HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 19 88 PC MinutesJanuary 19, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 19, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. .Tom Jenkins;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. George St. John, County Attorney; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief
of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner;
and Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 and established that a
quorum was present. The minutes of December 15, 1987, December 17, 1987
and January 5, 1988 were approved as submitted.
ZMA-87-21 Ponderosa - Riverbend Limited Partnership petitions the Board of
Supervisors to amend the Riverbend PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping
Center to allow access off St. Rt. 250E. This access will incorporate a
right -turn -in only. The property is located on the south side of St. Rt.
250E, Riverbend Shopping Center. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D (part of) and 17G.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
The Chairman noted that the applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-87-21 for Ponderosa be indefinitely.deferred.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ponderosa Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 7,211 square foot
building on 1.30 acres. This plan proposes 107 parking spaces, and direct
access to State Route. 250 East. The proposed use is a sit-down restaurant
facility. The property is located on the south side of State Route 250
East, in the Riverbend Shopping Center. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D (part of)
and 17G. Zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Pullen began by stating that since the applicant had withdrawn his
request for access off St. Rt. 250E (ZMA-87-21), staff had no other objection
to the site plan. He stated the Highway Department and the County Engineer
were in support of this property being accessed internally through the
Shopping Center's ring road and they had no objection to the physical
design of the site.
Staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to conditions.
Mr. Keeler added that as a result of the deletion of the entrance from
Rt. 250, some of the parking area may be relocated, so the final site
plan may be slightly different.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
jib
January 19, 1988
Page 2
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. He indicated he had had trouble
finding a user for this site because of lack of an entrance off Rt. 250,
but a user has been found and the issues have been resolved. He stated
the parking rearrangement noted by Mr. Keeler would result in less
parking spaces, but the parking would still meet the requirements of
the Ordinance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark suggested that condition 1(a) --"Submittal of a site plan showing
no direct access to Route 250 East"-- be reworded so as to present a
positive rather than a negative approach. He suggested that 1(a) be
amended to read: "Submittal of site plan showing only internal access
via the shopping center's ring road."
The Commission and staff had no objections to Mr. Stark' suggestion.
Mr. Stark moved that the Ponderosa Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. A final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a) Submittal of site plan showing only internal access via the
shopping center's ring road.
b) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and calcu-
lations;
c) Approval of an erosion control plan;
d) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final sewer plans;
e) Fire Officer approval;
f) Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a) Final Fire Officer approval.
3. The final site plan may be administratively approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion whichwas unanimously approved.
Wind River Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 16 single family residential
lots with an average lot size of 6.3 acres, from 95.7 acres (7 parcels).
The development will be served by internal public roads, with a single
entrance onto Rt. 614. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 614,
adjacent to the Mechums River near Owensville. Tax Map 42, Parcels 46,
46A, 46B; Tax Map 43, Parcels 4E through 4H. Zoned R.4,, Rural Areas.. Jack
Jouett Magisterial District.
The Chairman noted that the applicant was requesting deferral to February
2.
/J/
January 19, 1988 Page 3
Since there were a few members of the public who had come for this item,
the Chairman invited public comment though be cautioned that it was
advisable that any comments made should be made again at the time the
item is rescheduled for review.
Those present stated they would defer their comments.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Wind River Preliminary Plat be deferred to
February 2. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Roslyn Heights Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create five (5) lots from
three existing parcels and leave a residue parcel of 21 acres. Lot size
ranges from 2.9 to 9.3 acres. Lots are to be served by a.proposed
public road. Property located on the west side of Route 743 and the east side
of Route 657 (Lamb's Road) adjacent to Roslyn Ridge Subdivision and just
south of the intersection of Route 743 and Route 631 at the Rock Store.
Tax Map 61, Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The primary issue of discussion
in this review revolved around the division of 61--2 Lot 1 into two lots of
9 acres and 21 acres. (It was previously shown as one lot of 30 acres.)
Ms. Patterson stated: "There's been an opinion by the County Attorney's
Office which allows 21-acre parcels to be created as parts of several
different parent parcels. Using that ruling, they're creating a 21-acre
parcel with no development rights and a 9-acre parcel using a development
right from this existing parcel 2."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John to explain the reasoning behind the
residue parcel issue.
Mr. St. John explained the principle followed by the applicant. He
stressed that "this was just an opinion." Using a drawing, Mr. St.
John explained his opinion by means of an example. Mr. St. John.
stated: "I don't think that 21-acre business, where you go back
to 1980', even applies to development on 21-acre tracts. In other words,
I believe any time you can put together 21-acres with a building site
on it, that is the basic density of our Ordinance, and you have a
right to do it."
After hearing Mr. St. John's explanation, Mr. Bowerman then asked
Ms. Patterson to explain how the 9-acre lot and the 21-acre lot.had been
created from a 30-acre parcel.
Ms. Patterson explained: "The previous plat showed a 30-acre lot which
was actually parts of three different parcels. (She pointed these out.)
This is where it got its development right from. It didn't have a
21-acre entire chunk from any parcel that existed December 10, 1980,
so it had to use this development right. What they've done here is,
because of this re -interpretation of how you can create your 21-acre
lots, they have a development right here where they can go under 21-acres
on this, and, again they get it from this same parcel. And then
they've got a 21-acre piece that's part of these two different parcels
here."
January 19, 1988 Page 4
Mr. Bowerman asked: "According to Mr. St. John's description, you can't
subdivide something by right and then have a residue parcel that's less
than 21 acres, is that correct?" Ms. Patterson confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Bowerman asked, "Where did the residue come from that was added to
this parcel to come up with the 21 acres? How was it created?" Ms.
Patterson indicated she needed to check the file, but stated "It was all
one larger piece."
Mr. Keeler stated he was not sure it was important where it came from. He
added: "There were three pieces of property. ... Two were residues that
didn't have any development rights -and the third one was an acreage that had
a development right. So we were saying, 'you cannot take the residues
and put them together to create a 21-acre tract, or in this particular
case, a 30 acre tract.' So in order to create the 30-acre tract they
used the development tight. Now with the current interpretation they can
take the development right off on 9 acres and create the 21-acre tract."
:�Ir. St. John added: "I don't think under the Virginia Constitution you
can keep people from alienating (that would be a restraint on alienation)
from minimum density. (If) minimum density is 21-acres, then I don't
think it would be possible for us to enforce a law that says you can't
create a 21-acre parcel contiguously, if you can find people that are
willing to sell you enough land to make it up. Once you do that T don't
think you need, what I call, a development right from some other piece
of land. Once you've got 21-acres, if you car. find, topographically, a
building site on it, then you don't need to borrow a development right
from some other piece of land in order to build on it. That's an
automatic thing."
The Chairman invited applicant comment..
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gloeckner. He stated the subdivision
meets all the requirements of the Ordinance and the lots are designed to
have house sites.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel noted that this seemed to be a reaction to Mr. St. John's opinion
and it seems to qualify.
Mr. Michel moved that Roslyn Heights Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. County Engineering approval of public road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans.and calculations, to include right turn lane and closing the
existing entrance;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
;/ 171
January 19, 1988
Page 5
d. Health Department approval of delineation on each lot of approved
septic areas and notation restricting disturbance of these areas;
e. County Engineer and Watershed Management Official approval of
stream crossings.
2. A waiver of double frontage is granted for 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot 1.
3. The final plat may be administratively approved.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on the east side of
Rt. 20 south of Charlottesville. 5,188.7 acres. Planning Commission
receives application, No action is necessary.
AND
Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on the eastern slope of
Carter's Mountain. 996.04 acres. Planning Commission receives application.
No action is necessary.
Ms. Scala presented the applications. The Commission received the
applications. No action was required at this time.
Consent Agenda Process - Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report
explained that "the basic process to be used by the staff in requesting
consent agenda approval by the Commission will entail agenda items presented
to the Commission under two basic circumstances. The first circumstance
is a list that would be compiled by staff near the beginning of each month
based on submissions during the previous weeks which will contain items that
appear to be eligible for consent agenda approval. The second circum-
stance will be items that may come in during any given month that on their
face appear to be eligible for consent agenda approval and will be presented
to the Commission on a case by case basis as needed."
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that the Consent Agenda was a mechanism
that had been recommended by the LURC Committee in an attempt to (1) improve
the review process in the County by not requiring someone to go through
the entire 53-day cycle to present a very simple plan; and (2) provide the
Commission more time to address other issues.
Significant comments and concerns about the proposal included the .following:
--A main issue of concern was how the process would effect the notification
of adjoining owners. Ms. Diehl questioned how notification would
be possible under the second circumstance, i.e. a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Keeler explained that property owners would still be notified,
though notification might take place subsequent to Commission action.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern that with this process notification might
take place after the 10-day appeal period had passed. Mr. Keeler
stressed, however, that if any complaints were received, the
matter would be reviewed by the Commission, regardless of what action
might have been taken on the Consent Agenda.
11Y
January 19, 1988
Page 6
Mr. Michel also expressed concern about the notification process.
He asked how complaints would be handled, through site review,
staff, or how? fir. Keeler stressed that the process would work
exactly in the same manner as the mobile home process has worked
for years.
--.Mr. Michel expressed concern about staff acting as a mediator
between applicants and adjoining property owners which might prove
to be very awkward.
--It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission that the
consent agenda be scheduled bi-monthly. The Commission was not
in favor of a case -by -case basis.
--The Co=uission expressed concern about the. monitoring procedure in
the event of personnel changes.
--It was the desire of the Commission that items that require site
review shall have been through site review before being placed on
the consent agenda.
--The Commission asked staff to keep records of the process on a
3-north basis to get an idea of the way the procedure is working.
=-The Commission asked staff to present a detailed document on what is
envisioned, including agenda dates, etc.
Mrs. Joan Graves, a member of the public, was present at the meeting.
The Chairman invited her comment. Mrs. Graves was particularly concerned
about the public being omitted from this type of procedure. Ms. Graves
also expressed concern about the entire notification process, not just
that associated with the consent agenda. his. Graves expressed.further
concern about the appeal process.
Motion:
Mr. Stark moved that the consent agenda process be adopted for a one-year
trial period, to be reviewed quarterly, with the consent agenda to be
scheduled for Commission review bi-monthly.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion s,Thich passed unanimously.
Annual Report.- Commissioners Jenkins and Michel were appointed to prepare
the annual report.
Roslyn Heights - Referring to the application reviewed earlier in the meeting,
Ms. Patterson explained that the applicant, in consideration of watershed
protection, has agreed to the maintenance of conservation buffer zones
(100-foot septic setbacks from the.. stream). She stated that area will
remain natural and undisturbed. She stated staff would work with the
applicant on the wording of the deed restriction.
1,3�'
January 19, 1988
Page 7
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
DS
()A�' 3 909
John Horne, Secretary
l.0