HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 10 1992 PC Minutes9-10-92
1
SEPTEMBER 10. 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Thursday, September 10, 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; and Ms. Ellen Andersen. other
officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning,
and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Huckle.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
Mr. Keeler briefly previewed the September 15th Consent
Agenda (Woodcreek Final Plat). Mr. Blue expressed support
for this proposal; however, because of the complicated
nature of the exchange of parcels in relation to the
alignment of the road, he was concerned that it might be
difficult to accurately mark points of tangent and
curviture. He asked if the County had authority to require
that the surveyors mark not only the corners of the lot, but
also the beginning and end of the curve. He feared there
could be confusion for future owners if this was not done
properly. Staff offered to look into this issue.
(NOTE: At the end of the meeting Mr. Bowling addressed Mr.
Blue's question. He quoted from Section 18-55 (n) of the
Subdivision ordinance: "Monuments set after recording of
plat: No monuments other than the permanent control
monuments required in Sec. 18-39(k) shall be required to be
set before the recording of the plat or the conveyance of
land by reference to plat if the land surveyor includes in
his certification on such plat that any additional monuments
required by this chapter shall be set on or before a
specified later date. ...." Section 18-39(k): "Permanent
Monuments: Permanent (control) monuments shall be placed by
the developer in the ground at all corners, and angle
points, in the outher lines of the subdivision, and at all
points of angles and curvatures in the right-of-way lines of
all streets, and at all lot corners within the subdivision.
...." He concluded: "So if what you're talking about
constitutes permanent monuments, it appears that they do
have to be set. If they are not set it is a violation of
the Subdivision Ordinance." However, he pointed out that
the County probably does not have the resources to inspect
to see that all the monuments have been set.
Mr. Blue asked that staff convey to the surveyor and
developer his concerns to ensure that the monuments are set
on the points of curviture on the new road.
IN
9-10-92
2
SP-92-53 St. John's Episcopal Church owner Elaine Clark
,(applicant) - Petition to issue a special use permit to
allow a day care [10.2.2(7)] on 5.35 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcels 20 and
20B, is located on the north side of Dick Woods Road (Rt.
637) approximately 800 feet east of Miller School Road (Rt.
682) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site
is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area
3).
Mr. Keeler explained that staff had originally recommended
denial of this request based on the inadequacy of the
entrance and the feeling that it would be unlikely that a
day care center of this scale would be able to make the
necessary improvements to the entrance. However, the church
has advised staff that funds have now become available to
make the site distance improvements, so staff's position has
changed to a recommendation for approval subject to three
conditions. (Mr. Keeler suggested the third condition as
follows: "Under VDOT permit, improve the entrance to VDOT
commercial entrance standards with sight distance
improvements to be completed by October 25, 1992.11) He
explained that staff was not requiring that the actual
physical construction of the commercial entrance be
completed by that time, but that the sight distance be
achieved.
Mr. Johnson noted that the Virginia Department of
Transportation had not commented specifically on the issue
of a commercial entrance. Mr. Grimm felt that the letter
implied that a commercial entrance should be constructed.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Keeler
explained the two types of VDOT entrances. Mr. Nitchmann
questioned whether it was necessary to require any
modifications to the entrance beyond the sight distance
improvements. Mr. Keeler explained that staff generally
follows VDOT's recommendations, and has never recommended
against the sight distance requirement. He recalled a
couple of instances where the Commission had not required
that the entrance be upgraded to the VDOT standard.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Rev. Dale Brudbig addressed the Commission. He explained
that the creation of a commercial entrance would require
negotiations with a neighboring property owner to acquire
additional property. He asked that a commercial entrance
not be required. He noted that the entrance has been in use
since 1890 and the day care use will cause a minimum
increase in traffic (5 cars/day). He agreed that the sight
distance problem needed to be corrected and confirmed that
41,
9-10--92 3
the church was prepared to make those improvements.
Regarding the possible moving of some graves, he felt that
sight distance improvements could be made without disturbing
the graves, but he stated that proper administrative
procedures will be followed if it becomes necessary to move
the graves.
Mr. Johnson asked the applicant if he felt the entrance
would be safe, once the sight distance problem is corrected,
without further improvements to the existing entrance. Rev.
Brudbig did not answer this question definitively. (Later
in the meeting, Ms. Clark, also the applicant, addressed
this question and stated that she felt there would be no
other safety problems with the existing entrance once the
sight distance is achieved.) Rev. Brudbig indicated he was
not aware of any safety problems with the entrance, other
than the lack of adequate sight distance.
There was a brief discussion about additional signage on the
road. Mr. Blue noted that a commercial entrance would not
address safety problems on the road. The applicant stated
that the safety of the road would be improved by widening
and hard surface "all the way to 682." Mr. Johnson
suggested that the applicant write to the local Resident
Engineer (VDOT) to request warning signs on the road. Mr.
Keeler also suggested that the existing international sign,
showing that the road changes from pavement to gravel, be
changed to one saying "Gravel Surface Ahead" and that it be
placed north of the church property.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated he was very familiar with the road. It
was his opinion that the extension of sight distance to the
east would "provide adequate safety for that entrance and
that any additional (improvements) which might be required
would be unnecessary and would be a consideration at such
time in the distant future when they extend paving of that
road."
Commissioners Blue and Nitchmann agreed.
Mr. Grimm expressed mixed feelings because of VDOT's
determination that the entrance "does not meet current
design standards." He felt that because a commercial use is
proposed for the property,.the entrance should meet
commercial entrance standards.
Mr. Blue noted that improvements beyond sight distance
correction would create an additional expense for the
applicant when no other safety issue has been identified.
He noted that the road itself does not meet current design
standards. He concluded that this was an instance were he
9-10-92 4
did not feel compelled to go along with VDOT's
recommendation. He stated he would feel differently if the
recommendation to upgrade the entrance to current design
standards was related to a safety issue.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed. He felt that, based on the lack of
specificity in VDOT's comments, the decision was being left
to the Commission.
Mr. Johnson asked why the enrollment of the day care was
limited to 9 students. Ms. Clark explained that 10 was all
that State licensing would allow for one teacher, and
because the County's fee was broken down by number of
children, i.e. 6-9, 10+, etc., she had requested 9 children.
Mr. Johnson advised her that she could request an amendment
to the permit at some future time if she wished to expand.
Based on Mr. Blue's comments, Mr. Grimm stated he would
change his position and would not oppose the request.
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-92-53 for St. John's Episcopal
Church, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a
copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption from
licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the
Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension,
or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure
to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance; and
C. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia
State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed nine (9) students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
3. Improve sight distance to VDOT commercial entrance
standards by October 25, 1992.
47
9-10-92 5
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Johnson requested that staff look at the "scope of the
Architectural Review Board as far as its application to
major modifications to buildings already in being."
September 22nd Meeting - It was noted that Commissioners
Grimm and Johnson will both be absent from the September 22
meeting. The Commission decided not to cancel the meeting
(provided that a quorum could be established) and that a
temporary chairman be appointed to chair that meeting. Mr.
Jenkins suggested that it might be desirable to defer the
CIP Work Session scheduled for the 22nd, with the decision
about deferral to made at the September 15th work session.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
7:45 p.m.
DB
d/00