HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 16 90 PC MinutesJanuary 16, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, January 16, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith
Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil
Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Tim Michel; and Ms.
Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; and
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of January 4, 1990 were
approved as submitted.
Mr. Fritz made a brief statement about Route 250-64 Land Trust which
was scheduled to appear on the Consent Agenda for January 23rd.
SP-89-15 First Virginia Bank - Central - Request in accordance with
Section 24.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special
use permit to allow for a bank with drive-in window to be located on
1.4365 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as
Tax Map 32A, Parcel 02-1 and Tax Map 32, Parcel 32, is located in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 2914 and Rt. 649 (Proffit
Road). Rivanna Magisterial District.
rUED
First Virginia Bank Preliminary Site Plan (SDP-89-081) - Proposal to
construct a 3,034 square foot bank building on 1.4365 acres to be
served by 25 parking spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 32A,
Parcel 02-1, and Tax Map 32, Parcel 32 is located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 29N and Rt. 649 (Proffit Road).
Zoned HC, Highway Commercial.. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. He explained that the reports
for these two proposals were combined and, in fact, some of the conditions
of the special permit will regulate the site plan. Four separate
requests were included in these proposals: (1) A petition for a special
use permit for a drive -through window; (2) A preliminary site plan for
the bank; (3) Amendment to the subdivision plat for this property; and
(4) A waiver request for the site plan. The staff report identified two
main issues, both related to access: (1) The exit -only lane onto Proffitt
Road; and (2) The southern entrance accessing the existing fifty foot
access easement. A brief explanation of these two issues is as follows:
(1) Exit -only lane onto Proffitt Road:
"In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a subdivision plat
which included this property. The Commission, restricted the
site from additional access on Route 29 and provided for a
fifty foot joint access easement onto Proffitt Road. In the
past the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Planning
Staff have consistently recommended to potential applicants that
OIWY /
January 16, 1990
Page 2
no alteration to access would be supported. The applicant has
proposed a right -turn, exit -only lane on Proffitt Road.... This
access point is not consistent v ith prior approval. Staff
opinion is that in order to approve this access, the Commission
should determine that prior decision was incorrect or that
there has been a substantial change of circumstance favorable
to the request. ... staff opinion is that exit-only.configurations
have a tendency to not function properly and can present a safety
problem since left turns, both into and out of the site, are
physically possible. Therefore, staff has not supported such
proposals in the past.... Staff has additional concerns internal
to the site as a result of the exit. ... Therefore, if the
exit onto Proffitt Road is allowed, staff recommends that
internal to access to the undeveloped area be limited to the
rear of the site and the sixteen foot travelway be widened to
twenty-four feet to accommodate two-way traffic. "
(2) The southern entrance accessing the fifty -foot joint access
easement:
"(Staf€'s) concern is the limited amount of road to safely prepare
for a left turn into the site after making a turn off Proffitt
Road onto the easement road. ... Additionally, (because the entrance
is only thirty feet from Proffitt Road,) there is a limited a-nount
of stacking if a vehicle is forced to wait to make a left into
the site. ... Staff opinion is the safety concern can be
minimized by installing a raised median from Proffitt Road past
the entrance with adequate turning radii to accommodate truck
traffic. Staff opinion is the fifty foot median would prohibit
the 'slipping' and there would be no stacking as it would provide
continuous movement on the easement road."
The staff report concluded:
"Staff has reviewed the special use permit in accordance with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and determined that a bank
with a drive -through window would be in character with other.uses ki
the area. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Super-trisors
choose to grant the exit lane on Proffitt Road, staff recommends
approval of this special use permit and the preliminary site plan
subject to ... conditions." .
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roy Wylie. His comments included the
following:
--The applicant disagreed with the traffic figures quoted in the
staff report. He stated that actual counts taken at the applicant's
other branches showed approximately 180 transactions through the
drive-in windows and 180 transactions in the lobby (vs. 954 vtpd
quoted in the staff report).
--He disagreed that access to the property is restricted by prior
action of the Planning Commission. He distributed copies of the 1981
plat on which staff based their comments. He noted that the plat did
not restrict access to Proffitt Road. He also distributed a copy of
a 1978 plat, which subdivided the subject property, and noted that
January 16, 1990 Page 3
it made no reference to access to -either Rt. 29 or Proffitt Road. He
felt there had been no prior restriction against access by the Commission,
but rather only a recommendation.
--The Site Review Committee had not required that this access point
be closed, but rather had suggested that the applicant consider several
possibilities for dealing with their concerns. The applicant feels the
concerns have been addressed by making the access in question an "exit
right only" onto Proffitt Road.
--The applicant is willing to consider further modifications to prohibit
this access as an entrance.
--The applicant feels that it is essential to the smooth flow of
traffic within the site that the Proffitt Road access be allowed as an
exit -right -only. (It helps to avoid mixing vehicular and pedestrian traffic.)
--VDOT has indicated it will support this exit.
--The Site Review Committee had not required the closing of the
southern access to the undeveloped, western portion of the property
and widening the rear travelway to twenty-four feet. (He noted this
issue had only come up in the last couple of weeks.)
--The applicant feels closing the southern access to the undeveloped
portion of the property and leaving the exit onto Proffitt Road open would
decrease the safety and convenience of the internal traffic.
--He asked that the Commission approve the site plan without the
revisions recommended by staff.
--He stated: "We would be agreeable to some further revisions to that
exit onto Proffitt Road, but the three particular recommendations that
are discussed by staff should not be imposed on the applicant. Staff
recommendations are based on clearly erroneous data about the traffic
generated by this type of business. Staff recommendations are unnecessary
and unreasonable given the actual traffic volume."
--The property is properly zoned for the proposed use and the Compre-
hensive Plan recommends this type of use for the property.
Mr. Keeler stated that this proposal was a "dense, congested development
of a portion of this property to keep a portion of it open." He added
that using the entire property would solve a lot of the problems.
Regarding the raised median at Rt. 649, he stated staff had pursued that
with the Highway Department and "it's just not possible; they have no
standard to allow a raised median."
Mr. Wylie pointed out that even if the entire site were used, there would
still be the issue of the exit onto Proffitt Road. Regarding the issue
of the median, Mr. Wylie stated the applicant would be willing to pursue
that possibility if it were the Commission's desire.
There was a discussion about anticipated traffic patterns associated
with the Proffit Road access.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the site in the corner would at some time have
access to Proffitt Road. Mr. Tarbell responded: "In the conditions
we've outlined here --we'd prefer that the access to that site be over
the easement on the right side of the street and then through the back
of the bank with the 24-foot travelway to accommodate two-way travel."
Q 1'7A
January 16, 1990 Page 4
?1r. Jenkins stated he could not support more than one entrance.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols representing the
Highway Department. His comments included the following:
---There are currently no plans for improvements to Proffitt Road.
--A right -turn -exit -only with full frontage improvements would
result in three lanes on Proffitt Road, which would allow for more
turning movements.
--There is no standard for a two-lane divided highway on Rt. 649.
--VDOT's recommendations are based on the belief that getting an
additional lane on Rt. 649 is offset by an additional exit -only onto
Rt. 649.
--"As for the entrance internally... we had recommended that there be
a divided median on that joint entrance with Reliant Trucks. ... This
separates the traffic and avoids that (stacking) conflict closest to Rt.
649." Regarding the length of such a :median, he stated that it should
be long enough so that vehicles could not enter the first internal
entrance. He confirmed his department supported a 50-foot length.
Mr. Grimm stated he could envision a lot o rapr3c problems between
the two parts of the property.
Mr. Keeler again explained staff's concerns about internal traffic
patterns. He stated it has been found that signage doesn't work
as intended.
Referring to the entrance accessing the fifty -foot joint access easement,
Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Echols: "If this were a state road intersection, hoer
far back from the pavement would you have to,go to allow an entrance?"
Mr. Echols responded: "You generally try to get 50 to 100 feet...."
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question as to how traffic movements
might be controlled, i.e. is there a way to prevent traffic from entering
an exit -only access, Mr. Keeler indicated there was no effective way
to control this.
Mr. Wylie pointed out that the benefits of an additional lane, as mentioned
by Mr. Echols, would be meaningless without the exit onto Proffitt Road.
Mr. Grimm indicated he could not support an exit -only access because of
the problem: with control.
Mr. Rittenhouse commented on the discrepancy in traffic figures. He
felt the Commission had to rely on published data unless that data has
been shown to be consistently wrong. He stated it would be difficult
to accept a set of data based purely on one applicant's experience.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he did not think the figures quoted in the staff
report were realistic either.
January 16, 1990
Page 5
Mr. Keeler pointed out that even the applicant's figures resulted in a
total of 720 vtpd, i.e. 180 for the lobby + 180 for the drive -through
360 x 2 (both in and out for each vehicle) = 720.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if a deferral would allow the applicant time to
consider other possibilities in relation to the exit issue. Mr. Keeler
responded by describing possible situations which would occur with
other options. He did not answer Mr. Wilkerson's question directly.
There was some confusion on the part of the Commission as to which
request to act on first --the special permit or the site plan.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that in the event the special permit
was recommended for approval, it should be determined that the
applicant is in agreement with the conditions attached to it, because
if that is not the case the request should be denied.
There was also some confusion as to which of the conditions of approval
were related to the special permit and which to the site plan. Mr.
Keeler explained that the two items had been "lumped" together because
a drive-in window directly effects the site layout and the traffic
generation. He felt the plan was inseparable from the special use
permit in this case.
Mr. Bowling explained that if the Commission did not wish to approve
the exit -only as part of the special permit for the drive -through
window then the special permit should not be approved.
There was further confusion on the part of the Commission as to how the
two requests related to each other and how to act on the requests based
on this relationship.
Mr. Rittenhouse finally summarized: "We have to decide whether we
recommend approval or denial of the special permit for a drive -through
window on this site as configured and submitted by the applicant."
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-15 for First Virginia Bank be denied.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle stated she felt the applicant was trying to crowd too much
onto too small a site.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
There followed some confusion as to whether or not, as a result of the
denial of the special permit, action was required on the proposed
site plan. Mr. Keeler noted that approval could not be granted for a
site plan which included a use that was not approved (i.e. the drive -through
window.) Mr. Tarbell asked for clarification as to what would happen to
the site plan in the event the Board should approve the special permit.
January 16, 1990
Page 6
Mr. Wylie asked that the Commission take action on the site plan. He
explained: "The Ordinance provides for an appeal to the Board of Supervisors
and we'd rather have that.right to go before the Board of Supervisors than
to be left in a situation where the Planning Commission hasn't taken any
action at all on the site plan."
Mr. Keeler again pointed out that the Gommission could not approve a
site plan for a use that was not permitted. He added, however, that
in the event the Board should approve the special permit, the staff
could still approve the final site plan administratively unless the
Commission desired to review the site plan. (Mr. Rittenhouse stated
that if the Board chose to approve the special permit he was in favor
of the -Commission reviewing the preliminary site plan again.)
Mr. Wylie again stated that if the Commission did not take action on
the site plan the applicant would have no basis for appeal.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the Commission was required to take action.
Mr. Bowling responded that he was uncertain, but "if the applicant
has requested it, how can it hurt not to go ahead and deny the plan."
Mr. Rittenhouse called for a motion on the preliminary site plan.
Mr. Michel moved that the First Virginia Bank Preliminary Site Plan be
denied.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler asked the Commission to comment on the other aspects of the
proposal --the amendment to the subdivision plat and the site plan
waiver.
The Commission expressed no problems with the request for a site plan
waiver.
Mr. Keeler noted that the Board could grant the waiver if they choose
to approve the site plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "I think it's contemplated by our action that
we are disapproving an amendment to the subdivision plat."
SP-89-92 Percy Maupin - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.10
of the zoning Ordinance to locate a permaanent mobile home on property
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax map 100, Parcel
7C is located on the north side of Rt. 631 approximately one mile north
of Rt. 71.2, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
?:r. Fritz presented the staff report. The report summarized: "The
last representation of County staff by the applicant was that the mobile
home -v.-as to be used for storage. The Zoning Ordinance has no provision
for this intended usage and therefore this petition should be dismissed
accordingly."
January 16, 1990
Page 7
The staff report stated that the applicant had not responded to
several notifications by the Zoning Department nor had the applicant
had any contact with staff regarding this request.
Mr. Fritz noted that the mobile home, as currently sited, did not meet
setback requirements, but there does appear to be room on the site
to relocate the mobile home so that it could comply.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Percy Maupin addressed the Commission. He indicated he had changed
his request and was now proposing to use the mobile home as a dwelling
for himself while he renovated the existing dwelling on the property.
He was requesting a permanent permit. He indicated he could not
relocate the mobile home because of problems with the location of
the drainfield, i.e. changing the location would require pumping the
sewage. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question as to how long
Mr. Maupin anticipated it would be before he would be ready to
occupy the renovated dwelling, he stated "three years at the max."
He also noted that he would have to remove several trees if he were
to relocate the unit.
There was a brief discussion about setback requirements for a permanent
mobile home vs. a temporary one. Mr. Fritz explained that a permanent
unit was required to conform to the setbacks of the district in which it
is located. Ms. Patterson, the Zoning Administrator, added that
Section 5.7 of the Ordinance states that setbacks for a temporary unit
are determined by the Zoning Administrator and are based on separation
requirements for separations between buildings and property lines.
Ms. Patterson explained that the applicant's previous temporary permit
had been issued by Mr. Burgess (former Zoning Administrator) and the
setbacks were acceptable at that time. However, she stated that
permit had been revoked because the applicant had not begun construction
of a permanent dwelling which was the purpose of the permit. She
explained that the applicant had requested re -issuance of a temporary
permit, but she "was not comfortable with that," thus the request for
a permanent permit. She stated she would like to see some effort on
the part of the applicant toward the construction of the permanent
dwelling. She added: "It didn't seem practical that his time periods
could fit the time periods that the Ordinance speaks to." Ms.
Patterson stated she was not willing to grant a temporary permit
at this time based on several concerns voiced by adjoining property
owners.
Ms. Andersen asked if the applicant had been aware of the terms of
the permit at the time it was issued. Ms. Patterson explained that
applicant's are asked to read the pertinent sections.of the Ordinance
and then sign a statement acknowledging that they have read and
understood the terms of the permit. She added, however, that often
applicants do not understand the time commitment. She stressed
that the applicant had been contacted several times before the
permit was revoked.
-1"117
January 16, 1990
Page 8
Mr. Maupin indicated he could begin construction on the new
dwelling within 10 days of receipt of the special permit.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Woodrow Campbell, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. He expressed his opposition to the proposal. He
noted that the proposed septic system was dangerously close to
his well. He was suspicious about Mr. Maupin's intent to to ever
construct a conventional dwelling. He indicated that several
other neighbors were against the request also. He did not feel
the structure Mr. Maupin was planning to renovate was
salvageable. He offered to help Mr. Maupin build a new
structure.
Mr. Jeff Conway, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. He
asked that the existing trailer be removed and future permits be
denied based on the history of past violations.
Mr. Maupin disagreed that the house could not be renovated. He
also felt the septic tank and drainfield would not interfere with
Mr. Campbell's well.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Fritz to comment on the setbacks for
the existing mobile home. Mr. Fritz felt that currently the site
conformed only to side setback requirements. He also stated the
unit could be moved to the north end of the property, opposite to
what the applicant has proposed, where setback requirements could
be met. He also pointed out that it is staff opinion that a
special permit cannot be approved for a location which cannot
meet setback requirements without a variance and the applicant
has already been denied a variance by the Zoning Administrator.
It was determined neither the Planning Staff nor the Zoning Staff
had had any contact with the applicant before this meeting, i.e.
the applicant had not responded to any notifications.
Mr. Wilkerson noted the adjoining property owners' concerns, the
applicant's history of non -cooperation in responding to notices,
and the Zoning Administrator's reluctance to issue another
temporary permit, and moved that SP 89-92 for Percy Maupin be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously
January 16, 1990
Page 9
ZMA-88-19 Sid,} Robertson Petition in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 2.33 acres from C-1,
Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial with proffers.
AND
SP-QE-79 Bill Robertson - Petition for the issuance of a special
use permit to allow for a contractors office and equipment
storage yard (Section 24.2.2(8)) to be located on property zoned
HC, Highway Commercial. Property for both petitions is located
on the west side of Berkmar Drive approximately 1,000 feet from
its intersection with U.S. Route 29 in Charlottesville
Magisterial District. The property is described as Tax Map 61M.
Section 12 Parcel 1M, 1K and Tax Map 61U, Section 1, Parcel 8A.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff has reviewedthe specialuse permit petition for compliance
with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is of the
opinion that the special use permit and rezoning are in harmony
with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance.... Therefore,
staff recommends approval of ZMA-88-19 subject to the applicant's
proffers ... and approval of SP-89-79 subject to conditions."
Mr. Fritz also noted that the applicant has been notified by the
Zoning Administrator that a zoning violation exists on the
property.
The applicant was represented first by Mr. Rob Jackson. He stated
he felt the proffers attached to the rezoning would essentially
result in the use remaining a C-1 type of use, i.e.
office/retail/service use, which is consistent with the other
uses on Berkmar Drive. He noted the applicant had only one
objection to the suggested conditions of approval of the special
permit, that being that the applicant would prefer that the issue
of access be addressed at the time of site plan approval rather
than being made a condition of the special permit. He asked
particularly that the closing of the southern -most access, which
is shared with an adjoining property owner, not be required as a
condition of the special permit. He suggested that the adjacent
owner may have a "perscriptive right" to use that access. He
noted the access issue was the only point of contention with the
staff report.
Mr. Bill Robertson, the applicant, also addressed the Commission.
He explained the history of the property and pointed out that
when the business was established it was in compliance with the
zoning laws at that time. He stated the zoning had been changed
from the original industrial zoning to C-1 later on which meant
the use was no longer in compliance. He stated he had met with
the Berkeley homeowners and had found no opposition to the
.a 79
January 16, 1990 Page 10
request_ In relation to traffic generation, he stated his
business did not attract walk-in trade and therefore generated
very little traffic. He explained the traffic patterns for
tractor -trailer deliveries. He, too, asked that the access issue
be addressed at the time of the site plan and not made a
condition of this special permit.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Robertson described how
tractor -trailer trucks usually approach the site. He confirmed
that these trucks exit the lower access so that they do not have
to make a backing manuver.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission not attempt to solve the
access issue at this time. He stated that staff has never
recommended waiver of minimum sight distance requirement. He
explained that Mr. Robertson was correct, i.e. that the Highway
Department had originally approved this entrance; however, the
speed limit on the road has since changed thus the sight distance
require.ulenL has changed also. He suggested two ways of dealing
with this issue at this time were to: (1) Leave condition ►do. 1
as written; or (2) Delete condition No. 1 and substitute
"Planning Commission approval of the site plan." He also
suggested that six months in No. 2 be changed to eight months.
Mr. Michel expressed some concern about articles being stored in
the storage yard which might be an "attractive nuisance" to
children. Mr. Robertson explained that an electrical
contractor's storage yard did not store those types of items. He
added that in the 20 years of the business' existence there had
never been any accidents or vandalism on the site. He also noted
that he was not aware of any traffic accidents on the street.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA 88-19 be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following proffers of the
applicant:
1. There is a sight easement requirement across the front of Lot
12-1M. We propose to grade and smooth this area. Grass will be
planted and will be maintained and mowed. We propose to plant
shrubbery and landscape a strip of ground along the frontage of
the property up to this sight easement. The landscaping and
plantings would be at least equal to, and compatible with the
present Robertson Electric and Berkmar Park landscaping.
2. We offer to plant a twenty foot wide staggered row of
evergreens, spaced fifteen feet on center.
3. We propose to have a minimum tree height of six to eight feet
at planting, thus exceeding the minimum requirements.
��n
January 16, 1990 Page 11
�L
4. If the adjacent Berkley property owners agree, we propose
this planting to be on the rear of their property. This is the
higher ground and would make the screening more effective from
the Berkley owners' point of view.
5. If the adjacent Berkley owners do not agree to the planting
on their property, we then offer to place the plantings on our
own property.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
-----------------
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-79 for Bill Robertson be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of the site plan
2. Required site improvements shall be completed within 8 months
of the issuance of the special use permit. This permit shall
expire 8 months from the date of approval if required
improvements have not been completed.
3. Staff approval of sight easement plats.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SUB-UU-228 Peacock Hill Section 7 - Proposal to create fourteen
lots from 16.11 acres with an average lot size of 1.02 acres.
The proposal is to be served by internal private roads. Located
on the east side of Route 708 just north of Interstate 64 in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The property is zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development with ZMA-85-22 and is described as Tax
Map 73B, Parcel 29.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Smith. He noted that
the applicant has agreed to withhold lot 7B until such time as
the master plan is completed.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before the
Commission.
90/
January 16. 1990 Page 12
Mr. Wilkerson moved that Peacock Hill Section 7A Preliminary Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat willnot be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control
permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right -of --way improvements and issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
e. Department of Engineering approval of all required
on -site and off --site drainage easement plats;
f. Staff approval of documents adding Future Common Ground
shown on the plan to existing Common Ground agreements_
2. Administrative approval of the final plat
Mr Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Dun1Qra Phase T Final Plat Extension Request - Mr. Tarbell
explained that the applicant was requesting an 18-month extension
of the final plat (set to expire January 28,1990). The staff
report stated. "Staff opinion is a three month extension due to
weather may be reasonable if the Planning Commission is aware
that granting it may obligate the Commission to approve similar
requests for other projects." The report also presented three
possible options for dealing with this request: (1) The
applicant could bond improvements and record the plat prior to
expiration, as provided by the Subdivision Ordinance; (2) A
three --month extension provided the plat is approved
administratively under current zoning and subdivision ordinance
provisions; or (3) An 18--month extension could be granted as
requested by the applicant in which case the Commission "should
be prepared to grant such extensions 'across the board' without
apparent just cause or in some fashion distinguish this case from
other requests." The staff report explained that if option three
were chosen "staff would again recommend approval of the plat
administratively under current zoning and subdivision ordinance
provisions."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Larry MacElwain. He
explained the history of the property. He stressed that this
owner had experienced delays due to the fact that the plats were
not delivered as had been promised by a previous owner. He
explained several other difficulties which the owner has
�417
r,
Janaury 16, 1990 Page 13
experienced since acquiring the property. He noted the applicant
would prefer the third action described in the staff report. He
felt the following factors made this a unique situation: (1)
Change in ownership; (2) The substantial progress which has been
made in construction since this owner acquired the property and
construction has been on -going; (3) The existence of waterfront
property in the project; and (4) The size of the project. He
expressed concern that lots might be lost if the review were to
be made under current ordinances which would result in a loss of
aesthetic appeal because of less funds. He indicated bonding was
not a desirable option because of monetary considerations, i.e.
all the roads would have to be completed now long before there
are lots on the roads ready to be built on. He asked that the
applicant not be penalized for trying to save this project. He
felt the four factors he listed presented a "hardship" situation.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Keeler noted that not all the information presented by the
applicant had been included in the "argument" reviewed by staff.
He summarized that the applicant was not in agreement with any of
the three alternatives listed by staff but rather were asking for
an 18-month extension without staff review under current
ordinance requirements. He stressed that both staff's options 2
and 3 anticipate staff review of the plat under the current
ordinance. He added that the option suggested by the applicant
would "clearly defeat the whole idea of expiration dates."
Ms. Roxene Hill, owner of the development, addressed the
Commission. She stressed that the applicant has always cooperated
with the County. She noted, particularly, that the applicant has
foregone developing lots at the front of the project based on an
agreement with the Planning Department related to the Meadowcreek
Parkway. She also stresaad that she felt this was a unique
situation.
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about the issue of precedent. He
asked Mr. Bowling to comment on whether or not this request
situation is truly unique. Mr. Bowling responded that that was a
determination for the Commission to make. He added, however,
that he felt staff had outlined several unique factors in option
No. 3 and the applicant had indicated agreement with No. 3.
Mr. Keeler interjected that that was not correct. He stated the
applicant had indicated they do not wish to comply with the
current ordinance and are in effect suggesting a fourth option,
i.e, an 18-month extension under the original approval without
having to comply with current requirements. (Mr. MacBlwain
confirmed that was accurate.)
.-IA-4
January 16, 1990 Page 14
Mr. Rittenhouse noted he was very sensitive to the issue of
precedent though he did not have any problems with an extension
per se. He felt a remedy did exist, i.e. bonding. He indicated
he was not in favor of a blanket extension without a new review
by staff.
Mr. Tarbell pointed out that the provision of most concern to
staff is related to the building site. Referring to Ms. Hill's
earlier statement, he stated that "it is not a foregone
conclusion that they are going to lose lots."
Mr. Michel stated he had not yet been convinced of the uniqueness
of the situation which would allow him to support the extension
as requested by the applicant.
Mr. Keeler stated: "I think that (option) No. 3, as written by
staff, ensures that the project is reviewed under current
Ordinance provisions which would happen if the plat
expired. —The difference between No. 3 and a new approval would
be the time involved coming before the Planning Commission and
notifying adjoining property owners.... Basically 3 is saying
staff re -approval under current Ordinance provisions.... The
notion of 3 is that it satisfies the idea of expiration in that
the project is reviewed under current Ordinance provisions, but
it doesn't require the applicant to come back before the
Commission again.'
It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant's
fourth option was not acceptable.
Mr. MacElwain stated that if No. 3 was what was supportable by
the Commission, "we will try to work within the confines of 3,
but options 1 and 2 are an absolute hardship and would result in
incredible damage to the project."
Mr. Michel stated he was in favor of bonding (option 1)-
Mr. Jenkins stated he had no problems with option 3 since it
would provide for review under the current ordinance.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Dunlora Phase I Final Plat be extended
for 18 months.
Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted that Mr. Jenkins motion was based on
a belief that the County would lose nothing with option 3 but
that the applicant has something to gain in time frame.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowling asked the Commission to ascertain if option 3 was
acceptable to the applicant-
-7Qd
r,
January 16, 1990 Page 15
Mr. MacElwain responded that he was not "practically oriented
enough to know what the implications of all that are .... It's
certainly better than anything else."
Mr. Michel noted that he interpreted Mr. MacElwain's statements
as a "yes."
Mr. Keeler added that if option 3 was not acceptable to the
applicant they would have 10 days to post the bond.
After conferring briefly with Ms. Hill, Mr. MacElwain stated the
applicant was requesting that the Commission approve option 3.
Mr. Michel stated he was "nervous" about it but he would vote for
the motion. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed but noted that he felt he
could support the motion only because staff would have the
opportunity to review the plat in the same manner as if the plat
were to expire.
The previously stated motion for an 18-month extension was
unanimously approved.
Lake Reynovia - Requast for Borrow Area - Mr. Fritz explained
that the developer of Lake Reynovia was requesting approval of a
borrow area which was to be located in the general location of
the adjacent Mill Creek development. He explained that staff was
reluctant to approve a borrow area in that location in light of
Mill Creek homeowner opposition to the Lake Reynovia project.
He stated that staff has reviewed no plans for the borrow area.
He stated staff would work with the applicant to try to locate a
suitable location for the borrow area.
Mr. Steve Driver, representing the engineering firm of McKee -
Carson, engineers for the Lake Reynovia project, addressed the
Commission. He described the plans for the borrow area and
stated that by "lowering this area we can achieve two objectives:
(1) we can increase the privacy of the property owners in Mill
Creek; (2) we can eliminate all potential surface drainage onto
their property; and (3) we will be increasing the safety of the
roads by increasing sight distance."
Mr. Keeler stated he felt if the area proposed by the applicant
was to be considered, adjacent property owners should be notifed.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "I would say that I don't want to
preclude something that makes good sense from a design and
construction standpoint, but I don't think we're prepared to
offer any guidance on that, sight unseen, tonight. I'm hearing
what you're saying conceptually, but I don't see how we can offer
endorsement to something that we have not seen before us."
January 16, 1990
Page 16
It was the consensus of the Commission that no action be taken on
this request until the applicant had submitted a plan for staff s
review and adjacent property owners have been notified.
Mr. Jenkins suggested that this might be a means of getting the
Mill Creek people to withdraw their objections to the project.
He stated that if the applicant's description was accurate, he
would have a tendency to want to approve it.
Mr. Michel informed the Commission that this was his last meeting
as a Commissioner.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05
p.m �.
V. WayKA Cilimber, S cretary
DS