HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 07 81 PC MinutesApril 7, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 7, 1981, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building,
Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mrs. Norma
Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan
Kindrick; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Other
officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of March 26, 1981, were approved as submitted.
Mrs. Diehl stated that before proceeding further with the agenda, she wished to
inform the Commission that SP-81-9 E. C. and Lettie A. Alexander, request for a
special use permit, had been withdrawn.
ZMA-81-14 William A. Marshall, Jr. - Located approximately 600 feet west of Route
29 North on Route 649. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 40, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Proposal to rezone 2.25 acres from R-1 to HC, Highway Commercial.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, giving the Highway Department recommendation
that dedication of right-of-way for eventual improvement of Route 649 be required
as a condition of approval of the rezoning. Mr. Keeler explained that Highway
Department comment was received after the staff report was prepared.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant had any comment.
Mr. William Roudabush, representing the applicant, explained that his firm had been
contracted to prepare a site plan around the time that this property had been down -
zoned from B-1 to R-1. Mr. Roudabush stated that no site plan was being prepared,
pending the outcome of this rezoning petition. He added that at such time that a
site plan was prepared, provision could be made to allow for right-of-way for im-
provement to Route 649, but that he certainly did not wish to see this become a
prerequisite to rezoning the property. Mr. Roudabush said that the applicant's
proposed use was in keeping with other uses in existence in the area.
Mr. Marshall, the applicant, said that when he visited the Highway Department in
Culpeper he was told that the only plans for improving Route 649 would involve the
left-hand side of the road and might be fifteen years off in the future.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any public comments concerning this application.
Since there were none, the public hearing was closed and the matter was before the
Commission.
253
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to explain condition three in the staff report, in
which the applicant is asked to volunteer limitation of access to Route 649, in
order to satisfy the frontage -to -depth requirement of the HC district.
Mr. Keeler responded that this condition would require a proffer from the
applicant to limitaccess to Route 649. He added that the purpose of the frontage -
to -depth requirement was to restrict "strip development" and the proliferation of
accesses to public roads. Mr. Keeler pointed out that this property could be
subdivided for two uses, since public water was available.
Mr. Skove observed that he did not believe that R-1 was an appropriate zoning
for this property. He added that the problem was possible future subdivision of
the property and thereby having additional entrances.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the different uses were for HC and C-1.
Mr. Keeler explained that HC was the most intense use, primarily highway -oriented,
such as service stations, car washes, warehouses, modular building sales, building
supplies and materials sales, trailer sales and services, newspaper publishing,
sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles, and truck repair shops. He said
that Highway Commercial was a heavier use, involving some warehousing and whole-
saling.
Mr. Keeler added that the Planning Commission could determine whether a use was
sufficiently related to a use by right to be allowed; this determination can also
be made, he explained, by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the
Director of Planning. Mr. Keeler further explained that since automobile repair
shop was not specifically a permitted use in the C-1 district, the applicant
had applied for HC zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he saw no objection to this request and moved for
approval of the rezoning to Highway Commercial.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis pointed out that a garage might involve body work and might involve a
significant increase in noise level. He added that body shops have been known to
cause a nuisance to adjoining residential areas.
Mr. Skove wondered whether there was some way to limit access to one entrance, a
joint entrance on Route 649.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the issue of a joint entrance could be addressed at site
review.
Mr. Payne replied that it could be addressed at the time of subdividing.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further discussion. There was none, and
Mr. Gloeckner's motion passed unanimously. Mr. Keeler informed those present that
this petition would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on April 15, 1981.
ZMA-81-11 S. Daley Craig (Earlysville Forest PUD) - Located on the northeast side
of Route 743, east and adjacent to Earlysville Heights. County Tax Map 31,
Parcels 31 and 46, Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to amend certain
2s- q
conditions of approval and physical design of previously -approved Earlusville
Run PUD (SP-80-57 Mary H. Lupton).
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner disqualified himself and left the room.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He informed the Commission that he had been
advised late in the afternoon that the Highway Department had tentatively approved
the traffic analysis plan for the development and the Engineering Department had
given tentative approval to the road plans.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Craig whether he had any comments at this time. He replied
that he would be glad to answer any questions, but had no statement to make.
Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment.
Mr. Tommy Turner of Earlysville Heights said that he had two questions: one,
whether the recreational/playground facilities were being deleted and two, what
sort of privacy fences, or hedges were being provided for residents in Earlysville
Heights.
Mr. Keeler said that one of the recreational areas, which would have been
located beside a lake that would no longer be in the plan, had been deleted, but
that the other site near the entrance was still part of the plan.
Mr. Keeler stated that the condition requiring buffering had been left in and
that the applicant had shown on his plan a row of white pines, ten feet in
height, to be planted fifteen feet apart.
Mr. Turner stated that his earlier understanding had been that the applicant
would consult with neighboring residents of Earlysville Heights about the nature
of a buffer. Mr. Keeler responded that this had been a suggestion from staff
but not a requirement; he reread the condition of approval for clarification.
Mrs. Diehl confirmed that the proposal, then, from the applicant was the row of
ten foot tall white pines. She ascertained that this proposed buffer would be
reviewed at the time the site plan for that section was submitted.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment.
Mr. Stuard Wood, an adjacent property owner, asked about the water situation,
if each of the 155 lots were to have a well, how adjoining and surrounding areas
might be affected.
Mrs. Diehl responded that the Commission was aware of water problems in the area,
but that it had been difficult to predict what problems might occur. She asked
whether there were additional comments from the public.
Mr. Barry Dofflemeyer, owner of Wakefield Kennel, inquired as to what the
developer had planned in the way of a sound buffer between his property and the
Wakefield Kennel.
Mr. Keeler replied that the applicant did not specify any particular physical
structure as buffer, but that part of his solution to possible noise had been
` to pull back the lots from the property line.
Mr. Dofflemeyer asked what would happen if noise from the kennel became a
problem to one of the residents of Earlysville Forest.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to respond. He said that without knowing the
specific conditions of Mr. Dofflemeyer's special use permit, it was not really
possible to make a determination. Mr. Payne did state that there was a
general practice in favor of the first to arrive with regard to an issue such
as noise. Mr. Payne added that he did not know of anything in the Zoning
Ordinance that could guide in this instance.
Mr. Cogan remarked that he did not see how this could involve the County, that
any such problem would be a civil matter between property owners.
Mr. Dofflemeyer objected, stating that he believed that the County should at
this point be involved in ensuring that adequate noise buffers were required.
Mr. Tommy Turner added that he believed that a noise buffer was a definite
need.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. Since there was
none, she asked whether the applicant, or his representative, Mr. Osborne,
wished to make any statement.
Mr. Osborne responded that he did not.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was then before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether some sort of sound barrier had been considered.
Mr. Osborne replied that his associate, Mr. Blankenbaker, could answer that
question.
Mr. Blankenbaker explained that the lots had been moved back so that the houses
were about 400 feet from the road; he also pointed out that there was a thick
pine forest located there. Mr. Blankenbaker added that the covenents would
provide for common areas to remain untouched and that it was believed that the
natural thickness of the pine forest was superior to any manmade buffer.
Mrs. Diehl informed a member of the public that the public hearing was closed
and then allowed him to speak briefly:
Mr. Bill Dancey stated that he lived about three-quarters of a mile from
Mr. Dofflemeyer.'s kennel and noise from the kennel was quite audible.
Mr. Skove remarked that he thought 400 feet of buffering was sufficient and that
potential buyers should with a minimum amount of investigation discover that
the kennel exists and make a decision on buying with the potential problem of
noise in mind.
Mr. Davis asked what the specific reasons were for changing from a central well
system to individual wells.
Mr. Osborne replied that one of the reasons had been a newly available study
showing that the ground water supply in the Earlysville area was fair to poor.
He went on to state that several large wells hooked into a complicated system
2�(�
could not produce enough water potential to serve all the expected customers.
Mr. Osborne continued that it was believed that with individual wells water
would be distributed and dispursed over a larger area. He added that there was
a substantial difference in cost - $600,000 for a central well system as
compared to $385,000 in cost for individual wells.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether water storage facilities were considered.
Mr. Osborne replied that they were considered with regard to the larger central
well system and constituted one of the major costs. Such a storage facility,
Mr. Osborne explained, usually contains 200,000 to 250,000 gallons of water,
which is about a 48-hour supply with an average draw. This capacity would
generally serve a community of this size, Mr. Osborne further stated, but would
not help over a long period of time. He added that these 155 lots would demand
approximately 80 gallons per minute and that each well on a central system could
only produce 5 or 6 gallons per minute.
Mr. Davis inquired as to whether these lots would be sold subject to locating
water on each lot.
Mr. Craig replied that they would.
Mr. Davis asked whether this could be made a provision and that if water were
not available on a particular lot, it could be added to an adjacent lot, so that
unbuildable lots would not be created.
Mr. Skove concurred with this suggestion, that adequate water supply should be
present before sale of lots, but reminded the Commission that the advantages of
one large central system were that such a system could eventually be hooked into
the City system, if some of the wells were to eventually run dry.
Mrs. Diehl asked to have the earlier discussion of public water reviewed again.
Mr. Keeler said that the central system was to have been built or sized to the
specifications compatible with a public water system. He said that acquiring
public water would involve bringing in a line from east of the Airport. Mr. Keeler
had cost estimates on just bringing this line to the development, not including
any internal lines. One proposal, he stated, which would entail going around the
runway and up Route 743, would run around $462,000. The other proposal, which
was to run a sleeve under the airport, would run about the same. Mr. Keeler added
that he had tried to work with Teledyne and the Happy Valley Farm development,
suggesting that Ms. Lupton share expenses with Teledyne (which later purchased the
Happy Valley Farm property) on working out a water system. Mr. Keeler said that
Teledyne had experienced water problems during peak demand periods. Mr. Keeler
said that probably the expense of bringing this line out by now, a year later,
would be a half a million dollars. Then, he continued, there would be the expense
of the Service Authority's standard 8" lines to each lot, fire hydrants every
800 feet at $1,500 each, and other related costs. Mr. Keeler said that the
Commission and Board had previously approved a central well system built to
Service Authority standards, which included line sizes and appurtenances for fire
hydrants which might be placed in the development at a later date.
Mr. Davis pointed out that a situation involving 150 wells going bad, and the
Service Authority having to make a political decision on whether to amend its
jurisdictional lines and cause taxpayers rather than the developer to pay for
2.5Y
extending public water, should be avoided. Mr. Davis added that this scenario
was already too prevalent. He asked whether the developer would locate the
well before sale of the property or whether this would be up to the buyer.
Mr. Craig responded that a study had been commissioned to locate septic systems
and wells. He stated that the ordinance requires two septic system locations,
which is of primary importance. Mr. Craig said that the developer was left with
some latitude on location of wells and they had been located also. He added
that an individual well could serve 2 lots. He further stated that he would
agree to the condition of not selling any lots until sufficient water supply
was available to health department standards and that these wells could be
drilled in advance of sales.
Mr. Davis observed that this statement satisfied him.
Mr. Kindrick asked whether Mr. Craig.owned all of the + 486 acres under
discussion.
Mr. Blankenbaker replied that it was presently owned by Ms. Lupton.
Mr. Kindrick asked whether it would all be transferred at one time.
Mr. Blankenbaker replied that it would probably be phased and that the details
had not been worked out.
Mr. Kindrick remarked that it had been his earlier understanding that the
roads would be public.
Mr. Keeler responded that the main road through the development was required to be
public. He said that the developer had originally requested all private roads.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he was not certain that Mr. Dofflemeyer's concerns had
been satisfied. He added that he lived even further away and was able to hear
the dogs from the kennel; he did not believe that the pine buffer was sufficient.
He cautioned about the recent literature distributed to the Commission indicating
that courts are continuing to favor the developer and driving farmers off of the
land. Mr. Kindrick then pointed out the problem of having a ring of no-man's-
land around developments, areas which are not maintained by anyone. He suggested
that this area should properly be maintained by the home owners in the development.
Mr. Blankenbaker responded that the covenents which would be submitted to Mr.
Payne would require that this area be maintained and assessed for maintenance
costs.
Mr. Payne remarked that it would probably be maintained much the way it was,,
as woods, but that common area maintenance agreements were a requirement.
Mr. Blankenbaker said that one of the covenents prohibited cutting any trees,
even on an individual lot, of more that 3" in diameter. He added that he was
uncertain whether this could be enforced.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this application presented him with a real dilemma,
as it had when it came before the Commission previously. He added that he
once again could not support this petition without provisions for public
water. Mr. Bowerman said that the recognized problem with ground water in
:2� s
this area meant that it would almost certainly eventually involve a water problem
in this development. Mr. Bowerman sympathized with the tremendous expense to
the developer of putting in a central system with hook-up to public water, but
pointed out that the expense would have to be borne by someone - taxpayer or the
individual buyer. He also stated that when the application was previously
reviewed he had thought that cooperation would be needed between the developer,
the airport and Teledyne.
Mrs. Diehl asked for further comments.
Mr. Davis stated that he did not understand why phasing was no longer relevant to
this application.
Mr. Keeler clarified that the applicant was speaking of phasing in the buying
process, not in the developing of the property. He pointed out that the lines
on the plat represented the three conditions concerning phasing: (1) commercial
development, (2) provision of fire protection from one of the lakes and (3)
recreational facilities down at that lake.
Mr. Craig further explained that the reasons for phasing development had been
addressed and satisfied through the conditions and no longer required phasing.
Mr. Cogan asked whether larger lots were ever considered.
Mr. Blankenbaker asked whether Mr. Cogan meant by eliminating the open space,
common area, which the developer had wanted to do, but the ordinance required
this space for a PUD.
Mr. Cogan replied
Mr. Cogan replied that he was referring to the recreational areas; he added
that larger lots might solve several of the problems under discussion - distance
from the kennel, upkeep of the outer band of common area, provision of adequate
water supply. He further stated that what the developer would lose in selling
fewer lots he would gain in not having to provide as many improvements, such as
reduced number of roads.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the request, subject to the conditions as outlined
by staff and with the addition in #1 of Condition D, after "Any lot not having
adequate septic field location..." and/or adequate potable water supply "shall
be combined with a buildable lot and/or added to the common open space."
Mr. Payne suggested that the word adequate be amended to say minimum quantity as
required by the Health Department.
Mr. Keeler said that there were no minimum standards by the Health Department for
individual wells and that it was one half gallon a minute for a central well
system.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion in order to get the motion on the table.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he could not support this plan with its present configu-
ration.
Mr. Bowerman again stated that he could not support this plan with the proposed
density and potential problems of water supply, but that he thought he could
support it if with higher density it had a public water system or with the lower
density it had individual wells.
25�
Mrs. Diehl concurred with Mr. Bowerman's reasons, adding that as proposed this
development at least required a central well system.
There was no further discussion, and the motion was voted on.
Mr. Davis voted in favor of the motion and Messers. Skove, Bowerman, Kindrick
and Cogan voted against the motion, as did Mrs. Diehl. The motion failed one
to five.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the petition subject to conditions recommended
by staff originally, leaving in tact conditions 2,3, and 4 under D.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was discussion on this motion.
Mr. Davis responded that the Commission had heard the reasons behind not having
a central well system and that he suggested the Commission require public water
instead.
Mr. Skove said that until it is tried, he did not see how a central well system
could be ruled out; he added that certain wells might provide more than enough
water.
The motion was voted on, since there was no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Skove and Mr. Cogan voted in favor of the motion; Messers. Davis,
Bowerman, and Kindrick voted against the motion. The motion failed three to
three.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler whether a portion of this project was in the
South Rivanna watershed.
Mr. Keeler replied that it was not and then explained that the Comprehensive
Plan contained part of Earlysville village within watershed and part not. He
said that there was enough land to rework the village area so that none of it
fell within watershed. He mentioned that pinpointing the center of the village
had been a difficulty during work on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cogan made a motion to deny this request to amend the preliminary approval
by a change in the water system.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
There was a concensus that the water problem was the key issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant had any additional input after hearing
the remarks of the Commission.
Mr. Craig responded that the intent had been to improve the PUD. He said that
if the Commission only had a problem deleting requirement of a central well
system, that perhaps the Commission should approve the plan as submitted but
leave the requirement of a central well system as part of the plan.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that when this attempt had been made, the vote was three
to three.
20
09
Mr. Craig disagreed that the last motion had made this clear.
Mrs. Diehl said that if the Commission concurred with Mr. Craig, a substitute
motion could be made.
Mr. Bowerman asked the developer if he could give an estimated price on these
lots without the expense of a central well system or public water.
Mr. Craig replied $15,000.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that if a million additional dollars were spent in
putting in a central system, the cost per lot would increase by $6,000.
Mr. Craig remarked that most people wanted their own water rather than public.
Mr. Bowerman disagreed, stating that a development of this density constituted
an urban environment offering urban amenities without urban services. He also
pointed out that a central water system costing $6,000 per lot today would in
ten years cost $12,000 per lot. Giving an example of his own subdivision,
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the County was now paying a million dollars for
a septic system that failed, which if installed by the developer would have
been $200,000. Mr. Bowerman stated that the cost would always increase and
that tax payers should not be paying for a costly project that could have been
put in for much less by the developer.
Mr. Davis said that if a developer were willing to stand behind his lots and
guarantee water, or join the lot lines if adequate water were not found, he
was making progress toward solving the problem.
There was no further discussion, and Mrs. Diehl called for a vote on the motion,
which was for denial of the request to amend the preliminary approval by a
change in the water system.
Messers. Bowerman, Cogan, and Skove voted in favor of the motion and Mrs. Diehl
along with Messers. Kindrick and Davis voted against the motion, which
consequently failed three to three.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether another motion was going to be made.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the petition, subject to the conditions
recommended by staff, but including conditions D2, D3, and D4; Mr. Skove seconded
the motion.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler what County standards were for a central well
system.
Mr. Keeler replied that 1 gallon per minute per unit was the minimum requirement
by the County, with 48 hours of pump testing (under certain conditions, 72 hours).
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to whether any periodic follow-up tests were run
subsequent to a central well system being approved.
Mr. Keeler replied that the County did not conduct further tests.
2�ol
Mr. Payne stated that in a development of this size he believed that it
became a public service corporation and that the SCC is required to get
involved, an agency that does maintain periodic review of projects.
Mr. Keeler stated that Health Department rules had changed. He said that now
the Health Department got involved when a system serves 25 people and that
it used to be when there were 15 connections. Mr. Keeler further explained
that the County was involved with quantity of water, as compared to the Health
Department and State Water Board concerns with water quality.
As there was no further discussion, Mrs. Diehl called for a vote on the motion,
which consisted of the following conditions:
A. General
1. No final site plan or subdivision approvals shall be given until three
(3) copies of a revised preliminary plan for the entire development,
reflecting conditions of approval contained herein, have been submitted
to the Department of Planning. Such plans shall be submitted within
sixty (60) days of Board approval of this petition.
2. Approval is for a maximum of 155 single-family lots subject to
conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land
uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final site plan and
subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to
the number of lots approved. The Commission may permit dedication of
a lesser acreage of open space in a particular case due to the
remoteness of open space areas from that section platted; provided
that, in no event, shall open space consist of less than 25% of the
cumulative area platted; and provided further that the cumulative total
of 299 171 acres shall be dedicated concomittant with the approval of
the final phase of residential development.
3. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as
necessary for road construction and lake construction as approved by
the County Engineer;
4. No grading shall occur in any area until final subdivision or site plan
approval has been obtained.
5. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements prior to
final approvals to include maintenance of private roads, lakes and dams,
and common open space;
6. County Engineer approval of dam specifications; County Engineer and
Zoning Department inspection of the dam construction;
7. The public recreation area shall be dedicated prior to any site plan or
subdivision approval. eke-�iate-�eeea}eaa�-€ae�i}ee-sHa��-19e
ee�s��ee�eel-��}ems-�e-a��*-Phase-4-ag��e�a�e:
8. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, pedestrian
ways, lakes, or other improvements are to be located, shall be dis-
turbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state;
�LC��
En
9. Phassg-a€-e�ezt�ee�mer�t-sha��-be--the-eh�ese�ee�ea�-ee�e�-es-the
a���e�ee�-peas;
10. Sesne}-rega�atens-ge�sern�r:g-e�e�e�enent-gin-the-e�a�tp-ef-the
Eha��ettes����e-��3�ema��e-�}�pe�t-awe-eerreat��-�tsele�-eeas�e�e�at}ea
by -the -Beard
11. A4ax��ntun-pess�i��e-19tttte�-tee-Bets-36;-3�;-38;-aae-39;-€gem-6da3�et�e�e
Kenne+
12. Developer will provide sedimentation control provisions to protect
Chris Greene Lake until the majer lakes are constructed, subject to
approval of the County Engineer.
B . Commercial Area
1. No commercial use shall be approved until a++ 100 residential lots et
Pha5e-4 have been approved and recorded;
2. Uses permitted within the commercial area may be established as
follows:
a. The following retail sales and service establishments:
(1) Antique, gift, jewelry, notion, and craft shops;
(2) Clothing, apparel, and shoe shops;
(3) Department store;
(4) Drug store, pharmacy;
(5) Florist;
(6) Food and grocery stores including such speciality shops as
bakery, candy, milk dispensary, and wine and cheese shops;
(7) Furniture and home appliances (sales and service);
(8) Hardware store;
(9) Musical instruments;
(10) Newstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops;
(11) Optical goods;
(12) Photographic goods;
(13) Visual and audio appliances;
(14) Sporting goods;
(15) Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
b. The following services and public establishments:
(1) Administrative, professional offices;
(2) Barber, beauty shops;
(3) Churches, cemeteries;
(4) Clubs, lodges - civic, fraternal, patriotic;
(5) Financial institutions;
(6) Fire and rescue squad stations,
(7) Funeral homes;
(8) Health spas;
(9) Indoor theaters;
(10) Laundries, dry cleaners;
(11) Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all
hours during operation);
zco 3
(12) Libraries, museums;
(13) Nurseries, day care centers;
(14) Eating establishments; *410
(15) Tailor, seamstress;
(16) Automobile service stations;
(17) Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding multi -
legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers,
pipes, meters, and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distri-
bution and sewage collection lines, pumping stations, and
appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority;
(18) Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds, and roads funded, owned, or operated by local, state,
or federal agencies; public water and sewer transmission, main or
trunk lines, owned or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority;
(19) Temporary construction uses;
(20) Temporary events of local non-profit organizations;
(21) Medical center.
c. By special use permit:
(1) Commercial recreation establishments;
(2) Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations, and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, microwave and
radio -wave transmission and relay towers, substations, and
appurtenances; 4404
(3) Hospitals;
(4) Fast food restaurant;
(5) Veterinary office and hospital
C. Roads
1. County Engineer approval of private road plans.
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of public road
plans prior to any final site plan or subdivision approvals. In such
review, Virginia Department of Highways should be mindful of the County's
intent to limit encroachment of the public road on Earlysville Heights to
the maximum extent practical.
3. Prior to any final approval, the applicant shall propose a method of
buffering adjacent lots in Earlysville Heights from the public road. If
practical, such buffer shall be installed prior to any grading and/or
construction.
D. Utilities; Fire Protection
1. Virginia Department of Health approval of two (2) septic field locations
within each lot prior to Planning Commission approval of any such lot.
Any lot not having adequate septic field location shall be combined with
a buildable lot and/or added to the common open space. In addition,
20
Homeowners' Association agreement shall include provision for use of open
space for residential septic drainfields, if necessary;
2. All uses shall be served by one or more central water systems approved in
accordance with the regulations of the Virginia Department of Health, the
Code of Albemarle County, and all other applicable law. Water lines and
appurtenances shall be sized and designed in accordance with Albemarle
County Service Authority specifications for possible future acceptance;
3. If a central well system is employed, Fire Official approval of appurtenances
for future possible fire hydrant installations. Fire Official approval of
dry hydrant system prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
4. If a public water system is employed, Fire Official approval of hydrant
locations and fire flow prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy;
5. A building separation of 100 feet shall be maintained for dwellings.
The motion passed with a vote of five to one, with Mrs. Diehl and Messers. Skove,
Davis, Cogan and Bowerman voting for the motion, and Mr. Kindrick voting against the
motion.
Mr. Bowerman expressed his satisfaction that adequate safeguards would be present
with a central well system.
The Commission agreed to take a recess for five minutes.
SP-81-7 Richard and Martha Selden - Located on Turner Mountain, north of U.S. 250
West. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 64E (part), Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Proposal to divide 84.13-acre parcel into 17 residential lots with an average lot
size of 4.95 acres (Section 10.5 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and informed the Commission that this application
was the first to be reviewed under criteria #9 of the Comprehensive Plan, the second
in the RA district to receive comprehensive review under the new ordinance, and the
first in the reservoir watershed.
Mr. Keeler observed that the density recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan are
outmoded by the runoff control ordinance and the critical slopes provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance. He further explained that the consultants who worked with the
Comprehensive Plan had recommended a Hillside Development Overlay District for the
Zoning Ordinance; Mr. Keeler stated that staff opinion after input from the Health
Department and County Engineer's office had been that the critical slopes provisions,
which were subsequently adopted by the County, were a more appropriate control
measure.
Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Keeler to refresh the memory of the Commission with an
explanation on the colors representing land use on the vicinity map which was dis-
played.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make any comments.
M
Mr. Paul Peatross, representing the Seldens, complimented Mr. Keeler on the thorough
job staff had done in reviewing and explaining a complicated matter.
He explained that the Seldens had received approval on a preliminary plat for 20 lots
in May of 1980, but that only 3 lots had been divided before the new ordinance went
into effect. Mr. Peatross stated that Mr. Payne had ruled that the Commission in
January of 1981 could not approve a final plat for 17 lots of the original 20 and that
consequently the Seldens were applying for a special use permit.
Mr. Peatross stated that the property was in an area neither purely agricultural nor
of high density developable, being designated forest land. He added that this made
a determination difficult as to the appropriate criteria to apply. He stated that
the runoff concerns and slopes, which were no more than 20%, presented no problem,
since they were less than the permitted maximum or not applicable due to lower density
than the maximum allowed.
Mr. Peatross took issue with the staff opinion that this property was not in a rural
developed area, stating that several subdivisions exist in the general area, among
them, Florcon, Meriwether Hills, West Leigh, and the new Farmington West. He said
that this particular part of the County was the most highly developed rural area.
Mr. Peatross told the Commission that the Seldens were demonstrating careful and good
planning with 20 lots, averaging 5 acres each. He added that the Seldens would have
restrictions, prohibiting the cutting of trees, hunting, motorcycling, or any other
activity that might cause a disturbance to the land.
Mr. Peatross said that with regard to ground water problems, a neighbor of the
Seldens, Mr. Riggs, getsthirty gallons a minute and that the Seldens get ten 14900
gallons per minute. He stated that this did not indicate a problem in the immediate
vicinity in question. Mr. Peatross concluded by saying that the only road improvement
would be on Turner Road off of 250 and that the applicant would be willing to work
out the problem with Lot 16 involving the setback of 75 feet and 50-foot sideline
setback. He reiterated that this development was appropriate for the area and
reminded the Commission that the Seldens had been caught in the changing of the
zoning ordinance; he asked for the Commission's favorable action on this special
use permit.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Peatross for his remarks and then asked Mr. and Mrs. Selden
whether they wished to make any comments. They did not, so Mrs. Diehl asked for any
public comments.
Since there was no public comment, Mrs. Diehl stated that the petition was now before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he tended to agree with Mr. Peatross and his position
countering the negative comments by staff. Mr. Gloeckner said that he saw nothing
wrong with this plan, that it was a continuation of what had been happening in the
Ivy area, and that it was unbelievable to have reached the bureaucratic level of
having a one -hour presentation by staff on a petition. Mr. Gloeckmer further
stated that the criteria could almost be measured by whim. He said that the favorable
remarks by staff seemed accurate and that he had no objection to this special use
permit.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further remarks or questions from the Commission.
Z62
Mr. Davis said that he did not believe that this request complied with the Compre-
hensive Plan. He added that he did not understand why it was not suitable for
forestry, and he remarked that the property was in the watershed and that the
Comprehensive Plan's recommendation was for one dwelling unit per 10 acres. Mr. Davis
also stated that the property contained critical slopes. He said that he would
like to see the road paved; Mr. Davis stated that normally with so many lots being
served, there would be a requirement to build the road to State standards and have
it dedicated into the State system. He explained that this was not feasible in this
case, only because the road came after an extension of a private road. Mr. Davis
concluded by saying that as proposed he could not support this petition.
Mrs. Diehl asked for further Commission comments.
Mr. Gloeckner explained that one reason he believed this proposal to be in keeping
with the area, was due to the fact that one of the first divisions he saw was
from Bill Battle, who had a 5-acre tract off of this public road. Mr. Gloeckner
said that there were other individual residents served by this road and although
the Comprehensive Plan recommended one unit per 10 acres, there was a precedent of
five -acre lots in this area. He said that he did not believe that 10-acre lots
were necessary in order to maintain the character of Turner Mountain.
Mr. Davis asked whether the road were public.
Mr. Keeler answered that it was private.
Mr. Davis again said that if this division were approved, he felt strongly that
the road should be paved and built to specifications.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he agreed with Mr. Davis, but that this matter would be
handled at the time of the final subdivision when final plats are reviewed.
Mr. Davis said that he still had a problem with approving a subdivision within the
South Rivanna watershed, when the Comprehensive Plan did not recommend it. He
expressed concern that an approval might set a precedent.
Mr. Gloeckner disagreed. He said that in considering the first petition there
had been primarily been agricultural use within the one -mile ring of the property,
whereas in this case, there was a fair amount of developed land within the one -
mile ring of the Selden property, plus good highway access, schools and some
commercial use. Mr. Gloeckner said that this petition was completely different
from the one on Route 20.
Mr. Cogan said that he had no problem with the plan, finding it consistent with
development in the immediate and general area, provided that the applicants could
clear up the problem with Lot 16. At site plan review, he added, the road issue
could be addressed. Mr. Cogan said that he was only concerned with availability
of water. He said that he knew of someone who had bought a lot in this vicinity
and had never found water. Mr. Cogan said that he would like to see a contingency
in any contract of sale that sale would be subject to finding a sufficient supply
of water to serve the lot.
Mr. Bowerman added that he found the plan in keeping with the general character of
1�4✓ the area. He said that the lot size was adequate and that the plan met the two
major criteria for development in the watershed. He did not believe that approval
20-
would set a precedent; he stated that the request for a special use permit did
not seem unreasonable.
Mr. Skove expressed concern about encouraging more intense development in an
area that had not been so developed and when the Comprehensive Plan's purpose
was to preserve the scenic beauty of the agricultural land. He said that this
land could probably remain forest indefinitely.
Mr. Davis asked how many of these lots were under three acres.
It was established by Mr. Peatross that two lots, of 2.67 and 2.25 acres each,
were less than three acres.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether the 30,000-foot certification would come
before the Commission after this special use permit approval in subdivision form.
Mr. Keeler replied that it would come before the Commission at that time.
Mrs. Diehl inquired about County Engineer approvals of road plans, soil erosion,
and grading plans.
Mr. Keeler said that it was his understanding that County Engineer approval for
these plans had come initially when the three lots were divided, even though the
rest of the lots were not divided at that time.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the road which would go through the 25% slope had been
required to be paved. Mr. Keeler replied that he did not have that information
with him.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion.
Since there was not, Mr. Skove moved for approval of the special use permit, subject
to the two conditions as stated by staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the inclusion of the contingency that adequate water be
found prior to sales.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether this was proper and if so, how such a condition
might be worded.
Mr. Payne replied that the concern was certainly appropriate; he asked to think
over the question for a few minutes. Mr. Payne said after giving the matter some
thought, that he thought this concern should be addressed at the time of a final
plat and that the Commission would have to determine how it wished to define
reasonable supply or adequate supply.
There was some general discussion on how many gallons per minute might be acceptable.
Mr. Cogan agreed with Mr. Payne that one gallon per minute would be satisfactory.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Skove if he, then,wished to make a third condition to his
motion. logo
2G�6
Since Mr. Skove did not think that it should be made a condition at this time,
Mr. Cogan suggested that the engineer put it on the subdivision plat.
Since there was no further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion to approve
SP-81-7, subject to the following two conditions, as outlined by staff:
1) Development limited to 17 lots with one dwelling per lot;
2) Redesign Lot 16 to provide a building site accessible without a stream
crossing.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl announced that the next item on the agenda, the Resolution of Intent
to amend the Comprehensive Plan by including as an element to that Plan the
Airport Master Plan, would be postponed until later, since Mr. Mike Boggs, Airport
Manager, was not present in the room at this time.
Mrs. Diehl proceeded to the next item, Thomas L. Allman, II, Etal - Plat, under
NEW BUSINESS.
Mr. Keeler explained that this plat, it was discovered rather late, could not be
approved administratively. He explained that the proposal was to divide a 68-
acre tract into a 3.431-acre lot, leaving a 65+ - acre residue on property located
off of the east side of Route 626, County Tax Map 129, Parcel 10, Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler said that Commission review was necessary because the parcel was served
by an easement.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if she wished to speak.
Mrs. Page Massie explained that the farm had originally contained 773 acres, but
was divided into two parcels, one 430 and the other 275. Mrs. Massie said that
the land that had always been used for crops was sold (65 acres) and a road could
have been put through the middle of the property, but it would have been ridiculous
since there is already an existing road. However, with the existing road, there
was a 30-foot right of way and a 12-foot road bed, leaving about 9 feet between
the road and fence requiring maintenance. Mrs. Massie said that the man purchasing
the 65 acres said that he would take the entire acreage and let the Massies use
his road.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commissioners had any questions.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the notation on the plat above the 30-foot right-of-way,
the 2.189 acres.
Mr. Keeler explained that it should not be on the plat; he said that he had
taken it off the plat.
There was no further discussion.
Zoq
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the Thomas L. Allman, IIy Etal Final Plat,
subject to the conditions outlined by staff:
1) Health Department approval for location of back-up septic field on
3.431-acre tract;
2) Compliance with private roads provisions, including:
(a) County Attorney approval of homeowners' maintenance agreements;
(b) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
3) Compliance with technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance,
including:
(a) Note deed book reference for 50-foot right-of-way;
(b) Show departing lot lines for Tax Map 129, Parcel 10C;
(c) Delete "2.189 ac" reference to 30' easement.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously without further
discussion.
Resolution of Intent, adopted by the Planning Commission, to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by including as an element to that Plan the Airport Master Plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner, to explain to the Commission
how staff would suggest utilizing the Airport Master Plan in conjunction with the
Comprehensive Plan, but not actually incorporating it into the Plan.
Mr. Mabe said that the original recommendation had been to incorporate the
Airport Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan, but some reservations had
arisen about actually adopting the Airport Master Plan due to the nine to eleven
million dollar development plans projected through the year 2000. Mr. Mabe
said that staff recommendation was to adopt the Airport Master Plan as a future land
use guide rather than adopt it as an actual element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Mabe highlighted the staff report, touching on the phasing, project list, and
specific staff comment on certain projects.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Mike Boggs, Manager of the Airport, whether he wished to make
any comments.
Mr. Boggs said that he could not add anything to Mr. Mabe's lengthy report, and
he complimented him on the detailed and comprehensive review.
Mrs. Diehl asked. for Commission comments or questions.
n
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the new Census figures were consistent with the projections.
Mr. Mabe replied. that the data base was consistent with the 1977 figures, but that
there were preliminary Census figures that might prompt some refiguring.
Mr. Skove questioned the enplanement figures in the Master Plan.
Mr. Boggs explained that this Plan was composed between 1979 and 1980 and that
actual enplanement figures were running behind projections. Mr. Boggs said
that the airport was showing better than many airports in the area. He said
that activity had increased, but not to the extent projected.
270
Mr. Skove asked whether some of the proposed projects would be undertaken if
actual enplanement figures continued well behind projections.
Mr. Boggs replied that they would not, that it certainly depended on the real
enplanement activity.
Mr. Kendrick inquired about a cross -wind runway that had been discussed at some
earlier point.
Mr. Boggs said that there was not enough of a demand to justify the high cost of
constructing such a runway, at between four and six million dollars.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether Piedmont provided the figures indicating that twice
as many passengers were being carried to three fewer destinations.
Mr. Boggs replied that these figures reflected commuter traffic, not just Piedmont.
Mr. Bowerman said that an increase in commuter activity was shown with a decline
for Piedmont, the major carrier.
Mr. Boggs explained that Piedmont had a decline in number of operations. He said
that by fall of 1982 Piedmont would no longer be using triple prop, 60-passenger
planes, but would be converting to 737's and 727's with a 104- and 114-passenger
capacity.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether this indicated that Piedmont was increasing its actual.
capacity per flight while reducing the overall. number of flights.
Mr. Boggs confirmed Mr. Bowerman's impression.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Piedmont was running close to their forecast figures.
Mr. Boggs replied that Piedmont had adjusted its figures for the recession and
was running ahead of its quota per month.
Mr. Gloeckner asked when the north end taxiway was proposed to go on line.
Mr. Bogg said that he was referring to strengthening the existing northern runway
that was designed in the 1950's for lighter aircraft. He believed that this
strengthening was scheduled for the first five years of the Master Plan and would
entail a pavement evaluation.
Mr. Davis remarked on how difficult it was to get into Charlottesville from any
point south, that most flights were booked to capacity. He said that it took an
entire day to get to Charlottesville from Atlanta. He thought that reducing the
number of flights was regrettable.
Mr. Boggs said that smaller lines, such as Air Virginia locally, would move up to
fill the gap left by Piedmont which was now developing a market on longer flights.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Boggs about the Airport parking lot access structure, saying
that the Commission had had some question about it being the most cost-effective
,, measure for handicapped passengers, during its Capital Improvements Program review.
27/
Mr. Boggs said that there was a forty -foot drop in front of the terminal,
meaning that fill would be extensive and prohibitive. He believed that the
access structure was cost-effective and was intended also for assistance in
moving luggage.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether parking for handicapped could be provided on the upper
level, as suggested previously by certain of the Commissioners.
Mr. Boggs said that this could be considered and that the elevator was also
designed to help passengers with luggage over a forty -foot incline.
Mr. Skove asked whether the heavier aircraft were going to produce more noise.
Mr. Boggs replied that there would be more noise because of increased day -night
flights, but that currently 727's were flying into the airport and not causing
more noise than the smaller aircraft, that are basically the _same kind of jet.
Mr. Boggs added that there were HUD and EPA requirements and recommendations
concerning noise impact.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any more questions or comments.
Mr. Skove asked whether any surrounding counties helped to support the airport,
or whether only Charlottesville and Albemarle County contribute..
Mr. Boggs replied that surrounding counties did assist.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to approve the Airport Master Plan as a future land use guide.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept E. C. and Lettie A. Alexander's request for withdrawal
of their petition SP-81-9 for amenr'ment of SP-547 (m.h.) on property located on
south side of Route 637, just west of the intersection of Routes 708 and 637.
County Tax Map 73, Parcel 36C, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, as requested by
their attorney, James L. Camblos, III.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously with no discussion.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:50 p.m.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr., Sec et
L72