Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 20 81 PC MinutesOctober 20, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 20, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice Chairman, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. The minutes of April 21, 1981 and April 28, 1981 were approved as submitted. Hydraulic Road Apartments Site Plan - located on the east side of Hydraulic Road, south of Route 656 intersection and west of Route 29 North; a proposal to locate 66 apartment units on a 3.60 acre parcel with a density of 18.3 dwelling units per acre. Charlottesville District (Tax Map 61, Parcel 39). �rrr•'` Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments. Larry Horton, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Horton to explain to the Commission his request for bonus factors pertaining to an increase in density. Mr. Horton stated that in order to complete this project he needs to construct sixty-six (66) units. He noted than an expired special use permit , SP-77-14, had previously permitted 71 units on this site. Mrs. Diehl asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners concerning this site plan. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if the Commission has the discretion to grant all bonus factors. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission had to determine if the bonus factors were sufficient to allow the applicant the right to increase the density. Mr. Payne also explained that Section 18.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, states that a bonus factor of 20o can be obtained for significant landscaping. He explained 5?(� to the Commission that they must determine whether the applicant has indeed provided significant landscaping, and if so, they may grant the 20% density increase. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he would speak to the request for a bonus increase to allow 1.2(2) units be granted, as the developer is leaving .6 acres in its natural state. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should not address this bonus increase until the applicant has site approval. Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the Commission should discuss this bonus request. Mr. Davis stated that bonuses for landscaping and open space are contained in the same article and a miximum increase in density of 20% is allowed, not 40% as stated by the Staff. Ms. Imhoff stated that under environmental standards a 20% bonus increase for the maintenance of existing wooded areas and a 20% bonus increase for significant land- scaping could be granted. She also noted that the total bonuses for a site could not exceed 33%. She stated that her intrepretation of the ordinance, is that in order to obtain bonus increases for the maintenance of existing wooded areas the areas must be important to the existing landscape character of the neighborhood. She explained that the Staff did not feel that the maintenance of .6 acre parcel was improtant to the existing character of the area. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission should make this recommendation. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that these bonus factors had been calculated separately in the past. Mr. Skove ascertained that this was wooded area at the present time. Mr. Cogan stated that he was under the impression that VA-79-83 had been revoked. Ms. Imhoff stated that condition #h of the staff report (Compliance with VA-79-83) referes to the variance. Mr. Cogan asked when the variance would expire. Mr. Payne stated that the variance runs with the land. Mr. Cogan asked how many units would be in each of the buildings and what the height of the buildings would be. Mr. Carl Watkins, engineer for this project, stated that there would be 11 units per building, a total of 6 buildings, 21Z stories high. He also noted that he had the architectual drawings available if the Commission would like to review them. Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that bonus factors are not given for improvements required by the ordinance. He noted that the Commission may want to consider Section 5.1.23 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with the clearing of trees. He explained that under this section of the ordinance the removal of the trees may have been unlawful. rrr Mr. Payne noted that Section 5.1.23 of the Zoning Ordinance states "in districts other than RA, cutting of trees on wooded lands shall be limited to selective cutting which is designed to promote the welfare of the remaining trees, except that wooded lands may be cleared an an incident to the preparation of land for the establishment of some other use permitted in the district, provided that: • such use is exempt from the provision of Section 32.0 hereof; or a site development plan for such permitted use shall have been approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.0 of this ordinance." Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff if there had been any discussion between the Staff and the applicant concerning low or moderate cost housing. Mr. Horton stated that these units are housing for the elderly and the cost would be moderate. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Horton if he had considered using low or moderate type housing as a means of increasing the bonus factor. Mr. Horton stated that he had talked to .the Staff, but the financing for this project was set for the elderly, so he eliminated this means of attaining additional increases in density. Mr. Kindrick asked if there should be fencing around the retention pond. Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission has in the past added a condition for approval as follows: • County Engineer approval of fencing around the retention pond. Mr. Watkins stated that the retention pond is designed on the 50-10 principal and has been reviewed and approved by Tom Trevillian, Engineer. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to explain again the requirements of Section 5.1.23. Mr. Payne stated that this section of the ordinance is designed to prevent stripping of the land by the owner. When the developer is in the process of building on an approved site plan, a certain amount of landscaping is required. He noted that the developer can remove all the trees on this parcel, then plant the required land- scaping. He noted that the remainder of the property had to be used for a permitted use. Mr. Cogan stated that the land has to be cleared anyway to develop and would require landscaping, so he inquired as to why the landscaping shwon was significant and therefore should be viewed as a bonus. Ms. Imhoff stated that Staff felt the landscaping was superior and was in keeping with the adjacent properties. Mr. Davis stated that he felt that the Commission should address the following points: • maintenance of the existing wooded area in accordance with the existing landscape character of the area; landscaping in keeping with the character of the area and minimazation of the impact of development on the existing neighborhoods character. 59� Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff what is adjacent to the wooded area. Ms. Imhoff stated that the wooded area backs up to a residential area. She noted that the Staff did not feel that this area could be disturbed or cleared because of the topography and noted the project is visible only to the units backing on to it. Mrs. Diehl asked 111s. Imhoff why the pedestrian systems is separated from the vehicular right-of-way. Ms. Imhoff replied that an elaborate pathway system behind the wooded area had been provided in the Riverrun Site Plan, noting that this system was in the form of a recreational area. She stated that it would be difficult to develop a pathway on this site which is completely separated from the roadway, and that the site is small and limited. Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt a pathway system could be installed on this property. Ms. Imhoff stated that it might be possible to get a bonus increase based on a separate pathway system, however, there are problems with steep slopes on this site. She noted that the site is small and the loop pathway would not serve any purpose. Ms. Imhoff also pointed out that the applicant could obtain higher density by applying for residential planned neighborhood (RPN). Mr. Bowerman stated that he agreed with the 20% density increase. 14. Cogan ascertained that the community building shown on the plat is the recreational area. Mr. Cogan asked what. portion of the property is set aside for recreational area. GIs. Imhoff stated that this proposal is for the elderly, therefore, a recreational building will be provided. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt this was a good plan and moved for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Add note: "Outdoor lighting must be directed towards the site and away from adjacent tracts and roadways." b. County Engineer approval of sidewalk specifications; c. Fire Official approval of hydrant location, dumpster location and handi- capped provisions; d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of sidewalk location and specifications and commercial entrance; f. Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and mechanical plans in connection with the Cross Connection Control Program; h. Compliance with VA-79-33. 5q9 2. A certificate of may be issued when the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion. Ms. Imhoff asked the Commission if they wanted to add the following condition: ® County Engineer approval of fencing around the retention pond. Mr. Kindrick stated that he was satisfied with Mr. Watkins explanation concerning the retention pond and felt that this condition was not necessary. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if the second bonus of 20o was granted the applicant is still bound to sixty-six (66) units. The motion carried by a vote of 5-2 with Mr. Skove and Mr. Davis dissenting. Hardee's Restaurant Site Plan - located on the south side of Route 2S0 East, east of the Charlottesville Corporate limits and east of the Route 20 intersection; a proposal to locate a 2,700 square foot fast food restaurant on a 1.10 acre parcel. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 78, a portion of parcel 17G). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments. Jim White, representing Boddie Noell Inc., stated that they have no problems with the recommended conditions of approval as outlined by Staff. He noted that water and sewer plans are being prepared at this time and will be submitted to the Service Authority upon completion. He questiond the recommendation of the Engineering department to delete the three parking spaces adjacent to the building, noting that these are used most by customers. He asked the Commission to allow these three parking spaces and noted that another access will be at the rear of the property. Mr. White noted that cars coming into the site will do so at a slow speed, therefore, there should be no problem in manuvering to and from the site. Mr. White stated that he had the revised landscape plans with him and would like to submit them to Ms. Imhoff at this time. He stated that he would repond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked why the building location was changed. Mr. White stated that an adjustment in the building location had been proposed to help alleviate the traffic on Rt. 250. Mr. Davis stated that when the special use permit was before the Commission the possibility of an entrance on the private right-of-way had been discussed, noting M that access to the property might be limited to the rear entrance. Ms. Imhoff stated that the highway department has indicated that there would not be any problem with the entrance on Rt. 250. Mrs. Diehl noted that the County Engineer stated that because of potential problems with the flow of traffic, he is recommending that the three parking spaces adjacent to the building be eliminated. Ms. Imhoff noted that adequate space has been provided for the flow of traffic and stated that the applicant does not agree with the recommendation of the County Engineer to eliminate the three spaces. Mr. Skove ascertained that sufficient information has been submitted concerning the water supply system. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that public water and sewer will be available to the site. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he did not feel there would be any problems with traffic flow on this site. He noted that adequate space was provided between the building and the parking isles and that the movement of traffic will be slow. Mr. White stated that he felt like regular customers would eventually use the rear entrance as this would allow for easier parking. He also noted that approximately 30% of their business is drive-thru and these customers will use the rear entrance. Mr. Cogan stated that the applicant should work with the County Engineer to determine if it is necessary to delete the three parking spaces adjacent to to building. Ms. Imhoff stated that a condition could be added to read as follows: County Engineer approval of parking spaces. Mrs. Diehl asked if the highway department has already approved the commercial entrance. Ms. Imhoff stated that she is referring in the conditions of approval to the 50' right-of-way in front of Hardee's, noting that a commercial entrance has been approved for the entrance on Rt. 250. Mr. Cogan ascertained that condition #e (Virginia Department of Highways & Trans- portation approval of commercial entrance) refers to the two entrances off the secondary road. Ms. Imhoff stated that condition #k (Amend landscape plan to show correct location of entrances) should remain in the conditions of approval because she has not had the opportunity to review the revised landscape plan. Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions: 1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Note utility easements; 6n"l b. County Engineer approval of drainage plans; c. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrances; e. Virginia Department of Highways u Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the State secondary system; f. County Engineer approval of road plans; g. Fire Official approval of hydrant location, dumpster location and handicapped provisions; h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and mechanical plans in connection with the Cross Connection Control Program; j. Amend landscape plan to show correct location of entrances; k. County Engineer approval of parking plan. 2. A certificate: of occupancy may be issued when the following conditions have been net: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Subdivision plat approval of Hardee's Restaurant site. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Wilco Gas Station Expansion Site Plan - located on the north side of 2S0 East, west o —the—Route 20 intersection and east of the Charlottesville City Corporate Limits; a proposal to enlarge the gas station office area to provide for a convenience center (to be 608 square feet) and relocation of two fuel pumps. Rivanna District (Tax Map 78, parcel 3). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments. Mr. R. D. Williams, representing Wilco, stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked if the water and sewer capacity had been checked by the health department. Mr. Williams stated that there is a well and septic tank at this location. Mrs. Diehl noted that it was requested at the site review meeting that the health department be contacted concerning water usage. Mr. Williams stated that the existing water and sewer capacity to the site will not be altered. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that water is not available in the convenience store, but the adjacent building has restrooms, etc.. Ms. Imhoff noted that the Fire Official has requested that the following condition be added to the conditions of approval: • Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, connections and fire flow once public water is available. Mr. Kindrick ascertained that if sufficient fire flow is not available then the Fire Official could request that pressure be increased until fire flow meets the necessary requirements. Mr. Williams stated that one of the major concerns seems to be the relocation of the gas pumps. He stated that they did not feel this would cause any congestion in this area. Mr. Cogan stated that a condition could be added to read: • County Engineer approval of traffic flow Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt a condition should be added concerning the pump approvals. Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following conditions: a. Deletion of the two relocated pumps shown on the site plan; b. Health Department approval of proposed expansion of convenience center with regard to water usage and adequacy of existing septic system; c. Submit an "as -planted" landscape plan for the site. 2. Fire Official approval of hydrant location, connections and fire flow once public water is available. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Camp Albemarle 4-H Club Redevelopment Site - Requests deferral until November 245, 1981. Noted at the beginning of the meeting by Mrs. Diehl. Samuel Lewis Estate Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 795, north of Route 712 and south of Ble eim; proposal to divide a 2.0 acre parcel leaving 25.4 acres in residue (this is a request to amend a previously approved plat). Scottsville District (Tax Map 122, Parcel 34). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis ascertained that this division requires that the residue be recorded and that the appropriate language for this is noted on the plat. Mr. Davis 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. Owner's notarized signature; b. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and includes: 1) County Engineer approval of roadway specifications; 2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Westfield, Lot 11B,Site Plan - located on the south side of Commonwealth Drive, adjacent to the Division of Motor Vehicles; proposal to locate a 6,720 square foot building (2 floors with basement) for commercial uses on a 28,173 square foot lot. Charlottesville District (Tax Map 61W, parcel 9). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, stated that they had originally submitted the site plan with 6" of stone and prime and double seal. At the site review meeting the County Engineer requested that this be changed to 1" of S-5 pavement and now he is requesting that this be changed to 12" of pavement. He stated that he felt 1" of S-5 pavement was sufficient and asked the Commission to approve this site plan with 1" of S-5 pavement. He also noted that the Fire Official has indicated that he has no problems with this site and questioned why condition #e was necessary. (CONDITION #E: Fire Official approval of hydrant location, dumpster location and handicapped provisions). Ms. Imhfff stated that Mr. Cortez, the Fire Official, has requested that this condition be added under the conditions for the issuance of a building permit. She explained that the reason for this is sometimes the dumpster location, hydrant location and handicapped provisions are changed from what is approved on the site plan. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner stated that 1" of S-5 pavement, in his opinion, is sufficient. Mr. Gloeckner explained that S-5 pavement, is a fine graded bitimous surface, strictly a wearing surface. *Awl Mr. Cogan stated that i" of S-5 pavement should be sufficient unless there are extenuating circumstances. M Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt the requirements of condition #E (Fire Official approval of hydrant location, dumpster location and handicapped provisions) is an internal problem, noting that the Fire Official should notify the Staff if these provisions are in compliance with the building code. Ms. Imhoff stated that the Staff met with the Fire Official and the County Engineer and requested that this information be submitted prior to the Commission's review of the plans. She noted that the Fire Official does not like to give final approval because of changes often made at a later date to the approved plan. Mr. Cogan ascertained that the Fire Official will give final approval before the building permit is issued. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the preliminary approval from the fire official is helpful because he can point out fire hazzard areas, provisions for buildings over 35' in height, etc. Mr. Kindrick stated that he did not understand the position of the Fire Official, noting that all plans must comply with the building codes. Ms. Imhoff stated that the Commission, if necessary, could request from the Fire Official a letter explaining his reasons for this procedure. Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following conditions: a. Note pipe sizes for water and sewer lines; b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; c. Virginia Department of Highways $ Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; d. Fire Official approval of hydrant location, dumpster location and handicapped provisions; e. Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and sewer construction plans in connection with the Cross Connection Control Program; f. Staff approval of landscape plan. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy may be issued when the following condition has been met. a. Fire Official approval of fire flow. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ashcroft, Phase I, Section III, Final Plat - located on the southeast side of Lego Drive, east of North Pantops Drive in the Ashcroft Planned Residential Development (off the north side of Route 250 East); proposal to divide 19.987 acres into 16 lots providing 6.842 acres in open space. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 78, portion of parcels 55 and 51E). Ms. Imhoff stated that the Staff recommends denial of this plat as submitted because health department and soil scientist reprots were not submitted to the Staff by the revision deadline. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Gary Cooper, the applicant, stated that the soil scientist report has been com- pleted and that the lots meet with the necessary criteria. He also pointed out that the Staff should receive health department approval in the morning. Mr. Cooper noted that one of the conditions of approval for Ashcroft read as follows: • Planning Commission approval of areas to be cleared on individual lots, Planning Commission approval of general dwelling locations of each lot; He noted that this condition has been previously addressed and suggested an alternative. He stated that the Architectual Review Committee for Ashcroft approves each dwelling plan, area to be cleared on each lot, and the location of the house. A note to this effect was shown on the plats for Sections 1 and 2. He also pointed out that the inspectors are being given copies of the plans approved by the Architectual Review Committee so that the necessary setbacks, etc. can be checked. Mr. Cooper noted that the tapes of the meeting where the alternative was discussed have been misplaced and he pointed out that the Staff is requesting clarification form the Commission regarding this condition. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt this plat should be deferred until the October 2711 1982 Planning Commission meeting, noting that the revisions have been com- pleted and that this is part of the RPN approval. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the preliminary road plans and profiles have been approved by the highway department. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the applicant tried to meet the deadlines, and reiterated that this should be deferred until October 27. i4s. Imhoff stated that this would put a burden on the Staff, noting that the point of the policy adopted by the Planning Commission was to have the necessary information submitted prior to Planning Commission review. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the policy adopted was to either deny the request or to defer the item for one month, if the revisions were not submitted prior to the deadline. Mr. Bowerman stated that he agrees with the position of the Staff. Ms. Imhoff stated that the architects and land surveyors were notified, by 0 letter, of this policy concerning revision on September 24, 1981. Mrs. Diehl asked when this site plan was submitted. Ms. Imhoff noted that the site plan was submitted September 15 and reviewed at the site review meeting on October 1, 1981. Mrs. Diehl stated that since this site plan was submitted prior to the letter of September 24, she felt this should be deferred until the next scheduled meeting of Ms. Imhoff's. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should consider the time constraint, and be sure that the applicant is willing to defer this site plan. Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he is willing to agree to a deferral of this site plan. Mr. Cooper stated that if this deferral is for one week, then iie would agree to the deferral. Mr. Davis stated that he did not feel this should be deferred to a specific date. Ms. Imhoff reiterated that this site plan was submitted September 15, 1981 and was reviewed at the site review meetin on October 1, 1981. She noted that the comments from the site review meeting were sent to the applicant informing Him of the necessary revisions and the deadline for revisions. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if this should be deferred to a specific date. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission has until November 15 to take action on this site plan. Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral of this site plan for one week. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, stating that he felt it should be understood that the Commission is not sitting a precedent. DTSCI iSSTnN Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt it should be a matter of record that the Commission is not sitting a precedent by deferring this site plan. He felt this should not perclude denying this in the future if the same problems occurred. Ms. Imhoff asked that the following condition be added: • soil scientist report and health department approval to be submitted to the Staff no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday. vir. Gloeckner stated that he is agreeable to adding this condition to his previous motion. VOTE: The motion for deferral of this site plan for one week carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: CONDITION A.6. OF ASHCROFT, PHASE 1, FINAL PLAT: Ms. Imhoff stated that she listened to the tapes of this meeting and did not find anything regarding the discussion referred to by Mr. Cooper. She noted that she did find a condition in the Staff comment where the Staff recorded that condition a.6. had been complied with. She pointed out that the Staff has worked with Mr. Cooper to try to determine the building setbacks for each lot. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the purpose of this conditions was to try to prevent excessive clearing on these lots. Ms. Imhoff stated that it is the position of the Staff that the conditions of the ZMA should be enforced, noting that she did not find an amendment to this condition. Ms. Imhoff stated that if the Planning Commission is agreeable, the Planning Staff could work with the applicant to make sure that the building setbacks for each lot are adequate. Ms. Imhoff asked the Commission to advise the Staff as to how they would like to handle this matter. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he understood that the Commission had agreed to let the Staff handle this. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the applicant is stating that this should be the responsibility of the homeowners association rather than the Planning Department. �*00 The consencus of the Commission was to allow the Staff to work with the applicant regarding the setback requirements for each lot. The Commission should review the setbacks only if problems should occur. Office Condominium Cog2lex, Phase 1, Site Plan (P. H. Faulconer Estate) - located on the east side of Old Ivy Road, south of Route 8S5 and the U.S. Route 2S0 exit ramp to Old Ivy Road; proposal to locate an office condominium building with 9,900 square feet of net office space on a 33,745 square foot site. Samuel Miller District (Tax Map 60, portion of parcel 24). Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself by leaving the room. Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. David Blankenbaker, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment, from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this site is served by a private sewage system. Mrs. Diehl noted that the service authotity does not require construction plans for the private sewer line and asked if any agency should review these plans. r� Mr. Blankenbaker stated that the sewer system would have to meet the requirements of the State Health Department. Mr. Skove ascertained that a maintenance the maintenance of the private sewer as documents. agreement was not necessary to cover this is covered in the condominium Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant will submit the plans for stormwater detention. Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Note drainage and utility easements; b. Note all pipes and sizes; c. Vicinity map; d. Staff approval of landscape plan; e. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions (curb cuts); f. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; g. County Engineer approval of drainage plans for the 36,632 square foot acre parcel; h. Virginia Department of Highways $ Transportation approval of the commercial entrance and full frontage development of third lane along Rt. 855; i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of off -site water construction plans; j. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and mechanical plans in connection with the Cross Connection Control Program. k. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; 1. Compliance with ZMA-80-19. 2. A certificate of occupancy may be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Subdivision approval of the condominium regime including County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the drainage and appurtenant structures and parking area. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ednam, Section A, Phase I, Site Plan - located off the south side of Route 250 West, east of the existing manor house within the Ednam Planned Residential Development, proposal to locate two condominium buildings with a total of 17 units on 1.3 acres with a proposed density of 13 dwelling units per acre. Samuel Miller District. (Tax Map 60, portion of Parcel 28A). R Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the meeting. Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. NOW Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. K61 Jerry Dixon, representing the applicant, stated that he felt like this site plan meets all the necessary requirements. He further stated that he would answer any questions or concers the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the original approval allowed for flexibility in densities between the different phases. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following: 1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following conditions: a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; b. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and handicapped provisions; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans, if necessary; d. Albemarle COLUIty Service Authority approval of internal plumbing and mechanical plans in connection with the Cross Connection Control Program; e. County Attorney approval of homeowner's association agreement for maintenance of parking areas, drainage and appurtenant structures, path- ways, and any other commonly-o:-vned or common use amenities; f. Fire Protection Engineer's certification and fire official approval of all buildings over 35' in height; g. Compliance with 724A-80-19; 2. A certificate of occupancy may be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Subdivision approval of the condominium regime. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Request for addendum to conditions of approval for Ednam, Lots 1-5, Section G, and Lots 1-5, Section F, - Request to allow issuance o temporary certificates - of occupancy ase on nealth department approval, prior to hook-up to central sewer. Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Ron Ray, representing Caleb Stowe Associates, stated that three of the units will be ready within the next three weeks and the additional seven units will be available by December 10, 1981. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was no specific number of units approved by 60/0 the health department and that there should be no problem if the Commission limited the number of units to be allowed to install temporary sewage measures to ten. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the sewage will be taken to the treatment plant. Mr. Cogan ascertained that a temporary holding tank will be on the site. Ms. Imhoff noted that all necessary conditions are covered in condition #F. (CONDITION F: Health Department approval and Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority approval of temporary sewage solution. Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the following: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Note any drainge easements and appurtenant structures; b. Shown on the site plan where the second phase of parking required for the manor house will be located; c. Note specifically when this parking will be provided; d. Note the finished grades for the unattached units; e. Redesign the sidewalk location in Area E; f. County Engineer approval of parking area pavement specifications and curbing (if necessary); g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including booster stations and other appurtenances; h. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations; i. Fire Protection Engineer's certification and Fire Official approval of all buildings over 35' in height; j. Add note: "Landscaping to be maintained and replaced if any should die."; k. Compliance with ZMA-80-19 and SP-80-62; 2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Staff approval of a landscaping plan for Areas F, G, and E; c. County Engineer approval of pathway specifications and locations; d. Subdivision approval of the condominium regime; e. County Attorney approval of homeowner's association agreements for the maintenance of the private roadways, parking areas, drainage and appurtenant structures, pathways and any other commonly-ownerd or common -use amenities; 3. Temporary certificates of occupancy for no more than 10 units and not to run past February 20, 1982, may be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Staff approval of a landscape plan for Areas F, G, and E; c. County Engineer approval of pathway specifications and locations; d. Subdivision approval of condominium regime; e. County Attorney approval of homeowner's association agreements for the maintenance of the private roadways, parking areas, drainage and appurtenant structures, pathways and any other commonly -owned or common - use amenities; f. Health Department approval and Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority approval G of temporary sewage solution. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Definition of "Natural Resource Extraction" amended as result of Public Hearing of OCtober 6, 1981. Mr. Keeler read the definition of natural resource extraction to the Commission. (COPY ATTACHED). Mr. Davis pointed out that the inclusion of the terms "petroleum, natural gas" was a point of debate the last time this was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that most of the exploratory wells range from 4,000 to 5,000 feet which is past the water stratum. Mr. Davis pointed out that there is no restriction on water wells. Mrs. Diehl noted her concern with a 4,000 or 5,000 foot well drilled and no oil or petroleum was found, She noted that this deep hole would disturb underground features, such as water, etc.. Mr. Davis stated that he felt the Commission should restrict uranium mining. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt the "petroleum and natural gas" portion of the resolution should be deleted. Mr. Skove asked if the reason the State is adding this section regarding sedimentation control is to all the localities to have control. Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the intention of the State is to keep the destruction of natural resources at a minimum. Mr. Keeler noted that the amendment stated "the intent of this amendment is to transfer the responsibility for regulating erosion and sediment control on gas and oil operations from local governing bodies to the Division of Mines and Quarries." He further stated that he assumed that the State has reviewed this section of the Code. Mr. Payne stated that this is another method of ensuring that all the requirements for mining, etc., are covered. Mrs. Diehl stated that with petroleum, natural gas, drilling the erosion control is greater. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he feels the Commision need to be informed as to the rule concerning mining and well drilling before a valid decision could be made. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should take some type of definitive action because problems could arise in interpretations of the definition by different parties involved. Mr. Cogan stated that the State exempts well sites, roads and off site disposal areas from the soil erosion control. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the roads leading to a mine drilling operation are exempt from local soil erosion ordinances. Mr. Gloeckner read the following from the notice of amendment dated May 2, 1980: • Local ordinances should be amended to specifically exempt exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads and off site disposal areas. Under State Law this amendment is effective July 1, 1980. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the control has already been taken from the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance and put under mining law. Mr. Payne pointed out that because the State has removed this local control from the area of soil erosion, this does not mean that the Commission does not have the power to review it under the zoning requirements. Mr. Skove ascertained that if a permit is :issued for drilling by the State and the County does not agree with the opinion of the State, then the County could enforce their own regulations if they deem it in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Payne stated that a rezoning would have to be obtained to include the overlay in the district and then a permit could be obtained administratively. Mr. Davis asked if the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to include this resolution. Mr. Keeler stated that the Comprehensive Plan would not have to be amended but the zoning map would. Mr. Skove ascertained that a rezoning request could be denied if the mineral rights have been sold on a particular parcel. Mr. Payne pointed out to the Commission that this document is only a notification from the State Commission on Conservation notifying the localities of the action taken by the General Assembly. He explained that if this was included in the ordinance then it must be deleted and if it is not included in the ordinance, the Commission must specifically exempt it. Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the lack of information would lead to speculation on the part of local governing bodies. He further stated that he did not believe that the State has the manpower to control this type of operation as well as the local governing bodgy. Mr. Kindrick stated that he also felt more information should be submitted in order for a valid judgement to be made. Mr. Payne stated that the Board of Supervisors could not act on this until they have received a recommendation from the Commission. He stated that if the Com- mission felt more information was necessary, they should obtain this information before submitting a recommendation to the Board. "' oi Mr. Cogan moved to defer action of this request and to instruct the Staff to Gib contact the proper agencies which could provide more information on what this involves and why it should be exempted from the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Citizen request for Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the Hollymead area. 14r. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission may want to address the question as to whether they feel it appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan at a citizens request. He noted that The Code of Virginia has no provision which allows a citizen to request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission did not want to consider this as an individual request, but would rather approach this in the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman made a motion to fail to consider citizen's request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Kindrick stated his concern regarding the Cross Connection Control Program and noted that he would like to be better informed of the purpose of this program. Ms. Imhoff stated that she would -ask someone from the Service Authority to attend a Planning Commission meeting to explain the purpose of this program. NEW BUSINESS: Dates were discussed for a work session to discuss the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. The consensues was to have a work session on November 5, 1981 from 4:30 - 6:00 p.m.. The Commission also asked if the Fire Official and the County Engineer could attend a meeting to explain their policies. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.. M RESOLUTION OF INTENT NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION: The process by ,which coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals is removed from any open pit or any underground workings and produced for sale, exchange or commercial use and all shafts, slopes, drifts or inclines leading there- to and including all buildings, structures and equipment above and below the surface of the ground used in connection with such process. Natural resource extraction as defined herein shall include all exploratory activities designed to determine the ipresence of coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals, including, but not limited to, excavation, drilling, boring and core boring; provided, however, that the term natural resource extraction shall not include the drilling or boring of wells for the purpose of obtaining water; nor shall it include reconnaissance activities, such as aerial photography, topographic and/or seismographic mapping and the like; none of which activities shall include road building, land clearing, the use of explosives or the introduction of chemicals to a land or water area.