HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 21 81 PC MinutesApril 21, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 21, 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 Kindric, Mr. Corwith
Davis, Jr., Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, and Mr. Richard P. Cogan.
Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and
Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of January 27, 1981 were approved.
Windrift, Section III, Final Plat - requests deferral until May 26, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to defer this plat until May 26, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Frank L. Hereford Site Plan - requests deferral until May 26, 1981.
Mr. Skove moved to defer this site plan until May 26, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
McConnell's Restuarant, "Chalet Rotisserie," Site Plan - located on the south
side of Westfield Road, east of Commonwealth Drive and north of Greenbrier Drive;
a proposal to locate a restuarant on a .831 acre parcel, Charlottesville Mag-
isterial District. (TM 61W, Parcel 120K).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Lynch stated that there would be no trouble meeting the recommended
conditions for approval suggested by the staff.
with no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
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. Staff approval of landscape plan;
b. Provide curbing around the entire parking area;
C. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and curbing;
d. Note pipe sizes for stormwater control pipes;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
g. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
h. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
i. Note that the Planning Commission is not approving the sign or its
location at this time;
2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following condition
has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Helen A. Pitts Estate Final Plat - located on the south side of Route 1302
(Warren Street), west of the intersection with Harrison Street in Scottsville;
a proposal to divide a 2.51 acre lot from a larger parcel and add .56 acre to
an adjacent parcel, leaving 125+ acres in residue. Scottsville Magisterial
District (TM 130, Parcel 38, portion of).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments at this time. She also reminded
the public that they need to state their name for the record.
Ms. Virginia Moore, an adjacent property owner, stated that she is the only one
who is directly effected by this subdivision. She noted that a letter written
by her to the Board of Supervisors detailed the architectural and historical
significance of Cliffside. Ms. Moore stated that she owed it to Cliffside to
oppose this subdivision on the grounds that it presents a threat to the landmark.
She noted that this subdivision would effect the architecture, integrity, and
monetary value of Cliffside. She stated that she had resided at Cliffside for
fifty-two years and had restored Cliffside fully over the years. Ms. Moore
pointed out that Cliffside has been accepted by the Virginia Landmark Association
as a historic landmark.
Ms. Moore, stated that she was a founding member of the historic landmark district
committee and Mt. Wallow and Cliffside were designated as historic landmarks.
Cliffside is one of the finest historic structures in Albemarle County.
Ms. Moore read selected sentences from two letters which were submitted to
the staff and were attached to the staff report. She made the following points
from these letters:
N Z
• A portion of a letter from William Bill Stevens stated that real
monetary property damage would occur if this subdivision was permitted;
• A portion of a letter from the President of the Board of Directors of
the Scottsville Museum, Roger Spence, stated that: "It should be obvious
that such a structure would be incompatabile and would diminish the
value of Cliffside."
Ms. Moore noted the following points for the Commission to consider:
• Two years ago, she was a member of a committee under the chairmanship
of Lindsay Dorrier. Their objective was to develop an ordinance which
would protect the historic landmarks. The ordinance was not adopted
because of opposition. The committee felt, however, that most of the
people of Albemarle County would want the ordinance because most of the
people care for historic landmarks and know that they are part of their
heritage. She noted that Albemarle County did not adopt the ordinance
but they do have a Comprehensive Plan which states that one of its
objectives is to protect historic sites.
• Ms. Moore stated that, in her opinion, if the Comprehensive Plan means
anything, it does apply to the present situation. She stated that
Cliffside deserves protection and asked the Commission to grant the
necessary protection to Cliffside.
Mrs. Phillips, a part owner of the property in question, stated that she did
not recall that a promise had been made to Mrs. Moore that this land would not
be divided during Mrs. Moore's lifetime, as Mrs. Phillips controls only a
portion of this property. She also noted that she did not agree that Cliffside
would be damaged by a house which is built by an architect. She stated that
she did not think that many people who received notice of this division were
upset, noting that the people realize that in order for Scottsville to remain
a community, young people have to locate in this area. Mrs. Phillips also
stated that the landscape and character of the area would not change.
Mr. Fred Schneider, a registered architect, stated that he has lived in
Scottsville for two and one half years and noted that he admires the character
of Scottsville. He stated that it is his intention to build a home which would
be compatible with the neighborhood and preserve the present landscaping. He
stated that he felt that the proposal will be sympathetic to the original
character of the land. Mr. Schneider noted that the land is zoned to accomodate
5-10 dwelling units per acre and stated that his proposal would be built at a
lower density that it is zoned.
Mr. Schneider stated that while Albemarle County does not have a histroical
landmark ordinance, he is sympathetic to such an ordinance. He noted that
lacking this ordinance he felt the best he could do would be to design within the
bounds of what he considered the spirit of such an ordinance. He stated he
would try to respect the views of the adjacent property owners and follow the
natural contours of the land. He noted that the proposed widening of Rt. 1302
(Warren Street) in his opinion, would create more damage to the area than the
home he is proposing to build. He also noted that this property is oriented to
the south and that no aspects of the solar home would be visible to the adjacent
property owners.
Mr. Schneider noted that Ms. Moore stated that one of the goals of the historic
landmark ordinance was to protect property from incompatible and insensitive uses.
He said that he did not understand how a residence would be incompatible.
2b
Mr. Schneider stated that he plans to build a home which would be compatible
with Scottsville and would allow change in the area to be graceful and com-
patible with the character of the area.
Kingsley Hughes stated that there is potential for development along Warren
Road; he noted that some of the acreage along this road has been subdivided
and it will be necessary when the development takes place to widen the road.
He questioned building a home within the twenty-five foot right-of-way.
Lindsay Dorrier an adjacent owner to Cliffside and Hillhaven asked what type
of screening will be required for this subdivision.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission has not discussed any type of screening
and noted that the ordinance does not require any screening.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he was a member of the histroic preservation group.
He noted that screening and setback requirements were important and should be
considered. He feels that twenty-five feet setback for this subdivision is
inadequate and questioned if the property line would allow for more setback.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he had advised the Scottsville Town Council to consider
this plat and noted that they wanted some direction from the Planning Commission
as to the type of comments required from them.
Mrs. Diehl stated that one of the recommended conditions of approval for this
plat is the approval of the plat by the town of Scottsville.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he felt this should be communicated formally by the
chairman of the Planning Commission to the Mayor of Scottsville.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission has a plat which shows the approximate
boundary lines of Scottsville.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the Scottsville Town Council needs all the information
that the Planning Commission has in order to review this thoroughly. He also
noted that the next meeting of the town council was the third Monday in May.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned condition #E of the staff report, asking why this
is required on a subdivision plat. (Condition #E: Albemarle County Service
Authority approval of water and sewer plans.)
Ms. Imhoff stated that this should read "approval of the connection to the
sewer plans." She also noted that Mr. Smith of the Service Authority felt
that this could be connected to public sewer.
Mr. Skove asked if this plat has been reviewed by the Scottsville Town
Council.
N
Ms. Imhoff replied that the Scottsville Town Council has not reviewed this plat.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission has not seen any preliminary plans
for this division. She also asked if the Commission could expect to review the
contour intervals when the preliminary plan is submitted.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the contour intervals would have to be requested by the
Commission as they are not required.
Mr. Skove asked if this plat had to be approved by both the Scottsville Town
Council and the Albemarle County Planning Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that assuming Scottsville has a subdivision ordinance this would
be reviewed by both agencies.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Payne if this would be a subdivision under the definition
used by Scottsville Council.
Mr. Payne stated that if Scottsville has adopted the statutory definition of
subdivision, this is not a subdivision because the statutory definition of a
subdvision is "division into three or more parcels."
Mrs. Diehl again questioned condition #E of the staff report. (Condition E:
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans).
Ms. Imhoff stated that this condition should be deleted.
Mr. Davis asked under what circumstances could the Commission legally impose
restrictions and or not approve division by right.
Mr. Payne replied under the following conditions:
• if it does not meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, such as
minimum area, shape of the lot, type of monuments, etc.
if it is a danger to public health, safety and welfare.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission could not legally require a setback
greater than that which is spelled out in the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there is no screening required for this type of
subdivision.
Mr. Davis stated that in his opinion the only action the Commission could
legally take is to approve the plat as submitted. He noted that until the
Board of Supervisors created the necessary tools and an ordinance to preserve
the historic landmarks, the Commission is unable to impose greater restrictions
that required in the zoning ordinance.
2�5
Mr. Skove asked if the town of Scottsville has any historic districts.
Mr. Dorrier stated that everything within the town limits of Scottsville isin
a historic district.
Mrs. Diehl asked if Scottsville has any ordinances that restrict uses in
the historic district.
Mr. Dorrier stated that there were no ordinances at this time, but the
town council is set up to protect the historic district.
Mr. Davis asked what laws or ordinances impower the town council to impose
their will over the rights as outlined in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier stated that there is a master plan which the town council
follows. He noted that the ordinances, and other tools to protect the
town are in the developmental stages but any major issues will be dealt
with by the town council.
Mr. Skove questioned the setback intended for this parcel.
Mr. Schneider stated that the property line is fifteen feet from the edge of
the road, the setback required is twenty-five feet beyond this. He noted that
it is his intention to build a house which would be at an angle to the setback
line, no closer than five or ten feet and that the setback would increase to the
south.
Mr. Skove stated that the setback then would be thirty-five feet.
Mr. Schneider stated that he did not think that the angle is that great, it
might range from ten to twenty feet beyond the limits of the setback.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the plat is required to have location area and dimension
of the building site. She noted that she would like this information included
before the Commission takes action on this plat.
Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that the ordinance requires
that adequate building site iuust Ue certifieu. He also noted that the staff
asked for overlays to show a perspective site and the fact that adequate site
is available.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance does require dimension and location area
of the building site to be shown on the plat. He also noted that this does
not mean that the building could not be built in another location on the property.
The purpose of this requirement is to show that a building site is available on
the site required in the critical slopes provision of the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the certification of the building site would not be
required in this case because of the water and sewer connections.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt that Mr. Foster's certification is adequate, but
technically the certification should be shown.
9
Ms. Imhoff stated that in Section 18-55.0 of the Subdivision Ordinance it
requires location, area and dimension of a lawful building site on each lot.
Wigh regard to the 30,000 square feet required building site, if public
sewer is not available you have to show certification of the 30,000 square feet
building site. It public sewer is available the applicant shall demonstrate that
the building site is of adequate area for the proposed development.
Ms. Imhoff presented to the Commission a copy of a letter sent to all the area
surveyors showing the staff's recommended suggestions for showing the certifica-
tion of a building site.
Mr. Davis asked if the density in village residential is one dwelling unit
per acre.
Ms. Imhoff stated that it is .73 dwelling units per acre or a minimum of
60,000 square feet per lot. She noted that the five to ten dewlling units
referred to by Mr. Schneider is the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Diehl stated her concern with the sewer hook up and questioned if adequate
sewage capacity is available.
Ms. Imhoff noted that when Mr. Schneider needs sewer line hook up, he will deal
directly with the service authority.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that condition #C of the staff report requires the approval
of the plat by the Town of Scottsville. He questioned what would happen if
Scottsville does not approve the plat.
Mr. Payne stated that the plat would stand as denied, noting that this is a
subdivision in both jursdictions.
Mr. Davis asked if Scottsville could overrule the zoning ordinance of
Albemarle County.
Mr. Payne stated that the zoning ordinance does not apply to Scottsville.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the majority of this property is in Albemarle County
and stated that he would like to know what the legal implications of condition
#C are before he takes action.
Mr. Payne reiterated that if this does not meet the requirements of the Town
of Scottsville then the plat could be denied.
Mr. Payne noted that Scottsville is an incorporated municipality and that most
of the ordinances of Albemarle County apply to Scottsville, but the zoning and
subdivision ordinances do not apply.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt this plat requires the approval of both
Commissions.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
2��
1. Determination of a building site;
2. Location, area and dimensions of building site;
3. Approval of the plat by the Town of Scottsville;
4. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Park View Corporation Final Plat - located off the north side of Route 240
near Acme Visible; proposal to divide a 15.63 acre parcel leaving 17.75 acres
in residue. White Hall Magisterial District (Tax Map 56, Parcel 68F).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that there was no objections
to the recommended conditions for approval made by the staff. He also noted
that parcel #6 is an adjoining parcel and is primarily used for location
purposes and orientation.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was certification of the building site available
at this time.
Ms. Imhoff stated that a certification of the building site had been submitted
noting that this certification was not accppted by the staff because staff
felt that an overlay showing building sites and dimensions was needed.
Mr. Skove asked how large the parcel is.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the parcel is 15.63 acres.
Ms. Imhoff stated that it is the interpretation of the ordinance, by the staff,
that an overlay showing the building sites and dimensions was required. She
also noted that the health department requires septic fileds to be located
within the 30,000 square foot building site.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that in his opinion the requirement for an overlay was
unnecessary and stated that the certification submitted by Mr. Foster was
adequate.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
a. Determination of a 30,000 square foot building site;
b. Location, area and dimensions of lawful buiding site;
C. Assignment of development rights;
d. Correct the departing lot lines of the adjoining parcels;
e. Written Health Department approval;
ZN
IR
f. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
g. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and includes:
1) County Engineer approval of road plans;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
Mr. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Earlysville Forest, Section One, Final Plat - located on the north side of Route
743, southeast of Route 660 and west of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport,
near Earlysville; proposal to divide 26 lots with an average size of 60,000
square feet leaving 300+ acres in residue, in accordance with the approved Planned
Unite Development. Rivanna Magisterial District (Tax Map 31, portion of parcel 31).
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself by leaving the room.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the applicant had any comments at this time.
David Blankenbaker, representing the applicant, questioned the recommendation
by the highway department to have a portion of Stillhouse Lane accepted into the
state system. He noted that copies of the plan showing what was proposed had been
sent to the highway department and that tentative approval of these plans had been
received. He felt that the development would be best served by the road serving
parcel #C, the commercial area, and the recreational area.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this plat.
Mr. Stuart Wood, an adjacent owner in Wakefield, asked what portion of the road
off of Route 743 would be bought up to state standards.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the roads would be built to state standards and this would
be required as a condition of approval as plans for each phase were reviewed.
Mr. Blankenbaker stated that the right turn lane and the main entrance into the
property have been built to state standards. He also noted that the road will
be built to state standards at the intersection of Rts. 743 and 660.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked when the remainder of the state road would be developed.
Mr. Blankenbaker stated that as he understood it the remainder of the state road
would be totally developed in the second phase of development.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if "the plat will be signed when the following
conditions have been met" means that no lots can be sold until each item has
been complied with.
28�
Mr. Payne stated that the conditions have to be complied with, but noted that
some of the conditions could be bonded.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt, representative from the Virginia Department of `WI
Highways & Transportation, to explain the request for the extension of the
state road into the recreation area.
Mr. Roosevelt noted that the entrance is supposed to be the main access into the
subdivision. If this area is fully developed and assuming there is no thru traffic,
the traffic count would be nine hundred (900) to one thousand (1,000) vehicle
trips per day, therefore, it would be best to limit the number of access points
to this property.
Mrs. Diehl asked if Mr. Roosevelt was assuming that a separate entrance would be
required for the commercial area.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that the highway department would recommend that entrance
to the commercial area be on the entrance road and not in the deceleration lane
area along Rt. 743.
Mrs. Diehl asked if one entrance could serve the recreation and commercial area.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that the highway department would have to be advised as
to how the commercial and recreational area would be developed.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the commercial and recreational uses would be more compatible
in terms of using a common road and entrance than residential and recreationsal uses.
Mr. Roosevelt replied "no." He further stated that he defines compatible as
to what would be the safest way to handle traffic, where the Commission defines
compatible as to the type of traffic and what would be acceptable to the community.
Mr. Skove asked what the topography of the area was like and if there would be
a problem in building the road to state standards.
Mr. Blankenbaker stated that the topography was relatively flat, sloping gradually
at the entrance to the property.
Mrs. Diehl noted that health department approval had been received for this
subdivision. She also noted that the soil scientist report stated that nine of
these lots may have to be pumped and that one lot would need septic ditches nine
feet in depth.
Mr. Skove questioned the cost involved in building the road to state standards.
Mr. Blankenbaker stated that in his opinion, their recommendations were made
to state standards, noting that a turn -around might be required.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that a turn around would be required and that in his
opinion this would be located in the recreational area.
19
2Y)
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not agree with having the turn around in the
recreational area, noting that this would create problems, and that the
landscape would be disturbed.
Mr. Bowerman stated that one of the conditions of approval of the originial
rezoning request was that prior to final approval the applicant would propose
a method of buffering adjacent lots in Earlysville Heights from a public road,
and if practical such buffering would be installed prior to any grading and
construction. He asked if any landscape plans have been submitted with regards
to this condition.
Mr. Blankenbaker stated that white pines are shown on the site plan adjacent
to the main entrance of Earlysville Forest Drive and will provide the necessary
buffering.
Mr. Payne stated that with regards to the question of whether the road should
be public or private, in either case there should be a note on the plat restricting
access from the public recreational area onto that portion of the road which is a
private road. He noted that there is no practical way to include the County in
a maintenance agreement. He alos noted that the public should not be allowed
to enter the recreational area from a private road.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt with regard to his suggestion in making a
portion of the public road a private road, how would this effect the general
safety of the area.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he could not state how this would effect the safety
of the area.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt what criteria he used in determining that
access from a private road would be safer than a joint entrance between the
recreational and commercial areas.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that it is possible that joint access between commercial
and recreational areas would be as safe as having a portion of the road
restricted for private use only. He also noted that having the access between the
commercial and recreational areas might require special design standards which
might not be acceptable to either the recreational or commercial areas. He also
noted that his suggestion places restrictions on both the recreational and
commercial areas.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had considered channelling traffic to the
commercial and recreational area.
Mr. Blankenbaker stated that there should not be a problem in designing a plan
to split the traffic once it has entered the main entrance. He also noted
that in his opinion, having a portion of Stillwater Lane as a public road
would create the following problems:
• the turnaround would become a gathering point;
• unnecessary traffic would be generated;
• future owners would not want the additional traffic.
2.9/
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County requires a turn around in a recreational area.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that a turn around had to be provided since this is a
state road.
Mr. Payne stated that the County, although it is not subject to the site plan
ordinance, files site plans prior to any development of this type, noting that
commercial use sould also require a site plan. He also stated that the Commission
would have a chance to review the entrance requirements in a site plan context.
He stated that it is proper to consider the joint use of the entrances in reviewing
either site plan to insure its compatibility with the development.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would prefer a joint entrance serving parcels R & C
to be completely separate from the private road serving the residential area.
Mr. Roosevelt suggested to the Commission that in designating this as a joint
entrance to leave the location of the entrance to the discretion of the developer
of the first parcel, noting that this developer will have to consider the entrance
to the adjoining parcel.
Mr. Payne suggested the following language for this condition: "the joint access
easement to serve parcel C and R is reserved and location to be designated by
agreement between owners of parcesls C and R."
Mr. Payne also noted that the location of the easement will have to be shown
when the site plan is submitted to eliminate the potential title problem.
Mr. Bowerman asked if both parcels C and R were part of the plat being
reviewed at this time.
Mr. Payne stated that they were both part of this plat and noted that when the
plat goes to record parcel R will be dedicated to public use.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was unclear as to what is being asked of the
Commission at this time and what will be submitted for consideration in the
future.
Mr. Payne stated that the County could be considered as one of the property owners,
noting that this is a subdivision of a parcel to allow the conveyance of these
parcels to two owners. He also stated that when the properties are to be
developed, site plans should be submitted.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Commission is approving the residential
portion of the plat at this time.
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 the fire access easement;
b. Fire Official approval of dry hydrants and access surfacing;
C. Note that all structures are to be separated by a minimum of 100';
d. Determination of a 30,000 square foot building site per lot;
e. Note the location, area and dimensions of lawful building sites;
19
29Z
f. Note any drainage easements;
g. Provide a street sign;
h. County Engineer approval of plans for central water system;
i. County Engineer approval of final road plans for both the state and
private road;
j. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
k. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of plans for
roads intended for acceptance into the State Secondary System, and approval
of a right turn lane at the entrance of Rt. 743;
1. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the private road,
common open space, easements and central water system;
M. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA-81-11;
n. A joint access easement to serve Parcels "C" and "R" is reserved at
a location to be designated as agreed upon by the owners of Parcel
"C" and "R"
o. Waiver of 18-36(d) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Garbers, Inc. Contractors Shop Site Plan - located on the north side of Broadway,
Street, east of the intersection with Carlton Avenue, Franklin Street and Broadway
Street; proposal to locate a contractor's shop (for fabrication and storage of
materials) on a 2+ acre parcel. Rivanna Magisterial District (tax map 77, portion
of parcel 40D).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Garber stated that his company has been in business in Richmond for thirty
years and in this area for one year. He also stated that the requirement for a
septic system to be built would cost them a considerable amount of time and money
noting that ninety-eight (98) percent of the time the employee's are out of the
shop. He asked the Commission for their consideration of his proposal noting
that this business would be an asset to the community.
Roger Ray, representing the applicant, stated that the landscape plans were submitted
with the site plan and questioned if the staff was disagreeing with these plans
or asking for something different.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the staff would like the landscaping to be in keeping with
the Roadway Express Site Plan, which uses a white pine buffer, noting that these
are industrial lots and the same type of landscaping would be an asset to the
development.
Mr. Ray ascertained that the landscaping on the front of the property could remain
as submitted on the site plan. (Dogwood and Mrytle trees on the front of the property).
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked if a certificate of occupancy was needed, noting the short length
of time the building would be occupied.
293
Mr. Payne stated that the building code requires a certificate of occupancy
to be issued before the building can legally be occupied.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any indications as to what the noise
level would be.
Mr. Garber stated that they will be using skill saws and hammers and the noise
level would be at a minimum.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the construction of the doors would be done at this location.
Mr. Garber stated that the doors are shippped from the factory and are, assembled
at this location.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this building would primarily be used for storage
purposes.
Leon Taylor, representing Aluminium Steel Construction Company, stated that
in his opinion the Garber's Inc. Contractors Shop would be an asset to the
community.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the conditions recommended by the staff for approval
include the temporary porti-potti.
Mrs. Diehl stated the temporary certificate of occupancy includes health
department approval of porta-potti, noting that the temporary occupancy
is not to exceed five months from the date of approval. She further stated
that when Moore's Creek goes on line they will be required to hook up to the 44)
sewer line.
Mr. Davis 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. Provide a landscape plan, to include schedule of planting;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
2. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy, which is not to exceed five (5) months
from the date of approval, will be issued when the following conditions
have been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow.
b. Health Department approval of porta-potti;
3. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following
condition has been met:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the connection to
public sewer.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1 with Mr.
Gloeckner abstaining.
Z94
Lillian Roach Final Plat - located off the end of Route 817 about 3.0 miles
north of Earlysville; proposal to divide a 2.13 acre parcel leaving 22.09
acres in tesidue. White Hall Magisterial District (Tax Map 19, portion of
Parcel 19).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Joe Roach, the applicant, stated that this subdivision is requested for the
purpose of building a residence. He noted that the certification of a building
site has been obtained and that the requirements of the critical slopes criteria
had been met.
Mr. Roach stated that the County Engineer indicated that if the road is ten to
twelve feet in width, with two or three inches of gravel it would meet the
requirements of the engineering department.
Mr. Roach questioned the need for a maintenance agreement, noting that the
location of the proposed road is in an area where a right-of-way has existed
since 1937. He also noted that this right-of-wav is not being used at the
present time, and that only the individual building on this parcel would be
served by the right-of-way. Mr. Roach pointed out to the Commission the
entrances used by the adjacent property owners. He stated that it is his
understanding that a maintenance agreement is designed to be an agreement
between the people using or served by a right-of-way. He again pointed out
that only the individual building on this parcel would actually use the
right-of-way and asked for a waiver of this condition. He noted that in
talking with the adjacent property owners they agreed if the road were built
to the requirements of the county engineer this would be sufficient.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to respond to the question concerning the
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Payne stated that the County, in his opinion, could not require anyone to
participate in a maintenance agreement other that the persons involved in the
subdivision. He noted that the applicant should realize that the adjacent
owners may not use the right-of-way at this time, but may start to use it at
a later date, which is their right.
Mr. Payne stated that in this particular case he would prefer a maintenace
agreement that requires Mrs. Roach to participate to the extent that she
actually uses the road.
Mrs. Diehl explained to Mr. Roach that in effect the maintenance agreement
is a type of protection for him, noting that if the adjacent properties which
join this easement develop they would have to enter into the maintenance
agreement and help maintain the road.
Mr. Roach stated that in his opinion a maintenance agreement is not needed
at this time. He asked if the maintenance agreement could be addressed
when additional development occurs.
z�5
Mrs. Diehl stated that if a maintenance agreement was not agreed upon
at this time, the Commission could not require one as additional development
occurs. Vd
Mr. Cogan asked the applicant if he was familiar with legal aspects of a
maintenance agreement.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Ray how he met the requirement for the certification of a
building site.
Mr. Ray stated that the slope analysis for this certification was cone on the
site using levels, etc. He also noted that each certification costs'at a minimum
approximately fifty dollars ($50.00),'larger sites cost between
one hundred and fifty ($150) to two hundred dollars ($200.00).
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and includes:
a. County Engineer approval of road plans;
b. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which was unanimous for approval.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mrs. Diehl noted that the work session scheduled for April 27, on the sign
ordinance, will be changed to May 4 from 4:00 - 6:00. She stated that the
reason for the change was that some members of the Sign Ordinance Committee
could not attend the April 27 meeting.
She also noted that in addition to working on the sign ordinance, additional
time was added to work on the Capital Improvements Program.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mrs. Diehl stated that she attended a meeting on the Buck Mountain Study.
She noted that water from the Piney Creek area is slightly less eutropic than
the Rivanna Reservoir is at the present time.
She also noted that the study was developed using the Rapidan Watershed Area
which is larger than this area. She explained that this area was used because
all the necessary information had not been obtained, such as flow rate
figures etc.
She asked the Staff to obtain copies of this report for the Commissioners.
19
2y�
Mr. Gloeckner noted the difficulty in meeting deadlines for submittals
required by the Staff. He stated that governmental agencies respond to
the plans at the last minute which does not give the Staff or the applicant
ample time to review and/or meet the recommendations.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if deadlines could be required of governmental agencies
as well as the applicants.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the highway department has to wait for responses
to these plans from their Culpeper office. She noted that most of the
time contact with the highway department is by phone therefore nothing
is submitted in writing.
Mr. Payne stated that the highway department has created a new district which
should help alleviate this problem.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission is concerned about this problem, they
should direct the staff to get in contact with the highway department and
discuss this problem.
The concensus of the Commission was for Mr. Tucker to discuss this problem
with the highway department..
CERTIFICATION OF BUILDING SITES:
Ms. Imhoff stated that the requirement for the certification of a building
site is still a matter of concern and asked for suggestions from the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner stated this requirement asks the surveyor to certify topo maps
that have not been prepared and also noted the extra expense to the individual.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance requires a twenty foot (201) contour map
(U.S.G.S,)or a recommendation from the County Engineer.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt the purpose of this requirement is for a sub-
division with a large number of lots on a relatively small parcel. He noted
that he did not feel this certification was needed on larger parcels.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that it is not necessary to put this certification
on the plat, as long as the Staff see that the overlay is accurate.
Mr. Payne stated that if the certification was put on the plat it leaves
the title researcher with the impression that the house must be in this
location.
Ms. Imhoff stated that a memorandum had been sent to the land planners
and surveyors explaining this requirement. She stated that she would
get copies of this memorandum for the Commission.
29�
The meeting adjourned at 10:05.
RobAt W. Tucker, Jr., Sec tar/
zyg