Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 23 82 PC MinutesMarch 23, 1982 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Roon #5/6, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Ar. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Carl Williams, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., and Mr. James R. Skove. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent from the meeting was P4rs. Norma Diehl, Chairman. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order. The minutes of May 12, 1981, May 18, 1981, June 2, 1981 and August 18, 1981 were approved as submitted. Romer Property, Tract Four, Final Plat - Applicant requests deferral until April. Mr. Davis moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of this plat until April 20, 1982. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Bennington Terrace Final Plat - Applicant requests deferral until April. Mr. Davis moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of this plat until April 20, 1982. Ilir. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Fitzwood Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 250 East, east of the intersection with Route 744 and 6 miles east of Charlottesville; a proposal to divide 10.572 acres into two lots of 5.286 acres each. Rivanna Magisterial District. (TM 80, parcel 59B and part of parcel 60A). ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any questions or concerns the Ccnrdssion may have. /10 With no corm ant from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis ascertained that the road must either be completed or bonded before the plat will be signed. Ms. Caperton pointed out that this is a normal procedure, noting that it will prevent another entrance on Rt. 250. I -Is. Caperton pointed out that the reason this plat is presented to the Commission is because one of the lots has frontage can the private road easement instead of on Rt. 250. Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Note on the plat: "Only one dwelling permitted per lot," and "LocS 1 and 2 shall have access only onto the 30 foot private easement;" b. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1) The road must be bonded or constructed; 2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement; c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ivlr. Bowerman pointed out for the benefit of the public that Wynridge Phase II, Final Plat has been withdrawn. Mr. Bowerman pointed out for the benefit of the public, that Rey West, Phases I and II, Preliminary Plat which was deferred from December 18, 1980 has been withdrawn. Greene Gardens Site Plan - located on the east side of .Route 29 North (NBL), north of Rio Road and south of the Woodbrook Shopping Center; a proposal to locate on the existing site a swimming pool for sales demonstration use. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (U-1 45, parcel 104). Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment. Ton Lincoln, representing the applicant, asked if the pool is permitted as an accessory use. /2,1 Ms. Caperton stated that according to the Zoning Administrator the pool is permitted as an accessory use. Ar. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant will replace the 18" pipe located in the highway department's right-of-way with a 15" pipe. Ar. Davis questioned the type of fencing to be around the pool. Mr. Cogan pointed out that according to the note on the plat the fence is "four feet with vertical slats." Mr. Lincoln pointed out that the pool is for demonstration purposes only. i,Ir. Kindrick noted his concern regarding the back flushing and discharding of chlorinated water. IZr. Lincoln stated that this concern is addressed in a letter to Ms. N. Mason Caperton dated March 4, 1982 from Richard Walden. He read the following: "It is my intention to connect to the existing sanitary sewer as soon as possible which will give me a safe place to dump any treated water. Also, the filtration plant will be of a type which uses disposable canisters of diatomacious earth which requires no back flushing. If all else fails, water trucks (commercial or fire department provided) will be used to transport any treated water to an appropriate disposal site." ms. Caperton noted that the County Engineer has approved the drainage plan. 19s. Caperton pointed out that the requirements of the building code would have to be complied with before a building permit will be issued. i1r. Davis moved for approval of this site plan. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: i,Ir. Bowerman noted that an agreement has been met with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to install a meter on the sewage site, and they will be charged only for the sewage they create. Village Offices Site Plan - located on the east side of Berkmar Road, south of Rt. 631 and west of 29 North; a proposal to locate five (5) office buildings for a total of 20,000 square feet, on a 2.23 acre site. Charlottesville Magisterial M District. ('I l 61-U, parcel 6 and 7) . Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment. Mr. R. Gerald Dixon, representing the applicant, stated that they agree with the reccmnended conditions as outlined by the Staff and noted that they will respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this proposal is not within the watershed and that the soil erosion ordinance must be ccaplied with. Mr. Bowerman asked what the square footage was for the buildings previously approved. Ms. Caperton stated that this proposal was for five phases, the square footage of each phase is as follows: • phase 1 = 5,750 square feet; • phase 2 = 11,520 square feet; • phase 3 = 11,000 square feet; • phase 4 = 13,760 square feet; • phase 5 = 16,500 square feet. Mr. Davis ascertained that the existing detention pond will be upgraded. Mr. Bowerman noted that the detention pond was built initially for U-Stor-It noting that it is not part of their parcel. He ascertained that the responsiblity for maintaining this detention pond is the responsiblity of this applicant. 12r. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Building permits may be processed when the applicant has met the following conditions: a. Final Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, provisions for the handicapped, fire flow and fire wall placement; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; c. Final County Engineer approval of the stormwater detention plans, drainage plans, pavement specifications, and roadway plans; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. 2. Certificates of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions has been met by the applicant: a. Staff approval of a detailed landscaping plan; R 1�1 b. Vacation of the subdivision line between lots 6 and 7 of the Berkmar plat. Ar. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Key West, Section Six, Preliminary Plat - located west of Route 20 North, off the east side of State Route 1446 within the existing Key West Subdivision; a proposal to divide 141.10 acres into 21 lots with an average size of 6.72 acres. Rivanna Magisterial District. (TT4 62B2, Parcel 1 and 2; and TM 62, Parcel 49C). As. Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment. Mr. i-like Boggs, the applicant, stated that they are developing twenty-one lots which is less than what could be developed in this area. He also noted that they are going to improve the water system which, in turn, will improve the water pressure in this area. He stated that if state roads are required they will not be able to develop t'As area as the state roads cost approximately 55% more than private roads. i�lr. Boggs pointed out that they have made the following concessions: • Made an emergency access easement approximately 800' long in the event that the dam on Key West Drive should wash out. He noted that this dam is designed for a 100 year storm and there have been no problems in the pant; • Dry hydrant on the lake within this subdivision for use by the fire department, for this development and other fires in the area; and • To build Park Lane 18' wide instead of 16' and a portion of Key West Drive to be built 18' wide. He stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Camussion may have. Mr. Bowerman asked 1Ir. Roger Ray if he would like to speak to the question of private versus state roads for this proposal. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, stated that using a private road they intend to build a cul-de-sac on a portion of Key West Drive with a 20' access easement for emergency vehicles. He noted that if a state road is required a through road would have to be built as the highway department would not allow this to be a dead end road. He noted that approximately three acres would be disturbed if a state road was required noting the steep slopes in this area. :Ir. Ray pointed out to the commission the difference in cutting and filling required for a private road versus a state road. He also noted that if a state road is required it would have to be built in some areas on the side of the slopes. He noted that erosion could be controlled before and after construction if a private road is built. The cut line ditches for a private road would be �Mr built of riprap where as concrete ditches are required for a state road. He stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. /024 Mr. Bowerman asked what the maximum grade. is on Clark - Mr. Ray replied that the grade on Clark Lane and Explore's Road is 14%. *400 He presented to the Commission a road profile showing the grades, noting that a 12% grade is required for a state road and up to 15% grade is allowed for a private road. to noted that they have a 14% grade for approximately 120' which does not require any extensive cutting. Hr. Ray also noted for the benefit of the Commission that the County Engineer has reviewed the road profiles and the cross sections for this proposal and has recoirnnded that because of the steep terrain in this area, private roads should be constructed. Mr. Davis ascertained that a portion of Key West Drive will be widened to 18' with six inches of prime and double seal. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this plat. As. Marie Reel, an adjacent owner, stated that when they purchased their property they considered the literature on Key West Subdivision to be a part of their contract. She stated that a letter to N. Mason Caperton dated March 23, 1982, contained quotes from the sale:: literature give to prospective buyers. She noted that this letter spoke to state roads and recreational facilities being provided. She asked that the Commission consider this information in their -review. With no further comment from the public, 1-1r. Bowerman stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated that there were no conditions attached to the original Key West approval and therefore the Commission can not impose conditions speaking to the concerns of Ms. Reel. He noted that this is a civil matter between the landowners and the realty company. Mr. Payne stated that this is a matter between the landowners and the realty ccxmpany and would have to be settled in a court of law. Mr. Payne stated that as far as the County is concerned this is unsubdivided land and has nothing to do with the conditions of the original Key West Subdivision. 1 r. Bowerman asked if there was any c=nent from the Commissioner's regarding the applicant's request for a private road. Mr. Cogan stated that he had no objection to private roads noting the improvements to the existing roads in Key West as well as the improvements to the water system. 11r. Skove ascertained that twenty lots are served by Clark Lane. k1s. Caperton pointed out that the C udssion recomnended to the Board of Supervisors that over twenty lots be served by state roads, noting that this proposal is for twenty lots. �1r. Davis stated that he would like a condition added so that the private road would not be connected to Key West Drive. He suggested the following: • no connection to be made to Key West Drive and Explorer's Road except for emergency access. /a-:5" As. Caperton stated that this is noted on the plat as,an emergency and utility easement. Mr. Kindrick stated that he has no objection to private roads for this subdivision. ixIr. Bowerman stated that he had no problems with the private roads for this proposal because of the terrain and the number of lots. He also stated that he had no problem with the reduction in width of the roadway. I4s. Caperton pointed out that Explores Lane would meet the private road standards; Clark Road would be increased from 16' to 18' and Key West Drive would be reduced. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the cost for the improvements for the water system included the cost of the 8,800 gallon water tank. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that a soil scientist's report is required before final approval of this subdivision. Mr. Davis asked if this subdivision would be effected by the proposed CATS study. Mr. Boggs pointed out the location of the proposed four lane highway and noted that it will not effect this propoerty. 2k. Cogan moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: The following conditions will be recamunended for final approval: a. Compliance with conditions of SP-82-3; b. County Engineer and Fire Official approval of the emergency access roadway specifications; c. All roads, including the proposed roads, the emergency access and the improvements required on Key West Drive, must be completed or bonded prior to the signing of any plat for Section 6 of Key West; d. County Engineer approval of central well system including 8,800 gallons of additional storage; e. Compliance with the private road provisions for both the proposed roads and Key West Drive, including: 1) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements for all roads to include the maintenance of the emergency access road; 2) County Engineer approval of the road plans for the proposed roads and for the improvements of Key West Drive to its intersection with Northwest Lane; f. Written Health Department approval of a soil scientist's report prior to Planning CoYmi.ssion review of the final plat; g. Change the name of Clark Road; h. Street signs shall be provided; i. Fire Official approval of cross connection of the hydrant system to improve the fire flow and reliability in Key West; j. Fire Official approval of installation of a dry hydrant in accordance with NFPA standards at the lake; k. A separation of 100 feet or more between structures shall be maintained; /o2W 1. The 20 foot emergency access cannot be used as a connector road between Key West Drive and Explorers Road and is to be used only as an emergency and utility easement. 2. The Commission granted a waiver of the portion of Section 18-36c(1) which requires that a section of Key West Drive be constructed to state standards. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: TIr. Skove stated that he would like to explore the possibility of reviewing special use permits and subdivision plats simultaneously. Mr. Bowerman stated that the cost of the additional information needed for a special use permit is an extra expense and he feels like the applicant would not want to spend this extra money unless he has scone evidence that the subdivision would be approved. Mr. Payne noted that the applicant for Key West, for example, had basically completed every requirement necessary and therefore -,was reasonably sure that his request would be approved. He noted that this is not the case with every applicant. Mr. Skove stated that he felt the only extra expense would be for the soil scientist report. Ar. Payne pointed out that with a special use permit this calls for le;,islative action which has certain criteria for its review and involves action by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. A subdivision is an administrative action which could be final with the Comuission. Mr. Bowerman asked for an update on River Heights regarding grading, and asked uiat canrndents from the Zoning Office be presented at the next meeting or the first meeting in Arpil. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.. W. Tucker, Jr. - al