HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 10 78 PC Minuteslq
October 10., 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
October 10, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William R. Washington,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Mrs.
Norma A. Diehl; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James L. Huffman; and Dr. James W. Moore.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio, was absent. Other officials present were
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; and Mi. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., after establishing
that a quroum was present.
Minutes of September 26, 1978, were approved as submitted.
ZMA-78-13. Blue Ridge Farm RPN:
Mr. Easter stated that the public hearing had been closed at the previous
meeting and unless the Commission members felt it necessary, he would leave the
public hearing closed.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that the request had been deferred in
order that the staff could answer certain questions for the Commission and in order
that the applicant and his representatives could address the seven items requested
by the Commission at the previous meeting.
Mr. Tucker then addressed the matters by presenting the staff report.
( Col. Washington, Mr. Huffman, Mrs. Graves, and Dr. Moore arrived at the
meeting. )
Mr. Tucker then read into the record the comments from the Fire Official, the
Health Department, and the letter from the applicant's attorney. He noted that
there are 139 lots ranging from 40,000 to 60,000 square feet, and 51 lots with more
than 60,000 square feet as proposed by the applicant. He noted that the staff
has addressed its concerns for the road improvements through phasing in the
recommended conditions of approval. Also the water problem is addressed satisfactorily
with the con,'.itions of approval. He passed out to the Commission the recommended
conditions of approval.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the percentage of lots in the wooded and open areas.
Mr. Tucker said that he cannot specifically answer that, however he did
explain via the proposed plan those lots recommended for deletion by the staff.
Mrs. Graves stated that she has some feelings that the eleven lots perhaps
should be included for specific designation of the RPN boundary.
Col. Washington said that the boundary need not be residences.
At this point Mr. Tucker read the recommended conditions of approval.
When questioned by Mr. Easter if the conditions were agreeable to the applicant,
Mr. James Wooten, attorney, replied that since the applicant is only recently in
receipt of the proposed conditions, a more definite stand on them would be preferred
at Board of Supervisors review.
Col. Washington qeustioned the county's ability to enforce condition
17B as proposed by the staff, due to -the longevity of the project.
Mr. Tucker stated that the road improvements would be an on -going
process that could be addressed with each subdivision plat. These requirements
could be accomplished through actual :improvements or through a bonding process.
Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that the staff's intent is based on
the projected traffic increase due to the number of lots created by this RPN.
And the County's control is with the approval of the subdivision plats.
Mr. Vest questioned the phasing of the development. Mr. Tucker replied
that the developer feels that phasing would be premature, however the staff has
made recommendations for the phasing .in the recommended conditions.
Mr. McCann hypothesized that other development in the area could make
the traffic projections low, and then questioned the status of the road improvements.
Mr. Tucker said that it is possible that the county would have to deal with
road improvements even with development of individual lots by a subdivision ordinance
amendment permitting such requirements.
Mr. McCann noted his concern for the water problem, especially a future water
problem if the central well happens to fail. He said that he does not want the
taxpayers absorbing the cost of extending the water lines to Greenwood.
Mr. Tucker said that there is that risk anytime a central well is approved.
However, in this case he noted the open space available and stated that prior
to the County's absorbing the cost of central well failure, other wells would
have to be drilled. He noted that this could even be a problem for the county
with development in single-family lots.
Mr. Payne stated that the County has no legal obligation to assure that
water will be available if the wells :cun dry. Potential homeowners need to be
aware of the water situation. Furthermore, he pointed out for the benefit of the
Commission and the public that the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional
areas do not extend this far.
Col. Washington established that no plats were being approved that evening.
However he did note that the Commission does have some driteria from the Health
Department for lot size when there are both indivual well and septic systems.
Mr. Tucker stated that no subdivision plat approval can be given until
the County, as well as the Health Department, has given approval of the central well.
:Irs. Graves questioned if this were accomplished through the special use permit
process.
Mr. Tucker said that thij use is provided through the County Code; the
applicant presents his repFort �o the County Engineer who in turn reviews the data
and makes his recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Board then makes the
final decision.
W
Mr. McCann felt that the plan basically complies with the Comprehensive
Plan and feels it is a superior approach to the standard subdivision. He
moved approval subject to the following conditions:
rr✓
1. Approval is for a maximum of 172 dwellings ( reflects exclusion of lots in
steep slopes and lots inappropriate for clustering ), subject to conditions
contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply
with the approved plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process,
open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved;
2. No grading shall occur within any area of the site until final site plan and/or
subdivision plat approval has been obtained;
3. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary
for road construction as approved by the County Engineer;
4. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other feature approved in
a final plan are to be located shall be disturbed; ( compliance with Appendix
A of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance ); all other
land shall remain in its natural state;
5. County Attorney approval of homeowners' association agreements prior to final
approvals;
6. All lots ( lot 147 optional ) shall be served by a central water system approved
in accordance with the regulations of the Virginia Department of Health, the
Code of Albemarle County, and all other applicable law;
7. A fire protection system with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi
for two hours shall be required. Fire hydrants are to be located not more than
800 feet apart along roads. This condition does not preclude additional requirements
by the Fire Official in the final approval process;
8. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot;
9. Building setback of 75' from right-of-way along existing public roads;
%woe 10. Delete lots 180-190;
11. Provide internal open space linkage among areas of common open space;
12. Combine with buildable lots or delete lots 13, 14, 38, 52, 53, 71, and 162. Any
relocated lots shall be confined to existing wooded areas;
13. Internal roads shall be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standards;
14. Approval is given for the following uses only:
(a) agricultural uses;
(b) Detached, semi-detached and attached dwelling units;
(c) Churches;
(d) Food stores intended to serve the residents of Blue Ridge Farm RPN;
(e) Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related
or similar facilities; water, sewer, and gas distribution lines;
(f) Home Occupation, Class A;
(g) Community center;
(h) Parks and recreation facilities; and
(i) Accessory uses and buildings.
15. All proposed fr�wyincranpoYaiori arm RPN shall be built to Virginia
DepartmentNspeci ications and accepted into the State Secondary Road System;
16. The following road improvements shall be accomplished under Virginia Department
of Highways and Trnapsortation standards and Apecifications:
(a) Route 691 from Pt. 4/5 to Pt. 8A/8B;
(b) Route 637 from Pt. 2 to Pt. 4/5;
(c) Route 637 from Pt. 2 to Pt. 4/5;
(d) Intersection of Route 691 and 692;
(e) Improve frontage of Route 691 from Pt. 8A/8B westward to the end of Blue
Ridge Farm PRN.
�Z
17. Phasing of the road improvements outlined in condition No. 16 shall be as follows:
(a) The intersection ofRoute 691 and 692 shall be improved prior to the platting
of any lots;
(b) When the secondary road category changes, due to the additional traffic
from this development, then :such road shall be improved to the necessary
category as required by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. Gloeckner concurred with Mr. McCann and seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl stated her opposition to the RPN on the basis that it does not
comply with the Comprehensive Plan with concern to the Village Plan. She felt approval
would create a new village that will interfere with the development of Batesville.
Col. Washington ;aid that he would not support the motion since it feels
it is random scattered development. He said that he has no hope of Route 691 from
Route 250 to the intersection of Route 692 being improved.
Mrs. Diehl also stated that this RPN is planned in some of the County's best
agricultural soils.
Mr. McCann said that development can occur only where there is 4evelopable
land and where people want it to occur. He said that his opinion is that if the
Comprehensive Plan is followed, no growth and development will take place in the
County.
Mr. Easter said that sentimentally he opposes the proposal, however for
practical reasons he will support the motion. For larger tracts of land he found
the RPN to be a better approach for development. In the long run he felt that
this proposal will do more to save the agricultural soils than the alternative
of a conventional subdivision. However, he said that he regrets the impact of this
development on the community.
Mr. Huffman said that the County must be realistic in following the guidelines
of the Comprehensive Plan. A greater portion of the prime agricultural land is
preserved with this RPN than would be preserved with a subdivision.
Col. Washington said that there is no guarantee that Lot #147 will not be
subdivided. Mr. Easter said that an &mendment to the RPN, following the same process
as this RPN, would be necessary to accomplish that subdivision.
Mrs. Graves said that she cannot support the motion. In her opinion, the Board
of Supervisors is doing everything possible to uphold the Comprehensive Plan, and the
Planning Commission should do so as well.
Mr. Vest noted his understanding of Mrs. Diehl and Mrs. Graves' concerns,
however felt this to be the better approach for development.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-4, with Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves, Dr. Moore,
and Col. Washington dissenting.
The Commission took a five minute recess.
9
73
When the meeting reconvened, Mr. Easter said that during the recess
some question had arisen if the ZMA-78-13— Blue Ridge Farm had been properly
before the Commission. He noted for the record that an application must be
made by either a property owner or a contract -purchaser. He questioned Mr. Wooten
about the ownership of the property.
Mr. Wooten responded by stating that this is a definitional question, in
his opinion. He said that Mr. James Walker was owner of the property, along
with Mr. Dan Ford and Mr. Douglas Royals, when the application was made. That owner-
ship was in the form of a partnership, though Mr. Walker in fact was not owner in
title. Since that application was made, the title has been changed for tax reasons
so that Mr. Dan Ford now owns the property. Furthermore, he noted that Mr. Ford
has been present at all the Planning Commission meetings and is fully aware of
what has transpired. Mr. Wooten felt it would be a big injustice to the Planning
Commission and the men in this project if this were merely a dry run.
Mr. Easter said that in his opinion this is a legal matter and the Commission
needs advice from the County Attorney's office regarding this.
Mr. Payne said that he would be willing to advise the Commission, however
ultimately it is up to the Commission to decide if the request is properly before
them.
Mr. Vest moved that the Commission be advised of the outcome of the meeting
between the attorneys at the next Planning Commission meeting, October 17.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance by the addition
of Sections 14-5 through 14-5-5 as they relate to conditional or
"proffered" zoning.
Mr. Tucker stated that the wording of the amendments was prepared by
the County Attorney's office. He noted for the record that with these amendments
the applicant is given the option of proffering certain conditions that will run
with the land after that rezoning. The state code limits the type of conditions
that can be placed on the rezoning ( he read from Section 15.1-491.2 of the State
Code ). The county will not be able to require these conditions, though the applicant
can proffer them.
Mr. Easter passed around to members of the Commission a letter of support
from the League of Women Voters.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if this could create a situation where another
person will have to be employed to administer the ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said that this could happen, however it is difficult at this time
to project exactly what will happen.
Mr. Easter asked if Planning Commissioners can suggest certain conditions to
the applicant.
T%
Mr. Payne replied that the statute and ordinance provide that a proffer
can be made at or after the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Easter said that one concern about that could be that it might not
be that effective.
Mr. Payne told the Commission tZat this ordinance is somewhat more restrictive
than what was passed in 1974 and is currently used by Fairfax County. For instance
these amendments will not permit highway improvements, however they will be somewhat
helpful for creating such things as buffers from residential areas, etc.
Mr. Huffman questioned if this could be used as a weapon against the applicant.
Mr. Payne said that this is possible.
Mr. Easter said that another approach is that without the proffer, the rezoning
might be denied.
Messrs. McCann and Gloeckner expressed concern about "dealing" with the applicant
and possible increased administrative costs.
Mr. McCann said that he does like the voluntary aspect of the amendments, though.
Mr. Tucker said that these amendments could be an advantage to the County
because they will aid in certain improvements that the County cannot now require;
he said that he himself has no strong feelings about the amendments one way or the
other since improvements would be voluntary.
Mrs. Diehl felt it could be a useful amendment.
Mr. McCann said that he does nct want any applicant to feel pressured to
volunteer to conditional zoning.
Mr. Tucker said that the statute is clear that the County will have to be
reasonable and that the applicant has to volunteer.
Mrs. Graves said that in the past she has sometimes felt guilty about listening
to an individual state what he intends, to do with the land after it is zoned, and
then voting against the proposal since: it could open the door to many undesirable
uses. She felt that this makes her appear to question the integrity of the applicant.
As an example of where this amendment could be effective, she cited the Albemarle
Farm Equipment application. She then read to the Commission some of the proffers
made by individuals in Fairfax County in anticipation of rezonings.
Mrs. Graves then moved that the: Commission forward the amendments to the
Board as .presented by Mr. Payne.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Gloeckner said that as long as the amendments are applied with
reasonableness and not as a club, he could support the motion. However, he
feels that eventually the amendments will be used improperly and therefore
he would oppose the motion.
Col. Washington said that in the past there have been times when the
County has encouraged the applicant and the public to work together to solve the
differences. He felt that these amendments would accomplish the same thing.
7s
Mr. McCann said that he wished to make a substitute motion to defer the
matter for 30 days in order that he could further consider the matter.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-2, with
Col. Washington and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like more public comment on the matter,
since amendments like this just give government more and more power.
The Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to rezone
to CVN properties owned by the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
at Lake Albemarle rezone to CVN properties owned by the County of Albemarle
at Totier Creek Reservoir.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report noting that these properties substant-
ially conform to the criteria setforth in the Comprehensive Plan for CVN zoning_
Mrs. Graves moved that the following properties be rezoned:
Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
Tax Map 41A, Parcel 73 88.08 acres
County of Albemarle
Tax Map 136, Parcels 19A, 20A,
27B, 27C, 27D, 27E, 27F, 27G,
29, 30A, 31A 212.53 acres
TOTAL 300.61 acres
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-0-1, with Mr.
Gloeckner abstaining.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
OR
19