Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 22 80 PC MinutesThe Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, July 22 1980, 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Skove; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; and Mr. David Bowerman. Mr. Charles Vest was absent. Other officials present were: Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; Mr. Byron Coburn, Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, Assistant Resident Engineer; and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio. The Chairman, Col. Washington, called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. DEFERRED ITEM: BERTA JONES FINAL PLAT This item was deferred from the June 17, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission asked that the following material be provided by the applicant: 1. Health Department approval of the soil scientist's report; 2. Information be provided from the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation on what improvements will be required; 3. That the applicant consider serving all lots on interior roads with a maximum of two entrances; 4. That the County Engineer determine the technical feasibility of the interior roads, given the lot layout and the topography. Miss Caperton told the Commission that the above requests had been complied with. Health Department approval had been received; the Highway Department had approved the entrance locations and improvements; two entrances had been shown with all but one lot entering on the same road; and the County Engineer stated that the roads, as shown, appeared feasible. - Mr. David Wood, said he hoped to use public water,but liked option of individual wells. Admiral Mott, an adjacent owner, at 9 Dogwood Lane, said his property was opposite the proposed site. Adm. Mott said that the neighbors oppose the development of this property. He felt that the development of this property would create traffic problems on Garth Road. He further stated that there is no water on the property and he asked who would pay to get it there. He felt there was no real planning involved in this plat, with no preliminary plat having been submitted. Mr. Peters cited section 15.1-456 of the Virginia Code. He said this relates to zoning, the purpose of the Commission and those communities who have a Comprehensive Plan. He read the section of the code cited to the Commission. Mr. Peters further stated that the Commission, after reading the Comprehensive Plan, must evaluate road plans to see if they are in keeping with roads shown in the Plan. He said this road is suspect. Mr. Peters said he had written a letter to Mr. Tucker, the Director of Planning, asking him to go to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to have them make a study of the impact of �n _ Mr. Watterson was interested in purchasing the lot to provide through lot 20. u the areas in Flordon, access and Mr. Peters stated concerns about opening p Farmington and connecting this area to Route 250 West. s "Twenty - Mr. Cleland E. Leaman said that he five hasand beenhalf residentcofsAlbemarle County one Curves" from the Berta Jones land and Charlottesville area for five years and daughtereCwhose land asts to this vacoassnGarthe said that Mrs. Haffner, Mrs. Berta Jones' Road may want to put up 50 or 100 houses. This is a dangerous road with cars going 75 to 80 miles per hour. If more cars are added, this also adds more danger. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Peters had pointed out Section 15.1 456a subdivision of the Coe, and this deals with exactly what the Commission is doing, acting proposal. On the questions of the roads, Mr• wood tted there areWatnos pans for connecting roads to adjacent properties. Any dealings er concerning the sale of a lot have been terminated. There was no further public comment, and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl said she would like more information from the soil scientist; she questioned if the lots were suitable as drawn. Mr. Wood said there were fifty lots on the original plat and this number had been cut to forty-three to attain adequate septic facilities as recommended by the soil scientist. Mrs. Diehl asked if six of those lots will require the pumping of sewage. Mr. Greene said that depending on where the houses are located, pumping , may be necessary. Mr. Leaman questioned whether there are two entrances off of Garth Road. Miss Caperton stated that the main entrance is for 42 of the 43 lots and this is a little to the west of the existing Berta Jones entrance. So there would be one primary and one secondary entrance. d have to waive double frontage onto the existing Mr. Davis asked if lot 35 or 36 woul private road for another entrance. Mr. Payne said it could require a waiver, but that is another issue. The ordinance requires an entrance off of a cul-de-sac. Col. Washington ascertained that parcel,"whichrbeaongsthe to someonehand easeerner of the plat was a part of a recorded Mrs. Diehl requested that Miss Caperton read the Commission's requests at the time of deferral, which she did and then Miss Caperton commented that all of these things had been done. Mr. Skove commented that he would rather see this served by the Rivanna Water and _ _ . .1 _ __„ - uo n i a- Gtated that he was puzzled to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, jurisdictional area of the Water and Sewer Authority. Caperton cited the This area is the jurisdictional area, but this does not necessarily mean that it outside of in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Skove ascertained that the Board of Supervisors has to designate the area to be served by the Water and Sewer Authority. He also questioned Mr, pa the roads. yne on Mr. Payne said he felt this statute only applied when the road is dedicated, not when it was a private road, and he read a section from the statute. Mrs. Diehl stated that this is in the watershed, but outside the urban area. Mr. Davis questioned why the other entrance was necessary; why not incorporate into the other lots and minimize the entrances. Mr. McCann felt this was not bad, to have 43 lots and only two entrances. Mrs. Diehl felt the one entrance was at the bottom of a steep hill in either direction and would have the hazards of extra speed. Mr. McCann felt the sight distance was better for that particular entrance. Mr. Bowerman was concerned about the lack of public water and felt he could not support approval without public water. However, he was not willing to recommend to the Water and Sewer Authority that they extend their jurisdictional area. Col. Washington commented that the public water is less than five feet away, on Ivy Creek, and this is along the edge of the property. He asked if this were approved as recommended by staff, would it automatically be considered by the Service Authority. Mr. Payne said this can be approved without public water, but approving it does not automatically mean that the public water will be there. Mr. Lindstrom commented that this will be considered by the Board of Supervisors in August. Mr. Payne said that the plans that now exist are what has to be used, until they are changed. Regardless of the Comprehensive Plan, the Service Authority can not serve any area if it is out of its project area. Mr. Skove asked if a note on the plat about using public water would take care of this item. Mrs. Diehl said she was reluctant to approve without public water. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions, plus a note on the plat about using public water: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances, including left turn lane for the commercial entrance; b. Note: "No buildings to be located on slopes 25%,to County Engineer review of building sites priorter to thenissuancebof a building permit;,, c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; e. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road plans (approval shall include the provision of street signs); 2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements; f. Compliance with the Runoff hydrant locations ControlOrdinance; fire flow of 750 gpm; g. Fire Official approval of by 2. Waiver of double frontage granted for Lots 2 and 39 through 42. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this item only goes to the Board of Supervisors if it is appealed. motion, but he could support it either way, Mr. McCann said that he supports the with or without public water. Mrs. Diehl questioned the need for a waiver of double frontage of lots 35 and 36. Mr. Payne said that technically there they could be served off of the °d shouaddbenahislveropiniont.theylcagnnottioif The arivate road shall have access only to that ordinance says any lot served by p private road. n of to cally Mr. Davis inquired about an innotelon thetplathe afor rlot 35},ebut lnot elot 136. correct. He found there is e -14W) Mrs. Diehl said "all lots except lot 1 shall have access" is the note on the tnce ,befor plat. She stated that she was gladto hivemth sooil7slotshadtorbeowithdrawn, the Planning Commission considered reflecting approximately 20% of the original lots. Mr. Skove ascertained it does not have to be t is ththatrtheoad loansabove 35 will have to be served by a state maintain ed road. Col. Washington said he supports the motion; the lot in the corner has 600 foot road frontage, with the other 42 on a single road. The one lot on a private entrance, he felt, would have less earth disturbing activity. Mr. Bowerman asked, for his own information, this haveaccessnRoutet60behind this 1. area were developed in the future Miss Caperton replied that it would not, Bromley Road is a private road; it may be Brook Road. The vote was unanimous for approval. Mr. Peters stated that an appeal would be filed. SP-80-38 JOSEPH E. BUTE Located off the south side of Hollymead Drive, at the eastern property line of the 1 ead Inn; a request to amend SP-156 and SP-77-70 "Hollymead Planned Community': Hol ym Staff report was given by Miss Caperton. r, , f - The applicant stated that very little square footage change was made, but this would add additional income. They are not disturbing what is already there. Mr. Bill Ely of 1605 Maiden Lane, stated that the residents were not Opposed to the inn being there; the objection is the enlargement l area. The building lots are the only buffer between the commercialtland eand ethe aresidential land. Six units for the inn are not much, however, next year the applicant might be back for twelve more units. The residents are opposed to the enlargement of the commercial area causing loss of the buffer area. There was no further public comment, and the public discussion was closed. Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that there is no setback requirement because it is a PUD. There is a two foot setback shown from the proposed new property line. Miss Caperton stated that lot 2 is 18,971 square feet and lot 3 is 21,332 square feet. Mrs. Diehl asked if the remaining portions of the lots were large enough to be usable. Miss Caperton said that 3,000 square feet was taken off of both lots, so it would be approximately 1500 square feet off of each lot. Mr. Gloeckner said that the original purchasers were led to believe that the commercial area would remain unchanged. Now the lots are decreasing before the development is finished. There was a brief discussion on the merits of turning the addition to take less of the lot area. Miss Caperton said the architect had considered this, but it is architecturally best in the design shown. They could be reversed, but the architect felt they blended in more evenly with the present homes this way. Mr. Gloeckner found that as drawn, the six units would face Hollymead Drive. Mr. Bowerman found that to require the current property owners to agree to the addition would be in the nature of a rezoning. He then stated that the Commission is the only recourse the residents have. Mr. Gloeckner said that at the subdivision level, the next step will require the consent of the owners. Mr. Payne said this is what the Attorney General seems to be saying. Any lot shown on the plat must consent. Any amendment to a recorded plat constitutes a vacation. This does not require consent because this itself does not change the property lines. The Commission is changing a section of the property from one type of zoning to another type of zoning, but the Commission can not change property lines. If the Commission were to amend the special permit to rezone this and then the applicant could not accomplish what he intended to do, then that sliver of land would still be business property. Mrs. Diehl found this did not have to be recorded. Mr. Payne explained that a PUD plan is like a miniature zoning map; what the Commission is doing is amending that map. Zoning lines do not necessarily follow Property lines. �Nw Mr. Bowerman found the Planning Commission can not prohibit a property owner from applying p y pp ying for a rezoning; the Commission can not anticipate what a later legislative act will be. Mr. McCann said he agreed with Mr. Gloeckner, that the people in the subdivision were led to believe the inn would remain unchanged, and bought their homes with this idea. The applicant stated that he could not change the building without chanainq the property lines. He said he was planning to put his house on the front. He said there is no way any zoning board would approve extending the building any further than it already is. The addition can be turned in a different direction. Also, the two lots both qualify as residential lots still. Mr. Gloeckner said he could appreciate the applicant's concern, but the people who have ibought in the area have also expressed their concern. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for denial of the request because of these property owners and their buying in good faith as to the surrounding area. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for denial. This will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 20th. zMA-80-13 HEDGEROW CORPORATION - "THIRTEEN SOUTH" RPN Property described as parcels 91A and 91B (portions thereof) on Tax Map 58; located on the south side of Route 250 West adjacent to the Greencroft Club. Requested zoning is RPN/A-1; current zoning is A-1 Agriculture. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Mr. Douglas of E.I. Design Associates,for the applicant, was present. Mr. Douglas showed the Commission an exhibit of pictures showing the area and the fact that they intended to preserve the view and the open space would be used for agriculture. They intend to build no more units than those allowed by right. Mrs. Huckle asked about the plans for the septic system for the 4 acre :Lots, how this works out with two septic fields. Mr. Douglas replied that there is a designated area of open space and open space in the village green, as well as other open space, which will be the primary back-up area. There will be two units on one system. If the back-up area is used it would be piped. Mrs. Graves inquired how this works in with the 40,000 square feet per lot. She said she had seen a central septic field with the smaller lots. If the area. going to Route 250 is higher, then it would have to be pumped to get to the septic field. The Runoff Control Ordinance says that this can not be pumped uphill. Mr. Douglas replied that this will follow the contours of the land and will not be pumped uphill. He said the Health Department requirement is 2,879 square feet for every three bedroom home; 5,000 square feet if the soils are not suitable. The RPN has 10,000 square feet set aside, there is open space that would probably do for 26 units and then there is back-up space. Mrs. Graves was still concerned with the application of the county ordinance. `%W Mr. Warren Adrews questioned how this affects the other 180 acres. _�2 4�4 'Y Mr. Douglas replied that there would be no further development, this has been taken care of by deed. The residue goes down to the stream and the 51 acres will be three lots. All of this land is owned by one person, who feels he has a duty to see that it is developed properly with open space. Mr. Andrews asked if something happened to the present owner, could this development be carried through the whole area. Mr. Douglas replied that the present owner had taken steps in the development so that this could not happen. It certainly could not happen through this plan. Mr. McCann said it would have to come back to the Commission to be developed further. Mr. Douglas said he would like to add an item about the runoff control, he had calculated the area of impervious surface and it was 4.72% of the total area. This is less than the 5% in the ordinance which requires a permit. There was no further comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Col. Washington ascertained that the lot size had the flexibility of the RPN. Mr. Payne stated the zoning ordinance has no minimum lot size in the RPN, the subdivision ordinance will apply to it and the subdivision ordinance requires 40,000 square feet, but will allow substitutions of other techniques, if this serves the objective. He said he felt this was what the staff is saying. Mr. Payne cited for Mr. Lindstrom the fact there are two clauses in the subdivision ordinance calling for waiver or substitution of technique. Mr. Gloeckner said there was not enough room on some of the lots for the primary septic field. Mr. Lindstrom stated that this was a central drainfield, rather than a central sewage treatment; the lines will run to the drainfield. Mr. Gloeckner said that two acres of open space could serve the lots, including the back-up area. He said all but two lots are large enough to have their own septic fields. Col.Washington stated that there is an essential difference in the area for the drainfield and the potential saturation of the common area. These are two different things. Mrs. Diehl said she had a question on the designation of the open space for the back-up area. She questioned the lot lines and the dotted lines. Miss Caperton said the one line is the subdivision line, the dotted line is the proposed RPN line. Mr. Gloeckner said the residue has access in three places to the RPN. Mr. Payne said the residue will have to participate in the road maintenance. There was a brief discussion of the fact that part of the residue came up to the creek and involved the limited flood plain area. Col. Washington queried whether the properties were for sale or for rent. Mr. Douglas replied that the owner will sell the larger lots, there are thirteen units intended for retired couples and may be rented temporarily, but the ultimate goal is to sell these. Mr. Lindstrom ascertained there are three acres in the flood plain. Miss Caperton showed the slope analysis. Mr. Skove said this anticipates public water, he questioned if this is in the Service Authority servicing area. He also asked Mr. Payne if the subdivision ordinance requires a larger area for a lot served by water and having no public sewer. He asked if the Commission approves the RPN, are they also approving the subdivision plan. Mr. Payne replied that the RPN section of the Zoning Ordinance says that. after it is approved it has to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The reason it does require this is because the RPN plan is quite frequently not specific enough to be able to tell if it meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Mr. Gloeckner inquired if it would be appropriate to have the soil scientist do his testing at this point. The land seems to be used well and efficiently, however, there might be a question on six or seven lots. This would be unfair to the applicant to go too far in his plans before discovering that he might lose these lots. Mr. Douglas said they have a preliminary soil scientist's report (he did not have it with him). He told the Commission that test holes had been made, and he showed the area on the plan. He said the soil scientist had said there were basically good soils for septic systems, there is some remnant of the alluvia floodpla:in. The open space chosen for backup may not be able to use all of the space chosen, and may need to change some of the lot lines in the subdivision plans. Mrs. Diehl suggested that some of the reserved space would have to be used, and because of the slope, this will have to be pumped to the central area. She also questioned if the soil scientist's report should show that the whole 2 acres is used for septic fields, rather than just the holes. Mr. Douglas said the Health Department will have to approve area for each of the lots. Col. Washington felt the Health Department requirements were not as strict as the county requirements and this is part of the reason for there being too many areas of saturation. If 10,000 square feet is required for a drainfield, and several drainfields are put side by side, an area of saturation can be reached. He felt that thirteen drainfields could not go side by side; the specific location of the drainfields should be noted in the Health Department approval. Mr. Douglas stated that before the subdivision plans are submitted, the drainfields will be located. Mr. Skove felt this should be made a condition. Mrs. Diehl said she also liked the plan as an efficient use of space, but she is concerned about the septic disposal. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 26 dwelling units. Location and acreages of land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of lots approved; 2. No grading shall occur until final subdivision approval; 3. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinance prior to final subdivision approval; �4 9 09 4. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the use of the open space for septic fields, maintenance roads, open space, pathways, runoff control and appurtenant structures prior to final subdivision approval; 5. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat; 6. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and a fire flow of 750 gpm prior to final subdivision approval; 7. All units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision approval; 8. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; 9. County Engineer approval of road plans; 10. Landscaping shall be provided as shown on the preliminary plan; 11. Areas and types of sewage disposal are to be indicated in the final plat before Planning Commission review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skove. Mr. Douglas stated that the units in question are those 13 units, not units with greater than an acre. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there should be no septic field on areas of 25% or greater slopes. The vote was unanimous for approval. Col. Washington felt it might be reasonable to consider a central drainfield for the thirteen units. THIRTEEN SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT Located on portions of parcels 91A and 91B on Tax Map 58, Samuel Miller District; on the south side of Route 250 West near the Greencroft Club. A proposal to divide four parcels with an average size of 7.70 acres. (range: 4.79 acres to 8.85 acres). Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Miss Caperton stated that the house on lot 3 could not be replaced within the floodplain, but there is plenty of other space in which to rebuild it, if necessary. Mrs. Diehl established that only lot 3 had an existing house. Mr. McCann found that this house used well water. The applicant's representative stated that the reason this is submitted as a subdivision, rather than an RPN, is that the owner wanted to protect the floodplain area and thought it would be better to have this owned by individuals and used for agriculture. This will be served by the same road as the RPN. Col. Washington established that the residue was the area at the bottom of the plat, plus 52 acres. The applicant further stated that the property will be restricted with no further subdivision permitted and this will be in the deed. .,;� -�S-K-2 There was no further public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl found on questioning that the drain tile lines are already in and do not have to be noted on the plat. Mr. Payne felt that the Commission could be assured that the development would probably be done the way the developer intended, because of the floodplain. He said the development would be impractical, if not impossible, to be done another way. Covenants can be broken, but it is hard to do much about a floodplain. Mr. Skove made a :notion for the approval, 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 private road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of the road; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement, for all lots using the road (including the RPN); c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; d. Compliance with Soil Erosion and. Runoff Control Ordinance; e. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 500 gpm; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. He said it is unusual to require public water for such large lots. Mr. Davis felt that it would seem to be restrictive for agriculture uses -to have public water. Mrs. Diehl stated that it seemed sensible to her. The vote for approval was unanimous. JOHN AND LOIS WOLF FINAL PLAT Located off of the end of Route 791, south of I-64, east of Midway; portion of parcel 36C on Tax Map 72, Samuel Miller District. Proposal to divide the 5.0 acre parcel leaving 95 acres residue. The staff report was given by Miss Caperton. Mr. Wolf, the applicant, stated that this is not a subdivision in the common sense of the word. He lives in a farmhouse in the center of the property and wants to build a house on the back of the property. In order to get a mortgage, he is cutting off five acres from the rest of the land for the mortgage. However, he owns the whole road that runs to the present house. The only reason this is before the Commission is to separate the parcel and also to have access. If the larger house is ever sold, there will be a maintenance agreement. Now the applicant is asking for a waiver on the maintenance agreement and also on the approval of the County Engineer. When questioned by Col. Washington, the applicant stated there are 33 units now on that road but on an entirely separate section. The 73 vehicle trips per day shown is low, there are a lotmore than that, but the applicant does not feel he is increasing the vehicle trips. �5I 09 Col. Washington asked the applicant about the road that goes past the present residence. The applicant replied that the road goes past the present residence and is shown on the plat. The road runs past the present house and back to the new house. He said he plans to curve the road away from the present house to the new house. There was no further public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Davis said the applicant does not want to be subject to the conditions for road maintenance and County Engineer approval. Col. Washington said he did not know of any reason for this not to be subject to the conditions. He said his concern is for the road that goes from Midway into the area. The state says this is nontolerable and he agrees with this statement. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote was 6-1, with Col. Washington dissenting. Col. Washington said he was dissenting because of the road being nontolerable. WILLOUGHBY, SECTION THREE, FINAL PLAT Located west of Harris Road in Willoughby, southeast of Fifth Street Extended; portions of parcels 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B on Tax Map 76M(2), Scottsville District. space. Proposal to divide 6.5759 acres into 61 lots with 3.449 acres in open Lots 49-51 are proposed as single family detached. The staff report was given by Miss Caperton. She noted that the applicant had requested a waiver of the bonding requirement on Loma Lane. Mr. Wade Tremblay, representing the Willoughby Corporation, stated that the bond for soil erosion had been extended and they had complied with the soil erosion requirements. He further stated that they had requested a waiver on the bonding requirement on Loma Lane because they are not financially able to bond all of the roads and improvements at this time. There was no further public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Davis said he had a problem with the waiver, when the soil erosion was not properly implemented. Miss Caperton said the waiver had nothing to do with the soil erosion since the bond required is a construction bond for the roads and other improvements. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Street signs shall be provided; b. Note the pathway on the PUD plan and pathway shall be provided as shown; C. Compliance with the approved soil erosion plan and renewal of grading permit; 2. Waiver of double frontage required for Lots 1 and 2; 3. Note on the plat: "No building permit will be issued on Loma Lane until the proper bond is posted and executed." The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. The vote was unanimous for approval. BOYD TAVERN SITE PLAN Located on the southwest side of Route 616, with Route 794, Parcel 25B(1) on Tax Map 94, the restaurant on the 3+ acre parcel. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. south of Route 250East and the intersection Rivanna District. A proposal to locate The applicant, Mr. Robert Boyle, showed pictures of the area. He felt the walks were not necessary but has noted them on the plan. The requested screening interferes with visibility at the entrance. He has lowered the parking lot and the bank conceals the car lights from the homes across the street. Boxwoods are there and are kept trimmed. The sight distance exceeds 450 feet. The instructions from the Board of Supervisors on the special permit were to restore the building as it was, so there are no provisions for the handicapped, as this would not fit into the old style of the building. The building has been there about 200 years. The Highway Department is requiring a 30 foot entrance and this will necessitate cutting down the old tree, which is the biggest tree on the site. A deceleration lane would create a dangerous situation because of higher speeds and coming closer to the walkway. Mr. Boyle felt that dropping the parking lot accomplished what it is necessary to do in the way of screening. Also, he did not want to provide a dumpster since garbage cans are in a shed in the back. Mr. Boyle showed a picture of the proposed sign, which is to be wooden and with carved letters. Col. Washington asked if the Highway Department had any latitude on the 30 foot turn lane and commercial entrance. Mr. Coburn stated that these are the standards prescribed and he can not waive them himself. This has to be done higher up in the Department. The Department feels this is a standard for safety. Mr. Coburn said he would like to know the Planning Commission's thoughts on this. He did state that further screening would eventually reduce sight distance. Mr. Boyle inquired if the Highway Department could require this on land other than their right-of-way. Mr. Coburn said that the applicant has a right of appeal on commercial property to the District Highway Engineer. Any commercial entrance should be 30 feet to allow a factor of safety for turning vehicles. Mr. Gloeckner felt that because of the historic nature of the site and because there is not much traffic, that this could be accommodated by increasing the radius on the a, / south side from 15 feet to 30 feet. He said a deceleration lane would put czars in `� the front porch. �S; Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. Gloeckner. He said he did not think it necessary to construct a commercial entrance for a small amount of traffic, but he felt because it is required for commercial use and is a profit making business and because the Commission requires it of others, it should be required of all. Mr. Gloeckner said he felt if the Commission agreed, the Highway Department could be asked to reconsider. Mr. McCann said he would agree, if this consideration would be shown for all. Mr. Boyle said the Board of Supervisors required that the building be restored exactly and this is what has created the problem. There was no further public comment, and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there was adequate sight distance for another entrance in another area, and then limit this entrance. Mr. Boyle replied there is an old road, but if it were used, there is a hill and it would be dangerous. Mr. Coburn suggested another area for the entrance. Mr. McCann felt the applicant should be able to landscape to his own taste, and he was willing to waive the landscaping. Mr. Gloeckner stated that from his view of the photographs, he did not consider landscaping necessary. Mr. McCann made a motion for approval, with the following conditions: 1. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance, showing specifications on the plan; b. Sign permit to be obtained in substantial accordance with the sign approved by the Planning Commission; C. Compliance with conditions of SP-77-76. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Gloeckner said that part of condition (a) needed to be deleted: that portion requiring the deceleration lane and that the requirement that the commercial entrance should be only 30 feet wide at the property should be added. Mr. McCann said that condition (a) should be deleted. The vote on the motion was 3-3. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: approval of the a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation app commercial entrance, without the deceleration lane, with the entrance to be 30 feet wide at the property line with proper radii and drainage structures; b. Sign permit to be obtained in substantial accordance with the sign approved by the Planning Commission; C. Compliance with conditions of SP-77-76. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davis. Mr. Payne ascertained that the motion was essentially admonishing the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to permit condition (a), or to require something else in accordance with Highway Department standards. But at any rate, the applicant will not be required to return to the Planning Commission for approval. The motion carried 4-3, with Mr. McCann, Mrs. Diehl, and Mr. Bowerman dissenting BIRNAM WOOD, SECTION TWO, FINAL PLAT Located on the south side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), north of the intersection with Route 657 (Lambs. Road), parcels 18A and 20 on Tax Map 61, Charlottesville District. A proposal to divide 84 of the 114 approved townhouse units. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself and left the room. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Mr. Tom Lincoln stated, for the applicant, that the fire flow was not up to 1000 gallons per minute, but should be by the beginning of next year. There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion Mrs. Diehl said she could understand not wanting to hold up the signing of the plat, but could the Commission add a condition to hold up the certificate of occupancy until the fire flow is sufficient. Miss Caperton explained that the condition was put on at the request of the Fire Marshall on applicable plats to put the applicant on notice of what is required. The certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the fire regulations are met. Mr. Payne said it is only a question of supply, the lines that are installed will be the correct size. Mrs. Diehl said the builder has a responsiblity not to allow people to move in until there is adequate fire flow. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; d. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements including the maintenance of recreational areas, pathways, roads, open space, parking areas, stormwater drainage and appurtentant structures; e. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations; f. Vacation of property line between parcels 18A and 20; g. Landscaping and pathways shall be provided as shown on the approved Birnam Woods Site Plan; h. Street signs shall be provided. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote was 4-2, with Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Diehl dissenting. Mr. Gloeckner reentered the room. LOCUST HILL FINAL PLAT Located on the west side of Route 678 at Ivy, part of parcel 84 on the Tax Map 58, Samuel Miller District. A proposal to divide the 16.975 acre parcel into 10 lots with an average size of about 1.6 acres. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. The applicant, Mr. Jack Taggart, stated that when this first came up in the rezoning application, the chairman raised the question of the relocation of Route 678. The action was deferred until the applicant could confer with the Highway Department and the staff to answer the question of the relocation of the road. The Commission and the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning with the proffer of the preliminary plat, with the straightening of the road and the pipesteam to Route 250. The only leeway given the applicant was moving the road a little here and there. Now the applicant is back for final plat approval. Mr. Thomas Best stated that the rerouting of Route 678 would necessitate the condemnation of the corner of his property and the right of way would take even more of the property. He did not consider it fair for him to have to sacrifice his property and his home. He felt the road could easily be moved over and this sacrifice was unnecessary. • Mr. James Marymor stated that on the other side of the road, trees are destroyed by cars running on the property. This is a dangerous road and there is a right angle curve at the top of the road and in the wintertime it is very slippery. School buses for Meriwether Lewis and Western Albemarle High use this road. At night lights shine into his bedrooms, there is drainage across his property, and also across the property owned by Mr. Ashcomb and Mr. Best. He has had to put five loads of gravel on his driveway because of washing. Mr. Marymor said he is not opposing development, but he is worried about the increased danger on the road, which was a poorly planned road to begin with. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will not approve the right angle curve and also two pieces of property will have to be condemned to do the road this way. This does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Route 678 and 676 are the only connection between this property and Garth Road. There is nothing wrong with this property except the way they want to develop it. Mr. David Ashcomb commented that this is high density and that there are about fifty or sixty houses being built, up the road from this area. If this plat is approved as it is, there is no alternative for the end of this road. Mr. Warren Bagley stated that he traveled the road some, there are a lot of accidents, a lot of heavy trucks and school buses. This development would add two or three more school buses. He also opposed the way the road was shown on the plat. Mrs. Virginia Ashcomb said she hoped the Commission had read the letter they had written. The road is the most important part of this plat. If the Highway Depart- ment wanted to improve it, there is no way to do so, if this road configuration is implemented. im Fred Manson said if it is a question of money, let the developer provide the money ed a well with the Ashcoms and there is not for the road. He also stated that he shar much water and this could be a potential problem with this development Mr. Taggart stated that the question of the road was considered by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors in the rezoning action and only a slight deviation is allowed for the alignment of the road. Mr. Manson said that this road was an agreement between the Highway Department and Mr. Taggart. The road was not discussed at the Commission. The road needs to be re -engineered, at least make them turn around the internal horseshoe. Col. Washington questioned Mr. Coburn on the fact that when this had gone before the Commission before, the Highway Department had agreed to this alternative on the road. Mr. Coburn stated that this is essentially correct. The Highway Department recommended following the concept of the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the realignment of Route 678, to go with the Comprehensive Plan in the Ivy area. The Comprehensive Plan showed some point west of Route 678, due to the shape of the property, etc. The Highway Department recommended that the County exercise the.Comprehensive Plan, and require this road to be built, and this met with less than total support. The Highway Department indicated that any design that met with requirements would be an improvement. It is developed according to the curvature requirements, but it is not the best design and also would need rights -of -way. The property will lie idle until other property is developed and the Highway Department can require a right: -of -way or until the Board of Supervisors acts on this. The Highway Department, through the Code of Virginia, has to establish standards for commercial entrances, and access to state rights -of -way. This comes under a commercial entrance design criteria requiring adequate sight distance both to and from entrance, adequate width, etc. This road is an improvement over the road that is there, but is not the best design. Mr. Gloeckner established that in the rezoning, Mr. Coburn went through the choices with the Board of Supervisors and they were aware of the fact that this road was a second choice. There was no further public comment, and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Davis said he did not like incomplete proffers that condemn others' land. Col. Washinqton said that the Commission is not free of the blame. Mrs. Diehl said she did not believe she had heard that the adjacent property is affected. Mr. Lindstrom said he remembered when this came before the Board of Supervisors. He did not recall that the Highway Department was opposed to this configuration. If there is blame, then the Board needs to take some of it. There are advantages to the proffer and the emphasis seemed to be getting a new entrance on Route 250, which this accomplishes. The rezoning could not be approved without plans and a proffer, which the Board of Sueprvisors requested. Col. Washington said that there are people who have spoken at this meeting, who had not spoken before, though they might have spoken to the Board of Supervisors. Miss Caperton said that most of the discussion of a relocation of Route 678 was done during the preliminary plat stage. Mr. Bowerman said it did not seem any better than before the road was relocated. Mrs. Diehl said she noticed that a left turn lane is not a condition. �s� Boad of s had the Mr. Lindstrom said the andrtthat therevwasra trade-off access greaterdensity allowed center of the property for the county to get access to Route 250. The chairman opened the meeting again for public comment, on request from the public. Mr. Ashcomb said that if this is high density, then it will continue to grow. Now is the time to really take a long look toward the future. Mr. Smith said this is definitely a bad situation. The road location will hurt Mr. Best, but will also necessitate the condemnation of other property to use the pipestem to Route 250. The sight distance is bad. Mr. Best said that it never occurred to him that his property would be condemned, and particularly when it is not really necessary. If there were no other alternative, he would make the best of it. Mr. Marymor stated again that the road is dangerous and curvy and the Board should say that it can not be done this way. Mrs. Ashcom said that the new road configuration will not fix the worst curve, the curves at the top of the road are the most dangerous. Mr. Taggart stated that this is the plat that came before the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. There was no further public comment, and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl said that by changing the alignment of the road, this will in effect condemn property along the new road. Mr. McCann stated that the trouble with the roads shown on the Comprehensive Plan, if the county takes away an owner's use of his land, they will have to compensate him for this. Col. Washington said that 80% of the road was on the applicant's land or the old road, but 20% of this is on someone else's property. Mr. Payne suggested that the Commission consider that they do not really have a choice. This is extremely specific property. Mr. Taggart can not use this land at all, except this way or something substantially the same as this. If the Commission does not approve this, the applicant can not do anything. He would have to go through another rezoning process. Mr. McCann made a motion for approval, subject to conditions as recommended by staff, for he said the applicant had been led to believe this would be accepted. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the Board of Supervisors was that specific as to the shaded areas and found that they were. Mr. Payne stated that the original proffer said that the road is to bein accordance with the plat and he had suggested before the Commission that Mr. Taggarty this proffer, that it be substantially in compliance with the plat. It can be moved some, but very little. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. There was further discussion. Mr. Bowerman said he could not support the motion, he was sure there was a better way to design the road. The proposed road location is not an improvement from its present location and it does not best serve the new subdivision. Mr. Gloeckner and Mrs. Diehl agreed with Mr. Bowerman. The vote was 3-4, with Mrs. Diehl Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. Davis and Mr. Bowerman dissenting. Mr. Payne suggested that the Commission would have to tell the applicant what he can do to bring this into compliance. If some other alignment is in compliance with that property, then that can be approved. Two problems with that: the Commission can not make a suggestion without full information, it may not work; also the Commission doesknow know how the applicant feels about this. The Commission can not say it is going to do something than what is proffered, because everyone is locked into the proffer. The applicant can not do more and he can not do less. This is the problem with a proffer with this specificity. Mr. Bowerman questioned how the Commission could see this plat again with another alignment for the road and a different proffer. Mr. Payne said it is unlawful for the County to tell an applicant what to proffer. The only alternative would be to defer, and get something similar and see if the applicant would approve. It would be difficult to deny this, the applicant could take it to court, saying that this is precisely the same plat that was approved before. There was further discussion of sight distance, the terrain problems and other problems with the plan. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion to reconsider. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote to reconsider was unanimous. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of the road plans; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; C. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote was 4-3, with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Davis and Mr. Bowerman dissenting. OLD BUSINESS: University of Virginia Radioactive Incineration Miss Caperton gave the Commission copies of the emergency ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Timothy Lindstrom made a statement, in brief: The basic background for the temporary ordinance is: The Nuclear Regulatory University Commission (NRC) and the State Aitionitotcontrolion incineratenuBoard did not oe ica nuclear or radioactivematerials. of Virginia was making an appl 00, There is a box that appe ars on the application which says, "Will you be incinerating unchecked. nuclear materials?" and the University leftis without restrictions. TheState Air NRC Pollution Control Board approved the application used the Air Pollution Control Board's permit approval as an indication that there was no reason to restrict the aPptheytion assumedtwas theresweretnodobjecaionsCe TheNRC heard nothing from the locality, for low-level nuclear gave blanket approval. It turns out that blanket approval wastes permitted the incineration of materials that would have potentially a 5,000 year half-life, some of which are used in laboratories and could be used by the University. Mr. Bolling said most of the things the hospital would have, have no more than a 12 year half-life. The NRC was q P findaplcathe . Board of Supervisors had not known abri anthe ordinancesity of that was le, they The NRC said if the Board came up w would re -consider this application in the light of our ordinance. Because of the Board's vacation and not wanting to allow this item to just slide, a temporary ordinance was adopted. Mr. Davis found that the permit was still in effect, but for the University to use it now would be contrary to the rules. Air lution Mr. Payne said there is more than henone therelislonelfrom theeNuclearrlControl Regulatory Board has a permit for burning,are Commission for the two thing tsal hings toadioactive rremember: materials. NuclearThese RegulatorywCommissionttakes things. There are two a position that they are going to permit some disposition of radioactive materials, this is the reason for the half -Wife figures. law saystcan aboutnthebmattebr.iddThatnisrwhy. Secondly, the NRC does not care hat state ces this is significant. We have heard iversityaof Virginiacounty ThedNRCndoesdnot carenot apply to state agencies, including the about this and they are willing to consider the county ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner said the half-life is not the only consideration, the concentration is also important. Mr. Payne said the half life is not the only thing. The main question of half-life mmon radioactive materials with a half-life of 12 years. is relative, there are few co Mr. Lindstrom said that a concentration of 500 milligrams per year is five times the normal black -out. There was further discussion on the issue. sted that the Commission wait for guidance from the Board of Col. Washington sugge Supervisors. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 12:30 P.M. i obert W. Tucker, Jr., cre ry