HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 20 1992 PC Minutes10-20-92
1
OCTOBER 20, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 20, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr.
Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Senior Planner;
Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
October 6, 1992 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the October
14, 1992 Board of Supervisors meeting.
SP-92-23 and ZMA-92-6 Donnie & Catherine Dunn - Petition to
apply the NR, Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District
and to permit spring water bottling [30.4.2.2(8)] on 49.4
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map
7, Parcels 37 and 38, is located on the west side of Rt. 601
approximately 0.47 miles north of Rt. 749 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval of the special permit, subject to conditions, and
of the rezoning, subject to acceptance of the applicant's
proffer.
Mr. Johnson questioned how it would be possible to ensure
that only 20% of the spring's flow is captured (condition
No. 2). Mr. Fritz explained that the Engineering Department
has indicated that it is fairly easy to accomplish this but
he was uncertain of exactly how this would be done. (Later
in the meeting Mr. Keeler described a simple way this could
be done, i.e. divert the water in five different pipes,
capture the flow from one and allow the other four to be
discharged.) Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 2
should be worded such that "this is only authorized should
that be effectively designed."
There was some dispute about whether the 30,000
gallons/month was a maximum or minimum amount. Mr. Johnson
was under the impression it was a maximum. Ms. Huckle
ra
10-20-92 2
stated the applicant had indicated to her that it was a
minimum and "that he would like to use as much as he could.
Mr. Fritz explained that it was just an "anticipated" amount
and was not meant to be a maximum or minimum.
Mr. Johnson asked if consideration had been given to placing
a ceiling on the extraction. Staff responded that 20% was
the ceiling.
Regarding the truck traffic, Mr. Johnson asked if
consideration had been given to placing a limit on the
tonage of the trucks. Mr. Fritz explained that that would
be a regulatory condition which staff attempts to avoid
because of the difficulty of monitoring and enforcement.
The applicant, Donnie Dunn, addressed the Commission.
Comments and answers to Commission questions included the
following:
--A minimum of 30,000 gallons/month is needed to make
the business profitable.
--The average flow rate from the springs is 10
gallons/minute (per spring = 3 x 10 gallons/minute = 30).
[Mr. Blue noted that this was considerably more than 30,000
gallons/month. Mr. Blue stated that he felt the amount of
water that would be captured would "not be a significant
loss to our reservoir if that figure is right."]
--In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he confirmed
that if the production is greater than anticipated there is
a possibility that some of the bottling could be done
elsewhere.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Treva Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters,
addressed the Commission. She read a prepared statement
which expressed concerns about the proposal. Her statement
is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. The League
recommended the addition of a condition requiring that
"monitoring devices be installed and periodically inspected
by an appropriate county official."
Ms. Huckle stressed that the 30,000 gallons is a "minimum"
and the actual withdrawal is not known.
It was noted that two letters of objection had been
received, from Ms. Eugenia Herrell and Ms. Marjorie Paul.
(Those letters are on file in the Department of Planning and
Community Development.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Blue felt that 20% was reasonable, but was concerned as
to how this would be measured and monitored. He stated: "I
91
10-20-92 3
believe this allows him to develop a business in the County
which I believe is not going to harm anyone, provided it
does not harm the future of the Buck Mt. Reservoir, and I
don't think it will. I will support this special use
permit."
Ms. Huckle commented: "I think it's kind of ironic that
tonight we are being asked to approve a change in the land
use plan for a great many more businesses and residents
(while) at the same time the water service authority says
that they don't have sufficient water or sewer capacity for
what's already on the books. So at the same time we're
having a request for a great deal more water, we could be
endangering the one last hope we have, which is the Buck Mt.
Reservoir. I think we should be extremely careful. I am
very uncomfortable, too, about making a decision like that
at a time when we don't have a Water Resources Manager on
board. I wonder if it would be a good idea to defer this
until such time as we do have a Water Resources Manager
again."
Mr. Blue questioned what additional information a Water
Resources Manager could offer.
Ms. Huckle felt that he would be able to ensure that the
Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance was complied
with.
Ms. Huckle also expressed concern because Mr. Dunn's
drainfield is upgrade from the spring. Mr. Blue felt that
the Health Department would ensure that the water was not
contaminated.
Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 2 be amended such
that "this be dependent upon Engineering approval of a
satisfactory monitoring system to detect the percentage of
spring flow extraction."
Ms. Andersen agreed. She also felt that "the amount of
water going through" should be verified. She also felt that
the permit should be revoked if it is found that the
estimates are incorrect. She wanted "some teeth to be in
this with the Engineering monitoring system."
Mr. Blue questioned how the Zoning Department would be able
to monitor the situation. Mr. Johnson felt some sort of
recording device could be installed.
Mr. Keeler felt that it would be fairly simply to devise a
way to measure 20% of the flow. However, he felt it was
unrealistic to expect the Zoning Administrator to verify
what was happening with the other 80%.
va
10-20-92 4
Ms. Andersen noted that the letters of objection which had
been received had raised questions about Mr. Dunn's good
faith in a previous situation involving a permit for a
bridge. Staff stated this issue had been resolved and that
it had been based on an allegation and a misunderstanding by
property owners. Mr. Fritz read the following comments from
the zoning Administrator related to this issue: "It appears
not to have been a violation but to have been a
misunderstanding. With the intervention of the County to
document the Woods right to use the crossing without
maintenance or repair costs, the matter is resolved." (This
letter is on file in the Department of Planning and
Community Development.)
In response to Mr. Johnson's suggestion related to condition
No. 2, Mr. Cilimberg recommended the following be added to
the end of that condition: "...devices to achieve this
requirement shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Department of Engineering and periodically inspected by the
appropriate agency." (Later in the discussion it was
decided that the words "during business operating hours"
would be added at the end.)
Mr. Blue asked the County Attorney if unnannounced visits
were allowable. Mr. Bowling responded that this involves
"administrative rights to go on somebody's property and
enforce regulations." He stated that currently it is County
practice to announce visits.
Mr. Johnson asked if authorization for inspection "at any
time" could be included in the condition. Mr. Bowling
stated that the County could do that if there is a definite
health and safety issue. Mr. Bowling was uncertain about
the particulars of this issue but stated he would research
the question and report back to the Commission at a later
time. Mr. Bowling felt such a statement would be acceptable
provided the applicant is agreeable. Mr. Nitchmann
suggested that the applicant might want to consider agreeing
to inspections at "any time during business hours."
Mr. Dunn stated that he would have no objection to "someone
from Engineering, unannounced, during daily business hours,
9 - 5, so long as it pertains to spring water extraction,
visiting the premises to check the operation." He
concluded: "So long as we mutually understand that it is
during business hours and so long as we understand that it
pertains to the water and that it's for the diversion of the
spring water device, if someone wants to check that and say,
'This much is going in the tank and this much is going down
the stream,` that's fine with me."
The Chairman called for a motion on the zoning Map
Amendment.
92
10-20-92 5
Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-92-06 be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to acceptance of the applicant's proffer.
The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the
dissenting vote.
The Chairman called for a motion on the Special Permit.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-92-33
for Donnie Dunn, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Use shall not commence without appropriate state
approvals, including approval from the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services and Department of Health
if required.
2. Not more than 20% of each spring's flow may be captured
at any given time; devices to achieve this requirement shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of
Engineering and periodically inspected by the appropriate
agency during business operating hours. (Note: The
applicant offered to post business hours.)
3. Bottling facility shall not exceed 1,500 square feet.
All structures shall be similar in facade to a single-family
dwelling, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in
a rural or residential area and shall be specifically
compatible in design and scale with other development in the
area in which located.
4. Use shall not be established without staff approval of a
site development plan.
5. Bottling facilities on -site shall be used only for the
bottling of spring water obtained on -site. Water used for
bottling shall not contain any additives or artificial
carbonation other than those required by regulating agencies
for purification purposes.
6. Compliance with applicable regulations of Section 30.4.
The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the
dissenting vote.
CPA 92-05 Towers Land Trust fvreviously reviewed under
CPA-89-03 - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
expand the Growth Area Boundary of the Hollymead Community
to include Regional Service, Office Service and Low and
Medium Density Residential uses. The area under
consideration for these designations is east of Rt. 29
94
10-20-92 6
North, south of the North Fork Rivanna River, west of Route
785 and north of Proffit Road (Rt. 649).
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "Staff continues to believe a comprehensive
evaluation of all requests to modify the Hollymead Growth
Area should be undertaken upon completion of the fiscal
impact model development and analysis and the Meadow Creek
Study. Should the Commission and Board choose to consider
this request, staff opinion is that this area is an
appropriate location for expansion of the Hollymead
Community for the land uses proposed...." Staff proposed
some changes to the applicant's proposal.
Mr. Blue felt that "it's time for the County to make a
decision on what they are going to do with (Chris Green
Lake) before we get forced into making a decision that might
be wrong." He could not envision the County, in the
foreseeable future, "becoming so thirsty" that the public
would allow the removal of Chris Green as a recreational
facility. Regarding the issue of sewer, he felt a decision
needs to be made as to whether a pump station or a gravity
line should be installed. He suggested that the Board make
this decision soon, "before we are forced into the decision
by additional changes in the Comprehensive Plan such as this
and the rezoning." He asked if decisions on these questions
were currently "in the works." He felt that if it is
decided that Chris Green will not be used, it could effect
how much land use designation is changed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Benish responded that it is hoped that the utilities
master planning process would bring those particular types
of questions to the Commission and Board for resolution. He
stated that a draft of the Utilities Master Plan is nearing
completion.
Referring to the comments from the Virginia Department of
Transportation, Mr. Blue felt the Meadowcreek Parkway would
have a big impact on this proposal. Mr. Benish explained
that none of the alignments would have a direct impact on
this property, but it would certainly have an impact on the
accommodation of traffic in the area.
There was a brief discussion of the location of the area
being considered for re -designation. Mr. Benish located the
applicant's proposal on the map and also pointed out staff's
recommendations.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. He
described the history of the property and the request.
He explained that there are currently no specific uses
proposed for the property. He made the following comments
regarding staff's recommendations:
10-20-92 7
---Neighborhood service: He felt that it would be
appropriate, "if everything works as it should," to have at
least some convenience showing "down close to the north fork
of the river." He noted that R-15 allows for convenience
shopping by special permit. However, he stated he was
willing to accept the deletion of the commercial on "Block
B" if the Commission so recommends.
--Access to Rt. 29: Staff's suggestion is exactly as
the applicant requested in 1989. The applicant agrees that
"the connection at D and the connection from the other side,
at UREF, should be across from each other." He felt that
before any rezonings are approved every effort should be
made to see that "those connections are across from each
other."
--High density residential: He stated: "We have no
problem with that."
Mr. Wagner described utilities issues in some detail. He
stressed that this property already has the infrastructure
in place to support development.
Mr. Blue expressed the fear that "if we get too far ahead of
the utility plan in designating growth areas in the
Comprehensive Plan, particularly if it's not for a specific
use right away, we might get in trouble." He wondered it
it might not be wise to delay action on this request until
completion of the Utilities Master Plan. He stated he was
"really worried about the utilities."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Reva Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters,
addressed the Commission. She read a prepared statement
which expressed support for the County's historical position
that "requests for expanding Hollymead's growth area not be
considered until the five studies/issues have been completed
or resolved." (Her statement is made a part of this record
as Attachment B.)
Mr. Andrew Barksdale expressed his opposition to the
proposal because he was opposed to a change in the character
of the Rt. 785 area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
The Commission invited comment from Mr.
representing the University Real Estate
He explained why UREF had "pulled" its
application. He confirmed that UREF is
re -submit its application immediately.
Bob McKee,
Foundation (UREF).
original rezoning
prepared to
94
10-20-92 8
Ms. Huckle stated that though she was sympathetic to the
applicant's situation, she still felt it would be premature
to take action until all the studies have been completed.
It was Mr. Johnson's feeling that the comprehensive Plan was
a "long range guideline which is done with the best
information available at the time ... and many times is based
on our perception of what we think is going to happen." He
stated: "The driving force, no matter what we think is
going to happen, is the economical approach to the private
sector." He continued: "In this case we have a viable
request from a large organization that is interested, for
economical purposes, in this area. I don't know how we can
ask for better support in evolving what is going to be
provided in this area. I think it is interests such as this
that will really end up being the driving force for the
planning of the utilities and the infrastructure. We are
only considering a change to a long range guide. We are not
considering specifics. I think in the interests of
assisting the planning of the infrastructure, we should give
this serious consideration and, as a matter of fact, I would
vote for it just based on the applicant's design, because it
is not firm --it can be changed. But to get on and get
something on the books and get an appreciation of what has a
high probability of happening rather than just what we think
might happen." Regarding density, he stated: "Wherever
possible, when something like this comes up in the
Comprehensive Plan, I would by nature, be in favor of
recommending the lowest possible density and then when the
rezoning and applications come up, we can increase the
density as we think fit at the time, but the converse is
more difficult." He concluded that denial of this request
would be "putting us in the position of supporting
individual developments rather than organized developments."
Mr. Johnson stated his only concern was with the
"limitation" of the request. He feared that "we are strip
developing 29 rather than developing the areas around, to
the east and west...."
Mr. Johnson called attention to a comment which had been
made at the time of the 1989 request: "The alignment of the
Meadowcreek Parkway should be revised to continue northward
eventually crossing the north fork of the Rivanna River
which would help alleviate traffic on Rt. 29." He felt this
was a very significant comment.
Mr. Johnson cautioned against denying a request based on the
lack of supporting infrastructure.
Mr. Grimm stated he felt the Utilities Master Plan should be
completed as a prelude to the overall planning for the
northside of Proffit and Airport Roads. He stressed that
97
10-20-92 9
there is a vested interest "in moving that ahead as rapidly
as we can."
Mr. Johnson questioned whether the Utilities Master Plan
would result in any significant change to this proposal as
it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed that it
could have a major impact on implementation at that stage.
Mr. Nitchmann, who serves on the Fiscal Impact Committee,
doubted that a fiscal impact model would be in place and
working in less than 12 to 18 months. In regard to the
Utilities Master Plan, he agreed with Mr. Johnson that it
would "probably be better if you knew what was going there
first so that you could plan a little better for what you
are going to need." He concluded that he could not support
denial of the request, though he would consider supporting a
deferral provided a time limit (3 months) is placed on that
deferral. He felt that "continuing to drag this out" was
unfair to both the development and the business community.
Referring to the concern about utilitites, Mr. Benish
explained that Comprehensive Plan Amendments have been
approved in the past that have put limitations on the zoning
when development occurred. He explained: "You could, if
you wanted to move forward with this request, put the same
sort of time limit based on the review of zoning and
development proposals in this area. You could include it in
the Comprehensive Plan with a note in the Plan profile
saying that 'Zoning action or development of this property
will not take place until issues involving the provision of
sewer and water services are resolved."
Mr. Blue felt it is probably the applicant's position that
that has already been done since Mr. Brent has already
written a letter stating that adequate capacity for sewer
and water is there.
Mr. Benish stated that because of all the organizations
involved, he could not say that the Utilities Master Plan
could be completed in 3 months. He could only confirm that
it is "on a front burner."
Mr. Johnson attempted to determine the goal of the Utilities
Plan, i.e. is it to determine whether or not there will be
utilitites there, or is it a plan as to how utilities will
be provided and when? Mr. Cilimberg indicated that it would
be more in the direction of how and when. Mr. Johnson
concluded: "Ultimately, there are going to be utilities
there. That's all we're saying here is 'It looks like a
good place,' and the specifics as to how the utilities get
there is another consideration downstream, but I don't see
that it has anything to do with this particular plan except
that there will ultimately be utilities there."
911
10-20-92 10
Mr. Nitchmann felt that if there was some idea of what was
going to be in the area it would make it easier to plan for
the utility needs.
Mr. Blue noted that staff's recommendation was to "deny or
defer" action until completion of the Fiscal Impact Model
and the Meadowcreek study. He stated he was not comfortable
with denial on that basis. He concluded: "I guess I agree
with Walter. The utilities are going to be there and it's
just a question of how. Somehow I think this might be the
way to make them make that decision on what to do with Chris
Greene and how to handle that Camelot Treatment
Plant —either to put in a pump station or put in a gravity
sewer. I think those do have some bearing on this, but
perhaps not enough to hold up this plan. ... If we're going
to defer it it ought to be for a relatively short period of
time."
Ms. Huckle felt this plan had a "lot of loose ends and a lot
of unanswered questions."
Mr. Nitchmann, who serves on the Fiscal Impact Model
Committee, stated that he could "not hold up the development
of anything in this County until the Fiscal Impact Model
gets in place because I don't know, quite frankly, when
that's going to be."
Mr. Jenkins commented: "The only problem I have with it is
the fact we sit here and we say that growth costs money, and
it does, and the taxes keep going up, and I hear you say
good things come from it and I think the only good ones I
see are more traffic on 29, if you call that good."
Mr. Blue noted that growth results in a better education
system.
Mr. Jenkins responded: "That hasn't been proven to me.
That's my only hesitation, is that we end up with all of the
citizens in the County getting together and pitching into
this pot to help this development take place out there and
we have done a poor job of convincing them that this is good
for them, and I'm one of them that hasn't been convinced and
that's my only hesitation to voting for it right now. It
costs money to put this out there and everbody here, and all
citizens, have to pitch into the pot and we do a lousey job
of telling them it's good for them."
Ms. Huckle questioned the need for additional commercial
development at the present time.
Mr. Jenkins moved that CPA-92-05 be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval as recommended by staff as
follows with the further recommendation that zoning action
and development of this area shall not occur until issues
10-20-92 11
concerning ultimate provision of water and sewer service are
resolved by the Albemarle County Service Authority and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (this last recommendation
was added as an amendment to the motion in subsequent
discussion): [NOTE: Though Mr. Jenkins' motion was for
approval, he stated he would be voting against the motion.)
--Delete Neighborhood Service designation along U.S.
29.
--Limit access to U.S. 29 to three locations for the
entire study area. The Towers property should be limited to
two access points to U.S. 29. The northern most access to
U.S. 29 should be aligned with the future access to the UREF
Office/Research/Industrial Park.
--Specific location of low, medium and high density
residential should be identified within the residential
area. Staff has identified a deficiency in land designated
for High Density Residential use in the Growth Areas.
Consideration should be given to designating High Density
Residential area within this expansion area.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. (He later withdrew his
second and Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.)
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann again indicated he was in agreement with Mr.
Johnson. (He withdrew his second to the motion "after
thinking it over.")
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion but he
suggested that staff's recommendation that Neighborhood
Service designation along U.S. 29 should be deleted from the
motion. He also suggested that "consideration should be
given to designating High Density Residential area within
this expansion area" should not be included because this
"could be given consideration at a later date because it is
easier to go from low density to high density than from high
density to low density." He suggested: "I would be in
favor of keeping all of the residential definitions here at
the very lowest possible density at this stage of the game."
Mr. Benish noted: "That is not going to be entirely
consistent with the applicant's request."
Mr. Johnson responded: "All right then we can change it then
when he justifies his request, but if we go the other way,
then I think we have a harder time changing it. Nothing is
frozen in concrete here except that we're saying 'This looks
like part of the growth area."'
Mr. Cilimberg noted: "Whatever change is made in the plan
you vote to approve, once in place, will require that the
applicant go through this process again to change or
ZOO
10-20-92 12
increase densities. So if you're totally uncomfortable with
the designations, don't include it, but if you're looking at
it from the standpoint of 'Well, we'll deal with it later,'
what you're doing is imposing on the applicant the necessity
to come back through at that time and justify and get
approval. Maybe you want to do that, but I just wanted you
to be aware of it."
Mr. Blue expressed a lack of understanding as to why Mr.
Jenkins would make a motion that he did not intend to
support. (Mr. Jenkins explained: "I'm tired of talking
about it; you can do it either way.")
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Ms. Andersen asked if the motion included the recommendation
that no rezonings be considered until water and sewer issues
have been resolved.
Mr. Jenkins agreed to change the motion accordingly.
The above -stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with
Commissioners Jenkins and Huckle casting the dissenting
votes.
Mr. Keeler interpreted from the Commission's action: "I
think we understand that it would probably be appropriate
for us to contact the utilitites and suggest to them that
they might want to get underway with these decisions because
along with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment can come a Zoning
Map Amendment and I don't think we want to be in a position
where we are holding that up because there hasn't been any
additional activity.
Mr. Grimm confirmed: "That's our intent." Mr. Blue added:
"With specific attention paid to decisions on Chris Greene
Lake and the sewage plant.
It was clarified that Mr. Johnson's recommended amendments
to Mr. Jenkins' motion were not part of the action.
SUB-92-130 Owensfield Preliminary Plat - Rural
Preservation Development proposal to create 20 development
lots averaging 3.2 acres and two rural preservation tracts
consisting of 40.0 and 120.16 acres from a 223.71 acre
property. The development lots and one rural preservation
tract are proposed to be served by a public road. The
second rural preservation tract is proposed to access Decca
Lane (Rt. 678). Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel
72, is located on the north side of Owensville Road (Route
676) approximately 1/2 of a mile east of its intersection
with Decca Lane (Route 678). Zoned, RA, Rural Areas in the
/a/
10-20-92
13
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is not
located in a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Blue questioned why staff and VDOT had not followed
previous policy and recommended that major roads intersect
that the same point. Mr. Tarbell stated that the applicant
had preferred this alignment and "we didn't push it because
VDOT's position was as long as there is 200 feet separation
between the two, it is acceptable to them." (Mr. Johnson
read VDOT's statement which confirmed Mr. Tarbell's
explanation.)
Referring to condition (f)--VDOT approval of right-of-way
improvements to include a commercial entrance --Mr. Johnson
interpreted from VDOT's comments that "they are not
requiring any right-of-way improvements or a commercial
entrance." Mr. Tarbell noted that this was standard
language. Staff corrected Mr. Johnson and noted that VDOT
would require a commercial entrance and "it is so standard
that (VDOT) is not always including it in their comments."
The applicant, Mr. Peter Scherer, addressed the Commission.
He addressed Mr. Blue's question about the road alignment
and explained that the reason for the proposed alignment was
related to topography, aesthetics, and the fact that an
alignment as suggested by Mr. Blue would have put the road
"right next to" an existing house.
Mr. Johnson asked: "Is there any additional dedicated
right-of-way on the road?" The applicant responded: "The
property line, as it is now, is, I believe, the middle of
Rt. 676, Owensfield Road. We've actually shown a 25 foot
dedication, but we have no strong feeling either way. When
we developed the plan we anticipated that the Highway
Department was going to request a 25-foot dedication which
is what we encountered in the past, but apparently they are
saying it is not necessary in this situation." Mr.
Cilimberg explained: "This is an unusual situation here.; not
every road does the property line go to the center of the
road. This is a perscriptive easement vs. an existing
right-of-way which they might be adding to. So they are
just dedicating their half of the right-of-way from the
center line of the road."
Mr. Blue asked if any provision would be made to allow all
lot owners to have some use of the Rural Preservation Tract
No. 1. The applicant responded that his attorney is looking
into that possibility, but he could not give a definitive
answer. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, the
applicant explained the history of the development rights on
the property.
/d.R
10-20-92 14
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Mary Ann Morrison, an adjoining property owner,
addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about
increased traffic on a dangerous road. She also asked that
the Owensfield Road sign be part of the entire community and
that the two proposed houses for Owensfield Road "face out
onto the road rather than into their own exclusive
community." She also asked that the Commission require that
the rural preservation tract be accessible to the entire
neighborhood.
Mr. Grimm explained that the developer has the right to
develop the property as proposed and the placement of the
houses on the lots is a private matter, provided that siting
requirements are met, as is the accessiblity of the rural
preservation tract. Regarding the sign, he noted that the
developer will have to meet the requirements of the Sign
Ordinance.
Mr. Blue added that the Commission can only encourage that
the developer make the rural preservation tract accessible
to other property owners.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the
Owensfield 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. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of roads and
associated drainage plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit to include approval of 100 foot building and
septic setback delineation from intermittent streams;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and associated drainage plans and calculations;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance;
g. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval
of a rural preservation easement to include standard water
supply protection language.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
The motion passed unanimously.
/03
10-20-92
15
MISCELLANEOUS
Manufactured Housing - Mr. Johnson read a statement
pertaining to information he had gathered on the tax revenue
from manufactured houses. He asked that this be made
available to the Board. (Mr. Johnson's statement is made a
part of this record as Attachment C).
Minor Eager Bridge across Buck Mt. Creek -- Ms. Huckle
expressed concern about the condition of this bridge and
erosion that is occurring. She asked if the County could
look into this. Mr. Cilimberg stated he would make the
Zoning and Engineering Departments aware of her concerns.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:45 p.m.
DB
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
/D Ff