HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 15 77 PC MinutesIA12
March 15, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting, Tuesday, March 15,
1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Col. William Washington; Dr. James Moore; Leslie Jones; Paul
Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves. Kurt Gloeckner was absent. Other officials present were
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of
Planning, iviary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, Carlos M. Montenegro, Manner, J. Benjamin
Dick, Zoning Administrator and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Col. Washington, Peter Easter, and Dr. Moore noted corrections on the minutes of
March 8, 1977. The chairman established that these minutes stand approved with the
necessary changes.
SERVICE ROAD CONCEPT
Mr. Tucker stated that he had contacted the central planning office of the
Highway Department in Richmond, per the Commission's request, and had been informed that
a study of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road is underway, however an additional fifteen
days is needed to complete the study.
Mr. Tucker recommended deferral of the Service Road Concept discussion until
April 12, 1977 in order that the necessary information can be acquired for this dis-
cussion.
Col. Washington moved for deferral of this item until April 12. Dr. Moore
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Carr urged the Commission members to attend the Site Plan Review Meetings,
per the schedule that has been received. Col. Washington suggested that the staff
notify the Commission member on Tuesday before the Thursday Site Plan Review meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: SP-77-01
Mr. feeler presented the staff report stating that Ronald G. and Barbara A.
Vanderveer have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a general store (with
the sale of gasoline as a secondary activity) on 2.44-acres zoned A-l. Property is
located on Route 810 near its intersection with Route 672 in the Doylesville area.
County Tax Map 26, Parcel 36, White Hall Magisterial District.
1�L3
Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that there is one other general store between
Montfair and White Hall which is currently vacant. The applicant proposes to reopen the
store with the addition of gasoline pumps, while the Comprehensive Plan recommends this
area for conservation use. The staff recognizes the desirablity of a general store in
this area and recommends approval with the following two conditions:
1. Approval of corporate, state and local agencies;
2. Staff approval of site plan for gas pumps which
would include Fire Marshal approval.
Mr. Peatross asked how many gasoline pumps would be used. Mr. Vanderveer, the
applicant, stated that two would be used, regular and non-leaded.
Mrs. Graves noted that if these pumps are to be self-service, the Fire Marshal
requires that the pumps be visible from the store.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval with the two conditions mentioned by the staff.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr informed the applicant that this item will have to be approved by the Board
of Supervisors, and that the Commission will recommend unanimous approval.
There was no further discussion or comments.
DEFERRED ITEMS:
PYROFAX GAS REVISED SITE PLAN
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report stating that another plan has been
submitted for this proposal, but presents so many problems, that deferral is again
requested. She stated that Pyrofax is in the process of obtaining a variance for a tank
that has been placed on the proposed site, which is in violation of the setback requirements
from the Agricultural. zone.
11rs.Scala further stated that at the present time, Pyrof ax has a temporary certificate
of occupancy and is occupying the building. She said that they have been given 90 days,
until June 10, 1977, to obtain their permanent certificate of occupancy, and at that time,
all conditions of approval must be met, including the construction of the deceleration lane.
Mrs. Scala informed the Commission that the staff has several problems that need to
be clarified: 1) Fire Marshal approval; 2) There has been a revision to this plan,
making it different from the original, in that the driveway layout is different. ThP staff
feels that this is a minor revision and sees no problem;3) If the variance for the fuel tank
is not obtained, the tank must be removed; 4) The original plan showed a sidewalk in front
of all the parking spaces for the showroom, which has been shortened due to drainage problems.
The staff feels this to be unjustif ied and that the sidewalk should extend the ful_ width
of the,parking lot.
Mr. Barksdale moved that this matter be deferred until April 19, 1977. Mr. Easter
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
There was no further discussion or comments.
9
/'Y j
NORTHSIDE INDUSTRIAL PARK FINAL PLAT
Mrs. Scala noted that this item was previously deferred in order that the
applicant, Mr. Gelletley, and the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Dick, could be present.
Mrs. Scala informed the Commission that Parcel D is presently occupied by the Pyrofax
Site Plan, Parcel E is occupied by Hall and Taylor Body Shop, the only existing develop-
ments in Northside Industrial Park.
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant proposes a division of eight new lots,
which average in size 1.2-acres, minimum size of 1-acre, on a proposed state road. Mars.
Scala informed the Commission that in April of 1976, Parcel E Final Plat was approved
on a 60' dedicated right-of-way which was a proposed state road. The Hall and Taylor
Site Plan was also approved on that date on Parcel E and on a later date, the Commission
lifted the condition that entrances to the Industrial Park be kept 600' apart.
Mrs. Scala informed the Commission that the road and entrance, although bonded,
have not yet been constructed. Staff would like to reiterate that the Hall and Taylor
Body Shop was approved with Northside Drive as a proposed access and not the easement
which now serves Pyrofax. Mrs. Scala stressed that it would be unsafe to permit these
lots to develop without the entrance being completed.
Mrs. Scala further noted that the Staff has received a letter from the attorney
for the Hall and Taylor Body Shop requesting that as a condition to the extension of the
road bond, that Mr. Gelletley be required to promptly complete the access road to his
business.
Mrs. Scala stated that the Engineering Department has recomputed the amount of
the bond since an extension until June 30, 1977 has been requested for the road. The
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) Health Department approval;
2) Fire Marshal and Albemarle County Service Authority of the
water line;
3) The road bond should be renewed in the amount recommended by
the County Engineering Department;
4) Before the plat is signed, the entrance should be constructed
to State standards to assure a safe entrance off Route 29 North;
5) Soil erosion bond should be posted;
6) The Zoning Administrator has requested that no temporary or
permanent certificates of occupancy be issued until the entrance
road is constructed for safe travel.
Mr. Barksdale asked Mrs. Scala if the Hall and Taylor Body Shop is using the
easement at present and if they are open for business.
Mrs. Scala stated that the body shop is not yet open but the easement is being
used as a construction entrance.
Mr. Carr stated that basically, Parcel E is involved because it is using an access
to its business which is contrary to the original approval.
Mrs. Scala stated that their approved access is not yet complete.
Mr. Peatross stated that this subdivision can be approved conditioned on the
construction of the road to serve the lots, and by doing that, the road would also serve
Parcel E.
145
Mrs. Scala stated that the Staff feels that the entrance should be completed
before the plat is signed, and assurance that the road bond is of sufficient amount.
Mr. Peatross stated that no certificates of occupancy will be issued until
the road is completed and asked Mrs. Scala if this also applies to the Hall and
Taylor Body Shop.
Mrs. Scala stated that she believed the Zoning Administrator will not permit the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy to the Hall and Taylor Body Shop until the road
is safe.
Mr.; Peatross stated that he agreed, but why is it listed as one of the conditions?
Mrs. Scala stated that it should be a condition to the lots.
Mr. Payne stated that the Zoning Administrator has the authority to deny the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy if he feels that this is a hazard to the public
safety and welfare. He stated that Mr. Peatross is correct, that it is not necessary
to give the Zoning Administrator the authority to do this,but the expression of the
Commission's intent that it is proper, would strengthen the Zoning Adminstrator's
position in denying a certificate of occupancy until the road is safe.
Mr. Dick stated that he had spoken with a representative from the
State Highway Department and found that unless the road is brought to
State standards, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy will not be
permitted as this road is not safe.
Mr. Gelletly stated that when the property was bought, enough funds
were available to him to develop the property based on two assumptions:
1) the Engineering Department knew what the State would require,
2) that the Pyrofax development could close their lot, so that
grading could be done. rie said that upon getting the road approved,
which took six trips to the State Highway Department, not only did the
width of the right-of-way change, but the paving spec was based upon
750-3,000 cars a day on a dead end street. Further, the water system,
which was reviewed by the County Engineer, was not accepted by the water
and Service Authority, cast iron must be used. :1r. Gelletly stated that
the cost has been nearly threefold, causing development to slow down
quite a bit.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Dick why the soil erosion bond wasn't posted
prior to this time.
Mr. Dick stated that Mr. Gelletly had not had the time to post
the bond, it should have been posted before the grading permit was issued.
Mr. Carr stated that the ground has been graded for thirty days,
and asked Mr. Dick why the applicant wasn't required to post the bond
before the grading began.
Mr. Dick stated that when the grading permit was issued for the
Pyrofax Site, Mr. Gelletly was under the impression that it covered his
entire Industrial Park. Air. Dick said that on close examination he has
noted that there are areas that are being graded without a permit. Six
weeks ago, Mr. :Dick stated that he asked Mr. Gelletly to update and
amend his plan, which was received about two weeks ago and was approved
by the Soil Erosion Committee. Mr. Gelletly was asked to stop his
grading until he had a soil erosion plan for that area which he hadn't
had before; it was approved and the bond was set. Mr. Dick stated that
Mr. Gelletly said that he misunderstood that the $5,000 bond was an
additional bond to the one he has on Pyrofax, which is in the amount of
$4, 000. Mr. Dick said that he informed Mr. Gelletly that he would need
a total of $9,000 bond, and at this time, it has not been posted.
Mr. Easter asked Mr. Dick if the grading has in fact been stopped.
Mr. Dick stated that it should be until the grading permit has been issued.
He said that in all due respects to Mr. Gelletly he has not been totally
uncooperative, but he has been slow in processing tr.2 norms l requirements
of the County, and hopes that from this point, Mr. Gelletly will proceed
in good faith.
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Gelletly if there is a problem with posting
the bond.
Mr. Gelletly said that there is no problem, he had just gotten the
message yesterday that the total amount of the bond to be posted is $9,000.
Mr. Carr asked Mrs. Scala what the amount of the road bond is that
has been renewed and recommended by the County Engineering Department.
Mrs. Scala stated that the amount is $44,400.
Mr. Easter added that there should be a condition that the entrance
to Parcel M be on Northside Drive.
Mrs. Scala informed Mr. Easter that there is a note on the plat to
that effect.
Mr. Carr asked if the development would be served by public water
and septic. Mrs. Scala answered yes.
Mr. Carr asked Mrs. Scala what question does that raise with
reference to the use of a one -acre parcel as a septic field.
Mr. Tucker stated that there is no requirement for a septic field
in the M-2 zone. Further, the Health Department bases this on the useage
and type and amount of fluid released into the property; Health Department
approval is a condition of approval of this plat.
Mr. Jones recommended annroval with the six conditions recommended
by the staff. "Jo further division along this easement without Planning Commission
approval."
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
There was no further discussion or comments.
ELINORE BROWN FINAL PLAT
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report stating that this property
is located on an old road on the south side of Route 641 near Burnley
Station, zoned Agricultural. This is a proposal of the division of one
2-acre lot, which leaves a residue of 19.8+ or minus acres. The lot will
be deeded to a relative for the construction of a single-family dwelling.
Mrs. Scala informed the Commission that this matter was previously
aeferred in order to clarify the existing easement. Mrs. Scala noted Lnat
�41
Health Department approval has been received and noted also that a letter fro
John Dezio has been received stating that he has found record of a 30-toot
right-of-way which is appurtenant to the proposed lot. The easement crosses
the property of Eunice Peterson, who has no objections to this proposal.
The owners of Lots 2-5 have restated their previous objections received
in January, 1977. Mrs. Scala said that their main concerns are that
a Mobile Home will be placed on this property and the property owners
wish that this property could come under their deed restrictions, for which
the County has no control and, that the easement should be clarified as they
do not feel there is an easement across their lots. Mrs. Scala informed the
Commission that she believes the easement is proper, as long as they stay
off Lots 2-5; in other words, if the easement is completely on the Peterson's
property, it is considered valid.
Mr. Payne stated that the plat appears to have two lots with a pipestem
in the middle, which was originally referred to as Lot 1. Fie said that the
Bacon's property was designated as Lot 2, and another further down was
designated as Lot 3. He explained that ther�eYwas a partition of this property
in September of 1960 for which Mrs. Scala holds tie deed. At that time the
owner of Lot 2 granted an easement over Lot 2 to the relocation of Route 641,
across the property to the original Lot 1. The easement is described as
across the front of Lot 2, using the same route of the abandoned road, as
shown on said plat and to be 30' in width to be measured from the center of
the old abandoned road. Mr. Payne further explained that there is a granted
easement of record along the center of the old road, referred to on the
plat as the Bacon's property. Mr. Dezio has given his opinion that there
is right-of-way.
Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Payne what access the 19-acre residue has.
Mr. Payne explained that it would have the same right in that road
over Lot 2 as Lot 1A.
Mrs. Scala said that several years ago, Lot lA and 1B was subdivided
and that the plat was not seen by the Commission.
Mr. Jones asked if there is any limitation on how long an <abandoned
road can remain abandoned and still have the right-of-way continue.
1r. Payne stated that apparently there is confusion. He explained
that it was abandoned as a public road many years ago; there is no right
in anl%one over this as a public road. The owner of Lot 2 granted a new
easement over Lot 2 in 1960.
Mr. Carr said that if there is in fact a right-of-way, per John Dezio's
letter, then there is nothing here to talk about. Mr. Payne said that it
could be denied, that the ordinance requires it to be on a State road. or a
waiver of that requirement granted.
1r. Barksdale recommended approval with the one condition listed by
the staff.
Mr. Laster seconded the motion which carried unanimously, with no
further discussion.
A
FiffiLdr-
BLUE RIDGE FOREST FINAL PLAT
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that this subdivision
is on the north side of Route 660 approximately 1, miles south of Earlys-
ville, zoned A-1. He informed the Commission that this is a proposal to
divide eight lots, average 2.1-acres out of an existing 190-acre parcel.
This item was deferred at the February 22 meeting in order that the loca-
tion and width of the pipestems could be worked out with the High:aay De-
partment. Mr. Montenegro said in the staff comment that the
Department of Highways, the Planning Staff and Mr. Foster, the developer
met at the proposed site and came to the following solutions:
1. The sight distance at the proposed entrance is adequate
subject to the clearing of shrubs in the exising right-
of-way on the other side of the road;
2. The width of the pipestems is adequate;
3. The location of the drainage easement was defined;
4. The additional 5' reservation along the right-of-way
was defined and noted on the plat;
5. The 100' wide pipestem was reduced to 50' in width,
thus making Lot 7 large enough to allow for the possible
future deceleration lane which may go into the front of
the property when it is developed.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff recommends approval of this
plat with one condition, "1110 further division along this easement without
Planning Commission approval."
Dr. Moore asked Mr. _iontenegro if there is any reason that the 50'
easement on the left side does not serve the remainder of the property.
Mr. !«iontenegro said that he felt the sight distance would be worse. Mr.
Foster added that it does not serve due to topographic problems.
i-Ir. Peatross expressed his opinion that the reduction of the right-
of-way from 100' to 50' is better.
Mr. Laster moved for approval with the one condition recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with
no further discussion.
HUNTWOOD APARTMENTS PHASE 1 SITE PLAN
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report informing the Commission
that this item was deferred from the last meeting. This site plan is
located on the northeast side of Route 654, roughly between Georgetown Road
and Old Salem Apartments, zoned R-3. This is a proposal to locate an
apartment complex of fifty-four (54) dwelling units on a 3.15-acre site.
The plan calls for a tot lot to be located in Phase 1; Phase 2 will include
a larger recreation area, including a swimming pool and other facilities.
The plan calls for a 12-foot deceleration lane and an extensive landscape
plan. Mr. iontenegro stated the following conditions of approval recommended
by the staff:
1+9
1. Highway Department approval of the entrance requirements;
2. The handicap ramps are to be placed next to the existing
handicap parking spaces which have been provided;
3. It is required that the applicant note on the plan the type
of recreation proposed for the tot lot;
4. Phase II is to be located to the right side, thus
locating the recreation area to a central location;
Ir. Montenegro stated that the existing trees on the permiter of the
site will remain.
lIrs. Graves told Mr. Montenegro that at the Site Plan Review meeting,
it was discussed that the pool would be constructed in the next phase, and
also it was discussed what happened to Huntington Village when the certifi-
cates of occupancy were held until the next phase was planned. She asked
Mr. Montenegro if this is proper to do in this case.
�1r. Montenegro stated that this would be decided by the Planning
Commission; the applicant has informed the staff that the next phase will be
submitted for approval next month. He said that if the Commission feels it
to be necessary, a condition of approval can be placed on Phase 2, that the
swimming pool facility be constructed before 2/3 of the certificates of
occupancy are issued, or something to that effect, as was done in the case
of Huntington Village.
Mr. Easter asked if there is any way to encourage the developer on a
small site such as this, to construct both phases at once.
Mr. Montenegro said that the developer had been encouraged to do so,
but the property for Phase 2 was not acquired until after the submittal of
Phase 1. He added that 65 more units are possible, according to zoning
requirements, and agreed that this amount seems illogical for the size
of the site.
Ar. Carr asked Mr. Boggs, the developer, how many of the trees would
be removed, and asked him to save as many as possible.
Mr. Boggs said that some would have to be removed to widen the entranc
and for the construction of sidewalks. He said that he would prefer to save
all the trees.
Mr. Peatross asked what the required site distance is by the Highway
Department. sir. Montenegro stated that it is adequate.
,1r. Carr said that it is not 400' as required. He said that the
Commission made a terrible mistake in the construction of the entrance to
Old Salem Apartments; traffic enters through the exit, but this is what the
Highway Department suggested.
4r. Easter said that the whole area has been improved with the con-
struction of the by-pass, with the exception of an unnecessary island, in
his opinion.
Mr. Montenegro said that the Highway Department has informed the staff
that there will be a traffic light installed at the intersection of George-
town Road and Barracks Road.
Llrs. Graves expressed her opinion that the tot lot isn't very
big, and would like assurance that there is enough space available for
a recreation area.
ISO
M
N
mr. Boggs said that the ordinance specifies how much square
footage is required for the provision of a recreation area. He said
that he can very easily satisfy and exceed the requirements of the
ordinance.
Mrs. Graves asked if the location of the tot lot is adequate.
Mr. Montenegro said that this is a revision of the plan seen at the Site
Plan Review Committee meeting; the area has been graded; since Mr. Boggs
does in fact exceed the requirements of the ordinance, the tot lot is
adequate, in his opinion.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that if the pool is not needed for recrea-
tion space in this phase, and is not completed in this phase, why not
take it off the Site Plan?
Mr. Boggs said that it was required by the staff to show this on
the Site Plan.
Mr. sontenegro informed Mr. Barksdale that the original submittal
showed the swimming pool in the central area of Phase 1. When the.Phase i
project was revised, the swimming pool was omitted; the staff requested
the developer to snow the recreation area somewhere on the plan, in case
the Commission wishes to require such construction.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Boggs if this site is owned or under contract.
1r. Boggs stated that it is contracted. Mr. Carr said that a pool is
proposed here, and the land isn't even owned.
Mr. Jones commented that he didn't believe the swimming pool could
be approved unless it can be shown what goes with the second phase and if
the pool is, in fact, a part of the second phase.
Ir. Carr asked Mr. Montenegro what the requirements were for the
recreation area in the original Phase 1. Mr. Montenegro stated that 50
square feet of recreation area per dwelling unit, and further that a pool
was not required.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. %iontenegro at what point, if any, a pool will be
required. !Ir. Montenegro said that there is no requirement of the ordinance
for a pool, but 50 square feet of recreation area per dwelling unit is
required. He said that most of this site will be occupied by college
students; the staff feels that some active recreation should be provided
on the site.
Mr. Easter asked if the sewer system had been approved. Mr.
Montenegro said that approval has been received from the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
�Ir. Easter moved for approval with the conditions recommended by
the staff.
ITr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with
the discussion that Mr. Payne, snaking clear for the record, stated that
a tot lot is required, not a pool.
There was no further comments.
Is1
GOLDEN SKILLET SITE PLAN
Mr. iiontenegro said that this site plan was submitted to the staff
at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon and varies from the site plan reviewed at
the Site Plan Review Committee meeting. Further, the staff has not
had a chance to review this plan and recommends deferral.
Mr. Sinclair, Huffman's Engineering, commented that this is basically
the same plan, however, the building has been moved.
-4r. Keeler asked Mr. Sinclair if he could bring this plan before the
Commission again on March 22, 1977. 1r. Sinclair said that he could.
A Mr. Harold, from the public, said that the residents in Woodbrook were promisee
many phases of improvement with the construction of the shopping center, one
was that the water runoff would be taken care of, which in his opinion, was
adequately done. iowever,debris and trash remain, the construction of a
sewage line is beginning, for which none of the residents knew was proposed.
He stated further that 12 of 15-feet of trees have been removed and not
reseeded, it has not been completed and looks as though it has been abandoned.
In his opinion, the County should finish what is started before proceeding
further.
Hr. Eugene Powell, a resident of Woodbrook,commented that the construction of the
drain pipe to take the water off the shopping center site, has ruined his
property from the excess water runoff. He commented that he feels this
situation should be cleaned up.
Dick, Zoning Administrator informed the Commission that he
had made a personal inspection of the site today and found that this
development is in non-compliance with the requirements of the site plan
ordinance, and in violation of the soil erosion ordinance. He said that
Mr. Powell's representation is valid, however, the County has tried to work
fairly with him. He stated further that the area must be regraded, reseeded,
and mulched, trees and brush must be removed. The silt basin, according to
the Engineering standards, should be removed and the natural contour of
the stream bed restored to the diversion dips. This has not been done
because it was recommended by the soil erosion committee to hold this until
the hillside stabilized, in order to catch the silt. Further, the seeding
has not been done, because most of the work began prior to winter. Now that
the weather is good, the seeding and general clean-up work will be done.
He informed the Commission that he is not certain that the developer has the
approval to landfill in this area. The distance from the gutter to this line
is approximately 250-feet, out of that, 159-feet has been landfilled with
dirt. He said that Mr. Powell is not only facing the natural watershed, but
he is also receiving a great deal of sediment and silt from the hillside.
pie stated that he would inform Mr. ieishman, the developer of these require-
ments. He also noted that the buffer area should be improved as it has been
disturbed considerably.
Mr. Laster moved for deferral until March 22, 1977 in order that the
item can be reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously, with
no further discussion.
19
15z
THURSTON FINAL PLAT
k1r. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that this is
a proposal to divide approximately 360-acres into 67 lots, average size
3.5-acres, all served by public water. He stated that this site is
located on the east side of Route 810 north of Crozet near the intersec-
tion with Route 789, zoned A-1. Mr. Iontenegro informed the Commission
that the preliminary plat was approved on February 22, 1977, subject to
the following conditions:
1. State Health Department approval prior to final
approval;
2. Albemarle County Service Authority statement of
availability of public water;
3. Shared entrances wherever possible, including
internal roads;
4. Correct building setback on Lot 67 back to 90'
from right-of-way, 75' from reservation line;
5. Corner lots must enter off interior streets;
6. Waiver of length of cul-de-sac granted;
7. 75' setback must be reserved from all right-of-
ways on Lots 2, 38, 55 and 68.
Mr. Montenegro said that the building setback line on Lot 2 has been left at
30' due to topographical characteristics of the lot. The staff feels this to be
acceptable, nowever, it is recommended that the lot enter off of Thurston Drive.
He further stated that with more study, the Engineering Department
and the Fire Marshal have changed their recommendations with regard to
the size of the water line required for adequate flow from a 6" to an
8" water line. The State Water Control Board was asked to analyze the
possible adverse effects runoff may have on the Beaver Creek Reservoir.
Mr. Montenegro said that a verbal response has been received, a letter
will follow.
Mr. Carr interrupted, thanking Mr. Dick for his time and concern
in these matters. Mr. Dick left the meeting.
Mr. Montenegro continued, stating that the State Water Control
Board has indicated that the soil should be carefully analyzed by the
State Health Department prior to any septic fields being put in, noting
also that lawn fertilizers would increase eutrophication of the re§ervoir;
the clearing of land will increase sediment loads on the reservoir.
7_2r. Montenegro stated that the State Water Control Board's recommendations
are sixfold, as follows:
1. Limit the lot size to 2-acres;
2. The supervision of erosion control is recommended;
3. All streams are to be isolated or reserved as buffer
zones; septic fields are to be 200' from all streams
4. The use of chemicals such as sulphur or soap would be
very detrimental to the reservoir;
5. The use of pesticides or herbicides should be controlled;
6. Runoff should be directed away from the reservoir, or
treated before entering the reservoir.
i53
Mr. �2ontenegro stated the Engineering Department comments as follows:
Sewer service is available and has capacity to serve this area,
according to the NcZia r study. The pump station is located on Route
810, approximately 1,000--eet south of its intersection with Route 789.
This installation is considered to be a permanent facility and sized to
serve the northern portion of Crozet for the 50-year ultimate flow.
The construction of gravity lines, pump stations and force mains as shown
to collect waste from this subdivision will cost approximately $225,000,
or $3,350 per lot. With the size and number of lots as proposed, the
Engineering Department feels that it does not appear to be economically
feasible to provide sewer facilities for this development.
The Engineering Department informed the Commission that in reviewing
the runoff effect into the Beaver Creek Reservoir, the Water Quality
Management Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir and Tributary Area by Betz
Environmental Engineers, dated January, 1977, and the report by the Thomas
Jefferson Soil Conservation District entitled Beaver Creek Watershed, dated
April, 1960, were used as guides. The conclusions of this study were that
there is no significant increase in pollution to the Beaver Creek Reservoir,
due to the Thurston development. In general, it is too expensive to require
and the adverse effect on the reservoir is minimum. Further, an 8" water
line is required. for the last fire hydrant.
Mr. Easter informed the staff that the plan reads "existing sewer
lines, and pump station"; this is incorrect - there is no sewer line at this
stage.
Col. Washington expressed his concern that the water shed will
not be adequate for the dam. He said that since January, there has
been a 60o deficiency of precipitation in this County and in most of
the State; if the rainfall picks up, the basin may be too small.
Mr. Montenegro continued, stating the staff's recommended conditions
of approval as follows:
He stated that a 200' buffer must be maintained at the perennial
streams.
Hr. Carr asked how many lots in this development would not conform
if this condition was followed.
Mr. Montenegro stated possibly none. He further stated that some
of the lots could be realigned to conform with this requirement.
Mr. Boggs said that when this subdivision was designed, he based
his plans on the requirement that the septic field must be kept 50' from all
streams. He stated that he wasn't aware of the greater requirement until
correspondence was received from the State Water Control Board today.
Further, he said that he doesn't know how this will effect his plans, and
asked the Commission to defer this item until next week in order that a
field inspection can be made of the streams involved.
Col. Washington said that he is concerned with the entire
development. Mr. Montenegro said that the study by the State Water
Control Board is based on the whole development. 110)
Mr. Keeler said that the State Water Control Board's comments are
similar to all their other comments.
15�
Mr. raster asked what the State Water Control Board has to make
their recommendations. He said that they have not stepped foot on the
property. Mr. Montenegro said that the State Water Control Board has a
copy of the preliminary plat.
Mr. Carr continued, stating the conditions of approval as follows:
Grading permit; joint driveways for the lots provided -Lot 2, 30' setback;
Highway and Engineering Departments approval; State Health Department
approval; and the fifth condition involving the water shed.
Mr. Boggs asked which lots require joint entrances. Mr. Montenegro
said that certain lots, in high traffic areas, and areas with existing
pipestems: Lots 4 & 5; 6 & 7; 9 & 10; 12 & 13; 14 & 15; 16 & 17; 25, 29
& 30; 33 & 34; 39, 40, 41, & 42; 52 & 53; 56, 57, 58 & 59•
Mr. Montenegro said that the only significant change in the road
plans from the preliminary is the requirement of the 60' right-of-way
from the entrance to Quarry Place, because the Highway Department has
determined that somewhere along this area, the roadway changes from
category 3 to category 4, requiring a larger right-of-way. If further
subdivision takes place, category 4 will accommodate it.
Mr. Boggs expressed that he doesn't understand the joint entrance
requirements between Lots 6 & 7; 9 & 10; 12 & 13; 14 & 15; and 33 & 34.
he stated that he agrees with the joint entrance requirement for Lots
16 & 17. He said that many times this will entail further grading
causing pollution and silt from the areas. He said that there wilt_ be
no significant traffic volume until the two roads intersect. He said that
this requirement will help some lots, but will hurt others.
Mr. Jones stated that the Highway Department wants this develop-
ment to obtain their driveway permit before construction begins. I1r. Carr
said that there had been problems with this requirement in the past and
asked Mr. Montenegro to obtain a statement from Mr. Tucker regarding this
requirement.
Mr. Carr said that he has some reservations in requiring joint
entrances in every instance in internal subdivisions because in doing this,
you are in part, dictating the utilization of the lots. Mr. 3arksdale
added that it also destroys some of the better building sites.
Mr. Montenegro said that he had discussed the joint entrance re-
quirement with the applicant previously, no objections were made at that
time. He said that the road is fairly long, predicting high traffic
speeds, and said that this requirement is justified, in his opinion.
Mr. Easter asked Mr. Stowe if the people don't want joint entrances
in this subdivision. Mr. Stowe said that he doesn't feel this will
affect the saleability of the lots, it is just a nuisance to the property
owners not wanting to share their driveway with adjoining property owners.
tie said that his only objection is with the size of the lots and number of
lots, there may be a safety hazard in this development.
Mr. Peatross said that where the applicant is willing, joint
entrances should be put in, where the joint entrances are not wanted, they
should be eliminated.
I55
Mr. Easter moved that this item be deferred until next week in order
that the applicant can study further the requirements and recommendations
stated to him in this meeting.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously, with
no further discussion.
GILBERT HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT
1�ir. Montenegro presented the staff report stating that this item is
located on the north side of Route 600 approximately 1/4 mile from Route 747.
zoned A-1. This is a proposal to divide a 25-acre tract into 10 lots, average
size 2.1-acres. This proposal constitutes the residue acreage of the Lake
Gilbert Preliminary Plat, already approved by the Commission. The staff
suggests joint entrances, although this is not a requirement.
11r. Montenegro stated the staff's recommended conditions of approval
as follows:!) Lots 1 and 10 enter off McClary Court 2)a Grading Permit is require
3�lighway and Engineering Department approval of the road and the sight distance.
Mr. Boggs said that he would like to discuss the joint entrance concept
in a work shop study.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval with the conditions recommended by
the staff. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Where was no further discussion. 144)
PINEY MOUNTAIN FINAL PLAT
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that this is a proposal to divide
approximately 69-acres into six parcels, average size 11.6-acres, the smallest lot about
5-acres. This item is located on the southeast side of Route 641, north of Advance Mills,
zoned A-1. These lots are to be served by a private access easement across approximately
2,400' in length. The staff has commented that if the Commission approves this plat, it
would include a waiver of frontage requirements for Lot #5 as well as a waiver for the
length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Montenegro stated that the preliminary of this plat was
approved by the Commission on November 30, 1976 subject to the following conditions:
1. Preliminary Health Department approval;
2. Highway Department approval of the entrance alignment and the
sight, distance;
3. Homeowner's Agreement for maintenance of the road to be approved
by the County Attorney;
4. "No further division without Planning Commission approval."
Mr. 11ontenegro stated the staff's recommended conditions of approval:
1. IIealth Department approval;
2. Highway Department approval of the entrance alignment and sight distance
3. Maintenance agreement for the road to be approved by the County Attorney.
15�
iir. Montenegro stated that he has received a letter from the Highway Department
speaking to the previous speed study. The Highway Department stated that an additional
speed study was taken on Route 641 indicating an eighty-five percentile speed of 36 miles
per hour, as opposed to 45 miles per hour, as previously reported. Therefore, the sight
distance requirement at this entrance should be a minimum of 410 feet.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Montenengro if 410 feet can be acquired. Mr. 1,1ontenegro said
that in his opinion, it can be done with the trimming of trees, etc.
Mr. Carr asked if the entrance will have to be widened.
1,1r. Boggs said that at the present time, the entrance is fairly wide and easily
accessible. He stated that since this involves three lots, a commercial entrance permit
is required, 30' wide at the right-of-way, which is acheivable. In addition, the entrances
can be no closer than 12 112 feet from the property line and 25 feet apart. Mr. Boggs
said that he is requesting a letter from the adjacent property owners stating that they
will not create an entrance within 25 feet of this proposed widening and grant the
developer an easement restricting the entrances in this area, on the east side. He said
that on the north side, it goes clear across the pipestem lot, previously approved by the
Commission, and across the existing driveway. It is required that the driveways be
connected before entering the highway. He informed the Commission that one of the property
owners on this north side is in California at the present time. He said that he is
perfectly willing to give the people the right-of-way over the drive, but corresponding
with the adjacent property owner in California, asking him to abandon his driveway, is
very difficult. Mr. Boggs stated that upon discussing the issue further with the other
adjacent owner, the owner has agreed to do the widening on his side, indicating that the
entrance will not be overlapped any more than it already is.
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Boggs if he had contacted the owner in California.
cvir. Clover said that the owner in California bought the property from his son; it is
now for sale. It has no driveway in to his property at this point; further, the owner
is willing to connect the drives, if Mr. Clover will pay for the improvements.
Mr. Jones asked Mr. Clover if the pipestem is being used. 1.1r. Clover said that it
is.
ivir. Carr asked Mr. Payne to state the County's position in this matter. Mr. Payne
said that the County has no choice, if the Highway Department won't give the entrance
permit, it doesn't make any difference what the Commission says.
Mr. Carr said that it is not normal procedure for the Highway Department , if the
sight distance is proper, what is the problem?
Mr. Payne said that this physical situation is unusual tli(. 'Ti 'Zwav Department has
the authority to require permits for commercial entrances.
v1rs. Graves asked Mr. Boggs if there is any objection to putting the entrance where
the driveway is. Mr. Boggs said that the only consideration to this suggestion is the
sight distance and considerable expense.
:s. Easter moved for approval with conditions one through three, the waiver of
frontage requirement, and the waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac, and with the sixth
condition that the access be worked out with the Leakes and Coates and the Highway
Department.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further
discussion.
151
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Secrejary