HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 16 82 PC MinutesM
M
November 16, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
November 16, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice Chairman, Pair. Tim
Michel, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. James R. Skove and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Absent
from the meeting were Mr. Allen Kindrick and Ms. Ellen V. Nash, ex-officion.
Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney,
Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of May 18, 1982 were approved as submitted.
Larry D. Snead Preliminary Plat - DEFERRED FROM OCI'OBER 26, 1982.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. John Bias, representing the applicant, stated that they have been unable
to obtain a 30' right-of-way from the applicant's property to the State road.
He pointed out that the existing road is 16' wide with 4-6" of gravel. He also
noted that the Highway Department cannot require a private street commercial
entrance and asked that the Commission not require this as there will be little
increase in the use of the land.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked how many lots are served by this right-of-way.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that there are seven lots served by this right-of-way,
noting that there are two houses on this road and one house on the residue.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the ordinance requires roads to be primed and double
sealed if the serve six lots.
Mrs. Diehl asked what is the size of the parcel located between the private road
and Rt. 784.
Ms. Caperton noted that this is a separate parcel, small in size, and pointed
out that this parcel is not part of this application.
Mr. Cogan stated that this parcel could not obtain a building permit as it cannot
meet the 75' setback requirement.
Ms. Caperton stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 30' right-of-way
for roads serving six or more lots. She pointed out that the 30' right-of-way
in this case, is necessary as the parcel in the rear could develop further.
Mr. Davis asked if the property could be divided without a 30' right-of-way.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that at the time of this division a 30' right-of-way
is required from the western property line out to the State road.
Mrs. Cogan asked if the applicant had tried to obtain the 30' right-of-way.
Mr. Bias stated that he could not speak to this.
Mrs. Diehl stated that since this is a preliminary plat, she would like the
30' right-of-way requirement to remain.
Mr. Skove asked if there is an established policy speaking to lots with double
frontage on private versus State roads.
Ms. Caperton stated that the Subdivsion Ordinance states that a lot that is being
divided with frontage on private roads, must use the private road. She noted that
there is no regulation speaking to established lots with double frontage. She
stated that she felt the owner would rather use the State road, but also noted
that they have a legal right to use the private road.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the applicant has tried to obtain the 30' right-of-way
but noted that he has been unable to do so.
Mr. Davis noted that the road serves more than six dwellings, therefore, he is
unwilling to grant a waiver of the 30' right-of-way requirement.
Mr. Davis moved for deferral of this preliminary plat.
Mr. Skove noted that the two main concerns: are the 30' right-of-way and the
road specifications. He noted that he does not want to waive the requirement
for a thirty foot right-of-way.
T'BE ABOVE NOTED MOTION (MADE By MR. DAVIS) DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
R
'399
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditons will be recommended for final approval:
a. Correct assignment of development rights to read: "The 43.8 acres
residue may be divided into 3 parcels of less than 21 acres. All
development rights associated with the 53.6 acre parcel of parcel 6,
TK 48 remain unchanged."
b. Correct acreage of residue of parcel 6 to 97.4 acres (43.8 acres, this
parcel) and clearly note that parcel 6 is made up of 2 parcels;
c. Provide for an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of
the private road;
d. Delete "without Planning Commission approval" from the fifth note;
e. Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission review of the
final plat;
f. The parcels should be re -designed and a relocated easement shall be
provided over lot 1 to serve lot 2;
g. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) A 30 foot right-of-way width is required along the frontage of the
proposed lots out to Rt. 784 (Section 18-36(c)(2));
2) County Engineer approval of the road specifications for 14' of
travelway with 6 inches of stone with prime and double seal along the
frontage of parcels 11B, 7 and 8 of tax map 48 (Section 18-36C(1),
Table 1) ;
3) Bonding or construction of road improvements prior to signing the plat
(Section 18-36c(6));
4) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement between all
users of the road, if possible (Sections 18-36(d) and 18-7).
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NOTE: The Commission did not require any improvements to the entrance of the
private road at its intersection with Rt. 784. They did, however, feel that
compliance with the private road provisions was necessary and did not grant waivers
of Sections 18-36c(2); 18-36c(1), Table 1; 18-36c(6); 18-36d and 18-7.
Riverbend Commercial Office Building Site Plan - located on the east side of
Rive -bend Drive, off the south side of Rbute 250 East and bordered on the
south by South Pantops Drive; proposal to locate three commercial office buildings
with a total net floor area of 19,600 square feet (total building coverage
24,500 square feet) on 3.535 acre parcel. Rivanna District. Tax Map 78, parcel 17.
DEFERRED FROM OCTOBER 19, 1982.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, stated that they have worked
with the Highway Department and have reached an agreement which will be
beneficial to all concerned parties. He stated that he will respond to
any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, airs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site Man subject to the following conditions:
1. The building permit can be processed when the following conditions have
been met by the applicant:
a. Planning staff approval of additions to landscape plan (typical planter)
and provisions for landscaping for each phase;
b. Provision of 5' sidewalk along South Pantops Drive and show width of
right-of-way;
c. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions and dumpster, if any;
d. County Engineer approval of relocation of loading space for Building C;
e. Provision of "No Parking" signs for travelway between Building A and B;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
g. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
h. County Engineer approval of final drainge plans;
i. County Engineer approval of final stormwater detention plan and
construction of all dams and appurtenant structures;
j. Construction of crcial entrances to be approved by the Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation;
k. Construction of Riverbend Drive and the portion of South Pantops Drive
adjacent to the property in accordance with plans showing an urban cross
section and 5' sidewalk along South Pantops Drive to be approved by the
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation for acceptance into the
State system and according to plans to be approved by the County Engineer;
1. Installation of curbing, interior sidewalks and paving as per specifications
to be approved by the County Engineer;
M. Planning staff's administrative appproval of a final plat noting additional
right-of-way dedication for sidewalk.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the following conditions
must be met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;:
b. All required improvements irnzst be planted, constructed or bonded.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
M
4D1
M
Charles W. Hurt (Riverbend Drive) Final Plat - located on the west side of
Riverbend Drive, off the south side of Route 250 East, adjacent to the
First Virginia Bank - Central/Pantops location; proposal to divide a 0.4752 acre
parcel leaving a 4.6689 acres in residue. Rivanna District. Tax Map 78, parcel
17D. DEFERRED FROM OCTOBER 19, 1982.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or conderns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant has no objection to showing the 25'
access easement between proposed .4752 acre and adjacent lot (TM 78, parcel 17D1).
Mr. Skove 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 by the
applicant:
a. Note 25' access easement between proposed .4752 acre and adjacent lot
(TM 78, parcel 17D(1));
b. Note additional dedication of 5' right-of-way along Riverbend Drive for
a sidewalk;
c. Provision of a street sign;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance;
e. Construction of Riverbend Drive (urban design cross section to include 5'
sidewalk within 75' wide public right-of-way) according to plans to
be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation for
acceptance into the State system and according to plans approved by the
County Engineer;
f. Note a joint entrance onto Riverbend Drive to serve the proposed .4752
acre lot and residue of Parcel 17D.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-82-63 Alice Browning Owens/Catherine S. Buffalo - Request to locate a mobile
home on property described as County Tax Map 93, Parcel 15, Scottsville Magisterial
District, in accordance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is
located on the north side of Route 53, about 8/10 of a mile west of its
intersection with Route 729.
40 A
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mrs. Owens, the applicant, stated that this mobile home would be a permanent
residence for her mother. She noted that the adjacent property owners who
are opposed to this mobile home were aware when they purchased their property
that a mobile have was located on this property.
Mr. Ralph Herman, an adjacent property owner, stated his concern regarding
property value. He also noted that the lot: adjacent to this proposal has a
temporary mobile home located on it, pointing out that a permanent mobile home
Permit was denied. He stated that he has full responsiblity for the maintenance
of this road and noted the additional traffic that would occur.
Ms. Marian Fuller, an adjacent property owner, stated that she did not feel
the mobile home would be harmful to the character of the area and noted that
it would not be visible from Mr. Herman's property.
Mr. Robert Thomas, an adjacent property owner, stated his concern regarding
Property value. He also asked for clarification on the eight acre parcel
(i.e. how this was created).
Mr. Keeler explained that the surveyor showed on a plat an eight acre residue,
but noted that this was not shown as two separate tracts of land. He pointed
out that the property may not be sold or transferred separately without
subdivision approval by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Hughes, and adjacent property owner, asked if the mobile home could
be relocated on the property without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant has to submit a sketch showinq the
location of the mobile home and thereafter can only relocate by amendment
to the special use permit. -
Mr. Folsberg, an adjacent property owner, stated that he has no objection to
this mobile home.
Ms. Owens stated that they have no intention of relocating the mobile hare.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant could be required to participate in the
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant could be required to participate in the
maintenance agreement for the purpose of alleviating traffic problems.
M
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission could require a maintenance agreement
providing for a proportioned contribution to the maintenance; said agreement to
be approved by the County Attorney. He noted that if the applicant is unable
to get the adjacent owners to sign this maintenance agreement, then the
applicant may come back to the Planning Commission to ask for relief from this
condition.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt a maintenance agreement should be required and
suggested the following condition:
• maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney.
Mrs. Diehl asked what would be required under Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler read Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which read as follows:
• The issuance of a permit under this section shall be subject to the
following conditions which shall be met by the applicant prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy and which shall thereafter be
complied with:
a. Albemarle County building official approval;
b. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicalbe requirements for
district in which it is located;
c. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home;
d. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable
satisfaction of the zoning administrator and the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health;
e. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable
satisfaction of the zoning administrator.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there is no established requirement for landscaping
around mobile homes.
Mr. Davis moved to reccn=nd approval of this special use permit to the Board
of Supervisor, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Removal of junk vehicles prior to location of mobile home on the site;
3. Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler noted that this special use permit will be reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors on Wednesday, November 17, 1982.
40
// Li
Daisy Bradley Final Plat - located off the: west side of High Street and east
side of Route 685 in Crozet, north of Route 691; proposal to divide a 43,786
square foot site into two lots. White Hall Magisterial District. Tax Map
46A(1), parcel 41. REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the applicants request for indefinite deferral
of this final plat.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ivy Farm, Parcel 39, Final Plat - located east of Wingfield Road, north of Ivy
Farm Drive and northeast of Route 658; proposal to divide 11.78 acres into
two lots with an average size of 5.8 acres. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Tax Map 44, parcel 75.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any ccu rent.
Mr. A. F. Edwards, representing the applicant, stated that he has no problems
with the recommended conditions as outlined by staff. He noted that he has
prepared another slope study and presented this to the Commission. He stated
that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there is a 30,000 square foot building site available
on each lot.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that it is permissable to have the 30,000 square foot area
located within the setback.
Mr. Cogan noted his concern regarding adequate road frontage.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance requires 250' of road frontage, but
notea that if tnis is considered an internal public road, then 150' of road
frontage is required.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter is before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove ascertained that Barracks Hill Road has been taken into the State system.
Mr. Skove noted his concern regarding the division of lots 52 and 39.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that a note could be put on the plat to read:
• Lots 52 and 39 cannot be divided without approval by the Planning Commission.
C
Fri
1�
Mr. Payne noted that these lots (52 and 39) cannot be approved administratively
as there is not enough road frontage. He pointed out that putting the note,
as suggested by Ms. Caperton, on the plat this would make the purchaser aware
of what is required for the division of this property.
Mr. Skove 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. Proof to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and the Planning staff
that a 30,000 square foot building site exists on each lot. The
building site shall include the area(s) approved for septic systems and
drainfields.
b. Assignment of development rights must be corrected.
2. The applicant is put on notice that the note on the plat regarding the
potential future use of the 50 foot road extension does not imply in any
way that use of this right-of-way or future division of property has been
or will be approved.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Michie Tavern Additions and Restoration Site Plan - located on the southeast side
Irhow of Route 53, east of Route 20 South and south of I-64; proposed 4,800 square foot
addition to existing historic inn and museum. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Tax Map 77, parcels 27 and 29.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bob Paxton, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the right-of-way dedication would have to be
done by separate deed or plat.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment regarding this site plan.
Mrs. Joan Graves noted that the road that is being constructed for the orchard
seems to be very steep and asked if all the necessary approvals have been obtained
for the construction of this road.
Mr. Paxton stated that Michie Tavern is not constructing this road.
Mr. Greg McDonald stated that the Division of Forestry is constructing this
road and pointed out that he felt all the necessary approvals were obtained.
Mr. Skove stated his concern that additional traffic may be generated from this
site.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that this proposal is not anticipating any additional
traffic, but rather addressing the present need of parking.
Mr. Paxton pointed out that the contract between Michie Tavern and the Fraternal
Order of Police is strictly for bus traffic.
Mr. Davis stated that a condition could be added to read:
• no off -site parking of automobiles.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Dedication of right-of-way, where applicable, to the ditchline of Rt. 53,
as recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
c. Final Fire Official approval;
d. Final County Engineer drainage plan approval.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
MacDougall Final Plat - located off the northwest side of Route 829, east of
Route 601 and southeast of Free Union; a proposal to divide 6.09 acres into a
2-acre parcel and to join the residue to an adjacent lot. Jack Jouett District.
Tax Map 29, parcels 73 and 73B.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Conanission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter is before the
Commission.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the location of the dwelling on Parcel A.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out the location of this dwelling and note that it has a
private driveway.
T.M
M
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following condition has been met:
a. Change the language pertaining to development rights to read: "Parcel A
can be divided.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
River Heights Final Plat - located on the west side of Route 29 North (southbound
lane), south of the South Fork Rivanna River and north of Route 659; proposal to
divide 74+ acres into 4 lots (ranging in size from 4.08 to 15.16 acres) and
having 43+ acres in residue. Charlottesville District. (TM 45, parcels 68D(1),
68D(2), and 68D(3)).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, stated that in order to obtain financing, the
insurance companies requests ownership of the road (labeled as "50' access
easement" and connecting Parcel B to the Hilton Heights Road) rather than an
easement. He stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the
Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that Parcel A is split into two segments on either side of the 50'
access easement and asked for clarification.
Mr. Wood reiterated that in order to obtain financing they had to own the road
connecting Parcel B to Hilton Heights Road as the insurance companies did not want
an easement. He pointed out that Parcel A will contain the office building
parking lot.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the office building is located on Parcel A.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the parking for the office building will have to cross the
main road for Parcel B.
Mr. Wood noted that this is an internal road and this type of crossing is not
uncommon.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the ownership of Parcel A and B is presently the same,
but questioned if Parcel A should establish as well a right-of-way across Parcel B.
Lim?
Mr. Cogan noted that the ownership of the parcels could change in the future
and reiterated that a right-of-way should be obtained for Parcel A.
Mr. Wood stated that two entrances from Rt. 29 were approved for this site.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Hilton Hotel. entrance is located directly across
from an existing crossover and noted that entrances cannot be located within 500'
of a crossover.
Mr. Payne stated that if a parcel fronts on a private road, then according to the
Subdivision Ordinance, it must use the private road.
Mrs. Diehl noted that an access easement (37') for Parcel C is shown fron the 50'
access easement of Parcel B. on the north end. She noted that according to Mr.
Wood he intends to access this property from Rt. 29.
Mr. Elrod noted that the site plan shows a future entrance through the middle of
Parcel C, and labels Parce C "Future Development." He noted that he did not
know what the status of this entrance is as far as the Highway Department is
concerned.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the 37' access easement, as shown on the final plat, is to allow
for the possibility that an entrance from Rt. 29 will be denied.
Mr. Wood stated that this easement is to allow for access from the hotel site to
other establishments built on Parcel C.
Mr. Davis stated that it appears that the 50' access easement is specifically designed
to allow for frontage on Hilton Heights Road, which is probhibited by Section 18-29
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Imhoff noted that in order for this lot Ito be created, Section 18-29 would have
to be waived (pecularily shaped lots).
Mr. Davis noted that the hotel access road enters onto a public road and creates
a pipe stem.
Mr. Bowerman noted that it was the intention of the Planning Commission to have
the entire site served by Hilton Heights Road. The intent was for one entrance
designed to meet the total vehicular requirements for the entire site including
the residential property in the rear.
Mr. Wood stated that it was his understanding that the Commission required "not
more than two additional entrances be approved from Rt. 29."
Mrs. Diehl noted that the applicant is requesting that a maintenance agreement
between Parcels A & B (and possibily C) for the use of the 50' access easement
not be required and asked if this was appropriate.
41A 9
Mr. Payne stated that generally this is appropriate, pointing out that there
are not many cases where commercial developments use a private road. He noted
that there is a need to have some definitive rule of decision as to who participates,
who maintains what and to what extent. He pointed out that businesses have to
deal with one another in terms of enforcing their rights, so it is not unreasonable
to have a definitive rule outlining participation in maintenance. He pointed out
that with a development of this magnitude it may be appropriate to require a
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Michel asked if the Commission could limit access to the internal road.
Mr. Payne stated that any parcel fronting on the road running parallel to Rt. 29
is a private road, serving parcels A and B. He noted that parcel C has access to
this private road, therefore is required to access from it.
Mr. Michel noted that the staff is recommending that the residue parcels be
required to have access to Hilton Heights Road only,in lieu of the SPCA road.
Mr. Payne stated that generally speaking if there is a situation where two possible
alternatives are available, the Commission has the authority to require the better
alternative.
Mr. Wood ascertained that Parcel C must access via the private road because it
fronts on this road.
Mr. Elrod pointed out on the site plan the drainage easments and location
of stormwater detention facilities.
Mr. Wood stated that the access easement from the hotel site to parcel C has been
eliminated.
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt the only possible access to parcel C is from Rt. 29,
according to the grading plan.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the applicant intends to access parcel D from Rt. 29.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the conditions of the special use permit should be reviewed,
as it is staff's understanding that two entrances(for the entire site) are to
be allowed from Rt. 29.
Mr. Wood stated that there should be no problem with parcel D having access off of
Rt. 29 as there is 800' of road frontage.
Ms. Imhoff noted the concerns regarding the entrances and pointed out that a
traffic plan was required.
Mr. Wood stated that it would seem logical to have internal as well as external access
to parcel D as this area is planned for retail development.
Mr. Michel noted that a condition could be added to read:
• Parcel A to have access off 50`easement versus. Hilton Heights Road.
C
Ms. Imhoff noted that Mr. Coburn, representing the Highway Department, felt
that the entrances could be better addressed when site plans for the various
tracts of land are submitted.
Ms. Imhoff noted that Parcel C may have access onto Rt. 29 but the 70' easement
shown on the plat must be deleted, otherwise parcel C would be required to use
the access easement serving Parcels A & B.
Mr. Payne stated that Parcel C has frontage on the private road, and if an
entrance is approved from Rt. 29, Section 18-36(d) of the Subdivision Ordinance
must be waived.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the number of entrances allowed on Rt. 29 and asked how this
could be related to the site plan.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this proposal should stand on its own merits as there is no
assurances that the site plan will be built or that this plat will be put to record.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if this subdivision plat is approved, the Highway
Department would when site plans are submitted for individual parcels, address the
entrances at that time.
Mr. Cogan noted the following points which must be addressed in order for this
proposal to be approved:
• waive Sections 18-36(d) and 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance;
• delete the 37' easement located at the north end of parcels C and part of A;
• leave the type of access to parcels C & D to the discretion of the Highway
Department.
Mr. Wood stated that the road plans for the Hilton Heights Road have been submitted
and approved by the Highway Department.
Mr. Michel stated that access to the residue parcels should be restricted to
Hilton Heights Road rather than the SPCA Road.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there were any concerns that the County Engineer felt should
be addressed.
Mr. Elrod stated that they asked that this area be seeded before the winter months,
noting that approximately 2/3 of this has been done. He noted that an insurance
bond was called for the maintenance of the basins and that they have requested
that another bond be posted by November 19.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the concerns noted by the County Engineer
should be addressed as soon as possible.
Mr. Bowerman noted his concern with the second entrance on parcel C.
,``D
Mr. Bowerman noted that the traffic generated could be intense depending on the
type of use established on Parcel C. He noted that it was his intention that
other than the temporary access for this site, all acces to the site would be via
the Hilton Heights Road.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that if the Commission waives Section 18-36d of the
Subdivison Ordinance, access is still available from Hilton Heights Road.
Mr. Bowerman stated that when the site plan is approved, he does not want to
preclude Parcel C from having access from Hilton Heights Road rathen than Rt. 29.
Mr. Skove noted the following points which should be addressed:
• defer this plat until this proposal can be compared to the site plan;
• request additional input from the Highway Department;
• address the issue of inadequate seeding and means of erosion control
Mr. Wood asked for deferral of this final plat.
Mr. Davis moved to defer this final plat until December 7, 1982.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Payne Mobile Home Site Plan - located off the west side of Route 649, north of
Proffit, and east of Hollymead; to locate an additional mobile home on a
16.0 acre tract for a total of four dwelling units. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Tax Map 46, Parcel 45.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant, noted that the existing mobile
hone will be removed by January 1, 1983. He stated that becasue of objections
frCmm the adjacent owners, the applicant is willing to locate this mobile home
in the location of the previous mobile home. He stated that by relocating this
mobile hone, the concerns of the Fire Official (fire protection) and the adjacent
owners (screening) are unwarranted. Mr. Dick asked that they be allowed to suhnit
a revised site plan showing the exact location of the mobile home to the Planning
staff to be approved administratively.
Mr. Dick noted the recommendation of the Highway Department that a private street
commercial entrance be constructed and pointed out that this would be a financial
burden to the applicant.
Mr. Dick noted that the Health Department has approved the septic system.
Mr. Dick noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted a variance from the
property line of 19'. He asked that the Commission approve this site plan and
allow Planning staff to approve the relocation of the mobile home administratively.
�D "L
with no cc mtent from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter is before
the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff stated that any change in the location of the mobile home would have
to be approved by the Fire official. She pointed out that 50' separations between
buildings is the minimum required for buildings located on the same property. She
also noted that a 100' separation between buildings is generally required in the
urban area.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission. has to reveiw this application as a
new mobile home rather than one replacing the existing mobile hone.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Highway Department cannot require the private street
commercial entrance as this is an existing entrance.
Ms. Imhoff stated that a condition could be added to read:
• Fire Official approval of location of mobile home.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not think a private street commercial entrance is
necessary. He also noted that a condition could be added to read:
• new mobile hone is not to be hooked to old spetic system.
Mr. Dick stated that the new mobile hone is to have a new septic system.
Mr. Dick asked if the location of the mobile hone were to be approved by the
Fire Official would this allow Planning staff to approve the site plan
administratively.
Ms. Imhoff noted that this condition could be worded:
• Planning staff and Fire Official approval of location of mobile home.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following:
1. A building permit can be processzd when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Note dedication for a minimum right-of-way width of 25' from the
centerline to be recorded by separate deed or plat;
b. Fire Official approval of revised mobile home location;
c. Note on the plan that the mobile home shall not be rented.
2. Please note that the older mobile hone on this property shall be removed
by January 1, 1983.
3. The Planning Commission did grant a waiver request of Article 32.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance. (This is a waiver of the technical requirements of a
site development plan).
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
I<'h R
Report on Turtle Creek Condominium:
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Payne stated that in light of the fact that the site plan has been approved as
well as the condominium documents this request can be reviewed as an amendment
to the original site plan.
Mr. Michel noted his concern that the applicant could continue to sumbit
building phases and noted that t he Commission does not have the legal documents
to review these phases separately.
Mr. Payne noted that the physical layouts of the buildings is fixed on the site
plan and there is no change in the condominium documents. He also noted that
development is phased in the condominium documents.
Ms. Caperton noted that if the applicant decides to relocate buildings then
the staff would present this to the Commission for their input. She noted that
the Planning staff in their review of subdivision plats notifies adjacent property
owners of the applicant's proposal.
Mr. Bowerman moved to allow administrative approval of future subdivision plats
for Turtle Creek.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman moved to grant a waiver of Sections 18-36 (b) (4) and (b) (5) of the
Subdivision ordinance to allow for private roads to serve the remaining sections
of Turtle Creek.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bertha ShavErFinal Plat - request for reconsideration.
MR. MICHEL DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF BY LEAVING THE ROOM.
Mr. Skove made a motion to reconsider this final plat.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Ms. Caperton noted that the applicant is requesting to be allowed to reduce the
number of lots and serve them with the existing driveway.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Comrn_ission.
9
Mr. Davis moved to approve this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications for the existing
driveway;
2) County Attorney approval of a road maintenance agreement for the existing
driveway;
The applicant is put on notice that any redivision of lot 1 may require the
road and entrance to be upgraded to serve the total number of lots. Use of the
new 30' right-of-way at any time will require County Engineer approval of the
road specifications and County Attorney approval of a new maintenance agreement.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Cason Wayside Fruit and Vegetable Stand Preliminary Site Plan - Request for
reconsideration.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the parking area seems to be extremely congested and
asked if the County Engineer could review the design of this.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she would like some input from the Zoning Department speaking
to the question of "at what point does this become a shopping center."
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt this site plan should go through the regular
staff review (i.e. site review, etc).
CONCENSUS: The Commission unanimously decided to grant no extensions for
site plan and pointed out that: this site plan should be reviewed
as all site plans are.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Bowerman stated his concern that temporary permits were issued for Turtle
Creek and questioned how this happened.
Ms. Caperton stated that one on the problems is how a condition is interpreted
Mr. Bowerman stated that perhaps the procedures used for the issuance of certificates
of occupancy should be reviewed. He noted that when someone applies for a
certificate of occupancy the orginal approval for that plan should be reviewed.
471
Ms. Caperton stated that perhaps the conditions should be worded to read:
• No temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy shall be issued until
the following conditions have been met...
Greene Gardens:
Ms. Caperton noted that she has received a plan for a proposed growing house at
Greene Gardens which is to be located next to an existing storage building. She
stated that although she has not reviewed the plan she felt this could be handeled
administratively. She asked the Commission in what capacity they would like to
see this plan.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt this plan should be reviewed by the Site Review
Committee.
CONCENSUS: The Commission unanimously decided that this plan should go through
the Site Review Committee.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
v
Wd ME�M— I I MA—, M � PA me
Tucker, Jr. -
i5b�