HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 31 87 PC MinutesMarch 31, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 31, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Offices Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard
Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma
Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Fred
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 March 17, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
Parham Construction Site Plan - Proposal to locate a one-story building of
3,360 square feet and storage yard of approximately 7,440 square feet,
for a construction contractor's office and equipment repair. The development
is to be served by 12 parking spaces. Acreage of site is 3.571 acres.
Zoned LI, Light Industry. Property located on the east side of Route 742
(Avon Street), approximately 1.2 miles north of the intersection with Route
20. Tax Map 91, Parcel 1D. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry about preservation of the wooded area,
Ms. Patterson stated that the applicant would be required to submit
a conservation plan along with the erosion control plan. It was decided
this requirement would be added to condition 1(c).
Mr. Buddy Edwards was present to represent the applicant. He offered no
significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Parham Construction 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. County Engineer approval of site plan, grading and drainage design;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Route 742
full frontage improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit, and complete conservation plan;
d. No floor drains shall be permitted in the equipment service area
without further Health Department approval;
e. Fire Officer approval of dumpster and handicap parking locations as
applicable.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Planning staff approval of additional plantings that may be necessary
to screen from adjacent residential properties.
March 31, 1987
Page 2
3. Material shall be stored in areas designated on the plan. Any ex-
pansion of storage area requires site plan amendment.
4. Any increase in ofice employees beyond six (6) will require further
Health Department approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 114,450 square foot
one-story mall with 30 shops, to be served by 489 parking spaces. Total
site area equals 9.508 acres. Parcels lA and 1B equal 9.631 total acres; less
dedication and proposed parcel B, plus portions of two adjacent lots for
stormwater detention and buffer. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property,
located on the north side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) and east of Route 29
North, adjacent to 84 Lumber Company. Part: of this property is known as the
previous Ewing Ford Site. Tax Map 32A-2, Parcels lA and 1B. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report, which was an addendum to the staff
report presented to the Commission on March 10, 1987. The addendum report
stated: "The applicant resolved to provide minor amendments to ameliorate
some issues, but not to consider a major redesign of the site. These
amendments to the plan are as follows: 1. Relocating 2 and deleting 3
handicap parking spaces which had necessitated travel around the building;
and 2. A portion of proposed 0.95 acre parcel B is now utilized to provide
19 parking spaces. This design permits parking lot discharge points to be
aligned. These previously off -set discharge points were staff's point
#3 in complications to circulation in the original staff report."
Ms. Patterson added that the applicant was requesting administrative approval
of a plat showing a change in several lot lines in resulting .9 acre Parcel
B. She explained this was an amendment of a previously Commission -approved
plat and would add part of parcel 1B to parcel 1A, leaving residue parcel B.
She stated the applicant has been advised that staff will look closely at
access to the lot and that some uses may not be appropriate because of location
and circulation concerns.
Ms. Patterson stated that the applicant was not agreeable to changing the
location, size or shape of the building.
It was determined there had been no change in the proposed truck exit.
It was determined that the existing easement which serves 84 Lumber will
serve three parcels as a result of this application, i.e. 84 Lumber, this
site, and parcel B.
There was some concern about how the truck exit could be limited only to
trucks.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
March 31, 1987
Page 3
Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He emphasized the following issues:
--This has been a very long process, having begun in December, 1984.
--The applicant has attempted to meet the concerns of the Highway
Department and staff.
--The access points are already in existence and are of record. The
applicant has had to work around these existing entrances. Any
development of this property must use these access points.
--The only traffic using the exit between the corner property and this
property will be employees and delivery traffic which will create
no problems since it will be at different times.
--Handicapped parking has been completely relocated.
--Parking in front of the building has been eliminated.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Roudabush confirmed that a DO NOT
ENTER sign will be placed at the end of the emergency access easement.
Ms. Patterson noted that the Commission should ask for comment from the
County Engineer on this issue because staff felt that, of the two alternatives,
this was the least favorable "because we do not want to require all traffic
to exit from that shared entrance with the corner lot." She confirmed
staff would prefer that some of the traffic exit at the emergency access
point.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Steve Creswell, representing the
County Engineer's office. He confirmed that his office concurred with
staff, i.e. that the truck exit be for trucks only. He explained that
the truck exit could be gated, but he agreed that this would be difficult
to enforce.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Highway
Department. Mr. Echols stated his department's comments have not
changed since the previous review. He repeated that it is preferable to
keep the entrances as far away from the intersection of Routes 29 and 649
as possible and limiting the truck exit to trucks only will at least
decrease the volume of traffic at that exit. He agreed that a one-way
traffic pattern is difficult to enforce. He pointed out that the applicant
is limited to these access points since they were already established
with the original subdivision plat.
Mr. Ed Bain, a representative for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stressed that the applicant has attempted to address the Commission's
concern dealing with sound engineering design and practices by acquiring
additional property and cutting out the parking at the south end of
the property resulting in a one-way traffic design for employee and truck
traffic only. He stressed, as had Mr. Roudabush, that delivery truck
traffic will not interfere with other traffic since it will be at
different times. However, he stated that the applicant is willing to
change that design and "allow the traffic to go all the way around",
as suggested by staff, if that is preferred.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was primarily concerned with the southern portion
of the building and he felt that the employees would use the same exit
as the delivery vehicles even if it was designated "for trucks only."
%9 8
March 31, 1987 Page 4
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Fire Official had commented on the second proposal,
i.e. "to close off vehicular traffic as shown on the overlay." Ms.
Patterson stated that the Fire Official has not commented officially
though staff has discussed it with him and he had concerns about fire
trucks being able to make turning movements. She stated it had not been
discussed in depth because staff had not realized that a main proposal
was being offered. Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission might not
wish to decide at this point which exit is appropriate unless staff
reviews it in some detail. He suggested that if the Commission chooses
to approve the plan, it should be subject to staff, County Engineer and
Highway Department approval of one of those two alternatives for the
exit.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about what had been discussed
at the March 10th review (at which he had been absent), Mr. Cogan explained
that the applicant has stated he is not willing to change the footprint
of the building. Mr. Roudabush confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Michel asked if there was any protection in the event that the 84 Lumber
property should change to a more vehicular intense use at some future
time or in the event that the rear property should achieve access through
the SO foot easement that bisects the site. Mr. Horne responded that if
the 84 Lumber property should change a Change of Use Permit would be
required and possibly a site plan. He explained that if it changed to
the point where the current access is no longer sound engineering practice,
then the protection would be to allow the property to exit onto Rt. 29,
"if you consider that protection." Regarding the possibility of a new
development in the RA zone on the property to the rear, he stated, "I
don't think you are in any way obligated to improve that with this
access, even if they were to obtain legal access, you are under no
obligation to approve a design that is incumbent upon that access."
Mr. Michel asked if that could be placed as a condition, i.e. that only these
properties can use that access. Mr. Horne stated it would be difficult to
place a condition on the site plan which did not deal with the site itself.
Mr. Horne felt there was adequate protection to address Mr. Michel's concern.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if there was any part of the Ordinance which
allows the Commission discretion in approving a second access to a site.
Mr. Payne responded that this was actually the sound engineering issue,
i.e. if there is an entrance proposal which does not constitute sound
engineering practices, or it is not safe, the Commission does not have
to approve it.
Mr. Stark moved that the Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan be approved
subject to conditions stated in staff report dated March 10, 1987.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated he could not support the motion for the following
reasons: problems with controlled access point and traffic conflicts;
and questionable emergency vehicle accessability; and questionable
need for two access points.
March 31, 1987
Page 5
Mr. Gould stated he was not opposed to an outlet mall on this site but
he could not support this particular proposal for the following reasons:
r this plan is much larger than what was originally proposed; applicant
has not demonstrated that the easement cannot be moved; minimum radii
for tractor trailers to circle the building; too many safety issues which
have not been resolved. Mr. Gould pointed out that the applicant took
it upon himself to do architectual planning before getting Planning
Commission approval.
There was further discussion about the emergency vehicle issue. Ms.
Patterson read the following comment from the Fire Official: "Fire
apparatus will be brought to location to confirm accessability ground
perimeter of building and if problems are found applicant will /"required
to provide improvement of such." She added that the guideline
suggested by the Fire Official for providing access for fire trucks
are the radii necessary for a school bus and that is what staff used.
She stated that fire trucks probably would not be able to make the
turns "from the truck exit out to the main entrance."
Mr. Roudabush explained that the traffic lane is continuous around the
building, thus emergency vehicles can go all the way around the building.
Mr. Stark pointed out that since the parking spaces were removed from the
far side of the building, emergency vehicles could now get around the
building without being blocked by parked cars.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant has control of the corner
property and if it is found that additional turning space is needed for
emergency vehicles it should be possible to add space from said corner
property. Mr. Bain confirmed this possibility was agreeable to the
applicant.
It was decided that this determination would be left up to the Fire
Official and no additional condition was necessary.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated motion for approval
of the site plan.
The motion failed to pass (4:3) with Commissioners Cogan, Stark and Wilkerson
voting for approval and. Commissioners Diehl, Michel, Bowerman and Gould
voting against.
Mr. Gould moved that the Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan be denied for those
reasons he previously stated and because the proposal is too intense and
requires too many deviations.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion for denial which passed (4:3) with
Commissioners Bowerman, Diehl, Michel and Gould voting for denial and
Commissioners Stark, Bowerman and Wilkerson voting against.
The site plan was denied.
Mr. Cogan noted that it might not be possible to move the easement as
`%W suggested by Mr. Gould because it could possibly jeopardize sight distance
requirements.
/�
March 31, 1987
Page 6
SP-87-06 James B. Murray (Panorama Estates Subdivision) - Request to divide
189 acres into 24 lots, with an average 7.6 acre lot size. "By right"
this parcel could be divided into 13 lots. This request is to "transfer" a
total of 11 lot rights to this property, and to permit a decreased lot size
for 9 lots. Lot rights to be transferred originate from adjacent Parcel
21E (Tract V) and part of Tax Map 45, Parcel 1 (Tract I-4), which is adjacent
to Tract V and not Parcel 21. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described
as Tax Map 31., Parcel 21, is located on the south side of Rt. 660 and east
side of Rt. 661, and surrounds Cooper Industries (Crouse Hinds). Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report included the following
statements:
"Review of this special use permit request will be in two parts:
technical. criteria and policy considerations. The technical
criteria are as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance. The policy considerations are appropriately addressed
under the legislative discretion of the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors. Staff opinion is that while this request does
not meet all the criteria requirements for proposed rural area
development, there is a documentable public benefit in terms of
protection of the watershed which outweigh the criteria in this case.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-87-06."
"If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this request, it is important in terms of precedence to make positive
findings that by virtue of the specific aspects of this property
location and the plan for development, that there are identifiable,
overriding public benefits to be gained which outweigh the fact that
the proposal does not meet all criteria for review of special use permits.
This property is distinct from previous special use permit requests by
the location on the banks of the reservoir and the level of watershed
protection measures offered. In addition, there are very few working
farms on the banks of the reservoir. The attached tax maps showing the
reservoir in relation to parcel lines, shows that there are few unde-
veloped parcels of this size on the banks of the reservoir."
"Due to the above unique characteristics of this proposal, the staff
is less concerned than normally about the precedent to be set for
future requests. In staff opinion, few other requests will be able to
provide the same combination of characteristics."
The report concluded:
"The present request does not meet all of the technical criteria as
set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Based on
measures proposed by the applicant, this proposal clearly meets the goal
of protection of watershed quality. This goal is particularly impor-
tant due to the proximity to the reservoir and the existence of a
working farm on the majority of the residue. This property is
unique in that few, if any, of the undeveloped parcels on the banks
of the reservoir could transfer lot rights and require a special use
permit."
19
Ik
March 31, 1987 Page 7
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Cogan asked if staff's condition No. 3 (No lots accessing Rt. 661 shall
be approved by the Albemarle County Planning Commission until Rt. 661 is
improved to Virginia Department of Transportation standard for the
total projected traffic after this subdivision.) anticipated the Highway
Department improving the road, or the applicant. Ms. Patterson responded
that it did not matter who made the improvements, as long as they were
made before the lots are approved. She added that it is assumed the
applicant will make the improvements. Mr. Payne confirmed that the
Commission could not require the applicant to make those improvements.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the condition does not make that requirement,
but states that lots will not be approved until the improvements are
made. He added that the condition also does not require that the
Commission approve funding for the improvements.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question regarding SP-85-16, Ms.
Patterson confirmed that the applicant has indicated, in writing, that
he will withdraw that request upon approval of this application, SP-87-06.
She confirmed this could be added as a condition of approval if so
desired by the Commission.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. James Murray, Jr. addressed the Commission. He explained this proposal
is part of an estate planning process and the applicant has no intention
of developing the property personally, but will arrange for a professional
developer to do that. He stated the applicant was agreeable to the
suggested conditions of approval.
Mr. Steve Murray addressed the Commission and expressed concern about the
requirement that Rt. 661 be improved. As a resident of Rt. 661 he was
opposed to the road being widened. He explained that the road is a
dead-end and widening and paving it will "open up a interstate" on
a road that is seldom travelled. He explained that the five families
who live on the road have small children and are concerned about
excess traffic. He stated that no one on the road would benefit from
improving it. He pointed out that the recommended improvements are
for the best part of the road, and that the worst part of Rt. 661 is
well beyond this development and the residents of that portion of the
road like it the way it is. Mr. Murray was in favor of the application
being approved, but was opposed to the recommended improvements for Rt. 661.
Mr. Bob McKee, planner for the project, addressed the Commission. He pointed
out that the current proposal will reduce phosphate loading on the reservoir
and will thus improve the water quality. Regarding the issue of improving
the road, he pointed out that the current proposal will generate less
traffic than would by -right development.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Highway
Department. He stated he had little additional comment from what was
presented by staff. He pointed out that in order for the applicant to
upgrade Rt. 661 he will have to acquire additional right-of-way since
he does not own the first property that is off of Rt. 660 on Rt. 661.
March 31, 1987
Page 8
Mr. Echols pointed out that the road is not. currently eligible for
consideration in the Six -Year Plan because the traffic count is below
50 vtpd, and all the right-of-way is not currently available.
It was determined the road cu:-rently serves 5 residences and an additional
7 lots are proposed with this proposal. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's
question as to whether or not the road would still be adequate with the
additional 7 lots, Mr. Echols stated that it would still be functional
but he did not feel it would be adequate because of its narrow width
(10 - 14 feet). Mr. Echols clarified that the Highway Department
was recommending that Rt. 661 be improved from Rt. 660 to this new
subdivision street. He pointed out that it is a narrow, gravel surfaced
road on which traffic will be doubled.
Mr. Steve Creswell, Assistant County Engineer, reported that the
proposed retention basin will be even more efficient than is indicated
in the applicant's report.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Shirley Munson, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed
the Commission and read the following statement:
Two years ago the League of Women Voters stated that this Milo
applicant's proposal (SP-85-16) represented an environmentally
sound approach to development of Panorama Farm, but we raised
questions about the availability of water.
We agree with the staff that the present "request does not
meet all the criteria requirements for proposed rural area
development", but we believe that the applicant's plans for
development and especially provisions for watershed and reservoir
protection provide benefits that outweigh its failure to meet
all the development requirements.
This application covers the same acreage as the 1985 plan
(189 acres out of a total of 1038 acres)but represents a
70% reduction in the number of lots (24 instead of 80) with
an average lot size of 7.6 acres. This plan like the first
definitely seeks reservoir protection.
There are several features of this development that merit its
approval:
1. We understand that the residue will remain in agricultural
production. The greater separation between agricultural and
residential areas reduces the negative effects often associated
with development in an agricultural area (i.e. proximity of
livestock to homes, vandalism of crops and equipment, etc.)
2. The applicant's acceptance of the recommendations
of the Watershed Management Official, including applying the
Buck Mountain land use matrix, a 300 ft. buffer along the
reservoir, the use of agricultural Best Management Practices,
and monitoring by county officials represent a great improvement.
3. The applicant states that the proposed developer indicates
he intends to proffer conservation easements of 105 ft, along
all. intermittent and perennial streams. Such easements are
highly desira}le, but we remain concerned that such proffers
are sufficientir binding that open space does not disappear
no matter who ov:ns the lots.
/�3
March 31, 1987
Page 9
4. By proffering 11 development rights by formal deed
covenants of land nearer the reservoir in return for a gain
of 11 lots much farther from the reservoir, the applicant
transfers small lot development away from the reservoir.
However., there still seems to be some question concerning
the availability of water. We agree ttatt if a central well
system is used, there should be a back-up supply, capable of
producing as much water as the primary well or wells. We
believe the wells should be in place and capacity established
before construction takes place.
It appears that much depends upon the success of Crouse -Hinds'
recycling system, because of the plants reduced need for
groundwater. On p. 9 of the staff report, the staff noted,
"Please be advised that these figures are based on assumptions
of water reclamation and the existing number of employees and
shifts." We assume the quoted figures for decreased demand
applies to the present plant. Would they apply to the expanded
plant under construction?
Because of the importance of Crouse -Hinds' reduced need for
groundwater to this development, we believe appr:�val should
be contingent upon Crouse -Hinds' recycling system functioning
according to plan.
The applicant has made a sincere effort to comply with measures
to develop his land in an environmentally sound manner.
We hope the limiting factors can be overcome.
Mr. Eddie Cleveland, a resident of Rt. 661, addressed the Commission
and voiced his opposition to the recommended improvements to that
road. He stressed that that portion recommended for improvements
is the best part of the road and has never had problems with
maintenance or safety. He also stated that paving the first
part of the road would "create a runway which would allow cars
to pick up speed" before running into a "virtual pigpath."
He pointed out that the existing homeowners on the road had meet
and are all in agreement that the road should not be upgraded.
Mr. Steve Murray again addressed the Commission. He noted that
he disagreed with the Highway Department's traffic figures since
those counts had been taken at a time when there was construction
taking place on the road. He also pointed out that while the
road is indeed 10 ft. to 14 ft. wide as rirated by the Highway
Department, it is at least 14 feet wide on that portion that is
recommended for improvement.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
March 31, 1987 Page 10
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Norris, the Watershed Management Official, if this
is the first proposal which has incorporated the Best Management Practices
as part of the approval. Mr. Norris replied that this is probably the
first farming operation of this size, right on the banks of the reservoir,
in which this issue has come up. He agreed with Ms. Diehl that these
were very positive steps.
Mr. Keeler pointed out this is different than what has been seen before
where measures are employed just to reduce the impact of the new proposed
development. This proposal will not only do that but will also correct
the existing situation with the livestock.
Mr. Michel stated he felt this was a very creative solution. He asked Mr.
Payne to comment on whether or not he agreed with staff that this would
not be creating a precedent. Mr. Payne responded: "I think what the
staff is saying ... is not that this is not a precedent as to future
applications, but that the circumstances of this case appear to be so
unusual that it's unlikely that the same combination of circumstances
will recur. I really don't know. I don't think that's a legal issue.
Staff is much better able than I to evaluate what is and what is not a
unique circumstance. I think staff is telling you, in its opinion,
the peculiar combination of the proposed pluses ... and the minuses...
add up to a positive. The negatives are smaller than the positives.
For that reason they are recommending approval. In terms of using
this as a precedent, yes it certainly will be a precedent to some
degree, but the question is whether these peculiar circumstances are
likely to recur. I can't really answer that; staff has said they don't
think so."
Mr. Michel stated his only other concern was about the easements as
mentioned in the statement of the League of Women Voters. He asked
Mr. Payne to elaborate on condition No. 1 (County Attorney approval of
deed restrictions which provide limitations to the development of Tracts V
and I-4 and which provide for the continuation of Agricultural Best
Management Practice, in accordance with this application.). Mr. Payne
responded: "Any time you are dealing with an easement which is dedicated
to public use... the question is what is the relationship between that
dedication and the application. An obvious example... is a drainage easement.
If you had a proposal where the applicant said 'I want to put in a given
use which requires a special use permit' and the County Engineer says
'This is O.K. as long as there is a drainage easement here to carry off
the water', you wouldn't approve that without requiring the dedication
of that drainage easement." Mr. Michel asked if these would be
dedicated easements in that sense, i.e. platted on the different lots.
Mr. Payne responded: "As I understand it ... the negative easements, the
restrictions on development, would be related to the tenure of the Zoning
Ordinance."
Mr. James Murry offered the following additional clarification: "There
are easements within the 189 developed acres that the League has addressed.
Those, I think would be deeded easements, whether it goes on the plat or
whether in a separate.... They would be permanent easements which would
flow with that property forever. Then there is the question of development
/'/b
March 31, 1987 Page 11
rights on tracts 5 and I-4--development rights are being removed from
those parcels. We have, in a letter, said that those parcels are made
part of this application. That letter, as a condition of this approval,
all go in the zoning file. It becomes part of the zoning of that
property. So long as the ordinance exists, those development rights
are gone because that's part of this application. The third issue
has to do with Best Management Practices on other land that is not part
of the application at all and that we are going to handle by contract.
It is not in the zoning file; it is not in a deed; it is going to be
a contract between the applicants and the County."
Mr. Payne added that he had specifically discussed this contract
with Mr. Murray and it will be in the nature of a contract for the
installation of capital improvements which are to be done within a
specified period but are not on -going in their character.
Mr. Payne further clarified the three issues defined by Mr. Murray
as follows: "In the first case those are absolute easements; they
are not determinable, i.e. they end on the occurance of some
event. The second one is not an easement in the technical sense;
it's a condition of the permit and it's there for as long as the
permit is there. The third one is a matter of an executory contract
which will be completed within a specified time."
Mr. Cogan asked if the wording of condition No. 1 was sufficient
since it mentions only deed restrictions. Mr. Payne stated he was
a little confused as to which parcels are involved. Mr. Cogan stated
he thought the entire property was involved. Mr. Payne
stated, "If I understand it correctly, the Best Management Practices
are going on all of the Murray property and not necessarily only the
property that is subject to this application." Mr. Cogan pointed
out that condition No. 1 specifies only Tract 5 and I-4. However,
Ms. Patterson pointed out that condition No. 1 goes on to state
"...and which provide for the continuation of Agricultural Best
Management Practices, in accordance with this application." Mr. Payne
responded: "The applicant's proposal does not propose deed restrictions
for that purpose." Mr. Horne stated that condition No. 1 should
read "...deed restrictions, easements, and/or contracts...."
Mr. Bowerman pointed out minor corrections in condition 5(b) and 5(d)
as follows: 5(b)--The word should should be changed to shall; and
5(d)--The words test is should be changed to tests are.
It was the consensus of the Commission that condition 3, dealing with the
recommendation to upgrade Rt. 661, could be deleted. There was some
concern as to how to make potential purchasers of the lots on Rt. 661
aware of the fact that the road was not going to be upgraded. Mr.
Horne questioned whether a note addressing this concern could be
placed on the plat since this is an existing state -maintained road.
Mr. Payne stated he doubted this would make much difference since
potential purchasers rarely see the plats and even if they do they
don't pay much attention to them.
/1�16
March 31, 1987
Page 12
Mr. Echols confirmed that if the road were ever upgraded by someone
other than the Highway Department, it would have to meet the Highway
Department's minimum standards.
It was determined the following condition would be added:
"Applicant shall withdraw SP-85-16 within 30 days of approval of SP-87-06."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-06 for James B. Murray be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Attorney approval of deed restrictions, easements, and/or
contracts which provide limitations to the development of Tracts V
and I-4 and which provide for the continuation of Agricultural Best
Management Practices, in accordance with this application.
2. Watershed Management Official and County Engineer approval of the
establishment of runoff control measures and Agricultural Best
Management Practices as outlined in March 20, 1987 memo to Amelia
Patterson, Planner from William K. Norris, Watershed Management
Official.
3. Future subdivision proposals shallgenerally comply with the Panorama
Estates Subdivision site development plan dated January, 1987 by
Robert B. McKee & Associates. Stream locations are subject to
approval by the County Engineer.
4. If the applicant chooses to install a central well system, the following
is required:
a. County Engineer approval of central well system to be designed
in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards;
b. The central well system shall be comprised of 2 or more wells,
each of which is independently capable of supplying water for all
24 lots;
C. The well shall be located on property subject to the present
application;
d. Well tests are to be witnessed and approved by the County Engineer.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Southern Urban Area Water Storage Tank - Review for Compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Horne gave the staff report which explained that the Albemarle County
Service Authority was requesting a determination by the Commission that the
tank is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as per Section 15.1-456 of
the Code of Virginia. The report stated: "Staff finds the 2,000,000
gallon water tank and its appurtenances to be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by the Commission."
9
11�47
March 31, 1987
Page 13
The report explained that a specific location and site development for
the tank had not yet been determined but would be part of a site plan
to be submitted later for review and approval by the Commission.
Mr. Brendt and Mr. Williams were present to represent the Authority.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Southern Urban Area Water Storage Tank
be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as per Section 15.1-456
of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motirn which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adpurned at 9:40 p.m.
DS
Oa&4-4-7�
8
6P
Horne, Secretary