HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 10 84 PC MinutesJanuary 10, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, January 10, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Jim Skove;
and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney;
and Ms. Pat Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the me.eting.to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
The following persons were unanimously elected to served as officers
of the Commission until such time as the Commission was back at full
membership: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Secretary.
ZMA-81-23 Drew Boles - Request to rezone .52 acres from Rural Areas to
R-6 Residential with proffer to limit development to duplex structure,
Tax Map 60A, Parcel 09-7, Jack Jouett District. Located west side of
Georgetown Road, adjacent to Greentree Subdivision.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff concluded:. "For reasons
stated, Staff opinion is that R-6 zoning would not be the most appropriate
use of the land in terms of protection of the public investment and interest.
Staff has discovered no overwhelming evidence that the existing Rural Areas
zoning is incorrect nor that Rural Areas zoning denies a reasonable usage
of this property. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of this petition."
Mr. Keeler corrected a statement in the staff report which stated that
the property had apparently been purchased for speculative purposes.
He explained that the applicant has stated that the property was not
purchased for speculative purposes and that a relative of the applicant
will reside on the property.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Dawson. She explained that a septic
system would take up 60% of the lot and asked that the County consider
extending sewer service to the property. She felt the lot was not
similar to those behind it because it is "bordered by a thoroughfare."
She stated the applicant had not been aware of the property's limitations
when he purchased the property.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Jim McVay, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He
expressed concern about the issue of precedent. He questioned whether or
not it was the County's responsibility to make up for a mistake made by
a trustee, and whether neighboring property owners should suffer for this
same mistake.
5
January 10, 1984
Page 2
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
ti1r. Elrod, the County Engineer, pointed out that the County has a project
to build a walkway across this property and the applicant has agreed.
Regarding the issues of misrepresentation and value, Mir. Payne confirmed
that these issues were not before the Commission, but only the issue
of precedent.
Mr. Cogan commented that the question of extension of public utilities
was not a decision for the Commission but would rather have to be determined
by the Board and the Service authority because the property is outside the
jurisdictional area. He concluded that based on staff's assessment of the
petition, he could not support the request.
Mr. Skove stated he could not support a.rezoning to this density unless
there was some overriding reason and that did not appear to be the case.
GIs. Diehl felt there would be problems even locating a single-family dwelling
on this property and therefore she moved that ZMA-83-21 for Drew Boles
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-83-87 Rivanna water and Sewer Authority - Request in accordance with
Sections 30.3.5.2.1.2 and 30.5.2.1.4 to construct the Crozet Interceptor
Part III and to locate a sewer lift station adjacent to Route 250 West
at Lickinghole Creek.
The applicant was requesting deferral to January 24.
Ms. Diehl :roved, seconded by Mr. Cogan, that SP-83-87 be deferred to
January 24. The ration passed unanimously.
SP-83--88 Potomac Edison Company - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(6) to locate a 115-KV transmission line across portions of properties
in Albemarle County and across Tax Map 37, Parcel 11, Rivanna District,
consisting of 250.901 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located near the border
and intersection of Orange and Louisa Counties, northwest of Route 231
and east of Route 646, at their intersection.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Samuel Higginbotham represented the applicant. He explained that he
had expected other representatives of the power company to be present
but apparently something had prevented them from attending. He explained
that the impact on Albemarle County would be negligible and that approval
of all other counties involved.had already been received.
January 10, 1984
Page 3
Mr. Keeler asked that the applicant be asked to explain exactly where
the line would be located since there was some question as to its
exact location.
The applicant responded that he was certain the line would effect only
one property in Albemarle County. A representative of the applicant
(the identity of this person was not clear) explained the location in
some detail.
Another representative of the applicant explained the background of
the company,.its service area, and the need for additional service.
Another representative of the applicant explained how the line would be
constructed.
Mr. Watson, a representative of the applicant, addressed the issue of
maintenance and herbicides.
There.being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
It was determined selective herbicides would be used, i.e. the same
type that is used on lawns. In response to Ms. Diehl's questions,
Mr. Watson explained the herbicides which would be used.
There was a discussion about the type of poles which would be used.
As a result of Ms. Diehl's concern about herbicide use, the following
condition was suggested:
The company shall make reasonable efforts to negotiate other means of
maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide
usage.
Mr. Skove moved that SP-83-88 for Potomac Edison Company be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The granting of this permit does not guarantee the availability of
electric power to the applicant and shall not be construed as
approving the modification, construction or reconstruction of any
facility not specifically approved herein.
2. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to impair or otherwise
affect the rights of the applicant or any other person concerning
the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property
for such line or the compensation to be paid therefor. Except
where guying right-of-way is required for angle structures as
described in sheets 2 and 3 of Exhibit C for APPLICATION BOOK,
right-of-way width shall not exceed one hundred feet (100').
3. Suspension structures shall be in general accordance with sheets
1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit C of APPLICATION BOOK, provided that structures
shall not exceed 75' height or width dimensions described in
Exhibit C.
January 10, 1984.
Page 4
4. Outside of the right-of-way the applicant shall .have the right to
cut danger trees only. A danger tree is defined as any tree which,
if felled, would fall within ten feet of a conductor.
Within the right-of-way, the applicant shall preserve vegetation and
trees within fifteen feet of streem crossings (if any) and public
roads to the maximum extent practicable allowing for the safe
operation and maintenance of the line.
5. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to minimize the adverse
impact of such line on adjacent properties, on the neighborhood and
on the County, consistent with good engineering practice.
6. The Company shall make reasonable effort to negotiate other means
of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to
herbicide usage.
tiIr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The applicant asked that the Commission take
action to find the utility in accord with the .Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Paynestated he felt approval of the special permit constituted
an'. endorsement of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Higginbotham still asked that the Commission take formal action so
as to keep the approval in line with that given by the tither counties.
Mr. Skove moved that the Potomac Edison transmission line be found in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-83-19 Hollymead Land Trust; Albemarle Bank and Trust Company - Request
to rezone ±296 acres from R-1 to R-4 with proffer to limit density to
1.7 dwellings per acre; to rezone ±23 acres from R-1 to R-15; to rezone.
±45 acres from R-1 to HC Highway Commercial; County Tax Map 46, Parcel
29; County Tax ;Zap 32, Parcels 42 and 36, Rivanna.District. Located
east side of Route 29 North, between Hollymead Lake and Proffitt Road
(Route 649). (Revised ZMA-83-19)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill expressed dissatis-
faction with the staff report. He stated he was surprised by all the
Highway Department stipulations and noted that he had not received a
copy of the staff report. (Mr. Keeler stated the report had been mailed
to the Hollymead Land Trust, in. care of Dr. Hurt.) He confirmed that
his main concerns were with the request for rezoning from R-1 to HC.
He stated the applicant had always been under the impression that the
design had already been determined based.on a 1.7 density and the applicant
had agreed to that.
January 10, 1984 Page 5
Mr. Keeler explained that staff's position for a "planned approach"
is based on the Highway Departments request for an "overall trans-
portation plan." He noted that it has always been tLie Highway
Department's position that in order for the roads to properly designed
an overall transportation plan would be needed. He added, however,
that it has been the Board's and the Commission's position that it would
be inappropriate for the developer to be required to construct roads
for traffic that he is not generating.
Mr. Cogan felt the issue was somewhat confusing also.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan felt that the request was in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, with the exception of the 8 acres on Proffit Road. He felt that
8 acres should not be commercial. He interpreted that it was staff's
position that commercial districts are acceptable to staff if they
are under a planned approach, but there are reservations about going
straight to C-1 or HC.
Mr. Keeler responded to this observation and explained that the
Comprehensive Plan recommends that sites of three acres come under a planned
approach. He added that the applicant might not need to address
all the issues in the same detail as is required for a PDSC. He stated
staff's main concerns deal with access, and the applicant could possibly
address these concerns by "proffering a plan under Highway Commercial."
Staff confirmed they would be most comfortable with either a planned
unit development or a deferral on the commercial request at this
time.
Ms. Diehl stated she would be willing to act on the residential request,
but not the commercial. Mr. Skove and Mr. Cogan agreed.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-83-19 for Hollymead-Land Trust/Albemarle Bank
and Trust Company be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
as follows: Rezone ±296 acres from R-1 to R-4 with proffer.to limit
density to 1.7 dwellings per acre and ±23 acres from R-I to R-15.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
(Note: The Commission took no action on the request to rezone ±45
acres from R-1 to HC.)
Mr. Hill acknowledged the Commission's action was acceptable .
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
Briarwood Final Plat, Sections III and VII - Proposal to create 26 single-
family attached lots on 7.39 acres with an average lot size of .092 acre.
Located west of Route 29 North, southeast of intersection of Briarwood
and Austin Drives in Piney Mountain Village.
January 10, 1984
Page 6
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated: "The Commission
could approve the current plan for 26 lots subject to completion and/or
correction of all improvements required under prior approvals including
correction of the recreational areas to satisfaction of the staff, prior
to staff signing of the plat. Alternative: Deferral of this current
plan could emphasize the County's intent to protect the interests of the
current lot owners by completion of required improvements. Deferral would
also permit the applicant to address these items without distraction of
meeting current conditions of approval."
NIr. Keeler also reviewed a letter from Mr. Wood dated January 3,
along with staff's response to this letter dated January 6.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Wendell Wood. Mr. Wood commented
on the road issue and stated "We will blacktop all of existing roads
which have not already been blacktopped by April 15." He also requested
that Austin Drive be a cul-de-sac and noted that he was not asking that
Austin Drive be deleted to Rt. 606, but rather that it be delayed because
there is no need for it at this time. He commented on tie loss of lots
and the resulting financial impact. He indicated it was intention to
request the deletion of sidewalks and the tot lots.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. May, a resident of Briarwood Drive, addressed the Commission. He
felt the 26 additional lots were essential to the subdivision. He
noted that the inconsistency in development of the subdivision has
resulted in loss of investment potential to homeowners. He pointed
out that FHDA financing would not be available after February.
He stated residents were not opposed to the tot lots, but just wanted
to be sure that they were located in a suitable place and did not
infringe on private property. He stated he did not feel there was a
need for sidewalks.
Mr. dark Cruse noted that there was a lack of night lighting in the
subdivision.
Mr. Chuck Hudson addressed the Commission. He stated he was a potential
buyer of one of the 26 lots, but he would not be able to afford it if he
could not take advantage of I'HDA money.
Ms. Shirley Watkins addressed the Commission. She explained that even
though she walks to work (GE), she does feel there is a need for sidewalks.
She noted that a sidewalk could take as much as 25% of a front yard.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, the County Engineer, commented on possible problems
with snow removal on the roads in the development since at the present
time Mr. Wood is responsible for that service. He explained that the
applicant has Agreed to post a bond to ensure that the snow will be
removed, but it is still preferable that the roads be completed so that
they can been accepted into the state system. He noted that the bond
had not yet been posted.
No
January 10, 1984
Page 7
Mr. Payne commented on the bond process and explained that a "bond is
money that the County is holding in its hand which is available for
immediate use." He stated that the existing situation with Briarwood
is that "we have nothing except an uncorrected default in the bond
and a dishonored negotiable instrument."
Mr. Skove stated he did not like the idea of the County getting involved
in the snow removal business.
Referring to condition No. 1, Mr. Bowerman was under the impression that
the requirement for Austin Drive to be completed to Rt. 606 was just
carrying out the original zoning approval and that was the reason
cul--de--sacing Austin Drive was not acceptable. He asked if that was
incorrect. Mr. Keeler responded that this would be a temporary
cul-de-sac and when the 26 lots are built on "we want that road to
go into the system."
There was a brief discussion about the tot lot issue. Mr. Keeler stated
that would have to be resolved directly with the applicant because he
had not been receptive to staff's suggestions. He confirmed it had
not been located as it was shown in the approved plan.
Regarding the issue of street lights, Ms. Cooke asked Mr. Keeler to
explain that process. Because requests for street lights are handled
by the Engineering Department, Mr. Elrod responded. Ms. Cooke noted
that street lights were not a responsibility of the developer but rather
was strictly between the County, the homeowners and VEPCO.
There was a discussion between Mr.. Elrod and Mr. Bowerman about the
implications of condition f. Mr. Bowerman still expressed confusion.
Mr. Keeler explained that conditions a through a basically address
those areas where plats have already been recorded and the remainder
of the conditions, beginning with f,relate primarily to these 26
lots before the Commission at this time.
Referring to condition 1(a), Mr. Elrod stated the applicant would need to
deposit a bond to cover lots already built on. Mr. Payne interjected
that the Commission should not be misled, i.e. "This is not going to be a
bond, this is going to be the County's money."
Referring to condition 1(f), which the applicant had expressed some
problems with, Mr. Bowerman interpreted that this would not be
accomplished for quite some time. However, he stated was trying to
determine if all other requirements (with the single exception of
VDH&T approval of the roads) could be met within a reasonable amount of
time. Mr. Cogan interpreted that the applicant was asking for relief
from condition f so he "can at least get something started on the lots."
Mr. Bowerman felt this was accurate and added that he was willing to give
some relief, "but not the normal things that Mr. Elrod would require."
Mr. Elrod commented that the applicant was going to have to meet all the
requirements, but what Mr. Wood was objecting to was building the roads
first. Mr. Payne interjected: "The point is, Woodbriar Associates is not
going to be extended credit by the County any more. That's the essence
of this provision."
a
January 10, 1984
Page 8
Air. Elrod expressed his displeasure with the situation. He stated
he didn't want to create more lots and be in the same position that
already exists with the existing lots.
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Will the posting of the cash deposit satisfy the
concerns of condition f?" Mr. Payne responded: "No; that relates only
to condition a. That is braighig us up to where we should be today
before you approve anything. I don't think you should treat that as anything
except what would have happened if there had been no default on the bond."
Mr. Elrod stated: "What I have discussed with Mr. Wood is that it be.
posted as cash bond to take care of the roads to serve the existing homes."
(Note: At this point the recording equipment began to malfunction and
the remainder of the tweeting is recorded in fragments.)
ti1r. Wood again addressed the Commission. He asked that.the possibility
that he is right and somebody else is wrong be given some.consideration.
He stressed that he has a contract with Williamson to have the roads
constructed by April 15th. He stated he ha.s agreed to bond the sidewalks,
though he plans to ask for deletion of this requirement later. He felt
the bond had been called improperly and should have.been renewed. He
stated he was not objecting to doing the work, but only to the method.
He felt it was just a matter of timing.
Mr. Bowerman attempted to clarify Air. Elrod's requirements: "If you got
a cash bond, which would meet your concerns in a and b, that you would
be willing to bond the roads that are mentioned in condition f?"
Mr. Elrod responded: "Yes, sir; if I also got North Pine Street (North
Pines Subdivision)." He explained the situation with North Pine Street
had just been discussed with the applicant "this afternoon."
Air. Cogan indicated he was nct opposed to giving "some relief" but he
felt exactly how it should be handled should be left to Mr. Elrod.
He suggested leaving the conditions as suggested by staff, and then
let the applicant get with staff and the County Engineer and settle
all these issues, particularly in terms of condition f, and at that
time the Commission will review the matter again.
Air. Bowerman felt this was.acceptable.
Mr. Wood was not pleased with this suggestion because he felt the purpose
of this Commission hearing was to solve those issues. He stated he had
already been meeting with staff.
There was further discussion about the tot lot issue. Mr. Keeler
stated the bond currently being held was to cover equipment. He
also explained that the bond is drawn on the same company involved in
the litigation. Mr. Payne explained that the way condition d is written,
either Mr. Wood must work it out with staff, or the plat doesn't
get put to record.
U-0
Sep 10, 1984
Page 9
Mr. Keeler added further that there must be some assurance that it will
be done before the plat is recorded or there must be some assurance that
it will be done in the future. He noted that Mr. Payne feels that the
assurances that have been given in the past have been adequate.
Mr. Payne advised that this type of "piecemeal out -of -money" development
must be handled carefully to assure that everything is kept orderly
and nothing gets overlooked.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that efforts were being made by both the County
and the applicant to resolve some of these issues. He added that the
outstanding issue is "how to proceed in the future."
Based on this statement by Mr. Keeler Ms. Diehl stated she could support
the additional 26 lots with the conditions suggested by staff.
Mr. Skove stated he could not support an additional 26 lots when there
are so many existing unresolved problems.
Mr. Cogan agreed with Ms. Diehl.
Ms. Diehl moved that Briarwood Final Plat, Sections III and VII (for 26
lots only) be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Completion of Austin Drive to Rt. 606 (alternative: completion of
Austin Drive to lot 82 and provision of temporary cul-de-sac),
Briarwood Drive to lot 1 and provision of temporary cul-de-sac,
Heather Court, Whitney Court and acceptance of those roads into the
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation system (including
sidewalks);
b. Posting of all Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
maintenance bonds and fees;
c. Correction of any outstanding water and sewer system problems (if
any) to the reasonable satisfaction of the AlbemarleCounty
Service Authority;
d. Correction of tot lot and playground to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Planning Staff;
e. In construction of sidewalks, the developer shall relocate or
replace mailboxes, Landscaping, and other improvements at his
expense with no expense to the lot owners;
f. All required improvements for these current 26 lots are to be
completed and accepted by the County Engineer, Virginia Department
of Highways & transportation, and the Albemarle County Service
Authority prior to signing of the plat for recordation;
g. Provide temporary cul-de-sac for Wren Court;
h. Verification that not less than 25% of the total aggregate area
plated is dedicated open space;
i. County Attorney approval of homeowner's agreements to include
the maintenance of open space, stormwater facilities and appurtenant
structures;
0
J`,nu I :,
Septmnbei 10, 1984
Page 10
J. Iron pins shall be set at all lot corners;
k. Purchase of 26 residential sewer connections from Albemarle
County Service Authority;
1. Correction of notes on the plat to staff satisfaction. The plat
to be recorded shall show only those lots being currently approved
with adequate references, tie lines and the like for locational
purposes. Easement plats are to be recorded simultaneously
with the subdivision plat.
2. No concrete pads, buildings, porches, decks, or any part of any
structure shall encroach on utility easements.
Hr. Cogan seconded the motion.
I1r. Payne clarified that condition 1(a) required the acceptance of all those
roads.
The motion for approval passed 3:1, with Commissioner Skove casting the
dissenting vote.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
r
Secr ary
Recorded by: Stuart Richard
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 9-89
10