Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 26 77 PC MinutesApril 26, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider a series of site plans and subdivision requests. Those in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington; Dr. James Moore; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were Mrs. Joan Graves and Mr. Leslie Jones. Other officials in attendance were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of March 15, 1977, were approved by the chairman subject to the correction of the clerical errors. Minutes of April 5, 1977, were approved by the chairman as submitted. (Mrs. David arrived at the meeting.) Edgar E. and Lillian L. Pugh Final Plat: Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from this discussion and vote by leaving the room. Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that the property is located off a 30' wide easement (Old Scottsville Road) on the west side of Route 20 South approximately six miles south of Charlottesville. The property is zoned A-1. The proposal is to divide a 5.06+ acre lot which is presently bisected by a 30 foot easement into two lots. Parcel A is 2.613 acres, and the residue is 2.46 acres. The staff recommended approval subject to the following condition: 1. Note be placed on plat restricting lot A to the use of the 20' easement only. (Mr. Peatross arrived at the meeting.) When asked who uses the 30' easement, Mr. Montenegro responded that several property owners use it. Col. Washington asked how the condition recommended by the staff is enforced. Mr. Montenegro replied that it is a private drive. Mr. Payne stated that it is a condition that is probably unenforceable, though. Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the condition recommended by the staff. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Z13 Discussion: Dr. Moore asked if the property line is at the center of the 30' easement. Mr. Montenegro replied that it is. Dr. Moore said that he feels the plat is circumventing what the Highway Department feels is safe. Mr. Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant, stated that the purpose of the plat is to provide a building lot for the son of the owner. Mr. Payne asked if this is a public road. Mr. Lincoln replied that at best, in the research process, the references are vague. He said that it is shown as an easement with rights of the public in the road in Deed Book 522. Mr. Payne noted that this is a fairly recent deed book and that he has a strong suspicion that this is still a public road. Thus he feels it is doubtful that the Highway Department can require a commercial entrance at all. Mr. Carr said that if it is a public road then the situation cannot be improved. Dr. Moore said if it is a public road that the user should not have to improve the road. Mr. Carr said that the 20' easement already exists, and this person will be using it. Mr. Lincoln said that this is correct. ( Mr. Easter entered the meeting.) The motion to approve subject to the condition recommended by the staff carried by a vote of 4-1-1 with Col. Washington dissenting and Mr. Easter abstaining. Oscar J. Langford Property Preliminary Plat: Mr. Gloeckner remained out of the room during the discussion and vote of this plat. Mr. Montenegro presented the plat to the Commission. He stated that the property is located on I- 64 frontage road No. 1 off Route 637 near the Ivy interchange. The A-1 zoned property is being proposed for a development containing 44 lots with an average lot size of 2.3 acres. The development will be served by two roads ending in cul-de-sacs. Mr. Montenegro stated that when the staff first viewed this plat, the applicant was advised that probably a more desirable way to develop this large tract of land would be to develop a Residential Planned Neighborhood with larger lots near the highway and smaller ones at the cul-de-sacs. The staff recommends that frontage road No. 1 be improved from the property to Route 637. Waivers are necessary for double frontage lots 34, 35, and 39, and for length of cul-de-sac. The staff recommended approval of this plat with the following conditions ( Mr. Montenegro stated that written Health Department had been presented to the staff that evening): 1. Highway Department approval of entrance locations and road alignment; 2. Highway Department and Engineering Department approval of internal roads; 3. That frontage road No. 1 be improved to Category II standards from the western entrance of the property to Route 637. -elf Mr. Montenegro read a letter from Mr. William H. White, adjoining property owner, who supported the request. Col. Washington questioned the minimum frontage along a cul-de-sac. Mr. Montenegro stated that it is 65'. Mr. Carr noted that there are waivers that would be required for certain lots which had not been addressed in the staff report. Mr. Montenegro said that the lots which would require waivers are 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, and 39. Mr. Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant, explained the plan to the Commission, pointing out that the roads follow the contour of the area. The land is mostly open, gently rolling, and rises from the front to the rear. The basic cul-de-sac length is 300 feet. Mr. Peatross questioned the need for two entrances. Mr. Lincoln said it is due to topography, since there is a large gully on one side of the property. Mr. George Gilliam, attorney for the applicant, said that he specifically wished to address condition regarding improvement of frontage road No. 1. Originally the Langford property had been larger. I-64 at the time of its construction had cut off the property from state highway frontage. He said that the state had built one road for two property holders at the time of the interstate's construction. No one but the state has ever put any money into this road. The road was constructed by the Virginia Department of Highways on road owned by the state, and they have maintained this road since it was constructed to serve the Langford property. At this time, the Highway Department is threatening to hold up entrance permits if frontage road No. 1 is not widened at the sole expense of the developer. This means that the state is trying to use the entrances to get the road widened. Mr. Gilliam stated that he questions the fact that the Commission has the power to require this road widening by the developer in view of the circumstances here. He cited the James City County case in which the State Supreme Court ruled that off site improvements at the sole expense of the developer cannot be required. He also noted that there had been a footnote to this case which stated that the developer could be required to dedicate part of his land to the state, though. Mr. Gilliam said that in the Langford case, the applicant is willing to make this dedication. He further noted that it would be desirable to have the road widened, but recommended to the Commission that this problem be left to negotiations between the applicant and the Highway Department. This would keep the Commission from becoming involved in a legal matter that does not concern them. He felt that it is not up to the Commission to discuss if the Highway Department has the power to require this upgrading. Mr. Gilliam also noted for the benefit of the Commission that the proposed density of this project would be less than other subdivisions of the neighborhood - Peacock Hill, Meriwether Hills, / Hill West, and West Woods. All these subdivisions are in the Ivy area. Lewis Mr. Carr questioned the distance from the western entrance to Route 637. Mr. Montenegro stated that the distance is approximately 8/10 mile. Z/S Mr. Gilliam once again pointed out to the Commission that the applicant has no objections to dedication but the cost of road construction should be decided between the applicant and the Highway Department. Mr. Montenegro said that the road has already been graded wide enough, but the surface is not wide enough. Mr. Easter asked if the guard rails are too close in places. Mr. Coburn said that is true in some cases. Mr. Ewald, an adjoining property owner said that the grade of the road is part of the problem with the frontage road. He asked if it is possible that owners along this road would be forced to pay for any of the upgrading - if this is the case, he felt it would not be fair. He said that he is also concerned about the water situation: if 44 individual wells are drilled it might overtax the water vein that serves other properties in the area. He further questioned the project in terms of the environment. He felt that the developer should have come to residents in the area, as Peacock Hill had done. He said that he is a small investor in the Peacock Hill project, and he felt that this project had considered the concerns of the neighborhood. He said that he is not against the profit motive here, but he pointed out that he owns approximately 220 acres that are zoned RTM, and this will be used for research and development facilities. He said that he does not want at a future date forty -some property owners coming and objecting to this sort of development, when he had his zoning first. He told the Commission that in its present form, he is against the project. Mr. Hogue, an adjoining property owner on the western side, said that he opposes the subdivision on the basis that the road is inadequate and because of potential harmful runoff into the Ivy Valley. He said that if this property is developed, he fears that other adjoining parcels will also be developed. Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer for the Highway Department, said that what is known as frontage road No. 1 does not exist in the secondary sytem. This road came with the construction of I-64. It was to serve only the Hogue and Langford properties, for replacement of their access which had been taken by the construction of I-64. He said that the Highway Department will require upgrading of this road with increased use over what it was constructed for. Mr. Easter asked if the entrance permits for this proposed subdivision will be held until this road has been improved. Mr. Coburn said that the Highway Department will hold these permits until the road has the proper width and surface to handle the traffic it will serve. He said that frontage road #1 was built so that this property would not be landlocked, but that it is not a public road. Mr. Easter asked if the grades on that road are all right. Mr. Coburn replied that the alignment is straight, though the road is hilly. Mr. Easter asked if widening the road, and the tar and gravel surface all the way to Route 637 is what is being required. Mr. Coburn replied"yes". Mr. Ewald asked who will be charged with the payment of this upgrading. Mr. Coburn said it would be this particular developer. Mr. Carr noted that there are several legal questions involved here, but the future of the road certainly does have some questions. 21( Mr. Carr said that he wants Mr. Hogue to know that the basic division of this property meets the current County requirements regarding density - in the A-1 zone there can be a density of 1 unit per two acres. Mr. Hogue said that the property in that area has been good farming land since 1938. Mr. Ewald said that the character of the whole Ivy Creek Valley is larger tracts. He said that he had originally been opposed to five acre zoning in the area, however, he is beginning to feel it might be a good idea, especially in this area. Mr. Peatross asked that Mr. Payne advise the Commission on the aspects of road improvement. Mr. Payne said that there are two aspects to who improves the road. He acknowledged that he says this because he knows this developer is not willing to make the road improvements that the Highway Department is requiring. Mr. Payne told the Commission that it has the power to require him to make these road improvements under Section 18-54(b) of the Zoning Ordinance if the Commission feels that the road is hazardous to public health, safety, and welfare. He noted for the Commission's benefit that they had made such requirements on Route 747. He said that before this can be made a conjition of approval, though, it must be determined that the road constitutes atoa erhealth, safety, and welfare. He said that any plat can be denied by the Commission if anything about the plat is found to be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. One of the aspects of any subdivision that must be considered under this provision is the road. He said it must be considered that the road might be all right now, but with the addition of the subdivision traffic generation, it might become hazardous to the health, safety, and welfare. He continued to state that this hazard must be determined by the Commission. If a danger exists, any upgrading to eliminate this danger can be required. He said that is not the same standard as for interior roads which must be brought up to specific state standards. Mr. Payne said that he does not agree with Mr. Gilliam that the James City County Case eliminates the Commission's power to make this requirement because if the determination were made that he had just suggested, and he said that he has no knowledge if the facts exist or not, it is tautologous that the Commission is not to approve anything that is a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Mr. Payne said that the second question is if the Highway Department can require this upgrading. This involves two questions: do they have the power to require the upgrading, and second do they have the power to hold up these entrance permits. He said that he frankly has some question about the Highway Department's power at all with regard to these entrances, since these are not privately owned. And the section that the Highway Department cites as its authority for requiring a commercial entrance has two provisions: Section 33.1 - 198 of the Code. This section has the following provisions: one is that the entrance will be built and maintained by the owner. The James City County case does stand for the proposition that it is unlawful to require a man to build something on public property, to dedicate it as public property, have it available for public use, and then maintain it himself. It would be unlawful to require this to be constructed, built on public access, and have it maintained by the owner. 217 Mr. Easter asked what if the maintenance factor were not involved. He said that in these circumstances he assumed the Highway Department would maintain it. Mr. Payne continued that he questions if the statute permits them to maintain it. He said that he has been unable to discern any or a�ling three houses a commercial entrance. This section speaks in terms of the commercial establishment. Mr. Payne said that to his mind, "commercial means commercial." He said that he is aware that the Highway Department has regulations which speak to three dwellings as commercial, however, he said that he knows of no statutory authority for this interpretation. Mr. Payne said that those are the two questions that he has regarding the Highway Department's authority. He said that another more fundamental question he has relates to the nature of the frontage road, in particular, as opposed to any other road. He said that he is not in agreement with Mr. Coburn that this is a publically maintained private road. Mr. Payne said that it is "crystal clear" that this is a public road. There is a Supreme Court case that arose in this judicial circuit: there was an access road on U. S. 29 in Culpeper County, and it was specifically found in that case by the Supreme Court, that do access road, very similar to this access road, was a public road. The statute which authorizes the establishment of this kind of road clearly establishes that this is a public road. That is Section 33.1-61. It gives the Highway Department three duties land responsibilities with regard to this road. One is to build it, and it is forcrFtiona mwa ioer they build it or not. They could condemn the whole fee and pay /or tAey can builN tRis road. They also have the duty to maintain this road. Third they have the duty and power to regulate traffic on it. It is clear that this road is owned in fee by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The State Highway Commission has the power to regulate it, maintain it, and build it. And if that is not a public road, even in the absence of the Supreme Court case, he said that he does not know what a public road is. Mr. Payne said that there is one other factor which enters into this, and he said that he is given to understand that this road is built to some standard below the minimum highway standard. He said that he questions whether that was ever lawful, because the statute requires specifically, that the road be constructed to minimum state highway standards. Mr. Payne said that he believes the Flighway Department may indeed have trouble requiring this man to bring this road up to standards. He said that it may be that the Highway Department violated a statutory mandate. What that all comes to, Mr. Payne stated, is if the Planning Commission requires the road to be upgraded, the Commission should do so on the ground that it is, and there must be a finding of facts to support this, dangerous to the public health, safety, and welfare. It the Commission determines this, the County would be able to sustain this in court. If the Commission is unable to say this, he said that he believes the Commission should not depend on the Highway Department's recommendation in order to require it. It may be that the developer has a good cause of action against the Highway Department in this case, however, he said that he prefers to stay out of that. Either the Commission must find it a hazard to health, safety, and welfare, or the Highway Department will have to enforce its own requirements, since he feels they are on shakey ground. He said that he does not want the Commission to put itself in a position of relying on the Highway Department'; recommendation in this case if it is not found to be a hazard. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne what he meant when he said "regulate traffic." Mr. Payne said that is not a test, it is a specific power by this statute. It means setting speed limits, locating signs, etc. Mr. Carr said that it does not mean permitting additional traffic,less traf etc. Mr. Payne agreed that this is correct. He said that 197 and 198 relate to that. c, WIP Dr. Moore said that in determining if this is a hazardous road or not, can the Commission not rely upon the Highway Department as experts. Mr. Payne said "certainly." Mr. Keeler asked if Section 18-37(m) of the Zoning Ordinance can apply here. Mr. Payne replied that this has never been used in such a case like this before. Furthermore, the County would be saying that the road does not meet the standards of the Highway Department . Also there is no distance between this and the frontage road, which is a public road. Therefore, the section is not applicable. Mr. Carr asked why the staff recommended an RPN here. Mr. Montenegro stated that the reason is that there is rolling topography, some steep slopes, and the property is near I-64. He felt that the larger lots should be at the front of the property and the clustering at the rear of the property. Furthermore, the staff has heard that other properties in the area might be developed, and had hoped that this applicant would join in with them in an RPN. Mr. Easter questioned the developers reaction to the RPN suggestion of the staff. Mr. Montenegro replied that the developer had stated that if this could be approved, and with approval of road "d", perhaps he could later come back with an RPN for the back of the property. Mr. Keeler pointed out that with an RPN the stream valley could be protected, and there would be a minimum of 25% open space. Mr. Ron Carter pointed out that the problem with the RPN is that the property rises to the rear, and that the clustering would be done where it would be most visible. Mr. Coburn asked that he be permitted one further explanation of the road. He said that the road was constructed 14 feet wide, with a 4" gravel surface. He said that the Highway Department felt that for the amount of usage, this was adequate. Mr. Gilliam pointed out that the Highway Department usually follows development, and upgrades a road after "x" number of houses have been built in an area. Mr. Carr said that for the moment, there would be no further public discussion and that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Peatross said that the road questions certainly need to be addressed further before the Commission can take any action. He said that he would like to view the site, hear further information from the Highway Department. He said that he wants to know about the problems dealing with width of the road. Furthermore, he noted that there are various waivers required by this preliminary, and wants to see if it is because of the topography. He said that he does not like to approve double frontage lots where it is not necessary. Dr. Moore said that he would like to see the site. He said that as far as condition dealing with improvement of frontage road #1, the Commission could require it if the Highway Department determines that the road would be a hazard with increased traffic. 2/? Mr. Easter said that he feels the Highway Department's recommendation is not based on the fact that it considers the road to be a hazard, rather that it is following the "book" to the limit. Col. Washington said that he has viewed the site, but that he would like to look at it again in view of the discussion that evening. Mr. Carr said that with respect to the developer and his engineer, he does not feel that the plan has received quite the attention that it might. The property is located in one of the more beautiful areas of the County, and feels that there can be a more desirable plan. He said that the road situation is another thing. Mr. Easter asked if the developer is opposed to the idea of an RPN. Mr. Ron Carter responded that he is. He said that there has been a lot of planning for this project, that the engineer and his men have viewed the site on many occasions, that several plans have been done on the project. He said that one of the main objectives was to fit the plan to the terrain with the least amount of disturbance. He once again pointed out that the property rises from the interstate, and it seemed it would be undesirable to have the density at the rear of the property, where it would be most visible; this would occur if an RPN as requested by the staff were attempted. He noted that as has been seen in other developments in this county, as well as throughout the country, that green areas - open spaces - are often a problem area, especially when it comes to maintenance. He said that the road design is what he considers to be the best it was done by a professional engineer and certified land surveyor. He said that he feels as though he has a good plan. 19 Mr. Easter said that he wished to move that any action be deferred in order that those who have not seen the site can look at it. Furthermore, he noted that there have been questions raised that evening even for those who have viewed the site - this is another reason for recommending action be deferred. He felt that any action this evening would be an unwise decision. He said that he would recommend that the developer contact citizens living in the area for any suggestions they might have, though he said that he would not make this a part of his motion. Also included in the motion was that a meeting with the following people be arranged: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the developer, Mr. Payne, one Planning Staff member, in order to sort out the legal problems with the road. Col. Washington seconded the motion for deferral. Mr. Peatross said that he would like to hear from the Highway Department specifics on the hazardousness of the road, if the motion passes. Mr. Gilliam noted that the developer has a contract that expires in one week, however, he would endeavor to acquire an extension. The staff suggested that the matter be deferred until May 10, due to the heavy schedule for the May 3 meeting. The motion to defer action carried unanimously. Mr. Coburn said that the road as it is now constructed meets the needs of the number of vehicles serviced. In other words, it is adequate for what is there. It is unsafe with the number of proposed lots because of the traffic that will be generated. The road is narrow, and it has a steep grade; but with widening, perhaps there would be no problem. z2,0 Mr. ,Gloeckner returned to the meeting. Amon P. williams Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that the A-1 zoning property is located on the east side of Route 664, 1.8 mile east of Earlysville. The proposal is to divide a 7.6+ acre parcel into three lots, 2.601 acres, 2.614 acres, and 2.378 acres. The staff recommended approval of the plat subject to the following condition: 1. Joint entrances for lots 2 and 3. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that he preferred for the joint entrance to serve lots 1 and 2 because of the residences at the rear. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff had no objections to this request. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following condition: 1. Joint entrances for lots 1 and 2. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Robert L. Birckhead Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro reported that this A-] zoned property is located on a 50 foot right-of-way off Route 664 west of Earlysville, shortly west of Route 776. The proposal is to divide one lot, 2.154 acres in size from an 83+ acres parcel. The lot will be served by a farm road on the 50 foot right-of-way. If this property is to be further developed, the entrance sight distance will have to meet highway department standards. The staff recommended appro�7al subject to the following conditions: 1. Change note to read, "No further division along this 50 foot right-of-way without Planning Commission approval." 2. Record dedication ( 25 feet from center sine of Route 664 ) along entire frontage of Parcel 5. Mr. Morris Foster felt that condition #2 was impractical, since the parcel was being cut off for a lot for the granddaughter. Mr. Mike Boggs said that there would probably be a large cost for surveying the property before a dedication can be made. Mr. Foster said that each plat should be considered on an individual basis, and this condition is really unreasonable in this case. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to condition #1 as recommended by the staff. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Albemarle square Shopping Center Site Plan Amendment ( Best Products )- Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the B-1 zoned property is located on the north end of Albemarle Square Shopping Center, Route 631 and 29 North intersection. The proposal is to expand the existing Best Products store to allow for a 19,262 square foot stock storage area. The applicant was informed about the parking situation, whereby the size of the development of Phase III would be limited. The applicant has noted this limitation and has already submitted a plan for Phase III which reflects these limitations. The staff recommended approval of the site plan amendment with the following condition: 1. This approval does not speak to Site "A" Mr. Montenegro again stated that there is enough parking to allow for expansion and that ignoring Phase III, this amendment meets the parking requirements. Mr. Easter said that on the original site plan that this was shown as an expansion, and he found the plan to be in order. Mr. Keeler suggested adding the Safeway Expansion in the condition, since it is not addressed in the original site plan. runoff Mr. Peatross asked if this will cause any additional water/problems. Mr. Montenegro said that it will not. He also noted that there is a civil agreement between Mr. Powell and Mr. Grimes file at the Planning Department. Mr. Heischman said that none of the adjoining property owners had any complaints. Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan amendment subject to the following condition: 1. This approval does not speak to site "A" or the Safeway Expansion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, and carried unanimously. Hans Gadient Commercial Building Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro stated that this B-1 zoned property is located on the east side of Route 20 South, near the intersection with Route 6. This commercial building will be replacing part of a commercial building which burned down recently. Mr. Gadient has received variances from scenic highway setback requirements for the building and parking. In addition, the zoning Administrator has ruled "that Mr. Gadient's store qualifies under Article 10, Section 10-7-1 based on the calculations represented" in Mr. Lambert's letter. Therefore, the 50' rear yard setback requirement from an adjacent A-1 zone is not required. The proposal is to build a food store building "A" adjacent and attached to existing buildings "B" and "C". The proposed building would have a gross floor area of 2,573 square feet, requiring 13 parking spaces. At time of completion, building "B" will be vacated and become a storage area for the food store; this conversion will necessitate an increase of parking for the food store on the site from 13 spaces to 18 spaces. The existing wholesaling of auto parts which now occupies building "B" will be moved to building "C" requiring 3 additional parking spaces, thus requiring the site plan to contain a total of 21 parking spaces as shown. The staff was concerned about this site once Route 20 South is improved, because the increased right-of-way requirements would take much of Mr. Gadient's parking. Therefore, the applicant has noted on the plan that the site plan approval is subject to the replacement of the legally required parking at such time as the widening of Route 20 South is undertaken ( note #2 ). The staff is also concerned about the stability of the bank behind the site, therefore, the staff recommended approval of this site paln subject to the following conditions: 1. Engineering Department approval of whatever measures are necessary to assure the stability of bank in area; 2. Pavement must be marked "one-way north bound" in aisle in front of commercial buildings; 3. Highway Department approval of entrance; 4. Written Health Department approval of water and septic facilities; 5. Condition on vacation of auto parts store and conversion listed in notes #3, 4, and 5. Col. Washington asked if there will be adequate parking if the highway is moved. Mr. Montenegro noted that the applicant realizes he will have to find parking if the road is widened. Mr. Lambert, architect, stated that he will either have to acquire additional parking within a certain distance of the site, or he will have to tear down a portion of the building to provide for it. He said that the applicant is aware of this. Mr. Lambert said that he wished to address condition #1. The bank is not a hazard. He said that he understands the concern, but feels that it is unwarranted. He said that rather than discussing this with the Engineering Department, he prefers to discuss it with the Commission. He noted that the bank was graded in 1940, and there have been no slides since then. As for Health Department approval of the water and septic facilities, he feels this system cannot be approved using today's standards. However, he pointed out that it did fulfill the needs of the old use, and this is no greater an intensity of use. Mr. Easter asked if there is room on the property to have a system that is used today. Mr. Lambert replied that there is only 50' between the well and the septic system. Mr. Easter said that he does not have a problem with this particular situation, because the applicant and his architect have noted all the matters of concern, and have decided to accept these conditions. He said that he was concerned that if the business were sold that the new owner might claim hardship, however this applicant has recognized the limitations of the property and has agreed to these conditions. Mr. Lambert said that these conditions do not constitute a hardship. Mr. Montenegro did note for the record that the applicant sold the property up the street which he owned. Dr. Moore asked if the Planning Commission can set standards for the Health Department to use. M z2,3 Mr. Payne said that the Planning Commission can rely upon the Health Department as experts to use whatever standards they feel are necessary. Wad Mr. Montenegro said that the Commission must keep in mind that there is a health factor here that must be considered, and the facilities should be made to be adequate. Mr. Carr said that he is most worried about the question raised by Mr. Easter. He asked if it is possible for the deed to have a flag on it - that there are conditions on the property that need attention. He said that he did not want any approval to create a hardship for the future. Mr. Payne explained that the property must be sold before anything can be put into the deed, and this would be in the deed to the purchaser. He said that deeds are public records, but so are Planning Commission meeting minutes public records. He felt that one public record is as good as another to note that the Commission is not creating a future hardship. Mr. Peatross questioned the problem with the bank in the rear. Mr. Montenegro replied that this had been a matter of concern because of problems with the bank on other property. Mr. Easter said that he is aware that the Engineering Department has looked at this, and they are recommending a 3 foot safety wall. He said that this had been a topic of discussion at the site plan review meeting. He said that Mr. Williams had been adamant about the wall. Mr. Easter said that he himself had viewed the site, and personally feels that the wall would be a waste of money since he does not feel it is a hazard. Mr. Lambert stated that when the adjoining property was excavated, it did not even slide. Mr. Gloeckner reminded the Commission that when an architect puts his stamp on a site plan he is assuming liability. He said that the Commission must rely upon Mr. Lambert's ability as a professional, since it would be Mr. Lambert who be liable if there were future problems. would Mr. Peatross asked who the Commission should rely on, the Engineer for the County, or the applicant's representative. Mr. Gloeckner said that the Commission should rely upon whoever's name is on the site plan, because it is that person who is liable. Col. Washington questioned the composition of the bank. Mr. Lambert said that it is raw exposed rock. Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Pavement must be marked "one-way north bound" in aisle in front of commercial buildings; 2. Highway Department approval of entrance; 3. Written Health Department approval of water and septic facilities; 4. Condition on Vacation of auto parts store and conversion listed in notes #3, 4, and 5; 5. The notes on the site plan to be considered part of the conditions of approval. zz� Mr. Easter noted that this approval does not speak to any approval of signs for the property. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Peatross dissenting. Avis Rent-A-Car Site Plan Amendment: Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that this M-1 zoned property is located on the north side of Route 649 just past Benoit Nursery near the Airport. On January 21, 1974, a site plan was approved for a car facility with gas pumps, parking and deceleration lane. On March 17, 1975, a revised site plan was approved which moved the location of the gas pumps from the rear of the lot to the front. This applicant has applied for a variance from the 50 foot buffer setback from an A-1 zone which was approved that date. The proposal is to develop a two-story office and repair building with vehicle display and storage space. The building will have 3 service bays. A landscape buffer is proposed from adjacent properties. The fuel pumps will be moved to the rear of the facility. The staff recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Highway Department approval of upgrading of entrance and turn lane; 2. Health Department approval of septic facility; 3. Grading permit. Mr. Montenegro said that the applicant has agreed to increase the pines from 4 feet pines to 8 feet pines. Mr. Carr said that the property next door is most unsightly and does not at all comply with the approved site plan. Mr. Keeler asked if there is any proposed used for the back property. Mr. Boggs said that the road shown on the plan is merely for access to the rear of the property. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the back portion can be used for storage. Mr. Montenegro said that according to this site plan, it cannot be. That would require an amended site plan. Mr. Carr asked if the strip of land at the back is A-1 or M-1. Mr. Payne said that it is M-1. Mr. Carr said that if it were A-1, it should certainly not be used for parking. Mr. Boggs explained the site plan to the Commission. The reason there have been so many changes is that there is not adequate space at the front for parking of the large vehicles. Mr. Peatross asked if the problems with compliance of site plan deal with this property, or the property next door. He said that if they are part of this property, the original site plan should be complied with before any amendment is granted. zzs Mr. Carr said that the problems, among others, are that the plantings around the gas pumps are dead, the parking is disorganized, etc. The entire site is most untidy. Mr. Easter said that he knows the owner of this operation; this owner does not have a franchise, and has most reputable business across the state. He offered the excuse that the original plan might not have been complied with because the owner was aware that changes would shortly be made. Mr. Easter felt sure that the man, who is a good business man, would take care of this, and Mr. Easter said that he intends to discuss the problems with him. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Commission forward to the owner its concerns about the original site plan, and note that it certainly hopes this same neglect will be present with the amended site plan. not Mr. Peatross asked when the plan will be completed. Mr. Boggs replied that it would be completed in the next 12 months, at the most. Mr. Carr suggested that the amended site plan have a condition addressing dead plantings. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plan subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, plus the additional condition: 4. Landscaping to be replaced if it dies. Mr. Easter seconded the motion. Mr. Peatross said that it would be a good idea to have the Zoning Administrator review this plan in December, 1977, for compliance, and report to the Commission either in person or through a memorandum. The motion carried unanimously, and the staff was instructed to follow the suggestion of Mr. Peatross. Mr. Carr said that he felt it would also be a good idea for the staff to write the owner about the Commission's concern with the parking, planting, general untidiness of the site. Col. Washington asked that the problems be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator. Jim Price Chevrolet Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro stated that this property is zoned B-1, and is located on the west side of Route 29 North, opposite Real Estate III offices. The proposal is to locate a sales, office, and repair building ( 43,540 square feet ) on a 10-acre site. The plan accommodates parking for 60 employees and 27 customers, in addition to display, service, storage and truck display parking. The staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 2z� 1. Fire Marshal approval of water line sizes for sprinkler facilities; 2. Note reservation of a 50- foot wide easement on both sides of the property for access to adjacent B-1 tracts; 3. Dumpster must be screened and approved by the Fire Marshal; 4. No pennants or plastic spinners will be allowed on the site; 5. Staff approval of landscape plan. Mr. Montenegro said that the staff wants to see the landscape plan for buffering the R-3 land. When asked about the parking space, Mr. Montenegro stated that there is parking for over 400 vehicles, and the staff has to rely upon the applicant to provide adequate parking for himself. Mr. Montenegro also stated that the applicant will be grading and paving 10 acres. Mr. Boggs explained the landscape plan that will be presented to the staff. Mr. Wendell Wood, adjoining property owner, gave verbal permission for some grading on his property as shown on the plan. Mr. Barksdale asked if the Virginia Department of Highways is making the same requirements here as it did for Bill Edwards. Mr. Montenegro said that is correct. Col. Washington asked that the staff call nurserymen to see what kind of trees they recommend for buffering. Mr. Tucker said that white pines are usually used because they are native trees and because they are fast growers. Dr. Moore asked if Highway Department approval has already been given. Mr. Montenegro said that it has been. Dr. Moore said that he would still like to include in the conditions of approval Highway Department approval, addressing the northbound turnlane at the (crossover at Carrsbrook. Mr. Tucker suggested an additional condition that the landscaping should be maintained and replaced if it dies. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire Marshal approval of water line sizes for sprinkler facilities; 2. Note reservation of a 50 foot wide easement on both sides of the property for access to adjacent B-1 tracts; 3. Dumpster must be screened and approved by the Fire Marshal; 4. No pennants or plastic spinners will be allowed on the site; 5. Staff approval of landscape plan; 6. Highway Department approval, with particular attention to the northbound turnlane at the Carrsbrook crossover; 7. Maintain and replace plantings if they die. Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. zz7 Peacock Hill "Farmhouse" Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro said that this is a PUD. This particular part of the PUD is on an association road off Turkey Ridge Road. The proposal is to divide a portion of areas designated by the PUD plan for residential use into 4 lots; 2.1, 3.6, 9.22, and 9.29 acres. Three lots will be served by the association road. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Highway Department approval of a commercial entrance at Turkey Ridge Road; 2. County Attorney's office approval of maintenance agreement for the association road ( or reivew of covenants to include said maintenance); 3. Written Health Department approval; 4. Note 75' building setback on Lot 2; 5. Owner's notarized signature; 6. Fee be paid. Mr. Carr questioned the need for conditions 5 and 6, since these are part of every plat. Mr. Montenegro replied that they have not been accomplished. 19 There was a discussion about condition #6. It was pointed out that plats should not come to the Commission until the fee is paid. Otherwise, there was always the possibility that the plat could be disapproved and the fee might never be paid. There was a consensus that the fee should always be paid prior to bringing the plat to the Commission. Mr. Tucker said that in the past the plats have never been signed until the fee is paid. Mr. Carr said that in this case conditions 5 and 6 should be struck from the list of conditions, but advised the staff to make sure they are complied with. Mr. Montenegro told the Commission that with conditions 1-4 the plat complies with the special permit for the PUD. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the first four conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ,;I;�4 A J - 4k x 11A Q ct W. Tucker, Jr. - Secret y