HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 27 81 PC MinutesJanuary 27, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, January
27, 1981, 7:30 p.m.,Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner,
Mr. Allan Kindrick, Mr. James Skove and Mr. Corwith Davis. Absent from the
meeting were Mr. David Bowerman and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, Ex-officio. Other
officials present were Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner, Ms. Katherine Imhoff,
Planner, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, and Mr. Frederick
W. Payne, Deupty County Attorney.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting
to order.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself by leaving the room.
Hopewell, Lots 1-58, Preliminary Plat - located on the north and south sides of
Route 614 (White Hall Road), west of Owensville and Route 676; proposal to divide
177.97 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.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, objected to the Staff's recommended
condition that all lots have access on interior roads. He noted that they
tried to eliminate as many entrances as possible and that they plan to regrade
the shoulders where Hopewell property joins Rt. 614.
Joan Graves questioned when the previous subdivision showing sixteen (16) parcels
became effective.
Miss Caperton replied "prior to the adoption of the new ordinance."
Joan Graves asked if the plat was administratively approved because the lots were over
five (5) acres.
Miss Caperton replied that this plat was exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance.
Tom Craven, an adjacent owner, stated that the plat he was shown had fifty-eight
(58) lots and noted that the plat being shown to the Commission did not.
Mrs. Diehl replied that the fifty-eight (58) lots were still proposed but the
darker lines on the plat illustrate the exempt. lots .
Mr. Stanley Stahl, an adjacent owner, inquired if the Highway Department will
remove some of the bad curves before the subdivision is built.
Miss Caperton replied that the Highway Department has no plans for improving Rt. 614
at this time, but that the conditions of approval stated that the right-of-way should
be reserved at this time for future widening of curves.
'f�o
Mr. Stahl questioned the school impact figures and asked what the projection
was based upon.
Mrs. Diehl replied that the school impact figures are based on past records of
students in that area, per grade level.
Joan Graves inquired if a plat had to be vacated if a redivision was approved.
She then stated that if the plat had to be vacated the land would revert back
to the originial zoning. If the plat had not been recorded, the Hopewell proposal
should be considered under the new ordinance.
Mr. Skove asked if the redivided lots have a relationship to the recorded lots.
Mr. Payne replied that the Attorney General has reversed his opinion on vacation
of plats. The recorded plat would be automatically vacated when a revised plat
is properly put to record.
With no further comment from the public, Norma. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl asked for any comments and opinions from the Commissioners.
Mr. Davis stated that he preferred to deal with subdivision within lot lines or
recorded parcels on an individual basis.
Mr. Payne replied it was not unusal for a subdivision to be composed of more than
one (1) parcel with lot lines running so that several lines cross the boundary
lines of the parent parcels.
Mr. Skove asked the definition of re -subdivision.
Mr. Payne replied it was common to have two (2) recorded parcels side by side, half
on Lot A, and half on Lot B, after redivision.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this was a legal plat with the lines drawn as shown.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners their opinion of the subdivision being
served by internal roads as opposed to the various means of access.
Mr. Skove inquired how many entrances to this property.
Miss Caperton replied "3 commercial entrances, 3 joint entrances, and 2 private
entrances."
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Boggs to show what improvements the applicant plans to make on
Rt. 614.
Mr. Boggs stated that the applicant is using internal roads where possible. If the
Commission recommends internal roads, the applicant would only be willing to improve
the portion of Rt. 614 that is recommended for commercial entrances.
Mr. Skove asked where the dry hydrants would be located.
Mr. Boggs replied "somewhere on Mechums River."
Mr. Davis inquired if the roads were dedicated to Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation.
33
M
Miss Caperton replied that the roads are shown as state roads.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commissioners would see the certification of
building sites when the final plat was submitted.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commissioners should be aware of other building sites
not shown on each lot.
Mrs. Diehl stated that because of the Soil Conservation report stating that soils
are shallow, she would like to see the Soil Scientist report before final Commission
approval She added that the borings should be located within the 30,000 square feet
required for building sites.
Mr. Davis inquired how many times a parcel could be redivided.
Mr. Payne replied where proposed lot lines cross existing lot lines one must
assign the division to one existing parcel or another.
Mr. Davis stated that he preferred to deal with divisions on a separate lot basis
and that he was not prepared to let a lot of record be divided seven times on eleven
acres.
Mr. Payne explained to the Commissioners how this property could be divided further:
1) to analyze the total acreage and the number of existing lots;
2) divide each lot separately;
3) assign proposed lots to existing parcels when the parcel lines cross the existing
lot lines.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission had no authority to require a PUD
on this site.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners their feelings on the conditions as outlined
by the staff and called for a motion.
Mr. Payne stated thatthe Commission should note that the applicant has volunteered
some road improvements, and the Planning Commission might want to condition their
approval on these improvements.
Mr. Davis stated that he preferred internal roads with the Highway Department
making any necessary improvements.
mr. Boggs replied that it was unlikely that the highway department would make any
changes within the next twenty years.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for denial because this plat does not comply with the Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
34
Mr. Gloeckner re -joined the meeting.
Cedar Creek Final Plat - parcel 44E on Tax N'ap 18, Rivanna District; .Located on the
southeast side of Route 655, northwest of Earlysville.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Green, the owner, stated that he agreed with the recommendations of the staff.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there were any public comments.
Mr. Vanbey, an adjacent owner stated his concern with the following issues:
1) will there be public or private water;
2) the type of buffering between his property and the future landowners;
3) what type of garbage disposal will be available.
Mrs. Kelly stated that each lot would be served by a well. She also noted that screening
was important, and that more trees would be planted. With reference to garbage disposal.,
each individual landowner is responsible for this.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis stated he still in uncertain of why the roads should not be private roads.
He also noted that the topography in this area was no problem and the lots were
small. In his opinion they should be private roads.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the private roads were a condition on the
P preliminary plat.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this was not a condition of approval, noting that the
Commission requested additional information on the roads.
Mr. Greene, representing the applicant, stated that the questions the Commission
were interested in revolved around the additional grading and clearing required for
a public road versus a private road. A public road requires approximately 30% more
land to be cleared and costs about 70% more than private roads.
Mr. Davis stated that unless there were some topographical features which would inhibit
the construction of a public road, the difference in cost are not important.
Mr. Greene noted that the applicant preferred a private road. He also noted that in
checking with the Highway Department, the maintenance cost (for public roads) for the
1979-80 budget was $2,695.00 per mile/per year.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the maintenance estimate for a private road versus a public
road would be $17,000 to $25,000.
Mr. Kindrick asked if the Commission could request any buffering, on this site.
Ms. Imhoff replied that the Zoning Ordinance and Site Plan deals with buffering, and
noted that if the owner is willing to agree to this condition, it can be added to
the conditions of approval.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if this was wooded area.
35
Ms. Imhoff replied that the front of the parcel was open, but beginning
with lot #2 it is wooded.
Mr. Skove inquired as to the wording of this condition.
Ms. Imhoff replied that it could read "staff approval of buffering."
Mr. Greene ascertained that this condition was for lots 1 and 2 only.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could add one condition to read as follows:
"Cedar Creek road to be dedicated to public use and designed for acceptance
into the state secondary highway system.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that lots of four (4) acres are large enough to warrant
a private road, and he did not feel that the citizens should have to pay for roads
through higher taxes.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Davis moved for approval with the following conditions:
1) The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
b. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer
approval of road plans for acceptance of Cedar Creek Road into the
state system;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. County Engineer approval of a shared entrance for lots 5 and 6 and
County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for this driveway;
e. Staff approval of buffering on the eastern boundary of lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 3-1 with Mr.
Gloeckner dissenting.
Skyline Crest, Lots 13A and 13B, Final Plat (Revised Staff Report 12/16/80) -
Parcel 85M on Tax Map 57, Samuel Miller District; located on the south side of
Skyline Crest Drive, west of Route 708 and southwest of Ivy.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there were any public comment.
Mr. Roudabush representing the applicant, noted that the question concerning
the slopes originated because the contours shown on the plat submitted were
U.S.G.S. contours, blown on a 2,000 scale and changed to 1" to 200" maginification.
He also noted than an on site analysis indicated that there was 30,000 square
feet building site on each lot.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roudabush if he could explain to the Commission how the
30,000 square foot area was determined.
Mr. Roudabush explained that a survey crew measured on the site from the
crest of the slope to each point where there was a significant change in
slope to obtain a cross section (or a slope line). He also noted that
only the area within the lot lines of the 30,000 square foot proposed
building site was measured.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval subject to staff's recommendations, deleting
condition #E:
1) This 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 a maintenance agreement;
b. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
C. Note easement for the right-of-way;
d. No buildings or septic drainfields shall be located on 250 or greater
slopes.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Eighty -Four Lumber Company Site Plan - portion of parcel 2-1B on Tax Map 32A,
Rivanna District; located on the east side of Route 29N, north of the inter-
section of Rt. 649.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any public comment.
Mr. Darchuck stated that he had just beeni,nformedof a discrepancy concerning
the zoning, and that to the best of his knowledge the property was zoned
Highway Commercial. He also stated that he had wanted to incorporate an entrance
at the cross -over on Rt. 29. However, the comments from the Highway Department
made it impossible to incorporate an entrance here, so he asked for a deferral
until December. He stated that he had no objections to the recommendations of
the staff, rioting however, that if the plan was approved on a conditional
basis he would make application for the rezoning on this parcel of land. He
also noted that this area is part of parcel #32-20 and is now under consideration
for rezoning to Highway Commercial which would enable the applicant to meet
the setback requirements.
Mr. Hietnam, an adjacent owner, asked what type of landscaping would be
required on the south side. He also stated his concern with the lighting
at night.
Ms. Imhoff :Mated that the lighting was directed toward the site and away
from the adjacent properties and the right-of-way. She also noted that
one of the recommended conditions of approval was: "staff approval of
landscaping on the southern boundary of the property."
Joan Graves asked if this site plan could be acted upon considering the
questions that had been raised (location of the buildings, rezoning
application, etc.).
Mr. Payne replied that in his opinion this site plan could not be approved as
submitted. It could, however, be conditioned on the delineation of these
problems. 3
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner asked when the rezoning request on the adjacent tract of land would
be heard by the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff replied "February 10, 1981."
Mr. Gloeckner inquired if the applicant would be willing to defer action on this
site plan until the Commission has heard the request for the rezoning on the
adjacent parcel of land.
Mr. Darchuck replied that he would like to proceed as soon as possible. He
also stated that if the rezoning request was not granted the site plan could
still be considered by the Planning Commission as it would have enough merit
to stand on its own. He noted that approval of this site plan with conditions
could save four to six weeks.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant did not plan to take any action until
after the rezoning request was heard by the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he had problems with reviewing this site plan since
Mr. Payne had stated that the Commission could take no action without conditioning
approval on the rezoning request. Such a condition would indicate to the
applicant a possible favorable outcome for the rezoning and this was misleading.
He also stated that such a condition could jeopardize the decision of the Commission
and the Board.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt there were too many variables for the Commission
to make a decision at this time.
Mr. Skove inquired how many acres would be affected by the rezoning.
Ms. Imhoff replied less than z an acre.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she had a problem approving the site plan, noting that
if the rezoning was denied there might be questions involving the easement.
Mr. Skove stated that he did not feel there would be any problems with the
rezoning of the adjacent parcel.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that when the rezoning request is heard, a portion
of the property could be rezoned even if the entire tract is not.
Mr. Payne stated that if he understood the applicant, the entire parcel was
requested to be rezoned to Highway Commercial. He noted that the Board could
deny rezoning on a portion of this parcel and approve the rezoning on another
portion.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission would review the rezoning request
in February and that it would be reviewed by the Board in March.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt it would not help the Commission to defer this
application until February 1C (in order to review the rezoning request before
considering the site plan) because the Board would not review the rezoning
request until March. 2
2e
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like to defer this site plan to the
first date following the Board of Supervisors review of the rezoning
request.
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant would have to agree to this deferral
because of the sixty (60) day time period. If the applicant agrees then he
is waiving his right to have the application reviewed in the sixty (60)
day time period. If the applicant does not agree to the deferral, then the
Commission must take some type of action.
Mrs. Diehl asked the date of the application.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the applicant had requested deferral in December
to a January meeting and that the application was made in November.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the rezoning request would not be heard until after
the remaining thirty (30) day time period had expired.
Mrs. Diehl explained to Mr. Darchuck that, with his permission, the Planning
Commission would defer the site plan to some date after the rezoning had been
heard by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne explained to the applicant that he was entitled to an answer from the
Commission within sixty (60) days. If the applicant agrees to a deferral, the
time that he agrees to defer is not included in the sixty day time period.
Mr. Darchuck stated that the alternative of moving the site plan further back
on the property away from Route 29 would require the drafting of another
site plan and repeating the review process again.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Darchuck could submit a revised site plan.
Mr. Darchuck questioned if the deferral was on the rezoning request presently
before the Board, or the rezoning request that he would be submitting.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt Mr. Darchuck should appear at the
Board meeting and address that portion of the rezoning request which deals with
the proposed 84 Lumber Company Site plan property.
Mr. Darchuck asked if the Board would have any objection now to considering
a variance with regard to the parking and building setbacks.
Mrs. Diehl stated that a variance request is reviewed by the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the Commission took any action at this time
on this site plan, essentially the Planning Commission would have to deny
in order to avoid jeopardizing the zoning.,
Mr. Darchuck requested deferral until the first available date after the
Boards review of the rezoning request.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral until the first available date after the
rezoning action on the adjacent parcel is heard by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ��
Henry Javor Warehouse Facility Site Plan - REQUESTD DEFERRAL UNTIL FEBRUARY
17, 1981.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for deferral until February 17, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
ZMA-80-26 - Branchlands Retirement Village - located on the east side of Route
29N south and adjacent to the Charlottesville Fashion Square Mall, proposal
to change the density and road pattern of an existing PUD and 312 residential
units on 26.62 acre parcel. Rivanna District (Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel
1 and a portion of Parcel 1A).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Langman stated that he had described his plan to the neighbors as a home
for the elderly. He also noted that Charlottesville had few facilities for
the elderly. Branchlands provides privacy and is a protected area. He
noted, however, that the shopping centers were close and the people would not
be isolated.
Mr. Bill Roudabush explained to the Commission some of the details concerning
the submitted plan. He noted that the parcel is 26.62 acres located at the
rear of Branchlands and bounded by a stream which connects to Fashion Square
Mall detention basin. This parcel also includes a lake and the existing manor
house. The property borders the Chapel Hill Subdivision and Greenbrier Heights
Subdivision.
Mr. Roudabush noted that there were two principal access points to the site:
1) The principal access point will be Greenbrier Drive which connects
to Rt. 29, noting that this has a traffic light and is a controlled
intersection;
2) The second access is along the boundary of The Happly Clam. He also
noted that they will use the existing driveway for construction purposes
only and after construction this will be used for emergency access only.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the required parking would either be concealed or
underground, noting that the applicant prefered underground parking.
Mr. Roudabush stated that this application asked for two (2) amendments to the
existing plan:
1) To eliminate the major collector road which comes off Rio Road and
Fashion Square Mall;
2) To increase the density on this site from the approved density of 9.23
to 12 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Roudabush reiterated that there are 312 units, served by underground
parking, with elevators and sprinkle system. There is also a hydrant system
throughout the site and private roads.
Mr. Greene addressed the concerns of the staff concerning water, sewage and
storm drainage. He stated that there is a 24" water line from the South
Rivanna Watershed Treatment Plant which splits into two 18" lines. He also
noted that there is an existing 8" line that can serve the property.
Mr. Greene stated that the sewage can be served by the interceptor which now carries
effluent from properties as far north as Carrsbrook.
Mr. Greene noted that the runoff can be accomodated by retention in a pond. He
also noted that the parcel is not affected by the flood plain as delineated for
the one hundred year flood.
Bill Eichman stated that with reference to the architectural concept, the applicant
wanted to create a feeling of open space and an impression of a general rural
area. He also noted that the Manor House would be used as a basis for the design
of all new buildings.
Mrs. Diehl opened the meeting for public comment.
Mike Johnson, an adjacent owner in Chapel Hill, stated his concern with the higher
density housing. He pointed out that if Dr. Langmans plans fail, the property
would be zoned for a higher density allowing more people.
Homer Kennamer, an adjacent owner in Chapel Hills, stated that he felt two concerns:
1) changing a road is no longer practical because the Church has decided
to retain the property;
2) the density snould oe for a lowering of the units in t1iis area, and in
my opinion this would be the best plan for the property.
Mr. Mann, an adjacent owner from Chapel Hills, stated he was in favor of Dr.
Langman's proposal.
With no further comment from the public Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt the issue was to develop the property as one integral
development. He did not feel the Commission should approve a piece by piece
development.
Mr. Davis stated that this was a good concept and plan, but to change parts would
be to negate previous approved plans. He also noted that the Highway Department
could not comment on these changes because they have not seen an overall plan for
the changes. Mr. Davis stated that without a coherent plan involving all parties
he did not feel the Commission could act on this petition.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it is difficult to think of this plan in relationship to
the rest of the area. She also noted that there were some definite needs of the
community outside_ this area which were not addressed in the plans for this
particular section.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that as each application is submitted the remainder of the
tract becomes more restricted in its use.
Mrs. Diehl asked how the Commission could review the road changes which are
shown on this particular section, when they are outside the parcels being
considered.
�l
Mr. Gloeckner replied that this plan could stand on its own merit, but the
future tracts would be more restricted.
Mr. Davis stated his understanding of Virginia Department of Highways & Transporation
comments was that the roads shown on this plan had no relationship to the ones
previously approved.
Mr. Keeler pointed out on the map the approved road plans for Branchlands and also
pointed out to the Commission which roads were not considered acceptable by the
Highway Department.
Mr. Payne stated that the staff had no problem with the submitted plan, noting
however, that if the Commission approved this plan the rest of the previously
approved plan becomes unintelligible.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the staff had recognized this problem and recommended that
all the parties concerned meet to discuss future development plans. She feels
that until this has been done it is difficult to examine this application.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the owners involved agree to the change of this
road, then they have essentially submitted what they are willing to accept.
These road plans put some restrictions on the use of the remaining property
but this will be the problem of the owners.
Mr. Roudabush stated that all the parties involved are in agreement with the
road changes.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it was her understanding that a letter dated January 9, 1981
outlined the staff's recommendations after reviewing the property and dealt
with the problems of the road and water.
Mr. Davis noted that a piece of the property was owned by Albemarle County, noting
that the County might not be inclined to sell this property.
Mr. Keeler replied that the County did not have to sell the property. This
property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the(County could dedicate
the right-of-way until such time that the road is constructed.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he felt that all the necessary information had
been submitted to enable him to make recommendations and conditions of approval
on this petition.
Mr. Keeler replied that he could make recommendations to the Commission by the
following Tuesday, (February 3, 1981).
Mr. Payne stated that the basic problem with this petition is that with more than
one party involved it is difficult to figure out how to enforce any of the
requirements.
�L
Mrs. Diehl stated that she was in favor of deferral until the staff has the
information needed to evaluate this plan.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the staff could add the following condition:
1) extension "Y" would be part of the condition of the amendment.
Mr. Skove moade a motion for denial.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which was denied by a vote of 1-4.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for a week's deferral until the staff could make
an evaluation of the plans as submitted.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-1, with Mr.
Skove dissenting.
Frank L. Hereford Site Plan - Requests deferral until February 17, 1981.
Mr. Skove moved for deferral until February 17, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Spring Hill Preliminary Plat - Requests deferral until February 24, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick moved for deferral until February 24, 1981.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Turner Mountain Wood, Lots 4-20, Final Plat - located off the north side of U.S.
Route 250 West, west of Ivy, east of Route 676; a proposal to divide 84.13 acres
into 17 lots with an average size of 4.95 acres. Samuel Miller District (Tax Map
58, a portion of parcel 64E).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Paul Peatress, representing Dr. Seldon, reiterated some of the facts presented
by Ms. Imhoff in the staff report. with reference to the statement that the
application is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance, Mr. Peatress stated
that this application was submitted five days after the new zoning ordinance
came into effect. The new zoning ordinance :sates that unless you have an
approved preliminary plat that is viable an application is not a pending matter
that can be acted on or saved under any grandfater clause. As I understand it,
pending matters are referred to the County Attorney for evaluation and recommendations.
It is the opinion of the County Attorney that this application can not be approved
under the new zoning ordinance. We would like to pursue this application
giving the Commission certain facts which we feel are pertinent:
1) Turner Mountain Road has been completed;
2) each landowner will help maintain the :road (Turner Mountain Road);
3) the Seldons intend to correct any problems caused by the use of the road
�3
to construct and maintain Turner Mountain Wood Road.
Mr. Rasmussen representing Grace Ray, an adjacent owner, stated that Ms. Ray
is concerned about any possible damage to the road caused by heavy construction
equipment.
Mr. Peatress explained the following to the Commission with reference to the
maintenance of Turner Mountain Road:
1) the deeds show that each lot owner on Turner Mountain Road will participate
in the maintenance of this road;
2) there is a private road maintenance agreement for the ninety-eight (98)
acres to make sure that the Seldons participate in the maintenance of
Turner Mountain Road;
3) there is a private road maintenance agreement for the internal Turner
Mountainwood Road.
Mr. Rasmussen stated that as he understood Mr. Peatress, the Seldons are legally
responsible for their pro rata share of the maintenance of the road and in
addition, are liable for the cost or damage to the road because of heavy con-
struction equipment.
Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Payne if the Commission had any jurisdiction or if
this should be settele between Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Peatress.
Mr. Payne replied that there is an agreement of record as to the maintenance of
Turner Mountain Road, a maintenance agreement for the three lots has been submitted
and approved, also there is a document submitted which has the effect of binding
this property to its pro rata share of the Turner Mountainwood Road. Mr.
Payne noted that if the Commission finds that they can legally approve the
development, then if the Commission feels these maintenance documents should
be addressed, they can do so at that time.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the Commmission could not speak to the liability for
damage caused by construction as this exceeded the authority of the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to explain his comments concerning the final plat.
Mr. Payne stated that, in his opinion, this application could not be approved.
He noted that the Zoning Ordinance applies to each parcel of land equally,
although certain properties could be developed if certain fact situations exist.
Mr. Payne also noted that this could be grandfathered if the ordinance itself
spoke to it specifically, which it does not. Mr. Payne stated that if a final
plat was approved but not recorded, prior to the adoption of the ordinance, it
could have been approved for recordation by the staff and recorded.. The preliminary
plat stands for six months and six months only. Lots 1-3 approved in early
November, are new business, however there is no plat approved for any other lots.
The only other way this plat can be grandfathered is if a vested right is
proved, noting that if there is no vested right the Commission does not
have the power to approve this plan.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could not grant a waiver for this applica-
tion, because this was a legislative matter handled by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne pointed out the following alternatives:
1) approve a plat containing six lots;
v�
2) defer this request, allowing the applicant to apply for a special
use permit;
3) approve the plat for not more than a total of six lots;
4) denty this request.
Mrs. Diehl asked if it would be best to defer this plat allowing the applicant
to pursue a special use permit or withdraw without prejudice.
Mr. Payne stated that one can not anticipate what items will be approved by
the Board. He also stated that if the Commission chose to defer this request
there should be a statement on the record, by the applicant, waiving the
sixty (60) day requirement.
Mr. Peatress noted that there had been no opportunity for the applicant to be
placed on the Planning Commission agenda before the new ordinance was adopted.
He also stated that the filing of another application would not help the applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Commission had no authority to judge vested rights.
Mr. Skove asked how would one determine a vested right.
Mr. Payne replied that basically a vested right depends on previous approval by
the County and a reliance in good faith on that approval, noting that the
applicant does not meet this approval.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Planning Commission had never tried to judge
vested rights, noting that this is usually settled in court.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral, allowing the applicant to apply for a special
use permit.
Mr. Peatress stated that his client would waive the sixty day requirement.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Airport Center Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 649, east of Route
606 and the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport; a proposal to divide 9.8 acres
into 7 lots with an average size of 1.4 acres for light industrial uses. Rivanna
District (Tax Map 32, parcel 17E).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
To Gale, representing the applicant, stated that they were satisfied with the
staff comments.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he had a problem with private roads on an industrial
tract because private roads are mainly for :Large lot subdivisions and for
private residences. He also noted that the cross section design is based on
the number of units, and that the cross section for industrial tracts should be
i
designed for intensive use due to the -truck traffic, etc -
Mr - Gale stated that he would also recommend a state road, but in this case
the private road will be the same strength as a state road. He noted that
because of the design problems of the road, the applicant does not have the
fifty foot right-of-way width down the center of the property. The reason
the applicant is not constructiong a state road is so that he can have less
than fifty feet or right-of-way. However, the road will be built to state
standards.
Mr. Davis asked if the boundary line of the rear parcel could be adjusted.
Mr. Gale replied that in order to develop this property to its full extent
the applicant needs to construct a road dividing the parcel down the center.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the new ordinance allows a private road in an industrial
subdivision.
Mr. Payne replied that the ordinance does not speak to this.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the problem was the required building setbacks on lots
4 and 6 and asked why does the road turn to the right.
Mr. Gale replied, "that the reason the road turns toward the right was that a
building setback from the road had to be maintained."
Mrs. Diehl asked if the problem of putting in a state road was due to the
limited building capacity in this site. She also inquired if shifting
the road to the left would ease this problem.
Mr. Gale replied that if this was done the applicant could not get the required
40,000 square feet per lot and retain the same number of lots.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the lot line on parcel 5 and 3 could be moved to the south
increasing the square footage of lot 5.
Mr. Pietsch stated that he wanted the road to be constructed down the middle of the
property as this would create better building sites, noting the fifty foot
rural area setback. He also noted that the back lot is larger because a
majority of this lot is not buildable.
Mrs. Davis stated that he favored having as many industrial lots as possible but
that the road is the important issue.
Mrs. Diehl stated that when the Commission rezoned this property, they questioned
whether the back portion should be rezoned to M-1. At that time, the applicant
had no particular use for the back lots but wanted them included in the rezoned
portion. Noting that some of these extra lots could be used in order that
a state road be built.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Highway Department has commented that there is an
existing entrance and turn lane, noting that the Highway Department wanted
some improvements to the turn lane.
NO
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the conditions of the staff
changing condition #F to read: Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation approval of road specifications.
Mr. Davis seconded this motion.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should move for deferral letting the
staff review the re -design of the lots.
Mr. Gale stated that in this case, if possible, he preferred a public road,
noting however that if it was impossible to construct a public road
and that a private road worked to the applicants advantage.
DT,c,MSSTON:
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the alternatives were to:
1) defer until the Commission could see this application as a possible
state road;
2) staff approval of any lot line changes;
3) denial.
Mr. Payne stated that this property could be re -designed with smaller or
fewer lots.
Mr. Skove withdrew his motion.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral until February 17, 1981, in order to allow
the applicant to re -design the plat to show state roads.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
McConnell's Restaurant, "Chalet Rotisserie," Site Plan - Request deferral
until March 24, 1981.
Mr. Davis moved for deferral until March 24, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Carrie Lou Lamb Preliminary Plat - located off the end of Route 769, southeast
of Route 20 North; a proposal to divide one 2.0 acre parcel leaving 8.22 acres
in residue. Rivanna District (Tax Map 62, Parcel 87).
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion, noting that the applicant is not present.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
�1
Schwab Residential Site Plan - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioner's if they wished to reconsider this
site plan.
Mr. Skove moved for reconsideration.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the reconsideration is being
requested to premit private rather than public roads.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there were any public comment.
David Blankenbaker, representing the applicant, stated that these roads
were designed to state standards. He objected to the five foot sidewalks
on both sides of the entrance roads, noting that the only difference in
actual cross section is the cul-de-sacs which allows for good pedestrian
traffic.
Jim Aylor, an adjacent owner in Wakefield, stated that their feelings as
landowners in this area, were that some of the benefits of the original
plan were being eliminated. He also noted that the requirement to put in
driveways off this road takes some of the play area, noting that the density
does not allow much area for play.
Joan Graves stated that in the past the staff had approved the fencing around
the storm water detention basin as part of the landscape plan, why is this
being changed to the discreation of the County Engineer.
Mr. Keeler replied because the County Engineer reviews the Storm Water
Detention Facilities.
Mr. Blankenbaker stated that they planned to use the fencing but at this time
they do not know the perimeter of the basin.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the reason for state roads and sidewalks was for the bus
travel into the development and the pedestrian travel back out to the city bus
transit service, noting that these objectives are still clear.
Mr. Davis stated that the reason the Commission required public roads instead of
private was because the Commission felt that private roads were inappropriate
in urban areas.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Davis moved for denial.
Mr. Payne clarified the alternatives to the Commission:
1) if you deny the reconsideration you are affirming your previous action
which requires state roads, noting that the play area would be removed;
2) have private roads and retain the play area;
3) one private road and one public road.
Mr. Payne noted that either alternative two or three would require
reconsideration of the Commission's previous action.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion to deny the reconsideration, which carried
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:135 p.m.
44