Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 25 78 PC Minutes�3 April 25, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, April 25, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those in attendance were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William Washington; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Huffman; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-officio. Absent was Mrs. Joan Graves. Other officials Present were Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of April 11, 1978, were approved by the chairman as submitted. Robertson Electric Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro reviewed the site plan for the Commission, noting that the matter had been deferred in order to determine if a handicapped parking facility were to be required by the Building Inspections Department. He stated that this requirement would not be made. He stated that the amended site plan has removed the note which was originally provided. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance permits; 2. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer facilities; 3. The gasoline pump is to be for personal use only; 4. Add note that "Landscaping is to be maintained in a healthy condition." Mr. Vest seconded the motion which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Real Estate III Office Building Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the 2.5 acres of CO property is located on the south side of Route 250 West. He reviewed the history of the property for the Commission. The proposal is to develop an office center on 2.5 acres of commercial office property. The property is bounded by R-2 zoned property. Two office buildings are proposed at this time. A third will be applied for when sewer is made available in this area. The facility will be served by public water and septic facilities. Buildings X and Y will have a total of 10,000 square feet of office space. The applicant has shown four areas for trash collection facilities; the two on the front are there becuase the applicant has the intention of obtaining a variance from the scenic highway ordinance at a later date. Approval of this plan would apply to dumpsters at the rear of the property only, zi 44 The staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for buildings X and Y only; 2. Engineering Department approval of water and sewer as well as storm sewer plans; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance configuration including deceleration lane and left turn lane; 4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; 5. Written Health. Department approval of septic facilities; 6. Albemarle County Zoning Department approval of location of trash collection facilities; 7. This approval does not speak to the location of signs. Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, discussed the plan and said that there are no objections to the recommended conditions of approval. Col. Washington established that the existing right-of-way gives sufficient room for acceleration and deceleration lanes. There was no public comment. Mrs. Diehl questioned the dumpsters. Mr. Montenegro replied that they are recessed into the bank with plantings around them, and therefore he did not believe that they would be visible. Col. Washington moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Elk Run Corporation Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is on the north side of Route 665 near Hickory Pidge Farm. The proposal is a division of one 14- acre parcel, leaving about 204 acres^ residue. The property is to be served by a proposed 50' access easement over the existing road. :Individual well and septic is planned. The road presently serves the Elk Run property and the Durrett property. The staff recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; 2. Maintenance agreement for the road to be approved by the County Attorney and recorded; 3. County Engineer approval of the road; 4. Note on plat:"No further division without Planning Commission approval;" 5. Health Department approval. Mrs. Scala stated that the Highway Department has informed the staff that adequate sight distance exists for a commercial entrance. She noted for the record that this will qualify as a private road of 1•5 lots. Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that there are no object-4w) - ions to the conditions of approval. VT Mr. Jones, an adjoining property owners, questioned the road, noting that this is his sister's driveway, too. He wondered about the future maintenance of the road. Mr. Boggs said that a maintenance agreement will have to meet the approval of the County Attorney. Mr. Payne said that it would be to the advantange of Mr. Jones' sister to enter the maintenance agreement in order that she could have a say in the maintenance. Dr. Moore asked if the costs in such cases are apportioned to the length of road involved for each resident. Mr. Payne replied that an agreement can be written in any number of ways, and that is certainly one way of doing it. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the final plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Tom Hill Preliminary Plat: Mrs. Scala said that the A-1 property is located on the north side of Route 640 at the intersection of Route 784 near Gilbert. The proposal is a dvision of an existing 4.05 acre parcel into two (2) lots. A waiver of dedication is requested. The staff stated that the dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 640 would remove about acre of land. The Highway Department could not give a definite answer regarding future improvements or possible re -alignment of Route 640 in this area. Other possible alternatives include a variance of lot size from the Board of Zoning Appeals to permit smaller than 2-acre lots. Since the applicant has no hardship, this would be unlikely to be granted. Another alternative would be for the applicant to obtain additional land from a neighbor to give him 4 acres after dedication. This is what the staff recommended. Mr. Hill, the applicant stated that he has not yet approached his neigbhor about purchasing additional land. He said that he had intended to build a cottage on the southern portion. He said that he sought out the Planning Staff on his own, however felt that when he applied for a building permit for the cottage he should have been informed by the Building Inspections Deparmtent that the property could not be subdivided. Mr. McCann said that he is in sympathy with the applicant, however feels that the rules of the subdivision ordinance should be followed. Dr. Moore said that the lack of dedication could block improvement of the road forever. Mr. Goode Love said that he feels the Commonwealth should purchase the land necessary to have four acres after the dedication in order to make up his loss. He also noted that the state is the one causing Mr. Hill the hardship. Col. Washington moved that action on the plat be deferred for a couple of weeks in order to determine if the applicant could purchase additional land from his neighborhood. g4to Mr. Hill said that he is agreeable to this suggestion. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. The staff was advised to put this on the agenda when notified by the applicant that some sort of discussion had taken place with the neighbor. J. E. Payne Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located on the east side of Route 727 near Blenheim. The proposal is a division of an existing parcel into three (3) lots containing 3.7, 3.2, and 2.5 acres, to be served by proposed 50' access easement. Individual wells and septic systems are proposed. Mrs. Scala said that this same plat was approved by the County in October, 1974, however was not recorded and has thus expired. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; 2. Maintenance agreement to be approved by County Attorney and recorded with plat; 3. County Engineer approval of road. Mrs. Scala said that an interested party called the office that day to state that he has an easement over what is shown as lot 3. Mrs. Scala said that upon talking to the surveyor, she was informed that he knew nothing about this easemment. Mrs. Payne said that no one has an easement over lot 3, and that no one has ever had one. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it can do nothing to impair the easement one way or the other through any action it takes. 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. The Meadows Revised Site Plan: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the property is located on the west side of Route 240 and is zoned RPN/RS-1. The proposal is to relocate the proposed entrance from its approved location on the North side of the site to a point near the center of the site. The applicant has requested this amendment due to the rock encountered at the first entrance location. The Highway Department examined this location along with a location on the South side of the property. Staff stated that it had no problem with this new location. It does not affect the interior layout which was previously approved. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the original site plan. Mrs. Scala also read into the record the comments from the Highway Department. Mr. Buck Morehead, architect for the project, said that the previous entrance had too much rock to cut back. Mr. Easter said that this project has been approved by the Board of Supervisors. The only change in the entire site plan is the proposed location of the entrance and felt that the discussion should be limited to that*-. "JA4-7 Col. Washington pointed out of the residents of the area at the condition of the road. to the Commission that one of the main concerns time of rezoning had been the entrance and the Mr. Gloeckner said that in his opinion, the discussion should be limited to the road, not the validity of the rezoning. Mr. Hank Tiffany, representing many of the citizens of that area, informed the Commission that the basis of concern at the time of the rezoning was indeed the road, and particularly the entrance. He said that the original proposal for the entrance was agreeable, due to existing horizontal and vertical sight distance. However, this location does not have the required sight distance and is located in one of the more dangerous portions of the road. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the applicant had stated that at the time of rezoning, the original entrance was what was recommended by the Highway Department. He said that he wished the Highway Department were present to clarify its position on the entrance. Mr. Lou Edden said that the proposed change in the plan makes the entrance at a treacherous location. He said that he is also concerned about the run-off from the project. Mr. Richard Moyer said that he felt the project should meet all the criteria of the Run-off Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances. Mrs. Scala said that no run-off control permit will be necessary due to t1ne impervious cover in relation to the size of the property. Furthermore, she stated that the Highway Department has stated that if the banks are cut back, the proposed location of the entrance on the revised plan will meet the horizontal and vertical sight distances required. She stated that a soil /eroonTrol permit will be required. Ms. Jo Stanley questioned the Highway Department Plans for upgrading Route 240 and how the proposed location of the enrance would affect that. Mrs. Scala again advised the Commission that the Highway Department admits that sight distance is not now adequate, however with grading, as proposed by the applicant, sight distance will be adequate. Mr. Steven A. Phillips, Engineer for the development, stated that at this point horizontal sight distance is met, however vertical sight distance is not. He explained the road plans and stated that the applicant palns to excavate back into the slope to meet the sight ditance required by the Highway Department. Furthermore, he stated that informal approval, based on road plans, has been given by the Highway Department. Mr. Moyer said that he feels as though the safest entrance should be approved, regardless of the cost involved. He noted that many of the residents of the future community will be elderly deaf. Mr. Phillips said that the Highway Department favors the location shown on the plan. LN f" 3 Mr. Tiffany requested that the Commission require the original entrance for reasons of safety, noting that the expense of excavating into the rock will be only $5,000, certainly a small amount when compared to the cost of the entire project. Miss Sarah Payne, President of the Jordan Corporation, said that they have followed the recommendations of the Highway Department regarding the entrance. Furthermore, she said that any progress with the development is at a standstill until this is approved. The Commission noted that it was unfortunate that the Highway Department representative was not present and finally decided that it would be best for the Highway Department to decide the exact entrance to the development. Mr. Gloeckner moved that any action be deferred until May 2, 1978, in order that the Highway Department representative could be present. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Barbara Sur.att Preliminary Plat: Mrs. Scala reported that the A-1 property is located on the west side of Route 810 near Doylesville. The proposal is a division of one 11-acre parcel on an existing 25' easement. She reviewed the history of the property for the Commission. The present private road ordinance requires that the existing road be improved to 14 feet in width, with a 30' easement for six or more lots. The applicant is request- ing a waiver of the private road specifications, since it is an existing road. The road will serve six parcels, including the new parcel. The staff could not recommend approval of the waiver. The staff did recommend approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. This lot must join in the existing maintenance agreement; 2. All private road requirements must be met, including improvement of existing road to 14' and widening of the easement•to 30' on that portion of the road used by more than five lots. Mrs. Suratt explained that the front parcel does not have a right -or -way or easement, though they do belong to the maintenance agreement that covers the road. She said that she would like to pave the road after all the houses are built, but cannot economically afford to widen the road to 14 feet, in view of the contract that is written for the 11-acre parcel. Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels as though the Commission is really only talking about 5 lots. Mr. Payne said that this must be considered a six lot road, in view of the front parcel. Furthermore, he noted that when the Board approved the private road provision for the ordinance, it did note that five lots is the cut-off. Mr. Gloeckner felt that in view of the size of the parcels that it could be considered to be a farm road. The contract -purchaser of the 11-acre parcel noted that the denial of the waiver will adversely affect the contract. There was a long discussion in which the Commission decided not to waive the private road specifications. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Sperry Marine Office Addition Site Plan: Mrs. Scala stated that the M-1 property is located on the west side of Route 29 North. The proposal is a two -storey office addition. Small additions have been approved administratively in the past and in 1976, the Commission approved a larger addition. The staff stated that the Highway Department is strongly recommending a 200' full width decel lane with 200' taper at the existing Northern entrance on Route 29. Sperry has requested that this decel lane not be required. The staff recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the decel lane; 2. Grading permit; 3. New sign to comply with the ordinance; 4. Service Authority approval. Mr. Bill Finley, representing Sperry, stated that the addition will in no increase the entering traffic from Route 29 North. He did state that Sperry is willing to comply with the 200' full width decel lane, with a 100' taper, though. Mr. Easter noted that the 100' taper will considerably diminish the cost. There was no public comment. Mr. McCann said that in view of the requirements on other developments, he felt that the 300 feet would be sufficient. Col. Washington felt that the Commission should address the location of the sign. Mrs. Scala said that this is a decision for the BZA, however it would be perfectly proper for the Commission to make a recommendation on this. Col. Washington felt that the sign as proposed by Sperry is agreeable in order for oncoming traffic to properly determine the entrance location, without having to travel further south on Route 29 and make a U-turn to return to the property. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, stating that the taper should be only 100 feet in length, and there should be a 200' full width decel lane. Col. Washington seconded this motion which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. A150 Mr. Gloeckner then moved that the Commission recommend to the BZA that the sign be permitted as shown on the plan. This motion was seconded by Col. Washington, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Ivy Woods Section 2 Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located on the east side of Route 682. The proposal for the property is twenty-one lots ranging in size from 2.0 to 9.8 acres. The average size is 3.0 acres. A state road and private roads are proposed, along with individual wells and septic systems. A preliminary plat was approved in May, 1977, subject to Highway Department approval of the entrance and internal roads. The Commission noted that the question of improvements to Route 682 would be addressed at the final plat stage. The applicant requested a reconsideration by the Commission and on August 30, 1977, the Commission denied the request to delete the requirement of improvements to Route 682. Mrs. Scala said that on the preliminary plat, lots 8, 9, and 10 were shown as one pipestem lot with access on the new roadway. Also, lots 2 and 3 were shown as one lot with an easement over that pipestem. The applicant now proposes a private road to replace the pipestem, which would serve lots 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10, an increase of three lots over the preliminary. This proposal requires two waivers: to allow lots 2 and 3 to have double frontage, and to allow lots 6 and 7 to enter directly onto the proposed state road rather than the private road. The private road requirements stated that lots 6 and 7 shoul also enter onto the private road and staff could not recommend such a waiver. Several of the lots are affected by the 200 ft. setback for septic systems. The Health Department has reviewed the lots in question , which have a limited area for septic systems. They have stated that only one of the lots does not have room for a second drainfield, unless an easement is given on the adjacent property. This has been. shown on the plat, adjacent to lot 1. Mrs. Scala said that on previous subdivisions, the Commission has decided that lots can be approved which contain sufficient area for two septic systems. The idea of an easement for drainfields has not been discussed. If the easement is approved ( as opposed to increasing the area of the lot ) staff forsees many more such requests in the South Rivanna watershed. The staff recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance, internal road and improvements to Route 682; 2. All private road requirements must be met; 3. Waiver of double frontage lots 2 and 3; 4. Note on plat: "Lots 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 shall enter onto private road only;" 5. Increase area of lot 1 to allow for alternate septic field. Mr. R. O. Snow, surveyor for the applicant, stated that lots 6 and 7 should not havE to enter the maintenance agreement. He also felt that the easement for the septic field should be granted, since the easement may never have to be used. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he feels the easement is reasonable, and if the setback from streams is ever moved back to 100 feet, as it should be, there will be plenty of room for an alternate drain site. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the corner lots should exit onto the private roads, since the number of curb cuts would be reduced by two. Mr. Huffman agreed. Mr. Easter felt that another advantage for requiring lots 6 and 7 to exit onto the private roads would be the greater number of people sharing in the maintenance agreement, thus the cost of improvements for each house would be less. Mr. Stevenson, the owner of the property, felt that the topography should be considered in this decision. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance, internal road and improvements to Route 682; 2. All private road requirements must be met; 3. Waiver of double frontage granted on lots 2 and 3; 4. Note on plat: "Lots 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 shall enter onto private road only." 5. Waiver granted of private roads requirement that lots 6 and 7 enter onto the private road only due to topography. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Lindstrom questioned if in this particular case the requirements of the private road will be decreased due to the number of lots that will be served. Mr. Payne replied that this is correct. Whipporwill Hollow Final Plat: Mrs. Scala stated that the A-1 property is located on both sides of Route 839, Whipporwill Road between Owensville Road and White Hall Road. The proposal is thirty-one lots ranging from 2.0 to 5.7 acres, average size of 2.4 acres. Individual wells and septic systems are proposed. An agreement was drawn up in August, 1977, between the developer and the County, which provides that Dr. Hurt will upgrade Whipporwill Road from Category II if, in the future, more than ninety lots are developed on that road. Whipporwill Road was accepted into the State System on January 26, 1978. Three lots were approved administratively on February 7, 1978, and March 13, 1978. The staff stated that this subdivision is located within the South Rivanna Watershed. Most of the lots are therefore affected by the 200' setback for septic systems from any stream. About six of the lots appear to have less than 60,000 square feet remaining in which to locate a septic system. On those six lots, staff recommends that the developer obtain Health approval for two septic sites prior to a build - permit being issued. This will insure that there is adequate room for a system and a replacement if needed. The staff has received well test results from eleven lots which range from 1.5 g.p.m. at 397 feet to 15 g.p.m. at 90 feet. The staff received three letters from adjacent owners, who expressed concerns about increased traffic, school impact, septic systems, and wells and changing the agricultural character of the community. The school impact report from the Education Department indicates that effects from this development will be slight. The staff recommended approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 152�- 1. Health Department approval; 2. Note on both plats: "No building permit shall be granted for lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, or 1 without written Health Department approval of not fewer than two specified sites sewerage disposal systems. 140) Mrs. Scala also read into the record the comments from the Health Department. Mr. Jim Hill, on behalf of the applicant, stated that he concurs with the conditions of approval. Furthermore, he stated that the soil studies are costly, however feels they are a good idea. Mr. J. deK. Bowen reiterated the concerns of his letter, specifically his concerns about the consequences this development would have on the ground water table. Mrs. Scala said that the test result for the wells seem to be average to good. Mr. Easter advised Mr. Bowen that under present law, the county has no way to cope with the situation he mentions. However, he did point to the test results as noted in the staff report. Mr. Payne said that what Mr. Easter says about the law is correct, and that there is no law which recognizes the depletion of surface water. Mr. Goode Love felt that the county should encourage public water and sewer to land that is developable in the county. Mrs. Scala advised the Commission that it can amend condition #1 and then delete #2 if #1 addresses Health Department approval of two septic sites on each lot. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval of two septic sites on each lot. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Hillwood Preliminary Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located on the north side of Route 250 West near Crozet. The proposal is twelve lots ranging in size from 5.0 to 23.6 acres, average size being 9.8 acres. Individual wells and septic systems are proposed. Lots 2-12 will be served by a private road. The road must meet standards for 11-20 lots. The Commission must decide if they wish to restrict private road subdivisions to one dwelling per lot without further approval, rather than two dwellings per lot as the zoning ordinace now permits. The staff recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance for private road; 2. Health Department approval; 3. All private road requirements must be met; 4. Grading permit. 1�53 M Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the developer, pointed to the large lots fronting Route 250 and generally explained the plan. Mr. Huffman moved approval of the plat subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. on Discussion: Col. Washington pointed out how this is shown the existing Compre- hensive Plan - as part of the future impoundment of Lickinghole Creek. with. Mr. Lindstrom then questioned how the staff's concern is going to be dealt Mr. Huffman amended his motion to include a fifth condition: 5. Not more than 1 single family dwelling to be located on each lot without Planning Commission approval. Mr. McCann accepted the amendment to the motion. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. At this point, upon motion of Mr. Gloeckner, second of Mr. Vest, and unanimous support, the Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the County Zoning Ordinance to restrict private road subdivisions to one dwelling per lot without Planning Commission approval. NIP Two Warehouse Site Plan: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the M-2 property is located on the west side of Route 29 North in the Northside Industrial Park. The proposal is a one storey commercial warehouse containing six units with parking on one acre. Other site plans approved previously within the park were reviewed for the Commission. The staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to the following coniditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval; 2. A drainage easement must be recorded across lots F-M; 3. Fire hydrants must meet approval of Albemarle County Service Authority and Fire Marshal; 4. Health Department approval; 5. Grading permit; 6. Service Authority approval; 7. All landscaping to be maintained. Mr. Gelletley said that he feels as though the drainage easement should be decided at a later date when it is possible:to look at the property as a whole when developed. Mrs. Scala stated that at the time of last site plan review within this park, the County Engineer had recommended that no future site plans be approved until the easement is recorded. ' 7 sq Mr. Payne said that until the easement is located, there would be problems with a title. Furthermore, he stated that if it is not given at the time the plan is approved, it will be very difficult to acquire later. Mrs. Scala said that the Highway Department will not accept a verbal commitment on an easement. She said that she feels the easements are the first step she said that it is important to get them now and does not feel the plat should have been approved without them. Mr. Gelletly asked that this be covered by County Engineering Department approval. Mr. McCann said that he feels the easement should be shown on the plan. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plan subject to the seven conditions recommended by the staff. Col. Washington seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Diehl questioned if it is customary to show twice the number of parking spaces actually needed. Mr. Gelletly explained the parking via the plan to Mrs. Diehl. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. SP-77-65. Everngham Blake SP-77-66. Everngham Blake Upon the motion of Mr. Gloeckner, second of Mr. Vest, the Commission unanimously accepted Mr. Blake's request for withdrawal without prejudice of the two above mentioned special use permits. With no further business, the Commissiory►adjourned at 10:55 p.;n. V - I v V - - - W. Tucker, Jr. - Secret a y F!