HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300079 Staff Report 2013-08-20CU)�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SUB2013 -079 Kuttner - Final Plat
Staff: J.T. Newberry - Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
August 20, 2013
Not applicable
Owner: Oliver Kuttner
Applicant: Nixon Land Surveying, LLC
Acreage: 2.95 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 61 Parcel 210B
By -right use: Residential (R -4) — residential
Location: 465 Rio Road East (State Route 631)
uses up to 4 dwelling units /acre.
[Attachment A]
Magisterial District: Rio
Proffers /Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: 1 additional lot
DA — X RA —
Proposal: Request for final plat approval without
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood
an approved preliminary plat to subdivide one lot
Density in Neighborhood 2 — residential (3 — 6
into two lots.
units /acre).
Character of Property: Sloped residential lot
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single Family
directly off Rio Road East, adjacent to Meadow
Residential.
Creek and the City /County boundary line. One
single family house exists on the property.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable: None
1. Meets the requirements of the subdivision
ordinance for a final plat.
2. Members of the site review committee have
given their approval of this plat.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Chapter 14 Section 225 Review and Action on Final Plat by Commission, Staff recommends
approval with a condition.
STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry — Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 20, 2013
AGENDA TITLE: SUB201300079 Kuttner - Final Plat
APPLICANT: Nixon Land Surveying, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: Oliver Kuttner
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request for final approval to subdivide one lot into two lots on 2.95 acres in the Development Area.
[Attachment B]
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in
Neighborhood 2, which permits residential density of 3 -6 units /acre in development lots. This
designation calls for all dwelling unit types, as well as institutional uses such as places of worship,
public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and
preschools.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This application has been called up for review by an adjacent property owner [Attachment C]. This
owner met with Planning staff and has communicated with several other members of the site review
committee to discuss their concerns. The concerns include issues related to traffic safety, erosion and
sediment control, critical slopes, tree maintenance, setbacks and sewage overflow.
The Planning Commission will need to take actions on the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Chapter 14 Section 225 Review and Action on Final Plat by Commission
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT
The following is a summary of the concerns and Staff's position/how they have been addressed:
1. Traffic safety— The adjacent property owner has communicated with Troy Austin at VDOT
about his concerns. State law permits up to two single - family residences on existing private
entrances before additional standards are required. Therefore, the existing entrance has been
deemed adequate for the proposed subdivision.
2. Erosion and sediment control, critical slopes — The adjacent property owner has communicated
with Erosion and Sediment Control Officer Mark Hopkins. At this point, there is no violation of
the County's erosion and sediment control or critical slope ordinances.
3. Tree maintenance — Staff visited the site on August 7th and found that many trees had been
recently cut -down by Dominion Power. A forester from Dominion Power named Josh Whirley
worked with the property owner to remove trees threatening the power lines, which had been a
problem in the past. Mr. Whirley expressed concern that the construction of the existing house
may have undermined the integrity of the trees that needed to be removed.
The property owner separately acknowledged asking the tree removal crew to take down some
additional trees on the site that were outside of the Dominion Power easements. The Zoning
Division is investigating whether or not the removal of these trees constitutes a zoning violation.
The property owner expressed a desire to plant new trees, but agreed to comply with any
necessary mitigation plan, if deemed appropriate by the County.
Staff notes that a zoning violation would prevent the issuance of a building permit, but it does
not give staff the authority to deny a subdivision plat that meets the County's standards.
4. Setbacks — The adjacent property owner expresses some concern that the submitted plat shows a
small encroachment by their shed on the applicant's property. Any discrepancy of the location
of the property line and the location of the shed is considered a private civil matter that does not
affect the consideration of the subdivision.
5. Sewage overflow — One condition of approval is that the proposed lot must connect to public
water and public sewer. The bond estimate from ACSA states that the sewer connection would
run underneath Meadow Creek. ACSA also worked with the City Utilities Engineer to
determine that the public water connection would come from an 8" water line off nearby Agnese
Street. ACSA expressed no concern with making these connections to the proposed lot.
The final subdivision plat was reviewed by all members of the Site Review Committee and found to
meet the requirements for final subdivision approval. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the final
subdivision plat subject to one condition.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
The final subdivision plat shall not be signed until the following condition has been met:
Planning approval to include:
❑ The connection of public water and public sewer to the proposed lot has either been built or
bonded to the estimate set by ACSA ($46,800)
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION— Final Subdivision Plat:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to approve the Final Subdivision Plat:
Move to approve SUB2013 -079 Kuttner Final Subdivision Plat with conditions as recommended
by staff and stated in the staff report.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to deny the Final Subdivision Plat:
Move for denial of SUB2013 -079 Kuttner Final Subdivision Plat. Should a commissioner motion to
recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Attachment B: Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Attachment C: Adjacent Owner Letter
4
Attachment A
61 =189B , ` Legend
472 g ' (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
p,� 4
�,�470 a ^�uEa���ERSm
r o a RREs UE S —ON
H Ho °sPi;uE"
® PoRCE s.A,oR
61 -210 �;. ®Ros.oEn�E
as���t,�RRa�RsM
61 190 435 �eu� o,d .
631
AGNE.
398 Ory 61 -2108 465
TM: 69, �O 614
I
394
rd.P
39561A 02 22 �,�P o� �6 Charlottesville City
61A- 02 - =36 loodplain Use the Identify fool to launch City G1S Viewer
6�P 3,
O�
390 �
391 Zo�� 0`Z
6 ^� 61A -02- -28388
fi1A- 02 - -19
389
1A- 02 - -1-3 386 �
387 6 1 4'02 29.
118 ft 384
11 85 OE A[e
61 0215 61 A -02 -17 �2y G
1102 61�A- 0�2 = -35 S �
Geographic c Data Data Services
1112 '�61A- 02 - -16 61A- 02 - -31 61A- 02 - -3m y www.albemarle.org
382 1100 �,R� (434) 296 -5832
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources August 9, 2013
�0
J
-u 70
°
D O y
M
70
U'
O m Cn
b t�, Pq
61 N
Jv' J
°0°700
(-0
OZ zc =o
�
C7
°�Fnc
Wm �z -un
0
C7
C7
C)
C7
C
Zl
�Oby
Ui
4,
W
N
-<o omo
O O
'v �a 63
oo�,
O CA
00
OI °< °D 01
00
DII �z�l =ml
m
�I oci?I m °I
zN1
N
61
N
O
(b
°
Ci
N
Ui
N
N
r
I cnz
I --40
-z
I I °mI c)l
I �D
m1
m
1 >11
0�
zI 01
<I
I c
D
Cy
1 I
I•
I
I
I
I
r
_
_
N
0)
N
N
z
O
(r
(A
G7
0)
�vcn00v
(J)
�I
-
00
-
=�
C7
N
(7)
CY)
W
D
m
oiNCY�
)i
�
c jI
_
C
D
N
C7)
-;h.
-;h.
(D
m
C7
N
O
Ui
_
W
_
O
°
N
�I
�
(b
OD
(n
(n
Cn
(n
N
_
O
W
CY)
(7)
U)
O
Zl
(sl
�
C))
00
(c)
CIi
(.)
�
U!
Ui
J
(,�
N
(,�
J
UT
Ui
�V
N
N
Ut
(C)
O
J
m
>
=
r-ri
m
m
m
z
G7
�0
J
-u 70
°
D O y
M
70
U'
O m Cn
b t�, Pq
61 N
Jv' J
°0°700
(-0
OZ zc =o
�
/
°�Fnc
Wm �z -un
zD
�
i
K: r- O-uO
>mo m-
Cn�
� r
�Oby
mU) °m <�
I w::E >DDDI
mml
OO Z °Dm
O -PI
-<o omo
O O
'v �a 63
oo�,
O CA
00
OI °< °D 01
�0
J
-u 70
°
D O y
M
70
U'
O m Cn
b t�, Pq
61 N
Jv' J
°0°700
(-0
<70
��D
\O
�ub
m =
zD
70
i
Zm�mo zcx—n o� �p��� X0°0
��p,
N cY
cn
�
txj
o p s °/ W OC31
Cj
(Y) e9 / cor
)7 Z\ J N i'�Y i X08
9g
Y
\ 180
G0T
C
rrl
x
b
Ul
0
o m Cn
6, Z =
-P4- C) m
�u (D
O
D
C)
_
z
O �
co
CCpp 6' //� i O m O
/ m sue\ _ _/ /� ��/,� z D Z
/ 'v
/ N
-u -u / �MJ O O II O* C J
mm/ M
m m
700ov
OrzD70
\
'3 2"
w
/
/
00
F- m
701
/
I
1
1
I
1
\C) i
%x
7000
(n °�I D01
<70
��D
\O
,
DDm
zD
70
i
o z m\
Cn�
� r
�j // �1DOOx m r /,0' N
/ rmz� D
8 , -5 �' m m
���
00
SO O // /�D D 70 c� �`I _ _ �70-
O D�Om O ~ oo /� �0�p0
�o
m CV m n 28 0 26 3' W cn �C)
\ r
��
C�TyAp FMgR�F \ \ U 70 / /ca
y
cyARkOTTES Ty '396 m / �C
c �l<<F ��NF �S a S C� \ /
W
ti
c�
y
9,
Oy
6o
O � O
O �
O �
O
ti.
4�
ry
O
c
DC J " m k �y
J Z r rr-7
ri N o rn �1 x
Z (r
OD
U1 O W 00 x
CD Z
0
0
0>00
xC) •
o0--i
D70m
0
mz�
nm
mD
*K
2 C
C
�m
_ _
M
D (n
r(/)
0o =
mC
>
D ::E Z
Zl
r=
M
m
0 m
O Z
Z
< N
2
�D
D r
�r
mW
�m
D
O Z
Cm -) G00
�o
O
z
�Ul
�00
-N
CD
i
-9 70 70
I
(n °�I D01
c O
N
I X01 zml
0
z
zD
I z =1
D m 1
M
070
Cn�
70 70
O W
I w::E >DDDI
mml
O -PI
1 oo-<
1 Owl
O CA
00
OI °< °D 01
00
DII �z�l =ml
m
D �N (nm
M�? 0p-n 0� 0 m- �� =
U) _ m D O ao (� r cn
Z7 Z � o
Z c 0= O (� o :(1
F:
a) ODZ o x > x _m
�Z Or> II O0 N70
DO mZ II II C D
coo 0 �� > N :(1 0 —
m- D m cn N N m (n
D? 55 'M m =N
z o
mr for N D m
ao mCO Z o
cam rZZ o
OC(n 00 -0 D
zx x N-
�m *Zm 0--A
NC m Z� � (n
z c r O D
ZOO
.-(D7 C-) C) p 0 D O
z� m
70
m Z r- D �
= ITI D (n
D r
O >= D O
�
(n m Om
m 0 m 0
0-
r (n OZ D z
r >
m D
�y
y
DOW r- ON zfm
O O
mm= O D CO2_
D O a) --A
�X� ���_ DZC
C7D .X r0 C0�<
x70= z o0 00�
o0N fOTI N� MND
Co 170= 0z(A
O m � mCf) Z 0 C
n =z m
x DNo m= z
zDM ^ .ZD7m Xx7c
U�x vC� OTmI-0
C00� D(n �' p
�mO
K: (ny CmO
mmZ rf Tl (n0
=X> 007 .x
C m o r oa
c x � m
z
z
=OD �(n 0�
17 -m m� DC
0r— �Z r�nT
0 D D D
m r�
m m
Z
O
m
N
D
r
m
D
70
r
m
00
O
D
Z77
°
O
70
U)
C
m
O
Z7
°
D
m
0
D
70
70
O
m
°
ii
0)
N 00
v v
(r
4
0 70 D
70m70
D 70 70
z�70
D 0
x
m _
O E::
z D
D -j rm
Cn 70
MCr
K n (D
m C)
Z 0 D
(D
�z
O
Ti
C
C�
O N
O
Z z
O m
X
70
n
O
m
C7
c
Z
m
Z7
��°�OcC7�
Z= m m Z O=
0 N m m° Z m
m � t m °
m r-0 (n � <
O O Z N
rciD(Di�mmZO
m
=0° °O
m O
z -Ti
°c r
c m� m D D
�c:0C�Z
Z n m O °
°1 -U�om
ATTACHMENT C
July 2, 2013
Dear Mr. Newberry
We are writing to address the following development proposal:
SUB201300079 Kuttner Final Plat.. As the owners of the property bordering Mr. Kuttner's
property, we have several concerns regarding this property development plan. The plan
proposes to subdivide one lot into two with access from Rio Road East (State Road 631).
This property development plan raises concerns in the areas of safety, environmental
protection, critical slope planning and sewage planning. The area of Rio Road East on
which this development plan is proposed is heavily trafficked and hazardously curvy.
There are already regular vehicle collisions all along this stretch of road. The increase in
traffic density that would be caused by Mr. Kuttner's development plan and the entrance
and exit of vehicles to and from this property will increase the likelihood of collisions, thus
threatening our safety as vehicles swerve onto our property, hitting our trees and
generally endangering the property. Any increase in development along this portion of
Rio Road East will heighten the probability of vehicle collisions. The proposed
development on Mr Kuttner's property would veer traffic in the direction of our home and
will decrease our levels of safety and enjoyment of the property. We have a meeting
scheduled with Troy Austin of VDOT on July 8, 2013 to discuss our concerns.
Mr. Kuttner's property development proposal will also negatively affect the delicate
balance that is our critical slopes and flood plain plan. Development just above our
property on Rio Road East will further increase erosion on our slope, an existent problem
which we continuously battle. The slope stasis we have maintained would be drastically
affected by the property development proposal of Mr. Kuttner. He currently does not
properly maintain his trees or the critical slope levels on his property. This has already
resulted in three incidents of poorly maintained trees falling onto the power lines which
resulted each time in power outages. We believe that Mr. Kuttner's current lack of
responsible tree maintenance is an indicator that he will continue to treat any new
development on his property in a similarly neglectful manner. We have contacted Mark
Hopkins at Community Development to discuss our concerns.
The survey filed by Mr Kuttner shows our shed as being 7 inches over the property line.
We dispute this survey and plan to show this structure has been part of our property for
more than 40 years. This discrepancy will directly impact setback requirements.
Finally, we were told that Mr. Kuttner received septic services on his property with no
further development allowed. The septic services were granted only for use on one
residential property. Because of major, well documented, sewage overflows which have
occurred on our property in the last three years, we are understandably quite leery about
the changes in sewer services proposed in Mr. Kuttner's development plan and oppose the
special ordinances necessary to accommodate another building structure. The overflows
which occurred on our property were severe and have been recorded by the Army Corps
of Engineers, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries and the Virginia Department of Health.
For all these reasons, we oppose the property development plan proposed by Mr. Kuttner
and request this subdivision application be called up by the Planning Commission at their
next meeting on August 6. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter.
Harold Herz and Lila Heymann
Owners - 435 Rio Road East Charlottesville, VA