HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 25 82 PC MinutesMay 25, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Corinission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
May 25, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those menbers present were Mrs. Norma Diehl,
Chainnan, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. Allen
Kindrick, Mr —Richard Cogan, Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr. Tim Michel. Also
present at this meeting was Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney,
Ms. Ellen Nash, ex-officio and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner.
After establishing that a quorum was present, 14rs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of November 10, 1981 were approved as submitted.
Bennington Terrace Final Plat - located on the east side of Georgetown Road,
north of Hessian Hills subdivision; a proposal to divide 1.87 acres into 11
lots with an average size of 3,950 square feet. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 60A1, Parcel 32). DEFERRED FROM APRIL 20, 1982.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any cenment.
Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that they have no objections to the
recnded conditions of approval with the exception of condition #F.
(COPTDITION #F: Approved soil erosion plan for roadway and for each dwelling
in subdivision.) He noted that the Soil Erosion Ordinance requires an overall
grading plan to be submitted for this development and stated that he felt that
an individual plan for each lot would not be as adequate as an overall plan
for the entire development.
Mr. Gale stated that the applicant will be developing Georgetown Road in
accordance with an urban design (i.e. curb and gutter and a full lane across
the property's frontage). He also noted that they will tie into the existing
taper lane which goes into Georgetown Court at this time.
Mr. Gale stated that the drainage plan for this development will benefit
the adjacent properties as they are proposing a drainage ditch which will
carry the water flaw into the detention pond, therefore, there should not be
runoff onto adjacent properties. 14r. Gale noted that this drainage plan is
not designed to control runoff downstream but also noted that this development
should not effect the runoff downstream. Mr. Gale stated that he did not
feel that the runoff would be effected after development of this proposal noting
that the adjacent properties would benefit frcrn this drainage plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Couburn if he had any comment.
Mr. Byron Coburn representing the Virginia Department of Highways and 14W
Transportation,stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns
the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Elrod if he had any comment regarding the drainage plans.
Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, stated that he met with the applicant's engineer,
I1r. Mike Davis, to discuss the fact that the residents along Bennington Drive
are having trouble with channel erosion and the underminina of trees. He
noted that there is an existing detention basin at Georgetown Court and pointed
out that the entire drainage basin that drains into the channel behind Bennington
Drive encompasses approximately twenty-five (25) acres. He stated that he
agrees with the applicant that the improvements he is making on the two (2)
acre parcel would have a minimal impact on the existing drainage channel whether
or not a detention basin was installed.
YT. Elrod stated that he felt the cost involved in installing a detention
basin could be substantial and noted that he felt off -site improvements
would better serve this proposal. He noted that the drainage that runs on to
the adjacent property to the south and southwest could be contained by the
berm ditch which would funnel the water to the storm sewer running down
Bennington Drive.
Mr. Mike Davis, representing the applicant, stated that they would like the
opportunity to do a study relating to the channel improvements, pointing out
that the cost factor would have to be considered.
INIrs. Diehl asked how runoff from a storm would be acconulodated if there was
no detention basin.
Mr. Elrod stated that the on -site and off -site improvements would have to be
approved by the Engineering Department to handle the runoff.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public cc mtent.
Mr. Philip Coran, an adjacent owner, presented pictures to the Commission
showing the drainage problems in this area. He noted that they have a problem
with the water flowing across Bennington Road as well as erosion in the stream
itself. He noted that the pipe under Solomon Court was too small which as a
result caused ponding and flooding of the bottom land. He stated that any
increase in water especially if the water is channelized will cause additional
erosion and an increase in silt. Fie noted that the landscaping had been done
to help with the eorison problems but that it was not effective. He reiterated
that any additional water load to this stream will cause more erosion.
Mr. David O'Brien, an adjacent owner, stated his concern regarding the amount
of water that the stream could accommodate. He also noted that the zoning
in this area has changed to R-4, which did away with any buffering that could
of been required on the Georgetown Court development. He reiterated their
concern regarding the drainage problems in this area.
9
Mr. Economos, an adjacent owner, stated that when he bought his property it
was zoned R-1 and has now been changed to R-4. He stated that whatever
priviledges are given to this proposal should be extended to him also as he does
not feel he sould be the buffer zone for the Hessian Hill development.
Mr. Chuck Reid, an adjacent owner, noted the problems with the undermining of
trees along the stream bank and stated that they could not afford to loose any
more trees. He stated that there is a severe problem with drainage and erosion
in this area and asked the Commission to consider this.
Mr. James S. Kennon, an adjacent owner, asked the Commission to view this
proposal in its entirety. He stated that the detention pond could be a potential
danger to small children. He also pointed out that this area was condemmened
at one time for being under water and stated that he felt the percolation tests
for this area should be reviewed carefully.
ac. Jim Laranaga, an adjacent owner, stated that there is an existing detention
basin in the rear of his property which serves the Georgetown Court development.
He stated that an additional basin could be a potential health, safety and
welfare problem, noting in particular the number of small children in this area.
I,1r. Mike Carman, an adjacent owner, stated that he agrees with the concerns of
the other adjacent owners.
With no further cent from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Cam-Lission.
Tom Gale, stated that in order for this development to tie into the existing
storm sewer system they will have to go off the site which means that on -site
as well as off -site improvments will be made. He stated that he does not
know how the zoning of property is determined, but noted that this property is
zoned R-4. He stated that the applicant has worked with the Highway Department,
the Engineering Department and the Planning Department to try to develop this
preoperty and meet the requirements of each department. He asked that the
Commission consider the position of the applicant and his right to develop this
property.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the detention basin is six (6) feet deep.
Mr. Paul Smith, an adjacent owner, noted the amount of money each property owner
paid for his property and stated that he did not feel their property should
depreciate in value in order to benefit the applicant (Mr. Davis).
Mrs. Diehl reiterated that the public portion of the meeting was closed and the
matter was before the Commission.
14r. Davis asked if there was any way the Commission could require that the
water flow from this property not exceed, as a result of development, the water
that is presently running off this property.
Mr. Frederick Payne, County Attorney, stated that this could be conditioned and
could be enforced by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Davis ascertained that a total seven acres drains through the two acre parcel.
ivirs. Diehl asked if any detention devices are installed at this time.
Mr. Elrod stated that this area has not been developed at this time.
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Elrod what the cost of rip -rapping a section of the stream
versus the cost of building a detention basin for a two year storni would be.
Mr. Elrod stated that the cost of rip -rapping three hundred and fifty feet (3501)
of the channel would be approximately $5,000-$7,000, The cost of constructing
a detention basin would be approximately $2,500.
Mir. Elrod stated that the applicant is designing a small pond so that the peak
rate of runoff from a ten year storm, as tle property exists now, will not change.
Mr. Michel asked if there was any other type of recommendation that the County
Engineer would suggest other than rip -rapping.
Mr. Elrod stated that the adjacent owners want to keep the area as natural as
possible, therefore, they do not want a paved channel or a pipe. He noted that
he felt a rip -rap channel could be designed which could be effective.
Mr. Michel asked how are the detention ponds maintained.
Mr. Elrod explained that this is taken care of by the Homeowners Association.
Mr. Michel asked how often this area has a ten year storm.
Mr. Elrod stated that the definition of a ten year storm is "over a period of
time on the average you will have one once every ten years."
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Elrod felt that a rip -rap channel in the existing
stream bed would reduce the stream erosion. She asked Mr. Elrod to explain
his proposal for controlling the sheet erosion.
Mr. Elrod explained that the applicant is proposing to install a berm bed which
will carry the runoff into a pipe below. Bennington Drive where it will empty
back into the channel. He stated that the detention basin will not stop the
erosion of this channel since the rest of the drainage area will continue to
deliver water to the stream.
Mrs. Diehl noted that Mr. Elrod has explained that if the detention pond is not
built and the runoff was directed into the pipe which empties into the creek,
the increase in velocity would have no effect on the stream as opposed to
retaining it for a longer period of time within the detention basin. She noted
that the variation in velocity or aw. unt that enters the stream at any given
point will not change significantly.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the purpose of rip -rap is to reduce erosion.
Mr. Cogan noted the concern of the adjacent property owners regarding the amount
of erosion this development could create.
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt off -site improvements would benefit the
adjacent cwners.
F_71i7
kirs. Diehl asked Mr. Elrod if he had the opportunity to make an analytical
analysis regarding rip -rap versus a detention basis.
Mr. Elrod stated that he has not had the opportunity to make an analysis
concerning the rip -rap versus a detention basis, but stated that he felt
confident in ,zis reccmmndation (rip -rap would serve the site).
Mr. Davis sated that the Ccgatnission should be confident that the amount of
water leaving the property is no greater at the end of development than it
was before. He stated that he felt that if a detention pond was not required
then the runoff would increase, therefore, causing more runoff onto adjacent
properties.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the C=Lission can require off -site improverLIents.
Mr. Payne stated that the comni.ssion can require off -site drainage improvements
where a study of the drainage area has been made and you are able to say with
reasonable certainity what constitutes a fair portion of the improvements versus
the development which is proposed as a factor of the entire area.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this initial site is a small portion of the entire
drainage problem.
1-Ir. Skove asked if the existing detention pond on Georgetown Court is designed
for a two year or a ten year storm.
Mr. Tom Trevillian, Civil Engineer, stated that this pond is designed for a ten
year storm which will have a larger flaw than a pond designed for a two year
`4W storm. He noted that the detention pond on Bennington Terrace is designed for
a two year storm. He explained that the change in the size of the detention
ponds took place because of a change in the requirements of the State Soil
Erosion measures.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Coburn if the improvements regarding the drop inlet on
Bennington Road have been completed.
1,1r. Coburn stated that the flume ditch and grading for this inlet have not been
conpleted, noting that this should be taken care of within the next several days.
Mr. Bowerman noted the problem with drainage in this area pointing out that water
is flowing across the ground to arrive at the stream. He stated that the
drop inlet on Bennington Road should catch this water and put it in a culvert
and deliver it to the stream. He stated that if the water flow could be
channeled into the stream this would reduce the amount of sheet flow.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not feel that this proposal should be required
to handle more than its fair share of the problems that are occuring in the
Bennington area. He explained to the Commission the difference in the design
of a detention pond for a two year versus a ten year storm. He stated that he
felt a two year detention basin should be built for this site. He also noted
that rip -rap should be applied to the point where the water discharges into
the stream, at least to the point where the current erosion problems occur,
prior to development.
I✓
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the ten year detention basin would be the
more conservative approach for this develognent.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the Commission could require a ten year detention
basin, but pointed out that the County Engineer has a problem with a detention
basin this large in this location because of the possibility of a maintenance
failure, etc.
Mr. Davis noted that the reccraTtend_ed condition of approval regarding fencing
reads:
• County Engineer approval of fence around detention pond, if necessary.
He stated that he felt fencing should be required around the detention pond
Mr. Skove stated that he did not understand the change in the size of the
detention pond, noting that Georgetown Court is designed for a ten year storm.
Mr. Trevillian stated that the change took place in March 1982, when the
County adopted the State Soil Erosion Ordinance. He noted that the handbook
stated under stormwater management "that the flow off a developed site will not
be any greater than it was before it was developed or the two year storm frequency."
He pointed out that before this ordinance was adopted the Soil Erosion Ordinance
did not speak to the stornwater management, therefore Georgetown Court was
designed for the ten year storm frequency.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the discharge rate for the proposed project could be as
high as the discharge rate for a ten year storm (Georgetown Court basin).
Mr. Trevillian stated that the detention pond on Georgetown Court has a fifteen
(15) inch pipe with an eight (8) inch opening, whereas a pond for a two year
storm might have a fifteen (15) inch pipe with a four (4) inch opening. He
noted that this change in size of the pipes makes the rate of flow for a two
year storm less intense and released over a longer period.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not feel that the Commission should hold the
applicant responsible for the drainage problems which exist in this area. He
also stated that he did not feel that a 25% density increase should be given for
landscaping, noting that if this were not granted, it would give more room for
an adequate detention pond and decrease the impervious surface that contributes
to runoff.
Pairs. Diehl noted that the staff report states "the Planning Commission must take
action to grant or not grant the above -requested bonus factors" she asked
Mr. Payne if this requires a separate action by the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission souls either approve the subdivision
as proposed or deny it. He noted that these bonus factors are built into this
plat, threfore if you approve the plat as submitted you are also approving
the requested bonus factors.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt a large detention pond should be required. He
noted that if the public health, safety, and welfare were jeopardized, then
the engineering design of the pond should be changed to accommodate the need.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod haw big would the detention basin have to be to
make a significant difference in the rate of runoff discharge into the stream.
Mr. Elrod stated that the two year discharge is significant in terms of erosion.
He noted that the highway department requires that when you check a channel
you leave the earth and grass, you use the discharge from a two year storm
to calculate the velocity.
its. Imhoff asked if the County Engineer would like to comment on the difference
in runoff between eight versus ten lots.
Mr. Elrod stated that there is not alot of difference between the runoff, but
noted that it would provide more open space and allow far a larger basin.
Mike Davis, Engineer, stated that this detention basin provides for a two
year and a ten year storm, therefore, a larger basin is not required. He noted
that when this is installed the runoff will be the same as it is now in terms
of rate, the only difference is that it will be put into a pipe system.
1.1r. Michel stated that if a total of ten lots was allowed then he felt that
the Commission could require rip -rap all the way to Solomon Road.
Mike Davis, Engineer, reiterated that the runoff rate for the ten year storm
as the site exists now, will not increase because of the detention pond.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the size of the detention pond (designed for a two year
storm) should be satisfactory if the stream is rip -rapped.
Mr. Bowerman specified that the stream should be rip -rapped from the point of
entry of the existing culvert from Georgetown Court.
Mr. Payne explained the principal behind the condition for soil erosion plan
for each lot within the subdivision.
Nis. Nash questioned the reasoning behind the bonus factor listed in the
staff report. (Dedication of land for public use - the applicant has proposed
dedicating approximately 635 square feet along Georgetown Road for future
improvements. This dedication would allow, if granted, .117 dwelling units
an acre increase in density. (15.4.3)).
Ms. Imhoff explained that this was done in conjunction with the Highway
Department, noting that this is a dedication of property that the Highway
Department would like to posses.
Mr. Coburn stated that the County's ordinance requires twenty-five feet of
dedication from the centerline. He noted that they are recommending that
Georgetown Road, as it is developed, be improved on a fifty-two foot cross
section. he noted that this would mean that curb and gutter be placed
twenty-six feet frcgn the centerline and that the need for sidewalks and
sidewalk space be addressed.
Ms. Imhoff asked if the Commission could require a twenty-six (26) foot dedication
along Georgetown Road, noting that plats have been approved for this area.
Mr. Payne stated that you can require dedication in excess of fifty feet, that
is twenty-five feet from the centerline, if the development will generate
significantly more traffic.
Mr. Michel asked what the definition of "significant landscaping" is.
Pair. Payne stated that significant landscaping should make some substantial
contribution to some aspect of public welfare (i.e. - traffic control, buffering,
noise barrier).
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Ccnvdssion could require more white pines in this area.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the white pines are on fifteen (15) foot centers,
pointing out that they should not be any closer. She also noted, that pin oaks
have been put around the cul-de-sac.
Pdrs. Diehl ascertained that the area around the detention pond will be
seeded.
Mx. Davis stated that he felt there should be a fence around the detention pond,
said fence to be a minimum of forty-eight inches high.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that the stream should be rip -rapped from. the point of
discharge from Bennington Terrace to the point of discharge from Georgetown Court.
Philip Coran, an adjacent owner, stated that he disagrees that there will be no
erosion in the stream if this area is developed. He also noted that rip -rapping
of the stream from. Bennington Road to the point of discharge on Georgetown
Court will not help the residents downstream of that point.
Mrs. Diehl explained that with the addition of the drop inlet, this is expected
to reduce the runoff at the point of entry onto the road, which will in turn
reduce the sheet erosion. She also noted that the problems occuring downstream
from this site do not in the judgement of the Commission appear to be impacted
or increased by this site development.
Mr. Cogan stated that he does not agree that the 25% bonus factor should be
given for landscaping. He stated that this was in his opinion an over intense
use for the land and is not in keeping with the R-4 zoning of the area.
Mr. Skove stated that he agrees with Mr. Cogan that the landscaping is not
significant enough to merit the 25% bonus factor.
Mr. Cogan moved for denial of this final plat as he felt the landscaping
provided is not significant to justify the bonus and therefore it doesn't
meet the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion for denial.
_J/4L
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl noted her concern that this is a high density residential area and
that the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan is for 11-34 units per acre.
For this reason, she stated she could support grantinq of the bonus factors.
Mr. Michel stated that he agrees with Mrs. Diehl, that the landscaping is
substantial.
The motion carried by a vote of 4-3, with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Michel, and Mr. Corwith
Davis, Jr. voting againist the motion.
Trinity Presbyterian Church Revised Site Plan - located on the
south side of old Route 29S, west of Route 29 2S0 By-pass; a
proposal to locate 80 additional parking spaces as well as to
revise the grading, storm drainage and landscape plans. Samuel
Miller District. (TM 76, portion of parcel 17). REQUESTS
DEFERRAL UNTIL JUNE 1, 1982.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the request for deferral of this site
plan until June 1, 1982.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ted Tucker Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 664, west of Route
743 intersection and south of Advance Mills; proposal to create a 2.00 acre
lot leaving 4.068 acres in residue. White Hall Magisterial District. (Tax
Map 19, parcel 29A.)
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that this is a family division.
He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends one dwelling unit per five
acres in this area, but noted that he did not feel the density would be affected
as this property has a building site in the front. He also pointed out that
this is an existing entrance and noted that the applicant is willing to
upgrade the entrance to a meet requirements for a private street commercial
entrance.
Kith no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commisssion.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to explain the waiver request for the benefit of
the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that Section 18-36(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance outlines
five criteria that must be complied with, one of which is:
• the average density in such subdivision shall comply with the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
He noted that this proposal does not meet this requirement.
Mrs. Diehl noted her concern about allowing this parcel to use the existing
easement without a commercial entrance as the possibility of further divisions
along this easement exist, and therefore felt so�,ie restrictions should be enforced.
Mr. Michel stated that this property could be served from St. Rt. 664.
Mrs. Diehl asked if a condition should be added speaking to the thirty (301)
foot easement along the residue.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she was under the impression that Mr. Tucker was asking
for relief from the requirement for a private street commercial entrance.
Mr. Gale stated that he would recommend that the two acre lot access from the
state road and that Mr. Tucker be allowed to use the existing entrance.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the two acre parcel is allowed to access off of the state
road and if the' usage of the present. easement is not altered then the requirements
of a private street commercial entrance would not apply.
Mr. Payne stated that the section of the ordinance requiring both parcels to
access from a public road would have to be waived.
Mr. Davis ascertained that if a road is built to state standards then the
highway department would have to accept it into the state system.
W. Coburn stated that a road has to have a public service, either three or
more dwelling units, industry, school, hospital, etc.
Mrs. Diehl asked under what conditions could the Commission grant a waiver
for serving both lots from a private road.
Mr. Payne stated that this is spoken to in Section 18-36d of the Subdivision
Ordinance. (SECTION 18-36d: every such road shall be maintained in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18-7 of this Chapter. Any lot fronting on any
such road shall enter only onto such road and shall have no immediate access
to any public street).
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt that granting the waiver of Section 18-36b(S)
would be appropriate providing a precedent was not set for future developments.
i/
Mr. Cogan noted that this is a family division and he did not forsee any
problem with the applicant using the existing driveway.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he also does not see any problem with using the
existing driveway.
Mr. Payne explained that this is not a family division in the technical view-
point, because a family division does not need to be reviewed by the Commission.
lie pointed out that the lot that is being given by the original owner has to
comply with the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Michel ascertained that a commercial entrance is not required because this
is an existing entrance, therefore, the Highway Department cannot require a
commercial entrance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there are other large parcels served by this road
which could be divided in the future.
Mr. Coburn stated that there should be at least three hundred and fifty feet
(350') of sight distance as St. Rt. 664 is a gravel road.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Correct magisterial district (White Hall);
110*0r° b. Note 30' right-of-way on residue;
c. Compliance with the private road provisions including County Attorney
approval of a maintenance agreement;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
2. The Planning Commission also waived Section 18-36b(5) of the Subdivision
Ordinance in order to allow you to continue using the private road
adjacent to your property.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mrs. Diehl
dissenting.
Rubin Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 675, northwest of Lake
Albemarle; a proposal to create a 5.0 acre parcel leaving 102.6 acres in
residue. White Hall Magisterial District. (Tax Map 41, Parcels 65A(1) and
67) .
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
ivir. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that he did not feel
a waiver of Section 18-36b(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance is necessary and
asked Mr. Payne to speak to this.
Mr. Payne stated that the average density in such subdivision shall comply with
the reccriTaendation of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that although this property
is located in the watershed, the overall density of dwelling unit is greater
than one dwelling unit per ten acres, therefore, a waiver of Section 18-36b(5)
of the Subdivision Ordinance is not necessary.
4ith no coanent from the public, Ddrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the CoxmLission.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Owner's notarized signature;
b. Side and rear setback lines;
c. Compliance with the private road provisions, including County Attorney
approval of a maintenance agreement;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance; if necessary.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Blue Ridge Forest, Phase II, Preliminary Plat - located off the northwest side
of Rt. 660, 1.5 miles southwest of Earlysville; proposal to divide 125.83
acres into 15 lots with an average lot size of 8.39 acres. (4.2 acres to 15.3
acres range). White Hall magisterial District. (TM 30, parcel 27).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Payne explained that the reason the staff is requiring the pipestem
coming off Forestvue Drive to be vacated is because technically in order to
have a private road it must be owned by the adjacent owner or by a Homeowners
Association. He stated that if there is a prior dedication to public use then
this would serve the same purpose, therefore, he does not feel this pipestem
needs to be vacated. Mr. Payne explained that this pipestem can still be
maintained by the hcm wners.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the maintenance agreement would speak to the
maintenance of the pipestem.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that they have no problem
with the conditions of approval as outlined by staff. He did aske that condition
#2 be changed to read:
o the road built in the area that is to be vacated is to be maintained
by the homeowners.
Ath no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove noted that this proposal is located in the watershed and pointed out
that the recommended lot size is for ten acres.
11,04
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that a special permit (SP-82-10) was approved in April
1980 for fifteen residential lots.
.1l Q
M
PR
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Add note: "A 100' building separation shall be maintained;"
b. Construction of a private roads according to plans to be approved
by the County Engineer;
c. County Engineer approval of lake and dam design and appurtenant
structures;
d. County Attorney approval of a homeowner's agreement to include
maintenance of the roadway, lake, dam, drainage and appurtenant
structures;
e. Provision of a street sign;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
g. Written Health Department approval and a copy of the soil scientist's
report prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat;
h. Virginia Department of Highways $ Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance;
i. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Crossroads Waldorf School Site Plan - located on the northeast corner of Route
2 NBL and Route 692 in North Garden Village; proposal to locate a private
school (200 square feet) on a 2.515 acre parcel. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 99, Parcel 5).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Dale Abrahamse, the applicant, stated that they view this building as a
temporary structure which will accomodate approximately twenty-one students.
He noted that the existing driveway will have to be widened but pointed out
that this would not require any extensive grading. He stated that he
would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this hatter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the applicant is requesting a waiver of Section
32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, he noted for the benefit of the Commission
that this is a procedual waiver that is contemplated by the ordinance.
Mr. Michel asked if there was an expansion of the school would it be on this site.
Mr. Abrahamse stated that this property is leased.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A certificate of occupancy can be issued when the following conditions
have been met:.
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance;
b. Fire Official approval of fire protection measures and handicapped
provisions;
c. Construction of driveway and parking area as per plans approved by
the County Engineer;
d. Written Health Department approval of septic system for no more than
24 persons;
e. Note on plan type of shrubs and plant shrubs in drop-off location;
f. Note on the plan that any intensification of use will require widening
of 12' driveway to 20' and Planning Commission review of the plan.
2. Waiver of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (the section of the
Zoning Ordinance requiring a site development plan) was granted.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Northside Baptist Church Temporary Additions Site Plan - located on the east
side of Rio Road (East , west of Wakefield Road; to locate three temporary
classroom buildings (12' x 401) adjacent to an existing church. Rivanna
Magisterial District. (Tax Map 62A(1), Parcel F-18).
Ms. Imhoff noted that the applicant is requesting deferral of this site plan
until June 22, 1982.
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of this
site plan until June 22; 1982.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Olde Oak Court Condominiums Final Plat - located on the east side of Hydraulic
Road, north of Georgetwon Road, across from Albemarle High Schook; to divide a
33,915 square foot site for six condominium units with 20,265 square feet in
common area. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61, parcel 36A).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Davis moved to defer this final plat until June 1, 1982 due to the absence
of the applicant.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Whippoorwill Hollow Revised Prelimina Plat - located on the north side of
Thrush Road in the Whippoorwill SuFlivision, west of Route 676 and southwest
of Owensville; a proposal to redivide 21+ acres into 3 lots with an average
size of 2.5 acres. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Tax Map 42, Parcels
75, 151-1532, 155, 156, 162-164).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that the intent of the
applicant (with this proposal) is to make the lots more saleable. He stated
that they would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Jim Hill, also representing the applicant, noted that there is an existing
trailer on the property which they intend to remove.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Payne noted that the Board of Supervisors denied the Hopewell Plat on the
basis that it required a special use permit. He pointed out that there is
an approved subdivision around this parcel, therefore there is no intent to
"grandfather" the Zoning. Ordinance and a special use permit is not required.
Mr. Sinclair stated that this proposal was prepared on October 13, 1979.
%4W
Betty Samuels, an adjacent owner, stated that she felt the rearrangement of the
lots would be beneficial to the area.
n
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Note all original acreages and total acreage;
b. Determination of a 30,000 square foot building site for each lot
prior to the Planning Commission's review of a final plat;
c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans for acceptance into the State system;
d. County Engineer approval of road plans;
e. Provision of a street sign;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion $ Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
g. Submit a copy of the soil scientist's report and written Health
Department approval prior to Planning Commission review of a final
plat.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
�21
Huntin ton Village, Phase I, II, and III, Final Plat - located off the north
side of Route 754(Old Ivy Road), west of the CharlRtesville Corporate limits;
a proposal to subdivide approximately 7 acres for 70 condominium units with
5,9487 acres in convertible land. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Tax
Map 60, Parcels 52A and 52.B).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Fred Landess, representing the applicant, asked why they are required
to put the dimensions and square footage on this plan, noting that this plan
will not stand alone and has to be recorded. with the condominium documents.
Mr. Payne that unlike a conventional subdivision plat, the plans for a
condominium are more precise. He noted that there are three types of
ownerships involved with condominiums which are:
o units;
o common elements;
o limited common elements;
Mr. Payne stated that as long as there is something recorded that shows the
dimensions of the units, common elements, and limited common elements, then
there is no need to duplicate this. He explained that the intent of the staff
was to ensure that something was recorded showing these iter_-S
Mr. Skove asked for a definition of "convertible land."
IIr. Payne explained that this is land that does not have any units on it at
the present time and can be taken into the condominium regime.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Owner's notarized signature;
b. Note dimension of buildings, height. and square footage, except as shown
on other documents covered in condition l.c.;
c. Make references to the legal documents on the plat. (For example:
"This plat is to be accompanied by the condominium regime documents and
building plans for each structure.")
d. County Attorney approval of condominium regime documents to include
maintenance of parking area, roadway, landscaping, recreational
equipment, stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures.
2. Plans of each structure shall be recorded along with this plat and the
legal documents, as set forth in Section 55-79.58 of the Virginia Code
(1980 Cumulative Supplement).
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
��1;Q
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Skove noted that there is a new policy relating to runoff control and
asked the staff if the Commission could be advised of the new policies.
Mr. Payne explained that the State adopted a new soil erosion handbook which
addresses the subject of stormwater control. He noted that the requirements
of this handbook is more stringent that the Zoning Ordinance and pointed out
that the Zoning Ordinance stated that the more stringent requirement be applied.
yr. Payne stated that it is being contemplated deleting these provisions from the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance as they are covered by the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Mr. Skove reiterated that he would like to be advised of any changes in policy.
Mr. Payne explained that this is not really a policy change but is a new provision
of law adopted by the Commonwealth.
Mrs. Diehl noted the number of waiver requests dealing with private roads and
asked Mr. Payne if he felt the Commission should reconsider this.
Mr. Payne noted that the Commission has outlined conditions which they feel are
pertinent for private roads. He expressed his concern about waiving these require-
ments because it sets a precedent for future proposals.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should review the requests for waivers
carefully and determine if a peculiar hardship exists before granting any waiver.
Mr. Payne explained to the Commission the requirements for family divisions.
Mr. Payne explained that once a plat is put to record then there is no mechanism
requiring it to be presented to the Commission again, therefore the Commission
should require any necessary improvements regarding roads, etc., that they feel
are necessary.
The concensus of the Commision was to review future waiver requests to'determine
if a hardship exists before granting any waivers.
The meeting adjourned at 11:.00 p.m.
M
420