HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 26 82 PC MinutesJanuary 26, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting, which included
the agenda of the cancelled January 19, 1982, meeting, on Tuesday, January 26, 1982,
7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 5/6, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P.
Bowerman, Vice Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Richard Cogan;
and Mr. Corwith Davis. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney; Ms. N. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff,
Planner.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order upon establishing that a quorum was present.
Ednam Section B Final Plat and Site Plan - Request for indefinite deferral.
Mr. Kindrick moved to defer this item indefinitely; Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously with no discussion.
Wilco Gas Station Expansion Plan Resubmittal - Located on the south 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), two relocated
gas pumps at the rear of the site. Rivanna Magisterial District( Tax Map 78, Parcel 3).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. R. D. Williams, the applicant, if he had any comment at this
time. When he did not, Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment.
There was none, and Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked when public water would become available to this site.
Ms. Imhoff replied in at least one year, perhaps longer.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Health Department approval was still valid with the
expansion of the building from 608 to 810 square feet.
Ms. Imhoff replied that she had spoken to a Health Department representative by
telephone and determined that the approval was not affected by this minimal increase
in square feet.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether new rest rooms were being constructed.
Ms. Imhoff replied that she understood no new rest rooms were planned. She explained
that rest rooms currently existed in a building on the rear of the property.
Mrs. Diehl observed that the traffic congestion appeared to have been resolved on the
revised site plan through the deletion of two parking spaces.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the note on the site plan should be amended to reflect
this deletion, for a total of 11 instead of 13 parking spaces.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Payne that this suggestion should be incorporated
into the conditions of approval.
iz
Mr. Skove moved to approve the expansion site plan, subject to the following
conditions, including the new condition number one d.:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Relocate air pump and note new location on site plan;
b. Delete two parking spaces as discussed (see Staff Comment);
c. Fire Official approval of gasoline pump permits;
d. Amend note on site plan to show 11 parking spaces;
2. Fire Official approval of hydrant location, connections and fire flow once
public water is available.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Davis entered the meeting.
Poplar Hills Final Plat - Deferred from September 15, 1981.
Ms. Mason Caperton gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Michael Cernik, the applicant, if he had any comment at this
time. When he did not, Mrs. Diehl called for any public comment. There was none,
and she declared that the matter was now before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Caperton to give her the soil scientist's report.
Mr. Skove asked about the Highway Department's site requirements.
Ms. Caperton explained that this property was a residue parcel from the Dudley
Mountain Lodges Subdivision. She added that the Highway Department had
approved a commercial entrance on the original plat for the entire parcel and did not
require improvements to the entrance at that time. Ms. Caperton said that now the
Planning Co:mnissicn, with more lots being divided, had required the applicant at the
time of the preliminary plat to improve the entrance, although not to full Highway
Department standards.
Ms. Caperton added that the Highway Department could not now require an improved
entrance, but only recommend one. She further clarified that the Commission had
required more of an improvement than the applicant originally proposed, increasing
the taper for example from 50 to 100 feet.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was curious to know when Health Department approval had been
received, since this plat had been deferred since September 15, pending such approval.
Ms. Caperton replied January 7, 1982.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the final plat, subject to the conditions recommended
by Staff, with the deletion of the original l.a related to the minimum 30,000 square
foot building site per lot, which Ms. Caperton explained had been taken care of and
should have been removed from the list of conditions.
13
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions are met by the applicant:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
(1) County Engineer approval of improvements to the existing portion of
Dudley Mountain Road and the proposed extension;
(2) County Attorney approval of the inclusion of these lots into the
maintenance agreement;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
c. A road sign is required (if not provided);
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance with a 100 foot turn lane, 100 foot taper, with 300 feet of sight
distance to the east and 240 feet to the west.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Michael Bowles Final Plat - Deferred from December 17, 1981.
Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report. She added that two adjacent owners had voiced
their support, one in writing and one by telephone.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mr. Michael
Bowles and Mr. Robert Lum replied that they had no comment. Mrs. Diehl asked whether
there was any public comment. When there was not, she announced that the matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the County Engineer had approved for the road. She ascertained
that he had approved twelve feet with 5 inches of gravel. Mrs. Diehl asked how many
users of the road there would be.
Ms. Caperton replied that the road crossed three other parcels.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was an easement.
Mr. Lum established that it was an old road, dating from approximately 1934.
Ms. Caperton said that the easement was being deeded by this plat.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there would be any problem with the maintenance agreements.
Mr. Bowles informed the Commission that his attorney, Mr. Buck, was in touch with the
Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Payne, and there were no problems with the maintenance
agreements. He added that all of the principals were in agreement and it was merely
a matter of executing the agreement legally.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Highway Department approval was verbal, since it was not
included in written comment.
Ms. Caperton explained that this entrance was different from the one reviewed at site
review.
When there were no further questions, Mr. Davis moved for approval with conditions
as outlined by staff:
In
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: *400
a. Provide a survey of the easement;
b. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
,(1) County Engineer approval of roadway specifications;
(2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement between all users
of the road, if possible;
c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private
street commercial entrance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passer: unanimously with no further discussion.
Under REGULAR ITEMS:
Sidney B. Rittenhouse Final Plat - Located on the north side of Route 737 and on
the south side of Route 6, west of the Town of Scottsville; a proposal to divide
3.8 acres into two lots. Scottsville Magisterial District (Tax Map 130, Parcel 25D)
Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to speak at this time. When he did not,
she asked for public comment. There was none, and Mrs. Diehl announced that the
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Caperton to explain what was meant by the comment that the *400
property was located in an environmentally sensitive area.
Ms. Caperton replied that the Comprehensive Plan was not specific with this
designation at all. She explained that several houses were shown in the area.
Mr. Cogan asked which aspect of the environment the Plan was addressing as sensitive,
air, water, slope.
Ms. Caperton and Mr. Davis answered slope primarily. Mr. Davis described the area
as rolling and on the outskirts of Scottsville, within the village residential
district. He added that it was an appropriate location for a home.
Mr. Cogan observed that somehow the two designations seemed in conflict - the higher
density use permitted in village residential along with the environmentally
sensitive area.
Mrs. Diehl recalled that the Commission had reviewed a site about a year and a half
previously with a great deal of slope. She determined that this site did not have
such extreme slopes. Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Caperton what information had not been
submitted when requested.
Ms. Caperton explained that everything had been submitted, but that it was a matter
of noting on the plat or on the overlay with the topo that it was within the 250
slope. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this issue was addressed in condition one b.
When there were no further questions, Mr. Davis moved for approval, subject to the low
two conditions outlined by Staff:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Correct the building setback line on Lot 1 to 150 feet from the scenic
highway;
b. Complete the designated building site information.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Clarence Massie Final Plat - Located on the east side of Route 625, east of the
intersection of Route 726 and west of the Totier Creek Reservoir; a proposal to
divide 21.211 acres into 5 lots. Scottsville Magisterial District (Tax Map 136,
Parcel 7)
Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report, stri'ning the Health Department approval condition.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Massie and Mr. Lum if they wished to speak. When they had no
comment, she asked for public comment. There was no public response, and Mrs. Diehl
declared the matter before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Caperton when she had received Health Department approval. She
also inquired as to whether Ms. Caperton had received the approval in time to
adequately review the submittal.
Ms. Caperton replied that Health Department approval had been received a week ago,
on the Tuesday the Planning Commission meeting had been cancelled.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Caperton whether she was satisfied that she had had enough
time to address the slope study and building site information.
Ms. Caperton responded that she had. She added that she had been able to determine
that very little of the site fell within 25% slope and that most of the site acreage
would be suitable for building sites.
Mrs. Diehl observed that it was due to the cancelled meeting of the previous week
that had allowed the applicant more time to provide Staff with necessary information.
She remarked that it was fortunate there had been no meeting the week before.
Mr. Davis stated that he had visited the site. He said that although he had not had
the lot lines with him, he found the land rolling and wooded, dropping off very
sharply in the rear, but not presenting any problem.
Mr. Skove moved for approval, subject to Staff conditions with the elimination of the
Health Department approval condition:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Determination of a building site noting the location, approximate area and
dimensions of lawful building sites, where appropriate;
b. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
(1) County Engineer approval of private road plans;
(2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
16
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance. vaol
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mountainwood Site Plan (Formerly Residential Treatment Center) - Located on the east
side of Route 780, north of Route 631, south of I-64 and across from the Sherwood Manor
Development; a proposal to amend the previously approved site plan to relocate the
one-story, 5264-square foot building for use as a residential care center on a 6+-acre
parcel. Scottsville Magisterial District (Tax Map 76, Parcel 46A)
Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Frederick Russell of Wellagain Ltd. Partnership, the applicant,
if he wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Russell explained that the revised plan was designed to be an improvement and
would put the facility further away from the road and neighbors and provided more
screening. He added that a copy of the amended site plan had been sent immediately
upon completion to Mr. Rasmussen, attorney for the Sherwood Manor Homeowners
Association, in order to solicit input. Mr. Russell said that he had not heard
from Mr. Rasmussen since the previous Tuesday, when a meeting had been scheduled
prior to the Commission meeting, related to security concerns of the homeowners.
Mr. Russell said that when the Planning Commission meeting had been cancelled, the
meeting with the homeowners was also, and he had not heard from Mr. Russell again.
Mr. Russell stated that a valient effort had been made to get feedback from the
homeowners association, to no avail.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time.
Mr. Henry Hirschbiel stated that he was from the Sherwood Manor Homeowners Association.
Mr. Hirschbiel said that he was concerned about the new site plan because observations
over the past few months had shown that the original site plan was not followed in
detail, specifically details of concern to the homeowners. Mr. Hirschbiel said that
there appeared to be a continuing inability on the part of the developers to initiate
and complete construction of the facility. Mr. Hirschbiel explained that this ongoing
construction site was decreasing property values of Sherwood Manor homeowners. He
asked that the Commission not take action this evening but defer the site plan until
meetings could be held between the developers and homeowners in order to work out
concerns of all parties related to ground cover, the tree line, landscaping, placement
of buildings and parking, security and lighting.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment.
Mr. Bruce D. Rasmussen, representing the Sherwood Manor Homeowners Association,
stated that Mr. Russell was correct that he had called Mr. Rasmussen to ask whether
there was any comment from the homeowners on the site plan he had sent earlier.
Mr. Rasmussen asked Mr. Russell whether he was correct in recalling that at that time
Mr. Russell had said that the amended site plan would not be submitted without the
approval of the homeowners.
Mr. Russell responded that he had said that he would not recommend it without the
agreement of the homeowners association.
17
Mr. Rasmussen said that he wanted that point to be clear to the Commission. He
said that the homeowners were concerned about the condition in the originally
approved site plan which restricted tree cutting and left a 100-foot buffer between
Old Lynchburg Road and the construction site. Mr. Rasmussen said that the tree
cutting had come much closer than 100 feet to the road; he provided the Commission
with copies of photos taken by a member of the homeowners association.
Mr. Rasmussen said that the current plan had some good features, such as moving the
parking and tennis courts back further from the road. However, Mr. Rasmussen
continued, the problem was that part of the building came out further, apparently
over the ridge line. He said that this was a change from the original plan and
would have a greater visual impact on Sherwood Manor. Mr. Rasmusse added that
virtually all the trees had been cut already, leaving no buffer.
Mr. Rasmussen said that he might remind the Commission that this was the emergency
facility that was needed a year ago to take care of all the drug addicts and
alcoholics, who were awaiting treatment until this new site plan could be put into
effect. He added that this was an offhand remark only.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Rasmussen if this concluded his statement.
Mr. Rasmussen said in closing that the homeowners objected to this site plan on the
grounds that it would be a detriment to property values in Sherwood Manor and because
there was really no buffer left to provide adequate visual protection.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further public comment.
Mr. Larry Stewart identified himself as one of the homeowners in Sherwood Manor. He
said that he did not really have anything to add to Mr. Rasmussen's comments. He
said that probably about twenty of his neighbors were present at the meeting and that
each of them could probably come forward and make similar remarks, but Mr. Rasmussen
had summarized their general feelings. Mr. Stewart said that the homeowners would
like to see something changed because a real mess existed on this site and it was not
at all what they had believed would occur.
Mrs. A. Henry stated that she lived directly across the street from this site. She
said that cut trees were all that were visible now from her home, apart from the
decrease in property value. She said that on weekends chain saws were operated on
the site along with truck traffic. Mrs. Henry said that it was a terrific eye sore
along with the noise pollution and a situation that she doubted any citizen of
Charlottesville would ever want to be subjected to.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment.
Mr. Brian Decker, identifying himself as a homeowner in Sherwood Manor, asked the
Commission if there had been a violation committed by the developer in cutting down
the buffer, whether the developer would be required to replant those trees.
Mrs. Diehl answered that this issue would be addressed by the Commission shortly.
When she determined that there was no further public comment, Mrs. Diehl declared
the public comment period closed. She asked Mr. Russell if he wished to make any
comment or answer any questions or issues raised at this time.
Mr. Russell replied that he was surprised at the complaints concerning the building
location. He said that he would have expected some message back to him in the three
weeks prior to submitting the plan for Commission review, which would have allowed
the possibility of turning the building on the site. He again stated his belief
that this plan was an improvement over the first and that he had received no word 1*40
to the contrary.
Mrs. Diehl announced that the site plan was now before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to advise the Commission on how to proceed if the condition
on the previously approved site plan requiring a 100-foot buffer had been violated.
She asked Ms. Caperton if the condition had been worded in this fashion.
Ms. Caperton said that the condition had stated_a 100-foot building setback from the
right-of-way of Route 780. She said that the condition went on to say existing trees
in this area to be maintained to the maximum extent practical.
Mrs. Diehl added that the tree line was shown on the site plan. She asked Mr. Payne
if tree cutting had taken place into the tree line indicated on the site plan,
whether this constituted a violation.
Mr. Payne said that it was rather a nebulous condition.
Mr. Skove asked what sort of cutting was taking place.
Mr. Russell replied that there had not been any cutting recently to his knowledge
either by the contractor or the owner. He said that the site had been cleared some
time ago. Mr. Russell suggested that if cutting was going on on weekends, as
stated by Mrs. Henry, it must be people cutting firewood.
Mrs. Diehl observed that she drove by the site each day and believed the tree
line had been disturbed, or cutting had gone into the tree line shown on the original
site plan.
Ms. Caperton clarified that the tree line on the front of the site was as shown, but
the area near I-64 had been overcleared. Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Caperton to point out
part of the landscaping plan. She specified white pines, maples, dogwood, blue spruce,
crabapple and various shrubs and ground covers as indicated in colors on the exhibited
site plan.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this landscaping remained to be done and could be bonded
or completed, as the conditions were currently worded.
Mr. Cogan wondered whether there could be a condition added at this time prohibiting
any further cutting.
Mrs. Diehl said that this could certainly be added. She went on to say that she had
some problem with bonding the landscaping and would prefer to see it substantially
completed instead, since it was an important issue to the community, before issuance
of a certificate of occupancy. She suggested separating the condition 2.1 All
landscaping and recreational facilities shall be completed or bonded, making the
condition into 2.a. and 2.b: landscaping shall be completed and recreational
facilities shall be completed or bonded. There was a concensus to incorporate
Mr. Cogan's suggested condition addressing no further cutting within the existing
tree line along Route 780, making this condition number four.
Mrs. Diehl expressed concern about Phase II, which she observed was quite a bit larger
I
than Phase I. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like the Planning Commission to
review Phase II. Mr. Cogan agreed.
Ms. Caperton suggested that there should be no further changes and the plan would
look like what the Commission saw before it tonight.
Mr. Cogan remarked that there had been many changes so far.
Ms. Caperton said that it would be preferable to have Planning Commission review of
Phase II as one of the conditions of approval, if the Commission wished to review it.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Russell whether he was not putting in a septic system, but hooking
up to public water and sewer. He concurred that this was correct.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was not certain of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction
in the matter of security measures planned, but stated that it was a concern she
wished to address. She asked Mr. Russell whether any particular measures had been
considered, other than those already discussed at earlier meetings.
Mr. Russell indicated that no new measures had been planned. He said that,as stated
in his opening remarks, he had received no input concerning specific aspects of the
site plan. He did state that there would be the appropriate security measures
required of an accredited treatment center, but that there would be no chain link fence
or iron bars on windows or gates.
Mr. Skove asked about special lighting.
Mr. Tom Wyant responded that normal parking lot lighting, as required by code, would
be installed.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Caperton to read to the Commission the original conditions of
approval. When she did so, Mrs. Diehl remarked that the same areas of concern were
reflected in the current conditions.
Mr. Cogan said that he still wanted to be a little more enlightened on the subject of
security. He suggested that Dr. Collins had had experience in such treatment centers
and might speak to the matter of how these patients might be contained within the
facility, so as not to disturb neighborhood residents.
Dr. Collins stated that the point needed to be made that these people would not have
to be contained. He added that the center would not have drunken, drug -crazed people
and that the issue of security was really irrelevant. Dr. Collins told the Commission
that these people would be less intoxicated or drug -influenced than most people in
the neighborhood or in the Holiday Inn down the street. He described the people who
would be in the facility as sober, seeking help.
Mr. Davis asked whether these people would be coming to the facility voluntarily.
Dr. Collins replied that they would and that there was no commitment involved.
An unidentified resident of Sherwood Manor strongly objected to the Chairman that
Dr. Collins had publicly insulted the homeowners of Sherwood Manor. He asked how
Dr. Collins could make a statement at this time and why a response could not be made.
SO,.,
Mrs. Diehl explained that the public hearing was closed, but speaking as the applicant,
Dr. Collins could answer questions from the Commissioners.
40
Mr. Cogan observed that he had understood Dr. Collins' remark to pertain to
occupants of the Holiday Inn.
Dr. Collins apologized for any misunderstanding his comment had caused.
Mr. Davis returned to his point that since this was a voluntary facility, he
believed security measures were not such a critical issue.
Mrs. Diehl observed that Mr. Davis' point was well -taken. She explained that she
had not envisioned bars or gates for security purposes, but at the same time
recognized the concerns of local homeowners. She added that this type of facility
would be a new addition to the community.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that this would then be a private facility.
Mrs. Diehl observed that the building itself appeared to be smaller than the original
one.
Mr. Tom Wyant answered that on the original site plan the building size had been a
guess. He explained that a subsequent review of spatial requirements had resulted
in a smaller building. Additionally, Mr. Wyant stated that the parking had been
placed behind the building, as far away from the road and Sherwood Manor as possible.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was an anticipated starting date for Phase II.
Mr. Wyant replied that although there was no specific date, it would follow rapidly
after Phase I.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wyant how soon Phase I might start. Mr. Wyant replied as
soon as approval came from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman said that he recalled several unresolved issues relating to the land
and financing of this project. He asked whether these matters had been cleared up.
Mr. Wyant replied that the land business had been resolved.
Mr. Russell responded that financing for Phase I was secured and was available for
Phase II, but that it was not written up because interest rates were falling, in
their favor, so far.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further questions or comments. She reviewed the
changes in the recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of Mountainwood Site Plan, subject to the following
conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A building permit will be processed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Final Fire Official approval;
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial
entrance;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
21
2. A Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I will be processed when the following
conditions have been met:
a. All landscaping shall be completed;
b. All recreational facilities shall be completed or bonded.
3. Planning Commission review and approval of the plans for Phase II when requested
by the applicant.
4. No further cutting within existing tree line along Route 780.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion. He added that this was the fifth meeting the
Commission had had on this project and that many of the concerns expressed tonight
had been previously addressed. He told the homeowners present that he was satisfied
that the facility would not be the spectre they envisioned.
Mrs. Diehl added that she believed the conditions being added further addressed
specific concerns of the adjacent property owners. She also pointed out that by
requiring Commission review of Phase II, another opportunity for public input was
provided.
Mr. Bowerman stated that in his opinion this facility would draw people seeking
rehabilitation from all over the community. He observed that they would be
receiving counseling as well as being physically housed. Mr. Bowerman remarked
that he doubted that there would be any visual impact from residents of the facility
and that these residents would in all probability be people who might live next
door to you anywhere. He concluded by saying that this facility was for rehabilitation.
Mr. Russell said that a point made earlier was that Virginia State law requires
all health insurance carriers to pay, among its benefits, for such rehabilitation
services in alcoholic facilities such as this one. He added that by in large most
patients would be working, insured by employers for this treatment. Mr. Russell
concluded by saying that the residents would be people seeking help, wanting to get
better and their care would be paid for by their employers.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further disucssion. When there was not, she
called for a vote on the motion on the floor. The motion for approval, with the
conditions as given above, was approved unanimously.
Fire Fighters' Training Facility Site Plan - Located off the west side of Avon
Street extended, south of I-64 and behind the Joint Security Complex; a proposal
to locate a 2=2 story, 1200 square foot, cinderblock building for use as a training
facility for fire fighters on a 4.558 acre parcel. Scottsville Magisterial
District (Tax Map 77, Parcel 57A).
Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mike Davis or Bill Roudabush, representing the applicants,
had any comment to make at this time. Mr. Roudabush introduced Mike Davis and
said that Captain Rogers could explain in more detail how the facility would be
used.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment. When there was none, she
declared the matter to be before the Commission.
2Z
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission had to consider whether this site plan
would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, before consideration of the plan.
Mr. Skove asked what types of issues had to be examined for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Payne quoted to the Commission from the State Code, requirements for review
of certain public buildings - their location and general character - by local
commissions, for compliance with such locality's comprehensive plan.
Mr. Davis remarked that the location seemed appropriate, being near the armory,
National Guard and security complex.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that none of the Commissioners had any problem with the
project being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that, therefore,
the review would proceed of the actual site plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked Captain Rogers to tell the Commission about other sites considered
and discarded.
Captain Rogers responded that some potential sites were too far out for volunteer
County firemen in conjunction with City volunteers to agree on. He said that there
had been zoning problems with a site near the VoTech. on Rio Road. Captain Rogers
said that over the past seven or eight years most of the land examined as a potential
site had either been too distant or had access problems due to terrain, or a zoning
problem. Captain Rogers explained that the site had to be somewhat unique - not
too close to residential neighborhoods where it could be deemed undesirable and not
too far out to be inaccessible for the various volunteer companies. Captain Rogers
said that when this particular property was discovered, it seemed well -suited to
their needs and was owned by the County. He added that it was more or less remote
from residential areas, but conveniently located for volunteers. Captain Rogers
said that both City and County governments had been contacted and informed when
this site was selected.
Mrs. Diehl asked how many potential sites on land owned by the City and/or County
were examined.
Captain Rogers replied that there was a jointly -owned site out at Pen Park that had
been looked at.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there had been an opportunity to study on a map all the
land owned by the City and County.
Captain Rogers indicated that such a check had been made at some time in the past.
He added that water availability was another criteria in site considerations.
Mr. Skove asked whether the Jefferson Firefighters were a corporation.
Captain Rogers responded that the Firefighters' Association would lease the land
from the County for a nominal fee for a normal lease period.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether it would be local companies that would use the facility
for training.
*400
Captain Rogers replied that actually the City and County companies had already
informally merged, with the County doing all the dispatching for the area. He
1_3
explained that the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association had been formed
years ago primarily for training purposes. Captain Rogers stated that there was a
reciprocal arrangement between the City and County fire companies.
Mrs. Diehl asked Captain Rogers how many training exercises might take place at
the facility for local companies during the course of a year.
Captain Rogers replied that a figure of 30 had been estimated, but that this number
might vary depending on weather and availability of class A fuel, the substance used
in the controlled fires. He further stated that these exercises would probably be
held on weekends.
Mrs. Diehl asked about plans for possible regional training exercises.
Captain Rogers replied that there was State grant money available for this type of
construction, to construct a State training center and a regional school for fire
fighters, related to the national certification program for different levels of
fire fighters.
Mrs. Diehl asked Captain Rogers how many training exercises would be the maximum
for one year.
Captain Rogers replied that the number would probably be somewhere between 30 and
50.
Mr. Skove asked Captain Rogers where training sessions were conducted at the present
time.
Captain Rogers replied that it was a makeshift sort of arrangement. He said that
in the City the back lot of the fire station on Ridge Street had been used, but
that they were hampered by City ordinances prohibiting live fires. He explained
that in the past old, vacant or abandoned houses in the County had been used, but
this was no longer a practice because owners of such houses were either tearing
them down and selling any salvageable parts or renovating them.
Mr. Bowerman asked Captain Rogers what sort of visual impact he believed this
facility would have on Interstate 64.
Captain Rogers replied that he did not believe it would make much impact; he
mentioned that he traveled a fair amount throughout the State, attending various
fire fighting seminars and had noted that many facilities are built right along
interstates.
Mr. Bowerman restated his question, saying that he wondered what impact might be
felt on traffic on Interstate 64 while a training fire was burning at the facility.
He inquired whether Captain Rogers believed that such a fire would attract the
attention of drivers. Mr. Bowerman expressed his concern over the possibility of
rubbernecking at speeds of 55 or 60 miles per hour.
Captain Rogers mentioned the issue of smoke traveling across the road also, but
in the case of the fire burns, he said that most such training facilities had a
blind. Captain Rogers said that he had learned from the Highway Department that
a row of white pines was a commonly used device in this area.
Z�
Mrs. Diehl stated that she believed this particular parcel was sort of down in a
valley and would be difficult to screen from I-64. She also said that with 30 to
50 training exercises planned for the initial period of establishing the facility,
she was concerned with traffic on I-64 slowing down. Mrs. Diehl also expressed
interest in getting more information on wind direction. She added that the water
draw issue raised by the Service Authority concerned her as well.
Captain Rogers stated that most of the training exercises would take place on
weekends. When Mrs. Diehl referred to the factory in the immediate vicinity
requiring a certain water flow to cool machinery during operation, Captain Rogers
asked whether this factory operated on weekends.
Ms. Caperton stated that she understood the factory worked continually with shifts
through the weekend.
Captain Rogers said that he believed the water pressure needed for a live training
fire would be 240 gallons per minute, which he stated was a minimal amount and the
maximum needed. He also said that this draw was not a continuous flow; he said
that the nozzle would be turned on and off and would probably be more like 60 to 90
gallons a minute rather than the maximum of 120 gallons per minute for one line of
1=2 inches. Captain Rogers said that he doubted that this use would affect the draw.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that she would be more comfortable having additional information
from the study. She determined that Mr. Roudabush had some figures.
Mr. Roudabush stated that a hydrant test made in that vicinity showed a residual
pressure of 20 PSI and flow of 1,090 gallons per minute. He added that if the vivo
plan were approved, a more detailed study would be conducted to determine what if
any affect would be felt by Coyner and Delaney.
Ms. Caperton observed that the Service Authority seemed to be fairly confident that
if needed, an improvement could be made to alleviate pressure and flow.
Mr. Roudabush agreed, saying that a booster pump could be installed at Coyner
and Delaney to kick on when pressure or flow dipped.
Mr. Skove asked whether this would be an expensive operation to install and who would
pay for it.
Mr. Roudabush replied that he was not certain of the cost. He said that he believed
the question of who would install it would be worked out between the Fire Fighters
and the Service Authority.
Ms. Caperton stated with regard to more information on wind, both she and Mike Davis
had talked to Mike Boggs at the airport. She explained that she had tried several
different sources and been continually directed to check with Mr. Boggs, so she did
not believe any more information was actually available.
Mr. Bowerman observed that the fire fighters would use their discretion, depending
on the direction of the wind and speed of the wind, as to whether to set a training
fire. He continued that his prime concern was the tower that was planned, a 4-story
structure some 400 feet from the interstate. Mr. Bowerman said that he could
imagine a controlled fire on this structure, so near I-64, stopping traffic.
Captain Rogers said that he did not believe the facility was that visible from the
east and west on I-64.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the site could not be seen from the westbound lane at all
and on the eastbound lane there was only a short segment where it could be seen.
He indicated that with the elevation and short distance where visibility existed,
he did not believe a driver would have enough time to make a decision to slow down
and look.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roudabush if he could estimate, as a person was traveling
along the interstate, how many feet of view existed.
Mr. Roudabush said that he had attempted such an estimate but that it was difficult
since the structure had not yet been constructed. He said that he supposed it might
be 200 or 300 feet.
Mrs. Diehl observed that the smoke would be more visible than the structure.
Mr. Roudabush said that he had the same concern, but he understood that the type
of material to be burned would not generate conspicuous smoke.
Captain Rogers concurred, saying that only Class A materials would be used, which
do not cause the thick, dense black smoke one might associate with a fire.
Mr. Cogan asked about the cinderblock material for the structure, saying that it
did not seem very aesthetic. He added that he understood the practical purpose of
this material for the controlled burns, but he wondered about the appearance of
the building so close to the interstate.
Mrs. Diehl observed that she would be more incl..ned to go along with this plan if
she knew that other County properties had been systematically and methodically
examined and eliminated, leaving this site as the only one meeting all the criteria.
She also said that the water question was a problem, and the aesthetic and safety
nuisance of the structure potentially presenting in such close proximity to I-64.
Mr. Davis said that he thought it was a good site in that (1) zoning nearby was
industrial, (2) there was no residential neighborhood in close proximity ar�d (3)there are
institutional type uses in existence nearby. He added he was happy to have this
facility come to the Scottsville District.
Mr. Kindrick remarked that he had no particular problem with this site plan. He
observed that in Harrisonburg a training facility had existed right on Interstate 81,
close to the college. Mr. Kindrick said that he had never heard or seen of traffic
problems connected with the facility.
Mr. Skove said that he tended to agree with Mr. Davis, that the ideal spot does not
exist and this site is as close as can be found to being most appropriate.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the site plan, with the conditions recommended by
Staff:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A building permit will be processed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Fire Official approval as recommended in his memo dated January 7, 1982;
ear
b. County Engineer final approval of road plans and stormwater detention plans;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans to include a
study of the Avon Street system;
e. Landscaping to be approved by the Staff unless it is determined that the
site will not be visible from I-64 or adjacent parcels.
2. Approval of this plan does not constitute approval of the future training
tower.
3. Health Department and Building Official must review and approve any extension
of the use of portable restroom facilities within one year of the issuance of
a permit for the facility.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed 4 to 2, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Cogan
opposed.
Mr. Skove moved to find the site plan in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was a concensus to take a ten-minute recess.
North American Exploration, Inc., Site Plan - Located off the south side of
Route 606, southeast of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport and east of Route 743;
a proposal to locate a one-story with basement (6,144 square feet total) office
building on a 4.513 acre parcel. Rivanna Magisterial District (Tax Map 32,
Parcel 57A).
Ms. Kat Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Morris Foster and Mr. Forbes Reback, representing the
applicant, if they wished to make any statement at this time. When they did not,
she called for public comment.
There was no public comment, and Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl said that she had a couple of questions, one being whether sight distance
could in fact be improved.
Ms. Imhoff replied that it could by cutting back brush on a curve.
Mr. Kindrick inquired as to whether there were any plans on the part of the Highway
Department to cease using the roadway in question.
Ms. Imhoff replied that from her understanding after talking to Mr. Byron Coburn of
the Highway Department there were no immediate plans to stop using this access.
Mr. Skove asked how the County could secure a 16' wide road with 6" of aggregate
when the Highway Department did cease the use of this road.
Ms. Imhoff observed that Mr. Payne might best address this question.
Mr. Payne remarked that he did not believe there was really a practical way to
do it, although theoretically a bond could be posted.
Mr. Davis said that he would think if someone was going to have a paved parking
lot and seventy-five feet of road, he would probably not want to drive through mud
to get to them.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne, then, how the Commission should proceed.
Mr. Payne said that a condition could be placed on the site plan, requiring
approval at the time the Highway Department ceases use, but he stated that he
believed such a condition would be very difficult to enforce. Mr. Payne said
that it might be ten years from now.
Mr. Cogan observed that he did not believe a company could conduct a viable business
if the road were not properly maintained. He suggested that it would just be good
common sense.
Mr. Payne remarked that he saw no problem with putting a condition on the site plan
and in fact was inclined in that direction. He explained that if nothing else,
this put the developer on notice and should the Highway Department cease using the
road, the condition would reflect the Commission's position. Mr. Payne added that
Mr. Cogan's point was well -taken and he tended to agree that maintenance for
commercial and industrial use of roads was a different matter from maintenance for
private residences. Mr. Payne said that it was more the business of the individual
if he chose to have a parking lot and road full of pot holes at his place of
business. Mr. Payne said that maintenance of a road in the case of residential use
was a different matter. He said that such a condition would be largely hortatory.
Mrs. Diehl said that she would favor including such a condition, especially since
the site was so large. She remarked that in all probability the applicant would
be returning to the Commission at a later date and this condition might have some value.
Mr. Cogan concurred that the condition should be included.
Mr. Kindrick observed that if the airport decided to extend, the road might have
to be moved; he said that whatever prompted the Highway Department to cease use of
the road might also affect the airport.
Mr. Payne stated that another issue was the easement, very much subject to what
the airport might do. He said that it was a most peculiar easement arrangement and
that Mr. Reback might want to speak to this. Mr. Payne added that should the
airport make certain decisions, the road might be eliminated or completely realigned.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he might have some language for including a condition
on the road.
Mr. Payne suggested: roadway to be improved to travelway width of 16 feet and 6"
of aggregate base and prime and double seal at such time that the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation ceases to use that road for transport
of heavy vehicles.
Mr. Reback asked to amend the wording to specify permanent ceasing of use, since
he explained that there were periods when the Highway Department did not use the
road temporarily.
It was determined that the wording should specify when the Highway Department
abandons use of the road.
2�
Mr. Reback indicated that North American had always intended to improve the road
if abandoned by the Highway Department and extend the service road. He said that
he did not believe North American would have any problem with such a condition.
Mrs. Diehl observed that Health Department approval could come later, since it
was a large site and she did not foresee any problem if obtained prior to issuance
of a building permit.
Mr. Reback asked the Commission to specify the width of the right-of-way because
the agreement between North American and the airport stated that the width would
be whatever the Commission so determined.
Mr. Payne said that he believed it would be 30 feet.
Mr. Reback said that there was no objection to widening the entrance to meet
commercial entrance standards.
Ms. Imhoff said that the Highway Department could require a commercial entrance
and the Commission could not waive this requirement.
Mr. Bowerman asked how it was possible that an improvement had not already been
made.
Mr. Kindrick agreed that it bothered him also that the Highway Department did not
require of itself what it did of other users. He stated that the Highway
Department used slow -moving vehicles and did not have sufficient sight distance.
Mr. Davis said that the Highway Department should have to comply and enter into
a maintenance agreement. He added that if the Highway Department did not comply
with its own standards, it should be known.
Mr. Payne said that there was nothing wrong with that, but the Commission lacked
the authority to force the Highway Department to comply.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the improvements were required of the applicant and Highway
Department use of heavy vehicles damaged the road, was there no recourse to require
maintenance assistance from the Highway Department.
Mr. Payne replied that he did not know of any existing law on maintenance of
easements. He said that he believed there was a law prohibiting obstructions on an
easement, but that he knew of no law addrEssz.ng easement maintenance.
Mr. Davis continued to object to the Highway Department practice of making
recommendations to the Commission, for which it expected compliance, but not being
itself accountable. Mr. Davis suggested that the Commission make recommendation
to the Highway Department that it comply to its own requirements.
Mr. Payne said that this would be appropriate, as long as Mr. Davis realized that
it was just that, a recommendation.
Mr. Foster said that he did not believe the Highway Department could require
improvements to commercial entrance standards on an existing entrance.
Ms. Imhoff said that her understanding from the Highway Department was that indeed
a commercial entrance could be required in this situation, although it was unusual.
29
Mr. Cogan said that as a member of the Planning Commission he was concerned with
the safety of the entrance and would require whatever improvements were needed
to ensure public safety.
Mr. Payne stated that the concept of what constituted an existing entrance could
be taken too far. He explained that an entrance to a dwelling, if converted to
a commercial use, could be required by the Highway Department to be brought up
to a commercial entrance standards. Mr. Payne said that he suspected that such
would be the position of the Highway Department in this instance, although he
was not certain since the situation was somewhat peculiar.
Mr. Reback asked whether surfacing back to the width of the right-of-way would
improve the safety of that intersection.
Mr. Cogan responded that he was not only addressing the surfacing of the road,
but the radius, the width of the entrance at the pavement line, the clearing
of trees, etc.
Mr. Reback said that the applicant had no problem with those points, but that
he would prefer not putting a surface on that road segment.
Mr. Cogan stated that the cost was not prohibitive in relation to the whole
project and did not represent a hardship to the applicant.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commission if it were ready to take action. She asked
whether the thirty-foot right-of-way figure needed to be included in the
conditions, an additional right-of-way that might be needed at the entrance.
Ms. Imhoff indicated that the County Engineer would take care of this item,
but that if the Commission did not wish to require a surface treatment, it
could be so stated for the record on the tape.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of the site plan, subject to the conditions
as read by Staff and the additional condition as worded by Mr. Payne:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Note zoning;
b. County Engineer approval of roadway specifications for existing gravel
road;
C. Add note: "Landscaping to be maintained and replaced if any should die;"
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
e. Written Health Department approval;
f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance.
2. Roadway to be improved to 16' width and 6" of aggregate base and prime and
double seal at such time as the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation abandons use of the roadway.
rrr Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
�10
Carol M. Morris Final Plat - Located off the west side of Route 631, north of
Route 706 and west of the Woodington PRD; a proposal to divide a 5.0 acre
parcel leaving 91.94 acres in residue. Samuel Miller Magisterial District
(Tax Map 89, Parcel 72).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant or her representative had any comment
to make at this time.
Mr. Morris Foster responded that he would be happy to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
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.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether when all of the waivers had been granted, it had
included the width of the right-of-way and the grade. Ms. Imhoff concurred
that this was correct. Mrs. Diehl asked where the building site was indicated,
and Ms. Imhoff said that one of the plats posted had the building site illustrated.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the topography of the site.
Mr. Morris explained on the plat that the entire tract was on the side of a
mountain. He pointed out the building site ;pith drain field and access, as
well as the various slope percentages.
When there was no further discussion, Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of the
final plat, subject to the conditions outlined by Staff: *400
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Owner's notarized signature;
b. County Attorney approval of a private road maintenance agreement;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Written Health Department approval.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Rose -Pollack Final Plat - Located east of Covesville, east of Route 29, and
south of Route 633; a proposal to divide 44.14 acres into two lots of 26.14
acres and 18 acres. Scottsville Magisterial District (Tax Map 109, Parcel 23).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicants or their representative wished to comment
at this time.
Mr. Steven Rose asked that condition e, requiring installation of a pipe culvert
at the entrance, be waived. Mr. Rose said that the road was served by eight
houses and the University of Virginia Observatory. He said that the cost of
such a culvert would be prohibitive and that in the two years of living on the
road there had been no problem. Additionally, Mr. Rose said that they had the
expense of maintaining 1,800 feet of roadway.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment at this time. When there
was not, she declared the matter before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant's road came before the gate on the
Observatory road.
Mr. Rose replied that it did.
Mr. Skove asked whether this was a private road off Route 29.
Mr. Rose replied that it was a deeded right-of-way, State maintained.
Mr. Rose said that the University did virtually no maintenance.
Mr. Skove asked who was involved in the maintenance agreement, whether the
University was participating.
Mr. Rose responded that at this time the agreement was between the applicants
and the people to whom they are selling the land to. He said that all of the
homeowners were in the process of discussing a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Payne observed that the road was quite long, going well beyond the Observatory.
Mr. Skove asked whether the maintenance agreement then would only affect the
road from the property being sold up to the road of the Observatory. Ms. Imhoff
confirmed that this was correct.
Mr. Payne stated that he doubted that it would ever be possible to have all of
the users of the road agree to a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Cogan said that it did not seem just to him that this one applicant should
bear the cost of the culvert when there were many users of the road.
Mr. Skove asked why condition e was not considered an off -site improvement.
Mr. Payne replied that it was. Mr. Davis pointed out that it was a Highway
Department recommendation, not a requirement.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the final plat, eliminating condition e, but
subject to the other conditions outlined by Staff:
RRPnMMRMDRn rnN1nTTT0NS OF APPPnVAT.-
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. County Attorney approval of a private road maintenance agreement;
C. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Pay $40.00 final plat application fee.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
32
Robert V. Clark Final Plat - Located on the north side of Route 760, southeast
of Route 29 and north of North Garden; a proposal to divide two parcels of 2
acres each leaving 27.02 acres in residue. Samuel Miller Magisterial District
(Tax Map 87, Parcel 35C).
Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, had any
comment at this time.
Mr. Foster asked about the restriction on any further division; he said that if
added, the note would appear to encumber the residue which could in fact be
further divided. Ms. Imhoff ascertained that the note could be stricken as a
condition, and the division of the residue approved administratively in the future.
There was no further discussion of the plat, and Mr. Skove moved for its approval
with conditions as outlined by Staff, eliminating the condition requiring a note
that no further division could take place without Planning Commission approval.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Note material of permanent reference monument;
b. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and include:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
C. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance, if
necessary;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
OLD BUSINESS
When Mr. Bowerman observed that the number of conditions seemed to be fewer,
Ms. Imhoff added that enforcement of site plan conditions was now handled by the
Inspections Department.
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commissioners,or asked Mr. Payne to do so, of their real
estate disclosure statements which are due annually.
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commissioners of the CATS presentation to be held in the
Auditorium on Thursday, January 27, 1982.
NEW BUSINESS
Mrs. Diehl asked that a committee work on the Planning Commission's Annual Report;
she appointed Commissioners David P. Bowerman and Allan Kindrick to work with the
Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m. /
obert W. Tucker, Jr.etary
33