Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 18 80 PC MinutesDecember 18, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on December 18, 1980, at 4:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles Vest, Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio; were absent. Other officials present were: Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer. The Chairman opened the meeting, after establishing a quorum. DEFERRED ITEMS: Milkey Tract, Lots 1-13, Final Plat (revised 12/18/80) Located on the south side of Ivy Farm Drive, east of the intersection with Route 658; Parcel 32 on Tax Map 44, Jack Jouett District. Miss Caperton gave the revised staff report, then she read a letter from an adjacent property owner, Mr. William Edgerton. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, said they were not taking issue with the conditions of approval. Mr. David Carter, attorney for William Edgerton, said that the ordinance adopted on 1 December 10, 1980 should apply to this item. Mr. Payne stated that the plat should be considered under the old zoning ordinance - Section 15.1-475 of the Code states that a plat must be acted on within 60 days of filing. If it is not approved then the Court can consider the case. He said that he had researched the issue and that in this case, the 60 day period had lapsed before the new ordinance was passed and this item should be considered under the old ordinance. If the plat does not comply with the old ordinance, then the Commission does not have to approve it. Mr. Edgerton followed up on his letter and stated that he contacted the Zoning and Building Department and development had begun on the property. There is a separate plat that was recorded in 1922. The developer had indicated on this plat that the tract was a single parcel, not 2 parcels. The developer should have advised the Planning Commission and the Staff. Mr. Bailey, the County Engineer, stated that the streams were perennial streams, not intermittent streams and were not running. Mr. Brunger's soil study showed a difference in the slopes. Quite a bit of construction has occurred now and there still is no septic field. Lot 8 is unbuildable and this development represents a threat to the health and welfare of the adjacent owners. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Sinclair stated that when the plat was drawn, they did not know about the lot being a separate lot, so this was not done willfully. Mr. Edgerton said that the coordinates were identical on the 1 lot and on the plat. Mr. Sinclair said that surveying is more accurate now. Mra. Diehl reminded the Commission that they had requested clarification on intermittent streams and asked Mr. Bailey to speak. Mr. Bailey said that an intermittent stream was hard to define: the word intermittent means "not subject to continuous flow." The Runoff Control Ordinance speaks to perennial and intermittent streams. It does not suggest how a swale can be intermittent when there is no flow or history of flow. It would be necessary during the course of time to observe the stream. The ordinance does not give leeway. If the Runoff Control Official is to certify that a stream is or is not present, he has 30 days to determine that everything is in order. This is a short time and if a swale or drain were intermittent, the Runoff Control Official may not have time to determine it. If someone lives in the neighborhood that has observed a stream, this would give credence to evidence of a stream. Without this observation, the official has to use his judgment He said that he saw no evidence of streams. The end of the prongs of the springs indicate that they rise from the springs. There has to be a second set of springs above to produce intermittent streams. He said he had looked at the soils and the soil report and the Soil Conservation Service report and the soils are fair to good for septic systems. He does not know if this type of soil is conducive to intermittent streams. Mrs. Diehl read a definition of intermittent streams as streams which receive flow from surface runoff. She said she had talked with an ecologist and was told that it could be determined whether part of a topographical feature was a stream or a gully by several criteria: 1- existence or lack of vegetation, sparse vegetation indicated an erosional area; 2-appearance of the banks of the gully or stream and whether they typlified a stream -like development; 3- finally the appearance of the sub strata in the streams or gully beds; with typical stream bed features being present in one and not in the other. Mrs. Diehl questioned Mr. Bailey on whether he had examined for these characteristics in these two locations on the Milkey tract. Mr. Bailey replied that he had not examined in detail for these characteristics, because this was a wooded area and had recently been cut over. There were ridges on either side that had a heavy growth of pine and this had been recently cut. There were leaves very heavily collected on the ground and erosion around the trees on the edge of the stream. If there was a spring, erosion would cut down the bank where it receives the water. Mrs. Diehl said after looking at the soil report that Lots 9, 10, and 11 on the soil report had a demarkation line marked wet weather drain, which she considers an intermittent stream, and this should be marked on the plat. Mr. Bowerman said the soil report shows the drainfield location set back 100 feet from these areas that are questionable. If the streams were shown on the plat, there would not be this problem. The plat should show possible wet weather streams. There was further discussion of the intermittent streams and the criteria for determining and the setback involved. Miss Caperton replied that the applicant wanted to propose a private road and the plat was not revised showing a state road because no positive action had been taken on the plat. 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. A street sign shall be provided; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; C. No buildings, septic systems or drainfields are to be located on slopes greater than 25%; d. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the State Highway system; e. Stream locations and septic setbacks from waterways shall be approved in writing by the Runoff Control Official; f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances; g. Correct the technical information on the plat to reflect the acreage of the lots with a State road. Mr. Vbst seconded the motion. The vote was 5-1-1, with Mrs. Diehl abstaining, and Mr. Bowerman opposing. Branchlands Final Plat The applicant had asked to withdraw this plat. Mrs. Diehl made a motion that the withdrawal be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. The vote was unanimous to accept the withdrawal. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZMA-80-24. Hunter Faulconer, Hunter Village RPN Located on the north side of the Route 250/29 bypass between St. Anne's-Belfield School and Canterbury Hills; proposal to rezone 41.20 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RPN/R-1 Residential with 48 lots on 22.9 acres and 17.5 acres in open space. Tax Map 60, Parcel 24, part thereof, Jack Jouett District. Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, disqualified himself and left the room. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Mrs. Diehl questioned if this had been reviewed under the new zoning ordinance. Miss Caperton replied that procedurally it had not, but the review was redone under the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Robert McKee and Mr. Frank Cox, and Mr. Sam Cleveland were present for the applicant. Mr. McKee said they intend to use public water and sewer. This is to be a retirement community with 22 attached single family and 26 single family detached dwellings. There was really no projected school enrollment and the traffic generated was 3.3 vehicle trips per day per dwelling for a retirement community, which drops the number assumed to 158. He presented a profile of the vertical alignment of the road showing the difference in the alignment between a state and a private road. They intend to construct the private road with prime and double seal and felt that a private road was necessary to maintain the integrity of the area. This would be a low impact, high quality development. Mrs. Diehl questioned how many units would be served by each road. Mr. McKee said there would be 31 units served by one road and 16 units served by the other road. Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, entered. Mr. Bob Garland said that he lived in Canterbury Hills and was only speaking for himself. He said he had no objection to living close to this development, he did not find the concept objectionable. He said the lake might be the only problem if the algea were allowed to collect, but he said if the lake were constructed in an acceptable maner there would be no objection to that either. Mr. McKee said the lake was only an idea now, but the lake would be done sensitively with a homeowner's agreement for the lake and the road maintenance. Mr. Skove, Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Davis were concerned about the private roads and the problems from these. Mr. Davis questioned a possible connection to Canterbury Hills roads. Mr. Coburn said the Highway Department was not in favor of connecting this development with the Canterbury Hills development. There would be a lower generation of traffic in the Hunter Village, also this would make a throughfare to Route 855. The Highway Department has no problem with private roads. The only problem this site may have would be sight distance and this could be handled with cutting vegetation or grading. Mr. McKee said this would not require major curb and gutter. He was questioned by several on the Commission as to how he would restrict the market for the houses to the elderly and retired. He replied that the pricing of the houses would certainly restrict the market somewhat for students and young people. Mr. Skove questioned if the Highway Department would allow a greater slope on the roads. Mr. Coburn said there was some leeway, on a standard of 10% established in January, 1980. It allows for reduced design speed, reduced stopping sight distance, and increased grade for a short length (up to 300 feet), an increase of up to 50%. In this case: 13�% grade for a short distance on a. tertiary street. On mountainous areas it is normally 12% and this would be an increase to 18%. But this site could not be considered mountainous. There was further discussion of the roads and the grade and state roads versus private roads. The Commission temporarily adjourned for dinner at 6:15 p.m. The Commission re -convened at 7:00 p.m. After the dinner adjournment, there was further discussion of the roads. Mr. McKee requested that the applicant be allowed to build the roads close to state specifi- cations, but not put: the roads into the State system, since they wanted to erect a security gate at the entrance. He said the only problem he would have was if he could not get a variance or waiver on the vertical alignment from the Highway Department, the roads would make a severe impact on the area with the amount of grading necessary. He said he would prefer to have the plan approved with conditions, rather than have a deferral or denial. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 26 single family detached units and 22 single family attached units with a maximum gross density of 1.17 dwelling units per acre. Location and acreages shall substantially comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of units approved. yzi 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance into Route 855, if needed; 3. Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant locations prior to final approval; 4. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements prior to final approval; 5. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance prior to final approval; 6. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer lines prior to final approval; 7. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final approval to include maintenance of open space, roads, the lake and dam, drainage, and appurtenant structures; 8. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road design in accordance with current standards; 9. An easement shall be provided at the lake and shown on the final plat for maintenance and access; 10. County Engineer approval of dam specifications and County Engineer and Zoning Department inspection of the dam construction; 11. Only those areas where structures, utilities, roads, or other improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. SP-80-76. Willoughby Corporation This item needed to be deferred. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for deferral to January 6, 1981. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote for deferral was unanimous. PATTERSON/BUTLER FINAL PLAT Located off the northwest side of Route 724, west of Route 602, Parcel 15 and a portion of 12 on Tax Map 139, Scottsville District; proposed to divide a total of 65+ acres, comprised of 2 parcels, into 4 parcels ranging from 7.666 acres to 30.528 acres. The staff report was given by Miss Caperton. The applicant had no comment. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Col. Washington ascertained that there were no dwelling units on the property. 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 the road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; b. Note building setback for lot 8. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. 2 /. y�11 \ INNISFREE, INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY SITE PLAN Located off the end of Route 668, north of Route 765, north of White Hall; proposal to locate an independent living facility in the Innisfree Village. Tax Map 14, Parcel 10C, White Hall District. Miss Caperton made a statement to the Commission on the standing of this site plan under the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne said this falls under the definition of a group home for the developmentally disabled, that is now allowed by special permit in the R.A. zone. Dr. Kramp, the applicant, said there had been no other application, this is for an independent residence facility. They found they did not have funds four years ago to build so they asked for a temporary mobile home permit. Septic facilities for half of the facility had been put in. They would ask for advice for recommendations rather than deferral. They started working on the project a week before and the work force had to be laid off. They would like to proceed and get the building permit. They qualify for group and agricultural consideration as an independent working community. Mrs. Diehl questioned if each additional building for the facility would have to be reviewed for a special permit. Mr. Payne said if something is lawfully in existence and expanding, they would have to get a permit. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Bowerman asked if this were denied or deferred, when would it be back again. Miss Caperton said the special use permit would have a January 6th filing deadline, it would come before the Commission the 1st week in February, and the Board of Supervisors on February 18th. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for indefinite deferral, so that there would be proper time to advertise this and get it through the proper channels at the earliest possible time. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Col. Washington said this was being deferred so that the applicant could apply for the special use permit and then the Commission could consider the special use permit and the site plan at the same time. The vote was unanimous for deferral. GRASSMERE FARM, PHASE TWO, FINAL PLAT Located off the south side of Route 679, south of Route 738 and Route 250 West; proposal to divide 107.727 acres into 9 parcels with a range in lot size from 5.935 acres to 33.367 acres. Tax Map 58, Parcel 20, Samuel Miller District. The staff report was given by Miss Caperton. Mr. Payne said this item falls under the grandfather clause, on the new zoning ordinance. ��y The applicant stated that there would be access from the first section. Col. Washington said the access road for Lot 22 was shown, there was a public road that far. Miss Caperton said the road is still intended to be a private road. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl commented that there was no flood plain delineation and also the road into Grassmere goes over the railroad tracks and that had created a problem. Miss Caperton told her that the flood plain was not shown on the maps. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private, road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of the road plans; (2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement; b. Written Health Department approval; C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. KEY WEST, PHASES ONE AND TWO, PRELIMINARY PLAT Mr. Lincoln said that the applicant had requested deferral on this plat, and they were willing to waive the 60 day requirement. Mr. Vest moved for deferral. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. WETSEL FINAL PLAT Located on the north side of Route 720 and west of Route 20 South; proposal to redivide 2 parcels totalling 12.653 acres into 6 lots with an average size of 2.109 acres. Tax Map 112, Parcels 24 and 33B, Scottsville District. This item did not meet the requirements of the new Zoning Ordinance, but Mr. Lincoln said he would like to hear what the Planning Commission had to say on the plat. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Mr. Lincoln said this plat was developed under the old Zoning Ordinance. They have Health Department approval and lot 3 has an existing dwelling. The Staff required joint entrances. However, he said that the cemetery which was not owned by Mr. Wetsel does restrict the Wetsel entrance. He was not sure whether they could conform to the 200 foot - 250 foot requirements for state road frontage. If the requirement is 250 feet frontage then the plans will have to be changed. Mr. Payne said the zoning ordinance did not refer to lot width at the setback line only the frontage. The Subdivision Ordinance refers to the setback, but that is obsolete now. l YD Mr. Lincoln said he would like to see the County provide an overall mapping of the County topography for the provision of building sites and then everyone could agree on the data. Col. Washington ascertained that lots 1 and 2 are the problem lots. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Skove said the plat meets the requirements except for frontage and the requirement for building sites on lots 1 and 2. Miss Caperton said it was the frontage and critical slopes that gave the problem. Mr. Payne said that the lot lines could be redone or the applicant might be able to get a variance. Mr. Lincoln said the land on lots 4, 5, and 6 was relatively flat; lot 2 had a barnyard and was flat; between lots 2 and 3, there was an open hollow down to the road. Col. Washington said the Commission and the Board had just finished writing a new zoning ordinance, and then people try to find ways to go around it. Mr. Skove made a motion for deferral until January 20th. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. HAWK RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT Located on the west side of Route 663, 1.3 miles north of Earlysville; proposal to divide 79.3 acres into 36 lots with an average size of 2.2 acres. Tax Map 19, Parcel 21, and Tax Map 18, Parcel 44D, Rivanna District. This item does not comply with the new zoning ordinance and applicant waived the 60 day period for action by the Commission and requested indefinite deferral. Mr. Bowerman made a motion for deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. HOPEWELL, LOTS 1-58, PRELIMINARY PLAT Located on the north and south sides of Route 614, west of Owensville and Route 676; proposal to divide 117.97 acres into 58 lots with an average size of 2.96 acres and one parcel (Parcel "A") of 23.0 acres. Tax Map 42, Parcel 46, Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett Districts. This item does not comply with the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne said this item may not need a waiver of the 60 day period. Mr. Vest made a motion for indefinite deferral. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. �l�l OLD BUSINESS: Polo Grounds Preliminary Plat Located off the east side of Mechunk Road, east of Route 616, and south of I-64; request for reconsideration of conditions of previous approval. Miss Caperton gave the staff report, and stated that the applicant had requested all or partial relief from the state road condition of the previous approval. Mr. Bowerman made a motion to reconsider. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for the Commission to reconsider the conditions on this plat. Mr. Roudabush, representing Mrs. Icgoren, stated that there were 17 lots shown on the old plat of Mechunk Acres and this was approved by the Planning Commission with conditions. Mrs. Icgoren lives on this road and there are two larger tracts left with access on the road. The old plat was recorded in 1976 and the Highway Department requested that the road be built to State standards, but this was never done. In September, 1980, the Planning Commission considered Mrs. Icgoren's plat and approved this with the condition that in order to develop the proposed 9 lots, Mrs. Icgoren must build Mechunk Road to State standards. The applicant feels it is unfair to have to build the road to service her 9 lots and also the previous 17 lots (which were required to build the road, but never did so). Mrs. Icgoren's plat was updated and submitted to the Highway Department. Three bids to bring the road up to state standards were received and the bids ran from $46,928 to $49,995. The low bid of $46,928 is the least it would cost to get the road to Mrs. Icgoren's property in order to develop the 9 lots. Her subdivision alone of 9 lots would not require this type of road, but because of the previous subdivision, this is required. Mr. Payne said he felt that a particular section of the Code applied to this item. He questioned Mr. Roudabush on whether he or the applicant's attorney had checked this section. This would provide that when a road is to be taken into the State Highway System, the section of the Code (amended in 1979 or 1980) provides generally for subdivision developer and adjacent owners to take part in the cost of the road. Mr. Mark Murry, owner of one of the 17 lots, said that it was written in their contract to pay for part of the upkeep on the road. He said he would not like to see further development on the road if he had to continue to pay part of the upkeep on the road. Mr. Roudabush said his client would be glad to participate in a maintenance agreement. Mr. Mike Lindberg, an adjacent owner, said he would not want to pay for resurfacing of the road and upkeep as required, if there were further development. He did not want the extra homes and traffic. Mrs. Yarrow questioned why the cost would be pro -rated when Mrs. Icgoren has a business investment and this would be for her investment. Mr. Roudabush said the original lots were an investment and they were subdivided. If the road had been built as originally required in 1966, it would have been cheaper at that time. Mr. Payne said the Board of Supervisors could made assessments to the developer and also could made a 50% assessment on the individuals, on the condition that 75% of the individuals agreed to this. yU2 Mr. George Wagoner stated that Mr. Roudabush gave the impression that the residents could not be contacted, but they could have been. He had lived in the area since August. The road as it is now is adequate, it might need $150. per year for maintenance on the road. He questioned why they should spend more to bring the road up to the proper standards for Mrs. Icgoren. Mr. Roudabush said the real estate records showed that Mr. Curtis Mundy owned these lots. Mr. Murray said they liked the gravel road, which was nice and quiet. Col. Washington said that gravel roads were expensive to maintain. Mr. Payne said that a bond should have been posted for the road, before the original property was platted. The County can assess a speculator dollar for dollar. The Board of Supervisors could assess the previous speculator and maybe the present lot owners would not have to pay anything. Mr. Payne further stated that the Highway Department could take in the road as long as the building of the road does not cost the Department anything. The County can pay for the road or the County can assess speculators, the original developer or their successors. Col. Washington ascertained that all of the 17 original lots did not have houses on them; six houses are built and lived in and 3 more are built and for sale. Mr. Hubbard, an adjacent owner, said a document had been signed for the maintenance of the road, with 12 lot owners signing. There was a discussion of the Woodcreek Subdivision and their participation in the road building. Mr. Payne suggested that the applicant try to see what could be done on the idea of using the statute for help on the road and appeal to the Board of Supervisors under that statute. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for denial of the request for relief of the condition for the road under this plat. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for denial. WESTFIELD, SECTION ONE, BLOCK B, FINAL PLAT There was no one present to represent the applicant. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. NEW BUSINESS: Mrs. Diehl, Vice Chairman, reminded the Commission of the fact that this was Mr. Charles Vest's and Col. William Washington's last meeting. She thanked them both on behalf of the Commission and the County for their service on the Commission. She also thanked Col. Washington for serving first as Vice -Chairman and then as q1 Chairman of the Commission. Col. Washington thanked Mr. Vest for his service on the Commission. He then reminded the Commission of the fact that he had suggested that the Commission be dropped to 7 members and with attrition, one was dropped last year and one will be dropped this year, as Mr. Vest's term expires. Col. Washington said he had enjoyed working with the Commission. Mr. Payne, on behalf of the Staff and his office, thanked Col. Washington and Mr. Vest. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. a N NNE