HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 23 81 PC MinutesJune 23, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 23, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Court Square
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman,
Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., and Mr. Richard
Cogan. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County
Attorney and Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent from the meeting were
Mr. David Bowerman and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting
to order.
Fruit Growers Complex Site Plan - DEFERRED FROM FEBRUARY 24, 1981.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant, presented the Commission with a
document which spoke to several concerns noted by the Commission in the past.
..% Mr. Dick stated that "this is an old business been here a long time. The most
difficult thing we had to ascertain -- who owned the state highway. And after
consulting with Byron Coburn and going through the deeds on record in the
Courthouse the best we can ascertain is that -- and this was approved by the
Albemarle County Planning Commission back in 1972. The Fruit Growers bought from
C & 0 Railroad the land that comes -- if you have been out there 240 comes through
and it blends right into the parking lot of Fruit Growers. Comes down thru here.
By this deed -- deed book 41 page 681 -- the Fruit Growers purchased from the
C & 0 Railroad the land that comes to the middle of -- that we can ascertain --
of the state presently highway. Virginia State Highway Department has no plans
in the next 5,10,15 or 20 years, in fact they have no plans to improve 240 at this
junction. While no one is certain of the ownership of this because it predates
the highway department existence 1927. The best we can ascertain is that anything
that belongs to Fruit Growers from the edge line of St. Rt. 240 is the Fruit Growers,
So if we need an entrance permit, as we are showing here, we are asking for a
70' entrance permit -- believe the highway standared is 50'. The reason we are
asking for that additional 20' is that we need room for tractor and trailers to
draw in here and back up to the storage area. If anyone is going to be able to
obtain a permit its going to be Fruit Growers because they own the land--OK--
and that was one of your concern as to who owned this."
Mr. Dick also stated that ''now while I'm on this -- the ordinance requires a
dedication a right-of-way of 25'. And the practicaltly of that is that that the
right-of-way that the highway department of Virginia obtained from these two
landowners back in the early days, when this place first started-- Theres no
way to ascertain by our calculations and the certified surveyor is the highway
going to determine where the property entrance actually comes into the street.
Highway department says we know we got a right-of-way because we have always
had a road there and if nothing else we have a restrictive easement. The
applicant request that the 25' dedication be waived by the Planning Commission
because it couldn't be done. If you dedicate 25' from the best that we can
determine the property line, you are going to be 5' into the store or eliminate
all these parking spaces. The point being is that the highway department has
no future plans at this time to improve any of this. So we would say that that
requirement as a matter of practicalitly ought to be waived.
Mr. Dick noted that a variance had to be obtained in order to meet the parking
requirements. He stated that the Crozet Fire Department has indicated that
they will give them parking spaces which could be used for employee parking.
He noted that a variance had been granted pertaining to the septic system which
notes that the present use of the complex would not require more than 480 gallons
per day. He also explained that one of the conditions of the variance was that
when public sewer is available Fruit Growers must hook up to it. He also
noted that in the event a septic system was needed, there is ample space for one.
Mr. Dick noted the concerns outlined in a letter dated February 26, 1981 and
stated that each of these concerns had been addressed.
Mr. Dick reiterated that they are requesting:
• a waiver of the 25' right-of-way dedication;
• waiver of the requirement for space stops in the parking areas.
He asked that the Commission take some action on this as they feel that all
the requirements have been met.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
Charlie Manson, also representing the applicant, asked where the gas pumps
referred to by Miss Caperton were located.
Miss Caperton replied that the tanks are behind the garage and would have to be
approved by the Fire Official.
Mr. Rausch, the applicant, stated that in his opinion, Mr. Tyler would be an
asset to the community. He requested the Commission to act favorably on their
request.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Dick why the information requested by the Commission was
not supplied to the Staff in the time period allotted.
Mr. Dick stated that they did not submit anything to the Staff until they had
all the requested information. He noted that he did not feel that this delay
should affect the decision of the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that it is the feeling of Mr. Dick that all the
information requested in the letter of February 26, 1981 had been supplied.
Mrs. Diehl noted that there is no mention as to the number of parking spaces ;,
that would be supplied by the Fire Department. She noted that twenty spaces
are needed in order to meet parking requirements.
Mr. Dick stated that a certificate of occupancy would not be granted "unless
all the specifications shown on the site plan have been met.
He also noted that he has a letter from Crozet Fire Department stating that they
will grant the additional parking spaces. He noted that they determined with the
Fire Department that the maximum number of parking spaces would be twenty.
Charlie Manson stated that the Zoning Administrator decided the exact number of
parking spaces required on June 1. He noted that the applicant was required only
to provide evidence that a cooperative parking agreement could be reached and no
specific number of spaces was required.
Miss Caperton stated that the twenty spaces is a requirement made by the Board
of Zoning Appeals.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if the twenty spaces could not be obtained from the
fire department, the remaining parking spaces would have to be located on the Fruit
Growers site.
Mr. Davis stated that he does not feel that the right-of-way dedication could be
waived as this is required by the ordinance. He also noted that he would like to
see written health department approval of the septic systems.
Ms. Caperton stated that the location of the septic system is in question and
noted that the health department would have to dig up the tanks in order to
determine if they are adequate.
Mr. Cogan stated that the health department has stated that there is ample
room for another septic system, if necessary.
Mrs. Diehl noted that one of the conditions of the variance was that no
business would be changed that would increase the capacity of the sewage intake.
She questioned the number of businesses established at the time of the variance.
Mr. Dick stated that no new businesses have been established since the variance
He reiterated that the engineer has stated that the complex would not require
more than 480 gallons per day.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the septic facility which would be used by the craft
shop is the one that cannot be located.
Mr. Dick stated that they have verification from the health department that
there has not been a problem with this system. He reiterated that when public
sewer is available Fruit Growers will have to connect to it.
Mrs. Diehl asked 19r. Payne if the Commission could legally approve a site plan
when the legal boundary of the site is not known.
Mr. Payne stated that if he interprets the plan correctly the boundary is in
the middle of the parking lot.
Mr. Rausch stated that the deed shows that Fruit Growers bought the land from
the C & 0 Railroad and the property line was in the middle of the highway.
yy�
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the middle of the highway could not be located.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was no direct communication between the
Staff and the highway department concerning the center line of the highway.
Mr. Skove stated that condition #d of the Staff's recommended conditions of
approval should be adequate. (CONDITION #D - Dedication of right-of-way for
Rt. 810, if applicable, and note the center line of Rt. 810).
Mr. Skove ascertained that Mr. Dick objects to the requirement for a dedication
on Rt. 240 because it will not serve any public interest.
Mr. Dick stated that Fruit Growers own to the middle of the highway as shown
on the plat. He noted that this plat predates the existenence of the highway
department.
Mr. Payne stated that he has not had the opportunity to review this data
mentioned by Mr. Dick. He noted that the site plan shows the property line
somewhere other than the center of the road.
Mr. Payne ascertained that the correct front property lines are shown on the
site plan.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if these are the correct property lines the parking spaces
would be invalidated because there is not enough turning radius on the property
for vehicles leaving the site.
Mr. Cogan stated that he favors waiving the 25' right-of-way dedication and
noted that this proposal would serve a very necessary purpose in the Crozet
area.
Mr. Davis noted that concrete curbs had been built on this property and questioned
if this was legal since the ownership of the property is in question.
Ms. Caperton stated that the highway department was in agreement to building
the median because it helps with the traffic flow.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following:
1. Certificates of occupancy for these uses will be issued when the applicant
has met the following conditions:
a. County Attorney approval of cooperative parking agreement if needed;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrances and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and C & 0
Railroad approval of commercial entrances where needed;
c. Health Department approval of septic systems and drainfields serving
all uses on the site and note drainfields on the plan;
d. Dedication of right-of-way for Rt. 810, if applicable, and note the
center line of Rt. 810;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
f. Fire Official approval of gas pumps;
g. Staff approval of landscaping as required in Article 21.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
h. Dedication of right-of-way to public use on Rt. 240 may require the
relocation of one parking space; L/
i. Size of parking spaces and aisle must comply with specifications in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
nicriiccinN-
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support the motion as the information
requested by the Commission was not supplied and she felt that the applicant
did not act in good faith in supplying the information.
VOTE:
The motion carried by a vote of 3-2, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Davis dissenting.
Wynridge, Phase II, Final Plat - Requests deferral to July 21, 1981.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the request for deferral of this plat until
July 21, 1981.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Greene Gardens Revised Site Plan - Requests withdrawal.
Mr. Kindrick moved to accept the request for withdrawal of this site plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
C. S. W., Lots 1-5 Preliminary Plat - Located at the end of Dudley Mountain Road,
off the east side of Route 706, west of Route 631 South; proposal to divide 23.8
acres into 5 lots with an average size of 4.8 acres. Samuel Miller District.
(TM 89, Parcel 76, portion of).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Jack Stoner, representing the applicant, stated that there is 240' of sight
distance to the south and 300' to the north, adding that he felt that this
is adequate. He noted that this is a residential area and that improvements
to the entrance should be adequate as they cannot afford to put in a commercial
entrance.
Gary Bibb, an adjacent owner stated that he is concerned with the entrance
to this property, noting that gravel from this entrance washes onto the main
' road causing cars to maneuver around it.
Charles Hughes, an adjacent owner, stated that the requirement for a commercial
entrance is not necessary as the traffic generation in this area would not be
/ t
substantially increased.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the thirty (30) foot access right-of-way shown
on the plat is part of the residue parcel.
Mr. Davis asked what the size of the residue parcel is.
Ms. Caperton stated that one parcel is five acres, noting that the applicant
is proposing to divide the other residue parcel in accordance with the new zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that an existing parcel of record could be divided by
right.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the entrance to this site is steep and asked if this
meets the requirements of the highway department for a commercial entrance.
Ms. Caperton noted that the highway department recommends a 100' long, 12' wide
turn lane with a 100' taper for this entrance if a commercial entrance is
required. She also noted that this road is prime and double seal at the
present time.
Mr. Skove noted that the applicant is proposing to divide the 23.8 acres into
five lots. He also stated that the Commission waived the requirement for a
commercial entrance for this property.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the Commission approved the Dudley Mountain
Lodges Site Plan subject to a condition that any further development of
the property would require review by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any comment from the highway department
concerning the sight distance at this entrance.
Ms. Caperton read the following from a letter dated April 2, 1981 from the
highway department:
"Please be advised that a speed study was conducted on March 27, 1981 to
determine sight distance requirement for upgrading the entrance at Dudley
Mountain Lodges; 85th percentile speed of 37 mph was recorded.
Accordingly, 400' of sight distance will be required in each direction,
length of turn lane necessary will be 100' long, 12' wide with a 100'
taper. I have informed Mr. Jack Stoner of this information verbally."
Mr. Skove ascertained that in the Staff's recommended conditions of approval
for this plat a commercial entrance is not required.
Ms. Caperton noted that the Staff usually presents to the Commission the
recommendation of the highway department. She also stated that in this
case Staff felt that the applicants proposal should be presented to the
Commission as the applicant feels that they cannot comply with the
recommendations of the highway department.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the applicant was aware that the Commission would examine
the necessity for a commercial entrance if further division of this property
was submitted for approval. She stated that she felt the recommendations of the
highway department should be complied with.
Mr. Cogan stated that a 100' taper and decel lane with 300' sight distance,
in his opinion, should be adequate for this site.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. Provide evidence of a minimum 30,000 square foot building site on
each lot;
c. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of improvements to Dudley Mountain Road
and the proposed extension; and
2) County Attorney approval of the inclusion of these lots into the
maintenance agreement;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance with a 100 foot turn lane, 100 foot taper, with 300 feet of
sight distance to the east and 300 feet of sight distance to the west.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Stoner asked if condition #e of the above conditions of approval means
that the dip has to be filled.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission is speaking to the sight distance and that
the highway department has to approve the sight distance.
Mr. Stoner stated that the applicant needs to know on what grounds the Commission
made their recommendations.
Mr. Skove stated that the condition was based on the applicants proposal to
construct a 50 foot decel lane, 50 foot taper and clearing for 300 feet of
sight distance.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that this proposal was recommended only for sight
distance to the south.
Mr. Davis made a motion to reconsider the C.S.W. Preliminary Plat.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ms. Caperton stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 50' decel lane,
50' taper and clearing for 300' of sight distance to the south.
�rr+y:
She also noted that sight distance to the west is 240'
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the conditions outlined
in his previous motion, changing condition #e to read as follows:
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance with a 100 foot turn lane, 100 foot taper, with 300 feet of
sight distance to the east and 240 feet of sight distance to the west.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Grassmere Farm, Phase II, Revised Final Plat - located off the south side of
Route 679, south of Route 738, near Ivy; proposal to divide three (3) additional
lots as approved in the special use permit bringing the total number of lots in
Phase II to twelve (12) lots. Samuel Miller District. (TM 58, portion of parcel
20).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Wagoner, the applicant, stated that there is no change in this proposal
from the special use permit approved several weeks ago.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
I. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. A street sign shall be provided;
C. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement;
2) County Engineer approval of road plans for new portion of road;
d. Fire Official approval of the dry hydrant.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Turtle Creek Amended Site Plan - located on the east side of Route 743 (Hydraulic
Road , north of Commonwealth Drive (Extended); proposal to amend the previously
approved building locations and recreational facilities, and provide an additional
18 units on the southeast portion of the site. Charlottesville District.
(TM 61, Parcels 44 and 45).
Ms. Caperton stated that this site plan was submitted with bonus provisions
that are incorrect and that the Staff has not received an amended plan. She
noted that the zoning on the site is R-10 and that the applicant is asking for
higher density. She asked the Commission if they wished to consider this site
plan at this time or wait until Staff has time to review it with the correct
bonuses.
Mrs. Diehl stated that its been recognized that some of the bonuses that were
added to the density were incorrect and that they must be reevaluated.
J/
4�J
Mr. Davis ascertained that the discrepancy involves several units.
Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that the discrepancy is less
than 5% and asked the Commission to consider their request at this time.
Mr. Sincaair stated that this plan was previously approved for two hundred and
seventy (270) units. He noted that one major discrepancy is that the corner lot
was zoned B-1 and was not included in the residential development. The property
has been rezoned to R-10 and the present problem is the density involved.
He noted that they plan to obtain bonus points in the following manner:
• dedication of a strip of land to the highway department for imrovements
to Hydraulic Road;
• planting street trees on Hydraulic Road and the edge of the cutback on
Commonwealth Drive as well as through the visible portion of the site.
He pointed out that a 20% bonus factor could be obtained by maintaining all
the vegetation in the Oak Forest area except for what needed to be cleared
for drainage.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Sinclair would like to know at this time
how the Commission feels regarding the bonus factors.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would rather not review the site plan until Staff
has had the opportunity to review the additional information.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the applicant is proposing trees 25' on center, noting
that the bonus provision calls for trees 15' on center.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the increase in this proposal is because of the type
of trees they are proposing to plant.
Mr. Skove asked what the 20% bonus is for.
Mr. Sinclair stated that this is for landscaping along the access ways. He noted
that if one dedicates land for public use, the ordinance allows for double the
density on the site. He also pointed out that if this plan is approved, the
applicant is willing to dedicate 2/3 of an acre to the highway department for
improvements to Hydraulic Road.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission has no response to the bonus factors, other
than they are as written in the ordinance, and will be discussed in detail once
the Staff has had the opportunity to review them.
Mr. Payne explained how the bonuses work for maintaining vegetation.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the Staff should have adequate time to
review the bonus information and asked the Commissioners how they felt
concerning this.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt the Staff should review this also.
Mr. Skove moved to defer this site plan to the July 7, 1981 Planning Commission
meeting.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hollymead, Parcel E, Section 3, Final Plat - located on the north side of
Powell Creek Drive and on Tinker's Cove Road at its intersection with Powell '
Creek Drive; proposal to divide 6,033 acres into 36 lots intended for single
family attached units. Charlottesville District. (TM 46B(2), Parcel 03-E).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this final plat.
Mr. Ed Groger, an adjacent owner, stated that the homeowners in Hollymead are
opposed to this plan, noting that the multiple units will change the complexion
of the development. He noted the following concerns of the homeowners:
• value of property,
• increased traffic,
• increased school enrollment;
• drainage.
He asked that the Commission consider each of these concerns in their review of
this plat.
Mr. Steve Brown, an adjacent owner asked if improvements to the road could be
included in the conditions of approval for this plat.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the recommended conditions of approval spoke to the
road improvements.
Mrs. Diehl noted that when the planned unit development was approved the traffic
analysis that was approved with the plan spoke to a greater density than will be
achieved at Hollymead. She stated that because Hollymead will be developed at a
lower density that intended in the orginial plan, there is some question as to
whether the road improvements required for the planned unit development are still
applicable. She stated that this concern will be addressed by the Commission when
the public hearing is closed.
Quinton Nottingham, an adjacent owner, stated that at the time he purchased his
home this area was zoned for multi -family but the developer stated that they had
no design to pursue the multi -family option. He noted thatw►ith several
other homeowners, he is under the impression that this subdivision is designed strictly
for single family residences. He stated that he did not feel that the multi -family
units would be in keeping with the area.
Cris Covert, an adjacent owner, stated that parcels a, b, and c were designed
for single family use and now the developer wishes to change these to multi -family
uses. He asked that the Commission take this into consideration.
Glen Steigman, an adjacent owner, stated that Hollymead was developed with
openness in mind. He pointed out that in his opinion, this proposal does
not comply with the concept of Hollymead. He noted that Dr. Hurt had at one time,
found that the high density buildings in Hollymead were too expensive and asked
that apartments be clustered near the school. He reiterated that this proposal
is not in keeping with Hollymead development.
Frank Smiley, an adjacent owner, stated that he did not feel that multi -family
homes were in keeping with the concept of Hollymead.
Joe Posten, an adjacent owner, stated that he was led to believe that this
area would be developed in keeping with the concept of Hollymead. He stated
that he is not in favor of multi -family residences in this area.
Bob Moon, an adjacent owner, stated that he also is not in favor of multi -family
residences because thev are not in keeping with the concept of Hollymead.
Don Holland, an adjacent owner, stated that he is opposed to multi family
dwellings in Hollymead.
Kathleen Baker, an adjacent owner, stated that the proposed location of the
multi -family units is,according to what she had been led to believe , open space.
She also stated that she did not feel that these units are in keeping with the
concept of Hollymead.
Jack Larkes, an adjacent owner, stated that these units would take away from
the character of Hollymead.
Mr. Groger asked if this plat would be presented to the Board of Supervisors_
if it was approved by the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that site plans and final plats are approved at the Planning
Commission level and only reviewed by the Board of Supervisors if they are
appealed by an aggrevied party.
Kay Stoner, an adjacent owner, stated that she is against this proposal for the
reasons mentioned by other adjacent owners.
Bill LaRue, an adjacent owner, stated that most of the homeowners here have
their life savings invested in their homes, and noted that he did not feel
multi -family residences were in keeping with the development.
Kathleen Baker noted that the homes in Hollymead were costly and that the
people were willing to pay for the priviledges outlined tonight and asked that
the Commission take into account all the concerns of the homeowners.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Sinclair noted that each of the duplex units is intended to be sold
separately.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Commission is reviewing a subdivision plat which
indicates that each side of the duplex is intended to be sold as a separate unit.
Mr. Davis noted that the complete plans and specifications for the Hollymead
PUD are on record in the Planning Department. He also pointed out that these
plans have been reviewed and approved by both the Board of Supervisors and the
Planning Commission. He stated that the Commission could not take away the
rights of landowners, that they could only make sure that he adheres to restrictions
as outlined in the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked if this parcel being reviewed by the Commission was previously
approved for 18 multi -family units.
Miss Caperton outlined the history of the Hollymead PUD noting that it was
approved in 1972 for 740 units. She also pointed out the changes in the number
of units approved for each parcel.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on the highway departments
position regarding the entrances.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the road into Hollymead and Powell Creek Drive were
constructed to serve Hollymead School and were built to a standard suitable to
carry the traffic generated from the school and eighty-five units of the
development. He noted that the highway department was relucant to accept this
road into the system because they would have no authority to require up -grading
of the road.
He pointed out that one of the conditions of approval for SP-156 stated that
the developer could not build more than eighty-five units until the roads were
up -graded to carry the additional traffic.
He also pointed out that there was an agreement between the County and the State
in which the highway department indicated what they would accept regarding the
roads as the development went beyond the first eighty-five units.
He noted that in order to make a valid judgement concerning these entrances, he
would need more information concerning the flow of the traffic and what will be
developed. He stated that the highway department supports the Staff's recommendation
that the roads be improved and the entrances be located in accordance with the
Staff and highway department recommendations.
Mrs. Diehl if the approval of SP-156 spoke to the road improvements. Wad
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the following recommendation was made to the Board
of Supervisors by Mr. Humphrey:
• no permits to be issued beyond eighty-five units or six hundred vehicle
trips per day until such time as the present roads are up graded to meet
the vehicle per day count as maybe proposed by the developer by virtue of
additional housing development within this phase timing.
He noted that this is a requirement by the County, therefore, the highway
department could not enforce this.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the road over the dam is not a state road.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the highway department accepted the roads within
Hollymead based upon the memorandum of understanding and recommendation between
the highway department and the County. He noted that the highway department
expects the County to enforce the conditions of approval in SP-156.
Mr. Skove ascertained that condition #e of the Staff's recommended conditions
of approval meets with the approval of the highway department. (CONDITION #E -
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, County Engineer and Planning Staff
approval of improvements to Hollymead Drive & Powell Creek Drive (if needed) and
approval of entrance design on all roads.)
Mr. Roosevelt stated that development across the dam and the traffic generation
to Rt. 29 will have a profound effect on Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek Drive.
He noted that some assurance should be given that this development will take
place as shown.
19
Fred Payne, stated that SP-156 required the up grading of the road as additional
housing is provided. He noted that the Commission does have the authority to
require condition #e of the staff report. (CONDITION #E: Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation, County Engineer and Planning Staff approval of improvements
to Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek Drive (if needed) and approval of entrance
designs on all roads).
He noted that the Staff would act as a liaison for the highway department, and
that the highway department would approve the entrances.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that Condition #E of the Staff's recommended conditions of
approval covers the concern of the Staff regarding the number of entrances
on a state road.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if Mr. Payne felt the agencies involved have the authority
to require the improvements needed, this is acceptable to her.
Mr. Payne stated that the Staff would be implementing the conditions of the
orginial plan.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Staff included condition #g because it was a condition
for SP-77-70. (CONDITION #G: The recreation facilities adjacent to the Hollymead
Inn shall remain open to the members of the Hollymead Homeowner's Association until
the new facilities are completed and dedicated to the Hollymead Homeowner's
Association.)
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Owner's notarized signature;
b. Plats correcting Woodburn Road to Powell Creek Drive must be recorded;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
d. Provide evidence of a building site on each lot;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, County Engineer and
Planning Staff approval of improvements to Hollymead Drive and Powell
Creek Drive (if needed) and approval of entrance design on all roads;
f. Staff approval of recreation facilities;
g. The recreation facilities adjacent to the Hollymead Inn shall remain
open to the members of the Hollymead Homeowners' Association until the
new facilities are completed and dedicated to the Hollymead Homeowner's
Association (SP-77-70);
h. The existing pathway must be relocated or maintained and easements must
be noted on the plat;
i. Street signs for Powell Creek Drive must be located at each intersection;
j. Compliance with all applicable conditions of SP-156;
k. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
1. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention provisions
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
/541
Hollymead, Parcel F, Section 3, Final Plat - located at the north corner of
the northern intersection of Tinker's Cover Road and Powell Creek Drive; proposal
to divide 1.494 acres into 10 lots intended for single family attached units.
Charlottesville District. (TM 46B(2), Parcel 03-F).
Hollymead, Parcels B & C of Section 2, and Parcel D of Section 3, Final Plat -
located on both sides of Hollymead Drive and Ravens Place and on the south
side of Easy Lane, north of Powell Creek Drive; proposal to divide 3.852 acres
in Section 2 into 32 lots and to divide 2.390 acres in Section 3 into 12 lots
(for single family attached units) and leaving 1.8562 acres residue.
(THE ABOVE ITEMS WERE REVIEWED SIMULTANEOUSLY)
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
With no comment from the applicant, Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public
comment.
Steve Rail, an adjacent owner, noted that road improvements were to be done
before additional housing was built, and he asked if the Commissioncould require
the road improvements before any more additional housing is constructed.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the necessary road improvements would have to be completed
before the plat is signed. She noted that a bond could be posted to cover the
road improvements.
Mrs. Diehl asked how should the Commission address the roads that are not
located on the state highway.
Mr. Payne noted that Ms. Caperton stated that it would be better to determine
what needs to be done to upgrade Powell Creek Drive at this time.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of Hollymead, Parcel F, Section 3, Final Plat subject
to the conditions as outlined for Hollymead, Parcel E, Section 3.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ar. Skove moved for approval of Hollymead, Section 2, Parcels B & C and Parcel D
Final Plat subject to the conditions as outlined for Hollymead Parcel E, Section 3.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minor Townhouses, Phase I, Amended Site Plan - located on the east side of
Westfield Road (extended), west of Commonwealth Drive; a proposal to locate
5 additional townhouse units on 13+ acres (82 currently approved) and to amend
the recreational facilities. Charlottesville District. (TM 61W2, portion of
parcel 45).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
19
Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, asked if condition 2.a. of the
Staff's recommended conditions of approval could be bonded. (CONDITION 2.a. -
recreational facilities shall be completed when 50% of the units are ready to
be occupied).
Ms. Caperton replied that a bond could be posted to cover this.
Mr. Skove asked Ms. Caperton to explain what is the concern regarding the
private road .
Ms. Caperton stated that the Subdivision Ordinance does not allow for private
roads in the urban area. She also noted that this road is shown as an
easement for parking and access on the plan.
Mrs. Diehl noted that this plan shows five (5) additional units and asked how
they were proposed.
Mr. Sinclair stated that this was the area designated for a swimming pool, but
because of maintenance problems this area was re -designed for five units.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the area has two surge ponds.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the County Engineer did not require fencing around
this -surge pond. She noted that this could be dangerous and felt that a
condition speaking to this should be added to the conditions of approval.
farltgn Ballowe, representing the applicant, stated that the surge pond is five
eet deep.
Ms. Caperton stated that a condition of approval could be added to read
as follows:
• County Engineer review and approval of fence around the surge pond, if
deemed necessary.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the above noted site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. Building permits for the additional units will be processed when the
applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Amendment to the subdivision plat to be submitted to and approved
by the Planning Commission to substantially comply with the amended
site plan;
b. County Engineer review and approval of Stormwater Detention plan to
comply with the amended plan;
c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. County Engineer review and approval of a fence around the surge
pool if deemed necessary.
2. Certificates of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant.
a. Recreational facilities shall be completed when 50% of the units
are ready to be occupied.
b. Amended subdivision plat must be recorded.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minor Townhouses, Phase II, Site Plan - located off the end of Westfield Road
(extended), west of Commonwealth Drive; proposal to locate 35 townhouse units
on 5.833 acres. Charlottesville District. (TM 61W2, parcel 45 part of).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
firs. Diehl asked how the pavement specifications for this road compare to those
of a state road.
Fri
Mr. Sinclair stated that the state categoryl roads go up to thirty-five (35)
units with 6" stone and prime and double seal, noting that this road is 6" of
stone with 1" of asphalt.
Mr. Skove asked if a maintenance requirement will be necessary when the
final plat is submitted for this site.
Ms. Caperton stated that this will be part of the homeowners agreement.
Mrs. Diehl asked what is the difference in the travelway width and curb and gutter
from a state road.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the difference is in the pavement width r
p noting that ``wwll
the resident engineer has stated that they will maintain up to Wynridge Circle.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the state would not accept these roads into their
system.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the existing surge ponds do not look steep and questioned
the location of the second pond.
Mr. Sinclair stated that these ponds have about the same capacity as the pond
in Phase 1 and noted that the second pond is located on the northwestern boundary
of the site.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits will be processed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
b. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations;
c. Note a pathway between Phase I and Phase If for access to recreation areas;
d. County Engineer approval of Stormwater Detention plan;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
g. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of road plans for Westfield Road to the end of State maintenance;
IN
h. County Engineer approval of road plans from the end of State maintenance
of Westfield Road into Phase 11;
i. Staff approval of landscaping;
j. Only those areas where structures, utilities, roads, sidewalks, recreation
areas, and other physical improvements are to be located shall be disturbed;
all other areas shall be maintained in a natural state;
k. A subdivision plat shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Commission;
2. Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Subdivision plat shall be recorded;
b. Recreational facilities shall be completed when 50% of the units are
ready to be occupied.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
MR
w-� vv (i
bert W. Tucker, Jr., S cret y
�� U