HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 29 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
June 29,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, June 29,
1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr.
Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Ms. Susan
Thomas, Senior Planner; Mr. Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. David Hirschmann,
County Water Resources Manager. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William
Nitchmann.
Approval of Minutes — June 1,1999 and June 15,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of June 1, 1999 and June 15,
1999 as amended.
Board of Supervisors Meeting — June 16,1999
Mr. Cilimberg presented the report from the June 16' Board of Supervisors meeting, stating that the
Board approved the John Casteen special use permit for home occupation/furniture making; the Triton
tower at the Ramada inn was approved with conditions reflecting Planning Commission
recommendations and additional language added by the Board; the special use permit for expansion of
the Trinity Presbyterian Church was approved with conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board approved
Zoning Text Amendments as recommended by the Commission, including those related to fees for
county projects, the requirement for payment of delinquent of real estate taxes subject to zoning
application or approval, and the amendment allowing animal shelter in several zoning districts,
including HC, C1, and RA districts.
Other matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
CFW Lickinghole Repeater Site Plan Waiver Request
CFW Communications requests to construct a telephone pole type tower with two panel antennas that
will not exceed the surrounding tree tops.
CFW Route 708/I-64 (Ivy) Site Plan Waiver Request
CFW Communications requests to construct a telephone pole type tower with two panel antennas that
will not exceed the surrounding tree tops
SUB 99-108 Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) Final Subdivision Plat
Request for approval of a private road.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda.
Deferred Items
ZMA 99-01 Pantops Place
Request to rezone 12.3 acres from R-1, R-6 and R-10 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District to
allow up to 130 dwelling units in a retirement village. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels
55 A-1 and 55 A-5 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Route 250 East, adjacent to
Westminster Canterbury, approximately 1.13 miles from Free Bridge and the Charlottesville City limits.
269
M
The density of the development is 10.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01— 34 dwelling units per acre in Urban Neighborhood
3, Pantops. Staff requests deferral to July 6, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of deferral of ZMA 99-01 to July
6, 1999. The motion passed unanimously.
Guaranty Bank at Forest Lakes SP 99-13
Request for special use permit to allow drive-in windows for a new bank in accordance with Section
24.2.2. of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows associated with a permitted use.
The property, described as Tax Map 46B4 parcel 1D, contains approximately one acre, and is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District on Fortune Park Lane approximately 115 mile from the intersection of
Worth Crossing and Seminole Trail (Route 29). The property is zoned Highway Commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as community service in the Hollymead Development
Area. Staff requests deferral to July 6, 1999.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the ARB had considered the item at their June 28"' meeting. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that they did not, and indicated that they will be considering the item at their July 5t' meeting.
He said that staff would provide a verbal report at the July 6t' Planning Commission meeting.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of deferral of SP 99-13 to July 6"',
1999. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 99-30 Adwel Infosystems
Proposal to amend conditions of Special Use Permit SP 89-07 to allow for additional office uses.
Property is located on the southern side of Rio Road East, at the entrance of Squire Hill Apartments.
Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 129A, consists of .7 acres and is zoned R-15, Residential, Rio
Magisterial District. This property is recommended for Urban Density in Urban Neighborhood 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, indicating that the applicant is requesting to amend the
conditions of SP 89-07 to allow for additional office uses and an expansion of building square footage to
5,000 square feet from the existing 2,500 square feet. Mr. Morrisette said that the Board approved SP
89-07 in 1989 to allow for computer consulting, sales and service use in an existing single-family
residence. He said that the use is viewed as office, with the sales portion being minimal. Mr. Morrisette
stated that with these types of requests, staff relies heavily on the Zoning Administrator's analysis. He
reported that the Zoning Administrator finds no conflict with the type of use outlined in the proposal.
However, the Zoning Ordinance states that in village and neighborhood areas "no single use can exceed
4,000 square feet"; the zoning department has some hesitation about the 5,000 square foot size of the
proposed building and has asked staff to recommend no more than 4,000 square feet.
270
Mr. Morrisette said that the use has existed in harmony with the adjacent property — the Squire Hill
subdivision — for over 7 years, and doesn't provide any detriment to that property. He added that any
adverse relational impact due to the increase in building size at the site plan level. Mr. Morrisette said
the character of the district is reviewed, and this is a high -density residential district, but it is believed
that the increase in additional office use won't really change the character of the district. Staff has
included a condition that limits the aesthetics of the additions to be similar in a residential appearance as
the building is now to fit in with the character of the district. He added that commercial uses have been
established in the area. Mr. Morrisette explained that VDOT has stated that any expansion to the
building would likely increase traffic, recommending that the current entrance be relocated further away
from the signalized intersection of Hillsdale Drive and Rio Road; he noted that that could be dealt with
at the time of site plan amendment, should the building expand. He concluded by listing the favorable
factors and one unfavorable factor as outlined in the staff report, stating that staff is recommending
approval of the SP with conditions as outlined for the additional office uses requested — and only for the
additional 1,500 square feet to meet the 4,000 limit as issued by Zoning.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the site plan amendment would include changes in parking requirements that
are generated from the addition. Mr. Morrisette said that the use is viewed as office, and parking
requirements are based on square footage; any increase in building size would yield a change in the
parking situation, probably adding parking spaces.
Mr. Rieley asked, "There are no other issues of scale or percentage of the building that is given over to
office use that's a consideration in this; it's simply a matter of the facility with which zoning can verify
the percentage of use within the building that's their concern?" Mr. Morrisette replied that the problem
is when there is a significant sized office building not on commercial property, but instead on
residential, the ordinance has a 4,000 square foot limit on a single user.
Mr. Rooker asked what the plan is concerning the users of the property as expressed by the applicant.
Mr. Morrisette said that the applicant is applying for additional office uses so that they can lease out a
portion of their building to another tenant.
Mr. Finley asked for clarification on how the building space is used. Mr. Morrisette replied that Mr.
Adler, the owner, is consuming the entire 2,500 square feet at present, but is looking to reduce his office
space so that a tenant can assume the remaining space.
Mr. Cilimberg said that one way to look at this is that the condition is limiting the entire building to
4,000 square feet — not any user; the ordinance limits the user. If more than 4,000 square feet were
allowed as building size, the ordinance still restricts the users to 4,000 even if it were 50 more square
feet. "That's an enforcement issue, I think, for Zoning. They're saying it's hard to really be able to
track that. The easiest way for them to enforce is knowing that the building is at the maximum one -user
size."
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any limitation on the actual building size. Mr. Morrisette said there is no
limitation, just to the single user's occupation, adding that planning and zoning agree that there is a point
where the "line needs to be drawn" and have the applicant rezone for commercial office; 4,000 seems to
be that logical point. Mr. Rooker commented that it seems odd that the ordinance doesn't address
overall size.
VAMW The applicant, Mr. Winfred Adler, addressed the Commission, stating that he has occupied the present
location for seven years. He said he contacted his neighbors regarding his plans for expansion, and the
271
M
neighbors seemed receptive to the idea. Mr. Adler said that his business needs in the computer industry
have changed over the last several years, and he needs to make adjustments in his business to
accommodate the changes, which primarily involve how people purchase computers. He explained that
he has tenants interested in part or all of his building, including a real estate firm and florist.
Mr. Adler said he would like to rent or lease out'/4 of the building, and keep 1/4 for the business. He said
that it is important that the existing use, computer sales and service, be permitted in the future, and said
he interpreted the staff report recommendations as not allowing retail sales & service. Mr. Adler said he
is hoping to expand his business to include internet and software services, and if that is successful, he
might want to reoccupy the building in two or three years. He added, "4,000 square feet isn't going to
be anywhere near enough; as a matter of fact, it's probably going to be more like 6 or 7 thousand what
we probably would need." Mr. Adler suggested that Commissioners look at the lot because there is a lot
of room in the back to expand. He mentioned that they have kept a buffer area in the back with trees,
and concluded that the lot where it is located is a "perfect example of an infill situation."
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Adler if he could accomplish his goals with 4,000 square feet, instead of the
requested 5,000. Mr. Adler said although he has no immediate plans for a large expansion, he felt he
would have to come back to the Planning Commission later if he were restricted in size now to
accommodate his future plans.
Mr. Adler indicated that he recalled a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that required the 4,000
square feet to be on one floor. Commissioners confirmed that that is what the ordinance stipulates. Mr.
Adler said that the building is two-story and would remain a two-story building.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission has the authority to grant a special use permit that contradicts the
ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner replied that this particular provision in the R-15 zoning applies to retail shops; the 4,000
square foot limit that applies to this SP is pulled from Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was an issue with the applicant's intent to retain the right to do retail
sales on site. Mr. Morrisette responded that accessory retail up to 20% is "allowed and expected" with
professional office uses, and therefore is acceptable. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission could
combine the first old condition and the first new condition to ensure that the applicant retained his
existing use. Mr. Morrisette added that if the Commission allows expansion beyond 4,000 square feet,
there is currently no setback and requiring a commercial setback may be appropriate.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that the site map seems to indicate a good deal of undeveloped space, but
additional building square footage and parking requirements would take a portion of that. "I'd hate to
see some of that existing buffer have to be removed."
Mr. Rooker noted that it depends upon which direction the applicant expands into.
Mr. Thomas commented that the roads are on the north, south and east sides of his property.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant can go in certain directions without violating the setback requirement,
which he might violate if he goes in other directions.
272
Mr. Kamptner noted that the reason Zoning recommended the 4,000 square foot ceiling is enforceability,
and asked staff if they explained their ability to enforce sales as an accessory use to a professional
office. Mr. Morrisette responded that they never indicated they had a problem with that regarding this
property.
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "I guess there are several potential enforcement issues here that we could
be getting into."
Mr. Morrisette said, "The Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Department felt that at some point there
needed to be a cutoff before the applicant applies for commercial office, and they felt that this is an
adequate point."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Adler said that his experience with planning this time has been a pleasant experience, unlike his
experience eight years ago.
No further public comment was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said, "It sounds as if Mr. Adler's long-term plans would not be in line with this even with the
5,000 square foot limitation. What is the down side to encouraging a rezoning?"
Mr. Morrisette replied, "None at all. If that's the case. I had talked with Mr. Adler and said I would be
recommending 4,000 square feet, and there was some hesitation to that but we really didn't have any
further discussion about long term plans. I was assuming that 5,000 would be adequate for the long
term. He's indicated that that might not be the case now."
Mr. Finley said, "I'm having a hard time hitting the bottom line on this."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "On the face of it, I would think a rezoning would have been the way to go. I
think this is restrictive. I think it could be a source of frustration for the applicant down the road,
particularly having heard that their plans may expand. If it looked as though 4,000 square feet were
going to be adequate to address the needs here, I think this would be a little bit easier to deal with, but I
think we've identified a number of things that are question marks that I think we need to get straightened
out before we approve it this way. I think it would be a lot easier if it were treated as a rezoning." Mr.
Loewenstein added, "I think there isn't any question at some point Mr. Adler will have to come back if
we restrict him this fully tonight."
Mr. Morrisette said that the Commission could, at the least, take an action on just the use to allow Mr.
Adler to vacate the existing portion of the building to allow for another tenant to come in, and they just
not take action on the square footage. "I think we should at a minimum at least allow for additional
office use."
Mr. Rooker noted, "I'm not uncomfortable with going to the 4,000. I think we should apply commercial
setbacks on the expansion. But I would be uncomfortable going beyond the 4,000. I think if we're
going to get into a situation where we may be up to 5,000 square feet, I think we should be looking at a
rezoning. The Zoning Department has indicated that they feel they can adequately enforce this at 4,000
I,,,,,,. square feet because then there's no chance of a single user exceeding the limit." Mr. Rooker added that
273
the property has been used as commercial/office for a number of years without any complaints from
neighbors and is in a high traffic area. "I would have difficulty going to a greater square footage."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed, noting that if the plan is for a larger building, it makes sense to look at a
rezoning.
Mr. Rooker commented that a rezoning allows for notice and posting on the property, whereas a special
use permit does not provide the same awareness to neighbors. He agreed that the limitation on use in the
conditions should be expanded to include — specifically — computer system consulting sales and service
so that the present use can continue; additionally, there would be professional office use that would
enable him to lease to other tenants.
Mr. Thomas agreed, stating that if there is 5,000 square feet then there will have to be a commercial
setback.
Mr. Rieley agreed, but said he was concerned about the premise that it's acceptable to have multiple
uses as long as no single one is above 4,000 square feet, but we're not going to allow 4,000 square feet
because it might be hard to catch them. "If we don't want more than 4,000 square feet in any building
we should say so. People should know that up front."
Mr. Rooker remarked, "That's a change in the ordinance that ought to be addressed."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved approval of SDP 99-030 with conditions as recommended by staff and a
change to the first condition to add the prior use that was permitted under the old special use permit, and
with a fifth condition that would mandate adherence to commercial setback requirements.
Mr. Kamptner asked if there were different commercial setbacks depending on the zoning district.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are — under commercial district requirements — setbacks next to
residential. He added that the Commission has approved a few projects recently with commercial uses
that don't meet setbacks and are next to residential because of the desire to promote a mix of residential
with office uses, including second floor residential over offices.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that is a little different application of the land use.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in future considerations of "town centers," the Commission is going to be
looking at residences sitting next to offices sitting next to retail, etc. "This is in fact supposed to be
designed as a residential building; next to an apartment building, it ought to be fitting, and setback ought
not to be a real issue."
Mr. Rooker stated that there is a difference between an integrated design for an entire community and an
existing community with an expansion of a neighboring commercial use.
Mr. Rieley asked for specifics on the setback distance.
Mr. Kamptner read from the ordinance, "no portion of any structure excluding signs should be located
closer than 50 feet to any residential or rural areas district; no off-street parking or loading space should
be located than 20 feet and no construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall
occur closer than 20 feet."
274
Referencing a 1/20 map for the site, Commissioners considered the space available for the applicant's
proposed expansion.
Commissioners confirmed that the building would have to be 20 feet from the property line, even if
there is a street there.
Mr. Morrisette said, "Planning Commission's intent might be to protect the wooded area as is, and
maybe there would be a preservation statement in the conditions."
Mr. Rooker remarked that there was a statement in the old permit that talked about mature trees on the
property adding, "I would withdraw that proposed condition because obviously the present building
would violate that condition. I haven't looked at the property, but I don't think that this particular
addition that he's proposing would be offensive."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission could say "in general accord with the plan," and reference
the plan and its date, including preservation of areas shown as wooded.
Mr. Rooker agreed to replace the language with what Mr. Cilimberg suggested. He mentioned that there
is language in the staff report that talks about the Comprehensive Plan making special note of the need
to provide screening for residential areas from commercial areas.
Mr. Morrisette said that that is something that is addressed at the site plan level.
It was then determined that the plan intended to be used in the conditions could not be used.
Aftw Mr. Rooker agreed to move forward with approval with the four conditions as recommended by staff,
with the change previously noted for Condition 1. Mr. Kamptner suggested that the word "total" in
Condition 2 be replaced with "gross floor area in". Mr. Rooker agreed, and Mr. Loewenstein seconded
the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 99-100 Happy Valley Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Request for open space on a portion of the property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is zoned PRD,
Planned Residential Development and RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 31,
Parcels 26, 27, 28, and 29 is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Earlysville Road (Route
743), approximately one mile north of the intersection with Dickerson Road (Route 606). The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that Happy Valley is a subdivision that reflects how the
county used to plan in rural areas. She said that the plan was re -validated when the Zoning Ordinance
was adopted in 1980 as were any other RPN zoned properties in the Rural Area; the subdivision is a use
by right.
Ms. Thomas said the action on SUB 99-100 addresses the portion of the open space that lies within the
RA zoned portion of the plat. She said that the Rural Areas District is sufficiently restrictive that even
open space requires Commission approval, because it is not a use by right. Ms. Thomas explained that
the subdivision is 176 acres, with the bulk of the lots in the part zoned RPN, now called PRD. She noted
that a new concept called "conservation planning" in areas where there is a strong market for lots in a
275
rural area, it's possible to reduce the lot size even further by placing the individual septic systems within
the open space portion, which still obligates the homeowner to maintain the septic system, but does
allow the actual maintained area of the lots to be smaller, and the open space to be bigger. Ms. Thomas
said she has posed the concept to the applicant.
She reported that a comment from Earlysville Forest residents indicated their hope for open space in the
PRD portion of the project to "match up" with theirs, so that if the two subdivisions wanted to develop a
trail system in the future, the layout of the ground would allow for it.
Ms. Thomas noted that there is a concern from an adjacent property owner about the impact to her well
from the fairly large number of individual wells that will be drilled as a result of the development of the
lots. She distributed a letter from Brian Elliot, Executive Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Airport, indicating concern about a residential subdivision immediately adjacent to the airport, which
lies at the southeastern edge of this property. Ms. Thomas commented that Mr. Kamptner has reviewed
the language proposed in Mr. Elliot's letter, and feels it is more than the county can require. There will
be a statement on the final plat stating that the subdivision does lie within the AIA (Airport Impact
Area).
Mr. Finely said, "There's already open space here. Is that already classified as open space."
Ms. Thomas said that the open space lies in both zoning classifications of the property — both the PRD
and in the RA portion, the old farm. She said that because RA is such a restrictive district, even open
space as part of a subdivision does require Commission approval. She confirmed that the RA section is
36 acres, with 18.2 acres of open space.
1�w Mr. Rooker asked if the open space will become a part of the PRD, or if it will remain RA. Staff
indicated that it will remain RA property because there is not a zoning change. He asked if the
homeowners' association covenants would deal with the open space.
Ms. Thomas responded that it would belong to the homeowners' association, and staff has asked that the
word "common" be added to open space to clarify its purpose.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the RA part of the plan is new, and is essentially one subdivision in two zoning
districts; it doesn't necessitate rezoning, but does necessitate open space approval under the RA part.
"Essentially you need to look at it as one subdivision with one homeowners' association with one
control basically of the open space, but in two zoning districts."
Ms. Thomas said the recreation area would roughly occupy the site of the current farmhouse and the
improved area; a pond is located southeast of that. She added that across the road, the other portion of
the open space is located, which still lies within the RA district. "My recommendation contemplated
that the farm would become the club, and that would be [maintained], and the rest of the open space
within the RA district — which is the only thing before you tonight — would be left undisturbed"
She continued that "there are a number of streams and there will be stream buffer enhancement as part
of the Best Management Practices agreement on this property .... the applicant has indicated to me that he
would like to incorporate that pond area with the recreational facility in a more groomed fashion."
Mr. Finley asked, "The homeowners' association would maintain that?" Ms. Thomas responded that
they would, adding that the recreation facility would be just for the use of this subdivision.
276
Mr. Rooker asked what the size of the area is in dispute between staff and the applicant over how it is to
be maintained.
Ms. Thomas responded that it includes just the pond area, confirming that she would like to have the
pond left alone instead of incorporated into the recreation area. "I guess I'm concerned about not
impacting the surface water on site with things like fertilizers and other things you use on lawn -type
areas, simply because that's the whole point of the stream buffer..."
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Hirschmann for input on the groundwater situation.
Mr. Hirschmann responded that the Water Protection Ordinance has management standards. "Those are
stream buffer areas because even though they're intermittent streams, they drain into Chrisgreen Lake,
which is now considered a back-up water supply... they are regulated stream buffers, so those
management standards in the ordinance do pertain which have to do with clearing of vegetation and so
forth." He added that whatever area is left undisturbed, the conditions should have a clause that says
"left undisturbed except for measures approved as part of the BMP and stormwater plan."
Mr. Rieley asked what kind of buffer Mr. Hirschmann would recommend for the pond.
Mr. Hirschmann responded that the pond has open ground or turf all the way around it, adding that some
additional vegetation helps hold the banks in place and filters runoff.
Mr. Loewenstein asked, "Are they going to have enough groundwater out there to do this?"
Mr. Hirschmann said, "Groundwater in the rural areas is something I think of mounting interest and
"AW concern." He referenced the Peacock Hill and Earlysville Forest situations, where 25 years ago a certain
density was approved, and now the county is trying to figure out how to keep residents with an adequate
water supply. Mr. Hirschmann said there is effort to improve the analysis capability to help evaluate
and determine water supplies.
Mr. Rooker asked what was going on at Peacock Hill.
Mr. Hirschmann responded that they are having trouble filling their storage tanks based on a drop of
yields; their 5 or 6 wells are not fulfilling their needs. He added that they have cut down on water
demand, and still can't fill their storage. "They either have to look at other opportunities for other wells;
they've about exhausted what they can on the property," and may petition for a water line extension at a
minimum of $2 million cost.
Mr. Thomas asked if this was because of the drought, or if it was an ongoing water shortage.
Mr. Hirschmann responded that it is primarily a drought situation, but as lots are developed, demand is
increased also. "Under normal hydrologic conditions, they don't really have a problem."
Mr. Finley noted that some springs in his area have just dried up.
Mr. Hirschmann said he was reviewing USGS hydrologic data on the Internet, and right now Virginia is
in 95% exceedence for almost all streams, which means that we're experiencing the 5% of lowest stream
flow on record. "I think it's a pretty severe event."
277
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Kamptner reported that the county has asked the Attorney
General for an opinion as to whether water quality and quantity information could be required as part of
a subdivision plat approval process. He added that there is authority to require quality information but
not quantity information, stating that an applicant is not required to prove that there is an adequate water
supply to serve a subdivision at the plat stage.
Mr. Rooker said that he is concerned that lots are allowed to be sold in a "buyer beware" situation where
there may not be adequate water.
Mr. Finley said that there are contingencies with purchasing properties so that if the land doesn't perk,
they don't buy the property. Mr. Hirschmann said that a conscious buyer might include that in the
contract to say that they would verify a well site.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "Allowing the use of language requiring that is actually not enabled in Virginia."
Mr. Hirschmann said that he has a different recollection on the requirements than Mr. Kamptner that
came to light when the groundwater protection study was performed. Mr. Hirschmann recommended to
the Commission to review Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes certain strategies
regarding water protection.
Mr. Kamptner left to obtain the opinion on the water quality/quantity issue.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested looking at what other communities in the Commonwealth have done.
Mr. Finley noted that the cost of proving water is on the property will be reflected in the price of the lot.
Mr. Rooker said the question is whether it is a buyer beware situation. "In my mind there ought to be
some kind of disclosure to potential buyers of lots concerning the water aspects of the lot."
Mr. Finley said the depth of a well will vary from 200 to 800 feet. "Suppose the verification is there and
five years later you have no water."
Mr. Hirschmann commented, "Verification is not any type of absolute guarantee..... when the water
table is going to be impacted is when all the lots are developed and they're all pumping. Five or ten
years down the road is going to be a much different story than your initial test well indicates."
Mr. Finley asked if the pond was included in the BMP plan.
Mr. Hirschmann responded that it is basically upgrading from all the runoff that will be generated, so it
is not really part of the BMP plan, but it is covered in the stream buffer.
Mr. Kamptner reported that the Attorney General did conclude that the county has the authority to ask
for water quality and quantity information.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is music coming through the sound system, and encouraged
Commissioners to focus their discussion.
Mr. Don Franco of the Kessler Group addressed the Commission, explaining that the reason the item is
before the Commission is that they want to place the recreational aspects of the subdivision in the
278
existing farmhouse. He said that they plan to improve the area and grounds that are already maintained
by placing tennis courts and other facilities in the open space. "We wanted to put it in open space, and
make it all contiguous with the open space that exists already with the PRD....the lake we're talking
about is a lake by the house. It's already mowed and maintained. It's bushogged on a regular basis. It's
been open pasture since well before the rezoning even occurred in 1979. There are already paths that
are around that area... it's not a swimming pond... but there are some paths that go to an island on it.
There are some little structures there." Mr. Franco said they do not want it to get overgrown, and plan to
have walking paths and some small structures there while maintaining water quality as much as possible.
He added that the active facilities - such as a soccer/play field - will be located near the front on the
flatter parts of the land and will need to be cut a few times a year, but will not require a lot of pesticides
and herbicides. Mr. Franco said that the common area open space by the road will serve as the entrance,
as they are visualizing a gated community with fencing along the road and entrance. He emphasized
that their big objection is the possible prohibition of these structures by restrictions regarding Best
Management Practices. Mr. Franco added that they want to put the clubhouse in the open space as
discussed, instead of in the other open space located closer to the streams, which would require some
grading. "It is something that's available to us by right at this point as part of the PRD; we could go in
and build a club in the common area there, but we'd be disturbing areas that are within a hundred
feet... of the stream setbacks. We'd be working on slopes where it's going to take a lot more grading."
Mr. Franco said that they want to maintain the rural character of the area by trying to push all of the
recreational aspects to the front club area, preserving more of the buffers towards the back and the
streams. He added that the lake has been maintained in its current status for years, and they just want to
continue to be able to continue to maintain it with minor improvements.
Mr. Finley asked if they agreed with staff except for the area around the lake. Mr. Franco agreed,
adding that it is going to be in the buffer area, and will have a 100-foot buffer around it.
Mr. Thomas asked what watershed the area is in. Mr. Franco replied that it is in the Chrisgreen
watershed, which drains into the North Fork.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how far off the public road the recreational facility will be located. Mr. Franco
said the clubhouse will be located approximately 300 feet away, indicating that the homeowners'
association for the area will maintain the site.
Mr. Rooker asked if the roads would be private roads built to public road standards.
Mr. Franco responded that they are going to try to reduce the impervious area, using more winding
narrow roads that adhere to grades better. "We want to use our consultant's best judgements on what's
applicable, but we're not trying to create something that's to VDOT standards. If we did, we're talking
about massive grading in through here —18 foot wide roads. We're going to be... pursuing 14-foot wide
[roads], so we're widening from what is required by our PRD standards, but it's going to be well short
of VDOT standards." He concluded that the pavement structure will be to VDOT standards.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Brian Elliot, Executive Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority addressed the
11�*X„ Commission. He reported that airport officials have had conversations with the developer regarding full
disclosure of the fact that those residences on the westernmost boundaries of the property back up to the
279
Charlottesville/Albemarle airport. Mr. Elliot acknowledged that under current regulations and the
matter in which the property was zoned in 1979, there is nothing on ordinance that would require the
developer to disclose to property owners that they are next to an airport, the applicant is amenable to
consider such disclosure.
Mr. Elliot said that "buyer beware" can also be applied to airport noise, which is "extremely subjective."
He added that while all of the properties are located outside of any noise contours, no one can say that
10 or 20 years down the road whether the properties will be impacted. Mr. Elliot noted that nationwide,
there are incidences where "non -compatible uses" have begun to conflict with airports; airports have
thus had to go to expensive measures to sound attenuate the properties or outright acquire them. He
encouraged Commissioners to look at other incidences of properties contiguous to airports that might be
impacted, citing Loudoun County as a model of full disclosure. Mr. Elliot said that staffs
recommendation that there is a statement on the plat that property is adjacent to the airport may not
reach all potential homebuyers.
He concluded that in the airport's 1994 master plan, they recommended to the county to prohibit any
residential development in airport impact areas.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that over time the impact areas are likely to expand, and asked how other
communities address the issues around future airport expansion. Mr. Elliot responded that in the case of
Loudoun County, anything within 65 decibels or greater should not be residential; Loudoun used a
standard of 55 ldn, and mentioned that homeowners in that area have to sign an acknowledgement that
they are buying into that zone. Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Elliot if he is aware of communities that
have attempted to address the issue of expansion of the noise zone.
*Awl Mr. Elliot responded that when noise concerns arise, the airports are required to approach the federal
government and obtain a grant for a noise study to physically analyze the noise that is emanating from
the airport. Airports then develop noise sensitive zones, and retract their contours, and try to project in
20 years where the impact of the airport will be. Then, a noise plan is developed, where either through
noise attenuation and higher levels of insulation or outright purchase and relocation of property owners,
the problem is alleviated.
Mr. Cilimberg said in 1994, the airport impact area actually shrunk in association with the
Charlottesville Airport. Mr. Elliot attributed that in part to federal laws to retrofit noisy aircraft, and the
withdrawal of larger jets from the Charlottesville market.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Finley noted that the Commission's action on SUB 99-100 concerns the addition of open space.
Mr. Rooker said that he liked the applicant's plan for the open space area, with retention of the old
farmhouse and use of existing roads. He added that as a practical matter, if the property around the pond
were left wild and unmaintained, the pond would be less usable as a recreational facility.
M
Mr. Loewenstein commented that the pond is likely to get better maintenance if it is treated as the
applicant proposes.
280
Ms. Thomas said that with the 100-foot buffer around the pond, there is an area that is managed as a
BMP. Mr. Hirschmann said that the main objective is to protect the existing forest, and he would like to
see some vegetation along the water.
Mr. Rooker said, "I think we could grant what the applicant requested, but there was some language that
had been suggested... that said "except for measures approved as part of the BMP/water quality
treatment plan".
Mr. Cilimberg clarified the Commission's wish that in the remainder of the common open space, there
would be an area around the pond and maybe other areas associated with the streams that are subject to
protection under the Water Resources Protection Ordinance — the 100 feet. He indicated that that area
would stand on its own and wouldn't require a condition. Mr. Cilimberg added that whatever would be
addressed by the applicant with the engineering department as part of the Water Quality Management
Plan could address those provisions. "What you're yielding to basically is the provisions of the Water
Protection Ordinance to deal with those areas covered by that."
Mr. Cilimberg said that the airport request can be addressed under the Subdivision Ordinance, adding
that Albemarle does not have the allowances under its ordinance to do what Loudoun is doing, although
the applicant may voluntarily agree. He added that the notes can be put on the plat without Commission
approval.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SUB 99-100 without
conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the issue of wells and disclosures "really needs to be dealt with."
Mr. Loewenstein said it was important to look at what other localities are doing. "As we continue to
develop, especially in the rural areas with well and septic, I think this water question is [serious]."
Mr. Rooker noted that the government gets blamed when people run out of water. "Maybe one of the
better things that could be done that really doesn't require authority would be for the county to request
for local real estate agents to put in the real estate contract some kind of bold disclosure that deals with
properties that may be sold that will require wells."
Mr. Loewenstein said that the Peacock Hill situation impacts new landowners there as well as people
who have lived there for a long time.
Noting his past experience in Africa, South America and Asia, Mr. Finley asked Mr. Hirschmann to
keep the Commission informed on technology that addresses groundwater and water supply issues.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
Mr. Finley asked if there was anything coming to the Commission on the Parkside development in
Crozet. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a Zoning Text Amendment needed for what the applicant wants to
do, and until the Zoning Ordinance is amended, it may not be able to move forward. Mr. Finley said he
S.,� is interested in having the subdivision reviewed by the Commission
281
Mr. Rieley noted some larger issues that arose out of the meeting: commercial setbacks, open space and
septic, water verification, common areas and frontage, preclusion of tree lawns by current regulation,
and airport noise zones. He expressed the hope that these matters may be taken up in the near future.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the way the county's rural area zoning works is that each building site
(of 2 acres or more) has to stand on its own, which means there is no intent that anything be off of the
lot. In rural preservation developments, there may be a need to go outside of the lots — even make them
smaller — to utilize that for septic and well. Ms. Thomas added that while smaller lots are not always
encouraged in the rural areas, the rural preservation developments may facilitate a good opportunity for
smaller lot sizes to allow larger open space, and possible placement for septic and wells.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Nancy Damon has indicated an interest in having a city/county joint meeting,
hoping to discuss telecommunications towers, a greenway system, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said that in the
past, the chairs from each Commission have talked about what might be useful discussions, and staff has
coordinated the meeting time. Mr. Finley agreed to speak with Ms. Damon, and asked Commissioners
to provide him with ideas for appropriate discussions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the forthcoming Dunlora Pond application had a greenway component. Staff
indicated that they were not sure.
Regarding the Parkside development, Mr. Rooker questioned the plan for a traffic study and the impact
on the roads in the Pantops area given the apartment complex under construction. Mr. Loewenstein
asked what the schedule was for signalization of the intersections there. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there
are plans for signalizations from the 250 East Corridor study, but the timing is not known.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
V. Waynb-&
Secretary
cm
282