HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 30 78 PC Minutesi
0
May 30, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission met on Tuesday, May 30, 1978,
7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman;
Dr. James W. Moore; Mr. James Huffman, Jr.; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Charles Vest;
Mr. Layton McCann; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Absent
was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director
of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos Montengro, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Minutes of May 16, 1978, were approved by the Chairman as presented.
Minutes of May 9, 1978, were corrected to state that Dr. Moore re-entered the
meeting on May 2, 1978, after the conclusion of the discussion on his petition
before the County. Minutes of May 23, 1978, were approved subject to the correction
of Col. Washington, changing the word "aggrevated" on page 3 to "abrogated."
Grace Phillips Final Plat ( For Rick Barbour )
Mrs. Scala reviewed the plat for the Commission, noting that it had been
deferred in order for the applicant to investigate further the requirement of a
maintenance agreement, the only item remaining in dispute. The applicant was able
to get all the adjacent owners to sign a maintenance agreement, but only if it did not
place a lien on thier property. The Deputy County Attorney said he would approved
the maintenance agreement between Mr. Barbour and Mrs. Phillips if the Commission
had no objection.
The staff stated that the alternatives are as follows:
1. Waive the requirement of a maintenance agreement ( or permit the maintenance
agreement as originally submitted without liens on the properties );
2. Allow Mr. Barbour and Mrs. Phillips to take full responsibility of road maintenance;
3. Require a maintenance agreement with liens, thereby effectively denying
subdivision approval.
She stated that the other conditions of approval remaining are:
1. Note on plat: "No further subdivision on this private road unless the road is
constructed to appropriate private road standards;"
2. Waiver of requirement that the road be owned by abutting lot owners;
3. Provide evidence of right-of-way for County Attorney's approval.
Mrs. Graves suggested that if the plat is approved that condition #1 should
have the following addition: "without Planning Commission approval." Mrs. Scala
agreed that this would be appropriate.
Mrs. Phillips said that the adjoining owners have agreed to maintain the road
to the appropriate standard.
5040
2
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he had met with the applicant and
his attorney. He said that a maintenance agreement is always more enforceable
with the lien provision. Mr. Easter then established that the lien provision of
the maintenance agreement is relatively standard. Mr. Payne stated that this was
correct. Furthermore, Mr. Payne said that he and Mr. Barbour and Mr. Barbour's
attorney were pretty much in agreement over the provisions in the agreement. He said
that he just wants to make sure that the agreement is enforceable for future successors
to Mr. Barbour and Mrs. Phillips.
Mr. McCann said that he feels the present situation is workable, noting that
the agreement among the current landowners has worked for over twenty-five years.
He said that he does not feel changing the standards is in the best interest of those
living there, and he favored an agreement that did not include the "lien provision."
Mrs. Diehl asked what would happen to the successors of Mr. Barbour and
Mrs. Phillips without the lien provision.
Mr. Payne said that it would be merely a matter of what is agreed upon by one
or all of the property owners. He said that the biggest difference is the ease of
enforceability.
Dr. Moore asked if an agreement without that provision enable anyone to bring
suit to force upgrading of the road, if it became desirable. Mr. Payne said that if
it came to litigation, it would involve attorneys and probably a court session, so
the expense would be more than a "$20 bad debt."
Mr. Easter said that in view of the fact that the provision is standard
and is what has been approved in the past, he 'hates to see the county get away
from any protection for the owners in the future.
Mr. McCann said that this would approve only one more lot on the road, and he
does not feel that one more house will make that much difference. He noted that what
has existed in the past has been agreeable to all the parties, so why change it.
Mr. Payne at this point explained how a "lien provision" functions.
Mr. Barbour established that one of the alternatives in the staff report
would enable one of the owners to upgrade the road and force the other to contribute
if there were a lien provision. He said that this is not agreeable to him.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the plat with the three conditions recommended
by the staff, waiving the requirement of the maintenance agreement, noting that there
had been a precedent set for this with approval. of the Bootie Ballard plat a few weeks
before.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Col. Washington said that he could not support the motion, since it would
open the door for future waivers.
Mr. McCann said that the roads have been there for years. He said that he
did not think the maintenance agreement was a "hard and fast" rule and felt it
could be waived under certain circumstances.
IN
5O7
to be
Mr. Vest said that he feelsthe waiver,in order and quite reasonable under
the circumstances, since the situation in the past has been workable for everyone.
Mrs. Diehl said that her concern is not with Mr. Barbour and Mrs. Phillips,
but with what will happen with future owners.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the plat without a maintenance
agreement for the roads, since that is required by the ordinance.
Mr. Huffman said that the reason the lien provision is not agreeable to Mr.
Barbour and Mrs. Phillips is that they don't want a lien attached to their deed.
Mr. McCann said that he feels that "the human element" is often employed by
the Commission, and he feels as though it is applicable in this situation.
The motion lost by a vote of 4-4, with Messrs. Easter, Washington, and
Madams Graves and Diehl dissenting.
Mr. McCann then moved approval of the plat subject to the three conditions,
permitting the maintenance agreement as originally submitted without the liens on the
properties.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Huffman, lost by a vote of 4-4, with the same
Commission members dissenting.
SP-78-22. Great Eastern Management Company, Inc. - request to locate a
315 multi -family apartment complex, along with 8,000 square feet or professional
office space and 29 individual lots on 21.61 acres zoned R-1:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, bringing the Commission up-to-date
on the events of the past three weeks . He discussed with the Commission the applicant's
revised "compromise" proposal, noting that it calls for the development of twenty-two
residential lots with thirty-four dwelling units, all of which would have access by
way of Bennington Road. Of the twelve lots that back up to the existing Bennington
Court and Solomon Road development, two will have duplexes or single-family attached
units ( lot number 1-12 ). Of the remaining ten lots, number 13 will have a quadraplex,
number 20 a triplex, and the other eight will have duplexes or single-family detached
units. The applicant also proposes a further addition to the Solomon Court apartment
complex of twenty-four units, which will have access from both the existing development
and from Solomon Road by way of Berkshire Road. The roadway proposed for the subdivision
is a State Secondary Road, 20' wide on a 40' right-of-way. The road will not have
curbing, gutter, nor sidewalks.
Mr. Montenegro then presented the revised proposal's impact statistics.
He said that the staff feels that the optimal way to develop this property is to have
all units oriented toward and having access from Georgetown Road. However, he said
that the staff recognizes that Bennington Road is a residential street and feels
that additional residential traffic could be tolerated given that the roadway meets
the state requirements for width and depth, and given that the additional traffic
will not be of such quality or quantity as to adversley affect the existing development.
The staff advised the Commission to approve only the increase in gross density with
regard to the twenty-four apartment units proposed as an addition to Solomon Court apart-
ments. He said that the staff supports neither the layout of the units nor the
proposed access from Berkshire Road.
Sag
Mr. Rotgin addressed the Commission, noting that since the May 9 meeting
he has met with adjoining property owners, and has had subsequent meetings with
individuals. Mr. Rotgin compared the old plan with the revised plan, and stated
that by -right he can develop the property with 432 apartment units, however he has
been attempting to work something out with the various neighborhoods in the area.
He said that prior to proceeding any further with plans for the proposal, he needs
to know the intent of the County. He stated that access to Bennington Road is
definitely available, and he could possibly have access to all four roads in the
area. He said that in his opinion he has compromised on this as far as is possible.
Mr. Paul Peatross, representing Bennington Road Association, said that he
and those residents met last Thursday night with the developer and saw the plan
before the Commission for the first time. He stated that they oppose the plan and
oppose the access from Bennington, and feel that Georgetown Road, as suggested by
the staff, is the appropriate access to the property. He stated that the residents
of the Bennington Road area are willing to accept an additional 22 lots for single-family
units, since this would be in character with the existing. He suggested that the
Commission adopt this as the compromise. There are other legal accesses besides
Bennington Road, and he said that there are five area residents who will be discussing
this with the Commission.
Mr. Bob Cadner discussed the impact the development, as proposed, would have
on the existing subdivision, and agreed that 22 single-family units would be in
character with the neighborhood, as long as they are not rental units. He noted
the problems with absentee ownership, and felt that this is not the sort of thing
that would be agreeable to the residents of Bennington. He pointed out that currently
there are no rental units on Bennington.
Mr. Dick Johnson said that he feels duplexes and triplexes are not good
transitional units, and feels this plan merely opens up the Banks property to development,
if Bennington Road is opened up any further.
Mr. Marshal Schensky said that he is interested in a "sense of community" that
comes with single-family ownership. Rental property in his opinion, encourages speculation
and a lower quality of the neighborhood. He said that any traffic will change the char-
acter of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Rosemary Kaut said that currently there are 46 houses on Bennington, and if
this plan is approved, there will be a 74% increase, which is much too large.
Mr. Bill Campsey said that it would appear that single-family units would desirable
so close to the city, when land for such units is at such a minimum. He also noted
his concern for "instant rental units" in that area.
Mr. Peatross summarized by stating that what the Bennington Road Association
encourages is good planning by continuing the current type of development. If
single-family units are not possible economically, then he suggested requiring
access from Georgetown Road.
Mr. John Sanborn stated that this type of development does not help the
neighborhood.
Mr. McGill, Mr. O'Brien requested single-family units be approved, in order
that traffic on Bennington not be extreme in the next few years.
Plan,
Mr. Bob Whaley, a resident of Solomon Road, recommended approval of the
Mr. Jack Rinehart, a previous resident of Bennington Road, asked that the
existing development not be harmed by changing the character with duplexes, and other
sorts of multi -family units.
Mr. John Lowry said that there is a precedent for duplexes in the area, and
asked that the plan be adopted in order that Solomon Road area is protected.
Mr. Patrick Byrd addressed the traffic problems in the area, especially
the problem of sight distance at Georgetown/Bennington intersection.
be
Mrs. Sally Whaley read letters from area residents who could notApresent;
all the letters addressed areas of concern about changing the character of the Bennington
Road area with the type of development proposed.
Mr. Edward White suggested single-family residences for Bennington, just like
the ones proposed by the developer along Solomon Road.
Mr. Bill Pleasants supported the plan due to the type of development in his
area.
Mrs. Lucy Watson noted the large investment that a home is, and suggested that
the County not approve something that will eventually devalue existing homes in
the area.
Mr. Don Wagner, another owner of Great Eastern, stated that the owners have
a sincere interest in how the property develops. He pointed out that both he and
Mr. Rotgin live in the immediate area. He said tht 22 single-family residences on
Bennington is just not economically feasible.
Mr. Ron Boswell questioned what will happen to Bennington Road if it is
used as access to the property.
Mr. Montenegro replied that if more than 18 units are approved for development,
then the staff is recommended that Bennington be upgraded to a Category II by the
developer.
Mr. Rotgin said that if 22 lots could be economically developed this would
be considered in the future; until that can be established, heaskedthat the Commission
approve the plan as submitted.
Mr. Charles Kaut established from Mr. Montenegro that R-3zoning exists on
the property, and that 432 units are possible by right.
Mrs. Nash said that the residents of the area have know for some time the
health of the Mowinkles and have been aware that the property is for sale.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves asked if there is any possible way that the 432 units that would
be permitted by right could be located on the property.
Mr. Montenegro replied that the development would be very expensive, due to the
fact that it would have to be developed in mid -rises, because of the required parking.
He said that it could be done, though.
Mr. McCann established that the setback in the R-3 zone with apartment development
is 25 feet. Mr. Montenegro then explained the proposed setback on the plan before the
Commission.
S1D
G
Mr. Rotgin told Mr. Vest that he is opposed to entering the development
from Georgetown Road because of marketability.
Mr. McCann suggested mostly single-family development on Bennington, with
duplexes on the end of the proposed extension of Bennington.
Mr. Easter asked if the property could be divided with small lots such that
only single-family units could be located there.
Mr. Rotgin said that it might be possible to get 27 single-family units, however
due to the marketability, 21 single-family units would be more agreeable.
Mrs. Graves questioned if a townhouse approach might work, and noted the
saleability of Georgetown Green.
Mr. Rotgin said that this could work.
At this point the Commission took a five minute recress.
When the meeting re -.convened, Mr. Montenegro explained to Dr. Moore the
schematic part of the plan, stated that density is set with the approval of the
special use permit and that the use of each lot could be determined at this time.
Col. Washington questioned the lack of sidewalk. Mr. Montenegro explained
that in the past, sidewalks have been required when the density exceeds two dwelling
units per acre. He said that this provision could be waived, since it is contrary
to what exists.
Dr. Moore said that he favors sidewalks, expecially since the existing development
may want to add a sidewalk at a later date. Furthermore, he felt that curb and
gutter should be required, since the density justifies it.
Mrs. Graves felt that a recreational area should be addressed for the apartment
area.
Mr. McCann stated that he sympathizes with the factions on Solomon and Bennington,
and he would like to see duplex development only at the end of the extension of Bennington.
Mr. Easter agreed that this is probably a fair compromise, though he said that
he would like to see only single-family units on Bennington. However, he pointed out
that the developer said that this is not economically possible.
Mr. Rotgin asked that the staff be given the authority to approve which of the
lots at the end of the road could be used for duplexes, without having to come in for
an amendment to the special permit. He noted that there could be some engineering
problems, though they are not anticipated.
Mrs. Graves said that she has had some difficulty with this special permit,
since it has been for increasing the density. She said that she does not want to
waive the sidewalks, curbs, or gutters, and asked if that could be addressed at
the subdivision or site plan level, as opposed to this level of planning.
Mr. Payne advised that this would be appropriate. He said that the developer
is merely asking for the Commission's intent at this time to plan his development scheme.
Sil
Mr. Rotgin said that he must have a 40' right-of-way without sidewalks to
make the single-family units possible.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that it would be impossible to speak to
sidewalks until the subdivision level, since that point is covered by the Subdivision
Ordinance, and no subdivision plat is before the Commission.
Mrs. Graves noted that there are notes on the plan and asked what will be
done about those.
Mr. Tucker replied that they should be considered by the Commission as only
information, and that no approval is being given for them. He pointed out that a
schematic is not even necessary as part of the special permit process.
Col. Washington emphasized that no approval is being given for the "fine print."
Mr. Easter said that the discussion indicates that this is correct.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Site plan approval;
2. County Engineering Department approval of adequate on -site and off -site
drainage facilities;
3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities
and adequate dedication for a 60 foot right-of-way along the Route 656 frontage,
including increasing the pavement depth of the existing Bennington Road to satisfy
Category II specifications from Inglewood Drive to the end of the cul-de-sac;
4. This site is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided that 34 of these
units may be located on Bennington Road extended, with lots 1-12 and 22-27
developed as 2-family and single-family dwellings, with a maximum of seven
2-family dwelling units as shown on plan dated 5/30/78 and initialled "RWT".
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
Barracksdale Final Plat Amendment:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the 58.99 acres
of A-1 property is located on the SE corner of Routes 614 and 766 near White Hall.
He reviewed the history of the preliminary plat. The proposal is to amend the approved
plat by consolidating lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 into four lots. The staff recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval including a secondary septic field site for lot #14;
2. Lots 12-17 shall have no more than one dwelling unit each.
Mr. Frank Quayle, the applicant, stated that this is being requested in order
to preserve the beauty of the property.
Mrs. Graves moved approval subject to the two conditions recommended by the
staff. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
0
Mr. Tucker then pointed out to the Commission the recommendations of
the Mutual Boundary Committee, noting that at some future date these
would be considered by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council. He asked if
any Commission member had any additions to these recommendations. He also reviewed
briefly the purpose of the committee, noting the Commission's representatives.
There were no comments from the Commission on this and the recommendations
moved to the Board of Supervisors as recommended by the committee.
Mr. Tucker then asked the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend
the Site Plan Ordiance to provide for this disposition of the surface water run-off
in order that post -development run-off does not surpass pre -development run-off.
Mr. Easter asked the the staff be prepared at the public hearing to address
how this will be handled from an engineering standpoint, especially for small sites.
He asked that the Commission also be informed at that time about some possible costs
for such a requirement.
The Commission then, upon motion of Mrs. Diehl, and second of Col. Washington,
adopted the resolution of intent to amend Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning Ordinance
to provide for this. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
The Commission also unanimously voted to amend the proper section of the County
Code - Section 18-22.
Mr. Tucker also advised the Commission that he felt it would be appropriate
they adopt a resolution of intent to amend Sections 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 of the Zoning
Ordinance to provide that a developer notify the zoning administrator when each
stage of development is ready for inspection for compliance with the approved site
plan in accordance with schedules and regulations promulgated by the Zoning Administrator.
He stated that the inspection is already required, however the amendment deals with
the notification to the zoning administrator.
Mr. McCann said that he would be opposed to any such amendment if any fees
are involved. He noted his concern for more regulations that further cost the citizens.
Mr. Tucker explained that fees are only set to defray the cost of the County's
review.
Mrs. Diehl moved that the resolution of intent be adopted. Col. Wasington
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
Mr. Easter then reviewed for the Commission's information the various committees
on which Commission members serve.
Mr. Easter then discussed with the Commission areas where efficiency might
be improved. He said that he, Col.. Washington, and Mr. Tucker had recently met to
discuss this topic, and some of the suggestions that had come out of this should
be employed by the Commission.
Mr. Easter said that each Commission member representing a particular
magisterial district should be responsible for.visiting the site and initiating
the discussion when the matter is before the Commission. He felt that this
might cut down on travel time for each member. He asked that the member responsible
for viewing the site request someone else to view it if it is impossible for him.
This would assure that each property is looked at prior to all the meetings.
He asked that the individual serving on the site review committee speak on
the site plans and subdivisons.and bring the members up-to-date.
Mrs. Diehl asked that an informal meeting on the Comprehensive Plan be
scheduled in the near future. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board might wish
to attend this meeting, in order that Board and Commission members could exchange
points of view. Such a meeting was tentatively scheduled for July 10, 1978,
at 4:00 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference Room. Mrs. Diehl also stated
that she wished to have a meeting with just Commission members present in order
that Planning Commission roles could be discussed.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
OR
9