No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 28 80 PC MinutesOctober 28, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 1980, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Charles Vest, Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. James Skove, and Mr. Allan Kindrick. Other officials present were: Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; Miss Katherine Imhoff, Planner; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. The chairman called the meeting to order after establishing a quorum. The minutes of September 16, 1980 and October 14, 1980 were approved. DEFERRED ITEMS: Worrell Final Plat Miss Caperton said that this item has not been acted on by the Board of Supervisors under ZMA-80-16. Then she read a letter from Kendrick Dure, the Attorney for Katherine Dure and the Watersons. Mr. Skove made a motion for deferral to November 13th. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The vote was 6-1, with Col. Washington dissenting. Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman, entered the meeting. Buck Mountain Planned Community Cluster Three Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Evans said that the cluster was part of the flood plain for Buck Mountain. He stated that the soil samples had been made and that a limited area was suitable for the septic field. The common open space had ample area for septic fields. The soil and health reports showed at least one septic field available for the lot. There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl inquired about the location of the streams. Mr. Evans said there were two streams and he showed them on the plat. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the streams were at the lowest point, then the land sloped up to the open space. Mr. Evans said they wanted to dig and back hoe to check the area for septic fields. Mr. Payne commented that they were keeping their options open and the open space would become the property of the homeowner's association. The way they wanted the lot was � p� so that it would not necessarily be available for building, depending on the tests, but it would not be in the open space. This way if the tests were favorable, then it would be available for building. Mr. Davis questioned when the Home Owners Association took possession of the open space, would they still be able to put septic area in. Mr. Payne said that this was according to the agreement and that this sort of thing was usually written in the agreement. They commonly do allow septic area. Mr. Gloeckner said he would rather see the metes, bounds, acreage and lot numbers removed and the lot dashed in as a possible future lot. Mr. Payne said that would prevent conveying the open space to the homeowner's association. He said he felt that was what the developer was trying to avoid. Mr. Evans stated that they wanted the option left open so further investigation of the area within the lot for the back up septic field could be pursued. It could be indicated on the plat that this lot was not part of the application. A house had been built on 59A, but this was not for sale yet. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there was not an easement. Col. Washington said the third alternative was to make this open space and then if it were a buildable lot, come back to the Commission and take it out of the open space. Mr. Evans commented that they did not want to give the other prospective lot owners the impression that this would be open space. Mr. Gloeckner said that this could be deferred and then investigate the potential. Mr. Bowerman said he would rather see the applicant either work on the lot or abandon the lot. Mr. Gloeckner said he did not want to create an unbuildable lot, but felt a dotted line, saying this was a possible future lot, and take off the metes and bounds and the lot number would take care of the matter. Mr. Evans said a potential future lot and acreage might work. Mr. Gloeckner said this would give time to run the test and answer the question of whither there was or was not a drainfield. Mr. Skove ascertained that if this were not a possible lot, it would become open space. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval of the request to denote that lot 59B was not approved for residential construction subject to the following conditions: a. The metes and bounds of lot 59B shall be deleted and dashed in to show the lot as a future potential lot. The conditions of the previous approval must also be met. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Diehl. The vote for the motion was unanimous. 9 370 General Electric Facility Expansion Site Plan - Route 29 North Entrance The applicant requested deferral, until the entrance could be planned with the Highway Department. Mr. Vest made a motion for deferral until November 13th. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Gloeckner abstained from voting on the motion, due to a conflict of interest. The vote was 7-1, Mr. Gloeckner abstaining. L. C. Parrish Final Plat Located on the south side of Route 810 near Nortonsville; proposed division of two lots, 6 acres each leaving a residue of 22.7 acres. Tax Map 8, Parcel 35, White Hall District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. McCallum gave background information on the Parrish estate: Mr. Parrish had died in 1977, he had run a store since 1920s in Nortonsville and acquired the properties. Mr. Parrish in December 1976, gave Mr. Rains the property. Mr. Pratt, trading as Hatfield Farm later purchased property from Mr. Parrish. Mr. Gentry, an attorney, had handled the transaction. After L. C. Parrish's death, the administrator of the Parrish Estate had completed the intent and given the land to Mr. Rains and completed the sale to Mr. Pratt. Mr. Rains sold his land to Mr. Loker and Mr. Laker built and occupied the house, which has its own driveway. Mr. Pratt subdivided, with an access easement, and built a commercial entrance for which he spent $4600. and improved the sight distance. The Parrish Estate and Mr. Pratt agreed that the road could be extended and then use the same commercial entrance. The applicant would like for the Commission to leave Mr. Loker undisturbed and permit Mr. Pratt and the Parrish Estate to join together; sharing in the cost and the maintenance of the road. Col. Washington ascertained that part of the cost of the entrance was the cost for the grading. Mr. Pratt said if the commercial entrance were required for the Loker driveway, there would not be enough land, with only a 15 foot strip. He added that the first recommendation of the staff for the commercial entrance was not necessary, this already existed. The staff recommendation for the approval of the County Engineer and the County Attorney was unnecessary, the County Engineer had already approved the existing road and the County Attorney had approved the maintenance agreement on the road. Mr. Rains commented that Mr. Parrish had willed him 3-2 acres; Mr. Parrish had practically raised him. The land had been deeded to him, Mr. Lum had surveyed the land and Mr. Gentry had it recorded. Mr. Rains had helped to build the entrance. Though it was claimed to be illegal, he did not think it illegal, a person has a right to give their land. He said if something was done wrong, he wanted it straightened out and the subdivision approved. Col. Washington said it was not the County's position that Mr. Parrish did not have the right to give his property. The pipestem on the property made this a different situation. He inquired when the property had been fenced. Mr. Rains stated that the property was fenced in 1977, a month after Mr. Parrish died. He also stated that the driveway was blue stone and he had a right-of-way of 15 feet. Mr. McCallum stated that the Parrish Estate owns a strip 50 feet wide. He further stated that Mr. Loker owned the strip for his driveway. In February 1977, pipestems were legal to record and the 3' acres, instead of 5 acres was acceptable. However, five acres would have been exempt. He said the Commission could waive the frontage requirements. The meeting was closed to public discussion. There was a brief discussion of the drive and entrance and how this could be worked out. Mr. McCallum said the reason to connect the Parrish Estate with the Pratt property was the commercial entrance and the road was already constructed, also the topography worked well in this position. There was a drop in grade from the Pratt property to the Loker property. Mr. Payne suggested to solve the problem that a new plat be recorded with all three properties shown on the plat. He said that under the circumstances, the Commission could either defer or deny the plat; they could not approve it as submitted. Technically, he said the whole nine yards was unlawful. Professionals should have caught the mistake three years ago. He said what really should happen was that the building permits should be revoked; ownership by statute was not official. But he said that everyone should be broughtin to clear this up; actually there should be only one entrance and what had caused the problem was a violation of the subdivision ordinance. Col. Washington ascertained from Mr. Pratt that there was a house on the upper lot and two lots were sold and ready to make settlement. Mr. McCallum felt there was an easier solution; that the plat could be approved as it was with a waiver of frontage and deal with the properties without reference to the Loker property. Col. Washington found that the Pratt road was built adjacent to the Parrish pipestem. Mr. Payne explained that the Commission would have the power to act if the Loker property were before the Commission, but it would take an application to bring the Loker property before the Commission. Actually, it should be brought as one plat with one entrance showing all properties. Mr. Davis felt that this would not have to show only one entrance. Mr. Keeler said the problem was the number of people involved; the Commission could give Pratt, McCallum, and Loker guidance for the entrance. Mr. Gloeckner said the Highway Department should not have given a permit for a commercial entrance and then require another commercial entrance. Mr. Bowerman said he could support the plat if it came back showing all the involved properties as a subdivision, showing a common entrance on the Pratt property, serving the Parrish property, with a separate entrance for the Loker pipestem which was already approved by the Highway Department and currently existed. Two entrances to serve the nine parcels of land. Under the circumstances, he felt he could support this plat if it were done this way. Mrs. Diehl did not feel there was justification in the extra footage between the 15 foot pipestem that now existed and the Pratt entrance enough to change the position of the commercial entrance. 3 71 Mr. Skove ascertained that the problem with the combined Pratt and Parrish use of the road and entrance was the Highway Department felt this was the least desirable location for the commercial entrance, because of the sight distance. Col. Washington suggested the use of the commercial entrance by Mr. Pratt only; then combine Parrish and Loker further down, and he showed the suggested entrance on the plat. After further discussion of the plat and the road and the entrance, Mrs. Diehl made a motion for deferral of the plat to November 13th and recommended that the interested parties meet with the Highway Department to determine the best acceptable solution, for both the Highway Department and for the interested parties. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. PUBLIC HEARINGS: SP-80-63 - Branchlands PUD The applicant had requested deferral to November llth. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for the deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. ZMA-80-19 & SP-80-62 Holkham Associates Ednam RPN The staff report was given by Mr. Keeler. The following were present for the applicant: Sandy Lambert, Caleb Stowe, W. S. Roudabush, John Greene, and Stuart Carwile. Mr. Lambert stated that this was to be an area developed for primarily the retired and the semi -retired, with few children living in the area. The maximum would be 140 units centered around the Manor House. He further stated that in 1976 the RPN - R-1 had been approved for 132 dwelling unts. He cited the traffic report and generation and the impact statistics were relatively the same. The Manor House would be the focal point of the development. It would require $250,000. to restore the Manor House, also they had applied for a National Historic Landmark designation. Mr. Lambert said that the schedule for the project was: the road had been staked out, they had the architectural footprint and they were moving toward approval in November; and they planned to close on the first units next fall. They took no exceptions to the staff report. They would like to request the Commission approve this. The engineers had worked with the County Engineer. Portions of two sites drained into the Rivanna basin, which they would no longer do when the work there had been completed. He showed the Commission the architectural footprint and the plan. Mr. Roudabush, also speaking for the applicant, stated that the first work on the project determined the traffic flow in the project, using data from the Highway Department. In 1976, there were 924 trips per day from the site. In the trip generation study there were to be 4 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit. The category of the type of residences would be condominiums, townhouses, and retirement type community. The internal road loop and connection to Route 250 would be determined by these figures. The road should line up to Farmington Drive and this *404 was done. There would be widening of Route 250 across the entire frontage, but they did not want to disturb the existing walls and vegetation. The curb and gutter would be provided along the southside of the road, with a storm sewer system. The entrance to the site would be a divided entrance with a median strip, with a possible gate and guardhouse in the median. The site was within the scenic highway designation and those rules would be observed. The internal circulation of traffic would be by a loop road, with the alignment, grades, etc. reviewed by the County Engineer. The roads would have private maintenance, but would be designed as though they were state maintained roads and would meet the Highway Department criteria for roads in the state system. There would also be a network of pathways for pedestrians. Mr. Lambert stated that the footprint in all cases showed the maximum density, but they were only asking for 140 units. The concept addressed the issue of the visual impact from 250. The grading would be primarily in the area of the entrance, except where building occurred. The public hearing was closed. Col. Washington questioned Mr. Lambert on the problem with the water supply that had occurred two or three years ago. Mr. Lambert told the Commission that the water line was originally to be across the front of the property and hooked to two pumps, now in an agreement with the Kelloggs, the owners, the two pumps would be removed and placed at the back and pump water to the Ednam Forest tank. The Service Authority wanted a 12 inch line and would share the cost to get the line installed. There now was a flow of about 1150 gallons per minute, but after this change the flow should be 2300 gallons per minute. Col. Washington questioned the fact that in 1976 the RPN consideration had a discussion of buildings being over 35 feet in height. Mr. Keeler said the larger structures were to be located at the highest point, the plan had a plateau effect. Col. Washington cited that the height limitation was related to the fire fighting equipment. Mr. Lambert commented that the 65 foot building would have a sprinkler system. Mr. Keeler said that the Fire Official had been in on several conferences and the Fire Official had recommended the limitation of the building height to 65 feet, reflecting the fire fighting capability. With the relocation of the pumping station the fire flow would be more than is usual in the urban area of the county. The Fire Official would not make any comment at the Site Review meeting because the location of the building was not known. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the traffic figures for the Manor House were included in the generation. Mr. Lambert remarked that the concept suggests that the traffic would be internal, with very little off site generation to the Manor House. Mr. Keeler said that at the time the staff report was written, he did not have the proffers available. A figure of 910 vehicle trips per day was used as a maximum, with unrestricted use of the main house, assuming the whole house would be used as offices. Mr. Bowerman questioned the water drainage and whether it would all go into a detention pond. Mr. Lambert said it would go to a collection system with the same pattern as the road. Mrs. Diehl questioned the drainage between the Manor House and the road. Mr. Lambert said the final plans would determine the construction of a detention pond in another area. That particular area would follow the road also. Mr. Skove ascertained that the number of units mentioned was the maximum number. Mr. Bowerman questioned if there were an easement to the back property to get to Moore's Creek Inceptor. Mr. Lambert said there were two alternatives to handle the sewage. He told the Commission about both of the alternatives and explained that either would eventually go across the Birdwood tract on the swale. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the current facilities of Ednam would not be sufficient. Mr. Skove found that if they did not get the National Historic Designation that would not affect the project. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that even without the historic designation they still intended to retain the house. Mr. Payne mentioned that three actions were needed on this request before the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for apporval of the RPN petition, including the amended land use summary for up to 140 dwelling units, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in locations and types in accordance with the land use summary of the approved plan. Specifically, multi -storied residential structures shall be restricted to Sites A and G; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances and road improvements as shown on the approved plan; 3. County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking, drainage, grading plans, and impoundment dam; 4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including boaster station and other appurtenances; 5. Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and fire flow requirements, emergency access provisions, and handicapped parking; 6. County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' maintenance agreements. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for acceptance of the R-3 designation, subject to the proffers submitted by the applicant. 3 7s Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for granting of the special use permit for the clubhouse, SP-80-62. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. This will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on November 20th. Col. Washington, Chairman, left the meeting. Mrs. Diehl, Vice -Chairman, presided for the remainder of the meeting. RANDOLPH WADE FINAL, PLAT Located on Parcels 124D and 124C on Tax Map 61, Charlottesville District, located on the north side of Rio Road East, east of Albemarle Square; proposed to divide a 1.21 acre parcel leaving 7.84 acres in residue and adding a .94 acre parcel to the residue. The staff report was given by Miss Imhoff. Mr. Roudabush said that technically this would be exempt from consideration by the Commission. They were detaching one piece of property and attaching another piece of property. The .94 acres is an independent parcel that is now being attached. It had been used as a shop and was now being converted. Mr. Roudabush stated that if the lot was more than 5 acres, it would not have been considered by the Commission. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Davis ascertained that 1.21 acres would continue to carry the R-2 designation. Mr. Bowerman made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval; b. Owner's signature must be notarized; C. A shared entrance shall be located if approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Unanimous approval was the vote. WILLIAM AND MURIEL GIBSON FINAL PLAT Located on a portion of parcel 27A on Tax Map 55, off the north side of Route 707, north of the C & 0 Railroad and west of Crozet; a proposal to divide one 2 acre parcel, leaving 19.82 acres in residue. The staff report was given by Miss Imhoff. The applicant had no comment. Mr. Stuart Carwile, representing Ed Walton, showed the area on the plat and said that Mr. Walton used the right-of-way and he urged the Commission to require that the private road maintenance agreement include Mr. Walton. Mr. Gibson said that Mr. Walton had a 50 foot right-of-way. Mr. Payne suggested that if the client was willing to participate in the execution of the maintenance agreement, this would be fine, as long as he was willing to actually participate in the maintenance. Mr. Gibson said that Mr. Walton never used the right-of-way. Mr. Payne asserted that an attorney should draw up the maintenance agreement. He said in answer to Mr. Davis that if there were no deeded right-of-way, it would be a different matter. Mr. Gibson said that Mr. Walton was welcome to use the road. Mr. Payne cited that the county was not trying to give a right-of-way, but just trying to have people entitled to the road participate in the maintenance agreement. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that it was agreeable with Mr. Gibson to let the attorneys settle the matter. Mr. Davis made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Written Health Department approval; b. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: (1)County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement (2)County Engineer approval of road specifications; C. Revise the plan to include the following technical information: (1) Show graphically or describe in text the entire length of the private road providing ingress and egress to the parcel; (2) Note the deed book reference for the easement. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. MILKEY TRACT, LOTS 1-15, FINAL PLAT Located on Parcel 32 on Tax Map 44, on the south side of Ivy Farm Drive, east of the intersection with Route 658; proposal to divide 40.510 acres into 15 lots with an average size of 2.7 acres. Miss Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Skove inquired about the Board of Supervisors concern about the number of entrances to the site. Miss Caperton said the Board was concerned about having too many entrances to the property and required that all lots be served from one access on Ivy Farm Drive. Mr. Edwards said there was no objection to the conditions. 377 Mr. Jim Hill remarked that they had met with the Ivy Farms residents and they were still not satisfied. The applicant had tried to make the plan compatible. They took away 2 lots and increased the size of the lots. Mr. Bill Edgerton said the residents were concerned about the plan and suggested that another plan should be used. The residents were concerned about the streams, since there were three streams shown on the original plat with all the streams converging into one. The next plat showed no streams, the next one showed one, and the third plat showed 2 streams. He noted that the streams are longer than shown on the plat and that all dry stream beds could not be discounted because of the lack of rain this summer. He felt the Commission should require information about the streams. He read Section 18-21 and Section 18-22 of the Ordinance. He further stated that the soil report that had been made had no allowance for septic setbacks. Some drainfields were located within the 100 foot setback. He also was concerned about well locations and the water availability and he said that the area could not support 15 more wells. Mr. Edgerton said that the Ivy Farms Association felt that this plat was an improvement over the last plat, but they were still not satisfied. He read and presented a petition signed by 13 neighbors. Mr. Edgerton's attorney, Mr. David Carter, cited that the plat was not properly before the Commission for the following reasons: there should be 21 days to consider the plat; it is not properly signed by the owners; Section 18-23 of the Subdivision Ordinance for soil evaluation was not completed; the drainage and location of the streams was not properly done and indicated on the plat; no subdivision shall be approved without a soil erosion permit; and the Board of Supervisors requirement was not satisfied by this plat with one entrance on Ivy Farm Drive. Mr. Edwards said the soil study showed the septic fields available in the area. He was not sure of the 25% slopes, it needs a more accurate field survey. The streams were not inaccurate. Mr. Skove inquired if the road was proposed as a. state road. Mr. Edwards said it was intended to be a private road, but may be built to state standards. Mrs. Diehl inquired why the road was built straight, rather than following the contours of the land. Mr. Edwards said this would be too curving, the contours could not be followed. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this was not presented in the preliminary plat form. She also inquired why the intermittent streams were not shown. Mr. Edwards said it depended upon whether the water was running. Mrs. Diehl suggested that the ordinance required that the streams be shown. Mr. Gloeckner said he was an adjacent property owner on Tax Map 34, Parcel 37; he felt he had no conflict of interest, but he did have concerns about the proposal. He felt the USGS map was not accurate and he knew that a stream ran through his property . He said the septic field that was shown on the plat and his well were within 100 feet of each other. Also he said the applicant needed to address the question of the 25% slope. Mr. Gloeckner also stated that there was a discrepancy in Mr. Brunger's soil report. LJ 79 Mr. Davis was concerned about the legal aspect of sufficient time for review of the plat. Mr. Payne said the original submittal was September 16th, the amended version was submitted on the 27th of October. The time limit set forth in the ordinance is from the date of the original submittal. Mrs. Diehl was concerned about the signature on the plat. Mr. Payne said the plat must be signed by the owner and that sometimes they settled on the property after the plat was approved. Mr. Hill said they were agents for a group of four doctors who went to the University of Virginia. Mr. Payns said if the four doctors owned the property, they would have to sign the plat before the Director of Planning could sign it. He said he knew of no specific requirement that required the owner to make himself available to the public. There was a discussion of the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Bowerman made a motion for deferral until November 18th, so that additional information could be submitted: 1. An accurate topography map showing the intermittent streams, flowing streams, springs and areas of 25% or greater slope, and 2. Health Department approval of two septic drainfields taking the above information into account. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. LESTER RICE SITE PLAN Located at the intersection of Route 250 East and 744, property described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 59C, Rivanna District; proposal to locate a public garage on .5+ acres. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Rice had no comment. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the area was fenced where the cars were stored. Mrs. Diehl said there was also concern about the entrance. Miss Imhoff said the entrance was changed to Route 744. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the concern was the protection of the cars because three had already been broken into. He suggested strips on the chain link fence. Mr. Rice said the deputy sheriff commented that their department would rather not have anything on the fencing. The meeting was closed to public discussion. ,37 Mr. Vest made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; C. County Engineer approval of parking area design and construction; d. Staff approval of landscaping; e. Note type and height of fencing; f. Add note: "Outdoor lighting shall be directed toward the site and away from the highway and adjacent properties;" 2. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-51. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skove. The vote for approval was unanimous. LEWIS F. SCHOLLE SITE PLAN Located on Parcel 15A2 on Tax Map 81, Rivanna District; on the northwest side of Route 799 near the Louisa County line. The staff report was given by Miss Caperton. Mr. Scholle said he had just renovated the basement of the house. Mr. Gloeckner said that the plat was one he had done, but the site plan was not his, so he had no conflict of interest. Mrs. Diehl inquired if this would require Health Department approval of the increased use of the septic facilities. 1,44) Mr. Scholle said that he had installed a double septic system, so that this was a separate and distinct septic system. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Director of Inspections shall not issue a certificate of occupancy, including a temporary certificate of occupancy, until the following condition has been met: a. Verification of adequacy of entrance to Route 799 by the Louisa Residency of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest. The vote was unanimous for approval. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. W. Tucker, Jr., 8d