Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 14 85 PC MinutesMay 14, 1985 11*00 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, May 14, at 6:45 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. David Bowerman. Acting in Mr. Bowerman's absence, Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. CIP - Work Session - The regular meeting was preceded by a CIP work session. Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive, addressed the Commission and attempted to answer some questions that had been raised by the Commission. It was determined a public hearing was scheduled for May 28. The regular public hearing began at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of the April 30, 1985 meeting were approved as written. SP-85-16 James B. Murray and Panorama Farms - Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 to locate 80 lots on a 189.10 acre parcel with an average lot size of 2.13 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. TM 31, parcel 21. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. James Murray, Jr. addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --Plan is, in effect, for 1,038 acres, though actual proposal is for 189 acres. --The plan arose out of estate planning problems and a desire to preserve the family farm for future generations. --This section had been chosen for the proposal because it had the least farm value and was the farthest from the reservoir. --The applicant probably will not develop the property, but will seek a professional to develop it. --By right development is 93 lots; proposal is for 80 lots on one corner and 9 on the residue, and four lots, plus the residue, will never be built on (proffered). --The plan had been designed to optimize protection of the reservoir. May 14, 1985 Page 2 --By right development would be more economically feasible, but the family has no intentions of *40 developing in that manner since that would not preserve the farm. --Concur with staff's recommendations with two exceptions: (1) "...wells used should be located on a lot or lots (within the 189 acres)." He requested that this recommendation be deleted since he did not feel this was logical and could possibly worsen Crouse Hines problems. The current well, which could supply water for this entire subdivision is located several hundred feet off the property line. He suggested that the well lots be made permanent easements. (2) "...each well should be independently capable of (producing 40 gpm)." He felt this was a mistake and that the requirement was that the aggregate of the wells must produce 40 gpm. --Regarding the staff's recommendation for the implementation of an Agricultural Best Management Plan, he stated this had not been a part of the proffer, but the applicant was willing to adopt such a plan to protect the reservoir from agricultural pollution, provided such a plan was reasonable. The Chairman invited public comment. Dr. John Youel, an adjacent property owner, addressed the lwmo� Commission. He indicated he was concerned about the proposal for the following reasons: --Increased traffic on Rt. 660, since the traffic is very heavy at certain times of the day. --The unsafe condition of the one -lane bridge on Rt. 660. He suggested the applicant might modify their plan so as to bring the subdivision out onto Rt. 743. --Possible overcrowding of the elementary school (Broadus Wood), which might necessitate bussing very )oungchildren long distances. He pointed out school buses cannot cross the one -lane bridge. --Negative impact on already low -yielding wells. --Possible septic drain field problems. --It would be difficult to comply with, and enforce the agricultural best management practices. --No assurance that the residue will not be developed at some future date. Mr. Tom McLean, representing Crouse Hines, addressed the Commission. He said the plant's major concern is the water issue. He explained the water problems which the plant has experienced including the necessity for drilling several wells, reduced output from these wells, and the necessity of having to buy and transport water to the plant several times a week. He stated a geologist's report has discovered that it would be useless to drill additional wells to increase their water supply. He said if the development proceeds, it is the desire of Crouse Hines that a central well system be developed that will be located as far /Y May 14, 1985 Page 3 away from their wells as possible. He further explained that the plant now must buy approximately 1/3 of their total usage. In answer to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. McLean explained that the wells had originally yielded from 12 to 19 gpm. Currently only 3 of 4 wells are operating with one yielding 3 gpm (from an original 7-8 gpm) and another is down to 1 gpm (from an original 15 gpm). In response to Mr. Gould's question, Mr. McLean said the company would have to study whether or not they would be prepared to assume the cost of running the public water lines to Earlysville ($209,000). Mr. McLean confirmed that water is used in the plant's manufacturing process. In response to Ms. Cooke's question, Mr. McLean explained the wells are declining because of the type .of formation the water is coming from (Lovingstc formation) and because there is "only so much water there." In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, he stated the plant's usage would be increasing in the future as much as 50o/day. Mr. McLean explained that the plant sits in the middle of the formation and the geologist's report indicates that chances of getting better wells are greater at the perimeter of the formation. Mr. Murray stated that water moves through rock in two ways: (1) through the pores; or (2) through cracks and fractures. Better wells are obtained from a crack or fracture since all the water that is moving is accessible. He stated that it is obvious that Crouse Hines is nowhere near a crack or a fissure and they are only getting the water that is directly under them. He added thatit is for this reason that the applicant has requested that staff's recommendation that the wells for the subdivision be located on the property near Crouse Hines be deleted. Mr. Murray stated another alternative was to extend public water, but not to extend the service district. The line would be privately owned and would serve this subdivision, Crouse Hines and the Earlysville Fire Department. He said Mr.Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority has determined this is feasible and would be substantially less expensive than was indicated in the report prepared for the county. He added that this was well within the budget of the parties involved. He explained that the meter for what the county sells would be located at the end of their service district. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Joseph confirmed that the applicant has proffered that the residue property shall be divided equally into a total of 9 parcels. Regarding staff's condition (5)--No lots accessing on Route 661 shall be approved by the Planning Commission until Route 661 is improved to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- *OAW tion standards adequate to handle additional traffic. --Mr. Payne explained this means if the developer wants to put the 119 May 14, 1985 Page 4 development on Rt. 661 and improvements have not been made by someone else, then it would be up to the developer to make those improvements. He further explained this is different from the Hilton case because: (1) This involves a special use permit and the condition is directly related to the impact of the proposed development on this road; and (2) The developer has indicated he agrees to this condition. Regarding condition (4.c.)--The central well system should be served by 2 or more wells each independently capable of supplying the subdivision with an adequate supply of water. --Ms. Joseph explained staff felt this was necessary because of the water problem that exists in the area. She confirmed that it was felt the back-up well should have the same flow as the primary well. Mr. Payne stated Mr. Murray had interpreted this condition as a statement of what the County ordinance requires, but that is not the case. He stated Mr. Murray's understanding of the law was correct, i.e. that the entire system must have the requisite amount, combined. However, staff is saying that because of the peculiar conditions in the area, it is appro- priate to have additional safeguards above what would normally be required. He added he did not think it was staff's intent that only two wells could be used to meet this requirement, but rather that the back-up system must be equal to the primary well, e.g. primary well of 48 gpm, with two back-up wells of 24 gpm each. Regarding condition (4.d.)--The wells used as part of the central well system should be located on a well lot or lots incorporated as part of the subdivision. --Ms. Joseph stated staff felt they could recommend approval of this proposal if the land had the "carrying" capacity for the density that was desired by the applicant, but if water had to be obtained from some other area, staff felt the proposal could not be approved. She added that whether or not the applicant should be allowed to locate wells on the residue property, with the proper easements, was a matter for the Commission to decide. Ms. Joseph stated that school impact information had not been included because staff felt the proposal (80) lots was very close to what could be done by right. (93 lots by right) Mr. Norris, the Watershed Management Official, addressed the Commission. Regarding the recommendation for the establishment of an Agricultural Best Management Program, he felt, with proper safeguards, this type of proposal could be accommodated on the site. Mr. Cogan asked if the quality of the run-off water would be worse with this type of development than it would be with the present agricultural use. Mr. Elrod responded that the quality of the water would deteriorate, logo even with the detention basin. ;�n- o May 14, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Elrod explained that the phosphorus which runs off of subdivisions (primarily from lawn fertilizers) comes into the streams in two ways: (1) Some is disolved into the water and does not get taken out; and (2) Some gets attached to soil particles and will settle out in the detention basin. Thus only a percentage can be kept out of the water. He added that other pollutants will also get into the reservoir from the subdivision. He added that the current agricultural use of the property, with it being right on the reservoir, also has negative impact on the reservoir. He stated that the establishment of Agricultural Best Management Practices would help this situation in future years since it would improve the water quality coming off the farm. Mr. Elrod suggested that condition (3.) be changed as follows: "Establishment of Agricultural Best Management Plan by the owner, the Watershed Management Official and the County Engineer, to be reviewed annually and revised as necessary to meet the water quality and quantity goals of the Runoff Control Ordinance." In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Elrod stated a very large basin would be needed, basically large enough to contain an entire storm for a long period of time, before it would have any sub:7�artial impact on filtering out pollutants. Mr. Cogan asked for comments from Mr. Brent, Service Authority, on the feasibility of a private water line. Mr. Brent responded he had some very serious concerns about the Authority selling water for resale to the ultimate users. He stated that, engineering -wise, it is possible to establish a metering system. He stated he had policy concerns and legal concerns about such an arrangement. He added he had not fully explored the issue and had not had an opportunity to discuss it with legal counsel. He said the possibility of setting up a water distribution company would have to be investigated with the State Corporation Commission and becomes a political question. He emphasized that it is definitely not certain that the Albemarle County Service Authority can sell water for resale. Mr. Echols (Highway Department) stated that Rt. 661, a gravel road, would become non -tolerable road; the tolerability of Rt. 660 had not been discussed, but is probably non -tolerable and there are no current plans to improve the one -lane bridge on Rt. 660. He added that school buses and fire trucks cannot currently cross the bridge because they are over the weight limit. Mr. Murray confirmed that the applicant is willing to make the establishment of an Agricultural Best Management Plan part of the proffer. He also stated the applicant is agreeable to staff's conditions for the central well system with the exception that they do not feel all the wells should be located on one lot. �f May 14, 1985 Page 6 Regarding condition (2.)--Note on plat that there are "no division rights on, nor is division to occur on the resulting 9 ,,o residue parcels without Board of Supervisors approval, or until such a time as the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is no longer considered a viable water supply reservoir and/or water supply watershed management regulations and guidelines are revised in such a way as to remove the concerns for water supply pro- tection that currently exist in the area." --Mr. Gould asked Mr. Payne what could change that would remove the limitations on subdivision of the 9 residue parcels. Mr. Payne responded the most obvious would be a substantial amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Another would be the dis- continuance of the county's concern of the impact of this type of development on the reservoir, or.at.some time in the future, this may not be a drinking water reservoir. He added that removal of these controls is substantially within the realm of the Board of Supervisors. Regarding condition (4.d.), that all wells be located within the subdivision or on one well lot, Mr. Cogan indicated he understood the applicant's point on this issue and he would be willing to eliminate that condition provided appropriate easements and restrictions of record were obtained. Mr. Michel stated he had interpreted (4.d.) as being that no matter where the wells were drilled on the Murray property, they would become part of the subdivision. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the wells were supposed to be located within the subdivision property. Ms. Joseph confirmed this was staff's intent. Mr. Michel indicated he felt this might be precedent setting if water lines were allowed to cross several different property lines that were not a part of a particular development. He felt it should be possible to include the well lots as a part of the subdivision. Mr. Cogan interpreted this as a suggestion that the boundaries of the subdivision should be extended. Mr. Payne stated he felt that, technically, the entire residue parcel is a part of the subdivision, and this seems to be Mr. Michel's interpretation. However, he stated he did not feel this was staff's intention. He said he did not feel it would be setting a precedent since in the past wells have been allowed in common areas of planned development. He said this was a similar situation. Mr. Payne stated (4.d.) could be worded differently if the Commission wanted to allow the wells to be placed in other than the 189 acres, as was staff's recommendation. PI z May 14, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Murray stated he felt condition (4.c.) relating to the number of wells required, should be changed to reflect the standard as Mr. Payne had described it earlier. He also quoted from the geologist's report which stated that if it were possible to locate the wells anyplace else on the Murray property, it would probably be possible to obtain high yielding wells. He stated that if the Commission choses to require more than the law requires, then it should at least be reasonable. The meeting recessed at 9:15; reconvened at 9:25. Mr. Michel stated he felt he could support the proposal though he did have concerns related to conditions (4.c.) and (4.d.). Mr. Payne offered the following amended wording for these two conditions: --(4.c.) Central well system shall be served by two or more wells capable of supplying the subdivision with an adequate supply of water including both original and back-up supply facilities satisfac- tory to the County Engineer. --(4.d.) The wells used as part of the central well system shall be located on properties subject to the present application, including the residue acreage not included within the proposed 80 lots. Mr. Payne stated an additional requirement would be needed at the time of subdivision which would address the necessity for recorded easements. Mr. Wilkerson asked Ms. Joseph if staff could still support the proposal with Mr. Payne's suggested rewordings. Ms. Joseph responded if the the entire acreage were to be con- sidered as subdivision, staff could support the proposal. However, she was concerned that the well might be so far away from the proposed subdivision that the water will have to be pumped. She said she would like to see the wells located close enough to the 80-lot subdivision so that the owners would have control. Mr. Skove asked if the Commission would be able to deny the subdivision at a later point in the process if the proposed wells were felt to be too distant from the 80 lots. Mr. Payne indicated he felt it.could not be turned down just because of distance, but if the distance caused the system to be extremely complicated or unreliable, then it could be denied. 0-3 May 14, 1985 Page 8 Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the proposal because of the water problems in the area and she was not in favor of a central well system. She also felt this was not the type of typical clustered development that was envisioned. Mr. Wilkerson agreed with Ms. Diehl and added he was concerned that if Crouse Hines water situation becomes worse, many people would be out of jobs. Mr. Gould concurred with Ms. Diehl and Mr. Wilkerson and stated he could not support this proposal as long as central well system was a part of it. Mr. Skove pointed out that the proposal did not meet the criteria that have been established. He, too, was concerned about the water issue and indicated he could view the proposal more favorably if it could be connected to the County water system. Ms. Joseph confirmed that though the proposal does not meet the 9 criteria, it only "just misses." She also stated the area chosen for the proposal was probably the best location that could have been chosen. Mr. Cogan indicated he too was concerned about the water issue, though he was sympathetic to the applicant's efforts and reason behind the proposal. Mr. Skove stated he felt it was a well -though out plan and was preferable to what could be done by right. Most of the Commissioners indicated they could support the proposal if it were part of the County water system; however, Ms. Diehl stated she was not willing to make a statement at this time about the public water issue. Mr. Cogan asked if a deferral might be in order to allow the applicant more time to address the water issue. Ms. Diehl pointed out that the matter was to be heard by the Board "tomorrow night" (May 15) and moved that SP-85-16 for James B. Murray and Panorama Farms be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. The applicant stated he would prefer that the Commission defer the item rather than deny it to allow him time to address the issues of concern to the Commission. He said it was likely the item would be deferred by the Board anyway because the Board's agenda is very full, and thus there is no pressure for a decision. n May 14, 1985 Page 9 Ms. Diehl amended her former motion for denial and moved that SP-85-16 for James B. Murray and Panorama Farms be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl stated she would like to see another application before making any statements as to whether or not she would favor the proposal. Mr. Cogan stated he would like to see the proposal reduced in size as well as see the water issue addressed. Mr. Wilkerson stated he was not concerned about the size, only the water. The above stated motion for deferral was unanimously passed. SP-85-23 and SP-85-24 Michael G. Collier - Request to locate a mobile home on 12.88 acres on the east side of Woodridge Road, approximately 0.8 mile south of its intersection with Route 663. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 9, parcel 5. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report. Mr. Pickford, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant was agreeable to the conditions of staff and pointed out that the units will be for rental purposes. He stated there are four other mobile homes on this road, one of which is directly across from this proposal. He said the two neighbors who had objected were concerned about the maintenance of the road. He explained that it is an old road and varies in width from 12 feet to 50 feet. He stated the letters of objection give the impression they are the only property owners effected by the maintenance, but Mr. Collier's property is beyond their property and he will maintain the road, as he has been doing in the past. Mr. Collier addressed the Commission. He indicated he, personally, had been attempting to make some improvements to the road. He had in his possession letters from neighboring property owners which supported his efforts for improving the road. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the applicant does not live on the road. Mr. Cogan stated that generally the Commission has had reservations about approving mobile homes as rental units, but he added that there are other mobile homes in the area. ZS May 14, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Skove stated the objections seem to be to additional residences on the road, and not to the mobile homes themselves. It was ascertained that the applicant owns just this one parcel on the road; that he has not yet purchased the mobile home units; and the units will be previously owned units. Ms. Diehl stated she would prefer to see rental mobile homes in designated parks. Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-23 and SP-85-24 for Michael G. Collier be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Both mobile homes to be served by a common entrance. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Cogan stated that normally he would not be in favor of approving a mobile home rental unit, but because it is an existing use in the area, he was willing to make an exception. Ms. Diehl and Mr. Michel stated they could not support the motion because the units would not be owner occupied. The above stated motion for approval was approved (4:2) with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Gould and Mr. Skove voting in favor and Mr. Michel and Ms. Diehl voting against. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on May 15, 1985. Willow Lake Phase I Final Plat - Proposal to create 17 single family lots, averaging 28,782 sq. ft., of 20.4 acres. Lots to be located off proposed public roads Maple View Drive and Willow Lake Drive. Zoned R-4, Residential. Tax Map 77E1, parcels 1 and 2. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Fred Hermanson, president of Willow Lake Developers, addressed the Commission. He explained he had misunderstood what had been approved in March, i.e. he had thought the plat lines for the single family residences had been approved at that time. He discovered later that this was not the case and staff had recommended that the matter be brought back to the Commission. He stated all the current conditions of approval had been part of the approval for the townhouse units previously. He indicated the stormwater detention issue was in the process of being completed. Z� May 14, 1985 Page 11 *60, There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan called attention to the wide range in lot sizes in the development, from 201,000 sq. ft. to 7,688 sq. ft. He pointed out how this affects average lot sizes. Regarding the proposed amendment for minimum lot size, Mr. Payne stated this proposal would not be approvable under the new amendment in its present form since it is technically not a cluster subdivision. Regarding the applicant's request for administrative approval of the remaining 23 lots, Ms. Diehl stated she felt the general conditions of approval for Phase I should have been met before staff grants approval for the remaining lots. Mr. Gould moved that the Willow Lake Phase I Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions, including administrative approval of the remaining 23 single family lots provided the conditions of Phase I have been met: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of erosion control permit (bond to include allowance for paving driveways) with Planning staff approval of limits of grading; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road and drainage plans; d. County Engineer approval of 1) road and drainage plans; 2) shared driveways, including off-street parking provisions; 3) driveways in excess of 5% grade; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer easements; f. Fire Officer final approval; g. County Attorney approval of homeowners association documents and shared driveway maintenance agreements; h. Planning staff approval of sidewalk location; i. Vacation of the unopened portion of Lakeside Drive; j. Planning staff approval of replacement of mature trees which die during construction, and were intended to screen or buffer; a bond of $5,000 will be required to cover replacement costs. Mr.Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Z7 May 14, 1985 Page 12 Monticello Memory Gardens Mausoleum Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 4,633 sq. ft. mausoleum on the Monticello Memory „ Gardens site of 26 acres. (Special Use Permit #84-89). Property is located on Rt. 53 across from Michie Tavern. Tax Map 77, parcel 33. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Regarding the possible shifting of the entrance, Ms. Patterson stated it was her understanding that the applicant has chosen the first of the two options, i.e. traffic control during funerals, rather than shifting the entrance. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. J.R. Copper addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the applicant has complied with the conditions of staff. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Benjamin Dick, attorney for Joseph Conte, owner of Michie Tavern, addressed the Commission. He stated his client felt the applicant should be required to improve the entrance in order to provide greater sight distance. He asked that it be stressed that this special use permit does not give the applicant a vested interest to add more structures at a later time. Mr. Chuck Rhoades, manager of the cemetery, addressed the Commission and stated the mausoleum would result in only a very slight increase in usage. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the applicant's reluctance to shift the entrance, Mr. Rhoades explained the applicant did not wish to disturb the historic nature of the area, particularly the "old wall". Mr. Cogan stated he had no problems with the site plan, but he was concerned about the sight distance. Mr. Wilkerson said he had no objections to the applicant's proposal for traffic control during funerals. Ms. Diehl pointed out when the special use permit had been approved, the applicant had been given the choice of two options, which, in effect, indicated either option would be acceptable. Ms. Diehl moved that the Monticello Memory Gardens Mausoleum Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: Z1? May 14, 1985 Page 13 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following has been done: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following has been done: a. County Engineer approval of new parking spaces. 3. Compliance with SP-84-89. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was approved (5:1) with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Gould, Mr. Skove and Ms. Diehl voting in favor, and Mr. Michel voting against. Mr. Payne confirmed that the cedar trees about which the Commission had been concerned were protected under the special use permit. (Note: Mr. Payne excused himself due to a conflict of interests.) Alliance Bible Church Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 9,780 sq. ft. one-story building to be used as a church and pre-school, and to remove the existing one-story Merridale School building. These uses to be served by 67 parking spaces. (Special Use Permit 84-45 for Church). Property located on the north side of Old Brook Road (Rt. 652) at its intersection with Rio Road (Rt. 631). Tax Map 61, Parcel 127. Zoned R-2, Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She confirmed that staff's conditions do not require a left turn lane. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Lisa Sessoms, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She offered the following comments: --The applicant is agreeable to some sort of screening since it has been necessary to change the grading causing the removal of several trees. --The church is in favor of dedicating 25 ft. for the turn lane at this time and can vote on dedicating an additional 10 feet at some future date when the Highway Department's plans are more definite. --The Church does not feel that a turn lane is necessary since its meetings do not occur at high traffic times. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, stated there are no current plans for Rio Road though it will someday be a four -lane road. He stated the turn lane had been recommended Z 9 May 14, 1985 Page 14 due to the fact that Old Brook Road has changed quite a bit in nature and traffic volumes. He said a turn lane would ,, so prevent traffic using this site from backing up on Rio Road. He added that it was not known whether or not this would ever actually happen. Mr. Pack, representing the County Engineer's office, stated the need for a turn lane at this time was not really a problem. He also stated the additional grading had come about as a result of the necessity to reduce the depth of the stormwater detention pond from 5feet to 2 feet. Ms. Sessoms explained the additional grading and removal of the trees had reduced the steep slope. She said it had been a question of saving the trees vs. having a 2:1 slope, which the County Engineer feels is undesirable because of the safety factor. With the removal of the trees it is possible to obtain a 3:1 slope. Mr. Richard Thurston, pastor of the Alliance Bible Church, addressed the Commission. He felt the 2:1 slope and the subsequent depth of the detention pond would create an attractive nuisance for which the church would be liable. It was determined both the applicant and the County Engineer are in favor of the 3:1 slope even though it requires extensive grading. NOW Mr. Skove moved that the Alliance Bible Church Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. County Engineer approval of sidewalk construction; C. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention and drainage plans and computations; d. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Rt. 652; e. Fire Officer approval. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Planning staff approval of landscape plan (to include evergreen screening from residential properties). b. Fire Officer final approval. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Ms. Patterson asked about the required height of trees used to replace those lost during grading. She stated staff will allow 4-6 ft. trees unless otherwise directed. It was the concensus of the Commission that this be left to the discretion of staff. 110 May 14, 1985 Page 15 The above -stated motion was unanimously approved. (Mr. Payne returned to the meeting.) South Pantops Drive Final Plat - Proposal to create a 1.492 acre lot, with 1.4157 acres residue in parcel 15C1; and to create a 0.7388 acre lot, with 9.1429 acres residue in parcel 15C. There is an existing two-story building (Bressan's Caters) on the 1.492 acre lot, which is located on the south side of South Pantops Drive, adjacent to the Rivanna River. Tax Map 78, parcel 15C1 and 15C. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She asked Mr. Elrod to explain further condition (l.e)--Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of South Pantops Drive road plans. Mr. Elrod stated that at a previous site plan review for this road, he had pointed out that his office had neither approved road plans nor a bond to cover the construction of the road that was to lead to Overlook Apartments. He stated that at that time the Commission and staff had agreed that the County Engineer could "stick his neck out" and do an estimate for a bond amount based on his idea of what it would take to get those road plans approved by the Highway Department. He stated the bond that exists doesn't mean anything because it is a contractor's bond, i.e. the contractor and the bonding company agreed to build the road based on a set of plans that existed at the time. He said that bond is callable by the county at no expense to the county. However, that was based on a set of plans that have not been approved by the Highway Department. He explained those plans have been received by the Highway Department and they have returned them to the contractor with comments and they have been in the hands of the developer's engineer for several weeks. He said as soon as the suggested changes have been made and the plans are returned to the Highway Department, it is hoped that the County Engineer's office will then have a set of approved plans as well as a bond for that road. But at the moment, all the County Engineer has is a bond based on a set of plans that the Highway Department has not approved. Mr. Elrod confirmed it was his desire that condition (l.e) remain, since he must have a set of plans that the Highway Department has approved. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Jim Hill, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated the applicant has no objections to staff's conditions of approval. The Chairman asked for comment from the Highway Department. Mr. Echols stated the Highway Department has commented on the road plans, returned them to Mr. Elrod, who has sent them �ftw back to the contractor. He said there are several things to be resolved on the plans and he could not offer comment until the plans are received again. He stated there were some major changes in relation to drainage and access to properties. He felt the matter could be worked out. -_i�/ May 14, 1985 Page 16 Regarding condition (l.a)--VDH&T approval of entrance --Mr. Echols pointed out the entrance could not be approved until the road is accepted into the state system. Mr. Payne explained he felt it was staff's intent that if the entrances were to be constructed before the road is accepted into the state system they are to be built to Highway Department specifications, even though the Highway Department will not technically approve them. Mr. Elrod confirmed he felt his concerns were covered. He added it was his intent that the bond would be revised when the plans are revised. Mr. Payne confirmed this was in order. Mr. Skove moved that the South Pantops Drive Final Plat, Parcels 15C, 15C1 and 15C2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; b. Service Authority approval of easement locations; C. Real Estate Department approval of residual acreages as noted; d. Planning staff approval of technical items; e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of South Pantops Drive road plans. Mr.Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The meeting recessed at 11:20; reconvened at 11:28. Robert Walker (Rivanna) Phase I Final Plat - Proposal to create 15 lots, average size 1.4 acres, which range from 50,060 to 64,316 square feet. There is 8.98 acres of open space and 6.06 acres residue (for lots 10-12). Property to be served by proposed roads Arrowhead Drive and Arrowhead Court. Property is located on the east side of Earlysville Road (Rt. 743), adjacent on the south of Lake Hills Subdivision and the Rivanna Reservoir. Tax Map 45, parcel 31, Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman invited public comment. 1617 May 14, 1985 Page 17 Mr. Bill Tucker, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated he was not opposed to the subdivision but he was opposed to the proposed entrance location. He pointed out this was an extremely dangerous secion of Rt. 743 because of several curves and because of the high speed at which automobiles travel on the road. He questioned whether it would be possible to obtain adequate sight distance given the high speed at which the road is traveled. He also pointed out the high accident history for this section of Rt. 743. He felt the Highway Department's method for determining required sight distance was not based on experience and did not take into account all aspects of the road. He also read a letter of opposition from neighboring property owners, Dr. and Mrs. Gerald Mandell. He felt this section of road should be realigned and the development of this property would preclude that from ever happening since it would mean the two front lots would be necessary for the realignment. Mr. Tucker quoted from section 18-54b of the Subdivision ordinance as follows: "Nothing herein shall require the approval of any subdivision or any part or feature thereof, which shall be found to constitute a danger to the public safety or general welfare, or which shall be determined by the Commission to be a departure from or a violation of sound engineering design or standards." He felt the solutions were either to relocate the entrance closer to Charlottesville or to realign the road. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman asked for comment from the Highway department. Mr. Echols explained the Highway Department's policy for determining requirements for sight distances is the same for all entrances. He stated the posted speed limit on this road is 55 mph, though there are, at certain sections of the road, additional signs advising maximum safe speeds which are lower than the 55 mph. He said in order to construct the entrance with the turn lane, quite a bit of grading would be necessary and this would give greater sight distance. He stated the Highway Department does not feel the entrance will be unsafe with the addition of the turn lane. He also felt the proposed turn lane would not result in increased speed on that section of road since the turn lane would terminate at the entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Michel asked how long it would take the Highway Department to compile a report of the number of accidents for this section of road. Mr. Echols responded it would take 6-8 weeks. Mr. Michel indicated he was in favor of requesting such a report in light of the large number of accidents which have occurred on this section. Mr. Skove agreed. ,< Mr. Echols indicated shifting the entrance location would probably require sight easements from adjacent properties and he felt adequate sight distance could be obtained with the entrance location as shown by the applicant's proposal. 43 May 14,,1985 Page 18 Mr. Gould indicated he was in favor of seeing the accident reports also. Mr. Payne indicated it should be possible to get this information since Mr. Roosevelt (Highway Department) had once furnished him with similar information. Mr. Gould pointed out that Highway Department procedure does not take into account the way people actually drive. Mr. Cogan also suggested that the lot numbers should be changed so that they would accurately reflect what was stated. He stated that though the current proposal is to create 15 lots, the lot numbers shown actually go to 18, with numbers 10, 11 and 12 omitted. He explained to the applicant the lots should be numbered from 1 through 15 and when the other three parcels are developed, their numbers would be 16, 17 and 18, or 9A, 9B and 9C. The applicant indicated he was not opposed to this suggestion. Mr. Payne stated he did not think this was a significant issue, so long as it is apparent which lot is which. He suggested another way to handle this would be to assign Block or Phase numbers to the development. Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Payne if the entrance location was changed, thus changing the arrangement of the lots, would the rezoning be effected. Mr. Payne responded this would depend on the magnitude of the change. He indicated a shift of 10 or 20 feet would have little effect, but a realignment of the road could create a problem. He stated he felt lot 2 presented a major problem for realigning the road because there is a narrow area between the septic setback for the spring and the road setback. It was the concensus of the Commission that further study was needed in relation to the accident history of this section of Rt. 743, since this should be taken into consideration when locating the entrance and determining the sight distance. Mr. Skove moved that the Robert Walker (Rivanna) Phase I Final Plat be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. In order to meet the 60-day time limit, it was determined action must be taken on the proposal by June 4. Capital Improvements Program - In response to Mr. Jones' request that removal of asbestos from the schools ($71,000) be added to the CIP and Mr. Elrod's request that the Camille Basin improvements be removed from the CIP, Mr. Wilkerson moved that the asbestos removal project be added to the CIP and the Camille Basin improvements be deleted from the CIP. Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. May 14, 1985 Page 19 n Horticultural Concepts Building - Request to change condition (2.e)-- Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans and provisions made for acceptance into the State system. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She explained this condition had been attached to the Certificate of Occupancy rather than the site plan approval in order to insure that additional traffic would not be on State Farm Blvd. until it was accepted into the state system. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --State Farm Blvd. was built 5-10 years ago and he has maintained the road for a long period of time. --At the time the road was built he received a letter from the County Engineer which states that the road plans were approved by both the county and the state. --He has a bond up for the road. --After this building was built he discovered that the state had withdrawn the approval. He felt there was no authority for the state to do this. --Rather than go through an extensive legal fight, he had decided to re -submit the plans. --He stated the state's predictions for this road were very unrealistic (30,000 cars, 6 lanes). --His traffic engineer consultant had met with the state's traffic engineer and established more reasonable traffic counts for the road (6,000 cars). --Even though he has a letter stating the plans were approved by the state and a $110,000 bond was posted, he had to re -submit plans (which was done promptly) but which have not yet been returned to him. --Even though the first bond was still out, he had to put up another bond for a section of State Farm Blvd. which connects to another road into South Pantops Drive, which is also bonded ($150,000 and $80,000). --He now has a total of three bonds up for a road that is now serving all the traffic that it is likely to serve for many years to come. He asked that the Commission not put him through further trouble and expense by requiring another bond. He said the building is ready and he is only asking for an occupancy permit. He said the road is well built and maintained and he did not feel he should be required to put up another bond for something that does not need to be done. In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, he explained that the part of the building that is already rented would add, perhaps, 20 cars to the road. He said the two current tenants are an insur- ance company and an alarm system franchiser. He added the road has approximately 1,200 trips/day and is designed, in its present condition, for 5,000 to 6,000 trips/day. May 14, 1985 Page 20 The Chairman asked for comment from the County Engineer. Mr. Elrod stated he was concerned because the history of this matter is endless. He offered the following comments: --The site plan was approved approximately one year ago and there was a lot of controversy about getting the road plans approved. --Contrary to Dr. Hurt, there was no bond at that time for the road construction. There was a letter in his file at that time from the Highway Department stating they had rescinded their approval of the plans. The bond that had been posted had expired. That bond was in the form of a contractor's agreement with Dr. Hurt to build the road, but it was typed plainly on the letter of agreement between Dr. Hurt and the contractor that the road had to be built in 1977 or 1978. (He was unsure as to the year.) But the road was not built. Therefore, both he and Mr. Payne felt the bond had expired. --Sometime last fall Dr. Hurt had applied to subdivide that lot and at the time of Commission review of that proposal, it was agreed that the County Engineer would review the plans and decide what it would take to get this portion of the road, from this building back to the entrance into State Farm property at its intersection with South Pantops Drive, into the state system. --He had made that estimate and the County holds a bond for $80,000 for that section. He said it had taken a year, from the time of the site plan, until the plans were submitted. --Many meetings have taken place, and the matter is close to being resolved, though there are still some concerns. --Mr. Elrod stated he was concerned because there has been so much controversy between Dr. Hurt and the Highway Department as to what is required and the County is left "in the middle." --He said, for this to be a subdivision, the Ordinance says that the County shall have approved plans from the Highway Department and shall have a bond, but he does not have those things. He clarified that he has a bond for one portion of the road, but it is not based on any plans. Mr. Payne indicated the problem is that the bond is not of much use without approved plans, i.e. the County is not in the road building business and cannot build something if it does not know what to build. Mr. Edwards, an engineer for Dr. Hurt, tried to clarify the matter. He stated the only appreciable difference in the plans is the pavement. He stated he felt the $80,000 bond would probably be sufficient to pave the entire road. He indicated the applicant was under the impression when this was released for the subdivision, the certificate of occupancy was taken care of also. He felt many people had been under this assumption, including the planning staff. .1:?4. May 14, 1985 Page 21 Mr. Elrod stated this issue was not as significant as it would ate, be if this were a residential development rather than a commercial one. However, the Ordinance requires that subdivisions meet certain requirements and the County Engineer is supposed to have certain items, and he does not have those items. He expressed the fear that this issue could go on for another five years. Mr. Cogan stated what he understood was being asked of the Commission. i.e. whether or not to allow the CO based upon the road being bonded and, if so, whether or not to change condition (2.e) as suggested by staff --County Engineer approval of road plans for State Farm Blvd. and additional bonding if deemed necessary. Mr. Hurt stated the applicant has done his part. The plans have been submitted twice and even approved once. He stated he has a letter from the "head of the staff" saying the County has never withdrawn their approval, though the state did with- draw it. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if it would be a violation to permit occupancy of the building subject to the bond that is now in existence, without having accepted road plans. Mr. Payne stated that technically this would be a violation. Mr. Payne compared this situation to the one with Brookway Drive, i.e. the road is supposed to be in the system but, for whatever *4W reason, it didn't get in the system. It is conceivable that development could be completed and the road still would not be in the system. He stated the idea of the subdivision ordinance is to provide a mechanism to get the road into the system, and if it is not built in a timely fashion, then the County collects the bond and builds the road. But the road cannot be built if there are no plans. Mr. Payne stated he, too, thought the plans had been approved. Mr. Payne added that violations already exist on the road, beginning with the State Farm building. He said the question is where to draw the line. Mr. Elrod stated the only way now to remove the violations would be to vacate the land and vacate all the lots, and that isn't possible. Mr. Cogan stated he felt it would be appropriate to apply a little common sense to the situation. The road is in place and is a good one and he stated he did not see any real problems with allowing the CO with the bond, since any additional bonding would hopefully be minimal. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he would not be opposed to leaving condition (2.e) as originally stated. May 14, 1985 Page 22 Ms. Joseph confirmed that this condition is already attached to the CO, and all that is being proposed is a change in the wry''' wording of the condition. Mr. Elrod expressed the concern that if the applicant is granted a CO without the road plans having been approved, there will be no incentive to get the plans approved. Mr. Payne stated there were two choices: (1) To release the CO and assume that the road will be completed in due course; or (2) Hold the CO until the plans have been approved. He said the Commission can look at it in two ways: (1) There is already enough development on the road and this one more building is not going to make that much difference; or (2) This is as far as we're going to go. Referring to the staff report, Mr. Cogan stated he understood this condition was attached to the subdivision approval only. Ms. Joseph stated the staff report did not intend to say that and the condition was attached to the site plan. Mr. Payne further explained there were two conditions: (1) The subdivision plat was permitted to be recorded upon Mr. Elrod's approval of the plans as they were before and his approval of the bond; and (2) The site plan conditioned the issuance of a CO upon the plans having been approved. He stated the idea here is to make the site plan condition the same as the subdivision condition. Mr. Payne pointed out the difference in the original condition (2.e) and the proposed one as being that the original condition required Highway Department approval and the proposed change is for County Engineer approval. Mr. Elrod stated if the proposed change was approved, i.e. County Engineer approval of road plans for State Farm Blvd. and additional bonding if deemed necessary, he would not require more bond. Mr. Cogan understood if the County Engineer was not going to require more bond, and the condition already exists on the CO, then the issue is moot. Ms. Joseph explained the condition is currently for Highway Department approval of State Farm Blvd. and the applicant has requested that that be modified or deleted for a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Wilkerson moved that condition (2.e) be changed to read "County Engineer approval of road plans for State Farm Blvd." M May 14, 1985 Page 23 Mr. Elrod stated he was not going to approve the plans until he has a letter from the Highway Department saying the plans are approved. He said if the Commission wants to release the CO, all that needs to be done is to delete entirely condition (2.e). Mr. Payne confirmed this, i.e. deletion of (2.e) will allow the CO to be issued. There was confusion among the Commissioners as to what was being requested. It was determined the question was whether or not to leave (2.e) as it is or to delete it. Mr. Wilkerson amended his previous motion and moved that condition (2.e) be deleted. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Payne stated this action would not be setting a precedent since there are several other buildings on the road which are already occupied. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he felt it would be unfair to hold up the applicant at this point in view of the fact that he had at one time had approved plans. Mr. Elrod stated the approval that the applicant was referring to was actually a letter written about an inspection that was made on the road which contained a statement to the effect "In accordance with the approved plans, I have checked the road base (or whatever item)...." He said the phrase "in accordance with the approved plans" was the only indication that plans had been approved. He stated he could find no letter from the Highway Department which stated that the plans had actually been approved. The above -stated motion for deletion of (2.e) was approved with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Skove and Ms. Diehl voting in favor and Mr. Michel and Mr. Gould voting against. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m., May 15, 1985. LIA James R. Do elly, Secretary DS �9