HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 11 89 PC MinutesJuly 11, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on. Tuesday,
July 11, 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 and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner;
and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 27, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
The Chairman called for nominations for the position of Secretary to
the Commission (to replace the vacancy left by Mr. Horne.) Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg was nominated. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr.
Wilkerson, that Mr. Cilimberg be named Secretary. The motion
passed unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on a private road
south of Rt. 697 near North Garden and north of Rt. 698 near Covesville.
The proposed district contains approximately 1,163 acres. Planning
Commission was being asked to refer the application to the Advisory
Committee.
Coventry Final Plat - Proposal.to create seven lots from a total of 68.136
acres. Lots range in size from 3.5 to 21 acres. Lots are to be served by
a proposed public road. Property described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 45, is
located on the south side of Rt. 641 approximately one mile east of Rt. 29.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
St. George Acres Preliminary Plat - Proposal to subdivide an existing 5.6
acre parcel into 10 lots ranging in size from 0.5 acres to 0.7 acres.
This development is to be served by a proposed public road. Property,
described as Tax Map 56A1, Section 3, Parcel 14 is located on the south
side of Rt. 789 (Buck Mountain Road).approximately three -tenths of a
mile north of Rt. 1202 (St. George Avenue). Zoned R-2, Residential in the
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report, including an amended set of
conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval.
The main issues of discussion were: (1) An urban vs. a rural cross section
for the roadway; and (2) Whether or not to continue the right-of-way to
access adjacent parcels.
4,7
July 11, 1989 Page 2
It was determined the word "should" would be changed to "shall" in
conditions 1 and 2, and it was also decided the words "and a 40' right-of-
way" would be added to condition 2 as follows: "...constructed with an
urban cross section and a 40' right-of-way, provision...."
The applicant was represented by Air. Marc Woodward. He explained that the
applicant was requesting a rural cross section because it creates
better runoff control possibilities and would be more appropriate for
the neighborhood.
Mr. Tom Gale was also present to represent the applicant. He asked for
a clarification of a statement in the staff report which said: "Section
18-37(a) states 'provisions shall be made for the continuation of
planned existing, or...."' He asked if there should have been a comma
between "planned" and "existing." He Tarbell confirmed there should
have been a comma, i.e. "planned, existing." Mr. Gale expressed concern
about recommended condition No. 1:"Provision shall be made to continue
the right-of-way to access the adjacent parcels." He felt this was .
the result of a preliminary plat which had come before the County several
years ago and had long since expired. He felt this was a harsh condition.
He noted that the parcel in question had been sold and he did not feel
the purchaser had any expectations that he would receive a right-of-way.
He explained .that the only reason he had requested a 40' right-of-way
was due to the 100' stream setback which restricts the positions of
the building sites on some lots. He stated the 40' right-of-way would
allow a little more flexability.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Harry Austin, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
rfx. Austin's comments dea]tprimarily with the desire that the Commission
do whatever was possible to promote the construction of affordable housing.
He confirmed he was in favor of a 40' rural cross section.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was a conflict between what the Highway
Department will allow and the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Tarbell responded.
that the Highway Department would accept a 40' right-of-way and a rural
cross section though they.are recommending curb and gutter and an urban
cross section.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if a 40' right-of-way had ever been approved before.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that he -thought so, but he was not certain.
-Mr. Rittenhouse questioned the advisability of granting a waiver "just to
facilitate the marketability of the subdivision lot."
Air. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John to comment on the following question:
"If we were, under the law, to treat different applications in different
lights in terms of the standards we apply to the development, either in
road segments or widths or .any of the amenities that we require, based
upon the fact we want to provide moderate or low cost housing, does
that create a problem with other developments in terms of treating
different properties unfairly in terms of the development costs?"
.5^0
July 11, 1959 Page 3
Mr. St. John responded: "You can have special rules that can be applied
to low-cost housing that are less stringent than the rules applied to
other subdivisions or development. That has been made a part of
Virginia enabling legislation. ... You can give incentives to developers
to encourage their to provide low-cost housing. But in this application
is there some assurance that the developer made that this is low-
cost housing?" Mr. Bowerman responded that the applicant had not made
that representation. Mr. St. John concluded: "Then the issue is moot."
Referring to the right-of-way to the adjacent property, Ms. Diehl
pointed out that if there is an existing right-of-way it would remain
regardless of the Commission's action on this proposal. Mr. St. John
confirmed that was correct, though he noted he did not know if such
a right-of-way exists. Ms. Diehl asked: "If no easement is existing now,
our action does not make one, does it?" Mr.St. John responded: "If
you require as a condition of acceptance dedication of this road, that
it be shown as continuing on either now or at sometime in the future to
provide public access to land behind it, that is different from an
easement. That's a condition of the plat --that the public road continue
and provide continuity to the adjoining parcels. It's within your power
to require that. I think the question is whether the transportation
plan for that area envisions a continuous road through there. Is there
going to be a future need for this road? ... If there's likely to be a
future public need for this road, you can require it."
Mr. Tarbell interjected that parcel 12G (the adjacent parcel) does currently
have access to another road. He confirmed the question was one of access
to a private road vs. access to a new state road.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had mixed feelings on this issue because it has
been required in the past and then the road is never built and problems
arise. He stated: "I wonder what we're accomplishing if nobody wants
to do it and other easements exist?" Mr. Bowerman stated he would not
be opposed to a 50' right-of-way with a rural section.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission was being asked to choose one of the
options (rural or urban section) or was it being left to the applicant.
Mr. Jenkins stated he felt it should be left to the applicant. He also
stated he felt the requirement to provide access to adjacent parcels
should be omitted. Mr. Jenkins noted that it appeared parcel 12G had
"perfectly good, more desirable right-of-way" than this direction. He
did not think it was practical to require additional access.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not feel strongly about the issue.
It was noted that the owner of parcel 12G had not come forward.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the St. George Acres Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Increase the road right-of-way from 40' to 50' if the road is
constructed with a rural cross section OR if the road is constructed
with an urban cross section and a 40' right-of-way, provision shall
be made to vacate 5 feet on either side of Kim Court adjacent to Parcels
8 and 9 in order to provide for a continuous 40' right-of-way through
the entire site.
57
July 11, 1989
Page 4
2. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans
and calculations;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans, including access from Parcel 9 on Kim Court;
c. Planning -Department approval of runoff control and drainage
maintenance agreements;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of erosion control permit;
e. Department of Engineering issuance of runoff control permit.
3. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Forest Fakes Phase 1, Blocks E, F, G and H Final Subdivision Plat - Proposal
to divide 56 acres into 120 lots ranging in size from 0.17 to 0.58 acres,
leaving a residue of 128 acres. Proposal is to have access over proposed
public roads. Property described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 29D, 29, and 29E
is located just east of Phase 1, Blocks A, B, C and D. Zoned R-4,
Residential in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Frank Kessler was present.to represent the applicant. He offered
little additional comment.
The Chairman invited public cc=. ent.
Mr. Frank Jones, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
He objected to the reduction in lot size. He also explained that though
the developer had promised a 10--foot buffer would be maintained adjacent
to his property, "at the present time he has already bulldozed my land."
He stated Mr. Kessler had indicated the situation would be corrected,
but it has not been.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Kessler to respond to Mr. Jones' comments.
He explained that approximately 7 trees had been removed from Mr.
Jones' property accidentally and he had met with Mr. Jones and
assured him that the trees would be restored when the site plan for
the townhouses is done.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that though
the lot size is being reduced, more green space is being added. He
added that only 30 to 40 lots were actually being reduced.
SZ
July 11, 1989
Page 5
Mr. Stark moved that the Forest Lakes Phase 1, Blocks E, F, G and H Final
Subdivision 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 approval of stormwater detention plans
and calculations to include approval of dam for the proposed lake;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations, to include installation of a
100-foot long, 12-foot wide right turn lane with a 100-foot taper
on Timberwood Parkway to serve Cross Timbers Road and a 100-foot
taper lane on Cross Timbers Road to serve Heather Glen Road;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans. Connection of existing 8" water main at Timberwood
Parkway to the existing 8" main in Route 649 shall be required
as part of this project. Dedication of sewer easement to Route
649.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Blandemar Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide an existing 1379 acre
parcel into 63 lots with an average lot size of 21 acres. Proposal is
to have access on proposed public roads; 10 lots are to have access over
existing public roads. Property described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 1 is located
southeast of the intersection of Rts. 708 and 710. Zoned RA, Rural Areas
in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
AND
Blandemar Farm Estates Phase II Lots 1-11 Final Plat - Proposal to divide
231 acres into 11 lots.with an average lot size of 21 acres. Property,
described as Tax Map 88, Parcel 1 is located on the east side of Rt. 708
approximately three -tenths of a mile north of the intersection of Rts. 708
and 701. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Cox and and Mr. Kirk Hughes.
Mr. Cox explained that the plat had been allowed to expire inadvertantly
and this proposal is just to "resurrect" the plat approved by the Commission
in 1987.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
S'3
July 11, 1989
Page b
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Blandemar Farm Preliminary Plat and the
Blandemar Farm Estates Phase II Lots 1-11 Final Plat be approved,
both subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations to include temporary cul-de-sacs at the end of each
road segment for each phase;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations to include the maximum turn and
taper lane that can be installed without encroachment on the Rt.
708 river crossing. In no case shall the turn and taper lane be
less than 100' x 100';
d. Health Department approval;
e. Staff approval of technical notes on the plat.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the -motion which passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Cilimberg called the Commission's attention to the next work session
on the Eastern Growth Area, scheduled for July 25, 1989. It was decided
Mr. Kessler would be allowed 30 minutes to present his information.
Mr. St. John called the Commission's attention to some new information
on the Freedom of Information Act which the Commission would receive
shortly. He noted that there were some changes which dealt primarily
with the way an executive session is begun and ended, particularly
when an executive session is ended each Commissioner must certify*
on record that nothing was discussed in the session that wasn't (1) proper
under the law; and (2) mentioned in the motion to go into executive session.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
DS
ec
.S7