HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 09 88 PC MinutesFebruary 9, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 9, 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;
Mr. Peter Stark; and Mr. Tim Michel. Also present were: Mr. George St..
John, County Attorney; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson; and Mr.
John Pullen. Absent: Commissioner Diehl..
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of January 26 were approved as submitted.
Willow Lake Master Plan Amendment - Proposal to revise the distribution of
dwellings on the master plan, with no increase in the total number of
dwellings. The proposed changes are as follows: change the quadraplexes
to triplexes on the top of the hill (G, H, T, and J); change the single
family detached units to triplexes on the right after the Shoffner house
(P, Q, and R); change the single family detached units and public road
extension to quadraplexes and a private road (V, W, X and Y); and redesign
the single family units near the end of Willow Lake Drive to create an overall
total of 120 dwelling units. Property is located off the west side of Rt. 20
just south of Piedmont Virginia Community College and adjacent to Lakeside
Subdivision. Tax Map 77E1, Parcels 1 and 2. Zoned R-4, Residential.
DEFERRED IANUARY 12, 1988.
Ms. Patterson reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting
indefinite deferral. The applicant's reason for requesting deferral was
to allow time for improvements to Willow Lake Drive and Maple View Drive
to be completed before Commission review.
The Chairman allowed brief public comment.
Mr. Daniel Lowe, a resident of the Lakeside Subdivision, expressed concern
about the road issue.
Mr. Evans, a resident of the Lakeside Subdivision, expressed concern about the
notification process and the possibility that some persons had not received
notification.
In response to Mr. Evans' concern, Mr. Keeler explained that new property
owners, who are not yet listed in the real estate records, might not receive
notice. He advised Mr. Evans to inform any persons who might not have
received notice to contact the Planning Office.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
/(.3
February 9, 1988
Page 2
fir. Wilkerson suggested, in addition to not extending the road bond,
that a condition be added which would state that no building permits
would be issued until the road is in the State system.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out staff's condition No. 1 on the staff.report:
"No final subdivision plat shall be signed or building permit issued
until Willow Lake Drive is accepted into the State Secondary Road
System; the bond for Willow Lake Drive shall not be extended beyond
its present expiration date on April 9, 1988." Mr. Bowerman explained
that staff felt the bond issue was for the Board to decide, not the
Commission.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the Commission could not act on the bond issue
at this time because the application was not going to be acted on.
Mr. Stark moved that the Willow Lake Master Plan amendment be indefinitely
deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler asked for clarification.as to the Commission's intent. He
stated, "T do not think administratively that we have to go to the Board
of Supervisors.to accept the bond. This bond expires April 9, and we
do not intend to renew it." Mr. Keeler stated he did not believe it
required Board action "to tell us not to take the bond." Mr. Keeler
stated he thought that times when Board action is required are.when
a bond is called when it is still valid.
Mr. St. John confirmed Board action was not required.
Mx. reeler stated staff would notify the Board that the County did not
intend to renew the bond.
SP-87-107 Glenn Weathersbee - Request in accordance with section 5.6.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance to issue a special use permit to locate a single wide
mobile home on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax '.L%Iap 123, Parcel 23A, is located on the east side of Rt. 622, ±1/2 mile
east of its intersection with Rt. 618. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Weathersbee addressed the Commission. He explained that the mobile
home will not be permanent since it is his intent to build a conventional
dwelling on the property after the land has been paid for.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman stated the application was in order.
i6�4
February 9, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Wilkerson moved the SP-87-107 for Glenn D. Weathersbee be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 17, 1988.
SP-87-108 Donald & Judith Lawhorne - Request in accordance with Section 5.6
of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on 3.1692 acres,
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 14 (part
of) is located on the south side of Rt. 6742 t 9/10 mile west of its inter-
section with Rt. 673. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report.
In response to Mr. Stark's request, Mr. Keeler went over the following
requirements in Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance: (1) Building
official approval; (2) Conformance with area and bulk regulations of
the district that the mobile home is located in; (3) Skirting around
the mobile home within 30 days of issuance of a certificate of
occupancy; (4) Provision of potable water and sewage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Health Department; and (5) Maintenance of the
existing vegetation, landscaping, and/or screening, to be provided to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Pullen explained that condition No. 2 [That the applicant maintain a
30' buffer of existing trees to east and south of the proposed location.]
was suggested so as to provide a buffer from an adjacent property owner
who had complained that the mobile home would be visible from her property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Lawhorne addressed the Commission. He indicated it was his intention
to make additions to the mobile home in the future. He stated the mobile
home would not be visible to surrounding properties. He indicated he
understood condition No. 2.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition
to the application: Mr. Lacy McAllister; Ms. Anne Campbell; Mrs. Matthews;
Mr. Richard Porter; and Ms. Judith Nix. The primary reason for opposition
was the belief that the mobile home would devalue surrounding property.
Ms. Campbell also presented photographs of a previous dwelling which the
applicant had occupied. Mrs. Matthews called the Commission's attention to
the fact that a previous application for Middy White had been denied for
this area.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Lawhorne to comment on the photographs presented
by Ms. Campbell. Mr. Lawhorne stated he had resided in the dwelling
depicted for a short time but was no longer living there. He also stated
that the trailer that he planned to place on the property was not the
same as the one shown in the pictures.
/43
February 9, 1988 Page 4
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Com-
mission.
It was determined the applicant owned the property on which the trailer was
to be placed.
There was a brief discussion about the Middy White application which had
been referred to by Mrs. Matthews. Staff was unable to recall why the
application had been denied, though ylr. Keeler stated he thought the
Commission had approved the application, but it was then disapproved by
the Board.
There was a brief discussion in relation to how the applicant had
acquired the property. Mr. Pullen read parts of a deed discussing
the transfer of the land to the applicant. It was determined this was
not an issue before the Comission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the application, "on its face," was perfectly
appropriate.
Mr. Gould stated that though he shared some of the concerns voiced by
members of the public, the application did meet the criteria established
by the Commission in the past.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-87-108 for Donald & Judith Lawhorre be reco=ended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the applicant maintain a 30 foot buffer of existing trees to east
and south of the proposed location. .
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 17, 1988.
SP-87-114 Donnie Lawson - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on 107.O acres, zoned
3A, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 18, Parcel 9 is located
.2 mile on private easement, on the south side of Rt. 776, ± .1 mile south-
west of its intersection with Rt. 664. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. He explained the proposed location of the
mobile hone.
The applicant, Mr. Lawson, addressed the Commission. He explained his
reason for requesting the special permit was so that he might be able to
live close to his mother.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
February 9, 1988
Page 5
It was determined the applicant's mother owned the surrounding property.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-114 for Donnie Lawson be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. Compliance with section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 17, 1988.
SP-87-103 Christ Community Church - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance to issue a special use permit to allow for
a church to be located on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described
as Tax Map 45, Parcel 21 is located within the .Roslyn Ridge Subdivision on the
east side of Roslyn Ridge Road, and the west side of Rt. 743, near the Rock
Store. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Mr. Pullen amended staff's condition No. 2 as follows: "Expansion
of either sanctuary, classroom seating capacity, or Day Care or other non -
worship uses will require amendment to this petition." There was some
question as to why this condition included a reference to Day Care since
a Day Care use would require a special permit in any case. Ms. Patterson
stated she felt this was mainly to advise the applicant.
There was a brief discussion about the right-of-way width. The staff report
stated: "If this request generates more than 145 vehicle trips per day,
the right-of-way width on Roslyn Ridge Road would have to be increased to
50 feet from the present 40 feet, and the shoulder width increased as well
as the pavement design.upgraded." Mr. Steve Cresswell, representing the
County Engineer's Office added: "As proposed, the Highway Department is
satisfied with the 40-foot right-of-way; they're just putting the applicant
and everyone on notice that if they decide for some reason to expand and
increase the traffic use, then they would be looking for it to be upgraded
to a 50-foot right-of-way. But for the application at hand, 40 foot is
adequate."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bruce Wordell, architect for the project and a deacon of the church,
addressed the Commission. He stated that he had worked very closely with
staff on stormwater and drainage matters in relation to the watershed.
Regarding staff's condition No. 2. Mr.. Wordell stated he wanted it to be
clear that normal functions of the church, such as "Mother's Morning Out"
or Vacation Bible School, would not be restricted under this condition.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman expressed concern about condition No. 2. He felt it sounded as
if partial Day Care had already been approved.
4G 7
February 9, 1988
Page 6
Mr. Michel stated it was his understanding the applicant had requested
that the condition be included because it is a little vague .where the
line is between normal church nurseries vs. commercial nurseries.
M.r. Wordell stated he had not asked for. the condition, but rather had
questioned the clarity of staff's original condition No. 2. As a result,
staff had reworded the condition.
It was determined the site plan showed classrooms with the first phase
and then identified "future" classrooms also.
Mr. Bowerman still questioned the necessity for condition No. 2. He stated
he felt the Ordinance clearly outlined what was being approved.
It was determined the other Cozimissioners did not share Mr. Bowerman's
concern. It was decided condition No. 2 would remain.
�1r.Bowerman stated he had no other problems with the application.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-103 for Christ Community Church be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Sanctuary seating limited to 250 persons.
2. Expansion of either sanctuary or classroom seating capacity, and Day Care
or other non -worship uses will require amendment to this special permit.
3. Approval of this petition will require the site to access Roslyn Ridge
Road only.
4. Administrative approval of site plan after review by the Site Review
Corimittee .
Mr. Michel seconded the notion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 17, 1988.
ZTA-87-03 Lot Regulations - Mr. reeler led a discussion regarding this
proposed amendment. He explained that the Board of Supervisors had expressed
particular concern about staffs recommendation that lot frontage on street
cul-de-sacs could be reduced to a minimum of 50 feet. The Board was requesting
further comment on this issue before taking action on the amendment.
A memo from Mr.. Horne, dated January 25, 1988, explained:
"This proposal has raised some concern by some Board members relative
to its effect on lots within the RA, Rural Areas zone. That concern
was that since development in the rural areas is currently exceeding.
Comprehensive Plan levels, it may be inconsistent to adopt any regulations
that would facilitate development that may not otherwise be achievable.
In this case the concern was that additional lots would be :Wade possible
for future rural area subdivisions which would not be achievable if the
full frontage requirements were applied."
160
February 9, 1988
Page 7
Mr. Horne's memo concluded:
"The staff would view this provision .as beneficial to lot design, but
does agree that to the extent that it makes achievable additional numbers
of lots in the rural areas that would not otherwise be achievable it.
may be somewhat inconsistent with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff is of the general opinion, however, that rural area district
regulations as they regulate density and development rights are a more
appropriate way to control lot numbers than a provision that was
designed primarily to control lot design in a reasonable fashion."
Mr. Keeler explained the issue using a drawing and presenting several
examples.
Mr. St. John added that the Board had adopted this change for the other
three districts but chose not to act on the RA district until receiving
further comments from the Commission. He stated that a detailed presentation
of the issue had not been made before the Board.
Mr. St. John stated:- "I agree with staff that the control of density should
be achieved through density regulations rather than by design regulations.
In other words, I think it is a mistake to impose inferior design on
rural subdivisions in order to keep people from using their by -right density
as it appears in the zoning ordinance."
It was the consensus of the Commission that "the benefits to be derived by
creating a better design standard outweigh the negative aspect of creating
a few additional lots in the rural area."
CONSENT AGENDA - Mr. .Keeler explained a proposed schedule for the newly
created consent agenda process. (Note: Mr. Keeler made the following
correction, to the schedule.: "Day 19" should have been stated as "Day 18.11)
Mr. Keeler explained each step in detail and gave examples to further
clarify the process.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the process would work very well.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about whether or not adjacent property owners
would have sufficient time to respond. He concluded that it appeared they
would have sufficient time.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "I think the important element of this is ... that
it takes nothing away from the process.... Everyone who has rights today
continues to enjoy those. same rights after this. We get no additional
information, or we lose no input on the part of the staff or the public
under this procedure, but we do, perhaps, eliminate some of .the burden
the Commission has, and some of the applicants` time, on some of these
that are clean applications."
Ms. Joan Graves, a member of the public, expressed some concerns about the
process. Her primary concern was that adjacent property owners might not
have enough time to respond.
1,4 9
February 9, 1988
Page 8
There was a brief discussion about the notification process and the appeal
process.
Mr. Jenkins moved that staff be authorized to.proceed with the Consent
Agenda as presented by staff.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Comprehensive Plan — Proposed Goals and Objectives - Mr. Cilimberg presented
a staff report which stated the goals and objectives previously endorsed
by the Commission during Comprehensive Plan work sessions. Staff was
requesting that the Commission endorse the goals and objectives before
their distribution at upcoming public meetings.
2r. Bowerman suggested the following minor changes:
Page 1: Economic Development Goal: Remove the word "other" from the
last part of the statement.
Housing Goal: Change the first word from "Provide" to "Promote."
,:_:ge 2: Water Supply Resources Goal: Include the City of Charlottesville,
by reference.
Page 5: Growth Areas Goal- Objective 3: Change ''county needs" to
"citizen needs."
Other Commissioners voiced no objections to Mr. Bowerman's suggested changes.
Mr. Gould stated he was unhappy with the Economic Goal statement. He felt
it did not :cake sense.
It was determined public comment should be obtained before attempting to
make any changes to this goal.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this was not the final draft of the goals
and objectives and opportunity for further co:ament could be made after
public hearings, at the time the matter is forwarded to the Board.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the preliminary statement of Comprehensive Plan
Gr,als and Objectives be adopted with -changes as indicated by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Comprehensive Plan - Public Meeting Schedule - Nir. Cilimberg presented
a memorandum describing dates and areas for public meetings. The memo
also described briefly how the meetings would be conducted. Meetings
were proposed for four consecutive Mondays, beginning February 29 through
March 28..
The Commission approved the proposed dates and asked staff to present a
detailed schedule, including places, etc.
February 9, 1988
Page 9
Players Club Site Plan - Request for Extension - Ms. Patterson stated
the site plan would expire March 17, 1988. She explained the applicant
had not been able to complete the site plan because the existing lease
on the property is still in effect.
Mr. Stark moved that Players Club Site Plan be granted a six-month extension.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mill Creek Section 3 Final Plat - Request for Extension - Mr. Keeler stated
the six-month time period for the signing of Section 3 would expire in
February. He explained that problems with the original master plan
necessitated realignment of the roads which effected Section 3, thus
the request for a six-month extension.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Mill Creek Section 3 Final Plat be granted a
six-month extension.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at .10:15 p.m.
DS
f 7/