HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 15 81 PC MinutesSeptember 15, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
September 15, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building,
Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma
Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Allen
Kindrick, Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Richard Cogan, and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr..
Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and
Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
Larry Ryalls Final Plat - located off the south side of Route 706, west of its
intersection with Route 631 South; proposed division of one 2.0 acre lot leaving
28+ acres residue. Scottsville District. (Tax Map 89, portion of parcel 81).
Deferred from August 19, 1980, Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Ryalls stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the
Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked if a topographic map has been submitted to verify the 30,000
square foot building site.
NIs. Caperton stated that a map has not been submitted but, in her opinion, there
would be no problem in obtaining the 30,000 square feet.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that condition #c of the staff report should read as follows:
�r c. Note that the 2.0 acre lot and the residue must have access on the
30 foot easement (Section 18-36(d) of the Subdivision Ordinance).
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met by the
applicant:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications serving the
2.0 acre lot and the residue;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
b. Health Department approval;
c. Note that the 2.0 acre lot and the residue must have access on the 30
foot easement (Section 18-36(d) of the Subdivision Ordinance);
d. Provide evidence of a minimum 30,000 square foot building site on the
2.0 acre lot;
e. Note that the residue may be divided into four (4) lots of less than
21 acres.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Fitzwood Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 250 East, east of
Route 744, about 6 miles east of Charlottesville; proposal to divide 10.572
acres into five lots of 2.0 acres each. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 80, Parcel
59B and portion of Parcel 60A). Deferred from August 25, 1981, Planning
Commission meeting.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
John Greene, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked why this plat was deferred from the August 25, 1981 Planning
Commission meeting.
bIs. Caperton stated that this plat was deferred from the August 25, 1981 Planning
Commission meeting because the acreage of the site was in question. She noted that
a portion of parcel 60A was added to this site with a development right.
D✓Irs. Diehl stated that the Commission has in the past required health department
approval to be submitted before the final plat is reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Greene stated that the soil scientist has made some tests but they are not
complete and have not been approved by the health department.
Mr. Skove reiterated that portion of parcel 60A was added to this site along
with a development right.
Mr. Payne explained that when parcel 60A was bisected by I-64 it created a separate
lot, with individual boundaries and is free standing. He stated that the lot is a
non -conforming sub -standard, yet free standing lot, which could be built on.
He stated that it is his opinion that a non -conforming lot should be treated as
if it were the smallest conforming lot.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any criteria in the Subdivision Ordinance regarding
odd shaped lots.
Mr. Payne read the following from the Subdivision Ordinance:
• "Lots shall not contain peculiarly shaped elongations which are designed
solely to provide necessary square footage of area or frontage on
a public road and which would be unusable for normal purposes."
Mr. Davis ascertained that this development will be served by private wells.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the highway department has commented that in order
to obtain sight distance, a 16" build up of bituminous concrete is required
on Rt. 250. She asked Mr. Greene if the applicant is willing to comply with
this.
Mr. Greene stated that this requirement will be complied with, adding that
this requirement will add approximately $2,000 per lot for what was intended
to be low income housing.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Greene if Fitzwood Drive was moved to the east to accomodate
sight distance.
W. Greene noted that they tried to improve the sight distance without the
requirement for pavement jihprovements on Rt. 250 but stated that these
requirements will be necessary.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance into the State system;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance (and improvements to Rt. 250 East) ;
c. Written Health Department approval;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Note the residue of Parcel 60A (Tax Map 80) and that it is located
on the north side of I-64. Also note the number of development rights
left with the residue.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support this motion as she felt health
department approval is necessary in order for a valid decision to be made.
VOTE:
The motion carried by a vote of 4-3 with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Bowerman and Mr.
Cogan dissenting.
5'lk
William 14arshall Gara e Site Plan - located on the north side of Route 649,
west o Route 29 North and east of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport;
proposal to locate a 3,750 square foot garage and gas pumps on 2.25 acres.
Rivanna District. (Tax Map 32, Parcel 40). Deferred from August 25, 1981
Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to
any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt the concerns of the Commission have been
complied with and moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following:
1. A building permit will be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Virginia Department of Highways u Transportation approval of commercial
entrances;
b. Dedication for 25 feet from the center line of Rt. 649 by separate deed
or plat and note the reservation line for the ultimate road improvements, 4000
if needed;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Staff approval of landscape plan, to include pine trees on the southern
portion of the site and flowering shrubs within the islands at the entrance;
f. Fire Official approval of plans for gas pumps and ventilation system;
g. Show the septic drainfield on the plan;
h. Relocate the dumpster for Fire Official approval (it must be 30' from
the building).
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl noted that health department approval has been obtained but questioned
the location of the septic system.
Mr. Roudabush stated that they show the septic field located under the parking
area in front of the building. He noted that the purpose of this is to keep the
drainfield away from the swale that runs across the center of the property.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant is aware that pumping may be necessary
depending on the location of the septic system.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the drain for the inside bays is treated.
Mr. Roudabush stated that there is a grease trap on the northeast corner of the
building which will take care of oil, etc., before it toes into the drain.
� y
The motion for approval of this site plan was unanimous.
Country View Revised Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 708, southwest
of Ivy at the end of Country Lane; proposal to redivide lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and
18 of the approved Country View Subdivision, creating one additional lot. Samuel
Miller District. (Tax Map 57, Parcels 131-135 and 142).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Tom Gale, representing the applicant, noted that the private road intended to
serve the two back lots takes the place of an access easement which originally
served lots 7A and 9A.
Mr. Gale stated that they are requesting a waiver of Section 18-36(b)(5) in
order to give the owners of lots 5 and 6 the option as to whether they enter
from a private or a State road. He further stated that they will respond to
any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the 30' access easement shown on the plat is the
private road.
Mr. Davis asked if enough buildable area would be available on lot #6 if a 75 foot
setback is required on both sides of the private road.
Mr. Gale stated that they have determined that with the 75' setback there is
enough buildable area.
Mr. Davis asked if a septic system could be installed within the 75 foot setback.
Mr. Payne stated that the septic system could be installed in the setback from
the road but not in the setback from the stream.
Mr. Davis stated that, in his opinion, lot #6 should be included in the maintenance
agreement.
Ms. Caperton stated that if access to the property is required from the State
road then both lots 5 and 6 would be required to take part in the maintenance
agreement.
Mr. Payne stated that if the owners of lots 5 and 6 made the easement exclusive that
other property owners do not have the right to use this easement, and would
not be required to participate in the maintenance agreement.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the location of the access road was changed because
of the steep slopes and the difficulty in crossing the stream.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Staff has not received written health department
approval.
550
Mr. Davis noted the steep grades along the access easement and stated that he is
in favor of granting the waiver request for Section 18-36(d) because this would
improve access to the property.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the arc distances should be added to lots 7A, 9A, and
10A.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the metes and bounds are not shown for the 30' access
road.
Mr. Gale stated that he is working with the County Engineer to determine the
best location for this road, noting that the metes and bounds will be seecified
when the road is constructed. He also stated that the metes and bounds are
required to be specified before the final plat will be signed.
Mr. Payne stated that the metes and bounds should be specified before the plat
is recorded.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a condition for approval of this plat could be added
to read:
• Staff approval of the location of private access easement showing
metes and bounds.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that two drainfields have to be approved for these lots
because they are in the watershed.
Mr. Skove stated that the waiver request for Section 18-36(b)(5), in his opinion,
should be granted. as this allows for better road alignment. '
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver of Section 18-36(b)(5) to allow a private road granted;
2. Waiver of Section 18-36(d) for lots 5 and 6 granted;
3. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Written Health Department approval of sites for two septic drainfields;
b. Note the square footage of the building sites on each revised lot, including
lot #6;
c. Owner's(s) notarized signature;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications for the number
of lots using the road;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the lots
using the road;
f. Note a 75' setback on both sides of the private road;
g. Change the word "can" to "may" in the development rights notes and add
to the note on lot 18A "of less than 21 acres."
h. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and/or County Engineer
approval of entrances (private and private street commercial);
i. Staff approval of the location of private access easement showing metes
and bounds on the 30' right-of-way as generally located on the plat;
j. Arc distances to be shown on the fronts of lots 7A, 9A, and 10A.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-2. Mrs. Diehl and
Mr. Bowerman voted against the motion.
55%
Po lar 'mills Final Plat - (formerly CSW Prelimina Plat and Dudley Mountain
Lodges Final Plat - located off the north side of Route 706, west of Route
631 south, at the end of Dudley Mountain Road; proposal to divide 23.78 acres
into five (5) lots with an average size of 4.76 acres. Samuel Miller District.
(Tax Map 89, portion of parcel 76).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gale noted that they have contacted the health department requesting that
the percolation test be made but to date this is still incomplete.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the entrance would be approved by the highway department,
noting the reduced sight distance.
Mr. Roosevelt, representing the highway department, stated that this is an
existing driveway and noted that the applicant would not be required to apply
for a permit from the highway department unless the Planning Commission requires
this as part of their approval.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the arc distances should be specified on the plat.
Mr. Davis stated that he is in favor of deferring this final plat until health
department approval has been obtained.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the soils in this area are deep and moderately well drained but
have some restriction for septic drainfields.
Mr. Bowerman stated that, in his opinion, if the Subdivision Ordinance requires
certain conditions to be met before a plat is reviewed by the Commission and the
applicant has had ample time to meet theses conditions then they should be complied
with. He stated that for this reason he could not support this subdivision request.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt health department approval should be submitted
before a final plat is reviewed by the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that, in her opinion, if the area is in the watershed requiring
two septic systems or if the soils are in question, then health department approval
should be obtained before the plat is reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Davis moved for deferral of this plat until health department approval
has been obtained.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion for deferral.
DISCUSSION:
*00,
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission could address the lot size criteria as well
as the topography of the area.
The concensus of the Commission was to schedule time on the earliest possible
agenda to discuss concerns that they feel should be complied with before a
final plat is reviewed by the Commission.
VOTE:
The motion for deferral of this plat was unanimous.
W rid e Phase II Final Plat - located on the south side of Westfield Road extended,
adjacent to Phase One of Wynridge; a proposal to divide 16.39 acres into 78 lots
with an average size of 9,153 square feet per lot. Charlottesville District.
(Tax Map 61W(2), Parcel 45).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Blake Hurt, the applicant, stated that he would like to change two of the Staff's
recommended conditions of approval to read as follows:
• l.d. - No buildings shall be constructed on 250 or greater slopes that
are longer than 50';
• I.e. - Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
He stated that his reason for changing condition l.d. is because he feels the
intent of the ordinance is to allow for longer slopes as long as they did not
cause problems with runoff control. Changing condition I.e. would give him the
opportunity to meet with the Soil Erosion Committee.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was public comment concerning this final plat.
Dan Roosevelt, representing the highway department, noted the area along Greenbrier
Drive which has been dedicated. He noted that when an easement goes beyond the
right-of-way and cuts and fills are required, damage can be done to the yards or
undermine the buildings. He suggested that it the ordinance allows, to not only
obtain the dedication but to have the easements shown on the plat for cut and fill
slopes. He further stated that the County has developed an alignment for Greenbrier Dr.
F,-,tended which would allow the cut and fill slope line to be shown on the plat.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could require this because the applicant
is requesting a bonus based on dedication. He stated that it would be reasonable
for the Commission to require a dedication that was:
1) usuable at a later time;
2) planning for future improvements.
Joan Graves noted that the stream in this area has flooded in the past because
of grading done in the area. She stated that it would be dangerous to allow any
deviations in the grading requirements for this area.
Mr. Hurt stated that he is willing to comply with the requirements of the Soil
Erosion Ordinance.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
'66�
M
Mr. Skove stated his concern regarding the 25% slopes asking if there would
be a problem with an outside entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this would depend on the construction techniques and
the lay of the land. He stated that he felt condition l.d. of the recommended
conditions of approval should read:
• No buildings shall be constructed on slopes of 250 or greater without
Engineer approval.
Ms. Caperton stated that this condition was added because the USGS information
is not as adequate as a field inspection.
Mr. Davis asked for the location of the trees to be maintained.
Ms. Caperton stated that the plan does not show the existing wooded area, noting
that the applicant is requesting bonus provisions for the maintenance of the
existing wooded area. She pointed out that the only way to insure that this area
would be maintained is through a homeowners agreement.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the alternative suggestion of the Staff is to plant
street trees which would not require significiant grading.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the caliper of the trees is 1z" to 21.
W. Davis stated that a bonus should be given for an area of trees to be maintained,
not for several trees on a 25' lot.
Ms. Caperton stated that the ordinance refers to this as "significant landscaping:'
She noted that a plan would be submitted to the Staff showing new trees or existing
trees to be considered as street trees.
Mr. Davis stated that a landscape plan should be required before a bonus is
granted.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the difficulty with the maintenance of wooded areas
would be in how they are maintained after the lots have been purchased.
Tom Sinclair stated that a landscape plan is not required for a subdivision plat.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance requires that you minimize the elimination
of trees, but because of the difficulty of enforcing the maintainence of trees
after the subdivision is put to record, Staff does not recommend this as a bonus.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that a landscape plan is not required unless it is part
of a previously approved site plan.
Mr. Cogan stated that the applicant is exchanging the maintenance of the existing
trees for planting of trees 30' on center, and is requesting a 15% bonus.
W. Gloeckner stated that a grading plan should be submitted for each lot, noting
the size of the project.
SSA
Mrs. Diehl asked who makes the determination as to which side of the street
the sidewalk is located on.
Mr. Sinclair stated that they would like to maintain the existing siaewalics
,and noted that they have discussed this with the highway department.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that condition #f should be changed to read:
• County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of the road plans including a sidewalk on one side,
curb and gutter wherever sidewalk is not used for acceptance into the
State system.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the following technical information should be on the plat:
• adjacent property owners;
• chain of title;
• distance to the nearest intersection along Westfield Road.
Mr. Skove stated that the following condition should be added to the conditions
of approval for this final plat:
construction easement along the proposed Greenbrier Drive to the satisfaction
of the County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways u Transportation.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
I. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met by
the applicant:
a. Note on sheet one of two that lots 55L through 60L shall have access
only onto Westfield Road;
b. Replace the bonus provisions for maintenance of existing wooded areas on both
sheets with the provision of significant landscaping; this landscaping
shall be for hardwood trees planted 30 feet on center to be approved by
the Staff; also note a tree easement on the plat;
c. Note the number of square feet of recreational area provided per unit;
Staff approval of recreational equipment;
d. No buildings shall be constructed on slopes of 250 or greater, without
County Engineer approval;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance to include grading plans for
each lot;
f. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of the road plans including a sidewalk on one side and curb and
gutter wherever sidewalk is not used for acceptance into the State system;
g. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention provisions and storm drainage
facilities;
n. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
i. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow;
j. Show a construction easement along proposed Greenbrier Drive to the reason-
able satisfaction of the County Engineer and Virginia Department of
Highways €, Transportation;
Nod
556
k. Note the adjacent owners, chain of title and the distance to the nearest
intersection on Westfield Road;
2. Waiver of double frontage on lots 55L through 60L.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself by leaving the room.
Dental Office Building Site Plan - located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of Westfield Road and Commonwealth Drive; a proposal to locate a
2,560 square foot dentist's office on a 29,505 square foot parcel. Charlottesville
District. (Tax Map 61W, Parcel 01-Bl).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
Dan Roosevelt, representing the highway department, noted that the revised
entrance is in compliance with the requirements of the highway department.
He also pointed out that Westfield Road has not been accepted by the State and
he felt that the development would occur before Westfield Road is accepted,
therefore the applicant is not required to obtain an entrance permit from the
highway department. He asked if a condition could be added to the conditions
of approval for this site plan to read as follows:
• applicant must obtain approval of entrance from the highway department.
Ms. Caperton stated that the Staff was notified in July that Westfield Road
has been accepted by the State.
Mr. Payne stated that a condition could be added to read:
• highway department approval for the entrance onto Westfield Road.
Mr. Lincoln stated that the highway department required the applicant to locate
the entrance to this property in accordance with the entrance to the adjacent
property.
Mrs. Graves noted the curves on Commonwealth Drive and stated that she felt
an entrance should not be allowed on Commonwealth Drive.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the parcel is separated by Westfield Road and
belongs to the parcel south of Southland Life Insurance Company. She noted
that an entrance would have to be approved by the Planning Commission.
ISS6
Mr. Lincoln stated that there are no plans to redivide this property.
Mr. Lincoln stated that the existing vegetation will remain as a buffer.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be processed when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Fire Official approval of location and screening of trash recepticles,
hydrant location and fire flow;
c. Note additional landscaping at the eastern portion of the site and/or
existing vegetation for Staff approval;
d. Provide the deed book reference for the Virginia Department of Highways
& Transportation sight distance easement, if existing, or record an
easement by separate deed or plat;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and
mechanical plans and specifications for the Cross Connection Control
Program.
2. The Planning Commission is not approving the sign or its location at this time.
3. Staff to approve the subdivision administratively to recognize the existing lot.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9
Riverrun Site Plan - located on the north side of Route 768 (Pen Park Road), west
of Rio Road (East); a proposal to locate 412 townhouse and condominium units on
68.75 acres with a density of 5.99 dwelling units per acre. Rivanna District.
(Tax Map 62, Parcel 17).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
James Gercke, the applicant, stated that he has no objections to the recommended
conditions of approval as outlined by the Staff. He stated that he would respond
to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Bill Daggett, of SLDC Architects, stated that their presentation is formulated into
two parts:
1) a series of analyses of the natural conditions effecting the site, such
as utilities, etc.; and
2) conceptual framework used in the planning process and an examination
of the site plan itself.
Fred Pugsley, of SLDC Architects, pointed out the location of the proposed develop-
ment to the Commission. He noted that there are basically three types of foliage
on the property, which are:
• 20% open meadow (grass, scrub growth and small dirt roads);
• 30o softwood forest (primarily evergreens); and
50o mature hardwood forest (oak and beech trees).
He presented a topographic map outlining the slopes in the area. He pointed out
that there are moderate to steep slopes which comprise 15 to 25 percent of the area,
noting that they are buildable but require some consideration on the part of the
architect.
Mr. Pugsley explained the drainage plan to the Commission noting the location
of existing water and sewer lines.
Mr. Daggett noted the natural boundaries of the site such as the drainage ravine
and the ridge running through the center. He stated that using the natural
boundaries the site was broken down into the following areas:
Area A - Gentle to moderate slopes which are suitable for land coverabe by
buildings because of the slopes and the parallel topography;
Area B - Prominent knolls toward the southwest portion of the site, which
will not lend itself to the same land coverage because of the knolls;
Area C - River and the reversal of the contours, which would necessitate
as little disturbance as possible, if developed;
Area D - Parallel slopes with a slight knoll, which would allow for greater
coverage of the site with less damage;
Area E - Horseshoe shapes_ looking down into the drainage ravine, noting that
because of the slopes and reversal of the countours the building
coverage is less.
He noted that they are proposing townhouse and condominiums units because of the
natural boundaries of the site.
Mr. Daggett stated that they are attempting to serve this development with State
roads starting at the center of Rt. 768 with a main collector road which would
give immediate access from all the buildable areas. He noted that a loop road
is proposed in some areas which would eliminate a cul-de-sac. A secondary road
was added giving secondary access to Pen Park Road and elevating traffic congestion.. He
noted that a loop system was choosen over a cul-de-sac because of the following:
• a loop system has better transistion;
• provides limited access to the main roads; and
• provides continuous access.
He also noted that a loop road facilitates a number of items such as vehicular
access, a way to carry the sanitary sewer at the lower portion of the site, and
assists in the direction of stormwater to the detention ponds. He stated that
these roads are proposed as private roads to minimize the impact on the steep
slope area.
Mr. Daggett noted that this development will be built in seven phases. Townhouses
are proposed for phases 1, 2, 5, 6 and condominiums for phases 3, 5, and 7. He
also pointed out the number of units proposed for each phase.
Mr. Daggett stated that the existing forest will be maintained for active recreational
use such as hiking, jogging, etc.. He reiterated their proposals concerning the
roads, slopes and natural boundaries of the site.
%fte Mr. Daggett stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the
Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
Mr. Daniel, an adjacent property owner, stated his concern regarding the
number of cars already using Rio Road and further stated that a development
of this size would drastically increase the traffic.
Arch Pruitt, an adjacent property owner, noted the number of accidents on
Rio Road. He stated that he is in favor of this proposal but Questioned
the increase of traffic on Rio Road.
Mr. Daniel stated that he felt that access to this property could be improved.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
James Gercke stated that the traffic impact on Rio Road is a major concern of
theirs. He also pointed out that the County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan and
a Zoning Map which outlines the areas for development. He noted that the County
has made a commitment to provide utilities and roads to serve this area. He
stated that this is a ten year project which will alert the highway department
to the direction of future growth enabling them to plan the necessary road
improvements.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt if there are any plans to improve the bridge
on Rio Road.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that this is an eight ton bridge and is scheduled to be
replaced, advertisements will run starting January. He noted that the Comprehensive
Plan and CAT Study calls for the McIntire Extension to tie in at the Technical
Center and at 250, this will alleviate approximately 800 of the traffic on
Rio Road.
Mr. Skove stated that the questions regarding the amount of traffic on Rio Road
should be addressed by the State Legislature.
Mr. Davis asked if sidewalks would be installed on the private road.
Mr. Daggett stated that there are sidewalks on one side and curb and gutter on the
other, noting that they are built to state standards.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Daggett to explain why they are requesting private roads
for this development.
Mr. Daggett stated that they feel that private roads would lessen the environmental
impact on the site, noting the amount of open space provided.
Mr. Davis stated that he is under the impression that private roads should be
allowed if the construction of a public road proves to be a hardship on the
applicant, or if there are problems with topographic features of the site.
Mr. Daggett stated that if a state road were required the road would have to
be lengthened and additional right-of-way required.
i1rs. Diehl noted that the Commission has addressed, in dealing with townhouses in
the past, the question of private versus public roads.
55�
Mr. Payne stated that this site plan meets four out of five criteria
outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance regarding private roads. He noted that the
ordinance states that the Commission may approve a subdivision served by private
roads if "the approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger
of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties
which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads; or "the
approval of such roads would significantly contribute to the physical security of
the residents of such subdivision." He further stated that he felt this site plan
meets the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Skove asked if there was a limit to the number of lots or units that can
be served by a private road.
Mr. Payne stated that there are different standards for one to twenty units for
public roads, over twenty units the roads are to be public roads. He noted that
the applicant has stated that the roads are to be constructed to state standards
except for the right-of-way width.
Mr. Skove ascertained that both the horizontal and vertical geometrics are to
state standards.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the maximum grade on the private road will be 100.
Mr. Roosevelt reiterated that the highway department request that entrances
on State roads be SO feet apart.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt the roads in this development should be public roads.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the applicant is acting in good faith and has
indicated that they will build the private roads to state specifications, therefore
he is in favor of allowing private roads for this development.
Mr. Payne stated that the question of private versus public roads is not before
the Commission at this time because this is not in the subdivision stage.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the private roads were best in this particular case
in terms of the control of water, impervious surface and,that they are better suited
to the environment.
Mr. Payne reiterated that the ordinance requires one to meet at least three
of the five criteria for private roads.
Mr. Skove asked what type of recreational area is proposed.
Mr. Gercke stated that they vconsidered swimming pools, tennis courts, tot lots, etc.,
but the final decision is to be approved by the Staff.
Mrs. Diehl noted that in reviewing the history of this property an R-3 zoning was
granted with a proffer. She asked what the proffer was.
Ms. Caperton stated that the proffer was six units per acre.
Mr. Payne stated that to the extent that the proffer carries over with the R-6
firw zoning, this complies with the proffer.
Mr. Davis stated that the phasing of units to be built should be noted for
general information.
Hs. Caperton stated that condition 2.c. reads " recreational amenities shall be
provided by the time the third building phase is ready for occupancy," and that this
does not mean that phase 3 will be the third phase constructed.
Mr. Skove asked if a subdivision plat will be submitted for the condominiums.
Mr. Payne stated that townhouses and condominiums require a subdivision plat
unless they are built for rental purposes.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits will be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrances to include improvements to Rt. 768;
b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of State road plans for acceptance by the State (includes curb and gutter
and/or sidewalks as shown on the site plan);
c. County Engineer approval of private road plans;
d. Street signs are required;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance to include grading plans for
lots and condominium areas;
f. Compliance with the stormwater detention requirements to include the pro-
vision of fencing around the ponds if deemend necessary by the County
Engineer;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
internal plumbing and mechanical plans and specifications shall be
approved by the Cross Comiection Control Program;
h. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, fire flow, plans for trash
receptacles, and building separation between main structures and covered
parking areas;
i. Remove the island at the intersection of private roads between units
293 and 294;
j. Only those areas where buildings, roads, driveways, utilities or other
improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall
remain in its natural state;
k. No buildings shall be constructed on 250 or greater slopes;
2. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupanciey for the various phases,
the applicant must meet the following conditions:
a. Staff approval of the surfacing of pathways;
b. Subdivision plats shall have been approved and recorded;
c. Recreational amenities shall be provided by the time the third building
phase is ready for occupancy. The amount of the facilities (SO square
feet per unit) shall be determined by the number of units to be completed
C
15lP
at the end of the third building phase. Also at this time, recreational
equipment and details on the clubhouse and pool shall be approved by the
1*4W Staff;
d. Staff approval of a more detailed landscape plan;
3. Twenty five percent (250) of open space must be maintained in each section
as it is subdivided.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
OLD BUSIidESS: Sings 84-Lumber Company
Mr. Cogan noted that there are signs advertising 84 Lumber posted in various
locations around the County. He stated that he has talked to the zoning officials
but did not get a satisfactory response from them.
Mr. Payne stated that if the signs were on highway property, then the highway
department could have them removed.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt this should be brought to the attention of the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne stated that as far as enforcing the ordinance, this does not need
to be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. He stated that
a warrant could be obtained because they are in violation of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the Commission should request the Zoning Administrator
to report to the Planning Commission regarding any action he has taken in
dealing with the removal of these signs.
Mr. Davis made a motion that the Commission ask the Zoning Administrator for
details on how the case against 84 Lumber Company is progressing.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Briarwood:
Mr. Bowerman stated that the grading has been completed but no seeding has
been done on the slopes. He noted that Mr. Agnor checked with the Zoning
Administrator and determined that all the letters have been issued and steps
have been taked to revoke the bond within seventy-two (72) hours. He asked
if this bond has been revoked.
Mr. Payne stated that it was bought to his attention that bonds which were in
default were not enforced. He stated that he has advised the Zoning Administrator
that any bonds that are in default should be enforced immediately.
Mr. Bowerman asked if default, in this case, means that the required action has not
taken place, therefore, the bond can be revoked.
5(D2-
Mr. Payne stated that in the case of a soil erosion bond, if the plan is not
progressing according to plan or if the plan has not been completed within the
time specified, then the bond is in default.
Mr. Payne explained the procedure for revoking a bond to the Commission. He
reiterated that lie has not taken any steps to call a bond regarding this, noting
that he has not been called upon to do so.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it is possible that the seeding has been done but the
Commission is not aware of this.
NEW BUSINESS: (A) Request for Resolution of Intent to amend Zoning Ordinance
to delete recent amendments allowing churches in Residential Districts by Special
Use Permit Only.
Mr. Payne noted that the Commission pasted a resolution of intent to allow Churches
by right in a residential district. He noted that a "sister motion" is needed to
repeal the use by special permit in all the residential districts.
Mr. Kindrick moved for a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
delete certain recent amendments allowing churches in residential districts by
special use permits only.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m..
I�L7�,u / 194. -
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. le cre ary
R
F1
563