Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 25 79 PC MinutesSeptember 25, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, September 25, 1979, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Huffman; and Mr. James Skove. Absent was Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing a quorum. Minutes of September 10, September 17, and August 14 were deferred until the next week. ZMA-79-31. Twin Croup has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 16 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/RS-1. Property is located on the southwest side of Route 654, approximately 2 miles northwest of the Boarracks Road Shopping Center. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 28, portion of, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Miss Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Max Evans, the applicant, said that this is basically the same proposal as the original rezoning request, which was denied by the Board of Supervisors. However, the density has been reduced from 12 to 10 units for the 16 acres. Mr. Evans pointed to the slopes study and further explained the plan. He said that the lots will be laid out among the existing hardwood trees. There is a pine tree buffer from Barracks Road and water is available. He proposed an 8" line into the property. A soil scientist has studied the soils and gave a good report. He cited the existing densities of the area. Mr. Evans said that the Comprehensive Plan calls for 1-4 units per acre in this area. Mr. Lewis Simons, a Colthurst resident, said that the average lot size in Colthurst is over two acres since many owners hold more than one lot. He did note that the Board of Supervisors, in its deliberation of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, has not decided if this property will fall within the Urban Area since the land is within the watershed of the South Rivanna. He said that he was under the impresssion that an RPN employs the concept of clustering. Mr. Don Holden, a resident of Montvue, said that the average lot size in Montvue is 1.9 acres. The smallest lot is 1.25 acres. He said that the RPN is an arrangement where part of the land is set aside for common use of the owners. He said that the greenspace in this plan is virtually the unsellable land - i.e., the steep terrain and the swales. He also noted that the Board has made no final decision on this part of Neighborhood 7. There was no further public comment and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Evans siad that his opinion at the previous rezoning consideration had been that if the density were reduced to 10 units, the Board would look favorably upon the request. He said that about one-third of the property is in the watershed and the remainder is not. 405 Mrs. Diehl established that the only recreational facility for the RPN is the pedestrian trail. Mr. Skove said that he is concerned about the validity of this plan as a true RPN. Instead, he viewed this as a simple subdivision. Mr. Skove felt that the existing zoning is valid. Mr. McCann said that he could support the concept and moved approval of the rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 10 lots. Location and acreages of land uses shall comply with the approved plan. Open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of lots approved in the final subdivision process; 2. No grading shall occur until the final subdivision process; 3. Compliance with the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances; 4. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot; 5. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final subdivision approval; 6. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, prior to final subdivision approval; 7. All lots shall have access only on the interior road; 8. County Engineer approval of road plans prior to subdivision approval; 9. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance and improvements to Route 654 prior to final subdivision approval; 10. No buildings shall be constructed on slopes of 25% or greater; 11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other improvement approved in a final plan are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 12. All units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision approval. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Skove dissenting. ZMA-79-32. S-V Associates and North Rivanna Fifth Land Trust have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 173.4 acres to RPN/R-1: 37.42 acres are currently zoned A-1; 36.04 acres are currently zoned R-3; 95.98 acres are currently zoned R-1; and 3.96 acres are currently zoned M-1. The property is located on the north and south sides of Route 606, and northwest of both Camelot and Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1, portion of; and County Tax Map 20, Parcels 45, and 19, portion of. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff has not been able to review the revised plan since it had only received it late that afternoon. He said they have not given it even a cursory review. Mr. Coburn, Assistant Engineer from the Highway Department, said that Route 606 is unpaved at one point and is listed as non -tolerable. The major concern is traffic from the site and the fact there are two accesses onto Route 29. Also he expressed concern with the cul-de-sacs with the plantings. Mr. Keeler said that the staff report addresses the previously submitted plan, and prior to making any recommendations, a review of the new plan would be necessary. Id/p Mr. Wendell Wood, on behalf of the applicants, said that he has met with the Camelot citizens several times during the last thirty days. He said the project is intended to provide housing for newly married people, in the more moderate price range. Everytime something is added to the plan, the cost of the units goes up. The site has public water and sewer available. The zoning is there and Route 29 North is the best road in the county. He said that the main concern of the Camelot residents had been to have single-family units on St. Ives and Camelot Drives. That has been accomplished with the new plan. He said that he is agreeable to maintaining the R-1 zoning along these two streets, as well. He said that the ordinances of the county don't provide for this housing type and this plan is for single-family attached units. The densities by right would be much higher. Mr. Bob McKee said that this property is near the industrial park and General Electric plants, and it is anticipated that this will provide housing for many of the employees of those two areas. He explained the technical points of the plan. The roadways are primarily along the ridge lines. In Mr. McKee's opinion, the plan satisfactorily addressed the concerns of the Highway Department. He showed the plan for single-family units along Camelot Drive. He said that the applicant is agreeable to all conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Steven Carter said that the residents of Camelot were clearly unaware of the latest proposal; as late as Sunday night they had talked to Mr. Wood. Mr. Bob Warner, representing most of the homeowners of Camelot, said that he is not aware of the new proposal. He read the contents of a petition, with 114 signatures, opposing the rezoning. He said that they feel this proposal is an increase in density. Ms. Melinda Combs was concerned about the appearance of duplexes. She said that there is the possibility the open space will not be maintained. All the residents of Camelot like nice yards. Mr. Rob Jordan expressed concern that the proposal is not compatible to existing zoning. He asked that the Commission support only what is a continuity of the existing. He complimented the staff on its preparation and presentation. Mr. Keith Hamill said that thirty homes from Camelot are represented, and oppose the proposal. There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Wood said that there will be twenty-six feet between the units, which is six feet more than between the houses in Camelot. He once again pointed out that he can build apartments by right. Mrs. Deihl felt that the staff should review the revised plan prior to Commission discussion. Mr. Skove said that he favors amending the Comprehensive Plan to reflect growth for the Camelot area. He felt that this proposal would be ultimately desirable. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the proposed rezoning and the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed by the Commission simultaneously. Mr. Huffman established that the General Electric plant was not considered in the Comprehensive Plan since it came later. He felt it is important to amend !6-7- the plan to reflect that industry and provide housing for residents and workers there. Mrs. Graves asked that the new plan go back through site review. The school site is an addition to the plan which should be included in a proper resolution, and the sewer plans should likewise be resolved. Mr. McCann felt that the Camelot area should be included in the Comprehensive Plan as another community. Mr. Keeler said that the staff sees no need for the plan to go through the technical committee again. He said that prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting, the School Board would need to review the proposed location for the school. He asked that the Commission members contact him if they had specific questions or concerns about the plan. Mr. Skove moved that further discussion and action be deferred until October 30, 1979. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Col. Washington stated that all items except Le Beau Sol Preliminary Plat and the Birckhead Guest Cottage Site Plan would be considered by the Commission on September 27, 1979, at 2:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The Commission unanimously voted on this suggestion. Le Beau Sol Preliminary Plat - located between the intersection of Routes 637 and 750 near Nelson County. Miss Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Roger Willetts, representing some of the neighborhood landowners, presented a petition of 94 signature in opposition to the proposed plat. He said that he sees no need or benefit for this type of development in the area of the farmland. Stockton Creek runs through this area and he expressed concern about the effect of the septic fields on the stream. He said that the subdivision is potential problem for runoff and pollution to that area. Mr. Ronnie Roberts, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County, pointed to the road conditions. He said that this road is not in Nelson County's 6-Year Road Plan and said that Nelson County maintains 4200 feet of this route. Col. Washington established that the maintenance is under a reciprocal agreement. Mr. Walter Fitz, who lives opposite the property, said that area currently has no utility lines and this subdivision will ruin some of the rural ambience. Also he felt the road will'be impassable in bad weather, as it has been in the past few weeks because of rain. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Peter Naoroz, applicant, explained there will be no utility lines. Mr. Skove said that he had attempted to view the site, and after the heavy rains on Saturday, Route 637 had been almost washed out. However, Route 750 was all right. Mrs. Diehl questioned if additional traffic would make the road non -tolerable. Miss Caperton replied that it probably would, in view of the width of the road, however she could not be certain. Mr. Skove said there is no way two cars can pass on Route 637, much less a school bus. Mrs. Diehl then established that Route 750 will remain tolerable with the increase traffic. Mr. Vest said that he does not think Route 637 is much worse than some other county roads where development is permitted. Mrs. Diehl suggested a private road system. She also noted that the additional vehicle trips per day will more than double the traffic count on the road at present. Miss Caperton said that there is a problem with grade for a private road. Mrs. Graves said there is some land in the county that is unsuitable for two -acre lots. Mr. McCann said that if the plat meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, the Commission will have to approve it. Mr. Skove said that the subdivision would be a danger to public safety because of the road situation. He could not support the request. Mr. McCann moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, once again stating that this is not a threat to the health and safety of the residents. The motion lost by a vote of 3-5-1, with Col. Washington, Mrs. Diehl, Dr. Moore, Mr. Skove, and Mrs. Graves dissenting, and Mr. Gloeckner abstaining. Mr. Skove moved that the Commission deny the preliminary plat because Route 637 cannot handle the traffic generated by this subdivision, and the subdivision would pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if it would be better to defer the plat so the applicant could rework the plat and not pay another submission fee. The motion to deny lost by a vote of 3-6, with Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. Vest, Mrs. Diehl, Mr. McCann, Col. Washington, and Mr. Huffman dissenting. Id 9 Mr. Gloeckner moved deferral of the plat in order for the applicant to rework the plat to address the concerns of the staff, public, and Planning Commission. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Peter Naoroz said that he has met the conditions for preliminary plat approval and asked the Commission to guide him in his redraft of the plat. The Commission asked that he work on rearrangement of the lots for a private road, that he consider the possible road improvements to Route 637 to address the safety issue. Birckhead Guest Cottage Site Plan - located off the south side of Carrsbrook Drive, east of Indian Springs Road: Miss Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Birckhead said that he has complied with the technical requirements and agreed to the other recommended conditions. Mr. David Cook presented a petition of 97 signatures from residents of Carrsbrook opposing the site plan. Mr. Rolf Benzinger was concerned about changing the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gene Baker opposed the site plan because of the safety situation - he said that the bend in the road is dangerous. road. Ms. Christine Rapoochi expressed concern about the safety factor of the Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Birckhead said it is 60 feet from the curve toward Route 29 that he proposes the entrance. Dr. Moore stated that in previous years, Mr. Birckhead was the biggest opponent of applications just like his own. Safety on this road is a real problem. Mr. McCann suggested an entrance from Indian Spring Road only. Mr. Birckhead said that topography would be a problem. Mr. Gloeckner expressed concern for three septic fields on a little less than two acres. Miss Caperton advised the Commission that Health Department approval has been received. Mr. Gloeckner suggested two septic fields per unit. Mr. Payne said that could be made a condition of approval, if the Commission so wishes. Mr. Gloeckner said that part of the area is uphill and part of it is in the lake - he was concerned where an additional field would go if one fails. Mr. McCann felt that it meets the requirements of the ordinance, and stated that it is unfortunate that this is even before the Commission for consideration. He moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans for the new cottage; b. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, driveway, or other improvement is located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; C. Access to the cottage shall be from Indian Spring Road only; d. Health Department approval of alternate septic field. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. Discussion: Dr. Moore felt that based on the character of the lot, two septic fields should be mentioned. The motion carried by a vote of 7-2, with Dr. Moore and Mr. Gloeckner dissenting. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. P9 19