HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 24 81 PC MinutesMarch 24, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 24, 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. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Corwith
Davis, Jr., Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr. Richard P. Cogan. Other officials
present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Miss Katherine
Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner.
Atfer establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of February 3, 1981 were approved.
Windrift, Section III, Final Plat - request deferral until April 21, 1981.
Mr. Bowerman moved to defer the above plat until April 21, 1981.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Frank L. Hereford Site Plan - requests deferral until April 21, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick moved to defer the above noted site plan until April 21, 1981.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
McConnell's Restaurant, "Chalet Rotisserie," Site Plan - located on the south side
of Westfield Road, east of Commonwealth Drive and north of Greenbriar Drive; a
proposal to locate a restaurant on a .831 acre parcel, Charlottesville Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 61W, parcel 120K).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Lynch, the applicant, stated that the Staff shows the size of the parcel to
be .831, it is actually over an acre.
Ms. Imhoff noted that this was correct and stated that the records would be
changed accordingly.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that this item had been deferred several times and questioned why
the conditions recommended at the site review meeting had not been met.
Ms. Imhoff stated that one of the problems was that the owner had requested a
take-out window and that the design of the building had to be changed to
accommodate this.
Mrs. Diehl noted that this was irrelevant to the conditions having not been met.
Mr. Skove stated his concern with the number of conditions recommended for the
approval of this site plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commission if they wanted to consider the site plan at
this time.
Mr. Skove noted that the majority of the conditions for approval were minor and
there should not be a problem in meeting them.
Mr. Davis stated that if the entrances were widened to thirty feet, this would
diminish the property's frontage by sixteen feet.
Mr. Lynch stated that the entrances are twenty-two feet wide and noted that
these would be widened to thirty feet.
Mr. Davis stated that the widening of the entrances would eliminate some of
the parking spaces.
Mr. Lynch stated that the parking spaces would not be effected by the widening
of the entrances.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the zoning ordinance requires twenty-four feet of aisle
width between the parking spaces and this is available.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this site plan was considered by the site review committee
over six weeks ago and noted that the recommended conditions from this meeting
have not been complied with.
Mr. Bowerman moved to defer this site plan until the following conditions have
been complied with:
1. Meets and bounds survey;
2. Deed book reference;
3. Magisterial district;
4. Label existing versus proposed grades;
5. Change width of entrances to 30';
6. Note radius of curb returns;
7. Note the square footage of the building and terrace;
8. Show existing and proposed utility easements;
9. Provide a schedule of parking required and provided;
10. Show existing sidewalk along Westfield Road;
11. Delineate walkways, note type of surfacing;
12. Note tax map and parcel number;
13. Show departing lot lines;
14. Note the owners, zoning, tax map and parcel number of adjoining parcels;
15. Provide a schedule of landscape planting, staff approval of landscaping plan;
16. Provide curbing around the entire parking area;
17. Note stormwater detention pond.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the above conditions are basic technical requirements
and there should be no difficulty in complying with these conditions.
87
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
Mr. Skove asked if the applicant would agree to the deferral.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this site plan was submitted in December and noted
that the deferrals of this site plan were requested by the applicant.
Mr. Payne stated that this site plan is not in compliance with the zoning
ordinance.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this site plan could be before the Commission again on
April 21.
Mr. Bowerman agreed to include in his motion for deferral "to be deferred until
April 21."
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if he was notified of these conditions prior
to the Commission meeting.
Mr. Lynch stated that they were aware of the recommended conditions,for approval.
The motion to defer this site plan until April 21 was unanimous.
84-Lumber Company Site Plan - deferred from January 27, 1981.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Darchuck stated that he has obtained the necessary rezoning for the corner
portion of the property and he is now striving to meet the recommendations made
by the staff.
With no public comment, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the
Commission.
Mr. Kindrick asked if there were any plans for a sprinkler system.
Mr. Darchuck stated that the specifications for the building are designed to
meet BOCA (Building Officials & Code Administrators) standards without the
sprinkler system.
Miss Imhoff stated that in view of the above statement by Mr. Darchuck, condition
2-a of the staff report should read:
Fire Official approval of fire flow and sprinkler system, if necessary.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the location of the septic system.
Mr. Darchuck stated that the septic field is located along the south property
/W
line and noted that it is in compliance with the requirements of the health
department.
140
Mr. Davis asked if there were any comments from the highway department
concerning sight distance, etc.
Miss Imhoff stated that sight distance could be obtained after some clearing
was completed, She also noted that the highway department agrees with accessing the
property from Route 649 rather than Route 29N.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance and turn lane;
b. County :Engineer approval of the pavement specifications for the
storage yard and the road specifications;
C. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the access
road;
d. Fire Official approval of a yard hydrant;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
g. Staff approval of landscape plan;
h. Note that the Planning Commission is not approving the sign or
its location at this time;
i. Easement on the access road shall be granted and recorded by separate
deed or plat;
j. Note all building and parking setbacks from the Rural Area District.
2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following condition
has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow and sprinkler system, if necessary.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which was unanimous.
SP-81-15 Barbara and Brian Butler - to locate a permanent mobile home on
89.7 acres zoned RA; located off the west side of Route 604 approximately
1.5 miles from the Greene County line. Tax Map 19, parcel 2, White Hall
Magisterial District.
Mr. Mabe presented the staff report.
Mr. Butler stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission
might have.
a
Mr. Davis asked if the mobile home would be a rental unit.
Mr. Butler replied that his family would occupy this mobile home.
Mr. Cogan asked the applicant if he owned a house in the Lexington Subdivision.
Mr. Butler replied that he had purchased lot #51F in the Lexington subdivision,
but there is no house on this property.
Mr. Davis moved for approval with the following condition:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission needed to take action with regard to the
recommendation by the Staff that a sketch be accepted in lieu of a site plan.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the sketch submitted in lieu of a site plan.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl asked if this was without precedent.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission has taken this action before in the
past.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the sketch shows the intended position of the
trailer.
The motion to accept the sketch submitted in lieu of a site plan was unanimous.
84-Lumber Company Final Plat - located on the east side of Route 29 North,
north of the intersection with Route 649; to divide one 2.3524 acre parcel
leaving 5.411 acres in residue. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 32A,
parcel 2-1B).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Darchuck stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission
might have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. This plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Show building setbacks from access road;
b. Show building and parking setbacks from the R.A., Rural Area;
C. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and
includes:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
d. Fire Official approval;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
NO
commercial entrance and turn lane.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Spring Hill Final Plat - requests deferral until March 31, 1981.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the request for deferral until March 31, 1981 of the
above noted plat.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Mel Dixon Final Plat - located off the south side of Route 605, west of Route
743 and south of the Greene -Albemarle County line; to divide one 31.586 acre
parcel leaving 27.588 acres in residue. Rivanna Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 20, a portion of Parcel 5A).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Payne noted that an amendment to the maintenance agreement is needed because
of the change :in egress on to the main road.
Ms. Imhoff stated that an easement should be required for thc.private road
serving this property as it crosses an adjacent tract of land before connecting
to the state road.
Mr. Davis noted the size of this parcel and asked if certification of a
30,000 square foot building site was needed.
Ms. Imhoff stated that certification of a building site per the critical slopes
provision of the zoning ordinance is required.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked what is the discrepancy between parcels B-1 and B-2 as far
as division rights are concerned.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this is how the applicant chose to assign his division
rights.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the following note will be the language used
for recording plats with division rights:
NOTE: The land use regulations listed below are imposra pursuant to the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance in effect this date and are shown for information
purposes only. There are no restrictive covenants running with the land
and their appearance on this plat is not intended to impose them as
such.
1q1
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne that according to the note on the plat, land
use regulations are shown for information purposes only, would these regulations
still be binding.
Mr. Payne replied that they are binding by virtue of the Zoning Ordinance. He
noted that the reason for this wording is that the land use regulations are
intended to comply with the zoning ordinance and are not intended as deed
restrictions.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Show a typical road section;
b. County Engineer approval of road plans;
C. Correct reservation of division rights to read:
"4 division rights of less than 21 acres each are reserved to Tract B-2."
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance;
e. Certification of a 30,000 square foot building site on each parcel;
f. Note and record an easement for the private road;
g. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Pen Park Crew Facility Site Plan - located off the northeast side of Route 768
(Pen Park Road), west of the Rivanna River; a proposal to add 2,400 square feet
to an existing shop -warehouse and add 900 square feet for a lunch room/locker to
an existing office building. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 62, a
portion of parcel 22).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Payne stated that technically this site plan should be approved for compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, noting that the in the opinion of the Staff
it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Because of the wording of the
statute, if the Commission chooses to approve this site plan, it should be
approved for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Commission should
instruct the Staff to send this site plan to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Eley, the applicant, stated that the Staff has recommended a sidewalk
along Pen Park Road, he noted that he would like to wait until such time
as a sidewalk is needed and then build it. He also stated that he would
respond to any questions the Commission might have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the present septic system for this site would have
to be enlarged.
fiz
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there is nothing in the Capital Improvements
Program regarding Pen Park.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the road is state property.
Mr. Davis stated that he favors having sidewalks for this site plan.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could understand the applicant's not,,wanting to
put sidewalks in at the present time, and noted that a condition of approval
could be added that when the adjacent parcels develop, -the City must build
a sidewalk.
Mr. Payne noted that the applicant has stated that the City is agreeable to
building sidewalks along the road other than in front of the City's property.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that a subdivision plat for Jackson Village has not
been before the Commission. She also stated that when the townhouses in
Jackson Village are ready to be sold the Commission would have to address
the subdivision plat.
Mr. Cogan stated that the objective of the Commission is to establish that
when sidewalks are built on either side of the road a void will not be left.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could not lawfully require a bond of the
City to insure compliance, he also noted that since they are a public entity
there are lawful remedies which can be enforced.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he had any language concerning this condition.
Mr. Payne stated that the language for the condition would depend on the
time allowed by the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that sidewalks would be needed when Jackson Village
is developed and inhabited.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the condition for sidewalks to be built when the
adjacent property is developed would allow the Commission more precedence
to require sidewalks in Jackson Village at a later date.
Mr. Payne stated that a conditon for approval of this site plan could read:
• show a sidewalk along Pen Park Road, to be constructed at such a time
as a sidewalk is constructed on the adjacent property.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Note the acreage;
b. Note existing zoning;
C. Show screening for parcels 18 and 18A from the warehouse -shop and
parking area;
d. Show a sidewalk along Pen Park Road, to be constructed at such a time
as a sidewalk is constructed on the adjacent property.
Mr. Bowerman second the motion, which carried unanimously.
J. F. Dammann Subdivision - request for second dwelling.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Harry Bailes, represeting the applicant, stated they were not at the
Commission meeting of March 17 because they had been advised that it was
not necessary for them to attend. He noted that the reason for this subdivision
was so that Mr. Dammann could build a house on this property. The plat showed
the existing cottage, but the surveyor had not located the new house and this
is why it was not brought to the attention of the Commission. He stated that they
have met the conditions recommended for approval by the staff on the originial
subdivision plat. He noted that the condition recommended by the highway department
for a commercial entrance would be difficult to meet because this would be on the
adjacent parcel of land. He also noted that the grade of the existing entrance
could be changed.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked if there was anything that could be done to alleviate the grade
of the entrance. He noted that the entrance drops off at a severe grade from Route
20 and stated that this would present problems with access to the property.
Mr. Dammann stated that he was willing to regrade the entrance, making it a
level area.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if the Commission could add conditions to this subdivision
at this time.
Mr. Payne replied that conditions could be added if they are related to this
additional dwelling. He noted that the conditions the Commission wanted to
add have a relationship between the number of dwellings on the property and the
intensity of the use of the entrance.
Mr. Davis stated that he favors adding a condition for approval of this subdivision
for the construction of the landing.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the County Engineer could approve the landing at
the intersection of the entrance road and Rt. 20 North.
Mr. Payne stated that no building permit for the second plat will be issued until
the amended plat is recorded.
Mr. Bailes stated that he is concerned that the action the Commission takes will
delay Mr. Dammann in proceeding with the construction of his house. He noted
that Mr. Dammann has stated that improvements will be made to the landing and asked
if a condition was needed could it read: "approval of the landing prior to
occupancy of the dwelling."
Mr. Cogan stated that he would like to see the improvements to the landing done
before any other construction begins. He stated his concern about sight visability
and noted that this condition should not be a burden on the applicant.
1911
Mr. Bailes stated that during the construction phase the entrance would make
the necessary improvements to the entrance. He noted the cost involved in
hiring a bulldozer etc. and asked for the cooperation of the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that a building permit could not be obtained until the amended
plat is recorded. If the Commission puts this condition on the approval of the
amended plat, the applicant can bond the improvements to the landing. He also
noted that the applicant would have to explain to the County Engineer in general
terms the improvements to the landing.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the County Engineer will approve the improvements to
the landing in terms of the basic concept of the proposal and what it will do to
the road.
-Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for apporval of this request for the second dwelling subject to
the following condition:
1. County Engineer approval of the landing at the intersection of the entrance
road and Rt. 20 North.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Pen Park Crew Facility Site Plan
Mrs. Diehl stated that a motion was needed to find this site plan substantially
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan so this could be submitted to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Davis made a motion to find that this site plan is substantially in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Beech Tree Plaza Site Plan - located on the south side of Whitewood Road and the
east side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743); to locate a 8,400 square foot building
for commercial use on 1.13 acres. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax
Map 61, Parcel 25).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that with regard to sidewalks,
he would like to ask the Commission to consider two separate sidewalks for this site
plan; one along Whitewood Road and the other along Hydraulic Road. He also noted
that there would be construction problems with the sidewalk along Hydraulic Road
because of state requirements regarding improvements to Hydraulic Road.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the plans for the Hydraulic Road Improvement Project had been
set by the State Highway Department.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the plans had been drawn by the state for the Hvdraulic
Road Improvement Project and noted that the _problems are with building the side*talks
to these drawings. /���
Mr, Sinclair noted that the detention basin is in the best possible location and
stated that if fencing was required by the County Engineer the basin would have
to be located underground.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there were any cost figures contrasting using a tank for storm -
water detention versus the cost of grading and erecting a chain link fence.
Mr. Sinclair stated that a chain link fence would be cheaper.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked what the problem was with building the sidewalk along Hydraulic
Road.
Mr. Sinclair replied that the grading alignment would change for this area.
Mr. Kindrick asked if the applicant had any problems with the crib wall.
Mr. Sinclair replied that any slopes over two to one has to use a special
stabilization measure, and noted that in this case a combination of filling
against the building and a retaining wall would be used.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is a crib wall?
Mr. Sinclair replied that a crib wall is a series of railroad ties, or concrete
beams laid in a solid wall, however, the design allows water to flow through.
Mr. Skove stated that as he understood it the problem with installing sidewalks
along Hydraulic Road is with the proposed grade and alignment of the road.
Mr. Sinclair stated that if the sidewalks were installed at one time there would
not be a problem, but if some were done now and some later there will be problems
because of the change in the road alignment and grade.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission, in the past, had conditioned sidewalks
to be built after the road eras built.
Mr. Payne stated that this could be bonded for twelve or eighteen months, but that
there were no assurances that the road would be improved within this time frame.
Mr. Davis stated that a condition of approval could be added to require the dedication
of land for sidewalks along Hydraulic Road after the Hydraulic Road Improvement
Project was completed.
Mr. Skove stated that he favors having sidewalks along Whitewood Road, and noted
that he would also like to have sidewalks along Hydraulic Road but could not
justify installing them now and having to tear them up later.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there was no way to insure that the sidewalks would be
built in the future other than bonding them.
Mr. Payne stated that a bond could not be posted for an indefinite duration.
/G�
Mr. Davis stated that if the detention .basin is not underground then there
should be some type of fencing around it.
Mr. Kindrick asked Ms. Imhoff if the highway department has any proposed improve-
ments as far'as widening of this section of Hydraulic Road is concerned.
Ms. Imhoff stated that Mr. Coburn of the highway department, had commented that
there were some planned improvements for this section of Hydraulic Road and noted
that Mr. Coburn also felt a sidewalk could be built along this section of road.
Mr. Kindrick ascertained that the catch basin was eight feet deep.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the entrance had to be approved by the highway
department.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the applicant and the County Engineer could determine
whether the detention basin should be fenced or installed underground.
Mr. Bowerman also asked why the following conditions have not been complied with:
• Show departing lot lines for parcel 27, 27B, and 27C; (Condition A)
• Note utility easement; (Condition B)
• Revise parking to include one additional space; (Condition C)
• Note the deed book reference on the access road; (Condition G)
Mr. Sinclair stated that with reference to Condition A, there is only one owner,
and noted that he does not have any plats showing how many parcels are divided.
Regarding Condition B, the utilities are so noted, Condition C, the square
footage will have to be revised, Condition G, do not know of a deed book reference,
some deed research will be necessary.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the highway department felt that the sidewalks could be
installed in accordance with the new plan.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the conditions for approval allow for the change of the
detention basin to a closed system.
Mr. Payne stated that the County Engineer could approve this eigher way, therefore,
no additional wording was needed.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the construction of the building is scheduled.
Mr. Sinclair stated that construction could begin within the next month or perhaps
as long as a year from now.
Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
a. Show departing lot lines for parcel 27, 27B, and 27C;
b. Revise parking to include one additional space;
C. Provide a sidewalk along Whitewood Road and Hydraulic Road;
d. Provide an expanded landscape plan, to include a detail of a typical
planter, for Staff approval;
/91
e. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention basin design, to
include fencing if necessary;
f. Note the deed book reference on the access road;
g. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
h. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
i. County Engineer approval of crib walls and curbing;
j. Fire Official approval of hydrant location, handicapped provisions;
and dumpster location;
k. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
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.
Huntwood Townhouses Phase One Amended Site Plan - located off the north side of
Route 65- (Barrack's Road), west of Route 656 (Georgetown Road); a proposal to
locate 33 townhouse units on 3.15 acres with a density of 10.48 units per acre.
Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Tax Map 60A, parcel 9-21).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that this site was previously
approved for apartment units. He noted that R. D. Wade has contracted to buy
this property and wants to develop the front of the property in a manner similiar
to the development in the rear of the property. Mr. Sinclair stated that he was
in agreement with the conditions recommended by the staff except for condition
#B which reads: provide a sidewalk along the full frontage of RT. 654 (Barrack's
Road). he noted that they would have to pave between the street and the sidewalk
because the state would not maintain or accept flat bed sidewalk parallel to
the right-of-way.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the adjacent properties were not developed.
Mrs. Diehl stated that when the Commission reviewed this site plan earlier, they
had some question about the slopes and erosion problems. She also asked Mr.
Sinclair what a stilling pond was.
Mr. Sinclair stated that a stilling pond was a form of erosion control.
Mrs. Diehl asked if most of the facilities were in the 25% slope area.
Mr. Sinclair noted that the site will be graded.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was 3,000 feet of recreational area shown
on the plat.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not justify having a basketball court in the
parking lot and did not understand how the court could reasonably serve a dual
purpose as a play area and parking area.
/9k
Mr. Sinclair stated that a similiar plan had previously been approved for
Section Two.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that these basketball courts were part of the 3,000 feet
of recreational space.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the applicant wanted to combine the recreational
area for phase one and phase two. He also stated that he would like to see a
plan showing what the recreation area would be composed of.
Mrs. Diehl asked what area is shown on the plat for the tot lot.
Mr. Sinclair pointed out to the Commission the location for the tot lot.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the impoundment figures were for this site.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the impoundment elevation is 36.6 feet and the fail
safe elevation is 38 feet.
Mr. Sinclair pointed out to the Commission the impoundment elevations in relation-
ship with the slide.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she is opposed to having the basketball courts in the
parking area. She also stated that they were proposing a three thousand square
feet recreation area and questioned the exact location of the area.
Mr. Davis noted that the proposed location of the slide would be within ten feet
of the drainage basin.
Mr. Sinclair stated that this basin would drain out within two hours. He also
stated that in the guidelines published by the County, detention areas could be
used for recreational facilities.
Mr. Davis stated his concern for the safety of the children in this area.
Mrs. Diehl stated that there is little space for recreational use, she noted
that most of the space is in the lots themselves.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant did not propose to use the actual
floor of the detention basin for recreational space.
Mr. Sinclair noted that the Board of Supervisors approved a request to use the
detention basin for recreational area but they did not want the area paved because
of stilt deposits.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it was reasonable to assume that most of the pederstiran
traffic would be toward Barracks Road.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the units were for sale and that there would be
sixty units.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the estimated cost would be for the sidewalk, gutter, and
the improvements along the front of the property as recommended by the highway
department.
Mr. Robin Lee stated that this would change more than the sidewalks because of
the additional drainage which would mean that all their calculations would have
to be checked again.
Mr. Skove stated that this was a fairly dense development.
/99
Mr. Lee stated that the density was less that permited by the zoning standards.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Sinclair to expalin why additional pavement would be needed in
order to put sidewalks along Barracks Road.
Mr. Sinclair stated because the highway department does not want a sidewalk
along their right-of-way.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the highway department in the Capital Improvements Program
for the coming year have funds for sidewalks on Georgetown Road. She also noted
that there are sidewalks and plans for sidewalks in the existing area.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the highway department would require the applicant to
meet their requirements concerning storm sewage across the front of the property.
Mr. Davis stated that he favors sidewalks for this project.
Mr. Cogan stated that the Commission should also consider the cost factors noting
that the loss will be passed onto the consumer.
Mr. Lee stated that the cost for putting curb, gutter and sidewalks in would require
a drop inlet to be built into the storm inlet, which means larger pipes and extra
piping.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the curve and gutter with full frontage improvements
creates the cost increase.
Mr. Davis stated that the County has a Sidewalk Plan which shows the proposed
locations for sidewalks within the next ten years.
Mr. Skove stated that this was a high density development and in his opinion
requires sidewalks to be built.
Mr. Lee stated that the remaining undeveloped land in this area is located in the
watershed and according to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors this land
could not be as intensely developed.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the zoning was for this parcel.
Miss Imhoff stated that the parcel is zoned RA, Rural Area.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she did not favor the basketball court in the parking lot
she also stated that the staff could work with the applicant concerning the
3,000 square feet of recreational area.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
a. Note 10' wide utility and drainage easement;
b. Provides a sidewalk along the full frontage of Rt. 654 (Barracks Road);
Ww" c. Note all areas intended for "Common Open Space";
d. Add a note that the building locations shown are only approximate locations;
I�
e. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance with curb and gutter and a 200'
right deceleration lane with taper and curb and gutter along the right
lane proper;
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of curb
and gutter and storm sewer across the full frontage of the property
along Rt- 654;
g. Staff approval of a landscape plan;
h. Staff approval of a recreational equipment and location;
i. Fire Official approval;
j. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
k. County Engineer approval of road plans consistent with Phase II;
1. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
M. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
n. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the roadway, internal
sidewalks, recreational/tot lot equipment, drainage ways, and common open
space.
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.
Discussion:
Mr. Kindrick stated that there will be problems with the sidewalks in this area
because they will not connect with anything.
Mr. Cogan asked if there was any development west of this site.
Mrs. Diehl stated that Old Salem Apartments is located west of this site.
VOTE:
The vote carried 5-1 with Mr. Kindrick dissenting.
Huntwood Townhouses Final Plat - located off the north of Route 654 (Barracks Road)
west of Route 656 (Georgetown Road); to divide 3.15 acres into 33 lots ranging in
size from 3,090 square feet to 1,580 square feet. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 60A, parcel 9-21).
Ms. Imhoff noted that the staff report is the same for this plat as for the site
plan and noted the difference in the Staff's Recommended Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Provide curve information on the entrance;
b. Provide a sidewalk across the full frontage of the property along
Rt. 654;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance with curb and gutter and a 200' right deceleration
Z
lane with taper and curb and gutter;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of curve and
gutter and storm sewer across the full frontage of the property along
Rt. 654;
e. Compliance with the private roads provisions is required and includes:
1) County Engineer approval of road plans;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
f. County Attorney approval of easements and a maintenance agreement for the
internal sidewalks, recreational/tot lot equipment, drainage easements
and stormwater detention facilities and common open space;
g. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
h. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
j. Fire Official approval;
k. Staff approval of a landscape plan and schedule, and location of recreation
equipment provided.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
River Heights Site Plan:
Mrs. Diehl stated that there was a consensus by the Commission that a letter
be sent to the Zoning Administrator requesting that he pay extra attention
to this site.
Mr. Davis stated that the applicant would have to comply with the conditions
before a grading permit was issued.
Mr. Skove asked what type of paperwork would be involved if the Commission
required copies of the zoning inspector's report.
Mr. Payne stated that these reports are usually one page and could be xeroxed.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out the problems with Briarwood and noted that the site
inspections were infrequent.
Mr. Bowerman stated that grading permits could be issued without attention being
paid except to the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control permits.
Mr. Bowerman noted that an extensive amount of grading has been done at the
General Electric site and stated that there are a significant number of erosion
problems at this site.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the same inspector stays with one particular site.
site.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the same inspector would always inspect a particular
site, but that the same inspector does not necessarily inspect the adjoing property.
The consensus of the Commission was to send a letter to the Zoning Administrator.
� U2—
Mrs. Diehl stated that Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta has called the River Heights
Site Plan to the Board of Supervisors, and this will be heard April 8, at
9:30 a.m.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
�)-
rt W. Tucker, Jr., )�ecrekAry
Z03