Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 16 88 PC MinutesAugust 16, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; and Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner. Absent: Commissioner Stark, and Mr. George St. John, County. Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 2, 1988 were approved as submitted. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan - Discussion of Draft Plan: Mr. Cilimberg led the discussion, assisted by Mr. Horne and Mr. Benish. Commission and public comments and suggested changes included the following: CHAPTER 1 Page 11: Ms. Diehl pointed out that the sentence at the bottom of the page did not continue until page 13. Pages 12 and 13 should be reversed. Page 11: Mr. Bowerman felt the sentence "If the assumption ... would be necessary.".should be removed in the second paragraph from the bottom. Staff explained the intended meaning of the sentence but it was finally decided the sentence would be deleted. Page 20, Economic Development Goal: Ms. Tamara Vance, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, stated she felt strongly that the private sector did not feel anything. She felt the words "the private... County and" should be deleted. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission did not want to get involved in setting policy on economic growth; therefore, the only people left were those in the private sector. The Commission discussed Ms. Vance's suggestion and though it was pointed out by staff that the statement accurately reflected the Commission's conclusion, staff had no objection to either wording. Commissioners Diehl, Michel and Rittenhouse seemed to agree the sentence would read better if the words were deleted. It was finally agreed the words would be deleted. Page 42, Objective 4: Ms. Vance suggested the inclusion of a statement about the relationship between restrictive rural area zoning and the perception that that effects the affordability of housing and the stock of low-income housing. She stated "just because there may be a need for affordable and low-income housing and improvements in sub -standard housing, etc., that doesn't mean you give up on growth management in the rural areas to accommodate that but that 0.0 August 16, 1988 Page 2 somehow the private sector has to take further initiative to provide for the existence of affordable housing." She felt it was important for the Commission to defend "yourselves against exclusive rural -area zoning." Mr. Horne felt the best place to address this issue would be the Rural Development Section. Staff stated they would consider this issue further. Mr. Bowerman advised his. Vance she could submit something to staff for their consideration. CHAPTER 2 Page 12: Re: Objective for "Protection of Farmlands and Forestal Areas" Ms. Vance suggested the addition of "tax incentives" at the end of the objective. She also suggested that the reference to "use value taxation" bepulled out from voluntary -measures and support should be expressed for the concept that rural land taxed at a lower rate can help keep land from being developed by "not taxing people off the farm." She suggested the addition of another section on Tax Incentives. She suggested another strategy, i.e, that the committee that would be set up to examine County policies effecting agriculture and forestry could also consider other potential financial incentives for conservation, e.g. purchase of development rights or a bigger deferral of use value taxation. Mr. Horne stated staff was not prepared to comment on whether Ms. Vance's suggestions were appropriate, having given no consideration to an entire new section. He agreed use value taxation merited more discussion in the Plan. He stated staff would discuss this issue further with Ms. Vance. Page 13: Last paragraph re: Best Management Practices - Ms. Vance felt this seemed to be "substantially different than the various efforts that we go through to reserve the land base." .She felt soil erosion was more a way of protecting the productivity of the land and was not really part of protecting the land from subdivision, per se. She suggested separating out the section on soil erosion control from Voluntary Measures. Mr. Horne stated he supported the text as written. Mr. Bowerman deferred to staff's expertise. Page 25: Objective re: Water Resource Committee - his. Vance stated FEC would like to be in on these discussions and be supplied with the information that the committee gets. She felt other citizens' groups night also be interested. She wanted it to be made clearer that citizen input would be allowed. CHAPTER 3 Page 55: Paragraph after second objective - Insert word "not" after "should" i.e. "...area should not anticipate...." (Rittenhouse) Page 40: Second paragraph from bottom regarding Keene Landfill - Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the landfill will be closed, for everything, on July 1, 1989 and the paragraph should be changed accordingly. At August 16, 1988 Page 3 Pages 2 & 3: Top of page 2 re: Distribution for growth in County for over 20 years and Table 37 at top of page 3 - Mr. Rittenhouse felt both should be in terms of percentages, i.e. percentages should also be included in the table, alongside the numbers. Page 4, Middle of third paragraph: Referring to the sentence "School facilities reach capacity requiring improvement and expansion." Mr. Rittenhouse stated it was not clear to him why that was a necessary outgrowth of rural growth as opposed to urban growth. He felt it was important to tie it to rural areas. Mr. Bowerman suggested the first sentence of this paragraph should state "Widespread and rapid growth...." Ms. Diehl suggested that the first sentenceof the third paragraph be changed further with the words "gradual but" deleted. Pages 49 and 50: Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the name of the Seminole Square fire station should be consistent, i.e. either Seminole Square or Seminole Trail, not both. Page 14: Mr. Bowerman asked how Rt. 29 would be classified under this classification system. He asked staff to give this some thought. He thought this could cause potential problems. Page 35, third paragraph, first sentence: Mr. Bowerman asked that the words "...it will become important to be able..." be deleted and replaced with "...it is essential to adequately...." Page 42, re: Disposal of hazardous household wastes - Mr. Bowerman was very concerned about the current lack of any method for citizen disposal of such wastes. He felt this should be addressed in the Plan. It was the consensus of the Commission that this was an important issue and needed to be made a high priority. Some possibilities were discussed including the Public Facilities Plan. Mr. Horne suggested that "alternative disposal for household hazardous and toxic waste" be added as item -IV under 6(3) Solid Waste on page 56. Mr.Horne stated staff would try to develop a strategy. Ms. Diehl felt this should be addressed immediately and the word should be passed to County officials. Mr. Horne stressed that this was a very technical issue and did not have a simple solution. Page 45, I1c., Four Seasons Channel - There was some discussion about the status of this project. Staff agreed to look into this further. Page 31, Strategy 2 - There was a brief discussion about who owned the railroad bridges. Mr. Michel felt there should be some comment about the status of these bridges. Page 32 - Mr. Michel noted the page number was missing from this page. In the last paragraph it was determined the Ragged Mt. School was no longer in existence and the paragraph should be changed accordingly. August 16, 1988 Page 4 Page 34: Mr. Michel suggested that the projected enrollment figure for l-ieriwether Lewis be.re-checked. Page 35, second paragraph: Mr. Michel felt there should be some statement about the future use for the Rose Hill and Murray Elementary school buildings.. UTILITIES Page 2: Mr: Rittenhouse pointed out that there seemed to be a.mistake in math in the 4th paragraph in relation to the MGD fiture. In the 5th and 6th paragraph, he suggested that the data in paragraph 5 be based on 1987 (not 1986) figures as in paragraph 6. Page 27, Table 48, 3th column, 2nd line: It was determined that F.A.R. was Floor Area Ratio and the figure should be .7 with the mark deleted. Page 23, Topic "Medium Density Residential": Mr. Rittenhouse felt this was confusing. ylr. Bowerman asked staff to clarify with an additional sentence. Page 9, Strategy 2: Mr. Michel suggested that a comment be included to the effect that the County has no responsibility to the owner of a lot which does not produce water. Mr. Horne suggested the addition of the following sentence to the end of the second paragraph (just before strategies): "As a general proposition persons residing in the rural areas are respor_sible for providing on -site water and sewer facilities at their own expense & risk." Page 18, Residential Densities: Ms. Vance brought up the issue that in the previous Comp Plan there was a general standard for the watershed area for a density of 1 unit./10 acres. She felt that standard could be restated in this section (if it did not appear elsewhere in the Plan). She stated she did not feel there had been a decision to abandon that standard but there was no implementation strategy for accomplishing it. She was concerned about "smallish" parcels (50 acres) and felt that sticking to a standard of 1 dwelling/10 acres might result in lower density overall. There was a discussion about this issue. Mr. Horne pointed out the only place the 10-acres could be applied would be by special permit. fir. Bowerman felt that what 'pis. Vance was suggesting wouldn't work because development rights wouldn't be applicable any more. Mr. Bowerman interpreted that Ms. Vance was suggesting a different strategy for the watershed area of a lower density, beyond what had already been proposed. Ms. Vance pointed out that she was only suggesting keeping the standard and "not giving up on that goal." Mr. Horne stressed there was no point in having the standard if "we're not going to take an action to implement it." Ms. Vance felt an explicit decision should then be made to give up on the goal. She also felt if things were left out of the Plan, "they were less likely to get accomplished." Commissioners Diehl and Michel were not opposed to putting this in the plan "someplace." Mr. Bowerman was afraid to tamper with the work already accomplished on rural areas. However, he suggested that if it was to be considered for inclusion, a possible place might 0115 August 16, 1988 Page 5 be on page 3 of the Rural Development section and would be in place of eliminating the special permit. It was decided staff would study this issue and it would be discussed further at the August 30 meeting. Mr. Cilimberg concluded the Commission was in favor of sticking with the strategy as stated. RURAL DEVELOPMENT Page 2, middle paragraph, second sentence: Mr. Michel felt this sentence should be re -worked and staff was to have numbers available for the August 30 meeting. Page 3, second paragraph, first sentence: Mr. Michel felt "in concept" should be deleted. Page 3, third paragraph, first sentence: Mr. Michel felt the word "could" should be deleted in the first part of the sentence and "could be" should be changed to "are" in the second part of the sentence. Page 4, Residential Subdivisions: Mr. Michel suggested the following addition to the last sentence: "...better reflect the long standing rural area.... "" Page 4, second paragraph under Strategy 2: Mr. Michel suggested changing "'If"" to "As" at the beginning of the first sentence. In the same paragraph, 4th line, he suggested deleting the word "technically." Page 4, last paragraph, first sentence: Restate as: "Forty acres is large enough to conduct individual farm operations." There was a brief discussion as to exactly what this sentence was intended to mean. Page 5, No. 4: Change the words "deed restriction" to "conservation easement." In relation to this strategy, Mr. Michel asked if Mr. St. John could be asked for a definition of "perpetuity." Page 6: Ms. Diehl felt the first two objectives should be restated so as to have a positive, rather than a negative, tone. Miscellaneous Comments Ms. Diehlsuggested that tables incorporated within the text should be "blocked." It was suggested that Goals, Objectives and Strategies be listed all together in one place, incorporated within the text, and listed again either at the beginning or end of each chapter. Ms. Diehl suggested that tables should be adjusted so that no sentences are interrupted at the bottom of pages. J-L/ August 16, 1988 Page 6 -Mr. Cilimberg briefly went over what would be discussed at the final work session on August 30, 1988, There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. DS e August 23, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 23, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; and Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 9 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA/Willoughby Corporate Center Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to subdivide 49.3769 acres into 12 lots ranging in size from 1.2654 acres to 3.8473 acres in size. Lots are to be served by a private road off of Route 631 (5th Street). Property, described as Tax Map 76(M)(1), Parcel 2B is located on the east side of Route 631 (5th Street) just north of I-64. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. Mill Creek, Parcel A Industrial Preliminary Plan - Proposal to locate five (5) buildings with a total of 84,000 square feet floor area for warehousing uses. The development is located on 11.6 acres and is to be served by 73 parking spaces. Property, is located off the north side of the Collector Road at Avon Street, adjacent to the south of the Armory. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36A. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. George Gilliam. in response to Ms. Diehl's question about additional area in critical slopes, he explained that about 40 feet from the edge of the buildings would be in critical slopes. He stated the applicant was in agreement with staff's recommended conditions of approval with one exception. He asked that l(g) [Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calcu- lations for the Collector Road (with bonding or construction from Avon Street to this connection) and Avon Street improvements] be tied to a building permit rather than the signing of the final plan. He explained the reason was because of the long time period it now takes for VDOT approval to be received. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff had any concern about tying. condition 1(g) to the building permit as requested by Mr. Gilliam. Ms. Patterson responded that it would be contrary to what is typically done. She stated that at least some kind of preliminary approval would be necessary. 4� August 23, 1988 page 2 -Mr. Gilliam explained that the applicant would like to be able to get under way before bad weather begins. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff or the Engineering Department could offer any flexibility in regard to the applicant's request. Mr. Cresswell recommended that l(g) remain as recommended by staff. Re explained that the plans for the Collector Road were currently before the Highway Department for review. He stated the road was being reviewed as a Category 6. He further explained: "If they come in at a later date and move the location for the industrial access, they can, at that time, submit revised plans and the category of the roads can be changed. What we're looking for right now is --ire have section 3 approved and we're now approving a section of the collector road --we need to tie down that point where they meet. ... As far as the bonding or construction, we're only looking for bonding in that section that would be required to provide access to parcel A. We're not looking at bonding the whole road. ... Prior to the CO, even though it's not listed, the road will have to be constructed in order to provide safe and convenient access. ... I don't really see any reason to change that condition as recommended by staff. I don't see that it is going to place any additional burden or real inconvenience on the applicant. As it is now, the plans are before the Virginia Department of Transportation.... essentially, the road plans, as submitted are tying down the entrance locations if we don't make it a condition and just start from ground 1 in re -submitting to VDOT tomorrot, just for that section, they're actually putting themselves behind." Gilliam indicated he still wished for condition 1(g) to be tied to a building permit. Mr -Bowerman stated the Commission would consider his request. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. David Carr, representing the owner of. the 78-acre tract, addressed the Commission. He pointed out that "we have a recorded agreement for access to that road." He explained that when the agreement was reached.in 1985 the location of the road had not been.determined, so the access could not be exactly determined. He concluded: -"We have no problem with 'dill Creek Road, or Reynovia Land Trust Road, but we simply want the County to be aware of the fact that we plan to put, at a future date, 78 acres of light industrial property over that road and have a right to do that." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson if staff had suggested that a preliminary approval from the Highway Department might be acceptable with final approval coming at a later date, leaving some discretion to staff. Ms. Patterson responded: "It's possible that we could achieve what they are talking about relatively easily, i.e. they could begin grading the site, grading the roads and we could link it to the building permit, or something like that, beyond rough grading. It's something that we can work out." Mr. Creswell then indicated it would be acceptable to tie 1(g) to the issuance of a building permit. It was determined condition 1(g) would be made condition 2 and condition 2 would become number 3. August 23, 1988 Page 3 In an attempt to clarify the issue further, Mr. Bowerman interpreted: "As we understand conditions l(d) and (g), it only applies to this application and only applies fiom the applicant's access to the collector road out to Avon Street. Is that correct?" Mr. Keeler responded: "The Highway Department is not going to approve the road plans unless all traffic is accounted for and that was done in a prior study ... that showed the access to this property occurring somewhere between this point and Avon Street (Mr. Keeler pointed out the location on the plat). I think both Mr. Gilliam and Mr. Carr have indicated that they are working on it in this area, so that doesn't appear at this time to be a concern. The only time that that would become a concern is if the access were beyond that intersection. So all the traffic from this development and the industrial is already accounted for in the roadway design. Once the Highway Department approved that traffic study, then the road plans were developed in accordance with it and that's what has been submitted now. ... I believe what Mr. Cresswell was saying is that they would actually lose time if they submitted another set of plans just back to this intersection. What we've suggested is that the grading permit be issued after this.first review cycle but that the building permits be tied to the final approval of the road plans." Mr. Bowerman expressed some confusion about what the applicant was requesting. Mr. Craig responded that the Highway Department had seen the plans and had. actually designed them. He explained that the applicant was "designing the whole road for this future access over to Fifth Street." He felt it would be ludicrous for'the applicant to now submit just a small segment. He explained that the applicant is requesting that once the plans come back from the Highway Department, "once the Highway Department puts red marks on them," we would like to be able to begin construction at that point. He stated that at that point, "we know we have a set of plans that are approvable." Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson to differentiate this request from a "garden variety request". Ms. Patterson responded: "In this case we're discussing a road plan approval for a portion of road that goes beyond what is necessary to serve this development. It's tied down relatively well by the fact that we've got plats that show the dedicated right-of-way so there's not a real big question of location which will effect sight design." Ms. Diehl asked that a condition be added that would prohibit grading or disturbance of land other than the -area as noted on the plan. Ms. Patterson noted that the applicant had indicated his agreement to such a condition. (Note: The applicant nodded affirmatively.) Mr. Keeler suggested the following wording for condition 1(i): "Planning staff approval of landscape plan to include conservation plan for areas to remain undisturbed." Mr. Rittenhouse expressed some concern about areas in critical slopes. He stated he did not feel there was justification for allowing this modification of the ordinance in this case. He felt it would be possible to place the building on the property without enf ringing on critical slope areas simply by reducing the size of the building. �13 August 23, 1988 Page 4 He did not feel that the fact that it was only 750 square feet was sufficient justification. :GIs. Diehl indicated agreement. Mr. Gilliam, in response to this concern, stated: "Mr. Chairman, we can reduce that building by 1,000 feet." He nodded his affirmation that the reduction would be that part of the building in the critical slope areas. It was noted that staff's suggested conditions had not contemplated a waiver. ?sir. Bowerman asked if it was necessary to add a condition to reflect that the Commission was not granting a waiver. Ms. Patterson indicated that a condition could be added as follows: "Building A will be reduced to exclude construction on areas of critical slopes." In response to Mr. St. John's question as to whether or not the road had yet been dedicated, Mr. Gillian stated that "we have been doing it as we record sections of plat that have a piece of the road on it." Mr. Craig added that this part was recorded on the Section 3 plat which.was recorded 3 or 4 weeks ago. Ms. Diehl moved that the Mill Creek, Parcel A Industrial Preliminary Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Officer approval; b. Albemarle County Service authority approval of final water and sewer plans; c. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations to include curbing and gutters to control storms,*ester; d. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations for the Collector (with bonding or construction from Avon Street to this connection) and Avon Street improvements; e. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; f. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; g. Final site plan submitted at a scale of 1"=20'; h. Planning staff approval of landscape plan to include conservation plan for areas to remain undisturbed. 2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has been met: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations for the Collector Road (with bonding or construction from Avon Street to this connection) -and Avon Street improvements. 3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: A. Final Fire Officer approval; 4. Building.A will be reduced to exclude construction on areas of critical slopes. 12 l August 23, 1988 Page 5 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Keeler asked for a clarification as to whether the applicant was asking to "build or grade" before road plans were approved. Mr. Bowerman stated the motion contemplated grading. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Ring Road Out Parcel Preliminary Site Plan --Proposal to locate a 3,416 square foot auto service center on a 19,558 square foot parcel. Access is to be from the internal road network of Pantops Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 17D (part of) is located in the Pantops Shopping Center. Zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. There was confusion on the part of the Commission as to the exact location of the parcel. (Mr. Don Wagner pointed out that the plat attached to the staff report did not show the subdivision of this parcel.) There was some discussion about the location of the parcel. It was determined the parcel was adjacent to the Ponderosa property and fronted on the Ring Road. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. He stated he was in agreement with the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr.. Carlo Colombini, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated that when he had purchased his property he had been told that he could not place any "mechanically oriented" use on his property. (It was determined later in the meeting that Mr. Colombini's deed was restricted as he described.) He felt it was unfair that this use was now being allowed. He was opposed to the proposal. He also felt that a use which involved changing automobile oil would not be compatible with surrounding uses. Mr. Don Wa neformer wr of the g , property, addressed the Commission. He stated he was not aware of the fact that Mr. Colombini had been advised as to how he could use his property. He noted that Mr. Colombini had purchased his property before he (Mr. Wagner) was involved with the shopping center. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked how the Commission could review a site plan on a portion of a lot .that was not yet subdivided. Mr. Keeler pointed out that this is a normal occurance. August 23, 1988 Page 6 There was further discussion about the location of the parcel. Mr. Wagner explained the location using a drawing of the property and surrounding property. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Ring Road Out Parcel Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan shall meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance: a. Fire Official approval of dumpster location; b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Planning Department approval of landscape plan. 2. Administrative approval of final site plan. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Stowe Airport Industrial: Park Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 207,665 square feet of commercial warehouses on 27 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 198, 3/4 of a mile north of Rt. 649 on the west side of Rt. 606. Property is to be served by a private road off of Quail Run. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, including the addition of the following: (h) Department of Engineering approval of guardrail location along Rt. 606. (i) Planning Department approval of landscape plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Highway Department was involved in the approval of the guardrail. Mr. Fritz stated .thcy would be involved in conjunction with the Engineering Department. NMr. Cresswell explained that the guardrail is usually outside the right-of-way. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Steve Melton represented the applicant. He offered no significant additional comment. M.s. Diehl expressed an interest in the status of the wooded area. Mr: Melton stated there was a buffer .zone along Rt. 606 which the applicant planned to keep and replant with some large dogwoods and white pines. He added that the existing detention pond would remain wooded also, but "the most part of the 27 acres would be graded." The Chairman invited public comment. ;Mrs. L.R. Morris, residing across from the applicant's property, addressed the Commission. She pointed out that this property has been completely clear cut with all trees removed. She stated that when the property was sold the neighbors had been told that there .would be a 50-foot buffer zone. 6! August 23, 1988 Page 7 It was clarified that the area to which Ms. Morris was referring was along Rt. 606. Mr. Wendall Wood, former owner of the property, explained that he had sold the property with that condition on it, i.e. the maintenance of a buffer area, and he had had no part in the removal of the trees. Mr. Wood also asked why a condition was not included requiring Health Department approval of septic system. Mr. Fritz stated the Service Authority had reviewed the plans and they will require an industrial waste survey to be completed before connection and final plans are under review. There followed a discussion about the grading of the property. Mr. Fritz stated that grading had taken place outside the "red lines" but that was part of the approved grading plan for buildings 1 and 2. Mr. Michel asked where the 50-foot buffer had originated. Mr. Fritz stated that in the files he had checked he saw no mention of a buffer "beyond this." He stated: "The only 50-foot buffer 1. am aware of is a setback from Quail Run and from the private roads, which is a zoning setback for a structure in the LI zone." He stated he was not aware of any County requirement for a 50-foot landscape buffer. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cresswell how they had graded beyond what the Com- mission had approved. Mr. Cresswell responded that the road construction had probably necessitated the grading. Mr. Melton stated that the trees which were removed had offered little buffer because they were tall Virginia scrub pines. Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission could defer the request to allow time for the site to be viewed, or the applicant could agree to provide twice the screening that is required by the site plan ordinance, i.e. four rows of white pines staggered 15 feet on center to a depth of 40 feet. He felt that would restore the 50-foot buffer. Mr. Wilkerson, who had viewed the site, . felt Mr. Keeler`s suggestion was acceptable if the applicant was agreeable. Ms. Diehl felt the buffer should be restored whether the applicant agreed or not. Mr. Fritz explained that staff had been granted administrative approval of the subdivision at the time the site plan was approved. He added that no 50-foot buffer was shown on the site plan. Mr. Keeler suggested that what might have occurred was that this property was included in the original industrial park which included a 50-foot wooded buffer all the way around the circumfereace of the park, but this parcel was then withdrawn, from the industrial park and approved as LI. Mr. Melton asked why the buffer had not beenbrought up at the time the applicant had first begun to grade. - Mr. Melton indicated he was not opposed to the extra plantings, but he asked how far they should be carried. J11 August 23, 1988 Page 8 Mr. Melton indicated he was agreeable to Mr. Keeler's suggestion, i.e. 4 rows, 15 feet on center, screening trees, 4' to 5' in height, white pines. (Note: It was later determined that only 3 rows would be necessary.) Xr. Bowerman stated he did not understand how this had been removed from the industrial park. Mr. Keeler stated he believed this preceded the proffered zoning. Mr. Wood stated that the 50-foot setback was not a deed restriction. He thought Mr. Keeler's recollection was accurate and added that "in the course of the rezoning, I was under the impression that we had a 50-foot setback on Rt. 606 for undisturbed area." ?ir. Cresswell stated that if sufficient screen was planted a guardrail might not be required because the trees would serve the same purpose. After some discussion, it was determined the Commission did not agree withthis and were in favor of both the guardrail and the screening trees. Mr. Keeler made a sketch to show that he felt 3 rows of trees would be adequate. There was a brief review of conditions which had been added during the course of the discussion. Ms. Diehl suggested also that a condition be added which would require that trees be maintained except in areas of construction. It was determined condition I M would become No. 2 and read as -follows: "Department of Engineering approval of Certified Engineers report prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for uses of an industrial character." Ms. Diehl asked that staff make the Commission aware of the final landscape plan before signing.the final plan. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler what the length of the buffer would be. Air. Keeler responded that it was just intended in areas that had been denuded along Rt. 606. . mr. Wilkerson moved that the Stowe Airport Industrial Park Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following requirements have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit. to include maintenance of existing vegetation outside construction site; d. Submission of a final site plan at a scale of 1" = 20' or larger; e. Department of Planning approval of technical notes on site plan; f. Administrative approval of final site plan; IV August 23, 1988 Page 9 g. Department of Engineering approval of guardrail location along Rt. 606; h. Planning Department approval of landscape plan; i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. 2. Department of Engineering approval of Certified Engineer's report prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for uses of an industrial character. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting recessed from 9.20 to 9:26. Stuart H. Barrell Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create three lots with an average lot size of 11.7 acres from an existing t247 acre parcel. The three proposed lots will be served by a private road. Parcels A and B shown on the plat will be added to an adjacent parcel. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 682. The property is bordered on the south by I-64. To the west the property is bordered by the Mechums River. Tax Map 72, Parcel 43. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by his son, Mr. Charles Barrell. He explained this was a family division. He explained how the property would be distributed among the family. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel pointed out that the lots almost look like pipestems and asked if staff was comfortable with the access. Mr. Pullen explained that the configuration presented the least degradation to the environment, and was also related to 25% slope areas. Mr. Pullen confirmed that the Health Department had given verbal approval of the soil report. It was decided the following two conditioxs would be added: (f) Administrative approval of final plat. (g) Written Health Department approval. Mr. Jenkins moved that the Stuart H. Barrell Preliminary Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: -7 August 23, 1988 Page 10 a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations for construction of a private road; b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; c. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit; d. County Attorney approval .of maintenance agreement; e. Planning Staff approval of technical notes on the plat. f.. Administrative approval of final plat. g. Written Health Department approval. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Briarwood Final Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 80 lots with an average lot size of ±3,500 square feet. These lots are created from two existing parcels with a combined acreage of 7.4. These lots are to be served by proposed public roads. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 29N., just north of the North Fork Rivanna River. Tax Map 32G, Parcel A & E. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The report concluded: "While the applicant has received approval from the appropriate agencies for this request to qualify as a final plat, staff cannot support this request for additional lots based on the applicant's proposal for no additional recreational facilities." .Staff presented a set of amended conditions of approval in case the Commission chose to approve the application. Mr. Keeler explained the history of the recreational facilities and other aspects of the development. He explained that condition l(d) envisioned the Planning and Engineering staffs' making a determination as to which lots are buildable. 1(d): A grading plan for lots 14, 15, 31-40 and 44-62 in Phase 3; lots 15 and 16 in Phase 7, is required and shall include provisions for the location of all building, driveways, water and sewer lines and easements, storm drainage features, drainage easements, etc. Unbuildable lots shall be joined to buildable lots or added to the open .space areas if it is determined that an adequate building site does not exist. In an attempt to clarify what staff was currently recommending in relation to the recreation facilities, Mr. Keeler explained that originally a a playground and separate tot lot were installed but because the sites were not suitable, they were moved, and because there was limited open space available the two were combined. He stated that the current recommendation is for an additional playground and an additional tot lot, in two separate areas. He further explained that the location would have to be determined and site plans approved. Mr. Bowerman asked: "With the addition of this tot lot, with this phase of development, I just wanted to make sure that, geographically much of the site is removed, and whether you contemplated in your primary recreation areas within that, facilities for toddlers? Clearly those are contemplated." Both Mr. Keeler and :sir. Pullen confirmed that such facilities were contemplated. Jr August 23, 1988 Page 11 Regarding condition 1(g): "The following items are required prior to issuance of more than 40 building permits: I. Installation of recreation facilities as proposed by staff; 2. Construction of the entire length of Austin Drive to Route 606 ; 3. Construction of the proposed realignment of Route 606; 4. Construction of sidewalk from Oriole Court east to the boundary of the PRD;" it was determined that these items would be "bonded up front" with construction required by the 40th unit. (Mr. St. John pointed out that when requirements are tied to building permits, it is possible that all lots would be sold to innocent third parties who would not be able to build .on the lots because of a condition over which they had no control.) There was some discussion as to .exactly how to amend this condition. It was finally decided it would be amended as follows: "The following items shall be bonded prior to signing of the final Plat, said bond shall be issued for 30 months and can only be renewed by action of the Planning Commission, and the following items shall be constructed prior to the issuance of more than 40 building permits: 1. Installation of recreation... etc." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --Regarding condition 1(d), he asked that it be changed to read "...for any lots that are in excess of 25%." He stated his engineer had determined only 6 lots were involved. Mr. Pullen stated thatcondition had been based on the slope study that the applicant's engineer had submitted. Mr. Wood felt it meant that the location of a house would be effected on only 6 lots. He explained that the slopes on some of the lots were at the very back of the lot and therefore would not effect the buildable area. --Regarding condition l(g), he asked for 'Lonsideration on some of these matters". He stressed that it was his goal to provide affordable housing and stated: "If you want affordable housing, there might be a few of these things that we have to forego." Mr. Wood asked that he not be required to bond the recreational facilities. He felt that he deserved a "break" for trying to provide affordable housing. Mr. Wood reviewed the history of the recreational facilities. He asked that he not be asked to provide a basketball court because of the expense and the difficulty in providing maintenance. --Regarding condition l(g)(2) and (3) [Construction of the entire length of Austin Drive to Route 606; and Construction of the proposed realign- ment of Route 606], he stated that has been approved by VDOT. He asked that these two conditions not be required until houses are actually .#G August 23, 1988 Page 12 ready to be built on Austin Drive, i.e. "No houses on Austin Drive can be built until Austin Drive has been completed to Rt. 606." --Regarding condition 1(g)(1) [Installation of recreation facilities as proposed by staff], Mr. Bowerman asked: "One you don't want to do at all; you're saying it's already there because it serves 200 people and you already built it?" Mr. Wood responded: "Right. Basically what it does --the whole plan for 660 only calls for two and we have 200 lots and we already have two. I don't thinkthe phasing of it is quite in accordance with the plan.. If you require it, I would like for you to delete the basketball court." He pointed out that it would be extremely difficult to locate an area the size of a basketball court because of the critical slope areas. ---Regarding condition l(i) [Construction or bonding for construction of the completion of Briarwood D.r.ive to Route 29], Mr. Wood stated this was a very big problem. He thought this had originally come about because it was thought building would begin at the south end of the property. He explained. that "he would not be down to that point" for at least 3 years. He stated this requirement would require a bond or expenditure of at least $300,000. He pointed out that there are two major entrances to this development and he did not think it was necessary to have Briarwood Drive bonded or constructed at this phase of development. He felt that even if the balance of Briarwood Drive was never built it would not effect this development. --Regarding condition. 1(j) [The applicant shall demonstrate that.the homeowners' association is functioning in accordance with approved homeowners' documents], he stated that was not a problem. He explained that it had not yet been done because he had been taking care of most items, e.g. grass cutting, sign maintenance, etc. He stressed that the homeowners have not been charged for any of these services as of yet. Mr. Bowerman asked 'sir. Wood to clarify whether or not he was asking. to be relieved of the requirement for bonding on items 1(g)(2) & (3). Mr. Wood replied: "At the time we want to do Austin Drive, we would then bond it or build it. I am not asking to be relieved of that." Mr. Keeler interjected that he did not think the Commission had any authority to address this. He explained: "The zoning approval in 1979 said.'\o final site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or dwelling unit served by either road X or road Y prior to dedication to public use and the construction of or bon -ding for acceptance into the. Virginia state secondary system o.f roads X and Y.' I think you are estopped from relieving the applicant of bonding these roads." It was determined roads X and Y were Briarwood and Austin. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the ordinance requires that the roads are either built or bonded before the plat can be signed. He suggested that if Mr. Wood did not want to bond these roads at this time he could break this down into two plats.. tiir. Keeler .added: "I'm very concerned about the idea of .us signing any plat contrary to the provisions of the subdivision ordinance --in this particular case, contrary to a specific condition of approval of this. that the Board of Supervisors set on it. The only way you can avoid bonding Austin Drive and Briarwood Drive is for Mr. Wood to go back to the Board of Supervisors and seek relief from that condition through the rezoning and public hearing process. It would have to come through you too. We did this with the sidewalks as you will recall." August 23, 1988 Page 13 Mr. Wood asked: "I thought you said all I had to do was come back in .and just submit Oriole and Blue Jay Way and could go ahead and build those with posting a bond." Mr. Keeler responded: "Austin Drive is.built in that section. The idea of this is to get the bond for the entire roads. That's what the Zoning condition reads, and there was a bond for the entire length of Briarwood Drive --it was released and I have no idea why." Mr. Jenkins asked: "But you said that he wouldn't have to bond -those roads if he didn't plat them. Isn't that what you said earlier?" Mr. Keeler, pointing to the plan, stated: "This has got to be bonded; Austin has got to be bonded. But if he doesn't want to bond this road at this time, then he can come in with a plat to do that at a later date." Mr. Keeler confirmed he was referring to the internal roads,'not Austin and Briarwood. Mr. Keeler again stated: "Either these roads have to be constructed at the time we sign the plat, or we require a bond. To vary from that would be extremely dangerous." Mr. Wood stated: "I'm not asking for that. I was asking for Austin. because I'm not going to be building on Austin; I was asking for Briarwood because we're not... Austin will probably be built --after 64 lots Austin would be the next section that we would build on. Briarwood Drive is at least 150 to 200 lots away." Mr. Keeler again stated he did not think the Commission could give relief from a specific condition imposed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Wood again stressed that he was trying to accomplish affordable housing, at the Commission's direction. Mr. St. John spoke briefly about the homeowner's document. It was determined that Mr. Wood still holds the majority of the votes and he has chosen not to formulate the association as of yet. Mr. Wood stated the developer has control of the homeowner's association until the development is approximately two-thirds sold out. After referring to the homeowner document provisions, there was some question as to whether Mr. Wood was the majority voter. Mr. St. John stated that needed to be reviewed carefully. He also stated he was not recommending for, or against, condition 1(j). Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the staff report indicated the applicant was currently in violation of the provisions of the formation of the homeowners' association. Mr. Bowerman.asked Mr. St. John to consider whether or not staff's opinion was correct or incorrect. Mr. Bowerman stated the bottom line was whether or not a homeowners' association can be required. Mr. St. John replied: "I think you can require that and you base your decision on what it is that you are requiring." The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment at this point. Jane and Warren Arbogast, residents of Briarwood, addressed the Commission. They indicated they were not in favor of a homeowners' association. They pointed out that t1n majority of repairs and upkeep in the subdivision have been undertaken by the residents, not the developer. They felt the current recreational facilities were an eyesore. i1i August 23, 1988 Page 14 :GIs. Connie Tilman addressed the Commission. She stated she would have to know the actual cost of a homeowners' association before she would agree. She .felt the homeowners did not understand exactly what a homeowners' association was for. Ms. Brenda Koontz addressed the Co -mission. She felt there had not been .much upkeep by the developer. She indicated she was not opposed to a homeowners' association. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the applicant's request that a grading plan only be required for those lots whose buildable area was not outside 25% slopes (condition 1(d)), it was determined the Commission supported the condition as stated by staff. Regarding the recreational facilities, fir. Stark stated he did not want to change the requirements suggested by staff. Ms. Diehl indicated she was interested in staff's comments about the applicant's requests in relation to the roads. Mr. Keeler noted that since it was quite late it might be desirable to defer action to allow the Commission time to review the file and all the correspondence dealing with this issue in relation to bonds, sidee.alks, etc. Mr. Keeler briefly discussed the procedure involved for calling a bond. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the recreational requirements, bonding, etc. were all part of the original rezoning. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the developer had understood these conditions from the beginning and it had been his option as to whether or not to proceed. He stated he had difficulty trying to relax conditions based on an argument of profitability. He did not think that was the Commission's role. There was very brief discussion about the applicant's request for relief from bonding at this point. it was finally decided the conditions of approval would remain as recommended by staff. Regarding condition 1(j) related to the homeowners' association, fir. Pullen stated staff felt that if the homeowners decide they are not in favor of an association, that is acceptable to staff, but staff feels they should at least be given the opportunity to make this decision. Mr. St. John determined that the homeowners' document had been recorded. That being the case, he stated: "If that's true then, clearly, there may not be a homeowners' association, but there is on record something that puts the homeowners on notice that they can be required to join a home- owners' association. ... This document says that the first thing that's going to take place is that the developer will deed to the homeowners' association all of the common areas." (There was some indication that this had been done.) :sir. St. John continued: "So you've got ar_ association that owns property but which exists on paper only.... But if this has been recorded, and a deed has been put to record conveying property to this association, then it exists even though it doesn't meet, etc." ,3Y August 23, 1988 Page 15 Mr. Wood confirmed that the property had been conveyed. Mr. St. John concluded: "I feel like it's necessary for this association to meet and organize itself before you go any further." Mr. St. John felt this should be straightened out before development goes much further. Mr. St. John confirmed he was in favor of condition 1(j). He added that if after the homeowners have met they decide that they are not in favor of maintaining the common -areas, then it is not up to the Commission to require that they be maintained. Mr. Stark moved that the Briarwood Final Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of revised road and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control plan; c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of revised road and drainage plans and calculations; approval of road plans shall include approval of entrance locations for each lot; d. A grading plan for lots 14, 15, 30-40 and 44-62 in Phase 3; lots 15 and 16 in Phase 7 is required and shall include provisions for the location of all building, driveways, water and sewer lines and easements, storm drainage features, drainage easements, etc. Unbuildable lots shall be joined to buildable lots or added to the openspace areas if it is determined that an adequate building site does not exist. e. Note to plat that states: No concrete pads, building corners, decks, porches or any part of a structure shall encroach on water and sewer easements; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. g. The following items shall be bonded prior to signing of the final plat, said bond shall be issued for 30 months and can only be renewed by action of the Planning Commission, and the following items shall be constructed prior to the issuance of more than 40 building permits: 1. Installation of recreation facilities as proposed by staff; 2. Construction of the entire length of Austin Drive to Route 606; 3. Construction of the proposed realignment of Route 606; 4. Construction of sidewalk from Oriole Court east to the boundary of the PRD. h. Planning staff approval oftechnical notes on the plat. i. Construction or bonding for construction of the completion of Briarwood Drive to Route 29. j. The applicant shall demonstrate to staff that the homeowners' association is functioning in accordance with approved homeowners' documents. Mr. Keeler clarified that all staff needs in relation to condition 1(j) is proof that the homeowners' association has met and organized. U August 23, 1988 Page lb Mr. St. John stated it was up to the developer to provide proof that all homeowners have been notified, etc. 'Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. (Note: There was a brief discussion before the vote on the Brian-7ood application regarding the time limit on the bond and whether or not the bond.should be renewable. It was finally determined the condition would be as stated in condition l(g). also, regarding condition l(d), Mr. reeler stated that lots with "three bands" would be considered "insignificant'and would not require grading plans. Michie Tavern Final Site Plan - Ms. Patterson informed the Commission of a minor revision from the preliminary plan, prior to staff's approval of the final. Ms. Patterson gave a brief history and reminded the Commission that the Commission had denied the plan because of the intensity of. the proposal and development on steep slopes; however, the applicant had appealed to the Boardwhich then approved the plan. Ms. Patterson pointed out that the only change from the preliminary plan to the final was that in one area (she pointed it out) on -site bus loading would be provided. She stated staff would administratively approve the final site plan. The Commission expressed no ob;ection. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. DS 61 John Horne, Sec Lary August 30, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 30, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Peter Stark; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; and Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 16, 1988 were approved as submitted. Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to create a 1,097 acre agricultural/forestal district located in the vicinity of Buck Mountain and Free Union. The proposed addition consists of various parcels located on State Routes 601, 671, and 668. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark moved that the Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended -to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The application was to be heard by the Board September 21, 1988. Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: Rose Hill Replacement School - As per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, the Albemarle County School Board has requested the Planning Commission review the proposed Rose Hill Replacement School site for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The site, detailed in the attached, contains approximately 16 acres on Tax Map 91, Parcel 13. It is located across from Lake Reynovia and just south of the Parham Construction Company site on the east side of State Route 742 (Avon Street). Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. The report concluded: "The proposed site represents the most reasonable alternative analyzed. The site will meet Comprehensive Plan standards for size, pedestrian and vehicular accessibility, and potential recreational uses. For these reasons, staff finds the proposed site to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by the Commission." 421 August 30, 1988 Page 2 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Horne pointed out that this was a final action. Ms. Diehl moved that the site for the Rose Hill Replacement School be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: Southern Urban [rater Trans- mission Alain -Western Branch - As per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, the Rivanna Water &.Sewer Authority has requested Planning Commission review of the proposed Western Branch of the Southern Urban Area Water Transmission Main. The proposed Western Branch of the Southern Urban Water Transmission Main will interconnect the Observatory Storage Tank west of the city and the Avon Street Storage Tank. Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. The report stated: "The Western Branch Transmission Line, in interconnecting the Observatory and Avon Street tanks, will provide the necessary water flow and pressure for the development of Neighborhood Five. Therefore, staff finds the Western Branch Transmission Line to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by the Commission." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the proposed western Branch of the Southern Urban Area Water Transmission Main be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan Mr. Cilimberg led the discussion, assisted by Ms. Scala and Mr. Horne. The Commission first xrerieisd Mr. Cilimberg's memo of. August 23, 1988 which addressed staff's reasoning behind selected Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Item #1: Public Water and Sewer to aural Area Parcels Adjacent to Growth Areas. It was agreed the Commission was in agreement with the policy as stated by staff. (Note: It was pointed out that this was the recommended policy for thetpdated.plan.) There waa considerable discussion about the Board's request that the Commission advise them as to the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in allowing public water and sewer to the Roslyn Ridge Subdivision. Staff felt that the request was not consistent with the Plan. 1/13 August 30, 1988 Page 3 There was some disagreement between Mr. Horne and Mr. St. John as to the Board's direction to the Commission in relation to the Roslyn Ridge issue. Mr. St. John felt the Board was asking: (1) Is water in the Roslyn Ridge Subdivision in accord with the Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists? (2) If not, then the Commission should make a recommendation to the Board as to whether or not the present Comprehensive Plan should be amended to show water there. Mr. Horne disagreed. He felt that after hearing the application, the Board had decided, based on their own policy, they were not accepting individual applications to change the Comprehensive Plan while the Plan was under review. He stated the Board then referred the matter back to the Commission for a recommendation, specifically related to that application, but in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horne felt two separate actions were required: (1) That the Commission agree or disagree with staff reasoning on the general policy and then (2) relate that position to this individual issue. Mr. St. John felt the Board could not refuse to accept citizen applications, though they did not have to act on that application. Ms. Diehl moved that the Roslyn Ridge request for the addition of water and sewer to that subdivision be found in non-compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Stark moved that the Commission NOT recommend the extension of water and sewer services to areas outside the urban area that are within the watershed. (No vote was -taken on this motion.) Mr. Horne stated the Board would like a recommendation on Roslyn Ridge as to whether or not it should be included in the jurisdicitional area, based on the upcoming draft of the Comprehensive Plan. It was determined this would be a negative recommendation based on the proposed policy. Ms. Diehl stated that the record would show that the Commission agrees with the statement in staff's memorandum ["The Comprehensive Plan recommends 'follow the boundaries of designated growth areas in delineating jurisdictional areas' and 'only allow changes in jurisdictional area boundaries in cases where the property is very near or adjacent to existing lines and public health and safety is endangered."']. She pointed out that staff's memo did not speak specifically to any particular subdivision. Item #2: The Addition of Areas zoned for Urban Uses Along Route 250 West to the Urban Area. Ms. Elaine Ruggieri, a member of the public made very brief comments on this item. Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Commission. He made comments about his particular application (J.W. Seig). He made no comments about the policy question. Dr. James Twymar4 President of the Ednam Village August 30, 1988 Page 4 Homeowners' Association, addressed the Commission. He started to express opposition to the Sieg application, but was advised that it would be better to present his comments when the application was reviewed by the Commission. The .Commission supported the policy and argument as stated by staff for item 'o. 2. Item #3: Airport Area Supporting Services. - The Commissionsupported the policy and argument as stated by staff for item No. 3. Item #4: High Density Residential.Designation North of Sherwood .Manor and South of Interstate 64., West of Old Lynchburg Road: There was brief discussion about this iter.. Staff did not feel strongly one way or the other as to whether this should be high density or medium density. It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission that this area should be left as is, i.e. medium density. Item #5: Addition of Developed Areas North of Crozet to the Crozet Growth Area: The Commission supported the policy and argument as stated by staff. The Commission.was not in favor of any special boundary designations. Item s'F6: Rural Area Subdivision - Sub -Item A: Effective Date for Parcels of Record to be Applied Under New Subdivision Regulations. The Commission supported the policy and argument as stated by staff. Item 6: Sub -Item B: Financial Incentives. The Commission expressed no opposition to the policy* and argument as stated by staff. Item #6: Sub -Item C: Clustering Incentives. The Commission was in agreement with staff's proposed re wording of Strategy :No. 4, with both staff and the Commission agreeing that the Lord "should" would be changed to "shall." The Commission was in agreement with staff's clustering incentives with Xr. Stark suggesting that "protection of water quality" should be added as an additional incentive. Regarding the potential.probler: that clustering could allow the scale of 20 dwellings per rural residential development to be exceeded, it was pointed out that the small lot option could August 30, 1988 Page 5 result in that threshold being reached. The Commission addressed the question of whether the scale (maximum 20 dwellings) should be changed, eliminated, or left inconsistent and dealt with on a case -by -case basis. Commissioners Michel and Diehl felt each case should be dealt with individually and the 20 standard should remain. It was pointed out that staff was arguing that the application of the 20 residential standard would only be applicable to.special permits and not by -right. Mr. Bowerman felt this was the way to deal with the issue. Mr. Bowerman concluded: "We'll just leave that alone then as a current standard; and go with the clustering." Regarding the cluster lot, Ms. Diehl felt this was too complicated. Item #6: Sub -Item D: Residential Density in Watersupply Watersheds. The Commission supported the argument as stated by staff. Item #6: Sub -Item D: Subdivision Potential - Proposed Strategies vs. Current Zoning. The Commission supported staff's argument. The Commission then reviewed the remaining chapters of the Comprehensive Plan and .suggested the following changes: INTRODUCTION Page 1, paragraph 3, fifth line: Drop the words "and will not" from the sentence. GROWTH AREA PROFILES Page 5, third sentence under Environmental Characteristics: "West" should be changed to "east." Page 6: Mr. Bowerman asked staff to check to see if the right-of-way has been dedicated for the connector road linking Woodbrook and Carrs- brook subdivisions. Page 7: Add "bullet:" "Access properties along Rt. 29N through joint access points, frontage roads and side streets." Page 11: Under Other Land Uses: Remove reference to Lake Reynovia. Page 14, next to last line under Roads: Check for typographical errors. Page 19, First "bullet" under Recommendations: "West" should be changed to "east." #/0 August 30, 1988 Page 6 Page 22, First "bullet" under Recommendations: Mr. Bowerman suggested.tha.t the fourth sentence be changed to a positive statement as follows: "It is this Plan's intent to identify this community and its existing zoning." Page 23, Sixth "bullet": It was decided this would be changed as follows: "...that are currently zoned and solely oriented to the highway...-" It was also decided the following sentence would be added at the end of this bullet: "There should be no additional commercial zoning on Rt. 250W." Page 29, Top paragraph related to Hollymead: There was some discussion as to the origin of this paragraph and there was concern that including this would be viewed as being selective to this one area. It was the consensus of the Commission that this paragraph would-be deleted. Page 34: Delete the second, third and fourth ''bullets" on page 34 and the second bullet on page 35. INTERSTATE .INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT Page 2, last "bullet.'": Add "...within one -quarter mile of an interstate...." Page 2: Referring to the bottom of the page, Ms. Diehl noted that the 1,000 feet on Rt. 29 South has .already been reduced to 400 feet. Miscellaneous Changes Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the references to the Implementation chapter should be consistent, i.e. either Implementation. or Implementing the Plan, or whatever. Mr. Rittenhouse questioned the accuracy of the references of "depth to bedrock." He noted that 98% to 99% of buildings he designs are not founded on bedrock. It was noted that the map should be changed to show the new location of the Southern Area Elementary School. At this point in the work session, the Chairman allowed comment from Mir. Max Evans. Mr. Evans gave a lengthy presentation related to land use recommendations for Neighborhood Three, and in particular.,.the Worrell property. Mr. Horne stressed that staff did not envision the large scale commercial development suggested by Mr. Evans, but if the Commission wanted to follow Mr. Evans suggestions, then "regional service" should be placed in the "orange" area of Mr. Evans handout. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had already addressed this issue and decided against it. Mr. Evans concluded his presentation with the following questions: (1) Will the zoning be changed to reflect the. Comprehensive Plan revisions as you show? (2) Will the support uses have ratio limits? (3) How was low density residential decided upon for frontage road? and (4) How was "office service" instead of "regional service" decided upon for the Pantops area? August 30, 1988 Page 7 In relation to Mr. Evans' presentation, Mr. Bowerman. asked: "In the context of the Plan, why do we not want a regional -type use on that section of Rt. 250?" Mr. Horne explained that this section of 250 already has a very high con- centration of high traffic -generating uses. He further stated: "We weren't looking at the Worrell property; we were looking at it in the context of Neighborhood 3--do we need more regional service all the way to the interstate? We didn't think we did." Mr. Horne'stated: "Staff recommends the current recommendation (for this area) as being appropriate." Mr. Bowerman stated he was comfortable with the original decision made by the Commission. Mr. Stark agreed. It was determined the Commission was not prepared to change the land use designation as suggested by Mr. Evans. Staff then led a discussion related to Ms. Tamara Vance's letter of August 26, 1988 in which she made comments about the proposed revision of the Plan. Only the "substantive" comments were discussed. Chapter 1: 1. The Commission and staff felt this was not a policy decision. No change was recommended. 2. This change had already been made. 3. No change was recommended. 4. No change recommended. 5. It was determined that this issue would be addressed with one additional sentence added to the Water Supply section. 6. The Commission agreed with staff's argument. Chapter 2: 1. Commission agreed with staff's suggested way of addressing this issue, i.e. to amend paragraph one of page 13 and to make a change in the strategies listed on page 16. (Tied to Ms. Vance's suggestion No. 3) 2. Mr. Bowerman felt Ms. Vance's point was a valid one. However, staff pointed out that the 1987 census figures would not be available until 1989. 3. Staff felt this could be addressed as "financial incentives" on page 16, strategy one,and also that Ms. Vance's last two sentences be included on page 13 at the end of the first paragraph on Voluntary Measures. The Commission agreed with staff's recommendation. 4. Staff felt what was suggested under Ms. Vance's comment No. 5 would achieve what was suggested under No. 4. 4� 19 August 30, 1988 Page 8 5. Staff suggested that reterence be made to the Committe as a staff responsibility with public input : invited. Mr. Horne stressed that staff was not recommending that general public be a member of the Committee. The Commission expressed no opposition to staff's recommendation. 6. It was agreed the word "available" would be removed. 7. Re: Scenic givers and Roads -- This item generated some discussion. Mr. Michel was particularly interested. PEC felt strongly that this should not be dropped from the Plan. Staff recommended making this an action agenda item. Staff felt they could not support any given map at this point because they did not know what a map should be based on. Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that criteria be reformulated and a list compiled. 8. Staff suggested that page 62, strategy 2 be amended as follows:' IT .Promote non -regulatory preservation of natural and scenic areas through voluntary measures such as.agricultural/forestal districts, conservation easements and financial incentives." Chapter 3: 1. Staff felt this issue was already addressed in the housing section. Mr. Bowerman stated be was not in favor of Ms. Vance's suggestion. 2. This item had been addressed earlier in the meeting (during the discussion of staff's memo). 3. This item had been addressed earlier in the meeting. 4. No change recommended. S. This issue had beenpreviously discussed by the Commission and it was determined they were not in favor of DEC's recommendations. 6. Staff felt Ms. Vance's point was valid, but it was felt that it was desirable that the Plan be consistent. 7. This issue had been previously discussed by the Commission and it was determined they were not in favor of PEC's recommendations. 8. Staff agreed this was important but felt it should be included in "residential development design standards." The Commission agreed. 9. No change recommended. There being no further business, the DS meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Q6L John Horne,lSdcretary Al