HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 17 81 PC MinutesNovember 17, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
November 17, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner,
Mr. Richard Cogan, and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other officials present were
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning, Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner, and Ms. Katherine L.
Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, and
Mr. James R. Skove.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Bowerman noted for the benefit of the public that SP-81-53 has been withdrawn
and RGB Partnership Preliminary Plat has been deferred until December 17, 1981.
SP-81-52 - Raymond E. Baker, Jr. - Request for special use permit in order to
locate a mobile home on property described as County Tax Map 126, part of parcel
22A, Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is located on Route 721,
approximately 1 mile from intersection of Route 6 and Route 721.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Baker stated that the mobile home would be used primarily on the weekends and
holidays. He further stated that he does plan to build a permanent home in the
future.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this special use
permit.
Paul Neward, an adjacent owner, stated that he has no objection to a temporary
mobile home on this site, but noted that he felt there should be a guarantee that
a permanent home would be built.
Harry Greene, an adjacent owner, stated his concern because the property value
in the area would decrease if mobile homes were allowed. He also stated that he
has no objection to a temporary mobile home but also felt that there should
be some type of gurantee that a permanent home would be built.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that the matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Baker when he would build a permanent home on this site.
&,l
Mr. Baker stated that this would be after he retires, four or five years from now.
He also stated that he could not guarantee that he would build a permanent home
because this depends on finances, etc.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should view this as a permanent residence
even though the applicant has stated that it is not going to be used as a permanent
residence.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the mobile home is on the site at this time.
Mr. Baker stated that the mobile home has been on the site for approximately
two weeks, noting that he had to move the mobile home because it could not be
left on the original site becuase the owners were buying another mobile home.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the setback requirements have been complied with.
Mr. Davis asked if the recommended conditions of approval outlined in the staff
report were for a temporary mobile home.
Mr. Keeler stated that the conditions outlined in the staff report apply to a
permanent mobile home.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if a time frame could be added to this permit regarding
construction of a permanent home.
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant would have to agree to adding a time frame
for the construction of a permanent home.
Mr. Bowerman explained to Mr. Baker that there is some concern on the part of the
Commission as to when the permanent home would be built. He asked if Mr. Baker
would be willing to put a time frame on the granting of the permit, such as five
years, and agree that construction of a permanent home would be started within
this time.
Mr. Baker stated that he does intend to build a permanent home but reiterated that
this depends on finances, etc. He stated that he does not want a time frame
added because he cannot guarantee that a permanent home would be built.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the Commission should view this as a permanent
mobile home.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant is aware that he will have to comply
with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this special use permit subject to the following:
1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2) Application shall be made for a building permit within thirty (30) days
of approval of this special use permit. Such building permit shall not be
subject to renewal or extension.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
C 7Z-
Ednam Village, Section II, Final Plat - located off the south side of 250 West,
east of Ednam and west of Birdwood; a proposal to divide 2.734 acre --parcel into
10 lots with a density of 3.66 dwelling units an acre. Samuel Miller District.
(TM 59D2, parcel 1-10).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to
any questions or concerns the Commission may have. He also noted that condition
l.b. has been submitted and approved by the County Engineer. (CONDITION I.B.
Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance).
Mr. Bowerman asked if the units will be completed prior to the availability of
the Crozet Interceptor.
Mr. Wright, the applicant, stated that they plan to start building the units
within the next week. He also noted that Mr. Williams from Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority had informed him that the Crozet Interceptor would be completed and
on line later this year.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Kindrick asked if the Commission could approve this plan subject to the
sewage facilities being available prior to the issuance of a certificate of
r occupancy.
Mr. Payne stated that he did not think a certificate of occupancy could be issued
if the sewage facilities were not complete, but noted that this should be checked
with the Zoning Administrator.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she has been informed that the Crozet Interceptor will be
completed in February.
Mr. Wright stated that they have an agreement with the present owners and the
Ednam Association that they will hook up to sewer facilities.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W 8
Estelle Jackson Preliminary Plat - located off the north side of Route 706,
west of Route 631 and on the east side of Dudley Mountain Road; a proposal
to divide a 2.5 acre lot from a 5.1 acre parcel, leaving 2.6 acres in residue.
Samuel Miller District (TM 89, parcel 79F).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Jannine Shannon, representing the applicant, stated that Mrs. Jackson bought this
property with the intention of building a home for herself and her family. She
further stated that because of economic factors Mrs. Jackson could not afford
to build this home so she located a mobile home on this site. She pointed out
that, in her opinion, priming and double sealing Dudley Mountain Road is not
necessary, but some improvements could be made to the entrance. She pointed out
that Mrs. Jackson wants to divide the five (5) acre parcel in order to provide
a home for her family. She also noted that there would not be an increase in
traffic flow.
Ms. Shannon pointed out that this proposal would create five lots and the
cost of the improvements to Dudley Mountain Road could be shared with the
other owners.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this preliminary
Plat.
Jack Stoner, an adjacent owner, stated that he was not against subdividing
this property, but was against mobile homes in this area. He pointed out that
when he bought his subdivision (Poplar Hills Final Plat) he was told along with
other owners that the improvements had to be made to Dudley Mountain Road. He
pointed out that they could not afford to make these improvements either but felt
the Commission should be fair in its ruling. He also noted that the present
mobile home is visible from his property and the second mobile home would also
be visible because most of the trees have been removed.
Charles Hughes, an adjacent owner, stated that he is opposed to mobile homes
in this area noting that there would be a decrease in property value.
Dave Wheely, an adjacent owner, stated that he is not against the subdivision but
does not want to see a mobile home park develop in this area. He noted that he
would be willing to share the expense of making the necessary improvements to
Dudley Mountain Road.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any conditions of approval on the Poplar
Hills Final Plat regarding road improvements.
Ms. Caperton noted that part of the road had to be widened two (2) feet and
surfaced with prime and double seal.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any conditions of approval regarding the road
for the Dudley Mountain Lodges Plat.
Ms. Caperton stated that there were no conditions regarding this road because
it met the requirements of the ordinance. She also noted that when Poplar Hills
and C.S.W. plats were submitted, the private road section of the ordinance had been
amended.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission could require all the users of this road to
improve and maintain the road.
Mr. Payne stated that it is the responsibility of the developer to make the
necessary road improvements. He also noted that maintenance of the road should
be equal among the users of the road.
Mr. Payne stated that the five lots previously approved for the Poplar Hills
Final Plat are required to participate in a maintenance agreement because the
ordinance requires that an appropriate maintenance agreement be established.
Mr. Davis stated that this subdivision does meet the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan, but noted that he is not in favor of granting the waivers because of the
�rrr+ condition of the road.
Mr. Cogan stated that he can not support the waivers requested, noting that
the applicant could re -submit this application after the remaining lots have
been divided and the necessary road improvements made.
M
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt it would be in the best interest for the parties
involved to make some arrangements for the road improvements.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he could support the waiver request for any improvements
to the commercial entrance, and felt that prime and double seal (required in
Section 18-36) should be complied with.
Mr. Davis stated that he did not fee the commercial entrance improvements should
be waived.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the additional five lots for the Poplar Hills Subdivision
was approved based upon improvements made to the entrance.
Mr. Cogan stated that the improvements made to the entrance as outlined in the
waiver for Poplar Hills should be required for this subdivision.
�7S
Ms. Caperton stated that the following condition was required on the Poplar
Hills plat:
• Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the *40
commercial entrance with 100' turn lane, 100' taper with 300' of
sight distance to the east and 250' of sight distance to the west.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following condition:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Written health department approval prior to Planning Commission review
of the final plat;
b. Inclusion of the additional lot into the maintenance agreement, to be
approved by the County Attorney;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. Compliance with the private road provisions for the easement serving
the two parcels from Dudley Mountain Road to include:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement between the
two lots;
e. Provide a building site determination on each lot;
f. County Engineer approval of road improvements to Dudley Mountain Road
(prime and double seal);
g. 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. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Marshall's Garage Amended Site Plan - located on the north side of Route 649, west
of Route 29 North and east of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport; a proposal
to locate a 5,000 square foot public garage with four bays and gasoline sales
with a 1,250 square foot food store on a 2.25 acre parcel. Rivanna District.
(TM 32, parcel 40).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
John Greene, representing the applicant, noted that several of the conditions
outlined in the previous conditions of approval have been approved by the
appropriate agencies. He noted that condition #c - Albemarle County Service
Authority approval of water plans, does not apply because there is no modification
or extension of any Service Authority lines.
With no comment fs-om the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the Staff is requiring a 25' dedication from the center
line of Rt. 649 and the plat shows 30', he questioned which is correct.
R
��4
Mr. Roudabush explained that the plan calls for an ultimate 110' right-of-way
and the setback is to be 30' from this line, noting that twenty-five feet
of the fifty feet will be dedicated.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the only change in this site plan is the
addition of the food store and the parking spaces.
Ms. Caperton stated that more detailed landscaping has been provided.
She also pointed out the location of the additional parking spaces.
Mr. Gloeckner 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 & Transportation approval of
commercial entrances;
b. Dedication for 25 feet from the center line of Rt. 649 by separate
deed or plat;
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 entrances;
f. Fire Official approval in accordance with his memo of November 5, 1981;
g. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and stormwater
drainage facilities;
2. The future connection access shall be reviewed with a site plan for
the rear portion of the site.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Albemarle Dental Arts Site Plan - located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Westfield Road (extended), adjacent
to the Minor Townhouse site; a proposal to locate a 2-story with basement
dental office building with 2,365 square feet of net office space on a 29,505
square foot parcel. Charlottesville District (TM 61W, portion of parcel
O1-B1).
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself by leaving the room.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant, stated that the site plan is
essentially the same as the one approved by the Commission in September,
noting the addition of the basement and additional parking spaces. He
stated that they would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission
may have.
677
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment.
Paul Bull', an adjancent owner, asked what type of buffering would be
established along the property line.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the plan shows that the existing trees will be
protected.
Mr. Bull noted that when the Westfield plat was submitted, he asked
that additional buffering be established along the property lines, noting
that this was agreed upon by the Commission and the developer.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted the level of the land and stated that the house is
visible from the proposed building.
Mx. Cogan stated that he felt additional buffering should be required.
Mr. Davis stated that the following condition could be added:
• Landscape plan to be revised and approved by the Staff to specifically
include an evergreen border on the eastern portion of the site.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following:
Nod
1. A building permit will be processed when the following conditions have
been met by the applicant:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Fire Official approval in accordance with his memo dated November 5, 1981;
C. Record an easement for a Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
sight distance easement by separate deed or plat;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transporation approval of commercial
entrance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and
mechanical plans and specifications for the Cross Connection Control
Program;
f. Landscape plan to be revised and approved by the Staff to specifically
include an evergreen border on the eastern portion of the site.
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.
4. Future expansion of the building will require Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W"
f la L
Mr. Gloeckner rejoined the meeting.
RGB Partnership Preliminary Plat - Located off the north side of Route 668,
near the Wesley Chapel Church and west of the Buck Mountain PUD; a proposal
to divide 86.2 acres into 3 lots with an average size of 28.73 acres. White
Hall District (TM 16, parcel 15A).
Mr. Bowerman noted that they are requesting deferral until December 17, 1981.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the request for deferral until December 17, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W.W.Whitlock Final Plat - located on the southwest corner of the intersection
of Route 615 and Route 639 in Lindsay; a proposal to divide 10.692 acres into
3 lots. Rivanna District (TM 50, parcel 41).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Andy Graff, representing the applicant, stated that the setback lines, road
width and deed book reference is not on the plat because they could not find
where this is recorded as a deeded right-of-way. He presented an old
plat to the Commission which shows this road, he noted that this plat was
unrecorded.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the right-of-way should be shown on the plat.
Mr. Payne stated that it is appropriate for a surveyor to show roads etc.,
which he knows exist because they might constitute grounds for a title. He
also noted that the width of the road could be shown on the plat.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman questioned if condition #e of the recommended conditions of
approval should remain as there is the possibility that an easement exists.
(CONDITION E: Note the deed book reference for the Morris roadway, if
applicable).
Ms. Caperton stated that the reason for conditions #e and #f were to protect
the Morris property and to let future owners know that this easement may exist.
(CONDITION F: Note building setback lines from the Morris roadway easement).
Mr. Payne stated that the surveyor has noted that there is no deeded right
of -way so therefore condition #e does not apply. As to condition #f the
appropriate course would be to require the building setback lines from
the Morris roadway easement.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the preliminary road plans have not been
approved by the County Engineer as of this date.
M
Mr. Bowerman explained to Mr. Graff that the Commission has requested
that preliminary road plans be reviewed by the County Engineer before
the plat is reviewed by the Commission. He also noted that a memorandum
was circulated to surveyors, architects, etc. advising them of this
requirement as well as other concerns of the Commission.
Mr. Graff noted that the Commission had approved a plat for lot eight last
year, stating that the six month time period elasped before the plat was
put to record.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that there is a note on the plat that states that
there is to be no access to the two different state roads except by this
thirty foot access.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met
by the applicant:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
private street commercial entrance;
b. Note an easement width for the road to the Morris property on lots
7A and B, subject to County Engineer approval;
c. Compliance with the private road provisions for the 30 foot easement
serving lots 7A, 7B, and 8, to include:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
d. Written health department approval;
e. Note the deed book reference for the Morris roadway, if applicable;
f. Note building setback lines for the Morris roadway easement.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
nTgrTTSgTnN-
Mr. Graff asked if the setback lines from the easement are required
to be on the plat.
Ms. Caperton noted that the setback lines would have to be on the plat
before it is signed.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the Commission is requiring the setback lines
because if in the future it is established that the road exists, the Commission
wants to make sure that the setback is 100' from the roadway.
Mr. Cogan stated that the following condition could be added:
• Pbte building setback lines from the Morris roadway easement or
establish that the easement does not exist.
Mr. Payne stated that if the road is in use then the purpose of the
ordinance which is served by the setback requirements apply equally even
if there is no easement of record.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that a seventy-five (75) foot setback line should
be shown on the plat.
LO W
The motion for approval of this plat with the conditions as outlined
above, carried unanimously.
Ivy Creek (Worrell) RPN, Phase One, Lots 14-20 Final Plat - located off
the north side of Route 250 West and Route 677 with primary access through
Flordon on Broomley Road; a proposal to divide 29.217 acres into 7 lots
with an average size of 2.384 acres with 22.529 acres in open space and
174.89+ acres in residue. Samuel Miller District. (TM 59, a portion of
parcel 27).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Max Evans, representing the applicant, stated that one of the conditions
on the Ivy Creek RPN was that a dry hydrant be provided to the existing
or proposed lake. He noted that when the first phase was submitted the
Fire Official stated that if a hydrant exists or could be provided within
one-half (31) mile of the site, this would be sufficient. Mr. Evans pointed
out that there is a hydrant on Tanglewood Road which is within one-half (�)
mile of the site. He also pointed out that according to the Fire Official
it would better serve the site if pressurized water was available.
Mr. Evan noted the comment in the staff report that the C & O Bridge
"*aw poses a problem for fire access to the site. He stated that this bridge
is posted at an eight ton weight limit and is located on a public road. He also
pointed out that C & 0 has stated that any damage done to the bridge would
be the responsibility of the party causing the damage. He stated that
they have reviewed the bridge with respect to the capacity and the actual
accident record and have no problems with this.
With regard to setback requirements, the houses will be located in the
center of the site approximately 300 to 500 feet apart.
Mr. Evans stated that they have changed the name Broomley Road at the point
where it enters onto Flordon Drive to the point where it enters the larger
portion of the property. He noted that they changed the name because Broomley
Road is a long road and felt it would better serve the site if the name
was changed. He pointed out that there should not be any confusion because
of the entrance gates and landscaping done at this point.
Mr. Evans stated that the road plans for the existing Broomley Road
and the roads into the site have been approved by the County Engineer.
Mr. Evans stated that they would respond to any questions or concerns
the Commission may have.
6W
Janet Reese, attorney for Mr. Worrell, stated that condition #C of the recommended
conditions of approval has been complied with. She also noted that with regard
to the Flordon road maintenance agreement, an agreement has been drafted by
Mr. Peatross, attorney for Flordon Homeowners Association, which will be presented
to Mr. Payne. (CONDITION #C: County Attorney approval of homeowners agreements
to include the maintenance drainage and appurtenant structures, open space, etc.
This agreement should specify that the open space is subject to an ingress and
egress driveway easement to each lot.)
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment.
Walt Lindsay, representing Farmington Homeowners Association, asked if condition
#4 of ZMA-80-16 has been complied with. (CONDITION #4: County Engineer approval
of interior road plans prior to final Planning Commission approval).
Ms. Caperton stated that the road plans for the lots being presented at this
time have been approved by the County Engineer, noting that the roads for
the entire subdivision have not been approved because only this one section
is being considered at this time.
Mr. Lindsay noted that condition #11 of ZMA-80-16 states "access limited to
Broomley Road only, and no access onto Brook Road." He asked Mr. Evans if
there was any access onto Brook Road.
Pair. Evans stated that there is no access onto Brook Road.
Mr. Lindsay stated that they have pictures showing a road that connects to
Brook Road and asked that this request not be approved until the applicant
has met the condition (#11) of ZMA-80-16.
Mrs. Peters, an adjacent owner, pointed out the location of this road to the
Commission.
Mr. Lindsay stated that the reason for this condition was because the Board
of Supervisors felt that any additional traffic would overload the private
roads of Farmington. He stated that the applicant was in violation of the
conditions approved for ZMA-80-16.
Laura Arnhoff, an adjacent owner, noted that the applicant is proposing to
construct wells around the existing trees. She asked if these trees could
be removed and white pines planted after construction.
Chauncey Hutter an adjacent owner, questioned the maintenance agreement., asking
if this wasa separate agreement from the agreement for Flordon.
Mr. Payne explained that an agreement has been drafted by the attorney for
Mr. Worrell and Mr. Peatross which should be acceptable to the people of Flordon
to provide for maintenace of Broomley Road.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there is a condition in ZMA-80-16 that speaks
to the maintenance agreement for Broomley Road.
Mr. Payne stated that there are two sets of obligations, noting that there
are other things which need to be addressed besides the new roads which have no
relationship to Flordon.
L! U U
Mr. Payne stated that it was represented to him that the concerned parties
have agreed upon this maintenance agreement, noting that he has not reviewed
the agreement at this time.
Mr. Hutter stated that he will not sign an agreement that has anything to
do with the Worrell plat.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the conditions are clear as to the fact that a
maintenance agreement is required for Broomley Road and the interior roads
of the PUD as well as other items associated with the PUD. He further noted
that this is a matter for the attorneys of the parties involved to handle.
Andy Graff questioned the site distance on Broomley Road and Rt. 677.
Ms. Caperton noted that the highway department has stated that improvements
could be made.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked if there was any access to Brook Road.
Mr. Evans stated that they have not built any access to Brook Road.
Mr. Davis stated that it has been represented that the access across Durrett Road
is a legal right=of-way and setback requirements should be shown on the plat.
Mr. Evans reiterated that this is not a road, there is no direct access to
Brook Road.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the connection between the Worrell and the Montenaro
property is not shown on the plat.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the question at this time is whether or not
there is an access to Brook Road.
Mr. Evans stated that the connection has existed between the two properties
and is not shown on the plat. as it is not a. ricrht-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt the conditions of ZMA-80-16
have been violated, because it stated that there is to be no access to Brook
Road.
Mr. Payne asked Ms. Reese if there was an easement which allowed Mr. Worrell
or Mr. Montenaro to travel across this property.
Ms. Reese stated that there is no legal agreement to this effect.
Mr. Payne noted that one of the concerns of the users of the Durrette Road
was that this road not be obstructed.
Mr. Davis asked if setback lines could be required for the Durrette Road.
� C3
Mr. Payne noted this road is part of the PUD which is not being considered
by the Commission at this time. He also pointed out that the ordinance
does not require a particular setback because its a PRD.
Mr. Bowerman asked if,by mutual agreement roads were constructed over Mr.
Worrell's property and adjacent property so that access was provided from
Broomley Road to Brook Road, this is in violation of ZMA-80-16.
Mr. Payne stated that it is difficult to apply the criteria for an easement
to a road, noting that if permission is given by the owner for anyone to use
his driveway and to use the portion of the connection to go from this property
to Brook Road then you have "access" which would not be consistent with the
conditions of ZMA-80-16.
Mr. Bowerman asked if in Mr. Payne's opinion the matter as to whether
there is access to Brook Road should be cleared before the Commission
takes action on this request.
Mr. Payne stated that it has been determined that there is access from one
point to another and it would be a fair determination that this is in
violation of ZMA-80-16.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it should be determined whether or not the condition
of ZMA-80-16 has been violated and asked whether this is the responsiblity
of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Payne stated that this could be determined by the Zoning Administrator
or the Planning Commission if they determined that the connection does not
affect this application.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that one of the conditions of approval for this request
states " compliance with the conditions of ZMA-80-16" therefore if there is a
violation of one of these conditions, it affects this application as well.
Mr. Davis moved for deferral of this application until a determination from
the Zoning Administrator has been made as to whether the conditions of ZMA-80-16
are in violation.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt it should be determined if there is sufficient
fire flow in the 6" line.
Mr. Payne stated that if there is a pressurized line which the Fire Official
says is superior to a dry hydrant, then the condition has been complied with.
Mr. Payne stated that the following condition could be added:
• installation of a pressurized fire hydrant to be approved
by the Fire Official.
Mr. Bowerman noted the following concerns that should be addressed before the
next Planning Commission review:
1. Question of trees along Broomley Road, can these be replaced; *40
2. Question of the maintenance agreement;
��y
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion for deferral.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Gloecnker stated that there should be setback lines shown on the plat.
Ms. Caperton stated that the reference is made in the staff report to setback
lines because of future expansion of the homes.
Mr. Payne stated that setback lines should be required.
Janet Reese noted that the covenants and restrictions state.that the building
and any outbuildings with the exception of fences and driveways had to be built
within a building envelope to be indicated on a separate plan. She noted that
the plan for each lot showing the building envelopes has been submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that this is essentially the setback lines but stated that
this should be noted on the plat.
Mrs. Peters reiterated her concern regarding the connection to Brook Road.
Mr. Allen Goodwin, an adjacent owner, asked the Commission to rule whether
there is a violation of ZMA-80-16.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission is asking the Zoning Administrator to
make this ruling, explaining that if in the event he fails to make this ruling
then it will be up to the Commission to make the determination.
Mr. Davis noted the following reasons why he feels this should be deferred until
December 17, 1981:
1. That a ruling be made as to whether the conditions of ZMA-80-16 have been
violated in regard to the newly constructed access road into an adjacent
property. I have enclosed a copy of the De
2. That the Fire Official inspect the site with the applicant and determine
whether a fire hydrant on a pressurized system off -site, or a dry hydrant
on=site, is more desirable for fire protection purposes.
3. That the applicant and Mrs. L. Arnhoff (lot 17, Flordon) resolve the question
of the provision of trees along the frontage of the Arnhoff property
as this relates to the Broomley Road improvements.
4. The consensuses of the Commission was that the name Ivy Creek Drive could
be used but that the term "extended" be deleted from Broomley Road. This
must be changed on the plat.
5. Note the proposed setbacks on the plat.
The motion for deferral of this plat until December 17, 1981, carried unaniumously.
OLD BUSINESS: RELIANCE OIL SITE PLAN:
Ms. Caperton stated that the Zoning Administrator, Bob Vaughn, determined that
the addition to the Reliance Oil Company did not need a revised site plan because
no additional parking was required. She noted that Mr. Vaughn received a letter
from the applicant stating that Phase 2 of this propsoal would not be constructed.
(. bb
She noted that in the mean time Staff recieved a copy of the revised site plans
and reviewed this .in the usual way, as the Zoning Administrator had not notified
Staff that the revised plan was not necessary.
She pointed out that since the Zoning Administrator has determined that a revised
plan is not necessary this will not be brought back to the Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m..
Rober W. Tucker, Jr., Secreta
PI
G�