HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 27 80 PC MinutesMay 27, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
May 27, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton
McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; and Mr. David
Bowerman. Also present were Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio; Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney; and Miss Mason Caperton, Planner. Absent were Col. William
Washington, Chairman; and Mr. James Skove.
In the absence of the chairman, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman, presided.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
Minutes of April 29, 1980, were approved subject to the corrected spelling
of Mrs. Diehl's name.
Minutes of May 13, 1980, were deferred until June 17.
Turner Forest Preliminary Plat - located off the north side of Route
250 West, west of Ivy, on Turner Mountain Road.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Paul Peatross, on behalf of the Seldens, stated his concerns with the
road improvements recommended by the staff. He pointed out that the existing road
is approximo�e e12 feet in width, a good road, and felt that improvements should
be in terms^ abi ity to use the existing road, plus some additional width. He proposed
posting a bond for the 18 foot road, requiring only a 16 foot roadway at this time,
since all 20 lots will not be developed at one time. He felt this would lessen the
impact on the environment, and when all 20 lots were developed, the 18 foot roadway
could be installed. At this point, he stated, approximately 9 lots will be developed.
He said that the owners wish to preserve the environment as much as possible, and
agreed that the additional traffic that would be generated by the nine lots would
necessitate some road upgrading. Mr. Peatross felt the concerns of the neighbors
will be taken care of through the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Mr. Robert Carter, an adjoining property owner, stating that he spoke for
Dr. Spradlin as well as himself, noted the stream that feeds a three acre lake,
which is very good for swimming. He pointed out that the topography is difficult
in the area, and he therefore felt the road will be a problem. Mr. Carter advised
the Commission that he wants the quality and quantity of the stream the same before
and after the development of the subdivision.
Mr. W. Edward McClenahan, another adjoining property owner, said that he has
no problems with the subdivision of the land, however, he too is concerned with
the 12 foot roadway as an access road. He said that the road bed itself has
deteriorated, and he feels any upgrading of the road should take place prior to
any construction of residences. He felt the entry onto Route 250 might require
a de-cel lane because of safety reasons. Mr. McClenahan said that there is a
Ir -I
covenant on Turner Mountain Road which requires all living on the roadway
to participate in the road's maintenance. He felt the current residents
should not have to absorb any new construction costs which might occur if
the road is upgraded after construction of houses.
Mr. Peatross stated that the owners of the property are not saying
that the cost of the road construction, whether for 16 feet or 18 feet , is that
great; however they feel the possible destruction of the environment is costly,
and therefore wish to widen the road on a piecemeal basis. He felt it should
be no probelm to phase the road construction according to the number of lots
that are developed in each phase.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he does not approve of bonding
roads for a long period of time. He said that the process of subdivision is one
that anticipates orderly growth, and bonding is usually employed for immediate
development. Mr. Payne said that it is not possible to put a subdivision plat
to record until a road has been built, and the time element with regard to bonding
is important because of price increases. He felt it is difficult to bond a road
for a period much longer than six months, because of radical price increases.
He said that a bond is based on current prices when calculated by the County Engineer.
He also pointed out that as soon as'a plat is recorded, pressure to develop the
lots will exist.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there is a process for the County to review a bond
on a yearly basis.
Mrs. Diehl established that the road type recommended by the staff is
for 21-35 lots. Mrs. Diehl questioned if the Commission in the past has used
the higher category.
Mr. Payne said that there is a provision in the ordinance where one can
consider the number of existing lots/residences using a road.
feet.
Mr. Davis felt the road should be constructed in the beginning to a full 18
Mr. McCann agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said that he would like the County Engineer to review the road
plans prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat.
Mr. vest moved approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission review of the final
plat;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
d. Street signs will be required;
e. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
(1) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements for Turner
Mountain Road, Turner Wood Road, and Laurel Ridge;
(2) County Engineer approval of road plans for Turner Wood Road, Laurel
Ridge and improvements to Turner Mountain Road ( for 18' road width,
6" of stone, with prime and double seal ) prior to Planning Commission
9
f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance as recommended in their letter of April 2, 1980.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Birnam Wood, Section One Final Plat - located on the east side of
Hydraulic Road ( Route 743 ) north of Route 657 and south of the
Rock Store:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Tom Lincoln, on behalf of the owner and developer, said that he was
available for questions.
There was no public discussion.
Mr. Davis said that the plat appeared to be in order.
Mr. McCann agreed.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that all the conditions placed on the site plan
have not been addressed by the owner prior to Commission review of the final plat.
She said that she was. under the impression that the staff was to encourage developers
to meet most, or all, of the conditions prior to Commission review, and felt that
approval of the plat would not be the support the staff had requested on this matter.
Mr. Lincoln said that the soil erosion plans have been approved, however no
bond for the soil erosion has been posted. Water and sewer plans are not finalized,
and therefore the road plans have not been done. He said that engineering plans
follow an approval, noting that the Commission does have the liberty of re -arrangements
and changes on a plat.
Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission, under those circumstances, has to approve
a "pig -in -a -poke". She also questioned the need for Fire Official approval.
Mr. Lincoln responded that Fire Official approval depends on the water flow.
Mr. McCann pointed out that the proper agencies have to sign off on the conditions
before the plat can be recorded and before any construction can take place.
Mrs. Diehl again stated that the staff has asked the Commission to assist in
getting as many conditions as possible met prior to Planning Commission review.
Mr. Lincoln showed Mrs. Diehl the plans for the stormwater detention on the
property.
Mr. Lindstrom questioned the meaning of 18-54 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission substantively reviews a plat, and if the
plat is approved with conditions, the agent for the Board cannot sign the plat
until all the conditions have been met or until bonding has taken place.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance as recommended in their letter of March 12, 1980;
e. County Engineer approval of the road plans;
f. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements including the
maintenance of recreational areas, pathways, roads, open space, parking areas,
stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures;
g. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 1,000 gpm;
h. Vacation of property line between parcels 18A and 20;
i. Landscaping and pathways shall be provided as shown on the approved
Birnam Woods Site Plan;
j. Street signs shall be provided.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-0-1, with
Mrs. Diehl abstaining.
Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
Fox Hill Preliminary Plat - located at the intersection of Routes
731 and 744, south of Route 22, near Keswick: 144)
Miss Caperton presented the staff report. She noted a call from the C and O
Railroad noting they would like to remove the grade crossings, however pointed out
she has received nothing in writing from them.
Mr. Tom Gail was present on behalf of the applicant to answer questions.
There'was no public comment.
Mrs. Diehl established that the grade crossings could be used for farm
use only.
Mr. Bill Barclay was present on behalf of the Keswick Hunt Club. He stated
that at this point the Club has taken no position on the plat, however. the
Board of Directors has expressed concern with lot 3 and its proximity to the
area of the Club property where the dogs are housed. He suggested that at the
time of final plat review, the owner may wish to enlarge lot 3 so there is adequate
distance from the kennel area to a potential residence.
Mr. Gail said that he is sure this can be worked.out.
Mrs. Diehl agreed that it is good for the owner to be aware of this situation
at the preliminary review level.
Mr. Vest moved approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission review of the final
plat;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial
entrance;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
(1) County Engineer approval of the road plans; and
(2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements;
e. Change the names of Meadow Lane and Fox Hill Lane - they are both duplicates
of existing road names;
f. Lots 3 and 4 shall have a joint entrance to be approved by Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
g. Note that the two grade crossings at Lots 1 and 2 are to be used for farm
use only;
h. Street signs shall be provided.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Camp Saponi Final Plat - located off the south side of Arrowhead
Drive in the Lake Saponi Subdivision, east of Route 29 North:
Miss Caperton presented the staff report, noting that the entrance permit
has been acquired.
Mr. Bishop and Mr. Sinclair were present to answer questions.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Davis said that the plat is very straight -forward and he saw no problems
with it.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Health Department approval;
b. Note the building setback line;
C. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
(1) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
(2) County Engineer approval of the road.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Pantops Final Plat - located on the south side of Route 250 East,
about 400 feet south of State Farm Boulevard:
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Board of Supervisors, at the time the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted, in exchange for an extensive amount of commercial
zoning, stated its desire for an internal road system.
)6 /
There was no public comment.
Mr. Sinclair advised the Commission that sewer will be available with
the completion of the AWT Plant, and a 10" water line is available.
Mr. Bowerman felt that it would be appropriate to condition the approval
upon no building permit until hook-up to public water, and the property
should connect to public sewer when it is reasonably available.
Mr. Bowerman then moved approval of the plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. Compliance with the technical requirements of Section 18-55 of: the Subdivision
Ordinance;
C. The parcel shall be served by an easement from State Farm Boulevard and
comply with the private road provisions, including: County Engineer
approval of the road and County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
d. The parcel shall connect to public sewer when it is reasonably available.
2. No building permit will be issued until the property connects to public water.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
Virginia National Bank/Route 29 North Site Plan - located on the south -
bound lane of Route 29 North, south of Bill Edward's Oldsmobile:
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Johnson, architect, was present on behalf of Virginia National Bank
to answer questions.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the site plan seems to be in order and moved
approval of the plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance
and drainage facilities;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
note the lines on the plan;
C. County Engineer approval of storm drainage facilities, curbing, interior
pavement specifications and guardrail, if required;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
f. Provide additional landscaping at the entrance for staff approval.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
//" -7
Brinnington, Lots 24-26 Final Plat - located on the south side of
Route 678, west of Route 601, bordering the Mechums River:
Mr. Payne noted for the record that he has clients living in the subdivision,
however does not feel he has a conflict of interest if called upon in the
discussion of the plat.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Dr. Lang was present to answer questions, noting that building sites on
the lots are well above the flood plain.
There was no public comment.
Mrs. Diehl expressed concern about lot 26 because of the setback from the
stream and well.
Miss Caperton replied that the Health Department will review this in its
approval process, and there should be no problems.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. Joint entrances shall be located, where possible, subject to the approval
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and shown on
the plat.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-0-1, with
Mrs. Diehl abstaining.
Monticello Wesleyan Church Site Plan - located on the south side of
Route 743, adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir:
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Charles King and Mr. Morris Foster were present to answer questions.
Mrs. Ellie Bishop, a resident living across from the proposed church,
said that her concerns are for the environment and safety along the roadway,
as well as concerns for her continued privacy.
Mrs. Peggy King, President of the League of Women Voters, asked that the
Commission carefully consider this site plan in terms of what effect it will
have on the water supply of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Ed Bain, on behalf of the Tegtmeyers, stated the need for severe
restrictions on the parking lot. He expressed concern about the effect the
the development of the property would have on the reservoir, about the location
of the septic drainfield, the increased amount of traffic on Route 743, and
the proposed road concern. He asked that no parking on the state roadway
be permitted, even if parking lot spaces overflow. He felt all these items
should be carefully addressed by the Commission in its review of the site
plan.
Mr. Harry Garth expressed concern about the turnlane on the state
road, stating that it should be moved further up the road for safety purposes.
Mrs. Stuart Smith, representing the Armstrongs who own Solace,
objected to the fact that the parking lot for the subdivision will be in the
front door of Solace.
Mrs. Virginia Tegtmeyer expressed concern about the site plan in general
and its effect on the reservoir.
Mrs. Graves questioned if there had been comments from the City Planning
Office.
Miss Caperton responded that they had been notified, however had submitted
no oral or written comments to the Albemarle Planning Staff.
Mr. Morris Foster, on behalf of the church, said that he had discussed
and reviewed the plans for the turnlane with the Highway Department and they
had no problems with the proposed location of the turnlane. He discussed the
site plan and explained the possible locations for the septic field.
Mr. Davis questioned the run-off control plans for the parking lot.
Mr. Foster said that those plans can be worked out to the satisfaction
of the County Engineer.
Mr. Davis said that with the parking lot so close to the water's edge,
very little room is left for error.
Mr. Lindstrom questioned if the runoff control official has reviewed
the site plan with respect to runoff and submitted a statement as to whether
the plan is feasible. Such a preliminary review is required according to the
ordinance. He also stated that there is a provision in the site plan ordinance
that does not preclude the Planning Commission from denying a site plan on the
basis that it constitutes a danger to the health, safety, and welfare to the
general public.
Mr. Payne said that Section 17-5-24 does state that the county is never
required to approve anything that constitutes the danger Mr. Lindstrom just
mentioned. However, if this provision is used as the reason for denial of any
plan, the Commission must specifically state the danger and recommend what can
be done to rectify the problem.
Mr. Lindstrom said that his personal concern is not only the reservoir
but also the entrance.
Mr. Davis questioned the setback on the reservoir.
Mr. Payne replied that there is a 100 foot septic setback.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if it is proper to request the preliminary evaluation
of the runoff control officer prior to Planning Commission review.
16-1-
Mr. Payne replied that it is, according to the ordinance. He said that
the purpose of this is so that the applicant is on notice that runoff control
plans may be necessary.
Mr. Foster said that there is a question if this will even need a runoff
control permit because of impervious cover.
Mrs. Diehl said that the site is in a critical area and she felt the
plans need close work between the applicant and the runoff control officer.
She said that she is concerned about the use of the parking lot the six days
of the week when the parking lot is not in use by the church. She said that
she is also interested in exploring the concept of a left turn lane.
Mr. Davis pointed out that parking lots can be a nuisance if they are
unlighted, unattended, and unguarded. He noted that this particular parking
lot goes to the water's edge and is therefore an attractive nuisance for boaters
and fishermen. He felt that it should be restricted as far as a public facility.
Mr. Bowerman said that it will be equally attractive to boaters from
the reservoir itself, since it goes to the water's edge. He said that he is
concerned with all the elements of the site plan - the slopes of the property,
the parking lot, the septic field, the hazardous entrance. He said there is
a lot of work that needs to be done on the plan before he could support it.
Mr. Vest agreed.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the members of the Commission give Mr. Foster
guidance in the areas that should be addressed, so that he knows what to do with
the site plan.
Mr. Bowerman suggested relocating the septic field, and asked for detailed
plans for the runoff.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if. the Commission approves a gravel parking lot,
the entire site plan might be exempt from the runoff control permit process.
Mr. McCann pointed out that stormwater detention is to prevent flooding
downstream.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the reservoir is not intended as a detention pond.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the.Planning Commission can require a runoff control
permit even if the impervious cover is short of the required review.
Mr. Payne advised her that the Commission cannot require a permit if
one is not necessitated by the development itself.
Mr. Foster said that whatever requirements are imposed will be met.
Mr. Davis suggested screening for the parking lot plus other concerns
addressed that evening by the Commission should be considered in any rework of
the site plan.
/6 5
Miss Caperton, at the request of Mr. McCann, read the Highway
Department comments into the record.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it is unfair to delay the applicant because
the runoff control officer did not present a preliminary report.
Mr. Lindstrom said that ordinance requires that the runoff control
officer review the plans to determine if the site plan is even feasible under
the ordinance.
Miss Caperton said that at the site review meeting the runoff control
officer stated that a runoff control permit would be required.
Mr. Payne said that he has a feeling that the runoff control officer
will tell the Commission he has sufficient evidence from a submitted site plan
to determine if a runoff control permit is required.
Mr. McCann said that the Commission relies on experts in other cases,
and it seems that in this case certain members of the Commission are looking
for ways to deny the site plan. If the site plan meets the requirements of the
ordinance, there is ample reason to approve the plan.
At this point, Mrs. Diehl said that the following are items that
should be addressed:
1. The left turnlane down Route 743 going back to Route 29, even if it means
cutting trees;
2. Position of parking area, as well as the possible rearrangement of the
parking so that 6 spaces are not in the 100 year floodplain;
3. Screening of the parking lot from the adjoining property owners across the street;
4. Chaining of the driveway except during church events;
5. Relocation of the entrance to the north;
6. Feasibility study of the site plan in terms of the runoff control ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he continues to be concerned that the runoff control
officer has not decided if the site plan is even feasible.
Mr. Foster asked if all these suggestions are addressed if the site plan
will be approved.
Mrs. Diehl then asked for a show of hands to determine if members of
the Commission feel that the runoff control officer has had sufficient information
presented to him to determine the feasibility of the site plan.
Those voting "yes" were Mr. McCann; Mr. Gloeckner; Mr. Vest; and Mr. Davis.
Those voting "no" were Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the left turnlane can be required.
Mr. Payne replied that the Highway Department is the primary agency
charged with this responsibility. If the Planning Commsision does something
else than what is recommended by the Highway Department, it must have a good
reason for doing it.
Mr. McCann said that he does not support the left turnlane because the
Highway Department does not support it.
&2
Mr. McCann then moved approval of the site plan subject to the following
,. conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
a. Provide additional landscaping around the building and note that it will
be maintained in a healthy condition, to be replaced if it should die;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial
entrance;
C. Septic permit;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
f. Fire Official approval of two means of egress from the basement, including
walkways; and approval of relocation of handicap parking spaces to the rear
of the site for first phase;
g. Move the six parking spaces out of the 100 year floodplain to another area
of the parking lot;
h. Securing chain across the entrance except at the time of church events.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-2, with
Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Diehl dissenting.
Garlick Tract Site Plan - located on the north side of Route 743 and on
the east side of Route 657:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report, noting that the runoff control
officer has stated that the plan is feasible, though she stated that she has nothing
in writing from him at this time.
Mr. Payne suggested the following conditions be reworded, if the Commission
acts on the plan. Condition 2 should read as follows: " Prior to the issuance
of any certificates of occupancy for the second phase ofdevelopment, the clubhouse
and pool shall be available and in use. There should also be another condition
to read as follows: "Recreation area limited to the residents of the development
as accessory use to the residences."
Mr. Frank Smith, Mr. Sandy Lambert and Mr. Caleb Stowe were present to
answer any questions.
Mr. Smith addressed the Commission, noting the existing zoning. He said
that the objective is to create a middle to upper -middle income development at a
density appropriate to the land. He said that 6 units/acre were used as a guide,
which is far less that the 20 units/acre that is permitted by right. The plan
shows development of the ridges, leaving the stream valleys. He noted the clustered
townhouse plan, and said that the applicant is in agreement to the recommended
conditions of approval. He said that he has approached the runoff control officer
and did a feasbility study on a typical ridge, and the calculations showed the
development to be feasible. Mr. Smith said that he is prepared to make any
adjustments in the units at at later time.
Mrs. Peggy King, President of the League of Women Voters, read the
following statement:
"As the League of Women Voters has stated repeatedly, we deplore any
high -density development in the watershed of the Rivanna Reservoir. This
reservoir is the major source of water for 40,000 people and many of the commercial
and industrial businesses which are an important part of the economy of the County
and City. There is no adequate substitute for this water source.
According to recent scientific research, conducted by Dr. Shaw L. Yu of
the University of Virginia, with others, storm -water run-off from a square mile
of land used for multi -family houses procudes 120 pounds per day of biochemical
oxygen demand ( BOD ). Low -density single-family housing produces only 30 pounds.
The presence of this material in the water uses up oxygen and contributes to the
eutrofication, or early death, of the impoundment. In addition, an average of
more than 2,100 pounds of suspended solids are carried away daily by run-off from
a square mile of multiple -family residences. This is more than runs off either
industrial or commercial sites. But single-family residences produce only an
average daily runoff of 151 pounds of such solids. These suspended solids reduce
water quality, since they carry dangerous toxins like heavy metals, fertilizers,
and pesticides. They are expensive for the water works to remove, to the extent
that their removal is possible.
It is known that sedimentation ponds cannot always be depended upon
to hold and there are maintenance problems. Further, as we have seen,
multi -family density results in four times more biological -oxygen -demand
run-off and almost 14 times more suspended solids than does single-family density.
It therefore is highly irresponsible to subject our vital water supply to the
high density development proposed for the Garlick Tract.
In addition, Hydraulic Road is already heavily impacted. This development
on the Garlick Tract, as planned, would add 2639 more vehicle trips.
We urge that such density of development in the watershed not be supported.
We further urge that you similarly consider the adverse effects on our water supply of
the plans for the Monticello Wesleyan Church, also to be considered this evening.
Although high -density development is not involved in this case, runoff from the
parking lot will. endanger our water supply."
Mr. Sam Bottely, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, expressed concern about the visual impact along Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Bedford Moore, an area resident, said that this questionable application
violates the new Comprehensive Plan just adopted in April by the Board of Supervisors.
He said that this breaks the back of the Comprehensive Plan as far as the concept
of separating the watershed area from the urban area. He said that approval of
this site plan will jeopardize the long running effort to protect this sensitive
area. Mr. Moore said that the runoff control ordinance is not being taken care
of properly and suggested that the Commission defer any discussion and action
until it has solicited expert guidance on this plan, so that no harm will come
to the reservoir. He, too, cited the work of the University of Virgiria engineer
on the effect of suspended solids in the reservoir.
Mr. Frank Langford objected to the plan because of its impact on the reservoir.
He noted the recent research on the effects of multi -family housing on the
reservoir. He said that the new zoning ordinance seems only weeks away, and
reminded the Commission that it had recommended special treatment of the reservoir
when it suggested only 1 unit per acre for this area. He said that he feels
frustrated as a lone individual in voicing objections against these special
interest groups.
Mr. Frank Smith said that the higher density is proposed along Hydraulic
Road because the land is gently sloping there and this property does not drain
into the reservoir. He said that he does not consider the density for the entire
tract as high density.
Mr. Stowe said that he understands the concerns of the individuals living
in the area, and fully intends to comply with the runoff control ordinance. He
further noted that the project is designed to standards that will protect the
reservoir.
Mr. Sandy Lambert said that a permit is being worked on for the runoff
control and a committment has been made to do the best job possible on the
project.
Mrs. Diehl said that she has problems with the site plan because she feels
there is inadequate information to make a sound decision. She said that she would
like information on the road, information from the fire official regarding his
requirements, city gas line review. Additionally, she said that there are 12
conditions recommended by the staff that she feels should be addressed prior to
Planning Commission action.
Mr. McCann questioned the results of the Betz Study, and the information
it passed on as a guide for development in the area.
Mr. Lindstrom said that it advised that changing rural land to urban land
has a substantial impact on the runoff into the reservoir.
Mr. Bowerman stated that under the recent amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan,^this area would be in the rural areas. He could therefore not justify
this type of density in the watershed. He asked if he could base opposition
to the plan on the recent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan passed by the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne advised him that he did not have the right to oppose the site plan
on that basis.
Mr. McCann said that soon the county will have to be considering another
watershed area - in fact, he said that he understands that a study has already
begun on the Buck Mountain Reservoir Area. He said that based upon what the
developer is entitled to do by right, this is low density; furthermore, density
should be where the utilities are available.
Mr. Vest said that he agreed with Mrs. Diehl about the number of conditions
placed upon the plan. He felt that some of them should be addressed by the
applicant prior to Planning Commission action.
Mrs. Diehl again stated that road plans are needed, as well as city
reivew, fire official approval, and other technical data prior to Commission action.
16 9
Mr. McCann moved approval of the site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building permits will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of road plans for the private roads;
b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for the State collector road;
C. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
d. Fire Official approval of dumpster locations and screening, location
of hydrants, and a fire flow of 1250 gpm;
e. City of Charlottesville Public Works Department review of encroachment
and grading over gasline;
f. Compliance with Appendix A of Soil Erosion Ordinance;
g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances
on Route 743; no access on Lambs Road ( Route 657 ) until ti is improved;
however, an easement shall be provided at this time;
h. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements including the maintenance
of recreational areas, pathways, open space, roads, parking areas,
stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures;
i. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
j. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
k. Provide a 60 foot access to Parcel 18 ( Tax Map 45 ) from this site and
increase right-of-way width to 60 feet;
1. Delete all of Parcel 18 from this site plan;
M. Dedicate 25' from the centerline of Route 743 and 657 by separate
deed or plat; also show reservation of additional land needed for the
Hydraulic Road improvement project;
n. Only those areas where structures, roads, utilities, recreational areas,
or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall
remain in its natural state;
o. Provide 40' scale plans for each phase ( with final plats ) showing
detailed information on landscaping, play areas, building information, etc.
p. Add an additional recreational area at the north side of Area B;
q. Fee of $89.45 due;
2. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the second phase
of develpment, the clubhouse and pool shall be available and in use;
3. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the following conditions shall
be met:
a. Staff approval of recreational equipment;
b. Recreational area limited to residents of development as accessory use to
residences.
Mr. Vest said that he did not have that much problem with the motion, but
he did not know what this plan will do to the reservoir. He then seconded the
motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowerman said that he has the same feelings as Mrs. Diehl, noting
that the density is less than it could be and he would like some conditions
met prior to Commission action.
Mr. Davis said that most of the conditions are standard conditions that
appear on all site plans. He said that because of the magnitude of the development,
1Tzj
09
09
he would be agreeable to deferring action.
Mrs. Diehl said that she does not have sufficient information to make
an intelligent decision.
The motion carried by a vote of 2-1-2, with Mrs. Diehl dissenting,
and Mr. Davis and Mr. Bowerman abstaining.
Mrs. Diehl asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to reconsider the plan.
Mr. Bowerman moved for reconsideration.
There was no second to the motion.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if she could second the motion. He replied
that she could not.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Newcomb Hall Addition Site Plan:
Miss Caperton advised the Commission that the plan had come to them
for informational purposes, and stated that this is the underground addition to
that building.
Sieg/Rothwell Distributing Companies Revised Parking Plan:
Miss Caperton said that this plan addresses parking facilities for trucks
for both businesses. This would be considered as an amendment to both site plans.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the parking plan for both businesses as
represented on the plans presented by Miss Caperton. Mr. Davis seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously,xi th no discussion.
With no additional business, Mr. McCann moved that the Commission adjourn.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Commission
adjourned at midnight.
/7/