HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 27 82 PC MinutesJuly 27, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
on Tuesday, July 27, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 5/6, Second
Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen
Kindrick, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. James R. Skove and Mr. Tim Michel.
Absent from the meeting was Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman and
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald
S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, Ms. Mason Caperton,
Senior Planner, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner, Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Ellen V. Nash, ex-officio.
After establishing that a quorum was present Mr. Bowerman called
the meeting to order.
The minutes of December 17, 1981, January 12, 1982 and January 21,
1982 were approved as submitted.
SP-82-38 Edward D. R. Naude Mobile Home - Request to locate a
mobile home on 14.690 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, in accordance
with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is located
2 miles east of Route 29 South on the north side of Route 633;
County Tax Map 109, Parcel 47H, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Naude stated that he would like to know what objection
M & B Partnership could have to his putting a mobile home on
this property.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
,4r. Skove ascertained that M & B Partnership agreed to remove the
following language from the deed dated July 30, 1979:
"said property is conveyed subject to the matters shown on
said plat and to the following restrictions: no mobile home,
trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other out-
building erected on said property shall at any time be used
as a dwelling, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any
dwelling of a temporary character be permitted."
Mr. Michel ascertained that this application is for one mobile
home and in order to put additional mobile homes on this property
the applicant would have to obtain additional special use permits.
025 9
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this special use permit, subject
to the following conditions:
1400
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Maintenance of a 100 foot tree buffer around the perimeter
of the property except as necessary for access to Route 633.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wayne and Deborah Hall Final Plat - located on the north side of
Rt. 643, east of Rt. 29 North and the Southern Railroad; proposal
to divide 5.495 acres into two lots of 2.495 acres and 3.0 acres.
Rivanna District. (TM 46, parcel 103. DEFERRED FROM JUNE 22, 1982.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that they would
respond to any questions or concerns thev may have.
With no co�-;Lment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. LRichel stated that he has no objections to this proposal, noting
that both lots have existing structures. ,
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions including:
1. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
2. Construction of the private road according to
specifications approved by the County Engineer;
b. Note the date by which all permanent reference monuments
will be set.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bennington Terrace Revised Final Plat - located on the east side
of Georgetown Road, north of the Hessian Hills subdivision;
proposal to divide 1.91 acres into seven lots with an average
size of 9,128 square feet (TM 60A(1), parcel 32.) Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
159
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, had any comment
concerning this final plat.
Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, stated that the drainage from Biltmore
Drive (Bennington) can be channeled into a culvert, which would
mean that the only undirected drainage into the stream would be from
Lot #1. Taking this into account, curb and gutter could be eliminated
on Biltmore Drive if there is control over how the lots and drainage
system along the road are developed and graced. He stated that he
has offered to the developer to eliminate the curb and gutter and
an on -site detention basin if the developer supports improvements
to the downstream channel.
Mr. Elrod stated that there is a problem with erosion in the downstream
area, noting that the residents of the area have tried to put rip rap
in the channel but this has in the past been washed away.
Mr. Elrod stated that he proposes to shape the channel in a manner
that would be in keeping with the aesthetics of the area. He noted
that they plan to flatten the channel and build a drop structure
which will help control the runoff velocity. He explained that the
channel will be layered with "filter fabric" to allow water to pass
through it but not soil. He stated that he felt that they would be
able to control erosion from Bennington Woods up to where the pipe
from Georgetown Court ties into the channel.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the residents of this area are concerned
that runoff will increase after development of the Bennington Terrace
property due to an increase in amount of impervious surface.
Mr. Elrod stated that there will be some increase but noted that
calculations indicate that it will be less than a ten percent (10%)
increase in volume. He noted that the main problem is not the
volume of water but the velocity of flow.
Mr. Michel ascertained that Mr. Elrod considers putting the "filter
fabric" with stones on top as a permanent solution to the problem
of erosion.
Mr. Michel ascertained that if there is a problem with this proposal
there is no existing mechanism to make the necessary repairs with
County funds.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the easement between lots three and
four is a storm and sewer easement.
Ms. Nash asked what is the difference between this plat and the
originial plat.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there is a difference in the number
of lots and where is no detention basin proposed for the revised
plat of seven lots.
Mr. Skove asked if the peak flow would increase because of these
measures.
Mr. Elrod stated that the peak flow would not increase. He also
noted that there is a pboblem along Solomon Court with debris and
silt stripped from the channel by runoff.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Elrod to explain what "additional facilities" are
to be provided if the pond is eliminated.
Mr. Elrod stated that the storm sewer pipe from the cul-de-sac would
be extended across the detention basin to the point where it would
tie into the outlet pipe, approximately fifty or sixty feet of
additional pipe would be involved.
Mr. Tom Trevillian, Engineer, pointed out the the Commission the
location of the existing detention basin and where the pipe would
have to be extended.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is the opinion of the County Engineer that this
proposal will prevent runoff that is occuring at this time.
Ar. Elrod stated that when the final drainage plans are submitted a
ditich will be required of sufficient capacity to prevent any
overflow.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the cost of curb and gutter versus improve-
ments to the downstream channel are approximately equal.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that they are not
applying for any bonus factors. He stated that the applicant
would like to make improvements (within his means) that would help
with the off -site drainage problems.
Mr. Gale discussed the staff's recommendation for curb and gutter
to be provided along Georgetown Road. He pointed out that there
is no curb and gutter along Georgetown Road at this time. He also
noted that the most recent development in this area, Georgetown Court,
was not required to install curb and gutter because it was felt to
be undesirable for this area. He asked the Commission to consider
this and stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission
may have.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this plat.
Mr. Bill Konn, an adjacent owner, stated that the County is allowing
development in this area when there is a serious problem with
erosion, etc. He noted that this creek under normal circumstances
is approximately 2' deep and 6" wide, but pointed out that after a
rain it swells to about 3' deep and 3' wide. He pointed out that this
is a result of the construction on Georgetown Court. :ie stated that
in addition to the erosion problem he felt that increased develop-
ment and runoff constituted a public danger.
,,2 (11
Mr. Konn stated that if a development is put upstream the runoff
to the stream would increase. He noted that the improvements
outlined by Mr. Elrod would help control erosion upstream but does
not benefit anyone living downstream of this proposal. He asked
what recourse the people living downstream from this proposal have
if the runoff measures proposed fail. He stated that he would
like some assurance that if they fail it would not be his (or other
adjacent owners) responsibility to make the necessary improvements.
Mr. Jim Cannon, an adjacent owner, stated his concern regarding
runoff in this area and pointed out that this entire area was
condemened in the past because of drainage problems. He stated that
he would like some assurances that if the solution proposed by Mr.
Elrod fails, then the necessary steps would be taken to solve the
problem of erosion and runoff.
Mr. Elrod stated that when the road plans are submitted if the storm
sewer system is not adequate then the necessary improvements will
have to be made.
Mr. Reid, an adjacent owner, stated his concern regarding sheet
water which runs onto his property from the adjacent developments.
Mr. O'Brien, an adjacent owner, stated that the sheet water has
increased due to development in this area and stated that the
culvert could not handle any additional runoff.
Pair. Economos, an adjacent owner, also stated his concern regarding
sheet water flow from this proerty and other developments in the
area.
Mr. O'Brien asked if an escrow account could be established which
would be used to make the necessary improvements if the proposal
made by Mr. Elrod fails.
Mr. Cammron, an adjacent owner, stated that he felt that there is
a danger to the public health and safety (especially children's)
due to this stream.
Mr. Paul Smith, an adjacent owner, also stated his concern regarding
runoff in this area.
Mrs. Barbara Economos, adjacent owner, also stated her concern with
the runoff in this area.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove stated that the concept behind controlling urban area
runoff is that the amount of runoff leaving the developed property
should not be greater than the amount of runoff before development.
Hr. Elrod stated that the Runoff Control Ordinance states that the
detention basin should be designed so that the amount of runoff for a
ten year storm is no greater after development that it was before
development. He further stated that the total drainage that passes
through this site derives from approximately nine acres, noting that
this site is only two acres. He stated that he felt off -site improve-
ments would better serve this area.
Mr. Skove asked if the Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this
proposal.
Mr. Payne stated that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies, but
noted that it is up to the discretion of the County Engineer as to
how it is applied.
Mr. Michel stated his concern regarding the orgin of water in the area,
such as the water flow on Georgetown. He asked if the County is
exploring alternatives to slowing these water sources.
Mr. Elrod stated that the alternatives for slowing water sources on
other properties has not been explored. He noted that with regard to
Georgetown Court since this development is completed, the County
has no control over the developer.
Mr. Michel asked if the Commission had any recourse at this time to
make an assessment of the 'vJade property (Georgetown Court) to try
and improve that runoff situation.
Mr. Payne stated that assessments are very limited and noted that
he did not feel it would apply to this situation.
Mr. Trevillian pointed out that Georgetown Court was submitted before
the Stormwater Detention Ordinance was passed, noting that the
developer installed a detention basin even though it was not required
at that time. He stated that he did not know if the developer would
even be in violation of the ordinance now.
Mr. Bowerman asked what additional information is needed in order to
pinpoint, with a reasonable amount of certainity, what will occur
when the Bennington Terrace property is developed.
Mr. Elrod stated that the design computations, road and drainage plans
will allow him the oppurtunity to do a detailed review. He noted
that the Commission may want to defer this plan until he has had the
oppurtunity to make a detailed review.
Mrs. Nash noted that there will be additional runoff from the
remaining lots on Georgetown Court.
sir. Elrod stated that there is an ordinance which will allow the
County to collect a pro-rata share from any developer for his 1000
share of the downstream drainage improvements.
-I/ A
Mr. Payne explained the methods by which the County could require
future developers to participate in the drainage improvements for
the area.
Mr. Michel stated his concern that the junction box may be inadequate.
Mr. Elrod stated that if the junction box or any structure attached
to it are inadequate, he will not approve the plan until they are
adequate.
Mr. Cogan asked if this property in its present state is generating
any runoff or is it simply in an area where the runoff is generated
elsewhere but goes across this property.
Mr. Elrod stated that the percentage of runoff from this property is
approximately 250 of the total runoff running through this property,
Mr. Elrod noted that this percentage of total will increase after
development.
Mr. Cogan reiterated the concerns that the adjacent owners expressed
over the flow of water in the stream as well as other runoff problems.
Mr. Elrod stated that the development of this site will help some
of these problems because the ditch will channel some of the sheet
flow into the stream.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he would like to see a comprehensive study
of what will occur when this site is developed to its potential and
how the water will be handled. He stated that he would like to see
a study made of this watershed before he could support any develop-
ment of this area.
Mr. Michel asked if the off -site improvements suggested by Mr. Elrod
are part of a watershed study.
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt the off -site improvements to be adequate
and that they would be part of a watershed study. He noted that there
are three alternatives:
• rip rap channel
• paved concrete channel
• installing a pipe (he noted that this would be
difficult because of other utility lines in the
area).
Mr. Bowerman stated his concern with not only the drainage problems
but with the sheet erosion coming from this site and going across
Bennington Road. He stated his concerns regarding a comprehensive
watershed study for each area in the urban area as well as for the
immediate problems which exist. He pointed out that he felt a better
solution would be to direct the water underground and into the stream,
with the appropriate measures taken to protect the stream.
*I%le Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to know what the final drainage
structure will be before this plan is approved.
Mr. Skove reiterated the concerns of the adjacent owners.
Mr. Kindrick asked how long it would take to prepare a comprehensive
study of how the runoff from the total developed area should be
handled in this watershed.
Ar. Elrod stated that the main problem is that there is no record
of the elevation, size, and the location of all the cross sections
of the channel. He noted that collecting this data could take as
long as four months.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission could deny this plat based upon
a study that is yet to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne stated that the only way the Commission could deny this
plat is if it does not comply with the ordinance in some respect.
He noted that if the Commission found that this proposal does comply
with the regulations of the ordinance but feels that it proposes a
danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public they could deny
it.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the Commission could defer action on this
plat if they feel that there is insufficient information submitted
at this time.
Ms. gash stated that if a comprehensive study of the watershed in this
area is made, then there would be no reason to deny this proposal as
long as this is reflected in the conditions of approval.
Mr. Michel ascertained that a comprehensive study of the watershed
is scheduled to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in the near
future.
`2r. Kindrick ascertained that the Board of Supervisors has directed
a study be made of the urban area, Crozet and Hollymead.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the County Engineer felt that the
drainage improvements he has suggested would not change after a
final comprehensive study is done of the area.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that a 21-24 inch storm sewer pipe would be
installed in the easement along the southern corner of the property.
Mr. Cogan stated that he flet the people downstream of this proposal
would benefit from the improvements proposed to be made to the stream.
He stated that he would like to ask the County Engineer to pay strict
attention to the problems of this area and to keep this in mind
when the comprehensive study of this area is made.
Mr. Skove stated that he would like to add the following to the
conditions of approval:
• Planning Commission approval of the drainage plans. veto
He also stated that he would like to ask the Board of Supervisors to
consider the Bennington Terrace, Bennington Woods, Georgetown Court
area in the comprehensive drainage plans.
Zdr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a.
Provision of a street sign;
b.
Construction of road and entrance according to plan to be
approved by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
for acceptace into the State system and according to plans
to be approved by the County Engineer (to includ paving of
road with 12" bitumious concrete);
C.
Full frontage improvements along Georgetown Road to include
urban curb and gutter as per Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation requirements;
d.
Approved soil erosion plan for roadway and for each lot in
the subdivision;
e.
County Engineer approval of drainage plans
f.
County Engineer approval of stormwater drainage requirements
including off -site improvements;
g.
Fire Official approval of fire flow;
h.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
i.
sewer plans;
Provision of a certified check in the amount of $4,000 to be
used for off -site channel improvements to be administreed
by the County of Albemarle in lieu of provision of curb and
gutter and sidewalk on interior street and detention pond;
j.
Planning Commission approval of final drainage plans.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission urges the Board of Supervisors to give
consideration to the comprehensive study of the drainage area, including
Bennington Terrace, Bennington Woods, Georgetown Court areas. The
Commission felt these areas should be given first priority when the
drainage study is being done.
James E. Payne Site Plan - located off the west side of Rt. 649,
north of Proffit and east of Hollymead, proposal to locate an add-
itional mobile home on a +16 acre tract for a total of 4 dwelling
units on the property. (TM 46, parcel 45). Rivanna District.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant was not present at
this meeting.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Commission has to decide if they wish
9x G r
to act on this site plan at this time or defer it to a later
meeting. She pointed out that this plan was submitted on
June 14, therefore, the Commission has until August 14 to take
action on this site plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Imhoff to present the staff report, stating
that he felt this would help the Commission decide whether to take
action on this site plan or defer it until the applicant is present
at the meeting.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report and a detailed history of this
site.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant had been notified of
the date and time for this site plan to be presented to the Planning
Commission.
The concensus of the Planning Commission was to act on this site
plan at the present time rather than deferring it to a later meeting.
Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Official, stated that the Highway Department
has notified the Fire Department that the maximum load limit on the
Proffit bridge is three (3) tons, pointing out that the .fire trucks
weigh fifteen (15) tons. Fie also noted that because of this fire
protection for this area would have to be provided for by the Earlysville
Fire Department. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance permits a
one hundred foot (1001) separation between buildings for site plans
and pointed out that he felt that this should be enforced.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment regarding this
site plan.
As. Barbara Roberts, an ad�Iacent owner, noted the location of the
proposed mobile home with regard to her property.
Mr. Cortez noted that it appeared at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting
that it would be a hardship on the applicant if this trailer were to
be moved. He stated that the trailer is on a cinderblock foundation
and has not been anchored, pointing out that he did not feel it would
present a hardship on the applicant if the trailer were required to
be moved from this location.
Mrs. Joan Graves ascertained that if the Commission chooses to deny
this site plan, the applicant would be notified of this action and
a determination as to whether the mobile home should be removed.
Mr. Cogan moved for denial of this site plan, noting that the
application fee has not been paid and that the location proposed for
this mobile home is unsuitable.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
R
7i -1
OR
J. V. Farm Equipment Site Plan - located on the east side of Rt. 742
(Avon Street Extended), west of Rt. 20 and south of the City of
Charlottesville; proposal to locate an 1800 square foot building
for commercial use on a 1.0 acre parcel. (TM 90, parcel 25C).
Scottsville District.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. 'Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that the
Highway Department is recommending that full frontage improvements
be required, noting that this road (Avon Extd.) is proposed to be
a four lane highway in the future. He asked that the Commission
regard this as a recommendation only and not a requirement pointing
out that the applicant has provided an adequate commercial entrance
with the existing turnlane. He presented pictures to the Commission
showing the existing landscaping and stated that he did not feel
that screening is necessary between two commercial uses. He also
pointed out that the applicant does not feel that landscaping along
the front of the property is necessary. He stated that he would
respond to any questions the Commission may have.
Mr. Webster, the applicant, stated that he felt the recommendation
of the staff for white pines along the southern property line is not
necessary, pointing out that the pines will in future years block
the business from public view.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Highway Department could not require
the full frontage improvements for this site plan because it is
an existing use.
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission could require full frontage
improvements as part of the entrance or if its necessary to control
drainage.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance (as a condition
of approval) would be sufficient.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not feel landscaping should be required
on the southern boundary, pointing out that the adjacent property is
zoned light industry. He stated that he felt landscaping should be
required along the frontage of the property as well as along the
sides of the entrance. He noted that he did not feel that landscaping
these areas would interfere with the view of the property.
I Cogan explained to Mr. Webster the type of landscaping that the
gG d
Commission felt ;could be necessary along the front of this propert—s
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this site plan subject to the NOW
following conditions:
1. A building permit may be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Written health department approval;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
C. Construction of the parking area as per plans approved by
the County Engineer;
d. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions and dumpster
location, if any;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
g. Add note: "Landscaping to be maintained and replaced if any
should die;"
h. Addd note: "Outdoor lighting is to be directed towards the
site and away from adjacent properties and roadways."
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy all required
improvements must be bonded.
3. Please note that the Planning Commission is not approving the
sign or its location at this time.*440
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Riverrun, Section One Final Plat - located on the north side of
Rt. 768 , (Penn Park Road) , east of Rio Road (East) ; proposal to
divide 5.516 acres into 48 lots for townhouse units having an
average lot size of 17,000 square feet. and leaving 64.167 acres in
residue. (TM 61, parcels 17 and 17A, portion). Rivanna District.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Kirk Hughes, representing the applicant, noted that this
development is proposed to be built in phases and asked if the
road plans for Sandstone Court could be bonded until that particular
phase is ready for development.
Mr. Payne noted that one of the conditions of approval for this plat
is:
• the interior road plans for Sandstone Court must be
completed or bonded.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
,-4,l9
Mr. Cogan asked if there was any stipulation on how wide the open
space along the double frontage should be.
Ms. Caperton replied that there is no stipulation for this, but noted
that the 25% open space area requirement would have tv be met.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the seeding for the areas that have been
graded must be completed.
Mr. Hughes noted that the seeding will be completed when the
finished grade is established pointing out that there is still
grading to be done at this time. He also noted that the sewer lines
are being installed at this time and grading will be done in this
area when this is completed. He pointed out that they hope to
complete seeding of Section One by the end of September.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the seeding schedules have been altered
to include "crown vetch" which will help to stabilize the steeper
slopes.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there has been any problem with erosion
and/or runoff from this site after a storm.
Mr. Hughes stated that due to the intensity of the storms some
*40.1
problems with runoff have occurred. He noted that a sediment
control device had to be replaced recently due to the intensity
of the storm. He also noted that they have complied with all
requirements required for runoff control.
Mr. Michel asked why the applicant is requesting private roads
for this development.
Mr. Payne stated that in earlier meeting it was established that
the amount of construction is reduced for private roads as opposed
to state roads. He also noted that the Highway Department would
not allow perpendicular parking along a state road.
dr. Cogan moved for approval of this final plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. The approved roads (Riverr..un Drive and Dentree Lane), commercial
entrances and improvements to Rt. 763 shall be completed or
bonded;
b. The interior roads for Sandstone Court must be completed or
bonded;
C. Street signs shall be installed or bonded;
d. Only thoses areas where buildings, roads, driveways, utilities
-:2 7'd
or other improvements are to be located shall be disturbed;
all other land shall remain in its natural state, provided
that the natural state of the site may be disturbed on
other locations to the extent that landscaping be provided
in such locations to the satisfaction of the Planning staff;
e. Staff approval of the detailed landscaping plan; landscape
materials shall be planted or bonded.
2. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued until the subdivision
plat has been recorded.
T-4r. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Adventure Bound School Additions Site Plan - located off the south
side of Rt. 810, 3.5 miles west of Bdonesville; proposal to locate
a 1,536 square foot activitiy/recreation building and an additional
office trailer on the 8+ acre site of a residential school for
boys. (TM 6, parcels 24 and 25B).--,Ihite Hall District.
Ms.
Caperton
presented the
staff report.
Mr.
Bowerman
asked if the
applicant I�ad
any comment.
Mr. Gary Duncan, the applicant, stat d that he has no objections
to the recommended conditions of app�oval as outlined by the Planning
staff and noted that he would respond to any questions or concerns
the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman established that the bu lding would be used for
recreational purposes ar, well as various activities such as
arts and crafts displays.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt this p oposed recreational building
would benefit the community because t would provide recreation
as well as other activities for the outh in this area.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of thisjsite plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit will be proces ed when the applicant has
met the following conditions:
a. No construction is permittedlon slopes of 25% or greater;
b. County Engineer approval of �he roadway specifications
for the interior roadways;
C. Submit proof that an easement exists over parcel 25, tax
map 6 for access to the pond (parcel 25B);
d. Fee of $50.00 due;
e. Note bumper curbs or railroad ties marking the parking
spaces.
2. Certificates of occupancy will be issued when the following
condition has been met:
a. The dry hydrant and access road shall be completed.
�Ir. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Institute of Textile Technology Classroom Building Site Plan - located
off the north side of 250W, west of Rt. 601 and south of the C & O
Railroad; proposal to locate a 4,352 square foot building for class-
rooms and meeting rooms adjacent to the existing ITT building.
(TM 60, parcels 27-27B and 28). Samuel .filler District.
GIs. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Charles G. Tewksbury, the applicant, explained to the Commission
rr the type of research that is done at this institute. He also noted
the following point:
• he explained that they are not planning'any additional
growth at this facility, noting that the purpose of this
building is to provide appropriate meeting facilities. He
reiterated that they are not planning to expand the
operations carried out at this facility.
Mr. Tewksbury stated his objection to the requirement of the
Highway Department for a deceleration lane along the front of the
property. He noted that this site is part of the scenic byway
designation and stated that he felt that a deceleration lane would
detract from the appearance of the property.
Mr. Tewksbury noted the recommendation of the Health Department
to connect to public sewer. He stated that this is an office type
facility, with no showers, etc., and felt that this requirement is
not necessary. He further stated that he felt the existing
septic system would be adequate once the necessary adjustments
are made. He pointed out the cost involved in connecting to
public sewer facilities.
�y�
Mr. Tewksbury stated that the bids for the contract have been sent
out and noted that their target date for completion is October 271 1982.1
He stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the
Commission may have.
�4ith no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the CATS Study speaks to the proposed
widening of at. 250. He also noted the requirements regarding road
improvements for other developments in the area (Ednam, Real Estate III).
Mr. Bowerman stated his concern regarding the adequacy of the septic
system.
Ms. Caperton stated that the Health Department has reviewed the
existing septic system and found that the primary drainfield is
adequate. She noted that 1,404 square feet of additional drainfield
is necessary which would mean that 84 square feet of additional
drainfield is necessary.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the drainfield for the septic system is
located on the western portion of the site.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there are approximately eighty employees
and twenty students at this facility.
w
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the additional parking facilities are
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this proposal is in the Service Authority's
jursidictional area and that the front portion of the site is in the
urban area.
Mr. Cogan stated that while there are no immediate plans for expansion
of personnel there is nothing to preclude this in the future.
Mr. Michel suggested that if this plan is approved a condition could
be added to read:
• if the ownership of the property or the use changes in any
manner then the requirements of the Highway Department will
be required.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could not require the suggested
condition as outlined by 'Mr. Michel.
Mr. Michel stated that he would like the opportunity to review the
Highway Department's plans for the widening of the road in this area.
n /1 A
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that the road improvements have been required
of other developers in this area.
Mr. Payne stated that public sewer connection is required on site
plans, noting that this site is sub -standard now.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the impact on the highway, entrances,
etc., are reviewed with an administrative review of an addition
to an existing structure.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit will be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Fire Official approval of the fire flow;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the plans
for the connection to public sewer;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of the commercial entrance improvements at the western
entrance as recommended in their letter dated July 16, 1982;
d. County Engineer final approval of drainage plans and specifica-
tions for the new pavement, parking specifications and the
service road;
e. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Site Plan (Berkmar Drive) -
Request for amendment regarding the 14 foor emergency access drive.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Dr. Tony Iachetta, representing the Fire Department, explained that
it was administratively approved that the construction of the parking
lot could be deferred to a later date. He noted that they are
requesting deferral of the requirement for the constrution of a
14' wide emergency access until the parking lot is constructed. He
also pointed out that the 50' right-of-way from Berkeley to this
site was established when this property was purchased by the County.
He noted that the concerns regarding the roads is an issue to be
decided by the Board of Supervisors. He noted the amount of work
that is still be be completed by the Fire Department as well as the
Rescue Squad.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment regarding this site
plan.
-)nd
Mr. G. H. Nichols, an adjacent owner, stated that he has no
objection to the use of the access road by the Fire Department or
emergency vehicles. He did note his concern that this access road
would be used by the public as a through road and asked that something
be done to prevent this.
Mrs. G. H. Nicols, stated her concern that the speed limit in this
area be observed. She noted that this access road is currently used
by volunteers of the Fire Department and that they do not observe the
speed limit.
Mrs. Joan Graves, a resident of Berkeley, stated that she served on
the Planning Commission when this site plan was first submitted. She
noted that she supported this plan because it was represented that
an access to Four Seasons was necessary. She pointed out that it
was a condition of the special use permit that this access road be
built and a conditon of the site plan approval that the road be built
before a certificate of occupancy for the Fire Department would be
issued. She stated that she felt this access road should be constructed
within a year, noting the obvious need for this road in order that
adequate fire protection could be availabel.
Ms. Caperton noted that this 14' access road is also tied to the
rescue squad's property, therefore, they can not obtain a certificate
of occupancy until this roadway is constructed.
Dr. Iachetta stated that they currently have a temporary certificate
of occuapncy for use of the first floor only.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the parking lot must be constructed
before the Fire Department could install the 14' access roadway.
Dr. Iachetta stated that the purpose of the 14' access is to allow
emergency vehicles to respond rapidly to calls in the Berkeley and
Four Seasons area. He stated that he felt this roadway is necessary
but noted that they have not devised a means of keeping the public
from using this road.
Mr. Bowerman noted the options available to the Commission at this
time.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the site plan approval ties the con-
struction of the 14' roadway to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. She noted the following conditions that is required as
part of SP-78-70:
s access from Berkmar Drive to Commonwealth Drive will be
only for emergency use until such time that public access
is deemed necessary by the Board of Supervisors.
-)n4'
TM
Dr. Iachetta stated that he does not believe that the rescue squad
is aware of the fact that a certificate of occupancy will not be
issued until this road is constructed.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt a plan should be devised by the fire
department showing how they will prevent this road from being used
as a through road by the general public.
Dr. Iachetta stated that they could not obtain a certificate of
occupancy until the parking lot is built.
Ms. Caperton stated that a temporary certificate of occupancy could
be obtained noting that the necessary improvements could be bonded.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt this access should be posted for the
protection of the fire department.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1) The construction of the fourteen (14) foot emergency access shall
be completed by the time a certificate of occupancy for the
training room is issued in conjunction with the parking lot and
required curbing subject to the following conditions:
a. County Engineer approval of the roadway specification; and
b. The proper curb cut at the fire department's parking lot sahll
be made.
This action was taken as an amendment to the original site plan
approval which tied the construction of the roadway to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy of the site.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission directed the Planning staff to send a second
letter to Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, requesting informa-
tion on the Cason Wayside Stand. The following concerns should be
addressed:
• why isn't the parking delineated; and
• why is the second access still in use.
A copy of this letter, at the request of the Commission, is to be
sent to i7r. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive.
Mrs. Graves established that if the site plan is approved administra-
tively it is the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to enforce
.? 7G
the requirements necessary.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. - ec e ary
,�-) *79