HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 24 82 PC MinutesM
August 24, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
August 24, 1982, 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 -Chairman, Mr. Tim Michel, Mr. Corwith
Davis, Jr., Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. Allen Kindrick, and Mr. James R. Skove. other
officials present were Ms. Ellen Nash, ex-officio, 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 January 26, February 23, and March 16 were deferred until the
next regularly scheduled meeting.
Ivy Creek PRD, Lots 24-30 of Section B and Lots 31 and 32 of Phase One, Section C,
Final Plat - located in the approved Ivy Creek Planned Residential Development
with access off the end of Bromley Road in Flordon; proposal to divide 24.50
acres into 9 lots with an average size of 2.73 acres, plus 33.08 acres in open
space and 9.504 acres in residue (this section). Samuel Miller District. (TM 59,
portion of parcel 27.) REQUESTS WITHDRAW L.
Mrs. Diehl noted for the benefit of the public that the applicant for this final
plat has requested withdrawal.
Samuel J. Harris Final Plat - located at the southeast corner of the intersection
of Routes 625 and 726, north of Hatten and the James River; proposal to divide
10.586 acres into four lots. Scottsville District. (TM 136, parcel 21).
Ms. Caperton noted for the benefit of the Commission that this is an unusual
subdivision request as the triangular parcel (noted on the plat) was created
by the relocation of Rt. 625. She noted that there is some technical information
missing from the plat, but pointed out that she felt the recommended conditions
of approval would address this information. She stated that she would present
the staff report and then the Commission could decide if adequate information
was available for there review.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mrs. Harris asked why no building permit would be issued for parcel "A".
Ms. Caperton explained that parcel "A" is surrounded by old public right-of-way
on two sides and by Rt. 625 on the other. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance
requires a 75' building setback from the right-of-ways, noting that this requirement
would prohibit this parcel from having a building site.
Mr. Hilton Patterson, representing the applicant, stated that the iron pins have
been set and approved by the Highway Department.
Mr. Robert Lum, also representing the applicant, asked for clarification regarding
condition l.f. (CONDITION l.f.: correct the plat to show appropriate
right-of-way widths for Old Rt. 625 and the Old Warren Road, if applicable).
Ms. Caperton stated that staff has been advised by the County Attorney's office
that when a public right-of-way is relocated, the remainder of the right-of-way
is assumed to be 30' wide. She also pointed out that there is a note on the
plat for parcel 7A (Tros Dale Home for Boys) that states the old bed road is
10' wide.
Mr. Lum asked why condition l.d. is required. (CONDITION l.d.: The surveyor's
seal and the signature in the statement of title block must be the same).
Mr. Payne read Section 15.14.76 of the Virginia Code which expalines why the
surveyors seal and the signature in the statement of title block must be the same.
Mr. Lum expalined that the existing road is approximately 10' wide and noted
that the property would run to the center line of the old road bed.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove stated that he agrees with the staff that parcel "A" is not a suitable
building site.
Mr. Payne explained that it is probable that the right-of-ways were a public
road at one time, and have been realigned. He noted that a public road remains
a public road unless it is abandoned. He also noted that from the information
staff has it can not be determined if this road has been abandoned or whether
it is still a public road.
Mr. Skove asked how a road could be officially abandoned.
Mr. Payne explained that the Board of Supervisors has the authority to
abandon a public road, noting that it should be on record if this road
were abandoned.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that there was no information in the real estate history
files pertaining to this road.
Mr. Payne stated that there probably was no fee acquisition of right-of-way,
therefore, it would not affect the real estate records.
19
97
M
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the discrepancy in acreage would be dealth with
when the survey was taken.
Mrs. Diehl noted the number of recommended conditions of approval for this plat
and pointed out that the technical information should of been submittted along
with the plat. She asked if additional staff time had to be allocated because
of the lack of information.
Ms. Caperton stated that some additional time was taken with this plat, noting
the confusion over the roadways and right-of-ways through the property. She also
pointed out that some of the information was submitted but was not adequate to
meet the requirements of the ordinance, therefore these are noted in the recommended
conditions of approval.
Mrs. Nash ascertained that parcel "A" could remain with one of the lots across
Rt. 625 (either lot 2 or 3) since it cannot meet the requirements in the ordinance
for a building site.
Mr. Payne noted condition 1.c. of the recommended conditions of approval (Condition
l.c.: correct the title of the plat to read "The Samuel J. Harris Estate
Property.) and noted that the ownership of the property should be established.
He suggested that condition l.c. read:
• correct the title of the plat to reflect the actual ownership.
Mr. Davis 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:
a. Identify the dash line on the western bounary of Parcel "A";
b. Each lot must have 250 feet of width at the building setback line;
c. Correct the title of the plat to reflect the actual owner;
d. The surveyor's seal and the signature in the statement of title block
must be the same;
e. The old parcel lines must be shown on the plat (2.5 acres and 10.0
acres);
f. Correct the plat to show appropriate right-of-way widths for Old
Rt. 625 and the Old Warren Road, if applicable;
g. Submit proof to the satisfaction of the Staff that an adequate building
site exists on lot 1;
h. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance
locations on lots 1, 2, and 3;
i. Note that Parcel "A" is not a separate parcel and that it is a part of,
lot 2 or 3 and that no building permit shall be issued on the .801 acres.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1. Mr. Bowerman
voted against the motion.
�9�� z
Forest Lodge Final Plat - located on the east side of Route 631 south, south
of its intersection with Route 706; proposal to divide a 40.0 acre parcel
leaving 254+ acres in residue. Scottsville District. (TM 90, portion of parcel
6). REQUESTS DEFERRAL.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the request for deferral of this plat.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Pantops Office Buildings Site Plan - located on the northwest side of State Farm
Boulevard, southwest of Route 250 East; proposal to locate three two-story office
buildings (5,000 square feet each) on three separate parcels. Rivanna District.
(TM 78, parcels 63, 64, and 65).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, stated that they were under the impression
that this area was zoned .for commercial uses. He noted that according to the
staff report "the official zoning map designated the zoning of this property
incorrectly as commercial office. The zoning adopted by the Board of Supervisors
was PD-MC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial." He asked that the Commission
take into consideration that they have prepared their plans for this office
building and paid taxes on the property, designated as commercial use. He
asked that the Commission delete condition l.g. of the recommended conditions
of approval. (Condition l.g. - Compliance with the requirements of Section
8.5.6.5 (planned development districts - generally) and Section 25A (planned
development - mixed commercial district).
With no ccnunent frcm the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that the Board of Supervisors zoned this property PD-MC with
the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1981. He stated that the Commission
does not, in his opinion, have the authority to delete this condition. He noted
that if, for example, the property is rezoned, then condition l.g. would not apply.
Mrs. Diehl noted that with this condition l.g. the applicant has two viable
alternatives:
• he can develop this entire section;
• or he can apply for a rezoning of this property.
EPA
J
' Mr. Michel asked if condition l.g. (outlined previously) could apply to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Payne read Section 8.5.6.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which states " no site
development plan or subdivision plat shall be approved unless and until such
application, including all transportation analysis plans and other plans, maps,
studies, and reports required by this ordinance, shall have been submitted and
approved in accordance with this section."
Mrs. Nash what type of information would the applicant need to obtain from the
adjacent property owners.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that an overall development plan for this area should
be submitted with evidence that the adjoining property owners would comply
with this and that the compliance with the zoning would pass on to any future
property owners.
Mr. Davis questioned the location of the proposed entrance.
Ms. Caperton noted that entrances on a multi-laned divided highway are not permitted
within 500' of a crossover (Articel 32.5.8.01 of the Zoning Ordinance). She noted
that the Commission may waive this provision under the following conditions:
1) there is no other reasonabley practicable access to the site other than within
the 500';
2) that no other reasonable alternate access is available to the site; and
3) that the provision for an access within the 500' limit is consistent with
the public health, safety and general welfare.
Ms. Caperton noted that all of the above items must apply before the proposed entrance
can be approved.
Mr. Sinclair noted that at the time the subdivision was prepared, the entances were
discussed at lenght, and they agreed at that time to put an entrance on every other
lot rather than each individual lot.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt in order to allow the proposed entrance to be
located 500' from the crossover, each phase of development should be considered
independently.
Mr. Sinclair reiterated that this proposal is for an office building, reiterating
that the entance is a matter of necessity.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the 500' setback from crossovers in an area where
traffic is heavily generated is justified.
Mrs. Nash questioned the reasoning behind the requirement for 500' separation
between entrances and crossovers on a multi-laned divided highway.
Mr. Payne explained that the reason the ordiance requires 500' separation between
crossovers and entrances on a multi-laned divided highway is because of traffic
congestion.
P-17
Mr. Payne reiterated that the Commission could waive Section 32.5.8.01 of
the Zoning Ordinance if the conditions (as previously outlined) applies. He
pointed out that traffic circulation should be considered.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the intent of the PD-MC zoning was to control
development in this area so that access to Rt. 250 would be limited. He asked
what type of precedent the Commission would be setting if they approved this
plan.
Mr. Payne explained that the area could be rezoned into one or more PD-MC
districts or it is possible that it may be rezoned to a more conventional district.
He pointed out that this issue needs to be addressed noting that rezoning
to Commercial Office would not solve the problem for the entire area, only for
the three lots before you at this time.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not feel that rezoning the three internal lots
to commercial office would set a precedent for future development in the area.
Mr. Payne noted that the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
must be complied with before any subdivision of property can occur.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that preliminary approval has been obtained for the
stormwater detention facilities.
Mrs. Diehl asked when the septic lines will be installed.
Mr. Hill expalined that the septic lines are in place at this time.
Isis. Caperton expalined that phasing of this development was suggested in order
to make the plan manageable once building begun.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits will be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. County Engineer final approval of the pavement specifications, drainage
plans, parking area design and the stormwater detention plan;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
c. County Engineer approval of the design of the entrances in accordance
with the Highway Department's commercial entrance standards;
d. Provide evidence that an easement is recorded (by separate plat or deed)
between lots 4-5 and 2-3 for shared entrance for the travelway that
connects the three lots to provide continuous access across each of the
three lots. Provisions for the maintenance of both shall be subject to
the approval of the County Attorney;
e. An additional entrance shall be provided and an easement recorded
at the crossover at lot 6 of the Pantops Final Plat to serve this site;
provisions for its maintenance shall be subject to approval by the County
Attorney;
f. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the frontage of State
Farm Boulevard around the building and in the rear of the building
on lot 5;
19
.1-9g
1*4.e g. Compliance with the requirements of Section 8.5.6.5 (Planned Development
Districts - Generally) and Section 25A (Planned Development - Mixed
Commercial District).
2. A certificate of occupancy will be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
b. Provisions shall be made for the acceptance of State Farm Boulevard
into the State system.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Francis H. Bryant Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 726, west of
Scottsville and south of Route 6; proposal to divide a 7.0 acre parcel leaving
6+ acres in residue. Scottsville Magisterial District. (TM 130, portion of
parcel 40).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any ccnnnent.
Mr. Robert Lum, representing the applicant, questioned the need for condition l.d.
(Condition l.d: Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans).
Ms. Imhoff explained that this condition is necessary if the applicant plans
to hook to public water when it is available.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment regarding this plat.
Mrs. Joan Graves asked if adequate building site was available.
Ms. Imhoff noted that a 30,000 square foot building site is available.
With no further ccament from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Commission is being requested to grant a waiver of
Section 18-36b(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Imhoff explained that although this property is zoned Village Residential, it
is also located in a watershed impoundment area which allows for a density of
one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. She explained that a private road must
meet the conditions outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance, one of which states
the average density in such subdivision shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan."
a-9'�
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Board of Supervisors in previous requests has stated *104
that you can not require a state road where there are only two (2) lots. Ms.
Imhoff noted the Lucas Plat where the road was served by an easement. She
pointed out that no precedent would be set if the Commission chooses to grant
the presently requested waiver.
Ms. Imhoff reiterated the requirements of the Subdivision Ordiance as they pertain
to private roads.
Ms. Nash ascertained that Lot #7 could not be further divided without Planning
Commission approval.
Mr. Skove moved to grant the waiver of Section 18-36b(5) of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. The signature of the title (surveyor) and the signature on the land
surveyor's stamp must agree;
b. Note rear setback is 20';
c. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) Construction of roadway as per specifications to be approved by
the County Engineer; *400
2) County Attorney approal of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Blandamar Farm, Lots 1-3 Final Plat - located off the east side of Route 708,
south of the intersection with Route 637; proposal to divide 9.81 acres into
3 lots with an average size of 3.27 acres leaving 1,379.29 acres in residue.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (TM 88, portion of parcel 1).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that the three lots are
part of a large tract of land consisting of 1389 acres composed of seven tracts
of land. He pointed out that this parcel is part of a two hundred acre tract and
is located off Rt. 708.
Mr. Boudabush stated that they are requesting a waiver of Section 18-36c(1)
technical requirements requiring upgrading the road to prime and double seal
as it serves more than five (5) lots, of the Subdivision Ordinance. He pointed
out that they feel the road would only be used by these three lots and by the
residue of the farm.
,goo
Mr. Roudabush presented a plat showing the Rush Estates Subdivision
which consists primarily of two acre lots. He noted that this plat
also shows the road, which they are designating as a private road,
along the boundary of this subdivision. He noted that this road was
not approved as a prinicipal access road to the Rush Estates. He
noted that the density of the area would not be altered with this
division.
Mr. Roudabush stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns
the Commission may have.
Ms. Blanka Rosenstiel, the applicant, stated that she wished to
subdivide this property in order to give the land to family and
friends. She asked the Commission to act favorably on her request.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment regarding this plat.
Mr. Bob Humphrey, an adjacent owner, noted the following concerns:
• the minimum lot size does not meet the five (5) acre minimum as
required by the Comprehensive Plan;
• pointed out the location of five (5) water wells in this area
and questioned the effect that additional wells would have on the
water table;
• concerned with drainage in the area, pointing out that lot #1 has
runoff problems at this time.
He pointed out that in his opinion the lots are too small to be
compatible with the existing development in the area.
Mr. John Higginson, an adjacent owner, read the following segement
from Section 10.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance,and asked if this
allows the applicant the right to divide 21 acres:
• "at the time of any such division, the owner of the parcel so
divided shall designate the number of parcels into which each
parcel so divided may be further divided pursuant to Section
10.3.1."
Mr. Davis noted that the three lots in question are part of a two
hundred (200) acre parcel.
Mr. Roudabush noted that the remaining development rights are assigned
to the residue thereof, containing 194.53 acres (this is so noted on the
plat).
Mr. Payne explained the development rights to Mr. Higginson and noted
that any further division would have to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Higginson noted that if this land is sold, an easement to Rt. 708 would
be necessary for the remainder of the 200 acre parcel,
,3O/
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan questioned the number of lots using this road.
Ms. Imhoff stated that after field inspection of this property it
was determined that approximately six lots use this road. She also
noted that lots 4 and 6 of Rush Estates use this road as additional
access to their property.
Mr. Payne stated that if a lot does not have the legal right to use
the road, then said lot should not be included in the number of lots
using the road.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she felt condition 1.e.2 of the recommended
conditons of approval would address the issue of the road usage.
(Condition 1.e.2.: Construction of roadway as per plans to be approved
by the County Engineer.)
Mr. Cogan ascertained that this proposal complies with Section 18.36(b)
of the Subdivision Ordinance, which stated that the average density
shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she is concerned about granting a waiver
of Section 18-36C(1), noting that development could occur which would
require use of the easement.
Mr. Michel stated that he could not support the request for a waiver
of Section 18-36C(1).
Mr. Davis stated that he could not support the requested waiver and
further noted that the applicant could work with staff regarding this.
Mr. Skove moved for approal of this final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Note number of development rights remaining and assign these
rights;
b. Note date by which permanent reference monuments will be set;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
private street commercial entrance;
d. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
e. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
2) Construction of roadway as per plans to be approved by
the County Engineer.
R
'.9 V
n
gn
2. The Planning Commission did not grant a waiver of Section 18-36(c)1
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Daly's Rent -All, Inc. Site Plan located on the northwest corner of
The intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Westfield Road, off the east
side of Route 29 North (NBL); proposal to locate a 8,400 square foot
commercial building (1,300 square feet for retail use, 260 square feet for
office and 6,840 square feet for storage) on a 1.3186 acre parcel.
Charlottesville District. (TM 61W, portion of 2-A-2).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bill Daly, the applicant, noted the type of business he provides
(i.e. party goods, household cleaning goods, small contractors equip-
ment, for rent). He noted that they have the franchise for Ryder
Rental trucks, but pointed out that this is not a consistent flow of
traffic. He stated that he felt their proposal was in keeping with the
C-1 zoning as they are less active than automobile service stations
which are allowed in the C-1 district. He pointed out that he did not
feel sidewalks are necessary, noting that the sidewalks in the area
are overgrown and are not used.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission needs to determine if this
use is permitted "by right" in the C-1 district.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that some items are for sale (i.e. chain saws,
cleaning equipment).
Mr. Davis noted that equipment sales service rental is provided for
in the HC (highway commercial) district. He noted that although he
does not feel this use would be detrimental in the C-1 zone, he felt
a precedent would be set.
Mr. Davis questioned the size of equipment which could be used on the
site. He noted that he felt a variance was needed pointing out that
the variance would speak to the number and size of equipment which
could be stored on the site.
Mr. Fred Payne, noted that the commercial district is intentionally
worded in such a way that if a use is presented that is not specified
this would be left to the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.
He pointed out that the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator
would like the Commission's comments regarding this site plan.
��
Mr. Payne stated that he felt that the specified character of use
in this case is significant as this would determine if it meets the
requirements of the ordinance. He pointed out that if the Commission
finds that this use is in conformance with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance, they could recommend to the Zoning Administrator
that the use be permitted subject to certain conditions. If the
Commission finds that this use is permitted in this zoning they could
approve the site plan subject to changes in the site plan.
Mr. Payne stated that a condition could be added to read:
• any equipment that is rented has to be stored inside.
He pointed out that this would limit the size of equipment to be
rented.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not feel the present activity was
detrimental to the community. He stated that he felt truck rental
is an accessory use to service stations and noted that perhaps the
size of the trucks should be limited.
Mr. Payne stated that perhaps the truck rental should be limited to
the area shown on the plan for the storage of the vehicles, pointing
out that this would limit the number of trucks stored on the property.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if the size of the equipment could be
controlled and some limitation as to the usage, this would be accept-
able and in keeping with the public, health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt this proposal is allowed in the C-1
zoning. He pointed out that rental of heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc)
is an entirely different business. He noted that limiting the
use to small equipment rental would be sufficient.
Mrs. Diehl stated that limiting the storage of vehicles to the size
of the lot is sufficient.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he could support this type of use in the
C-1 zone.
THE CONCENSUS OF THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE USE WAS THAT IT COULD
BE CONSIDERED AS A PERMITTED USE IF THERE WAS SOME RESTRICTIONS ON THE
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT TO BE RENTED.
Mr. Cogan suggested that a condition be added to read:
• no rental or sale of heavy equipment.
Mr. Payne suggested that the Commission may want to recommend to the
Zoning Administrator, if they find the use is permitted, that the
use is appropriate in the C-1 zone if limited to sales, service, and
rental of consumer material not to include in any event heavy machinery
and equipment.
�D�
n
M
R
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the landscape plan will be reviewed in
terms of additional buffering.
Mr. Payne recommended the following conditions:
• Note on the plan: "Vehicles held for rent to be stored only
in graveled area shown on northeast section of plan."
• The Planning Commission should adopt the following recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommended that the Zoning Administrator
find the uses proposed on the Daly's Rent -All, Inc. Site Plan to
be permitted uses in a C-1 zone provided that the uses are limited
to sales/service/rental of consumer type goods not in any event
to include heavy machines and equipment sales/rental.
Mr. Davis ascertained that if the nature of the business were to
change, the Zoning Administrator would determine if this would still
comply with the C-1 zoning.
Mr. Bowerman 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 conditions:
a. Note pavement and walkway specifications on the site plan;
b. Location of dumpster, if any;
C. Construction of commercial entrances and construction of curb
and gutter set 26' from the centerline to be approved by the
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation;
d. Construction of paving, sidewalks, and curbing as per specifica-
tions approved by the County Engineer;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
f. Compliance with the Stormwater Control Ordinance;
g. Fire Official approval as per memo dated August 10, 1982 to
Katherine Imhoff;
h. Planning staff approval of landscape plan and add note:
"Landscaping to be maintained and replaced if any should die;"
i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
j. Provision of a sidewalk along Greenbrier Drive to tie in with
existing sidewalk;
k. Note on the plan: "Vehicles held for rent to be stored only
in graveled area shown on northeast section of plan;"
1. Note on the plan: "The use of this site shall be limited to
the sales/service/rental of consumer type goods which in any
event shall not include heavy machinery and equipment sales/
rental."
2. The Planning Commission at its meeting on August 24, 1983 also
adopted the following recommendation: The Planning Commission
recommended that the Zoning Administrator find the uses proposed
on the Daly's Rent -All, Inc. Site Plan to be permitted uses in a
C-1 zone provided that the uses are limited to sales/service/rental
of consumer type goods not in any event to include heavy machines
So!
.I
and equipment sales/rental.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
River Heights Hotel and Office Center Site Plan - Request to extend
the previously approved site plan for the River Heights Hotel project.
Charlottesville District. (TM 45, portions of parcels 68D(1), 68D(3)
and 68D (2)) .
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, stated that they have complied with
the conditions of approval for this site plan with the exception of
the condition regarding approval of water and sewer plans. He
pointed out that Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has to build a sewer
line to connect with the wastewater treatment plant. He noted that
they have been requested to aid in the building of this line and
stated that they have tentatively agreed to this.
Mr. Wood noted that the Planning staff is recommending denial of his
request for extension. He noted that he would like the Commission
to act favorably on his request and elaborated on the following points
on concern.
• Soil Erosion: He pointed out that the unusual storms in the area
washed out two basins on the site. He noted that these basins have
been replaced and pointed out that they went beyond the requirements
of the County in replacing these basins.
• Sediment Basins: Mr. Wood pointed out that the basins are in the
process of being cleaned and repaired (i.e. new gravel added,
re -trenched, etc.)
• Inspection Fee: Mr. Wood noted that a check in the amount of $51.00
will be submitted to the County the next day (August 25, 1984).
• Bonds: With relation to the $6,000 bond for soil eroion (North Pines)
this will be corrected as soon as possible. Mr. Wood noted the
amount of roads, water lines, and sewer lines which the various
companies which he is affiliated with builds in the County each
year, pointing out that bonds are posted for these.
Mr. Wood stated that there will be no change in this site plan. He
noted that he is requesting an extension of this site plan due to
economic hardships. He stated that he felt that it would be an undue
hardship to require him to go through the entire site plan process again.
Mr. Wood stated that he would answer any questions or concerns the
Commission may have.
�D(o
M
M
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the two additional detention basins built
on the site are temporary basins.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that when the stormwater detention plans were
approved for this site, it was indicated that the area would be graded
and the plans included the additional runoff.
Mr. Wood stated that the detention basins in conformance with the
requirements of the County Engineering Department.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the status of the commercial entrance is at this
time.
Mr. Wood stated that a permit has been issued by the Highway Department
for the commercial entrance. He noted that the permit expires November
12, 1982 but pointed out that this will be renewed until the gravel and
paving have been installed.
Ms. Imhoff ascertained that the Highway Department has approved the
road plans for this site.
Mr. Davis noted that he visited the site earlier and stated that he
does not think it would be a hardship on the applicant if the Commission
were to defer action on this request until some of the problems as
outlined by Planning staff could be addressed.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the concerns as outlined in a memo from
the County Engineer dated August 20, 1982 should be addressed before an
extension of the site plan is granted.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the Planning Commission could take into
consideration the bonds on other projects only to the extent that
they show a pattern.
Ms. Imhoff explained that twelve copies of a revised site plan was
being requested as it was staff's understanding that the shape of the
building would be changed.
Ms. Imhoff also noted that the Commission should decide, if they plan
to extend the site plan, the length of the extension (i.e. one year,
eighteen months, etc.).
Mr. Cogan stated that the concerns of the County Engineer and the
Soil Erosion Inspector should be addressed.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the extension, if granted, should be
for less than the eighteen months which would be granted if this
were to go through the site review process.
.1O 7
Mr. Bowerman noted the time involved in getting items corrected
on this site. He took into consideration that Mr. Wood was out of
town and stated that a representative should be available to deal
with concerns in Mr. Wood's absence. He pointed out that he felt
the concerns as outlined in the staff report regarding soil erosion,
sedimentation basins, etc., should be addressed before an extension
of the site plan is granted.
Mr. Wood asked that if the Commission were to defer action on this
request that it be rescheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt this site plan should go before the
Site Review Committee for their comments.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt additional information should be requested
from the various departments in the County (i.e. Engineering, Inspections,
Highway Department, etc.).
Mr. Cogan moved for deferral of this site plan until a report is sub-
mitted from the County Engineer and the Soil Erosion Inspector to the
effect that the outstanding delinquencies have been taken care of and
that they are satisfied with the current status of the projects.
Mr. Cogan noted that his motion speaks to the River Heights Hotel
Complex but noted that he would hope that the discrepancies on the
other projects have been taken care of and pointed out that he would
take this into consideration when reviewing the report from the County VMO
Engineer.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion for deferral.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt additional information from the
various departments should be submitted.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she could send a memo to the members of the
Site Review Committee requesting the following information:
• an updated report on work that has been done on this project;
• expiration dates of any permits that have been issued;
• if there have been any changes in the ordinances that they work
under and if so how they affect this project.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this site plan could be rescheduled to be
reviewed on September 21, 1982.
CONCENSUS: UNANIMOUS DEFERRAL UNTIL SEPTEMBER 21, 1982.
J08
'*aw, NEW BUSINESS:
Establish whether a quorum could meet for the Board of Supervisors
meeting, rescheduled from September 8, to September 15, at 3:00 p.m.
regarding discussion of soil erosion problems.
CONCENSUS: A QUORUM WILL BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
Discussion of letter from Mrs. Joan Graves regarding administrative
approval of site plans.
Ms. Imhoff noted that Mrs. Graves concerns arose from a site plan
waiver which was granted in September of 1981 (Collier mobile home).
Ms. Imhoff noted that the applicant (Mr. Collier) requested a waiver
of that section which required a site plan to be submitted. She pointed
out that the Planning Commission granted a waiver of having to have a
site plan that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the
Site Review Coman.ittee. She noted that the Commission asked Mr. Collier to design
a site plan that could be approved administratively by the Planning staff.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the adjacent property owners were concerned about the
location of the mobile home. She noted that in some instances the Health
Departments approval will note the location of the mobile home but noted that
this is not required.
Ms. Imhoff noted that a site plan drawing was required for this mobile home because
there are three dwellings using one driveway. She reiterated the concerns of the
adjacent owners regarding the location of the mobile home and noted that perhaps
the Commission would establish a policy that requires a location map to be sutmitted
as part of the mobile home application.
Mr. Payne stated that the Zoning Administrator could require a sketch showing
the location of the mobile hone noting that "landsca-oina and/nr screenincT to L�
provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator" is'a condition Which has
to be met for administrative approval.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the policy relating to mobile homes should be reviewed.
Mrs. Joan Graves stated that the policy regarding mobile hones has changed and
stated that she felt this should be updated and the public made aware of these
changes.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Planning staff could establish guidelines which would prevent
this problem in the future (i.e. location of mobile hone on the property).
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the Board of Supervisors approved this mobile home
.r request, but stated that the mobile hone could not be rented.
�1
Mr. Payne stated that if a particular need could be established, then mobile
homes could be approved with the intent to rent . 1404
CONCENSUS: The Commission suggested that the Planning staff prepare some suggestions
which could be handeled in the form of a policy change, said suggestions
to speak to the location of the mobile home on the property.
Private roads on two lot subdivisions (i.e. Lucas Final Plat):
Mr. Payne stated that except for unusual cases, the Commission should not rely on
waivers of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow for private roads. He noted that if
the Commission is concerned about two lot subdivisions, the justification for allowing
private roads in this instance is that three lots are required for State roads.
Mr. Payne stated that it is consistent with good planning to require private roads
to ccuply with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Payne stated that when dealing with two lot subdivisions, you are confronted
with the following alternatives:
• waiving the requirements of the ordinance, which sets a precedent for future
requests;
• amend the requirements of the ordinance so that the ordinance will speak more
clearly to private roads;
• require that the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan be complied with.
Mr. Payne noted that there are some properties in this County that cannot be
developed. He pointed out that if the Commission felt two lot subdivisions should
be allowed with private roads, then the Subdivision Ordinance could be amended to
address this.
Mr. Payne reiterated that the State Highway Department will not accept two lot
subdivisions for maintenance.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there is no particular pattern established in the
granting of waivers on private roads.
Mr. Payne noted that Albemarle County is the most liberal County in Virginia with
regard to private roads.
Mrs. Diehl asked Pair. Payne if he would prepare some language speaking to the waivers
-requests for private roads.
Mr. Payne suggested the following language:
• private roads to be allowed in subdivisions involving the creation of no more
than two lots.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that the Commission, when dealing with requests for waivers,
has not consistently complied with the Comprehensive Plan requirements.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should establish one policy relating to private
roads and then stand by this policy.
Mr. Skove stated that State roads cannot be justified for two lot subdivisions.
Mr. Skove made a motion to amend the private road provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance to permit division into two lots which do not necessarily comply with
the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for said area.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Mr. Davis moved to conduct executive session for discussion of personnel matters.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Payne noted that Section 2.1-344(a)(1) of Virginia Code relates to executive
session.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m..
M
. Tucker, Jr. -