Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 14 1992 PC Minutes7-14-92 7 JULY 14, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 14, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. SP-91-63 William Gregory Baldwin - Proposal to permit a stream crossing in the floodplain of an unnamed stream [30.3.5.2.11. Property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 81J, is located on the south side of Rt. 706 approximately 0.6 miles west of Rt. 631 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). This request is being reviewed concurrently with the Poplar Ridge Preliminary Plat. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Tarbell confirmed that Attachment C to the staff report was for information only and was not binding, in any way, to the special permit. The applicant, Mr. Greg Baldwin, offered to answer Commission questions. Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project, was also present. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Noting that no negative issues had been identified, Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-91-63 for William Gregory Baldwin be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream. 2. Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. � �q 7-14-92 3. Approval by the Water Resource Manager of a water quality impact assessment. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SUB-91-114 - Poplar Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create eight lots averaging 11.2 acres from an 89.63 acre parcel. The lots are proposed to be served by a private road. Property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 81J, is located on the south side of Rt. 706 approximately 0.6 miles west of Rt. 631 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). This request is being reviewed concurrently with SP-91-63 William Gregory Baldwin. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue asked for further explanation of a "minor water quality impact assessment" as referred to in condition 1(e). Mr. Tarbell explained that this would be handled by the Water Resources Manager and is related to intrusion in the water resource protection area. He did not know what type of calculations would be required of the applicant. Ms. Andersen asked for an explanation of condition 1(f)--"Staff approval of a road maintenance agreement." Mr. Tarbell explained this was a standard condition for a private road and it involved a legal document that will be recorded with the plat requiring that all lots participate in the road maintenance agreement for the road since it will not be taken into the state system. Mr. Nitchmann asked what happens if a lot owner does not want to participate in the agreement. Mr. Bowling responded: "It's a covenant which will run with the land so he won't have any choice in this particular subdivision." Mr. Johnson wondered why 1(f) called for "staff" approval of a road maintenance agreement, and did not mention "county attorney" approval. Mr. Tarbell explained that in the past few months the County Attorney's office had requested that the condition not include County Attorney approval. Mr. Keeler later explained that the reason for this change is due to the fact that it is staff who deals with the agreements and applicants were often going to the County Attorney with documents which the County Attorney knew nothing about. Mr. Tarbell explained that the County Attorney would be consulted if any problems arose. The applicant, Mr. Baldwin, offered to answer questions. Mr. Johnson called attention to a note on the plat which stated -25 feet to be dedicated to public use along the 7-14-92 3 roadway." He asked if the applicant was proffering this dedication, "because it can be eliminated without prejudice --because in the absence of any information that this application is causing the (need for) increased right-of-way, the County has no legal right to require this dedication." Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that he was aware of this, but he was making this offer willingly. Mr. Bowling explained that there was good reason for this dedication because it made future lot owners aware that this road (706) will be widened at some time in the future and they can thus plan their landscaping, fencing, etc., accordingly. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Poplar Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of private road and drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit; e. Water Resource Official approval of a minor water quality impact assessment for the road construction; f. Staff approval of a road maintenance agreement. 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. 3. Approval of SP-91-63 for William Gregory Baldwin. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann expressed some concern about the building site on Lot 3 given the fact that it is adjacent to the Rivanna Rifle and Skeet Club. He felt that it may be necessary to take that into consideration when determining the building site. Mr. Bowling explained that the site was flexible so long as the Health Department can approve both primary and secondary drainfield sites. Mr. Tarbell also noted that the name of the owner of the adjacent property would be shown on the plat so that a future purchaser will be aware of the existence of the Rifle and Skeet Club. Mr. Baldwin added tea:! 7-14-92 4 that there are two ridges between the lot and the rifle range and it is a considerable distance away. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SDP-91-083 Covenant Church of God Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 31,300 square foot church with 800 seats and 300 parking spaces on a 10.66 acre site. Property, described as Tax Map 46, parcels 22, 22D and 26C1 (part of), is located on the south side of Rt. 643 approximately 4/10 of a mile west of the Southern Railway. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located'in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report explained that all staff's concerns had been addressed by the applicant and therefore staff was recommending approval subject to conditions. Mr. Tarbell explained that a variance request to allow the church to be 45 feet high (rather than 35 feet) had been withdrawn. Thus, staff was recommending the following additional condition: "Deletion of note #21 stating the maximum height not to exceed 45 feet." So as to make it clear that public water was not being required, Mr. Johnson suggested that the following be added to condition 1(e): "...plans; public water service is not required." Staff expressed no objection. In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Bowling confirmed that the Service Authority has a Master Utility Plan. Mr. Blue asked if the Service Authority considers the issue of future development of an area when approving private water systems. He expressed concern about private well users not wanting to contribute to the cost of public water extension which will at some time in the future become a necessity thus resulting in all the taxpayers having to bear the cost of the public water line rather than current developers who might be required to pay their share "early." Mr. Tarbell did not know if the Service Authority considered this issue or not. Mr. Blue felt it should be required that this issue be considered by the Service Authority (and some evidence provided that it has been considered) with some way developed to require developers to participate at some future time. Mr. Blue asked what would happen if the well could not meet the requirement of 1(g), i.e. "...sufficient to meet the needs of the sanctuary and ... sprinkler system." Mr. Tarbell explained that this condition was to make the applicant aware of what the Health Department would be 7-14-92 5 looking for. Mr. Keeler pointed out that if the well was not sufficient, the concern expressed by Mr. Blue could then be addressed. (NOTE: The applicant later reported that a well has been drilled and provides 8 gallons/minute which is sufficient for a commercial well.) Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about safety measures in relation to the "pool," (the holding reservoir for the sprinkler system). She felt the facility should be fenced off. This issue was discussed at some length after the applicant's comments. The applicant was represented by Rev. Harold Bare. He explained that a commercial well has been installed which yields 8 gallons/minute. He explained that the "pool" is necessitated by the need to provide a reservoir of water to keep the sprinkler system active until fire trucks can arrive. He understood Ms. Huckle'c concerns, and assured her that the church was very safety conscious and would ensure that the pool was protected. He stated that different possibilities are being explored with one being a design where the pool will be shallow around the edges but deeper in the center, with the center area being protected by steel bars. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle stated she could support the request with the addition of a condition requiring that the pool be made inaccessible. Various language to address Ms. Huckle's concerns was discussed. Rev. Bare did not think a fence would be aesthetically acceptable in this instance. He suggested that there were other ways to ensure the pool's safety other than a fence, e.g. a grid of pipes across the top. It was finally decided that the following would be added as condition 1(j): "Staff approval of safety measures to insure adequate protection from water storage tank to be noted on the final site plan." The applicant was agreeable. Without further discussion, Mr. Blue moved that the Covenant Church of God Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; aS 3 7-14-92 6 b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final sewer plans; public water service is not required; f. Fire Official approval of building plans to verify adequacy of the proposed fire protection measures including the water storage facility; g. Health Department issuance of a well permit for a Class 3B well. The well yield shall be sufficient to meet the needs of the sanctuary and capable of supplying water needs of the sprinkler system storage facility; h. Staff approval of a final landscape plan; i. Deletion of note #21 stating maximum height not to exceed 45 feet. j. Staff approval of safety measures to insure adequate protection from water storage tank to be noted on the final site plan. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire official final approval. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Rev. Bare asked for permission to proceed with moving the house which is currently positioned on the site of the new sanctuary (prior to completion of the entire site plan process). Mr. Tarbell stated that staff had no objections to this request and the issue was being brought to the Commission as a courtesy. The Commission expressed no objections. No official action was taken. ISUB-92-072) - Jones/Spink Relief of Condition - Proposal to create a 2.24 acre parcel from a 41.83 acre parcel. Access proposed for the residue and new parcel is through an existing 30 foot right-of-way on Tax Map 44, Parcel 4F, is located on Route 676 approximately 0.75 mile west of its intersection with Route 601. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, this site is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1) . Mr. Keeler described the history of the property. He explained that normally this request could have been approved administratively, but a condition placed on a previous approval, related to future subdivision, 3�T 7-14-92 7 necessitated Commission review. He noted that staff concerns had been addressed and the Commission's review should, therefore, be straightforward. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Irving Jones. He asked if any modifications to the road maintenance agreement can be made at some future time in the event the special use permit is abandoned. He felt that if the commercial stable is abandoned at some future time, then it would be more equitable for the two houses to share the maintenance costs equally. Mr. Bowling stated that all Mr. Jones' concerns could be worked out in the maintenance agreement. Based on the applicant's concerns, Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 4 be changed to read: "County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement." There was no support for Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Mr. Bowling noted that the words "County Attorney" should be changed to "Staff." In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Jones explained that the new 30-foot access easement will be solely for the use of the new property, but that portion from the highway to - the beginning of the new easement will be shared. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated: "I support this application but with the understanding that the road maintenance agreement considers the relative responsibilities of both residences and the commercial establishment. There are three entities involved here and, unfortunately, as I read this, only two of them are referenced in this provision." Mr. Johnson moved that the Jones/Spink Relief of Condition request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control permit; d. Staff approval of road maintenance agreement to ensure the commercial stable property shall maintain the entire length of the private road and that the agreement is enforceable by the residential lot. 7-14-92 8 2. Staff approval of final plat. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Jenkins called attention to an article which had been sent to him by the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association. He felt that more specifics were called for from Blue Ridge Homebuilders and wondered if those types of specifics had been included in the report they had submitted to the County previously on the issue of affordable housing. Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken at the July 8 Board of Supervisors meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg a etary Lou