HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 24 80 PC MinutesJune 24, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
June 24, 1980, 7:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Col. William Washington,
Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles Vest, and
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Other officials present were: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mrs.
Idette Kimsey, Planner, and Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer,
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation. Those absent were:
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio.
Col. Washington, Chairman, called the meeting to order after establishing a quorum
was present.
The minutes of May 20, 1980, work session, were approved as written.
WINDRIFT, Section III
Proposal for a division of 30 lots, with an average size of 3.5 acres, located
off the west side of Route 664, three (3) miles northwest of Earlysville,
Tax Map 18, Parcel 19 (part of) in the White Hall District.
The applicant, Dr. Charles Helm, President of the corporation, made a statement
to the effect that the buffer was spoken of last month when this item was considered
and he was not aware of these concerns on the buffer before this time. Since
this time, action has been taken by the Board of Supervisors on a temporary
ordinance, and he was not clear on the meaning of this action. He would like
for the approval of Section II and Section III to be considered, subject to
the defining the buffer. The approval would be subject to conditions on the
lots in the buffer area.
Col. Washington said it was a matter of concern to him and other also, these
areas that are in the development stage. The County is moving with reasonable
haste to make some decisions on this matter. He questioned if there is a copy of
the Board action available.
Mr. Payne stated that he could explain the Board's action: The Board of Supervisors
passed an emergency ordinance governing the buffer zone for the impoundment,
which is good for sixty days (June 18-August 17), unless it is re-enacted. This
amendment to the ordinance prohibits the issuance of any building permit for any
structure in the proposed impoundment or buffer area. A building is deemed to
be in that area if any part of the building or septic system is in the area.
Mr. Payne said he was not sure but that the applicant was requesting exactly
what the staff was recommending as the conditions for approval. The conditions
would require that the lots would have to be redesigned, if the ordinance is
permanently passed.
Col. Washington questioned the fact that Section III was on the agenda and that
the applicant had been referring to Section II.
Mrs.Kimsey said that Section II is not before the Commission now, but Section II
had been approved on August 28, 1979. Windrift Drive will have to be realigned
in order to accommodate Section III.
Dr. Helm said that the road would be upgraded to a Type II road and they would have
a certain redesign to deal with the access to Lot 10.
There was no public comment, and the meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned whether the minimum lot acreage of 60,000 square feet
is outside the impoundment setbacks.
Mr. Tucker said that he thought this condition is questionable legally. The
staff had suggested that there be adequate area outside the buffer or impoundment
area for individual well and septic field. The ordinance itself does not speak
to that, nor did he think the Commission could properly require that. He also
stated that it might not be necessary for the applicant to come back to the
Commission with Section II, since this only affects Lot 10 and could be approved
administratively.
Mrs. Diehl questioned Mr. Payne on the 60,000 square feet requirement.
Mr. Payne said that neither Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance requires this for
septic, etc. The Health Department will not take account of the area, if it
can't be used for sewage disposal.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the effect if a permanent ordinance is passed for this area.
Mr. Payne said in a hypothetical case, if the developer came back tomorrow and
submitted this plan for final plat, then he would have two areas outside of the
buffer for septic system. This has the same effect as the 100 foot setback
for the reservoir.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the comments of the staff on the May 5th staff report
which concerned a condition providing for an access easement to the proposed
reservoir for dry hydrant usage.
Mrs. Kimsey said that was a condition, but she and the fire official had not
discussed the matter any further at this time.
Mrs. Diehl said she would like to have this included as a condition. Mrs.
Diehl also inquired about the condition on the County approval of the roads.
She read from the Site Review comments, and asked about the profiles approval
by the Highway Department before Planning Commission review.
Mrs. Kimsey said that the phrase "before final plat approval" on the staff
recommended conditions, she felt, would take care of her concern.
Mrs. Diehl said she would like condition (a) amended to"see the soil scientist's
report completed before Planning Commission review"because she feels this is a
very sensitive area.
Mrs. Kimsey noted that on condition (h) on the Site Review comments, there is a
note on the preliminary plat: "Provide an access easement to the reservoir for
dry hydrant use." She felt this would eliminate the necessity to make this a
part of the conditions.
Mrs. Diehl agreed. Mrs. Diehl also said she would like to see a redesign of
the lots prior to Planning Commission review, particularly because of
conditions (a) and (h).
Mr. Payne said that the condition as Mrs. Diehl would like to have it could read:
"Redesign lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14, prior to review of the Planning Commission,
etc."
Dr. Helm commented that he would not know how to redesign the lots under a
temporary ordinance; a permanent one would be different.
Mr. Tucker said the Board of Supervisors may adopt something different from the
present emergency ordinance. If a permanent ordinance is adopted, then the lots
would be redesigned. If they did not, or if they changed the ordinance that is
now temporary, to require something less restrictive, then the lots could be
adapted.
Dr. Helm felt he was applying for permission to do certain actions, but is
deferred because of the possibility that an ordinance, may, in time, be designed
to preclude permission. He was at a loss to know what he couldn't do, because
as yet it had not been forbidden.
Mr. Payne said he felt the developer ought to be aware of the situation. If this
were a final plat today, then there would be about two lots that could not be
developed, under the existing ordinance a building permit could not be issued.
It has been the Commission's policy not to issue approval for lots where building
permits could not be issued. Mr. Tucker is saying that the applicant is being
put on notice as to what may happen to the plat if it is brought in on or before
August 17th. If the applicant waits until after August 17th, the action will
already have happened and the temporary ordinance may have been allowed to expire,
or it may have been re-enacted as it is, or in a different form. There will not
be a given time when the law will not be known; between now and whenever it is
either re -adopted or expires, this ordinance is in effect. Whatever ordinance
is then in effect will apply. If the applicant brings this plat in as a final
plat, the Commission might deny this as the lots are unbuildable. After August
17th, the lots might not have to be redesigned. We know what exists now and
the condition is really in the applicant's interest.
Mr. Vest ascertained that the blue area will remain the same, until after the
ordinance is decided. (This is the impoundment area).
Col. Washington stated that the applicable ordinance is the basis the Commission
would use in considering each individual application.
Dr. Helm said it was his understanding that at the time the Commission considered
this plat in May, the status of the buffer was going to be known by the time it
was considered again. If the status has changed since May by the new emergency
ordinance; he questioned if the Commission could deal with what is known to be
all right, subject to the determination of the buffer.
Col. Washington inquired as to the status of the development of Section II.
Dr. Helm said that nothing had been done on Section II, it has been deferred for
one year; changes will have to be made in access, and possibly other changes.
Col. Washington said that with 30 lots in Section III, you will have between 25
and 30 lots. Five lots should not make a big difference.
Dr. Helm said that Section II would have between 27 and 28 lots, the access deals
with road design and entrance.
Col. Washington said he could not see the urgency with Section III, when Section II
has not even been started.
Dr. Helm said they felt if this could be set aside on condition to itself and
deal with Section II and access into it, then he could begin with the Type II
road.
Mr. Payne said he would have to come back to the Commission with the final plat.
The staff wants this to come back with changes in accordance with the ordinance
at that time.
Col. Washington said if he were the applicant, he would not be in haste to
revise the lots, until he knew exactly how it stood on the ordinance. If he
revises the plat based on a temporary ordinance, he is not doing himself justice.
Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval:
a. Health Department approval with a soil scientist report, prior to review
of the Planning Commission;
b. Grading Permit;
C. County Engineer approval of road plans;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a left
turn lane with a 100 foot storage and taper;
e. Dedication of right-of-way for a left turn lane along Route 664 for
public_ use;
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans for State acceptance and maintenance in the State Secondary
Road System;
g. Final plat approval of the redivis:ion of Windrift, Section II; 140)
h. Redesign lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14, prior to final plat approval
to conform with the permanent ordinance to protect the proposed
Buck Mountain Creek impoundment, .if necessary, prior to review
of the Planning Commission;
i. Show residue on the plat.
Dr. Helm said there was one of the conditions he questioned. It was his
understanding from conversations with the Highway Department that they had asked
for a dedication. He had heard the word construction in the conditions. They
had said no construction was necessary, only dedication was what they had in mind.
Col. Washington said the staff report says 100 foot turn lan6 and taper, and that
would be at the applicant's expense.
Mr. Coburn stated that in the letter from the Highway Department for the Site
Review Committee, dated April 29th, they recommended dedication of right of way
and construction. This can not be required if they do not have the right of
way. The ordinance requires dedication of 25 feet from the center line. The
turn lane would probably need 33 feet from the center with shoulder. Dedication
along Route 664 in Section I is already set aside for 25 feet. Now they would
need another 8 or 9 feet for the turn lane. It is the Commission's prerogative
to require or not require a turn lane to be built, but at least if you require
the right of way, it will be there to be built in the future.
Col. Washington said that conditions (d) and. (e) speak to this.,
Mrs. Diehl said that she felt the turn lane was necessary, with the number of
�^y
vehicles. using the road.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mr. Vest ascertained that the motion included the redesign of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, and 14, prior to Planning Commission review.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
BRIARWOOD, PHASE I, FINAL PLAT
A request to divide ten acres into sixty-four lots with an average lot size of
3,900 square feet and with 1.92 acres of open space, leaving a residue of 163.78
acres;located off the west side of Route 29 North (southbound lane), just north
of the Camelot subdivision; Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1, in the Rivanna District.
Mr. Wood requested a deferral until something could be worked out on the road.
Col. Washington asked Mr. Coburn if the Highway Department was working on Phase I.
Mr. Coburn replied that they have reviewed the preliminary profile and submitted
it back to the developer. The Highway Department could approve the grade with
certain modifications, which would require the undercutting of the sewer line by
some seven feet. They were willing to accept the 10% grade, however, now the
applicant needs to see if he can economically make this work. The proposed road
at the northern most crossover near G.E. would be acceptable at a 10% grade into
the site with some modification such as sight distance, etc.
Col. Washington reminded Mr. Coburn that Mr. Wood had brought up a point on the
classification of the road.
Mr. Coburn replied that the 10% grade is considered mountainous terrain category
and they have agreed to accept this. Route 606 to 29 is rolling terrain category
and requires an 8% grade. They will accept the 10% grade here because not only is
it mountainous, but it is a good distance off the road and the entrances could
be built to an acceptable entrance grade, which will allow the steeper grade to
work.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the item be deferred to July 15th.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if there was a time limit on the preliminary plat and
found that the time limit was 60 days.
Mr. Payne said that if the applicant asks for deferral, the applicant has a
right to waive the time period. He felt the ordinance was for the protection of
the applicant.
There was unanimous approval for the deferral.
M
BRIARWOOD, PHASE II, FINAL PLAT
Request to divide fifteen acres into ninety-six lots with an average lot size of
3,900 square feet with 3.40 acres of open space leaving a residue of 149.02
acres, located off the west side of Route 29 North (southbound lane), adjacent
to Briarwood, Phase I, Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part of) in Rivanna District.
Mrs. Kimsey suggested that the Commission consider Condition 14 of the RPN
before they considered this item.
Col. Washington replied that if it is legal to discuss it, there is no problem.
He said he had formed the idea that if the Commission is going to do something
in conflict with Condition 14, it must be advertised and have a public hearing
to that effect.
Mr. Payne said that in his opinion, Condition 14 of the RPN requires the applicant
to build both roads X and Y, and they are to be bonded and dedicated, prior to
plat approval. This plat does not show the road, but the Commission is entitled
to consider it. Both phases have exactly the same problems.
Mrs. Kimsey then proceeded to give the staff report.
Mr. Bob McKee questioned if this means that nothing else can be done until all
roads are approved.
Mr. Tucker said the condition speaks to all through roads and all intersections,
including cul-de-sac streets, must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation.
Mr. Coburn said that intersections with side streets and major collector roads
must be approved and it may require a redesign of certain areas. "a)
Mr. McKee questioned Condition (g) which deals with sidewalks along Cardinal
Court and Robin Court. He felt the condition spoke to sidewalks along streets
that serve 60 or more lots and Cardinal Court and Robin Court do not hold that
many lots.
Mr. Wood said this does not exceed 60 lots.
Mr. Tucker stated that the RPN required sidewalks along streets serving 60
lots or greater.
There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mrs. Diehl questioned Lots 26 and 27 according to the conditions for preliminary
plat, i.e., any lots not buildable shall be combined with a buildable lot.
Mrs. Kimsey said this should be made a condition in the action of the Commission.
Mr. Wood said that the grading of the road makes the lot not as steer).
Mr. McKee said that approximately 40 feet in Lot 26 can be adjusted from the
profile and hold the grade down.
Mr. Payne stated that he would reiterate that the approval of this plat with
the conditions shown, would be in violation of Condition 14 of the RPN. There
is another ancilliary problem, which could be awkward - the mechanics of the
dedication of the access roads. No access roads are shown on this plat. Roads
O-�
which ate shown as being dedicated for public use on a subdivision plat are deemed
to be accepted by the applicant in the recordation of the plat. A separate plat
and action of the Board of Supervisors is necessary. These conditions do not
address road X.
Mr. Wood said that they had shown the roads to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation and they have no problem. Road X can be built,
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has accepted the 10o grade,
although a suction pump might be necessary, and the road may have to be moved
500 feet southward; the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation will
accept the road.
Col. Washington explained that Mr. Payne is saying another action is required to
show the roads.
Mr. Gene Maynard of General Electric, said if this is the road that is adjacent to
the G.E. property, G.E. owns that property and is preparing plans and specifications
to present to the County.
Mr. Wood replied that this is a 50 foot easement. He sold the property to G.E.
and provision has been made to build the road.
Mr. Gloeckner said that Mr. Payne is saying that the plat does not show the
dedication of roads X or Y.
Mr. Wood felt that this was a condition of approval; that condition (c) would
take care of this.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if the plat goes to record, there is no instrument to
show the dedication from that section out to Route 29.
Mr. Wood said that it can not go to record until it is approved.
Mr. Payne said that, it can not go to record until the plat shows both roads
X and Y are approve and dedicated and that can not go to record until the Board
of Supervisors approves the acceptance of the dedication independently.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if item (k) speaks to this.
Mr. Payne replied that this speaks to it in part and as to road Y, but if he
is reading this correctly, it does not address road X.
Mr. Gloeckner said that because of the language in the RPN where it says X and
Y, rather than X or Y; this is the problem.
Mr. Payne said that he saw two problems: First, you have something in the middle
of this subdivision, this plat shows no connecting roads, it is an island. The
only way to get connections is to show a plat which dedicates those roads. If
you do this on a subdivision plat and the plat is approved, then the dedication
is deemed to be accepted by statute; if you do it any way other than subdivision
plat; it has to be separately approved by the Board of Supervisors. It can be
and has been done this way, but it does definitely call for a separate step.
Mr. Wood said he would rather have the approval that way than not approved,
because of the VHDA loan. In October when this was addressed, Camelot Drive
was going to be used and roads X and Y were put in to alleviate traffic on Camelot
Drive; the Commission made this a condition. After the Board of Supervisors
considered this, for all intents and purpose they made this condition null and
void. They required a cul-de-sac at Camelot Drive. The traffic now does not go
down Camelot Drive and the only way the subdivisions can be built is with
access on Route 29. He felt the intent needs to be considered.
Col. Washington replied that the intent of that thought at that time was the
access onto Route 29 from a single area. At that time it was under single
ownership, but part of that parcel has now been sold to General Electric.
Mr. Wood said that this area for the road is reserved in the deed. He did not
sell the right-of-way. Mr. Maynard agreed with this statement. Mr. Wood also
stated that the road can not be shifted more than 10 feet in either direction
at a maximum. He would like to see road Y, but requests that roads X and Y be
approved, so he can get started. There will be no final plat without the
dedication of both roads X and Y.
Mr. Payne had several suggested changes to offer on the conditions:
On condition (c) add: "for both roads X and Y as shown on the approved RPN plan;"
reword condition (k) to read: "Platting, dedication and acceptance of the roads
in Phase I and Phase II from Route 29 North shown as roads X and Y on the approved
RPN plan;" (eliminating the phrase "to serve Lots 1 thru 96 in Phase II).
Mr. Ray ascertained that the roads could be handled by adding a sheet to the plat
to show these two roads on sheet 4.
Mr. Coburn stated that with the uncertainty of whether or not both roads would be
built some necessary realignment could be caused and create difficulty with the
internal roads; if both roads are done, there would be no conceptual change
with the RPN.
Mr. Skove said he felt this could not be approved until condition 14 :is met.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval subject to the conditions as revised:
1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. County Attorney approval of the homeowners' agreement including the
primary recreation areas;
b. Note on the plat: "Only those areas where a structure, utilities,
pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other improvements
are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain
in its natural state;"
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans
and profiles for state acceptance and maintenance in the Secondary
Road System and commercial entrance on Route 29 North for both roads
X and Y as shown on the approved RPN plan;
d. County Engineer approval of road plans and profiles;
e. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 1000 gpm;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for water lines,
sewer lines, pumping station, and manholes and appurtenances which are
to be constructed at the expense of the developer;
g. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of sidewalks
along streets where 60 or more lots exist;
h. Compliance with condition 15 of the ZMA-79-32 approval which addresses
the commercial zoning along U.S. Route 29 North being reduced by 20
percent and being reserved for residential development;
i. Staff approval of recreational facilities;
6�
j. Grading permit;
k. Platting, dedication and acceptance of the roads in Phase I and
Phase III from Route 29 North shown as roads X and Y on the approved
RPN plan;
1. No further review of lots for approval in Briarwood RPN until an
amendment of the RPN for the road network has been approved with
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans for all through roads and all intersections (including cul-de-sac
streets).
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. Vest ascertained from Mr. Payne that the Commission was within its legal
rights, there was no violation of the ordinance by voting on this without
requiring condition 14 to be met as written, since with the required conditions,
it can not be recorded without Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval.
When the vote was taken, it was 4-1, with Mr. Skove dissenting.
TERRELL FINAL PLAT
Proposed division of thirty lots with average lot size of 2.2 acres, located
on the west side of Georgetown Road, just north of Old Forge Road; Tax Map 60
and 60B, Parcel 70 and 1C.
Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report.
Mr. Lee, the applicant, stated that at the time this plat was in preliminary form
and during the rezoning process of the property, some of the reasons were discussed
for developing the property as proposed.
Mr. Morris Foster stated that in working out the deceleration and left turn lane
it was shown to be advantageous to a particular lot to use the entrance as it now
exists; it also makes better use of the lot topographically. The existing
entrance is only 200 feet away from the proposed entrance. He also stated that
the requirements for sidewalks along Georgetown Road is of concern. A biking
and jogging trail is included and he is not sure that the sidewalks would be
in keeping with the county plans.
Mr. Tucker stated that the left side of Georgetown Road is proposed to have a
pedestrian trail. They also need to review the existing entrance with the Highway
Department.
Col. Washington ascertained that there was existing public water from Montvue.
Mrs. Diehl found upon inquiry that the soil studies had shown variable percolation;
that the lots are not staked out yet, but based on the topographical features
the soil scientist's report was completed.
Mr. Foster said the rock formation in some areas was 36 feet.
Mr. Whit Crumm, a local attorney who is representing Mr. Dan Robinson, made a
statement concerning the final plat. He cited several sections of the Code
for the clarification of the issue and the consideration of the Commission;
Section 18-54a on final plats, 18-37a on standard of design and street
alignment. His premise was that the code says provision shall be made for platted
streets but that no provision had been made as proposed for the street into the
adjacent area. He also stated the code provided for the orderly development
of the County and that this would include the extension of streets. In addition,
he mentioned the adjoining school properties and said it would be good planning
for the future to extend these platted streets into that area.
Mr. Max Evans, a land planner, also representing Mr. Robinson, stated that the
topographical map shows the Robinson property as well as other property. He said
that logically the road would continue into the Robinson property, if it were
part of that property. There is a stream that separates Montvue property from
this property. His client is seeking consideration as to access.
Mr. Fred Landess stated that the applicant has worked closely with the Planning
Staff for the orderly development of this property. This suggested access would
be in violation of 18-37b of the code; and for this property to be used as access
would bring more traffic onto Georgetown Road.
Mr. Foster said that at this stage of planning, it was not customary to change the
roads, this is covered in the preliminary plat. When the applicant comes back
with the final .plat presentation, the road configuration is supposed to be
finished.
Mr. Lee stated that his position and concern had been expressed at the last
consideration of this plat, and his feeling had not changed.
Mr. Crumm reiterated that it was clear from the county code section 18-49 that
the approval of the preliminary plat did not constitute the approval of the
final plat. He further stated that Mr. Robinson had voiced his concern during
the preliminary plat. No comment has been made about 18-37a from the Code. They
would request that the Commission consider this. Mr. Robinson's property is a
natural extension.
There was no further public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Skove questioned the 15 foot sidewalk easement, if this was all that was
necessary and did this conflict in any way with the county plans.
Mrs. Kimsey replied that a bikeways and pedestrian way was not in conflict with
the county plans.
Mr. Payne felt that the condition should read "County Engineer approval of the
bikeway and/or pedestrian way."
Mrs. Diehl questioned condition (g), if consideration is going to be given to a
private entrance.
Mr. Tucker read the condition.
Mr. Payne suggested that condition (g) be changed to read: "Note on the plat:
'The existing drive will only serve lot 1, subject to Highway approval."
Mr. Vest made a motion for the approval, subject to the following amended
conditions:
1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
ago
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation commercial entrance
approval with the left and right turn lane;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer
approval of road plans to be accepted in the state system;
C. County Engineer approval of the bikeway and/or pedestrian way;
d. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 750 gpm;
e. Albemarle County ServiceAuthority approval of water plans;
f. Health Department approval;
g. Note on the plat: "The existing drive will only serve lot 1, subject
to Highway approval;"
h. County Attorney approval of lake maintenance agreement with lots 15,
16, 17, 23, and 24;
i. Grading Permit;
j. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance, if needed;
k. Provide street signs.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
HUNTWOOD TOWNHOUSE, PHASE II, FINAL PLAT
Proposal for a 27 lot division, located on the north side of Barracks Road;
just west of Georgetown Road, Tax Map 60A, Parcel 21 and 13.
Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report.
Tom Sinclair, for the applicant, had no disagreement with the conditions.
There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this application does have fire official approval.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval of the plat, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation commercial entrance
approval;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
C. County Attorney approval of the Homeowners' Agreement including the
maintenance stormwater detention facilities and the twenty (20) foot
easement;
d. County Engineer approval of the road plans and the parking specificiations;
e. Grading Permit;
f. Correct Route 601 to 654 on the vicinity map;
g. Show an easement from Phase II to Phase I.
h. Recreational area, screening and landscaping shall be provided as
approved in the site plan;
i. Compliance with the Runoff Control plans.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Unanimous approval was the vote for the motion.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. WESTVIEW RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD
Request for a name change.
Mrs. Kimsey read the report from the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from discussion and vote on this item.
The move for approval came from Mr. Skove.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest.
The vote for the motion was unanimous and the name of the RPN was changed to
Candlewyck and the streets were changed to Candlewyck Drive, Carriage Lane,
Chippendale Court and Cobblestone Road.
B. EDWARD JOHNSON FINAL PLAT
This item was approved on May 20, 1980.
The condition of the Health Department approval and septic permit needed to be
considered. The septic permit needs to be waived because the Health Department
has approved and accepts the pit privy already on the property. The dwelling
on the property has been using this for many years.
The motion was made by Mr. Gloeckner to accept the Health Department approval
of the pit privy.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Skove.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
C. LIEBIG INTERNATIONAL
The applicant wishes to have approval of a change in placement of the building,
which will be perpendicular, rather than horizontal to Avon Street. This is the
only change; the use is the same.
After looking at the proposed change, and discussing it, Mr. Skove made a motion
for the approval of the proposed change.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO PROTECT PROPOSED RESERVOIR AREA
Mr. Tucker stated that he needed a resolution of intent regarding the emergency
ordinance. For a permanent ordinance, we would need to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to provide moie specificity to the actual elevation of the impoundment area
and any buffer that might be necessary. Once that is done, then the Code will
read basically the way the ordinance is now, but will refer to the Comprehensive
Plan. When we talk about a permanent ordinance, it may in fact not be permanent,
but it will be for at least two years or more. The Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority wanted to give some protection while the geological studies are being
made. After that, the County and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will
make some decision whether or not to start purchasing property.
Mr. Payne stated that the emergency ordinance has one specific description that the
permanent ordinance does not. The permanent ordinance says essentially that you
shall not put any building within any area shown on the Comprehensive Plan as
reasonably specific for public acquisition and that is any public acquisition,
and the ordinance requires a time period of not more than five years. This
ordinance would speak to potentially other areas on the Comprehensive Plan;
Greenbrier Drive for example, or whatever it might be. This amendment to the
Plan that Mr. Tucker is talking about would be sufficiently specific to fall under
the ordinance and there would be a time limit. The ordinance would be permanent
in nature, but there would be a time limit on the application to any specific
piece of property.
Mr. Tucker said that what is needed now is a resolution of intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to provide specific delineation of that area of protection
around the Buck Mountain Creek impoundment.
Mrs. Diehl made the motion for the resolution of intent.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned and ascertained that the intent of the Buck Mountain
reservoir would not be to replace, but to supplement the South Rivanna; also
that feasibility studies of other areas: Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain, the
James River, etc. had been made and that the Buck Mountain area was the most
feasible.
Mrs. Diehl again made the motion for the resolution of intent.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
The vote was 4-0, with Mr. Gloeckner abstaining.
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
�/3