HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 17 81 PC MinutesIR
March 17, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 17, 1981, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building,
Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma
Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove, Mr. Richard
Cogan, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Miss Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner. Absent
from the meeting were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. Allen Kindrick.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting
to order.
Fruit Growers Complex Site Plan - Request indefinite deferral.
Mr. Skove moved for indefinite deferral of this site plan.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
River Heiqhts Hotel and Office Center Site Plan - deferred from February 17, 1981.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt, representative for Virginia Department of Highways
& Transportation, if he had any comment concerning this site plan.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he would respond to any questions.
Mr. Wood, the applicant, pointed out the following changes which would occur
if the rezoning request was approved:
o the buildings would be located further back on the property;
• the tennis courts would be oriented in a north -south direction;
• a row of parking along the front would be deleted.
Mr. Wood explained the layout of the complex to the Commissioners. He stated
that he did not want to do any extensive damage to the environment. Mr. Wood
described for the Commissioners the road plans for the existing crossover at
Real Estate III which would also serve the residential area behind the hotel
complex. Mr. Wood stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission
might have.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roudabush if he had any comments.
Mr. Roudabush stated that in his opinion the applicant has responded to all
the concerns expressed by the Commission at the February 17, 1981 meeting.
/66"-
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this site plan was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to have some traffic generation figures
for the residential zoned area located behind this site.
Mr. Roudabush presented to the Commission a diagram which showed the anticipated
traffic volume from the residential area. He noted that there were no plans to
develop this land for residential use at this time. He also pointed out some
alternative locations for the entrance road.
Mr. Roudabush explained how the traffic volume figures were generated stating
that a certain percentage of usable land was assigned to each of these sites
and traffic volume was based on this percentage. He also stated that some of the
property that is zoned R-15 can be used to its ultimate designation, however
other areas could be built up to only 50% because of severe slopes. Based on this
diagram, traffic generation rates, and a publication used by the highway department,
a projected traffic generation for each parcel shown on this diagram was derived.
Mr. Roudabush presented the following traffic projections:
• for the highway commercial and commercial zoning, the 250 room hotel at
10.5 vehicles per day -per room, times 60% occupancy rate, the projection
is 1,785 vehicles per day;
• for the 100,000 square foot office building a traffic generation of
12.3 per 1,000 square feet per day per square foot, the projection
is 1,230 vehicles per day;
• for the 4.59 acre parcels a 20% building coverage for the entire site
times 80 vehicles per 1000 square feet of retail use, the projection
is 1,600 vehicle trips per day;
• for the remaining highway commercial area, the 4.13 acre parcel, a 20%
building coverage, allowing only 10% of the traffic to enter from the
rear entrance;
• for the remaining R-15 property, a 15 dwelling units per acre and a
traffic volume of 5.4 vehicles per day -per unit which is the rate
published for medium rise apartment buildings.
The total traffic volume derived was 9,687 vehicle trips per day. On the cross
section for the entrance road, which is shown on the plan submitted to the
highway department, the lane widths were designed for over 12,000 vehicle trips
per day. This design then is more than adequate.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt what he felt the traffic generation figures might
be for the commercial office and highway commercial zoned portion of the property.
Mr. Roosevelt replied about 3,000 vehicles per day.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt if the information supplied to the highway
department by the applicant was adequate to determine whether the road plans
are sufficient.
91
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the traffic generation figures have not been officially
submitted to the highway department, noting that he thought the figure was in the
12,000 per day range for the entrance to the hotel from Route 29. He also
stated that before the highway department could accept the road designs, the
traffic generation figures would have to be submitted and reviewed. He stated
that the horizontal and vertical alignment could be obtained. With reference
to the cross section, Mr. Roosevelt stated that whether the design was adequate
or would require additional turn lanes or widening of the four lane sections
would be determined at a later date.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt if in his opinion the initial generation figure
of 3,000 vehicles per day would warrant the installation of traffic signals.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he would have to review the traffic generation figures
before he could answer this, noting that he would like to have the opinion of
more experienced people who work with traffic figures.
Mr. Bowerman asked what was the traffic generation figure for Fashion Mall.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that on the south intersection the figure was 6,000 cars
per day on the side street. He also noted that the general warrant for a traffic
signal to be installed is that the side streets must generate one hundred and
fifty vehicles per hour for eight out of twelve hours. He stated that the
main line traffic for this site would meet this requirement but he did not know
what the side traffic would be.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the installation of traffic signals was a responsibility
of the state of Virginia.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that this would be a requirement of the entrance permit.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained if traffic lights were required this would be a part of
the approval of Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation for the com-
mercial entrance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the removal of the berm in the middle of the highway
would be part of the entrance permit.
Mr. Skove stated that the road could be built to state standards and that in
his opinion the concerns raised by the Commission at their meeting of February
17 have been met.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the letter from the County Engineer regarding soil erosion
states that soil erosion problems could be addressed but noted that this could
still be a significiant problem.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if the Commission feels that there is sufficient concern
regarding soil erosion and runoff control to warrant special attention by the
zoning Administrator, a letter could be sent pointing out that these conditions
were evident and directing him to pay particular attention to this site during
the course of developemnt.
AO /
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to add the following condition to the
conditions of approval for this site plan:
• No grading permit to be issued until the following conditions have been
complied with:
1. County Engineer approval of road plans;
2. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and curbing
around all paved areas;
3. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
4. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
5. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportations approval of a
commercial entrance and road plans for acceptance and maintenance
into the state highway system.
Mr. Wood stated that this condition proposed by Mr. Bowerman would require full
engineering drawings for the road and requirements from the highway department
concerning the signal light. These are just some of the problems being put on
the developer. He further stated that the highway department would not issue a
permit until the road is built to their specifications. He asked the Commission
to consider what they are trying to do and to realize that by requiring this con-
dition he might be unable to start construction during this building season.
Mr. Bowerman explained to Mr. Wood that he could become involved in the construction
of the project without having complied with all of these conditions. He also
stated that this site plan might have to come before the Commission for a
variance based upon problems that Mr. Wood might encounter as construction
commenced. He stated that he understood Mr. Wood's position but felt that
these proposed conditions are critical to the development of the entire site,
critical to the flow of traffic along Route 29 and the access to the site,
critical in terms of safety, and in his opinion should be addressed prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
Mr. Wood stated that the concerns of Mr. Bowerman's are already conditions of
approval that must be complied with before the building permit will be issued.
He pointed out that some of these conditions could take months to be met and the
building season will have passed.,
Mr. Bowerman stated that the timing of this project is not the concern of the
Commission.
Mr. Wood stated that he understood this, but he is asking for the cooperation
of the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt how long, in his opinion, it would take to get
an approval for the commercial entrance and road plans from the highway department.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that a set of road plans could be approved when all the
necessary information was submitted.
Mrs. Diehl asked what would be a reasonable estimate of the time required by
the highway department to review plans submitted.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that theoretically the road plans could be approved
within a month's period of time.
/G`s
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Wood if he is concerned only with condition #n of the
staff report. (CONDITION #N: The Virginia Department of Highways & Trans-
portation approval of a commercial entrance and road plans for acceptance and
maintenance into the State Highway System).
Mr. Bowerman stated he wants the best development in terms of public health and
safety and the needs of the County, etc. possible to take place. He also stated
that he is aware of the hardship this.puts on the developer, but noted that in
February the Commission require that information be submitted concerning the road
plans. He noted that the traffic generation figures were not submitted to the
highway department and Mr. Roosevelt had to give an opinion that the road could
be built based upon the horizontal and vertical alignment.
Mr. Cogan asked if the conditions mentioned by Mr. Bowerman could be enforced
by other offices in the County. He stated that a grading permit could not
be obtained until the applicant can show that he is in compliance with the Soil
Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there have been occassions where grading permits have
been issued without some of the ground work being completed. He pointed out that
by flagging this "with no grading permit to be issued" it puts the Zoning
Administrator on notice that he is to pay particular attention to this site.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is concerned about the amount of traffic generated
at the site and at what point would a traffic signal be reviewed. He pointed
out that an additional 3,000 vehicle trips per day will be generated from this
site. He feels that this should be addressed at the onset before this becomes
a major intersection.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the concerns of Mr. Bowerman would be addressed if
traffic signals were required as a condition of approval.
Mr. Davis stated that he agrees with Mr. Bowerman that County Engineer approval
of road plans, County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and curbing
around all paved areas, and compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance
should be complied with before the grading permit is issued. He further stated
that in his opinion it is too stringent a condition to require Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial entrance and road plans
for acceptance and maintenance into the State Highway System, prior to issuing
a grading permit. He noted that Mr. Roosevelt's assurance that the road can be
built was sufficient to him.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there is some question as to when the traffic signals
will be installed.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that this depends on the number of vehicles, the direction
of the traffic, etc. He pointed out that with the right turn on red, a right
turn in and out of the site would allow for better traffic flow. He stated
that more analysis was needed to determine the need for a signal light.
M
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the highway department would receive the traffic
generation figures before any approval were given and that the conditon
"traffic signals are required (if necessary)" is acceptable to the highway
department.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he is concerned with the approval of the entrance required
prior to the issuance of a grading permit. He stated that the highway department
has an agreement with Albemarle County to inspect all roads that are built to
be taken into the state system. He noted that this agreement indicates that the
highway department will be advised by the County once the plans have been approved,
then the highway department's inspection begins. Mr. Roosevelt stated that if
grading permits are issued before the plans are approved, the highway department
has to either inspect the subdivision or refuse to inspect the subdivision until
the plans are approved. As far as having the roads approved before they are
added to the system, this can be handled in the recommended conditions of the
Staff.
Mr. Wood stated that they would use an existing entrance to begin construction
work such as pouring footings, etc. Mr. Wood noted that Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation has the final approval as to whether the road plans
are acceptable. He again asked for the cooperation of the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there are buildings under roof at this time where the
conditions on the final plat Have iiot Leu--n complied with. He noted that these
buildings are occupied with temporary occupancy permits because a occupancy permit
could not be issued until all the conditions of the final plat have been
complied with.
Mr. Skove reiterated that the Commission is concerned about the following
conditions:
• County Engineer approval of road plans;
• County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and curbing around
all paved areas;
• Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
• Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
• Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance and road plans for acceptance and maintenance into the State
Highway System.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like assurance that all the major concerns
would be dealt with prior to the completion of the project. He stated that he
felt all the necessary information had not been submitted which would allow the
Commission to make a valid judgement.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that Mr. Bowerman was concerned about any major revisions
taking place after the project was begun.
Mr. Cogan asked if the grading permit is issued prior to meeting the above
stated conditions could the Commission stipulate that no major revisions
of the site plan would be accepted.
Mr. Payne replied that the applicant has the right to submit a revision
which must be evaluated on the facts that exist at the time it is submitted.
The Commission could inform the applicant that in their opinion this is how
the plan should be built and that any revisions must be of absolute necessity.
Mrs. Diehl stated that once grading has begun the damage has been done to the
site and possibly to the environment. She stated that in her opinion it is a
valid request to ask that no grading permit be issued until these four conditions
have been met.
Mr. Cogan stated that a grading permit could not be issued until condition #L
has been met. (CONDITION #L: Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance).
Mr. Wood stated that a condition could read: "No grading permit to be issued
in the area of the commercial entrance until item #N of the staff report has been
complied with. (CONDITION #N: The Virginia Department of Highways & Transp-
portation approval of a commercial entrance and road plans for acceptance and
maintenance into the State Highway System).
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that these would be acceptable conditions.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this would be acceptable as long as the Commission
made it perfectly clear that the final entrance must be in the approximate
location of what is shown on the site plan.
Mrs. Diehl stated that a condition could be added to read as follows:
• No grading permits to be approved for this area of the entrance as
outlined on the site plan until all information has been received by
the highway department and condition #n of the staff report has been
complied with. (CONDITION #N: The Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation approval of a commercial entrance and road plans for
acceptance and maintenance into the State Highway System).
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the existing entrance (an entrance to a dirt road)
did not require any grading and could be used during construction by the
applicant.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the following was to be added to the conditions
of approval:
CONDITION O: No grading permit to be issued until the following conditions
have been complied with: (g) County Engineer approval of road
plans; (j) County Engineer approval of pavement specifications
and curbing around all paved areas; (k) Compliance with the
Stormwater Detention Ordinance; (1) Compliance with the Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
CONDITION P: No clearing and or grading of that portion of the site in the
location of the proposed permanent entrance road until the
applicant shall have complied with condition 1-N of this
approval.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that because heat pumps will be used a permit from the
State Air Pollution Control Board will not be required.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if a condition could be added to read: "if heat
pumps are not used as the energy source then a permit from the State Air
Pollution Board will be required.
Mr. Payne stated that the condition of approval could state: "must be in
compliance with the requirements of the State Air Pollution Control Board."
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Staff had mentioned the possibility of an easement
along the river for a bike path and she thought the Commission should discuss
this.
Mr. Skove stated that he was in favor of this and asked Mr. Wood if there
would be a problem in granting the easement.
Mr. Wood stated that the representatives of Hilton feel that it would not be
wise to have a public access across the property. He noted that with a public
easement one could not control ingress or egress onto the property.
Mr. Wood stated that it is a condition that construction must be commenced
within six months of site plan approval and noted that this could be a problem
due to difficulties in meeting the condition concerning the highway department.
(CONDITION #N: Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance and road plans for acceptance and maintenance into the State
Highway System).
Mr. Bowerman stated that this should not be a problem because according to
Mr. Wood's previous statements ground will be broken immediately.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Wood if he was aware that to condition #d of the staff
report the Commission had added "to show all proposed jogging paths".
(CONDITION #D: Staff approval of a detailed landscape plan, to include
screening from Rt. 29N).
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Note the zoning of the area within the floodplain;
b. Note that the above area is "Open Space - Not to be Disturbed";
C. Submit a 40' = 1" scale site plan;
d. Staff approval of a detailed landscape plan, to include screening from
Rt. 29N, and to show all proposed jogging paths;
e. Note and record an easement on the entrance road;
f. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement on the entrance road;
g. County Engineer approval of road plans;
h. Fire Official approval of emergency access routes around the hotel,
if necessary;
i. Note that buildings over 35' in height must be certified by a Fire
Protection Engineer and approved by the Fire Official;
j. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and curbing around
all paved areas;
k. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
1. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
m. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
n. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance and road plans for acceptance and maintenance
into the State Highway System;
o. No grading permit will be issued until conditions l(g), 1(j), l(k),
and 1(1) of this approval are met;
i%Z
p. There is to be no clearing or grading of that portion of the site in
the location of the proposed permanent entrance until the applicant
shall have complied with condition 1(n) of this approval;
q. Compliance with the regulations of the State Air Pollution Control
Board.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition
has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: LETTER TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Staff had suggested that the Commission send a
letter to the Zoning Administrator expressing concern about the sensitivity
of this site and requesting special attention from his office.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was in favor of sending a letter to the Zoning
Administrator expressing the Commission's concerns.
Mr. Cogan stated that due to the size of the grading operation and the sites
proximity to the river, he agrees that this site should be checked closely.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any way the Commission could request feedback
from the Zoning Administrator concerning the outcome of any inspections.
Mr. Davis made a motion to instruct the staff to prepare a letter to the Zoning
Administrator expressing the concerns of the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that Ms. Imhoff could prepare the letter and then have Mrs.
Diehl as agent for the Commission, sign the letter.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion made by Mr. Davis, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: CHANGES IN THIS SITE PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE STAFF RATHER THAN
THE COMMISSION:
Mr. Payne stated that he did not think the Commission should deal with this at
this time. He noted that there is a specific section in the ordinance that deals
with this subject; it deals with the subject of minor changes to approved site
plans and this is left to the discretion of the Director of Planning.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning
request for the additional 65' and Mr. Wood decided to preceed with the plan,
would this necessitate Mr. Wood coming before the Commission again.
Mr. Payne replied that all changes must be in compliance with the zoning. He
stated that all changes must be substantially in compliance with the approved
site plan as approved by the Commission and have no additional adverse impact
on the adjacent properties. In his opinion, if Mr. Tucker felt comfortable
approving the changes requested, there should be no problem.
The Commission unanimously decided to leave any changes requested in this site
plan to the discretion of Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Greencroft Final Plat - located on the south side of Route 250 West, west of
Route 677; a proposal to divide the 67+ acres into 14 lots ranging in size
from 13.7 to 2.1 acres with 15.45 acres in residue. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District (Tax Map 58, portion of parcels 91A and 91B).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if Mr. Heyward had any comments.
Mr. Heyward noted that Section 18-36(d) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires
that any lot fronting on a private road must use that road and he is asking for
a waiver of this requirement because this is an agricultural road and was not
intended for public use. (This was an easement between lots 12 and 13 from
Rhodes Drive).
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove established that thirteen lots used this road.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the soil report showed that the septic system from the
Club may infringe on several of the lots, she asked Mr. Heyward if he had
any comment concerning this.
Mr. Heyward stated that the health department suggested that the location
of the septic system for lot thirteen be relocated. He also noted that he
did not plan to sell lot thirteen because this is needed for open space.
Mr. Davis asked if this plat was subject todevelopment under the current
zoning ordinance, noting that the preliminary plan was submitted before the
adoption of the new zoning ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that lots one, five, and the residue could be developed
under the new zoning ordinance, but noted that the remaining parcels are too
small to be redeveloped.
Mr. Heyward rioted that this proposal is located within the flood plain area
and that it could not be used for a building area.
Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Payne if the ordinance allows for septic systems
in the flood plain area.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance does not speak to this, but in his opinion
this would not be acceptable.
Mr. Heyward noted that the ordinance does not allow for septic systems in the
flood plain area, noting that they had to be shown on the plat outside the
flood plain.
Mr. Davis moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
/9Y
The plat will be
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
commercial entrance;
C. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
d. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans;
e. Note the septic setbacks on lots 6-10;
f. Abandon the existing easement by separate deed or plat and note that
the J. Fishburne parcel (DB 702-p. 186,189) has access on Rhodes Drive;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
h. Written approval from the Health Department of the repairs to the
existing septic system on lot 1;
i. County Engineer approval of the 20 foot easement serving the
residue and County Attorney approval of provisions for its maintenance;
j. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations.
2. Waiver of Section 18-36(d) for lots 12 and 13.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Laurel Hill Baptist Church Additions Site Plan - located on the south side of
Route 649, west of Route 29 North, and east of the Charlottesville -Albemarle
Airport; a proposal to add 9042 square feet to an existing 5739 square foot
church. Charlottesville Magisterial District (Tax Map 32, Parcels 41C and 41F).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Hamilton, representing the Church, stated that public water is available,
and that fire hydrants are located across the street. He also stated that
there would be no problem with obtaining a twenty-five foot right-of-way, but
any additional dedication would have to be approved by the Church, noting that
he was not in a position to speak for the Church.
Miss Caperton stated that the Commission could not require the dedication
of twenty-five feet but they could require a reservation which would allow
the Commission to be sure that the building will not be located too close to
the road.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that the proposed thirty foot future entrance off Route 649
would create a loop in the driving pattern, noting that in the past the Commission
has tried to keep the number of entrances to a minimum.
Miss Caperton stated that this was a recommendation of the highway department.
Mr. Cogan stated that the highway department generally tries to eliminate
as many cross-overs as possible.
Miss Caperton stated that there was no guarantee that there would be a
cross -over but the highway department felt that this entrance would tie in with
/7'
the project.
Mr. Payne stated that the highway department prefers to deal with this
as to how the internal circulation relates to the parking in the interior
section.
Mr. Cogan asked if this site plan is approved showing the future sanctuary
will this present a problem when the highway is built.
Mr. Payne stated that this is not an approved feature of this plan, noting
however, that condition 1-k of the staff report speaks to this. (CONDITION K:
note the reservation line and building setback for the ultimate right-of-way).
Mrs. Diehl asked Miss Caperton if she had any additional information regarding
the increase of the septic system.
Miss Caperton stated that the change in the septic system is due to a kitchen
located on the lower floor of this addition.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the entire septic system would be changed creating
one system instead of two.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the lower level will be vacant because there is
some question as whether the Church can afford to build this level at this
time. He noted that the line for the lower level will be installed at this
time but they would like to tie into the present system until the completion
of the lower level.
Mrs. Diehl asked if a certificate of occupancy would be required.
Mr. Payne stated that a temporary certificate of occupancy could be issued
witholding the permanent certiicate until the first floor is completed.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Note the provision of public water on the plan showing the water
lines and a fire hydrant;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the construction
plans for public water, if required;
C. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and provisions for the
handicapped;
d. Staff approval of detailed landscaping plan;
e. Note railroad ties, bumper bluc;c5, or similar device to delineate
the parking spaces;
f. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Rt. 649 by separate
deed or plat;
g. Compliance with the soil Erosion Ordinance;
h. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
/ Z
i. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
commercial entrance;
j. Health Department approval;
k. Note the reservation line and building setback for the ultimate
right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Rodman Apartments Site Plan - located off the east side of Route 743 (Hydraulic
Road), north of Whitewood Road and .5 miles northeast of Albemarle High School;
a proposal to locate 12 apartment units on a 1.43 acre parcel with a density of
8.39 units per acre. Charlottesville Magisterial District (Tax Map 61, a portion
of parcel 23).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked what happens to the old subdivision that was previously
approved.
Miss Caperton stated that this was a division creating this parcel and leaving
the cemetery as residue.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the road had been sized for further development in the
rear.
Miss Caperton answered that maximum density has been used.
Mr. Skove asked if Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation would
accept these roads into the highway system.
Miss Caperton stated that the highway department would accept the roads into
the highway system if they have a one hundred and ten foot cul-de-sac.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the existing entrance would be used for access
to the cemetery.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Davis moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Provide additional walkway on the east side of the parking area;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
d. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
e. Staff approval of a landscape plan (including schedule and specific
information)
2. A street sign shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy;
3. The applicant is responsible for maintaining the fire hydrant to an
acceptable standard.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Temporay Residential Treatment Center Site Plan - located off the east side of
Route 780, north of Route 631 and south of Interstate 64; to locate five modular
units for a twenty -bed treatment center on 6.6+ acres. Scottsville Magisterial
District (Tax map 76, a portion of parcel 46A)
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Wyant stated that he would respond to any questions.
Mr. Rasmussen, a representative of the Sherwood Manor Homeowner's Association
stated that this site plan differs from the approved plan in that temporary
structures are being built.
Mrs. Diehl stated that as she understood this, the site plan is the same except
that the temporary structures are being put in what was the parking lot.
Mr. Rasmussen stated that the homeowner's are concerned with security, noting
that temporary structures will compound the problem. They are also concerned
with the visual impact this will have from Sherwood Manor. He also inquired
if there was any requirement or deadline for temporary structures.
Mrs. Diehl stated that one of the stated conditions of approval is for an
eighteen month time period, but noted that this could be brought before the
Commission for reconsideration.
Mr. Fornes, an adjacent property owner, stated his objection to this site
plan. He questioned the decrease in the number of units from the original
plan and questioned if the roads which were to tie in with the exisiting roads
was complied with. He also asked if these were mobile units on wheels, or
to be placed on cinderblocks.
Mr. Rasmussen noted that since these units serve handicapped and renabiiatea
persons, safety problems might arise if the evacuation of these units was
necessary.
Mrs. Joan Graves stated that as she understood it there is a limitation of
five people to a modular unit, and questioned if this should be part of the
conditions of approval. She also asked if a Certificate of Need had been
obtained from the Health Department.
/79
Tom Wyant, the applicant, noted the following points:
• this facility is for the treatment of alcholics;
• this request is to be allowed to house not over twenty people
in these five units;
• security will be the same as it would be for the permanent facility;
• the screening will be completed as approved on the original plan;
• there is nothing that can be done about the view from Scarborough
Place;
• provisions for the handicapped are required in the State.Building Code.
Mr. Wyant, stated these are modular homes and after eighteen months they will
be removed and the parking lot will be completed.
Mr. Wyant stated that the limitation of five people to a unit applies to
a house trailer not a modular home.
Mr. Fornes asked Mr. Wyant if there would be any further access to Route 631.
Mr. Wyant stated that the access has not changed from the original plan.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that a Certificate of Need has been obtained.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the modular units will be on a permanent type foundation.
Mr. Wyant stated that the units will be on masonry piers with screening around
the bottom, noting that this will enable the units to be moved easily.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there must be a compelling need to provide some type
of service for these people, noting that this project will cost a lot of money
which is not recoverable.
Mr. Wyant stated that there is a great need to provide this service but noted
that the modular homes would be moved, refurnished and sold as residences
allowing them to recover some of the money.
Mr. Russell stated that it is difficult to start a facility with a large number
of patients. He stated that it maske economical sense to start with a few
patients and build from there. He noted that the septic system will be the
only lost they will incur while operating a temporary facility.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the difference in time was between having this temporary
facility and having the first twenty beds available in the permanent facility.
Mr. Wyant replied perhaps one year.
Mrs. Diehl stated that when the special use permit and the site plan was brought
before the Commission, she understood that this would not be built until the
sewage hook-up was available in the fall of 1981. She questioned the change
in this plan.
Im
Mr. Russell stated that they would like to be in business when Western State
closes down its alocholic treatment center. He noted that they had planned
for the permanent facility to be ready but find that this is not the case.
Mr. Bowerman asked when will Western State close.
Mr. Russell replied "July 31, 1981."
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Russell was aware that Western State would close
July 31, 1981, when the special use permit and the site plan for the permanent
facility was reviewed by the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Russell if there was adequate sewage capacity at this time.
Mr. Russell stated that there are hook ups being made at this time.
Miss Caperton stated that the owner of the property said that they had a letter
from Rivanna Service Authority stating that there was some capacity to be had,
but noted that there was no record of this.
Mr. Cogan noted that there should not be a problem in obtaining enough patients
for the permanent facility if, as stated by Mr. Wyant, the need for this facility
is so great.
Mr. Russell stated that one purpose of starting with a small number of beds is
training of staff, entire new facility to put in operation, etc.
Mr. Cogan asked who was going to supply the modular units.
Mr. Wyant stated that they probably would contract with Nationwide.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not wish to perclude the applicant from his project,
but noted that he felt this facility should be as shown on the plan.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the site plan for the permanent facility shows a common
room, eating facility, rehabilitation services, etc., and questioned how the
modular units would relate to this.
Mr. Wyant stated that one of the buildings would be for a dining roon and group
purposes, one for individual therapy and office space, and three buildings for
patients rooms. He noted that the health department requirements were the
same for the temporary structure as for the permanent structure.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if the staff would also reside at this facility.
Mr. Wyant stated that there would be day and night staff but none would
reside at this facility.
Mr. Cogan asked if there was any plan which could be shown to the Commission
which would show what the units would look like.
Mr. Wyant replied that the plan had not been drawn at this time.
/6C)
Mrs. Diehl stated that she was unaware at the time the special use permit and
the site plan for the permanent facility was approved that the Commission would
be asked to approve temporary modular units for an indefinite period of time.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Wyant had not spoken with anyone from the
health department about the septic system.
Mr. Davis stated that in his opinion the conditions of approval for this site
plan should include health department approval of the septic systems.
Mr. Skove stated that in his opinion a modular home was close to a mobile home.
Mr. Payne stated that the difference between a modular home and a mobile home is not
always easily discernible. One of the principal differences is that a mobile home
can be towed on its own structure where a modular home is brought in on a trailer.
He also noted that the regular building code applies to modular home where as a
different code applies to mobile homes.
Mr.- Davis asked when construction of the permanent facility will begin.
Mr. Wyant stated that this was a matter of financing.
Mr. Davis stated that he was concerned that the Commission would be asked for
additional time when this eighteen months had past.
Mr. Russell stated that from the day ground is broken it would be possible to
complete construction within twelve months.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that no federal funds are being used for this project.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant expected to start construction within
the next nine to twelve months.
Mr. Cogan asked how long would it take to install the modular homes and
have them occupied.
Mr. Russell stated that they hoped to have a certificate of occupancy
in June.
Mr. Cogan noted that the residents of the area would rather this be a permanent
facility.
Mr. Russell noted that all the patients are volunteer patients, they are not
committed.
Mr. Davis stated that he favors a twelve month time limit for the temporary
structure which would give the Commission the opportunity observe the construction
of the permanent facility.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she did not think the permanent building would be completed
or substantially completed in twelve months. At the same time she did not think
the Commission would deny the temporary structure after its been in use for twelve
months.
Mr. Russell noted that the Certificate of Need is good for one year, if progress
is not made the certificate will be withdrawn from us and given to someone else
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like more information from the health department`
concerning the septic systems.
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant could be required to post a bond to ensure
the removal of tiic te-igporary facilities within eighteen months.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is satisfied as to the need for this facility, but
when the application was made the Commission should of been notified that a
temporary facility might be proposed.
Mr. Davis stated that condition u4 of the staff report should be changed
to read: this site plan approval for the temporary structures is valid for
six months.
Mr. Bowerman stated that a condition could be added to read: if sewage
capacity is not available, health department approval of septic plan will be
required.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she was concerned about the location of the septic
system. She noted that the remaining wooded area was an important part of the
special use permit used for maintaining the buffering from the remainder of the
community.
Mr. Bowerman asked when this site plan would come before the Commission again
if it was deferred until health department approval of the spetic systems was
received.
Miss Caperton stated that it could be before the Commission on April 28.
Mr. Cogan stated that the health department recently changed their policy, they
will not issue any health permits without the applicant having first obtained a
building permit.
Mr. Wyant stated that the adjacent property owner would lease them septic tank
field rights.
Mr. Cogan stated that a condition of approval could read: "if no permanent sewer
is available this will be subject to health department approval of the septic
systems which will not interfere with the existing wooded area.
Mr. Payne suggested the following language for condition #4 of the staff report:
• this site plan approval for the temporary structures is valid for six
months. At the end of that time construction of the permanent structure
shall have commenced whereupon the Planning Commission may allow for
extension of occupancy of this plan for an additional period not to
exceed eighteen months.
/n z
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building permits for the temporary structures will be issued when the
following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
d. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and fire flow; Fire Official
and Building Official approval of building classifications for this use;
e. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications, storm drainage
system, and curbing;
f. Provide evidence of sewer capacity at the Moore's Creek Treatment Plant
and Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
g. If sewage capacity is unavailable, Health Department approval is
required; however, the septic systems shall not be placed in a location
which disturbs any of the wooded areas shown on the plan;
2. Certificates of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Landscaping and recreational facilities shall be provided as shown on
the plan dated March 10, 1981 NMC.
3. The owner of this property will be responsible for maintaining the fire
hydrant to an acceptable standard.
4. This site plan approval for the temporary structures is valid for six (6)
months. At the end of that time the construction of the permanent structure
shall have commenced whereupon the Commission may allow for an extension of
occupancy of this plan for a period not to exceed eig:teen (18) months.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
J. F. Dammann Final Plat
Miss Caperton stated that this plat was approved on January 20, 1981, noting
that this was a division of a 6.27 acre parcel. The applicant wants to put
a second house on this lot which is served by a private road. The private
road provisions state that only one dwelling can be on any lot that is served
by a private road, Planning Commission approval is needed for additional
dwellings.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is the need for the second dwelling.
Miss Caperton stated that the existing cottage is old and is being rented.
The second dwelling would be the home of Charles Dammann.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves noted the problems with the entrance and stated that the
�/
curves on this road are dangerous in places. She noted that the public
should be notified, giving them the opportunity to voice their concerns and
that the applicant should be present to answer questions.
Mrs. Diehl asked what was the highway department's comment concerning this.
Miss Caperton stated that the highway department required a private street
commercial entrance. She noted that the Commission felt this was a family
division and waived the requirement for the commercial entrance.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the commercial entrance was waived because there was to
be no increase in dwelling units.
Miss Caperton replied "no."
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not think there was enough justification to
allow the request.for an additional dwelling unit.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the orginial plan had included a second dwelling.
Miss Caperton stated that this was included in the original plan. She stated
that the one dwelling per parcel note was not put on the plat because they had
anticipated a second dwelling.
Mr. Skove stated that after the house was built the parcel could not be
subdivided again.
Mr. Skove ascertained that there are three dwellings using this entrance. He
also stated his concern about the need for adequate sight distance.
Mr. Cogan asked if there would be any problems if a commercial entrance was
required.
Miss Caperton stated that this would require grading on adjacent property, noting
that this was part of the waiver of the commercial entrance on the original plat.
Miss Caperton stated that there is a swale and a stream off the right of the
present entrance which would make relocation of the entrance impossible.
Mrs. Diehl asked if any work had been done on the landing since this was
before the Commission in January.
Miss Caperton stated that she has not been to the site, but noted that the
applicant stated that this would be to his benefit.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the existing cottage would not be abandoned.
Mr. Skove moved to approve the request for a second dwelling on 6.27 acre parcel of the
Dammann Estate.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, noting that he would not support this.
The vote was 2-3 with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Davis dissenting.
6q
Coldspring Subdivision - Action requested.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the subdivision was deferred until the Commission
had reviewed the special use permit.
Mrs. Diehl stated that a motion is required for the denial of the
subdivision.
Mr. Davis inquired why an approval or denial was needed.
Mr. Payne stated that some type of action has to be taken to tie up the loose ends,
which would allow the applicant to file for appeal or take appropriate action.
Mr. Skove moved for denial of the subdivision plat because it is not in compliance
with the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried 4-1 with Mr. Bowerman abstaining.
Minor Townhouse Subdivision Amendment:
Miss Caperton stated that the units were approved with twenty-two and one-half (2211)
foot widths on the interior lots. She noted that the builder was told that the
width was twenty-two feet and that building material was easier to get in twenty-two
foot rather than twenty-two and one half foot jvidths. The builder is asking the
Commission to allow the Staff to approve revisions to the site plan and subdivision
plats administratively. There would be no problem approving any revisions to
the site plan but the subdivision plat would add one foot to the end of the
units.
Miss Caperton noted that the number of units and the location of the units
will not change.
Mr. Skove asked what will be changed.
Miss Caperton stated that the width of the buildings would change.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion to alter Minor Townhouse subdivision plat to
show interior lots twenty-two feet wide.
Mr. Davis made a motion to alter the plat to show interior lots twenty-two feet
wide.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimous.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
W. Tucker, Jr., Secre