HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 19 81PC MinutesMay 19, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 19, 1981, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building,
Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members persent were Mrs. Norma
Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrici,, Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr. Richard Cogan.
Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and
Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
Miss Caperton pointed out that the Turtle Creek Site Plan, listed on the agenda
under Old Business, would not be presented.
Miss Caperton pointed out to the Commission that information on the sidewalk
and bike plans was included in the packets. She asked that the Commissioners
review this information as it would be discussed at the next meeting.
Fox Hill Final Plat: DEFERRED FROM APRIL 28, 1981.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that they agree with all
of the conditions recommended by the Staff except for condition 1.e. (Note that
the existing grade crossings are to be used only as farm access and will be
abandoned when closed by the C & 0 Railroad). Mr. Roudabush pointed out that
the topographic map indicates that there are steep slopes along the stream at
the rear boundary line, noting that this would be the only access to this parcel
if the crossings were closed.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the crossings were granted by C & 0 Railroad in 1946 as
a compensation for the purchase of 4.13 acres of land, for railroad right-of-way.
He noted that if the crossings could be closed it would be done by the railroad
pointing out that this was, in his opinion, a private matter between the railroad
and the applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Roudabush if he was objecting to the part of the
condition which reads ''and will be abandoned when closed by the C & 0 Railroad.''
Mr. Roudabush stated that he was objecting to the County imposing this condition.
He noted that they were not objecting to restricting the use of the crossings
for farm use only.
OR
Mrs. Diehl stated that if C & 0 felt they could close these crossings, this
matter is between the landowner and the railroad.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Roudabush if lot number five would have access from the
private road or the state road.
Mr. Roudabush stated that lots two and five would have access from the state
road, noting that this is on the plat.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the surveyor has shown a thirty thousand (30,000) square
foot building site.
Mr. Roudabush stated that this has not been delineated on the topographic maps
but this condition for approval was acceptable.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this final plat with the following conditions:
I. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the private
street commercial entrance;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
c. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
d. A street sign shall be provided;
e. Note that the two existing grade crossings are to be used only as
farm access;
f. Provide evidence of a minimum 30,000 square foot building site on
each lot;
g. Written Health Department approval;
h. Provide a road name.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
McCauley Final Plat - REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL.
Mr. Davis made a motion to accept the request for withdrawal of this plat.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
R
-3 i %
Evernghim Blake Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 601, north of
Route 676 and adjacent to the Mechum's River; a proposal to divide 92.5 acres
ice,,, into 5 lots ranging in size from 8.044 acres to 29.965 acres. Jack Jouett and
White Hall Magisterial Districts. (Tax Map 43, Parcel 45).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that the right-of-ways were
specified in the deeds but no mention of the widths were given. He noted that
Mr. Blake has tried to obtain from adjacent property owners additional land
for a fifty (50) foot right-of-way, but the adjacent owners were reluctant to
sell.
Mr. Foster pointed out that Mr. Blake plans to retain parcel number five (5)
which contains valuable timber. He also noted that if this parcel were to be
sold access to the property would have to be approved.
Mr. Blake asked Mr. Foster to explain to the Commission his intention to have
parcel five (5) serve as a green belt area.
Mr. Foster stated that parcel number five (5) is a separate parcel across the
river. He noted that a hundred foot strip along the river, has been included
in parcel five. He noted that this strip would be used by all the adjacent
owners for bike trails, horse back riding, etc.. He also noted that the deed
would restrict the rights of each of the owners as to the use of this property.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the Commission could give relief to the require-
ment for a thirty (30) foot access easement.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the Commission should not give relief to the
requirement for a thirty (30) foot access easement.
Mr. Cogan asked if there would be a problem with getting electricity on this
property, noting that VEPCO requires a 30' easement.
Mr. Foster stated that electrical lines for the adjoining parcels, are close to
the boundary at this time and he did not feel there would be a problem in obtaining
electricity for this property.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission did not see a preliminary plat for
this property.
Mr. Cogan asked how wide the existing right-of-way is.
Mr. Blake replied that this right-of-way is twenty-five (25) feet wide.
Mr. Foster stated that the right-of-way was provided for this property years ago,
but in searching the titles he could not find where the width of the right-of-way
was expressed. When the plat for the adjacent parcel was signed, it stated only
"existing right-of-way." He noted that the adjoining property owners were
adamant about changing the right-of-way.
�l0
Mr. Cogan stated that the right-of-way would have to be at least twenty (20)
feet wide because of twelve (12) feet for gravel surface plus shoulders and wild
ditches.
Mr. Foster stated that in his opinion, it would be easier to obtain permission
from the adjoing property owners to build the twelve (12) foot road than obtain
a thirty or forty foot right-of-way.
Mr. Blake stated that this right-of-way was originally an old County road used
to cross the Hechums and Mormans River. He also noted that if the ditches were
filled they would come close to having a 30' right-of-way, but noted the amount
of soil which would have to be moved to accomplish this.
Mr. Cogan stated that he would have no objections if the road could be built
to the specifications of the County Engineer without trespassing.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
would require a thirty foot right-of-way.
Mrs. Diehl asked if it would be possible to put a road into parcel number four,
noting that the topographic map shows that there are 25% slopes on this parcel.
Mr. Foster stated that the road could be built into parcel four and this would
be subject to the County Engineers approval.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if a note on the plat requiring County Engineer's
approval of access to parcel 5 is the best procedure to follow.
Mr. Payne replied that this procedure would be correct to follow noting that
the Mechums River is an obvious feature of this plat. He pointed out that any-
one buying this land would have knowledge that the river exists. He also stated
that in order to build a low water bridge Mr. Blake would have to apply for a
special use permit.
Mr. Blake noted that he has a bridge off the river in Scottsville which is intact
and he doubted that he would build another bridge.
Mr. Payne stated that any type of bridge that goes over the river is subject to
a special use permit under the Zoning Ordinance and if a bridge is installed
without a special use permit its a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
fir. Cogan stated that if the road were built to the satisfaction of the County
Engineer then this should be adequate.
Mrs. Diehl asked if it would be possible to enlarge the road only on one
side rather than both.
Mr. Foster replied that the adjacent parcel already has an established line and
that this property is involved in a trust which makes it almost impossible to
deal with.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the thirty (30) foot access easement was necessary
for the property to be developed.
Mr. Blake explained to the Commission that his main purpose for dividing the
ninety two acres, is to divide it among his children
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if family divisions were provided for in the
subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that family divisions are provided for in the subdivision
ordinance, but in his opinion, based on the information given by Mr. Blake
he would not meet these requirements.
Mr. Skove questioned the width of the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Foster stated that it is approximately twenty five feet wide, but this could
vary according to the location of the road banks.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there are no dwellings on this property at the
present time.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the road is utilized to the boundary line on
this parcel at the present time.
Mr. Blake explained to the Commission that any improvements to the right-of-way
would be made by qualified engineers.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this property is farm land.
Mr. Foster replied that this is wooded land.
Mr. Bowerman asked what type of usage has been on this road up to the property
line from Rt. 601.
Mr. Blake stated that some wood had been removed from this property via this
road. He noted that only three or four house sites would be involved and that
he did not plan to cut any timber.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that as long as the applicant could meet condition #l.d.
"County Engineer approval of road plans" he felt that the condition for
a minimum 30 foot access easement from Rt. 601 should be deleted.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
c. County Engineer approval of road plans;
d. Note the assignment of development rights (two remaining);
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
2. Plans for the access into parcel 5 shall be approved by the County Engineer
and other appropriate officials prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Waiver of 30 foot easement requirement granted.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support this motion as she did not feel
that everything possible had been done to achieve the thirty (30) foot
easement.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that he is in favor of granting approval for this plat, but
noted that he would not support any further divisions.
Mr. Foster explained that there were two remaining development rights because
two of the parcels are larger than twenty-one acres. He also noted that any
further division would have to be approved by the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl called for a vote on the motion made by Mr. Skove.
The motion carried by a vote of 4-3 with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Davis,
dissenting.
Trinity Presbyterian Church Site Plan - located off the south side of State Route
702, west of the U.S. Route 29 Bypass and north of 1-64; a proposal to locate a
17,646 square foot church on 18.20 acres. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 76, a portion of parcel 17).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments at this time.
Mr. David Turner stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission
may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
Frank Cox, the engineer for the Church, stated that they agree with the recommended
conditions for approval suggested by the Staff, but would like to ask the
Commission to require condition #c (County Engineer approval of Stormwater
Detention requirements and curbing and drainage facilities) be required when
they applied for a building permit. He noted that the Church would like to have
an opportunity to discuss this with the Albemarle Soil Coservation Service.
He also noted that the County Engineer has stated that the precise description
of the stormwater management structure could be submitted at a later date.
With no further comments from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked what portion of the site was to be developed in relation to
the 13.20 acre Darcel._
David Turner pointed out on the plat the location of old Route 29, the interstate
and Camp Holiday Trails. He also noted the location of the water lines. He
noted that this would represent about 6 acres of the 18+ plat, the remainder of
the acreage forms the boundaries.
�� 1
Mrs. Diehl asked what if any plans the Church has for the remaining
twelve acres.
Mr. Turner explained that picnic areas, walkways, etc. would be developed
immediately. He noted that any long term development plans would have to
wait until their budget improves.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the soil erosion and runoff control calculations were
based on the entire parcel.
Miss Caperton stated that these calculations are based on the entire parcel.
noting that if any impervious areas are added the calculations would be reviewed again
Mir. Davis asked why condition l.h. (staff approval of landscaping and pathways
from the parking areas to the Church),has been recommended for approval since
the Church is the only one affected by the landscaping.
Miss Caperton replied that landscaping is a requirement of the ordinance.
Mr. Turner noted that a landscape architect would be working with the Church
in greater detail and they hoped to apply more sensitivity to the landscape
plans.
Mr. Cogan asked if there had been any comment from the highway department
concerning the entrances.
Miss Caperton replied that since the road would be used only by the Church and
forestry department the highway department had no problem with the entrances.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the entrances are beyond State maintenance and asked if
the Church would be responsibile for maintenance of the road.
Mr. Turner stated that the road was in good shape and meets state specifications.
Mrs. Diehl asked who is responsible for the maintenance of the road.
Miss Caperton stated that maintenance of the road is the responsibility of
the owners along this road.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that a maintenance agreement would not be required.
Miss Caperton noted that the Church is responsible for safe and convenient
access to the Church.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Church is responsible to the people who use
the road, to have a safe and convenient access.
Mrs. Diehl asked if this proposal would be built at one time or if there
would be phasing.
Mr. Turner replied that everything shown on the site plan would be built
in one phase.
3YI
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Williams, County Enaineer had not reviewed
any preliminary plans for stormwater detention.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions can be
met:
a. Compliance with the technical requirements of Article 32.0 of the
zoning ordinance;
b. Written health department approval; no septic system or portion of the
drainfield shall be located on slopes of 25% or greater;
c. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention requirements and
curbing and drainage facilities;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans (a revision
to the site plan is necessary to show connection to the correct water
line);
f. Fire Marshall approval of fire flow, hydrant and dumpster location, and
provisions for the handicapped; the hydrant shall be maintained by the
church to an appropriate standard if located outside highway department
right-of-way;
g. Parking bumpers shall be provided to mark spaces;
h. Staff approval of landscaping and pathways from the parking area to
the church;
i. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders Model Home Site Plan - located on the northeast
corner of the intersection of U.S. Route 29 North and State Route 649; a
proposal to locate a 1,064 square foot model home on a 1.40 acre parcel.
Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 32A, parcel 2-1).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Bolton stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission
may have.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the parcel in question is not the Jim Ewing Ford
site.
Miss Caperton presented the Commission with a plat showing the location
of the parcel in question.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the construction plans for public water did not
need to be a condition for approval.
'372,
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was a limitation as to when the mobile home had to
be removed.
Miss Caperton stated that there is no requirement in the ordinance, but noted
that the amount of the performance bond would be reviewed for adequacy.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Written health department approval;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
c. A performance bond for the removal of the building shall be posted.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Westfield, Lots 5A-3 and 5A-6, Final Plat - located on the south side of West-
field Road, west of U.S. Route 29 North; a proposal to divide a 14,151 square
foot parcel leaving a 22,371 square foot parcel in residue. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. (Tax Mpa 61W, Parcel 1-A-1).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he had any comments at this time.
Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, asked how the subdivision plat could
be signed before a site plan has been submitted since the Staff's conditions
requires a joint commercial entrance when the uses are determined.
Mr. Payne noted that a statement of subdivision should be included on the plat
or by separate document. He noted that this would include the desired flexibility
in terms of potential uses as well as providing for maintenance.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the owner has to sign the plat.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Payne how the pending special use permit effects this
property.
Miss Caperton stated that the special use permit for a veterinary hospital
is scheduled for review by the Commission in June.
Mr. Payne stated that this should be addressed when the special use permit
is being considered.
Miss Caperton noted that the special use permit is for the entire parcel.
Mr. Payne stated that a condition could be added to read "special use permit
to apply to the parcel in question".
3 y3
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the special use permit has not been advertised
to date.- She also noted that this advertisemert would include the tax map
number and parcel number.
Mrs. Gloeckner asked Mr. Payne how an additional subdivision sheet would take
care of the joint entrance.
Mr. Payne stated that this would include information such as the type of
easement, width, maintenance, reserving the details of the entrances to the
approval of the highway department, etc.
Mr. Gloeckner asked how this condition should be stated.
Mr. Payne stated that the condition could read as follows:
• A commercial entrance shall be shared by these two parcels. The
location shall be determined and approved by the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation when the use or uses are determined. The
language of the easement and maintenance provisions shall be approved by
the County Attorney.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like to see a distance given from the
northeast corner to Commonwealth Drive and the adjacent owner at the rear
of the site be noted, so that the location of the property could be determined.
He noted that this information should be on the plat. He also stated that
he felt this should be added to the conditions for approval of this plat.
Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. A commercial entrance whall be shared by these two parcels. The
location shall be determined and approved by the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation when the use or uses are determined.
The language of the easement and maintenance provisions shall be
approved by the County Attorney.
b. Reference the distance from the northeast corner of the site to
Commonwealth Drive and note the adjacent owner at the rear of the
site.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wynridge, Phase 2, Final Plat - REQUESTS DEFERRAL UNTIL JUNE 23, ig81.
Mr. Davis made a motion to accept the request for deferral of this plat
until June 23, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
37q
OLD BUSINESS:
Miss Caperton noted that the Turtle Creek Site plan listed on the agenda
would not be presented.
Northside Baptist Church Site Plan:
Miss Caperton noted that this site plan was approved August 30, 1977 and
one of the conditions was that any future improvements would require Planning
Commission approval. She noted that the applicant is requesting additional
parking but that no additional landscaping would be done at this time.
Mr. Paxton, the applicant, noted that they are requesting additional parking
area, for approximately thirty (30) cars. He noted that this area would have
4" of gravel and that no landscaping would be involved.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that landscaping is provided on the perimeter of the
area.
Mrs. Diehl asked Miss Caperton if the base of the parking lot was specified
on the plan.
Miss Caperton replied that this is not specified on the plan.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this had to be approved by the County Engineer.
Mrs. Diehl noted that one of the conditions of approval for this site plan
was that the sizing of septic system and watere lines be done to accomodate
future growth, she asked the applicant if this had been done.
Mr. Paxton replied that pipes and water lines had been sized for future
development.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the request for additional parking area
subject to the County Engineer's approval of parking plan and gravel base with
no surface at this time.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Rober W. Tucker, Jr., Se reta
3 �S