HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 09 1994 PC Minutes8-9-94
AUGUST 9, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 9,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff; and Mr. Bruce Dotson. Other officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioners Jenkins and Vaughan.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
July 26, 1994 were approved (4:0:1) as amended, (Because she had not been present for the
July 26th meeting, Ms. Imhoff abstained from the action.)
Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at the August 3rd
meeting.
ZMA-94-09 hay —el Industries. Inc. and John E. Campbell - Proposal to amend the proffers of
ZMA 88-11 to delete the requirement of two points of access and to have no connection
between the Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia developments. Property, described as Tax Map
90D, Parcel A is the location of the Lake Reynovia development. This site is zoned R-4,
Residential (proffered) and is located in the Scottsville MagisteriaL District. This site is
located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood Four) and is recommended for
medium density residential (4.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre).
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms.Imhoff, that ZMA-94-09 be indefinitely
deferred.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue expressed concern, as he has several times in the past, about last minute deferral
requests from applicants. His concern was related to the fact that there may be members of
the public who have come to the meeting to speak to this item, but then find that the item
will not be heard.
Mr. Davis explained that there is no State Code, or local ordinance, requirement that
addresses time limits on deferral requests. He stated: `Basically, it is up to you all to
determine whether or not you want to grant the deferral when it is requested by the applicant.
8-9-94 2
Ms. Huckle felt there was no alternative given the fact that the applicant was not present.
Mr. Davis explained that the applicant was not present because of the Commission's "custom"
of approving such requests for deferral in the past. However, "theoretically, (the
Commission) could proceed with the public hearing and the fact that (the applicant) is not
here is his risk." He added: "But given the past history of this Planning Commission, that
would probably be viewed as being an unfair act."
Mr. Blue agreed and stated that he was not suggesting that the item be heard. He did think
the Commission should be advised as to the reason for the requested deferral. Mr. Fritz
explained that the applicant wants to have time to review the information provided to staff to
determine if they can provide any additional information which might cause the staff to
change it's recommendation.
Mr. Keeler (later mi the meeting) explained that some years ago the Commission and Board
had had an unwritten policy related to deferral requests. An applicant was required to make a
written request one week prior to the hearing, if an applicant wanted to request a deferral
after that one week period, he was required to be at the public hearing to verbally request a
deferral. The Commission would hold public hearing, if there were members of the public
who wished to speak. He explained that there had been some problems in this procedure
which were related to the timing of the completion of the staff report.
Ms. Imhoff did not feel applicant -requested deferrals were a problem, provided persons who
wished to speak on the item were given the opportunity to do so.
Having read the staff report for this item, Mr. Blue pointed out that the road connection was
going to require easements on adjacent property not owned by the developer. (Mr. Fritz
stated that there were other options, e.g. retaining wall within the right-of-way.) Mr. Blue
raised the question of why the County doesn't require a dedicated easement (at the time of
road plan approvals) in situations like this where it is obvious (because of the grades) that
additional easements will be needed to build the connecting roads He felt this would prevent
situations like this (where a developer must acquire easements on property that he does not
own). He felt this was the result of an rxersiahton the part of the Commission and
engineering staff at the time of the original road approvals.
There was determined to be no public comment.
The previously stated motion for approval of the applicant's request for deferral passed
unanimously.
ZMA-94-11 George Clark - Proposal to amend the proffers of ZMA-92-13 to allow
realignment of the entrance to Route 712. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcels 57C
and 66-76 inclusive and Tax Map 99, Parcels 109-116 inclusive, is lcoated in the southeastern
corner of the intersection of Rt. 712 and Rt. 760 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
W
8-9-94
This site is zoned VR, Village Residential with proffers. This site is located in a designated
growth area (Village of North Garden) and is recommended for Village Residential (1
dwelling unit per acre).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Planning staff notes that a
roadway following the terrain will be more aesthetically pleasing than would a crossing
involving 40 feet of fill. Stab can identify no engineering reasons to deny this request and is
of the opinion that relocation of the entrance may improve the aesthetics of the roadway.
Therefore, staff is able to support this request for the elimination of proffer 3 of ,ZMA-92-13.
The remaining proffers will remain in effect." [NOTE: Staff later stated that an alternative
wording for proffer 3 was preferrable to the elimination of proffer 3 altogether. That new
wording was: "Access to the property shall be limited to a single point on Route 712.
Emergency access is not limited by the previous sentence." ] Mr. Fritz added that Virginia
Department of Transportation approval of the entrance location had been received (verbally).
Mr. Blue noted that this location would be more susceptible to flooding and though VDOT
has approved the entrance, they have not approved the design in the floodplain, as yet. Mr.
Fritz acknowledged the accuracy of this statement.
Mr. Fritz was unable to say how high the fill would be for the road, through it would be
considerably less than "coming the other way."
Mr. Dotson asked if it was not necessary to "state that it must comply with County, State and
Federal standards and regulations and that plans and calculations shall be submitted." Mr.
Fritz replied that such a statement was not necessary because "they have to, even if they don't
proffer it."
Ms. Huckle asked how gating of the emergency access would be enforced. Mr. Fritz
explained that it is noted on the plan which is currently under review (preliminary subdivision
plat) and it will be noted on the final subdivision plat also. He added that the exact location
of that gate has not been determined. He stated that staff will require that the emergency
access be gated as a part of the subdivision review.
Mr. Dotson asked what the emergency easement would look Iike--"Would it be a single track,
gravelled?" Mr. Fritz explained that an existing gravel roadway already exists. Noting that
this easement was for the entire property, Mr. Blue asked if there was any legal basis for
"overloading an easement." Specifically, he asked: "If you have an easement for your farm
and you divide your farm up, does that easement apply, automatically?" Mr. Davis explained
that it depends on the facts of each particular case, but there is a possibility that in a given
instance "you could go beyond what the scope of the easemen that was originally granted
intended and if the court finds that, they would disallow the overburdening of the easement.
That may not be the case here."
0
8-9-94
Mr. Dotson asked staff or the applicant to describe what this realignment might look like, in
comparison to the original alignment which would be "40 feet of fill, massive, and unnatural."
Mr. Fritz explained that the cut and fill would be balanced. Mr. Blue added: "It will be longer
but not as deep.,, (Mr. Fritz was not able to provide a detailed description because road
plans on the revised alignment have not been submitted.)
Mr. Fritz explained that the fill operation would require the approval of the Virginia
Department of Transportation; County Department of Engineering approval of the stream
crossing and flood calculations; and it will also have to go through the permitting process for
a stream crossing with the VMRC and potentially the Army Corps of Engineers. He noted
that all those approvals would be required "whether this request to amend the proffer had
been made or not."
The applicant was represented by Mr. A.L. Yancey. He described how the original entrance
had been "just a conceptual plan" and how it had later been determined that it was not the
best location. He explained that the fill reduction over the river will be drastically reduced as
will the length of the box culverts. Regarding the height of the fill, Mr. Yancy explained: "I
think it is going to be less than 1/2 what it was before. I wouldn't want to be quoted and I
wouldn't want you to make your decision based on that, but at this point, it is going to be
drastically reduced." He stated that contacts he had made with the neighbors (including Mr.
Franzene and Mr. Messinger) had been positive.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Floyd Wendellton, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He asked for
a clarification of the exact location of the new entrance. Mr. Fritz pointed out the location,
on Rt. 712.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked if it was routine to design a road that you would expect to be overtopped
and which will need an emergency access? He asked in which storm events this road could
expect to be overtopped. Mr. Fritz could not answer Mr. Dotson's questions as to frequency
of storm events, but he stated that "typically, we do want to provide an alternative access
whenever we have a stream crossing over a 100-year floodplain, if it is at all practical and
feasible." Mr. Blue added: "In the past, the Interstate standards were for 50 year storms --you
wouldn't expect it to be overtopped, on the average, more than once every 50 years. A lot of
the small subdivision streets and drainage systems are a 5-year storm. I suspect that VDOT
has a standard and my guess is they are probably going to design it for a 15 year storm, but I
don't know that."
Mr. Dotson asked: "So this would not be unusual? This happens, say, 10% of the time in
the roadways that we approve?" Mr. Blue responded: "I would say that --more than that."
8-9-94
Ms. Imhoff commented: "What makes this attractive to me is that fact that it is more
sensitive --it goes with the lay of the land and will contribute to there being less fill in that
area."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-11 for George Clark be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the acceptance of revised proffer No. 3 as
follows:
Access to the property shall be limited to a single point on Rt. 712. Emergency access is not
limited by the previous sentence.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson stated he was "bothered" by the fact that it cannot be known how often the road
will be overtopped, but he stated he "was willing to rely on the State standards and the
detailed engineering that was going forward."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-94-10 Broomley Farm. Inc - Proposal to amend ZMA-80-16 to permit modification of
access. Property, described as Tax Map 59A1, Parcel B is a portion of the open space for the
Ivy Creek P.R.D. This area is on the south side of Ivy Creek Drive approximately 200 feet
east of Broomley Road in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located
within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to the acceptance of
an amended proffer No. 11.
Ms. Huckle asked where the gate would be located. (Mr. Fritz could not answer.) Ms.
Huckle was of the understanding that only Broomley Farm would have access to the gate.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if VDOT had had any comments about the closeness of the access to a
sharp curve. Mr. Fritz responded negatively.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Simon Harvey. He offered to answer questions. He
confirmed the existence of a gate from the entrance to Broomley Farm to Brook Road. He
explained two new gates would be added --one "at the end of the new driveway and another
which will stop access from the farm entrance to the main house." He explained: "What
we're really trying to do is separate the farm from the main house so the main house will
have it's main entrance, which is what we are asking for, and then the entrance off Broomley
Road will just be a farm entrance for deliveries to the farm, etc."
W_?
8-9-94 6
Staff confirmed that this request was before the Commission because of the crossing of the
open space. (Mr. Fritz confirmed the applicant could install as many gates as he wished.)
Mr. Fritz stated that though he had received a lot of phone calls about this proposal, he had
heard no negative comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-10 for Broomley Farm, Inc. be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the acceptance of the following amendment
to Proffer No. 11:
Access limited to Broomley road only, and no access onto Brook Road. This condition shall
not prohibit the connection of a private driveway from the Broomley Farm property to the
roads serving the subdivision.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-94-22 Charles W. Hurt - Proposal to establish Modular and Mobile Home Sales on a
portion of Tax Map 45, parcel 109 [30.6.3.2(b)]. This site is zoned HC, Highway
Commercial and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property is located in
the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and the Kegler's access road in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is lcoated in a designated growth area (Urban
Neighborhood One) and is recommended for Regional Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to two
conditions, and approval of a modification of 32.7.5.1 to allow the use of a private septic
system until such time as public sewer is available, subject to one condition.
Regarding the issue of public sewer, Mr. Blue expressed the following concern: "If we keep
granting these things, it decreases the chance of getting developer financial participation in
extension of the sewer or upgrade of the system.... We're granting this septic system and then
once the sewer gets there, paid for by somebody else, then they will be required to pay the
hook -on fee, but there is no requirement that anybody who will benefit from this sewer will
have to pay anything for it, other than the hook -on fee."
Mr. Fritz's only reply to Mr. Blue's statements was an explanation as to why the
recommended approval had been broken into two separate actions. He explained: "It's
because the language of the ordinance regarding outdoor storage and display is very specific
as to limiting it to issues of the Entrance Corridor. Therefore, based on conversations I had
with the County Attorney, it was inappropriate to include this condition of connection of
public sewer and a condition on the special use permit. But it is appropriate as a condition
for granting the modification. I would ask the County Attorney as to other conditions under
8 5-
8-9-94 7
which you might grant modification for private septic system or you may choose not to and
have the applicant cost participate in the sewer and extend it to him so that he can make use
of the site." (He clarified that he should have said "improve the pump station" rather than
"extend the sewer.")
Mr. Fritz recalled some of the history of the pump station issue. He explained that the
developer of a previously proposed plan (Carrsbrook Auto) was to be responsible for
upgrading the pump station in order to accommodate his use and he would then turn it over
to the Service Authority for operation. The recently approved Carrsbrook Retail project has
that same requirement (and is the same developer as was Carrsbrook Auto).
Mr. Blue asked if the Commission had any authority, at this point, "to even consider financial
participation by this developer, or any other developer, in extending the lines or just this
condition of requiring hook -on when the line is within 200 feet."
Mr. Davis responded: "We do not have any enabling authority to require that participation.
Where it is typically found would be in a mandatory connection policy of the service
authority and they can set the parameters from where there is mandatory connection and if it
was within that parameter, they could require this developer to either contribute or connect at
their own expense in order to get service. Then the Zoning Ordinance mandated that you had
to meet whatever were the requirements of the Service Authority and in order to develop the
property you would have to do that. That is one typical approach but it has not been one that
Albemarle County has taken. There has not been a mandatory connection policy for those
purposes. There is something that is moving through the system that is going to address
mandatory connection in certain circumstances, but it is probably not as aggressive as what
you are suggesting here. The other land use authority you may have to deal with the situation
on a case -by -case basis would be either when a property is being rezoned and an appropriate
proffer would be, to enhance you to make the rezoning, to proffer that type of connection or
that type of cash contribution. You are able to accept those contributions in that
circumstance. Or if that was a general special use permit request and some crititeria or
characteristic of the property lended itself to requiring you to require connection to sewer,
you could in that instance require connection to sewer and, perhaps, require a cash
contribution in order to facilitate that. But those are probably the only circumstances where
you could, under current enabling authority, reach that result."
Ms. Huckle asked: "But we are able to require that they connect to the line when it is
available?" Mr. Davis replied: "As a condition of this modification, i think that is an
appropriate requirement."
Mr. Dotson asked if condition No. 1 (disallowing banners, spinners, floats, etc.) was a typical
condition. Mr. Fritz explained that it is a condition which the Zoning Department has
recommended on uses of this type, involving outdoor storage and display. Mr. Blue pointed
out that the ARB would probably add this condition if the Commission didn't.
8-9-94
Mr. Keeler pointed out what he felt was some confusion in the staff report language
concerning the number of display models and the ARB design planner's language. He
explained: "In your report it says the ARB held a preliminary conference (and) subject to
design consideration will limit to 8 the number of display models. I think the design
planner's use of the term display models would limit it to 1. One would actually be on
display and the other 7 would be screened from Rt. 29. Is that the way I read that? Mr.
Fritz replied: "Right. And actually, the language of the special use permit conditions, which
is 'Use is limited to a maximum of 8 units,' was based on additional clarifying language taken
from the design planner's comments_" Mr. Keeler later explained that "there is one model up
front which is the display model from Rt. 29 and then planted around that...the remaining 7
units would be screened from Rt. 29."
Mr. Dotson asked: "We're not approving the sketch plan --is that right?" Mr. Fritz replied:
"No. There is no need for you to do that and I would not recommend that you do that in this
case, to give the ARB maximum authority."
Ms. Huckle asked if the office was included among the 8 display models. Mr. Fritz replied
affirmatively. Mr. Davis suggested that Condition No. 3 be clarified by the addition of the
following language: "...including the office."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Batchelor. He described the intended use, i.e.
primarily double -wide and modular homes will be displayed in an environmentally
harmonious way. The site will be landscaped and will "look like a small subdivision." The
predominate price range will be 20's to 50's. He could not understand why the ARB was
requiring that the models be screened from Rt. 29 because he felt they would look better than
anything else on Rt. 29. He explained that storage of units will be on a separate site. (Only
display models will be present on this site and the models will be changed from time to time,
approximately every 6 months.) He concluded: "There is a need for moderate income
housing in this area, or we wouldn't be putting this in."
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Batchelor indicated he would have no problem
meeting the ARB's requirements (though he did not agree with them).
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Karen Strickland wondered what the impact "of moving these big houses up and down
the road, would be on Rt. 29." She suggested that consideration be given to moving the units
on and off the site at low traffic times. (Mr. Batchelor explained that the DMV regulates the
delivery times. The trucks cannot be on the road during school bus times.)
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-94-22 for Charles W. Hurt be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
8-9-94
9
1. No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or other attention getting devices shall
be allowed.
2. Use is limited to a maximum of eight (8) units at any time, including the office.
and also that a modification of Section 32.7.5.1 be approved to allow the use of a private
septic system, subject to the following conditions:
1. At such time as a sewer line with adequate capacity is in place within 200 feet of the
office, the applicant shall connect to public sewer.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson expressed the feeling that this a good use for the site and is a good interim use in
the event the Bypass route should cross this property. He also noted that mobile homes are
allowed in the Ordinance and "we should allow for a place for them to be sold."
Tr m re►gmn GP_ to a comment made by Mr.
ARB review is improving development
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Blue, Ms. Imhoff commented that MhP fpl t
in the entrance corridor.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the Board scheduled for
August 24, 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Nitchmann asked staff for the following:
(1) A map of the Rt. 29 North area to be used in consideration of the possibility of
widening the depth of the retail & commercial zoned areas;
(2) During the Comp Plan review process, look closely at the Airport Road and Rt.
29 area to determine what will be required there in the next 20-30 years. (He noted that the
North Fork Industrial Park will put a lot of pressure on this area.)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
V. Wayne imberg, See
re
KE