HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 22 1992 PC Minutes9-22-92
1
SEPTEMBER 22, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 22, 1992, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom
Jenkins (Temporary Chairmain); Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners
Grimm and Johnson.
Mr. Jenkins, acting as Temporary Chairman, called the
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum
was present. The minutes of September 10, 1992 were
approved as submitted.
Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken at the September
16 Board of Sunervisors Meetina.
SP-92-47 Margaret B. Martin - Petition to issue a special
use permit to allow an existing single wide mobile home to
remain [10.2.2(10)] on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 45A, is located on
the north side of Old Free Union Road (Rt. 653)
approximately 0.2 mile east of its intersection with Free
Union Road (Rt. 601) in the White Hail. Magisterial District.
This site is not located within a designated growth area
(Rural. Area 1) .
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
In response to a letter which had been received which
complained of "trash" on the site, Mr. Fritz stated he had
visited the site and had found nothing out of the ordinary.
(Mr. Blue agreed.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kevin Cox. (The
applicant, Ms. Margaret Martin, and her son, David Martin,
were also present.) He explained that the intent was to
create additional income for Ms. Martin. Regarding the
trash, he explained that had been the result of the
complainant's dog strewing trash. Regarding the requirement
for screening, he explained that conditions of the site
would not be conducive to the successful establishment of
vegetative screening. Mr. David Martin explained that some
large oak trees on the adjacent property "lean over the
property line 15 to 20 feet." Therefore, the site is so
6r
9-22-92 2
shaded it would be difficult to establish screening. He
also explained that the mobile home sits back in the woods
and is not visible from other properties. Mr. Martin stated
that the Zoning Administrator had been unable to advise him
as to what type of.trees should be planted. After visiting
the site, the Zoning Administrator had advised him "not to
plant a thing until we heard from them."
Mr. Blue confirmed that the applicant's description was
accurate. He questioned whether additional screening would
make any difference.
Mr. Keeler explained that the Commission could delete the
condition related to screening, but it still would not
relieve the applicant from this requirement because it is a
condition of the variance and would require relief from the
Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Bowling commented: "Whether
you leave it in or take it out, the Zoning Administrator is
still going to enforce it.,,
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-92-47 for
Margaret B. Martin be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with VA-92-26:
a. Health Department approval for adequacy of the
existing septic field.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-92-51 Allen & Edna Dunbar - Petition to issue a special
use permit for an additional development right [10.2.2(28)]
on 6.151 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described
as Tax Map 89, Parcel 52 is located on a private road 0.4
miles west of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt. 631) and approximately
1.1 miles south of its intersection with Dudley Mountain
Road (Rt. 706) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
This site is not located within a designated growth area
(Rural Area 4).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Review of this application has provided mixed findings.
The property is located away from existing development or
growth areas, but is not in an agricultural/forestal area.
Based on this fact and the Board's most recent findings and
action regarding additional lots for family members, staff
would recommend approval of this request."
(a
9-22-92 3
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kevin Cox. (The
applicant, Mr. Dunbar, was present but offered no comment).
He stated there is approximately 200 feet of sight distance
in either direction and has never been an accident on the
road. He felt this was another instance of an applicant
trying to create affordable housing for his family. Mr: Cox
noted a lack of reference in the staff report to the
Comprehensive Plan's goal of "providing affordable housing."
He also raised the issue of unreasonable fees for this type
of application. He noted that the County's fee for filing
the application ($990) added $1,000 to the cost of this home
for this applicant. He suggested that it was time to
consider more administrative approvals.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission. -
Mr. Blue agreed that Mr. Cox's concern about the fees was
legitimate. He felt the fee, in this case, was excessive.
He felt this matter should be reviewed further.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed. He noted that this was not a large
developer.
Mr. Keeler explained briefly how the fee schedule had been
developed. He stated that if the Commission had concerns
about the fees, the appropriate action might be to request
the Board to reconsider the entire fee structure. Mr.
Keeler stated that other concerns have been expressed about
the fees for day care centers. He did not think it was a
good idea to approach the matter on an individual, case -by -
case basis.
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Keeler stated that
there is currently no provision for exemption under the
current fee schedule.
[NOTE: The fee schedule was discussed again at the end of
the meeting.]
Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-92-51 for
Allen & Edna Dunbar be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Staff approval of subdivision plats.
Discussion:
Ms. Andersen stated that sometimes the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan are in conflict with one another. It was
her feeling that development rights were created for
specific reasons and she expressed her support for
development rights.
G3
9-22-92 4
Ms. Huckle recalled that during a previous request for
additional development rights it had been pointed out that
there are many county citizens who have more children than
development rights. Though she expressed sympathy for the
applicant, she felt it was a matter of precedent, because
she felt there were probably "hundreds" of other cases where
extra development rights will be sought. She asked: "Where
do we draw the line?"
Mr. Nitchmann felt this was an issue of individual property
rights of landowners. He noted that this was an effort to
provide a home for a family member. Mr. Nitchmann was
familiar with the site and did not feel there was a sight
distance problem. Regarding the issue of "hundreds of
others", he felt each case would have to be considered on
its own merits. He concluded: "I have to put the people,
in this case, in front of the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. He stated: "I think
precedent is important, but I don't think it is as important
here as it is, perhaps, in a court of law. I think we
should look at these things individually. If everything was
decided by precedent, I don't think we'd need to have a
Planning Commission at all." He felt the only argument
against this request is the development rights issue. He
stated he strongly supported the request and he felt it was
"absolutely ridiculous" that the applicant had to pay so
much for a special use permit.
Regarding the relation of staff time spent on individual
applications to the fees, he suggested that money could be
saved by reducing certain reports. (He called attention
particularly to the soils report which was 7 pages long and
reproduced for each staff report.) He felt it was not
necessary to include all this type of information because
all that was necessary was a statement to the effect that
"the land is not suitable for agriculture." He stated: "I
think we can cut the costs of evaluating these requests a
lot by choosing how much we have to investigate." Mr. Blue
concluded that he felt this was the proper time to ignor
precedent and allow this applicant to cut off a lot for a
family member.
Ms. Andersen agreed that the fee seemed "steep." She
repeated that development rights had been developed after a
great deal of study. She concluded that she was in favor of
sticking to the current policy until it has been reviewed
and changed.
The motion for approval passed (3:2) with Commissioners
Blue, Nitchmann and Jenkins voting in favor and
Commissioners Huckle and Andersen voting against.
6 `�
9-22-92
5
iay.al I aucau oG%:LL1U11 �LLOLS J.—,S / rre.Liming Plat - Proposal
to create 37 lots averaging 0.295 acres from a 10.82 acre
site. Property, described as Tax Map 64B(2), Section 1,
Parcels 3 and 4, is located on the north side of North
Hollymead Drive approximately 350 feet east of Seminole
Trail (Rt. 29N). Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and
recommended for Community Service.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He
offered to answer questions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Beth Vanda, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. She expressed concern about the following
issues:
--Devaluation of her property. She seemed to suggest
that this property be "bermed" so that it would be
"sheltered" from her property.
--Will the homes be bound by the covenants of the
Hollymead Subdivision?
--What will the lots sell for and what price homes are
envisioned?
--Is there sufficient electrical power for the area?
--Will these homes connect to the gas line and if so
will it impair her gas service?
--Will adequate measures be taken during construction
to prevent flooding of her property?
Ms. Hipski read the recommended conditions of approval for
the benefit of Ms. Vanda. Mr. Keeler recommended that Ms.
Vanda call staff and they would direct her to the
appropriate agencies for answers to her questions.
Mr. Jenkins explained to Ms. Vanda that the items referred
to in the conditions of approval would have to be addressed
before the final plat can be approved.
Mr. Melton stated he had spoken with Ms. Vanda about her
concerns. He pointed out that the Architectural Review
Board for the Hollymead Subdivision would have to approve
any sheds that are proposed. He stated that no trees will
be removed along North Hollymead Drive, rather it must be
"beefed up." He stated he would be happy to work with Ms.
Vanda.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
&6'
9-22-92
0
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that
Hollymead Section 1, Lots 1-37 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
drainage plans and
b. Department
detention plans and
C. Department
control permit;
d. Department
associated drainage
e. Department
of Engineering
calculations;
of Engineering
calculations;
of Engineering
approval of grading and
approval of stormwater
issuance of an erosion
of Engineering approval
plans and calculations;
of Engineering approval of all drainage
easements;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of
commercial entrance permit;
g. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
approval of road and associated drainage plans and
of road and
FI
calculations;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans;
i. Staff approval of dedication of new open space area
along North Hollymead Drive to Homeowner's Association;
j. Staff approval of landscape plan.
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SUB-92-119 - South Fork Farms Phase III Prelimina Plat -
Rural preservation development proposal to create eighteen
(18) development lots averaging 4.1 acres with a 95.2 acre
rural preservation tract from a 134.6 acre site. This
property has previously been platted as a conventional
subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 87, parcels
22J, 22K, 22L, 22M, 22N, 22P, 22Q, 22R, 225, 22T, 22U, 22V,
22W, 22X, 22Y, 22Z, 22Z1, and 23C, is located on the east
side of Taylors Gap Road (Rt. 710) approximately 1/2 mile
north of Monacan Trail Road (Rt. 29 South). Zoned RA, Rural
Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This
property is not located in a designated growth area (Rural
Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Kurt Gloeckner. He
explained that Health Department approval has not been
received due to the Health Department's workload. He
G41
9-22-92 7
explained that this proposal allows the home sites to be
closer together, sets aside 134 acres, protects the steep
slopes and streams, and is a better proposal than by -right
development. It was determined that the lots would be
served by individual wells.
Ms. Huckle asked if the residences would have access to the
rural preservation tract for recreation. Mr. Gloeckner
explained that the rural preservation tract would be sold
and a dwelling placed on it. The dwelling would be
restricted to its building site. He was under the
impression that the tract would be accessible to the other
residents (that would be addressed through the covenants).
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Vicky Brunjes, adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. She noted a discrepancy in the notice she
received vs. the staff report, i.e. the letter referenced 18
four -acre lots, and the staff report referenced 17 two -acre
lots. Staff confirmed that 17 two -acre lots was correct.
[NOTE: It was later noted that a total of 18 lots were
proposed, including the rural preservation tract.] She asked
about the future use of the rural preservation tract, i.e.
will it be forever rural, will it be bushhogged, will it be
be allowed to return to its natural state, or what? Mr.
Keeler explained that in this case the preservation tract
would be privately owned and maintained. He also explained
that a part of the rural preservation development invites
the developer to voluntarily grant an easement to the Board
of Supervisors and the Public Recreation Facilities
Authority (created to hold these easements), "in
perpetuity." This restricts some uses of the property, e.g.
it cannot be used for commercial and industrial uses. He
stated there were several different types of easements and
in this case it would be a "generic" type, i.e. no more than
one house can be built on it, refuse heaps cannot be
maintained on the property.
Ms. Brunjes interpreted: "So there can only be one
house --for eternity." Mr. Keeler responded: "For eternity.
Now, eternity is determined by the Board of Supervisors and
at some time they could disband the Public Recreation
Facilities Authority and disband all those easements." Ms.
Brunjes understood that by -right the developer had 17
development rights, with an additional one added for the
rural preservation tract. Staff, including Mr. Bowling,
stated that was incorrect, that the number of development
rights was 17, the same as by -right. Mr. Keeler stated
there was no increase in development rights through this
approach.
[NOTE: The issue of the number of development rights was
brought up later and there was discovered to be some
67
9-22-92
8
uncertainty as to whether it was 17 or 18. Though the
Commission wondered if a condition should be added defining
the number of rights, no such condition was ultimately added
because staff stated they would confirm the number and "if
they only had 17 development rights, they would only get
17."]
Ms. Brunjes wondered if water had been located on all the
sites. It was noted that confirmation of the existence of
water on a site is not required_
Ms. Barbara Tawney, owner of property "across from Lot 3 of
Phase II," addressed the Commission. She asked if there was
a "strip" between Phases II and III which could be further
subdivided. She was concerned about possible future
subdivision. Mr. Blue explained that the the section
referred to by Ms. Tawney was a part of the rural
preservation tract and could not be further subdivided.
Mr. Will Riley, an adjacent property owner, expressed his
support for the plan. He expressed some confusion about the
number of development"rights proposed. It was confirmed
that there were 18 lots proposed, which included a dwelling
on the rural preservation tract. Mr. Riley felt this was an
additional lot over the by -right development, which he
understood to be 17 lots. Staff confirmed that the number
should be the same as by -right development. Staff was
unable to confirm the accuracy of the 18 proposed lots, but
explained that the matter would be checked and if an error
was made, then only 17 lots will be approved. Mr. Keeler
was confident that Mr. Tarbell had performed the proper
analysis. He was under the impression, though he was not
certain, the extra lot had "been picked up from the land
under the right-of-way."
Mr.. Steve Clark, residing at the intersection of Rt. 696 and
Rt. 710, addressed the Commission. He expressed support for
the proposal but was concerned about the entrance road. He
noted that Rt. 710 was a dangerous road. He recalled that a
previous plan for the property had considered an entrance
next to the Moreland church which he felt would be
preferable. (Mr. Gloeckner noted that VDOT and the County
had asked that the entrance not be placed next to the church
and had suggested the current proposed location. He
explained that a "great deal of widening, deceleration lane
and alignment" is being required in order to get proper
sight distance.)
Mr. Gloeckner confirmed that the rural preservation tract
included the land next to the Moreland Baptist Church,
"under the VEPCO right-of-way."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
6W
9-22-92
WJ
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not a
condition should be added restricting the development to the
proper number of development rights. Mr. Blue questioned
whether this was necessary since staff has already stated
that the correct number will be verified and only that
number will be approved. (No additional condition was
proposed.)
Ms. Tawney asked the Commission to verify that with approval
of this proposal, there can be no further subdivision of
this property. Mr. Jenkins responded: "That's correct."
Mr. Blue added: "Unless the owner decided to vacate it and
try again." Mr. Jenkins added: "What we approve is only
good for so long a period of time and if it is not
developed, they could come back with something else. The
other thing is that the Rural Preservation Ordinance as it
currently exists, if at some point in time the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors decides that they want to
encourage more development, and they will change that
ordinance, then it can be changed, but at this point that's
an ordinance forever is the way that it goes into the
record. It's not something that the County has been in the
habit of vacillating on." Mr. Blue noted that the Board
could change any of the ordinances. Mr. Bowling confirmed:
"They can change the rules of the game." Ms. Huckle was
skeptical of this explanation. She asked: "For those that
are already done?" Mr. Bowling responded: "It's an
easement being given to the Recreational Facilities
Authority who are holding it for the benefit of the public."
Hs. Huckle asked: "What about the ones that are given to
the State?" Mr. Bowling responded: "The same thing holds
true for them." Mr. Blue concluded: "This is kind of
far-fetched. They can change any law. The whole government
can change. It's just not a likely possibility except that
it might be a likely possibility that the County Board of
Supervisors someday might change the 5 development
by -right." Mr. Jenkins concluded: "I agree with all that
but when we sit here and somebody asks you the question, 'Is
that going to be in perpetuity?' my answer is 'As far as I
know,' but the Board of Supervisors made the rule and they
can change the rule."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were any objections to granting
staff administrative approval of the final plats.
Mr. Fritz called attention to the following statement in the
staff report: "Consistent with past Planning Commission
policy, staff is not requesting administrative approval
without preliminary Health Department approval. The
applicant may request the Planning Commission to grant
administrative approval with the understanding that any
revisions to the lot layout to achieve adequate drainfield
area may warrant Planning Commission review of the final
plat. Should the Planning Commission choose to grant
6g
9-22-92
10
administrative approval of the final
the Commission clearly differentiate
applications or consider a new policy
plat, staff requests
this case from past
regarding this issue."
Mr. Gloeckner expressed no opposition to "bringing it back."
He noted however that he did not think administrative
approval would be setting a precedent because of the
numerous times that this property has been studied. He
stated: "We have drilled holes all over this property and
this will be because of a slightly different configuration
but it is still in very good soil."
It was noted that Health Deparment approval is addressed in
condition 1(f). Mr. Nitchmann felt that requiring
additional Commission review would just result in added
expense to the County and the developer.
Ms. Andersen asked: "What kind of language would be used to
make the differentiation?"
Mr. Fritz responded: "If you want to grant us
administrative approval all you need to do is add a
condition No. 2 which says 'Staff approval of final
subdivision plats.' Your discussions here,'if you grant
that condition, are the differentiation from past requests."
Mr. Blue asked about the difference in staff time and fees
for a Commission approval vs. staff approval. Mr. Keeler
explained that an administrative plat is $75 and a
Commission review is "several hundred." Mr. Keeler noted
that things other than just staff time were involved, e.g.
copying, report writing, etc., which are not required for
administrative approval.
Mr. Blue stated he had confidence in staff and he could see
no reason, "for this particular one," to bring it back.
Mr. Nitchmann moved that the South Fork Farms Phase III
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 road and
associated drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and associated drainage plans and calculations;
70
9-22-92
11
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance
and a 100' x 100' right turn and taper lane;
f. Health Department approval of primary and reserve
drainfields to be located on slopes less than 20%;
g. Water Resources Manager final approval of resource
protection area delineation;
h. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval
of a rural preservation easement;
i. Revise acreage note on the rural preservation tract
from 137.228 acres to 134.561 acres.
2. Staff approval of final subdivision plats.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. She noted: "I would like
to point out that we are making the differentiation based on
our comments and, particularly, those of Mr. Gloeckner."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Fee Schedule - There was a discussion regarding the new fee
schedule. Mr. Blue felt there should be some way to make
some provision "for lowering that cost for people who can't
afford to pay it." He cited as examples the Dunbar special
permit which had just been reviewed, and an upcoming request
from a small church. Mr. Keeler stated he had received some
complaints about the fees but he was uncertain as to how
differentiations could be made. Mr. Blue suggested there
might be some way to differentiate between commercial
applications and "individual" applications. Mr. Keeler felt
this would involve an applicant's being required, by the
Zoning Administrator, to sign an affidavit attesting to the
fact that they qualified for a reduced fee. Mr. Bowling and
Mr. Keeler stated they would look into this issue further.
Mr. Jenkins agreed that it was a concern. Ms. Huckle
interpreted that the primary concern was "non -moneymaking"
situations. Mr. Blue stated he was most concerned about
"People who are trying to make use of their land for their
own benefit and they are not going to profit from it.,, Ms.
Huckle noted that large developments take a lot of staff
time and the fees are probably justified in those cases.
Mr. Nitchmann stated that it all adds to the cost of
affordable housing. Mr. Keeler concluded: "You want us to
take a look at a reduced fee in cases where the applicant
(a) is not making a profit from his application (b) or is
not seeking any significant commercial gain from the nature
of the application. You'd like to see those reduced." Mr.
Blue confirmed those were his feelings.
I/
9-22-92
12
Ms. Andersen asked: "What about when large properties are
held by one owner? Are you going to maintain an
across-the-board even playing field for everybody?"
Mr. Blue responded: "My feeling is, the way to
differentiate it is... if they are going to sell lots and it
is a business then they ought to pay the established fee,
and I am making the assumption the fee was established
properly, based on the true costs. But rather than trying
to determine the net worth of the individual, I would rather
break it down as to whether or not the property owner is
going to give the lot to a family member, then he should be
on a reduced fee schedule too."
In family situations where an extra development right is
being sought, Ms. Huckle felt the full fee should apply.
Reduction of Costs - Mr. Blue suggested that copying costs
could be greatly reduced by the elimination of some of the
materials that are included with staff reports. He noted
particularly the soils report which is prepared by the Soil
Conservation Service. He felt a brief summary of this type
of report was all that was necessary. Mr.-Nitchmann agreed.
Ms. Huckle suggested that the Soil Conservationist might
condense his comments. Mr. Keeler indicated that staff
continues to work on streamlining the process.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:45 p.m.
DB