HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 04 90 PC MinutesJanuary 4, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, January 4, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith
Rittenhouse, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm (newly appointed); Mr.
Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Ellen Anderson (newly
appointed); Mr. Tim Michel; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr.
Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr.
,Tim Bowling, 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 November 282 1989, December 5,
1989, and December 19, 1989 were approved as submitted.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Chairman - Mr. Wilkerson nominated Mr. Keith Rittenhouse for the office
of Chairman. Mr. Michel seconded the nomination. There being
no further nominations, Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr.
Michel, that the nominations be closed. Mr. Rittenhouse
was unanimously elected Chairman.
Vice Chairman - Mr. Michel nominated Mr. Harry Wilkerson for the office of
Vice Chairman. Mr. Jenkins seconded the nomination. There being
no further nominations, Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr.
Michel, that the nominations be closed. Mr. Wilkerson was
unanimously elected Vice Chairman.
Secretary - Mr. Jenkins nominated Mr. Cilimberg for the office of Secretary.
Mr. Michel seconded the nomination. There being no further
nominations, Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that
the nominations be closed. Mr. Cilimberg was unanimously
elected Secretary.
Indian Hill Final Plat (SUB-89-216) - Proposal to divide 20.28 acres into
four lots with an average lot size of 5.07 acres. Proposal is to be
served by a private road. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 56A
is located on the east side of Route 711 at its intersection with Route
856 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. A summary of the report is
as follows:
The preliminary plat was unanimously approved on January 26,
1988 with administrative approval of the final plat being
granted. The preliminary plat subsequently expired in
July, 1989 in accordance with Section 18-54(c) of the Sub-
division Ordinance. Since the expiration of this plat the new
private roads provisions (Section 18-36(b)(1)) have been
e ye)
January 4, 1990
Page 2
adopted. This requires the applicant to demonstrate that approval
of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of
significant degradation to the environment of the site, and
that no alternative public road alignment would alleviate the
environmental degradation. For these provisions, "significant
degradation" means a minimum increase of 30% in the total volume
of grading for construction of a public road as compared to a
private road.
Because the applicant has not met the minimum requirements
for the demonstration of environmental degradation to grant a
private road, staff recommends denial of this final plat.
Referring to the Engineering Department's comment that "this department
has routinely allowed pavement widths of 18 feet when the minimum lot
size is three acres, consistent with VDOT requirements," (which is
contrary to Section 18-39(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires
a minimum pavement width of 20 feet), Mr. Rittenhouse asked if it was
common knowledge that this interpretation is made. Mr. Tarbell responded
that he did not know if it was common knowledge but he acknowledged
that the Engineering Department consistently makes that interpretation..
Mr. Keeler added: "In the case of the road --if it's to be a public
road we simply employ the Highway Department's standards. It's a
Highway Department standard when subdivision lots are three acres or.
greater that they'll permit an 18-foot road." fir. Rittenhouse asked:
"So we allow ['DOT standards to supercede our Subdivision Ordinance?"
Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, in some cases our Ordinance requires a
50-foot right-of-way and we've gone with a 40-foot right-of-way because
that's all the Highway Department needs for a public road. Our
Subdivision Ordinance was originally adopted in august, 1974 and is
in dire need of re -adoption." Mr. Rittenhouse stated that perhaps
it was time to amend the Ordinance.
In response to Ms. Hackle's request, Mr. Tarbell and Mr. Keeler explained
the differences between a public and a private road.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Rouell. He, also, explained
the differences between a public and private road. He explained that
his calculations had been based on a 20-foot road because he was under
the impression that was the required standard. he stated that the
plat had been approved two years ago and expired 6 :months ago and "during
that period of time I had a soil erosion bond and an entrance permit
bond posted. I started construction on the road ---graded it --so I did
make attempts at construction and to sell the property, which I have
just recently made arrangements to do so. And then when I came back
to renew the plat, because I knew the expiration 'B coming up, they said
I had to go back to the Planning Commission. And so at that point,
before I even bothered to come back here, I wanted to make sure that I
had everything put back together, that I could follow through with it
promptly. During that period ordinances have changed now. Where I have
made the effort to engineer this, lay this out --and as you can see the
plats there, they are stamped and marked and parts of it have been sold
off and at this point all of it has been committed. So, that's why
p`d'
January 4, 1990 Page 3
I'm back here, basically to renew this. Had these ordinances not changed
in the last three months, I would have been on the Consent Agenda. The
Highway Department did not object to a private road and did not recommend
a state road. The Planning ... staff then takes the position that 'well,
if they don't recommend private then we're going to recommend state because
that's the way we do things around here. The problem I'm running into
is that this is all designed and approved. It was by standards --they
were five -acre minimum lots. It was set to do that per the standards of
the County. I have done several developments utilizing private roads,
done them properly, established good documentation, good homeowners'
documents and this wc-s intended to be a small, simple development so
we could provide inexpensive lots for people. If I have to go back and
re -engineer this road and submit it to the Highway Department, take
four months to get it approved, re -design everything --all those costs
are going to go up considerably." He stressed that he was trying to
provide affordable lots. He also stressed that the plat has been
previously approved and designed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to explain the "avenues available to the
applicant should we deny this final plat." Mr. Keeler responded that
if the Commission chose to deny the final plat based on a private road,
it could authorize staff to approve the final plat with a public road, OR
the applicant could appeal the Commission's decision to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Jenkins asked how much consideration should be given to the fact
that the ordinance has changed since the original, approval. Mr.
Keeler responded: "That's entirely up to the Commission; if you do
it in this case, you better be prepared to do it in every other case
where a development has expired that you've approved under different
ordinances, or (be able) to clearly distinguish this from another
case. In other words, if you determine, based on the fact that he
obtained an entrance permit and apparently did some construction, that
that vested his prior approval, you can approve it under that circumstance."
Mr. Bowling confirmed Mr. Keeler's statements, i.e. that the Commission
must distinguish this situation from other situations and each case
must be reviewed on it's own merit.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Commission has a policy not to consider
any information that has not been evaluated by staff. He pointed out
that in the information submitted to staff there had been no mention
of any construction. He stated staff would certainly be willing to
look into this further and report back to the Commission.
Mr. Rouell disagreed with Mr. Keeler's statement. He stated: "I beg
to differ with that fact, and I have pointed out to these gentlemen
the applications and the permits and the things that I have maintained."
Mr. Tarbell commented that he was aware that the commercial entrance
permit had been approved by VDOT and is in the file. However, he
stated he was not familiar with construction as referred to by the
applicant and could not comment on that issue.
a��
January 4, 1990 page 4
Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Rouell to comment.
Mr. Rouell stated: "I have posted a soil erosion bond; I did shoulder
clearing all across the state road frontage, cut the entrance in and
cleared the center line of the road so I could show prospective people
what's to take place there."
Mr. Michel asked if the entrance permit was still valid. Mr. Rouell
responded: "The bond is posted; the entrance permit itself has now
expired because we, of course, won't do it until I have an active
plat."
Mr. Tarbell confirmed the entrance permit had expired but he
stated he thought VDQT would re -approve it since it was the
same proposed entrance as was approved the first.time.
Mr. Wilkerson asked when the construction referred to by Mr. Rouell
had been performed. Mr. Rouell responded that it had been done in
the spring of 1989, prior to the expiration of the plat.
lir. Michel felt this was a difficult decision. He stated that though
a private road would not be approved under the existing ordinance, he would
be willing to go along with this request provided this situation could
be differentiated from others so that a precedent would not be set.
Mr. Keeler recommended that the item be deferred in order to allow staff
to address the issue of "u mat vests interest in terms of development."
He explained: "Basically, if I make improvements occasioned by a site
plan or a subdivision that are not otherwise usable for any other type of
development, that tends to vest my interest in it. I am not sure that
clearing the center line would not be equally as usable for a public road
as a private road. I think we would want the County Attorney's office
to more deliberately address the issue of what vests improvements and
I think we would want to go out and take a look at it and see exactly
what improvements have been made and make a recommendation based on that."
Mr. Bowling added: "From what I've heard, I don't think you've got
enough vested from a legal perspective, but I think that's a little
bit different situation than drawing a distinction because of the
facts that you have here before you --you have a plat that was
approved, expired and you have an ordinance change in the interim.
If you want a strict legal analysis based on what, I've heard, I don't
think he has any vested right --legally vested right --to a private
road....."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that when a request is made for a variance from
the ordinance he felt it was incumbent upon the applicant to present
convincing evidence as to why a variance should be granted. He felt
that the argument that construction has begun was not sufficient grounds
for waiving requirements on grading. He stated: "I, too, would like
to see the analysis based on the 18-feet that would be allotted by
the Department of Engineering to see if it meets the criteria for the
waiver of the use of a private road vs. a public road.'
a5-3
January 4, 1990 Page 5
Mr. Rittenhouse again pointed out that the Commission could not
entertain any new evidence that had not first been submitted to
staff for their analysis.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Indian Hill Final Plat be deferred to
January 16, 1990.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-104 Edwin Childress - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a
church facility on 6.778 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 16, is located on Route 29N (on the
west side) nine -tenths of a mile south of its intersection with
Rt. 641. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Mr. Keeler commented on the vehicle count figure. He explained the
figure should be 30 vtpd rather than 50 as stated in the staff report.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Childress, paster of Paran
United Methodist Church. He offered no significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-104 for Edwin Childress be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Seating capacity to be determined by adequate septic system area,
not to exceed a maximum fixed seating of 400 persons;
2. Sanctuary or classroom expansion, or daycare and other non -worship
uses, will require amendment to this petition;
3. Site plan approval to include Planning Commission approval of
landscaping;
4. Widening of Route 606 to 14 feet from the church entrance to
Route 763;
5. Trees over 1 1/2" caliper shall not be removed without staff
approval and extensive landscaping shall be provided in excess
of the minimum required in the Site Plan Ordinance especially
along Rt. 29;
6. No access to Route 29 North.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
OQ>7
January 4,.1990
Page 6
SP-89-106 Central Fidelity Bank - Request in accordance with
Section 22.2.2(10) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a bank with
a drive-in window to be located on a vacant 0.77 acre parcel. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, parcel 104, and 104B, is located in the
Gardens Shopping Center north of Albemarle Square on Route 29.
Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
!2r. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Woody Palmore. He offered little
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-106 for Central Fidelity Bank be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Landscaping shall be in accordance with the preliminary site plan
dated December 12, 1989;
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-100 Charles H. & Anna A. Nelson - Request in accordance with
Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a second single -wide
mobile home on 5.4 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described
as Tax Map 121, Parcel 24, is located on the north side of Rt. 715,
approximately 1.5 miles west of the intersection of Rt. 20 and Rt.
I _J. Scottsville '1agisteridl District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that the proposed location was satisfactory in
the event of a future division of the property.
It was decided condition No. 7 would be added which could limit the
permit to Charles and Anna Nelson's immediate family only.
Ms. Anna Nelson represented the applicant. She expressed objection
to the restriction against future renting of the mobile home.
(Mr. Rittenhouse explained that if at some future date she wished
to rent the unit she would have to seek Commission approval to do so
under a separate request. Ms. Nelson acknowledged understanding.)
There being no public comment, the :natter was placed before the Commission.
:sir. Michel moved that SP-89-100 for Charles H. & Anna A. Nelson be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
1255
January 4,4.99'
Page 7
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for the district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to the base of
the mobile home is to be completed within 30 days of the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local
office of the Department of Health, if applicable under current
regulations;
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator..
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
7. Permit is issued for the use of Anna Nelson and her immediate family
only.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-99 Trustees of Mount_ Ed Baptist Church - Request in accordance
with Section 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the
construction of, an educational wing to an existing church. Property,
described as Tax Map 85, Parcel 22A, is located on Rt. 635, approximately
one-half mile southwest of the intersection of Rts. 635 and 692.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions. Mr. Fritz added that staff's recommended conditions
of approval envisioned a waiver of a full site plan. To reflect this
intention, it was decided condition (1) would be changed to read:. "A
building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have
been met: (etc.)."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gerald Shifflett. He offered no
significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-99 for the Trustees of Mount Ed Baptist
Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval under Runoff Control Ordinance to
include all impervious coverage on site;
I X!_
January 4, "t989 Page 8
b. Health Department approval;
c. Fire. Official approval; and
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance permit.
2. Day care and other non -worship uses shall require a separate permit.
3. Location of building is to be in general compliance with attachment A.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-103 Henry J. Oswald - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a recreational facility
to be located on a vacant 12.42 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 20A4 and 20A3, is located
on the east side of Rt. 29N, approximately 1/4 mile north of its
intersection with Rt. 649. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial. The
report summarized: "Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is of the opinion that
this request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and that the character of the district will be
changed. Staff recommends denial...."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Henry Oswald. He explained his
proposal and stressed that it would be landscaped in such a way as to appear
to be a recreational park., rather than a commercial facility. He
noted that this section of Rt. 29 is not really a rural area. In
the event the Commission could not view the request favorably, he
offered the following alternative: To put the batting cages and
golfcourseon an adjoining piece of commercially* zoned property
with the rural area connected to that parcel for the driving range.
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Commission could not consider
the alternative suggested because staff had not had time to review
the proposal. He asked if the applicant would like to request deferral
to allow time for the alternate proposal to be submitted. Mr. Oswald
responded affirmatively.
Staff recommended that deferral be to an indefinite date.
There being no public comment, the :natter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-89-013 for
Henry Oswald be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
January 4, 1*89 1 q f-� Page 9
ZMA-89-18 Redfields Development - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 276 acres from R-1, Residential
to PRD, Planned Residential Development, resulting in 656 lots.
Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 21A, 22A, 23, 24B, 47,
and 49, is located adjacent to Sherwood Farms, and bounded by Sunset
Road and I-64. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to revisions, modifications and agreements.
There was a brief discussion about Lot 106, which is located outside
the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed the building site for this
lot would be located in the rural area. Mr. Keeler added that staff
felt that "one unit in that area, with open space around it, would not
do any severe harm to the County's Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Keeler
explained there might be some confusion about this lot because "we're
referring to 104 subdivision lots and then referring to the open space
by lot numbers too. 106 is actually open space with a one -acre lot
situated in that area." .
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about critical slope areas, Mr.
Fritz stated staff had not had time to review those areas in depth,
but could "note at this time that there is significant area in critical
slopes and they must have the adequate building sites required by the
Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Michel expressed some confusion about the state report. He asked
if the Commission was being asked to approve, simultaneously, the
rezoning and Lots 1 through 104. Mr. Fritz confirmed this was
accurate and added that that is often the case with a planned devel-
opment community. Mr. Keeler added that if the application plan is
comparable to a preliminary site plan and staff can "afford it that
level of review," then staff asks for administrative approval of the
final plans.
Mr. Michel asked staff to comment on the issue of adequate water supply
for the higher lots. Mr. Fritz explained that there are various
methods of dealing with this but which method will be used has not
yet been determined.
Mr. Rittenhouse attempted to clarify the numerous sets of conditions
included in the staff report, i.e. conditions of approval for the
preliminary plat; revisions to the application plan; and revisions,
modifications and agreements attached to ZMA-89-19, one of which
requires compliance with the revisions to the application plan (No. 8).
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Frank Cox represented the applicant. He described the proposal
at length, including the history. Significant comments included:
--The appl c nt has every intent to make necessary adjustments
to bring those %in�scritical slope areas into compliance.
January 4, 1990 Page 10
--The applicant has identified several sensitive areas which
deserve preservationtreatment, e.g. frontage along I-64.
--There will be some additional buffer along the common boundary
with the Stevenson property.
--"We do not intend to develop any mUti-family dwellings that
were alluded to in the staff report. We try to differentiate between
attached and multi -family."
--A trail system is planned in the dedicated open areas.
--The time table will be market driven and will be in five phases.
The applicant would like to begin construction this summer.
--There is a compelling reason to get under way because of
upcoming changes in VDOT design standards which will effect any plan
not approved before March 31.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons commented on the proposal: Mr. Ed Stevenson;
Mr. Jack Stoner; Nis. Norma Diehl; Ms. Margaret Stevenson. Their
concerns included:
Mr. Stevenson - He felt the development would cause a drastic
change in the character of.this area. He expressed concern about
noise and automobile pollution. He stated that though the proposed
buffer along his property line is acceptable,it did not meet all
his concerns. He asked that damming of the stream which crosses
his property not be allowed as this would greatly impair the flow
of stream across his property. (There was a brief discussion about
this issue. There was some question as to exactly which stream
crossed Mr. Stevenson's property. The applicant offered to address
stormwater detention in another manner if this is of concern to the
Stevensons. It was decided this would be left to staff and the
applicant to resolve.)
Mr. Stoner - He noted there should have been a change made in the
top property line as a result of his purchasing 3;g acres from Mr.
Miller. He asked for clarification as to how Phase 6 relates to
the rest of the development. (Mr. Fritz explained that 561 units
may be approved with Phase 6 not being dedicated as open space, but
if more than 561 units are approved, then. Phase 6 is dedicated as
open space. He stressed: "\o development is to occur in Phase 6."
Mr. Cili-aberg added: "What we've done is made the strongest statement
that we can from a staff level as to the desire not to have any of
Phase 6 developed. We can't predict what future Planning Commissions
and Boards may decide, but we're going on record here as saying it
is totally inconsistent with our Comprehensive Plan and that we could
not in any way endorse the development of Phase 6 and we see it as
opera space and only as open space." Mr. Keeler interjected: "Likewise,
and quite honestly, the applicant is saying that 'we'd still like to
keep the option.' As with any other rezoning, this is subject to change
in the future and they at some future date come back in to propose
development in Phase 6." Mr.. Cilimberg added: 'Ve just don't want
you to feel obligated to make any statements that would seem to
predicate certain decisions in the future.")
Ms. Diehl - She asked that there be an undisturbed buffer between
this development and Sherwood Farms. She asked that motorized vehicles
not be allowed on the proposed trail system. She asked that a condition
be added which would prohibit access from Redfields through Sherwood
Farms. She expressed concerns about the critical slopes, particularly
,2.59
January 4, 1990
Page 11
about the integrity of the mountain slopes and the ridges being
maintained. She asked that the existing large trees be preserved.
She expressed concern about the possibility of water storage tanks
and.also about the adequacy of the stormwater detention. She
pointed out that this area of Moore's Creek often floods, "quite
dramatically." She, too, expressed concern about the status of
Phase 6. She asked if it was to be open space, why could it not
be labeled as such at this time? After determining that the
zoning for Phase 6 was R-1, Ms. Diehl asked if a one -acre lot was
viable given the fact that 60,000 square feet is still required
for a well and septic system. (Mr. Keeler responded: "At the time
the applicant originally approached us --the subdivision of the
property under the R-1 zoning --I believe some of the lots, maybe
all of the lots, but certainly some of the lots were to be served
by public water. Sewer at that time was remote and we were not
supportative of the idea of having a major subdivision in the
urban area on septic systems which is one of the reasons we encouraged
consideration of a higher density that would have made the practicality
of extending sewer to the property --it would have improved that
situation. During the intervening period, two other developers in the
area finally buried their hatchets and got together and extended public
sewer down the road which made it more feasible to extend to this
property." He explained that for a one -acre lot one central utility
would have to exist, either sewer or water. He added that staff's
major concern had been having a major urban subdivision on septic
systems because at some point in time they would go on public sewer
and that generally is a cost absorbed by the utility itself.) Ms.
Diehl determined that the 35% noted as open space did include Phase 6.
Ms. Diehl concluded her comments with a request that the final
subdivision plat for "those 104 lots" be reviewed by the Commission.
Ms. Margaret Stevenson - She expressed concerns about how items
such as trash and animal control would be addressed. (Mr. Rittenhouse
explained that County leash laws are site specific.)
Regarding the issue raised about motorized vehicles on the trails,
Mr. Keeler noted that it would be in the developer's best interest
to prohibit the use of such vehicles on the hiking trails and in
the open space. He stated this should be included in the homeowner's
documents.
Mr. Percy Montague, one of the applicants, addressed the Commission.
He commented on Phase 6. He stated there is a substantial area in
this section that is not in critical slopes. He projected, "conservatively,"
that Phase 6 was at least ten years away. He stated that by the
time that point is reached, this area may "very well be in the urban
area." He stated: "Our concern is that we don't want to come in today
and block that from any potential future development. ... We also
don't want to in any way mislead them in thinking that this always is
going to be open space when there is the potential there for future
development. So we would like to indicate now that we are reserving
the right to come back later and talk to you about future development
on that spot. ... We don't/to indicate that specifically as open space,
but certainly for the foreseeable future, it will be open space."
January 4, 1990
Page 12
Mr. Michel stated he felt this issue was a little "nebulous." He
stated: "What I'm trying to do is be sure, today, that at least
this (he pointed to to Phase 6 on the plat) is never going to get
touched. I don't see that on that plan over there. I understand
you may want to develop; I understand you may put all your units
down below and never get into Phase 6. I want some.assurance,
either from the applicant or from the staff, that regardless of
what happens, you're not going to get up top."
Mr. Montague indicated that it was the applicant's intent that
the area which could be developed is approximately 100 feet
below the high point. He felt that the expense of going beyond
that point would probably not be feasible because of the cost
of utilities.
Mr. Michel suggested the possibility of attaching "the upper portion"
to lot 106. He also agreed with Ms. Diehl's concern about the
need for a buffer between this large development and the smaller
development. He also was concerned that there was a part of this
proposal which was "not clear."
Regarding the issue of access to Sherwood Farms, Mr. Gaylen Bates
stated the applicant had no objection to a condition prohibiting
access from this development to Sherwood Farms. Mr. Bates added:
"As far as your mountainside, I would be happy to select a contour --
we select, engineer selects, you select from the reap --that we would
not build above. It is not our intent to build on top of the
mountain."
Mr. Montague stated that issue could be worked out with staff.
He stated the study indicated a potential for 95 units in "this" area,
though "realistically, we don't think there's space there to build
that many." He added: "We don't have any intention of building in
"this" area." (Note: The area he pointed to on the plat was not clear.)
Mr. 'Michel asked if staff's approach on this issue "adequately
protects the top."
Mr. Wilkerson expressed confusion about the status of Phase 6.
He had understood that it would never be developed, but he
was nearing differently fromthe developer.
Mr. Keeler explained that the current note on the plan (i.e. "common
open space/ potential future development") is somewhat optional.
He stated: "In my opinion, you can't approve it ctith that note on
there --you have to designate a land use for it. In the addendum, in
item 3(d), it says 'Revise land use notes to include Phase 6 as Open
Space.' That's all you're approving now. The applicant is being
up front with you and telling you that at some.time in the future
they may come back and want to include some development on that
property. That .could take a whole additional rezoning and hearing
process just as we're going through now. The other concern is
that even if that occurs, we want to insure at this time that no
development occurs above a certain elevation."
January 4, 1990
Page 13
Mr. Cilimberg added: "Again, that could involve some change in the
future as well. It's all legislative acts. Anyone can come in and
request an amendment to current zoning. What we're saying is we
want the statement now to be consistent with the Land Use Plan
and the statement is: 'Revise the notes to include Phase 6 as Open
Space.' That's it.... If they want to market it as potential for
future development, that's fine --we can't control their marketing.
What -we're saying, for the approved plan that you act on tonight
and the Board of Supervisors acts on, it's open space in Phase 6 and
that's it."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the issue before the Commission as follows:
"We are considering a zoning map amendment and approval of a preliminary
plat for lots 1 - 104 and there are conditions suggested by staff that
are a part of our considerations. Among those conditions is a
condition that would revise the land use note to include Phase 6 as
open space --that applies to the zoning map amendment. Also, there
have been requests that the Planning Commission see the final plat
for lots 1 - 104 so the public will have the opportunity to look at
how critical slopes have been handled on those plats and have a
chance to comment. The proposal that's before use contemplates
staff approval --administrative approval --of those lots. There has
also been a request that we add a condition that would stipulate
that no access for this development be granted through Sherwood Farms."
It was decided condition No. 9 would be added as follows: No access
from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision.
It was determined that the Commission would review the final plat.
Therefore the following sentence was deleted from 3(c): Staff
does request administrative approval of the final subdivision plats
for lots 1 thru 104.-
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the record should show that Mr. Cox's
presentation contemplated the mapping of significant trees and the
applicant's desire to identify those trees and preserve them.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant was trying to get in a
position to be able to submit road plans to the Highway Department.
He asked: "Would it be satisfactory to have a condition --we want
to be in a position where we can tell the Highway Department that
it's appropriate for them to accept the road plans. That was one
of the reasons that we requested administrative approval of the final
plat.... I'm not sure that we'd go out of here tonight in a posture
to be able to request the Highway Department to review these road
plans. I would like to suggest to you that the Commission review
the final plat for the issues that you're concerned about and
authorize staff to approve the final plat after that review. I
think that to that posture we could inform the Highway Department
that the Commission has taken an action to move this subdivision
January 4, 1990
Page 14
along and that would put the applicant in a posture where he can submit
the road plans."
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about what would happen if Mr. Keeler's
suggestion were followed and then the Commission made changes to the .
final plat after the applicant had submitted road plans. Mr. Keeler
responded: "You run that risk any time there is a preliminary review --
between the prel urinary and the final plat. Ideally, before we present
a final plat, they would have all the approvals necessary for us to
sign it the moment you take action. That's the way we set this double
step process up."
It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission that the
Commission would review the individual lots for steep slopes and
building site adequacy and also the issue of any above --ground storage
facilities before staff approves the final plat.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-89-19 for Redfields Development be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
revisions, modifications and agreements:
1. Each lot shall comply with current building site provision. No
driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or
greater.
2. All roads with the exception of roads A & B and the private road
to serve Lot 106 shall be built to VDOT standards for urban
cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the tire of
development of those residential areas utilizing those roads.
Roads A & B shall be constructed in accordance with VDOT standards
for the rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System
at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing
those roads.
3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time
as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction
of tn.e Department of Planning and Community Development.
4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase 1.
5. There shall be only single family detached dwellings south of
roads L & P.
6. Future lots will have limited access to roads A & B.
7. Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2,3 and 4 as stated in a
letter dated December 3, 1989 from Cox and Company to t1r. Wayne
Cilimberg.
8. Compliance with conditions of the addendum as follows:
.263
January 4, 1990
Page 15
i. Setbacks for single-family detached lots shall be 25 feet
front setback, 15 feet side setback and 20 feet rear setback.
(Note side setback may be reduced to not less than six
feet in accordance with Section 4.11.3.1). This shall be
noted on the plan on page 1, note 9b.
ii. Note on the plan that only single family detached units will
be located south of road L. A 20 foot strip of common open
space shall be provided adjacent to Tax Map 76, Parcel 49b.
The open space strip shall include a landscape easement to allow
for Tax Map 76, Parcel 49b to install screening trees. A
20 foot rear setback shall extend from the open space/landscape
strip .
iii. Revise the following notes on page one:
a. Remove RPC and replace with PRD in note 9b.
b. Note 11 must delete the following "and shall conform with
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) residential
subdivision street design standards in effect as of the
date of PRD Development Plan approval".
c. Delete note 19. Staff does not support administrative
approval of the final plats or site plans.
.d. Revise land use notes to include Phase 6 as Open Space.
e. Total number of lots is 656, not 658.
iv. Remove all Preliminary Plat notes found on sheet 5a, and 9.
v. Revise the following notes on sheet 9:
a. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must refer
to the Albemarle County Service Authority and not County
standards.
b. Total number of lots is 656, not 658.
vi. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must refer to the
Albemarle County Service Authority and not County standards
as found on sheets 10, 11 and 12.
9. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision.
The motion also included granting staff approval of the preliminary
plat for lots 1-104 with the Commission to review the final plat.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously,
Miscellaneous:
The Chairman welcomed the new Commissioners.
There being no further business, the meeti'rngfadjourned aft 10: 5 P.M.
Wa Cilimber
DS