HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 15 82 PC MinutesJune 15, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
on Tuesday, June 15, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second
Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman,
Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Tim Michel,
Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr..
Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County
Attorney, Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner and Ms. Ellen Nash,
Ex-officio.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the
meeting to order.
The minutes of November 12, 1981 were approved as submitted.
Northfields, Block A, Addition Two, Lots 1 and 2 Final Plat - located
at the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 631 (Rio Road
East) and Chapel Hill Road, south of the Northfields Subdivision;
proposal to divide 1.116 acres into two lots of .595 acres and .521
acres. (TM 62A1, parcels 2 and 3). Charlottesville District.
*GIs. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Gary Beasley, representing the applicant, explained that there is
a sewer line on the east side of Rio Road but in order to get to this
sewer line they would have to bore under the highway and noted that
he did not feel this would be acceptable to the Highway Department.
He also pointed out that there is an eighteen (18) inch water line
which is the main source of water to the City of Charlottesville
from the South Rivanna and an eighteen (18) inch highway department
drainage culvert to the east of the property in question.
Mr. Beasley asked the Commission to allow the existing house to con-
tinue using the existing septic system until such time as it fails or
requires expansion. He also pointed out that in his opinion this
proposed lot could support a septic system. He stated that he would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Louis Gleason, representing the applicant, asked the Commission
to approve this proposal with a septic system instead of requiring
public sewer.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
FAjG'
Mrs. Diehl noted that there is a 40,000-60,000 square foot area
requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance, which pertains to lot
size and asked if the Commission could waive this requirement.
Mr. Payne noted that this (40,000-60,000 square feet) is required
by both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. He
explained that the Commission could waive this requirement as it
pertains to the Subdivision Ordinance but not to the Zoning Ordinance.
He also stated that the Commission should consider this waiver care-
fully noting that they do not want to set a precedent for future
applications.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any comment from the Health Department
regarding the septic fields.
Ms. Caperton read the following statement from the Health Department
"the lot sizes are such that there appears to be enough area to
install the required amount of drainfield for an average size building."
She also noted that the Health Department stated "that because of
limited acreage only one septic area can be found, however,
alternative means is acceptable."
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would create an hardship on the applicant
if he is required to hook to public sewer.
Mr. Beasley stated that to hook to public sewer would not be feasible
noting the expense involved and pointing out that the water service
to the existing house is from a connection on Wakefield Road.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Health Department has commented
that there is only one drainfield location on the site, noting that
if the lot is subdivided then there would be no possibility for
expansion of the septic drainfield.
Mrs. Diehl explained that a septic system is a finite system and at
some point could fail, noting that if this division is allowed then
there would be no adequate area when a second septic system is needed.
Ms. Nash asked that if this parcel had originally been divided and
taxed as two parcels, would this not litigate against a precedent
in other cases.
Mr. Payne stated that he did not feel this would make a difference
since the intent of the deed, which he reviewed, was to make this one
parcel.
Mrs. Beasley stated that they purchased the house and lot in 1962 and
purchased the adjoining lot one year later.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he was aware of the history concerning
these lots.
Mr. Payne stated that the maintenance agreement which he reviewed
stated that the lots are joined.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if the lots are not joined and the 1400
original line was re-established then there would be two existing lots.
,23Il
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the reason the lots are listed as two
separate lots is because the Real Estate Department did not pick them
up as joined lots, therefore, they are listed in the tax books, etc.,
as two separate parcels.
Mr. Payne read the following note found on the plat: "Parcel A to be
added to Lot One, Block A, to form a new and larger lot."
Mr. Davis noted that if the applicant is required to hook to public
sewer and this proves to be a hardship, he can come back to the
Commission to ask for a waiver of this condition.
Mr. Payne reiterated that this is one lot as shown on the plat.
Mr. Cogan asked what the definition of public sewer "being available"
is.
Mr. Payne stated that you are required to hook to public sewer if it
is reasonably available, but noted that in this case you can't sub-
divide unless public sewer is available because of the size of the lot.
Mr. Davis moved to approve this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the
following conditions:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of specifications for the
improvement of Chapel Hill Road;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
b. Owner's notarized signature;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans to
connect both parcels to public water and sewer where
necessary; the connection must be made or bonded;
e. Fire Official approval of fire prevention facilities where
needed (i.e. location of hydrant and fire flow);
f. Note on the plat that both lots will be served by public
water and sewer.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
M
Berta Shaver Final Plat -- located on the west side of Route 631
south, just north of the intersection with Route 706; proposal to
divide 32.36 acres into three parcels of 2.28 acres, 2.78 acres and
27.30 acres. (TM 89, parcel 74). Scottsville District.
Mr. Michel disqualified himself by leaving the room.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
John Greene, representing the applicant, stated that they would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
with no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Ms. Nash asked what are the rights of the owner of lot #3 relating
to re -subdividing.
Mr. Payne explained that lot #3 may be divided into three lots of
less than twenty-one acres.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this final plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of the road maintenance agreement.
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a private street commercial entrance.
2. The applicant is put on notice that any redivision of lot #3 may
require the road to be upgraded to serve the total number of
lots.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Michel re -joined the meeting.
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. and Mr. Frederick W. Payne disqualified
themselves by leaving the room.
R
31_
In
Leonard H. Dykes Final Plat - located off the southwest side of
Route 795, south of the intersection with Route 708 and north of
the Hardware River; proposal to divide a 60.0 acre parcel leaving
26.026 acres in residue. (TM 113, parcel 11D). Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Kirk Hughes, representing the applicant, stated that they are
proposing to change the plat to show the line along the western
boundary; noting that the approximate acreage is 582 acres. He
noted that the right-of-way or the existing features of the house
would not be changed.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Ms. Caperton stated that a condition could be added to read:
♦ Administrative approval of the change in reduction of the
size of parcel "A" from sixty acres to approximately
fifty-eight and one-half acres.
Mrs. Diehl asked why the condition "note the date by which all
reference monuments will be set" is being required.
Ms. Caperton stated that staff has been advised that some of the
iron pins have not been set. She noted that the ordinance states
that a date can be required for the setting of these pins, therefore,
they are requesting that this date be noted on the plat.
Mr. Michel 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 the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement
between all users of the road; if possible;
b. Note the date by which all reference monuments will be set.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Davis and Mr. Payne re -joined the meeting.
_�q 311
"Village Offices" Condominium Final Plat located on the east side of
Berkmar Drive, south of the intersection with Rio Road Nest (Route
631); proposal to divide fifteen (15) condominium units within the
buildings approved on the Village Offices Site Plan. (TM 61U,
parcels 6 and 7). Charlottesville District.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. John Greene, representing the applicant asked for clarification
regarding condition l.c. (CONDITION 1-c - This plat constitutes a
redivision of lots 6 and 7 of the Berkmar Center Plan. Note that
lots 6 and 7 shall cease to exist upon recordation of this plat.)
Mr. Payne explained that the boundary line for lots six and seven
needs to be removed, noting that this can be done either by vacating
the subdivision (Berkmar Subdivision) or by re -subdividing. He
explained that the ordinance defines the creation of condominium
regimes as a subdivision, therefore, this note will constitute for
the record that this line no longer exists.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked why the plans for the stormwater detention basin
were not submitted.
Mr. Greene stated that he did not agree with the solution of the
County Engineer, noting that he would like to work with the County
Engineer to reach a solution. He stated that the pond was built at
the same time as the U-Stor-It Warehouse with the capacity to serve
this property when developed. However, now that this land has been
cleared it appears that the pipe that discharges from the U-Stor-It
property is at a lower elevation that the discharge pipe from the
pond. He noted that there is a build up of silt in the pipe that
needs to be cleaned.
He noted that the County Engineer suggested providing a stone filter
section around the discharge of the pipe from the U-Store-It property.
He stated that he did not feel this would be a permanent solution
and pointed out that he felt that the discharge from this proposal
should be corrected or the pipe from U-Stor-It should be elevated.
Mr. Green pointed out that they have not had the opportunity to
observe runoff during a storm.
Mr. Bowerman asked that the Commission be advised as to the solution
of the problem after it is worked out by the applicant and County
Engineer.
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:
-�2t39
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Staff approval of a detailed landscaping plan;
C. This plat constitutes a redivision of lots 6 and 7 of the
Berkmar Center Plat. Note that lots 6 and 7 shall cease
to exist upon recordation of the plat.
d. County Attorney approval of condominium documents to
include provisions for maintenance of areas outside
structures (i.e. parking areas, roadways, landscaping,
stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures);
e. Corrections or improvements to the stormwater detention
facilities shall be made to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer;
f. Note the date by which all reference monuments will be set.
2. All improvements shall be constructed or bonded prior to signing
plat or the issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Craig Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 728 and the
west side of Route 729, south of Route 53; proposal to divide 12.1297
acres into two parcels of 7.6182 acres and 4.5115 acres. (TM 105,
parcel 8P.) Scottsville District.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Ms. Claudia Craig, the applicant, stated that she wants to retain
parcel A-2, selling the larger parcel (A-1). She noted that she
will improve the easement and share the cost of maintenance with
the property in the rear (A-2). She stated that the total acreage
for parcel A-2 is 4.8339 acres. She also noted that there is an
existing dwelling with a septic system site approved by the Health
Department on this parcel. She stated that the barn is to be
renovated.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Wilson Cropp, an adjacent owner, noted the following:
• He felt the location of the barn should be shown on the plat
to show relationship to the side lines;
• He asked if the maintenance agreement could be created
without all the parties present to agree to it.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that he understands the larger parcel is not to have
access on the private road if a waiver of Section 18-36(d) of the
Subdivision Ordinance is granted. He further stated "a note should
be on the plat stating that the easement is exclusive not necessarily
to the smaller parcel but of the larger parcel, so that the larger
a_,:? 9
parcel cannot use the entrance."
Ms. Craig stated that the easement was created for parcel A-2 and
parcel 105 (located behind parcel A-2).
iMr. Davis stated that he felt that a note should be on the plat
stating "that the easement is exclusive to these two parcels only."
Mrs. Diehl stated that a condition could be added to read:
• any additional use would require a commercial entrance.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the maintenance agreements are not n
necessarily signed by landowners when reviewed by Mr. Payne.
Mrs. Diehl asked how far the barn is set back from the property line.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that a seventy-five foot (751) setback
requirement is called for by the Zoning Ordinance. She noted that
although this is an existing structure, the use will change, therefore,
the setback requirements have to be met.
Ms. Craig stated that it was her understanding that the only restric-
tion on her using the barn is that she can not build toward the lot line.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the seventy-five foot setback is required
by the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, if there is a problem obtaining
this amount of setback the applicant would have to request relief
from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Craig pointed out the location of the existing house and drive-
way to the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked if separate action is needed if the Commission chooses
to grant a waiver of Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Caperton stated that she would state in her action letter that
a waiver of Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance was granted.
Mr. Skove stated that a condition should be added to read:
• no further increase of use of the easement without private
street commercial entrance.
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 the assignment of development rights on the plat;
b. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement;
,7LJT
C. Note the buildable area on the topographic map;
d. Note: "Parcel A-1 shall have no access on the 20 foot
easement;"
e. Note: "Any additional use of this entrance will require
a commercial entrance;"
2. The Planning Commission granted a waiver of Section 18-36d (which
would require Parcel A-1 to use the 20 foot easement).
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Miran Forest, Section 3, and Revised Lot 9, Section 2 Final Plat -
located off the south side of Route 692, east of the intersection
with Route 693, east of Batesville; proposal to divide 26.559 acres
into four lots with an average size of 6.64 acres and to create
Parcels A (31.879 acres), B (5.053 acres) and C (22.431 acres) for
Section 3 and to revise the boundaries of Lot 9, Section 2. (TM 85
parcel 40). Samuel I'Iiller District.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Dr. Samuel Caughron noted that one of the conditions of the pre-
liminary plat required building the road (Heartwood Road) to the
standards for a private road. He pointed out that the adjacent
owners felt that traffic would increaseif this road were brought
up to state standards.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the homeowners could be required to participate
in the expense of upgrading this road.
Dr. Caughron stated that Duntree Ltd. would pay for the road, but
noted that the adjacent property owners felt that if this road were
primed and double sealed, as required previously, the amount of
traffic would increase.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the developer chose to make the connection
between Routes 692 and 694, pointing out that this would not be
permitted in the present.
Mr. Michel asked if there were any plans for the natural area.
Dr. Caughron stated that they intended to use part of this for farm
area and deed the remaining acreage to a nature conservatory.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not feel the Commission could reduce
4w the road standards any further.
d-I
Mr. Davis asked what right the adjacent owners have to improve the
road.
Mr. Payne stated that ordinarily the dominant tract has the right to
make any improvements to the easement within the physical limits of
the easement.
Mr. Payne noted that the pavement and depth of base for the road
have to meet the standards of the Highway Department.
Ms. Caperton reiterated that the Commission required prime and
double seal for this road when they reviewed the preliminary plat.
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.
Amend the building site analysis to note areas of
250 or
greater slope and note the buildable area of each
lot;
b.
Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C.
County Attorney approval of the addition of these
lots in
the maintenance agreement;
d.
County Engineer approval of road improvement plans
for 6" of
base with prime and double seal on Heartwood Road;
e.
On sheet 4 of 8, change restricted road to private
road
in the second note;
f.
Owner's notarized signature (owner lot 9, Section
Two);
g.
Note the date by which all permanent reference monuments
will be set.
The Commission did not grant a waiver of Section 18-36C(1) of the
Subdivision Ordinance and required that improvements to Heartwood
Road be made in accordance with the previous recommendations of
the County Engineer.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hop -In -Store #40 Site Plan - located at the western corner of the
intersection of Routes 743 (Hydraulic Road) and 656 (Georgetown
Road), adjacent to the existing Hop -In Store; proposal to locate
the one story with basement convenience store with a total of 5,158
square feet of gross floor area. (TM 60F, parcel 3). Jack Jouett
District. REQUESTS DEFERRAL UNTIL JULY 6, 1982.
Mr. Davis moved to -accept the applicants request for deferral of this
site plan until July 6, 1982.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
-2442
OLD BUSINESS:
Ms. Nash noted the memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., dated
April 16, regarding review process for well and septic systems. She
asked if the Commission had taken any action on this.
Mrs. Diehl explained that the Commission had discussed this and
further stated that she did not know if the Board of Supervisors
took any subsequent action on this.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he has a problem granting waivers of the
requirements relating to drainfields, based upon the size of the lots.
He noted that there has been problems within the County with drain -
fields failing,pointing out that there is no other alternative but
to provide public sewer. He stated that a R-2 zoning will become
an urban setting and questioned the granting of waivers for these
drainfields.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should be careful in granting
waivers as they could set a precedent for future applications.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
TUCxer, , J r . - Secretary
L
n