Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 08 81 PC MinutesSeptember 8, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, September 8, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Absent were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion; and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Mr. Bowerman, acting Chairman in Mrs. Diehl's absence, called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. When it was determined that the representative for Westfield, the first item on the agenda, was not yet present, Mr. Keeler asked to inform the Commission of action taken by the Board on churches and cemeteries. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that the Board had taken action and that churches were now permitted by special use permit in all districts; he further explained that this action was taken by the Board although Mr. Tucker had informed the Board of the Commission's pending action on the proposed amendments. Mr. Keeler suggested that due to the Board action, the Commission might want to consider withdrawing its Resolution of Intent as adopted on August 4, 1981. Mr. Kindrick asked what would happen if the Resolution were not withdrawn. Mr. Payne said that it would go to public hearing and the Commission could recommend some other amendment, which the Board could deny. Mr. Bowerman asked whether anyone wanted to pursue the matter. Mr. Davis made a motion to withdraw the Resolution of Intent to amend Article 10, of the Zoning Ordinance, to provide for churches by right in the RA district, and to amend Article 3, to add the definition of churches, and to amend Article 5 to add Supplementary Regulations for churches. Mr. Bowerman asked for a second to the motion, after none was forthcoming. When there was still no second, Mr. Bowerman announced that the original motion adopting the Resolution of Intent of August 4, 1.981, stood. Mr. Bowerman asked for what date this Resolution would be advertised. Mr. Keeler responded that it would be scheduled for the October 6 meeting. Mr. Keeler said that under NEW BUSINESS on the agenda, item (a) Request for Resolution of Intent to amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS of the Zoning Ordinance by addition of definition of "Natural Resource Extraction, should be postponed, due to the scheduled review of this issue by the Board of Supervisors on September 9, 1981. Mr. Keeler said that there had been some confusion in the scheduling, and `fir+ it would be desirable to await some direction from the Board before proceeding. 5�) Mr. Gloeckner so moved to defer this item until after Board discussion of the matter. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner stated that he would have to disqualify himself from the first two items on the agenda, since his firm was a member of the Blue Ridge I:omebui! ers .Association, and he left the room. Mr. Keeler explained that since the first two items were essentially closely related, he would present both Staff Reports together. Westfield, Lots 11, 11B and 11C, Final Plat (for Blue Ridge Homebuilders) - Located on the south side of Commonwealth Drive between Westfield Road and Greenbrier Drive; proposal to divide a 68,836 square foot parcel into 3 lots having 28,173 square feet, 15,846 square feet, and 24,813 square feet respectively. Charlottesville Magisterial District (Tax Map 61W, portion of Parcel 9). Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association Office Building Site Plan - Located on the south side of Commonwealth Drive between Westfield Road and Greenbrier Drive; proposal to locate a 1,120 square foot two-story office building on a 15,846 square foot site. Charlottesville. Magisterial District (Tax Map 61W, portion of Parcel 9). Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department explained that in order to avoid several entrances on Commonwealth, the Department's recommendation was to limit access and have a joint entrance for Lots 11B and 11C. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was comment from the applicant at this time. Mr. Don Wagner stated that he did not understand why the number of entrances was an issue. He said that the number of entrances did not cause an increase in traffic, but the type of businesses might. He pointed out that the number of entrances proposed would be limited to four, on a longer road frontage than the ten entrances on Westfield. He said that this limitation would put an unfair burden on future site plans. Mr. Wagner said that Lot 11 had a cemetery on it and he had a potential customer for a portion of this lot, but with the requirement for a certain size building with a certain amount of parking. If he could work up a site plan for this person, it might involve two entrances and only use a part of the lot. Therefore, Mr. Wagner said that he thoughtit premature for the Commission to condition the subdivision plat, when all the information about future development was not available. Mr. Wagner explained the design of the entrance on 11C, saying that it gave a nice clean sweep to the back of the building. He said that for the 121-2 feet separation the property line could be redrawn to leave the corner out and the two lots could work out a lease agreement. Mr. Wagner said that the Highway Department's primary concern was the 25 feet of separation between entrances. 53/ Mr. Charles T. Lebo, President of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, asked to speak and concurred with Mr. Wagner's statement that the number of entrances on Commonwealth would not increase or decrease the amount of traffic but that the extra access would make the remaining lots more attractive and therefore more saleable. Mr. Preston Stallings said that he was the contract purchaser of Lot 11B, and the idea of a joint entrance would not suit him at all. He pointed out that the topography of the land did not work favorably from his vantage point. He said that by placing the entrance as designed, more green area would remain between 11C and 11B. Mr. Bowerman said that at this time the meeting was open to public comment and he asked that each speaker identify himself for the public record. Mr. William Stevenson said that he was involved in selling this property. He said that he was rather confused by the Highway Department's position. Mr. Steven- son said that diagonally across from the property in question there was a new office building with two entrances, neither of which is a joint entrance. Also, he stated that the Division of Motor Vehicles is immediately adjoining and has two entrances, neither of which is a joint entrance. He said that it appeared to be inconsistent and confusing to adjacent owners who were trying to develop site plans. Mr. Stevenson said that he assumed that the Division of Motor Vehicles had to meet State standards. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any additional comments from the public. Mr. Coburn asked to defend the Highway Department statement, saying that there was no inconsistency at all. He said that this instance was a case of subdivision where an opportunity existed to limit access. He said that the previous cases represented cases in which the subdivision had already taken place prior to development, or a maneuver had prevented the Highway Department an opportunity to control the number of accesses. Mr. Coburn pointed out that both the office building and the DMV were on corner lots, with access on Westfield as well as on Commonwealth. Mr. Coburn said that both were built to State specifications and met the requirement of 25 feet between entrances. Mr. Coburn said that there was additionally a difference between the two roads, Westfield and Commonwealth. He said that the former would always have less traffic since there was no direct or indirect access to or from the northern lane of Route 29 North. He explained that Commonwealth by virtue of Greenbrier did have that access to 29 and would always have more traffic than Westfield. Mr. Coburn continued, saying that several lots on Westfield had been subdivided and met the requirement of 25 feet between entrances but had not yet been developed. He said that in this instance the site plan accompanied the subdivision. Mr. Coburn allowed that limiting entrances would not reduce traffic but pointed out that the intent of limited access was to reduce the number of conflict points, and that if locating the entrance 1212 feet from the property line did not leave an adequate building site, then perhaps the lotwas not appropriate for the desired building. Mr. Coburn said that if a condition were placed on Lot 11B requiring any entrance on that property to be 25 feet from any other entrance, the same result could be assured. He stressed that the Highway Department concern was that 25 feet be maintained between entrances, even if an entrance were constructed other than 12'z feet from a property line. 532 Mr. Coburn explained that the Highway Department concern with the total number of access points was due to the Department's desire to reduce conflict points. He further stated that conflict points even with the same volumes cause more disturbance and disruption. Mr. Stallings asked about meeting only one of the criteria, either having the entrances 12=2 feet from the property line or 25 feet apart, but leaving him that flexibility within which to work out site plans. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to comment again at this time. Mr. Wagner indicated that he would be agreeable to meeting the requirement that all entrances be 25 feet apart, however that could be worked out. Mr. Bowerman announced that if there were no further public comments, the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Cogan said that he thought the idea of limiting the entrances to 25 feet apart would work on Lots 11B and 11C, but that the problem still existed on how to restrict Lot 11. Mr. Bowerman agreed, saying that Lot 11 might be further subdivided in the future. He said that 450 to 500 feet of road frontage was involved and that the lots were relatively small. He said that in the past the policy with some few exceptions had been to work out arrangements for sharing entrances in order to limit the number of access points onto hightays. Mr. Bowerman said that it was difficult for him to understand how the topography could be a major issue, because these lots were relatively flat, with some drop-off to the rear and toward the DMV. Mr. Stevenson disagreed and said that the other problem with a joint or shared entrance was in selling a lot because there were always disputes over which user used the entrance more and should therefore pay more for maintenance or construction of the entrance. Mr. Stallings said for the purposes of the building he intended to build, it would not be practical or desireable to have the entrance come in as designed. He said his building design was based on topography, and he indicated that relocating the entrance would cause the loss of the front strip of the property and parking area, plus involve relocating the drainage pipe. Mr. Cogan said again that if the entrances were 25 feet apart on Lots 11B and 11C he would have no problem with their having separate entrances, but he wondered about restricting Lot 11 to one entrance, although for some uses there might be better flow with an entrance and an exit. Mr. Davis said that if the topography were a hardship economically he would be in favor of separate entrances, but if not, it was always safer to have as few entrances onto a road as possible. He said that it was hard for him to tell how much grading would affect Lot 11B. Mr. Cogan said that he understood from Mr. Coburn that the Highway Department would allow separate entrances for 11B and 11C, as long as they were 25 feet apart. 19 Mr. Cogan clarified that this would involve a waiver, because commercial entrances '6�?) are required to be 1212 feet from the property line. Nonetheless, he believed that with assurances of separation of 25 feet between entrances, such a waiver could be granted. Mr. Davis said that until a site plan were presented for Lot 11, he did not see how entrances could be addressed. Mr. Cogan said that he was suggesting restricting Lot 11 to one entrance. Mr. Payne asked to comment. He said that Lots 11B and 11C represented a subdivision of one parcel and that the Highway Department could require a joint entrance in such a case if it were possible. He said that same reasoning did not apply to Lot 11 because it was not to have a joint entrance with anything else and this issue could be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Payne said that really the concern was Lots 11B and 11C. Mr. Cogan said that he would be happy at this time to place a restriction on Lot 11B that any future site plan show the entrance a minimum of 25 feet from the boundary between itand 11C,if the site plan before the Commission on Lot 11C were approved. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Cogan's suggestion was in the form of a motion. He replied that it was not, since the matter was still under discussion. Mr. Davis said this condition would be on the subdivision. Mr. Cogan so concurred and made a motion that the Final Plat on Westfield, Lots 11, 11B and 11C be approved, subject to the conditions recommended by staff with the amended lc condition to read: the entrance to 11B will have to be a minimum of 25 feet east of the boundary line between 11B and 11C. And he added that condition ld be deleted, which required a note on the plat limiting lot 11 to one entrance. Mr. Bowerman asked about whether Mr. Cogan intended the 25 feet to be measured from the entrance of 11C rather than from the boundary line. Mr. Cogan said that no entrances were shown on the plat, but that such a restriction would place the burden on 11B, so he would amend his wording of the motion to read: any future entrance of 11B must be a minimum of 25 feet from the entrance to 11C. Mr. Kindrick and Mr. Davis concurred that this restriction was appropriate. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed 3 - 1, with Mr. Bowerman dissenting and Mr. Gloeckner abstaining. The motion thereby carried, granting approval of the Westfield, Lots 11, 11B and 11C, Final Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Owner's notarized signature; b. Note and record any drainage easements; C. Any future entrance for 11B must be a minimum of 25 feet from the entrance to 11C; d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the location of the commercial entrances. Mr. Bowerman proceeded to the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Site Plan next. He asked whether the applicant wished to speak on the Site Plan. Mr. Wagner asked about the Staff comment on landscaping. Mr. Bowerman said that Staff felt that Mr. Wagner should provide more landscaping. Mr. Wagner said that the landscaping had been elaborate initially but had been trimmed to a minimum due to expense. He said that he thought this was acceptable to Staff. Mr. Bowerman asked whether he felt. he could reach some agreement with the Staff. Mr. Wagner replied that he did. When there was no public comment, Mr. Bowerman announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Kindrick asked about the condition le, Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and sewer construction plans in connection with the Cross Connection Control Program. Mr. Kindrick said that he did not understand what was being requested here, whether it was some written report. He questioned why this issue was not handled under building inspections and wondered whether an attempt was being made to generate another County job, a cross connection engineer. Mr. Wagner said that the Service Authority already had one. Mr. Coburn said that Brian Smith of the Service Authority had explained to him .recently that it was an assigned duty of the Water Authority to inspect building plans for public buildings for cross connection and back -flow prevention to insure that public water supply is not contaminated. Mr. Smith has been given the task, Mr. Coburn stated„ through a legislative process coming from the Health Department. Mr. Coburn said that this condition was designed to have the Commission help the Service Authority do its job. Mr. Cogan wondered why the Commission had to be involved at this point. He and Mr. Kindrick asked Mr. Keeler to look into this matter. Mr. Davis moved for approval of the site plan, subject to the recommended conditions with amendments as follow: 1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications; b. County Engineer approval of a commercial entrance; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance to Lot 11C; d. Fire Official approval of hydrant and dumpster locations; e. Service Authority approval_ of internal plumbing and sewer construction plans in connection with the Cross Connection Control Program; f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; g. Staff approval of landscape plan; 2. A Certificate of Occupany will be issued when the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow. 535 f Mr. Bowerman said that he was not going to support this motion, because he had not seen enough evidence to support deviating from general policy and allowing each of the four lots, in this particular instance two lots, a separate entrance. Mr. Davis said that he would tend to agree except for the economic hardship. Mr. Bowerman said that a topographic map might have strengthened the case for separate entrances, but that he could not justify allowing that based on what had been presented tonight. Mr. Bowerman called for a vote on the motion, which passed 3 - 1 with Mr. Bowerman dissenting and Mr. Gloeckner abstaining. Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting. Edward Cleveland Final Plat - Division of 14.51 acre parcel from a 704.58 acre tract. Located at the end of Route 661. Charlottesville Magisterial District (Tax Map 45, Parcel 1). Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Payne explained that in his opinion the 250 feet frontage requirement did not apply in this situation and said that he had discussed this matter with Mr. Tucker and Mr. McCallum. Mr. Payne said that the road really never ended but changed character midway, becoming an internal private road and thereby would be in compliance. He explained that the purpose of the ordinance was to prevent stripping in the RA district. He said that in his opinion it would be proper for the Commission to approve this waiver, because the purpose of the ordinance was served and because in this particular instance only one road was involved, making it an unusual situation that was never contemplated in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Davis asked whether then, if this requirement in effect did not apply in this case, any waiver was necessary. Mr. Payne replied that he believed that in this instance a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance was in order. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if he wished to speak at this time. Mr. George McCallum, III, representing the applicant, explained that the request for a waiver was from the private road ordinance, because the applicant's home and entrance were going to be located just at the end of the publicly -maintained road; and although his property continued to front on the private segment of this same road, the applicant had no intended use of this road and would not want to be bound to a maintenance agreement. Mr. McCallum explained that with a waiver from the Commission, the applicant would be in full compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. He said that this waiver constituted allowing the thirty feet of frontage on a public road, in lieu of 220 feet. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was none, Mr. Bowerman announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis observed that it would be most unlikely that someone with a private road running through his property would not at some point want to use that road. Mr. McCallum explained on the site plan the location of the proposed home and the topography of the parcel which would make any use of the private segment of the road by the applicant unlikely. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the Edward Cleveland Final Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1) The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrance; C. Waiver of the 250 feet of road frontage requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance; d. Waiver of any maintenance agreement, provided that private drive enters from public road. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. SP-81-37 Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc. - Located on the south side of Route 250 East about 350 feet east of Free Bridge. Rivanna Magisterial District, County Tax Map 78, portion of Parcel 17G, consisting of 1.10 acres out of a 6.787 acre tract, zoned C-1. Proposal to locate a fast-food restaurant, in accordance with Section 22.2.2#4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, adding that the owner had been encouraged to locate a connection to the AWT interceptor along the western side of the penninsula, crossing the Rivanna at one point, in order to serve all of the property. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were full frontage improvements and a commercial entrance already in place, and Mr. Coburn replied that they were. He explained that curb and gutter extended from the river up to the Bank at Riverbend brive, as well as a turn lane and storm gutter. Mr. Coburn remarked that Mr. Keeler had put the position of the Highway Department very well. He said that discussion had taken place over a long period of time, recalling that Virginia Land had first mentioned the possibility of an entrance at this site around January of this year. Mr. Coburn said that the Highway Department had indicated that some overall type development plan would need to be submitted and such a plan was provided on March 13. Mr. Coburn said that this plan showed curb and gutter extending from Free Bridge up to Riverbend Drive, along with storm gutter. He said that this plan accompanied an application for a permit and was returned because of inadequate drainage information. It was resubmitted on April 17, Mr. Coburn stated, in revised form. He said that subsequent discussion involved restrictions on the development of several of the 531 j460, parcels owned by Virginia Land. Mr. Coburn said that a permit was issued on May 28, 1981, based on developing the property as shown on the plan, for what was termed a commercial street entrance (consisting of curb and gutter, storm sewer, additional lane and entrance). One of the conditions of the permit stated that approval of this permit was based on the premise that no future entrances would be allowed between the un-named road and Riverbend Drive, Mr. Coburn further explained. Mr. Coburn suggested that possibly someone had been mislead or that a lot of confusion surrounded the matter. Mr. Coburn said that the entrance as constructed had adequate sight distance and could carry sufficient traffic to serve the entire parcel. He said that the Highway Department recommended restricting access to that one access road. He said that whether this road became a public -maintained road or not depended on future development. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mr. Jim White of Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., stated that his company was not aware of any agreement between Dr. Hurt and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. White said that as a result of this misunderstanding, Boddie-Noell was under no obligation to go through with the purchase from the doctor. Mr. White said that the first reaction of Boddie-Noell had been, upon learing of the agreement between Dr. Hurt and the Highway Department, to cancel the purchase contact immediately. On further study, Mr. White continued, it was determined that this site was still desireable for the location of a fast-food restaurant on the eastern side of town. Mr. White said that the decision was made to go forward with the proposal in the hopes of convincing the Board that this corner was not dangerous and in fact was similar to many such corners all over the State. Mr. White said that he was not aware of any accidents ever having occurred that could be the result of an access of a Boddie-Noell restaurant. He said that his firm was responsive to any public hazard and in one instance had offered to close an entrance that a mayor had deemed dangerous. Mr. White stressed the need of speed in serving the public with easy access, flow and parking. He said that this was not a true corner lot, since the road did not lead anywhere. Mr. White said that his firm would not be opposed to sharing an entrance. He said that his firm did have significant problems with access on the private road and with the contingency that this access be hack sixty feet from the point of tangency. He said that this would create flow problems within the lot. In closing, Mr. White said that he would not want to seem insistent, as mentioned by Mr. Coburn, on developing this site, but that he had desired public review in hopes that the Board might look in favor on the proposal, in spite of the Highway Department recommendation. Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment; when there was none, he announced the public hearing closed and the matter before the Commission. Mr. Davis said that he would support the Highway Department; he added that this was one of the worst roads in the County. He said that access points should be limited and that he saw no reason to change his position. Mr. Bowerman said that he agreed with Mr. Davis, but that he was struck by the candor of the applicant. He commended Mr. White for sharing all the facts of the case and that although he disagreed with his opinion on the appropriateness of this site, he appreciated Mr. White's openness. 53S Mr. Gloeckner said that he had no objection to a Hardee's being located on..Pantops, except that it was a three -lane highway there and an agreement already existed between Dr. Hurt and the Highway Department. He added that it was a well-known dangerous section of road, with the bottleneck at Free Bridge. Until there were four lanes, the situation was hazardous. Mr. Gloeckner said that he could only support the permit with the condition that the entrance be onto the private road. Mr. Cogan agreed on the issue of danger, saying that his concern was especially with the traffic coming out and turning west back toward Charlottesville. He suggested that perhaps the site plan could be reworked to improve the internal traffic flow. Mr. Kindrick said that he could not go along with an additional entrance onto Route 250 East. Mr. Bowerman added that the Highway Department wants to eliminate side friction and that to weaken their efforts would be a mistake. Mr. White stated that he had thought it worth trying to convince the Commission, but if unsuccessful, could two entrances be developed on the private road, one being closer than the required sixty feet from the corner. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it would not be proper to answer this inquiry. Mr. Gloeckner explained to the applicant that the Commission does not set limits. Mr. Cogan said that one of the conditions of approval is always Highway Department approval of commercial entrance. He went on to make a motion that the special use permit be denied because he would not want to make it subject to only one entrance because that would involve a whole new site plan. Mr. Payne pointed out that this site plan was not before the Commission and was in effect only a possibility; he stated that only the special use permit was before the Commission at this time. Mr. Cogan said, therefore, he would withdraw his motion. Mr. Gloeckner then moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the condition recommended by Staff: 1. Access shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's letter of August 24, 1981. No direct access to Route 250 East shall be permitted. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Bowerman announced that the next three items were all contiguous. Review of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority storage tank location and two alternate routes for water transmission main in the Pantops area for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as provided in Section 31.2.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. 53� SP-81-42 Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority - Request to locate two (2) alternate crossings of the Rivanna River with a water transmission main, in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed crossings would occur (A) approximately 2,700 feet north of the Route 250 East crossing (Free Bridge) and (B) approximately 400 feet north of the Route 250 East crossing (Free Bridge). Property is shown on County Tax Map 78, Parcels 1 and 58L, Rivanna Magisterial District, Flood Hazard Overlay District. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Storage Tank Plat - Division of 2.812 acre parcel from the open space area of Ashcroft PRD. Property is intended to house a 5,000,000 gallon water storage reservoir. Rivanna Magisterial District (Tax Map 78, Parcel 55). Mr. Keeler stated that he would give the three Staff Reports and then have each of the items open for discussion. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mr. George Williams, Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, stated that these proposals came out of a four -party agreement signed in 1973 between the City, the County, the Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He said that one of the greatest advantages to be gained by this agreement would be the storage tank. Mr. Williams said that at present only a half -day supply of water storage existed and the tank would provide a whole day's supply. He added that Alternate Route A would be the preference of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority from the standpoint of economics and engineering. He said that the Service Authority due to some advantages on distribution, was ready with the design of Route B to receive bids. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Service Authority would help pay its share if Route B were selected. Mr. Williams responded that there were engineering and construction problems with laying a trench along 250 East. He said that the Board of Directors position was that if the cost of Route B came in higher than A, the Service Authority would pay the difference. Mr. Cogan asked about the possibilities of putting in a distribution line at the same time as a transmission line. Mr. Williams said that it could possibly be done but would be very difficult. Mr. Davis clarified that although bids would be received on both crossings, the permit would allow for only one river crossing. Mr. Williams concurred that this was correct. Mr. Cogan said that even if Route A were chosen, a distribution line would still be required along Route B, in order to get the highest use of this water. Mr. Williams responded that this was true, but it would be an 8" line instead of a 24" line. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment at this time. 5� Mr. Coburn spoke on behalf of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation saying that the Department much preferred Route A, recognizing the difficulty in locating any utility along that segment of Route 250. He mentioned the current review of extended gas lines which will bring service connections. Mr. Coburn said that he could see more problems with Route B. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the gas lines would be on the other side of Route 250. Mr. Coburn replied that between the river and Route 20, both gas and water lines were: to go up the northern side of 250, then the gas lines were to cross to the other side. Mr. Bowerman said that the matter was now before the Commission, since there was no further public comment. Mr. Payne suggested that any motion to find the request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan should clearly show that either alternate route was acceptable. Mr. Davis said that he would not be adverse to limiting the crossing to one. Mr. Gloeckner said that he thought that either route served the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the purpose was to get the line to the tank, and then the distribution lines could go anywhere. He said that the questions of bids and costs should be between the two authorities. Mr. Gloeckner said that he thought Alternate Route A was a great idea, using one utility easement for another. Mr. Davis made a motion to find either of the routes in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment on the special use permit application. When there was none, he announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner suggested spelling out that the permit was for either one alternate or the other, as Mr. Davis had pointed out. There was concurrence on this issue. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of SP-81-42 Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, subject to the following conditions: 1) County Engineer review in accordance with Sections 30.3.3.1 and 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) No tree -removal shall be permitted, except as is necessary for transmission line construction and maintenance of the transmission line. Construction activity shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize exposure of root systems of shoreline trees. Equipment should not travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree -root systems; 3) Compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. In review of plans, the Soil Erosion Committee should be mindful of the conditions of approval of this Special Use Permit; 4) Approval of this Special Use Permit shall be limited to one crossing of the river, either Alternate Route A or Alternate Route B. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were questions or discussion of the Storage Tank plat, the third item related to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Gloeckner observed that because it was a subdivision plat involving an area pretty far removed from recognizable landmarks, a vicinity map should be shown on the plat. In addition, he questioned the general description on the plat of a 'fight -of -way along existing woods road." Mr. Gloeckner suggested that such wording should include metes and bounds; he questioned whether it was a legal description as written. Mr. Payne said that conditions incorporating these suggestions would be appropriate. Mr. Davis asked whether a site plan would come before the Commission. He remarked that the tank would be visible for some distance. Mr. Gloeckner said that the site plan requirement could be waived. Mr. Williams said that normally a storage tank located in a wooded area would be painted a color that would make it blend into its surroundings. He added that a considerable effort had been made to find the least -visible site; he said that a possible site near the Odyssey had been discarded because it would have been visible from Monticello. After some discussion over the possible color of the tank, Mr. Payne remarked that the County was part-owner of this public facility and the likelihood of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority not conforming to the desires of the County was remote. Mr. Davis asked whether the color of the tank could be subject to Staff approval. Mr. Payne replied that the problem was that the subdivision was being addressed, not really the tank itself. Strictly speaking, Mr. Payne said that he thought it would be difficult to enforce a condition relating to the physical characteristics of the tank on the subdivision plat. Mr. Davis responded that in that case he would not be disposed to waive the site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked about conditioning the waiver of site plan, subject to Staff approval of the color. Mr. Payne said that this could be done. Mr. Kindrick made the point that such a condition should be made for a public facility, partially owned by the County, in order to protect the County when it reviews something similar from the private sector and wishes to condition it. Mr. Bowerman asked whether this would add increased water supply to the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Williams responded that it would and to the entire urban area of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Storage Tank Subdivision Plat, subject to the following conditions: S4Z 1. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement; 2. Provide metes and bounds of access right-of-way on plat; 3. Provide Ashcroft vicinity map on plat; 4. Waive site plan requirement, provided tank to be painted earth tone color as approved by Staff. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Williams asked for a clarification on the term "earth tone." Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Gloeckner responded that this meant green or brown, an environmentally harmonious tone. WORK SESSION Discussion of Land Use at I-64 Interchanges for Possible Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Promulgated by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Davis said that one aspect of how to treat development at interchanges that gave him trouble was the wide range in types of interchanges. For example, the 250 East and I-64 interchange had such a high traffic count, he stated. Any development at this interchange could pull traffic from town and further add to the problem of traffic congestion on 250 East at Pantops. .440 Mr. Gloeckner asked whether interchanges might require a separate type of zoning other than the existing conventional zoning districts. Mr. Keeler responded that this had been discussed, but that it presented a problem to develop a zone for local/regional uses and one for highway uses. He suggested that a highway services district might be feasible, as a separate zone from highway commercial. Mr. Gloeckner suggested possibly an overlay district for interstate interchanges. Mr. Payne said that such a treatment, assuming the overlay district were highway commercial, would mean eliminating a lot of the permitted uses, such as automobile sales. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan was coming up for review next year. He said that he was reluctant to look at just one isolated element. in the Comprehensive Plan and believed that the issue could be handled until the thorough review with proffered zoning. Mr. Keeler said that the suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were an interim measure and did not lock the County into a final position on treatment of interstate interchanges. Mr. Bowerman asked about the previously approved shopping center, if the point had been made that it was not appropriate, due to its close proximity to a ramp. Mr. Gloeckner said that it was about a thirty -acre tract on a frontage road. 5r3 Mr. Coburn said that the entrance on this tract would have been onto the frontage road. Mr. Coburn said that these distances could be equated to crossover spacings. He said that of the seven interchanges listed, five already had four lanes, which is the improvement necessary to accommodate adequate turn movements and weaving maneuvers from ramps to entrances and vice versa. He added that a lot of these interchanges were already controlled. Mr. Coburn said that this was basically an attempt to keep in check a situation that would eventually receive in-depth review. Mr. Bowerman asked whether this was an interim step. Mr. Coburn replied that it was. He said that these proposed distances and types of uses were intended as guidelines in handling applications that might come up before the overall review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked how some of the wording was developed, and Mr. Keeler replied that it was taken from the Comprehensive Plan and edited. Mr. Bowerman asked whether topography at some interchanges might not prevent development. Mr. Keeler answered that yes, by virtue of slope and rock and grade differential. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he was for going to public hearing with the Staff suggestions, which were generally incorporating normal development at interchanges and were not controversial. He said that after getting public input, recommendations could be forwarded to the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked about amending some of the wording to include any additional uses. Mr. Payne cautioned being too specific on uses, leaving it as classes of uses. Mr. Bowerman asked about the specifics of the Highway Department recommendations. Mr. Gloeckner said that they would be used as a guideline. Mr. Bowerman determined that there was a concensus to move ahead to public hearing. Mr. Gloeckner moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to address interstate interchanges. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Cogan asked about 84 Lumber plastering signs all over the County. Mr. Kindrick mentioned that they were metal. Mr. Davis said that he had seen them as far as thirty miles away. Mr. Kindrick said that he thought 84 Lumber should be required to remove them. Mr. Payne said that it would be appropriate to notify the Zoning Administrator of this problem. Mr. Davis asked that the Zoning Administrator be requested to investigate the proliferation of 84 Lumber signs around the County. 5YH The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m. i R ert W. Tucker, Jr. Se retary