Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 12 89 PC MinutesSeptember 12, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 12, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, 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 August 29, 1989 were approved as submitted. SP-89-69 Robert Hatcher - Request in accordance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a stream crossing through the 100-year floodway fringe. Property, described as Tax Map 48, Parcels 30 and 49 is located on the southwest side of Rt. 600, approximately 1.25 miles south of its intersection with Rt. 20 near Stony Point. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 1989. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented -by Mr. Sam. Saunders. He described the proposal as being a "basic driveway crossing," which would be adequate to serve two large lots. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Joe Pratt, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He questioned whether or not a third entrance was necessary since the property already has two entrances. He expressed concern about the safety of the access because of its location on a very narrow road. He expressed interest in what type of -design would be required for the entrance. Mr. Tar -bell explained that a commercial entrance would not be required since this will serve only two lots, but when the driveways are constructed a permit will be required from the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Bowerman confirmed that if the property were subdivided further a commercial entrance would be required. Mr. Keeler explained that the Highway Department had not reviewed this request because this is an exempt subdivision. Mr. Pratt was concerned about the ultimate development of the property and the resulting increase in traffic. He was also under the impression that a turn lane would be required. Mr. Keeler stated that was not the case because it was unheard of for a turn lane to be required on anything other than primary or heavily -travelled secondary roads. /a Y September 12, 1989 Page 2 There being no further comment,the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel noted that this is a by -right division and moved that SP-89-69 for Robert Hatcher be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; 2. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; 3. Compliance with all Federal, State, and local permit requirements pertaining to the disturbance of a perennial stream; 4. The revised plat shall include a note to the effect that no further stream crossings will be allowed; 5. The revised plat shall clearly identify and dimension 30' joint access easements, and that access to Tracts 7 and 8 shall be limited to the joint access easement over the proposed stream crossing; 6. The revised plat shall delineate a flood easement on Tract 6. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-70 Wendell Wood - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for fill within the 100-year flood zone. Property, described as Tax Map 4581, Section 6, Parcel 1B is located on the east side of Rt. 29N adjoining the south side of the South Fork Rivanna River. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff believes that approval of this permit constitutes the unwise development of lands subject to inundation discouraged by the intent of the flood hazard overlay district. Staff can find no public benefit to be served by this request and that the request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-89-70 for Wendell Wood." 'Mr. Keeler explained that the existing situation is a violation of the site plan and a violation of Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance. He further stated that this section must be adhered to stringently because the flood insurance program is based on our compliance with our own ordinances. The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Wood. He read the following letter from his father: 1.76 September 12, 1989 Page 3 Dear Mr. Chairman &.Members -of the Commission: Our request for a special use permit to fill in the flood plain was created by a mistake our superintendent made while grading our site. The RWSA was moving a water line and had placed the silt fence Just inside the flood plain: area and we filled to the silt fence. It appears that only 250-500 cubic yards of fill have been placed in the flood plain. The RWSA discovered the error and subsequently we had a meeting with Engineering, Zoning, Planning and RWSA on July 24, 1989. The consensus after that meeting -was that if we reached an agreement with RWSA. and since the area had already been seeded with grass growing, the other departments would have no problem due to the small amount of fill. Steve Cresswell, Amelia Patterson, John Grady, Bill Fritz, Peter"Parsons and Tom Blue were present at the meeting. An agreement has been reached and excuted with the RWSA. I have agreed to bear the cost of repairing or replacing the. driveway in the event the RWSA must have access. Additionally it appears that it would be sound engineering practice to redesign a small amount of storm sewer which would require approximately 1,000 additional yards if fill. This would improve the drainage and also improve the travelway in the rear of the building. The additional fill is not necessary but apppears to make sense from an engineering and logical point of view. I have or will not receive any economic benefit from this change and in reality will bear the cost of redesigning and !stalling the plan. I apologize for being unable to attend the meeting, however, my engineers along -with my staff are present to answer any questions. Again, this was an honest mistake made in the field and I appreciate your consideration of our.request. Sincerely;' Wendell W. Wood President 1 /2G September 12, 1989 Page 4 Mr. Buddy Edwards, also representing the applicant., addressed the Commission. He explained that the existing ravine had been filled in years ago and has a large 60" drain pipe which drains other upstream properties. He stated the pipe is eroding and the applicant is asking to fill what has eroded out of this fill bank. He explained it is the applicant's desire to "go to the end of the existing pipeand put a drop -type manhole and then exit the bottom of that through this area that has eroded out and extend that pipe closer to the river, then fill that in and in doing so he would greatly improve the situation out there as far as erosion is concerned." He added that the applicant could "still put a parking lot and roadway around the building and build a small retaining wall." Mr. Bowerman summarized the applicant's position: "There was a mistake made and some extra filling was done that went into the floodplain. So you're requesting a permit to fill in the floodplain which would allot~ that situation to become legal, but you are also saying, at the same time, 'Look if you're going to grant us the permit, there's been some. erosion_ problems there that exist prior to our filling --if you'll give us the permit, we're going to go ahead and do work beyond what's already been done to make it better for the public.' You're using as part of your justification for getting this special permit in the fill making an existing situation better." Mr. Edwards acknowledged this was accurate. There being no public comment., the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Fritz explained that the fill shown on the drawing contemplates what the applicant is proposing, not what currently exists, i.e. what currently exists is less than what is shown. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the violation was identified by the Zoning Department and that necessitated the request for the special permit. However, the violation to the site plan exists also and even if the special permit is approved the applicant will still have to seek approval of an amended site plan. .As. Diehl stated she agreed with the staff report. Regarding the erosion on the slope, she felt that if the Sewer Authority had considered that an important issue, it would have been mentioned in the memorandum, but the memorandum stated they preferred that the original plan be followed. She concluded she could not support the special permit. Ms. Diehl felt the erosion problem should be addressed but not in the way the applicant is proposing. Mr. Bowerman stated that while he was not in favor of having the existing fill removed, he still could not support this request because it was against policy and inconsistent with the Ordinance. He added that he would not be opposed to considering an amended site plan which would allow the applicant to "accomplish this without filling in the floodway." /z7 September 12, 1989 Page 5 Ms. Diehl moved that SP-89-70 for Wendell Wood be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-49 Phil & Mary Sheridan - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(28) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a 12-lot resort community subdivision in the rural areas.. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcels 33A & 33B, is located on the west side of St. Rt. 801,.access on the west side of Rt. 673. White Hall Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting deferral to September 19, 1989. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-89-49 for Phil and Mary Sheridan be deferred to September 19, 1989. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. DS V. Wa Cilimber Se etary / $r s