Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 17 90 PC MinutesJULY 17, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 17, 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; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Richard 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 July 3, 1990 were approved as submitted. Ms. Scala gave a brief preview of the Consent Agenda which would appear on the Julv 24 aaenda. Addition to Sugar Hollow A ricultural Forestal District - The proposed addition consists of approximately 698 acres located on the north side of Rt. 614 near Sugar Hollow Reservoir about three miles west of White Hall. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Ms. Huckle asked if any Best Management Practices are required on property within an ag/forestal district that is being used for forestry. Ms. Scala explained that BMP's are not required by the agricultural/forestal district but under the Land Use provisions there is a requirement for a forestal plan. She was uncertain whether a formal plan was required, prepared by a forester, or if the property owner could submit a plan There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle moved that the Addition to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-90-54 - Northside Baptist Church - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a church expansion [14.2.2(12)] on 3.33 acres j 75 July 17, 1990 Page 2 zoned R-2, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 62A1, Section F, Parcel 18 is located on the east side of Rio Road and is developed with the existing Northside Baptist Church in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. AND SDP-90-048 - Northside Baptist Church Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to locate an 840 square foot modular classroom building in Phase A and a 14,250 square foot addition in Phases B. and C on 3.7 acres zoned R-2, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 62A(l) Section F, Parcel 18, is located on the east side of Rio Road and currently developed with the 517 seat Northside Baptist Church in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval, subject to conditions, of both the special permit request and the site plan amendment proposal. Ms. Huckle asked if there was a time limit on the modular classroom. Mr. Tarbell explained that the applicant has stated that he will proceed as quickly as possible. Mr. Keeler added that this is covered in Section 5.8 of the Ordinance, Temporary, Non -Residential Mobile Homes, which have time limits of 18 months with some provisions for continuing. Mr. Johnson asked if condition 1(d)--Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plumbing fixture information for verification of adequate meter size for the proposed additions --would cover "whatever might be necessary for Health Department approval of a public building." He asked if there was any requirement that the Health Department approve the facilities in terms of accommodation of a large number of people. It was determined this would be a part of the building inspection. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Templeton, Pastor of the Church. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-54 Church be recommended to the Board approval subject to the following for Northside Baptist of Supervisors for conditions: a 7(o July 17, 1990 1. Approval of this special as endorsement of any future intensification of usage. Page 3 use permit shall not be deemed request for other expansions or 2. The enrollment of the preschool/day care facility remains limited to 60 children and any expansion requires special use permit approval. 3. The fixed -seating remains limited to 517 seats and any expansion requires special use permit approval. 4. Development in accord with submitted site plan initialled RET and dated 6/17/90. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson asked the applicant "to what extent the restriction to 60 children would impede" the church's progress. Mr. Templeton explained that the church operates another school in the City and the reason for this request is to handle the overflow from the other school, "so the 60 does not really impede us too much." In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Templeton stated that the church is currently renting the City property, with an option to purchase the property in 1991. He stated there were no plans to move the school to this new site because it was not large enough. He said with some certainty that the church would not lose the City property and had definite plans to exercise the option to purchase the property. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. The Chairman called for a motion on the Site Plan Amendment. Staff pointed out that the Board still needed to act on the request for the special permit before the site plan could be approved; therefore staff was asking for authorization to approve the site plan administratively once the Board has approved the use. Mr. Wilkerson moved that staff be granted administrative approval of the Northside Baptist Church Major Site Plan Amendment. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. '27 7 July 17, 1990 Page 4 SP-90-50 Donnie R. or Catherine Dunn - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a stream crossing in the floodplain of Buck Mountain creek r30.3.5.2.1] on 58 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Properties described as Tax Map 7, Parcels 37 and 38, are located on the west side of Route 601 approximately one mile south of Route 687 in the White Hall Magisterial district. This property is not within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Donnie Dunn. He asked to be relieved from the requirement for an erosion control permit since less than 10,000 square feet would be disturbed. He asked that such a permit be required only "if it becomes necessary." (In relation to this, Mr. Tarbell explained that even though less than 10,000 square feet would be disturbed, the activity will take place in the watershed amd therefore staff has recommended the erosion control permit.) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle stated she supported staff's recommendation for the erosion control permit. Mr. Wilkerson agreed and moved that SP-90-50 for Donnie R. and Catherine Dunn be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Crossing shall provide access to Tax Map 7, Parcels, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 40A and the existing road maintenance agreement between these parcels shall be amended to ensure adequate maintenance of the stream crossing. 2. Reinforced concrete pipes shall be utilized. 3. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. 4. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. a78 July 17, 1990 Page 5 Turner Mountain Preliminary Subdivision Plat SUB-89-227 - A rural preservation development to create seven (7) development lots averaging 5.06 acres and one preservation tract of 48.6 acres proposed to be served by a private road. The property, consisting of 84.13 total acres, is described as Tax Map 58, parcel 64E and is located off of Turner Mountain Road approximately 1/2 mile north of its intersection with Rt. 250 West. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Tarbell also made reference to a letter of objection which had been received from Mr. Robert Carter. Mr. Carter's greatest concern was the protection of the stream. Mr. Tarbell explained that the road plans show that a 72-inch culvert will be used to pipe the stream which should alleviate Mr. Carter's concerns. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if Turner Mt. Road would be eligible for inclusion in the State system once it is upgraded to State standards. Mr. Tarbell responded that it would still remain a private road. Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the 15mph design speed referred to in condition No. 2 [Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and calculations for the upgrading and extension of Turner Wood Road to meet a 15 mph design speed]. He wondered if this was a reasonable design speed given condition i(a) which will result in the upgrading of the road leading to Turner Wood Road. He wondered if the two would be compatible. Staff did not think there would be a problem given the fact that Turner Mt. Road is straight. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the 15 mph seemed very low. Mr. Johnson asked where the 15 mph recommendation had originated. (Mr. Tarbell explained it was a recommendation of the Department of Engineering.) Mr. Johnson also asked for an explanation of the geometrics of a 15 mph design speed. (Mr. Tarbell explained that it is defined in terms of number of lots served and sight distance required.) Mr. Keeler added that he believed the Engineering Department had compared the "stopping sight distance in our Ordinance to the stopping sight distance in VDOT's Subdivision Street Manual and worked backwards from there, and this stopping sight distance is approximately the same as a 15 mph design speed." a 79 July 17, 1990 Page 6 Ms. Huckle asked if the addition of lots had "triggered the widening of Turner Mt. Road." She asked how much wider it would have to be. Mr. Tarbell responded that he thought it would be 2 feet wider (one foot on either side). Mr. Tarbell also stated he dial not think any trees would have to be removed to obtain the additional width. Mr. Johnson questioned the compatability of placing a house in the middle of the preservation tract. Mr. Tarbell explained that is an option available to the applicant. He added that all the previous rural preservation tracts reviewed by the Commission also had dwellings on them. Mr. Keeler added that the easement applies to the entire tract, but two acres can be used for residential purposes with the remaining acreage to remain in a natural state. Ms. Huckle expressed an interest in the grade of the road. Mr. Tarbell explained that the road had been moved as much as possible so as not to encroach on the critical slopes. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's request, Mr. Tarbell pointed out the 130 foot filter strip along the stream. Mr. Johnson asked why it is 100 feet in some areas. Mr. Tarbell explained that it was related to forestry. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends 130 feet, but when it gets off the preservation tract the normal 100 foot setback for buildings and septic fields applies. Mr. Keeler added that the chart in the Comprehensive Plan had come directly from the State Forestry Best Management Practices Manual for commercial forestry activities. The applicant was represented by Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. He explained briefly how the proposal had evolved. He stated that Turner Mountain roads are private and are in better condition than most State roads. He explained that the low speed limits are for curves and sight distance considerations. He explained that one small active stream and one intermittent stream would be crossed. He stated that he had looked at the issue of wetlands (as mentioned in Mr. Carter's letter) and found that even if this were an official wetlands, it would be exempt from any federal or state reviews. Regarding water supply in the area, he stated that the area has wells which get 10 to 19 gpm so that is not a concern. He stated that the home sites had been positioned on the flatest portion of the property. He stated the position of the road follows the contours. In response to Ms. Huckle's earlier question about the grade of .280 July 17, 1990 Page 7 the road, he stated the grade ranged from 9% to St. He stated the conservation tract protects the streams, some severely steep slopes, and also provides a buffer between the homes on the top of the mountain and the homes that are at the foot. Regarding the 15 mph design speed, Mr. Gloeckner stated he felt it would promote safety. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. High Ewald, a resident of Turner Mountain, addressed the Commission. He stated he was a member of the Turner Mountain Road association and had recently discovered he was a member of the new Turner Wood Road association also. He asked if existing property owners will be required to participate in the upgrading of the road and if any trees would have to be removed. Mr. Gloeckner responded and explained that the road would stay within the 40-foot right-of-way which has already been cleared. Dr. Selden, the applicant, also responded to Mr. Ewald's questions. He stated he felt there were some small trees on the 40-foot easement which could "advantageously be removed," but what needed to be done could be done with the 40-foot right-of-way. Regarding the issue of road maintenance for both roads, Dr. Selden explained: "The concept was that any home built in Turner Mt. Wood would have to participate in the maintenance of Turner Mt. Road as well as the maintenance of Turner Wood Road." Dr. Selden, added, however, that any new construction would be his sole responsibility and "there would be no attempt to assess anybody to put in place the plan which Mr. Gloeckner's firm has formulated." Mr. Ewald also asked why staff was recommending approval of this proposal now, when it had been denied previously. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the previous request had been for more lots than would have been allowed by -right. Dr. Selden noted that the previous proposal had not actually been denied but rather had been withdrawn so that he and his wife could consider it further. Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant and his engineers had been very cooperative in revising the plan to reflect the provisions in the Ordinance. Dr. Selden added that he had been very pleased with the suggestions made by staff. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. July 17, 1990 Page s Mr. Rittenhouse questioned why there was no condition related to maintenance agreements. Mr. Tarbell explained that a maintenance agreement already exists which will require amendment. He added, however, that the Commission could add a condition if it so desired. It was decided the following condition would be added as 1(f): Staff approval of amended road maintenance agreement for Turner Wood Road. Mr. Wilkerson asked if staff felt this proposal was superior to what could be done by -right. Mr. Tarbell responded affirmatively. In response to Mr. Grimm's question about the building site on the preservation tract, Mr. Tarbell explained that the applicant will be asked to delineate a 2-acre building site, "in accordance with what you see here where they have septic field approval in this area." Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Turner Mountain Preliminary Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and calculations for the upgrading of Turner Mountain Road from U.S. Route 250 West to its intersection with proposed Turner Wood Road to meet the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements; b. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and calculations for the upgrading and extension of Turner Wood Road to meet a 15 mph design speed; C. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Department of Engineering approval of the joint stream crossing between lots 4 and 5 to include reinforced concrete piping. e. Staff approval of a preservation easement in accordance with the. Forestry Best Management Practices Manual for Water Quality Protection in Virginia and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority easement prepared for Buck Mountain reservoir. f. Staff approval of amended road maintenance agreement for Turner Wood Road. July 17, 1990 Page 9 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Grading on south side of Rt. 250W - Mr. Keeler stated he had checked into this matter (which Ms. Andersen had brought up at a previous meeting) and found that it was a homeowner relandscaping his property and installing a small pond. He stated that the Engineering Department had already placed a Stop Work Order on the project in order to get an Erosion Control Permit because there appeared to be some erosion problems. Soil Erosion Permits on Farms - Ms. Huckle asked if Soil Erosion Permits were required for farm activity. Mr. Keeler stated he was under the understanding that if erosion is occurring to the detriment of an adjoining property owner, then an Erosion Control Plan can be required which is not necessarily the same thing as a grading permit. Me. Huckle asked if any consideration is given to the fact that the property being degraded may be the reservoir. Mr. Keeler stated it was his understanding that whenever Mr. Shaw is aware of any problems, he will require an Erosion Control Permit. Bonding of Traffic Light at Insection of Rio Road and Hillsdale Drive - Mr. Johnson raised the issue of the Board possibly having received more information on this issue than had the Commission. He stated he was under the impression that the Board would not consider new information which the Commission had not had a chance to comment on. Staff was not aware of the information to which Mr. Johnson referred, but stated it could be a different light than the one which the Commission had acted upon. Mr. Johnson brought up the issue of the University representative who is supposed to be a non -voting member of the Commission. He asked why this person did not attend meetings. Staff explained that the University member receives copies of agendas and is invited to attend meetings. aa3 July 17, 1990 NEW BUSINESS Page 10 Briarwood - (This item was not on the agenda. Mr. Tarbell explained that Mr. Wood had asked him to bring this matter to the Commission just minutes before the start of the meeting, therefore no staff report was available.) Mr. Tarbell explained that Mr. Wood had submitted a subdivision plat for the commercial area of Briarwood (Tax Map 32G, Parcel 1), 28 acres, along Rt. 29 from the river to Austin Drive with 4,600 feet of road frontage on Rt. 29. He explained that because this is an urban area plat staff cannot approve it administratively. Mr. Tarbell explained the applicant's request as follows: "You have a plat which Mr. Wood has told us although it's a subdivision plat, it's essentially for his financing purposes and he has no intent to develop it at this time. Our problem with reviewing it is that in the past there has been a site plan on portions of Austin Drive just below Briarwood Drive which is not built and there is a lot of discussion as to where access will be restricted to and the final conclusion for that review was there was only one access on Rt. 29 and the other access is to be either between the parcels or on Austin and Briarwood. I sent this to VDOT and said 'Give us any comments you can --this is the situation here for entrances on 29.' They were struggling with what to review because you have 4,600 feet of road frontage and unless entrances are staked and specific locations are decided at this time they don't have anything to approve, disapprove, recommend or whatever. So what we've suggested is that a note be placed on this plat stating access is restricted to Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive and to Camelot Drive unless access to Rt. 29 is approved by the Planning Commission at the time of site plan review." He went on to explain that staff was recommending the addition of a 6th note on the plat: "This commercial area (28 acres) constitutes one contiguous parcel, sections of which shall not be sold off separately." Mr. Tarbell explained that the applicant, Mr. Wood, has expressed his objection to a note restricting access to those three streets mentioned because he feels the Commission will have that discretion at the time of site plan review and adding such a note now could cause problems. He concluded that staff was seeking Commission authorization for administrative approval of this request. 281 July 17, 1990 Page 11 Mr. Keeler added: "We talked about adding a third note when Mr. Wood was proposing four or five separate parcels of land and we didn't want a situation where parcels could be sold ... with no way of getting easements back and forth. So that was a situation where we recommended a third note. With the sixth note on there, that this is, in fact, one tract of land, the whole tract of land is susceptible to your review at the time of subdivision or site plan review. So with the strip being one tract of land and not being able to sell it separately, that the sixth note has practically the same effect as the third note. Having the third note on there would notify any future owner that that would be our intent --to limit the access. I don't see any material difference in terms of your ability to control access in the future if the third note is deleted provided provided No. 6 remains on there." (Mr. Bowling confirmed his agreement with Mr. Keeler's explanation.) (NOTE: Though Mr. Keeler referred to the "third" note, it was determined that the note to which he was referring was actually the fourth note.) This issue was discussed at length and there was a tremendous amount of confusion as to what the applicant was actually requesting and what the Commission was being asked to approve. Mr. Tarbell explained that Section 18.13 requires that any area which is determined to be in the growth area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan requires Commission review of the plat. Therefore, staff was asking the Commission for authorization to approve the plat administratively. Mr. Tarbell also asked for the Commission's determination as to whether or not to include both notes on the plat. Mr. Tarbell explained that if granted administrative approval, staff's next step would be to have Mr. Wood's surveyor add these notes to the plat and once that is done staff can sign the plat which will result in the commercial area being one parcel and the remainder of the residential area will be another parcel. Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted that the applicant's request was for a subdivision. Mr. Tarbell again stated staff was recommending the addition of the following notes: --Access is restricted to Austin Drive, Drive, Camelot Drive unless access to 29 is Planning Commission at the time of site plan Briarwood approved by the review. July 17, 1990 Page 12 --(A reference to Briarwood already being dedicated.) --This commercial area constitutes one contiguous parcel the sections of which shall not be sold separately. Mr. Wilkerson asked about notification to adjacent property owners. Mr. Tarbell explained that staff felt there was nothing to be gained, no public interest to be served, by a full review. Mr. Keeler explained that the Commission had, sometime ago, authorized staff to approve "financing plats in growth areas ... in any situation which did not make a material difference as to the development." He added: "In creating this parcel, with the notes on there, it doesn't really do anything." Mr. Tarbell explained that C-1 zoning has existed on the property for some time as part of the Briarwood PRD, but the zoning line is not defined by parcel line and that is what Mr. Wood is trying to do at this time, i.e. he never "carved out" the commercial zoning from the Biarwood tract. Mr. Tarbell again explained that "Mr. Wood does not want to add the statement that access is restricted to Austin, Briarwood and Camelot unless access to 29 is approved by the Planning Commission at the time of site review ... he feels that he is already restricted and he doesn't want the note being on there." Mr. Keeler added: "Someone could argue against him that you accepted that note and put it to record and that sort of thing. What we're saying is that that note was important when he was proposing four or five tracts, but he is only proposing one now and you'll have the right --whether or not that note is on the tract will not encumber your review as to access to 29 because what note No. 6 says is that none of that property can be sold separately --it would have to be sold as 28 acres." Ms. Huckle asked: "If it's not important, why does he want it left off?" Mr. Keeler responded: "He doesn't want it to appear as though he has accepted this restriction." Mr. Keeler added the following regarding Note No. 6: "Rich, you said it was one contiguous 28 acres and it's not --it's divided by dedicated rights -of -way but what the effect of 1296 July 17, 1990 Page 13 that Note 6 says --that doesn't count --you can't sell this separately. If you want to sell it separately you'll have to come back and get further subdivision approval of it or you can get the Planning Commission to remove that note or whatever." Mr. Keeler stated that unless the County Attorney disagreed, staff would "drop Note No. 4" related to restricting access. Ms. Huckle was very uncomfortable with being asked to act on a request with no advance notice given the Commission. She suggested that a deferral might be in order to allow time for a staff report to be prepared. Mr. Johnson agreed and noted that the Commission had very recently adopted a policy which stated that the Commission would not act on any request which staff had not had time to review and offer comment on. Mr. Johnson moved that action on this request be deferred to July 24 until the Commission has had time to review the request in writing. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: There was a discussion as to whether or not a deferral would accomplish anything. Staff_ indicated there was really nothing further they could write in a report. Mr. Tarbell summarized: "It's clear in the minutes that the initial thinking of the Commission is that they would like the internal access and Mr. Bowling has stated that Note 6 pretty much covers that intent and that it is one parcel and will be reviewed at the time of site plan review." Ms. Huckle felt it would not hurt to have both note 4 and 6 on the plat for the benefit of potential buyers. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood gave some history of the development and explained that he was making the request for financing purposes, i.e. he could not "deliver the financing until there is a plated piece of property." It was later determined Mr. Wood needed to use this portion of the property as collateral and did not want to put a Deed of Trust against the entire piece of property. He explained: "It's a financing plat to go to record to aar July 17, 1990 Page 14 delineate what the bank would have as collateral." He stated if note 6 was placed on the plat as suggested by staff he will have "cut off a piece of property which has no access to 29." He stated: "I could not accept it that way; I would have to let a court determine that I didn't have access to 29." Mr. Tarbell indicated one access to Rt. 29 had been approved. Mr. Wood explained that he was asking that the total PRD be divided into two parcels --one for the residential and one for the commercial --and the issues of access will be dealt with at the time a plan is submitted. The Commission continued to wrestle with the implications of the request and whether or not to grant staff administrative approval of this request, or to defer it. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the County would not be giving anything up by granting staff administrative approval of the subdivision plat. Mr. Keeler summarized: "wither note 4 or note 6, for us to approve it administratively, unless somebody comes up with something else, either one of those would have to be on the plat and if Mr. Wood has indicated that he doesn't want either of them on there, then you may as well put it on the agenda so we can schedule it as early as possible." Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that a deferral would not result in any more information or that "(his) confusion would be any lessened" by a deferral. He added, however, that he was concerned about having to digest this issue in such a short period of time. The previously stated motion for deferral failed to pass (2:4) with Commissioners Huckle and Johnson voting for the motion and Commissioners Grimm, Jenkins, Wilkerson and Rittenhouse voting against. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that staff be granted administrative approval of the Briarwood Subdivision plat with the understanding that either Note 4 or Note 6, as read by Mr. Tarbell) would be required. The motion passed (5:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. a38 July 17, 1990 Page 15 Beaumont Farms - Mr. Tarbell gave a brief history of the development. He explained the applicant was requesting the addition of one lot. Staff was requesting that the Commission either place it on the July 24 agenda OR, grant staff administrative approval of the two lots which will result if said lots can meet all the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Keeler added that this was an "issue between the sellers and the buyers and has nothing to do with the County." However, this change will effect the rural preservation easement being dedicated to the Recreational Facilities Authority which is to meet on Thursday, July 19th, thus the timing is of importance in regards to that easement. Mr. Wilkerson moved that staff be granted administrative approval of the additional lot, provided all provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance can be met. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. DS V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary 07,1?