Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 15 80 PC MinutesJuly 15, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, July 15, 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. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; and Mr. David Bowerman. Those members absent were: Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mrs. Idette Kimsey, Planner. The Chairman, Col. Washington, called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS Col. Washington gave a background statement on the item to follow: An article had appeared in the newspaper, regarding the University's intent to burn radio- active waste materials. There was also an editorial. Col. Washington had called Mr. Keeler and asked him to prepare some information on radioactive materials and their proper disposal. The basic thought was if there was not some potential hazard in these materials, why take them to the country to dispose of them. Under the general charter, The Commission has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare - all of the basic law stems from that and is the thesis for it. In those broad terms on land use, it includes what goes on that land, and what goes off that land, in the form of gases, air, or anything. The Commission is not expert in this field, so the staff was asked to enlighten; this could end in a resolution of intent to go to public hearing and bring the facts in the open. Mr. Keeler gave the Commission printed materials and read the resolution the staff had prepared. Mr. Gloeckner said it appeared the University had met the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license and had also qualified through the State Department of Health. He felt that the University was now being asked to qualify on a local level. He asked Mr. Keeler if this was not correct. Mr. Keeler said it was up to the Commission to determine if this activity would have an effect on the Comprehensive Plan, then it could be taken to a public hearing. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there are local requirements, particularly from the fire marshall's office. But there might be a question as to whether the local requirements apply to a state agency. She felt that they probably dovetailed with the other requirements. Mrs. Diehl said she would like to see the local departments considered. She questioned how the Board of Supervisors is proceeding. Both Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. McCann felt that the Board of Supervisors should deal with this matter, rather than the Commission, since the Board was already involved and had passed a temporary ordinance on this matter. Mr. McCann felt the public should be aware of this matter, but added, that after all the talk, the University of Virginia still did what it wanted to do. He felt that the local government would have to rely on the federal and state agencies to control this matter. �3 Mr. Davis stated that he would like to know the dangers involved, and know if this is something that the County would like to have here. Mr. McCann felt there was not much choice in the matter. Col. Washington stated that he did not feel that the County had to have the problem. They might have to have it. It seems to be a question of the cost of shipping, the money involved, because the University used to ship the materials, then they stopped. Mr. Davis felt that no one knew absolutely what is safe and what is not safe. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the Commission really had jurisdiction under the Comprehensive Plan, if the federal and state governments sanction the action. He also questioned if the Commission could ask the University to stop doing what they are doing because of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Vest felt the Commission should address the issue; that some citizen committees might want to look at the facts. Mr. McCann felt that it was difficult to tell a state agency what to do; that regardless of the Comprehensive Plan, the University of Virginia can do what it wants to do. He said the Board of Supervisors is the agency that should deal with this question. Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. McCann. Col. Washington said he felt it was the Commission's concern and this was the reason he had had it put on the agenda. Mr. Payne said that the Commission is entitled by statute to know what any state agency is doing. The County has no control of a state agency, but is entitled to know what is going on within the county. Mr. Davis commented that this sort of thing is not covered by the Comprehensive Plan. From comments of several of the Commissioners, it was agreed that maybe the Comprehensive Plan would have to be changed to encompass this aspect. Mr. McCann made a motion that the Board of Supervisors have a public hearing and consider the burning of radioactive materials. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl felt the motion ought to be amended to express the concern of the Commission. The vote was 3-4, with Col. Washington, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Diehl and Mr.. Davis dissenting. Mrs. Diehl said she was not against the motion, she just felt a more formal statement of concern to the Board of Supervisors was necessary. There was a shortdiscussion of what action the Board of Supervisors had taken thus far on the matter. Mr. Bowerman questioned if the Commission passed the resolution, if the Board of Supervisors could act on the resolution. Mr. Keeler said the Board of Supervisors could attend the public hearing of the Planning Commission, but the Commission can not direct the Board to hold a public hearing. Mr. Gloeckner said the resolution said that the Planning Commission was going to have a public hearing and he felt that this was a waste of time. He still felt that it should be at the Board level. After further discussion on the matter, Mrs. Diehl made a motion to defer the matter. Mr. Timothy Lindstrom entered the meeting. Mr. Davis asked if the Commission had any power to stop this activity until more investigation could be done; he asked if the Commission had jurisdiction of health and safety in Albemarle County to which the University of Virginia is not immune. Mr. Payne said the Commission certainly had power; the county could use police powers, but to what extent. The court could issue an injunction. The Commission could take the position of the Attorney General. The only other way would be if there is some violation of the law. An adjacent property owner could sue for an adjacent nuisance, if he could make a case. The County would not have standing unless there is county property in the area. In terms of asking the University of Virginia to hold up until this matter is settled, you have the power to do that; you have the power to require them to give you information. Mr. Davis asked if the Commission had that power before the University proceeds. Mr. Payne said it depends on how you read the statute. The statute clearly says they shall collaborate and cooperate with such Commission. The question is whether the University says, "we are going to give you the information, but we are going to do it anyway." The Attorney General seems to take the position that that is exactly what they could do. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Commission hold a separate work session and invite the University of Virginia, then make a decision about whether to go to public hearing. He felt the Commission really did not know what it was talking about at this stage. Several of the Commission members favored the idea of a work session. Mr. Davis said before this is all over, he would like to have a public hearing so the Scottsville residents could decide what they want to do, whether they would need to move, or what steps were necessary. Mr. Davis made a motion to pass the resolution made by staff. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said he can support the work session, but cannot support a resolution for a public hearing until after the work session. Col. Washington said that there are three thoughts in the resolve - to have a public hearing, to get more information from the University, and to hold up action until there was time for investigation. He felt if the first portion was changed to a work session, then the rest of the resolution would be adequate. Mrs. Diehl.requested that Mr. Lindstrom comment on the Board of Supervisors actions thus far and their intended actions. Mr. Lindstrom said that the Board had not met since the publicity on the radioactive material, nor have they discussed this, except to produce the letter to the University. The possiblity of a joint public hearing of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors was suggested. Mr. Vest made a motion to defer the issue. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The vote to defer until July 22, 1980 was 5-2 with Messrs. Bowerman & Davis dissenting BUCK MOUNTAIN CREEK RESERVOIR Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and showed maps of the impoundment and buffer areas. The public hearing was opened for comment from the public. Mrs. Cromwell, the chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, made a statement: The staff's wording is the same, but the difference is in the map. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is neither endorsing or taking exception to the staff's buffer area against the buffer area endorsed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer. The purchase of the whole watershed is the ideal, but this may not occur for twenty years. The public needs to know that the two year protection is necessary for a feasibility study. The Buck Creek impoundment is the first site choice, the Piney Creek impoundment is the second site choice. More technical study is needed, notices need to be sent to property owners advising of the tenative plans, also a new map needs to show the area as a deterrent to development in that area. The Rivanna Water and Sewer has been recording with gaging station in that area since 1977 on Buck Mountain Creek, and this will be a part of the study. There are no estimates of costs yet, but the plans will need funding, based on the decision made as to which site will be used. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the 60 foot verticular buffer recommended by Rivanna Water and Sewer. Mrs. Cromwell said this is the best estimate based on engineering knowledge. In research to find out what size buffer areas other localities use, they range all the way from 300 feet to 500 feet, it depends on the area - slopes, soils, etc. This area (Buck Mountain Creek) has slow draining soils and some very steep slopes. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority buffer is as good as the buffer suggested by the Planning Staff. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the staff recommendation was 100 feet horizontal. He questioned the projected flow per day, which he said was shown as 20 million gallons per day. He asked if the present reservoir was not 12 million gallons per day. Mrs. Cromwell replied that the maximum of the present reservoir is 8 million gallons per day, with an increase on treatment of water filer plant to 12 million gallons per day. Mr. Lindstrom said that he had thought according to reports that there was no alternative of equal magnitude to the Rivanna Reservoir. Mrs. Cromwell said that - costs, the condition of the substrata, what you can afford - all can become factors. Col. Washington found on questioning that the height of the dam was to be seventy feet. The Buck Mountain Creek impoundment would be 620 acres and would catch both Buck Mountain Creek and Piney Creek. The South Rivanna Reservoir is about 440 acres. Virginia Honn said that she lived in the area and houses have been built within sight distance. She suggested that the Commission had approved Windrift on the 24th June and all of this is in the buffer zone. She said that there is Windrift I, II, and III. She questioned the 6 lots to be redesigned and the 175 acres of Windrift. Col. Washington stated that there are three lots that are suspect in Windrift. The Commission is still trying to determine the exact area involved and the height of the dam. Mr. William Houchens made a statement to the Commission on his feelings on the Commission and their handling of cases. Also, he referred to their handling of the nuclear waste issue. The Commission resumed its discussion of Buck Mountain Reservoir. Mr. Kenneth Holet questioned what property owners are supposed to do, if they have recently purchased land and are building houses in the proposed impoundment or buffer area. The study could take two years and he asked what the property owners are to do in the meantime. Mrs. Cromwell said these are complex studies and would take time. Mr. Holet said that a substantial portion of his property would be in the buffer area and the impoundment and buffer would split his lot in half. He now has temporary living quarters while he is having a house built. Mrs. Cromwell said that the proposed area should be pointed out to would-be purchasers and should be publicized. Col. Washington stated that at any given point in time, when the general public takes private land, somebody, some individual, or individuals are going to be injured in some fashion. But at some point in time, if this is ever going to be a reservoir, we will have to determine how high this is going to be, how high the water level is going to be, and what land will be affected by it. It still is in doubt and what we are trying to do now is to pin that down. If Mr. Holet becomes an injured party, we would assume he would have recourse. The purpose of determining the exact area, etc. is so that there are not more injured parties in the future. Mr. Holet said that he felt that the Planning Staff recommendation spoke to this and should be followed. This would help to minimize the impact on the land._ Mr. Jim Honn said that he was familiar with Mr. Holet's situation and that two-thirds of Mr. Holet's lot is in the 540 foot contour level. But he said that Mr. Holet still has a place for a homesite, septic system, and well. Mr. Honn felt that it was important in the public interest to let the public know what is happening. Mr. Holet asked what authority would handle the condemnation and purchasing and would it include the buffer zone, as well as the impoundment area; what is the intent of the authority in the amount of land. Col. Washington said he was not an authority on this and was not sure, but he felt if the right of eminent domain were exercised, that a board of some sort would examine each parcel on a case by case basis and in some cases would buy the whole parcel, rather than a part, such as: if four -fifths of the property were condemned,they would take five -fifths, since the residue would have no value. Mr. Payne said that the Rivanna Water & Sewer has to resolve what it wants to take and as long as it is reasonably related to public purpose, it can take any thing it wants; with the question being how much they pay for it. Mr. Payne further stated that in a condemnation suit there are two items of damage - one is the value of the property actually taken and the other is the resulting damage to the residue. Probably in a two acre lot, if you took all but 500 square feet, the 500 square feet would be worthless as a practical matter, so the condemnation court would probably award the whole value of the 500 square feet. Mr. Holet ascertained that no decision had been made yet on the area to be taken, whether the impoundment and buffer zone or somewhere in between. Mrs. Cromwell suggested that the entire area would be ideal, but there are different alternatives. Mr. Holet questioned if the South Rivanna used an outright purchase or a lease. Mr. Keeler said that the city owns the South Rivanna, and a strip around it averaging about 15 feet in width. Col. Washington felt that Buck Mountain, if it comes to pass, should have even more restraints. Mr. McCann suggested that the buffer area should be purchased also, and the people be compensated for their loss. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis said he favored the 60 foot vertical or the 100 foot horizontal, whichever is the greater. Mr. McCann agreed with the staff recommendation. Mr. Payne stated that the real function of the amendment is to restrict the development of the designated area. Concrete evidence has not been presented for 60 vertical feet. He said he was willing to defend anything the engineers say is defensible or reasonable. What the staff is recommending is 490 feet. This gives 480 feet plus 10 feet which is generous flood stage. And then a 100 foot setback in addition. They are saying that you treat this as if it were a reservoir under the existing ordinance. Mr. Payne said he had not seen any documentation supporting anything other than the 100 horizontal feet. Mr. McCann said if the studies are positive, then more restrictive measures are needed. The Rivanna has lasted longer than it was supposed to, but it was not protected as well as it should have been. Mr. McCann made a motion for the adoption of the staff's recommendations in full (see attached copy). Mr. Payne suggested a limit of two years, ending June 18, 1982, be added to the Comprehensive Plan text. Mr. McCann agreed to include this in his motion. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman questioned whether the 480 feet maximum pool level was a realistic figure and if there were danger of this changing; he inquired where the figure had come from. Mr.Payne said that some of the figures from the Rivanna had been used, also he said that you have to have a figure of some kind to work from. The vote for approval of the motion was unanimous. BRIARWOOD SECTION I, FINAL PLAT A motion was made by Mr. Vest for indefinite deferral. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote for deferral was unanimous. JACKSON VILLAGE SITE PLAN AND JACKSON VILLAGE FINAL PLAT Located off Route 631 (Rio Road) on the east side of Route 768 (Pen Park Road). Property described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 17 in the Rivanna District. The site plan is a proposal to locate eight (8) townhouse units on 1.06 acres, with a residue of 3.49 acres. The final plat is a proposed division of eight (8) lots for townhouse units leaving a residue of 3.49 acres. Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report for both of these items together. Mr. John Greene was present to represent the applicant. Mrs. Graves questioned how there could be eight units on 1.06 acres with a septic field, if the ordinance reads 40,000 square feet per unit. Mrs. Kimsey said that each unit has a septic field, the total is zoned 6 units per acre, that is the way to measure the whole area's density. Mrs. Graves said that 40,000 square feet per unit for one utility is written in the ordinance. There was no further public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl said she needed the septic area explained, a large part of the septic area for the eight units is located on other property. She also asked Mr. Payne whether the easement can be located outside of the area on the final plat. Mr. Payne said that if the Commission determines that the reservation and easement area is substantially equivalent to 40,000 square feet, then it can be applied that way. But Mrs. Graves is correct on the ordinance. Technically you have to have 40,000 square feet on each lot. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a situation like this had not come before the Commission before and the Commission did not want to use the easement area. Mr. Payne said he was not aware of this coming up before the Commission before; in the case of RPN's it is different. Mrs. Diehl said that even if the Commission made a determination that the area is substantially the same as would be included in a lot, a large part of that area is still outside the final plat. Mr. Payne said that the plat will have to show the easement; the alternative is a hook-up to public sewer. Mr. Greene said that this cannot be sold until it is hooked up to public sewer; so there will be a temporary easement until public sewer is installed. Mrs. Diehl suggested a condition saying no further development until public sewer is available. Mrs. Kimsey said that the staff feels that the "Note on the plan: Phase I shall hook up to public sewer when available is adequate, and also show on the plat the septic locations and easements. In answer to Mrs. Diehl's questioning, Mr. Payne said that there had been a situation where the natural drainfield had extended off the lot, into the common area; but there has not been a case where there was not 40,000 square feet, to his knowledge. Mr. Gloeckner stated that it would be difficult to get around the 40,000 square feet, because if it is outside the area, it is not platted. Col. Washington said the plat shows 31,000 square feet, instead of the 40,000 square feet. He further stated that he remembered cases where people had requested duplexes on inadequate acreage and the Commission has turned them down. Mrs. Kimsey stated that the staff feels since the property is owned by one owner and with the note on the plat for Phase I connection to public sewer, and because they are rentals, that this will qualify for approval. In answer to Col. Washington's question, Mrs. Kimsey replied that sewer is the 1981 Sewer Authority project; the units cannot be sold without public facilities. Mrs. Diehl said she can not support approval without more rationale on the septic location. Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mrs. Diehl and felt he could not support approval. *4400 RESOLUTION OF INTENT: Amend Comprehensive Plan to Provide a More Definitive Description of the Proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir On June 18, 1980, the Board of Supervisors enacted a 60-day emergency ordinance relating to development in a portion of Buck Mountain Creek watershed. On June 24, 1980, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution_ of intent to amend the Compre- hensive Plan to provide a better description of the proposed impoundment. These actions were in response to requests from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority that protective measures be enacted in the area of the potential impoundment. On November 16, 1979, the Rivanna Water and Sewer. Authority Board of Directors "requested that protection be afforded the impoundment and buffer areas for the next two years while the necessary engineering and geologic studies are accomplished." Comprehensive Plan The proposed impoundment is mentioned in the existing Comprehensive Plan in the last paragraph under Public Water on page 21. Map XII on page 24 generally outlines the impoundment area. Staff recommends the following actions at this time: 1. Amend the current textual reference to provide a description of the area to be protected; 2. Amend Map XII by inclusion of a second Map (XIIA) which would provide an accurate delineation of the impoundment and buffer area. Recommended Textual Amendment of Comprehensive Plan ( Public Water, page 21 ): The Buck Mountain and Piney Creek watersheds have been recognized as potential water supply impoundments. As currently planned, a dam north of Route 667 at the confluence of Buck Mountain and Piney Creeks would impound waters to the 480 foot elevation as mapped by USGS, providing a 624 acre reservoir with a calculated safe yield of 20 MGD. This reservoir is intended to augment existing water supplies. Assuming expansion of the South Rivanna reservoir through the use of flashboards to raise the normal pool level by four feet and assuming continued viability of existing supplies, the Buck Mountain/Piney Creek reservoir would be needed about 2030 to 2040. Though the reservoir would not be realized within the design frame of this plan, long-term planning to insure an adequate water supply is viewed as essential. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has requested that the County protect the proposed impoundment area and a buffer area while detailed feasibility studies are conducted. If these feasibility studies conclude the Buck Mountain/Piney Creek impoundment to be a viable water supply it is recommended that land acquisition be undertaken immediately in order to insure complete control and to eliminate uncertainty of affected property owners. _Map XIIA outlines the proposed impoundment and buffer area. The buffer area consists of all lands upstream of the proposed dam which are between the 480 foot and 540 foot *4-w contours as mapped by USGS. It is recommended that development be curtailed within the area of the proposed impoundment, including the area below the 490 foot contour interval, together with a buffer area of 100_horizontal feet from the 490 foot contour line. It is contemplated that the 490 foot contour interval will be sufficient to account for the impoundment area as well as additional area for foreseeable flooding Additional Staff Comment and Recommendation Proposed Buffer Area - The buffer area as proposed by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would consist of lands within 60 vertical feet of the proposed normal pool elevation. This buffer area of 3,236 acres would vary in horizontal distance from about 100 feet to over 10,000 feet from the normal pool elevation. The buffer would be more extensive on the tributaries, providing area for possible small upstream impoundments which would serve as pretreatment devices. While staff has recommended inclusion of the 60-foot vertical buffer in the Comprehensive Plan, staff does not recommend protection of the entire buffer at this time. Staff reasoning is as follows: 1. Staff opinion is that a determination of an appropriate buffer and feasibility of upstream impoundments should be addressed`through thorough study as a part of the upcoming reservoir feasibility study process; 2. The Buck Mountain watershed is contained wholly within the watershed of the South Rivanna Reservoir and is therefore already subject to current reservoir protective measures. Staff is reluctant to recommend more restrictive measures for a non-existent reservoir than are in force for existing reservoirs; 3. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has requested protection of the area for a period of two years ( This request was made in November, 1979. However, since no consultants have been retained for engineering and geologic studies, staff would recommend the two years run from adoption of the emergency ordinance ). Based on the average rate of development in the South Rivanna Watershed ( 1 du/714 acres/'yr. from October, 1977, to April, 1980 ), about nine dwellings would be constructed in the buffer area in two years. In regard to ordinance protection, staff would recommend that a 100-foot setback measured from the 490 foot elevation ( 10 feet above normal pool to allow for flooding ) in combination with existing regulations would be more consistent with protective measures employed on existing reservoirs. In addition, notice could be sent to all owners of property within the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority -recommended buffer that several options, including future acquisition, are being studied for those lands. While not prohibiting development, this action would serve to discourage development in the buffer area. Mapping the entire buffer in the Comprehensive Plan would serve as an additional deterrent to development. Given the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's request for protection was for a period of two years, staff opinion is that this proposal would provide reasonable protection. While engineering and geologic studies are being conducted, staff would recommend the following studies be undertaken: 1. Environmental Impact Study and Agricultural Impact Study should be conducted to determine the effects of the reservoir on: the environment in the immediate area; the impact on the South Rivanna Reservoir during construction; the amount of agricultural land that could be rendered unusable due to innundation, isolation, and subsequent restrictive ordinance. Staff has already received public concern in regard to agricultural effects. 2. A study of funding and timing of land acquisition and impoundment conftruction should be undertaken inmiediately and should involve the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Charlottesville, and Albeamrle County. Staff opinion is that development of a definitive program at the earliest possible date is desirable from a standpoint of informing affected property owners and capital improvements programming. 3. Disposition of public roads and gas pipeline: Study by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority of these issues is underway. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority should continue to work with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and Charlottesville in this regard. Relocation, abandonment, or other solutions should be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. EM M M Mrs. Diehl made a motion to defer both the site plan and the final plat to August 26th. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The vote of the Commission was unanimous for deferral. In reply to questions from Mr. Greene, Mr. Payne said there are two different questions involved here, there are one set of requirements for site plans and another set of requirements for subdivisions. If you have 40,000 square feet per unit, it does not matter how you distribute, if its all in one. Putting some more land in this big parcel would satisfy one .problem. Whether it would satisfy the other problem is the question; and going strictly by the ordinance, it would not satisfy it. CAMELLIA GARDEN FINAL PLAT Located on the north side of Whitewood Road, north of Greenbrier Drive. Property described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 29B in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Proposed division of thirty (30) single family attached units with an average lot size of 4,037 square feet. Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report. Mr. John Greene was present for the applicant. There was no public comment, and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl questioned if this were the plat that the Highway Department suggested redesigning one entrance. Mr. Bowerman said he remembered it as the hammerhead design versus the cul-de-sac. Mrs. Kimsey read the Highway Department requirements. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Note on the plat: signature panels; b. Owner's signature notarized; C. Grading Permit; d. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; e. County Attorney approval of the homeowner's agreement and maintenance agreement of Stormwater Detention structures; f. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and fire flow of 1000 gpm; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; h. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation commercial entrance approval for both entrances off Whitewood Road; i. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans for Albert Court; j. Waiver of double frontage; k. County Engineer approval of drainage facilities; 1. Sidewalks along the frontage of Whitewood Road and along one side of Albert Court; M. Provide a street sign for Albert Court. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. The vote was 6-1 with Mrs. Diehl dissenting. R�J LIDDELL/WALTON FINAL PLAT Located northeast side of Route 712 east of Route 713. Property described as Tax Map 122, Parcel 12, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Proposed division of one 3.0 acre lot leaving 24.45 acres residue. The staff report was given by Mrs. Kimsey. The applicant, Mr. Liddell, stated that he was not just buying the two acres, but is buying all of the 26.45 acres. In order to get a loan, he had. to have clear title to the two acres, and a note for the balance will be held. by the owner. The owner, Mrs. Walton, wanted to have frontage and access to her land, in case Mr. Liddell forfeited on the loan. This is the reason for the peculiarly shaped lot. Mr. Payne said he thought he could clarify the situation. He stated he is sure that what is happening is that Mr. Liddell is going to build a house on the two acres and the lender for the construction financing is going to require a deed of trust with no second on the land with the house. Mr. Liddell is buying the whole 26+ acres. Mrs. Walton puts a deed of trust on 24+ acres, and the bank puts a first lien deed of trust on the two acres. Then he pays them separately. Col. Washington ascertained that if all of this comes to pass, Mr. Liddell will eventually own up to State Route 712. Mr. Payne suggested that the applicant could alleviate the odd shaped lot by taking the frontage and giving the owner an easement. Mr. Liddell said that the owner might not approve the lot that way, because she wanted some of the frontage in her name, in case he defaulted on the :Loan. She wanted to be sure she had frontage. She lives in New York and is hard to contact. Mr. Liddell further stated that he had papers with him showing that he was purchasing the whole 26.45 acres. There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Davis agreed that under the circumstances, it was permissible. Mr. McCann moved for the approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; b. Waiver of Section 18-29; C. Correct Scottsville spelling on the plat; d. Show on the plat easement for septic and well system, if outside of lot 7A. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was given for the approval. FLORDON, LOTS 7A, 7B, FINAL PLAT Located on the west side of Tanglewood Road cul-de-sac in Flordon. Property described as Tax Map 59A, Parcel 01-C7 in Samuel Miller District. A proposed division of two lots, 1.50 acres and 3.44 acres. Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report. Mr. John Greene was present. There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Col. Washington questioned if anyone knew the background or the covenants involved. Mr. Bowerman questioned if Section 15.142 of the Code applied - that all people in the subdivision have to approve a change. Mr. Payne said this was not necessarily true, that this can also be done by the Board of Supervisors and in this case probably would be. Mr. Bowerman queried whether the one and one-half acre lot was buildable. Mr. Payne said he believed it was R-1. Mrs. Diehl established the fact that the lot was relatively flat. Mr. Vest made a motion for the approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with Section 15.1-482 of the Virginia Code for vacating present lot division in the subdivision; b. Health Department approval; C. Note on the plat: That lot 7B will use public water; d. Compliance with the homeowners' association agreement. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. SAMPSON FINAL PLAT Located on the north side of Three Chopt Road, north of Route 250 West of Boyd Tavern. Property described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 43, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposed as a division of two lots, 2.00 acres and 3.12 acres. The staff report was given by Mrs. Kimsey. r+' Mr. Payne made the comment that on condition b, the staff is probably right, that it probably is that peculiarly shaped elongation. But the dimensions are of such magnitude that it may indeed be usable for ordinary purposes. Mr. David Wood stated that he was representing three elderly sisters, two of the sisters are trying to give a lot to one sister for building. There was no public comment, and the public discussion was closed. Mr. Gloeckner said an additional condition was needed to show the metes and bounds on the red line portion. Mr. Bowerman questioned the location of the existing entrance. Mr. Wood said that he assumed it was in front of the house. Mr. Bowerman objected to the two driveways. Mr. Wood said that this is an almost abandoned section of Three Chopt Road. Mr. McCann made a motion for the approval of the plat with the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Waiver of Section 18-29; C. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; d. For Parcel B, show septic system location and if the septic system is located outside of parcel B, then show an easement; e. Show metes and bounds on red line portion. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. NETTIE MARIE JONES FINAL PLAT Located on the west side of Route 601, southeast of Woodson's Store. Property described as Tax Map 43, Parcel 18E (part of) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. A proposed division of one lot with twenty (20) acres leaving a residue of eighty-two (82) acres. The staff report was given by Mrs. Kimsey. Mr. Roger Ray questioned how to comply with condition c, vacating of the present lot divisions on the property. Mr. Payne said that his attorney would be able to help him. He said that the procedure on the statute varied according to the case. There was no public comment and the public discussion was closed. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement. C. Compliance with Section 15.1-482 of the Virginia Code for vacating of present lot divisions on the property. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The vote for approval of the plat was unanimous. RIVERS END PRELIMINARY PLAT Located on the east side of Route 676, north of the intersection with Route 743, adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir. Property described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 5D in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. A proposed division of eight (8) lots with an average size of 2.4 acres. Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report. Mr. Douglas Liddell, representing the applicant, Shelter Associates, and Mr. Gordon were present. Mr. Liddell said this is an eight lot subdivision with a single home to each two to three acre lot proposed. They will be solar heat homes, but will not have the black panels on the roof. The public discussion was closed when there was no public comment. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Swane is using the land and a well, with an easement shown and that he has license to use the land. Mr. Liddell said that part of the land is under a sales contract and is not available for purchase by Mr. Swane, but the easement for the well will be respected. Mrs. Diehl asked about the note on the plat, the word bluff. Mr. Liddell said that the name of the road had the word bluff in it. Mr. Lindstrom said that there should be a septic field and an alternate. He questioned if there was any need to show the well easement on the plat. Mr. Ray said it is shown on the plat. The motion for approval was made by Mr. McCann, 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 Planning Commission review of the final plat; b. Grading Permit; C. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road, including street sign; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation commercial entrance and sight distance approval; e. Fire official approval of a dry hydrant easement location. There was a discussion of the dry hydrant and the easement. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. ' -n GREENE GARDENS SITE PLAN Located on the east side of Route 29 North, north of Albemarle Square. Property described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 104-B in Charlottesville Magisterial District. Proposed to locate a nursery and garden center. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself and left the room. The staff report was given by Mrs. Kimsey. The applicant, Mr. Richard Walden, was present and stated that they would be able to put in the drain lines themselves. Public sewer would be very expensive. Col. Washington ascertained that the acreage was 6.37 total. Mrs. Diehl questioned the slope and found that the USGS map showed that the area was not in the watershed. The. applicant further stated that part of the area will be used for a demonstration grounds for landscaping and it will be mulched and planted. It will be landscaped on the natural slope, the steep slope will be planted. It will not only be a good demonstration for people who have like problems, but it will decrease erosion on the applicant's property also. Mr. McCann felt there was nothing wrong with the site plan, and he agreed with the applicant on the sewerage hookup. Mrs. Diehl asked about the amount of water that would be used that would require treatment. The applicant stated that most of the watering of the shrubs and plants stays in there, they are mulched. The only water that will require treatment will be the bathrooms for about five employees. The applicant further stated that just the public water would cost a great deal. It would be very costly to add the public sewer. For one acre in Ruckersville, they pay $380.00 water bill; they are also limited in water usage. He said they themselves try to limit their water usage. Mr. McCann made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit will be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation commercial entrance approval; b. Grading Permit; C. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; d. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement of Stormwater Detention structures; e. County Engineer approval of parking specifications; f. Fire Official approval of fire flow of 1000 gpm; g. Sign permit from the Zoning Department; h. Health Department approval of septic system; i. Service Authority approval of back flow installation and water line construction; j. Note site plan amendment of the vacant buildings without Planning Commission review; k. Note on plat: the adjacent parcel numbers. IR The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest. There was a brief discussion of the drain pipes and the drain field. Mr. McCann said that the drain pipes can run with the contour and will work at a 25% slope. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Water Authority had different rates for different types of usage, or high usage. Mr. McCann said he thought the water rate was based on how much you used, the sewerage rate was based on how many gallons go through the meter. Mr. Bowerman felt there should be a consideration for the type of usage. Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support the site plan approval in this fashion. She said that there are five buildings, some existing and some proposed; a separate drainfield is needed for each building, and with the slopes and the fact that it is in an urban area; she could not support the motion. Mr. McCann said that the drainfield is already there for the buildings. Mrs. Diehl said if the drainfields are there, parking lots are proposed to cover them. The vote was 4 - 2, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Bowerman dissenting. Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room. CALEB STOWE ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL BUILDING SITE PLAN Located on the northeast of the intersection of Route 29 North and Route 631, adjacent to Pizza Hut. Property described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 123G in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. A request to locate a 8,000 square foot retail building. Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report. The applicant stated that the approval of the underground tank listed in the conditions is not applicable, there is no underground tank. The plans were changed. There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this is one lot down Rio Road from the intersection and she questioned if this was the area where the Commission had discussed restricting entrances; and this should apply to this lot and the adjacent lot also. Mr. Payne said this is the same. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval with the following conditions: 1. No building permit will be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Grading Permit; b. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, if needed; C. Fire Official approval of fire flow of 1250 gpm and hydrant .location; d. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement of Stormwater Detention structures, if needed; e. Note on the plan: pavement specifications as 6 inch of stone; f. Staff approval of landscape plan. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Diehl made motion to reconsider, after further discussion. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval with the above conditions, but adding another condition: g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of public water and sewer plans. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous approval. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. rt W. Tucker, Jr., Secrl�t