Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199000008 Minutes 1990-07-24 1rDRAñ1 t JULY 24, 1890 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 24, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were : Mr . Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr . Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr . Phil Grimm; Mr . Tom Jenkins; Ms . Ellen Andersen; Mr . Walter Johnson; and Ms . Babs Huckle . Other officials present were : Mr . V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr . Richard Tarbell , Planner; Ms . Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; and Mr . Jim 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 July 10, 1990 were approved as submitted . CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Carter 's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of 12 parcels totalling 2,080 .79 acres located on Route 20 South in two areas near Carter 's Bridge and near Keene . The Commission was required to take action to accept the applications . Mr . Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms . Huckle, that the Consent Agenda be approved . The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-90-08 Woodbriar Associates - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend ZMA-79-32 for the deferral of the bonding requirement for construction of Briarwood Drive to Route 29 [Section 33. 2 . 1] . The Briarwood Subdivision consists of all parcels on Tax Map 32G totalling 173 acres located on the west side of Rt . 29N, just south of GE-Fanuc . The property is located within the Rivanna Magisterial District . This property is located within a designated growth area. Mr . Tarbell presented the staff report . The report concluded : "As more development occurs in Briarwood another access point will be necessary, therefore, staff recommends approval of this request to amend ZMA-79-32 with conditions requiring the construction of Briarwood Drive with the completion of Phase I . " Referring to condition No . 1 [Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can be served by the f 1; DRAFT lc, Jnly 24 , 19A0 Pag• 2 existing gravity sewer, the applicant shall proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phase plan . ] , Mr . Rittenhouse asked if we could "require" that the applicant proceed with Phase I . Mr . Tarbell responded affirmatively and stated that the applicant had agreed to that condition . He added that staff had requested that the applicant explain exactly how the development will proceed . Mr . Rittenhouse also asked that condition No . 4 be amended to read : The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with the letter from Wendell W . Wood to Richard Tarbell dated June 29 , 1990 . Ms . Huckle recalled that the completion of Austin Drive to Rt . 606 had been a condition on a previous approval (March 1990) . She asked if that was correct . Mr . Tarbell stated the condition had been that the final plat would not be signed until Austin Drive to Rt . 606 was either built or bonded . He added that staff had not signed the final plat at this point . He also stated that it had been neither built nor bonded "because they won 't bond that until they are ready to submit the final plats . . . and when they are ready to be signed, he must either build it or bond it--I assume he will bond it--before it is signed by us giving it final approval . " Ms . Huckle stated that it was her understanding that two accesses were required and "bonding does not provide an access . " Mr . Tarbell explained that two accesses are required for safety reasons in the event one access point should be blocked for some reason . Referring to Attachment D to the staff report, a memo dated May 30 . 1990 from Kathy Dodson to Mr . Tarbell, which seemed to indicate that the plat had expired . Ms . Huckle asked to which plat the memo referred . Mr . Tarbell responded : "That may have been referring to the 80-some lots which the preliminary was done for . I don 't know why John Horne, the director at that time . decided that the bond was not necessary. " Ms . Huckle noted that the memo stated that the plat was "null and void , " and asked if that meant that he had to start over . Mr . Tarbell replied : "No . I think that was for a section in here (he pointed on the plan) , and I assume what he meant was it wasn 't for any lots that access Briarwood . " Mr . Rittenhouse felt Ms . Huckle 's concern about two points of access was a valid one . He asked if "we could wind up with literally one arness with this development continuing 4 • DRAFT July 24 , 1990 Page 3 on under a bond with no time frame within which a second point of access would actually have to be constructed?" Mr . Cilimberg responded : "You 'd have a bond for the completion of the second access . " He was unsure about the time frame for the bond . Mr . Cilimberg added that there are already phases approved which still have only one access constructed and a second access bonded . (Ms . Huckle interjected : "It hasn 't been bonded yet . " ) Mr . Cilimberg responded that bonding was related to the further yen hdivision of the properties and it would be bonded at final plat . Mr . Tarbell stated that an option might be to require that Austin Drive actually be built before proceeding with the next phase , as was done with Briarwood Drive . Mr . Rittenhouse asked how many lots could be completed with only one point of access. Mr . Tarbell responded that 178 were possible . Mr . Johnson suggested that condition No . 2 could be changed to read : Briarwood Drive shall be built AND bonded . . . (changing "or" to "and" ) . He felt this could avoid more lots being built with only one access with a second access supported only by a bond . Mr . Tarbell explained that the use of "or" would leave it to the applicant 's discretion to start the project by bonding and then the condition, in the second sentence, is clarified with the requirement that "Briarwood Drive shall be completed with completion of Phase I . " Mr . Cilimberg added : "That 's language that 's apparently not present on the Austin Drive completion . We only have a bonding condition . . . in Phase IV and that 's the way we word all subdivision plat approvals that require the building of a state road . " Mr . Johnson still felt the word "or" should be replaced with "and . " "You would just drop the bonded part of it . It would just be 'Briarwood Drive shell he hnilt for its entire length prior to any final plat approval for Phase I . '" Mr . Cilimberg questioned whether this would be an "allowable" condition because there 's no reason for bonding if you build it . Mr . Johnson stated : "If it 's hnilt to standards . " Mr . Cilimberg stated that it would be required that it be built to standards or else it won 't be approved by the County. " Mr . Johnson was under the impression that the bond was to insure that the road would be built to State standards . Mr . Cilimberg stated that the reason for the bond on Austin Drive is to insure that it gets hilt end when it is built that it meets State standards . DRAFT Jil 1 y 24, 1 AAf) Page 4 Mr . Rittenhouse asked if staff was comfortable with Austin Road just being bonded with additional lots being plated . Mr . Tarbell responded : "Yes . I think that was the condition when you imposed it at the preliminary. " Mr . Cilimberg added : "I think the real question is what the applicant would be willing to do in addition to what is req»i red 'wider the Ordinance . " Referring to condition Nn . 14 of 7MA-79-32 [No final site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or dwelling unit served by either road X or road Y prior to dedication to public use and construction or bonding for acceptance into the Virginia State Secondary Highway System of roads X and Y. 1 . Ms . Huckle asked if a subdivision plat had been approved . Mr . Cilimberg responded : "Portions of the plats that are covered by that condition have been approved and those have been approved with the bonding requirement for Austin Drive and the bonding requirement for Briarwood Drive . . .has been deferred on at least one occasion . Mr . Tarbell added : "All the lots were done while the bond was still in place for Briarwood Drive, the existing lots out there, except for the 28 which we brought to you in the fall of 1989, and the 28 which are under preliminary plat approval at the moment . " Ms . Huckle stated that it seemed that they had not met the original conditions . Mr . Cilimberg responded : "Well, they had not met it and it was deferred by the Planning Commission that they didn 't have to meet it and now we 're trying to get it squared away again and realizing that that condition hasn 't been met we 've said 'Let 's stop this deferral--let 's take it though the rezoning process and let the Board tell you whether or not you have to meet that condition or an amended condition . " The Chairman invited applicant comment . The applicant was first represented by Mr . Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project . He explained the situation as follows : "When the rezoning took place, Briarwood Drive was to be bonded . About the time they were ready to start Phase I , they had to build the road for GE so they didn 't build Phase I . That 's why the phasing is out of order . The difference between what has just recently been approved and Briarwood Drive is that Mr . Wood has lots fronting on what has just recently been approved so he 's got to build that road if he 's going to sell those lots . " In response to Ms . Huckle 's question, Mr . Muncaster stated that some DRAFT July 24 , 1990 Page 5 construction has taken place on the access to 606 , but it is not completed . Mr . Muncaster concluded the applicant was in agreement with the staff report . The Chairman invited public comment . Ms . Susie Hoffman expressed conoern about Austin Drive being connected to Rt . 606 because it would then be a "through road" and would invite a lot more traffic . She also stated that if Briarwood is connected to Rt . 29, then two of the four roads in Briarwood will be "through roads . " She indicated she felt this would change the character of the neighborhood . Ms . Joan Kindig, a resident of Camelot, addressed the Commission . She expressed concern about the further development of Briarwood causing more traffic ( if one of the Briarwood roads is connected to a Camelot road) ; about the destruction of wildlife; and about runoff to the river . She also noted that Camelot has never had two access points . She felt the development of Briarwood would negatively effect her property value . Regarding the issue of only one access to Camelot, Mr . Cilimberg explained that at one time it had been planned that Camelot would be connected to Briarwood but Camelot had been approved prior to existing Subdivision Ordinance requirements . Mr . Wendall Wood, the applicant , addressed the Commission . He stated 150 units have been built to date and the properties have continued to increase in value . He stated the development has increased the value of adjoining property. He explained that the current request is a continuing effort to "hold costs down" so that affordable housing can be provided . He gave a brief history of the project . He stated that Austin Drive is being extended as lots are built on it and lots are being built in sequence . He stated that if the market is strong, the road should be completed by fall . He stated approximately 30 more units must be built before Austin Drive is completed . In response to Ms . Huckle 's question, he stated houses are planned all the way to Rt . 606 . He added that all the curb and gutter is in , but the blacktop is yet to be added . There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission . July 24 , 1990 Page 6DRAFT Mr . Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-08 for Woodbriar Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions : 1 . Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can be served by the existing gravity sewer , the applicant shall proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phasing plan . 2 . Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for construction for its entire length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat approval for Phase I . Briarwood Drive shall be completed with completion of Phase I . 3 . Phases IV, V, VI and the rest of Phase VII shall proceed in that order in accordance with the original phasing plan . 4 . The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with the letter form Wendell W . Wood to Richard Tarbell dated June 29, 1990 . Mr . Johnson seconded the motion . Discussion : In response to Ms . Andersen 's Question, Mr . Tarbell explained that the total number of lots which could be completed before the roads are completed is 324 (250 before Phase I + 74 in Phase I ) . Ms . Huckle asked if all these lots could be served with existing gravity sewer . Mr . Muncaster responded that all those 324 lots can be served by gravity sewer . Mr . Cilimberg added that the Camelot Treatment Plant (built and dedicated to the Service Authority by Mr . Wood ) has a reserved capacity to serve the full development of Briarwood . The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. Mr . Johnson asked staff to check into the issue of how so many lots could have been allowed with only one access if the requirement for two accesses is based on a safety requirement . He wondered if an error could have been made . He felt that if this was a safety issue, it should not be ignored . July 24, 1990 Page 7 DRAFT July 24, 1990 Page 7 Regarding the issue of Camelot only having one entrance, Mr . Cilimberg noted that a second access (through Briarwood ) had been planned for Camelot, but the residents of Camelot had been opposed because of a concern about increased traffic, so the Board had deleted that requirement . I 4 I 1 ZMA-90-08 Wocdl—iar Associates - The app2 ant is petitioning th 3oard of Supervisors to < nd ZMA-79-32 for the deferral of the bonding requirement for construction of Briarwood Drive to Route 29 [Section 33 . 2 . 1] . The Briarwood Subdivision consists of all parcels on Tax Map 32G totalling 173 acres located on the west side of Rt. 29N, just south of GE-Fanuc. The property is located within the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded: "As more development occurs in Briarwood another access point will be necessary, therefore, staff recommends approval of this request to amend ZMA-79-32 with conditions requiring the construction of Briarwood Drive with the completion of Phase I . " Referring to condition No. 1 [Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can be served by the July 24 , 1990 Page 2 existing gravity sewer, the applicant shall proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phase plan. ] , Mr. Rittenhouse asked if we could "require" that the applicant proceed with Phase I. Mr. Tarbell responded affirmatively and stated that the applicant had agreed to that condition. He added that staff had requested that the applicant explain exactly how the development will proceed. Mr. Rittenhouse also asked that condition No. 4 be amended to read: The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with the letter from Wendell W. Wood to Richard Tarbell dated June 29, 1990. Ms. Huckle recalled that the completion of Austin Drive to Rt. 606 had been a condition on a previous approval (March 1990) . She asked if that was correct. Mr. Tarbell stated the condition had been that the final plat would not be signed until Austin Drive to Rt. 606 was either built or bonded. He added that staff had not signed the final plat at this point. He also stated that it had been neither built nor bonded "because they won't bond that until they are ready to submit the final plats. . . and when they are ready to be signed, he must either build it or bond it--I assume he will bond it--before it is signed by us giving it final approval . " Ms. Huckle stated that it was her understanding that two accesses were required and "bonding does not provide an access. " Mr. Tarbell explained that two accesses are required for safety reasons in the event one access point should be blocked for some reason. Referring to Attachment D to the staff report, a memo dated May 30, 1990 from Kathy Dodson to Mr. Tarbell, which seemed to indicate that the plat had expired, Ms. Huckle asked to which plat the memo referred. Mr. Tarbell responded: "That may have been referring to the 80-some lots which the preliminary was done for. I don't know why John Horne, the director at that time, decided that the bond was not necessary. " Ms. Huckle noted that the memo stated that the plat was "null and void, " and asked if that meant that he had to start over. Mr. Tarbell replied: "No. I think that was for a section in here (he pointed on the plan) , and I assume what he meant was it wasn't for any lots that access Briarwood. " Mr. Rittenhouse felt Ms. Huckle ' s concern about two points of access was a valid one. He asked if "we could wind up with literally one access with this development continuing July 24 , 1990 Page 3 on under a bond with no time frame within which a second point of access would actually have to be constructed?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "You'd have a bond for the completion of the second access. " He was unsure about the time frame for the bond. Mr. Cilimberg added that there are already phases approved which still have only one access constructed and a second access bonded. (Ms. Huckle interjected: "It hasn't been bonded yet. ") Mr. Cilimberg responded that bonding was related to the further subdivision of the properties and it would be bonded at final plat. Mr. Tarbell stated that an option might be to require that Austin Drive actually be built before proceeding with the next phase, as was done with Briarwood Drive. Mr. Rittenhouse asked how many lots could be completed with only one point of access. Mr. Tarbell responded that 178 were possible. Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 2 could be changed to read: Briarwood Drive shall be built AND bonded. . . (changing "or" to "and") . He felt this could avoid more lots being built with only one access with a second access supported only by a bond. Mr. Tarbell explained that the use of "or" would leave it to the applicant' s discretion to start the project by bonding and then the condition, in the second sentence, is clarified with the requirement that "Briarwood Drive shall be completed with completion of Phase I. " Mr. Cilimberg added: "That' s language that ' s apparently not present on the Austin Drive completion. We only have a bonding condition. . . in Phase IV and that ' s the way we word all subdivision plat approvals that require the building of a state road. " Mr. Johnson still felt the word "or" should be replaced with "and. " "You would just drop the bonded part of it. It would just be ' Briarwood Drive shall be built for its entire length prior to any final plat approval for Phase I . '" Mr. Cilimberg questioned whether this would be an "allowable" condition because there ' s no reason for bonding if you build it. Mr. Johnson stated: "If it ' s built to standards. " Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would be required that it be built to standards or else it won't be approved by the County. " Mr. Johnson was under the impression that the bond was to insure that the road would be built to State standards. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the reason for the bond on Austin Drive is to insure that it gets built and when it is built that it meets State standards. July 24 , 1990 Page 4 Mr. Rittenhouse asked if staff was comfortable with Austin Road just being bonded with additional lots being plated. Mr. Tarbell responded: "Yes. I think that was the condition when you imposed it at the preliminary. " Mr. Cilimberg added: "I think the real question is what the applicant would be willing to do in addition to what is required under the Ordinance. " Referring to condition No. 14 of ZMA-79-32 [No final site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or dwelling unit served by either road X or road Y prior to dedication to public use and construction or bonding for acceptance into the Virginia State Secondary Highway System of roads X and Y. ] , Ms. Huckle asked if a subdivision plat had been approved. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Portions of the plats that are covered by that condition have been approved and those have been approved with the bonding requirement for Austin Drive and the bonding requirement for Briarwood Drive. . .has been deferred on at least one occasion. Mr. Tarbell added: "All the lots were done while the bond was still in place for Briarwood Drive, the existing lots out there, except for the 28 which we brought to you in the fall of 1989 , and the 28 which are under preliminary plat approval at the moment. " Ms. Huckle stated that it seemed that they had not met the original conditions. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Well , they had not met it and it was deferred by the Planning Commission that they didn't have to meet it and now we' re trying to get it squared away again and realizing that that condition hasn't been met we've said 'Let ' s stop this deferral--let' s take it though the rezoning process and let the Board tell you whether or not you have to meet that condition or an amended condition. " The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was first represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project. He explained the situation as follows: "When the rezoning took place, Briarwood Drive was to be bonded. About the time they were ready to start Phase I, they had to build the road for GE so they didn't build Phase I . That' s why the phasing is out of order. The difference between what has just recently been approved and Briarwood Drive is that Mr. Wood has lots fronting on what has just recently been approved so he' s got to build that road if he' s going to sell those lots. " In response to Ms. Huckle ' s question, Mr. Muncaster stated that some July 24 , 1990 Page 5 construction has taken place on the access to 606 , but it is not completed. Mr. Muncaster concluded the applicant was in agreement with the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Susie Hoffman expressed concern about Austin Drive being connected to Rt. 606 because it would then be a "through road" and would invite a lot more traffic. She also stated that if Briarwood is connected to Rt. 29 , then two of the four roads in Briarwood will be "through roads. " She indicated she felt this would change the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Joan Kindig, a resident of Camelot, addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the further development of Briarwood causing more traffic (if one of the Briarwood roads is connected to a Camelot road) ; about the destruction of wildlife; and about runoff to the river. She also noted that Camelot has never had two access points. She felt the development of Briarwood would negatively effect her property value. Regarding the issue of only one access to Camelot, Mr. Cilimberg explained that at one time it had been planned that Camelot would be connected to Briarwood but Camelot had been approved prior to existing Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Mr. Wendall Wood, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated 150 units have been built to date and the properties have continued to increase in value. He stated the development has increased the value of adjoining property. He explained that the current request is a continuing effort to "hold costs down" so that affordable housing can be provided. He gave a brief history of the project. He stated that Austin Drive is being extended as lots are built on it and lots are being built in sequence. He stated that if the market is strong, the road should be completed by fall . He stated approximately 30 more units must be built before Austin Drive is completed. In response to Ms. Huckle' s question, he stated houses are planned all the way to Rt. 606 . He added that all the curb and gutter is in, but the blacktop is yet to be added. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. July 24 , 1990 Page 6 Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-08 for Woodbriar Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can be served by the existing gravity sewer, the applicant shall proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phasing plan. 2 . Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for construction for its entire length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat approval for Phase I . Briarwood Drive shall be completed with completion of Phase I . 3 . Phases IV, V, VI and the rest of Phase VII shall proceed in that order in accordance with the original phasing plan. 4 . The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with the letter form Wendell W. Wood to Richard Tarbell dated June 29, 1990. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: In response to Ms. Andersen' s question, Mr. Tarbell explained that the total number of lots which could be completed before the roads are completed is 324 (250 before Phase I + 74 in Phase I) . Ms. Huckle asked if all these lots could be served with existing gravity sewer. Mr. Muncaster responded that all those 324 lots can be served by gravity sewer. Mr. Cilimberg added that the Camelot Treatment Plant (built and dedicated to the Service Authority by Mr. Wood) has a reserved capacity to serve the full development of Briarwood. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson asked staff to check into the issue of how so many lots could have been allowed with only one access if the requirement for two accesses is based on a safety requirement. He wondered if an error could have been made. He felt that if this was a safety issue, it should not be ignored. w July 24, 1990 Page 7 Regarding the issue of Camelot only having one entrance, Mr. Cilimberg noted that a second access (through Briarwood) had been planned for Camelot, but the residents of Camelot had been opposed because of a concern about increased traffic, so the Board had deleted that requirement.