Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 22 83 PC Minutesim March 22, 1983 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 5/6, Second Floor, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. James R. Skove; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Allan B. Kindrick; Mr. Timothy Michel; and Ms. Ellen V. Nash, Ex-Officio. Absent were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl and Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Vice -Chairman. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer; Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Official; Mr. Tom Trevillian, Engineering; Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner, and Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Planner. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order. He asked whether motions would be made for deferral of the first two items on the agenda. Mr. Skove moved for deferral of Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan to April 26, 1983. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Davis moved for deferral of Hydraulic Road Garden Court Townhouses Site Plan to April 26, 1983. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Raintree, Phase I, Final Plat - Located off the west side of Route 652 Old Brook Road), adjacent to the Northfields and Fieldbrook Subdivisions and east of Rio Road; proposal to divide + 7 acres into 30 lots with an average lot size of 10,521 square feet and to dedicate 2.8 acres to open space. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61, portion of Parcel 125). Mr. Payne requested that the record show that his law firm represents a property owner residing near this property. Mr. Payne stated that he did not believe this constituted any conflict of interest. He added that although the firm's client had mentioned Raintree on a couple of occasions, Mr. Payne did not see him present tonight. Ms. Mason Caperton gave the Staff Report. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mr. Blake Hurt responded that he would be happy to answer any questions, but the conditions seemed reasonable and problems had been worked out. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment at this time. Mrs. Conley, who identified herself as living in Fieldbrook, asked whether any information could be provided on when Old Brook Road might be completed. Mr. Hurt responded that the first section up to Phase One was planned for this summer, with subsequent sections depending on how quickly building proceeds. vo Mrs. Conley asked whether this road construction would include paving. Mr. Hurt indicated that paving and sidewalks would be constructed at the end of Phase I. He informed Mrs. Conley that it would take an estimated three to four years to complete the project. 11s. Caperton clarified that the project would be done in phases. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was further public comment. Mr. Volz asked when road construction would actually begin, whether property owners along Old Brook Road would be notified of the starting date and how far into adjacent properties the construction would go. Mr. Hurt indicated that road construction would start in the middle of the spring, weather conditions permitting. Mr. Bowerman said that there was no procedure in effect for notification of commencement or road work, and he further ascertained from Mr. Roudabush that work on the road would be confined to the right-of-way. Mr. Roudabush explained that there would be a twenty-two foot pavement to replace the present twelve to fourteen foot travelway. He added that there would be a ditchline and shoulder on the side where the properties abut the road. Mr. Roudabush indicated that construction should go no further than the actual property line of these adjacent property owners. Mr. Elrod remarked that County approvals would be for construction up to property lines and no further. Mr. Bowerman further assured Mr. Volz that road construction could not come over individual's property lines and asked for further questions from the public. When there was no further public comment, he declared the matter to be before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod if he wished to comment further on water runoff and how he reached a decision to defer approvals. Mr. Elrod responded that Engineering had preliminary agreement with the applicant whereby he would either build detention basins on site or donate money in lieu of construction on site. Mr. Elrod explained that the drainage basins were pretty well divided by Old Brook Road. He added that the drainage basins for the east side of Old Brook Road were required by the stormwater detention ordinance and would be built. He explained that the basins on the west side were the uncertain ones and a decision had to be made on whether the applicant constructed them on -site or donated money to the County for future offsite improvements, in which case Mr. Elrod indicated that it would be necessary to go before the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Bowerman further ascertained from Mr. Elrod that should the applicant choose to build the drainage basins on -site, his plans were satisfactory; Mr. Elrod also indicated that the road plans were acceptable with no real problems. Mr. Bowerman determined from Mr. Hurt that sewer and water plans had been submitted. Mr. Michel moved for approval of Raintree, Phase I, Lots 1-30, Final Plat, subject to the conditions recommended by Staff: ZPA 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions are met by the applicant: a. j- k. 1. M. n. County Engineer and Virginia I Transportation final approval for Old Brook Road (Route 652) Shadow Oaks Place for acce- tar shall include provisions for ( on the north side of Old Brool Virginia Department of Highwa) of private and commercial ent3 County Attorney approval of do maintenance of open space, re( scaping materials, wooded area detention and appurtenant stri epartment of Highways and of road plans and improvements and Liberty Oaks Court and ce by the State; approval urb and gutter, and sidewalk Road; s and Transportation approval ances; cuments regarding the reational facilities, land- s, drainage, stormwater ctures; County Engineer and Virginia Department or nignways cinu Transportation approval of road plans for the improvement of Old Brook Road from the subject property out to Rio Road as noted on the plat (22 pavement and Category IV pavement strength) ; Street signs shall be installed or bonded; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; Note a reference to the bonus provisions approved on this plat to allow for the increased density; Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; Rewrite the note on cumulative density and open space requirements to state: "Open space and density are to be determined for this development on a cumulative basis on future phases. Cumulative density shall not exceed 2.22 dwelling units per acre. Cumulative percent of usable open space shall be maintained at 70%;" Note area of dedication along Route 652 to be dedicated with this plat; Note the amount of usable open space and percentage; Street trees shall be planted or bonded; County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and facilities; such approved features shall be bonded or installed prior to signing the plat; Correct addition of parcel "x" to adjacent properties. 2. Planting of pine trees to serve as a buffer between Northfields and Raintree shall occur as development occurs on this side of Old Brook Road. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Briarwood, Phases III and VII (portions), Final Plat - Located off the west side of Route 29 North and north of the Rivanna River in the Briarwood Planned Residential Development; proposal to divide in Phases II and VII 9.787 acres into 126 lots (average lot size of row approximately 3,383 square feet) with 4.033 acres in common open space and 133.0 acres in residue. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 32E, portion of Parcel 1). IV% Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report. Mr. Bowerman asked whether either Mr. Wood or Mr. McKee wished to make comment at this time. Mr. McKee responded that he would like to address certain of the Staff comments. First of all, he clarified that the entire length of Finch Court was proposed to be completed, not just a portion. Next Mr. McKee explained that the plans were not submitted on time because initially a Staff memo was received suggesting a thirty- foot building separation. He said that Phases III and VII had been designed based on Phase II, which did not have thirty-foot building separations, and after receipt of the memo the applicant had thought a reworking of the plans might be necessary. Mr. McKee said it was not until the Site Review Committee met that it had been determined that this criteria did not apply to Briarwood, since it was enacted after the rezoning of the Briarwood PRD. In summary, Mr. McKee stated that a decision was made not to expend a lot of time and energy on the plans, when it appeared that a complete reconfiguration of the lots might be required - the point that was not resolved until Site Review. Mr. McKee mentioned the existence of a second memo on this subject, but said that the applicant had not been in receipt of it. Mr. McKee told the Commission that the Service Authority was aware of the three situations where sewer lines went under driveways due to problems with particular building sites and as Ms. Caperton had indicated, the Service Authority recognized that this was about the only alternative and had retracted its previous statement, contained in the Staff Report. Mr. McKee went on to say that he believed this should clear up the question raised in the second paragraph under Building Sites pertaining to locations of water, sewer and drainage easements and driveways. He added that he did not believe there were any building sites on slopes of twenty-five percent or greater. Mr. McKee reiterated that the design was consistent with that of Phase II --and the intent was to achieve low to moderate income housing, thereby necessitating maximizing the density and reducing infrastructure costs, per unit. Mr. McKee referred to Ms. Caperton's memo of March third, in which she states that building site information is incomplete. Mr. McKee asked whether Ms. Caperton received the same plans that were sent to Engineering; she replied that she did not. Mr. McKee said that he would like to explain a little about why a variance was requested from the Highway Department; he said that when Phase II was designed, Austin Drive and Briarwood Drive had to be con- structed in order to access Phase II. Mr. McKee explained that in the interest of time and economy, as the road was constructed, the lots in Phase III and VII although not platted, were generally planned in accordance with the Phase II design, so that the water mains and meters were laid out and curbs cut for these lots. Mr. McKee said that the variance was requested to reduce the distance from driveway to driveway from fifty feet to something less than fifty simply in order to avoid undoing what had been done. Mr. McKee said that a letter was attached to the Staff Report from the Highway Department with the unusual request that the Commission concur with the granting of this variance. 411 Mr. McKee explained that in his '�A.r Commission would approve a plat requirement. In this instance, Department had been somewhat at be overstepping its authority by Planning Commission action. experience, normally the Planning subject to a Highway Department Mr. McKee pointed out, the Highway a loss over whether it might not granting this variance prior to Mr. McKee said that his final comment concerned the recreational facility; he said that he believed the space provided on the final submittals amounted to 5,300 square feet rather than the figure of 4,550 square feet mentioned in the Staff Report. Mr. McKee said that this worked out to fifty square feet per unit. He said that he did not really see the necessity of providing an additional play area. Mr. McKee said that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bowerman thanked him. Mr. Wood told the Commission that he was seeing the Staff Report for the first time tonight. He said he would like to ask that the condition that Austin Road actually be constructed out to Route 606 before the signing of the plat not be imposed. Mr. Wood ascertained from Staff that the condition addressed completing the road from a point described on the posted plan out to Route 606. He asked that consideration be given to allowing a partial signing of the plat in order to permit the sale of several finished lots. He explained that it could take four or five months to develop the section on the unfinished section of Austin Road, which would pose something of a hardship if they were required to wait. Mr. Wood said that Mr. May of Bailey Realty was present and would speak to the need for these completed lots. Additionally, Mr. Wood said he was reluctant to begin construction on this section of Austin Road because the Highway Department had not yet indicated where the road might tie in. Mr. McKee explained that originally road plans were submitted at the time of completion of Phase II; he said there had been some discussion about sight distance problems and a bank on the General Electric property. He said that the Highway Department had not given a real firm answer to questions and issues raised at that time. Mr. Wood suggested that due to the steep grade of the roadbed on Route 606, it appeared that this road might well have to be totally relocated, conceivably as much as one hundred feet from its present location. Therefore, Mr. Wood asked that this condition not be imposed, at least not from the point where Austin Road was currently completed. Mr. Wood asked the Commission to appoint several members to a committee to meet with his staff to actually go over their costs and to get a feeling of what the expenses involved were in developing this subdivision. Mr. Wood told the Commission that originally alimitation had been imposed on this subdivision to build low-income housing. He said that the requirement imposed on them by the Highway Department of widening the lots by four feet meant that in the next phase for every eight lots one would be lost; in cul-de-sacs Mr. Wood stated that where eight lots were designed, now they would only get six. Mr. Wood added that even though the total number of lots was reduced, they had to build the same amount of sewer, water, curbs, roads, etc. and had to sell the lots at a fixed price. He said that for $56,000 worth of lots they could only sell them for $42,000. Mr. Wood stated that this forced expansion by only four feet was not told to them in the first phase and there was no way that they could continue with this requirement - it nullified affordable housing. Mr. Wood added that this was only one of perhaps seven items that had changed since the project began. Mr. Wood reiterated his desire to have some Commissioners appointed to go over his books. He said that under the new ordinance they were just breaking even, meaning a drop from an initial profit of $14,000 for eight lots on the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Wood said that they were unable to change the price on the lots, since they were on a fixed contract in order to meet the criteria for affordable housing. Mr. Wood said that this project is a successful subdivision with about twenty sales per month. He said that obviously people like it and first-time home buyers constituted most of their market. However, Mr. Wood cautioned that if they were forced to continue developing with these restrictions, it would not be affordable housing. In closing he asked for consideration to permit building on those lots located on the completed portion of Austin Road, saying that the road was already there, built to thirty-six feet in width. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant had any further comments. When he did not, Mr. Bowerman called for public comment. There was no public comment, and the Chairman declared the matter to be before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the Highway Department requirement that drives be fifty feet apart, edge to edge, had changed from Phase II to now. Ms. Caperton replied that she believed it had been an issue since around the time the Highway Department had discovered problems with driveways having less distance than fifty feet between them. She said that the regulation might have existed but not have been enforced. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Ms. Caperton could explain the rationale behind the fifty -foot separation requirement, since no representative from the Highway Department was present. Ms. Caperton responded that it related to issues concerning control of parking and entrance circulation. Mr. Bowerman asked who had approved the plans of Austin Drive and Briarwood Drive where the curb cuts had been put in, whether it was the Highway Department. Ms. Caperton concurred that it was. M Mr. Bowerman asked whether the curb cuts were approved before the next phases that would be served by these cuts had been reviewed. Ms. Caperton confirmed this action but explained that it was done probably because it was a requirement in Phase II that those portions of Briarwood and Austin Drives be dedicated and constructed and while doing the work they went on to make the curb cuts. She said that of course it was a lot cheaper to do the work while out there. Mr. Bowerman asked whether problems were now arising because of the changes in phasing of the development since the original approval. Ms. Caperton replied that the fifty -foot separation of driveways requirement was not related to changes in phases. She reiterated that she believed about the time Phase II was approved the Highway Department began to become aware of problems where driveway separations were under fifty feet - she gave as examples Willoughby and Bennington Woods. Ms. Caperton said that as a result the Highway Department began to consider this standard as a requirement rather than a recommendation. Mr. Skove said that perhaps he had not understood, but it appeared the applicant had gone along doing what had been previously approved. Mr. Wood concurred that this was correct, that the fifty foot separation was not a requirement when Phase II was done and the present phase was built to the same standards of Phase II. Mr. Wood offered to respond to Mr. Bowerman's earlier question on the origin of the fifty -foot separation requirement. He said that in a meeting with the Highway Department, they had been told that on cul-de-sacs problems arose when parties were given and on -street parking at curbs made backing out of driveways difficult. Mr. Wood said that under normal conditions with residents parking in their driveways, the separation distance posed no problem. Mr. Michel asked whether item replied that it was not, that its statement as contained in the Staff Report. However, s] one was very important to not Department. She said that thi position only on the issue of i was being deleted. Ms. Caperton the Service Authority had retracted the second paragraph of page two of ze stressed that item i under condition only the builder but the Inspections Service Authority had modified its entrance locations. Mr. Michel requested Ms. Caperton to quickly go over once again why construction of Austin Drive was being required, why two entrances were needed. Ms. Caperton responded that it was thought for a development of 200 lots two entrances were needed for whatever reason, safety or convenience. She added that at this point it was a whole lot cheaper to complete Austin Drive, although you could not call Route 606 convenient, than to complete Briarwood Drive out to Route 29. Mr. Michel asked whether it was correct that at present there were no approved entrances on 606. �/9 Y Mr. McKee replied that he did not believe an approved entrance existed now, but it had been a couple of years since the road plans had been submitted to the Highway Department and he did not recall the outcome after some issue of sight distance had arisen. Mr. Davis remarked that entrances could not be approved until road plans had been reviewed. Mr. Skove asked whether originally the plan had been for Road X, Briarwood Drive to exit onto Route 29. Ms. Caperton got out the original plan and explained that Road "Y" represented Austin Drive and Road "X" Briarwood Drive. She stated that originally Briarwood Drive was to serve Phase I. Phase II, she continued, was developed and allowed to use just one road, as long as Briarwood Drive was bonded and dedicated for completion. She remarked that it was still bonded and dedicated for completion but was not being constructed at this time and would involve a great deal of expense. Ms. Caperton said at this time Staff was suggesting that the shorter portion of roadway, completion of Austin Drive, be required. Mr. Skove tried to establish why there were not two entrances at this time; he asked whether this was due to the change of sequence of the phases. Mr. Wood replied that this was not correct. He stated that the reason Road "Y" was constructed was because of General Electric, which was going to use it. Mr. Wood said that because of G.E. the northern end of the project was developed first, rather than the southern portion. He added that when the first plans were drawn up General Electric was not a factor. Mr. Wood stated that had the original plan been pursued, Austin Drive would not have been built yet and there still would not be two entrances constructed by this time. He added that until some three hundred odd lots had been constructed, two entrances would not be required. Mr. Wood explained that it was not logical to build more road and additional lots when thirty were already constructed and ready to sell, in the phase for which approval was requested. Mr. Davis said that he had some problems with what he saw before him, for example, information on whether in fact all of the lots were buildable. Ms. Caperton said that probably this information would not be known until grading plans were available; since the lots were so small, she continued, grading for the roads might even change the slope on certain lots. Ms. Caperton pointed out that condition l.c. should take care of driveway grades and building sites of less than twenty-five percent. Mr. Davis said that in looking at Lot 38, for example, with the setbacks indicated and the easements going through it he could not be sure it was a buildable lot. Mr. Davis asked whether he was supposed to go through the plan and determine individually whether each lot was buildable. Mr. Skove suggested that this had 50 never been the job of the Commission, but of Staff. Mr. Davis asked whether this determination was supposed to be made before final plat approval or after. Mr. Skove said that he understood it should be done before; Mr. Davis agreed. Mr. Michel added along with Mr. Bowerman that Staff had to address this issue because the Commission did not have the technical detail necessary. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Messrs. Davis and Skove that there were stumbling blocks, adding that there were so many things floating around remaining to be settled, plus the County Engineer had not had an opportunity to review some of this information. But, he stated, the Commission was being asked to make a judgment on it. Mr. Bowerman said that comment from the County Engineer was a valuable guide which the Commission depended upon. He pointed out that access to 606 from Austin Drive raised a lot of questions that were still unresolved; and he observed that there were many conditions attached to this plat. Mr. Bowerman said that he believed the request for a waiver for entrance separation was reasonable. Mr. Davis responded that he did not believe the Commission had the authority to grant such a waiver. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to give his opinion. Mr. Payne responded that he believed Staff said the Subdivision Ordinance did not speak to this issue, since it's a Highway Department requirement. Mr. Payne said that he believed Staff was seeking advice from the Commission. Mr. Davis said then he would not have any particular problem with this request. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod if he wished to speak. Mr. Elrod explained how the dimensions for parallel parking (18 - 20 feet per car) would leave only five feet at the driveways for backing cars and severely limit on -street parking. He said secondly, the Engineering Department had originally objected to the extension of Austin Drive to 606, as an emergency road of gravel. Mr. Elrod said that where Austin hooked back into 606 there was a real steep slope and when the water line had been extended into the current phase of development, a terrible erosion problem had arisen after clearing and grading. Mr. Elrod said that they are presently waiting for the grass to grow and the area to stabilize. Mr. Elrod said that the Engineering Department position is if it is extended, that it be built and the drainage taken care of. Mr. Skove clarified that Mr. Elrod was saying that if Austin Drive was to be extended, that it be paved straight through to 606, that Engineering did not want a temporary sort of road put in. Mr. Davis observed that no one ever dreamed that these houses would be built with only one entrance, at least no one on the Planning Commission. Mr. Wood interjected not the whole subdivision. Mr. Davis specified that he was speaking of this phase. Mr. Wood stated that it was proposed to the Commission with only one entrance and they could never have accepted a condition .for two entrances. Mr. Wood said that it does not work to spend a million dollars on roads to do so few lots. He said that he believed that after 350 lots the second entrance was to be required. Mr. Wood added that Mr. Elrod had just increased his bond from $190,000 to $270,000. He said that economically it just did not work. Mr. Wood said that after spending a million dollars they only had $600,000 worth of usable lots. Mr. Wood said that the road going into Briarwood is thirty-eight feet wide, wider than Route 29. He suggested that it was hard to imagine anything that could block that road in an emergency. Mr. Bowerman said that he believed he and the other Commissioners had been very sympathetic to the concerns voiced by Mr. Wood regarding costs involved in meeting certain requirements. However, he continued, the requirements are in place to provide for public health and safety and to ensure that projects are built as they should be with fire separation between buildings, provisions for drainage easements - all must be reviewed. Mr. Bowerman said that adequate review required time and tonight this was the problem. Given sufficient time, he continued, Staff could usually make more absolute recommendations based upon detailed review. He asked Mr. Elrod whether he had received the plans on March 14. Mr. Elrod confirmed this. Mr. Bowerman said that obviously other items were already in the pipeline and he did not know how much time Mr. Elrod needed to review such a project. Mr. Elrod responded that for this meeting there were three sets of plans received on March 14 for action by March 15. He said that there was not adequate time to review a project of this size. Mr. Skove concurred that more time was needed. Mr. Bowerman added that this put the Commission in a bad situation. He asked whether, should the plan come back with unbuildable lots,Staff could combine lots together administratively. Mr. Bowerman said in reference to the confusion about building separation, the applicant could have cleared up any questions with a simple call to Ira Cortez. Mr. Bowerman established that this regulation went into effect in January and the applicant need not have waited two weeks to find out what the requirement entailed. Mr. McKee said that the applicant had not been informed when the requirement went into effect on January first, that he had not received the memo. Mr. Cortez said that he informed the applicant of the requirement by phone just after the Technical Review Meeting. Mr. Cortez said in all fairness it should be pointed out that plans on a project of this scale take about three months to prepare and in this case had been prepared prior to the separation requirement goint into effect. Mr. Bowerman said that the problem before the Commission tonight was that the plans had not been submitted in time to provide for adequate review. He added that he was not willing to make a 5a decision on something he could not understand and it was not clear what was before the Commission tonight. Mr. Bowerman said I� he did not know how the other Commissioners felt, but this was his position and he did not believe this was unfair. Mr. Michel said that he agreed with Mr. Bowerman and would also like to know what was going to happen about Route 606 and Austin Drive. Mr. Bowerman remarked that although the public hearing was closed, Mr. May could address the Commission. He asked him to identify himself for the record. Mr. Jim May stated that he was with Bailey Realty Company and it was his understanding that none of the lots could be released at this time. He asked whether this was correct. Mr. Bowerman responded that the plat could not be signed until all of these conditions were met, as contained in the Staff Report. Ms. Caperton concurred that this was true, should the Commission decide to approve the plat. Mr. May explained that the desire was to offer moderately priced housing; he said that financing was currently available through the VHDA for each lot developed. Mr. May said that the time frame involved could mean that the public stood to lose; he mentioned that the applicant was working on a bond issue due to expire on August first. err Mr. Bowerman responded with a question to Mr. May that he was not suggesting that the rules be thrown out. Mr. Skove added that this was precisely the Commission's concern, that the public stood to lose a great deal if a subdivision were approved with roads that would never work. Mr. Skove said that the Commission was in a position of acting on something they do not even have the facts on. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Wood asked what would not work, saying that anything could be made to work. Mr. Skove specified the question of whether 606 and Austin would tie in. Mr. Wood replied that the road would be built. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Mr. Wood had made a strong case for the factor of economics and how could the Commission be sure that economics would not play a part and perhaps make the relocation of Route 606 not feasible. Mr. Wood assured Mr. Bowerman that the road would go into 606, that it was a question of when, and that it did not make sense to further construct that road until more lots were developed . Mr. Bowerman told Mr. Wood that although he sympathized with his position, there were many unanswered questions in his mind as to how it came down to this point for a final review with not one or two unresolved problems but a half a dozen or so. He suggested that Mr. Wood should see Mr. Bowerman's position also. 53 to Mr. Wood said that he understood Mr. Bowerman's position and that he was only asking for approval of those constructed lots. Mr. Wood said he was asking for approval in stages, such as for thirty lots in Phase II, which are already there, as opposed to the 106. He mentioned that in Phase II they had shaded a portion that would not be served by sewer and that perhaps such a method could be used in this instance to achieve the partial approval he sought for the completed lots only. Mr. Davis recalled that after Phase II there had been discussion about the problems that were coming up due to non -sequential development and some stipulations had been made on future phasing coming before the Commission in order. Mr. Bowerman asked when this application had been submitted. Ms. Caperton responded that it had been submitted and then deferred by request of the applicant. Mr. Bowerman asked by what date the Commission had to make a decision on it. Ms. Caperton indicated very soon, since two or three weeks had gone by. Ms. Caperton asked to point out to the Commission that even should the Commission be of a mind to approve just those lots fronting on Briarwood and Austin Drive, entrances would have to be approved, grading plans for the lots submitted, etc. Ms. Caperton read through the conditions as contained in the Staff Report that would still apply to the thirty completed lots, should the Commission choose to approve only those. She added that obtaining these required approvals and meeting these requirements was totally up to the applicant, which she wanted to make clear, and she did not have any idea as to the length of time this might take. Mr. Kindrick asked Ms. Caperton to point out the constructed lots on the exhibited plat; she indicated the lots by number. Mr. Bowerman asked whether it would not be just as much trouble to meet the conditions for the thirty lots as it would be for the entire subdivision. Mr. Wood responded no way because Highway Department requirements were not yet known for the connection to 606. Mr. Bowerman questioned how the Commission could act on part of the submittal when the subdivision plat had not been approved. He reiterated that, although he was not at this point going to rethink the entire issue tonight, he did believe that there was some risk to the applicant in pouring curbing on future unapproved phases. Ms. Caperton agreed, although she stated that this practice was not unusual. Mr. Wood added that the curbs were put in following the approval of Phase II, in accordance with those specifications. Mr. Davis pointed out that the recreational space requirements would be difficult to apply if non -adjoining lots were approved in different areas as opposed to approving the entire subdivision at one time. 9 _TLI Mr. Bowerman commented that a lot time had been spent on this item; he asked whether there was a consensus among the Commissioners to proceed with some action. Mr. Skove asked whether the two possibilities before the Commission were (1) to approve the lots indicated by Ms. Caperton subject to the conditions (a) through (o) or (2) due to lack of sufficient information deny or defer the matter. Mr. Bowerman remarked that Mr. Davis' point on how to apply the percentages of recreational area required in relation to the area developed was well taken. He added that he did not believe there was adequate time remaining to rehear the submittal should it be deferred tonight. Mr. Payne suggested that this concern was not necessary. He said that any time an applicant has failed to provide the Commission with sufficient information, the Commission should not in his opinion be concerned with deferring the matter for a reasonable period of time. Mr. Payne said that the Commission should understand that should the time expire it would not constitute an automatic approval, it would only mean that the applicant could go to court to get approval. Mr. Payne suggested that it could come down to mean either Commission approval with inadequate information or understand that the court could approve it if the applicant wanted to go to court. He added that he had never seen a court approve a plat under such circumstances. Mr.. Bowerman said that he would prefer to deal with all 106 lots at once, the whole application, and with as much information as could reasonably be expected. Mr. Skove remarked that he thought there was no question on the information issue, the only question being whether the Commission wished to consider a partial approval of the thirty lots, which he added Mr. Davis had pointed out involved some technical problems. Mr. Bowerman advised that some principles were involved also. Mr. Davis suggested that the majority of time would be taken up in any event on meeting these conditions, before the plat could be signed. Mr. McKee asked whether the requirement of a grading plan per lot was a new regulation. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Caperton to respond. She advised that this was part of the soil erosion ordinance. Mr. Davis remarked that otherwise there was really no way of being certain that there were actual building sites on each lot. Mr. McKee said that he believed the ordinance was clear that if there were slopes of twenty-five percent (250) or greater it was not buildable; he added that he could assure the Commission that there were building sites on each of the 106 lots. Mr. Bowerman responded that Staff needed grading plans to be submitted to substantiate that statement. He added that in the past drainage problems had occurred due to grading on adjoining lots. He said that for this reason the requirement of grading plans on each lot had been in effect for some time, in order to assure that drainage Plans actually work. Mr. Davis said additionally that it was a requirement of lots in a subdivision before a final plat could be approved. Mr. Bowerman asked whether he was hearing a consensus for deferral. Ms. Caperton established that April 5 would probably be the date to which it could be deferred, if that gave the applicant sufficient time. She determined that no meeting was scheduled for April 12 or April 19. Mr. Ray said that there was still a question unanswered concerning the issue of grading plans. He contended that never before had an overall grading plan been required before a final plat, that is, a complete grading plan on all lots. Ms. Caperton clarified that she was not speaking of a permit. She stated that the Soil Erosion Committee could not even review a plan until the plat has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. R.Ray said that this was what he was trying to point out. Ms. Caperton said that what she was talking about was a grading plan that she and Engineering and Planning Staff could look over to determine that there are building sites on each lot. She said since grading plans were going to be required, the applicant might just as well do them at this stage. Mr. Bowerman asked whether any conferences had been held. Mr. Elrod said that no building permit could be issued until a grading plan was in. Mr. McKee said that what he was hearing was that one of the conditions to get final plat approval was to have a grading plan for each lot. Mr. Payne responded that this was perfectly true, as stated in both ordinances. Mr. Bowerman suggested that matters of this sort could be handled between Mr. McKee and Staff during the day. He added that Staff would be happy to clarify any questions. Mr. McKee said that he would just like to say that Mr. Elrod's assistant, Tom Trevillian, had told him by telephone that grading plan for the soil erosion control plan was not needed before final plat approval. Mr. McKee stated that Mr. Travillian had indicated a grading plan was needed only before a grading permit could be issued. Ms. Caperton clarified that a final grading plan was not approved until after approval of the final plat. She explained that she needed the grading plan in order to consult with Engineering and other staff to determine that there are in fact building sites on each lot. She added that she was not certain that this grading plan must meet grading permit standards and specifications, but that it was necessary to provide the information she needed. Ms. Caperton said that she had included this item in the Staff 1 10 Report as a possible solution to her problem of determining potential entrance driveway steepness as well as actual building sites per lot. Mr. Davis moved for deferral of Briarwood, (Portions of) Phases III and VII Final Plat to April 5, 1983. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with no further discussion. Mr. Wood informed Mr. Bowerman that the River Heights plan had been submitted to Planning Staff today. Mr. Bowerman responded that he had seen it, it had been done in two weeks, which was good. The Planning Commission took a ten-minute recess at this point, reconvening at 9:30 p.m. Edgar Gibson Final Plat - Located on the northeast side of Route 620, southeast ot Woodridge, east of Route 618; proposal to divide 10 acres into an approximately 5-acre lot and two 2-acre lots. Scottsville District. (TM 115, Parcel 22G). Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report, adding that she had received Engineering Department comments on March 21, 1983. When she completed her presentation, Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. When he did not, Mr. Bowerman announced that the matter was now before the Commission and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Michel stated that everything appeared to be in order. Mr. Davis moved for approval of the final plat with the conditions as recommended by Staff. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Ms. Nash asked whether Route 620 was paved or still a gravel road. Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Payne informed her that it was paved. The motion carried unanimously, with approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Owner's notarized signature; b. Compliance with the private road provisions including 1) County Engineer approval of final road plans, including drainage plan, if necessary; 2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement. C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, if necessary; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance. 67 1. Fleet (Chewning) Final Plat - Located on the east side of Route 601 (Old Garth Road), west of Colthurst Farm subdivision and southwest of Route 654; proposal to divide 6.10 acres into two lots of approximately 3.0 acres each. Jack Jouett District. (TM 60, Parcel 4H). Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mr. Tom Gale, of W. S. Roudabush, Inc., representing the applicant, explained that the property in question was steep on both sides, but that there are several places on Lot 1 and 2 with building sites. The slope of the driveway, he continued, will have to be 18%, which is the maximum recommended by the County. Mr.,Gale indicated that the applicant agreed with the prime and double seal recommendation. Mr. Gale said that Mr. Trevillian had indicated he would like to see a transition off the State road onto the 18% driveway. Mr. Gale explained that the slope banks would be within the access easement, between thirty and fifty feet in width. With regard to floodplain, Mr. Gale said that there might be a small portion of the property within it. He added that although there were slopes of 25%, with three acres to choose from it was no problem to get 30,000 contiguous square feet as a building site. With regard to density, Mr. Gale said that one dwelling unit per ten acres is the requirement. He explained that the applicant wanted to make this division because of the difficulty he had experienced with the slow market. Mr. Gale said that his client has had the property on the market for some time; he said that, as he had stated earlier, there was an ideal building site on the back of Lot 1 and several on Lot 2. Mr. Gale said that the driveway location, necessary due to slope configuration, back to Lot 1 would logically cut the property into two lots. Mr. Gale said that the Health Department had indicated the soils were good on this property; he did not believe the septic systems would present any hazard to the watershed. Mr. Gale mentioned that there was a water line from Colthurst about fifty feet from the back of the property line and the applicant was currently investigating the possibility of obtaining an easement to provide public water. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Gale to further identify this property, as he was very familiar with this road. It was determined that the property lay closer to Barracks Road than to Farmington. Mr. Gale said that if there were a State road to serve Lot 2, he did not know whether the issue of one unit per ten acres would apply. He pointed out that for two lots you could not in any event build a State road. Ms. Nash asked whether there were well sites on both Lot 1 and 2 if the water line were not extended. Mr. Gale said that he did not believe there would be any problem locating wells on these sites. Ms. Imhoff confirmed that the lots were within the jurisdictional area for public water. 0 Mr. Gale stated that the applicant would need an easement across two properties in order to connect to that water line. Ms. Nash ascertained that the water line does not run down Route 622. Mr. Michel remarked that he would not object to this request, although the road is bad and the drive would be steep, with appropriate conditions. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any public comment. When there was not, he announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis remarked that problems had arisen in the past when granting waivers and that he would find it hard to support this request. Mr. Michel countered that it would be hard to deny this request, since lots in the neighborhood in either direction were of less density. Mr. Payne pointed out that if the Board adopted the amendment recommended by Mr. Keeler,a waiver would not be required; but he added, no assumption could be made on future Board action. Mr. Skove and Mr. Bowerman concurred that although the private roads ordinance was reworked after the zoning ordinance, they could support this waiver request. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Trevillian of the Engineering Department whether he wished to offer any further comment on the roads. Mr. Trevillian responded because the road was especially steep, perhaps a twenty -foot landing at the base where it connects with the State Road would satisfy Engineering requirements. He added that anything over fifteen percent should be primed and double - sealed; Mr. Trevillian indicated that eighteen percent is Engineering's maximum. He added that he would be happy to work with the applicant's engineer to resolve any problems. Mr. Skove ascertained from Mr. Trevillian that he saw no problem with the portion of the applicant's property located in the floodplain. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the final plat, subject to the conditions recommended by Staff, and including the waiver of Section 18-36b(5): 1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Provide verification of ownership (proper titled owners must sign the plat); b. Delineate the floodplain; C. Verification of a 30,000 square foot area of less than twenty-five percent (25%) slope on lot one; t d. Compliance with the private road provisions including: 1) County Engineer approval of road plans; 2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement; e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance permit; f. Compliance with Runoff Control provisions, if deemed necessary by the County Engineer; g. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, if necessary. 2. The Albemarle County Planning Commission grants the request for a waiver of Section 18-36b(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section of the Ordinance states that the average density in a subdivision shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for that area. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed 4 - 1 with Mr. Davis voting against the motion. F. Ragland Final Plat - Located on the south side of Route 641, west of Route 640 and Burnleys; proposal to create a 2.01-acre lot with 19.99 acres in residue. Rivanna District. (TM 22, portion of Parcel 3). REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL. Mr. Skove moved for acceptance of the applicant's request for withdrawal; Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Broadus Wood Elementary School Addition Site Plan - Located on the west side of Route 663, northwest of Earlysville and south of Route 664; proposal to add 17,281 square feet to an existing (19,621 square foot) elementary school building. White Hall District. (TM 31, Parcels lA and 2). Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report. Mr. Bob Moje of Vickery Partnership, Architects, introduced himself along with Mr. Massie of the Education Department, Mrs. Marjorie Weber, Principal at Broadus Wood, and Mr. Sam Saunders of Gloeckner, Lincoln and Osborne. Mr. Moje stated that the issue as hand was availability of water and the recommendation for fire -fighting at the building, not related to life -safety. He pointed out that the expertise of the fire official was not being questioned, but the hazard raised should a storage pond be placed on the site was far greater than a fire within the building. Mr. Moje remarked that such a pond would constitute an attractive nuisance, adding that even if such a pond were fenced, it would be expensive and dangerous on the school property. Mr. Moje contended that even should the pond be constructed, there was no guarantee of its being an adequate water resource. He stated that this type of expense would not be covered by the State Literary fund and that such a burden on the School Board v, was unfair, if such a pond was to provide fire protection not only to the school but also to the Earlysville area. Mrs. Marjorie Webber, Principal at Broadus Wood, told the Commission that school officials were very concerned over the prospect of a fire pond. She said that they felt such a pond might trade child safety for the school building, explaining that the presence of the pond made no difference in removing the children from the building in the case of a fire, which was the critical point. Mrs. Webber further contended that even though fenced, the pond would pose a challenge to elementary school children and children returning to the area after school to play. Mrs. Webber told the Commission that a water problem already existed at the school and that the wells were barely adequate. She said that a 5,000 gallon water tank was installed last spring to alleviate the problem. Barbara Harris, Chairman of Concerned Parents of Broadus Wood, said that she was present in lieu of 500 parents to express objection to the proposed fire pond, which represented a safety hazard to the children. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any public comment. When there was not, he declared the matter before the Commission. Mr. Ira Cortez told the Commission that he had on many occasions discussed the development in Earlysville. He stated that the nearest hydrant was 1.4 miles to Earlysville Forest, and that this was a dry hydrant. The only other hydrant, he added, was at the airport, serving the County all the way north to Greene. Mr. Cortez told the Commission that the Fire Department was being given an impossible task. He said that the amount of water necessary to extinguish a fire in a 4,000 square foot building was greater than what could be brought by the Earlysville Fire Department. In this case of the school, he continued, the square footage of the building was practically being doubled. Mr. Cortez said that of course he could never know that the amount of water stored in whatever storage facility used would save a life. Fire concerns, Mr. Cortez reminded the Commission, address human life and also protection of investment by the County. He suggested that the County wanted to protect its own investment. The Insurance Services Office recommends 2,000 gallons per minute per hour of fire protection for a building of this size, about 36 or 37,000 square feet, he commented. Mr. Cortez stated that by doubling the size of a large public building the already existing water problem in Earlysville was being further compounded. He said that although he did not know the answer to this problem, the zoning Ordinance required every developer to take care of his own property. Mr. Cortez also suggested that the School Board might realize a small savings in insurance rates by procuring a package policy for all of its schools. He mentioned that Mr. Massie would address this issue later. Mr. Cortez suggested that $30,000 to $40,000 was not an unreasonable price tag for fire protection of a building worth what the Broadus Wood School was worth. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cortez whether any other water source existed closer to the school than the dry hydrant at Earlysville Forest, such as a stream. Mr. Cortez responded that he had not really explored this possibility, although he had spoken to Mrs. Webber about a stream �'/ on her property, but Mr. Cortez stated that this was not a reasonable distance. He also pointed out that it was accessible only by a dirt road, not all-weather, two way, and would not be practical for trips by a fire engine back and forth. Mr. Kindrick mentioned that probably the nearest stream would be off Route 743. He stated that in considering a water storage tank on the school property, he would be concerned if such a facility was for use in the area that fire trucks coming in and out during the school day would pose a greater attraction to the children than a water pond. Mr. Cortez agreed with Mr. Kindrick's concern, saying that he would hope that an underground storage system could be located near a public road, safely distant from school children. Mr. Cortez said that all he could continue to point out was the need for water. He lamented that the water line could not be extended from the airport, which he stated he would love to see occur, but which would cost $20 a foot for three and a half miles. Mr. Cortez said that Earlysville is a designated village and development continues, but there is no water. He added that it is not the fault of the school, but the bullet is going to have to be bitten. He said that the 1980 ordinance is a lot more stringent than the previous one. Mr. Cortez said that it was up to the Commission to decide if this water protection for the school was a reasonable price. Mr. Skove asked whether the water issue was not so much a life- saving matter as property -saving. Mr. Cortez answered probably, but he could never say for sure. He said that in fire drills he believed children at the school exited in two minutes, thirty seconds. Mrs. Webber corrected Mr. Cortez, saying that the children can exit in fifty-five seconds. Mr. Skove said that this meant the children would be out before arrival of the fire department; Mr. Cortez agreed. Mr. Michel asked whether Code requirements for a school were expecially stringent. Mr. Cortez said that he had not yet seen the plans but there was no limit on floor space. Mr. Davis remarked that he could not imagine building a school without adequate fire protection. He suggested that if a tank above ground were a danger that it be placed underground. Mr. Kindrick said that a tank only for school use underground had not been suggested and he did not believe there was a school in the County that had its own water reservoir. Air. Davis asked Mr. Cortez whether he could provide specifications on an underground water storage tank necessary to protect the school building. Mr. Cortez responded that there is a bladder -type inflatable device on the market that sets on a rise of ground using gravity that does not require pumping systems. Mr. Cortez estimated the costs of the materials to be anywhere from $25,000 to $28,000. Mr. Moje said that this would be only the liner, that overall cost for such a device would come to something closer to $100,000. He added that putting a pond on top of a hill is hardly desirable. Mr. Saunders said that he questioned whether the inflatable structure would be a permanent type, maintainable facility. He said that he had been working on this problem with Mr. Cortez for some time. Mr. Saunders suggested that even with this bladder - type device, you were talking about a 16,000 cubic foot underground tank. He said that this would run to $100,000 and have something above ground, which could entail siting problems with school fields. Mr. Davis said that he knew for smaller storage tanks of three or four thousand gallons, you could buy used stainless steel for a dollar a gallon. He suggested that there must be a cheaper method than eighty cents a gallon for 120,000 gallons. Mr. Bowerman asked what the school construction costs were estimated to be. It was determined the figure was one and a half million. Mr. Michel remarked that since there was no apparent threat to life he would be willing to let it go with the note that the Board of Supervisors hear it. Mr. Skove asked Mrs. Webber would consider an old-fashioned above- ground water storage tank a danger. She replied that she did not really know, but that there was more trouble with children using the school grounds during non -school hours than with supervised children during the school day. She suggested that children would climb anything. Mr. Kindrick asked how it was proposed to fill this storage tank. Mr. Cortez replied that wells could be drilled, that it was of no concern how long it took to fill the tank, just how long it took to empty it. He gave an example of an above -ground storage tank at the Woolen Mills with a one -inch pipe that might take over a month to fill but could empty if needed in four or five minutes. Mr. Kindrick wondered how such a tank could be used for anything other than the school building, under such circumstances. Mr. Cortez said that it wouldn't on a regular basis, but the Code permitted fire departments to use any available water source. Mrs. Harris asked to speak again, and Mr. Bowerman permitted her to address the Commission. She asked whether if it could be demonstrated that the children could be evacuated safely from the building and that a storage pond would present a danger to the children and that insurance rates were no higher with or without the storage pond, and should a fire occur in the future, the insurance would not pay to replace the school building structure. Mr. Davis responded that no insurance ever paid to replace a building. Unfortunately, Mr. Cortez, stated, this was an attitude popular among the general public and fire marshals love to hear it. Mr. Cortez questioned where the children would be absorbed in the County school system and stated that only eighty percent of the value of the building would be paid for by insurance. Mr. Cortez stated that a lot is lost in a fire in addition to the structure itself. Mr. Bowerman stated that he had always supported Mr. Cortez' recommendations and that he would not approve this type of building without fire protection. Mr. Bowerman said that probably the best choice was an underground tank, providing safety to the children and protection to the building. He said that it appeared that such a facility would cost anywhere from one or two percent of the project cost to seven percent. Mr. Bowerman said that he would have a difficult time approving this without an adequate supply of water to fight a potential fire. He added that the position of the school on the hazard of an above -ground pond or tank was reasonable. R Mr. Skove asked whether the building would be sprinklered. Mr. Cortez replied that it would not. Mr. Skove wondered whether it was more property -safety than a question of life -safety; but he said it seemed like something out of a Dickens novel to build a school without fire protection. Mr. Davis said that it was hoped that it would not be life -safety. Mr. Cortez said that it was in the school's favor that it was all on one story. Miss Nash asked whether the 120,000 gallon requirement was for water storage to serve the Earlysville area or just for the school. Mr. Cortez replied that this gallon amount was strictly calculated on what the school would require, although in case of need, the fire department could draw from any resource to fight an area fire. Mr. Cortez said that any pond or swimming pool could be used. Mr. Davis wondered whether there were actual instances of children getting into ponds or climbing water storage tanks. Mrs. Webber mentioned that residents in Earlysville Forest are complaining that children come down to that pond and people need special liability coverage to protect themselves. Mr. Moje questioned how much of a problem it might be to keep a pond full. Mrs. Webber contended that the school already had a water problem. Mr. Bowerman said that he thought that a pond had been ruled out, due to the safety hazard to the children, and that any facility would be underground. Mr. Skove wondered whether the Commission should take a look at the entire Earlysville area. Mr. Bowerman agreed that some other source of water was needed there. Ms. Imhoff read the modified conditions of approval, l.e. and 2.b. Mr. Davis moved for approval, subject to the conditions outlined by Staff: 1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: �o� a. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; b. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans; C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance improvements; e. Fire Official approval of fire protection storage system; f. County Engineer approval of sidewalk and pavement specifications. 2. A certificate of occupancy can be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. All improvements must be constructed or bonded; b. Fire Official approval of fire flow. Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which passed 3 - 2 with Messers. Kindrick and Skove voting against the motion. Mr. Skove reiterated that it would be better to discuss this water issue in the broader context of the area, not just as a problem of the school. 7-Eleven (Hydraulic/29) Site Plan - Located on the northwest side of the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Route 29 (southbound lane); proposal to locate a 2,318 square foot convenience store on a .34- acre lot. Charlottesville District. (TM 61W, Parcel 3-25). Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report. Mr. John DeBell, representing the applicant, explained that the Highway Department improvements on Route 29 and Hydraulic affected this site. He suggested that the intersection will be greatly improved with only turns in and out and no crossovers. Mr. DeBell stated that since submitting the site plan, all the changes that the applicant believed could be made had been made. He added that the site was a small lot but that all the standards of the ordinance including landscaping requirements had been met. Mr. DeBell pointed out that this use would be less intense than the previous use on the property. Mr. DeBell said that the entrance on Route 29 was vital to the site and being a right turn in and a right turn out, he did not believe this entrance would cause problems. He said that Southland Corporation had been trying to negotiate the purchase of additional adjoining property and attempting to obtain ingress/egress easements in order to improve the site, but so far the applicant had not been able to make much progress. Mr. DeBell said that efforts would continue and hopefully in the future the applicant would come before the Commission with a modified, preferred layout. However, he stressed, the applicant had commitments and had to proceed at this time with the current site plan. 45- /Z Mr. DeBell said that the applicant had no problem with most of the technical comments of the Staff, such as relocation of the dumpster and marking of parking spaces. However, the gas facility was essential to the business, Mr. DeBell stated, and without it the applicant could not proceed. He said that 7-Eleven stores typically do not have lines at the the gas pumps; being a convenience setup, traffic comes through quickly. He asked in closing for approval of the site plan, with the Route 29 entrance and the gas pumps; Mr. DeBell said that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was none, he declared the matter before the Commission. Mr. Davis remarked that the toughest issue was the entrance on Route 29. He added that in reading Article 32.5.8.01 this case did not fit in any of the three examples included. Mr. Davis added that there had always been an entrance at this location, however. Ms. Nash asked about whether a previous request for an entrance at Shoppers' World had been turned down, as had a similar request on Pantops. Mr. Payne stated that this issue had come up several times before and after this article was made part of the Zoning Ordinance. He and Ms. Imhoff recalled related problems with Augusta Lumber on Route 29 North. Mr. Michel questioned whether the Commission had the right to deny the gas pumps. Ms. Imhoff responded that she believed the Commission could if it determined that the pumps posed a traffic hazard on and off Route 29, a safety factor. Mr. Payne informed the Commission that it had to make an affirm- ative determination with an identifiable reason if it chose to deny such a request, as not consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod whether he could add anything on the subject of traffic flow at this site. Mr. Elrod responded that he did not believe two entrances to the site would cause any problem off site; but that cars coming onto the site from Route 29 had quite an angle to make, going around two parking spaces. He said that coming in and exiting the site on Hydraulic did not have a similar problem. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod whether the site would work better with just the convenience store and no gas. Mr. Elrod said that he had not considered the matter at length, but obviously it would be easier for cars to come onto the site and turn around without the gas pumps. Ms. Nash observed that the Commission was seeing more and more of these combination gas and convenience -store operations. Mr. DeBell asked to show that an aisle on site would allow turns into parking spaces without causing congestion. He reiterated the inherent difficulties of the parcel and stated that they had tried to make the best of it. (11( Mr. Elrod clarified to the applicant that he had not intended in any way to suggest that the design was poor or to criticize the r applicant's efforts. Mr. Davis remarked that he did not so much have a problem with whether or not the gas pumps should be on site, but rather with the entrance on Route 29. Mr. Skove concurred. Mr. Michel observed that if every parking space were full, he would imagine a definite congestion problem on site. Mr. Bowerman said that he had the impression a consensus was forming for eliminating the Route 29 entrance. He asked the Commissioners how they felt about the gas pumps. Mr. Kindrick responded that he had trouble with the entrance but not the gas pumps. He pointed out that with the decel lane around the intersection, a lot of cars would take it to avoid the light and create an expressway right by this entrance. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Imhoff for some suggested amendments to the conditions. She responded that the entrance on Route 29 would not be permitted unless specifically granted in the conditions. Mr. Payne stated that although he believed Ms. Imhoff was technically correct, he would advise for absolute clarity on the record, that the entrance be specifically deleted in the conditions. Mr. Davis moved for approval of the site plan with the amended conditions as outlined by Staff: 1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. County Engineer approval of urban curbing on interior of site and sidewalk specifications; b. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans; C. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and handicapped provisions as per memo dated March 15, 1983. (Site Review Meeting comments) ; d. Planning Staff and Fire Official approval of relocation of dumpster to less visible area; e. Approval by the appropriate authority of a separate permit for the installation of gas tanks and dispensers; f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; g. Approval of the redesign of parking arrangement to include relocation of the handicapped space and improvement of traffic circulation; h. Amend the site plan to delete the entrance onto Route 29 North. 2. The applicant is put on notice that this approval does not constitute approval of the proposed sign or its location. This approval must be obtained from the Zoning Department. 617 j: 3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following conditions must be met by the applicant: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. All improvements must be planted, constructed or bonded. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:40 p.m. eoz�YIAIr /q . R bert W. Tucker, Jr Se retary 9 418