HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 18 82 PC MinutesMay 18, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
May 18, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman,
Vice -Chairman, Mr. Tim Michel, Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., and
Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy
County Attorney and Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent from the meeting was
Mr. Allen Kindrick and Ms. Ellen Nash, ex-Officio.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order.
The minutes of October 27, 1981 were approved as submitted.
7-Eleven Store Site Plan - located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Route 29 (NBL) and Route 649 (Proffit Road); proposal to locate a one-story, 2,460
square foot convenience store on a 61,078 square foot parcel (1.402 acres). Rivanna
Magisterial District. (Tax Map 32A, a portion of parcel 1).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Michael R. Vanderpool, representing the applicant, noted their request for a direct
entrance on Rt. 649. He pointed out that when this property was subdivided it was
proposed that this property share an entrance with the adjacent property. He noted
that the subdivision proposal was reasonable at that time, but they are now proposing
only one use for this property and therefore it is unreasonable to require the joint
entrance.
Mr. Vanderpool showed a plat to the Commission and outlined what the impact would be
if the joint access easement was utilized as opposed to the proposed entrances.
Mr. Davis asked how far the proposed entrance was located from the intersection of
Rt. 29.
Mr. Vanderpool replied that this entrance is approximately 100' from Rt. 29, noting
that the requirement of the highway department is only 50'.
Mr. Vanderpool noted that the Southland Corporation is willing to consolidate the two
proposed entrances into one entrance. He reiterated that it was, in his opinion,
unreasonable to require the use of the existing joint entrance.. He stated that they
would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
)�*rr' Mrs. Diehl asked what other parcels are served by this 50' joint access easement.
Ms. Caperton answered that the Monticello Home Builders Model Home and the old Jim
/Q7
Ewing Ford building, which is now being used by General Electric, use the joint entrance.
Mr. Vanderpool reiterated that the proposed entrance will meet the requirements of
the highway department and noted that they are willing to meet the recommended con-
ditions as outlined in the staff report regarding highway department approval of the *00
entrance standards.
Byron Coburn, representing the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, stated
that while the entrances meet the standards outlined in the "Minimum Design Standards"
they do not meet the requirements of the highway department. He noted that the North
29 Corridor Study calls for a grade separated interchange at this intersection and this
parcel would be bisected with an entrance ramp. He pointed out that planning for the
ultimate design of Rt. 649 was considered when these three parcels were created, noting
that this is part of the reason why the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
prohibited direct access to Rt. 29.
He noted that the developer at that time located entrances that could be accepted by
the highway department and the County as approved locations. These locations are:
1) Ford entrance with a joint access to tract 1; and
2) The access road into 84 Lumber Company.
Mr. Coburn noted that the highway department is recommending that the proposed entrance
be denied because it would prohibit implementation of the ultimate plans for Rt. 649 .
He noted that, in his opinion, the location of the building, the larger parcel and an
increased buffer should be reconsidered by the applicant.
Mr. Coburn stated that he felt the Planning Commission should address the issue of
the access, noting that the highway department, the applicant and the Staff have
not been able to arrive at a solution.
Mr. Coburn noted that if direct access is allowed to Rt. 649, the ultimate plans
for Rt. 649 will have to be revised.
Mr. Coburn showed the first site plan for this property on which he had superimposed
the improvements which would be made if a grade separated interchange was constructed
at this entrance. He noted the following:
1) a raised median along Rt. 29 through to the 84 Lumber Company entrance or at
the Ford entrance;
2) two (2) lanes in each direction with an additional left turn lane.
Mr. Coburn asked the Commission if they wanted the highway department to review this
as having access through the Ford entrance or as having direct access on Rt. 649. He
noted that in either case the highway department would not approve entrances at
the proposed locations.
Mr. Vanderpool stated that they were not contacted by the highway department with regard
to the entrances not meeting their criteria. He also noted that the essence of Mr.
Coburn's statement is that sometime in the future improvements will be made that would
not allow the highway department to implement the proposed 29 Corridor Study. He
noted that the County Attorney has stated that the Commission could not deny this
site plan on this basis.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the
Commission.
*(Please see the May 18, 1982 staff report for further explaination of entrance
locations).
/1 5
Mrs. Diehl asked if public sewer is anticipated for this area.
Ms. Caperton stated that this is not anticipated unless the second phase of
Hollymead should develop across Rt. 649.
Mr. Skove asked for clarification as to what the highway department would or would
not approve for this site.
Mr. Coburn stated that they would not approve two entrances at this location as
they are too close to Rt. 29. He noted that across Rt. 649, there is a motel which
limits sight distance for north bound vehicles turning right onto Rt. 649. He
stated that a potential for more rear end collisions in this area would be created.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the applicant has access through the existing easement
at this time.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the applicant would prefer to have a double access closer
to Rt. 29 rather than use the joint access.
Mr. Cogan stated that the easement was incorporated when the tracts were divided.
He stated that if the applicant wanted to build a service road this would be suitable
because it would prevent traffic build up. He stated that he did not feel that the
Commission should allow the change in access as this does not impose a hardship
on the applicant.
Mr. Skove stated that he agreed with Mr. Cogan noting that the applicant does have
access through this easement.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Staff suggests that the Commission either defer this site
plan or approve it with the amendments.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the Commission is of the opinion that the access should
not be changed, then the site plan will require extensive changes so he would
recommend deferral of this site plan.
Mr. Vanderpool stated that the property is not economically developable if the entrance
location is limited to the access easement, so they would request that the Commission
take action on their request at this time.
Mr. Davis ascertained that condition #G of the recommended conditions of approval,
spoke to the access to the property. (CONDITION #G: The 7--Eleven site shall have
access only via the existing joint easement between Tracts 1 and 2. Any redesign
of the plan as a result of this may have to be reviewed by the Commission.)
The Commission felt that redesign of the plan should be reviewed and therefore
changed condition #G to read as follows:
CONDITION #G: The 7-Eleven site shall have access only via the existing joint
easement between Tracts 1 and 2. Any redesign of the plan as a
result of this shall be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
/I 4
1. A building permit will be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Note on the site plan: "The total site area of 61,078 square feet is
limited to one use only unless the site is served by both public water
and sewer;
b. Change notations on the plan referring to the survey of the 22,110 square
foot site area;
C. Fire Official approval of the dumpster location (30 feet from the building);
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Approval by the appropriate authority of a separate permit for the
installation of the gas tanks and dispensers;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
g. The 7-Eleven site shall have access only via the existing joint easement
between Tracts 1 and 2. Any redesign of the plan as a result of this shall
be reviewed by the Commission;
h. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial
entrance;
i. Revise the landscape plan to reverse the locations of the easternmost white
pine and white oak trees.
2. This approval does not consititute approval of the sign or its location. This
approval must be obtained from the Zoning Department.
3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must meet
the following condition:
a. Dedication of an amount of land that constitutes 25 feet from the center-
line of Rt. 649.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Caperton asked if the site is redesigned, would the Commission want it to go
through the site review process or simply brought back to the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like this reviewed by Mr. Coburn.
Mrs. Diehl noted that it was possible that the location of the building could
change and she felt that this should go through the site review process.
CONCENSUS: The Commission felt that any redesign of this plan should go through
the site review process.
/9n
M
7-Eleven Final Plat - located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 29
North (NBL) and Rt. 649 (Proffit Road); proposal to divide an existing 59,257 square
foot parcel (1.3 acres) into a 37,146 square foot parcel and a 22,111 square foot
parcel. Rivanna Magisterial District. (County Tax Map 32A, portion of parcel 1).
REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the applicants request for withdrawal of this plat.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Rashash & Branco Preliminary Plat - located off the southeast side of Rt. 676, east
of the Rt. 614 intersection and south of Owensville; proposal to divide 7.02 acres
into two equal parcels. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (County Tax Map 43,
parcel 23C).
Mr. Payne noted for the benefit of the Commission that a member of his law firm is
related to one of the owners of this property, but stated that he did not feel this
would present a conflict of interest, and therefore he did not intend to disqualify
himself.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment..
Mr. Rashash, the applicant, noted the objections of the adjacent owners who expressed
concern for the increase in density and the additional traffic on the gravel road.
He noted that he has a legal right to build two houses and use this road, therefore
the adjacent owners have no grounds to object to his subdividing the two 'lots or
using the road. He stated that he would respond to any questions or comments the
Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this preliminary plat.
Dr. Frederick B. Walker, an adjacent owner, clarified, for the benefit of the Commission,
the location of his property in relationship to this proposed division. He stated
that the increase in traffic on this road would have an adverse effect on the property
value and asked that the Commission deny the waivers requested by the applicant and
also that the Commission require this road to be paved.
Avery Catlin, an adjacent owner, noted that there are currently seven (7) families
using this road and pointed out that the road is narrow. For this reason he stated
that he felt this preliminary plat should be denied.
Mr. Thomas F. Bergin, an adjacent owner, stated his objection to this proposal
noting that the width of the road is narrow and the increased traffic would be
detrimental.
Mr. Rashash reiterated that he has a legal right to build two houses on this property
and to use the road. He also pointed out that the right-of-way was intended to
serve all of the property along this road.
/9/
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the applicant can build two houses by right, but he Vold
cannot subdivide this property without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Davis stated that because this proposal does not meet the density requirements
outlined by the Comprehensive Plan, he feels that the waivers requested should not
be granted. He noted that the applicant can build the two houses without subdividing
this property, therefore if he chooses to subdivide the property he should be required
to meet all the requirements outlined by the ordinance.
Mr. Cogan expressed his concern regarding the waivers noting that he felt the
Commission could not permit waivers on one parcel and not permit them on other
parcels (in this area) if requested by applicants in the future.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to speak to the waiver request regarding Section 18-36A(5)
which stated that a private road may be allowed by the Planning Commission if the
proposed division meets the density recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission added two provisions (numbers 4 and 5 below)
to the Subdivision Ordinance specifying when private roads were to be allowed. He
read the following from Section 18-36(b) of the Subdivision ordinance:
The Commission shall determine that any such private road will be
adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected
to be generated by such subdivision; and
The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a public road in the
approximate location of such proposed private road; and
The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of lots abutting 1%r
the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners
of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to an easement
for the benefit of all lots served by such road; and
Such subdivision shall not be located in the urban area or in any
community as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; and
The average density in such subdivision shall comply with the recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Payne also noted that a safety valve was established whereby if the subdivision
complies with the first three paragraphs of Section (b) it can be approved if the
Commission determines that one of the three following situations exists:
"(1) 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;
(2) the approval of such roads would significantly.contribute to the physical
security of the residents of such subdivision; or
(3) for a specific, identifiable reason, the general public interest, as
opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better
served by the construction of such roads than by the construction of public
roads. In the case of any such approval, the Commission may require
such assurances from the subdivider in a form acceptable to the County
Attorney as it may determine to be necessary to protect the public
interest with respect to such roads."
/f.21
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission must determine if this proposal meets the
five criteria set forth by the ordinance or if it meets the first three provisions
but not the last two. The Commission must determine if the proposal meets one of
the three safety provisions and if any of the provisions of the ordinance must be
waived.
Mr. Davis noted that a private road already exists.
Mr. Payne stated that this situation was contemplated when the private roads section
of the ordinance was adopted. He read the following the Commission may approve any
subdivision served by one (1) or more private roads in any case in which..." and he
noted that the five criteria have already been addressed.
Ms. Caperton ascertained that Mr. Davis felt that since this is a private road
land divided on it should be allowed to use it as a private road.
Mr. Caogan stated that when the use is changed the ordinance requires that the road
be brought up to standard.
Mr. Payne explained that the first determination the Commission should make is
whether this proposal complies with the requirements for allowing the division on
a private road. If it does not meet with these requirements then the provision must
be waived before the subdivision can be allowed.
Mr. Davis stated that this proposal is located in the RA district and that a minimum
two acre lot size is required by the zoning ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a ten acre density rather
than two acres and explained that this is why the staff is saying that this proposal
does not meet the density requirements.
Mr. Skove stated that if waivers are granted on this proposal a precedent could be
set for future requests.
Mr. Michel asked if the applicant were to maintain this property under one parcel and
build two (2) homes would he be required to make any road improvements.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if the applicant were to build two homes and did not request
any subdivision of this property, this would not be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Payne reiterated the provisions of Section 18-36(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is against granting the following waivers, because this
property can be developed without subdividing and he feels that only that portion
of the road that directly involves the applicant should be dealt with.
• Table of Section 18-36C requires private road standards in compliance
with the total number of lots served by the road (plat displayed with
approximate requirements);
• A 30 foot right-of-way width is required (Section 18-36C(2)) for any road
serving more than six lots. The applicant is granting 10 additional feet
of right-of-way along his property frontage but a waiver is requested
for the remaining 445 feet of road, since he does not control this property
and
/93
0 A maintenance agreement (Sections 18-36D and 18-7) for the private
road is required. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this. His
letter states that there is an unwritten agreement "between the majority
of the Catlin Road users."
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the applicant is willing to grant an additional ten
feet of righ-of-way along his property frontage, noting that the waiver is requested
from his property out to the state road.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that there is a twenty foot right-of-way at this time.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
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. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance, if necessary;
C. The building setback lines must be redrawn to comply with the ordinance.
2. The Commission waived Section 18-36A(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
the continued use of the private road and required the following:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including the following:
1. County Engineer approval of the road plans in accordance with the
number of lots having access on the road as outlined in Table 1 (Section
18-36C(1));
2. Provision for a 30 foot right-of-way from the northern corner of the
subject property out to Rt. 676 (approximately 445 feet) (Section 18-36C(2));
3. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement between all users of the
road, if possible (if this is not possible, an agreement is needed between
the two subject parcels to maintain the road from the southern property
line out to the State road) (Sections 18-36D and 18-7).
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ewell & Fife Final Plat - located east of Route 633 and the Hardware River, south-
west of South Garden; a proposal to divide 26.88 acres into two parcels of 13.44
acres each. Scottsville Magisterial District. (County Tax Map 110, Parcel 7).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
9
R41
James Fife, representing the owners of the property, stated that there are twenty-
seven acres which were left to his mother and her sister. He noted that they wish
,%m+' to divide the preoperty at this time as it would benefit their heirs and he pointed
out that they have no intention of selling or building on these lots at this time.
Mr. Fife stated that the lack of a road does not create a hardship at this time
because nobody lives here. He stated that he felt it would be feasible to
approve this subdivision with the requirement that the road requirements be satisfied
when necessary. He pointed out that to build the road on the easement shown on
the plat and to build a bridge over the Hardware Rive would be an economic hardsip
to the applicant. He stated that the purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance would not
be vitiated by waiving the road requirements.
Mrs. Ewell stated that she would like to subdivide this property for benefit of the
heirs, pointing out that they do not intend to build or sell any of the lots at this
time.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that there is an existing road which runs parallel to the
river, noting that this is why the proposed right-of-way is located in the flood -
plain and close to the river.
Roger Ray, representing the applicant, pointed out the location of this property
to the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that this would be an undevlopable parcel and noted that a road
should be shown on the plat.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the applicant is requesting a waiver of Sections 18-18 and
18-19 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if a maintenance agreement and County Engineer approval of the
road specifications were obtained for this property, then there should not be a
financial hardship on the applicant.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the reason for the waiver requests is to reduce the financial
hardship on the two lots that will not be utilized at this time. She asked if all
of the waiver requests are necessary for this particular item.
Mr. Payne stated that the maintenance agreement should not impose any hardship,
noting that the cost of the road could present a hardship on the applicant.
Mr. Davis noted that this road goes through adjacent property and stated that he
felt the owner of the adjacent property should be notified that two divisions of
the Ewell/Fife property are possible.
Mr. Michel asked if there was a deeded right-of-way across the Pinkerton property.
Dr. Ewell stated that there is a deeded right-of-way across the Thomas property.
cm
Mr. Bowerman asked how long the easement was from the Hardware River to Rt. 633.
Mr. Fife stated that this easement is approximately 1,200 feet.
Mr. Skove noted condition 2.a. of the staff report and ascertained that the bridge
could be required at the building permit stage. (CONDITION 2.a: "No building
permits shall be permitted on parcel A or B without Planning Commission approval.")
Mrs. Diehl noted the following notes on the plat and asked Mr. Payne to explain
these:
* 1. Property lines from points "A", "B", and "C" was surveyed by protracting
angles and scaling distances from plat recorded in deed book 198-71.
The referred to indicates there was a proposed road between these points,
no road was found.
2. The boundary lines between points "D" and "E" shown hereon are along the
present location of the Hardware River. In deed book 198-72 the call for
these lines is down the proposed center of the river. Being unable to
ascertaine whether the present location is the previously proposed location,
these lines shall be agreed line, by legal document, with the adjacent
property owner.
Mr. Payne explained that the deed book description is down the center line of the
river and what is shown on this plat is down the present location of the center
line of the river. He stated that he assumes there is to be an agreement with
the other riparian owner of the other side to establish this line. He noted that
he felt this would eliminate any ambiguity in the future.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it should be noted either on the plat or in the conditions
of approval some reiteration that explains the feelings of the Commission that
allowed a subdivision that is not to be built upon, etc., for an indefinite period
of time.
Mr. Payne explained that this would be noted in the minutes and would be reflected
in the history for this property as well as the staff report.
Mr. Payne stated that if the the ,Commission wants to specify what they are trying
to achieve they may want to add the following condition:
No building permits shall be permitted on Parcel "A" or "B" without Planning
Commission approval, such approval may only be obtained upon full compliance
with Section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code.
Mr. Davis 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 by the
applicant:
a. Show metes and bounds of center line of proposed easement and note the
location of the existing easement and the distance to Rt. 633;
1911,
b. Written Health Department approval;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. Note building setback lines from all easements;
e. Proof to the satisfaction of the Staff that a 30,000 square foot
building site is available on each parcel.
2. Compliance with the private road provisions was waived provided that the
following statements be noted on and deleted from the plat:
a. "No building permits shall be issued on Parcel A or B without Planning
Commission approval."
b. Delete the "Only one dwelling permitted per parcel" note.
This motion also included granting the waivers of Sections 18-36C(.1) (requiring
the road to be built to County Engineer standards); Section 18--36(D) and 18-7
(requiring a maintenance agreement); Sections 18-18 and 18-19 (requiring the road to
be bonded if it is not built); and the requirement for a private street commercial
entrance. The Commission noted that they felt these provisions could be complied
with when the property is developed.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Key West, Section Six, Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 20 North at
w the rear portion of the Key West Subdivision, bordered on the west by the Rivanna
River; a proposal to divide 144.13 acres into 21 lots with an average size of 6.72
acres (ranging from 2.0 acres to 35.81 acres). Rivanna Magisterial District. (County
Tax Map 62B, Parcels 1 and 2; County Tax Map 62, Parcel 49C).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Marvin Pascall, 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 noted the following conditions listed in the staff report and asked
if there was any problem with these noting that they have not been approved:
• County Engineer and Fire Official approval of the emergency access
roadway specifications;
County Engineer approval of central well system including 8,800 gallons of
additional storage;
• Fire Official approval of cross connection of the hydrant system to improve
the fire flow and reliability in Key West;
• Fire Official approval of installation of a dry hydrant in accordance with
rr NFPA standards at the lake.
/ 9 ?'
Ms. Caperton stated that these conditions were required by the County Engineer
and the Fire Official at the preliminary stage and are part of the special use
permit. She reiterated that these conditions have not yet been met.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the only changes in this final plat from the
preliminary plat is that the lot lines for lots one, two, eight, and nine have
changed.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the flood plain acreage for lots fourteen and eighteen
are not being farmed at this time. He noted that if this acreage were to be farmed
access to this property could be obtained via an old farm road at the rear of the
property.
Mr. Davis 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 by the
applicant:
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 North-
west Lane;
f. Street signs shall be provided;
g. Fire Official approval of cross connection of the hydrant system to improve
the fire flow and reliability in Key West;
h. Fire Official approval of installation of a dry hydrant in accordance
with NFPA standards at the lake;
i. A separation of 100 feet or more between structures shall be maintained;
j. 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. Waiver of the portion of Section 18-36C(1) which requires that a section of
Key West Drive be constructed to State standards was granted.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
91
/9'
Ivy Creek (61.09 acre parcel) Final Plat - located off the north side of Route 250
West and Route 677, west of Farmington and east of Ivy Creek; a proposal to create
a 61.09 acre parcel leaving + 154 acres in residue. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. (County Tax Map 59, Parcel 27).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Janet Reese, 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. Michel asked if this property is the home of Mr. Worrell.
Janet Reese, representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Worrell originally owned
the entire two hundred and fifteen acres (215) and for reasons involving roads and
such the entire property was transferred to a wholly owned corporation (Ivy Creek, Inc).
She noted that the purpose of this proposal is to transfer this parcel back to Mr.
Worrell. She pointed out that Mr. Worrell's private residence is the only dwelling
on the 61.08 acre parcel.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following condition:
1. The plat will be signed when the following condition has been met by the applicant:
a. County Attorney approval of document to guarantee that this parcel is
included in all maintenance agreements (in addition to Phase I, Section A,
Phase II, Section A and the residue parcel.)
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ivy Creek, PRD, Phase II,Section A, Final Plat - located off the north side of Route
250 West and Route 677, with access off the end of Broomley Road in Flordon; a
proposal to divide 41.34 acres into 8 lots with open space and 138 acres in residue
as previously approved.Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (County Tax Map 59,
Parcel 27).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Max Evans, 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 final plat.
Mrs. Peters, representing the adjacent owners in Farmington, stated that they would
like some assurance that there will be no access through Farmington. She asked
what type of assurance could be given that there will be no access here and what
penalities-could be imposed if this access, should be used.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Evans stated that the gravel connection that was made to Mr. Montenero's property
has been removed and an earth berm�was built which will prevent thhough traffic. He
also noted that one of the conditions of approval for the RPN is that there will
be no through traffic on Brook Road.
Mr. Payne stated that there is to be no connection to Brook Road, and he noted that
if this was violated, Mr. Worrell would not be liable as he has complied with the
conditions and removed the connection.
Mr. Michel asked if there was any open space between these lots.
Mr. Evans stated that when the next section of this development is presented to the
Commission he will bring a master plan which better outlines open space, etc.
Mr. Davis ascertained that a maintenance agreement has been approved for this
section.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that one of the conditions of approval for ZMA-80-16 is that
there will be no connection between this development and Farmington.
Mr. Skove 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 by
the applicant:
a. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-16;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
c. County Engineer approval of road plans for the extension of Ivy Creek Drive;
d. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations;
e. The pathways must be noted in the open space;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the water plans.
2. A waiver of double frontage for lot 10 is granted.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Riverrun Phase One, Amended Site Plan - located on the north side of Route 768
(Pen Park Road), east of Rio Road (East); a proposal to amend the first phase of
the approved site plan to redesign the locations of 48 townhouse units on 5.5155
acres for a gross density of 5.99 dwelling units per acre for the entire development.
Rivanna Magisterial District. (County Tax Map 62, portions of parcels 17, 17A, and
17B.)
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
IVao
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
James Gercke, the owner, noted the following changes in this amended site plan
from the original site plan:
• This plan is designed with more adequate topographic information from the
earlier site plan. For example, there is a ten foot cut in the road which
presented problems in implementing the old site plan.
• Due to the slope grading required for the highway department's right-of-way
the units had to be moved back more than they were in the original plan.
• The highway department will not let a townhouse road front onto a state
road because they require that the driveways be fifty (50) feet apart. He
noted that they are basically building central roads to allow the implementation
of a townhouse to exit onto a road and still meet the requirements of the
highway department.
• They will offer the option of detached garage structures, which has been
allowed for in the setback requirements.
• Sidewalks will be built to state specifications.
• This plan adds an additional fifteen parking spaces.
Mr. Gercke stated that they are requesting a waiver of double frontage on lots on
Den Tree Lane. He stated that the reason for this is because they have set the
units back twenty-five (25) feet, thereby eliminating the common area of five to
ten feet along this right-of-way. He stated that they do not feel this is a dis-
advantage on this particular section of the road, noting that there is a natural
buffer zone.
�1*ftr Mr. Gercke stated that regarding condition l.g. of the staff report, he is opposed
to this as the natural state consists of posion ivy, etc.. He stated that they
propose to treat this central green area as a park with lighting, etc. (CONDITION
l.g.: Only those areas where buildings, roads, dirveways, utilities or other
improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in
its natural state).
om
Ed Eichman, the architect for this proposal, stated that in order to maintain the
maximum five (5) percent slopes within the driveway areas, the existing topo had
to be changed. He noted that the arrangement of the units site as shown is a
village green concept with central open space. He stated that he felt having the
townhouses fronting onto the interior court and backing on the public streets would
be successful because the exsiting site is similiar to a small plateau. He pointed
out that all of the surrounding roadways are depressed in relationship to the
existing topography. _
Mr. Eichman stated that the element of detached structures in varying locations will
add interest to the total composition. He pointed out that they were able to meet
the twenty-five (25) foot setback requirement from the private street.
Mr. Eichman stated that they are interested in involving a neighborhood feeling that
would have a continuity with the neighborhoods that will be created in subsequent
phases. He pointed out that all of the utilities will be underground.
,J6/ 91
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there were forty-eight (48) townhouses in this section
on the original plan and that the locations and the additional parking spaces are
the changes being presented at this time.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the changing of the natural area would be an
improvement and asked Mr. Payne how this could be provided for.
Mr. Payne stated that the condition of approval could read:
the natural state of the site may be disturbed in other locations to the
extent that landscaping be provided in such locations to the satisfaction
of the planning staff.
Mr. Gercke stated that he has no problems with this recommended condition, noting
that they have to submit a landscape plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if measures have been taken to stabilize those areas that aren't
in the slopes, cuts on roads, etc.
Mr. Gercke stated that they were waiting on approval from the Commission before
taking the equipment back to the site to complete the first construction phase.
The grading will include seeding the slopes and the road beds. He noted that
as soon as the sewer line is laid, everything will be seeded that isn't to be
paved and they hope this will be completed by July 1.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this site is indeed like a small plateau and noted that
he felt what the applicant has proposed is a reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Michel noted that the recreational amenities shall be provided by the time the
third building phase of the total project is ready for occupancy. He asked what
type of recreational amenities shall be provided.
Mr. Gercke stated that this will be a passive recreational facility which will serve
the entire project.
Mrs, Diehl asked what changes have been made on the stormwater detention plan.
Kirk Hughes, representing the applicant, stated that the detention pond which is
adjacent to the natural swale has been approved by the County. He noted that
at this time drainage runs through Pen Park.
Mr. Bowerman asked if condition l.d applies to all lots. (CONDITION l.d. - Compliance
with the Soil Erosion Ordinance to include grading plans for lots).
Ms. Caperton stated that this does not have to be for individual lots, it can be
included on one plan.
Mr. Hughes stated that they have an approved soil erosion plan for the grading
on the roads.
Mr. Gercke pointed out that this road is articulated to the curve so that it is
slightly higher on the inside so drainage goes to the curve, into drop inlets and
to the detention pond.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this amended 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 approval of private road plans and interior drainage plans;
C. Street signs are required;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance to include grading plans
for lots;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of off-street water and sewer
plans;
f. Fire Official approval of fire flow and plans for trash recepticles;
g. 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, provided that the natural state of the site
may be disturbed on other locations to the extent that landscaping be
provided in such locations to the satisfaction of the planning staff;
h. No buildings shall be constructed on 250 or greater slopes.
2. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the various phases,
�4w the applicant must meet the following conditions;
a. Subdivision plats shall have been approved and recorded;
b. Recreational amenities shall be provided by the time the third building
phase of the total project is ready for occupancy. The amount of the
facilities (50 square feet per unit) shall be determined by the number
of units to be completed 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 Staff.
C. Staff approval of a more detailed landscape plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
Estelle Jackson Preliminary Plat - Request for reconsideration.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Ms. Jackson stated that at this time she is the only person responsible for
maintaining this road. She noted that the remaining twenty-three (23) acres
are up for sale, but until they are sold she is responsible for road maintenance.
ao 3
Ms. Jackson stated that she would like to build a home here and use the road
in its present condition.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Harry Brown, representing LI Associates Partnership, asked if Ms. Jackson
intends to put both a trailer and a house on this property.
Mrs. Diehl explained that there is a temporary mobile home on the site at this
time and that the parcel would be subdivided and a home built.
Mr. Brown stated that when this property was sold to Ms. Jackson it was their
understanding that a single family dwelling would be built. He noted that they
are required to have five acre lots which presents a problem in selling the lots
and obviously in improving the road. He noted that they can not subdivide unless
they improve the road and questioned why Ms. Jackson should be allowed to subdivide
without making the necessary road improvements.
Mrs. Diehl asked when the temporary mobile home permit expires.
Ms. Jackson stated that this permit expires in 1985.
Mr. Davis stated that Ms. Jackson might be able to build her home on the property
as it exists at this time but he felt that if this was subdivided the same conditions
should be required for this division as would be required for another applicant.
Ms. Caperton stated that the Dudley Mountain Lodge Plat has a note that was in
compliance with the private road provisions of the ordinance that states"only
Nod
one dwelling per lot is allowed on a Commission approved private road, unless the
Commission should determine that more than one dwelling on each lot can be adequately
served by a private road." She noted that when she discussed this proposal with
Ms. Jackson they discussed either subdividing the property or asking the Commission
for a waiver that would allow two dwellings on the lot.
Mr. Payne stated that this is a procedual matter noting that this preliminary approval ha
expired. He pointed out that the plat is valid for six months and this plat has
expired, therefore, the Commission cannot reconsider this. He explained that Ms.
Jackson has the option of having this reapproved.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission should consider the alternative regarding
waiving the restriction noted on the Dudley Mountain Lodge Plat. This note states
"only one dwelling per lot without Planning Commission approval."
Ms. Caperton stated that the options are the same as this does not change the review
of the numbers of parcels with access on the road or the additional use of the entrance.
Mr. Davis stated that if this property was subidivided then the number of parcels
on the road would increase.
Ms. Caperton stated the reason for putting a note of this type on the plat is to count
the number of units using a private road.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission cannot consider this plat at this time
since it has expired.
Mrs. Diehl asked on what basis do you make a determination as to a Planning Commission
approval of two dellings on one lot.
Mr. Payne stated that if two dwellings are on one lot the Commission generally requires
the road to be designed and the maintenance agreement to be considered as if it were
two lots.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the density in
this area is two acres.
Mr. Payne stated that a practical consideration is whether this property can be
subdivided using this road, noting that it must be determined if another division
on this road consititutes an additional burden on the servitude.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this road does not meet the requirements for a surface
treatment and commercial entrance.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that if Ms. Jackson was the only one contemplating developing
on this road then only the entrance and surface treatment would be required. Ms.
Caperton noted that if Ms. Jackson met these requirements and had her plat signed,
when Poplar Hill develops they would have to widen the road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission considered the effect of allowing this division
when the Poplar Hills plat was reviewed.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the density question is not of concern because the
Ift"" Dudley Mountain plat was approved with five two acre lots, with five acre and
twenty-three acre residues. The reason the Poplar Hills plat has a five acre
density is because this is all the development rights they have.
Mrs. Diehl explained to Ms. Jackson that they have been advised by Mr. Payne that
the plat that is before them at this time is no longer valid and it has expired.
She stated that the Commission is trying to discuss the possibilities that exist for
the applicant as well as the Commission.
Ms. Jackson stated that it is in her contract that Ellison & Estelle Jackson are
to build houses on this property and to help with the up -keep of the road. She
pointed out that she did not decide to subdivide this property after purchasing it and
that this was her intention from the start. She stated that it is in the deed that
two houses are to be built on this property.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the deed would take precedent over the plat.
Mr. Payne stated that the requirements of the Subdivision ordinance would have to
be met. He stated that he is reluctant to make a statement regarding this until he
has veviewed the deed.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this five acre parcel was part of the Dudley Mountain
Lodges Plat, referred to as a residue parcel.
Mrs. Diehl explained to Ms. Jackson that she should seek some legal advice. She
again noted the fact that the Commission could not take action on this request
p2p.S�
because it has expired.
CONCENSUS OF THE COMMISSION REGARDING THIS PLAT:
The Commission decided that they could not reconsider this preliminary plat
since the previous approval had expired. They suggested to Ms. Jackson that
she may want to consult an attorney to look into this matter. They also
explained that she may re -apply for subdivision review at any time.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that there is a letter in the packets from the County Attorney
regarding the Scottsville Levee.
Mr. Payne noted that it has been suggested to the Board of Supervisors that this
not be appealed.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Robe t W. Tucker, Jr. Secreta y ,