Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP198600049 Staff Report 1986-12-09 { STAFF REPORT December 9, 1986 ROBERT CROSS SITE PLAN Proposal: This is a proposal to locate two ( 2) additional dwelling units on one parcel for a total of four ( 4 ) dwelling units on the parcel. Acreage: The total area of the site is 10 acres. Zoning: The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Location: The property is located on Route 250, approximately one ( 1) mile south of its intersection with Route 240. Tax Map 57 , Parcel 41K. White Hall Magisterial District. Staff Comment There are currently two ( 2) dwelling units located on the property. The applicant is requesting that two ( 2) additional dwelling units be located on this parcel. The new dwellings are intended for rental purposes. The submittal of a site plan is required when more than two ( 2 ) dwelling units are proposed for one parcel of land. The site plan review is concerned with verifying that the proposed building locations could allow for the future subdivision of the property consistent with the County Subdivision Ordinance. A request for a waiver of the site plan requirement Lpursuant to Section 32.2 . 2 of the Zoning Ordinance-0 was denied by the Planning Commission on September 23 , 1986 . In their denial the Commission indicated that a site plan should be submitted with verification that 30,000 square foot building sites on potential lots exist for each dwelling, and also that Health Department approval be obtained. Health Department approval has been obtained for septic field locations for the proposed dwelling units. 30,000 square foot building sites on two ( 2) acre parcels have also been verified on the site plan. Furthermore, the ultimate location for a potential public road has been shown on the site plan (A public road would be required should this property ever be subdivided) . This site plan will meet the requirements of the Albemarle County Zoning (and Subdivision) Ordinance and staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance; b) Issuance of an erosion control permit; c) Planning staff approval of revised site plan noting source of topography and datum, and reference benchmark; d) County Attorney approval of access easement; History o Request for a waiver of the site plan requirement pursuant to Section 32 . 2 . 2 of the Zoning Ordinance was unanimously denied by the Commission on September 23 , 1986 . o A proposal for three ( 3 ) additional lots on this parcel was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1979 . o A similar proposal ( for 3 additional dwellings) was submitted in 1977 . The application was withdrawn by the applicant on August 19 , 1977 . Topography of the Area: Moderate to steep slopes exist on portions of the property. Condition of Road Serving the Proposal: Route 250 is considered tolerable. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: Private street commercial entrance required at Route 250 access . Watershed Impoundment: This parcel is located within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Watershed Management Area. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Rural Area III , recommended density one unit per 10 acres (with Watershed) . `MARLE COUNTY ALBEMARL 40 41 74/Z -r / _j. -----:.-..,...... •. -0„ \ I 1 t - L a i if / a -a "W/-//./, ''/// "‘ ..N.„ ,. ..7/ t 414 64 N4 /// 'SEC OS / ` ` i• / Rr _ ..... lir ' ii.. is •r I ifs / 144 -\ - 1-"-1 �\ / as ill• / ti •e •r \ / X 74/ — 4 ' ( ,w` �_ \ram awn r••' 1• a / _ To� /... +sue q II __ / At. oe • •r 70+i1 \70 tt l / ` t . .e._. . 1 \ . . 7 71k\ .7// /i, # • i ~ • . / r a • • u 'M•• •f .o\ hF 441 ril le 124 4' rA WA/ C. I O. \ row ded a \ ,,,,c,. re 5;. . ' N all •� Rf 6e- �• ,./ •• / MMU J 45 RIVERECM + --\-----:-.......---;--/''. ___ • --. #'-'-V I• „ 53 r .,,_. .N.-i-- ----,---,.. eolip, S4' \ as 4. / \ j e� a•« 40(0011/ NS 1Lf 41M1 y •/7 11• , A.: 4 ,...._....._ t1 100 { .M4 JiO v' \ .<:\ j Z // ........mit . .. ....,., . ss p._. \ ,, 02• �0:1 � 24.4. "•• I 104 . 111/ IMO •/ 4>, 4st / i7'l ,cc, \ Aat • ./ L...0.. . A • II,,,..• \ N ISO/ .. ti Nvr , ' • • TJA • 1M.. �'.'!�' row c t ' . r1 Pt 47 4180 1 '� / .\ 4..\• 37 11 W 1 4 \ -"e \/-,c, 7\ . 72 73 M....M rat SAMUEL MILLE TALL DISTRICT SECTION 5G— "' w WHITE HALL C September 23, 1986 rTh The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 23, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy 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 the September 9, 1986 were approved as corrected. Robert Cross Site Plan Waiver Re est - Proposal to locate 2 additional dwelling )14111- units on a parcel for a total otZ dwelling units on a single parcel. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the site plan requirements pursuant to Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The total area of the site is 10 acres. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located south of its intersection with Route 240. Tax Map 57, Parcel 41K. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following formation: --The new dwellings are intended to be rental units. --The applicant has demonstrated that a total of 4 lots in excess of 2 acres, with a lawful building site, could be created to contain each dwelling unit. --Should this parcel ever be subdivided, the road requirement would call for a public road to be installed, since all the lots are under 5 acres. Therefore, the applicant must provide an access which could allow a public road to be installed in the future. The Highway Department will also require a private street commercial entrance and will also require that the entrance be relocated so that it will intersect Rt. 250 at a 90° angle. The applicant has agreed to plat an additional 50-foot easement on this property to serve parcel 41K, which would allow for a public roadway to be installed to serve this site should it ever be subdivided, and has also • agreed to relocate the entrance and roadway as necessary. --A soil scientist report will be required by the Health Department. Mr. Benish explained the applicant had not yet obtained a soil scientist report because "the applicant wished to determine if the proposal was feasible before he did the up-front costs." Mr. Bowerman asked how often such proposals occur, (i.e. 4 dwelling units on one parcel) . Mr. Benish indicated that 5 dwelling units are the limit on a parcel, but the usual proposal on a site plan waiver of this type is for an additional third cottage. He stated they typically are on large parcels j ! of land. He stated this proposal was "difficult" for staff because the "lot size is so tight." Mr. Bowerman indicated he was under the impression this type of proposal was • usually for farm help or relatives. He could not recall one of this nature. Mr. Cogan agreed. .ptember 23, 1986 age 2 Mr. Keeler stated, "There is no restriction on the construction of rental units in the rural areas except in the way that the rural areas ordinance is constructed. It limits you to not more than five dwelling units on any given parcel of land regardless of the size of the parcel of land. There is no prohibition in the ordinance, currently, towards rental units in the rural areas." Mr. Payne explained that while this is not the usual proposal, "in concept, there is nothing illegal about this." . Mr. Benish confirmed that the Commission is "being asked to waive all the requirements of a full-blown site plan." Mr. Keeler further explained that most requests for site plan waivers in- volving dwelling units have been for one additional dwelling on a large tract of land. He stated, "I can't recall, since we put that provision in the ordinance, where you have been requested to waive a site plan for more than one unit, or specifically, rental units." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Cross addressed the Commission. He stated he had no objections to the proposed conditions of approval. He pointed out that he has had no complaints about any of the other rental units on the property. It was determined Mr. Cross occupied one of the dwellings on the property. There being no public comment; the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Stark's request, the applicant presented a topographical map of the property. Mr. Cogan indicated he was in favor of seeing Health Department approval and also verification of the existence of 30,000 square feet for suitable building sites on the lots. He stated he did not feel a soil scientist's report would be overly expensive for the applicant. He indicated he had reservations about granting a site plan waiver since there were several undecided factors involved, such as the location of the road. He felt this was different from similar proposals in that it was more a commercial-type venture. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He stated he would like to see a site plan. The applicant indicated he was eager to begin building and asked if staff could be granted administrative approval after he has had a chance to address the concerns of the Commission. Because of the number of conditions of approval involved, Mr. Keeler stated he did not feel there would be much difference, time-wise, in administrative approval vs. Commission approval. Mr. Cogan moved that the Robert Cross Site Plan waiver request be denied. Mr. Cogan stressed that his motion for denial was for the waiver request only and did not mean that the eventual site plan would not be approved. Mr. Gould seconded the motion for denial which passed (5:1) . Commissioners Wilkerson, Cogan, Bowerman, Gould and Stark voted for the motion for denial; Commissioner Diehl abstained.