would remove their buffer from
the highway. She pointed out that .the posted speed limit on the curve
is 20 mph. She felt it was unfair to make approval of this application
contingent upon the acquisition of the easement.
Mr. Charles McRaven, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
Mr. McRaven was supervising the development of the permanent site and stressed
that this permit was for a temporary use until the per"nent site was complete.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was
placed before the Commission.
Mr. Skove noted that he was familiar with the road and the fast speed
at which traffic travelled. He stated he was reluctant to waive the sight
distance requirement.
It was determined the permit was being requested for a period of one year
and the applicant hoped to have the permanent site established by that time.
July 10, 1984
Page 6
There was a brief discussion about traffic patterns and accidents that have
occurred.
Mr. Cogan seemed to feel there was no real need for a temporary permit if
the permanent use was going to be ready within a year. He pointed out that
the area had been without a private school for a long time and a few more
months would not make any difference.
Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned about the fact that the Highway Department
has indicated an easement will be necessary to obtain sight distance, but
the applicant has indicated they could not comply with that requirement.
Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that two Commissioners are familiar with the
area and are knowledgeable of traffic accidents that have occurred.
He stated he could not support the application.
Mr. Gould stated he was also reluctant to support the application.
Mr. Skove moved that SP-84-36 for Susan G. Smith be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial because of unsafe location and other reasons
as stated in.the staff report.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which.passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 18, 1988.
SP-84-40 Maple Grove Christian Church - Request in accordance with Section
13.2.2.10 to locate a church on. 4.1 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property is
located on the southside of Route.649 approximately 0.3 mile east of U.S.
Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 29G; Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report, including an addendum thereto. Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Oliver McCulley. He gave a brief history
of the church .and a summary of its present status.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler stated there were no area
requirements for churches in terms of acreage_ He explained that it was
based on the lot size of the zoning district. :GIs. Diehl expressed some
concern about addi g.two septic drainfields in addition to the drainfield
that exists for the dwelling. She felt that would probably be addressed
in staff'.s condition.
Mr. Skove indicated he had no problem with the application. Mr. Cogan
agreed and stated he felt it would be conducive to the area.
Mr. Wilkerson_ moved that SP-84-40 for.1,faple Grove Christian Church be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield locations
prior to Commission review of site plan;
aa3
July 10, 1984
Page 7
2. Virginia Department of highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrance location prior to Commission review of site plan.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 18, 1984.
CPA-84-7 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to delete the property connector road
from Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) to Route 631 (Fifth Street).
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
The Chairman invited public comment. .
Mr. George Schoffner, a property owner in the vicinity of Avon Street, addressed
the Commission. He askedwho would benefit from the deletion of the road
segment. He felt deletion of the road would limit options at a later date.
Mr. Floyd Artrip, owner of industrial property in the area, addressed the
Commission. He was in agreement with Mr. Schoffner and expressed opposition
to the deletion of the road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Skove felt roads should not be placed in the Comprehensive Plan if they
are never going to be built.
Mr. Bowerman agreed, but added that he felt if it was dropped, something
should take its place. He stated he did not want to plan for industrial
traffic going through a residential subdivision but felt that ultimately
a better connection to the interstate would be needed. Mr. Bowerman
suggested a practicality study being done on "interchanging" on 164
and Avon Street and if it is found to be practical, that could be substituted
in the Plan. He concluded he was in favor of deleting the road from the
Plan provided there was the intent to study the project further to
come up with a replacement.
Mr. Cogan agreed with Mr. Bowerman.
ultimately an interchange would be
Ms. Diehl also agreed, stating that
the best solution.
There was some discussion about the mechanism for studying such a proposal
with Highway Department involvement. Mr. Keeler stated he would have to
meet with Mr. Roosevelt to discuss the issue.
Mr. Cogan indicated he would feel better if more information were available
on a possible interchange before this road was deleted. Mr. Bowerman agreed.
a.;2�
July 10, 1984.
Page 8
It was agreed that Highway Department input was necessary to avoid the.
possibility of putting something in the Plan that was not feasible.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that CPA-84-7 be deferred indefinitely to allow
time for more information to be gathered on a possible interchange at
Avon Street and I--64.
Mr. Skove.seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
STREAMKING PROCEDURE
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and led the discussion. Staff was requesting
that the Commission adopt Resolutions of Intent as follows:
(1) To.amend the Zoning and.Subdivision Ordinances to include minimum
landscaping requirements;
(2) To amend the Zoning Ordinance to augment the minimum recreation
requirements that are currently in the ordinance;
(3) To amend the Zoning Ordinance to include minimum paving specifications
for parking areas; and
(4) To amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit uses involving drive-in windows
only by special use permit.
Mr. Keeler explained it would take time to develop these amendments and they
would be presented to the Commission as.they are completed.
-Mr. Keeler also led a discussion on the proposal to change to twice -monthly
submittals for site plans and subdivisions. Staff was not requesting that
the Commission take action on this at this time but only that they offer
comments. Staff also asked that the Commission plan to meet with the Site
Review Committee to discuss this issue.
Ms. Diehl stated she was in agreement.with staff's suggestions and felt they
were well -thought --out. She asked if it would be possible to write the
amendments in such a way that would give staff some discretion in requesting
more than minimum requirements for landscaping if there was a particular
concern with a lot.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. He was in favor of staff having
administrative approval of some by -right proposals. lie also suggested that
there be some mechanism by which a developer could present a "conceptual"
plan to the Commission.
Ms. Joan Graves made brief comments which were unaudible.
July 10, 1984
Page 9
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff's suggestions for changing
the submittal process should be attempted.
Mr. Bowerman called for a motion on the resolutions of intent requested by
staff.
Ms. Diehl moved that Resolutions of intent be adopted as follows:
1. To amend the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to include minimum
landscaping requirements;
2. To amend the Zoning Ordinance to augment the minimum recreation
requirements that are currently in the ordinance;
3. To amend the Zoning Ordinance to include minimum paving specifications
for parking areas; and
4. To amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit uses involving drive-in
windows only by special use permit.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mobile Homes - Staff requested comments from the Commission on the scope of
the Mobile Home Study.
Mr. Cogan made the following comments:
--Mobile home parks should be at least 50 spaces.
--He felt location was a key problem and suggested that they be placed
in an area that is not currently within the Service Authority
Jurisdictional area, but not so far removed that it couldn't be
tied in.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that suitable locations should be specified without
actually pinning down a certain piece of property.
Ms. Diehl was interested in getting input from other counties who have dealt
with this problem.
Briarwood Playground - Mr. Keeler reported that condition No. 9 of the
original approval for this project had stated that if the playground was
not completed by July 1 the bond would be called. He indicated the applicant
had just submitted a plan and proposed that he make comments on it, then
give the applicant two days to revise it and then allow a specified time period
in which to begin, continue and complete the construction. He stated he had
already taken action to call the bond and he did not intend to sign the pending
plat until outstanding problems are corrected.
Mr. Gould stated he would like the status of this issue to be made known
to the Board of Supervisors.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 10/88
4a�V
J