Loading...
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