Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 25 80 PC MinutesNovember 25, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on November 25, 1980, at 7:30 p.m., in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those . members present were: Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice - Chairman; Mr. Allan Kindrick, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles Vest, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; and Mr. David Bowerman. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio, were absent. Other officials present were: Miss Katherine Imhoff, Planner; Miss N. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order, after establishing a quorum. The minutes of September 23, 1980 were approved. J. S. LEE, LOT 3, FINAL PLAT Located on the southeast side of Route 785, north of Route 649 and east of Route 29N; on a portion of parcel 19 on Tax Map 33, Rivanna District; a proposal to divide on 3.0 acre parcel leaving 67.15+ acres in residue. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. Mrs. Lee, the applicant, was present, but had no comment. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Col. Washington ascertained that the applicant intended to sell a 3 acre lot. Mrs. Diehl said there should be a dedication of 25 feet for the road. In answer to Mr. Skove's questioning, Miss Imhoff stated that the subdivisions in this area were the Riverside Plat and the Pineridge Plat located across the street. Mr. Skove commented that the area was being divided one lot at a time yet the inadequacy of the road would necessitate denying a larger subdivision. Mr. Kindrick made a motion for approval of the plat as submitted. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there was probably 210 feet of residue in the frontage. The vote was 6-1, with Mrs. Diehl opposing. WEATHERSBEE FINAL PLAT Located on the south side of Route 732, east of Route 53 and Route 762, west of Route 729; proposed division of 17.07 acres with an average size of 8.5 acres. Tax Map 78C, Parcel 1A, Rivanna District. The staff report was given by Miss Imhoff. � v Mr. Weathersbee and Mr. Sinclair were present. Mr. Sinclair said that the applicant had no control over the people using the road, and did not want a maintenance agreement. Mr. Weathersbee stated that he wanted to be able to divide his land after building his own home. The people in the area used the road, but had no written right-of-way or easement. There were no problems with the road, the problem was obtaining a maintenance agreement with the users of the road. Mr. Weathersbee was willing to assume sole responsibility for the road. Four parcels were served by the road. Col. Washington commented that if the road served people in the area who had no deeded right-of-way, the applicant would benefit from the condition requiring a maintenance agreement. Mr. Weathersbee said he had written to the adjacent owners and tried to get a maintenance agreement. He also was concerned with the requirement for a commercial entrance, particularly with the low volume of traffic on the road. Col. Washington ascertained that Lots 24-27 were served by the road in Auburn Hills, which was a state road, however there was an existing roadway to lot 28. Col. Washington said that for three or more lots a commercial entrance was usually required. This road served 4 or 5 lots. Mr. Payne said that there probably was no deeded. easement for the adjacent owners to use the road. He commented that the applicant could put up a chain and require the users to sign a maintenance agreement before they were allowed to use the road, as this use of the road could be a type of trepass. The applicant should be able to work out a maintenance agreement and the users should also share the expense of the commercial entrance. Mr. Weathersbee said he did not anticipate problems with getting a maintenance agreement. He objected to the commercial entrance on the grounds that this would invite people passing to come and explore the road and would also disturb the privacy for the occupants of the surrounding properties. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Vest ascertained. that the principal difference in the commercial entrance and the private street commercial entrance was the width and paving. The commercial entrance was 30 feet wide with pavement and the private street commercial entrance was similar in width to a driveway and could be unpaved. Mrs. Diehl 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 road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement (to include all users of the road, if possible; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. 9 WILLIAM BISHOP FINAL PLAT Located off the northwest side of Route 743, northeast of Route 844, and southwest of the Charlottesville Airport; proposed division of 2 lots with an average size of 17.1 acres. Tax Map 45, Parcel 49D, Charlottesville District. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report, including the request to change Williamsburg Drive to Bridlepath Drive. Mr. Sinclair, speaking for the applicant, said that the change of name for the road was acceptable. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the lot lines on the previous plat were null and void. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there was a maintenance agreement for the road. 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. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required for access to the Parcel A and B and includes: (1) County Engineer approval of road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements; b. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; C. The applicant must comply with section 15.1-482 for vacation of the previous plat; d. Change Williamsburg Drive to read Bridlepath Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kindrick. The vote for approval was unanimous. PINE KNOTS PRELIMINARY PLAT Located on the west side of Route 656 (Georgetown Road), north of Old Forge Road and south of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road); proposed division of 30.45 acres into 15 lots with an average size of 2.03 acres. Tax Map 60, Parcel 76, Jack Jouett District. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. The applicant and Mr. Greene were present. Mr. Greene stated that the stream, located between Georgetown Green and Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair's property, is a dry hollow. The private road maintenance agreement had been obtained. Health Department approval had not been obtained. The County Engineer reported that the 2 acre lots may not require soil erosion control measures. The fire hydrant and waterline profile had been submitted. Water will be available from the Albemarle County Service Authority, public sewer is not available. Since this property is located in the South Fork Rivanna watershed area, the applicant would prefer to be on public sewer, if it were available. Bikeway and sidewalk dedication was being negotiated by the County Engineer with the applicant. Mr. Lowe felt this division wasted land and could be more efficiently developed as a cluster development. He commented that 2 acre lots were inefficient. Col. Washington said that the Board of Supervisors had zoned the area for 2 acre lots. He further stated that though the applicant would not be interested in the public `�8 sewer on the basis of the 2 acre lots, if sewer were available it would be desirable. The applicant said that the public water was available from Georgetown Road and would be used. Mr. Greene stated, in reply to Mr. Bowerman, that there would be a dedication of a drainage easement to drain the property. Mr. Bowerman questioned whether there needed to be a 100 foot septic setback from intermittent streams and drainage easements. Mr. Greene stated that a septic setback was not required for a drainage easement. Mr. Bowerman suggested that these drainage ways should be classified as intermittent streams. There was further discussion of intermittent streams and the septic ;setback required. Mr. Davis commented the road should be built to state standards and taken into the state system. Mr. Skove concurred with Mr. Davis. Mr. Greene said that this property had been taken out of the urban area and the applicant desired private roads in order to maintain the rural atmosphere. A state road would require extensive grading and disturbance of land in the watershed. Mr. Roudabush said there also was a difference in the width and shoulder of state maintained roads. "i Sold Mr. Skove and Mrs. :Diehl both felt that the Commission was justified in requiring state roads. Mr. Vest suggested that the location of the subdivision should be a factor in deciding the type of road; in areas adjacent to the urban area, state roads should be constructed. Mr. Payne suggested three criteria for the Commission to consider when deciding whether a private road or a state road should be constructed: 1. When the Commission determined that a private road would be adequate to carry the traffic volume reasonably expected to be generated by this subdivision; 2. When the Comprehensive Plan does not show a public road in approximately that location; 3. Has to do with who owns the road. The reasonable standard would be met if the Commission exercised discretion on determining private roads and was consistent with this determination. Until recently, the Commission has riot exercised this discretion. Col. Washington said the Commission had had a work session on the guidelines for private roads and another work session would be helpful. In this instance, he supported the private road. Mrs. Diehl commented that she was concerned with the proliferation of private roads. Mr. Skove felt that private roads should be limited to special cases; in this case, he wanted a state road. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval of the plat, subject to the following conditions: w.. 1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval: a. Note stream and septic setback, if needed; b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the State secondary system; C. Written Health Department approval prior to the Planning Commission's review of the final plat; d. Compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; f. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; h. County Engineer approval of pedestrian and/or bikeway and dedication of the appropriate right-of-way as determined by the County Engineer; i. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance and turn lanes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davis. Mr. Kindrick said he could not support a state road in this place. Mr. Bowerman felt it was up to the applicant to convince the Commission that a private road was necessary. He said he would support the state road. Mrs. Blair, the applicant, said the topography really lends itself to a private road; they hope to attract buyers who want the privacy of a private road. Mr. Bowerman commented that when this plat is up for final review, the Commission should know about the septic setback and if this would be necessary for a drainage easement. The vote was 4-3, with Col. Washington, Mr. Kindrick, and Mr. Vest opposing. TURNER MOUNTAIN WOOD FINAL PLAT Located off the north side of Route 250 West, west of Ivy, east of Route 676; proposed division of 3 lots with an average size of 4.12 acres leaving 84.13 acres residue. Tax Map 58, Parcel 64G, Samuel Miller District. The staff report was given by Miss Imhoff. Mr. Richard Selden and Mrs. Martha Seldon were present. Mr. Selden stated that they had no difficulty with the staff comments and would comply with the recommendations. They live near the top of the mountain and acquired the land involved here about 2 years ago in order to avoid major development in the area. They proposed a low density development. Mr. Carter,an adjoining property owner, said that he and the applicant had a common boundary for a distance of about 2000 feet. He was concerned about the stream and the water supply since he is down slope from the proposed division. Mr. Carter was also concerned about the further development of the property. Mr. Selden replied that this was part of a 96�1 acre tract and he did have an intention to develop it further. He said he would like to have beenable to afford to hold the land in its pristine state. The meeting was closed to public discussion. /V/v The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl questioned if a condition on the preliminary plat had been for the upgrading of the entrance. Miss Imhoff said this condition was for a turn lane and private street commercial entrance. The preliminary plat was for a 20 lot division. Mrs. Diehl found that the private street commercial entrance and turn lane would be required for a 3 lot division. Mrs. Diehl also ascertained that the County Engineer had examined the slopes and found no problems. 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. Owner's signature must be notarized; b. A street sign will be required at the intersection of Turner Wood Road and Turner Mountain Road; C. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and includes: (1) County Engineer approval of road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance and turn lane; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; f. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; 2. The applicant is put on notice that at some future date upgrading of Turner Mountain Road, which leads to Turner Wood Road, will be required in accordance with the preliminary plat. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Diehl. Mr. Bowerman questioned at what lot level the road would be upgraded. Miss Caperton replied that it would probably be above 15 lots. The vote for approval was unanimous. COMPONENT ASSEMBLY PLAT, ROUTE 29 NORTH, SITE PLAN The applicant had requested deferral until the 16th of December. Mr. Vest made a motion for the deferral. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral until December 16th. VESS FINAL PLAT Located at the end of Route 788 off Route 684, north of the C & 0 Railway and two miles west of Crozet; proposed division of 54.096 acres into three lots with an average size of 18 acres. Tax Map 55, Parcel 41A, White Hall District. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Vess said he was willing to abide by the recommended conditions. In reply to Col. Washington's questioning, Mr. Vess said the access road was a road running parallel to the railroad tracks, off of Route 684 and was an existing right- of-way. Mr. Skove ascertained that the road was approximately 1000 feet from the state road. .Mrs. Diehl asked Miss Imhoff to read the conditions of the preliminary plat, which she did. Mrs. Diehl also inquired about the location of the stream. Mrs. Vess said that Mr. Edwards had not located the stream during dry weather. Col. Washington ascertained that the Martins owned approximately 7 acres adjacent to this land. He said that a maintenance agreement should be entered into between the Martins and the Vesses. Mrs. Vess suggested that the purchasers of Lots 1, 2, and 3 should also enter into the maintenance agreement. Mrs. Vess also inquired if under the proposed zoning ordinance it would be possible to build on 25% or greater slopes. Col. Washington told her that the Proposed Zoning Ordinance did have the 25% or greater slope prohibition and in another section of the ordinance, a relief clause. If the builder could show that erosion and other problems could be controlled, then under the proposed ordinance, the Commission would be able to approve each case at their discretion. He said he did not want to prejudge what the Commission would do. Mr. Vess said they could come back when someone wanted to build. Mrs. Diehl said the last condition should read "no building or septic system shall occur on 25% or greater slopes." She made a motion for approval of the plat, 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 road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; b. Note stream and 100 foot septic setback from stream; c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; d. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; e. Add note: "Only 1 dwelling unit per lot;" f. No building or septic system shall occur on 25% or greater slopes. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. NEW BUSINESS: Ednam Final Plat Located on the south side of Route 250 W and east of Ednam Drive; proposed division of a 35.43 acre parcel into two parcels; 2.91 acres and 32.52 acres. Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A, Samuel Miller District. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Lambert said that 5 years from now there would be 140 dwellings and condominimums and all would own the common open space. This plat was a device for financing and taking control of the property. The property had to be subdivided in order to close on the property on December lst. There were several corporations and entities. In order for one entity to take control the land must be subdivided. To be subdivided, the plat must be on a private street, but the private street was not shown. Therefore, the Planning Director could not approve the plat administratively. The subdivision had to have frontage on Route 250. The front portion of the plat area would eventually be used for open space. Mr. Payne said the use was determined exclusively by the RPN and Parcel B-1 was classified as R-3; the rest of the land would be controlled for use purposes by the RPN. Mr. Lambert stated that a proffer had been added to the conditions since the Board of Supervisors had approved the RPN: "No further construction can occur on the R-3 parcel without amendment to the RPN." The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Vest made a motion for approval of the plat, as submitted. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. OLD BUSINESS: Col. Washington told the Commission that he had been to a luncheon given by Mr. Huja, the Director of Planning for the City of Charlottesville. The meeting was to coordinate the City and County planning agencies, as well as the Planning Department of the University of Virginia. Not a great deal was accomplished at this particular meeting, but future meetings were to be held. The County and City quite frequently heard of what the University was planning by reading about it in the newspaper. The Planning Staff of the University took offen*e at the idea that the City and County did not know of its plans and said that Mr. Catlin had had meetings with Mr. Fisher to advise of plans. These plans evidently do not filter down to the other levels. The purpose of this group meeting was to further a working relationship. There was further discussion of the University plans, regarding Birdwood and the hospital. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.