Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 28 84 PC MinutesAUGUST 28, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, August 28, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Cfficio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. FARMINGTON HUNT CLUB SITE PLAN (CLUBHOUSE) - Located on the northwest side of Route 671 near Buck Mountain. Proposal to locate a private clubhouse on 47.99 acres under SP-84-49 Paul D. and Jill F. Summers, Jr. Tax Map 16, Parcel 26. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Scala stated that staff was requesting deferral of this item and has notified the applicant and also the adjacent owners. She stated that this was actually just the clubhouse part of the site plan. She noted that when the special use permit came to the Commission it was agreed that it could be approved adminis- tratively following Site Review Committee. She further stated that after that it went to the Board of Supervisors and they added a fifth condition that the Planning Commission should review the clubhouse uses (i.e. hours of operation, sub -leasing arrangements, etc.). Mr. Bowerman ascertained that staff was recommending indefinite deferral. Mr. Skove moved that the item be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. HERBERT TULL, III, FINAL PLAT - Located on the south side of Route 738, near Ivy, on a private road. Proposal to divide ± 15.0 acres into two parcels of ± 5.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, and ± 10.0 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Mr. Gould asked who was required to enter into the maintenance agreements. C=?/7 August 28, 1984 Page 2 Ms. Scala replied that normally it is required that the applicant and the person selling the parcel, and any other parties which so desire, enter into it. She further stated that she believed there to be an already existing maintenance agreement between Tull and Bearing Technology for the forty (40) foot.easemont. As to the remaining road, she stated she was not sure what currently existed and added that she was not sure Dettor could be required to enter into it if an agreement were not already in existence. Mr. Gould asked if what was being requested was approval of maintenance agreements for the site. Mr. Payne responded that typically that is all that can be required. He stated that since there is an existing private road, further subdivision is going to be questioned. He stated that the possibility exists that it.cannot be re -subdivided at all based on what maintenance provisions may exist. He emphasized that this was not necessarily so, but that it was a possibility. Ms. Scala explained that the applicant is requesting the waiver so that this parcel may enter on the state road as well as on the private road. She further stated that this did not come up under the site plan because it is not in the site plan ordinance. At the time of the site plan approval it was suggested to the applicant that the private road be used, and after working with the applicant and the Highway Department, it was decided that it was best at that time to just have that one road and let others share. The Highway Department had no objection to two additional entrances. Mr. Cogan pointed out that it.should be made clear that if the site plan expires, the waiver dies also. Ms. Scala stated that condition No. 2 would address this concern. (County Engineer approval of existing private roads (60' right-of-way and 40' right-of-way). The waiver should be worded to require not less than one unit to have access onto the private road. The waiver could be made to expire with the site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Ron Wiley, (Smith, Taggart, Gibson and Algrow), represented Mr. Tull. He stated a closing.date on a real estate action was approaching (September 10), thus thereason for Ms. Scala presenting the matter sooner than she would have liked. He went on to say that this was a fairly straightforward sub -division.. The applicant is asking only that the property be divided into two parcels which would recognize the situation as it presently exists --that being that the nine (9) acres on the back be treated separately. He noted they are already zoned differently to serve the light industrial building that is presently there. The front five (5) acres would still be zoned RA, recognizing the site plan approval .�/g August 28, 1984 Page 3 for the rental units. He further stated that the roads are already serving the property as has been proposed in the parcels. Con- cerning the maintenance agreements on the roads, he stated there is presently a maintenance agreement with the Bearing Technology owners concerning the forty (40) foot right-of-way which provides that they will pay their pro rata share to the Tulls and the Tulls will maintain the road. He further stated that as part of this real estate transaction, maintenance of the forty (40) foot right-of-way would be provided for. As to the sixty (60) foot right-of-way'(Dettor road) the existing maintenance of that road provides that Dettor, Edwards and Morris will maintain it for a set annual fee paid by the applicant. In conclusion, Mr. Wiley stated he felt the maintenance agreements had been, and will continue to be, provided for as part of this whole transaction. Concerningthe waiver of access onto the public road vs. access onto the private road, Mr. Wiley stated the waiver as proposed by Ms. Scala is appropriate. He further stated the site plan had been approved with extensive comment from the Highway Department allowing two additional entrances onto the public road. As Ms. Scala has proposed it,that would be cut down to one if for any reason that site plan expired. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould asked Ms. Scala whether this was being expedited or if it was following the regular schedule. He noted that three agencies had not responded. Ms. Scala responded that it was not following the normal schedule. She explained that the applicant had requested that it be presented at this time but she had informed the applicant that she would not be in favor of approving a plat until the Site Review Committee had seen it on the 6th, the normal hearing date. In response to Mr. skove's question as to whether or not this had been done before, Ms. Scala stated that she could not recall having done it before and agreed that it was unusual for the Commission to see this before the Site Review Committee had seen it. She further stated that she had agreed to the applicant's request to bring it before the Commission at this time because the site plan had been brought before the Commission before and this is a fairly straightforward situation. Mr. Cogan expressed concern as to which way the waiver was to be handled--i.e., to die with the site plan or the other way with the possibility that something attached to it would be lost. Mr. Payne stated that one way to do this would be to have it tied to that site plan altogether, meaning that there would be no entrances on the public road except those pertinent to that site plan. -:P August 28, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Bowerman stated the meaning was unclear to him and asked Mr. Cogan to clarify the condition he was suggesting which would take care of.the site plan. Mr. Cogan explained that a waiver was being requested because presently the site plan allows entrances onto the public road. yet a private road is proposed. He stated that the Ordinance reads that if a private road exists, everything must go out by that private road.. He said the site plan preempts that and his.concern was that if the site plan should expire, then these two would no longer be permitted. He stated that it was being requested that one entrance be permitted onto the private .road if this site plan were not used. Mr. Cogan stated that it was his desire to limit the waiver to the life of -the site plan. He said this could be done one of two ways:, (1) The waiver would expire when the site plan expires, eliminating even one entrance onto the public road; or (2) The waiver would expire when the site plan expires with the condition that one.entrance be permitted onto the public road. He added that the Highway Department had already approved two entrances so he would not anticipate any problem with one entrance. He stated he was in agreement with. the Highway Department and would have no objection to one entrance. Mr. Cogan moved that the Herbert Tull, III Final Plat be approved with approval of.a waiver requiring not less than one unit of the 5.086 acres to have access onto the private road and subject to the following conditions: (1) The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of existing commercial entrance; 2. County Engineer approval of existing private roads (60' right-of-way and.40' right-of-way); . 3. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements for private road; 4. Runoff control permit if.required by County Engineer; 5. Fire Officer approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Bowerman introduced two new members of the -staff: Deloris Sessoms, Recording.Secretary, and Marcia Joseph, Planner. SHERWOOD FARMS, TRACTS 1-5, FINAL PLAT - Located off the south side of Route 29, South, on the south side of Mountainview and Overlook Drives. Proposal to divide.73.46 acres into five (5) tracts ranging in size from 6.556 to 19.207 acres.. Previously approved, expired plat (plat approval expired June 22, 1984). Applicant requests administrative approval of final plat. Tax Map 76N, Parcel 8, part of. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. ..20 August 28, 1984 Page 5 Ms. Amelia McCulley gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding additional devel- opment rights, Ms. McCulley explained that the additional develop- ment rights remain with the residue which has not been surveyed but is under twenty (20) acres. It was determined that only tracts 3 and 4 are currently being divided and tract 1 is having something added to it. Tracts 2 and 5 are over twenty-one (21) acres and retain three develop- ment rights. It was also pointed out that tracts 3 and 4 do not have divisional rights, i.e. they do'not have the right to create an additional parcel. Mr. Payne explained that since these parcels are less than twenty-one (21) acres each, they cannot be re -divided without a special use permit. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that Sherwood Farms, Tracts 1-5, Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions, to include County Engineer approval of final road plans; b. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement; c. Provision of street sign; d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrances; f. Planning staff approval of technical terms. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. VERNON W. CRITZER, JR. FINAL PLAT - Located on a 30' access easement off the south side of Route 637, just west of the intersection with Route 758. Proposal to create one 5.00 acre lot, which leaves ±55.4 acres residue. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 69, Parcel 21. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. There being no comment from either the applicant or the public, the matter was placed before the Commission. August 28, 1984 Page 6 It was determined that the.applicant was simply asking to.be able to continue using the farm entrances along the State road. Ms. Diehl moved that the Vernon W. Critzer, Jr. Final Plat be approved subject to the following: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance; b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for easement. 2. Any further subdivision of the residue must be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. BURRESS TIMBER ASSOCIATION PRELIMINARY PLAT - Located on a'50' right-of-way off the west side of. Route 616 adjacent to Woodsedge Subdivision at Boyd Tavern... Proposal to create one 22.39 acre parcel, which leaves t505.8 acres residue. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 94, Parcel.21. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the.staff report. Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, was available to answer questions. There.being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that parcel 25 was in two pieces with one piece fronting on Rt. 616 and the other on Rt. 616 and Rt. 794, and further that the applicant was requesting a waiver so that said parcel could have its own entrance onto Rt. 616. Ms. McCulley explained that the easement is actually across parcel 25 rather than the residue of parcel 21. Parcel 25 is also owned by Burress Timber Company and they desire to enter at that point., and a waiver is being requested for the residue of parcel 25, and that part that fronts along the easement, not to have to use that easement as their entrance.. Mr. Gale stated that part of parcel 25 actually has more frontage than is shown on the tax map, there being approximately 600' rather than the 300' shown. He stated only a very small sight distance easement would be required. Mr. Gale clarified what was being requested, stating the applicant was not seeking two (2) entrances on the southern part of parcel 25, the one entrance being acceptable; but the applicant simply desires an entrance onto the northern portion of parcel 25. August 28, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Michel moved that the Burruss Timber Association Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions are recommended for final plat approval: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance, to include Planning Staff approval of entrance location; b. Recordation of sight distance easement; c. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the 50' right-of-way; d. Planning Staff approval of technical items; e. Compliance with Soil Erosion Control Ordinance. It was determined that the motion contemplated administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. GASOLINE ALLEY SITE PLAN - Located on the north side of Route 650, 450 feet east of the intersection with Route 631 (Rio Road). 'Proposal to locate a 1,400 square foot building with a 560 square foot office area, 840 square foot service bay area, and five parking spaces on 1.281 acres. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Tax Map 61, Parcels 148 and 149. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. It was determined that the existing structure would be torn down and replaced with a larger facility. Mr. Herb Beskin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He presented several slides showing the property as it currently exists. He stated the applicant was concerned with only three of the recommendations of staff. Two of these concerns dealt with the 25' right-of-way and the connection to public utilities and the third dealt with the emergency access to the site. In regard to the first two concerns, he stated Mr. Hughes, -a certified land surveyor, had addressed these in his letter to the staff, and had requested waivers in both these areas. In regard to the requirements for the emergency access to the site, Mr. Beskin stated the applicant did not feel these were reasonable in view of the remoteness of such a situation actually occurring. (I.e., if the gas tanks on the Phillips property were to rupture and the flow from such a rupture would be ino great to be contained by the natural dyke, making it overflow onto the applicant's site, and if at the same time the applicant were to have a separate emergency situation requiring emergency vehicles, etc.) The likelihood of all these events occurring at the same time was thought to be extremely remote. Mr. Beskin pointed out that the applicant's site is also uphill from the Phillips property (a spill could not flow uphill). He pointed out that the problem is caused by the fact that Phillips has nothing on its property to stop the flow of a spill from the gas tanks, but J. -5 August 28, 1984 Page 8 this is a matter that the applicant has no control over. He pointed out that there have been no problems with the tanks in their 25 years of existence. He added that it would be possible to exit the property on foot by three existing routes, adding that one of these was also wide enough to allow a car. He added that the applicant had researched the possibility of building an access road and had found that the neighboring property owner would not allow such a road. In summary; Mr. Beskin stated the applicant was being asked to correct a problem which he had no part in creating and the applicant's proposal was in no way effecting the problem. it was determined that Mr. Ragsdale, the applicant, had assisted Mr. Beskin with the slide presentation. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cortez, Fire Prevention Officer, addressed the Commission and explained that while the Fire Code does rot allow above ground gasoline tanks, all existing tanks that are maintained in suitable condition can be kept in service. He added that the most desirable way of dealing with spilled gasoline from a ruptured container is to dyke it and channel it into an unused, unbuildable area where it can be contained. He stated that at the time the gas tanks were installed, the natural dyking which exists was satisfactory. Mr. Cortez pointed out that the worst way to deal with such a spill is to try to contain it on the site. Mr. Cortez stated his office had just discovered this property to be commercially occupied (up until now it was assumed all these lots were single.family). He added that with commercial occupancy the public is being invited into this area and the applicant's proposal would invite the public into an area where 40,000 gallons of com- bustible and flammable material could exist. He did not feel the public should be subjected to such a danger, though he admitted the remoteness of such.a situation occurring. He stated the only thing under attack here was the applicant's access to the property, not the building. He did not feel this property was suitable for occupancy of any kind. Mr. Cogan stated he was disturbed by the fact that the owner of the Phillips property, by using the State highway for a dyke, which is a public road, could influence other properties. He felt this was not equitable. Mr. Michel agreed. Mr. Cortez, reading from the Fire Prevention Code, Article F2903.0, stated: "Above -ground storage tanks for the storage of combustible and flammable liquids shall be prohibited except in the.following cases: (1) Existing above -ground tank installations previously approved by the Fire Official may be continued provided the installation does not constitute a hazard:'+Mr. Cortez stated the tanks in question do not constitute a hazard, so they could not be condemned. In addition he stated the life -expectancy of such August 28, 1984 Page 9 tanks is 25-35 years and the problem would take care of itself in four.or five years when those tanks become unsafe, but they are not unsafe now. In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Cortez said he did not know of anything else that Phillips could do to ensure the safety of those tanks. Mr. Michel stated he did not feel he could deny Mr. Ragsdale the use of his property on the off -hand chance that two emergencies would occur simultaneously. Mr. Hughes stated that it was still possible to .exit the property _ in a car by driving across the lots, if necessary. He added that an emergency vehicle could use an existing driveway, in an emergency, and come within 70 feet of the proposed building. In response to Mr. Cogan's question regarding the county's liability, Mr. Payne stated that staff condition 1(h) should be as follows: Note on plat: "The County of Albemarle is not liable for any losses or injury due to accidental discharge of fuel from storage tanks on Phillips 66 property." Mr. Bowerman stated that although he was in sympathy with the applicant, he felt he could not approve this application without some sort of alternative access. Mr. Skove stated his agreement with Mr. Bowerman and felt he could not go against the Fire Marshal's ruling. Mr. Cogan stated he could support the application in view of the remoteness of the possibility of a combination of events occuring that would create an emergency situation and also because he did not feel it was right to allow one property owner to dictate to another how his property might be used. Mr. Payne pointed out that it might be possible that the Phillips 66 property may constitute a nuisance in relation to the Ragsdale property, and if so, it may be compensatory. Mr. Echols of the Highway Department, in response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding the Highway Departments feelings in this matter, stated the road in question was not meant to be used as a dyke but because of the natural terrain of the road, it is coincidental that the road also serves as a dyke. He admitted that the Highway Department had not been aware of the road serving as a dyke until recently, but did not feel there was much that could be done about it at this point. He said he did not know whether or not the Highway Department could be held legally responsible if an accident should occur as a result of this situation. Mr. Payne stated it was arguable whether the commonwealth's Attorney or the Attorney General could take action to relieve this potential hazard without first determining that it constituted a public nuisance. He again pointed out that if it was determined that the situation constituted a private nuisance, the Ragsdale's could sue on their own behalf. August 28, 1984 Page 10 In response to Mr. Michel's question regarding the usefulness of a culvert to divert a possible spill, both Mr. Cortez and Mr. Hughes (Land Surveyor) stated they could not say whether this was a possible solution or not. Ms. Diehl said she did not feel she could approve a site plan that is a potential hazzard to the health, safety and welfare of county citizens. Mr.. Cogan pointed out that only the ingress and egress to the site would be affected by a possible spill from the gasoline tanks, not the site itself. .Mir. Cogan also stated he would not be in favor of granting a waiver of the 25' dedication requirement. In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Payne read the following statement from Section 32.5.18 of the Zoning Ordinance: "Access ways for emergency vehicles shall be provided as specified by the fire official." Mr. Bowerman pointed that the fire official has stated that an alternate access to this site is needed. Mr. Cogan pointed out the reason for the fire official's requirement was in the event that something should go wrong with the Phillips 66 tanks, and he restated his feeling that the chance of this happening was quite remote. Mr. Cogan moved that the Gasoline Alley 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; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance; d. Health Department and/or State Water Control Board approval of waste discharge from oil separator if floor drains are used; e. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and flow; f. Zoning Administrator approval of compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; g. Planning staff approval of technical items; h. Recordation of a plat combining parcels 148 and 149; i. Dedication of 25' from the centerline of Rt. 650; j. Note on plat: "The County of Albemarle is not liable for any losses or injury due to accidental discharge of fuel from storage tanks on.Phillips 66 property." 2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the following condition must be met: a. Fire Official approval of fireflow. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. August 28, 1984 Page 11 Ms. Diehl .said she could not support the motion with -the deletion of staff's recommendation 1 (d), (Fire Official and County Engineer approval of the provision for emergency access to the site.). She stated she felt this should remain a condition to allow for some sort of reasonable satisfaction to the problem. Mr. Bowerman stated he could not support the motion. The motion was defeated with Messrs. Michel, Gould and Cogan voting in favor, and Messrs. Bowerman, Wilkerson and Skove and Ms. Diehl voting against. Mr. Skove then moved for approval of the Gasoline Alley Site Plan 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; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance; d. Fire Official and County Engineer approval of the provision for emergency access to the site; e. Health Department and/or State Water Control Board approval of waste discharge from oil separator if floor drains are used; f. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and flow. g. Zoning Administrator approval of compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; h. Planning staff approval of technical items; i. Recordation of a plat combining parcels 148 and 149; j. Dedication of 25' from the centerline of Rt. 650; k. Note on plat: "The County of Albemarle is not liable for any losses or injury due to accidental discharge of fuel from storage tanks on Phillips 66 property. 2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the following condition must be met: a. Fire Official approval of fireflow. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Payne pointed out that even though the Commission's approval of this motion might result in the developer being unable to develop this site, the record should show that this was not the Commission's intent. The motion was approved with Messrs. Bowerman, Wilkerson and Skove and Ms. Diehl voting in favor, and Messrs. Cogan, Gould and Michel voting against. Mr. Bowerman informed the applicant he could appeal to the Board of Supervisors. &a7 August 28, 1984 Page 12 C.R. MORRIS SITE PLAN WAIVER - Located on the south side of Route 720, approximately 2 miles north of Keene. Proposal to locate a third dwelling unit on a parcel, request to waive formal site plan. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 112, Parcel 32. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Joan Davenport gave the staff report. The applicant stated he had no questions but wasavailable to answer any questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that the applicant was proposing to close the existing ".middle" entrance. It was also determined that if the applicant removed the mobile home at some future date, leaving only two dwelling units on the parcel, a site plan approval would not be required. It was also pointed out that the sub- division plan being shown to the Commission was merely a "shadow plat" or how the land might be .divided in the future, and staff was recommending that should the land ever be subdivided, it should be brought back to the Commission at that time. Mr. Michel moved that the C.R. Morris Site Plan W ver be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the house, the applicant must obtain the following: a. Eire Official approval of building separation for mobile home and new house while under construction. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the applicant has obtained the following: a. Zoning Administrator approval of relocation of mobile home; b. Health Department approval of septic system for relocation of mobile home; c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of closing of entrance; d. County Attorney approval of maintenance agree- ments for shared driveways. 3. Any subdivision of this property requires review by the Planning Commission. Mr_ Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. �0 August 28, 1984 Page 13 In regard to the Gasoline Alley Site Plan, Mr. Keeler asked for clarification as to whether or not a public sewer would be required. Mr. Bowerman stated that it was agreed that public sewer would not be required since the requirements could be ade- quately fulfilled by a private septic system. Under NEW BUSINESS, it was pointed out that the Mobile Home Study would be presented to the Commission at the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. James Donne 0 Secretary Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms M