Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 03 78 PC Minutesi� January 3, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, January 3, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Huffman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann. Absent was Col. William Washington. Other officials present were Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. It was established that a quorum was present; the meeting was called to order. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that since the offices of chairman and vice-chairman were for one year, that it was appropriate for Mr. Easter to serve as vice-chairman, thus presiding, until the reorganization of the Commission. Mr. Graves moved that the election of officers be deferred until all members of the Commission were present and until the Board appointed members to fill the existing vacancies. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Minutes of September 6, 1977, were approved subject to the editorial comments made by Mrs. Graves. Minutes of September 27, 1977, were approved as submitted. Riverside Farm plat: The staff advised the Commission that this would be deferred at the applicant's request until January 24, 1978. No motion was necessary. SP-77-75 - Robert Beverly: Mr. Easter noted that the letter of objection to this mobile home had been withdrawn and thus no public hearing before the Commission was necessary. The item was to be handled administratively, and no motion was necessary. Northlea Farms Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located off the west side of Route 677 about two miles east of Route 676. The proposal is two -fold: first, the applicant wishes to extend an existing 50' wide right-of-way which presently serves parcel X to the property line of parcel 59-7E; and second, the applicant wishes to transfer a 0.35 acre parcel from parcel 59-7E to Parcel 59-6. This item was before the Commission because the transfer of the 0.35 acre "wedge" qualifies this as a subdivision. All parcels are existing, and the only thing being created by this plat was the 243+ foot extension of the right-of-way. Highway Department opinion was that the intersection of the 50' right-of-way with Route 677 could be improved to meet commercial standards when needed. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: G{L 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance at Route 677 prior to final approval. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that he does not see any need for a 45-acre tract to need Health Department approval until the house site is determined. Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission would have to waive this requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. There were no comments from the Commission or the public. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following condition, stating that he wished to waive Health Department approval due to the size of the lot: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance at Route 677 prior to final approval. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Joseph Whitley Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property, located on the south side of Route 665, is proposed for a subdivision of four lots, average size 2.37+ acres. Joint driveways are proposed and have preliminary approval from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Preliminary Health Department approval has also been received. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. If Route 665 frontage is an easement only, then 25' from centerline of road shall be dedicated to public use; 2. Note that a runoff control permit may be necessary prior to issuance of building permit; 3. Add note stating: "access to lot shall be by way of driveway easements shown on plat only." Mr. Morris Foster, representing theapplicant , stated that he feels that joint entrances will be used, however he does not want them to be mandatory on the plat. He reminded the Commission that if the Highway Department approves an entrance onto the state road for a parcel, the joint entrance rule cannot be enforced. Mrs. Graves replied that in the past she has felt the Commission approved several plats solely because joint entrances were shown. Mr. Easter agreed, stating that he sees no point of showing them on the plat if the intent is not to use them. He felt that the purpose had been to cut down on road stripping. Mr. Tucker stated that when there was a different resident engineer for the Highway Department, the feeling was that joint entrances could not be enforced. However, the feeling of the current resident engineer is that if shown on the plat, they can be enforced. T'_zere was no comment from the public. Mr. McCann moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Caleb Stowe Final Plat: In the absence of the applicant or his representative, Mrs. Graves moved that discussion of this plat be deferred until later in the meeting. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. General Electric Phase I Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the M-1 property is located on Route 606, just off the west side of Route 29 North, north of Camelot. The proposal is to develop the first phase of a software manufacturing plan. This phase will be served by an entrance off Route 606. The applicant's landscape plan includes only four (4) red maples. A loading area is proposed on the western end of the building. A transformer and Industrial Waste Treatment Plant are located on the northern side of the building. The applicant wishes that the Commission approve the plan inclusive of alternates A-D. These are marked as alternates only for contractual reasons. Regardless of how many alternates are effectuated , all other facets of the site remain the same with the exception of the front sidewalk which would be extended accordingly. The staff felt that the site plan was generally in order with the exception of the following: 1. The method of domestic sewage treatment depends on whether or not there is adequate sewage capacity at the Camelot plan at the time the G. E. facility is completed. Otherwise, the applicant proposes that septic facilities be installed until adequate capacity is available, at which time the septic facilities will be abandoned in favor of the public sewer. 2. During discussions with the applicant, staff recommended inclusion of a more extensive landscaping plan than the one originally provided. Staff opinion is that four red maples doe not meet their requirements. 3. Staff opinion is that Routes 606 and 763 should be improved to the standards recommended by the Higwhay Department. These improvements should also include the improvement of the Route 29N/Route 763 intersection. The staff recommended approval of the plat subject to a series of conditions. Mr. Fred Landess, representing the applicant, stated that he disagreed with the recommendations for upgrading Routes 606 and 763. He noted that the land is already zoned M-1 and that it is hopeful that industrial access funds will be applied to this upgrading. He said that G. E. is not asking the County to apply any funds to the project. Mr. J. F. Austin, representing G. E., stated that he has never before been asked to upgrade a state road, when locating a facility. He further stated that he has located G. E. facility on the largest piece of M-1 in the county. He said that he does expect to provide some landscaping however he felt it inappropriate for the staff to direct the number of plantings. He also objected to the bumper blocks. He said that any future development is merely a "hope". He stated that G. E. has attempted to use the farm pond as a focal point of development. Fifty acres currently exist, however once the top of the hill is graded, only 25 acres will remain. There were no comments from the public. Mrs. Graves stated that at the time Rivanna Estates was reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee, she had been under the impression that G. E. would contribute to the expansion of the Camelot plant. Mr. Landess said that there have been three meetings with the two authorities and that the present status is that the plant has been approved for 40,000 gallons per day. The current application to the authority takes it to capacity. At this time the County Authority cannot allot any service to G.E. If service is not available, there are several who will contribute to enlarging Camelot. Mr. Easter felt that an extensive landscape plan was not unreasonable, since the county has an obligation to protect its citizens. It is important that what will eventually be there is on record with the county. Mr. McCann questioned the length of road to be improved. Mr. Montenegro replied that it is in the 2000' range for the two roads. Dr. Moore stated that there is certainly more than one precedent for requiring this road improvement. Mr. Easter agreed that the road has to be improved, however stated that it is unfortunate that at this time the industrial access funds had not been approved. Mr. Austin said that he feels as though the road should be graded to 22' and realigned. However, he noted that G. E. has agreed to a property line adjustment. Mrs. Graves suggested'that condition #1 as recommended by the staff should note that the septic facilities are temporary, since it would be a waste of money 110) for temporary facilities, if the county later requires them to hook to the Camelot plant. Mr. Montenengro said that any further expansion of G. E. will certainly require that they hook to Camelot. Dr. Moore asked if there were any statements from the Service Authority. Mr. Montenegro read the comments, noting that there is an interest in expanding the Camelot plant. Dr. Moore said that he also feels that the condition addressing road upgrading should remain, however place no restriction on where the money comes from. Mrs. Graves moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer facilities; in the event that sewage capacity is not available for this phase of development, written Virginia Department of Health approval shall be obtained for septic facilities necessary to serve this development until public sewer is available, at which time they shall be required to hook on to the public sewer; 2. Routes 606 and 763 should be improved to the specifications recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in letter dated 12/07/77; 3. Staff approval of landscape plan; ,z9a 4. State Water Control Board approval of Industrial Waste Discharge Permit prior to certificate of occupancy; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of all road improvements Iw and commercial entrances; 6. County Engineering Department approval of storm drainage facilities; 7. A grading permit is required for final plat development; 8. All parking spaces are to have either curbing or bumper blocks. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Caleb Stowe Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating the B-1 property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Routes 29 North and 631. The Pizza Hut lot was previously divided from this proposal. It is an integral part of this proposal although it is not before the Commission. Mr. Montenegro explained the proposal, stating it is to divide two existing parcels into four lots. With regard to access, the four lots are treated as a unit with an access from both Route 29 and Route 631. Interior access is achieved through the use of easements. The applicant proposes a reservation of right-of-way for the future improvement of Route 631. A 30' setback from all rights - of -way has been shown as recommended by the staff. Mr. Montenegro stated that both entrance facilities will have commercial entrances, the one on Rio Road will have curb and gutter due to drainage conditions. Parcel D will probably be used as a joint parking facility for the other four (4) lots, including Pizza Hut. The Rio Road entrance does not align with the joint entrance used by Hardee's, however when Rio Road is improved, a concrete median will not allow exiting traffic to take left turns. Although the applicant has noted that an appropriate amount of right-of-way will be reserved for the improvement of Route 631, the staff feels that dedication of this right-of-way should be obtained. The staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions. There was no public comment on the plat. Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that he has a problem with future right-of-way being dedicated to public use. He said that he feels the plan will be effectuated as presented. Dr. Moore asked if the property across the street had dedicated land. Mr. Montenegro said that Hardees offered it. Mrs. Graves established that this could be provided through an amendment regarding road improvements Mr. Easter established from the staff that the entrances are placed as well as can be for traffic movement and safety. Mr. Montenegro stated that two new entrances serve five properties. He stated that this is a quasi -service road. Mr. Boggs felt that the lot is laid out as best it can be. Mr. McCann said that he has problems with asking property owners to donate land without compensation. Mr. Gloeckner suggested reservation at site plan level. 2?1 Mr. Easter said that he feels the state should reimburse the property owner for land received for road building. He suggested that this be addressed at site plan level, noting that there seems to be some concern from Planning Commission members on this matter. Mrs. Graves moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; 2. Maintenance agreement for the maintenance of the travelways, parking, and entrances is to be approved by the County Attorney's Office and recorded with this plat; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities; 4. A grading permit will be required for the construction of any travelways within the site; 5. The area noted as reserved for future right-of-way shall be dedicated to public use. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Montenegro said that he wished to clarify that the dedication at the Hardees site was a condition of approval at subdivision level, not site plan level. Mr. Boggs said that the only reason for that is that the subdivision plat and the site plan were approved the same evening. Mr. Tucker said that it is in order for the dedication to be shown at the time the plat is approved. Mrs. Graves felt that one benefit of the dedication is that the developer does not pay taxes on it after that. dedication Mr. McCann determined from Mr. Payne that this isrlegally possible. The motion carried by a vote of 4-2, with Messrs. McCann and Gloeckner dissenting. Quincy Lucille Robinson Final Plat: A-1 Mrs. Scala located the/property on the west side of Route 612, just off Route 20 North. The proposal is a division of one 2-acne lot, leaving approximately 26 acres residue This entrance location on Route 612 is adequate for private use, however the applicant should be aware that further use of the entrance may require upgrading to commercial standards. The staff recommended that dedication along Route 612 should be required at this time, where the proposed right-of-way meets the state road. She noted that Health Department approval has been received. No comments were made by the applicant's representative or the public. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is put on notice that further use of this entrance may require upgrading to commercial standards; 2. Owner's signature needed; 3. Dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 612. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. z9z Windsor Residential Planned Neighborhood Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the RPN/A-1 property is located on the east side of Route 743. The proposal is thirty lots, ranging from 60,017 square feet to 62,855 square feet. Gross acreage is 62.223 acres, open space is 15.647 acres (25.1%). Lots will be served by proposed state roads and individual wells and septic systems. Mrs. Scala stated that this plan is subject to the Runoff Control Ordinance. Also, the 200' setback for septic systems does apply, as well as the Commission's policy regarding minimum area requirements outside the 200' setback line. She said that 17 of the thirty total lots contain less than 40,000 square feet minimum area outside the 200' setback line. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Commission's policy of requiring 40,000 square feet outside the setback. He is asking approval on the basis that there is room for two septic fields on each lot, even though there is not 40,000 square feet. In each case, the well would be located at least 100' from the septic systems, and the septic systems would not require pumps. Staff had not received any approvals from the Health Department on the proposal, and could not recommend a waiver of the current policy without written Health Department recommendation. These is no planned active recreation. The staff reminded the Commission that it must approve all setbacks from state roads, and the approved plan showed a setback along Route 743 of 125 feet from the centerline, which should be shown on the final plat. The applicant has requested a set- back on interior roads of 40' from right-of-way which staff found to be reasonable. The Staff recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. All lots must contain at least 40,000 square feet outside the 200' setback line from all streams; 2. 200' setback line has been omitted from lot 15, sheet 4; 3. Written Health Department approval; 4. Highway Department approval; 5. County Attorney's Office approval of maintenance agreement for open space and reserved areas; 6. Show front setbacks from Route 743 and interior roads; 7. Grading permit and runoff control permits if necessary, including approval of spring piping. Mrs. Scala also passed around a memorandum from the County Engineer stating that the applicant's proposal of the two septic fields is possible. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, stated that he had met with Mr. Bailey and Mr. Cheavacci of the Health Department. He stated that 40,000 square feet is allowed with one central utility and this encourages clustering. He said that the Health Department does not have an official policy on a 2nd septic field. With 60,000 square feet, the developer is permitted to have individual well and sewer, since these two demand more area. Mr. Evans further stated that the 200' line is determined the amount of safe distance from a stream. The plan under discussion has 60,000 square foot lots, and the relative dnesity is low for A-1 property. Furthermore, he noted that there is less than 5% impervious cover, and thus no water retention plan is necessary. He felt that to apply the Commission's new policy is excessive in this case, since two septic fields are possible. He said that as a practical matter, the Health Department agrees, but can't issue a permit because of the Commission's policy. And from an engineering standpoint, the County Engineer agrees that it is possible. In the preliminary soil study, it was determined that the land is very appropriate for septic fields. 293 Mr. Frank Kessler, owner of the property, stated that he could have done two acre lots here, but chose the route of an RPN because of its attractiveness to the county. He said that he will build and develop every house in the area. But he noted that with the County's new policy he is losing 50% of the lots. He said that he has attempted to do something according to the ordinances and something that is equally attractive. However, this new policy almost makes it necessary that he do something unattractive. He said that his plans are for something like Ednam Village detached. He said that his plans even include a $500.00 figure/unit for landscaping. He said that prior to this, with all the work he has done in the county, he has never asked for an exception. Mr. Easter asked if an 1800 square foot home is covered by a septic system of 6000 square feet. Mr. Keeler replied that this depends on the number of bedrooms. Mr. Kessler said that he is willing to limit the number of bedrooms to three for each unit. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the Commission needs to take another look at its recently adopted policy. He felt it excessive requirement if 12,000 square feet outside the limits can be met. He agreed that the new policy could force people to do something unattractive, and noted that Windsor, as planned, is an extraordinarily good use of the land. Mr. Gloeckner felt as though the policy should be amended to read two alternate septic sites outside the 200' setback. He further suggested that it should be the County Engineer's decision on whether there are two alternate sites. Mr. Easter said that his concern is the later expansion of a house. Mr. Gloeckner felt that should be controlled by the Building Official. Mr. Kessler at this point stated that he is willing to deed -restrict each house that it cannot expand. Mrs. Graves agreed that the policy should be discussed. Mrs. Graves said that the Planning Commission had had none of the benefit of the information gathered at the time of the adoption of the run-off control ordinance. At this point she wondered if the Health Department has a maximum requirement of square footage for a drainfield according to the number of bedrooms. Mr. Huffman said that according to Mr. Bailey's memo, the Health Department will not approve less than 401000 square feet outside the 200' setback from streams due to new County policy, however pointed out that in this particular case two septic fields can be located on each lot. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that it could waive its policy in this particular case due to hardship. However, he stated that he feels the policy meets the intent of the ordinance. He said that if the 40,000 square feet is not appropriate here, it is not appropriate anywhere in the County. Mr. Easter said that he is not willing to change the policy that particular evening, since he feels it should apply countywide. Mr. Gloeckner said at this point he feels the 200' setback is an arbitrary figure. He said that it is ridiculous to setback a septic system 200 feet from a stream and then set the septic system back only 100' from a well, the drinking supply for the house. 29� Mr. Payne said that as long as the runoff control ordinance is on the books, a septic system cannot be within 200' of a stream. He said that the key is making some reasonable decision on the recommendation of the Health Department that there is an alternative site, and putting the potential homeowners on notice that they cannot put in an alternative septic system. He reminded the Commission that the 40,000 square feet was adopted on the basis of the Health Department's recommendation. Dr. Moore said that he is not willing to waive the policy that evening, however would like some sort of approval from the Board of Supervisors on the Commission's policy. Mr. Evans felt that the policy statement was wrongly determined. In this case there are 60,000 square foot lots, and the septic location is 200' from the streams. Therefore, he felt that the policy statement should be waived. Mr. Kessler said that he would not be requesting this waiver if he felt it would pollute the reservoir; he felt that the run-off control ordinance protects the reservoir, though, and that the policy is excessive. Mr. McCann felt that the policy here might eliminate the RPN. Mr. Tucker agreed that there are some developments that have been caught in the middle, and that in this particular set of circumstances, there is a hardship. He again noted that the Commission can waive the policy, that it is not part of the ordinance. Mr. Huffman said that he feels that the applicant has done everything he can do to comply with the ordinances as they have been setforth. Furthermore, he said that the Health Department does not state that what the applicant proposes won't work. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to conditions 2-7 as recommended by the staff, waiving the policy setforth in condition #l, due to hardship. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Payne advised that the Commission add the following two conditions if the policy is waived in the form of two notes on the plats: (1) "No building permit shall be granted for any lot without written Health Department approval of not fewer than two specified sites for sewage disposal systems;" (2) "County law prohibits the construction of any part of a sewage disposal system within 200' of the centerline of any stream flowing into the south fork of the Rivanna River Reservoir." Mrs. Graves stated that she could not support the motion with those 8 conditions, because she did not feel the policy should be waived. Messrs. Gloeckner and Huffman accepted the amendments to the motion as recommended by Mr. Payne. The motion with the eight conditions carried by a vote of 4-2, with Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore dissenting. 29.5 Riverside Farm Preliminary Plat: Mr. Gloeckner moved that any discussion and action on this plat be deferred until January 24, 1978. The motion, seconded by Mr. McCann, carried unanimously, with no discussion. Planning Commission Deferrals: Mr. Tucker said that in view of problems with deferrals, with the applicants notifying the Planning Department at the last minute, making it very difficult to notify adjoining property owners, the Commission a few weeks past had instructed the staff to draw up some appropriate type of amendment to the rules of procedure. He said that the wording is very similar to the policy of the Board of Supervisors. He felt that the way the proposal reads, no one is inconvenienced. He stated that under the rules of procedure, a proper motion to amend the rules of procedure along with a second is made one meeting, however the Commission does not vote on the matter until the following week. Mr. Payne said that the proposal is a codification of what is basically practiced. Mrs. Graves said that the proposal has nothing to protect the County from the applicant not showing up. Mr. Tucker suggested that perhaps the Commission might want to consider at a later date a fee. Dr. Moore moved that the following be added to the Planning Commission's rules of procedure: Subsection (f) IV. DEFERRAL. Except as otherwise provided by law, any matter before the Commission may be deferred by the Commission without substantive action, either before or after the holding of any public hearing which is required by law. Unless the Commission shall otherwise direct, the chairman may permit.such :public discussion of such deferral as he may deem proper. In the event that the Commission shall defer any matter to an indefinite date, the secretary shall, subject to the approval of the chairman, schedule such meeting for hearing at an appropriate date and shall thereafter forthwith again cause to be given notice as required by law, by these rules or by the existing policies of the Commission. No matter shall be deferred at the request of the applicant unless such request shall have been received by the secretary not less than one week prior to the meeting at which such matter is scheduled to be heard. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The vote was to be taken at the January 10, 1978 meeting. Dr. Moore asked that the County staff attempt to obtain for members of the Planning Commission the recently passed reservoir protective ordinance by the city of Austin, Texas. Z 9(.., Mr. Easter said that he would be absent from the next Planning Commission meeting and that perhaps a vice-chairman pro tem should be appointed to chair that meeting. He said that he wished to appoint Mrs. Graves. Mrs. Graves said that she thought this had to be by election. Dr. Moore nominated Mrs. Graves chairman pro tem. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Gloeckner then moved that Mr. Tucker be appointed secretary of the Commission. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mrs. Graves moved that Mrs. Gloeckner serve as recording secretary for the next year. The motion was seconded by Dr. Moore, and carried by a vote of 5-0-1, with Mr. Gloeckner abstaining. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. eA Ro rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secre ry M R