Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 19 1991 PC MinutesNOVEMBER 19, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 21, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr - Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Mr. Walter Johnson. Other officials present were: Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. JuanDiego Wade, Planner; 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. The minutes of November 7, 1991 were approved as amended by Mr. Johnson. CONSENT AGENDA Peacock Hill Section 4 Lots 25-28 Subdivision Plat - Proposal to divide 2.438 acres into 4 lots ranging in size from 0.9 acres to 0.47 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 29 (part), is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and is located on the west side of Rt. 708 approximately 0.5 miles north of I-64 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Access will be by private roads. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz briefly reviewed the item. Mr. Johnson asked why approval was required for two lots to be combined into one. Mr. Fritz explained that approval was required for the creation of all four lots, NOT for the combination of two of the lots. The original five lots had never received final approval. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-91-55 Charles Morris - Petition to locate a single wide mobile home on 17 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 36, Parcels 41 and 41B, is located on the northeast side of Rt. 608 approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of Rts. 645 and 608 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Staff was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-91-55 be indefinitely deferred. /7- 11-19-91 E SP-91-59 Mark R. Wilson - Petition to establish outdoor display and storage of modular buildings [30.6.3.2(b)] on 0.4752 acres zoned PD-SC, Planned Development -Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D2 is located on the west side of Riverbend Drive approximately 250 feet south of Rt. 250 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 3). Mr. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions including the addition of a fifth condition: "There shall be no more than eight sheds at any one time on this site.,, Mr. Johnson asked if this should be considered a by -right use (modular building sales). Referring to the "shielding", he noted that this is addressed in Section 25.2.1.1 (not 25A.2.1 as stated in the staff report). He asked staff to comment. Mr. Cilimberg explained that when the Entrance Corridor District was approved, one of the ordinance amendments was to allow outdoor storage displays by special permit in all districts. Thus the reason for the request for the special permit. He added: "A PD-SC incorporates provisions of the other commercial districts as it is an all encompassing plan for districts with shopping centers." He agreed that visual screening is addressed in 25.2.1.1. This use by special permit is addessed in Section 30.6.3.2(b). He concluded: "The reason that is applied in that way is that the EC Overlay District does not overlay every commercial district that exists on our zoning map." The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Wilson. He expressed no opposition to the suggested conditions of approval. He requested that the Commission allow him to "temporarily store the buildings" on the site until the Board of Supervisors hearing. He stated he would remove them within 5 days if the Board does not approve the permit. (It was determined that the Commission did not have the latitude to grant this request.) The applicant was advised that he should make this request to the Zoning Administrator. It was noted that the applicant would be leasing the property on 4-month automatically renewable intervals. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. PE 11-19-91 3 Mr. Grimm moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-91-59 for Mark R. Wilson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This permit shalll be valid for eighteen (18) months only. 2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3. No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance on Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive). 4. There shall be no occupancy of any shed. 5. There shall be no more than 8 sheds at any one time on this site. Discussion: Mr. Johnson noted that because the leases are in 4-month increments, perhaps the permit should be limited to the applicant only. Mr. Bowling stated: "You're zoning for use here ... and that has been approved by the ARB as to compliance with the applicable sections of the Ordinance." The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-89-64 Lois Stewart-Wiebe - Proposal to construct a bridge in the Doyles River floodplain to serve a private residence [30.3.5.2]. Property, described as Tax Map 15, parcel 16 consists of 16.51 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the east side of Rt. 810 approximately one mile north of Rt. 668. White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz noted that staff was making no recommendation in terms of a time limit. The special permit would be valid for two years. Mr. Fritz emphasized that the existing bridge is deteriorating, causing siltation in the stream, and is a hazard. It was determined the existing problem was inherited by the current owner who was unaware of the violation at the time of purchase. The County has been unable to locate the previous owner. /17 11-19-91 4 The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He stated the owners would have no objection to a one year time limit so as to allow construction during a low water period. It was noted that the County has been attempting to have this problem corrected for some time. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson stated he could support the request but he preferred a one-year time limit on the permit. Concern was expressed by Mr. Johnson about the possibility of the existing bridge washing out and creating downstream problems, etc. Mr. Fritz noted that the nearest crossing is 1400 feet downstream. He noted, however, that the pipes are steamship boilers, quite large and therefore potentially dangerous if they should break loose. Mr. Muncaster stated the boilers would not be used in the new bridge --they will be removed. Mr. Wilkerson wondered if the existing structure should be removed immediately. This issue was discussed at length by the Commission. Mr. Muncaster noted that this would cause added expense to the applicant because the contractor would have to go to the site twice, and thus they would like to avoid that if possible. Mr. Muncaster agreed that the boilers could be potentially dangerous if they break loose, but he noted that he felt this would happen only in a very severe storm. Mr. Fritz noted that the bridge is deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Jenkins did not think the deterioration of the bridge is adding to the possibility of it breaking loose because the size storm it would take to move it would have moved it when it was first installed. Mr. Fritz suggested the addition of the following condition: "Removal of the existing structure no later than November 19, 1992." (This wording was amended later in the meeting.) Mr. Johnson felt that the applicant's potential liability would be sufficient incentive to ensure that the existing crossing would be removed. He felt that placing a time limit on removal might not be desirable because the applicant would then be able to take that much time to remove it. e10 11-19-91 5 Mr. Bowling noted that the current stream crossing is illegal (a suit has been filed) and if it is not removed the County can take action to have it removed. Mr. Fritz stated that approval of this permit and construction of a new crossing would correct the violation. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-64 for Lois Stewart-Wiebe be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; 2. Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream; 3. Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to ensure compliance with Section 30.3; 4. Approval by the Water Resource Manager of a water quality imnpact assessment under the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance. 5. Removal of the existing structure no later than November 19, 1992. (NOTE: This condition was amended later in the meeting to read: Removal of existing structure within 60 days of Board of Supervisors' approval of special permit.) Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson wondered if condition 5 meant that the applicant would not have to remove the existing crossing for a year and how that would effect any possible legal action by the County. Mr. Bowling indicated he needed to research this question further but such a condition may give the applicant the argument that "he has a year to remove it.,, Mr. Bowling was unwilling to speculate on possible property damage. He added that if the Commission wanted the old bridge removed, it should make that requirement now. It was noted that the conditions suggested by staff did not require removal of the existing bridge. Mr. Fritz noted that the applicant's proposal states that it is the intent that the existing crossing be removed. (This is also noted in the Engineering Department's comments.) Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the request is to construct the new crossing in the same location as the old crossing which sugtgests that the old crossing will have to be removed. 11-19-91 N. Mr. Wilkerson felt a time limit for removal should be included. It was noted that the motion did contemplate removal of the existing bridge year. (condition 5) within one There was discussion about a shorter time limit. Mr. Wilkerson changed his motion for a No. 5 as follows: "Removal of existingastructure withamend int60n days of Board of Supervisors, approval of special permit.,, Mr. Jenkins agreed to the amendment to the motion. The motion for approval passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Six -Year Seconda F Road Plan staff report which included stafr.sBenish presented the list of road improvementded priority assisted by Mr. Jeff Echols (Virginia De4a,t9e,t14. He was Transportation). ginia Department of Commission comments: Johnson: Priority 10 (Commonwealth/Greenbrier) - He wondered about the future of Peyton Drive. explained that the Board had recently decided toCilivacatterg Peyton Drive and to remove a section of ComDial entrance to Greenbrier and to improveent thefsectithe on from Commonwealth Drive into ComDial. Mr. if that should be referenced in this Priority. M wondered P yM Cilimberg responded negatively. r. Johnson: Priority 17 (Meadowcreek Parkway) - He questioned why no funds were included for the Study of this He felt it was desirable to indicate some amount Ofofunds. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission had made that recommendatioProgramn BMrrCilimberg as a part of the Capital Possibility that the Meadowcreek Parkway ewill bed thattfuere ndeds a through the Secondary program but particulars are still indefinite. Johnson: Priority 18 (Georgetown He noted that $1,000,000 isrecommended efor cthe n to .743) He asked if that amount was for the entire projects Mr. Benish responded that the $1,000,000 was a "ballpark figure" for the entire project. Johnson: Priority 48 (Unpaved Road Rts. 250 787) ` that the description had changed significantly. as noted p that the complete original description replace thenewyed one--i.e. "from 250 to 1.72s Rt. 787". 1�2a 11-19-91 7 Rittenhouse: He asked about the sufficiency ratings for the 5 bridge projects. Mr. Echols explained that No. 7 (Moorman's River - sufficiency rating 17.2) is already under construction and the other four projects have sufficiency ratings below 20. No. 23 (Rt. 651) has the lowest rating (6). Other ratings are: No. 33 (Rt. 649/Profitt) rating 11.6; No. 34 (Rt. 640) rating 18.6; No. 34 (Rt. 641) rating 16.2. Mr. Rittenhouse: Priority 23 (Rt. 651 Bridge) He noted that the amount seemed small for a sufficiency rating of only 6. Mr. Echols explained that main factors in the rating determination are: (1) There is currently no other way to access the property on the opposite side of the bridge; and (2) A large traffic volume because of a swim club. (i.e. The actual bridge itself is not the total consideration in the low rating.) Other means of accessing the property are being explored. There was a discussion about the Profitt Bridge 33). Mr. Cilimberg had attended a meeting witProfitt (No, residents and it was determined that their main concern is that improvements to the bridge will invite increased/faster traffic on an already overtravelled dangerous road. They are interested in some way to get the fast traffic off Profitt Road altogether. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Fred Gercke was present to represent the Profitt Neighborhood Association. He agreed that the problem was more with the road than the bridge. The fear is that redesign or replacement of the bridge will exacerbate existing traffic problems on the road. There was no further public comment. Mr. Benish explained that the Commission needed to take action on the priority list by December 3rd. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Six -Year Secondary Road Priority List be recommended to the Board of Supervisors as presented by staff (See ATTACHMENT A). Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Echols explained that the County is asked to approve a priority list of projects and not the financing because that is up to the Virginia Department of Transportation. as 11-19-91 8 Mr. Benish noted that the numbers on VDOT's list may be different because of the way "should be in the same relativends ordere"coitted, but they Mr. Johnson stated: "For reasons stated at out last work session, I will oppose this. The reason that, the possible exception consideration of highwaof bridges, there is1no obvious lth y safety or emergency vehicle transit time. To me, any road plan which doesn't priority is fatally defective. Put those as a top comment, the funds that were estimatedafor nthe rcom n being 25% more than last year --I can't let that g year see every day in the go when I anticipated to be in theStatebudget less anext yend lessar money is year. But my main concern is the almost 100*alack aofthis identification and evaluation of highway safety and emergency vehicle transit time in the making up of this list." The motion for approval of the Priority with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissentiingsvote. Mr. Cilimberg addressed Mr.Johnson's that in the forumla that we have tried cto ork�out in th Criteria Based Rating System that we don't have It s true measurement for safety or emergency vehicle access. e a specific to point out --as I think it's been I want before we finalize this list Pointed out before -- that result from this and when we compare projects Based Rating System, werlooktatse ting with ety asthe ecCriteria various projects --any accident data that we have, anf the Particular problems that have been noted and comments from emergency response companies and the schoolbus personnel --to make sure that the priority makes sense from that regard. So it is incorporated into the list, but just not as an absolute measurement." There being no further business 8:35 p.m. , the meeting adjourned at DB