Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 18 83 PC MinutesJANUARY 18, 1983 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, Jaunary 18, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Va. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Allen Kendrick; Mr. Mike Davis; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Jim Skove; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Staff members present were: Ms. Mason Caperton, Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The Commission unanimously voted to accept applicants' requests for withdrawal of the following two items: Minor Townhouses, Phase II, Final Plat and L.F. and Patricia Wood Final Plat The Commission also unanimously accepted the applicants' requests for indefinite deferral for Harold W. & Shelia L. Craig Final Plat and Hollymead (right-of-way dedication) Final Plat. Daisy Bradley Final Plat - Proposal to divide 1+ acre into two lots, one having frontage on Blue Ridge Avenue and the other `aw having frontage on High Street (Carter Street). Parcel 41, Tax Map 56A(1), White Hall District; located west of the Windham Place site between High (Carter) Street and Blue Ridge Avenue. 1.06 acres zoned R-2 Residential. Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. The report explained that the applicant was requesting waivers of Section 18-23(c), requiring public utilities for a lot less than 40,000 square feet and also of Section 18-28 requiring that lot sizes conform to the Zoning Ordinance. It was staff's position that the applicant had not demonstrated that a hardship existed; therefore, staff was recommending denial. The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Gregg. He offered no significant comment. The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission discussed when public utilities might become available to the site. Though it was felt they would be available in the near future, a definitive date could not be determined. It was the consensus of the Commission property was premature (i.e. it should utilities are available), and no reason could be determined. that a division of the be postponed until public to make an exception 1-18-83 K Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl, that the Daisy Bradley Final Plat be denied. The motion passed unanimously. Peacock Hill Redivision of Lots 8-12 Final Plat - Located on the west side of Rt. 708, north of I-64, on the south side of Turkey Ridge Road in the Peacock Hill PUD; proposal to redivide five lots to create 7 lots with an average lot size of 13,352 square feet. Samuel Miller District. (TM 73A, Parcels 8-12) Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Funk. He described the history of the proposal. He explained that the current proposal would result in a decreased density for these parcels (7 units rather than 13 units). The applicant felt it was "unfair" that by asking to reduce the number of allowable units on the project (from 195 to 189) he was being required to re -submit all the materials just because of a 6 unit reduction (6 units which have already been approved). He asked for the following wording: "Approval of this plat does recognize the validity of the original approval of June 27, 1973--SP 253--of 195 dwelling units in the Planned Unit Development and will allow up to this total in future site plan applications." He stated the applicant was prepared to meet all other requirements. Mr. Funk also had questions about procedure for meeting the conditions of approval. Ms. Caperton advised him that she would be glad to explain the process to him at a later time (during office hours). Mr. Payne commented on the applicant's statement regarding the 6-lot reduction. He pointed out that historically the Commission has viewed a reduction in density favorably even though it is a diversion from the originally approved plan. However, he noted that reducing the density 6 units in this area would mean that those 6 units are going to be added to another section, thus increasing the density somewhere else. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Funk if he would like a deferral in order to get a better understanding of the process, etc. Mr. Funk asked the Commission to act on the request "using the 195 lots as the basis." Mr. Bowerman explained that counsel has advised the Commission that they cannot take that position. Mr. Cogan suggested that the applicant re -submit this subdivision request along with an amendment to the PUD which will show where the 6 units are going to go. There was a lengthy discussion about the applicant's options for proceeding. It was determined that even if the Commission were to approve the request at this meeting, the applicant still had the opportunity FA 1-18-83 3 to continue with the original approval by simply not completing 1%W the conditions (for this request) and letting the approval expire. Mr. Payne emphasized that the applicant should understand that there were no guarantees as to how a subsequent submittal might be acted upon. Mr. Funk asked the Commission to proceed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Peacock Hill, Section I, Parcels 8-12 Redivision Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Building setbacks shall be amended to reflect the requirements of the BOCA Code and the recommendations of the Highway Department (to maintain proper sight distance); b. Provide evidence of a building site on each lot; C. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private entrances; e. Approval of dry hydrant system by the Fire official. The motion passed unanimously. Michael Property Preliminary Plat - Located on both Northfields and Fieldbrook Subdivisions and east of Rio Road; proposal to divide 86.4 acres into 192 lots with a density of 2.22 lots per acre (on 45 acres) with 32.8 acres left in open space. Charlottesville District. (TM 61, parcels 125 and 126.) Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Sinclair. He described the plan including road and utility plans, stormwater detention plans, and phasing plans. (In response to Mr. Sinclair's confusion over the open space requirement, Ms. Caperton explained condition 1-j.) Mr. Blake Hurt, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained how the plans had come about. The Chairman invited public comment. J 1-18-83 4 Ms. Carren addressed the Commission and asked several questions about the development. Mr. Sinclair and the Commission answered her questions. Mr. Dwight Cragen (?) addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about possible runoff onto this property. Dr. Carren asked what price dwellings would be built. Mr. Claude Cotton addressed the Commission. He expressed support for the plan. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission discussed the following issues: --The intersection of Rt. 652 and Rio Road (a Highway Department representative answered the Commission's questions); --Future road plans for the Rio Road area; --Extension of the "stub" road; --Proposed density; --Application of Bonus provisions; --Open space; --Stormwater detention plans (Mr. Elrod explained his requirements); (The Commission asked to see the plans before final plat approval for Phase I.) --Phasing; `kft� --Sidewalks; --Location of recreation area; --Price range and type of homes ($75,000 to $150,000). Mr. Cogan expressed concern about the small size of the lots; he did not feel they were harmonious with the surrounding areas. He stated he would not support the proposal. Mr. Skove pointed out that the property is served by public utilities. Ms. Diehl noted that she was in favor of the clustering and noted that the property will be buffered from surrounding properties. Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, that the Michael Property Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval: a. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans and improvements for Old Brook Road (Rt. 652) and interior roads for acceptance by the State; approval shall include provisions for curb and gutter, and sidewalk on the North side of Old Brook Road and the south side of "Brook" Road; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private and commercial entrances; 1-18-83 5 C. County Attorney approval of documents regarding the maintenance of open space, recreational facilities (if required), landscaping materials, wooded areas, drainage, stormwater detention and appurtenant structures; d. Note ownership and easements over Rt. 652; e. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for the improvement of Old Brook Road from the subject property out to Rio Road as noted on the plat (22' pavement and Category IV pavement strength); f. Remove the pedestrian pathway system notation from the bonus provisions; g. Provision of significant landscaping along Old Brook Road and as a buffer between Raintree and Northfields shall be required; plans and locations of trees shall be determined at the time of final plat review for the first phase of development; h. drainage and stormwater detention plans for this entire development shall be submitted and approved by the County Engineer prior to final approval of any Such plans shall include drainage computations and pipe sizes, slopes, layouts, detention basin computations, grading and outflow devices, etc. sufficient for cost -estimating purposes; (NOTE: This condition was read by Mr. Elrod during the meeting. The "blanks" in this condition are the result of inaudible tape and the fact that these minutes were transcribed 8 years after they were recorded. ) i. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; j. Twenty-five percent of the area of each phase shall be dedicated as open space; in addition, seventy percent of such open space shall be shown to be usable; (Mr. Payne quoted from Sec. 4.7.3 regarding the definition of "usable.") k. The following proposed street names must be changed: Chestnut Lane, Walnut Green Court, Surry Hill Court, Brook Road, Heatherstone Place and Doe Run Place; 1. Approximately 5,000 square feet of active recreational space shall be provided; a proposal should be made prior to the review of the first final phase of development; M. Street signs shall be provided; n. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; o. Note all perennial and intermittent streams. There was a brief discussion about the connection between Raintree and Fieldbrook. It was determined this could not be required by the County Engineer or the Commission. The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Cogan casting the dissenting vote. Cason Final Plat (approved 1979)- Request for Reconsideration - Ms. Caperton explained that the Health Department had given preliminary approval but some areas need septic easements (on J!, 1-18-83 n adjoining lots) which cannot be administratively approved by staff; and the Health Department will not give final approval until the Commission has approved the easements. Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Skove, that the Cason Final Plat be reconsidered. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Caperton reviewed the history of the plat. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ben Dick. He explained some of the history of the lots. (Problems had occurred because of the location of a perennial stream on the property.) He explained the lots are more than two acres and there is ample room for the easements. The Commission discussed the location of the proposed easements. Ms. Diehl stated she could not support an easement for a lot which did not have even a primary drainfield location (Lot 34). (It was determined that Lot 34 was requesting an easement from 34A and 34B for BOTH a primary and secondary . There was also some question as to whether or not there was a primary drainfield location on Lot 37; it was finally concluded that Lot 37 did have a primary field, but needed an easement for a secondary.) Mr. Skove stated he was in agreement with Ms. Diehl in relation to Lot 34. Mr. Dick questioned whether the Commission had the authority to approve septic easements. He did not think this was allowed by the Ordinance. He pointed out that the subdivision had already occurred. He stated he was before the Commission simply because he had been advised to follow this route. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on Mr. Dick's statement. Mr. Payne quoted from the Ordinance. He concluded: "If you think that the plat complies with the Ordinance knowing that there is no site for a drainfield and an easement is necessary, then you approve it and there will be a necessity for ensuring the appropriate language on the plat and probably in a document; if you don't feel it complies with the Ordinance, then the staff is not going to approve it." It was determined the plat had not been put to record. It was the consensus of the Commission that no hardship existed. Mr. Kendrick indicated he agreed with Commissioners Diehl and Skove. He noted that he might feel differently if this were in the urban rather than the rural area. Mr. Cogan suggested that Lot 34 be joined to Lot 35. He noted that he would not be adverse to allowing an easement on 37A for a secondary drainfield for Lot 37. 6 1-13-83 FA Mr. Cogan moved that on "plats containing Lots 38, 38A, 37 and 37A that it be approved as drawn provided that the primary field for Lot 37 be on Lot 37 and that the easement be only for the location of a secondary field on 37A and also that no easement be approved on Lots 34A and 34B to serve Lot 34 and that Lot 34 be adjoined to Lot 35." Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dick again pointed out that it was his position that Commission approval was not required for these easements. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. W V. Wayn Cilimber , S cretary Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms Bradshaw 10-91 V