HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 13 86 PC MinutesMay 13, 1986
l' The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 13, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the April 29, 1986 meeting
were approved as written.
Northfields (Section 1, Block F, Parcel 11) Final Plat - Proposal to create
three (3) lots ranging in size from 1.1 to 1.4 acres, for an average lot
size of 1.2 acres. The proposed access for one lot is from Rt. 651, and the other
2 lots are to be served by a joint entrance from Rt. 631. Total acreage is
3.6 acres, zoned R-2, Residential. Property is located on the west side of
Rio Road, adjacent to the north of the Northside Baptist Church and just south
of Northfields Road. The property has southern frontage on Rt. 651. Tax
Map 62A1, parcel 1. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
It was determined the applicant had requested indefinite deferral.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Northfields, Section 1, Block F, Parcel 11, Final
Plat be indefinitely deferred, pursuant to the request of the applicant.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Urban Roadway Network - The staff requests that
the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the County proceed
to public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan in order to designate this
roadway network, to be constructed generally between Rio Road and the Hilton
Hotel site between the SPCA Road and Route 29 North.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report which explained that "on May 21, 1986 the
Board of Supervisors will be reviewing a proffered rezoning request for River
Heights at the northern end of a proposed roadway in this network. The
applicant in that case is attempting to proffer the construction of that
portion of the roadway on his site. The Board of Supervisors specifically
deferred this request at an earlier meeting in order to receive Commission's
recommendation on the proposed roadway." Thus, staff was requesting that
the Commission make their recommendation to the Board at this
time. The report stated that comment has been received from the Highway
Department on the proposed roadway, and based on those comments, it is
staff's opinion that the roadway is both physically and economically feasible
in this location and could be constructed to some extent by private
developers. The staff report also stated that the ability of the County to
require construction of sections of the roadway is currently under review.
Staff stressed that if this proposal was not endorsed prior to imminent
development in this area, said development would preclude the roadway from
ever being built.
/I
r4ay 13, 1986
Page 2
There was considerable discussion about this proposal with Commissioners
Cogan and Gould indicating they were not in favor of the proposal,
Commissioners Diehl, Michel and Wilkerson indicating they were uncertain
at this point, and Commissioners Bowerman and Stark indicating support.
Commission concerns and comments included the following:
Mr. Michel was concerned about the effect of the road on properties fronting
on Woodburn Road (SPCA Rd.). It was his desire, and seemed to be the consensus
of the Commission, that the Board be aware of the desire to keep the
residential zoning and to prevent access to Woodburn Road, which could not
support increased usage. Mr. Keeler explained it was hoped some of those
properties would have access onto the new road, thus eliminating the need
for Woodburn to be upgraded. Mr. Stark felt that by preventing a connection
to Woodburn, it would be possible to retain some semblence of a residential
area. Commissioners Cogan, Diehl and Gould felt that the roadway would invite
the property on the west to be downzoned to commercial and the use of that
entire block of land would be altered.
Mr. Cogan indicated concern as to how the County can require a builder to
build a portion of a road which might not, at the time, connect to anything
else, and at the same time prevent said developer from having an access onto
Rt. 29. Mr. Keeler responded that though there may be times when the Com-
mission might want to limit access to Rt. 29, that was not the main issue of
thisproposal. He said there would still be access from some of these
properties to Rt. 29. Mr. Cogan questioned the benefit to the County if
the road will not relieve the number of accesses onto Rt. 29. Mr. Keeler
explained that it would eliminate many U-turns on Rt. 29, thus improving
circulation, and that it would also accommodate much site -to -site
traffic, thus reducing the amount of traffic on Rt. 29. Responding to Mr.
Cogan's question as to how the County can require a builder's participation,
Mr. Payne stated: "In every conceivable case, the County does not have a
mechanism to require a builder to build a section of the road. We do not
really know definitely what authority the county has; it is a question
of what's reasonable based on the circumstances at the time and the way it
fits into the Ordinance." Mr. Payne felt the tremendous benefit of the
road to developers would entice them to contribute to its construction.
Mr. Stark pointed out that the topography of the property will dictate that
a portion of the road will have to be built by the County. Mr. Keeler con-
firmed that the County will build a part of the roadway.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the County would be gaining more than it
was losing since traffic problems on Rt. 29 would be reduced with
the reduction of U-returns and the need for only three cross-overs from
Rio Road to the river. Regarding the issue of the residential property
remaining residential, he stated it would be up to the Board and
Commission to see that property remained residential if that was the
desire of the County.
Ms. Diehl felt the alignment would be more of a convenience to the
developers than a benefit to the County, though the County would be required
to build a portion of the road.
May 13, 1986
Page 3
It was determined the roadway would cost approximately $300,000 to $400,000
per mile ($60/foot).
Commissioners Diehl and Michel indicated they would support a motion to proceed
based primarily on that fact that if a decision is not reached in a timely
fashion, the pressures of imminent development will make the road an
impossibility.
Mr. Stark indicated he was in favor of the proposal and pointed out that
proffers have already been made by developers concerning this roadway
which the County should take advantage of.
Ms. Diehl stated she had mixed feelings. She saw the primary benefit
being that the area would be open for further development and that
U-turns could possibly be reduced (provided people would change their
driving habits). However, she could see little change in the number of
entrances onto Rt. 29.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was opposed to the proposal because he felt the
County had more to lose than to gain. He saw the only benefit as being
a possible reduction in U-turns on Rt. 29. He felt developers would be
reluctant to install a road at their expense unless they got one of two
things in return: (1) The use of both sides of the road (i.e. Rt. 29
and the proposed roadway; or (2) More intense use of the land between
the roadway and Rt. 29. He felt this would result in increased traffic
on Rt. 29 and would thus outweigh any benefit gained by decrease in
U-turns. He was also concerned about "how and who" would construct the road.
Mr. Gould indicated he agreed with Mr. Cogan and added that this would
create pressure on the Commission to down -zone the residential property
which could not be resisted.
Mr. Bowerman felt there will be a lot of pressure on Woodburn Road if there
is not some alternative access for the development of this property.
Mr. Cogan felt this road would create more incentive to rezone the residential
property to commercial. Commissioners Wilkerson and Diehl agreed;
Commissioner Bowerman disagreed.
Staff pointed out that the road was meant to serve a number of functions including:
--To open properties up for development;
--To improve access to these properties;
--To reduce some traffic congestion on Rt. 29.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that it is not staff's intent to encourage any increase
in traffic on Woodburn Road which would occasion the need to upgrade that road.
Regarding Mr. Stark's question about the possiblity of Rt. 29 connecting
directly to Woodburn road, Mr. Keeler stated that would be handled on a
case -by -case basis. He also stated that some properties will naturally
develop on Woodburn Road because they are a considerable distance away from
the proposed roadway.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that even if the Commission recommended approval to
the Board, they were not recommending a change to the current Land Use Plan for
this area. He also stressed that it was important that the Board be aware
that there was not total agreement among the Commissioners.
May 13, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Stark moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors
that the County proceed to public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan
in order to designate this roadway network. *600
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed (5:2) with Commissioners
Cogan and Gould casting the dissenting votes.
Stereotypes Site Plan - Proposal to locate an 8,100 square foot building for
retail shops, to be served by 54 parking spaces. Total acreage of site is ±1.0
acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property is located on the east side
of Rt. 29N, just north of Woodbrook Drive and adjacent to the Woodbrook
residential lots. Tax Map 45, parcel 93B. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She also passed to the Commission
a letter received from Mr. Lassiter, adjacent property owner to the rear,
who will be most effected by grading within the buffer area. She also
stated that the drainage problems which were of concern to the County
Engineer had been addressed. The report pointed out that the two main
issues of the application were access and the rear buffer. It was determined
the applicant was requesting a waiver to Section 21.7.3, to allow grading within
20 feet of a residential district, with the intention of replanting the buffer
area with a double row of evergreen screening trees, three two-inch caliper red
oaks, and five 5-6 feet white dogwoods. The staff report stated that
staff was recommending approval of the waiver because it would result in improved
site design and buffering. If the waiver was not granted, a concrete retaining
wall, 2-6 feet high, would be necessary.
Ms. Patterson read comments from Mr. Lassiter's letter which was opposed to
the granting of the waiver for the following reasons: (1) Planting 5-6' pines
on ground that drops 5-6' would provide no protection to his property from
the view of the commercial area; (2) The soils are very errosive and a
sharply graded slope would be a "natural" for the soils which could work into
his fence line and back yard; (3) A buffer with a wall will provide better
protection and will discourage access from the commercial property to his
property (residential). Ms. Patterson stated Mr. Pack (County Engineer's
Office) does not feel erosion will be a problem since drainage will be toward
Rt. 29 rather than to Mr. Lassiter's site. She also explained that Mr.
Pack had pointed out that if the slope is graded and no retaining wall is
installed, it will be extremely difficult to support plantings because of
the steepness of the slope (40% in some sections).
It was determined a "double staggered row of evergreen trees" would be
required if the waiver was not granted and a retaining wall was required.
Though the staff report had stated staff was in favor of the waiver, Ms.
Patterson stated she was "less inclined to support the waiver" after
hearing Mr. Pack's comments about the difficulty of supporting plantings
on the slope.
Mr. Bowerman asked what frontage improvements would be required when the corner
lot develops. Mr. Keeler responded that if the same entrance is used, no
improvements will be required.
Jn
May 13, 1986 Page 5
Regarding the Highway Department's recommendation that "a third lane with curb
and gutter and an appropriate storm sewer system be constructed across the
total frontage of Rt. 29 for both parcels," the staff report stated, "A
full third lane cannot be required because it is not occasioned by this
development." Mr. Keeler added, "You can't require it. 200 foot turn and
taper is what you see at a major shopping center. We don't feel that a
development with an 8,000 square foot building occasions the need for any
greater improvement than that. This is a result of the Hilton case."
However, staff commented that if the Commission should require full
frontage improvements, staff was recommending that the taper lane not
tie directly into Woodbrook Drive because it would encourage less safe
crossing movements with the lane being used as both an acceleration and
deceleration lane.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Robert Gray, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the
requested waiver, he felt grading would allow buffering which would be
less offensive to neighboring property owners than a retaining wall would
be.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Robert Lassiter, whose letter Ms. Patterson had referred to earlier in
the meeting, addressed the Commission. He was opposed to the granting
of the waiver because grading of the area would make the slope so steep
that plantings would be very ineffective in protecting his property from
a view of the commercial area. He felt a retaining wall would allow
plantings at an appropriate level so as to better protect the residential
area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to explain the reason for serving this lot
with an easement across the corner lot onto Woodbrook Drive as well as
a direct entrance onto Rt. 29. Mr. Keeler responded: "During the
development in 1979 of the Rt. 29 North Corridor Study the Highway
Department included in that study specific recommendations for the
physical improvement of 29 North. They also made recommendations to the
County as to measures that the County could take during the interim
period. The Board asked for this. One of the recommendations in that
study was that at intersections or at crossovers there be a minimum
separation from the crossover of 500 feet to an entrance on 29. As a
result of the Highway Department's recommendations, we amended our
site plan and subdivision ordinances to reflect that, i.e. if you have
property in the vicinity of the crossover, you are required to either have
access directly at the crossover or 500 feet from the crossover.
So if this corner lot had come in first, we would have recommended that it
have access only to Woodbrook Drive. ... That 500 feet is a recommendation
of the Highway Department. In this particular case they have recommended
that you reduce it by 10 feet in view of the property to the north."
cm
May 13, 1986 Page 6
Both Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cogan indicated they agreed with Mr. Lassiter
about the retaining wall, i.e. that the waiver to allow grading not be
granted and the retaining wall required. Mr. Bowerman felt the effectiveness
of the buffer zone would be greatly improved with the retaining wall.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Stereotypes Site Plan be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Recordation of a plat which provides vehicular access to and from
adjacent parcel 2-1 of tax map 45C;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
C. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
d. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
computations;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance and turn and taper lane, in accordance with
letter of April 10, 1985;
f. Fire Official approval;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
h. Planning staff approval of revision to landscape plan, to show
street shrubs on the northern side of the entrance.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition has been met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Wendell Wood Final Plat - Proposal to divide a 4.04 acre parcel into four (4)
lots averaging 36,949 square feet. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Property is located on the west side of Rt. 29 and north of Hilton Heights Road,
adjacent to the Hilton Hotel site. Tax Map 45, parcel C, 68D4. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated the Highway Department
has approved the access to Hilton Heights Road since it would eliminate the
necessity of making U-turns on Route 29.
It was determined. the current proposal would create the need for U-turns on
Hilton Road because it is a divided roadway.
Mr. Bowerman gave the following history of the site: "In '82 we subdivided
this parcel from the Hilton Heights parcel, and at that time it was already
graded. The Highway Department was calling for some other access, internal,
to Hilton Heights Road. At that time they didn't want it to Hilton Heights
Road, they wanted it to the hotel road, so we put as a requirement of the
subdivision to get this four -acre parcel, that they had to have this access.
And at that time we didn't know where it was, and I don't think it was even
feasible because everything had already been graded. It was graded before
the fact, when we originally subdivided. The only change is the Highway
May 13, 1986
Page 7
Department's change in saying that it's O.K. to have this access road go
to Hilton Heights Road rather than the hotel road."
Mr. Cogan asked what would preclude a "cut" in Hilton Heights Road to
prevent the need for U-turns.
Mr. Keeler stated that a revised proffer had been received on the rezoning
that is before the Board. That proffer reduced the potential traffic
generation from 4,800 trips to 3,200 trips on these properties. They
reserve the right to increase it again in the future.
Responding to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Benish confirmed that the sewer
easement is shown on the plat as an "access and utility" easement.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, was present, but offered no
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Responding to Mr. Cogan's question about the possibility of a "cut" in
the island in the Hilton Heights Road, Mr. Echols, representing the Highway
Department, indicated there was not enough space. He added that the
Highway Department would still prefer that the access be to the hotel
road, but it is not practical or physically possible.
Responding to Mr. Bowerman's question about the slope on the "other"
w► access road, Mr. Edwards stated, "That just won't work." Mr. Bowerman
pointed out that it was just as impossible four years ago as it is today,
yet the Commission had required it at the Highway Department's insistence.
Mr. Cogan indicated he had problems with the proposal and stated, "If
a piece of property can't support something, you can't make it do it."
Mr. Bowerman stated, "We never would have subdivided this four -acre parcel
four years ago if we had known what we would be faced with today."
He stressed that nothing has changed, i.e. the grading had already been
done.
Mk Cogan stated he could not support a proposal which created an unsafe
situation.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the issue of public road access
still had not been addressed adequately.
Mr. Keeler suggested the Commission might wish to defer the matter to allow
time for staff to meet with the Highway Department, the County Engineer,
and the applicant to see if an acceptable solution can be worked out.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Wendell Wood Final Plat be indefinitely deferred
in order to allow time for a different solution for access to be
worked out.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
May 13, 1986
Page 8
The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:15.
Turtle Creek Phase VI Site Plan - Proposal to locate 83 one bedroom
apartment units to be served by 125 parking spaces. The total area of the site
is 5.5 acres, zoned R-15 (with proffer). The property is located on the
north side of Commonwealth Drive adjacent to Eldercare and Hunter's Creek.
Tax Map 61W, Section 3, parcel 22. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards who stated that there
were no problems with any of the suggested conditions of approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bob Critzer, representing the Oak Forest Neighborhood Association, addressed
the Commission. He indicated most of the concerns of his association had
been addressed. He stated a major concern is that the buffer area be maintained
and that the picnic area be relocated away from the buffer area.
Mr. Robert Walters, a homeowner in Oak Forest, addressed the Commission.
He stated he was still concerned about the density since there was no way to
assure that a den could not be used as a bedroom. He also suggested that
a fence be placed at the back of the ravine area separating Oak Forest from
Turtle Creek to eliminate the possibility of persons crossing over from
the Turtle Creek property to Oak Forest. Mr. Walters also expressed
concern about the safety issue with cars turning left off Commonwealth
Drive onto Hydraulic Road. He explained that in order to be able to see
clearly, it was necessary for cars making this left turn to pull out into
the right lane, thus creating a very dangerous situation.
Addressing the issue of the dens being used as bedrooms, Mr. Rick White,
representing the applicant, stated this was very unlikely since there would
be no closets in these rooms and they would have glass, French doors leading
into them.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Responding to Ms. Diehl's concern about the ravine, buffer area remaining
undisturbed, Mr. Benish confirmed there is a note on the plat which addresses
this issue.
Mr. Bowerman stated the proposal seemed to be in line with the rezoning.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Turtle Creek Phase VI Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met:
a) County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and *4000
computations.
b) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations.
May 13, 1986 Page 9
c) Issuance of an erosion control permit.
'br✓ d) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water
and sewer plans.
e) Staff approval of revised plan showing:
1. Sidewalks along the northeast side of Northwest Drive;
2. Note delineating the facilities which are to be provided in
picnic area;
3. Increased area and relocation of a portion of picnic area
to the satisfaction of staff.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
South Fork Farms Preliminary Plat - This is a proposal to create 24 lots from
5 separate parcels. The total area of the site is 210.83 acres. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas. The property is located off of Rt. 710, just north of its
intersection with Rt. 29. (Approximately 1.5 miles north of North Garden.)
It was determined the applicant had requested indefinite deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the South Fork Farms Preliminary Plat be indefinitely
deferred. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Sherwood Commons Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 29.8 acres into 3
lots ranging in size from 5.757 to 16.846 acres, for an average 9.9 acre
lot size. Parcel B is the site of the Sherwood Commons Apartments
proposal. Parcels A and B are to be served by an extension of Rt. 1112, Mountain -
wood Road. Zoned R-15, Residential. The property is in 2 physically separate
pieces. One piece (parcel C) is located in the northwest corner of the
intersection of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt. 780) and Mountainwood Road (Rt. 1112).
The other piece is located at the present end of Mountainwood Road, and is
adjacent on the east side of Sunset Avenue (Rt. 781) on the south side of
I-64, and west of Sherwood Manor. Tax Map 76, parcel 46C. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question about Parcel A (which is not included
with this preliminary plat), Mr. Keeler stated, "The restrictions that were
imposed on the site plan will now be reflected on the subdivision plat.
They won't knock the trees down." Ms. Patterson added, "That's right.
Until they do a site plan for that area and even then they show an area to
remain undisturbed."
Though the staff report stated "the final plat must be heard by the Planning
Commission because preliminary road plan approval has not been received,"
Ms. Patterson explained that the County Engineer's office (Mr. Pack)
has reviewed the plans and sees no problem with staff approval of the
final plat. She stated that the applicant has requested staff approval of
1, the final plat.
A
May 13, 1986 Page 10
Ms. Diehl expressed a great deal of concern about the means by which the
applicant was proposing to maintain condition No. 3 of the original site
plan approval. (Condition 3 of site plan approval states: "The eastern
portions of the property, labelled as 'existing wooded areas,' shall remain as
is and in their natural state, i.e. everything shown as having no development
and shown in the tree line on the plan presented to Commission January 14, 1986."
The applicant was proposing the following two means of maintaining this
condition: "(1) An area within parcel A is designated as 'proposed
vegetation buffer to remain undisturbed'. Any change to that area which
would significantly disturb the buffer, would require an amendment to the
subdivision plat; and (2) A note on the plat states: 'Parcel A shall
remain in its natural state, with no clearing of the existing vegetation
except as necessary and incidental for the construction of Mountainwood Road,
until such time as a site plan relating to parcel A is approved by the
Planning Commission.") Ms. Diehl was concerned as to how this would be
applied to Parcel A since Parcel A was not a part of this preliminary plat.
Ms. Patterson explained the applicant was not proposing any development
on Parcel A at this time, but the subdivision would allow the applicant
to sell Parcel A. She stated that a prospective buyer would still be subject
to the requirement that the area so designated would remain a vegetated buffer.
Ms. Diehl stated she did not think the applicant's proposed conditions
1 and 2 really reflected Condition 3 of the site plan because "that's a
much smaller area that's delineated there than spoken to with conditions
1 and 2." Ms. Patterson added that condition 3 of the site plan had been
volunteered by the applicant and it is nothing that the County ordinances
can require. But Ms. Diehl pointed out that it was agreed to as a condition.
Ms. Patterson stated "They are essentially asking for an amendment of that
condition." Ms. Diehl also expressed concern about the use of the term
"incidental" in the applicant's proposed condition 2.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about there being a difficulty with access
for Parcel C in the future.
Addressing Ms. Diehl's concerns, Mr. Keeler stated the following, "Condition
3 remains in effect on the site plan. Since they were dividing this property
off, in lieu of condition 3 of the site plan, at site review we recommended
to them that they add the notes to the plan that were comparable to condition
3 in the eventthere's a change in ownership of the property. It doesn't
preclude that at some future date somebody will come in with a site plan on
this property."
Mr. Bowerman noted that the area addressed in condition 3 was not shown
clearly on Parcel A, as it was on Parcel B. He felt this was part of Ms.
Diehl's concern should Parcel A ever be developed. Mr. Keeler pointed out
the area.
Ms. Diehl felt the phrase "proposed vegetation buffer" used in the applicant's
proposed No. 1 referred to a greatly reduced area than did "existing wooded
area" which was stated in condition 3 of the site plan approval. She felt
this was a substantial difference.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt the effect was the same. He added, "At the site
plan, when this condition was imposed on the site plan, that condition is
always subject to amendment or removal. It doesn't mean that that property,
in perpetuity, is to remain it its natural state. I don't think you can 1400
do that in a site plan; I think you can do it in a zoning proffer or by
2�
May 13, 1986
Page 11
virtue of a deed restriction. But any condition of site plan is always subject
to change. It is not a legistlative act." Mr. Michel indicated this was
14%,W his understanding of the issue.
Ms. Diehl again stated she felt the applicant's proposed 1 and 2 did not
accomplish what condition No. 3 of the site plan approval had suggested.
She felt they greatly diminished the impact of condition No. 3.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ethan Miller, the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included
the following:
--The plan submitted January 14, 1986 had not included a proffer as
to a vegetative buffer. However, after hearing the Commission's
concerns on this issue, the applicant had commented, while pointing
to the map, "I didn't have any problems with proferring a buffer,
non -development restriction on the eastern portions, i.e. the 'right'
portion of this property." He stated there may have been some
confusion because he was pointing to the map and that could not
have been clearly reflected in the minutes.
--Mr. Miller stated, "I never intended, nor did I state, that I wanted
the portion of parcel A which is developable, which as you can see
is really not that much anyway, to be undeveloped."
--The purpose of this proposal is to subdivide non-contiguous pieces
so that they can be conveyed separately.
--Subdivision is necessary at this time because of financing requirements.
--A plan for Parcel A will be addressed at some time in the future.
--He felt condition 3 of the site plan approval was "ambiguous"
He suggested the following 2 meanings to the condition: (1) That
the buffer would be kept until such a time as "another" site plan
was presented; or (2) This was a development restriction meaning
the development potential of the property was forever limited.
He stated, "It the Commission interpreted my comments to be a proffer
that this would not be developed, then it was just misunderstood.
I did not intend to say that. If the record could only show my hand
on the board, it would indicate that."
--Regarding his proposed "note" no. 1, i.e. "An area within parcel A
is designated as 'proposed vegetation buffer to remain undisturbed',"
Mr. Miller stated, "That is the proffer which says that forever it
shall remain undisturbed."
--Mr. Miller stated, "With respect to the area to the right on parcel
B, there is no proffer there; yet,effectively, there is because we
have used up all of the zoning."
Mr. Bowerman summarized Mr. Miller's comments as follows: "You have explained
that that area (i.e. area to the right on parcel B) is undevelopable if you
build a site plan as indicated. Speaking to parcel A, you are saying that
you intended to make that portion of parcel A, in the center to the right,
as being unbuildable, and you are agreeing never to disturb it." (Mr.
Miller responded, "That's my proffer, that's correct.) Mr. Bowerman
continued, "What you're saying for the balance of parcel A is that you reserve
the right to come back here and say I'd like to put a few houses or
apartments here." Mr. Miller stated, "That's correct, and the purpose of the
other note (no. 2) is to say that we won't touch the parcel."
May 13, 1986 Page 12
Regarding Ms. Diehl's concern about the word "incidental" Mr. Miller stated
he was willing to strike that word.
Ms. Marcia Joseph, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission
and explained that one reason the road plan had not been finalized was
because a topo had not been flown. Thethas now been done, and the
revisions can be completed and forwarded to the Highway Department and the
County Engineer. She stated there were no problems with any of the conditions
and requested administrative approval of the final plat.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bill McDermott, a resident of Sherwood Manor, addressed the Commission.
He stressed that the residents of Sherwood Manor are still interested in
this area, particularly in potential traffic problems. He also called
the Commission's attention to the use of the phrase "existing wooded area"
on the site plan. He stated it appeared in two places, once "on the leg of
parcel B" and a second time in parcel A. Mr. McDermott confirmed that
he and his neighbors would like to have the opportunity to comment on a
final plat.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked that a copy of the minutes of the January 14, 1986 meeting
be made available to her. She stated, "I feel very strongly that condition
3, as it was written, protected the existing wooded areas in Parcel A and
provided a buffer to Sherwood Manor. I think the intent here, although I
can understand the intent and there does appear to be a developable portion
of parcel A, does not give the adjacent property owners the protection that
they had assumed when that condition was written."
Mr. Keeler stated, "Condition 3 of the site plan provides for protection so
long as condition 3 remains intact. The applicant can come back at any time
and request a change in the condition."
Ms. Diehl indicated she understood this and added, "It seems to me if you are
going to amend a site plan, then there should be notification to that effect
to all persons involved."
Mr. Keeler stated, "There is no amendment proposed to the site plan as it
applies to condition 3. That's what notes 1 and 2 are intended to do. Note
2 reflects what I've been saying, i.e. all he has to do is change condition 3
and he can develop in that area. Note 1 would require an amendment to the
subdivision plat. So in either case, this property would have to come back
before you. The only way that this can be guaranteed in perpetuity in that
steep area is that it won't be developed if it becomes common open space
or if there is a .legislative act with a zoning proffer attached to it that
says it won't be developed."
Though Mr. Keeler stressed that it was not guaranteed in perpetuity, Mr.
Cogan pointed out that it was subject to change only if the applicant
requested a change and the Commission approved the change.
May 13, 1986
Page 13
Mr. Keeler stressed that the property was not deed restricted.
Mr. Diehl pointed out, however, that "it is guaranteed until the time
at which the change is requested and approved."
Mr. Payne expressed a lack of understanding of Ms. Diehl's concern.
Ms. Diehl stated, "The problem I have is correlating note 1 with what is
shown on the plat before us tonight where you have vegetative buffer
and two 'arrows' going toward the portions of parcel A that are
delineated." Mr. Payne stated he did not see that it made any
difference, but Ms. Diehl felt it did make a difference.
Mr. Payne explained, "The reason I don't think it makes any difference is
because I don't think that any of this is really necessary. The ordinance
prohibits tree clearing except to accommodate approved site plan
development. Obviously there is no development shown; that's the develop-
ment you see, what's there. There is none of it shown down on this
lower portion. Now that's not to say it can't be developed; maybe it
can be. But it can't be developed under that site plan and if it is
going to be developed, then there can be clearing. There can't be
clearing unless it is going to be developed and there is an approved
site plan. It seems to me the whole issue is covered at least once
just by the ordinance itself."
Though Ms. Diehl agreed, she stated, "But I remember being burned over the
same issue enough times to be concerned." Mr. Payne agreed that
1%WW violations of a site plan were a possibility, but there was no way
to prevent that.
Ms. Diehl again stated she felt note No. 1 was "far different" that what
was intended in condition 3.
Attmpting to clarify the matter, Mr. Keeler stated, "Condition no. 3 is
subject to change at any time, anyway. What (the applicant) is doing here
is saying that certain areas in parcel A would only require submission and
approval of a site plan, but for this other area of parcel A, in addition
to having a site plan approved, they would have to come back with the
subdivision plat and seek relief from that note on the plat."
Ms. Diehl stated, "I just don't want anything to do with note 1. To me,
that statement, together with the arrows and the labeling on the plan
that we saw, reduced the intent of condition 3. If we strike that, I
won't have a problem with it."
To address Ms. Diehl's concerns, it was determined the following would
be done:
--Strike the words "and incidental" from the applicant's proposed Note 2.
--Strike the verbage shown on the plat between the "arrows."
--Strike all of the applicant's proposed Note 1.
Responding to Mr. Gould's question as to how this would effect parcel B, Mr.
Keeler stated, "Condition No. 3 stays on the site plan and remains in
effect in regard to that area."
4q
May 13, 1986
Page 14
Mr. Stark moved that the Sherwood Commons Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions, and with the note on the plat referring to
Parcel A to be changed as follows: a) Drop the words and incidental from
applicant's proposed note 2; b) Drop, in the interior portion of the plat,
the phrase proposed vegetation buffer to remain undisturbed; and c) Strike
the "arrows" on the plat:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a) County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and
computations;
b) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
public road and drainage plans and computations;
c) Issuance of an erosion control permit:
d) Show existing and proposed water and sewer easements.
The motion included Commission review of the final plat.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
DS
SIWOO
John Horne, S cretary
—Ra