Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 09 86 PC MinutesSeptember 9, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 9, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Bowerman and Diehl. The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. SP-86-53 Warren K. & Janet M. Maupin - Request for a special use permit to allow for the division of a vacant 19.156 parcel which has no development rights. Property, described as Tax Map 17, Parcel 18H, is located at the southwestern portion of the intersection of Routes 668 and 601. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. This item was to be deferred to September 30. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that SP-86-53 for Warren and Janet Maupin be deferred to September 30. The motion passed unanimously. Since the meeting was running ahead of agenda time, Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler to go over New Business at this time. A work session was scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 4:30 to 6:30, prior to the regularly scheduled public hearing. South Fork Farms Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 6 lots totalling 210.83 acres into 24 lots, which range from 2.26 acres to 25.9 acres, for an average lot size of 8.78 acres. Two proposed roads off of Route 710 will serve these lots. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcels 17A, 229 23, 23B, 24 and 28, is located on the east side of Route 710 near its intersection with Route 29 South. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following statement: "For this proposal to be considered a by -right development of these properties, each new (redivided) lot must contain at least two acres from the existing parcel where the division right is originating from. This two acre portion should be able to stand on its own as lawful building site. In this proposal there are three lots which have been created from portions of two separate parcels (Lot 1, parcels 23 and 24 and Lot 6, parcel 17). At this preliminary level it appears that each of these lots will meet the criteria of having 2 acres from the parent parcel with a lawful building site. This will have to be verified prior to final plat approval." In relation to this issue, Mr. Gould suggested an additional condition ,' -V 7 September 9, 1986 Page 2 should be added addressing this concern. The Commissioners took a few minutes to study the plat. In response to Mr. Cogan's question about average lot size, Mr. Benish estimated the average size to be approximately 4 acres. Mr. Benish also stated the property was not in the watershed. Mr. Payne agreed that it was a good idea to add a condition relating to the size of each lot, as suggested by Mr. Gould. Mr. Wilkerson suggested the following language for such a condition: "Each lot must have at least 2 acres from the existing parcel where the division right is originating from and have a lawful building site." Mr. Payne confirmed this wording was acceptable. It was determined this would become condition l.f. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. David Blankenbaker was present to represent the applicant but offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Steve Clark, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was primarily concerned about the location of entrance roads and building within the floodplain. Mr. Cogan explained that not all details are on the preliminary plat, but will be on the final plat which will be reviewed by the Commission. He informed Mr. Clark he would receive notification of the final review date. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the issue of building in the floodplain, Mr. Keeler explained that is a completely separate review and because of the difficulty involved, most people choose not to pursue that possibility. Regarding the road, Mr. Blankenbaker explained that the road is being widened to give more sight distance and to make the road better. He also stated the entrance near Rt. 710 appears to be best for the sight distance. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the South Fork Farms Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations. b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans and computations, and commercial entrances. c. Issuance of an erosion control permit. d. Written Health Department approval including submittal of a soil scientist's report. e. Note on plat that location of entrance for Lot 1 of Parcel 28 to be maximum possible distance from the road intersection at Route 710. f. Each lot must have at least 2 acres from the existing parcel where the division right is originating from and have a lawful building site. /9C/ September 9, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting was still running ahead of agenda times so Mr. Keeler went over the agendas for upcoming meetings. Harmony Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 20 lots from a total of 9 parcels with a total of 83.14 acres. The average lot size is 3.65 acres. The lots are to be served by internal road with one primary access off of Route 614. The property is located on the south side of Route 164, adjacent to Olivet Presbyterian Church. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 42, Parcels 46C, D, E, F; and Tax Map 43, Parcels 4J, K, L, M, N. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report pointed out that there is some discrepancy as to the possible location of streams on the property (i.e. Albemarle County soil survey maps indicate a slightly different stream network than is identified on the plat). The survey maps indicated intermittent stream on lots 15, 16 and 17. The report stated, "If it is determined (by the Watershed Management Officer and the County Engineer) that streams do exist in these areas, a 100-foot septic setback will be required and the location of the building sites on lot 15 and/or 17 may have to be altered." Mr. Benish also suggested the following addition be added to the proposed conditions of approval: l.h. - 75-foot setback from Rt. 614 shall be established on lots 14 through 18, and lot 20. He also made the following change to proposed condition 2: Waiver of Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance for double frontage lots (for lots 7, 8, 10, ll and 14 through 18. It was determined that parcels 9B, 8C and 8D were added to church property and are not a part of this proposal. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. William Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --A previous request for a special use permit to divide the property into 36 lots was abandoned in favor of allowing the subdivision to be done by right rather than special permit. This would avoid access to Rt. 614 and reduce the number of entrances onto Rt. 614. --The proposed entrance location is in the safest position for access to the highway. --42 acres of the tract hale been donated to the Olivet Presbyterian Church. --The Highway Department, at one time,had a plan to realign this portion of highway. The applicant intends to show a reservation line which would preserve that right-of-way necessary for a future realignment if the project should ever be revived. --The applicant intends to show a 75-foot setback from Rt. 614, even though a 35-foot setback is the requirement for a rear -yard. There is adequate depth to the lots to allow a 75-foot setback from both the interior street and the exterior street. The setback from Rt. 614 will allow the existing vegetation to remain as a buffer. --There are no streams within the interior of the property which are water -carrying streams. There are some ditches which accommodate ,I,e,? September 9, 1986 Page 4 the runoff. The only stream on forms the rear boundary. --The applicant is willing to add 14D and 15D, to lots 10 and 11. --The soil scientist's report has problem with obtaining adequate adequate building sites on all the property is the one which portions of lot 13, identified as been completed and there is no drainfield sites. There are the lots. Responding to Mr. Michel's question about the buffer area between Rt. 614 and the property, Mr. Roudabush stated, "The intention is to create the 75-foot setback and I don't think anyone building on those lots would clear because no access will be available to Rt. 614, so it would remain as is now. There is a power line and a telephone line that runs through that area, but that would be the only clearing. The natural access to all those lots backing up to Rt. 614 come off of the interior road with gentle grades and the building sites are all oriented to the interior road." Mr. Roudabush confirmed the 75-feet is technically a building setback, not a buffer. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department. Mr. Cogan expressed concern as to how adequate sight distance could be obtained given the dense vegetation and topography of the property. Mr. Echols explained that, to the east, a bank would have to be graded "back and down" and a 25-foot right-of-way dedication may require a sight easement beyond that to insure that the sight distance will always be in place. To the west, a sight easement will be required across a "snake" curve and vegetation will have to be kept trimmed. Mr. Cogan asked what Highway Department policy would be if the nine parcels on Rt. 614 were sold individually and wanted to access onto Rt. 614. Mr. Echols responded, "We have to provide access to private property. We cannot deny them access to a private lot serving one or two units. If they get above three or more, then they have reached commercial stage and we can dictate that they have to have whatever sight distance is required." Mr. Cogan questioned if there should not be a provision for a left -turn lane. Mr. Echols explained that had been considered but it was determined that the traffic volumes did not justify the requirement for a left -turn lane. The Chairman invited public comment. Dr. Dessauer, a resident of the area, expressed concern as to how the devel- opment would effect the water table. Mr. Cogan explained that was difficult to determine at this point. Mr. Roudabush explained that the applicant has checked with local well drillers and doesn't anticipate any problems with locating adequate water supplies. Mr. Forbes Rebach, representing Mr. and Mrs. John Birdsall, neighboring property owners, addressed the Commission. He asked that the Commission reduce the density of the proposal to bring it more in line with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation (1 unit/10 acres). He suggested that the buffering be increased to 150 feet and asked that the pines on the north side be preserved. He commented on the dangerousness of the road. He pointed out that a recently proposed agricultural -forestal district adjoins this land. 19 O C?/) September 9, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Edward Bauer, a nearby resident of the area, and a member of the re- cently proposed agricultural -forestal district, addressed the Commission. He read a statement which addressed the issue of "intolerable" roads and felt the County should limit development on such roads. He was also concerned about the proposed density being contrary to Comprehensive Plan recommendation and stated that by granting these "by -right" divisions, the County will not only continue to exceed the targeted growth rate in our rural areas, but "the entire County could be turned into a suburban sprawl." Ms. Katherine Imhoff, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission. She pointed out that Rt. 614 has been proposed for designation as a scenic road. She stressed the importance of the setback in relation to a scenic road and suggested that, because of the power line, the applicant should consider an even larger setback or some type of buffer. She also pointed out the proximity of the property to the Mechums River, which has also been proposed for scenic river designation. She asked that the applicant be very mindful of this during construction and do whatever is necessary to protect the river. She also referred to the adjoining agricultural -forestal district which has been proposed. In response to Ms. Imhoff question, Mr. Cogan confirmed that the final plat for this development will be reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Mary Birdsall addressed the Commission. She was concerned about the requirement for a commercial entrance and the amount of clearing that would be necessary to obtain such an entrance. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan reviewed the following concerns of the Commission and the public in relation to the application: --Prefer that the 75-foot setback be a buffer of greater depth. Mr. Cogan indicated that it was preferred that it be designated a "buffer" to insure that it could not be cleared. --Contrary to the Highway Department's evaluation, a left -turn lane is necessary. --Concerned about the number of double -frontage lots. --The intermittent streams will be studied before the final plat is reviewed. --Concerned about the proximity to Mechums River. Mr. Cogan stated, in addition, that in his opinion, this plat was an over - intensification of the use of the land considering its proximity to the river, the condition of Rt. 614, and the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. He felt that reducing the number of lots would not reduce the profitability of the development since less roads would be required. ,'9i September 9, 1986 Page 6 Mr.Go uld and Mr. Wilkerson concurred with Mr. Cogan's statements. Mr. Wilkerson suggested that a deferral might be in order to allow the applicant time to address the concerns listed by Mr. Cogan. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Roudabush to comment. Mr. Roudabush indicated he felt there was not much that could be adjusted in the proposal. He stated the number of lots was as minimum as it possibly could be; the applicant has followed the recommendations of the Highway Department in relation to the entrance; and the applicant is already agreeing to a larger setback than is required. The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:10 to allow the applicant time to consider Mr. Wilkerson's suggestion for deferral. It was determined the three main concerns of the Commission were: "setback" vs. "buffer"; left -turn lane; and density. Mr. Roudabush stated he had conferred with the applicant's representatives with the following results: --The applicant cannot make any adjustment in the density. (16 development rights have already been sacrificed.) However, the applicant is willing to consider suggestions from staff as to the rearrangement of lots. --After conferring with Mr. Echols, it is thought there is a "good possibility" that a turn lane can be designed that would accommodate left turn movements. --Regarding the buffer, the applicant "would be willing to covenant by restrictive covenant that the first 50 feet of the 75 foot setback from Rt. 614 would be designated as a buffer not to be disturbed except for maintenance and removal of such things as should be removed, such as dead trees, etc." It was determined the 75 foot setback was to be measured from Rt. 614, or the proposed future right-of-way line, whichever is furthest back. It was determined the words "including left turn lane" would be added to the end of condition l.b. It was determined the issue of the setback and the buffer should be addressed in two separate conditions, as follows: l.h. As to lots 14 through 18 and lot 20, setback of 75 feet from existing or proposed right-of-way of Rt. 614, whichever is greater. l.i. As to lots 14 through 18, and lot 20, 50 foot buffer from existing or proposed right-of-way of Rt. 614, whichever is greater, to remain substantially in its natural condition, as provided by restrictive convenants satisfactory to the County Attorney. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Harmony Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations. i -?'A September 9, 1986 Page 7 b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations, and commercial entrance, including left -turn lane. c. Issuance of an erosion control permit. d. Verification of a lawful building site located on 2 acres from Tax Map 43, Parcel 4N. e. Verification by County Engineer and Watershed Management Official that streams do not exist on lots 15 and 17. f. Notes added to final plat: 1. All lots to access the internal public roads. No lots to access directly onto Route 614: 2. Lots 10 and 11 to access Road D only. g. Planning staff approval of road names. h. As to lots 14 through 18 and lot 20, setback of 75 feet from existing or proposed right-of-way of Rt. 614, whichever is greater. i. As to lots 14 through 18 and lot 20, 50-foot buffer from existing or proposed right-of-way of Rt. 614, whichever is greater to remain substantially in its natural condition, as provided by restrictive covenants satisfactory to the County Attorney. 2. Waiver of Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance for double frontage lots (for lots 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 through 18). Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Keeler pointed out that l.e. would require that the lot lines for lots 15 and 17 might possibly need to be redrawn if it is determined a stream does exist. Mr. Benish also confirmed that condition l.d. applied to lot 7. The motion for approval passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25. DS on John Horne, Secretary �?