HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 03 81 PC MinutesFebruary 3, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 3, 1981, 7.30 p.m., in the Conference Room, Fourth Floor, County Office
Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were
Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Allan Kindrick, and
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Other officials present were: Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning.
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner were absent.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio, was present for part of the session.
Mr. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, called the meeting to order, after establishing a
quorum.
The minutes of December 9, 1980, were approved as submitted.
Mr. Keeler stated that Branchlands ZMA-80-26 had been deferred from last Tuesday,
%MW January 27, 1981, by the Commission, which also placed SP-80-63 on the agenda in
order to review the two petitions as essentially one submittal and so that the
conditions of approval would apply to both petitions.
Mr. Keeler then gave the staff report, an addendum on ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63.
Mr. Bowerman stated that two questions came immediately to mind, on the collector
road who owns the property between Section A and the Squire Hill Road.
Mr. Keeler replied that the road is on Squire Hill property.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the road has been platted.
Mr. Keeler replied that it had not and that is why one of the conditions requires
Squire Hill to amend their plan before any final approval.
Mr. Keeler stated that the roads should be developed according to the sequence of
development of areas, that the conditions applied to each area as it develops. He
added that the Highway Department will not endorse any internal roads at this time.
Dr. Langman, the applicant, asked whether the church road would remain the same.
He stated that there are three access roads to Route 29 - the incomplete Greenbrier
Drive, the Happy Clam or Access Road 2, and the existing road.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed that the road would remain until such time as
the Highway Department determined that increased traffic warranted relocation.
He said that it was probable that the road when relocated would come out at the
crossover, but stressed that the Highway Department has not endorsed any particular
plan yet.
50
Mr. Keeler noted that Squire Hill is going to leave a certain amount of land
for development plus right-of-way because the! Highway Department has indicated
that the intersections have to be separated by 200 feet.
Mr. Skove asked if Section C is developed, which roads would actually have to
be constructed.
Mr. Keeler replied that the unfinished Greenbrier Drive section to the Branchlands
collector road, from Branchlands collector road back into C and D, Section 1 of the
collector road to just north of Access Road 2, and Access Road 2 - would be con-
structed.
Mr. Skove pointed out that if there were then to be a delay in developing Sections
E and F, there would be a loop of. roads.
Mr. Keeler stated that yes, you would have a :network of State roads, but that he
did not think that the Highway Department would accept a road into the State system
unless suchroad connected two State roads. He said that it was for this reason
staff has made these recommended improvements.
Mr. Skove asked when the connection to Rio Road would be done.
Mr. Keeler answered if Section E is developed before Section C, E would build
Access Road 2 and the collector road through E. He added that it would be likely
at that time that the existing road would be relocated.
Mr. Skove expressed some concern about not approving an overall plan, but each
section as it develops. He wondered whether there might not be instances of
having to amend conditions previously approved as other areas develop.
Mr. Roudabush said that from the developer's standpoint it might be more
efficient to go about it with a plan for the entire tract, rather than doing
it piecemeal.
Mr. Bowerman said that before opening up a public discussion on Branchlands, he
would like to know whether Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department would like to
make any comments.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that Mr. Keeler had covered the Highway Department position,
but that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to speak.
Dr. Jan Langman, the applicant, said that he washed to compliment the Planning
Staff on the tremendous amount of work accomplished during the past week.
Dr. Langman said that the Bishop had been unavailable, but that he and Dr. Hurt
had had dinner together tonight and that he was very pleased to have reached an
agreement concerning the unfinished portion of Greenbrier Drive.
Dr. Langman said that about a week ago he was able to hold a meeting with the
people in the neighborhood and officials of the church. Mr. Bowerman was in
attendance, also, Dr. Langman noted. Dr. Langman stated that almost everyone
was unanimous in their approval of the project, including Mr. Maine, who is
often critical. Dr. Langman said that some concern was expressed about the
traffic of motorcycles and four-wheel drive trucks that drive through and up
toward Chapel Hill.
61
Dr. Langman said that he promised to do something about preventing this nuisance
as soon as possible. Dr. Langman said that the neighbors did not indicate that
fencing was desired. As a matter of fact, he said, many of the people like to see
the lake and be able to come down to the lake. He would like to post that this is
private property and close off the road up the hill in order to deter the traffic
of motorcycles and four-wheel vehicles.
Dr. Langman expressed his pleasure with the planned bikeway along the side of the
creek, particularly noting that he liked the idea of connecting the community to
both the church and to the Fashion Square Mall.
Dr. Langman said that it was his intention to develop Area C as soon as he
obtained approval from all of the appropriate authorities. He stated that he had
been working very hard toward this end and was ready to begin.
Dr. Langman stated that on the road question, he has an agreement with Dr. Hurt to
build Greenbrier Drive to the collector road. He stated that it was news to him
tonight that Access Road 2 must be built when Area C is developed. He expressed
concern about there not being a light at Route 29 where Access Road 2 intersects.
Dr. Langman wondered whether the Highway Department has a plan for signalization.
Dr. Langman said that this development gave him a little difficulty. He asked
why he must develop this road, if Sections E and F are not being developed at the
present time.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt to respond.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the plan calls for a signal at the crossover when
Branchlands brings in a road. Lights would be coordinated at Fashion Square Mall
and Greenbrier Drive, but there is no plan to have a traffic light at Access Road 2
and hopefully no crossover at Access Road 2.
Mr. Roudabush put up a revised drawing that corresponded to Dr. Hurt's plan.
Mr. Stuart Carwile stated that he approved the staff recommendations regarding
Branchlands.
Dr. Hurt stated that he was puzzled by the necessity for Access Road 2.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt whether he favored three access roads instead of
two.
Mr. Roosevelt answered that he had no problem with two. The Branchlands entrance
was approved and as such incorporated into the Plan for Route 29, Mr. Roosevelt
explained. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he believed that it was put there at the
request of whoever submitted the original Branchlands plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Langman whether he was not interested in having that third
road at site review a couple of weeks ago.
Dr. Langman replied that when he learned the original church road would not have
any more access to Route 29, he changed his mind and bought an additional 10 acres
from Dr. Hurt. Dr. Langman stated that he had bought the 10 acres from Dr. Hurt
in order to have direct access to Route 29 at Greenbrier Drive where there is a
traffic light. He said that it would be nice to have Access Road 2, but very
dangerous. With 600 people and 300 cars projected for his community, Dr. Langman
said that this amount of traffic could easily be handled by Greenbrier Drive and
that it would be dangerous to use Access Road 2 if there is no traffic light.
Dr. Langman said that he now hears for the first time that maybe the church road
will remain. He said that he would therefore like to know two things - what
traffic would Access Road 2 carry and as long as the whole area is not developed
at this time, what is the purpose of constructing the collector road. Dr. Lang -
man said that the people in Area C will use Greenbrier Drive and if there should
be no further development, what is the purpose of constructing the collector
road.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any comments from the public.
Joan Graves stated that she had some problems with the roads and entrances in
general. She stated that she thought that the Happy Clam Road had been approved
because there was already an entrance in existance. If it had not been approved
already, she would doubt that it was the required 500 feet from the crossover,
she stated.
Mr. Bowerman requested Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department to answer Mrs. Graves'
question about the distance from the crossover.
Mr. Ro evelt,measured the distance on the exhibited plan and ascertained that
it was A lea t 500 feet from the crossover.
Mrs. Graves said that originally the entrance to Branchlands and to the Brown
property was to be built 200 feet south of the existing crossover. She said that
the entrance to the Brown subdivision on the west side of Route 29 North was in
and of itself a change from a previous plan. She stated that at the time she was
concerned that Branchlands did not participate in the decision.
She also wished to point out that the Berkeley, crossover is liable to be
closed by the Highway Department :if it determines that a traffic hazard has
developed.
She also pointed out to the Commission that this involves one of the most
unsafe parts of Route 29.
Mrs. Graves stated that last week there was mention of exempt subdivisions made
and recorded, but she could not find them and wondered whether they will have
any affect on the planned community of Branchlands.
Mr. Keeler said that he believed that there was some misunderstanding on the part
of Dr. Langman and Mrs. Graves with respect to the existing Branchlands road.
Mr. Keeler stated that this road will remain until the Highway Department
recommends itsrelocation based on increased commercial entrance traffic. Mr. Keeler
said that he doubted that the existing road could take much more traffic because
there is no standard commercial traffic entrance.
Mr. Keeler also stated with regard. to the crossover question raised by Mrs. Graves
that Highway Department standards have changed since that time and that the
existing crossover now meets Highway Department site distance requirements and can
remain.
Mrs. Graves reiterated her desire to see the Branchlands entrance located as
originally planned and commended Dr. Langman's proposed retirement community
development.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any more comments from the public and
applicants.
There were none, and Mr. Bowerman stated that the matter now stood before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler when he was talking about Area D, whether he
referred to it as an already -approved subdivision.
Mr. Keeler replied no sir; there has been some grading and filling done in the
past, six or seven years ago.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there has been a subdivision off this PUD.
Mr. Keeler replied no and asked whether this question was with regard to
Mrs. Graves' question.
Mr. Bowerman answered yes.
Mr. Keeler said that he did not really recall the plats, that he had seen them
only momentarily, but Section C with adequate frontage on Route 29 was platted
and recorded and is exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance. Twelve acres for
the church with adequate frontage on Route 29 were platted and recorded and
were exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler stated that there is no requirement that the Planning Commission
approve those. What the conditions of approval on Branchlands said, Mr. Keeler
stated, was according to conditions of SP 78.31 any subdivision or site plan
would comply with the Subdivision Ordinance or Site Plan Ordinance, and this was
exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr. Keeler stated.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether this came under the urban area.
Mr. Keeler replied yes, but that it was exempt, that it was not under the Sub-
division Ordinance.
Mr. Payne pointed out that it was not an administrative approval, but an exemption.
Mr. Payne further stated that he believes that both plats, although he only saw B
up close and not C, contain a note that they are required to comply with the
approved Branchlands plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether they would be vacated if this approval goes through.
Mr. Payne replied that he did not believe so, that he did not believe there was
any need. He pointed out that what was involved was more properly thought of
in terms of a division, not a subdivision. This was not cutting land up into
lots, he stated. It was a two-part conveyance.
Mr. Davis asked whether the plats were put to record.
Mr. Keeler said that he did not know, but assumed so.
Mr. Davis asked to have the issue of the roads clarified, specifically, why
Access Road 2 was required to be constructed now.
Mr. Keeler said there had to be sufficient feed to Route 29. He further stated
that the Branchlands plan had always shown all public roads and that he would
like to remind the Commission that Dr. Langman was before them now because of a
change in the road network. Branchlands was to have had all public roads, but
SY
now Dr. Langman is requesting a private road„
Mr. Keeler pointed out that it is standard policy in a large development
and particularly in a development involving a peculiar community, such as
a retirement village, to have two points of access. The plats for Section C
included Access Road 2 to Route 29, and the plat for the church included the
existing road.
Mr. Keeler also stated that he did not believe that the Highway Department
would accept a private road into the State system that did not connect two
State roads.
Mr. Davis said that this answers Dr. Hurt's and Dr. Langman's question about
why Access Road 2 must be constructed from the onset, then - in order to comply
with this requirement for two points of access and in order to connect two
State roads in order to be incorporated into the State system.
Mr. Eichman asked Mr. Keeler to clarify a point, whether Access Road 2 would
satisfy the requirement for Section C. Mr. Eichman said, in other words, if
Dr. Langman's plan is continued out Route 29 along Happy Clam Road, as a private
road (access one) and Greenbrier (access two), it is only at such time as Access
Road 2 would become public that that section of the collector road would be
required.
Mr. Eichman stated that two different situations are involved: (1) two points
of access to Section C and (2) public versus private roads.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that Branchlands was approved with all public roads,
as shown on the original approved plan, with three permanent accesses to Route
29. Mr. Keeler stated that it was the Planning staff's understanding from the
first that Branchlands wanted all. accesses possible to Route 29 and that only
Dr. Langman was requesting a private road.
Mr. Keeler said that this was new territory and that he and the applicant
should work on phasing the conditions.
Mr. Bowerman said that if there was no further comment from the public, he would
like to read through the staff's recommended conditions for approval.
The matter was then before the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Davis moved for approval with the particular changes and additions to the
staff's recommended conditions, as follows:
A. General
1. Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential densities shall
comply with the Revised Application Plan. The! Application Plan shall consist
of the individual proposals of SP-80-63 Charles W. Hurt and ZMA-80-26 Dr. Jan
Langman as amended by the Board of Supervisors.
2. For Areas A, C and D of the Application Plan, open space requirements of
20.8.2 and recreational area requirements in 20.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be met for each area individually. Modification: For Area C, a minimum
of 50 square feet/dwelling unit of recreational area shall be developed for
adult recreation purposes. No recreational area for pre-school or elementary
school -aged children shall be required.
65
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans shall be
obtained prior to final subdivision plat or site plan approval for any phase to be
developed. All on -site and off -site water and sewer improvements shall be
provided by the developer at no cost to the Service Authority.
4. No final subdivision plat or site plan for any phase of development shall be
approved by the Planning Commission until approval has been obtained from the
County Engineer of a stormwater detention facilities/drainage plan in accordance
with the urban stormwater detention ordinance, the Flood Hazard Overlay District,
and all other applicable law. In such review the County Engineer may consult the
Soil Conservation Service or other agency deemed appropriate and shall be mindful
of past grading/filling activity in areas proposed for development and of possible
upstream enlargement of drainage facilities.
5. Bike and pedestrian trails should be constructed along open space corridors
(stream beds) or sewer easements. Such construction shall occur with each phase
of development on the open space corridors and sewer easements located within or
immediately adjacent to that phase of development; provided that the Planning
Commission may require reasonable extension of such bike/pedestrian trail through
other areas if such extension provides linkage to an existing or approved bike
trail.
In addition to such other bike/pedestrian trails as may be proposed by the
developer or required by the Commission, the north -south trail shown on the
Application Plan shall be constructed to connect to the bike/pedestrian trail in
the Fashion Square Mall and to the proposed Charlottesville trail to the south.
6. Approval by County Attorney's Office of homeowners' association agreements
for the maintenance of driveways, open space, and other commonly -owned or common -
use amenities.
Owners of properties designated for commercial use and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop
of Richmond, as owner of Area B (a 12.0 acre tract to be reserved for church
purposes and not sold as part of the planned community property referred to here-
inafter as the church property) shall not be required to be members of the home-
owners' association; provided that these owners shall be solely responsible for
the maintenance of the driveways, open space, etc. located within their respective
tracts, and that such maintenance shall be comparable to that level established
in the homeowners' association agreements for other such uses.
Should commercial development or sale of commercially designated property occur
prior to establishment of homeowners' association agreements, the Planning
Commission may require in the deed restrictions for such property, provisions for
the maintenance of such driveways, open spaces, etc., as the Commission shall
deem appropriate for adequate buffering and protection of residential areas and
for the reasonable usage of such areas by future residents of the planned community.
In respect to usage, the homeowners' association members shall enjoy the same
rights and privileges of use of driveways, open space, etc. within commercially
designated areas and the church property as shall be established by homeowners'
association agreements for other such uses within the planned community.
In addition to the foregoing, for Areas A, C and D, portions of the open space and
recreational facilities provided may be reserved for the exclusive use of the
residents of such areas, either in common or individually, subject to Commission
approval.
7. Approval by the County Attorney's Office of deed restrictions for sections
to be sold. The County Attorney shall review such documents for provisions
adequate to insure compliance with condition_; of approval contained herein.
8. Fencing and/or appropriate screening along the Chapel Hill subdivision
boundary may be required by the Planning Commission at time of final approvals.
9. No final approvals shall be granted by the Planning Commission until the
Squire Hills Apartments site plan has been amended in regard to the Branchlands
collector road. Such amendment shall be subject to Staff and Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation approvals.
B. Transportation System
1. Except as otherwise approved in Area C, all roads are to be designed and
built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards and
dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway System. Limitation of internal
access to public roads should be considered in the design of such roads only if
the Application Plan is amended to reflect such limitation of access.
2. In addition to the requirements of 8.5.6.4, no grading permit shall be
issued for public or private roads until road plans have been approved by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and/or the County Engineer,
as the case may be.
3. There shall not be more than 3 entrances from Route 29 North, inclusive
of access to Greenbrier Drive. Access to Route 29 North shall be subject to the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval, including but not
limited to the possible requirement of new crossovers and signalization.
Internal intersections with Route 29 North access roads shall be 200 feet or
more from the right-of-way of Route 29 North.
4. The Planning Commission has determined that the Branchlands collector road
is in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The extension of Greenbrier Drive from the end of State maintenance to the
Branchlands collector road shall be designed in accordance with Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation standards to accommodate traffic
anticipated from the Branchlands collector road and Areas C and D. From the
Branchlands collector road to Areas C and D, Greenbrier Drive shall be designed
in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards
to accommodate traffic anticipated from Areas C and D.
Branchlands Collector Road
Section 1 shall be from Greenbrier Drive to north of the intersection with Access
Road 2. Section 2 shall be from south of the intersection with Access Road 2 to
north of the intersection with the existing Branchlands entrance road. Section 3
shall be from south of the intersection with the existing Branchlands entrance
road to the property line of Squire Hill Apartments.
C. Phasing of Development
Since no chronological phasing plan has been :proposed by the applicants at this
time, conditions addressing phasing of development intentionally overlap.
Improvements will be required in accordance with conditions contained herein in
S7
the order in which development occurs. Improvements required shall not be
deferred to a future phase of development.
1. Except as otherwise provided herein, all features and improvements within a
delineated area of development shall be provided concomittant with the development
of the particular area (i.e. Areas A through F of the Application Plan).
2. The extension of Greenbrier Drive, Access Road 2 from Route 29 North to the
Branchlands collector road, and Section 1 of the Branchlands collector road shall
be constructed at the time of development of Areas C and/or D.
3. Section 2 of the Branchlands collector road and Access Road 2 from Route 29
North to the Branchlands collector road shall be constructed at the time of
development of Area E.
4. The existing Branchlands entrance shall be relocated and constructed to the
satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation prior to
the issuance of any building permit for any phase of development which would have
access to and increase traffic at the existing entrance provided that the Planning
Commission, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, may waive this requirement for a particular phase of development
upon a finding that the existing entrance would be adequate to accommodate in a
safe manner such traffic as may be occasioned by such development.
5. Section 3 of the Branchlands collector road shall be constructed at the time
of development of Areas F and/or A.
6. The bike/pedestrian trail in Area B shall be constructed by the owner of
Area B concomittant with the construction of the trail in Area A or C, whichever
shall occur first.
D. Modification and Waiver of Zoning Ordinance Regulations
1.) 8.5.6.4 Building Permits shall not apply to existing structures in Areas
B and C unless the provisions of 32.0 require a site plan prior to issuance
of such permit.
2.) 20.8.6 Setback and Yard Regulations shall be established at time of final
approvals as opposed to establishment at time of rezoning.
3.) Section 20.4 Permitted Uses: Commercial/Service; Section 20.9 Regulations
Governing Commercial/Service Areas: Section 20.4 shall apply to Areas C,
E and F. For Area C, commercial/service areas established in accordance
with 20.9.3 shall be in addition to uses to be located in the existing
manor house. Limitations of 20.9.3 shall not apply to Areas E and F.
4.) Section 20.9.4 Building Permits shall not apply to Areas C, E and F.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any discussion.
There was no further discussion.
A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.
Dr. Langman asked to take this opportunity to thank the Commission for its
approval, but the applicant pointed out that he could not start developing
because he had a problem with the roads, one being on county property and the
other on property belonging to someone else overwhich he has no control.
Mr. Bowerman declared a ten-minute recess.
The meeting resumed and Mr. Keeler went over the Subdivision amendments.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Tax Map and Parcel. number were data needed for computer
identification. He explained that when the county converts to computer, all
pertinent information on any given piece of land will be stored by Tax Map and
Parcel number.
Mr. Payne stated that the Board's intention through these amendments was to
liberalize the administrative approval procedure. He further explained that the
lined -out words represented the current wording and the underscored words
represented the new or proposed wording of the amendments.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any continents or questions from the public.
Joan Graves stated that she did not see how this amendment (0 18-2) changed
anything, because anything over five acres is already exempt.
Mr. Payne replied that it was not exempt if it did not have 120 feet of road
frontage.
Mrs. Graves said that she thought that the Board was talking about making 21-
acre lots exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler stated that he believed the confusion stemmed from the term exemption.
He said that exemption from the Subdivision Ordinance does not mean exemption
from the accounting required by the Zoning Ordinance; that, in fact, is the very
purpose of these proposed amendments, to aid in this accounting.
Mr. Keeler further stated that essentially two separate reviews are what is being
discussed, not changing the definition of subdivision, except with regard to
frontage. Mr. Keeler said that if lots of 5 acres or more were created, with
adequate road frontage, they were exempt from all other provisions of the Sub-
division Ordinance, except those being proposed for adoption.
Mrs. Graves asked what 21 acres mean.
Mr. Payne replied that it does not make any difference; if an individual has 21
acres with 250 feet of road frontage, the person can bring it in under § 18-13 (b)
and it can go forth.
Mrs. Graves wanted to know how anyone knows he has the right under § 18-4 to
appeal.
Mr. Payne said that the developer is given the right to appeal under the Statute.
Mr. Keeler said that he does not believe that a requirement exists under the
Statute or Subdivision Ordinance to notify adjacent owners; Mr. Keeler further
allowed that if an adjacent owner is not aware of a subdivision occurring, he
5%
is not going to appeal it.
Mr. Skove and Mr. Bowerman both expressed a desire to address the issue of
notifying adjacent owners at a future date, that it was a matter that the Commission
should take up.
Mr. Skove said that he would like to see some criteria drawn up for notification
of adjacent owners.
Mr. Skove stated that he would like to reduce the number of subdivisions reviewed
by the Commission. He said that 161 subdivisions were reviewed last year by the
Commission and that this was an excessive amount.
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Skove said that they would like to see more Staff approval
of subdivisions, that the Planning Staff is most appropriately qualified to
handle these reviews and that the Commission should be liberated from this
time-consuming process in order to allow more time to actually plan.
Mr. Payne suggested that the Commission might want to defer § 18-30 until such
time as the pending Zoning Ordinance amendments are heard.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any further discussion.
There was none, and Mr. Skove moved for approval of the Subdivision amendments,
with deferral of § 18-30 until amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are considered,
with changes and additions as discussed and shown below:
0 18.2
Subdivision. The division, including resubdivision and the establishment of any
condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in two (2) or more lots,
parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development,
such that:
(a) Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five (5) acres
in area; or
(b) Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than ene hidedred
-twenty {129} two hundred fifty (250) feet on a road which is part of
the State Highway System or State Secondary Highway System.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed a subdivision:
that:
(a) The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining landowners, provided
(1) The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and become
part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by the plat
or division and/or the instrument of conveyance thereof; and
(2) No parcel which was five (5) acres or greater in area prior to
such sale and/or exchange shall, as a result of such sale and/or
exchange, be less than five (5) acres in area; and
(3) No parcel shall, as a result of such sale and/or exchange, front
less than one h,dnalfed twenty J-1-2e} two hundred fifty (250) feet
on a road which is part of the State Highway System or State
Secondary Highway System; and, 60
(4) No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such sale and/or
exchange.
OR
(b) The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of eminent
domain by any public agency. (AMENDED 03-29--78)
The foregoing notwithstanding all other divisions of land shall be deemed
to be subdivisions for the sole purpose of the application of S 18-13(b) of
this chapter.
§ 18-13 (a)
Administrative approval of certain subdivision plats.
In the case of any subdivision involving the ereat}ea of three er fewer
lots, all fronting on an existing public road, the Director of Planning is
hereby constituted the agent of the Commission for purposes of reviewing and
approving subdivision plat applications; provided, that (1) nothing contained
in this Section shall be construed to limit the right of the Commission to
review any such application nor to restrict the right of any party to appeal
pursuant to Section 18-14 18-4; anel 15reviaed further that (2) the Director of
Planning shall not approve any such plat which he determines to be in the
urban area as setforth in the Comprehensive Plan. (AMENDED 5/3/79); and (3)
nothing herein shall be construed as a delegation of the legislative authority
of the Board of Supervisors reserved pursuant: to S 10.5 of the Zoning Ordinance
or otherwise.
18-13 (b)
Every division which is not subject to review in accordance with 9 18-13 (a)
or 6 18-41 shall be submitted for review by the Director of Planning to ensure
compliance with § 18-28 and S 18-55 (o), (p), (q), (r), and (s) hereof. The
Director of Planning shall review each such plat within five (5) days of filing.
§ 18-22
(1) Lands which are designated as lying within the flood plain of any
stream in accordance with Artlele-9A § 30.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance;
9 18-28
SiMe: Size, Number.
Lot sizes for reeleleatlal lets and number of lots shall conform to the
Zoning Ordinance in the Eetiety at the time of the filing of the final ISlat.
(8-28-74).
§ 18-33
All remnants of lots or outlots below the minimum 5ime remaining after
etibdivlellne3 a traet md5t not complying with design standards set forth herein,
as a result of any subdivision shall be added to adjacent lots rather than
allowed to remain as unbuildable parcels.
G/
0 18-52
(o) The location, area and dimensions of a lawful building site on each lot.
(p) The number of lots, as assigned by the subdivider into which each such
parcel may be further divided by right pursuant to S 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance,
if applicable.
(q) The deed book and page citation of the instrument whereby the parcel to
be subdivided was created.
(r) County Tax Map and Parcel Number.
(s) Owner's name.
§ 18-55
(o) The location, area and dimensions of a lawful building site on each lot.
(p) The number of lots, as assigned by the subdivider into which each such
parcel may be further divided by right pursuant to S 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance,
if applicable; provided, however, that no such assignment shall be required to be
shown on the copy of the plat which is to be recorded in the Clerk's Office.
(q) The deed book and page citation of the instrument whereby the parcel to
be subdivided was created.
(r) County Tax Map and Parcel Number.
(s) Owner's name.
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion.
There was no discussion, and the motion passed unanimously.
Briarwood - Dedication of Road "X"
Mr. Keeler stated to the Commission that he would like to raise four points
concerning Briarwood:
One, Camelot Drive is currently being used as a construction road and this use
was never approved. General Electric can naaobtain a grading permit and can now
open up an entrance from Route 29. Mr. Keeler stated that he was bringing this
matter to the attention of the Commission as a matter of record. No complaints
have been received, to date, Mr. Keeler said, but the use of Camelot Drive
could be subject to action by the Zoning Administrator.
Two, concerning the issue of recreational areas, Mr. Keeler stated that there
seemed to be some difference of opinion over terminology and the concept of
"playground." Mr. Keeler said that on the approved original plan for Briarwood,
which was discussed with Mr. McKee, the intent was to create a developed
recreational area of 4,800 square feet.
Mr. Keeler stated that he and Mr. Tucker visited the site and determined that
there is sufficient open space available to allow for installation of 9 major
pieces of playground equipment in open space, rather than designating the steep
62
slope in an undeveloped area as "playground" (as is shown on the Plan).
Three, Mr. Keeler asked the Commission to clarify their earlier decision
concerning sidewalk requirements on streets with 60 lots.
He stated that in the rezoning application it was stated that sidewalks shall
be provided along roads serving 60 lots or more and on main collector roads.
Mr. Keeler inquired of the Commission whether it was the Commission's intent
that sidewalks run the entire length of the street or begin where the street
serves 60 lots or more.
Mr. Skove said that if the street serves 60 or more lots, he would think it
was the intent of the Commission to require the entire street to have sidewalks.
Mr. Payne said that what staff is going to do is to require sidewalks on all
streets serving 60 or more lots, but holding this street, unless the Commission
tells Mr. Keeler that this is not right.
Mr. Wendell Wood stated that the same principle follows on roads; when a road
going into a subdivision reaches a certain criterion lot, standards change and
the road drops down in size.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there would be 60 homes without sidewalks.
Mr. Payne remarked that this was exactly the right principle, but that unfortu-
nately it does not work that way, you measure back from the intersection.
Mr. Wendell Wood said that the main point had been providing affordable
housing and that the cost factor was involved. He stated further that his
understanding had been that sidewalks would be provided on the main collector
roads down to the commercial area on Route 29. He stated that sidewalks were
not necessary on a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Davis said that he did not always favor sidewalks.
Mr. Skove stated that as he remembered the issue, it had been a matter of
density and that any street serving this many homes should have sidewalks along
the entire street.
Mr. Bowerman said that he believed that it was the intent of the Commission to
have sidewalks along the entire street.
Mr. Bowerman further pointed out that there would be children in the development,
that the applicant has a playground, and that you could not have children
traipsing across yards and in the street.
Mr. Wendell Wood stated that it had not been the intent of the Commission at
that time to require these sidewalks, that the whole subject was broached due
to costs.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that due to the particular configuration of this street
staff was recommending sidewalks as illustrated on the posted plan, shown in
orange.
Mr. Payne informed the Commission that it was not necessary for the Commission
to become more involved in the matter. rMr. Payne further stated that the
Commission had taken action and that it was now just a question of interpreting
what action had been taken.
The fourth point that Mr. Keeler said he wished to bring before the Commission
concerned issues related to adequate capacity at the Camelot Sewage Treatment
Plant. Mr. Keeler said that there were questions about flow, reserve capacity,
and whether hook-ups exist or are available to the Briarwood development as well
as to General Electric.
Mr. Keeler took this opportunity to read into the minutes the letter he wrote to
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority
addressing these same issues.
Mr. Keeler stated further that the directors of these two agencies met on Friday
and again today concerning this matter and that Mr. Keeler has not yet received
their response. Mr. Keeler said that he would notify the applicant as soon as he did.
Mr. Keeler stated that a plat for Briarwood would not be signed nor would a
building permit for General Electric be authorized until these requirements are
fulfilled.
Mr. Bowerman said that he remembered some discussion about the number of hook-ups
out there, there were considerable.
Mr. Keeler stated that both plans were approved with public sewer. He said that
a special use permit was approved for expansion of the plant for the General
Electric project and subsequently another special use permit was approved for
expansion of the plant that would include not only this project, but additional
capacity for later development on the other side.
Mr. Keeler stated that the first expansion has taken place, but that it was his
understanding that there has been no contact between Mr. Wood and these two
agencies since the second special use permit was approved for expansion of the
plant.
Mr. Keeler said that there is a question as to whether or not it is required
to expand the plant at this time; if there is capacity in the plant and that
capacity is available to the applicant, Mr. Keeler stated that he did not be-
lieve that expansion was ever a condition of approval, under those circumstances.
Mr. Keeler said that what was recommended at the rezoning phase was that the
applicant obtain a special use permit so that all of these questions could be
addressed at the same time.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler whether the question he was posing was whether
or not any hook-ups could be made with the current capacity at the treatment
plant or whether its capacity had to be expanded before these hook-ups could
be made.
Mr. Keeler replied, essentially, yes, that it is a question of whether or not
sewer is available, and even if it is, whether the State Water Control Board
will permit additional usage before these problems they are experiencing are
corrected. The Zoning ordinance prohibits signing a plat until sewer is available.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler what he needed from the Planning Commission
concerning the recreational area, in the way of guidance.
6
Mr. Keeler pointed out that recreational facilities were subject to staff
approval; that the playground could be in either of the two locations that
he and Mr. Tucker visited, or if that were not suitable, two lots could be
used. Mr. Keeler stated that he was not certain whether it would be appropriate
to defer the development of recreational facilities to a later phase.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wendell Wood whether he had any problem with the two
proposed locations in the open space.
Mr. Wood replied that it was not the intent of the applicant to locate a
formalized playground so close to housing, virtually in back yards. Mr. Wood
said that if the Commission could remember their earlier discussion of the
matter, it had been determined that the playground would be on the river bottom.
The only formalized, equipped playground was going to be located on the large
22-acre tract, Mr. Wood stated. The rest of` the area was designed to be open
space, he further stated, and the lots are only 3,300 square feet. Mr. Wood
suggested that these lots were -too small for swings.
Mr. Bowerman asked what 3,300 square feet measured.
Mr. Keeler replied 5,500.
Mr. Bowerman asked to be shown on the plan how far the large play area was
located from Phase III.
Mr. Davis asked how many different terms were being used to convey the concepts
of playground and open space.
Mr. Keeler stated that within the open space it was the staff's understanding
that there was going to be a large recreational area, two playgrounds, and
also tot lots, because that is what was shown on the plan.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that he was bringing the matter up in order to make the
Commission and applicant aware of the question of interpretation, that he was
seeking confirmation that staff's interpretation was in keeping with what the
Commission wanted.
Mr. Keeler said that there was a dispute over the terminology in the use of the
word playground and a dispute over sidewalks on streets serving 60 or more lots.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Keeler had appraised the Commission of the sewer
treatment plant problem. Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. Keeler what he needed
from the Commission, approval of the plat with the alignment of road x?
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler whether he had Highway Department approval of that
route, that he recalled some prior discussion about slope and a sewer line.
Mr. Keeler answered that those issues have been addressed by the Highway
Department and that the Highway Department is satisfied that the road can go
in in this location. Mr. Keeler further stated that it is his understanding
that it is just a matter of some technical items on the road plans.
Mr. Keeler stated that the sewer line will have to be relocated, and these
plats have already been amended to show the drainage easements that the
Highway Department is going to require.
Mr. Bowerman asked what further approvals were needed by the applicant in
order to have his plat signed - Highway Department, Service Authority, etc.
Mr. Payne stated that there was no way the applicant could have it bonded unless
he had Highway Department approval.
Mr. Keeler said that one issue that remained to be clarified was the question of
the construction road, but that he did not know whether the Commission could
address it tonight.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the construction road was on the approved plan.
Mr. Keeler replied that it was not.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was access from Route 606.
Mr. Keeler replied that there was, that he and Mr. Tucker had driven over that
Route today.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Wendell Wood had access to Route 606.
Mr. Keeler replied that the applicant does have access to Route 606 and might have
just as easily dropped gravel on that road as on the construction road.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the hold-up was.
Mr. Wood replied that he was not certain that a hold-up existed, but that he
had no control over what General Electric does.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the Highway Department had approved any alignment
from Route 606 to Briarwood along Austin Drive.
Mr. Wood replied no, that that was outside.
Mr. Keeler stated that the plans are approved, but General Electric has not
made application for an entrance permit.
Mr. Wood stated that the drainage easements were the last requirement by the
Highway Department and that they had been approved, that the Highway Department
would not approve one without the other. Mr. Wood added that he understood that
General Electric had sent the plat to Schnectady to be signed and that he did
not know how soon General Electric would open its entrance.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the whole thing is that Phase II was not to be constructed
until roads x and y were approved and bonded, and that if the construction road
is allowed to stay, it is going around the intent of the Board of Supervisors'
rezoning.
Mr. Keeler stated that access to Camelot Drive was specifically prohibited on
the plan and that he did not know if it was the intent of the Commission or
the Board of Supervisors to have construction traffic go through.
Mr. Keeler stated that when actual building begins, this traffic will increase.
Mr. Wood stated that he would like to see the Commission prohibit the issuance
of an occupancy permit and determine that the construction road be closed the
day the General Electric entrance opens. The applicant further stated that the
cost on a daily basis if they were delayed would run $1044.
Mr. Bowerman said that he personally had no objection to the use of the construction
road until the General Electric entrance opens, if the applicant gets bonded,
64�1
has plat signed, and fulfills all requirements; when a building permit is
issued, the road should be closed and the Zoning Administrator notified.
Mr. Wood pointed out that gravel had been laid on the unasphalted portion of
Camelot Drive and that the construction vehicles never drive through dirt -
that after leaving asphalt they hit gravel.
Mr. Davis expressed some desire to offer relief to the applicant, but without
overstepping Planning Commission authority.
Mr. Keeler reiterated that traffic along Camelot Drive for the present was not
prompting any complaints, but that with weather changes and the start of
actual building there could be problems and that at any time there could be
action taken by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Skove moved to approve dedication of Road "X", subject to Highway
Department approval and the appropriate sewer/water agency approval.
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion.
There was no discussion of the motion, and it passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
0