HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 08 88 PC MinutesMarch 8, 1988
TheAlbemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 8, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim
Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr.
Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen; and Mr. George
St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Wilkerson and Gould.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of February 16 and February 23
were approved as submitted.
ZMA-87-22 Re ovia Land Trust'(Mill Creek PRD: Phase 2) - Reynovia Land
Trust petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 165.3 acres from
R-1, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development. Property,
described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 36A is located on the west side of Rt. 742,
south and adjacent to Lake Reynovia in the Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The main topic of discussion in the
review of this application was the applicant's request for a modification
of Section 4.7.3 OPEN SPACE, CHARACTER of the Zoning Ordinance to
increase proportion of "unusable" land and consequently reduce proportion
of "usable" land in open space. The report explained:
"Section 4.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the amount of
required open space which may consist of 100_year fioodplain, lands
in 25% or greater slope, public utility easements, stormwater
detention/flood control devices, and lands having permanent or
seasonally high water tables. In order to meet these requirements
for Mill Creek PRD, about 29 acres of developable land would need
to be included in open space. This could result in a loss of a
substantial number of lots (while no analysis has been made,
theoretically, more than 80 lots could be lost). The applicant has
requested modification of this requirement based on Section 4.7.1
which cites such Comprehensive Plan objectives as: Provision of
active/passive recreation; Protection of areas sensitive to develop-
ment; Buffering between dissimilar uses; and Preservation of ag-
ricultural activity. Application of the first three objectives is
appropriate in this case. Staff can support the requested modifi-
cation provided that these three objectives are pursued in good
faith: Provision of active/passive recreation; Protection
of areas sensitive to development; and Buffering between dissimilar
uses. ... In summary, due to drainage to Lake Reynovia, soil
limitations, steep slopes and presence of streams/swales, staff
favors emphasis on usage of open space to protect areas sensitive to
development. As a condition of modification of open space
regulations as provided by Section 8.5.4(d), certain areas proposed
for development should be included in open space. Staff could
support a corresponding increase in the number of multi -family
units provided such increase can be accommodated in an
environmentally sensitive manner."
/97
March 8, 1988 Page 2
The staff report concluded: "Staff opinion is that Mill Creek PRD
generally satisfies the requirements as to findings by the Commission
under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to roads, utilities,
public facilities and services." Staff recommended approval of the
rezoning subject to certain revisions, modifications and agreements.
Mr. Bowerman expressed some confusion about the application of Section
4.7.1 in relation to open space requirements. Mr. Keeler explained:
NThat the planning staff is saying in this particular case is we
would like to put the emphasis on the`'inent� �of_ open' space -as being
the protection of areas that are sensitive to development. Corresponding
to that, we feel that there ought to be a minimum area on each lot
of 5,000 square feet to accommodate the dwelling and some outside
activity and that sort of thing. We feel there ought to be some minimum
lot design requirements on the one hand and then on the other hand
that.areas that are sensitive to development ought to be included in
the open space." Mr. Bowerman replied: "Convince me that in the
absence of having to meet this requirement they haven't otherwise met,
that you wouldn't require this exact same type of situation in terms
of the fact that if you had a building site that was sensitive --you
had a stream running across it --you'd be very careful about that or
you wouldn't let them build on it anyway. If you had recreation, you'd
require access to it. kfat I'm saying is that I don't see that what
you're requiring here is in any way any different than you would have
required had it been a normal PUD request. You've got to differentiate
it'for me." Mr. Keeler replied: "I think the main difference is in
terms of that first condition recommending a minimum 5,000 square feet
and 2.5:1 ratio which is different from what we've done before. The
Ordinance says that the applicant shall demonstrate to (the Commission)
that he's got adequate area for the proposed development. When we're
talking about single family lots, is the proposed development simply
that he can get a building in there --if he's got three feet.on either
side and its in the steep slopes --or is the proposed development
a single family lot that ought to have some outdoor area for a barbecue
or something. We're not standing on the steep slope --you know --some
outdoor relatively usable area because... we're not putting developable
land in the open space that would be available -for that purpose.'...
What we're saying here is that we want to assure that there is going
to be some usable land around the dwelling. While we don't necessarily
agree that for 1/3 acre lots there ought to be usable area in the open
space for recreation purposes, we do feel like there ought to be usable
area on the lot for that purpose." Mr. Bowerman asked: "Then in
the event that they can't obtain the building site, you propose that it
be made up in the multi -family sites?" Mr..Keeler responded affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman asked where the recreation would be for the multi -family
sites. Mr. Keeler pointed out the location on the drawing.
Ms. Diehl asked if a PRD was not required to have active recreation area
for multi -family development. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. Ms.
Diehl stated: "That's also used as a rationale for this, but that would
be required anyway." Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, I agree with that."
Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of road construction in relation
to the phase development, i.e. "Before the developer starts on (Phase) 3
he has to get (Phase) 1 into the system, assuming that (Phase) 2 has
already been developed. What happens if he just stops work at that
1 $9
March 8, 1988
Page 3
point and he doesn't continue with the development any more into
Phase 3. What happens to the roads in Phase 2? Mr. Keeler responded
that the County would still have the bond.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler explained that the
multi -family units would most likely be garden apartments or townhouses.
He added that 10 units were proposed for each building and might
possibly be three-story apartment houses. Mr. Keeler stated the
adjacent property was zoned R-l.
Ms. Diehl stated she would have to be "completely educated" on the
rationale for the waiver of Section 4.7.3 OPEN SPACE.
Mr. Keeler stated he had failed to include in the staff report the
fact that if the applicant had simply requested R-4 zoning, he would
be able to do this without any required open space.
It was determined the schematic had been drawn assuming that the waiver
would be granted.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the Commission had approved a similar situation,
in relation to open space, previously, or is this a first. Mr. Michel
indicated this was a first.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. His comments included
the following:
--The plan is superior to what could be done by conventional development.
--The applicant felt staff's modification No. l [Each lot shall
contain a 5,000 square foot building site with a length to
width ratio notto exceed 3.5:1. No driveway shall encroach more
than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25%.or greater.] was neither the
intent nor correct interpretation of the existing zoning ordinance
which clearly states that a "building site shall mean a contiguous
area of land in slopes of less than 25%."
--Referring to modification No. 2, Mr. Craig asked that the term "placed
in the Secondary System" be changed to "dedicated in the Secondary
System."
--Referring to modification No. 3, Mr. Craig stated the applicant did
not feel a left turn lane was necessary.
--The applicant was agreeable to modification No. 4 and No. 5 with
the exception of its reference to No. 1.
--This phase of development is identical to Phase 1, which was
approved and is "sold out" through 1988.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to modification No. 4, Mr. Michel asked if staff would require
a copy of the agreement between the applicant and Lake Reynovia related
to soil erosion and the protection of Lake Reynovia. Mr. Keeler replied
that a copy would be requested for the file, but staff would not review
it.
If9
March.8, 1988 Page 4
Mr. Michel asked why there would not be at least some portion of an
urban cross-section road into the site, given the multi -family units
at the front. -Mr. Keeler indicated that issue could be addressed at
the time of a site plan. He added: "I don't know that there would
be any -particular purpose served there that would not -be served elsewhere
by having curb and gutter."
Mr. Cresswell, representing the County Engineer's office, commented
on this issue. He stated that curb and gutter would be preferred for
the multi -family units. He added that he felt a mistake had been made
by not requiring curb and gutter for Phase 1, but that should not
preclude curb and gutter for this phase. He stated he felt rural
cross -sections belong in rural areas with 2 - 5 acre lots. He added
that the Highway Department agrees with that recommendation.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Cresswell to explain his reason for changing his
recommendation for the deletion of lots with respect to 25% slopes,
i.e, a memo of February 10 had recommended the deletion of 25 lots,
and a memo of February 22 had recommended the deletion of 12 lots.
Mr. Cresswell explained this change was based on a more detailed
slope study.
Mr. Michel asked if the Commission were to "go along with" staff's
recommendation regarding usable and unusable land on this and future
projects, would staff recommend amending the part of the ordinance
which addresses this issue. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively.
Mr. Michel asked: "You don't think this is a major change by the
Board, that we are about to set a precedent by doing this?"
Mr. Keeler responded: "In terms of what the zoning ordinance currently
requires as to the character of open space, yes it is a major change."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that a revision -of recreational requirements has
just been completed which gives a design criteria for active recreation
areas based on a specific density. He stated the open space requirements
completely igrQre density. Mr. Keeler added: "In the current Compre-
hensive.Plan review the Commission is attempting to-do two things:
(1) to accommodate developments in growth areas; and (2) to add
emphasis on environmental concerns in areas .that are sensitive to
development. So, in our opinion, we ought to use the open space to
accomplish that more. It may be very difficult otherwise to achieve
an urban density on this property. Let's not discuss the multi -family
units, but let's just say this comes in straight low density and with
open spaces in this particular case, if they meet the open space
requirements they could lose as many as 80 lots which would knock
them down to 120 lots on 165 acres, which is below low -density urban
development. It's one of those situations where in order to accom-
modate the urban density of development, we believe it is desirable,
and it is consistent with the plan --our recommendation is that areas
sensitive to development, steep slopes and the like, be placed in the
open space. At the same time, we do feel like on single family lots
there ought to be some usable outdoor area to compensate for that."
Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of the advantages of presenting
this as a PRD. She stated: "I assume the housing mix and the capacity
to make up some of that density that you're talking about that could
have been lost --make that up in multi -family housing --is one of the
.M
March 8, 1988 Page 5
advantages. What other advantages are there?"
Mr. Keeler replied: "It was our recommendation to make that density up
that's lost in terms of lots. We did the same thing on the first Mill
Creek." Mr. Keeler added that unless the applicant is granted the
open space waiver, there are not many other advantages. He concluded:
"Compared to conventional rezoning, I think the main advantage is
the ability to get these multi -family units."
Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problems with the applicant's.request.
However, he again indicated he was having some problem with staff's
interpretation. He stated: "I am having some problem with making
a policy decision essentially tonight without realizing before tonight
what the implications were of what was coming before us." He
stated he was concerned about future implications. He stated he must
feel satisfied with that policy change. He felt this was an.entirely
new concept even though "the bottom line might be the same in terms
of.the amenities provided to the residents."
Mr. Keeler indicated he did not understand.
Mr. Bowerman continued: "Your interpretation of the way you presented
this tonight --instead of meeting the open space requirements as called
for in the ordinance, you've outlined a rationale here which is really
saying 'well the intent is met.' This whole thing you've gone through
is a way to tell us that that's what we're doing --we're being sensitive
to the lots that have drainage problems and other steep slope concerns --
we're being sensitive to the buffering requirements --but it's something
that you've never presented to us before as a justification for
an alternative for accepting the normal open space requirements in
the ordinance for a PRD." He asked Mr. Keeler if this was correct. He
added: "We've never done this before, have we?"
Mr. Keeler responded: "That may be the case. I have not addressed this
type of specific request before. ... Basically what I am saying in this
report is ... my opinion, given the physical constraints of the site,
the most appropriate use of open space in this particular case, given
that we're talking single-family lots, would be the protection of these
environmentally sensitive areas. If you feel like they are otherwise
protected under the ordinance, that's fine."
Ms. Diehl added: "The other problem I'm having when I look up there and
I still see so many lots encroaching on the 25% slope, and yet that's
drawn to supposedly reflect the waiver and I am wondering just exactly
what are we getting back."
Mr. Michel stated: "It looks as though we're letting the staff have the
chance to go through that again and eliminate lots that, with further
study, do not meet the 25% slopes." Ms. Diehl added: "But then add
that density to the multi -family."
Mr. Jenkins asked if there was an estimate--of-how many lots would be
lost by this configuration. Mr. Keeler stated he had not made an estimate.
.141
March 8, 1988 Page 6
Ms. Diehl pointed out that the staff report indicates that more than
80 lots could be lost. 11r. Keeler commented: "With strict adherence
to 4.7.3."
Mr. Keeler continued: "4.7.3 would require 17k% of the total site
area developable land to be dedicated.in the open space, and that
comes out to roughly 30 acres."
Mr. Stark asked Mr. St. John if the Commission could require the
developer to do condition No. 1 [Each lot shall contain a 5,000
square foot building site with a length to width ratio not to exceed
2.5:1. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes
of 25% or greater. Staff will recommend deletion of additional lots
due to drainage concerns during final approval unless adequate corrective
measures are proposed by the applicant. The number of proposed single
family detached units lost as a result of slope, drainage, or other design
considerations (excluding the desire of the developer) may be added to
the number of multi-fa:aily units.].
Mr. St. John responded: "Yes. This is a rezoning he is requesting to
a PRD. ... This is not a by -right thing. I think you can require it
if it's your judgment that it is appropriate to do it."
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff's position would be different without
condition No. 1.
Mr. Keeler again tried to explain staff's recommendation:
"The Zoning Ordinance outlines certain objectives that use of open space
is intended to accomplish. Among those objectives is the protection of
areas sensitive to development. Looking at this site, there are a
lot of areas on the site that are sensitive to development. There
are streams that feed Lake Reynovia; there are steep slopes and the like.
The applicant requested modification of that provision. Planning staff
said we'd recommend that modification provided the emphasis is placed
on protection of the sensitive areas. Now that doesn't mean that you
develop the sensitive areas on lots while you say you're protecting
the sensitive areas in the open space in our opinion. So, within each
lot, what we are -recommending is 5,000 square feet for the house and
to have some outdoor use with the idea that the open space is going to
be devoted primarily to steep slopes, drain swales, and other water
courses and it's not going to be that susceptible to use for those types
of uses. If you don't agree with.that, or if the applicant doesn't
agree with that, then you can act on the request for the waiver in some
other fashion. But that was what, basically we did, to say this is the
house footprint and the absolute minimum lot size you can do under any
of the conventional residential districts is to take your house size
and do a front yard and a rear yard and side yards. So that's what
we did. I took 1,200 square feet and I added the side yards, the rear
yard and the front yard and came out with 5,000 square feet, whick, in
my opinion, is a reasonable provision to offset putting all the undevel-
opable land in the open space. If you're going to put the undevelopable
land in the open space we would recomaend •that you do .that and that
you not put it in the lots."
0109
March 8, 1988 Page 7
In response to Mr. Stark's request, Mr. Keeler explained the purposes
of open space.
Mr. Michel asked if the applicant could live with condition No. 1.
He pointed out that staff had tried to support the applicant's request
for a variance by means of condition No. 1.
Mr. Craig, representing the applicant, stated the applicant could
not accept condition 1. He felt 5,000 square feet out of the buildable
area of each lot was "just about the whole lot."
Mr. Stark asked if the applicant would prefer a strict interpretation
of the ordinance instead of condition No. 1.
Mr. Craig responded to Mr. Jenkins' earlier question as to how many lots
would be lost and explained that it appeared approximately 5 lots would
be lost (not 80 as suggested in the staff report).
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the 80 was with the requirements of the
ordinance in place and was an estimate. Mr. Craig indicated he understood.
In answer to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Craig stated he would prefer
strict interpretation of the ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had read the applicant's letter requesting
the waiver and based on the specific reference cited by the applicant,
he felt staff's recommendation was acceptable. He stated.: "I think
the public purposes of the PRD are general regulations as applied
would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications.
I think I'm comfortable that what you've presented, Mr. Keeler, is at
least equivalent." He added that without condition No. 1 the proposal
does not meet the requirements that would be required for a substitute.
He felt the application was only approvable with condition No. 1.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt staff's solution was valid but she stated
she needed to be convinced that it would not be setting a precedent.
She asked if the wording in the ordinance provided the flexibility
to accept something of this nature. She also stated she had a problem
with adding in the number of multi -family units (in condition 1) with-
out any idea of what that number would be. She also stated that
she was in favor of an urban cross-section (condition 2) based on
Mr. Cresswell's and VDOT recommendations.
Ms. Diehl asked for Mr. St. John to comment on the flexibility allowed
by the ordinance.
Mr. Keeler clarified that a modification was being requested to Section
4.7.3 as it relates to the composition of the open space. He added
that the section which gives the Commission the authority to make this
modification is Section 8.5.4(d) which relates to the provision of
planned developments, generally.
Mr. St. John responded that he felt the section referred to by Mr. Keeler
did give the Commission the authority to grant this waiver. He added
that one of the things that the Commission recommends to the Board
"3
March 8, 1988 Page 8
are specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to
the .particular case based on determination that such modifications
are necessary or justified by a demonstration that the public purposes
of PD or general regulations would be satisfied.
Mr. St. John added that he did not think the Commission should approve
this PRD with this modification if the applicant has stated on the record
that he objects to it and will not accept it.
fir. Jenkins asked if a deferral might be in order to allow time for
the Commission to digest the issue further.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he would ask for the applicant's preference. He
noted that it appeared the proposal would probably pass (either 4:1 or 3:2)
with the inclusion of condition No. 1. I?e added that the Commission
has taken similar action previously and though the applicant might
object to a condition, it allows him some discretion as to whether
or not he wishes to proceed to the Board.
Mr. St. John indicated he understood and noted that the Commission's
action was merely a recommendation. However, he stated that when
"it gets to.absolute approval or denial, 1 don't think it ought to be
approved when the applicant says he will not accept that condition."
Mr. Bowerman stated again that the Commission has taken similar
action before, i.e. to approve a proposal with a condition that the
applicant might object to, and the development has proceeded as
approved, though the applicant may not have been in favor of
certain conditions. He stated he had no problem with such an approach
because the Commission has "given it our best shot" and the Board
can modify it, if they so choose.
Mr. St. John stated he had momentarily overlooked the fact that the
Commission's action was recommendatory.
Mr. Stark pointed out the other alternative was to pass the proposal
on the the Board with the strict interpretation of the ordinance which
would mean denial.
Mr. Craig asked if the open space issue was the only item of contention.
Mr. Bowerman replied there were actually two issues, the open space
and the urban vs. rural cross-section.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cresswell to again comment on the road issue
since it seemed that staff'.s recommendation was not in agreement with
Engineering and the Highway Department.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff's recommendation mas based on previous
approval for Mill Creek and staff was not disagreeing with any of the
issues raised by the Engineering Department. He stated that staff had
also considered the study done by Community Development which had
recommended that curb and gutter be required in cases where the average
lot frontage is 70 feet or less.
24 Y_
March 8, 1988
Page 9
Mr. Cresswell stated he felt the issue of urban vs. rural cross-section
was one that should be reviewed by the Commission and resolved with some
policy guidelines. He stated that in this case he could "live with"
a rural cross-section, but his recommendation was still for an urban
cross-section.
Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-87-22 for Reynovia Land Trust be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
revisions, modifications and agreements:
1. Each lot shall contain a 5,000 square foot building site with
a length to width ratio not to exceed 2.5:1. No driveway shall
encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater.
Staff will recommend deletion of additional lots due to drainage
concerns during final approval unless adequate corrective
measures are -proposed by the applicant. The number of proposed
single family detached units lost as a result of slope, drainage,
or other design considerations (excluding the desire of the developer)
may be added to the number of multi -family units, up to a maximum of
10. (Note: "up to a maximum of 10" was added later in the meeting.)
2. All roads (with the exception of the private road provided for
emergency purposes) shall be built to VDOT standards for rural
cross-section and dedicated in the Secondary System at time of
development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. A
looped road system providing for emergency access shall be provided
at the earliest reasonable phase of development. A phasing plan
proposing sequential improvements shall be submitted with the revised
Application Plan.
3. As to the request for waiver of VDOT standards, VDOT curvature
standards shall be met, if practical, by relocation of access to
Avon Street. The Planning Commission may require a left -turn lane
on Avon Street if the same is deemed to be necessary to provide safe
and convenient access and avoid congestion on Avon Street.
4. Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be employed
to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Engineer to provide
protection to Lake Reynovia, including installation of off -site
measures, if appropriate. This provision shall be deemed to be
satisfied by separate agreement between the developer and owner of
Lake Reynovia.
5. As to the request for modification of Section 4.7.3 OPEN SPACE,
CHARACTER, such modification is granted subject to compliance with
Condition 1 above, provision of active recreation in accordance with
Section 4.16 in the multi -family area, provision of buffering to
adjoining properties, and compliance with Condition 4 above.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Michel confirmed that his motion included the second paragraph of
Condition I.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the motion because there was no
"cap" on the number of multi -family units.
2145'�
March 8, 1988
Page 10
Mr. Craig pointed out that he had stated that 5 building sites could
be lost as the applicant interprets the definition in the zoning
ordinance. He said it had nothing to do with 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Bowerman asked: "So it could be many in excess.of that?" Mr.
Craig responded: "It's going to be in excess of 12."
Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about passing the matter on to the
Board with so many "holes in it."
Mr. Michel pointed out that it would give the applicant the chance
to proceed. He stated the alternatives were a deferral or a denial.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt a maximum of 10 was a reasonable number
to be added to the number of multi -family units as referred to in
condition No. 1.
It was determined "up to a maximum of 10" would be added at the end of
of the second paragraph of condition No. 1.
M.1r. Craig indicated the applicant was agreeable to this change.
Mr. Michel and Mr. Jenkins agreed to this amendment to the motion.
There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for a vote
on the previously -stated motion for approval.
The motion passed, (4:1), with :ls. Diehl casting the dissenting vote.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on March 16, 1988.
SP-88-03 Harry 0. Potchernick - Harry Potchernick petitions the Board
of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to locate a mobile home
(Section 10.2.2.10) in the Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax
Xap 115, Parcel 27E, is located.on the north side of St. Rt. 618,
approximately .2 miles east of the intersection of Rt..708 and Rt. 618.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Russell and Mitzi Zimmerman, owners of
the property. (Note: It was later determined that the Potchernicks were
Mr. Zimmerman's parents and would reside in the proposed mobile home.)
Mr. Zimmerman stated he did not think the person who had objected to
the petition would be able to see the mobile home from his property.
He further stated that the mobile home would be a double -wide model.
The Chairman invited public comment.
yr. Barrette Quilland addressed the Commission.. He was under the impression
that the applicant lived out of state and therefore the mobile home would
be used as rental property. Mr. Quilland stated he felt the mobile home
would be visible from the road. He also stated the area is made up of
single-family dwellings and he felt this mobile home would devalue his
property.
. e.
March 8, 1988 Page 11
Mr. Quilland also stated that no sign had been posted on the property
as required.
Ms. Zimmerman explained that the Potchernicks were her in-laws and
were in the process of moving. Regarding the sign referred to by Mr.
Quilland, Ms. Zimmerman explained that the sign had been posted in
the wrong place, but was later moved to the correct position, at the
road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
It was determined the property on which the mobile home will be placed
is owned by the Zimmermans and they will allow the Potchernicks to
use the land.
It was confirmed the proposed mobile home would be a double --wide.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission has not historically approved
permits for mobile homes which were to be used as rental units. However,
he added that permits have been approved foruse by parents or other
relatives. He felt this request was consistent with past approvals.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-88-03 for Harry 0. Potchernick be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2:
a. Albemarle County building official approval;
b. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located;
c. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
d. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and
approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health, if applicable under current regulations;
e. Maintenance of existing vegetaion, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. She also asked that the record state
that the approval was for a double -wide mobile home. Mr. Pullen
confirmed this was stated in the permit application.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on March lb, 1988.
The meeting recessed from 9:20 to 9:30.
0417
March 8, 1988 Page 12
SP-88-7 A.T. Williams Oil Company - Request in accordance with Section
30.3.5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to issue a special use permit to
allow for the placement of approximately 6,800 cubic yards of earth in
the floodway fringe of the Rivanna River. Property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcels 2A, 2B, 2C, 4A, and 4B, is located on the north side
of Rt. 250 at St. Rt. 1421 (Elks Drive). Rivanna Magisterial District.
It was determined the applicant was requesting deferral to March 22, 1988.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-88-7 for A.T. Williams Oil Company be deferred to
March 22, 1988.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Kropf Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 5 lots from an existing 40.9
acre parcel., with an average lot size of 8.19 acres. The lots will be
served by a proposed internal private road. Zoned Rai, Rural Areas.
Property, located on the south side of Rt. 641, approximately 0.3 mile east
of its intersection with Rt. 743. Tax Map 20, Parcel 17. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Michel moved that the Kropf Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Raintree, Phase Seven, Preliminary Plat - This is a proposal to create
twenty-eight (28) lots with an average lot size of 11,584 square feet,
from 15.0 acres. The property is zoned R-2 (cluster development
approved for 2.2 dwelling units per acre), and is located off Old Brook
Road, adjacent to Phase VI of the Raintree development. Tax Map 61,
Parcel 126. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant co:zment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Hauser. He stated the development
is proceeding as originally proposed. Regarding concern expressed by
N-orthfields residents about the detention pond, Mr. Hauser explained that
the pond is still under construction and that screening will be installed
later which should address the Northfields residents' concerns.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Note: Mr. Bowerman disqualified himself from hearing this proposal because
of a possible conflict of interests. Ms.. Diehl conducted the meeting in
his absence.
02d r
March 8, 1988 Page 13
Mr. Michel asked if staff felt any additional buffering would be
necessary. Mr. Pullen stated he had visited the site and he felt that
a row of white pines along the bank would further screen the detention
pond from Northfields. He confirmed that staff was satisfied with
what the applicant was proposing.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Pullen confirmed that a vegetative
screening was proposed in addition to the white pines.
Mr. Stark moved that the Raintree, Phase Seven, 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 Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calcu-
lations;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
f. County Attorney approval of homeowners documents;
g. Planning staff approval of lot enumeration;
h. Planning staff approval of selective clearing of existing
woodlands and screening of the detention facility.
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.
Tri-Ton/Tiger Fuel Preliminary Site Plan - This is a proposal to locate
a 2,160 square foot convenience store and gas station on a five (5)
acre parcel to be served by eleven (11) parking spaces. A total of
15 fuel pumps are proposed, three (3) of which are truck fuel pumps.
The property is located on the east side of Route 29 North just south of
Airport Road (adjacent to Mercer Carpets). Tax Map 32, Parcel 36F.
Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "While there is not specific language dealing with
the crossover closing, it's implicit in this approval." Mr. Pullen
responded affirmatively. Mr. Stark asked if the same was true for
Health Department approval of the Employee Only restrooms. Ms. Diehl
indicated she did not know Employee Only restrooms were allowed.
v
March 8, 1988 Page 14
Mr. Pullen explained that square footage for food service area in
the proposed facility was such that public bathrooms were not required
under the BOCA Code. Mr. Pullen stated that service stations were
not required to provide public bathrooms.
Mr. Keeler pointed out to the.Commission that the final site plan which
the staff anticipates will be somewhat different than this plan. He
explained that the applicant proposes to move the entrance further to
the south to increase the distance to the gas pumps, thus reducing the
width of the entrance. He stated both staff and VDOT are in favor of
this design. He also stated that the applicant may move the building
back to improve visibility to the gas pumps. He stated that one issue
is still unresolved and recommended that a fourth condition be added
to address this issue: "The applicant is placed on notice that
subdivision or additional development of this property may require
alteration to access." Mr. Keeler explained that this use will occupy
only a portion of the five acre site and if other uses, or further
subdivision, are proposed in the future, alteration to access could
be required.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented. by `sir. David Sutton, President of Tiger
Fuel Company. He pointed out that Tiger Fuel and Tri-Ton are two
separate entities, and the present applicant is Tiger Fuel. He
explained that Tri--Ton had submitted an application previously.
He stressed that.Tiger Fuel is locally owned and operated. He
presented photographs of his Fifth Street development. He stated
he. had no objections to staff's recommended conditions of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Tiger Fuel Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site development plan will not be signed until the
following conditions have beenmet:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
c. The Virginia Department of Transportation's approval of an
entrance only design for the southern entrance and commercial
entrance for the northern entrance, turn lane, and
drainage calculations;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water
plans;
f. Planning staff approval of landscape plans.
2. A certificate of occupancy :ill not be issued until the following
condition is met:
a. Fire Officer approval.
4/d
March 8, 1988 Page 15
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
4. The applicant is placed on notice that subdivision or additional
development of this property may require alteration to access.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Annual Report - Discussion - The Commission briefly reviewed the annual
report as prepared by Mr. Jenkins. The following changes were made:
--Omit page 4 and top of page 5.
--Expand summary of current year's projects.
Pages 1, 2 and 3 were approved as presented.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
ohn Horne, Secretary
DS