Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 09 78 PC Minutes%7 May 9, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a regular meeting on Tuesday, May 9, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Dr. James W. Moore, Mr. Charles Vest, Mr. Layton McCann, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Mr. James Huffman and Mrs. Joan Graves. Col. William Washington, Chairman was absent. Mr. Easter presided. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director Of Planning, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner, Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 25, 1978 and May 2, 1978 Minutes of April 25, 1978, were approved by the chairman as submitted. Minutes of May 2, 1978, were corrected by Dr. Moore to reflect that he re-entered the meeting after the discussion of his petition. With that correction, the minutes of May 2, 1978, were approved. DEFERRED ITEMS: LANE IMPLEMENT SITE PLAN Mr. Montenegro stated that this item was deferred from the meeting of April 8 in order that the staff and County Attorney's office could investigate the feasibility in the requirement of access to the adjacent parcel to the north. Mr. Montenegro stated ttat Mr. Payne and he had met with Mr. Pickford and Mr. Murray shortly after the deferral, at which time Mr. Murray produced a deed evidenced to be agreeable to all parties. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff recommends approval of this site plan with thirteen conditions. He stated that the staff recommends also to the Connnission that the gas pumps be relocated to the rear of the site. The thirteen conditions were read as follows: 1) All conditions of SP-77-82 must be met; 2) County Attorney's office approval and recordation of access easements as noted in Mr. James Murray's letter of 04/24/78; 3) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance facilities; 4) Staff approval of landscape plan; 5) The display area along the northern side of the main building shall have a stone base (approved by the County Engineering Department); 6) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; 7) Fire Official approval of gasoline pumping facilities and location of proposed fence; 8) County Engineering Department approval of storm drainage facilities and pavement specifications; 9) This approval does not speak to the proposed sign; 10) Cponty Engineering Department approval of grease and oil retention devices for garage and gas pumps; 11) All parking spaces shall be either 9' X 18' or 10' X 18'and shall have either curbing or bumper blocks 12) Grading permit; 13) Compliance with technical points of Article 17, Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 'Itoe) LANE IMPLEMENT SITE PLAN, continued Mr. Montenegro added that through a misunderstanding between the planning staff and the Highway Department, a correction has been made as to the entrance configuration. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Montenegro if the staff agrees with the Highway Department that this is the best entrance location. Mr. Montenegro stated that there is no good solution, however, the staff does not agree with the Highway Department but will accept their recommendations. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Montenegro if higher landscaping will be required. Mr. Montenegro stated that it would cause problems with sight distance. Mrs. Graves and Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator entered the meeting. Mr. Gayle Pickford stated that in his opinion, the gas pumps would better serve the customers if located in the front of the building. Mr. Pickford asked Mr. Montenegro to explain the technical points of Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Montenegro briefly explained. Mr. Easter asked if there is an easement in front of the property at this time. Mr. Pickford stated no. Mr. Murray suggested that a note be placed on the site plan, as an addendum to condition #2 stating such that easements across- the property are contained in an instrument... and recorded in the clerk's office. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff agrees with Mr. Murray's suggestion. Further, Mr. Murray stated in regard to condition #2, that he would like to ask the Commission to authorize the County Attorney to note the County's review of the document granting the easements. Mr. Lindstrom entered the meeting. Mr. Pickford passed the document to the Commission for their review. Mr. Keeler and Mr. Dick briefly left the meeting. Mr. Easter asked for public comment. Mr. Harry Wright asked Mr. Pickford to briefly summarize the terms of agreement stated in the document. Mr. Pickford stated as follows: The problem that arose was whether or not we could grant an easement on Mr. Lane's behalf for properties to the Star Pic property, which obviously, we can't because we don't have any control over that property. The idea was for Mr. Lane to go ahead and take care of his portion of the property, so far as he could, by granting an easement for the benefit of these parties, not to allow access to Route 29 but to allow access to the Star Pic property so that they could make their own arrangement with Star Pic so that they can get across the Star Pic property to Route 29. Briefly, the conditions are that they will have an easement granted by both Mr. Hatchet and Mr. Lane and contract purchaser, an easement 26' in width to run across the eastern portion which is eventually the site of Lane Implement, Mr. Lane's property, to be used by the owners or their successors with these conditions: they will obtain, on their own from Star Pic an easement across that property; the County Board will approve as a part of their site plan, the use of this easement; At that time, all parties will join into a maintenance agreement for the use of this easement across the property; and that at the time this easement is used, it cannot be used until these other conditions are met, Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Martin will grant a reciprocal_ easement to Star Pic and Mr. Lane back the other way. LANE IMPLEMENT SITE PLAN, continued Mr. Stevenson stated that to obtain uniformity, across the Star Pic property. Mr. Pickford stated that require this. Mr. Montenegro stated that is correct. the easement should go the Commission can't Mr. Easter reiterated that the Commission will require, as recommended by the staff, that the site plan and the deed have a note that easements exist. The Commission is not in the position to obtain an easement for Mr. Stevenson's land through Star Realty. Mr. Stevenson stated that he disagrees. Mr. Pickford stated that Mr. Stevenson must obtain his own easement, as was done in this case. Mr. Easter stated that there is no guarantee, even after the Commission's action, that Star Realty will give Mr. Stevenson's property access. Dr. Moore stated that in his opinion, the gas pumps are in a particulary dangerous location. Mrs. Diehl concurred. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Montenegro if the gas pumps can be located by right. Mr.Montenegro stated yes. Mr. Easter stated that he also has concerns regarding the gas pumps. Mrs. Graves stated that if the gas pumps are permitted, the character of the area will change. Mr. McCann agreed with Dr. Moore. Dr. Moore added that the parking is aimed at the gas pumps. Mr'. Pickford stated that the pumps will be attended; gasoline sales are not primary. Mr. Keeler and Mr. Dick re-entered the meeting. Mr. Vest concurred with Dr. Moore's concerns. Dr. Moore stated that the pumps can be accepted, if relocated. The Commission members agreed. Mr. Huffman moved for approval of this site plan with the thirteen conditions recommended by the staff, and a fourteenth condition, that the gas pumps are to be relocated to the rear of the site for the sale of gasoline to the public. Also, a note is to be placed on the site plan that the properties are subject to an agreement and a deed granting an easement across the property. Mr. Vest seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There were no further comments or discussion. SP-78-13 MILLER, ROBERT J. - Request for Home Occupation, Class B Mr. Miller, the applicant was present. Mr. Keeler read the staff report, stating that the public hearing was opened on this application last week. Three questions arose: 1) Could the Home Occupation be conducted before the home was constructed, 2) Should the Commission require the home to be constructed before the occupation can begin, 3) Is the application properly before the Commission, because the dwelling does not exist on the property. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff maintains the application is properly before the Commission and recommends approval with three conditions: 1) Compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation, Class B; 2) Staff approval of site plan; WWI 3) Construction of a single-family dwelling shall be commenced within 18 months of approval of this petition by the Board of Supervisors and shall thereafter be completed within 12 months. Failure to comply with this condition shall be deemed abandonment of this special use permit and all authority granted herein shall terminate. No conduct of the requested home occupation, including the storage and/or maintenance of machinery related thereto, shall occur on the premises until construction of the "17v SP-78-13 MILLER, ROBERT J. Request for Home Occupation, Class B, CONTINUED Mr. Keeler stated that the third condition will permit Mr. Miller to begin his home occupation at the time he begins construction of the dwelling. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Miller if he is aware of the three conditions imposed by the staff. Mr. Miller stated yes. There was no public comment. Mr. Miller stated that he needs more time. Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission cannot waiver the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Vest roared that the>Commission-recommend approval of this petition with the three conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. McCann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Easter stated that this application will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse. There were no further comments. SP-78-17 GIANNINI, WILLIAM F. - Request for Home Occupation, Class A Mr. Giannini, the applicant was present. Mr. Keeler read the staff report stating that the applicant is requesting Home Occupation, Class A, in which he proposes to make small wooden craft objects and his wife would crochet dollhouse items such as bedspreads. He stated that there will be no employees or sales from the premises; the staff recommends approval of this petition with the following conditions: 1) Compliance with Section 16-44.1, Home Occupation, Class A; 2) Staff approval of site plan. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff has received no objection to the application. The Highway Department requests that the access to the property be from Route 726, which it is. Mrs. Graves moved that this petition be recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Easter stated that this application will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse. There were no further comments. ZMA-78-04 ROSSON, ROBERT D. - Request to rezone 4 acres from RS-1 Residential to A-1 Mr. Rosson, the applicant was present. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report to the Commission noting the history of the property. Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant°is_.requ(ystina that -this property be rezoned to A-1 to permit the continuation of farming activities, and to make legal the recent expansion of his logging operation. In addition, the applicant wishes to continue farming activities and to locate a mobile home. Mr. Keeler stated that none of these uses are permitted in the RS-1 zone. Mr. Keeler noted that the staff has observed that 1) a recent establishment of a large metal shed on parcel 3 constitutes an unlawful expansion of a non- conforming use. As indicated by the Zoning Administrator, rezoning of this property 'i7) ZMA-78-04 ROSSON, ROBERT D., continued could make this use conforming; a site plan would be required. Mr. Keeler stated that this would provide control to the County, in what is, in staff opinion, a currently dangerous and unsightly situation. Mr. Keeler stated that since the time of the writing of the staff report, Mr. Rosson has made great improvements to this property. Mr. Dick stated that he had made inspection of the property two weeks ago and concurs with Mr. Keeler. 2) The staff disagrees with the County action of 1971, in which this property was rezoned to RS-1, since it is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan's density recommendations. 3) In a telephone conversa- tion, the Health Department indicated that septic permits had been denied in portions of this subdivision. Mr. Keeler read a letter from Mr. Coburn, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation stating that a commercial entrance will be required and enough of the site gravelled to prevent further tracking of mud to the highway system. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommends approval of this petition. Mrs. Diehl asked if the setback is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dick stated yes. Mr. Rosson stated that other improvements will be done to the site. Mr. Easter asked what is existing on the property. Mr. Dick stated there are two mobile homes and machine shed, both non -conforming. Mr. Easter asked if there will be individual wells and septic systems. Mr. Rosson stated yes. Mr. Dick added that the lots of record will later become mobile home sites for his daughter. There were no public comments. Mr. Dick added that a site plan will be required. He stated that another special use permit will not be granted for another mobile home on this property. Mrs. Graves moved that this petition be recommended for approval as suggested by the staff. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Easter added that this petition will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse. There were no further comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS: SP-78-21 GEORGE S. HOWARD - Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. George S. Howard has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a Home Occupation Class B on 200 acres zoned A-1, Agriculture. Property is known as Red Brook and is located on the northwest side of Route 627 on the east slope of Carter's Mountain, and approximately 10 miles southwest of Charlottesville, County Tax Map 102, Parcels 36 and 37A, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Don Wagner, architect and Mr. George Howard, the applicant were present. Mr. Keeler stated that all property in vicinity of the site is in tracts of greater than 50 acres. The closest dwelling is about � mile away. The applicant proposes to operate a cabinetry shop in an existing out -building. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommends approval of this petition subject to two conditions: 1) Compliance with requirements of Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation, Class B; 2) Staff approval of site plan. SP-78-21 GEORGE S. HOWARD, continued Mr. Keeler stated that the staff has received a letter from Mr. Klumpp, an adjoining property owner, indicating no objection to this application, provided that, a) it is set back from Route 627 so that it does detract from the rural character!-, of the countryside, b) it is a part of the present Howard Ifto building complex. The Klumpps stated however, that if granting this application means that the door will be opened for commercial development, they strongly object. Mr. Easter asked for public comment. There was none. Mrs. Diehl stated that other services will be provided as stated by the applicant - will these uses be provided for :in Home Occupation Class B. Mr. Keeler stated that we do not know what these services will be. Mr. McCann stated that being involved in lumber activities could result in commercial operation. Mr. Howard stated that he will only be involved with lumber for small cabinet use. Mr. Easter asked if approval of a site plan is necessary. Mr. Keeler stated that it is required by the ordinance. He added that appropriate entrances are required by the Highway Department. Mr. McCann moved that this application be recommended for approval as presented by the staff with two conditions: 1) Compliance with requirements of Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation, Class B, and 2) Staff approval of a site plan. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Keeler stated that this application will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Wednesday, June 7, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Court- house. There were no further comments. The Commission recessed for ten minutes. SP-78-22 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. - has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a 315 multi -family apartment complex, along with 8,000 square feet of professional office space and 29 individual lots on 21.61 acres zoned R-3 Residential. Property is located just west of the city line between Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road and adjacent to the Westgate and Solomon Court properties. County Tax Map 61, Parcels 42A, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report. Mr. Don Wagner and Mr. Chuck Rotgin were present. Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that the staff feels that this property would be best developed by designing a residential complex which would offer transi- tional development between the existing neighborhoods and the high density apartments. Townhouses, duplexes or patio houses would require good transitional development. 10S SP-78-22 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., continued Mr. Montenegro continued, stating that the high density apartments should be located in a central location with the recreational facilities at the top of the hill near the entrance off Georgetown Road. The staff also feels that critical slopes and drainage swales should be left in their present state and that all the units should be sighted to minimize the impact on existing vegetation. Finally, the staff feels that the adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhoods could be minimized by orienting the entire project toward a central location with all new development having access exclusively from Georgetown Road. This position is supported by comments of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Staff opinion is that this application is supportable given that the three concerns are satisfied. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Super- visors choose to approve this request, the staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Site Plan approval; 2. County Engineering Department approval of adequate on -site and off -site drainage facilities; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities and adequate dedication for a 60 foot right-of-way along the Route 656 frontage; 4. All proposed residential development, other than those sections already approved,are to have access directly from Route 656 only. Mr. Montenegro presented Comparative Impact Statistics and Traffic Generation reports to the Commission. In addition, the staff report consisted of a letter received of Charles M. Rotgin, Jr., dated April 25, 1978 enclosing his final site plan of this development, letters of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportations' recommendations, and a letter from an adjacent property owner expressing concerns as to the impact of this development. Mr. Montenegro also presented signed copies of the Hessian Hills Homeowners' statement of intent of impact, etc. Mrs. Diehl stated that at the time of the writing of the staff report, the office parcel had not yet been subdivided. She asked Mr. Montenegro if the subdivision of this parcel will increase the density. Mr. Montenegro stated yes, 2-3 units per acre. Mr. Charles Rotgin gave his presentation to the Commission. He first showed the Commission a tax map outlining the area of Hessian Hills, with Bennington Road Bennington Court and the Mowinckle tract. Mr. Rotgin told the Commission that Great Eastern Managements' interest in this property has been generated by two factors, the first of which is the proposed realignment of Hydraulic Road, and secondly, Great Eastern shares a concern with those members of the public present at this meeting about the possibilities of what can be developed on this piece of property. Mr. Rotgin stated that he is greatly concerned about the sizeable dollar investment that Great Eastern has to the north and to the east of the Mowinckle tract; it is Great Eastern's attempt to protect its' future and at the same time to protect the interest of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Rotgin presented an as -built survey of the Westgate Apartment complex showing Hydraulic Road running to the north and the portion of Hydraulic Road that will be used for the proposed realignment. Mr. Rotgin stated that Great Eastern q74 SP-78-22 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., continued would like to be in a position to support the Highway Department if the public hearing process is endured in order to set up the acquisition for right-of-way in that area. He stated that the only way Great Eastern can support this is that they will have to have some place else to put the recreation and parking area that will be taken by this right-of-way. Mr. Rotgin presented a site plan showing an initial conceptual layout of the Mowinckle property. He stated that this is the second of two special use permits applied for, for this property. He stated that the first plan was withdrawn because of Great Eastern's concern about protecting their interest, in addition, protecting the interest of the property owners involved in this applica- tion. Mr. Rotgin stated that since this withdrawal, Great Eastern has been working to design a plan, concentrating on the lower portion of the property. Mr. Rotgin presented a drawing, showing this portion. Mr. Payne entered the meeting. Mr. Rotgin added that Great Eastern is particularly concerned about the 12-15 lots which directly abutt the Mowinckle property: the lots along Solomon Road, 4-5 lots along Bennington Court and the few lots that are on the other side of the road along Bennington. For this reason , Great Eastern feels that the Bennington access ought to be allowed. Mr. Rotgin stated that the development of this property must make sense economically. He stated that the property is currently under estate, subject to a large six figure mortgage; the property must be sold to liquidate the mortgage. He stated further that this property has been zoned R-3 for 10 years and demands multi -family development. Mr. Rotgin stated that there are three different interests regarding the development of this property. The residents of Solomon Road are concerned about what will back right up to their houses. The Bennington Road and perhaps the Bennington Court residents are concerned about the traffic impact on Bennington, Inglewood, Woodstock, Angus and Georgetown Roads. The residents of Georgetown Road are concerned about the expansion of Georgetown Road to four lanes. Mr. Rotgin presented a schematic preliminary site plan, dividing the property into lots, as was desired by Mr. St.John & placing houses on those lots, showing setbacks, the orientation of the houses. In reference to the Bennington Road access, Mr. Rotgin passed plats to the Commission showing Road and a temporary turnaround on Solomon Road. He called the Commission's attention to the wording on the Bennington Road temporary turnaround. He stated that at one time, Angus Road also had a temporary turnaround. Mr. Rotgin stated further that in conversation with Mr. Walter Cushman, he indicated that on more than one occasion, he had attempted to purchase the Mowinckle property, planning to carry the road from Bennington to Hydraulic Road. Mr. Rotgin continued, stating that as to the legality of that access being available, Great Eastern has gone as far as the Virginia Supreme Court case history to investigate such. In reference to the rear yard setbacks, it will be impossible to provide a 100' buffer as suggested for the benefit of the Solomon Road property owners. Mr. Rotgin stated that in reference to the impact of traffic on the neighborhood as a result of this development, he introduced Mr. Lucius Bracey, a representative of Great Eastern Management Company, with the Law Office of McGuire, Woods and Battle. 1/75 SP-78-22 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., continued Mr. Bracey introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Bracey stated that the reason for his studies involving the traffic impact problem is to clarify the misconceptions that the Hessian Hills residents have derived of the staff report. Mr. Bracey stated that the comparison that is drawn in the neighborhood association letter between 133 v.t.p.d. to 533 with this development and the 371% increase stems from the figure in the Planning Staff's report of 133 v.t.p.d. by a 1976 count. Mr. Bracey stated that it is important to realize that that count took place north of the intersection of Bennington Road stub with Inglewood Drive Mr. Bracey stated that the traffic count along Bennington Road is 420-425 v.t.p.d. The count on Bennington where it enters Barracks Road is 689 v.t.p.d. If it were assumed that all '_ha traffic generated by those 60 dwelling units were going to come out from that stub and all the way through Bennington, then the average count would be increased to 840 v.t.p.d., the count on Bennington just prior to its intersection with Barracks Road to about 1100 cars per day, one case being a 200% increase and the other a 150% increase. Mr. Bracey stated that these figures can be compared with the outrageous incorrect conclusion of the property owners at a 371% increase. Mr. Bracey stated further that both the Planning Staff and the Highway Department have indicated that they feel that when Georgetown Road is improved, 80% of the traffic coming off of this stub and from the 60 dwelling units, will turn right on Inglewood Drive and go to Georgetown Road. If this assumption is accurate, then 20% of that traffic will go down Bennington. If this 20% is applied to the traffic generated by the 60 dwelling units, the present Bennington count is increased from 420 to 500 v.t.p.d. and the increase of the Bennington count at the end of Bennington Road at the intersection of Barracks Road from 699 to 780 v.t.p.d., in one case this is a 20% increase, and the other a 13% increase. That does not take into consideration any traffic that might turn left on Inglewood Drive, if it were, 5 to 10% of traffic from Inglewood East and about 5 to 10% from Bennington would be added. Mr. Bracey stated that in reference to the Bennington stub, the traffic generated at this time is 133 v.t.p.d. The short segment of Inglewood left turn would probably not pick up more traffic coming out of Hessian Hills. Mr. Bracey stated further that in discussions with the Highway Department, it has been indicated that they will recommend 2" of stone be added to Bennington or that planting should be added. Mr. Bracey concluded, stating that the 37 % increase of traffic impact is merely a myth and not a reality. Mr. Rotgin concluded his presentation stating that Great Eastern's arguments for supporting a compromise on that 711 acres of Mowinckle tract is based on the desire for a lesser density type development in order to benefit the adjacent property owners. Mr. Rotgin stated that Great Eastern does not have to have approval to develop this property. As was previously indicated, the property can be developed in a multi -family manner. Mr. Rotgin stated further that if too much opposition is received from the property owners, the application for this special use permit will be withdrawn and Great Eastern will submit a site plan as was previously anticipated'. Because of the existing ordinances and their relation to multi -family development, any development on this R-3 property will require a tremendous amount of landscape work. Mr. Rotgin stated that Great Eastern has explored other development possibilities with the adjoining property owners, the staff and the resident highway engineer. Regardless, he stated that the 371% increase in traffic won't happen. Mr. Easter asked for comments from members of the public. Gary Kendall: A representative of the law firm Michie,Hamlett, Donato and Lowry stated that he is representing a substantial number of homeowners in the Hessian Hills area. Mr. Kendall stated that it his opinion this application for special use permit should be deferred until the homeowners of the Hessian Hills area can adequately review the compromise proposal submitted by Mr. Rotgin tonight. Further, he suggested that the Commission allow the public to speak to this application, then defer it and in relation to Chapter 11-3.2 & 3 of the ordinance, guarantee a compromise that would be in the best interest of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Kendall added that he is representing the petition previously passed to the members of the Commission signed by members of the Hessian Hills Homeowners' Association. Mr. Montenegro stated that there are a total of nine petitions for the Commission's review, all of which state the same thing, basically. Bill Zeer: a resident of Old Forge Road, located off of Georgetown Road. Mr. Zeer stated that consideration should be given not only to the marginal increase of this particular development but how it contributes to what seems to be a growing highly dangerous situation for the Homeowner's of Georgetown Road and possibly Bennington. He stated that he had written a letter to a Supervisor concerning the issue of directing traffic up through the Hessian Hills and to relieve some of the pressure from Georgetown Road. This letter was forwarded to the Highway Department whose response has not yet been received. Further, Mr. Zeer stated that Georgetown Road has no shoulders, it is a primary access for children to the complex of schools; he stated that he had seen a jogger face -down in the ditch a couple of weeks ago who had been hit by a driver on that road. There had been an event at Jack Jouett that evening and a number of children were walking down the road. There is no place to walk along that road. Further, the curve is very dangerous, a few teenagers were killed there a few years ago; there are new skid marks at least once a week on that curve. Mr. Zeer suggested that the Commission delay consideration of this proposal in order that a representative from the Highway Department can be present to address the whole plan for traffic flow in this area, through the Hessian Hills area. Mr. Easter stated that there are plans for a traffic light at the corner of Georgetown and Hydraulic Road and Georgetown and Barracks Road in the near future. Mr. Easter asked for further public comment. Mr. Lindstrom stated that it is his understanding that at this time the Highway Department is negotiating on Hydraulic Road with a company related to Mr. Rotgin, which has caused delay in improvements. Ellen Nash: Mrs. Nash introduced herself to the Commission, stating that she is one of the executors of the estate of Kate W. Mowinckle. She stated that the estate has to sell this property, it has been zoned R-3 for 10 years. Mrs. Nash stated that Mrs. Mowinckle died a year ago, there is an indebtness of $155,000. to pay to the bank, taxes must be paid on this property, which is the whole estate of Mrs. Mowinckle. She stated that there is no reason, in her opinion, that this property shouldn't be developed, the County has appraised it at $400,000 or more. Sam Cleveland: Mr. Cleveland introduced himself to the Commission stating that he is representative of Ronald and Regena Bosewell, whose property abutts the purple area of the map. He stated that the argument that is being dealt with can be broken down into two fundamental issues one being the access to this property and the other, the transitional barrier of zoning between this development and the property that borders of single-family development. Mr. Cleveland stated that basically, he commends the developer for his interest in trying to work with the property owners involved in this issue. He stated that in reference to access, even though this property is zoned for X number of units per acre according to what is being developed, that doesn't prove that that zoning is 41'7� SP-78-22 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., continued Sam Cleveland, continued: also dependent on access; it does not prove that access has to be given to this property. Mr. Cleveland asked Mr. Payne, if the width of roadway is now essential for this property, is it legal to develop the property to the density proposed. Mr. Easter stated that if the developer can get access to the highway and put in the kind of entrance required by the Highway Department, then it can be developed according to the zoning of the property. Mr. Payne stated that is correct. Mr. Cleveland stated that it seems there would be a requirement to upgrade certain roadways that are current access to the property, whosever responsibility that will be. He stated that another question is how the traffic will be generated on Bennington Road. There will be approximately 400 more vehicles per day travelling that road; Georgetown should be upgraded prior to this development's approval. Mr. Cleveland asked why the Hydraulic Road access has been blocked off by a permit for future development. He stated that this would be the most obvious point of access for this proposal. He stated further that consideration should be given to the continuity of the neighborhood and/or barrier or buffer zone between this development and the Hessian Hills area. This development is being considered on a very steep slope which will probably destroy some of the wooded area. He stated that a natural buffer could be provided. Mr. Cleveland concluded his comments. Woody McGill: a resident of 202 Bennington Road. Mr. McGill stated that in the interest of time, his suggestion to the Commission is to defer consideration of this proposal until such time the people involved in this issue can further review exactly what is being proposed. Mr. McCann stated that he would like to hear further public.comment. Other members of the Commission agreed. Mr.McGill stated that he is representing his neighborhood association, consisting of approximately 85 homeowners. He presented a map to the Commission showing the area of Inglewood Drive at the end of Bennington Road down to Barracks Road and Wood- stock. He stated that in 1971, Barracks Road was designated as a major collector road. It was recently four laned and divided, plus recent exit ramps off Route 250 West by-pass have been constructed proving the amount of traffic heading west on Barracks Road. He stated that whenever a car exits from Bennington Road onto Barracks Road and wants to turn east, it has to pass over westbound traffic and mesh into eastbound traffic, there is no traffic light there. Mr. McGill stated that this situation will become more prevelent as Barracks Road West is developed. Mr. McGill continued, stating that the neighborhood association supports the Planning Staff and Highway Department recommendations that all major development of the Mowinckle tract exit onto Georgetown Road connector road, which is a lower constant speed than Barracks Road at a place where the road is level, straight and visibility is good. Then traffic will have a safer entry to major connector roads by traffic lights. The general interior road system within Woodstock, Inglewood, Bennington and Gilford Lane are, by nature, slow traffic roads. Mr. McGill stated that he would like to conclude his comments later in the meeting. Edward White: owner of Lot 4, corner of Bennington Court and Bennington Road. Mr. White reiterated to the Commission the dangerous traffic situation in this area. " His main concern was for the children awaiting transportation to school. He passed pictures to the Commission showing the situation at different times of the day. q 16 SP-78-22 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., continued Bill Kempsey: owner of Lot 6, corner of Bennington Court and Bennington Road. Mr. Kempsey stated that the character of the neighborhood will be changed if this property is developed; the owners of houses along this road bought this property because of its' seclusion and quiet nature of the area. He stated that the property value will also be lowered. Bob Tabner: Mr. Tabner stated that he would like to discuss the possibility of an alternate plan of development for this property. In brief, Mr. Tabner stated that there should be review of other possibilities of development. There are many that can be considered, in his opinion. McGill concluded, stating that he would also like to see an alternate plan. William Pleasants: Mr. Pleasants introduced himself to the Commission stating that he is representative of the Solomon Court Homeowners' Association. He stated that he is the first homeowner along Solomon Road, having purchased his property in 1962. He stated that the residents of Solomon Road are 100% in favor of Mr. Rotgin's proposal. He noted that there is a petition on file, in favor of this application. Mr. Bob Wayland presented this petition to the Commission. Gaye Johnson Blair: Ms. Blair introduced herself to the Commission stating that she is a resident of Georgetown Road. She stated that she is also concerned about the traffic problem that will result from this development. Mrs. Blair stated that her neighbor, the late Mr. Robert Lee also expressed his opinion that Georgetown Road should be widened. Mrs. Blair stated that she did not receive notification of this meeting tonight and would prefer that the Commission defer this application until further review can be made. Marshall Shumsky: a resident of 203 Bennington Road. Mr. Shumsky stated that he is also concerned about the traffic problem. He stated that he feels it to be important that the overall traffic problem be of high consideration to the Commission. A member of the public, not stating his name_ He asked if the traffic computation figures in the staff report are accurate to Mr. Bracey's knowledge. Mr. Bracey stated yes. This person was generally concerned that an alternate plan should be presented to the Commission. Mr. Rotgin stated that he can assure everyone that whatever plan is agreed upon, it will provide adequate protection for the interest of the residents for restrictions imposed by the Planning Commission or the Board or recorded easements which limit the use of the property in that area. Mr. Rotgin stated that if this agreement is a compromise, the residents can be absolutely assured that that is the way the property will be developed. Mr. Easter closed the public hearing. He asked for the Commission's comments. Mrs. Graves stated that she is concerned that if a compromise is reached, who will be responsible for the improvements of the roads. Mr. Rotgin stated that Great Eastern has suggested an alternate plan to some of the members of the associations which seems to be agreeable. Mr. Easter stated that the Commission has not seen that plan. Mr. Rotgin stated that it has reduced density, single-family attached and quadraplexs for sale. Mr. Rotgin stated that the problem is that if the property is developed in the manner which is proposed, in order to make it economically feasible, 60 dwelling units SP-78-22 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., continued were required to be provided according to present ordinances. Mr. Rotgin stated that Great Eastern has proposed to some of the residents, provided the Planning Commission and Board will allow the extension of Bennington under the same specifications that currently exist (and all the other roads in Hessian Hills), that the density will be reduced to 36 units. Mr. Rotgin asked the Commission what their feelings would be if Great Eastern came back with a compromise proposal which required a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Payne if it is possible for the Commission to make that kind.of waiver and be within the law. Mr. Payne stated that it would be proper in a particular case, however it would not be proper for the Commission to commit itself to waiving a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance which is already a subdivision and not before us. Dr. Moore asked if this road is presently in the State System and does it meet current standards. Mr. Montenegro explained that State maintenance ends just before the temporary turnaround. Mr. Easter stated that consideration should be given to the possibility of a waiver. Mr. Payne stated that if this situation merits a waiver, it should be applied for. Mr. Easter urged the developer and members of the homeowners' associations to get together and decide on a compromise agreeable to everyone. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Tucker if an RPN application could affectuate this plan. Mr. Tucker stated that an RPN application was the staff's original recommendation to the developer. He stated that the developer decided to apply for a special use permit instead, due to the cost of preparing detailed plans for an RPN. Mr. Tucker explained the procedure for applying for an RPN application. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Rotgin why he had not applied for an RPN. Mr. Rotgin stated that the RPN presents a problem. On a "for sale" basis, a homeowners' association agreement will be required, which isn't exactly feasible. Mrs. Graves added that she would like to see how the lots will be developed. Mr. Montenegro stated that this would require a site plan. Mr. Rotgin added that this development is proposed to be served by public water. Mr. Montenegro stated that this application can be deferred until June 6. Mr. Rotgin stated that he cannot wait that long. He reiterated his previous comments, concluding his presentation. Mr. Huffman moved that this application be deferred until the Planning Commission of May 30, 1978. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There was no further discussion. ZMA-78-06 HAMLETT, LEROY/MICHIE, THOMAS J. - have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone just under 5 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. W.W.4,Electronics is located on this property. The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium -density �8a ZMA-78-06 HAMLETT, LEROY/MICHIE, THOMAS J., continued residential use in this area. Mr. Keeler, presenting the staff report, stated that the staff supports this rezoning request for B-1 since it complies with adjacent zoning and notes that the B-1 designation does not bring WWW Electronics into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Leroy Hamlett was present. Mr. Hamlett stated that this rezoning is being requested in order to get refinancing of the building on this property. He stated that he is fully aware if the present building should burn down, reconstruction can not occur. Mr. John Hall, adjacent owner, stated that he has no objection to this proposal. Mrs. Graves moved that this application be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Vest seconded, the motion, which carried 7-0. Mr. Easter obstained. There were no further comments. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Montenegro stated four changes have taken place since the approval of the Albemarle Square Phase III Site Plan: 1) the dumpsters have been relocated to the rear of the site; 2) lighting standards do not interfere with parking; 3) one planter box has been moved due to a problem with the drop inlet; 4) the cross section of the road was narrowed from 35' to 321. In reference to the Hardee's Site Plan, the surveyor has made a grave error in sighting the building when it was actually constructed. It was located 7' too far,consequently part of the parking lot had to be pushed backward toward the right-of-way. There has been an actual 8' shift in the building and the parking lot. ja/ Since there was no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.