HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 19 88 PC MinutesJuly 19, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning commission held a public hearing on.Tuesday.
July 19, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other .officials present
were: Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner;.
and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of July 5, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
ZMA-88-10 J.W. Sieg & Company - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to rezone 3+ acres from LI, Light Industrial to C-1,
Commercial for a commercial neighborhood center. Property, described as
Tax Map 59, Parcels 23C, 23D, and 23F, is located on the north side of Rt. 250W,
approximately 1/2 mile west of intersection with Ednam Drive. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested deferral to August 2, 1988.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that ZMA-88-10 be deferred to
August 2, 1988. The motion passed unanimously.
Michael H. Davis - Proposal to subdivide a 7.704 acres. The 3.704 acre lot
is to be served by a new 20' easement. The applicant requests that an
existing dwelling not be required to use this new easement and instead
continue to use an existing entrance to Rt. 751. (Waiver of Section 18-36(f)
of the Subdivision Ordinance). Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel
26G is located on the south side of Rt. 751 approximately 2/10 mile west
of Rt. 683 and 2/10 mile south of Rt. 250. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request
based on the belief that there was no justification for granting a waiver
of Section 18-36(f).
Mr. Fritz confirmed the Commission was acting on the waiver request only
because the subdivision request could be handled administratively.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Michael H. Davis was present but added no additional comment except to
confirm that the staff report had explained the situation adequately.
Mr. James Davis, brother of the applicant and owner of the property, addressed
the Commission. He stated it was "almost impossible" for his brother to
use his driveway. He stated that when he bought the property all that was
stated on the plat was that the property had one subdivision right and
nothing indicated that both lots would be required to use the same driveway.
He explained that had he been aware of this requirement he would have
July 19, 1988
Page 2
had no objection, but now it is not possible because of the way his house
is situated on the property. He felt the proposed driveway would not
deter from the neighborhood
Mr. Fritz confirmed staff was contemplating that if the waiver request was
denied both houses would be served either by the new access or
the existing access, one or the other, but not both.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins explained that he had looked at the property and the existing
driveway is on the same side of the house as the garage and to put
a new driveway ."down the middle of his front yard doesn't seem to be a
practical answer. " He stated the house was so close to the right-of-way
on the right side.the access would be very close to the house. He
stated he would not be opposedtogranting the waiver.
Mr. St. John asked staff to point out the location of the existing house,
the well and septic field. Mr. Fritz complied with this request.
It was determined only one house currently exists on the property.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr.' Jenkins hoar he would justify "not complying with the
conditions in the ordinance under 18-36(f)," i.e. which justification
was he using to grant the waiver. Mr. Bowerman read the reasons stated
in the staff report: "existing development, topography or other physical
considerations as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience,
or to alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation."
Mr. Bowerman indicated he did not feel any of these applied to the
applicant's request. Mr. Jenkins agreed those were "strong words."
Mr. Jenkins used the plat to demonstrate why he felt the options open
to the applicant were limited.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the access.easement could be located on the
opposite property line to serve both the properties. �%Ir. Bowerman pointed
out this possibility on the plat. Mr. Jenkins felt this suggestion would
place the access too close to the existing house.
Mr. James Davis explained that Mr. Bowerman's suggestion was not feasible
because his house was,"too close to the line," utility lines are located
in this area, and a large oak would have to be removed.
Mr. Fritz confirmed he had visited the property and feels it would be
possible to locate a joint access using the existing entrance. He added
that adequate sight distance was available in any location along the
front of the property.
Ms. Diehl stated she supported the staff's position.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the purpose of this section of the ordinance
is to reduce the number of entrances off all highways and it is a safety
consideration and one that is in the public interest. He stated that
in order for him to grant a waiver there would have to be a clear and
present danger or a significant topographical problem. He stated he
failed to find a justification in this case.
July 19, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the requirements were in existence at the time
the applicant bought the property, and it was the applicant's decision to
subdivide the property.
Mr. James Davis indicated strongly that he did not understand why the waiver
could not be granted. He again stressed that he had not been aware of this
requirement when he had purchased the property.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that there was nothing unique about Mr. Davis' request
which would justify the granting of the waiver
Mr. Michael Davis pointed out that he felt locating a driveway in the middle
of his brother's property would create a safety hazard for his brother's
children.
Ms. Diehl stated she understood the applicant's request, but a waiver must
be based on certain factors which are not present in this case.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Michael H. Davis request for a waiver of Section
18-36(f) be denied.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowerman stated he would like to be able -to support the applicant,
but he could not do so just because it would be a nice thing to do; he
had to support the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Stark felt there was no other option open to the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins felt there should be room for some "compassion" within the
process, though he understood Mr. Bowerman's position.
Mr. Bowerman stated that was the purpose of the Commission and exceptions
are made often, but there must be a valid reason for doing so and one
does not exist in this case.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt there were two points which should be made: (1) The
Subdivision Ordinance was in effect at the time the plat was recorded
and "ignorance" of the ordinance is not justification for a waiver; and
(2) Assuming that there is going to be a subdivision is "getting the cart
before the horse" because the property can be subdivided only if the
conditions of the ordinance can be met.
The previously stated motion for denial passed (5:1) with Mr. Jenkins
casting the dissenting vote.
The Chairman advised the applicant that he could appeal this action to
the Board of Supervisors if he so desired. He advised the applicant
to contact Mr. Walter Perkins, the Board of Supervisors representative
for the applicant's district.
.,?Z/gl
July 19, 1988
Page 4
Watts Station. Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to. create 13 lots ranging
in size from 6 to 54 acres from 2 existing parcels. Four lots are to have
direct access to Rt. 600 while the remaining 9 are to have access from a
proposed public road. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 42 and
Tax Map 33, Parcel.22A is located on the west side of Rt. 600 just south
of its intersection with Rt. 700. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by fir. Buddy Edwards who offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the :natter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to four lots that were not served by the state road, Mr. Bowerman
asked if the constraint was topography. Mr. Edwards responded: "We couldn't
rearrange it to get everything internal --there's going to be lots that have
to depend on the existing state road."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Watts Station Preliminary Subdivision Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Final County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations.
2. Virginia Department of Transportation final approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations.
3. Issuance of Erosion Control Permit.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the motion included staff approval of the final
plat.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mill Creek PED Collector Road - Request to change the timing of collector
road plan approval from signature of Section 4 Final Plat to issuance of the
one hundreth (100th) building permit.
Ms. PgttFESon presented the staff report. She explained that as a result of
ic
publicr/issues relating to this as a Comprehensive Plan road and issues
beyond the control of the applicant, the road plan review had been delayed.
Ms. Patterson explained further: "The applicant is presently seeking final
approval of combined Sections 3 and 4 Final Plat.....Suffi.ciently adequate
access to the sections 3 and 4 lots would be provided in the interim prior
to construction of the collector road. Therefore staff recommends deleting
these conditions on Sections 3 and 4 Final Plat. Instead, in accordance
with the road agreements, (staff) recommends the following--(1) That the
road plan approval be accomplished before we issue the 100th building
permit; and (2) That they actually construct the road or bond for the
road prior to the issuance of the 100th C.O."
.3�j
July 19, 1988 Page 5
Ms. Patterson confirmed there was "no substantive change."
Mr. Stark moved that the staff's recommendation on the Mill Creek PUD Collector
Road be accepted.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman called the Commission's attention to an Institute for Planning
Program conference to be held October 9 through 11 in Blacksburg. Interested
persons were advised to contact Mr. Fritz.
_Grading Permits - Ms. Patterson.went over a memo written by Mr. Keeler
which suggested the possibility of developing some flexibility in the
grading permit process. The memo explained "there may be instances where
grading before plan approval would not be contrary to the public interest,
e.g, preparation of industrial sites with conceptual 'building pads."'
The memo concluded: Should the Planning Commission determine some flexibility
in regulation to be desirable, staff would develop detailed policy for
consideration. Such action would likely require amendment to the soil
erosion ordinance to give the Planning Commission this discretion."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "If we had any discretion at all it might be
better than changing the ordinance because there was a good reason to
put it in."
Ms. Patterson stressed staff was not suggesting "just across the board
grading permission."
Mr. St. John felt there should be some way for allowing some discretion
by the staff or the Commission in those cases where "following the
letter of the ordinance doesn't really make common sense."
Mr. Bowerman was in favor of having some review by the Commission in
cases where it is deemed necessary.
Ms. Patterson stated staff was anticipating that applications would come
to staff and if the applicant did not agree with staff's decision, they
could appeal to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "I just don't want to throw out.good planning for
the convenience of the applicant." He also stated: We'd like to see
some reasonable certainty that what the applicant is proposing for the
ultimate use —can be adequately accommodated by this original grading
permit. It cannot reasonably preclude anything that they anticipate.
I think it should be structured in such a way.that the Commission gets
a shot at looking at it."
Ms. Diehl added that she felt it should be an "approval/denial" foremat
rather than a policy.
July 19, 1988
Page 6
Ms. Patterson pointed out that it would be important that an applicant
show the public purpose that would be served.
It was the consensus of the Commission that some type of Commission review
was desirable.
Mr. Jenkins cautioned that this could evolve into another entire "category"
in the applicant's presentation.
Mr. St. Join pointed out that an applicant would have to have a "compelling
reason" to justify grading prior to having a proposed site plan.
Mr. St. John suggested the possibility of a "special permit for grading without
a site plan."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
DS