HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 30 79 PC MinutesOctober 30, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on
Tuesday, October 30, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. James Huffman;
Mr. Charles Vest; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. James
Skove; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman;
Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present
were Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald 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 that
a quorum was present.
Minutes of August 27, September 19, October 2, and October 8 were
approved by the chairman as presented.
( Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Diehl entered the meeting. )
Le Beau Sol Subdivision:
Miss Caperton presented the staff report, reading the recommended
conditions of approval. She stated that the plat had been deferred from September
25, 1979, noting that the applicant had revised the plat to exclude three lots.
Mr. Peter Naoroz, the applicant, stated that there will be deed
restrictions. As many trees as it is possible to keep will be maintained and
he noted that he proposes access from both state routes.
Mr. Skove established that the acreage of the two residue parcels is
9.4 acres for Parcel A and 8.3 acres for Parcel B.
Mr. Roger Willetts, on behalf of area residents, opposed the subdivision
on the basis that Route 637 will become a very dangerous road, Stockton Creek will
be impacted, the character of the area will be changed. He noted that in his
opinion the revised plat falls short of meeting the concerns addressed by the Commission
at the previous meeting. He felt that the property should be developed with five
acre lots as proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. He also pointed out that good
palnning is not the threat of litigation.
Mr. Herbert Stuart stated that he and other area residents were present
to substantiate the remarks of Mr. Willetts.
Col. Washington closed the public discussion.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that Parcel B will also have access onto Route 637.
Miss Caperton pointed out the questionable slope areas on the plat to
the Commission and read the comments from the Highway Department.
Mrs. Diehl established that the number of vehicle trips per day would be more
than doubled with approval of the plat.
114)
Mrs. Graves stated that in final form the dedication should be consistent
since the note on the plat shows one thing and the pictorial respresentation shows
another.
Mr. Skove said that the additional traffic, in view of existing traffic,
would probably make Route 637 unsafe, since it is not possible for two cars to
pass one another at this time.
Mr. McCann agreed that a problem with the road probably does exist, however
since the Highway Department is unwilling to define safe and unsafe, he was not willing
to attempt to define them.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is unwilling to be in a position of making the road
more unsafe than it already is.
Mr. Gloeckner established that a soil scientist report will be required.
Mr. Huffman agreed with Mr. McCann on the safety of the road.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he will not oppose the subdivision until he
hears from the Health Department.
Mr. Vest said that he had traveled Route 637 the previous week and
found it safer than his own road.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the prelimiarny plat subject to the 110)
conditions recommended by the staff. He said that once the soil scientist's
work is completed and the Health Department reviews the plat, some lots may be
lost because of slopes.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the motion, since in the
past the Commission has felt obligated to approve a final plat when it has approved
a preliminary plat.
The motion was defeated by a vote of 4-5, with Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves,
and Messrs. Washington, Moore, and Skove dissenting.
Mr. Skove moved the preliminary plat be denied on the grounds that the
seven lots on Route 637 would constitute a danger to public safety.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Gloeckner said it is necessary to state what would make the plat
approvable.
Mr. Payne said that in his opinion the motion implies the converse -
that if no lots fronted on Route 637, the plat could be approved.
Dr. Moore stated that a single entrance might likewise be acceptable.
161
Col. Washington said that he could support not more than four lots, including
Parcel B.
50 vptd.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that the standard for paving a road is
Col. Washington also noted that is on a priority basis.
Mr. Skove said that it also includes a dedicated 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Huffman then pointed out that if the Commission votes for anything
more than one lot, it is making the road intolerable, if you look at it from that
point of view.
Mr. Skove said that either an internal road or all lots served from the hard
surfaced road might make the plat approvable.
The motion to deny carried by a vote of 5-4, with Messrs. Huffman,
Vest, McCann, and Gloeckner dissenting.
ZMA-79-32. S-V Associates and North Rivanna Fifth Land Trust
( BRIARWOOD RPN ):
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the revised conditions
of approval. He said that on the revised plan, the staff has problems with
as many as 100 lots. He said that there has been only one other RPN with both
water and sewer available. The staff is concerned with the steepness of the lots
at the front, since this will be the access to the lots. He noted the comments
from the Housing Coordinator and the letter from the Parks Department. He addressed
Mrs. Graves concerns regarding sidewalks and sewer. He said that the staff feels
sidewalks are appropriate where roads serve 67 or more lots.
Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, stated that the requests of the staff
and concerns of the Camelot residents have been addressed in the revised plan.
He preferred that the requirement of sidewalks be deleted all together, since he
is attempting to have affordable housing. He noted that in essence this rezoning
is a self imposed downzoning; all the utilities are present and the road ( Route 29 )
is adequate. Shopping and work facilties are in the immediate area, as well as
the largest county park, Chris Greene Park.
Mr. Bob McKee, engineer, felt that the single-family lots addressed
in Condition#13 should have relief from Condition #14. He noted that pathways
are available to all lots in the development, however if sidewalks are required the
pathways should be deleted, to make certain that this development is for low/moderate
income housing.
Mr. Keith Hammond, a Camelot resident, said that he would like the Commission
to address topography. He favored the three proposed entrances but expressed concern
about the maintenance of the park. He also supported the unattached houses on
Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road. Mr. Hammond urged the Commission to require
sidewalks for the sake of the children in the area.
/&,:;g
Mr. Bob Silcot, also a resident of Camelot, asked that the density on
the R-1 land not be increased. He also supported sidewalks for the development.
Mr. Mike Radcliffe was concerned about the pathways, especially the
maintenance aspect.
Mr. McKee said that the soil will be poisoned and the pathways would
be gravel.
Mr. Radcliffe said that a lot of the primary recreational area is underwater
at flood time.
Mr. McKee said that only a picnic structure is proposed in the area
addressed by Mr. Radcliffe. The other facilities are maintenance free , such as
the basketball area. He also noted that the open space will be covered by the homeowners
agreements.
Mrs. Joyce Thornton, a resident of Camelot, said that the low attendance should
not be interpreted as approval from the area residents.
Col. Washington closed the public hearing.
Mr. Wood said that sidewalks and such requirements only raise the cost
of the housing, noting that sidewalks cost approximately $9.00 per foot to construct.
He also pointed out that the largest park in the county is within walking distance.
Mr. Keeler outlined at the request of Dr. Moore the floodplain on the
plan, noting that it comprises approximately 33 acres.
Mr. Skove established that condition #14 is not a problem since it is
agreeable to the applicant.
Mr. McCann said that this is a very large development, and he therefore
has a problem with a homeowners association due to the number of residences. He
felt that the open land should be dedicated to the county for its maintenance.
Mrs. Diehl expressed concern about access to the recreational areas,
stating that there is a need for vehicular access. She noted that there are not
any parking areas.
Mr. Wood replied that the residerits of Camelot requested no parking
spaces or vehicular access to the recreational area.
Mr. Skove agreed with Mr. Wood about proximity to Rio Road area, work
facilities, recreation, etc. He said however that he is bothered by the county
enforcing the price range.
Mr. Payne agreed that it will be difficult to enforce.
Mrs. Graves said it is not necessary to build in deficiencies to provide for
low cost housing. She favored, at a minimum, the sidewalks reprsented in yellow
on the plan.
/ &-3
Mr. McCann questioned the issue of sidewalk maintenance.
Mr. Keeler replied that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation will assume that maintenance if the sidewalks are built to their
standards.
Mr. McCann said that he is willing to have the siddwalks as proposed by
the staff since this is a downtown type development. But in the same respect he
favored deletion of some of the pathways.
Mrs. Diehl established that the project is planned to be developed in
five stages.
Mr. Payne then advised the Commission that it does have control over the
entrances north of Camelot Drive through dedication on the subdivision plats, even
though phasing is proposed.
Mrs. Graves said that she is not convinced that sewer is available. She
also stated her concern about future development of the commercial area, since the
county has no control over what is outside the RPN. She felt it questionable to
rezone when the utilities might not be available.
Mrs.Graves said that there is not capacity at the Camelot Treatment Plane
for existing zoning development.
Mr. Gloeckner said that a tradeoff of sidewalks would be dedication of
the recreational area to the county.
Mr. Payne replied that the homeowners could dedicate it to the county.
Mr. Gloeckner felt a better way would be for the dedication to take
place at final plat approval.
Col. Washington said that he can see dedicating the primary recreational
areas to public use, but not the tot lots, etc.
Mr. Wood replied that he is willing to go either way.
Mr. Huffman did not think it should be up to the residents of the development
to dedicate the recreational areas to the county.
Mrs. Graves said that if it is dedicated to public use, other county
residents can use the facilities. She wondered where they would have access from,
and where they would park.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he supports the rezoning requests because it is
a downzoning, it proposes low/moderate income housing, and it is compatible to the
area. Furthermore, it won't be completed until 20 years from now.
Mr. McCann agreed, noting that this request proposes development where
the utilities are.
Dr. Moore favored giving up Condition #14 and requiring sidewalks throughout
the development.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that a housing mix might be appropriate, if
this is going to be turned into a community.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that Carrsbrook, Northfields, and Woodbrook
all have the same housing types.
Mr. Skove also pointed out that home ownership will encourage maintenance
of the properties.
Mr. Vest said that low and moderate income housing is going to have to start
somewhere. He said that the Commission justifies a lot of its actions on the Comprehensiv
Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan recommends low and moderate income housing. Therefore,
low and moderate income housing should have its priorities, too.
Mr. Skove felt that condition #9 might be incongruous with condition #14.
Mr. Huffman agreed with Mr. Vest, stating that the county is trying to
make the public think it favors low and moderate income housing. If this is approved,
growth can be achieved where the utilities are, and it can be in the form of low
and moderate cost housing.
The Commission then reviewed the recommended conditions of approval.
Upon the motion of Mr. Skove, and second of Mr. Huffman, the Commission voted 7-2
( with Mrs. Diehl and Mrs. Graves dissenting ) to add the following to condition #1:
"Primary recreation areas to be dedicated to public use."
Upon the motion of Mrs. Diehl, and second of Dr. Moore, the
Commission voted 6-3 ( with Messrs. Huffman, Vest, and Gloeckner ) to have
sidewalks along the major streets that have more than sixty lots.
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission drop condition #14 ( dwelling
units are to be marked in the low/moderate family income price range as determined
by the Albemarle County Housing Coordinator ). That motion carried by a vote of
7-2, with Messrs. Washington and Skove dissenting.
Upon the motion of Mr. Gloeckner, and second of Mr. McCann, the
Commission unanimously voted to add the following condition: "No final site plan
or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or dwelling unit served by
either Road X or Road Y prior to dedication to public use and construction or
bonding for acceptance into the Virginia State Secondary Highway System of Roads
X and Y."
Mrs. Diehl said that she feels an error has been made in removing the
recreational areas from the RPN.
Mr. Huffman then moved approval of the rezoning request subject to
the following conditions:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 901 dwellings subject to conditions contained
herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the
Approved Plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space
shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved. Primary
recreation areas to be dedicated to public use.
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in any area until final
site plan and subdivision approval for that area has been obtained;
16,5
3. Special use permit approval of sewer capacity adequate to serve the entire
development shall be obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval;
4. All road plan and entrance plan approvals shall be obtained prior to any final
site plan or subdivision approval. All roads shall be designed and constructed to
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications and dedicated
for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System. In review of road plans,
the County Engineer, guided by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's
letter of September 6, 1979, and such further consultation with Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation as he deems desirable, shall discourage alignment
and design which would result in excessive grading. Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation approval of access to Route 29 North and Route 606.
In review of such entrance plans, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
is requested to be mindful of its letter of September 6, 1979;
5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as is necessary
for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a buildable lot and/or added to
common open sapce subject to Planning Commission approval;
6. Fire Official approval of fire protection system including but not limited to:
fire flow rates, hydrant locations, and emergency access provisions. Such system
shall be provided prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy in the area
to be served;
7. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for water lines, sewerlines,
pumping station, and manholes and appurtenances;
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities;
9. Sidewalks shall be provided along roads serving 60 lots or more;
10. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements prior to final
approvals;
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas,
roads, and other improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other
land shall remain in its natural state;
12. No final site plan or subdivision approval shall be given until the School Board
has reviewed this application for possible school site dedication. The School
Board is requested to present its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors within
30 days of Board action of this application;
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road are to be developed wtih single-family
detached dwellings and shall have a minimum lot width of 65 feet. All other lots
shall be developed with single -family attached units unless otherwise approved
by the Planning Commission in final approvals;
14. No final site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or dwelling
unit served by either road X or road Y prior to dedication to public use and
construction or bonding for acceptance into Virginia State Secondary Highway
System.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-1, with
Mrs. Graves dissenting. Mrs. Graves said that the Commission is creating a
village larger than the established villages with no provisions for mass transit to
where they work.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the county has just received a large grant
for mass transit all the way to the Greene County line.
Public Discussion - Proposed Piney Mountain Community:
Mr. Eckel.reviewed the staff concept of this community.
Mr. Wendell Wood questioned why the jurisdictional areas of
the Service Authority had not been followed along Route 606. He noted that
sewer may go into Hollymead.
There was no other public discussion, and by unanimous vote, upon
the motion of Mr. Huffman and second of Mr. McCann, the Commission deferred
any further discussion on this proposal until November 13, 1979, when the
public hearing is secheduled.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
19
/6-7