Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA198500033 Other 1986-02-25 -- Z IA-85--n l s'vii e oresj racT, On .Amendmeri{ - Request to divide u.::,,, 09 acres into 69lot: t a 1.0 acre minimum lot siz This area was •previously shown for lots. The property, described as Tax Map 31, parcels 31 and 46 part of, is located off an extension of Earlysville Forest Drive which will connect to Rt. 743. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. , Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Referring to staff's suggested yard separation requirements for Section 9, °`, Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler if the Fire Official had commented on this. "' ` Mr. Keeler confirmed they were in accordance with the Fire Official's X ' recommendations. Ms. Diehl asked how many lots had been approved for this section in the original approval. Mr. Keeler responded that the original approval had not been approved by sections but the plan had shown 22 or 23 lots in this section. He further explained that 135 have been plated in the other areas, thus leaving 20 lots in this section (155 original approval - 135 = 20) . Mr. Keeler further clarified that a total of 67 lots is being requested, i.e. 47 in addition to the original 20 that were plated for this section. Mr. Gould asked for an explanation of the phrase "open space shall be dedicated•in proportion to the number of lots approved." Mr. Keeler responded, "If you have 100 lots and the plan shows 50 acres of ��', open space, then you would dedicate 1/2 acre of open space for each lot ~ ,�,,. that you platted with a section." 2 _ 2 .5---_0„ ,February 25, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Gould asked where the reduction in open space was coming from. Mr. Keeler responded that more of the land"is being used for lots. Mr. Gould interpreted that "in the earlier approval we had a proportion that we agreed upon and now, in effect, we are saying we want to reduce it." Mr. Keeler explained,that minimum required open space in a PUD is 25% and the applicant would still be above that with approximately 34% in the sections that have been platted to date. ,,' Mr. Keeler again confirmed that the applicant is requesting to change the 20 lots that are left to 67 lots. Mr. Cogan asked how the proposal would effect the average density for the entire project. He noted that the original gross density had been 1 dwelling unit/3.1 acres and the density for the proposed Section 9 would be 1.6 acres. Mr. Keeler roughly estimated that the overall gross density would be changed to 1 unit/2.4 acres. ' Mr. Stark asked about the status of the proposed recreational facilities. Mr. Keeler explained that they have not yet been constructed. He further explained that originally both private and public facilities had been planned but this was later changed to exclude the private recreational facilities. Currently, he stated that an area has been ' ' dedicated to the County'and, if approved, '-that will meet the recreational ' ' requirements. He pointed out that this has nothing to do with the present _ petition. ' Mr. Keeler added that there has been interest shown in developing an area for recreational purposes. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that recent soil reports have indicated it may be possible to do 62 lots rather than 67. He also asked that the deadline for the written agreement be changed from February 28 to March 5. He explained that he would be out of town for several days making it impossible to comply with the February 28 deadline. He stated he had discussed this with Mr. Payne and no difficulties are anticipated. He and Mr. Payne had agreed on a meeting date of. March 5. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed various concerns about the proposal: Mr. Randy Henderson: Mr. Henderson's primary concern was the water supply and the increased problems that would be experienced as a result of this proposal. ' Mr. Ed Bain, representing Mr. and Mrs. Dofflemyer, ,adjoining property owners: He explained his clients were concerned about the development taking place right on their property line and asked that the 100 foot buffer be maintained as had been indicated in the original plan. Mr. Bain also expressed concern about the steepness of slopes in areas where roads were proposed. His clients felt this was a over-development of the property. w February 25, 1986 Page 7 9.' Mr. Ronald Brady, a neighboring property owner across Rt. 743: He was concerned about access onto Rt. 743 and problems caused by increased traffic. He also Telt the density proposed was much too intense and would detract from the rebt of the development. ' Mr. Jeff Joseph, President of the Earlysville Forest Homeowners Association: He explained he had solicited comments about '" the proposal from 128 property owners and had received five responses. Of those five, two were concerned about roads, 2 about water problems, and one was concerned about where the road would be upgraded. ' Ms. Doris Ayers, an adjacent property owner: She was interested in knowing exactly where access onto Rt. 743 would be located. (Mr. Keeler responded to Ms. Ayers question and indicated the location on the map.) There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark asked Mr. Keeler to comment on the 100 foot buffer that was mentioned by Mr. Bain. Mr. Keeler responded that a 100 foot buffer was not shown and had not been a requirement of the original approval. He explained there had been a requirement to have screening along the entrance road adjacent to Earlysville Heights. .> Ms. Diehl recalled that the buffer issue had been discussed at length P by the Commission, Mr. Dofflemyer and the applicant. She stated it was her under- standing that although it had not been a requirement there was an informal agreement to maintain such a buffer. Mr. Michel asked how the new setbacks had been arrived at. Mr. Keeler explained that the Fire Official at the time of the original approval recommended 100-foot building separations in rural areas as a measure to discourage fire spreading. He stated there is no requirement in the Ordinance and the Fire Official had used several fire codes as guidelines. He stated the current Fire Official is in agreement with the separation requirements as stated in the staff report. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the current approval would allow 20 lots in Section 9. Ms. Diehl noted that a letter of opposition had also been received from the League of Women Voters. In response to Mr. Stark's question about the 100-foot buffer area, Mr. Bain indicated he had not discussed the matter, with a representative of the PUD. He added that the 100-foot buffer was shown on the original plan though it had not been a requirement. It was shown as "open space" in Section 9. He stated his client would like for the 100-foot buffer area to be made a requirement. He indicated he did not know if any agreement had been reached between his client and the applicant, either informally or otherwise. Ms. Diehl stated she recalled that there had been an informal agreement, though she stressed that her memory of the issue was "suspect." February 25, 1986. Page 8 Mr. Keeler reported that the original copy of the plan shows about 50 feet on Mr. Dofflemyer's land and 100 feet from Rt. 743, i.e. the open space area. • Mr. Cogan stated he felt this section could "carry" more than 20 lots which are now permitted, but to go to 67 lots was "pushing at the outer limits of the physical features of the piece of land." He was also - concerned about roads on slopes in excess of 25%. He also pointed out -' t, -'' that drain fields are not permitted on slopes in excess of 207 without special approval from the. Board.of Supervisors. Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned because she felt the request was "very inconsistent with the original PUD and it was not in harmony with the physical facilities." She .stated she could not support an increase of 200%. Mr. Michel indicated he was sympathetic to Mr. Cogan's and Ms. Diehl's position, though he was mindful of an attempt to move housing out of the south region of Earlysville and direct, it to the north, which this proposal is in compliance with. Mr. Gould indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl in that it was not in keeping with the original approval. He felt the proposal was overdone and stated he could not support it. Mr. Bowerman indicated he, too, agreed with Ms. Diehl and added that he was concerned about the water ircblems as that had been a major issue ( ' ) at the time of the original approval. Mr. Bowerman also stated that 4.._ had the original proposal been for 33% more lots, it may not have been approved. He felt that going from 20 lots to 67 lots in this one area was not good planning. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-85-33 for Earlysville Forest PUD, Tract B, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. The Chairman asked Mr. Gilliam if the applicant had given any thought to accepting a lesser number of lots. , Mr. Gilliam responded that that might be possible, but the option the applicant holds on the land requires that the applicant be able to get at least 60 lots out of the property. The motion for denial passed unanimously. The matter was to, be heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 5, 1986.