HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 24 78 PC Minutes310
January 24, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
January 24, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members in attendance were Peter Easter, Col. William Washington, Kurt M.
Gloeckner, Joan Graves, Dr. James W. Moore, Norma Diehl, Charles Vest, Layton
McCann, and James Huffman. Other officials in attendance were Mr. Robert Tucker,
Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Peter Easter, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order after establishing
that a quorum was present.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that each member must have a statement
in to the Commonwealth's Attorney by January 31, 1978, under the Conflict of Interests
Act.
Election of Officers:
Mr. Tucker presided over this portion of the meeting and opened the floor
for nominations for Chairman of the Commission. Mrs. Graves nominated Mr. Peter
Easter for Chairman and moved that the nominations be closed. Mr. Huffman seconded
these motions, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Mr. Easter opened the floor for nominations for Vice -Chairman. Mr. Gloeckner
nominated Col. Washington for Vice -Chairman. Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves moved that the nominations be closed. Her motion was seconded by
Dr. Moore. The motion to elect Col. Washington carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Riverview Farm Preliminary Plat:
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Gloeckner moved that this plat be deferred.
The motion, seconded by Dr. Moore, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Shadwell Mountain:
Mr. Montenegro noted that the applicant was not present, though he did state
that he knew that the applicant would be there.
The Commission moved to hear Viola Irene Turner's request for SP-77-81.
Mr. Keeler began reading the staff report. At this point, the applicant for Shadwell
Mountain entered the meeting, and the Commission decided to take items as they appeared
on the agenda.
3i1
SHADWELL MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY PLAT:
i
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the 212+ acres
is located at the end of the I-64 frontage road near the intersection of Route 250
and I-64. The proposal is to divide the 212+ acre tract into twelve parcels,
the smallest 4.8 acres, the largest 44 acres. The parcels will be served by a
privately maintained access easement. Access to the site is solely by way of the
frontage road. The staff stated that the Commission should determine whether or not
improvements should be made to the frontage road. By recent traffic counts, the
frontage road carried 87+ vehicle trips per day. With the addition of this subdivision,
the total would be raised to 170+ vehicle trips per day. The frontage road is presently
a 16-foot wide paved surface. If the Commission determines that the proposed subdivision
would cause a hazardous situation, then the staff recommends that the frontage road
be upgraded to a Category I, Class B standard of the Albemarle County Subdivision
Ordinance. With this point in mind, the staff recommended approval of the preliminary
plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Grading permit;
3. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of the access easement shall be
approved by the County Attorney's office and recorded with the plat;
4. County Engineering Department approval of private road specifications.
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a similar situation to Langford, where the
Commission required, because of possible safety hazards, that the road be upgraded.
He explained the difference to the Commission in the two subdivisions, pointing out
that the lot size here is much greater, the traffic volume that will be generated
is half that of Langford, the overall area is much larger, and the density is lower. ,
Mrs. Graves questioned the Highway Department standing on this plat.
Mr. Montenegro stated that they are recommending an upgrading to frontage
road standard 1B, which is an 18 foot road with a paved surface. He stated that
Mr. Hartman, an adjoining property owner, had asked that the Commission require that
the road be upgraded.
Mr. Jim Murray, representing himself, stated that the average lot size is 20
acres, and pointed out that this is only two miles from the city limits. He said that
the property falls within the critical slope area of the Comprehensive Plan, which
recommends a low density of 1 du/acre. He stated that the density proposed here is
twice as low as what the plan recommends. Mr. Murray did not feel that this sort
of subdivision could not be done within the strictest requirements of the subdivision
ordinance and pointed to the fact that he felt that due to lot size any upgrading of
the roads is most impractical. He passed out a chart showing the design criteria
upon which the Highway Department relies for upgrading recommendations. According
to this chart, the existing road is substandard. Therefore, he feels that the
Highway Department's request that the road be upgraded is unfair. He said that
the County Engineer estimates that the upgrading will cost $30,000. Bids from two
local firms estimate the work at $35,000-50,000 and 50,000-80,000. He said that
an additional $5,000 would be added to the cost of each lot if the upgrading alone
were required. He said that either the County must go with the recommendations of
the Highway Department or it must follow the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan. The decision determines the lot size. He said that upon questioning,
the Highway Department said that the critical factor of the road is maintenance
and that safety is an "obscure" reason for requiring the upgrading.
9/Z..
There was a brief discussion about access to a certain part of the property,
in which Mr. Payne advised the Commission that a condition addressing certification
of access to the property would be advisable.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the Commission should waive the frontage requirement
for lot 1.
Mr. Gioeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
(He also noted that he does not feel safety is factor to require upgrading of frontage road)
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Grading permit;
3. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of the access easement shall be approved
by the County Attorney's office and recorded with the plat;
4. County Engineering Department approval of private road specifications;
5. Wai�rer granted for frontage on lot 1;
6. The applicant is to certify or provide evidence that the property has legal
access to a public right-of-way.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Discussion: Col. Washington stated that he has some reservations about the plat
because in some cases there is a grade of anywhere from 13% to 17%. Furthermore, he
stated that in the past the Commission has followed the recommendations of the Highway
Department in requiring upgrading of roads.
Mr. Mike Boggs pointed out to the Commission that the Highway Department allows
18% grade for 300 feet of roadway, provided the road is paved.
Mr. Easter said that he feels the County's protection is the maintenance agreement.
Mrs. Graves said that she feels as though the Highway Department might require
the upgrading of the road even though the Commission is not making it a condition of
approval for the plat.
Dr. Moore said that he agreed with Col. Washington.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-2, with Messrs. Moore and Washington dissenting.
SP-77-61. Robert Sweeney.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, reviewing the history of the property
and also bringing the Commission up-to-date on since the last public hearing.
He reminded the Commission that currently the County's only legal position is
the fashion is which the Zoning Ordinance addresses non -conforming uses.
Mr. Keeler stated that historically the applicant has not maintained this use.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff recommendations for the site on the site plan
drawn for the applicant. He stated the position of the staff on the opaque fence,
noting that if it is not required, the location of the trees the staff recommends.
He also explained the meaning of "inoperable vehicles" and read the addendum to staff report
Mr. Ed Bain, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would like
a dozen display spaces and would like five inoperable vehicles as addressed in condition
#6. Mr. Tucker at this point explained that any change in condition #6 would require
a variance from the. BZA. Mr. Bain then addressed the various conditions , taking exception
with any requirement for a de-cel lane and taper due to the expense as well as
an exception to building inspection of the existing structure.
V�
He said that the applicant ias limited in some extent to what he can do due to
the expense involved in all the requirements. Furthermore, he requested on behalf
of the applicant, 18 months to comply with the requirements of the special use
permit.
Mr. Tom Michie, representing Mr. and Mrs. Lively, stated that he wants
the County and Mr. Sweeney to reach some sort of settlement. He stated that he
supported the staff's recommendations, and feels that the requirements are for the
good of the applicant, as well as for the good of the county and surrounding neighborhood.
He did especially desire good screening for the rear of the property, whether it
be a fence or extensive landscaping. He further noted that all this work should
have been done 5 years ago, therefore he did not think that the expense would be
unreasonable.
There were no other comments from the public.
Dr. Moore said that he is inclined to place requirements on the special use
permit as though it were a new use going in. He supported the staff recommendations
and the Highway Department requirements.
Col. Washington suggested that the fence has utility that the trees don't have.
Mrs. Graves stated that if this approved she wants to make sure that it does
not extend any approval to the mobile homes located on the property if they are in
violation of county ordinances.
Mr. Keeler noted for the record that opaque fences have been required in the
past where there are inoperable vehicles on the property.
Dr. Moore suggested a condition stating that the site plan as presented
by the staff is part of the approval of the special use permit.
Mr. Payne suggested that a condition addressing Highway Department approval
of the landscaping along the front might be in order to assure that no sight distance
would be blocked.
Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Commission stating that he
feels the applicant should have some breaks within his financial means. He felt
that the de-cel land with taper and the fence might be unreasonable requirements.
Mrs. Graves stated that in her opinion the opaque fence is appropriate and
reasonable.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that with the exception of Jim Price
and Brady Bush, Mr. Sweeney has a comparable sales volume of used cars to anyone
else in the county.
Mr. Easter stated that if the entrance is satisfactory for a tractor/trailer,
he feels that the site distance is adequate.
Mr. Tucker asked that the Commission be specific in its requirements, in order
that everyone is certain of the conditions of approval.
Dr. Moore said that in his opinion the future should be considered in
the conditions of approval.
Mr. Dick suggested that the Commission might consider making the de-cel
l-ane a requirement with the development of area 4 as shown on the site plan.
Mr. Payne said that if this is the case the special permit should state
that it does not address or cover area 4 for parking of vehicles. After a discussion,
it was noted that condition #1 as recommended by the staff addresses.
Dr. Moore moved approval of the special use permit subject to the following
conditions:
FOR THE PRUPOSES OF THIS PETITION, TERMS USED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL
HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
Garage Vehicle shall mean any sale, unlicensed, or inoperable motor vehicle or part
thereof. Inoperable motor vehicles licensed in the name of the applicant or any
family member residing on the premises shall be excluded.
Activity shall mean the loading, unloading, parking, storing, repairing, equipping
or painting of garage vehicles.
1. The intent of this condition is to restrict all activity related to the public
garage to Areas 1 and 2. Only parking of service vehicles shall occur in Area 3
and only in that area designated for such purpose; no other activity shall occur
in Area 3. No activity shall occur in Area 4, on the right-of-way of Route 53, or
off -site.
2. The total number of garage vehicles shall not exceed 96. Of this 96, not more than
12 vehicles shall be on display; no inoperable vehicles shall be on display.
3. Customer, service, and garage vehicles shall be parked in an orderly manner and
only in areas so delineated on the plan. Travelways, lanes, and driveways are to
remain clear and open except during loading/unloading of garage vehicles.
4. All auto parts, oil cans, debris, junk and trash shall be removed from the site
and from that area on the north side of Route 53 ( previously used by the applicant )
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
5. Signing shall comply with the provisions of Article 18 Scenic Highway Designation of
the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Not more than 2 inoperable vehicles shall be located on the premises at any time.
7. Only those areas where improvements are shown on the site plan shall be disturbed;
all other land shall remain in its natural state.
8. This permit is subject to: (a) County Engineering approval of paving specifications;
(b) Fire Inspections approval; (c) Building Inspections approval of garage under
Virginia Statewide Building Code requirements for commercial use; (d) Highway
Department approval of commercial entrances; (e) Grading permit, if required.
9. Garage Vehicles in Area 2 are to be enclosed with a 7-foot high opaque fence as
delineated on the site plan.
10. Landscape items are to be replaced should they die.
11. All conditions shall be met within 6 months of the date of approval of this petition
by the Board of Supervisors.
12. Approval of this petition is not for any mobile homes located on the property.
13. Site plan as presented by staff is part of teh approval of this petition.
14. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of landscaping.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mrs. Graves suggested amending condition #11 to read 9 months due to
possible inclement weather throughout the winter.
Messrs. Moore and Gloeckner accepted this amendment, changing condition #11
to read as follows:
11. All conditions shall be met within 9 months of the date of approval of this petition
by the Board of Supervisors.
31S
The vote on the motion to approve carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
19
ZTA-77-10. Arthur Wyler:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report; he read the letter from the applicant
stating the reasons for the request, as well as letters from the following individuals:
Richard Shank, William T. Stevens, Jason I Eckford, Jr.
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that if the density is changed to
gross density, it is much easier to work with and specifically tells how many units/acre
can be built. With the density in terms of net density, the number of units per acre
is dependent upon several varing factors.
Mrs. Graves questioned how this amendment would relate to the Comprehensive
Plan's recommendation of 15 units/acre for high density development.
Mr. Keeler explained that this is a recommendation of an average of 15 units/acre,
but runs anywhere from 5-34 units acre. With multi -family units, the Comprehensive
Plan recommends an average density of 18 units/acre.
Mr. Tucker also noted for the benefit of the Commission that the lower the number
of units permitted by right, the more special permits that the County will have to
review.
Mrs. Graves did not feel this amendment should be considered without considering
the change in the parking requirements for multi -family units simultaneously.
Mr. Tucker assured Mrs. Graves that these were two entirely different
matters, and one did not relate to the other.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin spoke in favor of the amendment. He stated that it is not
economically feasible to build only 14 units per acre these days due to the cost of
construction. He also stated that such a low density pushes development out into
the county, and this is another disadvantage to the existing.
There was no further comment from the public.
Col. Washington questioned if the density recommendations in the Comprehensive
Plan are net or gross densities. Mr. Keeler responded that the density recommendations
are gross density.
Dr. Moore stated that the intent in 1976, when the amendment was passed to lower
the density in the R-3 zone, was to have a mid -density between the R-2 zone and the
top density permitted in the R-3 by special permit. Also at that time, he had thought
that it was recognized that the streets were already overloaded. He said that he is
willing to increase the 20 gross units by right and 34 gross units by special permit.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore moved that Section 6-1-23 of the Zoning Ordiance be amended to read
as follows:
Residential uses having a maximum gross residential density of twenty (20)
dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion.
Discussion: Mr. Payne advised the Commission that this amendment would not be
fully effective until Section 6-2-1 was amended to read "gross density."
The motion to amend Section 6-1-23 carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mrs.
Graves dissenting.
Dr. Moore then moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent
to amend Sections 6-1-20(10), 6-2-1, and 5-2-1 as they relate to density, changing
the wording to read "gross density" as opposed to "net density".
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
SP-77-81. Viola Irene Turner - request for mobile home:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
The applicant was present but had not comments.
Upon questioning by Mr. Easter, it was established that the house burned in
October and that Ms. Turner now lives with her daughter.
Mrs. Diehl established from the staff that this was a request for a permanent
mobile home and that no time limit was in order in the conditions of approval.
Mr. Payne explained that there are two provisions for revocation and deal with
failing to comply with the conditions of approval.
At this point Ms. Turner explained that the mobile home is for her daughter and
husband.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special permit subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff:
1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance to include screening
to the east;
2. Removal of debris and rubble of dwelling destroyed by fire at this site and clean-up
of property on Route 715 to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator
prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy;
3. Continued maintenance of property so as to remain orderly and clean to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mrs. Graves said that she does not consider it proper for the Commission
to legislate how people live, and therefore does not consider conditions 2 and 3 in order.
Col. Washington stated that these are matters for the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Payne explained that it is completely proper to address the debris and rubble
where the dwelling had been destroyed, however, it is not proper to include in this
list of conditions something applicable to property located on Route 715.
1+�'
Mr. Easter felt that condition #3 is proper since it important that people take
pride in their living conditions and neighbors have a right to be concerned about the
maintenance of the premises of those living around them.
&/
Messrs. Gloeckner and Vest were willing for condition #2 to be amended
as follows:
Removal of debris and rubble of dwelling destroyed by fire at this site to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
The motion, with the amended condition, carried by a vote of 8-1, with
Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Rock Branch Acres Subdivison:
9
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located
on Route 779 and Route 710 off Route 29 South near Crossroads. The proposal is to
remove the condition of shared entrances from the subdivision approval. The plat of
thirteen two -acre lots was approved with conditions on March 16, 1976. At that time,
six joint entrances were required. The owner of lot 4 approached the Planning
Staff to see if he could put his driveway on the opposite side of the lot from where
it is required on the plat. Later, the owner of the subdivision requested that the
condition of shared entrances be removed from all the lots. Although shared entrances
provide safety benefits, they also present problems with the location of houses and
garages and maintenance disputes between neighbors. The staff felt that the Commission
should reconsider their policy of shared entrances, except in extreme cases of inadequate
sight distance or difficult terrain.
Mr. Tucker addressed the Commission regarding this matter. He said that
the position in the past has been to require shared entrances on the recommendations
of the Highway Department. He further pointed out that this had been under the
previous resident engineer for the Highway Department, who had further felt that
though they were a good idea, the Highway Department could not enforce the joint
entrances. However, since Mr. Roosevelt has become resident engineer, the policy
of ;the Highway Department has been that if the joint entrance is shown on the
plat as approved by the County, the Highway Department can enforce the joint entrance.
The original purpose of the joint entrance policy was to cut down on strip development
and make the roads safer. However, a problem has been that the cost of the joint
entrance in many cases has been that only one owner has absorbed the cost, since
in these cases only one house has been under construction at a time. The Highway
Department has now recommended that the County drop this policy, perhaps because
it feels in the middle for enforcement.
Mr. Easter questioned the safety aspects of joint entrances.
Mr. Tucker said that the Highway Department does not feel that joint entrances
have increased the safety aspects. He did note that they do not request that joint
entrances be dropped for commercial entrances. In the future, the staff would like
the ability to recommend joint entrances only in the cases of steep terrain for
residential uses. Though it looks good on paper, he stated that joint entrances
have not really helped the matter of strip development.
Mr. Clark, owner of Rock Branch Subdivision, stated that when he agreed
to this condition on his plat, he did not understand that the joint entrances
were being enforced. He noted that another problem is that the driveway may
be conjested and the other party cannot get to his house.
134,
Mr. Deane, purchaser of lot 4 of Rock Branch Acres, stated that he does
not feel that joint entrances are a good idea because they are usually more expensive
for one party than the other, and they also make a house less attractive.
Mrs. Diehl felt that objections to joint entrances were arbitrary placement,
hardships for house location, aesthetic objections, as well as those things already
mentioned.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mrs. Diehl.
Mrs. Graves favored joint entrances because she stated that the staff knows
the topography.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the condition addressing joint entrances be removed
from the approval of this subdivision, though he did state that he is not willing
to give up joint entrances on steep terrain.
Col Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter asked that Mr. Tucker forward to the Commission his comments on
joint entrances at the earliest possible time.
Hutchinson Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is
located on the south side of Route 250 West, and the north side of Route 692.
The proposal is a division of four lots containing 2.0, 2.0, 2.6 and 3.0 acres. Two
lots front on Route 692 and two lots front on Route 250 and will share an existing
entrance on lot 2A. The terrain along the front of Lot lA prohibits an entrance there.
She read the recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Payne stated that he feels there should be a maintenance agreement on the
shared entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Highway Deaprtment approval of existing entrance;
3. Show 200' septic setback line from Stockton Creek;
4. Maintenance agreement for common entrance to be aprpoved by County Attorney.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
There was a five minute recess.
Monticello Home Builders Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located
on Route 620 just east of Woodridge. The proposal is to divide a 10.40 acre parcel into
five lots of equal size: 2.080 acres. Two joint entrances are shown as previously
recommended by the staff. The applicant has been requested to discuss with the
staff future subdivsion proposals where strip development is proposed in order that
better alternatives can be explored prior to final survey work. The recommended
conditions of approval were read to the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the site distance along the road. Mr. Bolton,
representing Monticello Home Builders, stated that it is good, however, he does not
object to joint entrances since all the houses will be constructed at one time.
Mrs. Graves said that she does not want the previous discussion regarding
joint entrances to preclude developers from showing joint entrances.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Owner's notarized signature;
3. Virginia, Department of Highways and Transportation approval of joint entrance
location.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ward's Mobile Home Site Plan Amendment:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the M-1 land is located
on the east side of Route 29 North just north of Badger-Powhatan. He presented the
zoning history to the Commission. This proposal is to locate 56 mobile homes
for sale, an office, and a storage shed on a .5.544 acre site. Of the 56 mobile
homes, six will be double-wides, and the rest conventional. Seventeen of the
mobile homes will be served with electric power and have to meet an 8-foot setback
as required by the Fire Official. The Virginia Department of Highways has informed
the staff that during the previous application they should have recommended that the
southbound turnlane be lengthened to meet present standards, hwoever they feel that
since this was not recommended previously, they cannot require it at this time.
There were no comments from the applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the following condition:
1. The layout of mobile homes shall adhere to the layout represented on the site
plan; in no case shall this site exceed fifty-six (56) mobile homes.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
E1 Cabrito Restaurant Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the B-1 property is
located on the northeast corner of Whitewood Raod nad Hydraulic Road. The proposal is
to develop a sit-down/carry-out restaurant facility with 2,144 sq. ft.of floor area. A
joint entrance is proposed as suggested by the staff as well as a loading space near th-
back of the building. Twenty-nine spaces are required and provided. The site 110)
will be served by both water and sewer. Due to the propsoed improvements to
Hydraulic Raod, some of the finished grades along Whitewood Road may vary, therefore
the staff is recommending that the developer must install a sidewalk along Whitewood
Road only as far as the limits of construction shown. The staff also felt that more
32[)
landscaping is necessary along Hydraulic and Whitewood Roads
Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that the owner is willing
to do some landscaping. He stated that the land will be regraded such that there is
no drainage problem.
Mr. McCann moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations;
2. Grading permit;
3. Provide a sidewalk along Whitewood Road to the limits of construction shown;
4. Staff approval of landscape plan;
5. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer facilities;
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities;
7. Note that outdoor seating facilities are subject to A. B. C. regulations.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Kirtley Site Plan:
Upon the motion of Mr. Gloeckner, and second of Mr. McCann, this site
plan was deferred until January 31, 1978, at the request of the applicant.
The motion carried unanimously.
John Flick Auto Upholstery Service Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the B-1 property is located
on the west side of Rio Road, and north side of Brookway Drive. The proposal is a new
two -storey shop for auto upholstery service to be attached to existing non -conforming
residence which will continue to be used as a residence. Existing entrance on Rio
Road is to be closed and existing entrance on Brockway Drive will be used. Two
customer parking spaces will be provided. No outdoor storage of autos is contemplated.
One letter of objection opposed a business use in a residential area.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Fire Marshal. approval;
2. Existing dumpster to be located and screened to approval of Planning Staff;
3. Building Inspection Department approval.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Hollymead Guest Inn Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating the the zoning for the property
is PUD (commercial area), located on the north side of Hollymead Drive. The proposal
is a thirty-six room guest inn, office and conference room with fifty-seven parking
' spaces on about three acres. There may be a problem with sewer availability, since
Woodbrook pumping station has a limited capacity. Staff is requesting that a sidewalk
along Hollymead Drive be constructed in order to satisfy a condtion of approval of
the planned Community.
,3z/
Mrs. Scala read the staff's recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the legal ramifications if the sidewalk is
located on private property. Mr. Payne replied that the owner could cut it off,
and also noted that the owner would be liable for accidents.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that the walks will
take away from what is trying to be achieved there with the colonial architectural.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested a flat slab driveway within the Highway Department
righ-tof-way for maintenance reasons.
Mr. John Wagner, homeowner from Hollymead, stated that the homeowners there
are concerned about maintaining the colonial atmosphere and want all commerail areas
approved with a similar decor to the existing.
Mrs. Graves stated that she does not feel the burden of matnnenance agreement
should be put on the homeowners.
Mr. Tucker stated that obviously the sidewalk has to be there and he needs
to hear the feelings of the Highway Department on the slab.
Mr. Payne said that there should be a maintenance agreement only if the sidewalk
isout side the public right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of site plan does not guarantee availability of sewer;
2. A sidewalk is required along Hollymead Drive, between the western entrance
to the Inn adn the eastern property line of subject parcel. It shall be located
within the road right-of-way, constructed as a slab without curb and accepted
for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. If they
will not accept such a sidewalk, then it shall be lcoated on the subject parcel,
constructed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. An easement shall be
granted to the Hollymead Homeowners Association, with the burden of maintenance
on the subject parcel owner, in favor of the Hollymead Homeowners. The language
of that easement shall be approved by the County Attorney;
3. Pedestrian access must be provided from the Inn to Hollymead Drive;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation aprpoval;
5. Fire Marshal approval;
6. Service Authority approval.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, whichcarried unanimously, with no
discussion.
Mrs. Huckle asked if the Planning Commission would give some thought to a slow
down of development along Hydraulic Road until that road is improved. Mr. Payne stated
that this is within the Planning Commission's scope only if there is a positive safety
hazard, which is very difficult to prove. Mrs. Graves said that any discussion on this
should be prior to the public hearing on Great Eastern Company's application.
With no further business, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at
midnight. r// v
� 4
Ro rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec etar