HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 21 78 PC Minutes8-3
MR
November 21, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting,
Tuesday, November 21, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James
Huffman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl; and Mrs. Joan
Graves. Those members absent were Dr. James Moore and Col. William Washington, Vice -
Chairman. Other Officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning;
Miss Mason Caperton, Planner and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order
at 7:30 p.m.
HAROLD B. JOHNSON FINAL PLAT - located off Route 676, near Decca; proposed 4 lot
subdivision, lots ranging from 5 to 10 acres.
Miss Caperton informed the Commission that Mr. Johnson had requested deferral
until January 23, 1979.
Mrs. Diehl moved for deferral of the plat.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 5-0-1. Mr. Gloeckner
abstained.
NUNN/TREAKLE FINAL PLAT - located off the Old CCC Road, west of Route 630; proposed
4-acre division leaving approximately 22 acres residue.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Treakle, the applicant, was
present.
Mr. Treakle noted that all of the technical details, on the plat, have been taken
care of. He also noted that this division is not creating any additional use on the CCC
Road, and its's purpose is to upgrade an existing dwelling.
Mr. Huffman moved for approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval of septic facilities;
2. Second note shall read: "No further division or access of TM119-SOA using road without
the approval of the Planning"Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further dis-
cussion.
LOVELL COLEMAN FINAL PLAT - located south off Route 604, northwest of Earlysville;
proposed 2-acre lot subdivision leaving 16.4 acres residue.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Coleman, the applicant, was
present.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the adjoining property owners were using the right-of-way to
Mr. Coleman's property.
Miss Caperton noted that they were.
Mr. Coleman stated that he was not in favor of using the right-of-way, because of
the shrubs and hedges located along the right-of-way that would have to be removed.
Mr. Reback, the applicant's representative, noted that there is currently a driveway
to this property.
Mrs. Diehl asked if any vehicle trips will be added to this drive, if the subdivision
is approved.
Miss Caperton noted that the reason the Staff is asking Mr. Coleman to close the
drive is to reduce the number of entrances on Route 604.
Mr. Easter asked if closing the drive and using the right-of-way as an entrance on
to the property would be setting a precedent.
Mr. Keeler stated that opening the right-of-way would allow for additional development
of the property.
Mrs. Graves asked if the applicant had been informed of the Staff recommendation to
use the right-of-way as the entrance to the property, prior to the Planning Commission
meeting.
Miss Caperton said she had informed Mr. Snow, the Surveyor, of this matter.
Mr. McCann commented that he did not feel comfortable asking someone to close an
existing drive. He noted that he does not feel. this is the Commission's job.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the drive shouldbe left open and a note be added to the
plat that states: "No further division of residue without Planning Commission approval."
Mr. Reback stated that Mr. Coleman had informed him that he does not plan any further
development of the .property, because Mrs. Davis, and adjacent property owner, owns land
up to the right-of-way and does not favor further development of the land.
Mr. Easter stated that he felt Mr. Gloeckner's suggestion to add the note to the plat
would be good.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the plat subject to the following condition:
1. Change note to read: "No further subdivision of residue without Planning Commission
approval."
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
ISABEL BARNES FINAL PLAT - located south off Route 702 west of old Route 29 South,
near I-64; proposed division of 2 lots, 3+ and 4+ acres each.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Kisner represented the
applicant.
Mr. Kisner noted that he has already dedicated 25 feet from the centerline (cond. #2).
I/ 7-
He also noted that he intends to build a small home on this property and that the residue
is unusable because of a steep bank and the property line that borders on I-64.
Mrs. Diehl asked if Health Department approval is needed.
Miss Caperton stated that Health Department approval has already been given.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the plat with the following conditions:
1. Waiver of scale granted;
2. Dedicate 25 feet from centerline on Route 702 in northwest corner of property.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
EARL BEACH FINAL PLAT - located on the south side of Route 618, east of the Hardware
River; proposed 4 lot subdivision, 2 acres each.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Saddler, the applicant, was
present.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had made any effort to follow the suggestions
made by the members of the Site Review Committee.
Miss Caperton stated that she believed they had discussed changing the plat, but
the revised plat was turned in unchanged.
Mrg: Saddler asked if the Commission would agree to combining the entrances for lots
4 and 5 and 1 and 2.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that there would still be three entrances on the highway.
Mr. Saddler,of. Monticello Home Builders, stated that they are the contract purchasers
and wish to purchase this property to serve the Farmers Home Administration loan program.
He noted that they would not be able to get financing for homes that are located on a
right-of-way.
Mr. Easter stated that he would like to see the applicant get with the Staff in
order to resolve something about the problem with these lots. He asked Mr. Payne to
get in touch with Farmers Home to see if this rule strictly applies.
Mr. Easter also stated that he feels Albemarle County is being left in a difficult
position.
Mrs. Diehl noted that it would make her much happier to see the plat reworked.
Mr. Keeler noted that he and Mr. Bolton had discussed this plat and Mr. Bolton
had informed him that he intended to draft a letter to the Commission concerning financing
requirements through Government agencies.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to defer the plat for one week to allow Mr. Payne to correspond
with Farmers Home Administration regarding restrictions on right-of-ways.
` Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further dis-
cussion.
RIVANWOOD FINAL PLAT - located on the east side of Route 676 on the Rivanna
Reservoir; proposal for a 16-lot subdivision of approximately 2+ acres each.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vbte,on this item,
by leaving the room. Vd
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Lincoln, the applicant's
representative, was.present.
Mr. Easter asked what is meant by a dry hydrant system.
Mr. Bailey, County Engineer, stated that in a dry hydrant system the hydrant is not
under pressure. The water would be pumped from a body of water (Reservoir) by pumps on
the fire equipment.
Mr. Fisher, an adjacent property owner, stated that he was initially opposed to this
subdivision. He noted that he still feels ambiguous about the property even though it
is excellent engineering. He noted that he feels other property owners on the Reservoir
will be able to develope their property. He asked if run-off control standards are the
same for any kind of development. (example: home vs. tennis courts)
Mr. Bailey noted that when a development is considered for a run-off control permit
the development is taken into consideration as a whole regardless of what type of facilities
are located in the development.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is a bonding account set up in case some run-off control
preventives fail.
fail. Mr. Bailey stated that there are bonding accounts set up if preventive'measures
Mr. Fisher asked if there was data available from National Water Management Control
agencies concerning building on reservoirs.
Mr. Bailey noted that practices used in determining run-off control are in a publi-
cation which is compiled from many sources on this particular subject.
Mr. Fisher said he was interested in the effect sixteen individual wells would have
on the water supply.
Mr. Easter stated that this is a question that no one could answer until the
situation arises.
Mrs. Sargeant, an adjacent property owner, stated that she is confused by the Planning
Commission's and the Board of Supervisors' attitude concerning the reservoir. She noted
that in 1972 the Board of Supervisors approved a request for rezoning on the reservoir of
some property she owned. In 1975 they received a letter from the Board of Supervisors
indicating that the reservoir area would be zoned for Conservation. She also noted that in
nine days a new Zoning Ordinance will go in to effect that will zone this area Conservation.
Mr. Easter explained to Mrs. Sargeant that in nine days a proposed Zoning Ordinance
will be presented to the public and will go through many public hearings before the new
ordinance would be adopted or not. -
Mr. Collins stated that he is a resident of the City and drinks the water from the
Reservoir. He stated that the development of Rivanwood would have an emotional as
well as political effect on the new Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the residents of
the City are concerned about the quality of the water.
Mr. Swain, an adjacent property owner, stated that he felt that the run-off from
the present agricultural use (cattle) of the land was more detrimental than what the_
applicant was proposing.
Mr. Easter asked if it is the applicant's responsibility to bring in the plan before
applying for a run-off control permit.
Mr. Bailey stated that the ordinance states that no permits can be issued before the
plan has been submitted for review. He noted that it is wise to check into methods of
controlling run-off before the actual plan is submitted. He also commented that Mr.
Gloeckner has taken care of this matter.
Mr. McCann stated that Mr. Bailey has answered his only question which is run-off
c ontrol. Other than that it is just like any other subdivision. He asked Mr. Bailey
if there are any run-off control stipulations for grading and earth moving.
Mr. Bailey noted that this is usually considered under the soil erosion ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there is an access for fire equipment.
Mr. Lincoln noted that there is a fire access across lot #16.
Mrs. Graves noted that two well lots are shown on the plan. She asked if only one
well is used what will happen to the other well lot.
Mr. Lincoln stated that possibly two wells will be connected, since the well on lot
#15 may not have sufficient water.
Mr. Vest commented that he feels the most important issue relies on Mr. Bailey's
expertise and since everything else seems to be in order he would have to support this
plan.
Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. A waiver of double frontage on lots 1,2,4,6,15 and 16 is granted;
2. Written Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot;
3. The lots may be served by either central well system or individual wells. In the
case of central wells, they shall be approved in accordance with the Code of Albemarle
and all other applicable law;
4. County Engineering Department and Highway Department approval of road plans;
5. County Fire Official and other appropriate authorities approval of fire prevention
facilities, including maintenance of such facilities to satisfaction of the Fire
Official and County Attorney;
6. Grading permit;
7. Run-off control permit, if required;
8. No building site is to be located on slopes greater than 25 percent;
9. Land disturbing- activities shall be limited to roads, homes, driveways, appurtenant
structures and other physical improvements wherever possible.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion.
IVY RIDGE FINAL PLAT - located north of city on Route 657 (Hydraulic Road) and
Route 631 (Rio Road) north of Charlottesville; preliminary proposal for 131 townhouses
and apartment units on 18+ acres.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Hill represented the applicant.
Mrs. Graves stated that she thought the Commission had sidewalk requirements.
Mr. Keeler noted that there is a sidewalk requirement for internal use and there
have never been any plans for development of sidewalks along the road frontage.
Mr. Hill noted there is bad curve before you come to the entrance of the sub-
division, which has been removed. He stated that he does not feel sidewalks are
compatible to the road use in this area.
Mr. McCann noted that since the County does not have a definite plan for sidewalks in
this area he does not have any objections to discussing sidewalks then dropping the
subject.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. All lots must have access from Ivy Ridge Road;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Compliance with private road requirements;
4. Written County Engineering Department approval of private road plans;
5. Waiver of scale granted.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion.
MINOR TOWNHOUSE APARTMENTS SITE PLAN - located off Commonwealth Drive on a proposed
extension of Westfield Road; proposed plan for 96 units on 13.8 acres.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Hill and Mr. Sinclair represented
the applicant.
Mrs. Graves asked how the applicant could show an extension of Westfield Road
when he does not own the land.
Mr. Hill stated that they have permission from the owner to extend the road.
Mrs. Graves stated that she had spoken with a member of the Charlottesville_ Land
Trust and they didn't know anything about extending Westfield Road.
Mr. Hill noted that they would not have brought the plan in if the road could not
be extended.
Mr. Sinclair rioted that in order to develope the vacant lot (condition #9) some
grading will have to be done and the easiest time to do this is when the Minor Townhouse
property is being graded.
Mr. Payne stated that an amendment to the site plan would be needed to grade this
property unless a different plan is submitted.
Mrs. Graves commented that she would like to know the legal status of the road,
which is located on property that is not owned by the applicant.
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant will have to have this road in order to obtain
a building permit, if he doesn't have the approval he.cannot proceed. He noted
that this does not present a problem for the County, only the applicant.
Mrs. Graves stated that she would like to see the existing trees remain on the
vacant lot behind the Berkley residents until the lot is actually developed.
Mr. Hill noted that he agrees with Mrs. Graves, but timber had been removed before
the property was acquired by the applicant. He also noted that some timber had been
removed to allow for access to the property.
Mr. McCann stated that if the applicant wishes to grade the vacant lot at this time
he couldn't see any problem, if they reseed the area and plant a few scattered trees.
He noted that he could support the plan with the deletion of condition #9 and require
reseeding of the area.
Mr. McCann moved for approval of the site plan with the following conditions:
1. Grading permit;
2. County Engineering Department apd Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of the road plans for Westfield Road to its ultimate cross section for
acceptance into the State system;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
4. Fire Official approval of handicapped facilities, location and screening of dumpsters,
and location of hydrants;
5. Staff approval of the landscape plans and recreational facilities;
6. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas,
pedestrian trails, parking areas, and other physical improvements are to be located
as shown on the site plan shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its
natural state;
7. During construction, reasonable action shall be taken to protect and maintain
specified margins of clearing with stakes and ropes to create a buffer zone from
existing residential areas;
8. Zoning on Tax Map 61M-U, Parcel 1 be changed to read R-1.
A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions are met:
9. If trees behind lots lA & 1B cannot be maintained at the same depth (30 feet) as
adjacent tree line, an 8 foot opaque fence, subject to the approval of the staff
shall be provided;
10. Full dedication of the extension of Westfield Road to the development entrance by
separate plat;
11. Signs must comply with requirements set forth in the ordinance.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion.
KIRTLEY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY WAREHOUSE ADDITION SITE PLAN - located on U. S. 250
West, west of Charlottesville; proposed warehouse addition to the Kirtley Distributing
Company.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Sandy Lambert represented the
applicant.
Mr. Easter asked if the building is currently occupied.
Mr. Lambert stated that it was not occupied at this time.
Mr. Shaw -Kennedy, an adjacent property owner, noted that the road leading to Mr.
Kirtley's warehouse is 100% on his property. He noted that he has no objection to this
site plan if it does not interfere with his right-of-way to the railroad.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the site plan with the following conditions:
1. Run-off control permit;
/2 2_11-
2. Fire Official approval of the location and screening of dumpsters and location
of fire hydrant, when water becomes available;
3. Notes on plan: "Any outdoor lighting is to be directed toward the site and away
from adjacent properties"; and "Landscaping is to be maintained in a healthy
condition to be replaced if it should die";
4. Staff approval of landscape plan;
5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commerical entrance;
6. Change parking notes (10 spaces required and provided) and complete numbering of
spaces including #10;
7. Retention pond subject to relocation upon approval of run-off control permit.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with no further
discussion. Mrs. Graves dissented.
FOREST KNOLL SITE PLAN - located near the intersection of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road)
and Route 631 (Rio Road) north of Charlottesville; preliminary proposal for 131 townhouse
and apartment units on 18+ acres.
Miss Caperton informed the Commission that the applicant requested deferral until
the November 28, 1978 Planning Commission meeting.
Mrs. Diehl moved for deferral of this site plan.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
OLD BUSINESS - HEROLD FINAL PLAT - located about 1 mile south of Route 631 and
I-64 on an old road; the applicant is requesting that a waiver of the road bond be granted.
Miss Caperton informed the Commission that the road to this property is very long
and the estimate to fix the road would be $6,000.00.
Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant would be the only person using the road and he
could be the only one hurt by not improving the road.
Mrs. Graves asked if the other conditions of approval have been met.
Miss Caperton noted that they had all been met.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that requiring a bond on a road that is used by a single-
family is not necessary.
Mr. Payne stated that it is required in the ordinance to either fix the road or
bond it before the plat can be signed. He noted that the applicant had requested Mr.
Tucker to sign the plat without this condition having been met. Mr. Tucker bought
this to the Commission since he did not feel he could sign the plat without the Planning
Commission's approval.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the applicant's request to waive the road bond.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion with the addition that all technical requirement
be met before the plat is signed. The motion carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
7 .J
OLD BUSINESS - LEEDS LANE IN MERIWETHER HILLS - the applicants are requesting that
the Board of Supervisors abandon the portion of Leeds Lane (from Lewis Street to the
temporary turnaround) which was designated to be maintained by the State. The parties
desire to maintain the road privately.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request.
Mr. McCann moved to recommend the applicant's request to the Board of Supervisors
for approval.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
f
� - �
�X4 f
R ert W. Tucker, Jr. - ecr tary
OR
9