Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 16 80 PC MinutesDecember 16, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on December 16, 1980, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Allan Kindrick, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Charles Vest, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; and Mr. James Skove. Also present were Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; Miss Katherine Imhoff, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio, was not present. The Chairman called the meeting to order, after establishing a quorum. The minutes of October 28, November 11, November 18, and November 25, 1980, were approved. Before considering the agenda, Col. Washington stated that since the new zoning ordinance had been passed on December loth, there probably were one or more items on the agenda of this meeting that would not comply with the ordinance. Since there was no grand- father clause, the applicant's submittals would be considered under the new Zoning Ordinance. He felt there was no point in hearing those that did not comply with the newly adopted zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne said that the applicants were entitled to have their items presented and heard, if so inclined. However, he further stated that since the use would not be a permitted use, the Commission would have to disapprove any such plats or plans. He said that certain plats might at a later date be approved with a special use permit. Col. Washington ascertained that if an application was denied, the Commission could again review it after a 12 months period. CEDAR CREEK PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS Located on the southeast side of Route 665, northwest of Earlysville; proposal to divide 40.4 acres into 11 lots with an average size of 3.64 acres. Tax Map 18, Parcel 44E, Rivanna District. The staff report was given by Miss Katherine Imhoff. Mr. John Greene represented the applicant. Mr. Greene ascertained that the County Attorney had not yet approved a maintenance agreement for lots 5 and 6. He said that a maintenance agreement had been drawn up, which he presented. He further stated that the soils looked good for the septic fields and that the soil erosion measures were almost completed. The meeting was closed to public discussion. In reply to Col. Washington's questioning, Miss Imhoff said that there were 2 recorded parcels and the division followed the centerline of the private road and the property line between lots 5 and 6. Mr. Skove said the road should be built to state standards. Mr. Davis said that the road appeared to follow the contours of the property. He stated that the advantage of private roads was that they could be built to follow the topography. He also stated that private roads were intended for the larger lot subdivisions and that this subdivision did include a few 4 acre and greater lots. In compliance with Mrs. Diehl's request, Mr. Greene pointed out the woodline on the plat. Mrs. Diehl said the open area of the property as located between the stream and the wood - line. She said that she could see that soil tests had been done for the lots, but there was no health department report. She commented that she would like to see more information on the soil study and the Health Department approval, before final plat approval. Col. Washington questioned the urgency of the preliminary and final plats, and asked whether there were buyers waiting for the lots. Mr. Greene replied that the owner wanted to start road construction. In answer to Mr. Davis' questioning, he stated that he considered a private road better for this property than a state road. When Mr. Payne found that the preliminary and final plats were two separate applications, he told the Commission that they could be acted upon separately. There was a brief discussion of private roads versus state roads. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval for the preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed whenthe following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions including County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement; b. Written Health Department approval and a copy of the final soil scientist's report for our files; C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance; e. County Engineer approval of shared entrance for lots 5 and 6 and County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval of the preliminary plat. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for deferral of the final plat. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote for deferral was unanimous. SKYLINE CREST, LOTS 13A and 13F, FINAL PLAT Located on the sough side of Skyline Crest Drive, west of Route 708, southwest of Ivy; proposal to divide lot 13A in theSkyline Crest Subdivision into two lots of 2.68 acres and 2.41 acres. Tax Map 57, Parcel 85M, Samuel Miller District. Miss Imhoff made a statement to the Commission on the status of this item under the new zoning ordinance. �L� Applicant said she was not familiar with the critical slope criteria. Miss Imhoff said that the 30,000 square feet building site requirement was the problem for these lots, lot 13B in particular. Mr. Payne stated that the new ordinance required that there be a continuous area relatively flat for building sites and neither lots meet this requirement. If the applicant could establish, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, that development of the lots would be consistent with the critical slopes criteria, then an exception to the 30,000 square feet building site could be granted, and the Commission could approve the plat. The Commission might want to defer this item so the applicant could investigate this possibility. The planner is saying that the Staff could not recommend approval at this time. The Commission could do one of three things: 1- Approve the plat, subject to County Engineer's review; 2- Defer subject to County Engineer's report; 3- Deny on the basis that this plat does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner said he thought deferral, subject to the County Engineer's report, was the proper action. Mr. Payne said if the Commission denied the plat, the Commission would have to tell the applicant what could be done to have the plat comply. Mr. Davis ascertained that the topographic contours were taken from the USGS maps. Mr. Kindrick asked if the County Engineer would ascertain whether the topography as shown was correct and whether the lot had a buildable site. Mr. Payne read from the ordinance. Mr. Roudabush, speaking for the applicant, said they would be glad to meet with the County Engineer. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Vest made a motion for deferral, in order to obtain a report from the County Engineer on the critical slopes criteria. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote for deferral was unanimous. ROY WHEELER REALTY COMPANY OFFICE SITE PLAN Located at the northeast portion of property between the exit and entrance ramps for the Route 29/250 Bypass and east of Old Ivy Road; proposal to locate a 4,350 square foot office building on a 0.756 acre site. Tax Map 60, Parcel 24, Jack Jouett District. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. The applicant said that the facilities for the handicapped and the fire hydrant had been discussed in a meeting with the Fire Official. He further stated that the 382 vehicle trips per day figure, which was stated in the staff report, seemed excessive. He questioned the need for a third lane as recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in their comments. He said that roads handle twenty to thirty times the traffic of this road and had no third lane. He felt the recommendation was unreasonable. `7 L Mrs. Graves stated the off site septic field was not good and also that on a .765 acre site, a minimum of 40,000 square feet was necessary for on -site septic facilities. Miss Imhoff said when the Board of Supervisors considered the rezoning of the property, they allowed the septic field to be located on Tract A to serve Tract B. 149 Mrs. Diehl said that public sewer had been discussed. She ascertained that the parcel was on the edge of the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Davis questioned what constituted the distance for public sewer to be "reasonably available." Mr. Payne said that comparing the costs for a public sewer line versus a septic field was the criteria for ascertaining whether public sewer was "reasonably available." Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Health Department and not the new Zoning Ordinance speaks to septic setback from all streams. There was a discussion of the streams and the septic setbacks. Mr. Davis suggested that a special permit was needed. Mr. Payne said a variance would be better. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that enough acreage could be transferred from Tract A to Tract B to make up the 40,000 square feet necessary for locating a septic field on site. The applicant said he was willing to deed the amount of property needed. Col. Washington said this item had been through a rezoning with a proffer and now the Commission was considering the site plan. Mr. Payne said the proffer was a rezoning from A-1 to C-0 with restrictions. Col. Washington ascertained that there was 2.907 acres total and that Tract A was 2.14 acres. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the approximate cost of the septic field, which connected to Tract A by a line under the road to the drainfield, would cost approximately $5,000. Connection to public sewer would cost approximately $75,000. He said this appeared to be a permanent septic field. Mr. Gloeckner said if the other parcel was developed they could share the expense of connecting to public sewer. Mr. Bowerman said that the applicant had originally intended to connect to the public sewer. Mr. Gloeckner said the Commission did not know the long range plans of the Service Authority. He 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. Administrative approval of the subdivision of Parcel "A," a division of which would have the area sufficient to make it 40,000 square feet or greater to contain the septic field for Parcel "B;" b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance and a permit for placing the septic line under Route 855; C. Written Health Department approval; �Z� d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; e. County Engineer approval of the redesign of the entrance to insure proper drainage; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; g. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and handicapped provisions; ,�. h. Note the Planning Commission is not approving the sign or its location at this time; i. Staff approval of landscape plan. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skove. The vote was 7-1, with Mrs. Diehl opposing the motion. OLD KESWICK RESIDENCE TRACT FINAL PLAT Located off the north side of Route 640, north of Route 231; proposal to divide one 8.9 acre parcel leaving 493+ acres residue. Tax Map 50, Parcel 5, part thereof, Rivanna District. The staff report was given by Miss Imhoff. Mr. Morris Foster, for the applicant, stated that a private entrance already existed. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Foster, in reply to Col. Washington, stated that the Old Keswick main residence was located on the property. The owner was deeding 493+ acres to the daughter, but retaining the house. 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 will be required and includes County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; b. Written Health Department approval; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. B. J. SHAW-KENNEDY FINAL PLAT Located off the east side of Route 20 North, north of Route 621; proposal to divide 15.34 acre parcel leaving 82.936 acres residue. Tax Map 63, Parcel 4, part thereof, Rivanna District. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Morris Foster, speaking for the applicant, said the only problem they had was in obtaining a maintenance agreement. Since the dwelling and right-of-way had been there for thirty (30)years, they felt they might not be able to get all the users of the road to sign the agreement. Col. Washington ascdrtained that the 82.936 acres in residue had approximately 3500 feet of road frontage. The meeting was closed to public discussion. 0 Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the total acreage was approximately 100 acres. Mr. Vest made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. This 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 Engineer approval of road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement between all users of the road, if possible; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner. Unanimous was the vote for approval. EIGHTY-FOUR LUMBER COMPANY Requested deferral until January 27, 1981. Mr. Vest made a motion for the deferral. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davis. The vote was unanimous for deferral. HENRY JAVOR WAREHOUSE FACILITY Requested deferral until January 27, 1981. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for the deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. COLDSPRING HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT Located on the east side of Route 20 North across from Route 649; proposal to divide 70.65 acres into 27 lots with an average size of 2.61 acres. Tax Map 47, Parcel 16, Rivanna District. Miss Imhoff made a statement to the Commission on the status of this item under the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Robert McKee, representing the applicant, said that the plat was presented under the old ordinance. Mr. Benjamin Dick, also representing the applicant, stated that they wanted to know the position of the County on this plat; does it have to be withdrawn and re -presented under a special permit, or, since it came in prior to the adoption of the new ordinance, could it be considered under the old Zoning Ordinance. He questioned if the Board of Supervisors had the authority to consider this plat rather than the Planning Commission by special use permit. He felt that the applicant had a vested right. He further stated -that the Planning Commission had the Subdivision Ordinance and under the Subdivision Ordinance, they could approve this item. If this had to be considered under a special permit, then if the Commission heard this now, it could go next to the Board of Supervisors for the special permit hearing. Mr. Payne said the applicant was entitled to be heard. The ordinance provides that the Commission or applicant can not create a lot lesser in area, etc. than what the ordinance provides. This requires a special use permit. If the applicant insists on the Commission hearing this plat, it has to be heard - the staff report, comments, etc. In Mr. Payne's opinion, the Commission has no choice, however, but to deny or defer this plat pending approval of a special use permit (if it is granted), however, there are too many lots in the plat under the newly adopted zoning ordinance. The staff report was given by Miss Imhoff. Mr. McKee said he wished to defer his comments. He said that this plat meets all the conditions under the existing Subdivision Ordinance and that they were asking for approval under the existing Subdivision Ordinance; or, with a special use permit, under the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Hoffman, adjacent owners, were present. Mr. Hoffman said both the esthetic and the monetary value of the property should be considered. They felt this subdivision would not degrade the value of the property; the area is nice and many people would like to see people able to afford to live in the area. They felt the subdivision was well planned, was accessible to the airport. He said the land was not good for farming or anything else. He said they were not familiar with the Zoning Ordinance, but he and his wife approved of the subdivision. Mr. McKee said they had tried to design the subdivision to be marketable and esthetically pleasing. There is a 150 foot easement along the streams, road frontage, a buffer zone, and trees were to be planted along the property lines. This planning and designing had taken many months. They felt that they had tried to plan well. Mr. McKee stated that a slope and soil map had also been submitted. Mrs. Charlotte Dammann, another adjacent owner, said the County should follow the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in this area. Mr. McKee said that the area was open and under the preferable land use tax, in answer to Col. Washington's questioning. Mr. Davis said the subdivision should have a state maintained road. He further stated that the lots would have pipestems with roads if the subdivision was developed according to this plat. Mr. McKee said they preferred a private road. In the Subdivision Ordinance provided for private roads up to 35 lots. He further stated that detailed road profiles for the plan had been presented. He said the difference in the private and the state maintained roads is that state roads are not only expensive, but they also destroy the property. The reason for using private roads is that they are more flexible and allow for more attractive development. Mr. Dick said they did not have the special use permit required under the Zoning Ordinance, but this was not required under the Subdivision Ordinance. Col. Washington commented that he was not prepared to vote for approval, but he was not sure whether the item should be deferred or denied. Mr. Dick said they would rather have a deferral than a denial, since this would avoid the expense of reapplying. q �/ Several members of the Commission said they would like to see a state road, rather than a private road. There was further discussion of state roads versus private roads. Mr. Skove made a motion for deferral. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Mr. Payne said the 60 day period for the Commission hearing needed to be waived. Mr. Dick said the applicant would waive the 60 day period. The vote was 7-1, with Mr. Davis opposing the motion. GEORGETOWN COURT FINAL PLAT Located off the east side of Georgetown Road, southwest of Hydraulic Road; proposal to divide 2.14 acres into 20 lots with an average size of 4668 square feet. Tax Map 61, Parcel 42D, Charlottesville District. Miss Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Rotgin, the applicant, said there had been a reduction in density, but not by choice. The entrances, which formerly had not received Highway Department approval, have now been approved. The stormwater detention ordinance requirements had been met. The meeting was closed to.public discussion. Mr. Skove ascertained that there would be sidewalks. Mr. Gloeckner said the plat needed to show the chain of title and the deed book references. Mr. Gloeckner 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. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer approval of entrances on Court Place; C. Compliance with stormwater detention requirements; d. Chain of title of the subdivision and the deed book references on adjacent tracts. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. COMPONENT ASSEMBLY PLANT SITE PLAN Located on the east side of Route 29 North, north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River, east of Camelot and south of Route 600; proposal to locate an 85,000 square foot component assembly plant on 35.9 acres. Tax Map 32, Parcel 5C, Rivanna District. A statement was made by Miss Imhoff on the status of this item under the new Zoning Ordinance. There was no applicant or representative for the applicant present. 4�-z The Commission decided this plan should be denied based on the County Attorney's opinion that this proposal did not comply with the newly adopted Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for denial. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for denial. NEW BUSINESS: Col. Washington said that the Commission needed to have a work session on the new zoning ordinance. There was a brief discussion of this idea. Mr. Gloeckner felt that a work session was needed on the private road question also. There was no definite date decided upon. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. N r-C/ Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr., Secre arY'' y�