Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 17 80 PC MinutesJune 17, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 1980, 7:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles Vest, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. David Bowerman; absent: Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Other officials present: Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner. Chairman William Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 13,20,&June 3, 1980 were approved as corrected. The minutes of May 27, 1980 were approved as written. BRIARWOOD RPN Mr. Ronald Keeler stated that it appears that the applicant will have to amend the preliminary plans. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to consider any final plats in the light of the fact that this amendment will be forthcoming. Mr. Skove questioned if road Y would be approved for Briarwood by itself. Mr. McCann asked if the applicant had any idea how road could be done in that topography. Mr. Davis asked if the applicant had known before that the location of the road was not feasible. Mr. Wood, the applicant, stated that this was a problem when the final topos of the site were not in at the time of the application. The area shown was not feasible, but if the highway department would change the standard and classify this as mountainous, then the road with a different slope would meet their standards. The request for a reclassification is being processed at this time. In the meantime, the subdivision will be started on the north side of the property, that way it will be three years before Phase I is begun. Mr. Payne stated that the issue the Planning Commission would be called on to decide would be if this is in keeping with the preliminary plan. If Section III is approved, there is still a possibility that Phase I can not be accomplished; then is Phase III in keeping with the preliminary plan, if Phase I cannot be completed. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the preliminary plan is all that has been approved. Mr. Skove stated that the preliminary plan calls for these two roads; this could be doing something that will change the whole plan around. Mr. Keeler said that the Commission will have to determine that they are not stopped from action by Condition 14. //0 Mr. Payne read condition 14 from ZMA-79-32: "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." Mr. Keeler said the Commission put this condition in when there was access through Camelot Drive. The idea was when this development started occurring here, so people in Camelot would have the security that these roads are going to be built and that the access wouldn't continue to be through Camelot Drive. This is the way he recalled it. At the Board meeting, Camelot Drive was cul-de-saced. These roads were re -aligned. There was connection provided over to St. Ives Road. So under this plan, access would be through St. Ives Road. If you delete road X, then you are changing traffic on St. Ives Road. Mrs. Diehl said she thought the Commission also discussed the fact that the Commission felt the development itself needed two separate entrances from Route 29, as well as those possible routes through Camelot. Mr. Skove felt that something might happen that road X will not work. The Commissioners have committed themselves and they need to see how to salvage it. Mr. McCann said that Road X is a public road; there is no problem with it. A private road is not needed in that development. There are supposed to be a certain number of units in that development, he felt that how they were arranged was not important - Phase III could be done first with no problem to him. When the other phases come along, if it is going to cause a traffic problem on Road Y, and if Road X can not be put in, then they will have some other type of development problem. The developer can start with Phase III and come down; that won't matter. Where the Commission will really have to look is at Phase I. Mr. Payne said he did not think it was necessary for the Commission to make any decision tonight. Mr. Keeler said that he was bringing the matter to the Commission tonight because if the Commission says it does not want to see any final plans, then the adjacent property owners will be notified and they will not have to come to the meeting next week. Also, Mr. Wood needs some understanding of the intention of the Commission. Col. Washington asked if the Commission would review Phase II next week. Mr. Keeler replied that Phase II would be considered, since Phase I can not be done now. Phase II is what is on the agenda for next week. Mr. Skove questioned Mr. Wood on his intentions if road X could not be put through as shown on the plan. Mr. Wood said they would try to redesign it in some fashion. Right now, road X is headed north, they may have to head it south, then the lots would have to be realigned. If they had started in the north, they would not have had to come back to the Commission now. If they had decided to build Phase III, II, I, instead of I, II, III, the problem would not have had to be addressed tonight. They are not asking for Phase I approval at all now; this will wait for a variance from the Highway Department, or be redesigned in some fashion. Mr. McCann said that road X is going in one way or the other. Col. Washington said that the way he understood it, the applicant was there because of Condition 14. Mr. Wood said that the condition does not say the roads have to be done simultan- eously; they were not going to do them simultaneously anyway. Col. Washington told the applicant that there were not going to be any final plats until both of the roads were done. Mr. Wood said that they would not have to be built, at least until they got to that section. Col. Washington stated that at the time the Commission had acted on the previous application, the Commission was convinced there was a need for two roads. He said he believed it would be a mistake to jeopardize the two roads ultimately. This does not mean it can't be modified in some form, so the road that's a problem can be adjusted and solved. Mr. Wood replied that they were not asking to have the road deleted. They are thinking in terminology of the classification of the area being reduced to "mountainous" category and this would do it. Mr. McCann said he knew of another case similar and the highway classification was not reduced or changed. Mrs. Diehl said she was sure it would be difficult to re-classify the road. Col. Washington told Mr. Keeler that he thoughtthe plat could be brought in next week, he felt this was the concensus of the Commission. He also asked that language for modifying Condition 14 be considered. Mr. Payne stated that he did not feel the Commission could modify Condition 14, that this is a condition of the rezoning, which would require public hearings and other necessary requirements of publicity. Mr. McCann felt that if Condition 14 said you can't have a final plat until the roads are done then there is no point in looking at the final plats, if you can't amend Condition 14 and can't approve the plat. Mr. Payne stated that there is a process to amend that takes time. The Commission would have to make sure that the plat that's brought in (whatever that may be) is in compliance with Condition 14. The Commission can not simply ignore 14. The Commission might decide that what's brought in is not served by that road. Mr. Payne advised the Commission not to make a decision, because legally this is not before them. The Commission went on to consider further business. LFR SP-80-29 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY A request to the Board of Supervisors for the expansion of Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant, 1.23 acres; zoned M-1 Light Industrial; located on property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5D, on the east side of Route 29 North behind Badger Powhatan. The staff report was presented by Mr. Keeler. Mr. John W. Brent, director of the Albemarle County Service Authority; and Mr. Gene Potter, director of the Rivanna Service Authority, were present. The chairman asked Mr. Wood if he had any comment on the conditions. Mr. Wood had no comments. Mr. Keeler said when land was rezoned as RPN, there was a question of how best to serve with water and sewer. He read from the original staff report. The intent of Condition 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," was not to wait until Briarwood got underway to address the problem. Mr. Payne said that there were two points to consider: the first point is that the satisfaction of Condition 3 is not necessary for the Commission to approve the special permit. If the Commission chooses to approve the special permit, the plant can be approved whether or not Briarwood as such is developed; they could use the capacity for commercial or industrial' use. The second point to consider is that this is a matter for the Commission to determine as to whether Condition 3 is satisfied at the time the final plat is brought to the Commission. This special permit satisfies it. There was no comment from the public. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Skove ascertained that the size of the one package unit was undetermined at this time. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that further expansion, other than this one, is not endorsed. Mr. Skove questioned whether Briarwood would use all the facilities. Mr. Wood said that Briarwood was paying for it, and obviously, Briarwood would use it. If they go with the 100,000 gal they would be overbuilt by four years. They are willing to gamble, because of the economics; rather than build the 250,000 gallons. What they would like to see is the Inceptor put in at Hollymead, but they can not do that. Mr. McCann asked if Mr. Wood was satisfied with the conditions. Mr. Wood said they did not have a choice. Col. Washington asked Mr. Brent if the conditions were reasonable and acceptable. Mr. Brent replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bowerman felt that the Commission was creating a future problem with the 100,000 gal._, that a capacity for ultimate development should be installed. He questioned if they wouldn't be better off to build the larger facility. Mr. Wood said that it was not only an economic problem, but that the larger plant would not operate as efficiently, with lesser use. In fact, he said, they are going to use the plant in the beginning for 50,000 gal. with a special wall for it to be adapted later for 100,000 gallons. Mr. Gene Potter said the average flow from Camelot was 19,000 to 22,000 a day. Camelot was built to serve 100 homes at 400 gallons per home; this was designed to be doubled to serve Camelot II. This was not made to accept further expansion. He said he really was not concerned about the size of this plant; he just didn't want an operational nightmare. He also said he was not sure they had the authority to allow or disallow further expansion. Mr.McCann questioned who has the authority to allow or disallow expansions. He said the Commission would appreciate being advised if developments are creating a problem for the future, due to further development that is coming up. Mr. Keeler said the staff made every effort to bring to the attention of the Commission all possible problems with roads and of the issue that there were several alternatives for providing sewer. Mr. Payne said as a general rule - The administration (in this case - the Rivanna) is entitled to make the decision as to whether that dedication is to be accepted or not. In case of the roads, for example, the County is the agency in charge of it and they are entitled not to accept. Mrs. Diehl stated that the committee that did the feasibility study considered this the best for a short term, but that sewer lines will need to be run in the future. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval subject to the following: 1. Expansion of the Camelot STP shall be limited to one additional package unit. Recommendation for expansion of the Camelot STP has been made in view of accomodating short-term demand. At this time, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority does not endorse any expansion. 2. The capacity allotted the developer shall be the difference in state certified plant capacity after expansion as compared to state certified plant capacity prior to construction; 3. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority review and approval of plans for and construction of plant addition; 4. The developer shall be responsible for the costs of materials, labor, permits, and all other costs related to acquiring, placing, and integrating the package unit into the existing system, including land acquisition, if necessary; 5. Immediately following certification by the State Water Control Board and approval of other appropriate state and local agencies, the developer shall dedicate the plant addition and all appurtenances to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Dedication shall be irrovocable on the part of the developer and his successors in interest. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said he would support the motion. Mr. Bowerman said he had a question on condition 1. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Potter if the Rivanna had objections. /9� Mr. Potter said their concern was the operability; they had started with one plant and now have two, probably will have three. They are separate plants as far as operation goes. Mr. Skove ascertained that the Rivanna would rather have one large plant, rather than a number of small plants. Mrs. Diehl changed her motion for Condition 1 to read: Expansion of the Camelot STP shall be for one additional package unit. Recommendation for expansion of the Camelot STP has been made in view of accommodating short-term demand. At this time, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority does not endorse any further expansion. The motion carried unanimously. LAKE ACRES, BLOCK C FINAL PLAT Portion of Parcel 4M of Tax Map 32, Rivanna Magisterial District, described as the west side of Route 606, southwest of the North Fork of the Rivanna River; proposed to be divided into 4 lots from an 8+ acre parcel. Staff report was given by Miss Mason Caperton. The applicant had no comments. There was no public comment; the meeting was then closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval of plat as submitted. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. LYON WOODS FINAL PLAT A proposal to divide the 12+ acre parcel into six lots; described as Parcel 53 on Tax Map 89, Scottsville District; located on the south side of Route 631 South, south of the intersection with Route 706. The staff report was given by Miss Caperton. Mr. Joe Hearn had no comment to make. There was no public comment, and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Bowerman questioned if there was an existing easement on Lot 1. Mr. Hearn said the 12' easement shown on the plat is not necessary though it is recorded. The 30' easement is for the use of the church and the site. Mr. Vest made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; c. Compliance with the private road provisions; including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; d. Note: "Lot 1 will have no access on Route 631." Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. A vote showed unanimous approval. JOHN RICHARD WINGFIELD FINAL PLAT Proposal to divide the 6.52 acre parcel leaving 101.88 acres residue; on a portion of Parcel 21B, Tax Map 44, Jack Jouett District, off the north side of Route 676 and adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. The applicant had no comment. Public discussion was closed when there was no comment from the public. Mr. Skove questioned the flood plain requirement. Mrs. Diehl asked about the stream, or ravine. Miss Caperton stated that this was a flowing stream. The flood plain requirement was to make sure the area used was in accordance with flood plain regulations. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road specifications; and that portion of the road within the floodplain; 2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; C. Written Health Department approval. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. BERTA JONES ESTATE FINAL PLAT Proposed to divide 180.50 acres into 43 lots with an average size of 3.61 acres, leaving 221.36 acres residue, located part of Parcel 1 on Tax Map 60, Samuel Miller District; on the east side of Route 601 (Twenty -One Curves and south of Garth Road) adjacent to Farmington. (A revised plat was received on the day of the meeting changing the proposal to: 43 lots with an average size of 4.2 acres.) Staff report was given by Miss Caperton. l9G Mr. Greene& Mr. Wood, representing the applicant, were present and had no comment. Mr. Franklin Peters, representing Mrs. Wood, and also representing himself as a property owner with 200 acres on Garth Road, voiced objections on behalf of both he and Mrs.nlarner Wood. He objected to the use of the word "final" plat and said this should be considered a "preliminary" plat. He challenged the Commission and said they had more authority than they normally exercise. He said this subdivision,if fully carried out,will connect Route 250 with Route 29; there is now no bridge across Ivy Creek. This would open up the whole section to traffic. Mr. Peters then read Section 18-54(b) from the Subdivision Ordinance. He said that Garth Road now is very dangerous with 3954 vehicles now. Further traffic would be more dangerous. He then called attention to the recent Supreme Court decision on zoning for open space, and called the Commission's attention to the broad concept. Mr. Peters final plea was for the Commission to consider this as only a preliminary filing. Jane Goodwin, 5 Dogwood Lane, an adjacent property owner, asked the Commission if they felt this application was not in keeping with or was inconsistent with the long range planning, would they feel they could deny it. Col. Washington replied that he felt the Commission had the authority, but they didn't know that this is inconsistent. This �-,,ould have to be proven. Mrs.Peters said if this piece of property is developed, there are several pieces of property that will be developed beyond and asked if this plat could be considered after the new zoning is passed. Mrs. Jane Goodwin read the letter attached to the staff report she had written to the Commission. She said she was afraid a lot of people took for granted the beauty of the area; and that it will not stay this way if we are not careful. Foresight is needed to provide open space. She requested this application be tabled. Mr. C. E.Leaman and Mr. Allen Goodwin questioned a change in the plat. Miss Caperton explained that it had been changed today to comply with the soil scientist's report. Mr. Peters stated that he intended to go to the Highway Department about the number of cars on that road. ---- Jane Fogelman questioned the school impact and the fact that a possibility of one teacher was all that was needed. Miss Caperton said it depended on the distribution in the school. Mr. Wood said the highway department had approved the entrance for the 50 lot subdivision; so they should approve the entrance for the revised 43 lot subdivision. There are no plans to connect Routes 250 & 29 or to buy the other lots. This subdivision meets the requirements for zoning and will comply with the requirements. Mr. Peters said there is a letter with the staff report from Mr. Watterson offering to buy a lot connecting to a parcel to the south. Meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl asked about comments from the County Engineer. / 9� Miss Caperton said there were no more than the comments enclosed with the report. She then read over the requirements recommended. Mr. Davis asked if Conditions a & g were needed under the recommended conditions. Miss Caperton replied that they were needed. Mr. Bowermansaid he had attended the Site Review Committee meeting and this Committee had requested four items to be done: Runoff figures, overlay of slopes, roads,and steep slopes. Mrs. Diehl said she noticed that Ashley had a statement that runoff control permit would not be required because of lot size and because the roads are private. Are all roads below state specifications?. It was decided that all roads are below state specifications. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant was requested to get Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission meeting and dedication along Route 601. Mr. Skove commented that the applicant is not required to bring in a preliminary plat, but he can bring in a final plat instead. However, he would like to see the conditions met before the final plat. To a question on the regulation of the number of subdivisions, hir. Payne replied that each has to be judged on its own merits. Mrs. Diehl felt that more information was needed from the Health Department and Highway Department. Mrs. Diehl made a motion to defer this item to July 22nd. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. McCann did not support the motion. He felt that all the conditions could not be met before it was brought to the Commission, that the deferral would not accomplish anything. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if he had considered a single entrance. Mr. Wood said this was the most reasonable way to develop the land because there is less internal road work. He commented on the fact that there is far more disturbing and destruction of the land in cultivating than in creating roads. Mr. Davis said he would like to see a maximum of two entrances. The vote on the motion was 6-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting HOLLYMEAD INN DEPENDENCY ADDITION SITE PLAN The applicant had requested deferral on this item. Mr. Skove moved for deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The move for deferral was unanimously approved. BOYD TAVERN, REDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 2, FINAL PLAT Proposed to add parcel "A" from lot 2 to parcel 25B(1) (Tax Map 94) and add parcel "B" from Lot 1 to Lot 2, located portions of Parcels 25B and 25B( (1) on Tax Map 94, Rivanna District; located on the west side of Route 616, south of Route 250 East. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. The applicant had no comment. There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. McCann made a motion for approval as submitted. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. WINDHAM PLACE SITE PAN AMENDMENT & VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK TEMPORARY SITE PLAN Proposed amendment to the Site Plan approved September 18, 1979, is to delete the convenience store located at the southwest corner of the site and move the bank's location to the south. This request accompanies a request from Virginia National Bank to have a temporary plan approved on the site. Staff report was given by Miss Caperton. Mr. Harris appeared for the Virginia National Bank, and said the Highway Department wanted to close the existing entrance. He pointed out exits on the plan. The Windham plan shows the approved entrances to the site. This traffic plan is tempor ary, but it is necessary. Mr. McCann made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued on the temporary bank site plan when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of existing hydrant location (to be shown on the plan) and a fire flow of 1,000 gpm; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a temporary entrance on High Street; C. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer_ provisions; 2. This approval will be valid for a period of two years. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Col. Washington made the comment that the Highway Department ought to address the question of entrances on Route 691. The motion carried unanimously. BOAR'S HEAD INN ADDITION - Request for Reconsideration Request to delete the condition of the previous approval regarding the realignment of Berwick Road and Wellington Drive. Miss Caperton read a letter from Mr. John Rogan concerning the request. /99 Col. Washington ascertained that this was approximately 10' off center. Mrs. Graves made the comment that she thought the people on Wellington Drive might be interested in this matter and they should have a chance to know the Commission is making this decision. There was no further public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. The move to delete the condition was made by Mr. Skove. The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest. The vote was 6-0, with Mrs. Diehl abstaining. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.