Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 24 1998 PC Minutes3-24-98 MARCH 24, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 24, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. William Finley; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler. Chief of Planning; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner; Mr. Maynard Sipe, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Washington and Rooker. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the March 10, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that the Work Session scheduled for March 31st is set to begin at 5:00 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA Woodbrook Pum Station =Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan - Proposal to construct a new pump station near Woodbrook Subdivision. SDP 97-138 Seminole Commons - Critical Slope Waiver/Cooperative Parkin Request - Request for a waiver to allow grading on critical slopes [4.2] and approval of cooperative parking [4.12.4] in conjunction with a site development plan to construct one retail structure and one retail/storage structure totaling approximately 28,000 square feet, on two parcels of land consisting of approximately one acre each. SDP 98-002 Ashwood Commercial Center - Critical Slope/Grading Within the Buffer Request - Request for a waiver to allow grading on critical slopes [4.2] and within the 20-foot buffer zone [21.7.3] in conjunction with a site development plan to construct a 15,000 square foot building to be used for offices/eating establishment on approximately 2.0 acres of land. SDP 97-138 Holtrust Apartment Buildin Addition - Critical Slope Waiver Request - Request for a waiver to allow grading on critical slopes [4.2] in conjunction with a site development plan to construct an addition of approximately 32,000 square feet to the Holtrust Apartment Building Branchlands Village, Phase Two, with associated parking. No concerns were raised about any of the items on the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. M K 3-24-98 NOTE: SDP 97-142 Vehicular Maintenance FaCllit was removed from the Consent Agenda. It will be rescheduled. ZTA 98-01 Violations - Public hearings on an ordinance to amend Chapter 20, Zoning Article V, Violations and Penalty, Section 37.0 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Section 37.0 will be amended to establish that the failure of a person to correct a zoning violation, ordered to be corrected enalt esythe court upon convicon, is and other technical changes a separate offense and subject to additional p Mr. Kamptner explained the ZTA is before the Commission in order to update the Penalty Provision of the Zoning Ordinance so that it will conform to new enabling legislation. He summarized the changes. He said these changes will assist the County in enforcement. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZTA 98-01 be approved as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. SP 98-02 Geoff Stellin Banio Manufacturing -Petition to expand the storage space 480 square feet for an existing Home Occupation Class B. The site is located on 16.94 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 96, Parcel 16A is located at the intersection of Rt. 634 and Rt. 633 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated development area. Mr. Wade presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request. A modification of Section 5.2.2.1(a) issquso are fdto Staffllow the total area used for the recommended approval of the Home Occupation to exceed 1,500 qua aeet modification, subject to one condition. Mr. Rieley asked if the 480 square feet is the area of the proposed addition. Mr. Wade responded affirmatively, and added that the additional square footage will be added on to the existing building. The applicant, Mr. Stelling, offered to answer Commission questions. Noting that "480 square feet is a pretty modest addition," Mr. Rieley asked if the business may need to expand further in the future. Mr. Stelling said he would have requested a larger addition, but was under the impression he ould a reasonable to letrthis much." He said he could use more space, but he thought this a©� 3-24-98 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's questions as to why the applicant thought he could only request 480 square feet, Mr. Wade said he may have spoken to other staff members "off the record," but he had not suggested a larger area to Mr. Wade. The request submitted by the applicant was for 480 square feet . (Mr. Stelling said he ad been told that a previous applicant's request for 1,700 square feet had been approved.. so he had based his request on that number. He said he could easily use another 200 square feet.) There was a brief discussion as to whether or not a larger amount could be approved at this time, given the fact that the advertisement had been for 480 additional square feet. Mr. Nitchmann said he has received no public comment about this request. He asked the County Attorney if the approval could be for an additional 200 square feet. Mr. Kamptner said the question is whether or not the approval of a larger number than was advertised in the public notice would result in a more intensive use, i.e. "is 200 square feet a more intensive use?" Mr. Wade said having a larger storage area might actually decrease the intensity of the use, because the frequency of shipments can be decreased. Mr. Wade said he does not believe more square feet will intensify the use. Mr. Stelling commented. I can assure you my business is not going to get any bigger. It will just make things a lot easier for me to do what I am doing now." Mr. Kamptner concluded: "Based on that, I think you probably do have the leeway to deal '.. with square footage." Mr. Rieley suggested the upper limit be changed to 2,000 square feet, giving the applicant the ability to be able to add up to 740 additional square feet." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley Stelling seconded, Banjo Manufa tuo g and that square t expansion be approved for SP 98_02 for Geoff9 the request be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that a modification of Section 5.2.2.1(a), to allow the total area usedof Geoff Ste I ng Banr the Hoe jooccupation Manufacturing, l,500 subject to square feet, be approved for SP , the following condition: 1. Area used to conduct the Home Occupation shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. The motion passed unanimously. M 4 3-24-98 SP 97-56 Angus Arrington - Petition to expand a Class B Home occupation on 4.6 acres zoned Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 80-parcel 74C, is located on Deer Bonn Lane, Route 842, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated Development Area. The applicant proposes to add one additional employee. This item had to be deferred due to an advertising error. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-56 be deferred to April 7. The motion passed unanimously. SP 98-05 Farmington Count Club - Proposal to amend the existing SP 97-28 to locate an indoor tennis building on 273.472 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(4)]. Property, described as Tax Map 60E2, Parcel 1, is located on the north side of Ivy Road, Route 250 West in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. AND SDP 98-016 Farmington Indoor Tennis Buildin Maior Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to locate a 22,800 square foot indoor tennis building and 26 parking spaces '.► on 273.472 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas District [10.2.2(4)]. The applicant is requesting a waiver of critical slopes provisions. cm Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the special permit request and preliminary site plan, subject to conditions, and of the waiver. Mr. Rieley asked if staff had done any analysis to determine how much of this building will be visible from other properties. Ms. Scala said she does not think the building will be visible from off -site roads because it is in an "interior" rea of the be too far Farmington mingtabove n Country Club property. Also, it is in a low area, so it n he level of Mill Road. Mr. Finley asked who will make the decision as to whether or not the jurisdictional area for public sewer will be amended to include this property (as has been requested by the applicant). (The property is already in the jurisdictional area for public water.) Ms. Scala said the Board of Supervisors makes this decision. If the request is denied, the applicant will have to use a septic system. The applicant was represented by Mr. Peter Sheeran, the architect who prepared the plan. On the question of visibility, he explained: "The road to the left of the building is at an elevation of 600 feet. The finished floor level for the building is 577 feet --so that is 13 feet below the road.... The highest point of the building is about 16 feet above all OR 3-24-98 the road. The adjacent maintenance buildings to the north, are 18 to 20 feet above the road. So the building itself should not be any more of an impact than the adjacent maintenance buildings.... The entire front of the building, along Old Mill Road, is screened by a 6-7 foot fence. Thisproject conce°a s off adjacent en$and 0for landscaping...." nearby homeowners The applicant has been mindful of t throughout this process. Concerns were expressed particularly about the existing maintenance buildings and the fact that they are an "eyesore." In addition to the work on this new facility, a lot is being done to improve the visual appearance of the adjacent maintenance facility. He rddfrom two letters r asked that certainom homeowners-- measures be takeMrelater. lip Ryder and Mr. David Pettit. Mr. Rye to screening. Farmington "agrees that the fence will be located as requested (but) they are not agreeable to replacing the existing fence.... They believe it will be better to retain the existing fence and design landscape appropriately." They will work with Mr. Ryder to come up with a mutually naagreeable s to a 1peplan for the the secondence and titter from ill Mr. continue to work with him until the pan is done. In Ryder, he says that he supports the indoor tennis facility, and he again asks that improvements be made to the existing fence around the maintenance area. Mr. Pettit's letter was also related to the condition of the existing fence and maintenance area. Mr. Sheeran said he agrees with the comments made in Mr. Pettit's letter. He explained the detailed site plan will be complete in 2-3 weeks and the applicant will meet with Mr. Ryder to assure that the design will meet his standards. He said this site has been a "dumping ground" in recent years and thousands of yards of uncontrolled fill will be removed and replaced with controlled fill. He concluded: "This building will result in a win -win situation for both Farmington and the neighbors because it will take a site which is virtually a dump and make it into a nicely landscaped facility." Mr. Finley asked how runoff will be handled. Mr. Sheeran said there is an existing man-made pond directly below the site which will handle the runoff. The water from this pond is used for irrigation of the golf course. There will be no runoff into Ivy Creek (except possibly during extreme weather such as a hurricane). Mr. Rieley asked about the color of the building. Mr. Sheeran said both the roof and the walls will be dark forest green. It will be made of pre-engineered steel with a standing seam roof. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission. No concerns were identified by the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 98-05 for the Farmington Country Club be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: a/A M C 3-24-98 1. This permit is for the indoor tennis facility. Any future intensification of use would require an amendment to this special use permit. 2. Use of the indoor tennis facility shall be for Farmington Country Club members, families and guests under the same bylaws of other club facilities in Farmington. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the Preliminary Site Plan for the Farmington Indoor Tennis Building be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Board of Supervisors approval of SP 98-05. b. Board of Supervisors approval of jurisdictional area boundary amendment for public sewer or Health Department approval of septic system. c. Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans. Label the width of pavement adjacent the island of the entrance to the site. Show an outlet for the drainage swale on the west side of the midi erosion control plan. d. Albemarle County Engineering approval e. Albemarle County Engineering issuance of a Runoff Control Permit. f. All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded. g. Building Official and Fire and Rescue Division approval of fire protection system. h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a waiver of the critical slopes provisions be approved for the Farmington Indoor Tennis Building. The motion passed unanimously. SUB 98-001 Stonewood Preliminary Plat - Request for preliminary approval to create a total of 11 lots on approximately 19.94 acres. The property is described as Tax Map 48, Parcels 9 and 11 B and is located on the east side of Doctor's Crossing (Route 784) approximately 1/2 mile north of Watts Passage (Route 600) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned Village Residential (VR) and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. A/._8 7 3-24-98 **M01 Mr. Sipe presented the staff report. Staff explained that this item was before the Commission at the request of an adjoining property owner. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The main issue of discussion was related to staffs recommended condition 1(g): "A 50 foot wide strip be reserved for dedication to public use to provide connection between the development and properties zoned VR to the south if it." The applicant strongly objected to this condition. The staff report explained: The Planning Commission has the authority to require provision for interconnection between this development and any adjacent parcels which may reasonably be expected to develop in the future under section 18-37(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Such connections have been required in subdivisions on occasion, but these have most occurred in larger developments within the Development Areas. Even when provision for connection is required, the connections are often not built due to opposition of residents of the development(s) involved. ... For Stonewood, connection is not desirable to the north as the adjacent parcel there is zoned Rural Area. Connection to the east would require crossing the intermittent stream. Providing for a connection to the south could potentially present several advantages. Should land to the south be developed in the future, such a connection would provide the potential for Stonewood to directly access the paved public road, Watts Passage (Route 600). It would also provide multiple entrances for both Stonewood and the adjacent property thus improving public access and safety. Between the two properties, as many as 25 lots may possibly be developed ultimately. For these reasons, staff recommends requiring provision for connection of the proposed subdivision street to other VR zoned property to the south. Staff answers to Commission questions were as follows: --If the reservation for future shown otheplat. Also connection is red n it will shown on ' wecan t he subdivision plat as reserved, and a note can be probably require recitation in the deed." --Requiring the connection will probably require some redesign of the lots and shifting of the lines. This, along with Health Department requirements, may effect the final design. Mr. Keeler said conditions f rcontnect on-emay Department result n thelossof one and (g)--related to the reservation for future or more lots. --The Ruritan property to the south was not included in staffs calculation for potential number of lots, but it is zoned VR and, therefore, could potentially be developed at some future time. Mr. Rieley said if the Ruritan property is not likely to be developed, the best place for the connection would be farther to the east "so that it could serve more efficiently development that occurs to the south. In addition, if it were moved in that direction it is possible the road configuration could be adjusted in such a way that when the connection is made the cul-de-sac could be eliminated." Mr. Sipe noted that there is an existing pond which would be a consideration in a relocation of the connection as described by Mr. Rieley. Mr. Keeler said staff is not insisting on the location as shown. It was suggested by the Engineering Department M 8 3-24-98 who "felt getting it as far to the western boundary of the non-Ruritan property would be the best location, given the water situation on the undeveloped land." The applicant, Mr. Brian Carpenter, was present. Mr. Roger Ray, Land Surveyor and Planner, addressed the Commission on Mr. Carpenter's behalf. Before beginning his presentation he commended Mr. Keeler for his many years of service to the County, but he "criticized the review of this particular plan." He said he agrees that the County has the authority to require connections between developments, but "whether or not these connections are desirable is another issue." They have been required several times and have not been used. His comments included the following: --The applicant has no objection to conditions 1(a) through 1(f). He does object to condition 1(g)--the requirement to provide for a connector road. This has not been a standard requirement for most subdivisions in the past. --He described the history of the applicant's ownership of the property and the process which has been followed in the submittal of this plan. No concerns were identified by staff at the pre -submittal meeting in November of 1997. The plan was submitted to the County January 26, 1998, along with the $880 fee "for the county's assistance." All 4 concerns identified by the County at the February 12, 1998 Site Review meeting were addressed by the applicant. At the site review meeting, adjacent neighbors had brought up concerns about groundwater, connecting roads to adjacent property and about the condition of the state road. The applicant is "still sympathetic to those concerns, but believes we have met the standards of design for the subdivision and at no time were we asked by the Planning Staff to consider improvements to the existing state road ... and at no time until the last few days have we been made aware that we would be requested to make a connecting road to this adjacent property to the south." --He called attention to a drawing which he had prepared showing the property under review, the adjoining properties, and the location of streams and ponds on the adjoining properties. --The lots for the proposed development, as shown, meet the minimum size requirement (60,000 square feet), with "little area to give." If required to make the dedication for a future connector road, it may be possible to achieve the same number of lots but the redesign will result in lots being placed in critical areas. The applicant realizes lots can be lost based on the Health Department's findings, but "is it justice to this client to lose a lot because of the requirement for a connector road?" --What is the public benefit of making a connector road that will cross an environmentally sensitive area, including a stream and steep slopes, and "if it stays off the Ruritan property, it will either be close to a stream, or will connect to Rt. 600 or 620--which will result in 600-800 feet of road which will not benefit any subdivision lots?" Requiring a connector road as shown is not in accord with the County's recently adopted Water Protection Ordinance. Mr. Ray said: "I am at a loss as to what message you are sending to us now." applicant's property and -"Have the owners of this land (to the south of the adjacent to the Ruritan property), thought about the fact that if we are required to ,;2 IS— 9 3-24-98 reserve this connector road, once they add traffic to Stonewood Drive, they would be required to upgrade the road to the standard that would be required by the additional lots." Mr. Ray said he has spoken to VDOT about this issue and their recommendation would be that Stonewood Drive would have to be upgraded. He said if the connector is required a note should be placed on the plat which states that "at the time this road is developed if the number of lots served by that road warrant the upgrade of the road, it will be done at that time." Mr. Ray concluded: "Gentlemen, I submit to you that I am not sure that this has not been a rushed judgement about this connector road. I think it is not warranted in this case. Whether it is warranted in another case where the land does not have these environmentally critical features, is another issue to be addressed that time.... We would ask that you approve this plan with item 1(g) not a condition." Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Ray about the streams shown on his drawing, particularly that the drawing shows streams that the US S Map does not show as streams." t he USGS Map, but explained Mr. that acknowledged that one of the streams is not on Mr. Carpenter had walked the property with Commissioner Washington, and had "decided this is a stream." Mr. Rieley asked if he would consider it an intermittent stream. Mr. Ray said he is not sure because he has not seen the stream, "but even if not, they are ravines or sensitive areas." Mr. Rieley asked what had determined the width of the wide blue area shown on both sides of the stream on the drawing. Mr. Ray said the blue area is to show the 50-foot minimum septic setback area on each side of the stream. Mr. Tice commented on the soils on the property, based on the Albemarle County USDA Soils Survey. He said a substantial portion of the property has severe limitations for septic system because of depth to rock, slope, and slow percolation. He acknowledged that there can be inaccuracies in the Soil Survey which can only be resolved by the Health Department testing. Based on the Soil Survey map, he said it appears as though lots 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are in the areas with severe limitations. He asked if the applicant has done any field testing . Mr. Ray said prior to the development of this proposal, the applicant employed a Soil Scientist to look at the property. He deferred to Mr. Carpenter for further comment. Mr. Carpenter said the test results were surprising. Nine test holes were done and the soil scientist indicated the results were "good to excellent. A precise study cannot be done until a more definite lot layout can be prepared. He offered to make that information available to the County when it is available. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Carpenter to describe the stream (on the adjacent southern properties). Mr. Carpenter responded that it starts with a series of springs and he can never remember it being dry enough "not to get my little John Deer stuck when crossing it to mow grass on the Ruritan property." He said the stream banks are 4 to 0 cm 10 3-24-98 6 feet deep in some areas, and he has never seen it dry. The other stream, which feeds into the pond, is also active. In response to Mr. Finley's question about existing dwellings on adjacent properties, Mr. Carpenter said the dwellings do have wells and septic systems. Public comment was invited. Ms. Christene Peterson, owner of the center property to the south of the applicant's property, addressed the Commission and expressed support for the connector road. She described the streams. She stressed that the water in the stream is not 4 feet deep, rather the ravine which the stream flows through is 4 feet deep. She felt Mr. Ray's drawings were "distorted" and that one of the streams shown does not exist. She said without the connector road, portions of her property would not be developable. (Mr. Nitchmann asked Ms. Peterson the size of the portion of her property which the connector road would serve. Though Ms. Peterson said it was 5 acres, her husband, Mr. John Horniff, corrected her and said it was 2-3 acres.) Mr. John Horniff, husband of Ms. Peterson, addressed the Commission. Using Mr. Ray's drawing, he described the location of the streams and wet areas. He said he was not certain that the area referred to by his wife would be undevelopable without the connector road. He suggested it could be developed with the construction of a stream crossing. He said the VR designation for these properties permit an unusually high density of development for these properties. He said, if ever developed, these will be adjoining communities and a connector road will result in a better functioning community. Mr. Horniff expressed concern about potential shortage of groundwater. He said the area has a reputation for poor wells. He thought the confirmation of the existence of water should be required. Referring to Mr. Ray's comments about the need for Stonewood Drive to be upgraded if the property to the south should ever be developed, Mr. Horniff said he has no plans to develop, so he has not considered that issue, but he assumes it would be a reasonable requirement. Ms. Marie Sneed, adjoining property owner to the north, addressed the Commission. She described the stream, "across the top of the Ruritan property." She said it is not very deep, but she has never seen it dry. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. On the issue of septic suitability, Mr. Tice said staffs recommendation for Health Department approval is the usual condition attached to approvals. He said there may be one additional test related to the Health Department review. Referring to Section 18.27 of the Subdivision Ordinance, related to septic tank installation, he quoted the as7 OR 11 3-24-98 following sentence: "When the contour of the subdivision is such that the use of individual wells, with individual septic tank systems, will be endangered, the subdivision shall not be approved for the use of individual wells irrespective of the provisions of Section 18.23." He wondered if this should be added to the conditions of approval. He suggested the following wording: "Health Department approval of primary and reserve drainfield locations for each lot and verification that individual wells will not be endangered." Mr. Sipe said he he doesn't think such a requirement would be beyond what the Health Department usually considers. Mr. Finley said he thinks the Health Department normally makes this determination anyway, but he had no objection to adding it. Mr. Keeler said there is no problem with adding the language which is in the Ordinance, (as read by Mr. Tice), but if it is added here, it should be included in all approvals hereafter. Mr. Tice said if staff is confident the Health Department routinely applies this test, then he is satisfied. Mr. Keeler said he believes this is a test that is routinely made, and the Health Department will generally, at least for 1 or 2 lots divisions, notify the County if special protection is required for the well. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the County's ability to require proof of adequate water supply. Mr. Kamptner replied: "At least as far as we are concerned, assuming we have the authority to do it, we need to implement that authority by Ordinance, which we haven't done yet. So at that level, we are foreclosed. The General Assembly did not adopt any legislation contrary to the Attorney General's opinion, so, at least at this point, there is a presumption that it's correct and it comports with what the General Assembly may have intended. That is always subject to challenge in Court, but right now, at least there is a presumption that has at least survived one session of the General Assembly." Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner: "Do we have the legal authority to require --if we provide the opportunity for access to an adjacent property --and the adjacent property owner then wants to develop that property, do we then have the authority to require them to make that connection? We've heard about the examples where the provision has been made, but it hasn't been taken advantage of." Mr. Kamptner responded: "Unless we determine that it is not in the public interest at that time, we do have the ability to require the alignment of streets to connecting properties." Referring to the Peterson- Horn iff property, Mr. Finley asked: Would that be the entire parcel or just the portion north of the creek? One of the speakers said they felt these two sections should have access to that public road leading out. It sounds like the intent is that full development be interconnected, but would that 50 feet only serve these two parcels north of the creek?" Mr. Kamptner said: "It could, or when the Peterson- Horn iff property is developed, there might be access off of Rt. 600 and if this connector is provided, there could be dual points of access. I'm not sure we would want that, but we have the ability to require inner parcels to connect." Slightly later in the discussion, Mr. Keeler said the problem in the past has not been with whether or not the County can require the reservation for future connector roads between -219 12 3-24-98 neighborhoods, rather the problem has been that the residents of the property which developed first are opposed to the road connection when the adjoining property develops. He recalled this issue came up with the Woodbrook and Carrsbrook neighborhoods, the Four Seasons and Berkeley neighborhoods, and the North Forest Lakes and South Forest Lakes neighborhoods. He concluded: "This has been clearly a mixed bag over the years, but I believe staff has been fairly consistent --though it has generally been in larger urban developments --in recommending these connections. It's when it actually comes down to making the connection that it's a hit or miss situation. It does not come back to the Subdivision Ordinance and the language that is in the Subdivision Ordinance." Mr. Nitchmann said there would be no point in requiring this connector road just so the adjoining property owner could develop 2 acres. He said: "To take 50 feet away from this applicant's property just so the adjoining property owner can develop 2 acres is an unfair taking." Given the presence of the streams and the wet areas on the southern properties, Mr. Nitchmann said it is going to be very expensive to develop those properties to the south. He said he found Mr. Horniff's comments confusing as to what his future plans for his property might be. Mr. Horniff was allowed to address the Commission again. He repeated that he and his wife feel Mr. Rays drawing is a severe distortion of reality in regard to the location of wet areas." He said his property is not "swampy." All that exists is a "ditch". He acknowledged that there is water running through the "ditch." Referring to comments made about distortions in the drawing, Mr. Keeler pointed out that Mr. Ray has shown a 50-foot septic setback on both sides of the stream. The scale of the drawing is 1" = 100 feet, so the stream area is shown as 1 inch wide. He said if the stream has water in it in only one month of the year, the Health Department will be very reluctant to approve drainfield locations in areas that are seasonably wet. So, if there are defined streambeds, the Health Department will take that into consideration. Mr. Keeler said: The question of whether or not to require a 50-foot strip to be dedicated for future public road use implies that the Commission will approve a road across that stream in the future. Staff did not do an analysis of the Horniff property in regard to the road connection. I am somewhat impressed, in looking at that plan --and I agree with your comment --that there is going to be a lot of dead road built there if you are going to connect the road in this development down to Rt. 600. There are going to be spans that are generally unusable and fairly expensive to construct, to get to that one building site between the stream and this proposed development." Mr. Sipe said there has been a lot of discussion about the stream on the Ruritan property, but his report was based on the intermittent stream at the end of the subdivision, which does appear on USGS maps and is a fairly significant flow of water. There are also some steep slopes associated with that stream. The most significant 3-24-98 13 feature of the stream on the Ruritan property is that it does have very definitive banks, even though the stream itself is quite small. He estimated the stream is currently about 2 feet wide. Given the very defined banks, he assumed the stream flows a majority of the time. He said the topography on the Ruritan property is more gentle and would be easily "bridgeable." Staff did not ask Engineering to review a potential stream crossing. Mr. Finley said he agrees with Mr. Nitchmann that requiring this developer to dedicate 50 feet of property, "not knowing if it will ever be used at all," is unfair. Mr. Ray was allowed to address the Commission again. He took exception to the comments made that the plan he displayed was inaccurate. He said his staff is very competent in creating detailed maps and he would never display a plan that was not accurate. Mr. Nitchmann said he could not support the requirement for the 50-foot dedication. He said a road in this location would be in conflict with the county's policy of discouraging stream crossings. He said this connector road could possibly result in two bridges and two roads in wetland areas. "it doesn't make any sense." Requiring this dedication could cause the applicant to lose a lot, and he already may lose lots after the Health Department has performed its tests. He said he has always thought these neighborhood connector roads are more a part of the urban area. This property is not a part of the urban ring. These properties will be rural subdivisions. The construction of a road will also have a negative impact on wildlife habitats. Mr. Tice said he agreed with some of Mr. Nitchmann's points, particularly that connections between neighborhoods should be viewed differently in the growth areas than in the rural areas. Citing his own neighborhood as an example, he said that the lack of a connecting road between rural neighborhoods does help preserve some of the rural character by keeping the integrity of the stream valleys undisturbed. He said it would have been helpful to have had the soils analysis because then it would be known whether or not 11 lots are actually achievable and the question of the requirement of dedication for the connector road would have been easier. He concluded that he was inclined to support Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion that condition 1(g) not be included in the approval. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Stonewood Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final drainage plans and calculations; '�4.1 220 3-24-98 14 b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final road plans. c. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final drainage plans and calculations. d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final road plans. e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of soil erosion plan. f. Health Department approval of primary and reserve drainfield locations for each lot. [NOTE: Mr. Tice's suggested addition to this condition as discussed earlier in these minutes was NOT added to this condition.] Discussion Mr. Rieley said he disagrees with Commissioners Nitchmann, Tice and Finley. He agreed that Mr. Ray had accurately pointed out the dual responsibility of dealing with both stream protection and issues of access, and it does sometimes seem contradictory. However, the issue of "interconnectivity" is enormously important. He was not persuaded by the argument that the rural area should be treated differently. He also did not feel that requiring this 50 foot dedication was unfair to the applicant, "when he, in fact, has zoning that is many times denser than what is on the other side of his property line." He concluded: "I think on balance the public interest would be much better served by allowing for the connectivity between the parcels so that this area could grow in a logical way and a way in which we don't dump traffic off of state highways, that are designed to modern standards, onto dirt roads when, in fact, we have the opportunity to connect through with a road system that will serve all the neighbors and in which the traffic will be shared much more equitably between the people who will use this road system. So I think we are making a mistake by encouraging more cul-de-sac development on the basis that we are doing the environmentally correct thing, when we are talking about a flow of water that can be put in a 12 inch culvert very easily." Mr. Tice asked if there were any way the Commission could recommend "between now and the final plat, the applicant look at the opportunities to provide such a connector strip, particularly if, in fact, they end up having to reduce the number of lots due to the Health Department review of the septic system, and enable staff to then revisit this issue before final plat review." Mr. Loewenstein said, generally, Mr. Tice's recommendation might be commendable, but he would leave any potential amendment to the motion up to the maker of the motion. He said he agrees that interconnectivity of neighborhoods is important, but "there is often some difference between urban area and rural area development." He was struck by the fact, in this case, that the length of road that would have to be built, relative to the number of lots that could be developed south of the applicant's OR 3-24-98 15 S%W proposed subdivision, does not work out very well economically. He questioned "whether it would ever be feasible to do it." As had been pointed out by other Commissioners earlier, he agreed this crossing would be different from one reviewed recently in that it "was a crossing of a different nature; was water of a different nature; and the other crossing was in the water supply watershed, which this property is not." He concluded: "Generally, I would support Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Tice in their opinions because of the specifics of this application." On the question of whether or not to amend the motion as suggested by Mr. Tice, Mr. Finley said he thinks the conditions take care of it. Health Department and Engineering Department approval are required. He questioned why this applicant's property should be "tied up" given the potential development problems on the other properties which may make it difficult for those properties to ever develop. He made no amendment to his motion. The motion for approval passed (4.1) with Commissioner Rieley casting the dissenting vote. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Loewenstein thanked Mr. Kamptner for his memo on electronic communication between Commissioners. Mr. Loewenstein called attention to the new Committee list. He asked Commissioners to look over the list and notify both himself and Mr. Cilimberg if there are any errors on the list. Commission Rules of Procedure Mr. Kamptner had provided the Commission with copies of the Commission's existing Rules, and with a copy of the Board's most recently adopted Rules of Procedure. The Commission had discussed this topic briefly at a previous meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Commission's procedure should follow that of the Board so as to be less confusing to the public. Two items discussed in more detail were time limits for speakers, and how to handle rebuttal. Mr. Loewenstein said he researched this topic in Roberts Rules of Order and found that limits need to be applied consistently to each speaker for a particular application, but the limits do not have to be the same for each application. He said: "I don't think there is anything that prevents the Chair from assigning time limits to speakers for one application in an evening, but not for another application in the same evening." He believes that is the 3-24-98 16 procedure which the Board follows and will continue to follow. On the topic of rebuttal, he said "if there is genuinely new information to be presented, we have an obligation to hear it, whether from the applicant or a member of the public..., but I am not willing to go endlessly into 'we said, he said, they said' back and forth, endlessly between applicants and members of the public." Mr. Tice said the important issue is whether or not there is truly new information and there should be some flexibility to allow people to respond to new information, such as new proffers. On the question of whether or not to allow one speaker to transfer his allotted time to another speaker, Mr. Loewenstein said he is not going to allow such transfers in the future, regardless of how many people a person may represent. Mr. Loewenstein said he believes the Board is presently considering changes to their Rules of Procedure. Staff was familiar only with potential changes for dealing with deferrals. Mr. Keeler said he does not know if the Board is considering any changes to their meeting procedure at this time, but he is aware that there have been some problems related to public comment at recent meetings. Mr. Finley described how the School Board uses a sign-up sheet for their public meetings. Such a sheet lets you know how many people plan to speak and allows you to set time limits accordingly. Comment from Ms. Katie Hobbs, League of Women Voters, was allowed. She explained that during a Board of Supervisor's meeting a few months ago the rules which had been in place for some time (i.e. 5 minutes for groups, 3 minutes for individuals) were changed by the Chair, without any prior notice to the public, and without the knowledge of other Supervisors. Mr. Loewenstein noted that it is within the Chair's purview to make such a change. He said he has tried to maintain the 5 minutes/3 minutes procedure for Commission meetings, though there is some question at times as to the definition of a "group." Mr. Loewenstein said he will speak with Board members to find out the status of any potential changes to their procedure. He suggested that the Commission begin including "Guidelines for Meetings" on the back of each week's agenda. He will work with Mr. Kamptner to develop the text for the guidelines and report back to the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann suggested that consideration be given to a permanent sign outside the meeting room which would explain meeting procedures which are common to all the public meetings. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. M. cm �? �23