HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 25 86 PC MinutesFebruary 25, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 25, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish,
Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
The minutes of the February 11, 1986 meeting were approved as written.
SP-85-61 Kenneth & Barbara Lape - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.19 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a private airport on a 147.5
acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 111,
parcel 5, is located on the north side of Rt. 712 approximately 1/2
mile north of its intersection with Rt. 712 and Rt. 719 (near Alberene).
Existing use residential (7 existing structures). Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler presented to the Commission
copies of letters from neighboring property owners which were received
vim,,: after the staff report was written. The letters were from Mr. Graves
and Mr. Coleman whose properties lie to the northeast of the proposed
landing strip. Mr. Keeler also pointed out it was the applicant's intent
to "use the northern approach and departure over uninhabited and isolated
forest land whenever weather permits." It was determined that
Mr. Graves preferred that the applicant use a southern approach.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the airstrip
would be restricted to no more than five flights per week even if "future
improvements" should take place.
It was determined that the nearest dwelling on adjoining property was
approximately 1,500 feet to the west (the Carr Estate).
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the property had access for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Keeler responded that a jeep trail is shown on the map. He added
that the Lapes have an access to the airstrip site. He was unsure of
the condition of the road beyond that point.
In response to Mr. Gould's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the term
"usage for business purposes" was synonomous with commuting back and
forth from Washington, D.C. Mr. Gould asked how the number of flights
per week were regulated by the County. Mr. Keeler responded, "Purely
by complaint," i.e. if a neighbor complains that too many flights are
taking place, the Zoning Administrator would investigate.
2ii
February 25, 1986
Page 2
In response to Mr. Gould's question about the extension of an existing
open field as referred to in the applicant's proposal, Mr. Keeler explained
there is an existing cleared area and further clearing of some trees will
be needed, thus the reason for requiring a grading permit.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. James Murray, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
His comments included the following:
--The applicant has no objections to the conditions of approval.
--The applicant will be much higher than 1,000 feet (as referred to by
staff) before the plane "leaves his own land." The 1,000 feet
figure was used to illustrate a worst possible case situation.
--Five flights per week is not an "average", but an absolute
maximum.
--The applicant does not intend for anyone to use the airstrip
but himself.
--In response to Mr. Bowerman's request for a definition of "guest"
aircraft, Mr. Murray explained the applicant anticipates very
infrequent visits by friends, but has tried to allow for the
"maximum perimeters that he can foresee."
--No problems are anticipated with the FAA approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Zunka, attorney for Mr. Hunter Graves, addressed the Commission.
He explained Mr. Graves was strenuously opposed to any landing or takeoff
area to the north, though he would not oppose an alternative site to the
south. His reasons for opposition included the following:
--Intrusion on privacy and disruption of tranquility.
--Fire hazard to valuable timberland in the event of an accident.
--Possibility of fuel dumping by the aircraft.
--Devaluation of land.
--Opens the door for future expansion of the airstrip.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Zunka stressed that his client
was opposed to any use of the airstrip to the north for any reason, i.e.
he would not agree to even occasional use of the northern area which
might be necessitated by weather conditions.
Mr. Charles Morris, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Morris asked for a clarification of the exact location of the proposed
airstrip and flight path.
Mr. Stark asked if it were not possible, with a small aircraft, to make
a sharper turn and thus avoid flying over the northern area. Mr. Murray
responded that the shaded gray area on the map was intended to show
the "absolute maximum perimeters at which the smallest, least powerful
aircraft, could possibly have any physical impact on somebody on the
ground. " He continued, "It is not intended to illustrate what Mr.
Lape intends to do. In fact, there is no reason why he need ever pass
over any property owned by Mr. Graves. This is intended to illustrate
the "worst possible case." Mr. Murray confirmed that in the event of
inclement weather, Mr. Lape would land at the Charlottesville -Albemarle
airport.
In
February 25, 1986 Page 3
Mr. Murray also stressed, in response to Mr. Graves' concern, that Mr. Lape
would have liability insurance in the event of damage to the property of
others. He also stated it would be impossible to absolutely prohibit
use of the northern area because of wind direction considerations.
He explained the northern approach had been chosen for this application
because it was felt this was best for the public as a whole and it
was not the applicant's intent to impose a hardship on Mr. Graves.
Mr. Stark questioned the use of the term "for business reasons" and stated
it seemed the intended use was for personal reasons. Mr. Murray explained
he felt this was a misnomer and compared the use to that of a person using
their automobile to commute back and forth to work. Mr. Murray stressed
that Mr. Lape would not be making a profit in the use of the plane.
Mr. Payne stated that it was important that it be understood that this
was not a business use in the sense that the term would be used in the
zoning context.
Mr. Zunka again addressed the Commission and pointed out the inaccessibility
of the property to fire -fighting equipment.
Mr. Coleman Morris, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
He questioned whether the applicant would actually save much time by
flying to the airport rather than driving to the Charlottesville airport
and flying from that point. He indicated he was concerned about losing
the tranquility of the area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel indicated concern about the term "guest" aircraft and stated he
would want to avoid the -possibility of other aircraft being "parked" at
the airstrip. Mr. Murray assured the Commission there would be no
parking of other aircraft. Mr. Payne added that, as he understood the
issue, such a use would be a violation of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Payne stated he interpreted the term "guest" to mean a friend who
might spend the weekend with the applicant.
There was some confusion as to the location of Mr. Coleman Morris' property.
It was determined Mr. Morris' property was parcel 49A and that the map was
inaccurate.
Mr. Morris again expressed interest in the travel time that would be
saved by Mr. Lape. It was determined Mr. Lape's travel time to and
from the Charlottesville airport by automobile would be approximately
2 hours.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he had no problem with the application since it was
not a major operation and would not create significant danger or noise
to surrounding property owners.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was not opposed to the proposal; however, he stated he
would favor the southern approach since no public opposition has been
received about such an approach, though he recognized that at certain
times a northern approach would be necessary.
February 25, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Bowerman indicated it would be very difficult to control this situation.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he felt it would be possible for the applicant
to bank sharply and thus avoid flying over either the Coleman's or the Graves'
land. Mr. Stark agreed.
Mr. Murray indicated this was possible and again emphasized that what was
shown on the map was not what Mr. Lape intends to do, but rather was meant
to illustrate a worst possible case.
Mr. Cogan agreed that it might be possible to do what Mr. Wilkerson suggested,
but he was concerned that imposing such a requirement on the applicant,
i.e. requiring him to turn sharply and bank sharply,could be imposing a
hazard on the applicant. Mr. Cogan stated he did not think the airstrip
would be a serious intrusion on any neighboring property owners.
Ms. Diehl stated that, given the suggested conditions of approval, she
felt it was a reasonable use of the property and she could support the
application.
Mr. Cogan, in the interests of protection from future noise, suggested
the following minor change in the second sentence of condition No. 2:
Aircraft limited to propeller -driven light aircraft and those as defined
by Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Murray indicated he had no objection to such a change.
in response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Murray stated that "under
normal and usual circumstances" it is Mr. Lape's intent to fly over the
river valley and not over the mountainside close to the Graves' property.
Mr. Wilkerson suggested that Mr. Murray might wish to make this clear
when the matter is heard by the Board. Mr. Bowerman also suggested that
Mr. Lape be present at the Board hearing.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-85-61 for Kenneth & Barbara Lape be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferrable;
2. Usage limited to not more than five (5) flights (i.e. - takeoff
and landing) per week. Aircraft limited to propeller -driven
light aircraft and those as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
Not more than two (2) light aircraft to be parked on the premises
at any time (excluding guest aircraft);
3. County Engineer approval of grading permit;
4. Approval/registration with Federal Aviation Agency and Virginia
Department of Aviation. The applicant shall coordinate with the
City/County Emergency Services Coordinator for usage of the
landing strip for emergency purposes.
',2v
February 25, 1986
Page 5
5. Operations and improvements to be consistent with applicant's
submittal Proposed Private Landing Strip: Kenneth and Barbara Lape,
Alberene, Virginia Special Permit #85-61, further identified as
Attachment A of this staff report. As to possible future
improvements:
a) Staff approval of hanger location;
b) Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties;
c) Fire Official approval of fuel storage in accordance with
Sec. 5.1.20 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the applicant was aware of the Commission's
discussion about the use of the southern or northern approach to the
airstrip and it was hoped that the applicant would use his good discretion
and avoid using the northern approach as much as possible so as to
avoid future complaints by his neighbors.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board March 19, 1986.
The meeting recessed from 8:30 to 8:35 p.m.
ZMA-85-33 Earlysville Forest PUD Tract B, Amendment - Request to divide
109 acres into 69 lots with a 1.0 acre minimum lot size. This area was
previously shown for 23 lots. The property, described as Tax Map 31,
parcels 31 and 46 part of, is located off an extension of Earlysville
Forest Drive which will connect to Rt. 743. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
Referring to staff's suggested yard separation requirements for Section 9,
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler if the Fire Official had commented on this.
Mr. Keeler confirmed they were in accordance with the Fire Official's
recommendations.
Ms. Diehl asked how many lots had been approved for this section in the
original approval. Mr. Keeler responded that the original approval had
not been approved by sections but the plan had shown 22. or 23 lots in
this section. He further explained that 135 have been plated in the
other areas, thus leaving 20 lots in this section (155 original approval - 135 = 20).
Mr. Keeler further clarified that a total of 67 lots is being requested,
i.e. 47 in addition to the original 20 that were plated for this section.
Mr. Gould asked for an explanation of the phrase "open space shall be
dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved."
Mr. Keeler responded, "If you have 100 lots and the plan shows 50 acres of
open space, then you would dedicate 1/2 acre of open space for each lot
that you platted with a section."
0,3
February 25, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Gould asked where the reduction in open space was coming from.
Mr. Keeler responded that more of the land is being used for lots.
Mr. Gould interpreted that "in the earlier approval we had a proportion
that we agreed upon and now, in effect, we are saying we want to reduce it."
Mr. Keeler explained that minimum required open space in a PUD is 25% and
the applicant would still be above that with approximately 34% in the
sections that have been platted to date.
Mr. Keeler again confirmed that the applicant is requesting to change the
20 lots that are left to 67 lots.
Mr. Cogan asked how the proposal would effect the average density for the
entire project. He noted that the original gross density had been
1 dwelling unit/3.1 acres and the density for the proposed Section 9
would be 1.6 acres. Mr. Keeler roughly estimated that the overall gross
density would be changed to 1 unit/2.4 acres.
Mr. Stark asked about the status of the proposed recreational facilities.
Mr. Keeler explained that they have not yet been constructed. He
further explained that originally both private and public facilities
had been planned but this was later changed to exclude the private
recreational facilities. Currently, he stated that an area has been
dedicated to the County and, if approved, that will meet the recreational
requirements. He pointed out that this has nothing to do with the present
petition. Mr. Keeler added that there has been interest shown in developing
an area for recreational purposes.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated that recent soil reports have indicated it may be possible to
do 62 lots rather than 67. He also asked that the deadline for the
written agreement be changed from February 28 to March 5. He explained
that he would be out of town for several days making it impossible to
comply with the February 28 deadline. He stated he had discussed this
with Mr. Payne and no difficulties are anticipated. He and Mr. Payne
had agreed on a meeting date of March 5.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed various concerns
about the proposal:
Mr. Randy Henderson: Mr. Henderson's primary concern was the
water supply and the increased problems that would be experienced
as a result of this proposal.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing Mr. and Mrs. Dofflemyer, adjoining property
owners: He explained his clients were concerned about the
development taking place right on their property line and asked
that the 100 foot buffer be maintained as had been indicated in
the original plan. Mr. Bain also expressed concern about the steepness
of slopes in areas where roads were proposed. His clients felt
this was a over -development of the property.
a,2
February 25, 1986
Page 7
Mr. Ronald Brady, a neighboring property owner across Rt. 743:
He was concerned about access onto Rt. 743 and problems caused
by increased traffic. He also felt the density proposed was
much too intense and would detract from the rest of the
development.
Mr. Jeff Joseph, President of the Earlysville Forest Homeowners
Association: He explained he had solicited comments about
the proposal from 128 property owners and had received five
responses. Of those five, two were concerned about roads,
2 about water problems, and one was concerned about where the
road would be upgraded.
Ms. Doris Ayers, an adjacent property owner: She was interested in
knowing exactly where access onto Rt. 743 would be located.
(Mr. Keeler responded to Ms. Ayers question and indicated
the location on the map.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Keeler to comment on the 100 foot buffer that was
mentioned by Mr. Bain. Mr. Keeler responded that a 100 foot buffer
was not shown and had not been a requirement of the original approval.
He explained there had been a requirement to have screening along the
entrance road adjacent to Earlysville Heights.
Ms. Diehl recalled that the buffer issue
by the Commission, Mr. Dofflemyer and the
standing that although it had not been a
agreement to maintain such a buffer.
had been discussed at length
applicant. She stated it was her under -
requirement there was an informal
Mr. Michel asked how the new setbacks had been arrived at. Mr. Keeler
explained that the Fire Official at the time of the original approval
recommended 100-foot building separations in rural areas as a measure
to discourage fire spreading. He stated there is no requirement in
the Ordinance and the Fire Official had used several fire codes as
guidelines. He stated the current Fire Official is in agreement with
the separation requirements as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the current approval would allow 20 lots in
Section 9.
Ms. Diehl noted that a letter of opposition had also been received from
the League of Women Voters.
In response to Mr. Stark's question about the 100-foot buffer area, Mr.
Bain indicated he had not discussed the matter with a representative
of the PUD. He added that the 100-foot buffer was shown on the
original plan though it had not been a requirement. It was shown as
"open space" in Section 9. He stated his client would like for the
100-foot buffer area to be made a requirement. He indicated he did
not know if any agreement had been reached between his client and
the applicant, either informally or otherwise.
Ms. Diehl stated she recalled that there had been an informal agreement,
though she stressed that her memory of the issue was "suspect."
W-
February 25, 1986 Page 8
Mr. Keeler reported that the original copy of the plan shows about 50 feet
on Mr. Dofflemyer's land and 100 feet from Rt. 743, i.e. the open space
area.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt this section could "carry" more than 20 lots
which are now permitted, but to go to 67 lots was "pushing at the outer
limits of the physical features of the piece of land." He was also
concerned about roads on slopes in excess of 25%. He also pointed out
that drain fields are not permitted on slopes in excess of 20% without
special approval from the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned because she felt the request was
"very inconsistent with the original PUD and it was not in harmony with
the physical facilities." She stated she could not support an increase
of 200%.
Mr. Michel indicated he was sympathetic to Mr. Cogan's and Ms. Diehl's
position, though he was mindful of an attempt to move housing out of
the south region of Earlysville and direct it to the north, which this
proposal is in compliance with.
Mr. Gould indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl in that it was not in keeping
with the original approval. He felt the proposal was overdone and stated
he could not support it.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he, too, agreed with Ms. Diehl and added that
he was concerned about the water prd)lems as that had been a major issue
at the time of the original approval. Mr. Bowerman also stated that
had the original proposal been for 33% more lots, it may not have been
approved. He felt that going from 20 lots to 67 lots in this one area
was not good planning.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-85-33 for Earlysville Forest PUD, Tract B,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked Mr. Gilliam if the applicant had given any thought
to accepting a lesser number of lots.
Mr. Gilliam responded that that might be possible, but the option the
applicant holds on the land requires that the applicant be able to get
at least 60 lots out of the property.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 5, 1986.
Shifflett/Garrison Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create a 2.0 acre lot
leaving a 16.5 acre residue on a private road. Total acreage of site is
18.5, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 6, parcel 18,
is located on the north side of Rt. 810, ± 2 miles south of its intersection
with Rt. 601. White Hall Magisterial District.
February 25, 1986
Page 9
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question about the width of the travelway, Ms.
Patterson explained that, for this number of lots, a 14-foot travelway,
prime and double sealed, is standard.
Mr. Stark asked why the vehicle trip count was so high. Ms. Patterson
explained that trip counts are based on the number of lots on a particular
road, not the number of existing dwellings. She stated that 9 lots
currently have access onto the road. She stated it would be very
difficult to build on some of the very steep lots, so excluding those
lots, there are 6 lots which have access onto the road. However,
it was determined that even if only 6 lots are considered, staff's
recommendation would not change.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. George Coles, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained it is the wish of the Garrisons to give two acres of land
to their nephew, Mr. Thurmond Shifflett, Jr., in order to fulfill a
promise made many years ago. He pointed out that this is azisolated
and rural area and the applicants have lived on the property for
many years. He stated there are three houses and one trailer currently
using the road. He indicated the road is well -maintained and is used
only by those living on it. He stated the Garrisons cannot give up
more of their land in order to increase the lot size to five acres.
He also stated that the applicants have attempted to obtain the
necessary right-of-way but have not been successful. Though Mr.
Shifflett could possibly place his mobile home on his uncle's
land, he would like to own his own land.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mrs. Garrison addressed the Commission and clarified that the 2 acre
lot in question would be a level lot and not on a steep hill. She
was under the impression staff had misunderstood the location of the
lot.
Mr. Garrison addressed the Commission and indicated that without approval
of this application, he would be forced to "back down" on a promise
that was made many years ago. He also felt there was no need for
the road to be widened since there have never been any accidents on the
road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Payne to clarify which requirement he had stated
could not be set aside by the Commission. Mr. Payne responded,"The
private roads requiremerts, there are several of them that it doesn't meet.
I don't think you have the authority to waive any of them."
141.'1 Mr. Stark stated that, in that case, it appears that the Commission
has no choice in the matter.
17
1,27
February 25, 1986
Page 10
Mr. Bowerman asked why, if that is the case, the matter was before the
Commission.
Mr. Payne responded, "The staff doesn't have the authority to turn it down.
The applicant is entitled to be heard."
Mr. Coles indicated he was under the impression the matter had to be heard
by the Commission before it could go on to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne stated he did not think the Board had the authority to approve
the application either.
Referring to the history of the matter, Mr. Bowerman asked how the special
permit for the mobile home had been approved (SP-85-45). Mr. Payne
stated that did not require the same road improvements. It was determined
that the special permit had called for the mobile home to be located on
the Garrison's land, and administrative approval was granted because
there had been no objection to the application.
Mr. Coles asked if Mr. Payne was saying that the 5-acre minimum lot size
could not be waived. Mr. Coles quoted from the Ordinance as follows:
18-36(c) "In addition to provisions of Sec. 18-36(b) the Commission may
approve a subdivision served by one or more private roads in any case
where the subdivider, in accordance with 18-36(h) demonstrates the
following...." He stated he did not see a limitation there on lot size,
and if 18-36(h) is met, then 18-36(c) seems to say the Commission can
approve it.
Mr. Payne explained that Section 18-36(h) is the provision for a waiver
by the Commission.
Mr. Coles again asked if Mr. Payne was saying that the Commission could
not waive the 5-acre minimum lot size. Mr. Payne responded that if
the Commission wished for him to take the time to review the matter to
insure that Mr. Cole's questions had been answered "categorically and
correctly" he would do so.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the Commission has never approved a private
road on anything less than five acres, i.e. not since the current
Ordinance has been in effect.
Mr. Payne stated, "Mr. Coles I would glad to discuss this with you at your
convenience whenever you please, but I really don't think it is
appropriate to discuss it in front of the Commission. If the Commission
feels differently, I will be glad to do it."
Mr. Coles stated he questioned Mr. Payne's statement that the Commission
"could not do it." He asked that the Commission make its own decision
or else have Mr. Payne explain his statement.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "We wrote the Ordinance. We had certain things in
mind when we did it. One of the things we were trying to get away from
was substandard roads in the rural area; we wanted certain criteria to
C;�A9y
February 25, 1986
Page 11
be met which are outlined in the Ordinance. If we waive provisions of that
Ordinance, we don't have an ordinance."
Mr. Coles asked that the question be opened, "that the Commission can waive
it." He stated he felt it could be waived in the proper case.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the staff report had stated clearly what
needed to be done in order to make the subdivision approvable.
Mr. Cogan indicated he did not understand the inference that this would
go on to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Payne indicated he presumed it
was the applicant's intent to appeal.
Mr. Cogan indicated he felt there was nothing the Commission could do
with the application. He stated the staff report was very accurate
and he trusted that Mr. Coles had explained the situation to his clients.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission's application of the provisions
had been very consistent since their adoption.
Mr. Gould stated he was familiar with the area and indicated he might
be willing to support a waiver since he felt extenuating circumstances
do exist in this case.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the request though she understood
the applicant's decision to appeal to the Board.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Shifflett/Garrison Preliminary Plat be
denied because it does not comply with the Albemarle County Subdivision
Ordinance in the following respects:
(1) Right-of-way width;
(2) Lot size; and
(3) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of entrance.
The following changes could allow the plat to be approved according to the
data available at this time:
(1)i Obtain sufficient right-of-way;
(2) Increase the proposed lot to a minimum of 5.0 acres;
(3) Obtain Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of sight distance for a private street commercial entrance on
Rt. 810;
(4) Obtain Health Department approval for primary and reserve septic
fields;
(5) County Engineer approval of road plans in accordance with
Section 18-36(e).
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Chairman advised the applicant that he had a right of appeal to the
Board of Supervisors within ten days.
,V
February 25, 1986 Page 12
It was determined that the possibility of a family subdivision had been
suggested to the applicant. Mr. Keeler stated that staff is not
explicitly stating that the new lot must be five acres since there is
another way to approach the matter.
Riverrun Phase 6 (Chatham Wood) Site Plan - Proposal to develop 20, 2
bedroom attached townhouse units to be served by 40 parking spaces. The
proposed access will be from Riverrun Drive and Pen Park Road. Acreage
of site is 7.5 acres. Zoned R-6, Residential. The property is located
off of Rt. 768, Pen Park Road in Riverrun. Tax Map 62D, parcel 1.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained that "the
applicant is requesting a modification of regulation (4.2.3.2) in order to
build on slopes of 25% or greater. " It was determined that the
"County Engineer has reviewed the applicant's request and his determined
that the proposal is consistent with sound engineering and design practices."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Commission. He indicated the applicant
was anxious to move ahead with this phase of the development. He
pointed out that all roof drains are tied into underground drainage and
will not "dump out on the ground and go over the steep slopes."
Mr. Bowerman commented that this particular project "keeps pushing the
edge of the envelope in terms of full utilization of the land, perhaps
more so than other projects." He stated that, typically, the
Commission has not allowed building in areas of 25% or greater slopes.
He asked Mr. Osborne, "Why should this project be treated differently
than other projects in terms of this requirement?"
Mr. Osborne indicated that effective engineering measures have allowed
the applicant to control any problems that are associated with
developing on steep slopes. He also explained that the overall master
plan, which was permitted to be "constructed under a blown -up urban
topo which showed that the land was a little flatter than it actually
turned out to be." He stated that "as a part of the requirement that
we agreed to for the approval of the master plan, we have come back,
phase by phase, and run the topographic work on the ground and have tried
to demonstrate how we would successfully do each of these phases
in sufficient detail to (show that we wouldn't be creating a problem)."
Mr. Bowerman stated, "Ordinance -wise, where it is apparent that we can
construct in areas of 25% slope, that meet sound engineering practices,
but we have to waive a requirement of the Ordinance to do that."
Mr. Payne stated, "No, I don't think you do, Mr. Chairman. This is
peculiar, not to this piece of property, but to this subject. If you
recall (when the Ordinance was drafted) what was contemplated was that
it frequently is not only possible, but thoroughly uninjurious and
sometimes even desirable, to build on these steep slopes, as long as
it is done with appropriate engineering. The way this Ordinance was
,;qz50
February 25, 1986
Page 13
err designed, it does not require any kind of variance from the Zoning
Ordinance. What it requires is a particular approval by this
Commission,based on specific engineering analysis, that this particular
design fits this particular site in spite of that slope. ... I wouldn't
consider this to be a waiver; the Ordinance specifically contemplates
this kind of situation."
It was determined that one disadvantage of building on slopes was the
necessity of removing a large number of trees.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Riverrun Phase 6 (Chatham Wood) Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following
conditions are met:
a) County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans
and computations;
b) County Engineer approval of grading plans and computations;
c) Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final
water and sewer plans;
e) Staff approval of a landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following conditions are met:
a) Staff approval of subdivision plat;
b) Completion of recreation facilities as per approved
recreation plan.
3. Waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
The Commission asked staff to look at the setback requirements.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
DS
"�3/
m