HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 15 81 PC MinutesDecember 15, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
December 15, 1981, 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 5/6, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl,
Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Richard Cogan; and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Other officials
present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Ms. Katherine L.
Imhoff, Planner, and Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Official.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present.
DEFERRED ITEMS
Scottsville Library Site Plan - Located on the southwest corner of the intersection
of Bird Street and Page Street adjacent to the Scottsville Corporate Limits; a
proposal to locate a one-story, 3,932 square foot, library on a .496 acre parcel.
Scottsville District. (TM 130A(2), Parcel 90).
Ms. Imhoff explained that this item had been deferred from December 8, in order
that more information could be obtained concerning fire protection. She added
that Mr. Ira Cortez, the Fire Official of the County, was present to answer any
particular questions of the Commission and to explain the situation. Ms. Imhoff
read the recommended conditions of approval in the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Cortez if he would speak at this time.
Mr. Cortez told the Commission that there was a severe problem with fire protection
in and around the Town of Scottsville, but that the Service Authority and the town
fathers had assured him that the problem was being worked on and would be resolved
by spring. Mr. Cortez said that there are three hydrants within the 400-foot area,
and one of these is located at the school and was used during the fire of last year.
He said that the fire chief was satisfied with this hydrant, although it did not
meet the ISF standards. He added that the hydrant had been flowed today with 670
gallons per minute, falling within the distance requirement, at 20 PSI, but not
within the range required of 1,000 gallons per minute. He said that there is no
other alternative; he suggested that the Commission not permit the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy prior to compliance with this fire flow requirement.
Mr. Cortez said that there is no date for having these improvements completed, but
there is no date either on when the building would be ready for occupancy. He said
that as long as he was satisfied that the work would be done, he would recommend
making occupancy of the building contingent on having the 1,000 gallons per minute
flow either from the hydrant at the school or on the road where the library is
located.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Cortez was satisfied that when these improvements
were made, the flow would be there.
Mr. Cortez replied that he was satisfied if no certificate of occupancy was issued
and the building not permitted to be occupied, that the County had a lever to assure
that the town moved to have the engineer and contractor fulfill their obligations.
Mrs. Diehl explained that the concern last week had been whether in fact the
flow could be achieved.
Mr. Cortez assured her that it could, that there was no question about that.
Mrs. Diehl asked the other Commissioners if they wished to ask Mr. Cortez any
questions.
Mr. Kindrick asked Mr. Cortez whether he was saying that since the improvements
were in the works to be completed that sufficient funds existed for such work.
Mr. Cortez said that he did not know about the funds, but that the issue was having
the lever of no certificate of occupancy as long_ as the library did not have
sufficient water. He added that the town would have a lovely building for a
library but no occupants unless it got the necessary funding and made the required
improvements. Mr. Cortez stated that this case was no different to him than telling
a contractor on a subdivision that until his pipes were sized correctly and he had
adequate fire flow, he would have no certificates of occupancy, even if this were
to mean he had to install a pumping station. Mr. Cortez observed that this had
occurred with numerous projects, including State Farm Insurance; he said that this
instance was no different, except the County was; dealing with a locality.
Mr. Cogan asked what the PSI requirement was. Mr. Cortez replied 1,000 gallons a
minute with 20 PSI.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Cortez, and she asked Mr. Weitzel if he wished to speak
at this time. Mr. Weitzel indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions
concerning the site plan.
Mrs. Diehl reiterated that the Commission's only, concern was the fire flow issue,
that the building be adequately protected.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was
none, she announced that the matter was before the Commission. She asked for any
comments or questions from the Commissioners.
Mr. Davis told the Commission that he had understood from Ms. Ellen Nash, Board of
Supervisors member, that the mayor of Scottsville, Ramond Thacker, had a 8130,000
grant to do the work on the water improvements. He added that this was significant
reassurance to him that the work would be done and he did not believe that the
town of Scottsville should be deprived of a library.
Mr. Cogan wondered whether condition lb. should be moved down to become condition
2b. under certificate of occupancy conditions.
Mr. Payne advised that this would not be necessary; he added, in fact, that lb was
designed to have a hydrant plan for review before a building permit could be issued
and condition 2a was designed to require that the approved plan was fully executed
before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Payne stated that both conditions
were necessary.
Mrs. Diehl further explained that condition lb was a statement of intent and
2a a certification that the intent was accomplished.
Ms. Imhoff mentioned that condition lb also included other provisions such as for
handicapped. Mr. Cogan remarked that he had not seen the memo and wanted to be
certain that condition 2a covered the concerns completely regarding fire flow.
7l51
Mr. Payne advised that condition 2a required the work to be done bonded or not bonded,
that no certificate of occupancy would be issued until the improvements had been made
and the fire flow met the requirements. He added that if there were no condition 2a,
a certificate of occupancy could be issued with everything bonded.
When there were no further questions, Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the site
plan, subject to the conditions as outlined by Staff:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A building permit can be issued when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan;
b. Fire Official approval of fire protection measures as noted in Memo from
Ira Cortez to the Planning Department dated November 5, 1981;
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Bruce Van der Linde Final Plat - Located off the south side of Route 640 and
Route 644 and south of the Orange County line; a proposal to divide 21.814 acres
into 5 lots leaving 9.892 acres in residue. Rivanna District. (TM 34, Parcel 6A).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to speak at this time or if Mr. Foster
had any comments. When they did not, she asked for public comment. Since there
was no public comment, she announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the information the Commission had requested was now
available.
Mr. Skove asked whether when the 9.892 acres was added to the adjoining tract is
could not be divided later.
Ms. Imhoff replied that it could, but would use up one development right from the
other tract.
When there was no further discussion, Mr. Skove moved for approval of the final plat,
subject to the conditions recommended by Staff:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. This plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Note material of permanent reference monuments;
der+ b. Compliance with the private road provisions, including County Attorney
approval of maintenance agreement;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance at Route 641 with a sight distance of 300 feet.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
Ednam RPN, Section C, Site Plan - Located off the south of 250 West, south of the
existing manor house; a proposal to locate 8 attached units and 12 detached units
on a 3.76 acre parcel with a density of 5.3 dwelling units an acre.
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report. She added that: Mr. Sandy Lambert had requested
by telephone that condition le be moved to become condition 2b, as pertaining to
County Attorney approval of maintenace agreements of homeowners.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Mr. John Green spoke for Mr. Lambert, who could not be present, saying that there
was another request, that ld become 2c with reference to the landscape plan.
Mr. Green also stated that the Fire Official had. approved the fire flow.
Ms. Imhoff responded by saying that the Fire Official had approved the proposed
fire flow and engineering drawings, but that he would still do a fire flow test,
before a certificate of occupancy could be issued, in the field.
Mr. Green said that he understood.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant had no problem with the Staff request for
additional street trees.
Mr. Green replied no, but that the Service Authority had requested trees be removed from
water/sewer easements, and this issue had yet to be resolved.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment; when there was none, she announced
that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Kindrick said that the tree problem had to be addressed. He asked Ms. Imhoff
whether Staff recommended placing these trees in the easements. She replied that
something could be worked out, that they did not necessarily have to be planted in
the water and sewer easements.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff if she had any difficulty with the applicant's request
to move condition ld to become 2c. She responded that she did not.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the sewer facilities would be in place before the project
was completed. Mr. Green asked whether she meant the interceptor, and Mrs. Diehl
indicated that she did. He indicated that it would be in place. He added that the
State Water Board had approved temporary disposal for this project into the Boar's
Head lagoon, until the lagoon can be switched over to the Crozet interceptor.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was where the ducks swim. Mr. Green indicated that
it was probably not the more visible pond Mrs. Diehl might have in mind, but he
said that he had seen mallards from time to time. Mr. Bowerman asked whether this
was raw sewage that x,-as being discharged. Mr. Green replied that it was, but that
this was a treatment facility that the State Water Board had asked be removed when
the Crozet interceptor was extended to that point.
V7
Mr. Bowerman determined from Mr. Green that it was expected that the Crozet
interceptor would be on line before occupancy of any of the units, thereby meaning
that the use of this lagoon would not be necessary.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the site plan, with the requested changes of the
applicant incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Radius of curb returns;
b. County Engineer approval of retaining wall specifications;
C. County Engineer approval of walkway and driveway specifications;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of on and off -site construction
plans for water and sewer;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
f. Compliance with ZMA-80-19 and SP-80-62.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
b. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan and add note "Landscaping to be
maintained and replaced if any should die";
C. County Attorney approval of homeowners association agreements for the
maintenance of the private roadways, parking areas, drainage and appurtenant
structures, pathways and any other commonly -owned or common -use amenity;
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
REGULAR ITEMS
Ednam Section C, Final Plat - Located off the south side of Route 250 West in the
Ednam Residential Planned Neighborhood; proposal to divide 20 lots on 3.76 acres
and dedicate 1.73 acres for open space. Samuel Miller District. (TM 60, Parcel 28A).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Sandy Lambert introduced himself and said that Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Green
were with him tonight and would answer any of the more technical questions. He
stated that he would just like to reinforce the request for a waiver, in order to
permit double frontage. Mr. Lambert said that with regard to the setbacks, he
would like to retain some flexibility, since this was a RPN. He said that he would
prefer not to establish front and back yards, but it could be done and he was
willing to discuss it further. He said that although there was one prototype,
changes could be expected and variations were possible, so that labeling front and
rear could be dangerous.
Mr. Green determined from Ms. Imhoff that the metes and bounds condition did not
refer to open space and that the distances were already on the plan. He also
established that the street signs could be bonded.
71k
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. There was none, and she
announced that the matter was before the Commission. 14
Mr. Cogan asked how much of the open space was taken by the detention pond.
Mr. Green responded probably an acre and a half. Mr. Cogan said that there was
only 1.9 acres of open space.
Mr. Lambert said that probably it was 3/10 of an acre from looking at the plan.
Mr. Skove asked what the purpose was in the subdivision ordinance prohibiting
double frontage.
Mr. Payne replied that in theory it was not desi.reable to have roads in both the
front and rear of a property, primarily for the privacy factor. He added that it
was a somewhat archaeic consideration and in this instance was a muse or alley.
Mrs. Diehl asked regarding the setback lines, if` Staff had enough latitude with
only the building setback lines. Ms. Imhoff responded that it depended on how closely
what was developed on site complied with what was shown on the site plan.
Mr. Payne asked to make a suggestion; he said that he understood from Mr. Lambert
that he did not want to be terribly precise right now, but Mr. Payne added that he
was certain that Staff and Mr. Lambert could work things out. Mr. Payne suggested
language: Note building setback lines as approved by Staff, substantially
to correspond with the site plan.
Mr. Payne observed that this would allow some flexibility if something had to be
moved around a little and protect the applicant.
Mr. Lambert said that knowing Staff, he would have no problem with this condition.
He added that when a building permit is applied for, setbacks would be provided.
Mr. Payne said that he thought Ms. Imhoff's point should be well taken, that
although he was not particularly concerned in this case, he thought the Commission
should start to look at setback lines. He said that quite a problem could develop
if a plat went to record with no setbacks on it, in some instances.
Mr. Davis observed that in the case of a RPN, he believed extra hoops were gone
through to ensure flexibility and he did not feel someone should be restricted
on building setbacks. Mr. Davis said that a certain amount of latitude should be
provided in a RPN.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff about the Sewer Authority review of the water and sewer
plans, mentioned in the Staff Report. Ms. Imhoff said that she had received no
further word from the Service Authority since being notified last week that the
plans were under review.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the final plat, subject to the conditions of
approval as outlined by Staff, with the change in la as stated by Mr. Payne, and
with waiver of Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff if this waiver should be clearly restricted to the
particular lots concerned. She replied that she did not believe so.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
7/Y
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Note building setback lines as approved by Staff, substantially to
correspond with the site plan.
b. Note all easements;
C. Note dedication of open space and label "open space";
d. Complete metes and bounds survey for all boundaries;
e. Provision of a street sign;
f. County Attorney approval of a homeowners association agreement for the
maintenance of the private roadways, parking areas, drainage and
appurtenant structures, pathways and other commonly -owned or common -use
amenities;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of on and off -site sewer and
water plans;
h. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
2. Waiver of Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Hardee's Final Plat - Located on the south side of Route 250 East, west of the
intersection with Route 20 North and east of Free Bridge; proposal to divide a
1.0926 acre parcel intended for a Hardee's Restaurant, leaving 5+ acres residue.
Rivanna District. (TM 78, portion of Parcel 17G).
Mrs. Diehl determined that there was no representative from Hardee's present yet at
the meeting, so she announced that the next item on the agenda would be heard.
Pepsi Place Final Plat - Located off the east side of Route 29North and east of
Westfield Road, on the south side of Greenbrier Drive; proposal to divide 11.3414
acres into two parcels of 5.566 acres and 4.913 acres. Charlottesville District.
(TM 61W, Parcel 02-01).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, said that his only comment would be
concerning condition la, which restricts lots fronting on Pepsi Place from any
access to Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Roudabush said that he was not certain of what
was intended by this condition. He explained that in order to have access to the
Pepsi plant, some 14 acres had been purchased. Mr. Roudabush said that in order
for the applicant to be recompensed for this purchase, he intended to further
subdivide the remaining acreage and would not want such a limit to access as
contained in condition la. Mr. Roudabush further stated that future subdivision
would be for the sale of commercial lots. He said that a final plat was before
the Commission at this time due to the requirement that before a grading permit
could be issued, a subdivision plat or site plan had to be submitted for approval.
He said that construction of the street subdivided the property and thereby met
the requirement and a grading permit could be issued. He said that tracts A and B
would be further subdivided as needed. He said that Greenbrier Drive is being
constructed currently to State standards and that Pepsi Place would be built also
to State standards. Mr. Roudabush concluded by saying that the applicant believed
he should have access to both roads and should not be restricted.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Roudabush and asked for public comment on this item.
When there was no public comment, Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before
the Commission.
Izo
Mr. Davis asked if the ordinance did not state that if your property fronts on
a private road, you have to use that private road.
It was determined that the roads in question were not private.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roudabush whether certain divisions of Tract B, which would
provide access either to Greenbrier or to Pepsi Place would be a problem for him.
Mr. Roudabush indicated that the owner wished to retain flexibility and on corner
lots have either access to one or to both roads. He said that the applicant wished
to leave his options open until such time as a site plan or a further subdivision
plat were filed. Mr. Roudabush reiterated that the applicant did not wish to
restrict himself in this manner at this time, not knowing what future use might evolve.
Mr. Skove asked what the minimum lot size was in C-l.
Ms. Imhoff replied that there was no minimum lot: size per se; if there was adequate
space for a building site, landscaping and parking, this determined the lot size
Mr. Cogan remarked that there were several commercial lots smaller in the immediate
area. Mr. Cogan said that it was obvious the applicant would want to further
subdivide and he could understand the applicant not wanting to be restricted to just
access on Pepsi Place. Mr. Cogan said that further commercial development of this
property would be in conformity to the development around it.
Ms. Imhoff explained that the background behind this condition was to limit the
number of accesses to Greenbrier Drive. She said that obviously if a lot only
had access on Greenbrier Drive it was one thing, but for example on corner lots,
it would be preferred to limit access to Pepsi Place rather than to Greenbrier or
to both.
Mr. Cogan said that perhaps the condition should. be so worded; Ms. Imhoff stated
that she believed the condition read this way.
Mr. Bowerman said that he would be willing to look at dual access at the site plan
stage to give flexibility in order to subdivide the property. Then, he said that
he would look at any site plan proposing two accesses according to the purpose and
intended use of the property.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the only thing that could be developed on this property
without coming before the Commission for review would be a residence.
Mr. Kindrick said that he believed the Commission would see a site plan later and
that he did not think this condition needed to be included at this time. Mr. Cogan
concurred.
Mr. Skove wondered why not put it in now and waive it later if so requested.
He said that he was for keeping it in.
Mr. Davis observed that ten acres on Greenbrier Drive was a lot of property.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he did not think the condition necessary. He stated that
the applicant was aware of the concern and would take it into consideration. He
said that it could be addressed at site plan review.
7Z/
Mr. Bowerman said that he had visited the site and wanted to ask Mr. Roudabush
whether the intent was to put a culvert in and fill in the entire ravine.
Mr. Roudabush replied that this was correct.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether this was fill on either side of the ravine or had simply
been graded off.
Mr. Roudabush replied that there was fill on the side closest to Greenbrier Drive
and on the west side original material was present at a higher altitude.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether this fill might cause drainage problems, not knowing what
the subsurface was.
Mr. Roudabush replied that it was believed that the fill had been there long enough to
have stabilized.He explained that fill for the drainage channel would be compacted
and a foundation investigation conducted for any future structure to make certain
that there is adequate foundation material.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roudabush how a determination was made on the size of the
culvert to be used when you have a drainage area that can accept almost an unlimited
amount of runoff from upstream.
Mr. Roudabush replied that the entire drainage basin was considered to determine
the contributing volume to the culvert. He said that the upstream uses in this
case were almost all commercially developed, which was taken into account in
determining the percentage of runoff that goes into the channel. He said that
these projections had already been made and the Highway Department was verifying
the drainage calculations at this time for the culvert that will go through this
property.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether if a half of the site were to be paved, the drainage devices
were connected to such a device as this, some fifteen feet down in the ground or
whether they just ran off in another fashion.
Mr. Roudabush replied that although there was really no one stock answer, he would
say that generally speaking all drainage on a site would connect to the culvert
running through the property.
Mrs. Diehl asked what type of culvert Mr. Roudabush used, just concrete rings.
Mr. Roudabush replied concrete pipes. Mrs. Diehl asked how he connected drainage
to the culvert, how he lead into the culvert. Mr. Roudabush answered he used drop -
inlets, junction boxes and structures built over the culvert to receive more drainage.
Mrs. Diehl also asked where this entered the ring structure. He replied that a kind
of pipe was used that entered a box where other pipes continued down.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether this did not come off an existing culvert. Mr. Roudabush
replied that it did and was causing some problems because it had never been extended
all the way through.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this final plat with the deletion of condition la,
but subject to all other conditions as outlined by staff.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. This plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans
for acceptance into the State Secondary system;
b. County Engineer approval of road plans;
c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
e. Provision of a street sign;
f. County Engineer approval of sidewalk specifications.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6 to 1, with Mr. Skove
voting against the motion.
Wilco Gas Station/Convenience Store Site Plan - Located on the north side of
Route 250 East, west of Route 20 North and east of Free Bridge; proposed resubmitted
site plan to locate an enlarged convenience center (720 square feet) and two relocated
gas pumps at the rear of the site. Rivanna District. (TM 78, Parcel 3).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to speak at this time.
Mr. W.-T. Williams of Wilco, addressing the question of traffic congestion, explained
how the parking spaces were marked on the site plan. He said that each parking
space was 20 feet in length and most late -model cars were 18� feet in length. He
said that most cars when parked pulled over the curb, allowing an additional 2
feet. He said that a total of 26 feet should allow sufficient room for a car to
turn around. Also, Mr. Williams said that the Fire Official's requirement that
there be 20 feet of distance from the building to the gas pumps would still be met
if the building were expanded from 16 feet to 18 feet. He added that the plan
currently showed 16 feet.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the dimension of the building, then would be changed
from 16 feet by 45 feet to 18 feet by 45 feet, as requested by Mr. Williams.
Ms. Imhoff said that it was impossible to read accurate distances on the existing
plan. She stated that they were estimates, the measurements could not be scaled off,
although on visiting the site it appeared that there might be sufficient space.
Mr. Skove asked for the dimensions of the building the applicant was proposing.
Ms. Imhoff said that the applicant had just proposed the change from 16 to 18 feet.
She stated that the review had been for a building of 16 by 45 feet, but that
Mr. Williams had just requested an expanded building.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to speak further.
Mr. Williams said that in keeping with the Fire Code, the pumps that are shown on
the plan at 17 feet minimum would be changed to 20 feet.
Mr. Davis asked the applicant if he would be willing to resubmit the plan.
He responded that he could, but that he would hope to take care of the matter
tonight. He explained that his primary concern was the two gas pumps rather than
the building. Mr. Williams said that it was believed that the requested number of
pumps were necessary. He said that the only other alternative would be to relocate
7�3
the front island pumps which could create a giant congestion problem. He said that
the rear pumps would be backup pumps for overflow during rush periods. Mr. Williams
said that during rush periods every business is congested, but the front pumps would
be the most used.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he had six pumps. He replied that he did, with two
hoses on each pump.
Mr. Williams said that the original site plan had contained 8 pumps, but 2 had been
eliminated by the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl thanked the applicant and asked whether there was public comment on this
site plan. When there was none, Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Payne asked the Chairman if he could ask Staff a question. She responded that he
could. Mr. Payne asked Ms. Imhoff whether she had said that the site plan was not
drawn to scale. 14s. Imhoff replied that she had so stated and that the site plan was
not drawn to scale.
Mr. Pavne observed that the site plan then was not in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. He continued, saying that this was a very material matter because the
Zoning inspectors referred to the site plan and used a copy when measuring on site
for compliance with the approved site plan. Mr. Payne said that the Ordinance was
very clear that site plans be prepared to scale.
Ms. Imhoff remarked that the measurement from the existing convenience store to the
gas pumps was not accurate. She explained that there was on a field inspection
�✓ 20 feet between the edge of the building and the gas pumps, even more than 20 in
some places, but that according to the plan only 18 feet were shown.
Mrs. Diehl said that from what she could understand, then, the site plan was
improperly before the Commission.
Mr. Payne said that he thought it proper for the Commission to consider the plan
but would not be proper to approve it.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether additional parking would be required if the building
were increased to 18' by 45'.
Ms. Imhoff replied that she did not believe so because the applicant had already
provided for more parking than required for the original building size,
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission wished to proceed and act on the site plan.
Mr. Davis said that he believed that if the applicant wished to have the building
at 18 feet, that he have an accurate plan drawn accordingly and bring it back to
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan said that he believed the Commissioners should make any pertinent comments
on the overall plan at this time, so that if any other changes had to be made to the
plan they could be taken care of at the same time and save the applicant further
time. He added that he did not believe the Commission could approve it in its
present form,
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any other comments.
/ 2�
Mr. Gloeckner observed that probably part of the plan was drawn to scale and
part inaccurate in relation to location of one item to another or the relation
of certain items to the boundary. He added that: he could imagine the Zoning
inspector having great difficulty in determining_ from what point he should measure
and to what. Mr. Gloeckner further stated that he would agree with the engineer
about the possibility of horrendous traffic congestion with the two gas pumps as
located on the plan. He said that it appeared these extra pumps would interfere
with circulation at busy times and prevent cars from moving around to the back.
Mr. Cogan suggested that he believed it would be more helpful to have only one
pump island in the rear instead of two, thereby putting things more in alignment
and free up traffic flow.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was then a concensus riot to take action on this site
plan. It was so determined. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission wished to
make further suggestions to the applicant on points it wished to see changes on.
When there were no further comments from the Commissioners, Mrs. Diehl remarked
that she believed everyone to be concerned about: the internal traffic congestion
on the site. She asked Mr. Payne if it were proper to consider a deferral.
Mr. Payne replied that it was.
Mrs. Diehl asked about a deferral date. Ms. Imhoff suggested January 26, 1982.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether there were time restrictions if the site plan were
improperly before the Commission.
Mr. Payne said that it was not improperly before the Commission, just wrong.
He said that the Commission could act on the site plan tonight, that the Commission
could deny it tonight.
Ms. Imhoff observed it would have to be heard by January 14, because it was
submitted November 14. Mr. Payne said that he could defend the Commission's
deferral to January 26 in this case and saw no problem with such an action.
Mr. Williams asked to speak briefly. He stated that the original plan had been
approved and that it was very slightly changed in the current plan, consisting of
relocating the convenience store and two pumps.
Mr. Gloeckner responded by saying that previous to this the measurements had not
been critical. He added that an accurate drawing might be in the applicant's favor
also.
Mr. Williams offered to retract his request for the increased building size and
return to the 16 foot building, but said that he understood that the Commission
could not approve the plan even if he did so.
Mrs. Diehl said that this was correct. She informed the applicant of the various
options open to the Commission: action, which would mean denial due to the site
plan being improperly drawn, or deferral, which would mean the time restrictions
would run out, unless the applicant were to request an extension. In addition,
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Deputy County Attorney had advised that the Commission
could take action after the time limitations had expired under the circumstances;
she explained that Mr. Payne felt such a delay was defendable. She asked the woo
applicant whether he wished to request deferral to the January 26 meeting.
725
Mr. Williams said that he would like to so request, unless the Commission could
act on the site plan tonight.
Mrs. Diehl responded that the Commission could act but she doubted that it would
be favorably.
Mr. Williams asked for some clarification on what was desired on the back pumps.
Mrs. Diehl explained that Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Cogan believed there would be a
severe circulation problem with the two staggered smaller pumps and that making
one island in the rear might alleviate the problem.
Mr. Gloeckner further explained that if both rear pumps were full, as currently
shown on the site plan, he doubted that another car could get around the island
in a turn maneuver out of a parking space.
Mr. Williams indicated that this particular space could possibly be deleted.
Mrs. Diehl agreed that there were some manipulations possible that would improve
interior circulation.
Mr. Gloeckner observed that in effect the applicant would have to satisfy the
County Engineer. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the Commission was letting the
applicant know of certain areas of concern.
Mrs. Diehl determined that the applicant had requested deferral to January 26.
Mr. Davis moved to accept Mr. Williams' request for deferral, Mr. Gloeckner seconded
the motion, and the motion carried unanimously with no further discussion.
Hardee's Final Plat - Located on the south side of Route 250 East, west of the
intersection with Route 20 North and east of Free Bridge; proposal to divide a
1.0926 acre parcel intended for a Hardee's Restaurant, leaving 5+ acres residue.
Rivanna District. (TM 78, portion of Parcel 17G).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report. She added that with respect to the road plans,
should the Commission choose not to require Highway Department approval of the
road plans for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System, an amendment
would be required on the site plan, which was approved with this condition.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this would entail a separate action. Ms. Imhoff asked
Mr. Payne whether the amendment could be acted on tonight or whether adjacent owners
had to be notified.
Mr. Payne replied that he had not considered whether or not it could be approved
administratively, but that the site plan was not before the Commission presently.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant whether he wished to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Sinclair, representing the applicant, said that the problem with what Mr. Payne
had just said was that the State would not take the road no matter to what standard
it was built. He said that he had consulted with the County Engineer and Byron Coburn
of the Highway Department and until a later date when a traffic count could be taken
after further development of the remainder of the property, the Highway Department
did not wish to review the road plans. Mr. Sinclair said that the Highway Department
r
wished the road to remain private at present. Mr. Sinclair stated that he wished
to eliminate Conditions A and D and put in a condition permitting a private road.
Mr. Sinclair also stated that the developer was anxious to change the site plan
condition. He asked whether this matter could be taken care of tonight.
Mr. Payne responded that the site plan was not ]before the Commission, only the
final plat. He indicated that the site plan would have to come before the
Commission in a separate action, not requiring the full review process of a new
submittal.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment. When there was none,
Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked about the previously discussed distance of the entrance from
250 East, whether the entrance was seventy feet from 250, the minimum indicated
by the Highway Department.
Mr. Sinclair responded that the Highway Department had looked over the plan and
given informal approval.
Ms. Imhoff said that Mr. Davis' recollection of the Highway Department requirement
was correct and this was the distance shown on the plan. She confirmed that the
Highway Department had informally approved the plan.
Mr. Payne asked whether Staff had indicated that: the Highway Department would not
take the road into the State system because of possible future necessary improvements.
Ms. Imhoff replied that this was correct; she further stated that until an ultimate
development plan for the area was available, it could not be determined to what
standard the road should be built.
Mr. Payne said that this was one of the ramifications the Commission had dealt with
before in the Hilton case - the problem of putting the road into the State system
and then having the road overloaded by future development.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the applicant could not submit some traffic analysis
figures, even if they were wildly imaginary.
Ms. Imhoff responded that the Highway Department, would have to find such a plan
acceptable for their ultimate design.
Mr. Sinclair remarked that the Highway Department had as much as said it would not
review the plan until an overall plan for the area was developed.
Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Skove said that they were suggesting the applicant come up
with projections on how many cars might use the road, using the highest possible
figure, and then the Highway Department would review the plan.
Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission had been through this before.
Mr. Sinclair asked whether the Commission had ever had any success by submitting
such figures to the Highway Department.
Mr. Bowerman replied that it had, specifically in the case of the Hotel Center,
where 15,000 vehicle trips per day were projected and the road built to maximum
727
use design. He added that the entrance onto Route 29 was approved based on the current
zoning of the property behind and its maximum possible use. He asked how many acres
were involved near the Hardee's site and what the current zoning was.
Mr. Sinclair guessed that it might be some forty to fifty acres, zoned C-1, which
he said being commercially zoned was difficult to calculate vehicle trips on.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether it was the applicant's responsibility to build the road
or the owner's. Mr. Sinclair replied that the owner had to build the road.
He added that Dr. Hurt had agreed with the Highway Department to limit access on
250 to two locations. Mr. Sinclair said that Dr. Hurt had built River Bend Drive
to a fantastically high standard, but did not envision this to be the major access
into the rest of his property. Mr. Sinclair explained that Dr. Hurt wished to
have his primary access opposite Route 20, at that intersection.
Mr. Payne remarked that the Townwood problem had been solved by requiring the
applicant to dedicate the road to public use, but allowed him to treat it as a
private road. Mr. Payne said that this was the sort of awkward method that would
build in a way to require the developer to upgrade the road at a later date.
Mr. Payne said that the only other option was to have the Highway Department look at
everything in the back zoned C-1 and have them estimate something like 50,000 vehicle
trips per day and thereby require that the road be built to that standard. He added
that the Highway Department really did not have much discretion in the matter and
was forced to require these high standards in order to protect itself.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Payne recommended, theca, requiring the dedication and
permitting a private road. Mr. Payne responded that he did because in this manner
the owner could be required to upgrade the road if necessary in the future.
Mr. Sinclair asked to point out that all of the additional property was C-1 and
subject to site plan review, so that the Commission would know what development
would be taking place as it occurred.
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Payne if he would recommend maintenance agreements for the
private road. He replied that he would.
Mr. Cogan asked about what should be done about the entrances from Hardee's onto
the private road. Mr. Payne said that he did not foresee any problem with the
entrances. Mr. Cogan asked who would govern their construction. Mr. Payne said
that the County Engineer could do it, using the Highway Department standards.
Mr. Cogan said that he would like to hear directly from the Highway Department
concerning the problem. He said that a lot of supposition was going on with only
the Staff Report as a basis.
Mrs. Diehl explained that this sort of problem had arisen in the past and the
Commission had received input from the Highway Department. She said that the
difficulty was in having property partially developed but with the Highway Department
unable to approve anything not knowing the future outcome of the overall property.
Ms. Imhoff observed that the Highway Department had been asked to send a representative
but that due to the bad weather, no one had been available tonight.
Mr. Cogan asked when this problem had come up, how recently. Ms. Imhoff replied
that the Highway Department did not really view it as a problem. She said that
/ 2Y
as far as the Highway Department was concerned, the road could be accepted only
if built to optimum standards. 14"
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Coi nission wo-.ld.rave adequate control if the road
were built now to handle traffic from Hardee's and could later be required to be
upgraded in the event of further commercial development warranting such improvements.
Mr. Sinclair asked that the Commission consider, if it would approve this as a
private road, authorizing Mr. Tucker to amend the site plan administratively.
Mr. Payne responded that there were certain circumstances under which an administrative
approval could be permitted by the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that perhaps the Commission could consider the applicant's request
later after further discussion of the plat before them.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about whether there would be any problem with the lady using
the house on the property further in from 250. He pointed out that she would have
to enter into a maintenance agreement. Mr. Payne observed that she was a leasee
of the property.
Mrs. Diehl asked what type of action the Commission wished to take.
Mr. Kindrick said that although he realized the difficulty on the road issue, he
wondered how far the Commission should go before saying no. He pointed out that
another lot could be developed tomorrow, another next week, so on. He questioned
at what point the Commission should draw the line.
Mrs. Diehl asked to what point the road was going to be improved.
Ms. Imhoff replied the improvements would go to the southern boundary of the
Hardee property.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this road would serve two other lots across from Hardee's.
Ms. Imhoff replied that the Citgo station was on the corner and would probably not
use the road, but that it was conceivable that the other vacant lot could be
developed, but a site plan or subdivision plat approval would be required.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was also concerned about being piecemeal in addressing
the road issue.
Mr. Cogan remarked that he did not know how the road could be built to private road
standards, because the problem as stated in the Staff Report could be the same,
that is, any future necessary improvement could require more than just overlapping
the surface because it could well be that the foundation itself was not sufficient.
Mr. Bowerman added that it had occurred to him that if the road were built to its
current use and later sufficient development prompted upgrading it, there would be
severe problems with widening the road and impact Hardee's site seriously. He
pointed out that future improvements to the road could disrupt traffic and cause
backups all the way out onto 250. He added that any such approval would definitely
mean the site plan had to come back to the Commission because he recollected
some concern about internal traffic flow and if the road were approved to the
ultimate design standard, the site plan would be immediately affected; if it were
widened in the future to the ultimate design standard, Mr. Bowerman stated that it
would also seriously impact Hardee's.
n9
Mr. Gloeckner said that the question remained as to what private road standard
the road should be built.
Mr. Sinclair responded that the intent of the applicant was to build a Category III,
curb and gutter, 36 feet of pavement, road with 12 inches of store instead of 8
inches. Mr. Sinclair explained that Mr. Jim Hill wanted to place 12 inches of
stone down instead of 8.
Mr. Gloeckner observed that this standard was probably adequate, but that it
should be pinned down. He added that 12 inches of stone would be sufficient to
have an overlay if enough curb was left exposed.
Mr. Sinclair expressed his willingness to have this made into a condition of
approval.
Mr. Davis observed that the County Engineer knew what to require; Mr. Gloeckner
concurred, but said that he should know the intent of the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked what Mr. Gloeckner was suggesting on the 12 inch base.
He replied that if enough curb was left revealed, the road could be upgraded.
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that this was a practice within the City, to allow for future
upgrading by leaving an 8 inch reveal initially and then returning to put a surface
course on. He explained that a reveal was what you could see from the pavement to the
top of the curve.
Mr. Payne suggested wording, if the Commission wished to recommend a private road:
that condition A be changed to read "Verdant Drive to be dedicated to public use
but built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Category III,
designed with 12 inches of gravel base." Condition D would read, he continued:
"Entrances onto Verdant Drive to be constructed to commercial entrance standards
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation." And, Mr. Payne
continued, condition H: "County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements for
Verdant Drive."
Mr. Payne stated that he believed this was one instance where a private road was
permitted under the subdivision ordinance, even though it was within the urban
area, because it is one of those places where it is adequate to serve the needs in
the three essential categories, plus it is in the public interest. Mr. Payne stated
that this would be an appropriate approach, if the Commission found that a private
road was desired. He added that, although it seemed somewhat peculiar, in his
opinion it was probably better planning to have the road private in this instance.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that County Engineer approval of plans with 8 inches of
curb reveal be required as part of condition B, in anticipation of future overlays.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion on whether to recommend private
or public road.
Mr. Kindrick and Mr. Skove remarked that there was little choice in the matter
and although it was a backwards way of doing it, it was probably best to go with
the suggestion of Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne said that since the Highway Department would not take the road, there
really was very little choice. Mr. Skove responded that the Highway Department
would not take the road as currently proposed. Mr. Payne said that it was possible
the Highway Department would not take the road at all.
7�
Mr. Cogan said that he was still concerned with not having anything specific
from the Highway Department. He expressed the opinion that he would be more
convinced of how to approach the road issue if he had something before him in
writing from the Highway Department, perhaps more favorably inclined to a private road.
Mr. Bowerman observed that Mr. Kindrick's point: was well -taken; when does the
Commission stop looking -at one lot at a time, as far as impact on the road system
and the overall development of the area.
Mr. Cogan said that there might be another approach, some more realistic solution,
and he wanted comments from the Highway Department. If there were no other
solution, he continued, then it could be approached in this fashion.
Mr. Skove said that his understanding was that the Highway Department could not
comment because it did not know what would develop there later.
Ms. Imhoff remarked that she had talked to the Highway Department perhaps as many
as four times on this matter and it was not possible for the Highway Department
to provide any further comment unless there was; an overall development plan for
the area that the Department could review.
Mr. Payne observed that if one were just to imagine 50 acres of small shops being
primarily served by this one road, there could be an astronomical amount of traffic
generated.
Mr. Cogan asked whether it would not be possible to channel some of the traffic
into the main thoroughfare, Riverbend Drive. Mr. Payne responded that it did not
exist yet. Mr. Cogan said that he was suggesting it be shown on a general
development plan as the route serving some of the back 50 acres. Mr. Payne
said that the developer or owner would have to submit such a plan. Firs. Diehl
added that the developer had been requested before to submit a development plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Sinclair about how the property might be developed or
whether he could enlighten the Commission at all.
Mr. Sinclair responded that the undeveloped property had sewer and water available
to it, was fairly well located for development, and when there was enough interest
and money would probably be developed. Mr. Sinclair said that he could not give
any idea at this time of how it might be developed.
Mr. Bowerman added that it could be developed under one ownership or multiple -
ownership; he stated that part of the property could be sold off in tracts for
development independently. Mr. Sinclair remarked that in any event it would
come back before the Commission for review. Mr. Skove said that there could be
another Fashion Square on the back of the property. Mr. Sinclair responded that
probably there was not enough land for that, since a lot fell in the flood plain.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the final plat with the changes in Conditions A
and D as suggested by Mr. Payne, changing Condition B to include Mr. Gloeckner's
suggestion, and adding Condition H, such approval then subject to Conditions A
through H:
y3/
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Verdant Drive to be dedicated to public use but to be built to Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation Category III design with 12
inches of gravel base.
b. County Engineer approval of road plans to include 8 inches of curb reveal.
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
d. Entrance onto Verdant Drive to be constructed to commercial entrance
standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
e. Fire Official approval as per memo from Ira Cortez dated December 3, 1981.
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of off -site water and sewer
construction plans.
g. Provision of a street sign.
h. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements for Verdant Drive.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed with no further discussion 6 to 1,
with Mr. Cogan voting against the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that Mr. Cogan's concerns were legitimate and that perhaps
the Highway Department could come and speak again on this issue, since Mr. Cogan
did not feel there was enough information here for him to even vote on.
Mr. Gloeckner added that the Highway Department might even think of another
alternative after giving it some thought, like how much information they need
before they actually review a plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Cogan had a preference for something in writing or
having a Highway Department representative present to speak. He responded either
way, the advantage being that questions could be asked to a representative.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that perhaps someone could come in after the first of the
year.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had voted for the motion with reluctance but because
the Commission still retained control over the land. He added that he did not
think it good planning, however. Mr. Bowerman further stated that he would prefer
to know what the ultimate plan for a single tract of land was, even if that plan
changed or varied with time. He cited Branchlands as an example of a development
plan that at least gave the Commission an overall design concept of a large area,
even though changes were made on interior roads. Mr. Bowerman added that such an
overall plan provides a means for dealing with the traffic expected to be generated
by one tract.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that she believed that a schematic plan existed for this land
and that it had been presented to the Commission at one time, as a working plan.
Mr. Sinclair said that a scale model had been constructed about twelve years ago
of a shopping center; he added that Kroger's had signed a lease that Dr. Hurt had
never signed himself.
Mrs. Diehl added that the Commission, although never approving such a plan, had
seen a drawing with road plans some years ago. Mr. Sinclair added that every plan
he had seen of the property was different from the last.
73Z
Mrs. Diehl stated that the applicant had also requested the Commission consider
what type of approval could be given of the amendment to the site plan.
*400
Mr. Payne asked to look over the administrative approval section of the ordinance.
He determined that strictly speaking no waiver of a site plan could be approved by
the Commission prior to a recommendation from the Director of Planning.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this would be treated as a summary item and not need
to go through a normal review process. She further determined that there was a
consensus to treat the amendment to the site plan in this fashion, having it come
back before the Commission with a recommendation from the Director of Planning.
Mr. Sinclair thanked the Commission.
OLD BUSINESS
Request for Reconsideration - 84 Lumber Company Site Plan - Located on the east
side of Route 29 North, north of the intersection of Route 649; a proposal to
change an approved site plan, specifically, to relocate the entrance road and
relocate 10 parking spaces. Rivanna District. (TM 32A), Parcel 2-1B).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Dave Darchuck, representing 84 Lumber, explained that initially he had been
unaware of Mr. Kenny Thacker's comments as contained in the Staff Report, which *40/
he had seen a few hours before the start of this meeting. Mr. Darchuck indicated
that there would be no problem in taking care of the Zoning inspector's comments
numbers 1, 3 - 8 and making these changes. He added that Staff had also addressed
Mr. Thacker's comments numbers 2, 9 and 10. Mr_. Darchuck explained that due to
the complexity within the 84 Lumber organization, he was not always aware of the
local 84 Lumber staff action. He further explained that another department in 84
Lumber, marketing, located in Pennsylvania, addressed certain organizational matters.
Mr. Darchuck also observed that these violations tended to put the site plan
revision request in a bad light. He added that: if the Commission would like
specific explanations at this time, he would be glad to answer any questions.
Mrs. Diehl indicated that the Commission would probably have questions later and
that Mr. Darchuck could continue with his remarks at this time.
Mr. Darchuck said with regard to the notes on violations, he received a copy of
a letter concerning Violation A, addressing the location of signs. Mr. Darchuck
said that the local 84 Lumber staff was not aware of all the locations of these
signs and that the Highway Department had not been able to give them this
information. Mr. Darchuck said that some of the signs were being removed by 84
Lumber and others by the Highway Department, which would be charging 84 Lumber for
this service.
Mr. Darchuck said with regard to Violation B, the 1 x 12 x 154 foot sign was under
the canopy at the entrance to 84 Lumber and contained a description of materials.
Mr. Darchuck explained that this sign was not intended as a blatant attempt to
violate the County's ordinance and could be removed if the County so directed.
He described the sign as being of red background and almost more decorative than
for the purposes of advertising.
/�)
Mr. Darchuck noted that Mr. Andrew Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator, was present
and said that he wished to ask him a question with regard to Violation C. Mr. Darchuck
said that he had never seen copies of the two letters relating to expiration of
the soil erosion plan. Mr. Darchuck stated that these letters had gone to the
main corporate office in Pennsylvania, but that he had reviewed the comment attached
to the Staff Report and would be able to comply with the County's requirements for
an extension of the bond.
Mr. Darchuck said that 84 Lumber did have a permit for the outdoor advertising sign,
as mentioned in the next comment in the Staff Report, from the County and that an
application had been sent in for Highway Department review. He said that he had not
heard of an approval yet.
Regarding Staff comment, Mr. Darchuck said that if Staff had some criteria for
directing the four parking spaces in one direction, there would be no problem in
complying with this. With regard to the second comment, Mr. Darchuck indicated
that the discrepancy of 31 feet of pavement with the indicated 45 feet could be
taken care of as a package with the relocating of the six parking spaces to the south
of the building. He added that the minimum parking space dimension of 9 x 18 feet
with a 24-foot access throughway, as required by the County, had been met and the
45 feet required for a turning radius would be taken care of when the grade change
was made. Mr. Darchuck said that this would take care of Mr. Cortez' comment also
concerning emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Darchuck added that should the Commission not be able to accept the location of
the 4 parking spaces to the south, he had sketched some possible spaces to be
accommodated to the east of the back line of the building. He said that this change
could alleviate the question of access and entail 9 more feet of pavement to the east
to accommodate one additional parking space.
Mr. Darchuck addressed the issue of lighting mentioned by Mr. Thacker, explaining
that the 60-foot easement was put in jointly by 84 Lumber and Virginia Land and two
light fixtures installed for public safety because of the change of direction of the
pavement. He said that 84 Lumber would be glad to add this item to a drawing, if
that would take care of the problem. He asked to open the floor to any questions.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Darchuck. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Evans whether he would like
to make any comments at this time before the Commission proceeded. Mr. Evans
indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Diehl asked whether
there was any public comment at this time. When there was none, she announced that
the matter was before the Commission. She asked the Commissioners for their questions
and comments.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Evans how far someone could go before having their occupancy
permit revoked. He observed that there seemed to have been numerous violations.
He said that concerning the number of signs, he for one had tried on several
occasions to find out why they had not been removed. Mr. Davis said that he had
expected 84 Lumber to be taken to task for it, but had seen no such action. He
asked whether the Zoning Department ever pulled occupancy permits for violations.
Mrs. Diehl said that rather than just answer that question, perhaps Mr. Evans could
give the Commission a little background from his perspective.
,##aw+ Mr. Evans responded that he had been with the County for eight years, through several
zoning administrators, and there had been no uniform policy. He said in all
frankness, the policy of the County was to obtain compliance, going the extra
713X
length to try to get someone to comply, rather than to use legal remedies. Mr. Evans
indicated that this policy was established at the highest levels.
Mr. Evans said that in the case of the recent elections, political signs had
remained. Mr. Evans indicated that this situation was not pursued, due to its
temporary nature. However, he added that in the case of 84 Lumber it was the
number of signs that prompted action. Also, he stated that the number of counties
and great distances involved were a factor. Mr. Evans said that no satisfactory
answer had been obtained from 84 Lumber; he said that he could provide dates, times
and names of individuals contacted. Finally, Mr. Evans said that in order to get
compliance the Highway Department was contacted. He added that most of the signs
had been placed in the Highway Department right-of-way.
Mr. Davis asked about the fact that several bonds seemed to have run their course
and that a company repeatedly failing to comply should have some deadline.
Mr. Evans said that his position wag to try to change certain procedures, but that
he had only taken over in July. He explained that his policy was to send out a
notice 45 days prior to expiration of a bond, then another registered letter 15
days before expiration, if the bond has not been renewed, and then Mr. Evans said
that he would ask to have the bond called five days before bond expiration. He
added that he was seeking approval of this procedure, through the County Executive's
office. Mr. Evans said that he hoped through this process compliance could be
secured.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Evans who had directed him in effect to go to such lengths to
achieve compliance.
Mr. Evans responded the Director of Inspections and Zoning Administrator and the
County Executive's office.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Evans whether he felt that he had gone to extraordinary
extra lengths with this company. Mr. Evans replied that he did. Mrs. Diehl asked
whether Mr. Evans believed, if the ordinance were being strictly adhered to, the
occupancy permit of this company could already have been revoked.
Mr. Payne asked Mrs. Diehl if she wished him to answer that question. When she
indicated that she did so, he gave the date December 1. Mrs. Diehl asked on what
basis Mr. Payne made this judgment. Mr. Payne explained that as of 12:01 a.m, on
December 1, 1981, the site plan bond was in default. He added that he had already
advised Staff that his recommendation, should the Commission not act favorably on
the request before it, would be that first thing in the morning the bond money be
forfeited and the certificate of occupancy be revoked immediately.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that favorable action would mean approval of the revised
site plan. Mr. Payne explained that if the revised site plan were approved, 84
Lumber would not be failing to comply, but that if the existing site plan remained
the only approved plan, 84 Lumber was not in compliance. He stated that this
company was in violation for failure to complete the bonded work by November 30.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the chances were of having the temporary certificate of
occupancy revoked. Mr. Payne replied that it depended on whether the Zoning
Administrator and Director of Inspections chose to follow his advice.
7316-
Mr. Cogan stated that he would like to make some comments at this time. First of
all, he remarked that the 84 Lumber signs that were located in the Highway
Department right-of-ways were not temporary signs but galvanized steel signs.
Mr. Cogan stated that as soon as these signs went up he took the time to visit the
84 Lumber store at Route 29 and Route 649. He said that he spoke to the manager
and informed him that the signs would have to be removed. Mr. Cogan said that the
manager told him that he did not know where the signs were located; Mr. Cogan said
that because he travels extensively throughout the County, he was able to tell the
manager route numbers and the location of many of the signs. Mr. Cogan said that
the manager was simply not interested.
Mr. Cogan said that Mr. Evans followed up with a letter on September 10 and the
Highway Department wrote a letter concerning the signs in October. Mr. Cogan said
that with regard to the sign hanging on the building, it was removed prior to
issuance of a temporary occupancy certificate, and then put up again. Mr. Cogan
said that in his opinion 84 Lumber had not demonstrated any intent to be a good
neighbor or any interest in keeping up with the County's codes or ordinances.
Mr. Cogan said that he would look for immediate correction of all of these dis-
crepancies before acting on any other application.
Mr. Kindrick stated, with all due respect to Mr. Darchuck, that it appeared that
84 Lumber had used its organizational structure as a means of circumventing direct
confrontation on the matters requiring correction. He stated that he did not believe
there had been any demonstration of concern on the part of 84 Lumber for the
citizens of Albemarle County or the governing body. He said that his preference
would be to have the certificate of occupancy pulled until every requirement had
been complied with on the original plan, 1000.
Irr' Mrs. Diehl stated that she was concerned about the violations that had occurred on
this site and the signs that had been posted around the County. That problem aside,
she continued, comparing the revised site plan with the original one, she would not
be able to recommend approval of the revised site plan due to the problems cited by
the County Engineer and with the questionable emergency vehicle access cited by the
Fire Official. Mrs. Diehl said that she did not believe this plan was as good as
the previously approved site plan, and did have some drawbacks.
Mr. Skove stated his reluctance to approve this revised site plan, for the same
reasons given by Mrs. Diehl, but also because he did not believe someone should get
an approved plan and then build something different and come back for an approval
of what he had built.
Mr. Darchuck asked to speak. He said that with regard to the violations, there were
three categories: directional signs, mentioned by Mr. Evans, which he said he
realized the Commission looked on very seriously and questioned 84 Lumber's manner
of handling. With regard to the wall sign, Mr. Darchuck stressed that it had not
been 84 Lumber's intent to ignore the County's regulations. He said that this sign
had been reduced in response to Mr. Evans' comment. With regard to the soil
erosion bond, Mr. Darchuck explained that some riprap work had been undertaken upon
Staff advice. He said that although the soil erosion bond had lapsed, there was no
blatant attempt on 84 Lumber's part to be in violation.
Mr. Payne addressed Mrs. Diehl and explained that from his understanding after talking
with the inspector, the erosion problem concerned sheet erosion and did not involve
116, riprap. Mr. Payne said that it was due to not having grass come up in certain areas
and was not a serious problem in itself.
'If
/�
Mr. Payne said that the problem was relatively minor, physically speaking, but
the real problem was that the bond was in default and should in his opinion be
forfeited. Mr. Payne went on to explain that it was the practice of the County
to be very liberal in this area, allowing extensions when someone came in and had
missed his deadline. Mr. Payne said that he was not in agreement with this practice
and had voiced his disapproval in the past. However, in the case of 84 Lumber,
Mr. Payne continued, no attempt was made to explain failure to comply or to request
an extension.
Mr. Darchuck asked to speak, saying with regard to the November 30 expiration of
the site plan bond, it had been 84 Lumber's understanding that since the revised
site plan had been scheduled before the Commission that the deadline moved forward
to this date. He further explained that it had been hoped that the changes in
parking spaces could have been approved administratively and thereby complete work
by the November 30 deadline, originally. However, Mr. Darchuck added, the revised
site plan was subject to Commission review.
Mr. Bowerman said that he would not be in favor of any reconsideration of 84
Lumber's site plan. He observed that this company had no credibility at all with
regard to fulfilling what it stated it intended to do. He added that the lack of
internal communication lines within 84 Lumber was evident; he stated that
Mr. Darchuck's unawareness of the violations and sequence of events locally was
further evidence of the company's communication problems and lack of attention to
a detail. Mr. Bowerman concluded by saying that: action was needed to correct this
situation, not more words.
Mr. Darchuck lamented the fact that his company in view of all the comments he
had heard tonight was in such an unfavorable position. He said that he wished
he had known of all the problems earlier in order to have talked with the various
parties. He said that there would practically speaking not be enough time to
correct all the violations by 7 a.m, or whatever hour tomorrow.
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Payne whether he would extend the bond.
Mr. Payne replied that he viewed the situation in this fashion, but did not know
how the Zoning Administrator viewed it: the ordinance prohibits a business to
open that is not in compliance with the ordinance and the conditions of approval
on a site plan, except in certain circumstances when the structure is deemed safe
and the remaining work is bonded, a temporary certificate of occupancy can be issued.
However, Mr. Payne continued, in his opinion, if someone is not in compliance with
the ordinance, they should not be allowed to do buisness. Mr. Payne stated that
84 Lumber's bond had not expired, but was in default. Mr. Payne said that this
surety was in the form of a Cashier's Check, which in his opinion should be cashed
by the County and held until 84 Lumber completed work and complied with the
outstanding conditions. Nor, Mr. Payne continued, should 84 Lumber be allowed to
conduct business until such compliance. Mr. Payne said that the County could
refund the money and issue another certificate: of occupancy at such time that the
company was in compliance. Mr. Payne further stated that some extenuating
circumstances might constitute a reason for a bond to expire, such as a particular
supply of a building material not being available or an oil embargo. But in this
instance Mr. Payne stated that it was very simple, a business should not be allowed
to operate while not being in compliance with the ordinance due to the fault of
the applicant.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion.
Mr. Cogan remarked that as had been stated already, he believed that a lot of this
737
was up to the Zoning Administrator. He suggested that all of the Commissioners
shared the same feelings and that perhaps they should proceed to some action on
the matter.
Mr. Davis made a motion to approve the revised site plan. Mr. Bowerman seconded
the motion. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was discussion. When there was none,
a vote was taken, which was unanimously against the motion, 0 - 7.
Mrs. Diehl announced that the motion was denied. Mr. Davis said that he thought
that was all the action required of the Commission.
Mr. Payne suggested that another action to deny the site plan could be made,
incorporating Staff comments into the reasons for denial. He explained that the
earlier action was an action for approval, which had failed. Mr. Davis asked if
this was necessary, and Mr. Payne indicated that it was.
Mr. Cogan moved for denial of the revised site plan, based on Staff comments and
the Staff Report. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl determined that this action meant that the original, approved site plan
stood.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether a memo could be sent to the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Payne stated that he would be writing one.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he thought the Commission should address Mr. Evans' problem
and give him some idea of a cut-off time on bending over backwards to help people.
Mr. Payne remarked that he thought Mr. Evans' policy was very reasonable. He said
that the Commission could certainly make observations, but the Zoning Administrator
was not bound by them, nor was he bound to follow the deputy County Attorney's advice.
Mr. Kindrick said that if the Commission expressed its desire to see the occupancy
permit pulled, at least the Zoning Administrator and Mr. Evans would be aware of how
strongly the Commission felt on this matter.
Mr. Payne said that he did not believe this to be inappropriate, if the Commission
so desired.
Mr. Bowerman said that he had learned from his Briarwood experiences that the
longer a situation is allowed to remain in non-compliance, the more difficult it
is to bring it into compliance and the weaker the County's position in litigation.
He said that when the County's position is allowed to stretch out and no action
taken initially, a whole series of events can happen worsening the situation and
due to lack of action on the part of the County.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested dealing with this specific problem first and then perhaps
addressing the overall problem in executive session.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne about the Commission making a recommendation on this matter.
Mr. Payne said that such would be appropriate in his opinion, in the nature of an
observation. Mrs. Diehl asked how this might be done procedurely. He replied
that he would suppose the Commission would want to have Staff relay this sentiment
to the Zoning Administrator.
753�
Mr. Cogan suggested that the Commission make a recommendation to the Zoning
Administrator and request a response.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a consensus among the Commissioners on what
further action should be taken.
Mr. Davis asked whether in light of the Commission's action on 84 Lumber, it
would be best to wait and see what the Zoning :Administrator now intended to do.
Mr. Cogan and Mr. Kindrick protested that he had not done anything previously.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she did not believe it was the responsibility of the
Commission to ask the Zoning Administrator what he intended to do about something.
She said that the Commission could make its own recommendation; she added that
she believed the proper role of the Commission was to form its own recommendations.
Mr. Davis explained that his suggestion was in deference to the Zoning Administrator
and an attempt to not place him on the spot.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether a recommendation could be made and a request for notice
of action. Mr. Payne responded that the Commission was entitled to require such
notice. Mr. Kindrick said that such a response was what he wished.
Mr. Skove asked whether the recommendation would be of a general nature. There
appeared to be a consensus that the recommendation would be specific, dealing
with the 84 Lumber situation. Mr. Davis agreed with Mr. Skove on making it
general.
Mr. Cogan reviewed all of the information on the history of the problems with
84 Lumber, citing the Staff Report, comments from the two Zoning inspectors, and
the Highway Department information. He stated that the Commission was informed
on the matter and in a position to make an educated recommendation.
Mr. Skove said that he would prefer to make a general recommendation. Mr. Cogan
responded that he believed there should be two steps, one specific recommendation
now on 84 Lumber and later a second recommendation dealing with the procedures in
that office.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether this latter would be taken care of in executive session.
Mr. Cogan concurred, and Mrs. Diehl elaborated that the entire matter of addressing
general policy and procedures in the office of the Zoning Administrator would be
in executive session.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Commission was recommending that the temporary
occupancy permit be revoked in light of the blatant violations of the site plan and
until such are corrected, the permanent occupancy permit would not be issued.
Mr. Skove asked why this recommendation had to be made; he asked would not the
Zoning Administrator take these steps anyway, as part of his job.
It was determined that there was a need for the recommendation as stated by
Mr. Gloeckner.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Payne, who stated that he would be making a similar
recommendation as deputy County attorney, would relay the sentiments of the
73y
Commission. Mr. Payne indicated that any such recommendation on the part of the
Commission would more appropriately be transmitted by Mr. Tucker and/or his Staff.
Mr. Payne stated that his recommendation was an independent one.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Gloeckner had made his recommendation in the form of
a motion. He replied that he had. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a second
to the motion. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. When Mrs. Diehl asked whether
there was further discussion, Mr. Davis expressed a desire to enlighten the Board
with regard to this problem. He added that he did not like singling out 84 Lumber.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether he thought the Commission was out of line.
Mr. Payne replied that he did not. Mr. Bowerman added that everything was well
documented.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion, and when there was not, a
vote was called on the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Darchuck for coming. He asked if he could clarify something.
Mr. Darchuck asked whether the crux of the problem in what the Commission would.
be commenting on to the Zoning Administrator, was in the specific discrepancies
Mr. Thacker had cited.
Mr. Payne interrupted that he did not believe the Commission should answer such a
question. He said that the Commission's action was to find that the site was not
in compliance with the plan and therefore it was not appropriate to continue the
temporary certificate of occupancy in effect. Mr. Payne said that he did not
believe it right for the Commission to make comments on what specifically it
viewed as compliance on particular items; he added that this would not be fair
and he would recommend that the Commission not answer such a question.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the conditions of approval of the original site plan
still stand.
Mr. Darchuck asked whether he could direct a question to Mr. Payne. It was
determined that it would be better to wait until the Commission completed its
business.
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Imhoff told the Commission that Mr. Tucker had a tentative date for the
Commissioners to hear the first presentation on the CATS Study, January 7. She
explained that it would be a public meeting and would probably include the Board
of Supervisors and City Council. She also said that questions would not be
entertained at this first presentation.
Ms. Imhoff asked whether the Commissioners had any questions on the followup memo
on River Heights, concerning the sequence of events on the grading. Mr. Bowerman
asked Mr. Evans whether everything was progressing. Mr. Evans responded that his
inspectors had been advised to keep abreast of activity on the site; he added that
the Highway Department had approved the commercial entrance. He noted that there
had been no activity within that entrance prior to Highway Department approval,
although there had been on either side of the entrance.
DIV
Mr. Bowerman stated, on a more positive note, he had gotten together with Byron
Coburn concerning the guardrails for Rio Road. Mr. Bowerman said that he had
received word from Byron today and the project was indeed workable, involving
2100 feet of guardrail from the bridge up to Stonehenge. He added that it would
entail a double length of the wooden support, :in most instances, for extra depth
to provide extra strength. Mr. Bowerman said that most of the guardrails would
be double or overlapping, face to face. He said that funds would have to come
from the Highway Department Secondary Improvement budget. Mr. Bowerman said that
the estimated cost of such a project would be approximately $36,000 to $40,000.
He said that the Board of Supervisors had the responsiblity of setting priorities
on the projects to be funded from this budget. Mr. Bowerman said that as far as
he was aware, with the exception of McIntire Extension, and the improvement of Rio
from McIntire Extension out to the Fashion Mall, and the Bypass from Rio to Route 20,
proposed in the CATS Study, there were no improvements planned for Rio Road.
Mr. Bowerman said the installation of these guardrails immediately might be the
only realistic improvement that could be expected for that segment of the road.
Mr. Bowerman said that he did not know whether there was a concensus to proceed
with this project, but he understood from Mr. Coburn that it was feasible and
would be effective, and he would like to forward a recommendation to the Board.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Coburn would be sending a memo. Mr. Bowerman explained
that Mr. Coburn had called him from Mr. Tucker's office and would be sending a
letter to Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the time schedule on the Park Street bridge and whether
this project could be incorporated into that improvement. He pointed out that
making it a part of the larger project could be cost -saving. Mr. Bowerman asked
how to proceed with this idea. He said that the Highway Department would be
responsible for the installation. Mr. Gloeckner remarked that the contractor
might even be able to do the job cheaper.
Mrs. Diehl said that under NEW BUSINESS she wished to ask the Commission about
adding a request from Fieldbrook to the agenda for Thursday. Mrs. Diehl explained
that recently the Commission had tried to adhere to the tentative agenda and not
add new items. In this instance, however, she explained that it was a question of
changing the phasing.
Mr. Payne further elaborated that the applicant wished to put a plat to record, n
phases rather than all at once. He said that the Commission had approved the plat
showing the phases. He said that it did not constitute a substantive change.
Mrs. Diehl determined that there was a concensus to add this item to the agenda.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners if they wished to move into executive session
now on the earlier item under discussion. Mr. Cogan suggested that a later date
might be better because any response to the immediate problem with 84 Lumber would
be known.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.'
S e care tary