HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 24 84 PC MinutesJuly 24, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 24, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould;
Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Jim Skove. Other officials present were: Ms.
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Norris, Watershed Management
Official; Mr. Mike Tompkins, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Jim Donnelly,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
SP-84-37 Warren E. Andrews, SLDC Architects (Joseph E. Sea rams and Sons,
Inc.) - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1 to construct, in
conjunction with development of a private golf course, a water pump house
and footbridge in the floodplain of Ivy Creek. Property consisting of
200.645 acres, zoned Rural Areas, is located on Routes 677 and 637 about
0.5 mile southeast of Ivy. Tax Map .58, Parcel 100, Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended deferral until several
items had been addressed.
Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, also addressed the
Commission. He reviewed his memo to the Commission,. dated July 24, 1984.
Mr. Norris suggested several conditions of approval. His memo
concluded: "I would like to reiterate that from the facts and figures
before me that during normal conditions that this use and withdrawal of
water from Ivy Creek at this site for irregular purposes does not
appear to pose a problem. It appears, however, that a problem could
exist during low flow conditions. Therefore, I would recommend inclusion
of the conditions outlined ... in the approval process."
In reply to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Norris confirmed that Plan A
(Voluntary Conservation) and Plan B (Mandatory Conservation) were part
of Condition 6. Mr. Cogan asked if a maximum permissable daily flow had
been considered. Mr. Norris indicated this would be difficult to determine
until an accurate calculation could be made as to actual daily draw. He
added that anything over 25% would effect the stream.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Warren Andrews addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant had made
water calculations at a time of very low flow and determined that 4% withdrawal
would be a maximum. He stated it would be impossible for the applicant to
draw 25% as mentioned by Mr. Norris. He stated the applicant had no objections
to staff's suggested conditions of approval.
July 24, 1984 Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked if the apparently on -going grading and construction had
started after the concerns in the staff report had been addressed. Mr.
Elrod, County Engineer, indicated he had not yet reviewed the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod to comment on M.r. Norris' concern that adequate
control measures were not in place for the grading that was taking place.
4r. Elrod responded that his inspector had visited the site "this afternoon"
and "erosion control measures were in place." He didn't think any sedimen-
tation problems had occurred.
Ms. Diehl asked if grading permits have conditions attached. She asked if
the staff concerns were addressed in the grading permit. She mentioned
particularly the removal of the trees and grading in the slope areas.
Mr. Andrews responded that he had addressed this issue under item No. 2
in his letter (dated July 20, 1984). The letter explained that a couple of
trees had .been removed to improve sight distance as recommended by
the Highway Department.
Ms.Diehl stated that she had a great deal of concern when this item was
originally reviewed, but with the conditions that have been added and the
"'conscientious adherence to those conditions, I think that we have
afforded it as much protection as possible within the ordinances."
Mr. Cogan suggested that the word "are" be substituted for "should be" in
condition No. 6. Mr. Payne interjected that all 6 conditions listed by
-Mr. Dorris should be changed from hortatory to mandatory. Mr. Cogan
also stated that he felt both Plan A.and Plan B should be implemented
under condition No. 6. He also felt that, for protection, a maximum
percentage should be set for daily usage. He felt 25% would be "beyond
what would be reasonable."
Mr. Payne.felt that No. 6, as worded, would accomplish Mr. Cogan`s
desire, i.e. that the applicant is required to comply with Plan A and
Plan B.
Mr. Payne also stated that the word "should" should be changed to "shall"
in conditions I through 6.
Mr. Payne stated that the definition of a "low volume pump,``referred to in
condition No. 3, was unclear. Mr. Elrod indicated that the rate of
flow for a low volume pump would be 200 gallons/minute. . Mr. Andrews.
stated that the capacity of his pump was "less than 200 gallons/minute."
He stated the stream had been calculated at above 2,000 gallons/minute.
He felt it would be 10% at certain times and would not be running
continuously. Mr. Payne stated a simple way to address this would be
to determine the rate of the pump and them set a limit on usage which
could not be exceeded, even if used 24 hours/day. Mr. Payne concluded
that Mr. Andrews had indicated the size of the pump to be "200 gallons/
minute."
July 24, 1984 Page 3
A brief discussion about the size of the pump followed. Mr. Cogan pointed
out that a 200/gallon/minute pump could pump 288,000 gallons a day which
could be approximately 2/3 of the stream flow at a time of low flow
(393,000 gallons). Ms. Scala pointed out that she had addressed the
issue in condition No. 8: "County Engineer and Watershed Official approval
of pumping system including the specific location and size of pump in Ivy
Creek, and the use of a pond as an intermediate step in the pumping system."
Mr. Cogan felt the condition should be more specific as to the limitation
on the percentage of draw from the stream that would be allowed.. Ms.
Diehl felt it would be difficult to monitor. Mr. Cogan felt monitoring
would only be necessary during times of low stream flow. Mr. Elrod
suggested the following formula for determining the capacity of the pump:
maximum gallons/day during low flow times y no. minutes in a day =
capacity of the pump
Ms. Diehl asked if there was not a maximum acceptable withdrawal during the
dry season?
Mr. Skove felt that condition No. 8 (as stated previously), leaving this
determination to the County Engineer and the Watershed Management Official,
adequately addressed the issue.
Mr. Payne suggested an alternative way of addressing the issue as
follows: "Only a low -rate pump to be allowed for use in Ivy Creek
to withdraw water from the stream to the holding pond, such pump to
be so used as to withdraw not more than 90,000 gallons/day."
There followed a discussion about how to limit the withdrawal. Mr.
Bowerman suggested that a maximum withdrawal could not exceed 10% of the
stream flow. He felt this would not present a problem to the applicant and
would also protect the stream.. Mr. Cogan felt this would be acceptable.
Mr. Norris indicated this would "fit the parameters given me as his
average number." He stated this could be "spot checked" from time
to time for verification.
Mr. Cogan suggested the following wording for an added condition:
"No more than 10% of the stream flow shall be pumped out within a
24-hour period."
Regarding Mr. Cogan's question about the size of the holding pond, Mr.
Andrews commented that since the drawing was made the pond had been
reduced and pulled back away from the stream. There was a brief discussion
about the capacity of the holding pond.
Mr. Elrod asked the Commission to consider "the precedent that something
like this sets." He pointed out that 9 more people could conceivably
take all the water out of the creek. He was uncertain as to the best
approach.
Mr. Cogan suggested the following amended wording for the new condition:
"No more than 10% of the stream flow, or 90,000 gallons, whichever is
less, to be pumped out within a 24-hour period." He stated he understood
Mr.Elrod's concern.
997
July 24,.1984
Page 4
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on Mr. Elrod's concern about
precedent.
Mr. Payne stated that had always been a concern. He explained: "As I
recall the Common Law of Riparian Rights, you've got a right to use that
water all you want as long as you don't do it maliciously and you don't
pollute it. If you've got a lot cows and they drink a lot of water
and the stream runs through your property, you're entitled to use it.
I think this is an additional restriction on the owner and I don't think
it's an inappropriate one, but it's one that the Common Law wouldn't
recognize."
-Mr. Cogan asked if there were not some restriction that a person couldn't
effect the water of downstream property owners. Mr. Payne stated that
usually referred to the quality of the water rather than the quantity.
He added that water could not be diverted from a neighbor, but there
was no restriction against taking water from the stream.
Ms. Diehl asked if this could be given additional considerations because
this is in the watershed. Mr. Payne stated that would not matter, that
"a public body has the same rights to a stream that any other riparian
owner has."
The Chairman called for .a .motion.
ti1r. Cogan moved that SP-84-37 for Warren E. Andrews, SLDC Architects
(Joseph E. Seagr ams & Sons, Inc.), be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Both temporary and permanent erosion control and runoff control measures
shall be in place prior to additional earth disturbing activities in the
site.
2. Temporary erosion and runott control measures shall: be maintained until
it is determined by field inspection that the disturbed areas are
stabilized and the golf course is established.
3. Only a low volume pump be allowed for use in Ivy Creek to withdraw
water from the stream to the holding pond. The lines shall be properly
placed and screened to minimize disturbance to the stream and to
aquatic life.
4. State Suter Control Board Regulation Number 11 requiring the reporting
of water withdrawal rates shall be adhered to. (The accuracy of the
metering system should be verified on a regular basis).
5. A report of monthly water withdrawals shall be supplied to the county
for computation and confirmation of accurate usage figures for this
type of use.
6. The present and future owners and/or operators of the site shall comply
with the Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the City of Charlottesville
and the County of Albemarle as initiated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority.
a59
July 24, 1984
Page 5
7. County Engineer approval of two permanent bridges, one of which can
ac.comodate farm equipment to alleviate the need to use the bridge on
Rt. 637. (In accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District of Zoning Ordinance).
8. County Engineer and Watershed Official approval of pumping system
including the specific location and size of pump in Ivy Creek, and
the use of a pond as an intermediate step in the pumping system.
9. Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies.
10. No more than 10% of stream flow, or 90,000 gallons, whichever is less,
to be pumped out within a 24-hour period.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 1, 1984.
Ms. Diehl left the meeting.
Raintree, Phases 2 and 3 Final Plat - Located k mile north of Rio Road (Rt. 631)
on Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road), adjacent to Northfields Subdivision. Proposal
to create 33 lots on 15.742 acres with an average lot size of 10,426 square
feet with common open space, served by proposed State roads. Zoned R-2
Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax Map 61, parcels 1.25
and 126, part of.
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bob Hauser represented the applicant. He expressed a lack of understanding
of condition 1(h) [Staff approval of technical requirements.]. Ms. Davenport
explained this referred to the recommendation that the reservation of the
lot lines indicated on the plat that goes to record and also the joint driveway
easements. Mr. Hauser offered no additional comments but offered to answer
Commission questions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Muriel Hopewell, a resident of Northfields, addressed the Commission.
She expressed concern about runoff problems.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, had had an opportunity
to review drainage computations for the two additional phases. (Mr. Elrod's
response was inaudible.) Mr. Bowerman expressed concern about runoff
across Northfields from the location of this development. He stated he
was glad to see that the plan proposes to divert some of that water from
its natural drainage (towards Northfields) away to the other side of Old
Brook Road through detention basins and ultimately to the stream that runs
down on the other side.
July 24, 1984
Page 6
Mr. Elrod discussed drainage (much of his comments were inaudible).
Referring to condition 1(e) [All screening trees shall be planted or bonded;
street trees shall be bonded and planted in conjunction with improvements
to Rt. 652.], Mr. Bowerman asked if the first part of the condition dealt
with all phases and the second part with just the plantings along Old
Brook Road. :pis. Davenport explained that no screening trees were required on
the preliminary on the upper section because of the open space. Ms.
Davenport further explained that the street trees would be planted after
the construction of curb and gutter.
There was a brief discussion about landscaping and open space requirements.
:sir. Skove.moved that Raintree, Phases 2 and 3, Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat for Phases II or III will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met by the applicant:
a. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of road and drainage plans and.computations;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention provisions;
c. Fire Officer approval of hydrant locations;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans;
e. All screening trees shall be planted or bonded; street trees shall
be bonded and planted in conjunction with improvements to Rt. 652;
f. County Attorney approval of amended homeowner documents;
g. Compliance with soil erosion control ordinance including minimal
clearing of trees from all dedicated open space;
h. Staff approval of technical requirements.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
_Burger King Final Plat - Located on the west side of Riverbend Drive and
north of Pantops Center Drive, south of Route 250 East in Pantops Shopping
Center at Riverbend. Proposal to create a .785 acre parcel, with approximately
8.9 acres residue. Zoned PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center, Rivanna
Magisterial District. Tax Map 78, parcel 17D, part of.
yls. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Elrod added that the site was not in the stormwater detention area
because it runs into the Rivanna below �1oore's Creek.
It was determined the applicant was not present.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
July 24, 1984
Page 7
Mr. Skove stated he did not feel it was necessary for the applicant to
be present.
Mr. Skove moved that the Burger King Final Plat be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Administrative approval of revised site plan for Burger King
including review and approval by Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, Fire Officer, Albemarle County Service Authority,
Zoning Administrator and County Engineer;
b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the common
travelway.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Branchlands Retirement Village, Phases 1D, lE, 1F Site Plan - Located east side
of Rt. 29 North between Westfield Road and Rio Road. Proposal to locate
30 units (6 townhouse and 24 condominiums) and 47
parking spaces on 1.98 acres. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax
Map 6.1Z, Parcels 4 and 5, part of. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Subject to the Commission's resolution of
two issues, one concerning emergency access and one regarding construction
on 25% slopes, staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ron Langman addressed the Commission. Regarding the emergency access
road, he explained that it was included on the first site review, but
after talking with the Fire Official, it was his opinion that if the
two buildings were sprinklered the road would not be necessary. The
Fire Officialhad also stated that in most cases trucks would use
Greenbrier Drive and would never come down the church road anyway.
Mr. Langman indicated he had no objection to installing the emergency
access road, but questioned its necessity. He also stated that a
fire truck could go through four feet of water to reach an emergency
situation. He indicated that :his engineer had calculated that no
more than one foot of water would cross Greenbrier Drive during
flood so the fire truck would have no problem crossing. Regarding
the issue of 25% slopes, he explained that the corner of only one
building was involved and because that building would have a full
basement, the footings would be completely on "stable ground."
He explained that the bikeway, recreation areas and secondary access
road had all been bonded.
Mr. Mark Osborne, engine- rtfor the project, addressed the Commission.
He made brief comments eention requirements.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
4;?61
July 24, 1984 Page 8
M.r. Bowerman asked if the north -bound lanes of Rt. 29, in the vicinity of
the proposed access road, had flooded during the flood "three years ago."
Mr. Elrod responded affirmatively. He stated there had been approximately
8 " of water on the road. -
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod to comment on the 25% slope issue and the
access road.
Mr. Elrod responded that he had no problems with small areas in 25%
slopes. (Mr. Elrod's comments regarding the access road were inaudible.)
Though Mr. Langman had stated earlier that the Fire Official had informed
him that firetrucks could cross four feet of water, Mr. Bowerman asked
about the possibility of firefighters who travel in their own cars.
Mr. Zangnan agreed this was a reasonable question, but pointed out that
in a severe flood Rt..29 north would have the saute problem as Greenbrier
Drive, i.e. it might be impassable also.
Mr. Gould asked Ms. Scala how many units had been approved for the 4.7
acres. He noted that 50 units had been approved to date; he asked if
any more were possible. his. Scala responded, "That's all that would be
approved. She added that this phase was for 30 units and 20 units were
previously recorded. She explained these units would take up the entire
4.7 acres.
Mr..Skove stated he was in favor of emergency road being retained. He
felt the other concerns of the County Engineer had been addressed.
Mr. Skove moved that the Branchlands Retirement Village, Phases 1D, 1E,
1F 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. Staff approval of revised site plan;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of.water and sewer
plans;
c. County Engineer approval of:
1) Construction on 25% slopes;
2) Grading and drainage plans and computations;
3) Revisions to the traffic pattern at the original cul-de-sac;
4) Revisions to the emergency access road;
5) Pavement specifications (roads, parking areas., sidewalks);
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Compliance with ZMA-80-63.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued on any Section D-F,
until the following conditions have been met:
a. Subdivision approval;
b. County Attorney approval of homeowner's association agreement for
the maintenance of commonly -owned or common -use amenities (recreational
facilities may be reserved for exclusive use of Retirement Village);
0-
July 24, 1984
Page 9
c. County Attorney approval of deed restrictions of units for sale;
d. All improvements relating to a particular section to be completed
or bonded prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for that section.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Taylor Oil Company Site Plan - Located on the east side of Rio Road East
(Rt. 631) approximately 1 4 mile south of Northfields Road, just west of the
Southern Railroad. Proposal to locate a 1,012 square foot convenience store
and 12 pump gas station, on .64 acres. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. Tax Map 61, Parcel 147, part of.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions. Ms. McCulley noted the following corrections to the
suggested conditions of approval:
--Add 1(h): Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of entrances.
--Add 1(i): Fire Official approval of hydrant location; handicapped
facilities; dumpster location and screening; and gas
tank and vent pipe locations.
--Add 10) [formerly 2(b)]: Planning staff approval of landscape plan
to include A.C.S.A. approval of any plantings within
water and sewer easements.
--Change 2(a): Fire Official approval of fireflow.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Jerry Taylor addressed the Commission. lie stated he had no objections
to the suggested conditions of approval.
Referring to condition l(e) [Recordation of a plat subdividing this parcel, to
include grading, drainage, and travel easements.], a representative of the
applicant explained that the owner was not interested in subdividing at
this time, therefore he asked if a subdivision plat could be approved
administratively "if the subdivision plat is just like the subdividing
lines shown: on the site plan."
Ms. McCulley explained that because this is an urban area,administrative
approval would not be authorized unless the Commission specifically
allowed it.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that Mr. Cogan had pointed out that because the
detention basin was on the "other parcel" the Commission might wish to
review the subdivision plat.
July 24, 1984
Page 10
Ms. 'McCulley confirmed that staff was concerned because the plan shows
a line through the parcel, indicating that it is two parcels. She
explained that condition l(e) assumed the applicant was going to either
sell the residue parcel or develop it with another use.
Mr. Skove pointed out that if the parcel were sold it would have to
be recorded and a site plan would be required for the development of
the residue parcel. He stated that either way the Commission would
see it and he concluded "I don't really see what is to be gained by
having her come back with that." Mr. Cogan indicated agreement.
Mr. Skove pointed out that the way the current condition is written the
applicant would not be able to get a building permit until the
subdivision was made.
Ms. Scala explained that Ms. McCulley had been under the impression the
applicant planned to subdivide right away. Ms. McCulley confirmed this
was accurate and suggested that the condition could be deleted if it
was not the. applicant's intent to subdivide immediately. She also stated
that at this point it would not be necessary to address the issue of
access from the residue because that would be addressed with the sub-
division plat. It was decided that condition (g) [Note on plan"access
from residue restricted to joint entrance and entrance to Route 650,
location to be approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation.] would remain a condition of approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County Engineer had had a chance to review the
traffic circulation. Mr. Elrod responded that he had not seen the last
revision. (Most of Mr. Elrod's comments were inaudible.)
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in favor of condition (c) also requiring
County Engineer approval of vehicular circulation.
Ms. McCulley confirmed the detention basin was sized for both parcels.
Regarding condition l(e) involving recordation of a subdivision plat,
Ms. Scala suggested that that be made condtion (3) which would
not tie it to the issuance of a building permit. She suggested the
following wording: "When this property is subdivided it shall include
grading, drainage and travel easements." She also asked for a Commission
direction as -to whether or not the subdivision plat could be approved
administratively.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Taylor Oil Company Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions; and including administrative approval of
subdivision plat:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Compliance with the requirements of the industrial waste ordinance;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. County.Engineer approval of grading, drainage, and stormwater
detention plans and computations, and internal traffic circulation;
a4'1/
July 24, 1988
Page 11
d. Recordation.of drainage easement from detention pond to parcel
149;
e. Issuance of gasoline tank.permits;
f. Note on plan "access from residue restricted to joint entrance
and entrance to Rt. 650, location to be approved by Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;"
g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrances;
h. Fire Official approval of hydrant location; handicapped facilities;
dumpster location and screening; and gas tank and vent pipe
locations;
i. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan to include Albemarle
County Service Authority approval of any planting within water and
sewer easements.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until:
a. Fire Official approval of fireflow.
3. When this property is subdivided, it shall include grading, drainage,
and travel easements.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan wanted to make sure that staff understood that if subdivision
was anything other than "what we see in front of us," the Commission
wishes to see it again.
Mr. Skove indicated he was not in favor of adding more traffic to Rio Road,
but because the zoning allows this use, he would not oppose the
application.
Ms. McCulley confirmed the proposal included full frontage improvements
and full turn and taper lane.
Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, explained the road
requirements and also future plans for Rio Road.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the staff report indicated the traffic.situation
on Rio Road should improve with these improvements.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
Locust Hill North Preliminary Plat - Located north of Rt. 678, approximately
1/2 mile north of U.S. Rt. 250, adjacent to the Village of Ivy. Proposal
to create 5 lots with an average lot size of 3.66 acres, served by a proposed
State -maintained road. Zoned RA., Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. Tax Map 58, parcel 84.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
ads
July 24, 1984
Page 12
Mr. Bowerman asked -Mr. Echols to comment on the type of sign island.
(Mr. Echols reply was not audible.)
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Roger Ray. He pointed out an error on
the plat. He explained that a 75' building.setback line from the "existing
right-of-way that lies to the southwest." He felt that should be 60' to
conform with the Ordinance.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Ed Smith addressed the Commission. He asked if these lots would have
access on.the private right-of-way to the west. Mr. Ray responded: "Vo
sir; the plan indicates that all five lots will enter on the internal
road." He added there would be no access on the private right-of-way.
Ms. Ann Smith addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the
road, explaining that the road drops off drastically and adequate sight
distance does not exist. Mr. Echols commented that adequate sight distance
did exist. He explained that when the applicant tied in to the road,
they will "drop down", indicating that this would also aid sight distance.
Ms. Smith expressed concern about the curves. Mr. Echols pointed out
that some of the curves were "posted." X.r. Bowerman asked the Highway
Department to check to make sure that this area was properly signed.
Mr. Ray pointed out that this development would generate very little traffic.
He also stated the road could never be extended because this development
will use all the land.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Because of the concern about sight distance, �Ir. Cogan suggested the addition
of the following to condition 1(e): "...island and approval of adequate
sight distance."'
It was determined the Commission would review the final plat. fir. Bowerman
asked why it was necessary for the Commission to review the final plat.
Ms. McCulley explained that Health Department approval had not been
received for the subdivision prior to the Commission review..
Mr. Cogan moved that the Locust Hill North Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. Conditions of approval for the final plat:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of tiignways &- Transportation
approval of road plans;
c. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations;
d. Provision for runoff control, if deemed necessary by County Engineer;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrance to include the use of a Type I sign island and approval of
adequate sight distance;
�� Y
July 24, 1984
Page 13
f. Soil scientist report and Health Department approval;
g. Fire Official approval of building separation, hydrant location
and fireflow;
h. Planning staff approval of technical requirements.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ivy Oaks Preliminary Plat - Located at the intersection of State Routes 678
and 676. Proposal to redivide lots 1 through 41 of Evergreen Hollow
Subdivision. Proposed average lot size is 2.5 acres, all lots to be
served by new State roads. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, Samuel Miller Magisterial
District, Tax Map 58, parcel 73.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
preliminary plat and requested administrative approval of the final plat
subject to conditions. Ms. McCulley suggested the addition of two conditions:
l(j) as follows. "County approval of maintenance agreement for the pond;"
and l(k): "If the pond is to be used as recreational water, it will be
necessary to record access easements to the proposed pond."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. George Gilliam represented the applicant. Referring to condition l(g)
[Redesign of lots at ends of cul-de-sacs to provide a minimum 50 feet between
the edge of driveways], he stated the applicant preferred that that be left
to the Highway Department. He explained that the applicant had reached an
agreement with the swim club about easements and other matters, including
(1) the construction of the proposed pond will not occur during the time
that the club is open, i.e. it will start after Labor Day and be completed
before the following spring; (2) the applicant will remove any silt that
gets into the club's dam during construction.; and (3) the applicant
has agreed to grant the club an access easement so that they will have
access to the valve in the event of drought. He pointed out that an
existing subdivision has.already been approved but the current proposal
is an improvement in the following ways: (1) The number of entrances has
been reduced; (2) State roads will be constructed instead of private
roads; (3) Two less lots; and (4) The configuration of the entrance to
the .lots is safer.
Mr. Mark Osborne, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission.
He briefly discussed the design of the pond and the water quality and
quantity,
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Mary Bridle, a downstream property owner, addressed the Commission.
She asked if there would still be water flowing through the stream after
the pond was built or if there.would only be water in the stream during
periods of heavy rainfall.
Mr. Harry Marshall, representing the Blue Ridge Swim Club, stated that
a continuous flow of water was needed, even during the winter, to protect
the pool from freezing. Mr. Marshall expressed concern about the possibility
of future homeowners draining the dam. He asked if they would still
be bound by the terms of the agreement, i.e. would they still have to
protect the pool from sedimentation, etc.
eX7
July 24, 1984 Page 14
Mr. Gilliam stated that everything that had been discussed with Mr. Marshall
was reflected in the letter.
Mr. Les Berlene, President of the Swim Club, addressed the Commission.
He stated the stipulations agreed to by the applicant seem reasonable.
However, he was still concerned.about the presence of the pond and its
size. (It was determined the pond would be two to three acres.) He
explained that even during normal summers it is difficult to get sufficient
water from the stream, He expressed the .fear that the pool would be forced
out of business as a result of the applicant's proposed pond. He felt
the agreement was acceptable "as far as it goes" but preferred that the
pond and dam not be built at all. He questioned the long-term enforceability
of the agreement.
Mr. Paul David addressed the Commission. He asked what assurance there is
that the dam will be completed, and the water flowing, by April 15, as
stated in the agreement. He pointed out that it takes several weeks to
fill the pool and it is filled at approximately this time. He too feared
that if the dam was not complete, and the water not available, the
pool would be forced out of business.
Mr. Gilliam offered to delay the construction of the pond. He stated:
'Ve will just withdraw the request as it .pertains to the pond and delete
it from the plan."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated it seemed that the major issue had been diffused,
(the issue of the pond).
There was a brief discussion about coordinating Highway Department
recommendations with staff recommendations. Ms. McCulley confirmed staff
would rely heavily on fir. Roosevelt's recommendations. She stated that
the 50-foot minimum edge of driveway separation was the Highway Department's
requirement.
Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, explained that the number of lots
has not changed and the frontage has not changed though the road will be
larger. He explained that only 5 lots were on the cul-de-sac and 2 of
those lots would have to enter on this road, due to terrain. He stated
the applicant would seek a waiver from the Highway Department from the
50-foot requirement based on the.fact that this would be an extremely low
useage road.
Mr. Payne explained that it the Commission wished to leave this issue
to the discretion of staff and the Highway Department, he would propose
some language reflecting this. Mr. Payne suggested that condition l(g)
be amended to read as follows: "Redesign of lots at ends of cul-de-sacs
to provide a minimum spacing between edge of driveways as required by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation."
i
July 24, 1984 Page 15
Mr. Skove moved that the Ivy Oaks Preliminary Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The following conditions are recommended for final plat approval:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer and Highway Department approval of road and drainage
plans and computations;
c. Virginia Department of -Highways and Transportation approval of
right turn and taper lane at all three entrances to include dedi-
cation of necessary additional right-of-way;
d. Recordation of deed or plat showing necessary sight easement at all
entrances; prior to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of commercial entrances;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrances;
f. Redesign of lots at ends of cul-de-sacs to provide a minimum spacing
between edge of driveways as required by Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority and Fire Official approval of
final water plans;
h. Fire Official approval of fireflow and hydrant locations;
i. Proposed pond shown on -plan is hereby deleted.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Skove indicated his motion had contemplated administrative approval of
the final plat.
Mr. Gilliam stated: "We do not want an existing plat to be deemed vacated
until we have recorded this plat."
(It was at this point that condition l(i) was added.)
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the motion had not addressed the waiver for
the double frontage. Mr. Payne stated that technically this should have
been waived, but he added: "But I think your approval speaks to that."
Mr. Payne stated a specific action was not necessary.
Ashcroft Final Plat - Lots A & B on Lego Drive, Tax Map 78, parcels 51G
and 52. Request for administrative approval.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the County Attorney had indicated to staff that
this item could be approved administratively. It was the consensus of
the Commission that this item could be administratively approved. No
action was taken.
a
July 24, 1984 Page 16
Saddle Hollow Farm Final Plat - Located at the end of Rt. 684 near Crozet.
Proposal to create five parcels with average size of 13..47 acres on a private
road and to add 1.648 acres to parcel 13A. Zoned RA, Rural.Areas.
White Hall Magisterial District. Tax Map 39, Parcel 3, 13C, 13A.
'is. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Ys. Scala read the applicant's requests for waivers.
She explained that the plat was basically the same as.the preliminary except
the issue of the waiver would need to be addressed again.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the.Board of Supervisors' approval of the preliminary
had stated there could be no further division of the five parcels. He
felt that was in conflict with this application.
Ms. Scala stated that "we're actually starting from scratch here." She
added: "Say for instance you did waive it like the Board did, you could
add that note. That was a note added by the Board of Supervisors on the
preliminary." She pointed out that the original approval had expired
so "we're starting from Base One again." She explained that usually the
number of development rights are calculated and assigned to a certain parcel,
though "that doesn't mean that they could ever subdivide like that."
She explained that every parcel does have development rights and they
must be kept track of.
In reply to fir. Cogan's question as to how many development rights would
be left, his. Scala replied, "I guess there's just one."
Mr. Payne added: "The Ordinance requires that; if you're going to put the
note as the Board did, that will satisfy the ordinance."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gale Picktord. He stated that
the applicants were willing to offer no more development .of the property.
He stressed that the parcel is more than 21 acres so the applicant is
not using one of his development rights, but is willing to waive development
mainly because the terrain and topography in this area probably wouldn't
permit development in any case. He stated the original plan had expired
because of the timing of some technical problems. He asked that the
requirement for prime and double seal of the road be waived and also that
the requirement for a 30-foot easement be waived.
Mr. Clark, the applicant, added that the road in question was once in
the state system but was abandoned.
Xr. Payne asked if Mr. Clark was aware of the status of the road, i.e.
had it been formally abandoned? sir. Clark was uncertain of the status.
and
Air. Payne explained if the road had been a public road/was not formally
abandoned, then the "right-of-way is presumptive of 30 feet."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
July 24, 1984 Page 17
The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer.
Mr. Elrod stated he disagreed with the developer regarding the maintenance
of a gravel road. He felt a paved road was easier to maintain. Mr. Bowerman
asked if there was a question of slope along this road. Mr. Elrod replied
that the road was fairly flat. (Mr. Elrod's comments were inaudible.)
Mr. Cogan noted that he was familiar with the road. He indicated he was
in favor of granting the two waivers and suggested that condition l(e)
be changed to read: "Show 100' stream setbacks on lots and there is to be
no further division of these five parcels." Mr. Cogan felt it was
"conducive to good planning" to maintain the gravel road. He did not
feel the width of the right-of-way was a problem or an issue.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Saddle Hollow Farm Final Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions and including granting of the following waivers:
I. The final plat will not .be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. Compliance with all private road provisions, including County
Engineer approval of road and drainage plans from Route 684 to
parcel 4 and road bond;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance;
e. Show 100' stream setbacks on lots; and there is to be no further
division of these five parcels.
WAIVERS:
1. Waiver of the 30' width requirement on the existing private road
from Route 684 to the applicant's property; and
2. Waiver of the requirement for prime and double seal on the same
section of the road.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There was a brief discussion about bolding all Commission meetings in Room
7, and not alternating between 7 and 5/6.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, Augu , 1988