Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 16 80 PC MinutesSeptember 16, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 1980, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. James Skove. Absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. After establishing that a quorum was present, Col. Washington called the meeting to order. ZMA-80-16. Thomas E. Worrell, Jr./ Farmington West RPN Miss Caperton stated the reasons the petition had been deferred at the first meeting, brought the Commission up to date on the information they had requested, read comments from the County Engineer regarding the private interior roads, and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments. Mrs. Diehl moved that the public hearing be re -opened. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, said that in the past three weeks only two families of the many living on Broomley Road who had expressed concern about the use of that road, had met with the applicant to discuss the plan. He trusted that the public had secured the information it needed to properly react to the plan. He gave a history of the planning for this tract of land, explaining that when the property was purchased from Farmington there was a provision in the deed granting three exits/entrances into the Farmington road system. Mr. Evans explained that these entrances would be used by Mr. Worrell and members of his family. It was not decided, however, where the private road would make contact with Brook Road. Mr. Evans contended that this is a private matter, and should not be part of the deliberations on the merits of the petition. He said that the first RPN plan was prepared one year ago, and reminded the Commission that prior to Worrell's purchase of the property, Farmington had planned an R-1 development for the property. The right-of-way is 50-70 feet, near the railroad bridge. The applicant proposes to widen the road to 18 feet where necessary, and 20' at the curves, for a distance of 100 feet at each curve. Mr. Evans noted that the applicant is seeking a variance from the private road standards, in order to cut down on land disturbance and the number of trees that will be removed. He noted the existing 15 foot right-of-way on the southeastern part of the property. Mr. Evans felt the RPN concept better provides sites for the houses, and permits the roadway to follow the topography. He reminded the Commission and public that the zoning is for a higher use than this proposal. Mr. Kendrick Dure, representing his mother, noted the adjoining 40 acres and asked the Commission to review his letter of August 25. He said that he is asking for adequate access into the 40 acres, and felt that Section 18-37(a) of the County Code demands that this access be provided for orderly growth and development. He felt that the precedent for this action is the Berkeley/Four Seasons 30/ development. He said that the Dures will relinquish the right-of-way if given the right to use the Worrell roads. Mrs. Lorraine Arnhoff, a resident of Broomley Road, questioned why very little of Mr. Worrell's property will be used for road construction. Mr. Evans explained that the land in front of Mrs. Arnhoff's house is public land, and there is adequate right-of-way for road construction there, since the right-of-way is 50-70 feet. Mr. Watterson asked that the Commission approve an additional entrance from the Worrell property across Ivy Creek that could provide access to the Watterson property owned by his three sons. Mr. Gerald Tremblay, a resident of the area, called the plan good and unselfish. He felt the development will be a credit to the community, but opposed making Broomley Road into a public road. An 18-20 foot roadway is sufficient. He opposed Mr. Watterson's suggestion of Providing access across Ivy Creek. Mr. F. T. Unger, speaking on behalf of the Farmington Property Owners, expressed concern with the private road system of Farmington and objected to the three families that could enter onto Brook Road. He presented a petition of approximately 100 signatures urging that the private roads not be opened up to the Worrell property to fulfill the terms of the deed for reasons of health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Paul Peatross, representing many residents along Broomley Road and some of the Flordon residents, expressed concern with the bridge crossing the railroad, noting that it is posted with an 8 ton limit. He felt the safety of the bridge should be determined at this time, and cited the example of the moving van which weighed 17 tons empty, and 29 tons full. The driver naturally refused to cross the bridge, and unloaded it by hand. He also suggested that the Commission should carefully consider the traffic count of September 3 made by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Dennis Rooker, Attorney for Worrell, said that the Watterson and Dure properties have inadequate accesses at this point for development but any negotiations between them and Mr. Worrell is a private matter. Mr. Rooker discussed the deed requirements, and read the resolution passed by the Farmington Property Owners Association at the time of purchase. He said that the controls on the roads are those that were suggested to Worrell by Farmington. Mr. George Gilliam, Attorney for Farmington Property Owners Association, said that meetings were held between Worrell and Farmington on this matter. He said that at this time there is no argument on the point of intersection of the private road with Brook Road. Mr. Evans closed the presentation of the applicant by reviewing the topography of the land. He felt that the plan compliments the area and the land is zoned for a more intensive use than is proposed. There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. 3�a Mr. Bowerman questioned to what standard the roads would have to be constructed if the private road ordinance were waived. Miss Caperton read the memorandum of September 12, 1980, from Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer. Mrs. Diehl questioned the legal requirements of providing access to the adjoining properties. Mr. Payne explained that some of the provisions of Section 18-36 of the County Code compete. He said that he does not feel that provision (a) applies since it speaks to existing roads. Provision (e) speaks to orderly growth and development of the county and provision (b) enjoins the Planning Commission to minimize traffic through established residential areas. He felt the Commission would have to decide which consideration is best in this case. Mr. Payne reminded the Commission that this application is not a subdivision plat and thus there is no need to shown the accesses, if required by the Commission, on the preliminary plan with any degree of specificity. He suggested that it could be handled as a condition of approval of the RPN and shown at the time of subdivision plat approval, Mrs. Diehl then questioned if the Commission can restrict Brook Road, since this is part of the deed restrictions. Mr. Payne felt this would be difficult to deal with other than with a gate or fence, as is proposed in the deed,and suggested that the Commission could not deal with this matter effectively, since it can deal with only through road plans. He said that the Commission can require a cul-de-sac at the end of the road, however. Mrs. Diehl established that no study has been done on the railroad bridge, however pointed out that the attorney for the applicant has stated that concrete trucks have crossed the bridge during the construction of the Worrell house. Miss Caperton stated that the Highway Department tests the bridge at least once a year, and at this time the Highway Department has no plans to upgrade the bridge. A study is currently being done on the bridge, and will be available in approximately 4-5 weeks. Mr. Skove determined that wells are proposed for the development. Upon questioning from Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Payne told the Commission that only one waiver of road width has been granted, and that was because of steepness. Col. Washington said that he sees no reason for this property to have access into Farmington, since the permit will travel with the land. Mr. Rooker, attorney for Mr. Worrell, advised the Commission that with the deed three families were given the right to enter Farmington. Mr. Rooker felt this is a private matter and noted that the only requirement should be to show ' the point of entry. He noted that has been done on the plan. 313 Miss Caperton noted for the record that Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot has been received. Col. Washington said that he has concerns about the proposed plan because of the 8 ton bridge, because of the requested waiver from the private road standards, and because the residents of Farmington don't want this property to have access into Farmington. The Commission then reviewed the recommended conditions of approval one by one. Mrs. Diehl said that she prefers to wait until subdivision plat review to grant any waivers from the private road ordinance. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the subdivision plat show a private roadway to the property line directly to the northeast of the Worrell property in order to encourage one access to any development that takes place in that area. He felt this is necessary for orderly development. Mr. Payne said that effectively, this will replace the 15 foot easement. Mrs. Diehl moved approval of the RPN subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 33 single-family lots. Location and acresage shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in substantial accordance with the number of lots approved; 2. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinance; 3. County Engineer review of improvements to Broomley Road in compliance with Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance, prior to final approval as necessitated by this development. Final road standards subject to Planning Commission approval in final plat review; 4. County Engineer approval of interior road plans prior to final Planning Commission approval; 5. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of roads, open space, lakes, drainage and appurtenant structures and the use of open space for septic drainfields if necessary and where permitted; 6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance of Broomley Road into Route 677; 7. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant prior to final approval; 8. Albemarle Co. Service Authority approval of water plans to serve the development, if required; 9. Shown on subdivision plat provision for private road connection to serve properties currently served by the old Durrette Road; 10. Survey of C and O Bridge to determine current capacity and safe load as part of subdivision plat; 11. Safety record of bridge to be made available to Planning Commission prior to Planning Commission review of the plat. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Davis asked that Mr. Bowerman clarify his condition so that negotiations regarding the road into adjoining properties could take place. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission could not require the applicant to grant access over the proposed right-of-way to surrounding property owners. He added that the provision for a connection was there should the applicant and these property owners reach an agreement in the future. The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Col. Washington dissenting. ow ZMA-80-17. Robert Walker RPN - Tax Map 45, Parcel 31, Charlottesville District: Miss Caperton reviewed the staff report, noting the information that has been received since the previous meeting: 1. Memo from the Assistant County Engineer approving the technical feasibility of roads given in the preliminary profiles; 2. Memo from the Assistant County Engineer stating that the development as proposed is exempt from the Runoff Control Permit, but this would be monitored through building permits; 3. Health Department approval and the soil scientist's report; 4. Letter from the Highway Department approving the entrance location: 450 feet of sight distance is available without lowering Route 743; a right turnlane, grading of the slopes, and clearing will be required; 5. Copy of the letter from the adjoining property owners read at the last meeting; 6. New letter received on September 16, 1980, from Mrs. Palmer; 7. An additional letter from David vanRoijen; 8. letter from Mr. R. H. Simpson, who has appointed representatives on his behalf; 9. Memo from Mr. Huja of the City Planning Office asking that the staff convey to the Planning Commission the general concerns: a. Comprehensive Plan allows seven lots ( i.e. - 1 dwelling unit per five acres ) b. The same plan can be accomplished through existing zoning, and it is therefore difficult to prevent. Mr. Huja's letter recommended the following: a. access to lots 10, 11 and 12 should be studied further; b. common open space is of little use due to slopes and may be put to better use if kept under privateownership, which would allow for fewer and more efficient pedestrian trails - also the space could be replaced by adding to the area along the residential for common area as well as undisturbed buffer for the residential development. Mr. Skove moved that the public hearing be re -opened. Mr. Vest seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Max Evans, representing the developer, noted that the property is zoned A-1. The RPN approach was chosen because it is better than conventional zoning for providing a buffer of open space around each lot. There will also be an architectural review committee with the RPN approach. Mr. Evans noted the soil scientist's report. Mr..William Stevens questionedthe use of a private road for a subdivision. Miss Caperton explained that this is a developmental provision in the subdivision ordinance. Mr. L. C. Palmer felt that approval of this petition would set a precedent for future rezonings on the reservoir. Mr. Ray Grey questioned the provision of two septic fields per lot. Miss Caperton advised him that one field is a back-up, in case of failure of the first septic field. Ms. Mary Morrison objected to the increased traffic that will result from the rezoning. She cited the accident rate on the road, especially in the area of the curve, in the past year. 3d5 Mrs. Kay Peaslee expressed surprise that this could be considered for the banks of the reservoir. She questioned why the runoff control ordinance does not apply. Col. Washington explained that the runoff control ordinances applies only if more than 5% of the land has impervious cover. Mrs. Palmer, an adjoining property owner, said that based on past history and a survey made by Mrs. Sargeant during the past year, there will be 275 accidents on the road this year. At this point, Mrs. Palmer reported, the accident rate is already ahead of schedule. Mr. Roy Patterson, President of Citizens for Albemarle, expressed concern for any development on the reservoir. With no additional comment from the public, Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Davis did not feel the plan complies with the spirit of the RPN, since the RPN concept is to cluster residences, as well as providing open space. Col. Washington suggested a wider buffer along the edge of the reservoir would make a better plan. He said that homeowners are not as conscientious in their use of fertilizer as farmers, partly because of cost. He said that any developed land will have more impact on the reservoir than farmland. Mrs. Diehl questioned building onslopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Payne advised her that this would be covered by the subdivision ordinance. Mrs. Diehl questioned if a pedestrian path could be provided somewhere other than the area with 25% slopes. Mr. Evans replied that he had not considered providing a pedestrian path for this property. Mr. Davis said that he could not support this plan. Mr. Skove felt that this could be only marginally better than a fee -simple subdivision. Mr. Davis moved denial of the petition. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, stating that not enough bonuses are provided with this RPN. If the RPN were the best use of the land, at least 200 feet of buffer around the reservoir would be provided. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3, with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Skove, and Mr. Vest dissenting. Mrs. Diehl moved approval of the petition subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is for a maximum of 18 single family lots. Location and acreages shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in substantial accordance with the number of lots approved; 2. No grading shall occur until final subdivision approval; 3. Compliance with the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances; 4. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance o roads, open space, drainage and appurtenant structures, and the use of open space for septic drainfields where permitted and if necessary, and with special attention given to protection of the buffer on the Rivanna Reservoir; 5. Only those areas where structures, roads, utilities, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other land including slopes of 25% or greater shall remain in its natural state: .30& 6. County Engineer approval of private road plans prior to final approval; 7. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance prior to final approval; 8. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot prior to final approval; 9. No buildings shall be located on 25% or greater slopes. dissentThe motion failed by a vote of 3-3, with Messrs. Washington, Davis, & Bowerman ZMA-80-15. Woodrow Campbell has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 7.2 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1 Residential. Property is southeast of Route 717, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Alberene. Tax Map 111A(2), Parcel 11; and Tax Map 111, Parcel 62, Scottsville District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the comments from the Highway Department. Mr. Campbell said that there are 176 houses within a one mile radius of the property, as well as two churches and one store. There are two springs on the property, as well as an existing well. He said that he intends to build one - bedroom rental units on the property. Mr. Jeff McCormack, adjoining property owner, objected to the proposed rezoning on the basis that it does not meet the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and may set a dangerous precedent if approved. He said that he plans agricultural research on his own property. Mr. Spencer Goodwin agreed with Mr. McCormack. He expressed concern about the road near the store, stating that there is potential for a bottleneck there. Mr. Ken Klotz requested that the rural character of the area be preserved. There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mrs. Diehl explained to Mr. Campbell that the staff report addresses only designated growth areas, and that North Garden is the only such area near this property. Mr. Davis did not feel this is an appropriate use for the property, noting the rural character. Mr. Skove said that he saw no reason for a pocket of land that is substantially different in zoning from adjoining land. He moved for denial of the petition. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-80-53. Frank L. Hereford has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a contractor's office and equipment and material storage yard on 1.790 acres zoned A-1. Property is on the west side of Rio Road beside the Phillips Building Supply Company. Tax Map 61, Parcel 120K, Charlottesville District. In the absence of the applicant, Mrs. Diehl moved deferral until October 7, 1980. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. 364 zMA-80-18. Roy Wheeler Realty Co. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.907 acres from A-1 to CO Commercial Office. Property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Routes 754 and 250 A. Tax Map 60, Parcel 24, part thereof, Jack Jouett District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the proposed zoning for the property is Commercial Office, though the Comprehensive Plan shows the property for low density residential uses. Mr. Jason Eckford, representing the applicant, felt this an attractive use for the property, since it is not a traffic intensive use. The property used as proposed will add to the county tax base. Mr. Eckford said that the traffic count on the ramp is 2547 vehicles, the traffic count on Route 601 ( both ways ) is 3297, and the traffic count on Route 855 is 382. There was no public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Keeler, at the Commission's request, read the uses by right in the CO District. Mrs. Diehl said that at this time she cannot support a septic field on the property. Col. Washington felt that a real estate office is as reasonable a use as there can be for the property, though there will probably be some problems with the septic field with the history of the area. Mr. Skove said that the wide range of uses is a concern, especially the banks and savings and loan insitutions. He said that he would have liked to have seen a proffer as part of the petition. Mr. Bowerman said that Route 601 cannot handle any additional traffic, and any use that would be intensive in traffic generation should not be located there. Mr. Skove moved that the petition be denied, since the property is not appropriate for all uses in the CO District. He said that he could support the petition with a proffer though. There was then Commission discussion about advising the applicant that he can submit a written proffer prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. Mr. Skove withdrew his motion to deny the petition, and moved that the Commission recommend approval of the petition with a proffer, excluding banks and savings and loan institutions from the uses permitted. If no proffer were submitted, the Commission would recommend denial. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Old Business - Church of God Site Plan ( Rio Road ) Mr. Keeler stated that the church wishes to construct a parsonage that will be attached to the church, and the staff felt this should be approved by the Commission. Mrs. Diehl established that the property is zoned R-2. Col. Washington ascertained that if the parsonage were permitted that no parking problems would result. The Commission by unanimous vote, advised the staff that this is an accessory use to the church and could become part of the site plan. There was no additional business, and the meeting adjourned at 1:10 a.m.