Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 31 89 PC MinutesJanuary 31, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 31, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman.; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. James 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 January 17, 1989 were approved as submitted. Tandem Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 18 lots from 2 existing parcels. Lot size ranges from 3 to 8 acres for 10 lots, and is a minimum 21 acre size for 8 lots. Lots are proposed to be served by new public roads with one entrance to the frontage road. Property, located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Rt. 637 and 1-64, off the west side of the frontage road at the Ivy interchange. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 74, Parcels 14B and 15. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Deferred from January 24, 1989 meeting. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Ms. Marcia Joseph who offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dennis Stokes expressed interest in knowing what type of water supply would be used in the development. It was determined each lot would have a private well. He also asked who was developing the property. Ms. Joseph explained that Spring Hill Land Trust was developing the property. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the Tandem Farm Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval of two (2) septic sites on each lot, to include delineation on plat and notation restricting their disturbance; b. County Engineer and Planning staff approval of certified building sites; c. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; '57..V3 January 31, 1989 Page 2 e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of plans and calculations and turn lane; f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance; g. Zoning Department approval of modifications such one dwelling on Lot No. 9. 2. The Planning Commission shall review the final plat. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. road and drainage Lot No. 10 private that there is my ZMA-88-19 Bill Robertson - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 1.709 acres from C-1, Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial to allow for the expansion of Robertson Electric Co. Property, described as Tax Map is located on the west side of Berkmar Drive, approximately 1,000 feet from its intersection with U.S. Rt. 29. Charlottesville Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. mr. ?Michel moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl, that ZMA-88-19 for Bill Robertson be deferred indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-88-17 Todd Sam erton - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 6.226 acres from R1 to R10, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A1 is located on the north side of Rt. 250E, adjacent to the west of Glenorchy Subdivision and to the east of the proposed Westminister Canterbury. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mls. Patterson gave the staff report, assisted by Mr. Keeler. The primary issue in this request dealt with access to the property. The applicant had submitted a written proffer limiting access to a crossover, or greater than 500 feet from a crossover, in accordance with Section 32.7.2.2.of the Zoning Ordinance. The staff report concluded:. "While access directly at a crossover is preferable, it is not possible in this case without the cooperation of others. In staff's opinion, an entrance at a crossover or which meets the 500 foot separation stated in Section 32.7.2.2 will provide adequate access to development of this property with R10 zoning. Therefore, staff recommends approval." Mr. Keeler made additicrl comments on the future road plans for Rt. 250. He explained that the plans had changed substantially since "the first meeting some months ago." Referring to road plans, Mx. Keeler explained the current plans for this section of roadway. His comments included the following: --The design speed is 45 mph with a minimum crossover spacing of 800 feet. --'Obviously the applicant cannot meet the 500 feet from a crossover (requirement) when crossovers are only 800 feet apart. So, if the intent of the proffer is to meet the literal language of that section of the Ordinance, the only way the applicant can move forward with the development of the property is to obtain an access directly at the crossover. If the intent of the proffer is to say 'We will meet the provisions of that section, there are other provisions in that section that permit you to approve January 31. 1989 Page 3 other access to the property if the 500 feet cannot be met. So depending on what the intent of the provision is, either it clearly restricts access to one of these two crossovers, or you don't need the proffer and just let the Ordinance act on its own." --The 500 feet from a crossover on Rt. 29 North was based on a design speed and travel speed for 29 North and it may be possible to reduce that distance from the crossover to less than 500 feet based on the 45 mph design speed, "but we don't know what that spacing would be; the recommendation on 29 North came out of the Richmond office of the Highway Department." --Mr. Keeler repeated.that if one of the adjacent properties were to be developed before this property, "we can require under another section of the Ordinance that access be provided to adjoining properties." Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if the adjacent properties were developed after this property --"You couldn't retroactively require this applicant to have access to another alternative point?" Mr. Keeler replied: "You could, in my opinion, if development has not occurred." Mr. Bowerman asked: "On its face, since this property looks like it is within 500 feet of either crossover, is the substance of what you're saying if we don't accept the applicant's proffer and just approve this, that they have to be granted an access at some point along the frontage of their property, even if it's within 500 feet?" Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, sir; but what I'm saying is, it's unclear to me what the language of the proffer is." Mr. Keeler added: "The frontage of the Samperton property is about midpoint between the two crossovers; so if the Highway Department says 'Yeah,' obviously the Samperton property would meet it. If the Highway Department says 'Yes you can have it half -way between the two crossovers,' otherwise you couldn't have it. If they say 450, you can't meet that; you can't meet anything but 400 or less and clearly Samperton can obtain that. One thing that's missing from the proffer --if you approve this, I don't see anything in the proffer that says that Samperton will give access to the Heinrich property which I understood was part of the intent." Ms. Patterson interjected, "We have recommended it, but it is not the applicant's intent at this time. They haven't worked out how this property will develop and whether the other property will be part of the development --whether it will be a unified development or not --but that's not been determined at this time." There was a brief discussion about the possibility of the installation of a traffic light. Mr. Wilkerson asked: "Are we looking at another 29?" Mr. Keeler responded: "Either you concentrate traffic at specified points where you can handle it through physical design, right turn lanes, left turn lanes, double lefts and traffic signals, or you just go ahead and strew up the whole frontage with individual entrances. It's our opinion that controlled access at major intersections is much more desirable than uncontrolled access. I think that's why traffic still moves in the County on 29 North and why traffic does not move in the City." January 31, 1989 Page 4 The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Ms.pYgf&pB+a Gardner. (Mr. Samperton was also present.) Regarding the Heinrich/, she stated that it was understood that the applicant could be required to give access to this property and this was the intention, but the applicant understood this would be. a part of the site plan process and not as pressing as the access issue. Ms. Gardener explained: "We wouldn't be here this evening if we didn't feel we had accomplished what we set out to accomplish when we left here the last time. We came in and requested John to tell us what we needed to do to take care of your concerns and we did exactly as we were told hoping that that would alleviate whatever concerns you had. Our intention is to make access to the property where you would like for it to be as best as we can ;cake it there. ... Mr. Samperton would be willing to secure that proffer to say at a crossover or at a minimum of 500 feet if that could take care of the problem." Mr. Bowerman commented: "That wouldn't do it." Mr. Keeler commented: "It's not the Ordinance that's nebulous; it's the proffer that's nebulous because the Ordinance says you have the access at a crossover or 500 feet from and if you can't do that then the Commission can give you alternative access. So 'since you can't get the crossover, presumably that these plans will go fort,:ard--these are in fairly final state and the next step is the hearing process --if these plans go forward you know now that they cannot get the access 500 feet from a crossover. So it leaves access at a crossover or wherever else you approve it. If that is the intent of the proffer, then you don't need the proffer '.cause the Ordinance already says that. If that's the intent of the proffer, then the proffer is no more limiting than the Ordinance and it has no effect." Mr. Bowling confirmed this was accurate. Ms. Gardner asked what position the applicant would be in if the proffer were withdrawn. Mr. Bowerman replied: "It doesn't leave you in any less standing than you have with the proffer. We have to give you access to the property. Clearly, if you can't, because of the physical constraints of the highway --you can't have it except widir1 50O feet of one crossover or the other, clearly that's what you're going to have to have." Ms. Gardner responded: "Our intent is to achieve R10 zoning." The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the ratter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Gardner what was the likelihood the applicant would develop this property prior to either of the adjacent properties developing, which would be at crossovers. Ms. Gardner responded: "Very likely." Therefore, Mr. Bowerman concluded "So in all practicality you probably will not be able to have access points to a crossover." Mr. Keeler pointed out that.Mr. Bowerman's statement was not accurate, i.e. the Henrich property does not have access to a crossover. Mr. Bowerman stated he was referring to the two major properties which are across from a crossover. �C_ January 31, 1989 Page 5 Mr. Stark asked: "If we were to approve this tonight, does that mean that the property west would have to use access at the crossover?" Mr. Stark clarified that he was asking what effect approval of this proposal would have on the adjacent properties' access. Mr. Keeler responded: "If you approve the proffer tonight you have done nothing to approve access for any of these properties." Mr. Stark asked if adjacent properties could ask for access to their properties in the same fashion. Mr. Keeler responded: "They don't have any.other access; that's what I'm trying to say." Mr. Keeler expressed a lack of understanding of Mr. Stark's question. Mr. Stark asked: "How do we get access to these properties if they don't meet this minimum 500 feet? Are we restrained to granting property on either side of the one we're discussing tonight access?" Mr. Keeler explained that the residential property on both sides of Westminster Canterbury are restricted to using the West- minster Canterbury Road unless the Commission approves another access. Mr. Stark asked: "What other access might we approve?" Mr. Keeler responded: "I don't know; I don't know what Richmond is going to say about access at a 45 mph design. This is not the only time this is going to come up and the 500 feet from a crossover is going to come up every time because you only have 800 feet between crossovers. The obvious thing,to do is to find out from Richmond with a 45 mph design speed what distance from a crossover would be appropriate for entrance location, a minimum distance, and amend our Ordinance accordingly to say on a four -lane divided 55 mph design speed its 500 feet, 45 mph design speed, 300, 350, 400, etc., whatever it happens to be." Mr. Michel asked: "Does the County have the ability, at the site plan stage, to make sure that Mr. Heinrich and this property share an access point or not?" Mr. Keeler responded: "If this property is rezoned and Mr. Heinrich comes in first, Mr. Heinrich is going to say that he has no control over 'this' property and he has no control over 'this' property. So, again, it depends on who comes in first." Mr. Michel asked if the County would require cross -easements. Mr. Keeler replied: "Yes, there's a section that says on four -lane divided highways in lieu of construction of service roads you may require cross easements." Mr. Bowerman asked: "So we could require development of the other property to access through this site?" Mr. Keeler responded, "Yes, sir, provided this property is already developed and at the time of site plan approval that you require these easements." Ms. Diehl asked: "So if we approve this tonight, we really don't have a mechanism for approving .the access?" Mr. Keeler responded: "If you approve this tonight, with the proffer as written, in my opinion, you are in the same position as you are right now except with R10 zoning instead of R1. Then it depends on who comes in first with the site plan. Mr. Bowerman concluded the entrance was a site planning issue. However, Mr. Keeler disagreed and stated: "The entrance is a site planning issue; the opportunity to construct an entrance is not." - a7 January 31, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Keeler went on to explain.: "What I'm saying is a reverse of the attempt that Samperton has made. Samperton has attempted to get out to one of these crossovers. Let's use some logic here and assume that midpoint you will permit an access, but the reverse of this is that Samperton apparently is not making provision for other properties to access through the Samperton property. So if this one comes in first and there is no provision for access here (M.r. Keeler indicated locations on the road plans), and no provision for access here, you are looking at access here. I think what I'm saying is you're looking at access here for Harley Easter, you're looking at access here to Heinrich and you're looking at access here to Samperton and you will have to be diligent and control the access back out here." Mr. Keeler said that he could not recommend proffers, '.'but it's obvious that you should get these things as early in the game as possible." He continued: "I assume you are asking me how we can limit the number of entrances, and my answer is, as it stands right now, we can't." Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "If we cannot limit the number of entrances at this time, all we can do is limit the amount of traffic that is to use those entrances through the rezoning." Mr. Keeler responded: "If you think this needs to be resolved to further reduce the number of potential entrances" -if increasixg the traffic volume, in your opinion, is contrary to that, you don't have to approve this as a rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan maps clearly state that the density shown in the Comprehensive Plan may not be achievable based on existing facilities. Again, one last time, I think it very likely that on 250E if you are going to strictly adhere -to the Ordinance and permit an access at.any location other than at a crossover, it is very logical that it be halfway between because that limits the weaving and side friction manuvers in both directions." Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he had reviewed the minutes of the previous hearing for this request, and he felt the situation had not been improved. He felt the proffer was "just to follow the Zoning Ordinance." The Chairman invited comment from the applicant's representative, Ms. Gardner. his. Gardner stated: "Mr.. Samperton is willing to do what needs to be done." Mr. Bowerman explained: "If the applicant proffered to access the.site at a point, failing everything else, midway between the two crossovers which would give you the maximum distancebetween both crossovers, and the applicant would also grant cross -easements so that if the property developed on either side that they would not require another entrance if their properties developed after yours did." (Mr. Keeler corrected Mr. Bowerman and stated "if their properties developed before." Mr. Bowerman acknowledged this was correct.) January 31, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Samperton stated: "Agreed." Mr. Rittenhouse asked if in the event this property placed the access "dead center of the crossovers and included the cross -easements," and the adjacent properties then develops after this property, "can they then be made to use that cross -easement?" Mr. Keeler responded by describing several possibilities of what could happen in various situations depending on which property develops first. Mr. Bowerman stated: "In light of what the applicant has offered, I wouldn't suggest that we try to write something out here tonight. I would suggest that if we want to look favorably on the rezoning that we do so and recommend it to the Board with the provision that at Board the proffer will be there from.the applicant. ... It is contemplated. that action which has been verbally given by the applicant." There was a brief discussion on how similar situations have been handled in the past. Ms. Diehl expressed discomfort with the Commission being put in a bargaining position. Ms. Gardner stressed that the applicant was not attempting to "bargain" and was willing to do whatever was necessary to alleviate the Commission's concerns. Mr. Keeler stated another consideration was "physical design." He stated: "You would want the crossing to be far enough back from 250 so traffic leaving Rt. 250 would not have a sharp --so you would be talking probably a distance of 150 feet." Mr. Bowerman stated: "The unfortunate thing is we expressed these concerns before and there was an opportunity to address them and, for one reason or another, they weren't addressed. But I'm satisfied that my concerns, on a planning point of view, and in the public interest, are met by the concerns of the Commission and what the applicant is willing to do. I am comfortable with that. I am not uncomfortable with passing it on to the Board with that proviso. ... I think the intent of what we are trying to accomplish is being accomplished; I don't understand why it wasn't done prior to tonight." He pointed out that the only thing unclear previously was the ultimate design for Rt. 250. Ms. Garnder stated the cross -easement issue had not stood out previously. Mr. Rittenhouse made some comments on the acceptable distance that can be accomplished between the crossovers. He felt there was some danger in stepping away from the specifics of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated: "I think we open up the question of interpretation without a firm basis for making that interpretation and making an evaluation in a particular case." Mr. Stark responded: "Clearly 500 feet is not obtainable so we've got to come up with something...." Mr. Rittenhouse replied: "No we don't. We don't have to rezone it." He felt there were two issues: (1) The question of access and how far �a9 January 31, 1989 Page 8 away from a crossover; and (2) The question of rezoning. He pointed out that the issues are separate because the applicant can get access to the R1 zoning. Mr. Keeler interjected: "I wasn't saying 400 as a best because that's the best we can get in this case; 400 would be absolutely rational if you assume that you're going to permit any access between crossovers on 250E. Certainly if theproperty develops as it is currently zoned, you are obligated to permitaccess to 250E. But I wasn't saying 400 feet simply because they cannot achieve the 500--what I was saying is that we don't know what the Highway Department would recommend in a particular case like this. That recommendation is likely to come out of Richmond but if there is any access at all, 400 is a reasonable distance because it is splitting the 800. ... We haven't built this road yet and we .don't want to build a 29N." ylr. Rittenhouse expressed interest in learning the Highway Department's. position before making a decision on this issue. Mr. inchel stated that if he had to choose he would be ".choosing on the side of the number of entrances vs. density." He continued: "These people will always come back and rezone these properties and if their entrance is in place those are much harder to get rid of ... and I think I'd rather see us go forward with this rezoning stating that the proffer will be forthcoming offering cross -access which is really the only thing we've been able to do on 29. ... The problem with these cross -access roads, or parallel roads, is if you miss one segment, it's over --they're useless. I think that's Ron's point. We have to start somewhere and this is a classic case." Mr. Bowerman stated he was "pretty well satisfied that we've done the best we can without unreasonable delay, if we want to do this." He added: "The only reason I would go forward with it also is because that is a Comprehensive Plan recom:::endation for this area. It's one that we felt was appropriate when we re -reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and made our recommendation. If that's going to be an issue maybe.we should change the Comprehensive Plan reco=endations until we have a chance to find out what the Highway Department says and then do this all on the basis of where they are going to allow entrance.points and what their recommended spacings are and provide for service roads and only allow at crossovers, period. Just go back and re -do the whole thing." Ms. Diehl asked what kind of time frame was anticipated for getting comments back from the Highway Department. -Mr. Keeler responded: 'IT et me say three things. First, Ms. Gardner says they want a decision tonight. Secondely, she's made reference to discussions with fir. Horne on this natter and I've been unable to talk with SFr. Horne since the Highway Department meeting today and I don't know what his opinion is on this particular situation. The third thing is there have been other cases like this where the project has no forward. And I think that with Some mechanisms, we may be able to satisfy everybody's concerns." Mr. Keeler was uncertain as to the time frme involved. 1230 January 31, 1989 Page 9 Mr. Bowerman stated he did not think what was being contemplated was unreasonable, either from the applicant's point of view or from the publics point of view. Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-88-17 for J. Todd Samperton be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the written version of the applicant's verbal agreement to provide for cross easements and to site the entrance at whatever location is determined preferable by the Virginia Department of Transportation and with the understanding that staff contemplates that the easements will be set back sufficiently to allow for adequate stacking. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Stark asked the applicant if he understood the motion. Mr. Samperton responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Samperton to state his understanding of the motion. Mr. Samperton replied: "I'm going to gain access wherever you all will let me do it and to my neighbors on either side, I've agreed to let them access --should an entrance fall in front of my property they can have cross easements across it to gain access to 250." Mr. Michel added: "Sufficiently far back enough to handle turning." Mr. Samperton replied: "Whatever the design requirements require." Ms. Diehl.stated she would not support the motion because she felt an effort should be made to obtain VDOT comments first. Ms. Diehl also was not in favor of accepting verbal proffers. The previously -stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Diehl and Rittenhouse casting the dissenting votes. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant had not been able to respond to the 250 plans, nor had staff been able to confer with Mr. Horne because the meeting with VDOT had just taken place this same afternoon (i.e. Tuesday, January 31). Logan Development Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 14 lots from one existing 163 acre parcel: six (6) 21 acre parcels and eight (8) 4 acre parcels. These lots will be served by an internal public road with access to Route 601. Property, described as Tax Map 29� Parcel 1, is located on the west side of Route 601, north of Free Union. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Brian Smith. He reiterated that the applicant had received Health Department approval and was requesting administrative approval of the final plat. January 31, 1989 Page 10 The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Page Laughlin, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. She asked for assurance that the property would not be further subdivided. She also asked that as many trees as possible be preserved. Ms. Laughlin stressed that Rt. 601 was a very dangerous road. Mr. Neil Chassman, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about overdevelopment of the rural area. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel expressed interest in how close this development was to the adjacent agricultural forestal district. Mr. Pullen responded that the closest proposed house site was appropxiately 175 feet from the district. fir. Pullen added that there are no provisions in the Ordinance to require screening between this type of development and agricultural/ forestal districts, "but there is in the State Code, possibly, provisions that if the Commission determined that there was a visual impact on the district from a development of this type, they could require screening." -Mr. Pullen noted that, in this case, there had been no objections from residents of the district. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about the removal of trees, the applicant stated it was his intention to leave as many, of the trees as possible. He stated it was his intent to preserve its natural state as Bauch as possible. Mr. Michel stated he would feel happier it there was some buffer. Mr. Pullen pointed out that staff was concerned because there was really no provision in the Subdivision Ordinance to require buffering between compatible residential uses. He noted that this was a by -right development and not "discretionary." Mr. Keeler added that though he was unwilling to make a determination "one way or the other," this was a ministerial act and not a legislative one. Mr. Bowling, after checking the Code of Virginia, stated that "It basically just says that local ordinance shall take into effect the existence of the district." He noted that this was a nebulous statement and added "I don't think we've ever done any beefing up of our Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance to take into effect agricultural districts. I think you could if you wanted to, but not tonight." Mr. Michel asked that staff look into this issue for future application. Mr. Michel moved that the Logan Development Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The f.inal'plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a) Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; b) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; c) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and -23a January 31, 1989 Page 11 drainage plans and calculations; to include commercial entrance and a 100-foot long taper lane; d) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement between lots 2 and 3; e) Planning staff approval of technical notes on the plat. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. It was noted the motion contemplated staff approval of the final plat. Signal Hill Preliminary Plat - Proposal to redivide and reconfigure 21 lots resulting in 25 lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 21 acres with an average lot size of 6 acres. Access is from proposed internal public and private roads. Properties described as Tax map 83, parcels 12 through 32 are located on the north side of Rt. 636 approximately 3/4 mile east of Rt. 736.- Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, including the following additional conditions: • Staff approval of deed restrictions waiving all remaining development rights. • Administrative approval of final plat. Mr. Bowerman stated that he thought this was a "strange looking animal, because of this private road tacked on to the end of the public road." He asked: "Does this have anything to do with the Board's action on the Van der Linde subdivision?" Mr. Fritz responded: "No, sir. My understanding was from field visits l8rom the interpretations.of the Subdivision Ordinance, a a public road require significantly more environmental degradation and on the Emerald Ridge Subdivision you allowed a mixture of public and private roads saying that the private roads would involve less impact." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant_ was represented by Mr. Morris Foster. He stated the reason the plan was before the Commission was because of the short section of private road. He felt there was no question that the private road would allow much greater flexability, i.e. better building sites and septic field locations. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, he confirmed that a 30,000 square foot area did exist on lots 15, 16 and 18. Mr. Foster explained how he could have designed the development in such a way that Commission approval would not have been required. Referring to a statement found in a letter dated December 27, 1988 from Mr. Foster to Mr. Fritz ["The lots to be served are large residential lots with the building sites located on a beautiful, relatively narrow ridge with mature hardwoods and scenic views."], Mr. Rittenhouse asked if that was in conflict with staff's condition (d) [Addition of note on plat which limits development of lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 to the lower slopes."]. January 31, 1989 Page 12 Mr. Foster felt Mr. Fritz had been referring to "lower percentage slopes, not lower geographic slopes." -Mr. Fritz stated: "We had contemplated lower elevation slopes,not necessarily the lower --it's certainly under 25% as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, but also those located lower on the hill." Mr. Keeler added: "I think that on the final plat ... that the building sites should be shown as building sites and the areas with two draiufields ought to be clearly shown because I agree with :GIs. Diehl that some of these are kind of constrictive. So we'll use the same language that we used9Tandem, (i.e.) to show on the final plat the location of an original and back-up septic system:on the lots served by the private road." Mr. Foster stated that would be no problem. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Peter Loebs, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He presented a "neighborhood petition with approximately 50 - 70 names, all opposed to the subdivision." The reasons for opposition included the following: unsafe conditions of the roads; desire to preserve the rural character of the area. Mr. Loebs was also concerned because the proposed road for the development was approximately within 50 feet of his dwelling. Mr. George Lorette expressed concern about a right-of-way that was adjacent to his property. Mr. Fritz pointed .out that a note on the plat prohibits this easement from being used for access. Ms. Diehl asked if this should be made a condition of approval. Ms. Patricia Wallace, property owner on Rt. 636,.asked wtat type of houses were envisioned. Mr. Foster estimated that houses, with the lot, would range from S175,000 to $200,000. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse again expressed confusion about condition (d) (as stated previously). He asked that the meaning of "lower slopes" be clarified. Mr. Fritz confirmed that he was referring to lots located at lower. elevations and not degrees of slope. However, Mr. Foster interjected: "I think we're talking about degrees of slope and I think that's your confusion. ...that private road is the top of the ridge, but it's the flater slopes, it's the lesser gradient slopes and I thinkthat's what we're talking about --not building on steep slopes." Mr. Fritz stated it was staff's intent that the driveways to the lots in question would cross as little critical slope areas as possible. Mr. Loebs pointed out the location of his house in relation to the location of the public road. He asked if consideration could be given to changing the location of the access road so that it would not interfere with "people who are not involved with the development." January 31, 1989 Page 13 In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Foster stated he had considered all possibilities for the location of the road. He stated the location had been finally selected based on where the best sight distance could be achieved, and the location of the best contours. He also noted that the proposed location of the road was where the existing road easements are presently located. Mr. Foster felt the proposed location was the only choice for the road. Mr. Keeler interjected that there might be a problem with the plat. He quoted from Section 18.37k of the Subdivision Ordinance: "Reserved strips. Reserved or spite strips restricting access to streets or alleys, shall not be permitted; provided that nothing herein shall prohibit areas for scenic planting and landscaping where adequate access is otherwise available." Mr. Keeler explained: "The 50-foot right-of-way runs along Mr. Loebs' property line and you note that there are some outlots there or little forts' that are not public right-of-way and don't appear to be portions of lots and this is all along Mr. Loebs'property line with the road. We had another case like this and we just required that to be dedicated as part of the right-of-way rather than just leaving it sitting there but if, in fact, Mr. Loebs' house is 50 feet from this, Section 4.6.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance says that 'Front yards of the depth required in the district shall be provided across the full width of the lot adjacent to the street.' and Section 4.6.3.2 says 'Other yards adjacent to streets shall have a minimum depth, equal to the minimum front yard depth required in the district in which the yard is located.' So, if, in fact, this public right-of-way is less than 75 feet from Mr. Loebs house, approval of this plat would make him non -conforming as to setback from a public road." Mr. Bowling commented: "I'm not sure you can work it backwards, Mr. Keeler. I see what you're getting at but I don't think you can work it out to the detriment of the next -door neighbor who is not an applicant before you. If there's something in here which says you can't have a right-of-way within 'x' number of feet of an existing residence, then you've got a point. That's really not what you're saying. Am I correct?" Mr. Keeler responded: "I'm not sure. I think if this is approved --Mr. Loebs comes in --I think that's a question for the zoning Administrator. If Mr. Loebs comes in to add an addition to his house and they say 'You're not 75 feet from Signal Hill Road.' I'm not sure how the Zoning Administrator interprets that, but I think there is some question here. Why should the dwellings within the development be required to be 75 feet from the road but you can put up the road adjacent to a dwelling on adjoining property --rationally that doesn't make sense to me." Mr. Bowling stated: "I think .you may have a point but I don't think we can resolve it tonight." Mr. Foster interjected: "Actually, I think the road right-of-way as I have it will be 75 feet from the house. That strip that's through there will be attached as part of lot 25 and it will be completely reserved for buffered landscaping plan along this road throughout." January 31, 1989 Page 14 Mr. Keeler stated: "Yes, I think this particular provision of the Ordinance that talks about these reserved strips --it says 'Nothing herein shall prohibit areas for scenic planning and landscaping where adequate access is otherwise available.' " Mr. Foster responded: "rind that's already shown on the highway plans as landscaping easement." .x. Bowerman asked:. "Could we require a 75-foot setback?" Mr. Keeler responded: 'Why don't you let me get with the Zoning Administrator to see what his opinion is and if, in fact, it's not 75 feet from Mr. Loebs and there is a problem, we'll bring this back to you. We'll have to bring it back to you. I don't think that you want to approve a developmentthat makes an adjoining property owner non -conforming to the Ordinance. If the Zoning administrator read; it that way --he may not,. I don't know --it may have no bearing. And :sir. Loebs' house may be more than 75 feet from. the property line. I think it would. be incumbent upon Mr. Foster to provide us adequate...." Mr. Bowerman stated: "Since I think. Ws the Commission's intent, from what I'm hearing, to have it set back as far as possible, and if you.believe that the minimum setback should be 75 feet, it seems to me that you've got enough -- and you seem to think it's 75 feet --why couldn't we just require that as a condition and accomplish it one way or the other?" . Mr. Keeler responded: "I think you can but from what Mr. Bowling's saying, I'm not sure that the Zoning Administrator reads it that way." Mr. Bowerman responded: "Regardless of that." Mr. Foster interjected: "If it's required, I will meet it." Mr. Keeler responded to Mr. Bowerman: "You can do that." Mr. Bowerman stated: "Because I think one of Norma's concerns is SO feet might be too close ---we'd like to have it back further than that ---if there's a rationale for 75 feet...I think there's a good possibility we'd opt for that regardless of Banat the...." Mr. Keeler responded: "I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I have question as to whether or not the Ordinance requires 75 feet." Mr. Bowerman stated repeatedly: "I understand that, Ron, but .you'll agree there's a rationale for it? (Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, sir.") If there's a concern on the Commission that it not be closer than 75 feet there's a rationale for putting it at 75 feet independent of what the Zoning Administrator thinks --if the Commission feels that way.(Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, sir.") You can still go ahead and proceed with the question anyway." Mr: Keeler replied: "The setbacks .in the Ordinance are minimum setbacks." January 31, 1989 Page 15 Mr. Michel asked Mr. Foster: "Can you live with a 75 foot setback from Mr. Loebs'?" Mr. Foster asked: "From the street right-of-way?" Mr. Michel responded: "Right." Mr. Foster responded: "Yeah...." Ms. Diehl asked what type of buffering was planned. Mr. Foster responded that white pines would be used. (Mr. Foster made other comments which were inaudible.) (Note: This part of the meeting was difficult to hear, both at the time and on the tape, because several conversations were taking .place simultaneously among the Commissioners and staff.) Mr. Michel asked what language was being contemplated as a condition to address this issue. Ms. Diehl stated she had not contemplated any language. She thought Mr. Keeler might have had something in mind in relation to the "outpieces." Mr. Foster responded: "That would be left as a buffer easement for landscaping and screening. It will be attached to a lot but it will be covered by screening and landscaping easements." Mr. Keeler stated: "I don't want to go on with this too far because, again, I don't know what the Zoning Administrator's opinion is. If there is land between the adjoining property and this road right-of-way, then the adjoining property does not front on this road right-of-way. The Subdivision Ordinance says the only purpose for permitting a strip like that is for landscaping and buffering which indicates to me that you all can require landscaping and buffering in these strips to protect adjoining properties." Ms. Diehl stated: "And we will see that at the final site plan." Mr. Foster responded: "I don't know. Did the staff report reflect that anywhere? Actually, the preliminary is here. That was a provision of the final plat with the request that the staff approve the final...." Mr. Bowerman stated: "But that's not included in the conditions. That's what you're requesting?" Mr. Foster replied: "The whole understanding was that we defer it to make sure that we had all the Health Department and the highway plans and everything so that the staff could approve the final. I had no problem with any of those -conditions. It will be shown for easement for screening and landscaping. If I don't meet any of those conditions we've talked about, the staff can say 'Fine, we'll go back to the Commission.' I don't particularly want to come back if we're in concurrence with what we're going to do." Addressing another issue raised by Mr. Loebs, Mr. Stark pointed out that the applicant has significantly reduced the number of original development rights. a3 -7 January 31, 1989 Page 16 (Mr. Frank Ferris, a neighboring property owner, interjected that he felt the road, Rt. 636, should be upgraded before any development occurs.) Mr. Rittenhouse again expressed concern about the wording of condition 1(d). It was finally determined the condition would be changed to read: . e Addition of note on plat which limits development of lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 to locations closest to the road. Mr. Keeler stated he felt the term elevation made the issue "absolutely clear as distinct from slopes." It was his suggestion that the designation of the lots "closest to the road" be used. It was determined the following condition would be added: a Health Department approval of two (2) septic sites on those lots on private road, to include delineation on plat and notation restricting their disturbance. In response to :GIs. Diehl's concern, the following condition was added in relation to access: o All lots shall have access to internal roads only. No direct access to Rt. 736. There was a brief discussion about whether or not to include a condition addressing the movement of the road or a buffering or a landscaping attempt to separate this from the adjacent house (XIr. Loebs). Mr. Michel noted: "On the final site plan we understand that it's going to be shown as a landscape area. I've been thoroughly confused by staff." Mr. reeler responded: "I think this only comes into play if the dwelling is less than 75 feet from the proposed road right-of-way." Mr. Hichel asked: "Not from the strip --does the strip --it's moot?" Mr. Keeler responded: "I think we will probably just go ahead and have the strip dedicated as part of the road right-of-way. To say that it's a landscaping or buffering strip doesn't mean anything unless there's some specific landscaping and buffering requirement. If it's your intent that the dwelling's closer than 75 feet, either you authorize us to actively approve whatever landscaping and buffering or we can bring it back to you. We would like to have this gentleman have some input as to what the landscaping and buffering is, if, in fact, the dwelling is closer than 75 feet. Again, there's still a question that I need to put to the Zoning Administrator on that." MIr. Michel stated: "I think we have to leave it alone. I'm not sure how you'd address it in a condition." Ms. Diehl. asked: "Well, then are we going to see it again?" Mr. Keeler replied: "No. What I'm suggesting is that the final be approved administratively unless there is difficulty with location of the house on the adjoining property. If there is, I'll need an interpretation from the Zoning Administrator as to whether or not this road makes that dwelling non -conforming as to setback. If it does, then this has to come back to you because I don't think you want us to approve a final that makes somebody else's property non -conforming.. If it does not, and it's more than 75 feet away, we would just as soon have that strip dedicated as part of the road there. If it is closer but it doesn't make him non -conforming, then I assume from what you all have said,tt�t you want to extend some active landscaping and buffering in that strip to protect this �3� January 31, 1989 Page 17 gentlemen from the proximity of.the road and either you authorize us to do that or we bring it back. If you authorize us to do that we will ask him to participate in that." Mr. Stark stated he wanted the Commission to review the final plat. He added that he felt the fact that there were several signatures on a document of Opposition was reason to require that it come back to the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated he "did not see the utility in bringing the final plat back if the only issue is the location of the dwelling in regard to the proposed road. The reason I say that is if there is something else about this subdivision that you all want to address, you ought to do it now as opposed to at such time --in order to bring the final back to you road plans have --and the final plat has to be drawn --all that expense. That's the purpose of the preliminary is to resolve all the issues involved. If there's something other than thehouse that you all want to address in this plat, then I recommend that you just defer it until we have an opportunity to address it. But that's your pleasure." Mr. Foster interjected: "May I make a suggestion that I'm willing to do that may clarify the whole thing? I don't think Mr. Loebs' house --in fact I'm pretty sure it isn't 75 feet from that boundary line. It is very unfortunate but they built the house in the narrowest portion of the lot of the 20 acres. I want to keep a good buffer strip through there. I. want to be able to screen it and I want to do some nice landscaping. One of the reasons for shifting the road right-of-way was to get the road right-of-way further away from his house. I'm talking about the deeded right-of-way to the State of Virginia. The State of Virginia traditionally doesn't like to take a bunch of right-of-way to maintain that they don't want --abandoned strips. I will set that road right, voluntarily whether the Ordinance says it or not ---I will establish the right-of-way of that road 75 feet from Mr. Loebs' house to make sure that it doesn't violate any ordinances. I do want to keep that buffer strip through there because I do want to be able to do some nice landscaping and some nice screening. I don't want to dedicate it to the State of Virginia. I want to be able to control the users. If it means putting it into a Homeowners' Association, I would like to just leave it attached to lot 25, which is the last lot and put deed provisions and easements through that whole strip for landscaping. If that's a problem, tell me now because that's what I want to do." Mr. Keeler stated: "Mr. Chairman, I think what Mr. Foster's just proposed satisfies the concern about the location.of the road." Mr. Bowerman responded: "That's where we were 30 minutes ago." He added: "We could have put a condition requiring that the road be 75 feet from the house and that would have been the end of it." It was determined that the added condition addressing the location of septic sites was important in relation to the lots on the private road (14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19). To reflect Mr. Foster's proposal regarding the location of the road, it was determined a condition would be added as follows: .;43 9 January 31, 1989 Page 18 a Proposed rights -of -way shall be located at least 75 feet from dwellings on adjacent properties. Mr. Keeler noted: "I think you should note you're approving that in accordance with 18.37(k) as a landscaping strip." The following condition was also added (with sir. Stark's agreement): o Staff approval of final plat. 'Mr. Stark moved that the Signal Hill Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: A. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering issuance .of an erosion control permit; c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; d. Addition of note on plat which limits development of lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 to locations closestto the road; e. Staff approval of technical notes; f. Staff approval of deed restrictions waiving all remaining development rights; g. Health Department approval of two (2) septic sites on those lots on private road, to include delineation.on plat and notation restricting their disturbance; h. All lots shall have access to internal roads only. No direct access to Rt. 736; i. Staff approval of final plat. j. Proposed rights-of-viay shall be located at least 75 feet from dwellings on adjacent properties. Greens at Hollymead Site Plan Amendment - Waiver Request. The applicant was not present, therefore Mr. Stark moved that this item be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which Dassed unanimously. Note: Mr. Keeler made the following statement regarding the Signal Hill discussion: "I'd like to apologize to the Commission if I prolonged.that discussion. It wasn't until Mr. Foster got up here and agreed to move the road --I don't believe he agreed to move it before;I believe he was telling you he was putting it in the best place." Mr. Bowerman responded: "He said that; he said earlier on that he would do that." Mr. Keeler stated: "I simply don't know if you've got the authority to ;sake him move it." Mr. Bowerman stated: "We didn't; but he agreed to it. There being no further business, the mee adjourned at 903 p.m. John For e, Secretary DS ;2 a�j