HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 20 77 PC MinutesDecember 20, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on
Tuesday, December 20, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman;
Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Leslie
Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Roy
Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; and Col. William Washington. Other county officials
present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro,
Planner; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy
County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Minutes of September 6, 1977, were deferred until January 3, 1978,
on the motion of Mrs. Graves and second of Mr. Jones.
Bertha Anderson Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro reported that the request for subdivision had been
previously deferred because the staff felt that there might be a conflict in
ownership. He stated that Health Department written approval has been secured.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the property is located on the north side
of Route 726 just east of Boiling Spring. The proposal is to divide a 4.13 acre
parcel into two lots, each 2.065 acres. The subdivision of these two parcels makes
up the sixth and seventh lots which have been cut from an original 14+ acre tract.
Staff opinion is that the two lots should be served by one joint entrance only,
therefore, approval is recommended subject to the following condition:
1. Access to lot 6 shall be by way of the 25' access easement only;
2. Note that 25' easement is an ACCESS easement;
3. Correct spelling errors on the plat.
There was no comment from the applicant or from the Commission.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Lewis Hill Section 3 Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the lots have been
enlarged to show the policy of the Commission regarding 60,000 square feet outside the
septic field.
Nineteen lots, average size 2.2 acres, are proposed on the A-1 property.
State roads are proposed. Deferral was approved by the Commission in order to get
an opinion from the Board of Supervisors on the question of requiring public water.
On December 14, the Board adopted a policy definition of "reasonably accessible or
277,
available" - she read this to the Commission. The staff noted that a revised
estimate has been prepared by the surveyor and checked by the County Engineer.
The estimate covers the cost of a water line from West Leigh to serve all nineteen
lots in Section 3, plus an additional seventeen lots which could be possible along
the water line. She stated that the total cost would be in the neighborhood of
$102,050 including the credit for 25% off -site work. The total cost per lot,
assuming development of 36 lots in the long run, would be $3,031 lot. The
estimate for individual wells per lot is $1,800 - $2,000. The Commission, Mrs.
Scala advised, must decide if this cost for public water is economically feasible accord-
ing to the Board's definition. If the Commission decides to permit a central well
system, then staff would recommend that the system be sized to meet the approval of
the Albemarle County Service Authority. The staff recommended the following conditions
of approval:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Highway Department approval;
3. Grading and runoff control permits if needed;
4. Public water.
Dr. Moore questioned if any other subdivisions or other lots in the area
might help in absorbing the cost of public water.
Mrs. Graves reminded the Commission that the original proposal was for
individual wells.
Mr. Landess, representing the applicant, stated that the question
involved is pure economic feasibility. The applicant at this time is requesting
only 19 lots, and though he owns other acreage, Mr. Landess stated that he does
not know the plans for the additional acreage. He suggested to the Commission
that road construction costs must be considered as part of the expense if public
water is required, since the road must be constructed in conjunction with the laying
of the water lines, if 36 lots are being considered. He stated that all 36 lots would
be along the roadway. He stated that also the calculations discount the actual cost
of borrowing the money, since road construction funds must always come "up front."
Mr. Easter questioned the private central system concept. He asked if
the developer would have to put in lines the size of the Service Authority's.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is correct, however there would be a savings
�i due to the fact that no connection fees per lotwould be necessary, nor would the
easements have to be secured.
Mr. Easter asked if it is possible to have 8" lines running from a well.
He felt that the pressure would not be very good.
Mrs. Scala said that certainly the pressure would be decreased, and it
could not supply hydrant pressure.
Dr. Moore did not feel that it is equitable for a developer to have to
dedicate water lines to the Authority and then pay the connection fees.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that lines would have to be run from the
houses to the main line.
Mr. Tucker noted that there is a 25% credit for off -site work.
273
Mrs. Graves opposed individual wells, since there is a history of water
problems in that area. She also pointed out that a central well would also draw on
the ground water. She inquired who would have to provide the water lines in the
long run if there is no water.
Mr. Carr said that in his opinion it is an economic decision on the part
of the Service Authority.
Mr. Landess said that there is a possibility that if public water is
required that the 19 lots will have to pay the entire cost of the water lines in
that area, and he did not feel this is equitable.
Mr. Carr said that he does not mean that it is economically feasible for
the 19 lots, and pointed out that not all the costs are built into the numbers furnished
by the staff. However, he pointed out that it is hard to think that these other
lots won't be developed by either this applicant or others. He said that he feels
it is reasonable to assume that other lots in the area will be developed.
Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, said that it is possible
only to consider 54 lots in the area, as opposed to what was originally thought
possible. He attributed the change in numbers to the recently adopted run-off
control ordinance.
Dr. Moore felt that the Board of Supervisors needs to think of an
equitable way to handle the basic problem.
Mr. Jones asked if public water is approved, and initially the 19 lots
share the cost of this water line, if they can be reimbursed at a later date if
other lots do indeed develop.
Mr. Landess said that any reimbursement would be determined by who develops
the property.
Mrs. David said that at one time the Board of Supervisors was considering
a revolving fund on a pro rata basis so that the first lots developed and the first
individuals living there do not absorb the entire cost.
Mr. Jones said that over'a long period of time he feels that those future
residents need some kind of water system that they can count on, and therefore,
in the long run he favored public water.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Highway Department approval;
3. Grading and runoff control permits if needed;
4. Public water.
Mr. Easter stated that he made this motion since he does not want to put
the County in the position of building lines at a later date as had to be done for
West Leigh. He stated that he also considered in his motion the $36,000 for road
construction. Mr. Easter felt that the County has to assume that the developer will
eventually come in with the remaining land for development.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
z71K
Wilco Revised Site Plan Reconsideration:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, reviewing the history for
the Commission. She stated that the Commission voted in December to reconsider
the site plan. She said that at the latest approval stage, the Commission had
voted that the original plan must be complied with except that the concession
stand and the signs which are approved may remain where they are now located.
The septic system may also remain where it is now located. The original planting
plan, including number, type and size of planting must be complied with, adapting it
to the site. The four parking spaces must be moved back as they were originally
shown. The front islands and the configuration of the paved area must be made the
same as shown on the original plan. The applicant is at this point requesting that
he not be required to reconstruct the two side curbs, and Mrs. Scala pointed to the
letter written by Mr. Williams.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, stated that he feels the
benefit of this request is less paved area. He said that the landscape plan will
be adapted to the site.
Mr. Carr said that it is hard to believe that ripping up pavement solves
the problem unless the existing is not functional.
Mr. Easter said that he feels as though the lack of compliance with the
approved site plan has been an atrocious willful flagrant violation of the ordinance.
He was very concerned about the precedent this would set if the Commission modified
its original approval.
Mrs. Graves said that the County has made it point in this matter.
She felt that the applicant will know in the future that he must adhere to the rules
of the ordinances. Mrs. Graves moved approval of the revised site plan, in order
that he not be required to reconstruct the two side curbs. ( Mr. Tucker marked the
plan that she was addressing. )
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-0-2, with
Messrs. Jones and Easter abstaining.
Thomas and Scarlet Lane Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that even though the
applicant is not present, he has notified the staff of his desire to have the
Commission consider the plat in his absence.
Since this was the request of the applicant, there was no
dissent to this.
9
The proposal is to divide two lots, 2.0 acres each. The first two lots were
approved administratively. No joint entrances are recommended due to sight distance
restrictions. The staff recommended two conditions of approval.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Note adjacent owners on the plat.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion for approval. The motion carried unanimously
with no discussion.
275
Garlick Tract Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the property is
located on the southeast side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) around and behind the Church
of Latter Day Saints. The property is zoned R-3 Residential, with a density of 20
dwelling units per net acre. On February 12, 1973, Cluster A of Four Seasons Phase II
Site Plan was approved. However, due to insufficient sewage capacity, on
March 5, 1975, Section II of Georgetown Woods was approved on this same site. On May
20, 1976, a part of this proposal was approved as part of the Evergreen Planned Community
under special permit 537. The proposed amendment to SP-537 (SP-77-11) was deferred
indefinitely by the Board of Supervisors on April 20, 1977.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the applicant is requesting comments of a
preliminary nature from the Commission. The proposal calls for a townhouse and apartment
development with 778 dwelling units, 322 townhouses and 456 garden apartments. Three
main entrances are shown , two off Route 743 and one off Route 657(Lamb's Road). A
recreation area is planned in the central area with a pool and two tennis courts; two
more tennis courts are located in a western section. This proposal incorporates a
portion of the Evergreen Planned Communtiy which was previously owned by Mr. Daley
Craig. This development proposes a connection to Evergreen by way of Hemlock Drive.
Mr. George Gilliam, Attorney for United Virginia Bank, stated that the
bank may want to sever parcel 18 from the Evergreen Plan, and this may have to be
done with approval from the court. He stated that the bank has studied the land
and prepared a very complete marketing survey for the proposal. The density is half
that permitted by the zoning. He asked for comments on the site plan.
Mr. Warren discussed the proposal with the Commission through a series
of graphic illustrations. He said that an in depth study has been done on the
topography, utilities, vegetation, soils, slopes, plus the marketing survey. He said
that his firm has attempted to concentrate development on slopes of 0-10%. He discussed
the drainage patterns and erosion areas. After reviewing the graphics on each of the
above mentioned items, he explained the analysis composite and proposed residential
locations. He stated that 28 acres ( approximately 31% of the property ) of the
property has been left in natural open space. He also explained the plan in relationship
to Evergreen.
Mr. Montenegro pointed out to the applicant and the Commission that the
School Board is requesting a school reservation. At this point Mr. Montenegro also
read into the record letters from the following adjoining property owners: Mr. James
Fleming, Mr. Richard Cecil Garlick, Jr., and Mr. H. Kenneth White. He further stated
that the property is subject to the run-off control ordinance.
Mr. Jones asked how far off the improvement to Hydraulic Road is.
Mr. Tucker stated that it is three years off.
Mr. Gilliam stated that the estimated date of completion for the Garlick
Tract is 10 years.
Mr. White, an adjoining property owner, was concerned about the increased
traffic on Lamb's Road. He said that he is also concerned about the run-off into
Ivy Creek. Furthermore, he pointed out that Evergreen was denied access to Route
657 annd feels this property should likewise be denied access to Route 657.
Mrs. Huckle noted for the record that traffic in this area is quite bad
now, under existing conditions.
2 7,4
Mr. White felt that the Commission should look at the proposal
from an energy standpoint, taking into account the prevailing winds, sunlight, etc.
Mr. Carr asked that the Commission make general observations on the proposal.
Mr. Montenegro pointed out to the Commission that in regard to the
school reservation approximately 10-13 acres is needed.
Mr. Gilliam stated that the requirement for the school will be met.
Mr. Carr suggested that perhaps the applicant could work out some buy
and sell arrangement with the School Board.
Mrs. Graves felt that before some sort of final site plan comes in the
question of Parcel 18 must be decided.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that the land is zoned A-1, and is subject
to a special use permit.
Mrs. Graves stated that she prefers to keep Parcel 18 in Evergreen, maintain
that density, in order that all the run-off doesn't end up in Evergreen.
She noted that as yet it has not been determined how this plan will be affected by
the run-off control ordinance. She suggested an RPN for the property, and noted
that she would like to see sidewalks along Route 657 as was required for Evergreen.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the Commission has to considering dumping
108 units on Lamb's Road, and he preferred that no access to Lamb's Road be
permitted.
Mr. Easter said that he agrees with the observations made by the Commission.
Mr. Jones said that some sort of recreational areas should be provided
for each phase of development.
Mr. Carr thanked the applicant for the preliminary view and suggested
that it would be helpful to see another preliminary as the plans progress.
Mr. Warner said that the matter will be a phasing plan.
No action was necessary on the preliminary plan.
Langford Phase II Final Plat -
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property
is located on the north side of I-64 frontage road #1 off Route 637 near Ivy. He stated
that this property is not subject to the run-off control ordinance, except that the
ordinance sets the 200 foot setback.
Mr. Montenegro reminded the Commission that a preliminary plat of this
property was approved in May, 1977, subject to six conditions:
-Z;9
1. Double frontage lots 34, 35, and 39 receive a wavier;
2. Reduction of frontage requirement for lots 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, and
39 is approved;
3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineering Department
approval of internal roads;
4. Grading permit will be required for final approval;
5. That frontage road #1 be improved to a Class B, Category II standard of the
Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance by the developer in order to eliminate
safety hazards which can be expected to arise as a result of the traffic generated
by this development;
6. No buildings or septic fields will be placed on slopes of 250 or greater.
Mr. Montenegro further stated that on September 13, 1977, the Commission approved
the first phase of Langford subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineering Department
approval of internal roads;
2. Grading permit will be required for final approval;
3. No buildings or septic fileds will be placed on slopes of 250 or greater;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities;
5. The I-64 frontage road #1 is to be improved to and maintained at Frontage Road
Category I standards; and the frontage road #1 is to be improved to Category II,
Class B of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance prior to subdivision of the
remainder of the property;
6. Churchill Lane shall be constructed and maintained to Secondary Road Standards of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and dedicated to public use.
Churchill Lnae shall be maintained to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
standards by property owners served through agreement approved by the County
Attorney until such time as acceptance into the State Secondary System occurs.
Churchill Lane shall be tendered for acceptance at the earliest date legally possible.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the proposal is to develop 34 lots all served
by public roads; one lot will front on the frontage road. A central well lot is proposed
and the applicant has applied for State approval of the central well, however, he does
not wish to have the central water required for the lots. The staff noted that there are
two questions which need to be resolved: (1) the applicant previously indicated to the
Planning Commission and the Planning Staff that he intended to bear the expense of
upgrading the frontage road as required by the preliminary approval; the applicant is
now reconsidering this position; (2) the Planning Commission's policy regarding the
subdivision of lots within the watershed ( i.e., 40,000 sq. ft. required per lot
outside 200' setback without well; 60,000 sq. ft. with well ) causes problems
for several lots in this proposal. Mr. Montenegro also reported that the staff recommends
approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. That frontage road no. 1 be improved to a Class B, Category II standard of the Albemarle
County Subdivision Ordinance by the developer in order to eliminate safety hazards which
can be expected to arise as a result of the traffic generated by this development;
these improvements should take place from Route 637 to just west of Pippin Drive;
2. The lot layout must be adjusted in order that each lot has a minimum of 40,000
sq. ft. if a central well is used or if the private well is located within the 200'
setback and meets Virginia Department of Health requirements, or each lot must have
a minimum of 60,000 sq. ft. if a well is to be located outside the 200' setback
3. Written Health Department approval;
4. The following lots hereby receive a waiver of the minimum frontage requirement:
Block A, Lot 4; Block B, Lots 6 and 7; Block C, Lots 5, 6, and &; and Block D,
Lots 3, 6, 7, and S;
5. A grading permit is required;
70'
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation acceptance into the
secondary system of frontage road and interior streets;
7. All sewage facilities must observe 200' setback from streams ( intermittent
and perennial);
8. Langford Circle is to be changed to Langford Lane, Drive, or Court.
Mrs. Graves questioned why the run-off control ordinance does not apply for these
two acre lots. Mr. Montenegro replied that the Engineering Department figures show it
is just under 5% impervious cover ( this includes house, roadways, and driveways ).
However, he stated that this will have to be reassessed if the Commission decides to
require 40,000 or 60,000 square feet outside the 200' setback from streams. He noted
that the conditions of approval address this.
Mr. Carter, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He first asked that the County
re-examine the run-off control ordinance. He felt that other county property owners should
also examine this ordinance, how it relates to their individual properties, and the long
range effects it will have. He noted that many of the streams on this particular property
begin and end on the property, further pointed out that sometimes they have a "trickle" of
water, and other times they are completely dry. He felt that under the run-off control
ordinance his land has been confiscated. He noted that the preliminary plat on this
property had been submitted and acted on in a favorable fashion months ago. He stated
that when he came back with the first phase, it was in compliance with the ordinance
and the Commission approved it. Some time between the approval of the first phase final
plat and now the county had enacted another ordinance, which drastically affects his
property. He reminded the Commission that the 40,000 and 60,000 square feet outside
the 200' setback from streams is merely a policy, and can be waived by the Commission.
Furthermore, this policy was adopted by the Commission after his final plat of the
first phase had been approved. He stated that he is also concerned about the road.
In all previous discussions, Mr. Williams of the Engineering Department, had discussed
what it will cost to improve the road. At that time a figure of $30,000 was discussed.
When the road was approved, it was for Class B, Category II; he stated that upon
investigation he has found that this requirement means that the entire road will have to
be built. He stated that this deals with 4,000 feet of roadway. He stated that this
will cost in excess of $100,000 by the estimates of a local road building contractor.
The reason is that grading will have to be done, box culverts will have to be built,
guard rails will have to be moved, the width of the entire roadbed will have to be changed,
the slopes along the existing roadway will have to be laid back. In Mr. Carter's
opinion, this was not practical. What Mr. Carter said he had discussed with the staff
was widening the road a little, putting more stone base on it to make it a sound road,
and surface treating it. He stated that he had even offered to work with the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation on this several times, and every time has been
turned down. He again stated that the ordinance should have a grandfather clause covering
previously approved subdivisions. Otherwise, he felt that those having plans already
submitted to the County, whether preliminary or final, should .have been notified by the
County by certified mailings about the effects of the run-off control ordinance and
the effects of the 40,000-60,000 policy outside the 200' setback, noting that the
consequences were going to be severe with their adoption. He asked that the subdivision
be approved as submitted, and again made his offer to the Planning Commission to participate
in the improvements of the frontage road to a reasonable degree.
Mr. Easter questioned Mr. Payne about the fact that a preliminary on the property
had already been approved by the County. Mr. Payne stated that there is no grandfather
clause in the ordinance.
Mr. Easter asked the staff if the $30,000 included widening of the road, additional
gravel, and some surface treatment. Mr. Montenegro replied that what was discussed at the
Preliminary stage was that the 14' road would have to be widened to 201, 8" of stone,
and then the entire thing surfaced treated. He said that he had understood from Mr.
Coburn that no vertical realignment would be necessary.
2,;?
At this point, Mr -Easter questioned the difference between the $30,000 and the $100,000
spoken of that night. He asked if what the Commission had originally talked about was
Class B, Category II. Mr. Montenegro said that what was originally talked about was
Class B, Category II. He said that the difference in figures could be the box culverts,
guard rail relocation, etc.
Mr. Easter asked the applicant the difference in the two fugures for upgrading.
Mr. Carter replied that there are numerous low spots that a box culvert would have to be
extended. He said that it is a costly measure to widen these concrete structures to
Class B, Category II standards.
Mr. Easter then asked if the applicant were willing to widen the road a little,
add more stone base, and surface treat it for $30,000. Mr. Carter replied that he had
hoped that the Virginia Department of Highways would participate in this cost, as they
had done in other situations. He said that he would be improving approximately 3000
feet of roadway frontage along someone else's property if he followed the standards
and absorbed all the costs himself. He said that when he had offered to pay half the
expense of the $30,000, the Highway Department had flatly turned him down.
Mr. Jones asked if the existing culverts would take twenty feet of roadway.
Mr. Carter replied that they would not.
Mrs. Graves suggested deferring the matter until the Highway Department could be
present. Therefore, both sides could discuss the matter with the Commission simultaneously.
She stated that basically she understands that the Highway Department's position it that
it has spent $22,000 alreay on that roadway, and that it does not intend to spend any more.
She said that she also knows that the Commission stated that when the developer came
in with that particular piece of property, it was going to have to be upgraded.
Mr. Carter pointed out that the Commission had stated that the road would have to
be upgraded to eliminate an unsafe condition. He noted that the straightness of the road
is practically perfect and the road does have shoulders. He said that it had been his
understanding that the Commission was concerned about the loose stone on the road and
the fact that it is not surface treated.
Mrs. Graves questioned if the developer had satisfied the conditions of Phase I
plat approval. Mr. Carter stated that he has done more than the state has, having used
motor -grader time on the road, the sides of the road have been bush -hogged, and additional
stone has been added. He stated that since it is not his responsibility to maintain the
road, he has been trying to get the state to maintain it. He said that the state has not
been maintaining it as they are supposed to do.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that the two main problems are the road and the
realignment of the lots. He asked the Commission to set the plat aside for a while if it
did not know on what basis it is going to address these questions.
Mr. Carter reminded the Commission that Mr. Roosevelt had stated that he could
not state that the road was unsafe in its present condition. However, the approval was
to alleviate a possible unsafe condition. He reminded the Commission that because a road
is a gravel road does not mean that it is unsafe. A road is always upgraded by the state
after development has occurred, and he said that he does not see why this case should be
treated any differently.
Mr. Jones felt that a safe road has to be at least 20' wide.
Mrs. Graves said that with regard to the area requirements, she feels that the only
:►✓ question is whether the applicant is going to do it with 40,000 or 60,000 square feet.
Therefore without that knowledge, she said that she does not know how the Commission will
respond to the subdivision. She said that she moved that the request for subdivison
approval be deferred until the first or second meeting in January, in order that the
applicant can have his plans more settled and in order that the Highway Department
can be present. At this point, Mr. Montenegro asked if she felt the applicant should
redo the lots. Mrs. Graves said either that or he needs to inform the Commission if there
is to be central water.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Mr. Tucker stated that this would be on January loth agenda.
Magruder Dent, Jr. Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this A-1 property is located on the south side
of Route 676 near intersection of Route 601 ( Clearview area ). The proposal is three
lots, each containing 2.5 acres to be served by a proposed 30' access easement.
She reviewed the history, stating that a preliminary plat was given conditional
approval by the Commission on September 20, 1977. The Commission waived deciation
of the 25' strip along Route 676. The Board of Supervisors called up the plat and
on October 12, 1977, denied the request for a waiver. A runoff control permit
will probably not be required. Staff recommended approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Highway Department approval of a single entrance to serve all three lots;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Maintenance agreement for the easement to be approved by the County Attorney
and recorded;
4. 75' setback from access easement;
5. Removal of note reserving easement across 25' strip.
Mr. Dent addressed the Commission, asking that conditions 3, 4, and 5 be
removed from any approval granted.
Mrs. Scala said that #4 is a condition of the ordinance, and if there
is a hardship, a variance can be applied for.
Mr. Payne said that if #5 is removed, he foresees a potential source
of friction between the owner and the Highway Department. Furthermore, he felt
that something could be built within that 25' strip as the note is written.
Mr. Carr said that lie felt that the reason for always requiring this
was to save the county the expense of acquiring the right-of-way when the road is
widened.
Mr. Payne stated that this is correct.
Mr. Dent felt that he should be able to use the 25' strip until the
road is widened, and said that he is willing to dedicate it at a future date to the
Highway Department with no strings attached. He felt that he should have an easement
at this time.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4
as recommended by the staff. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which lost by a vote
of 3-3, with Messrs. Jones and Moore and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mrs. Graves then moved approval of the plat subject to the five conditions
recommended by the staff. Dr. Moore seconded this motion which lost by a vote of
2-4, with Messrs. Carr, Jones,McCann, and Easter dissenting.
Mr. Jones then moved that the Commission reconsider the plat.
Mrs. Graves seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. v
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4
as recommended by the staff. Mrs. Graves seconded this motion, which carried by a vote
of 4-2. with Messrs. Jones and Moore dissenting.
Mary Harlowe Mobile Home Park Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property
is located on the east side of Route 729. The proposal is for a mobile home park with
ten acres served by group septic systems and central well. She presented the conditions
of approval of SP-77-56 to the Commission. Mrs. Scala stated that the Highway
Department is requiring a commercial entrance at Route 729. Health Department approval
has been received but must be revised to show three homes on each system. The staff
recommended approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Highway Department approval;
2. Central well approval;
3. Health Department approval;
4. Engineering Department approval of roadway specifications.
Mr. Easter asked if spigots for the water lines would be provided on the
outside of the units.
Mr. Harlow said that they would be provided.
Mr. Easter said that he wished to make this a condition of approval of
the site plan, in view of the fire hazards for mobile home units. He moved approval
of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Highwya Department approval;
2. Central well approval;
3. Health Department approval;
4. Engineering Department approval of roadway specifications;
5. outside spigots on exterior of each mobile home unit.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion of approval, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
Mountain Hollow Preliminary Plat:
Mrs. Scala prefaced her remarks by stating that the applicant was not present.
Mr. Easter moved that any discussion and action be deferred until the
applicant could be present.
Dr. Lange, an adjoining property owner, informed the Commission that he
had been present the entire meeting anticipating to be able to speak to the preliminary
plat. Basically, he said that he was present for information purposes.
Mrs. Scala explained the recommended conditions of approval to Dr. Lange.
The Commission by unanimous agreement deferred the matter temporarily in
order that Dr. Lange could review the plans.
Mr. Easter asked that the staff consider and address at a later date
what should take place if the applicant is not present for the meeting and does not
let the staff know ahead of time that he will not be present.
z8Z_
The Commission, upon the motion of Mr. Easter, and second of Mr. Jones,
indefinitely deferred any discussion and action on the plat until the applicant
requested that it again be placed on the agenda.
Adventure Heights Preliminary Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is
located on the west side of Route 743 at Route 606 intersection. The proposal is
a preliminary plan for 32 lots, average size, 3 acres. State roads are proposed. All
lots are to be served by individual wells and septic systems. The Charlottesville/
Albemarle Airport Board is in the process of acquiring easements over this property
for grading, clearing and maintaining an obstruction light. The proposed plan indicates
an existing clearing easement, in which area no building is permitted. Other portions
of the proposed subdivision will be subject to height restrictions, but it appears
that single-family residences will not exceed the restrictions. Staff has reviewed
the plan with the idea that it will actually be developed in this manner, though Mrs.
Scala said that hopefully it will not. The staff recommended to the applicant that if
and when the property is developed, that it be done as a whole. The staff also noted
that it feels this is a poor preliminary plan, and further pointed out the stripping
of the roadway frontage. The preliminary calculations incidate that a runoff
control permit will not be required. The lots are subject to Commission policy regarding
minimum lot area outside the 200' septic setback line. The highway department is
recommending that lots 1-7 have other access, or joint entrances which have been shown.
It appears that topography limits any access from the rear of the lots. The staff
requested a 25' reservation along Route 743, or 100' setback which has been shown on
the preliminary. It has been noted on the plat that lots 8-12 and 23-26 will not
enter on Route 743. A waiver of these double frontage lots is needed. The
staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Approval is subject to the Soil Erosion Ordinance and Runoff Control Ordinance;
2. All lots must meet Commission's policy on minimum area requirements outside the 200'
septic setback;
3. Highway Department approval;
4. Health Department approval;
5. Waiver of double frontage lots granted.
Mr. Jim Murray, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions recommended
by the staff. He stated that all the applicant intends to develop at this point is
t1tat land shown on the preliminary.
Mr. Easter questioned the stripping of the land mentioned by the staff.
Mrs. Scala said that if this is the only part of the land to be developed,
then she does not know what to suggest.
Mrs. Graves felt that the land could have a better layout and felt that
an RPN might be appropriate.
take place. Mr. Jones moved for deferral in order that some study of the property could
Mrs. Scala stated that she had spoken to the airport manager that day
and hehad no comments, knowing that the county does not prohibit developer this
close to the airport.
Mr. Carr pointed out that clustering the lots does not remove their
proximity to the airport.
Mr. Carr further stated that in his opinion, the land should be condemned and
acquired.
Mr. Jones again moved deferral in order that the applicant could do further
study in regard to safety, due to the closeness of the airport.
the staff.
This motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the five conditions recommended by
Mr. McCann seconded this motion.
Dr. Moore suggested again the idea of an RPN.
Mr. Murry stated that this is economically infeasible. He gave the
technical explanation of how the plan was arrived at. He said that he realizes that
the seven lots are a rroblem, however any preliminary costs of layout preparation
are absorbed the applicant, and an RPN is therefore economically impossible.
Mrs. Graves said that the applicant could move this plan on to the Board
of Supervisors if the Commission denied it. Perhaps they could then discuss some
sort of purchase.
Mr. Murray said that he is willing, on behalf of the applicant, to drop
the seventh lot, and have three joint entrances. He stated that the preliminary
is in compliace with county ordinances, and asekd that the Commission vote that evening
on it.
Mr. Carr again stated that he feels that the roads should not be stripped,
however the basic objection is that the houses will be subjected to the noises of the
airport, and therefore, an RPN will not delete this problem.
Mr. Jones said that he is willing to accept the compromise, therefore eliminating
the seventh lot, making the 6 lots larger.
He moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff plus the condition that lot 7 be eliminated thus making the 6 lots larger, and
they are to have joint entrances.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Staff reque5.t for resolution of intent regarding townhouses in the R-2
and R-3 zones:
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff feels that these two zones should have
the townhouse incorporated into them, since at this point the maximum density
allowed under the townhouse ordinance is 6 units/acre.
Mr. Easter moved that this item be taken to public hearing. Mr. Jones
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
e,28�v
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission members that they should submit
their real estate disclosures by December 31, 1977. He stated that the forms
are available in the Clerk to the Court's office. 1114)
At this point, Mr. Tucker thanked David Carr for his service to the
county, stating that he has been very helpful to everyone, especially the Director
of Planning.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at midnight.
Robe t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretar
19