HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 23 82 PC MinutesFebruary 23, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Conuni.ssion conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
February 23, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice-ChairHaz, Mr. Allan
Kindrick, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. James R. Skove and
Mr. Carl Williams. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy
County Attorney, Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner, and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff,
Planner.
After establishing that a quorum. was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of July 21, 1981 were approved as submitted.
Crutchfield Corporation Office/Retail Addition Site Plan - located off the east
side of Route 606, north of Route 649 and northeast of the Charlottesville
Albemarle Airport; proposal to locate a 2,400 square foot office, a 2,400 square
foot retail area, and a 1,000 square foot garage addition to the existing
Crutchfield site. Rivanna District. (TM 32, Parcel 17B).
14.s. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Bill Crutchfield, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt this is an attractive building site.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this proposal is for a second floor addition to the
existing Crutchfield building.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the second floor addition is for a total of 48,000
square feet, half of which will be used for office space and the other half for
retail sales.
Mr. Skove inquired as to the number of employees.
Mr. Crutchfield stated that there are approximately fifty employees at this time,
noting that this addition will probably add another ten employees.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following
e7
conditions:
a. Mote dimensions of handicapped parking spaces;
b. Fire Official approval as per memo from Ira Cortez to the Planning
Department dated January 29, 1982;
c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
e. Written Health Department approval of alternate septic site.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition has
beem raet:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flaw.
I4r. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Earlysville Forest, Sections Two, Three and Four, Final Plats - located off the
northeast side of Route 743, west of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport
and southwest of Earlysville; proposal to divide 29.52 acres in Section Two into
12 lots and 9.15 acres in open space; to divide 20.22 acres in Section Three
into 10 residential lots, a well lot, and 2.54 acres in open space; to divide
37.65 acres in Section Four into 15 lots and 10.15 acres in open space. Rivanna
District. (TM 31, Parcel 31).
Ms. Immzoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Daley Craig, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning these plats.
Tommy Turner, an adjacent property owner, noted the following concerns:
1) It was his understanding that the buffering for this proposal was to be
part of Phase 1, noting that this has not been done;
2) Questioned the type of buffering to be provided along the right-of-way
which separates his property and the road; and
3) Stated that it was his understanding that when the kennel road was
widened this was to be paved, pointing out that a cul-de-sac is there at
the present time, and questioned if this would be removed at the road
is extended.
Mr. Craig stated that they will work with Mr. Turner to determine whether
the trees along the right-of-way should replace the existing trees or if
additional trees are required for buffering purposes. With regard to the
circle,Ends was required by the highway department and they do not have the
authority to eliminate this.
:1s. Imhoff noted that this was to be a temporay turnaround until the road was
accepted by the state.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
/9
14r. Cogan ascertained that in order to obtain the dedication of open space,the
three phases will be incorporated and an average ta}:en of the open space percentage
area.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if the three phases are recorded sequentially there will
be more than 250 open space area.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt condition #h of the staff report should read:
Planting a buffer along Earlysville Forest Drive adjacent to Earlysville
Heights (10' white pines on 15' centers).; landscaping to be maintained
and replaced if any should die.
Mrs. Diehl asked when the buffering would be established.
14s. Imhoff pointed out that this should be done before grading if possible, noting
that they could either plant the trees or bond the trees.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if the trees were bonded there is no specific date
by which tzey have to be done.
14r. Payne stated that this would be determined by the Director of Planning, noting
that he would take into consideration the weather conditions, stage of development,
if there is a market for trees, etc.
14s. Caperton pointed out that this type of bond is usually for a six month period,
noting that at the end of five months the applicant is notified of the date on which
the bond will expire.
Mr. Kindrick asked how house numbers were assigned for different sites.
Ms. Imhoff noted that there is a grid system, by tax map, from which house numbers
are assigned, noting that the post office is sent a copy showing the house numbers.
Mr. Craig stated that he would like the Commission to reconsider this nunbering
system as they have had complaints regarding this.
i4r. Cogan asked what was the stage of construction regarding the roads.
bir. Craig stated that they are substantially complete pointing out the damage
done by the weather and noting that they should be repaired in about six weeks.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the amount of water available, noting the concern of the
Commission as to whether adequate groundwater would be -available.
Mr. Craig stated that the County requires a forty-eight hour pump test after which
time the well was stabilized at 102 gallons per minute. He noted that he felt
there was anywhere from six gallons to sixty gallons per minute.
Mr. Skove ascertained that a condition should be added to read:
9 Plats for Section 11, 111, and 1V to be recorded in nun-berical order.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of these plats subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plats can be signed when the following conditions have been met: *400
a. Construction of all roads to be accepted into the State Secondary
system and in accordance with plans approved by the (1) County Engineer;
and (2) Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation;
b. Installation of street sign;
c. Construction of all drainage control devices in accordance with a
drainage plan approved by the County Engineer;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
e. Construction of central water system in accordance with plans approved
by the County Engineer, and any other appropriate agencies;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans for possible
future acceptance;
g. Written Health Department approval for all lots;
h. Plant a buffer along Earlysville Forest Drive adjacent to Earlysville
Heights (10' white pines on 15' centers), and add. note: "Buffer planting
to be maintained and replaced if any should die."
i. Compliance with ZMA-81-11.
2. Fire Official approval of hydrants and fire flow when public water becomes
available.
3. Plats for Section II, III, and IV to be recorded in numerical order.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hi-an-Lo Land Final Plat - located on the east side of Route 710, at its inter-
section with Route 696, north of Route 29 South; proposal to divide 178.76+
acres into 5 parcels with an average size of 35.7+ acres. Samuel Miller District.
(TT,4 87, Parcels 23 and 17A) .
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Racheal Lily, representing the applicant, stated that they are rectuestinct
that this 153 acre parcel be divided into four tracts, noting this would be-_
in keepuZg with tae density of the area as well as the rural character. She
noted their concern regarding the building sites was the visibility of the
structures in the agricultural setting. She also stated that because of the
low density of the area they would prefer not to install the dry hydrant but
depend on the pond for additional fire protection. She stated that they would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this plat.
IT
Steve Clark, an adjacent owner, stated that he favors the low density concept, but
expressed concern regarding the proximity of the pond to Rt. 710 questioning if
this would cause erosion problems along Rt. 710. Mr. Clark also questioned
if these parcels could be further subdivided.
Ms. Lily pointed out that the State Highway Department is requiring an additional
guardrail, which will be a radial guardrail to a point thirty feet from Rt. 710 aI"ld
extending across the dam. There will also be a guardrail along the perimeter of
the pond site, and a wooden gurardrail will extend a safe distance up the sub-
division road. She also noted that the dam and the pond impoundment are not going
to be on state highway fill, therefore the erosion factor is negligible. She
noted that they plan to install an arch pipe system as well as a twelve inch
diameter pipe underneath the dam and that there is a special valve which controls
excess runoff.
Ms. Lily pointed out that there are development rights with this property.
Whiz no further comment from.the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff to speak to the development rights for this property.
As. Imhoff stated that each recorded parcel has five development rights with a
minimum lot size of two acres up to 20.99 acres , any division of property which
is twenty-one acres or greater is exempt. She pointed out that these lots are
over twenty-one acres and no development rights have been used. She noted that
the applicant has assigned each lot certain development rights which are noted on
the plat.
Mr. Cogan noted that the design of the private road for four lots is considerably
different that the design required for six or more lots. He pointed out that
anything more than this division would require a larger road with more gravel
depth. He noted that the plat makes it clear that there are other development
rights with this property. Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the following note
should be on the plat:
0 Tracts should have access only onto the private road and not directly
onto the State road.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the entrance to the present house is going to be utilized.
Ms. Lily stated that according to the highway department it is possible to leave
this road with the existing house. She pointed out that they would like to remove
this road and have all five parcels served from the subdivision road.
iris. Lily stated that she felt the existing home should not be required to access
on the subdivision road as this would impose an undue hardship on the owner.
Mr. Payne stated that the notes on the plat should read as follows:
• "No further division without Planning Commission approval" and add note
"All lots shall have access only onto Highland View Road."
W
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plan can be signed wnen the following conditions have been met: *40
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) Construction of road in accordance with plans approved by the
County Engineer;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for roadways
and dam;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private
street commercial entrance and installation of guardrails to meet Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation standards;
c. County Engineer final approval of dam design and guardrails along
private road;
d. Change name of road to "Highland View Road;"
e. Installation of a street sign;
f. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
g. Change note to read: "No further division without Planning Commission
approval", and add note: "All lots shall have access only onto Highland
View Road."
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
I)T.S('f TRgTMT
Mr. Bowerman noted that the fire official was concerned with fire protection in
this area and recommend that a dry hydrant be installed.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that this was not included in the conditions of approval
because it has not been required in previous cases and noted the expense involved.
Mr. Bowerman questioned what the distance is between the actual road surface and
the pond. +
Ms. Imhoff stated that the pond is close to the road surface but there is a drop
off. She pointed out that the fire department should not have any problem in
using the pond unless bad weather prohibited this.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the cost factor is minimal when you consider fire
protection for the existing homes and future development.
Ms. Lily stated that they felt since the road is going over the dam and has a
private street commercial entrance which extends for forty feet, and the water
level is five feet lower than the road which is hard surfaced a dry hydrant is
not necessary.
The above noted motion for approval carried unanimously.
9
79
Solar I site Plan - located off the northeast side of Old Ballard Road, Route 677,
east of the intersection with Route 676 and across from the Candlewyck Subdivision,
proposal to locate four (4) dwelling units (2 duplex building) on 144.06 acres.
Samuel Miller District. (Ul 59, Parcel 28).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any ccmmnt.
William Rieley, representing the applicant, presented a slide presentation
showing elevation, soils, shapes of lots, etc.. He stated that the soils in this
area are good agricultural soils some of which have eroded. He noted the southern
orientation of the units since the rental units are passive solar in design. He
pointed out the following items which were used to determine the building site:
1) elevation
2) slopes
3) southern orientation
4) soils
5) existing barn to be used as a windbreaker.
Mr. Rieley stated that the County Engineer has approved the road which is less than
10o grade. He stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Conanission
may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
ids. Kay Robinson, an adjacent owner, stated that she felt this was an inappropriate
plan for Rt. 677 as well as this part of the County. She pointed out that it was
her understanding that the CaTprehensive Plan reconuends low density housing
for this area.
14r. Anthony Boninti stated that he agreed with Ms. Robinson's statement.
With no further comnent from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Ms. Caperton pointed out the alternative methods of subdividing t1us property.
Mr. Rieley stated that the sketch showing the proposed area shows the most restricted
possible situation in which you are dealing with only eight acres and a square type
of configuration. He noted that there are one hundred forty-four acres, which can
have a density of one unit per thirty-six acres and can be divided nicely into two
acre lots.
Mrs. Diehl asked what other alternatives were explored that would give a more regularly
shaped lot.
mr. Rieley stated that this could be divided into wedged shaped lots that would be
larger than two acres but stated that he would like to see this divided as a con-
tiguous whole.
ivaw Mr. Bowerman stated that two of the lots could be moved down and centered in such
a manner that if these lots were subdivided two acre parcels would be created.
Mr. Rieley stated that in order to obtain "normal" two acre parcels the parcels
would have to be spread further apart which is not the approval they are trying
to obtain. He ncted that their proposal is in keeping with the Con prehensive
Plan and further stated that these parcels are not going to be subdivided.
Firs. Robinson asked why a comprehensive cluster surrounded by the acreage is not
proposed instead of the standard duplex proposal.
Mrs. Diehl stated that this type of planning is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Williams ascertained that this proposal is in the middle of a "working farm."
Mr. Rieley stated that the barn is not used at this time for agricultural purposes
but they intend to use it in conjunction with the buildings as a preservation effort.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the type of passive solar features to be included in the homes.
Mr. Rieley stated that the solar features include:
1) Glazing and massing inside to retain the heat;
2) Pad on the southern side to reflect the sun into the house;
3) Water walls;
4) Skylights.
He stated that they expect the homes to be about 70o total passive efficiency.
Mr. Williams noted that there is controversy concerning the decrease of farm land
and questioned the number of people employed at this farm.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not know how many people were employed, but noted
tnat the retention of farmland was one of the points they considered when planning
this proposal.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many units could be put on this parcel.
Mr. Payne stated five units could be put on this parcel, explaining that the ordinance
is expressed in the alternative: "dwelling units on a parcel or lots divided out
of the parcel."
Mrs. Diehl noted that by approving this site plan the Commission is not approving
the potential divisions.
Mr. Payne stated that any division would have to be approved by the Ccnudssion.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if the Commission did not approve of the divisions then
alternative divisions could be required. She noted that the Commission is not
approving the lot alignments if they choose to approve this site plan.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance requires the applicant to establish that the
division could be made in such a way as to create a lot that meets all the
requirements of the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the elongations meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that this would require a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance
�r
as it is currently written.
bir. Payne read the following from the Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2.1, number 2:
• "Side by side duplexes subject to the provisions of Section 10.4; provided
that density is maintained and provided that buildings are located so that
each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for
detached single-family dwelling except for side yards at the common wall."
Mr. Skove suggested that in future cases of this type the Staff prepare something
that will show how this can be subdivided differently.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out to Mr. Rieley the concern of the Commission regarding
the lot alignments and stated that he might want to re-evaluate these.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt this should be submitted as a PUD (Planned Unit
Development).
Mr. Payne stated that the provision in the agricultural district for cluster development
was deleted by the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this proposal is not within the Village Residential area
and is outside the jursdiction of the Service Authority.
Ms. Caperton explained that if this was approved as outlined in the recam-ended
conditions of approval, the applicant would appeal to the Board for acceptance
into the project area for water service, noting that if this request is not approved
then they can be served by individual wells.
Ms. Caperton pointed out the location of the proposed septic systems to the
Commission.
mr.Skove moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions, adding
for the public record that he could not approve a subdivision of this type.
1. Building permits will be processed when the following conditions have been met
by the applicant:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the private
street commercial entrance;
c. Dedication of 25' from the center line of Rt. 677 along the entire frontage
of parcel 28, tax map 59, to be accomplished by separate deed or plat;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans, if necessary.
If the connection is not permitted, private wells shall be installed.
2. Note on the plan: "All further dividian of these units to be approved by the
Planning Commission."
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl noted that the applicant has expressed concern over the condition that
OZ
was added to this site plan concerning any further division that must be approved
by the Planning Commission. She asked if the Commission was willing to reconsider
Solar 1 Site Plan in reference to this or any other condition.
Firs. Diehl pointed out that the applicant's objection is that he can not divide
this twenty-one acre parcel.
Mr. Cogan stated that the purpose of this conditions was to relate to this proposal
not necessarily the one hundred and forty-four acres. He stated that he would
be willing to restrict this condition to the division of these units.
Mr. Bowerman made a motion to reconsider the Solar 1 Site Plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
RECONSIDERATION:
Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that they are not required to review any
division that creates parcels all in excess of five acres and all of which have
adequate specified frontage on an existing state road. He further explained
the development rights which the applicant is entitled to that are exempt from
Planning Commission review.
Mr. Cogan suggested that this condition read "any further division which would
normally require Planning Commdssion review would be subject to review by the
Planning Commission."
Mr. Payne read the definition of a subdivision to the Commission:
• "Subdivision: The division, including resubdivision and the establishment
Of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in two (2)
or more lots, parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of ownership
or building development, such that:
a) Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five (5) acres
in area; or
b) Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than two hundred
fifty (250) feet on a road which is part of the state secondary high-
way system.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt any division of under twenty-one (21) acres should
be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Ars. Diehl asked if there is any potential problem with development rights in
restricting the division.
Mr. Payne explained that any plat regarding development rights which are exempt
from Planning Commission review, would still have to be approved by the Director
of Planning.
Mr. Davis moved to change the previous conditions of approval (Number 2) to read
as follows:
Irn
i3
M
2. Note on the plan: "All divisions of under 21 acres shall be subject to
Planning Cam -fission review."
Mr. Bcwerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
RGB Partnership Final Plat - located off the north side of Route 668, west of
Route 671, near the Wesley Chapel Church; proposal to divide 86.20 acres into
3 tracts of 22.20 acres, 24.0 acres and 44.0 acres. White Hall District. (TM
16, parcel 15A).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
George McCallum, representing the applicant, stated that the first one thousand
feet of the road is an old County road and the statute presumes the right-of-way
to be thirty feet. He stated that to widen this road would mean a six foot
encroachment of adjoining property. He stated that they are not asking for a
waiver of this as they hope this can be done because it would allow two vehicles
to pass safely. He further stated that he would respond to any questions or
concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment fran the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the CoYunission.
Mr. Payne stated that for the record it would be appropriate for the Cammission
to note in this petition the waivers that were approved on the preliminary plat
to show that there was no oversight on the part of the Commission not to include
them.
Ms. Caperton stated that the waiver on the preliminary plat was:
• A waiver from Section 18-36(c)(1) subject to: "County Engineer approval
of the private road to ensure the adequacy of the road to carry the traffic
volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by such subdivision."
Mr. McCallum also noted that relief was granted from the private road ccxnmercial
entrance requirements required by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation.
mr. Payne stated that it would be appropriate to include what was formerly condition
l.c.l. because this would define the standard for the construction of the road.
(CONDITION l.c.l. - County Engineer approval of the private road to ensure the
adequacy of the road to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected
to be generated by such subdivision.)
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that in order for tract "b" to be divided into one acre
of less than twenty-one acres, there would have to be a twenty-one acre residue.
07
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met by
the applicant:
a. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement (in corrpliance with
Sections 18-36(d) and 18-7) for all users of the road, if possible;
b. The required road improvements must be completed or bonded;
c. A waiver was grnated from Section 18-36(c)(1) subject to: "County
Engineer approval of the private road to ensure the adequancy of
the road to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonbly expected
to be generated by such subdivision."
c. Relief from the private road commercial entrance requirements reccau ended
by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation was granted.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mel Dixon Final Plat - located on the southwest side of Route 605, just south of the
Greene County line and east of the intersection with Route 604, northwest of
Advance LIills; proposal to divide 15.16 acres into two parcels of 10.45 acres and
4.71 acres. White Hall District. (TM 20, parcel 5A).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any c(x : t.
Mel Dixon noted that this property is part of the residue which is included in
the existing maintenance agreement and asked why another maintenance agreement
was required.
Mr. Payne stated that he would have to review the existing maintenance agreement
before he could respond to this.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following condition:
1. The plat will be signed when the following condition has been met by the
applicant:
a. County Attorney approval of the inclusion of these lots into the
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
�6
Greene Gardens Revised Site Plan - located on the east side of Route 29 North
(NBL), north of Rio Road and south of the Woodbrook Shopping Center; proposal
to amend the approved site plan for an additional 1,404 square feet of retail
sales area, 190 square feet of office space, a 600 square foot greenhouse addition,
a 242 square foot portable greenhouse addition, a 12 foot gazebo and additional
parking. Charlottesville District. (TM 45, parcel 104).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any ccmnent.
Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant stated that they would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Cogan questioned the location of the 600' addition to the greenhouse.
Rick. Walden, the applicant, pointed out the location of the addition to the
greenhouse.
D'rs. Diehl asked if there was any comment from the public concerning this site
plan.
Bruce Dodson, an adjacent owner, stated his concern with the visual impacts and
screening separations bin the site and residential area. He noted that he
would like to propose the following conditions which would address his concerns:
• the large metal storage tanks shall be removed from this area at the
time of the parking lot expansion or by July 1, 1982 whichever ccmes first;
• the dumpster shall be located adjacent to the large existing building to
act as a partial sound barrier and away from the property boundary;
• a landscape buffer consisting of a double row of evergreen trees tops
of which shall rise a minimixn of 6' in height above the parking area
surface, shall be maintained for the full length of the parking area
nearest the Woodbrook Subdivision.
Mr. Walden stated that the metal storage tanks will be removed and regarding the
duumpster, he felt the best location was between the buildings on the lower west
side of the site. He stated that the trees should not present a problem pointing
out that they will have to be spaced further apart than a single raw of trees to
allow for effective screening.
With no further continent from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
i4r. Walden noted that they made improvements to the drain in the highway department's
right-of-way, noting that they did not have a permit to do so.
Pair. Lincoln stated that this could be handeled by note #b of the recomTended
conditions of approval. (NOTE B -Zoning Administrator review and approval of the
grading and drainage amendments (as referenced in the highway department's cents
dated February 4, 1982) in compliance with Article 4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance).
M
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was another entrance to the site.
Mr. Walden stated that there is an adjacent parcel owned by Dr. Hurt, which
has an existing entrance but this does not go into his property. He noted that
there is an entrance to a parcel on the northeast side which has never been used.
He noted that they only use the entrance that has been approved by the highway
department.
Mr. Bowerman noted the steep slope which was to be used to show Landowners what
type of landscaping could be done on a steep slope. He asked Mr. Walden what
he intended to do with this slope.
Mr. Walden replied that there is a 6' retaining wall and the slope has been
graded and seeded.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Conmission approved a site plan in July 1980,
with specific grading plans etc. He pointed out that with the submission of an
erosion control plan to the Zoning Department, this site has changed considerably
from what was approved by the C nrdssion.
Mr. Walden noted that all the changes that have been made at this site have had
the proper permits issued for the change.
Mr. Bowerman acknowledged that the changes that did occur had the proper permits
issued but the site differs substantially from what was approved by the Ccnmi.ssion
in July 1980.
Mr. Bowerman stated that when this site plan was approved by the Can-nission in
July 1980, he was concerned because they were not going to hook up to public
sewer. He noted that this was in the urban area and reiterated that he felt
they should hook up to public sewer noting that it is available in this area.
Mr. Bowerman noted that public water is available to the site and questioned if
the applicant had any other public water lines on the property other than the one
connected to the fire hydrant.
Mr. Walden stated that they only have public water connected to the fire hydrant,
noting that if they were required to hook up to public water they could not exist
as a business.
DIr. Bowerman asked if the Service Authority would allow the applicant to use spring
water and connect to public sewer.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt some type of minimium water fee could be established.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Service Authority has stated that they should be
able to establish a fee for public water and sewer with some determination as to
how much water was used for watering the plants and not charge a double rate for
the sewage.
Ms. Caperton noted that Brian Smith of the Service Authority stated that he
felt some type of leniency could be made in the monthly billing for this type
of use.
V
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Walden if he could continue using the spring water and
connect to public sewer.
Mr. Walden stated that he had no objection connecting to public water and sewer
if the cost of such connection was reasonable.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he reconized that there is an adequate water supply to
the site and felt that approval of this site plan could be conditioned on the
connection to public sewer based upon an agreement with the Service Authority.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she also felt the site should be served by public sewer.
Mr. Cogan asked haw the Service Authority would meter this type of usage.
Mr. Payne stated that they may be able to do this based upon the Health Department's
standards for effluent based on the plumbing facilities.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne for suggested wording regarding the concern of the
Commission that the applicant hook up to public water and sewer.
Mr. Payne noted that the concensus of the Commission is that "can the Service
Authority bill the applicant for sewer usage based on the production of sewage
effluent on the site, by some type of meter or projection based on standard data
not using the usual water usage criteria, then you would like the applicant to
hook up to public sewer." Mr. Payne suggested the following language for this
I%W condition:
M
• Connection to public sewer providing arrangements can be worked out
between the applicant and the Service Authority for billing based on
sewage affluent actually leaving the site or projected from standard
data.
Mr. Payne noted that the condition "hook up to public sewer" could be required
which would make the intent of the Commission clear. He noted that the applicant
could request relief from this condition if the cost was too high.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was willing to work with the applicant and the
Service Authority in order to reach a satisfactory solution.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there would be a difference in time spent as far as the
Service Authority is concerned in getting an answer back to the Commission,
should they apf-roach this at this time as a deferral or a condition of approval.
Mr. Payne noted that the Service Authority may already have conditions for this
type of service, he also noted that if the rules had to be amended the Service
Authority Board would have to meet on this.
Mr. Payne stated that the Service Authority might calculate this on a general
calculations rate based on the amount of water that is used but does not go
directly into the sewer.
�♦
Mr. Bowerman stated that if this condition was based on the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, the applicant could proceed with the project but
if they could not meet this condition then they could not obtain a certificate
of occupancy without first coming back to the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not feel it was critical that the applicant hook
to public sewer, noting the number of employees and adequate drainfield
to satisfy the requirements of the health department.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt if sewer was available in the urban area then
he should be required to connect.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he does not object to requiring hook up to public sewer
as long as the applicant has the opportunity to come back to the Commission
to ask for relief fron this condition if matters can not be worked out satisfactorily.
Mr. Davis stated that he favors deferring this site plan for one week in order
to obtain information from the Service Authority.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that this could not be brought back to the Corrrnission
until March 23. She also noted that if the applicant had to request relief from
the Commission she would need approximately ten days notice.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the following condition to be added to the conditions
of approval:
• Occupancy permit not to be issued until connection to public sewer.
Mr. Payne suggested the following language:
• The applicant shall connect to public sewer prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy permit.
Ms. Caperton suggested the following condition be added to the conditions of
approval:
• County Engineer final approval of drainage plans.
She also stated that if the Como ssion approves the site without public sewer
they should add that Staff is to prepare a written statement outlining the concerns
of the Commission for the Service Authority.
14r. Walden expressed his concern regarding this condition and asked if a time
frame could be put on this connection to public sewer.
Mr. Payne stated that a date could be put on the certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the connection to public sewer could be bonded.
72r. Payne stated that connection to public sewer should be done by October 1, 1982.
'Iq
Mrs. Diehl noted the concerns of Mr. Dodson and asked if these should be
included in the conditions of approval for this site plan.
Mr. Davis stated that the dumpster could be screened, or relocated subject
to approval by the Fire Official.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the following condition:
• Staff approval of landscape plans, a double row of white pines for
screening on the northeast parking lot.
Ms. Caperton suggested the following condition:
• Fire Official approval of dumpster relocation.
Mr. Bowerman moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Building permits for the new uses will be processed when the following
conditions have been met by the applicant:
a. The work must be completed or a new pond posted on the improvements
shown on the previously approved plan;
b. Zoning Administrator review and approval of the grading and drainage
amendments (as referenced in the Highway Department's comments dated
February 4, 1982) in compliance with Article 4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
c. County Engineer final approval of drainage plans;
`%We d. Staff approval of a double row of white pines for screening on the
northeast parking lot;
e. Fire Official approval of the relocation of the dumrpster.
2. The applicant shall connect to public sewer on or before October 1, 1982.
3. Access to this site shall only be allowed via the entrance approved by
the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation.
4. The metal storage tanks on the northeastern portion of the site shall be
removed prior to October 1, 1982.
ivir. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Matt/Stutzman Final Plat - located off the north side of Route 22 on a private
road northwest of Cobham; proposal to divide a 3.93 acre parcel, leaving 3.93
acres residue. Rivanna Magisterial District. (TM 66, parcel 1OF(2)).
Nds. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
`h
David Matt, the applicant, stated that he now resides on an adjacent parcel
and has no plans to build on the property he wants to purchase. He noted
that this is a financial investment and stated that he has no problems with
the recc mended conditions for approval as outlined by Staff.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Firs. Diehl asked if it would present a hardship for the applicant, if the two
lots were ccobined.
Mr. Matt stated that it would not present a hardship noting that his only concern
is that he did not want the bank who holds the mortgage on lot one to have any
claim to lot E-1.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that if the two parcels were joined together a note
could be put on the plat stating "lot E-1 to be added to and become a portion
of lot 1."
Firs. Diehl pointed out that the applicant prefers not to join the two parcels
but noted that the Zoning Administrator prefers not having plats that have the
note "no building permits will be processed or issued on a lot."
Mr. Payne stated that if a note was on the plat stating that no building permits
to be processed for lot E-1, this would make this a separate parcel and the
bank would not have a lein on it but stated that he did not see what effect
this would have upon the applicant for financial purposes.
Firs. Diehl noted that the alternatives at this time would be to approve it as
submitted or not approve it, in which case it would be re -submitted next month
as one parcel.
Mr. Bowerman suggested approving this plat with the deletion of condition l.a.
of the staff report as this meets the minimum requirements and is a buildable
lot. (CONDITION l.a. - Note on the plat: "No building permit will be processed
or issued on lot E-1 without Planning Ccmttussion approval."
Mr. Matt stated that he did not want to relinquish any rights to build on
the property at a later date.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that there is an existing pipe stem and noted that
the adequacy of the existing private road is a matter of concern.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this could be presented to the Commission on March
23, if the Commission chooses to defer it at this time.
Mr. Cogan moved to defer this final plat to the March 23, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting, directing the Staff to review it under normal subdivision procedures
and to advise the applicant as to the options available.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
R
!/
Request for Waiver of a Site Plan - Nationl Bank at Fashion Square Mall -
11%W Located on the east side of 29 North and south of Rio Road; request to install
a cash -flaw counter on an existing bank building with the relocation of existing
parking spaces. Charlottesville District. (TM 61, parcel 122).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
virs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Albert Booth, representing the bank, stated that the sign to be erected by the
parkin area to show direction to automatic teller machine has been ordered. He
noted that they have no problem with the conditions as reccemiended by the Staff,
and stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission
may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the two motions required are:
1) waiver of site plan review requirements;
2) building permit can be processed when the following conditions are met.
Mr. Bowerman made a motion to waive the site plan requirements.
Mr. Skove seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the site plan with the following condition:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following condition has been met:
a. Installation of bumper blocks and asphalt concrete, construction of
concrete curbing, and installation of a sign as per County Engineer's
memo dated February 17, 1982.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Request to delete note from the approved Carol Morris Final Plat — property is
located on the west side of Route 631 and north of Route 706; request to delete
note, "No building permit or division of property without Planning Commission
approval," from final plat. Samuel Tiller District. (TM 89, a portion of
parcel 72).
iris. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any convent.
Carol Morris stated that she would like to reserve the right to comment.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
�e
Mr. Davis ascertained that the building permit is for the residue and not
the division itself.
Firs. Diehl noted that the reason this condition was orginally required was
because several of the road requirements had already been waived and noted
the concern of the Commission that other development may occur along this road.
Mr. Payne pointed out that if this were divided into two parcels it could be
sold without conning back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this request with the following condition:
1. Note to be shown on the plat "No further division without Planning Commission
approval."
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m..
W. Tucker, Jr. -
�3