HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 17 83 PC MinutesMay 17, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
Tuesday, May 17, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman, Mr. Richard
Cogan, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mrs. Norma Diehl, Mr.
Tim Michel and Mr. James R. Skove. Other officials present were
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Ms. Ellen V. Nash,
ex-Officio and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the
meeting was Mr. Allen Kindrick.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order.
The minutes of March 29, 1983 were approved as submitted.
Branchlands (PUD) Retirement Village, Phase One Site Plan - located off
the east side of U.S. Route 29 North, on the north side of Greenbrier
Drive and south of the Fashion Square Mall; proposal to locate 20 dwelling
units in two 2-story condominium buildings (10 units each) and 26 town-
house units on 1.38 acres with 1.83 acres in common open space (total
site area, Phase One: 3.93 acres). Charlottesville Magisterial District.
(TM 61Z, Parcels 03-4,5). DEFERRED FROM APRIL 26.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Ron Langman, the applicant, stated there has been some discussion
concerning the road system particularly in relationship of the
Branchlands Collector Road, Greenbrier Drive and the existing Branchlands
entrance road. He noted that there have been several meetings with the
Highway Department, County Engineer and Dr. Hurt regarding this issue and
pointed out that they are still attempting to clarify this matter. With
this issue still unclear, Mr. Langman stated that he would like to bond
the road improvements until this has been clarified.
Mr. Langman pointed out that the bikeway has been built around the Church's
property, noting that this was to be built on the western side but was
relocated because of the steep grades and slopes in the area. He stated
that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may
have.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
/41g
Mr. Michael Bedner, representing the Church of The Incarnation, read
a letter from Rev. Michael D. McCarron to Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff dated
May 11, 1983. He pointed out that the relocation of the bikeway as
proposed by the applicant would not be acceptable to the Church pointing
out that it would border the Church's property on three sides. He stated
that the bikeway should be built on the western side of the property as
originally intended.
Mr. Bedner also stated his concern with the 10' retaining wall along
the northern boundary. He stated that it is his understanding that in
order to have the parking area level, the fence would be installed on
top of the retaining wall, pointing out that this would present a
serious hazard.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman read condition 3.b. as outlined in the staff report and
asked Mr. Bedner if this met with his approval. (CONDITION 3.b. -
Obtain written acceptance of bikeway location through Area B from the
Church of the Incarnation. Then provide and record a public easement
for bike/pedestrian pathway through Area B.)
Mr. Bedner stated that he is not certain of the location of the bikeway
along the western boundary, but stated that he is willing to work with
the applicant regarding the location of the bikeway. He also asked if
it was necessary for the bikeway to be located on the Church's property.
Ms. Imhoff stated that there needs to be a linkage between Area B and
Area A of the Branchlands property. She pointed out that there is no
requirement that the bikeway be located on the Church's property.
Mr. Bedner reiterated his concern regarding the location of the bikeway
in regards to the Church's property.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that when the PUD was approved the Church stated
that they would grant an easement across their property for the bikeway,
pointing out that there are no such assurances from the owners of Area F.
She also noted that the condition (3.b.) as outlined in the staff report
gives a great deal of leeway as to the location of the bikeway.
Mr. Langman stated that one of the problems in designing the bikeway
was the steep slopes in the area as well as the location of the stormwater
detention facility. He stated that he is willing to negotiate the
location of the bikeway with the Church.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the location of the bikeway could
be dealt with by the applicant, representative of the Church and the
Planning staff.
Mi. Bowerman noted for the benefit of the applicant and the representative
of the Church that if the issue regarding the location of the bikeway
can not be resolved by the applicant, staff and representative of the
Church, the applicant would have to ask for reconsideration of this
issue by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked for some clarifiation regarding the parking lot and
the retention wall.
Mr. Tom Trevillian, Engineer, stated that the retaining wall, as
proposed by the applicant, is a standard retaining wall used by the
Highway Department. He pointed out that the BOCA Code states that
any retaining wall over four feet high has to have a handrail.
Ms. Imhoff stated that a condition could be added to the conditions
of approval to read:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any Section (A-D)
of Phase I, of Branchlands PUD Retirement Village Site plan the
following conditions must be met:
1. County Engineer approval of safety barrier for the retaining
wall in Section D.
Also this condition should be added as follows:
3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
section (A-D) the following conditions must be met:
1. Construction (no bonding) of safety barrier for retaining wall
in Section D.
Mr. Bowerman noted the intent regarding the road in this development was
to allow some flexibility because it was not clear what would be developed
at the time the original PUD was reviewed. He stated that he felt
Access Road 2 could be bonded (instead of constructed) at this time.
Mr. Skove asked what time frame is applied to bonds.
Mr. Payne stated that the length of bonds depends on the situation, noting
that in this case a period in excess of eighteen months would be
inappropriate.
Mr. Skove stated that he would like the bond to be limited to twelve
months, allowing the Commission the opportunity to review this to
determine if the road has been built.
Mrs. Diehl noted that there is an expired site plan for this site and
asked if this plan was reviewed under the existing PUD.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the expired site plan was for two condominium
buildings and noted that this was reviewed under the same conditions as
the current site plan.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the drainage plans for each section
is consistent with the original approval.
Ms. Imhoff ascertained that there is vegetation (large mature trees)
along one side of the lake.
Mr. Michel asked if Greenbrier Drive Extended has been built.
Mr. Byron Coburn, representing the Highway Department, stated that
approximately 700' along Greenbrier Dirve is under construction at
this time noting that the plans for Greenbrier Drive Extended have been
approved.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any Sction (A-D)
of Phase I, of Branchlands (PUD) Retirement Village Site Plan, the
following conditions must be met:
a. Note all drainage easements for each section;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
c. No grading permit shall be issued for a public or private road
until road plans are approved by Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation and/or County Engineer;
d. Extension of Greenbrier Drive from the end of state maintenance
to the Branchlands collector road shall be designed in accordance`s
with Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards
to accomodate traffic anticipated from the Branchlands collector
road and Areas C and D and dedicated for acceptance into the
State system. From the Branchlands collector road to Areas C
and D, Greenbrier Drive shall be designed in accordance with
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards to
accomodate traffic anticipated from Areas C and D and dedicated
for acceptance into the State system;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance on Greenbrier Drive and a commercial entrance
on Rt. 29N with a right turn lane, if required;
f. Provide the County Engineer with details and hydraulic computations
for the bridge for Access Road 2;
g. County Attorney approval of homeowners association agreements
for maintenance of private roadways, parking areas, bikeways/
pathways, recreational areas, lake, drainage and appurtenant
structures and other commonly -owned or common use amenities;
h. Compliance with Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
i. Note future phasing of bikeway construction in Area C, Phase One,
to satisfaction of Planning Department;
j. Fire Official approval of fire department access from the
existing Church road (width of gate entrance);
k. Compliance with ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63;
1. County Engineer approval of safety barrier for the retaining
wall in Section D.
kV
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each Section (A, B,
C or D) of the Branchlands (PUD) Retirement Village, Phase One Site
Plan, the following conditions must be met for that particular
section (s) :
a. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans and grading
plans for each section. These plans must be drawn to a 1" -
20' scale;
b. Planning staff approval of a detailed landscaping plan for
each section;
C. Planning staff approval of appropriate landscaping along the
fence.
3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any section
(A-D) the following conditions must be met:
a. Construction or bonding as per plans to be approved by the County
Engineer of bikeway through Area B;
b. Obtain written acceptance of bikeway location through Area B
from the Church of the Incarnation. Then provide and record
a public easement for bike/pedestrian pathway through Area B;
C. Construction (no bonding) of proposed 6' fence along Area C's
northern boundary as shown on May 3, 1983 plan;
d. Construction of Access Road 2 to be bonded according to road
plans approved by the County Engineer;
e. If not completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
construction of Greenbrier Drive extended to be bonded accord-
ing to ultimate design as approved by the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation and the County Engineer;
f. Landscaping, if not planted, shall be bonded prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that particular section
(A-D) with the exception that landscaping along the fence shall
be planted/or bonded according to a plan to be approved by the
Planning staff prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the first section (A-D) of Branchlands (PUD)
Retirement Village, Phase I Site Plan to be developed;
g. Construction or bonding of all recreational facilities shown
on the approved site plan shall occur prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for the first section (A-D) of
Branchlands (PUD) Retirement Village Site Plan to be developed;
h. If not constructed according to plans approved by the County
Engineer prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the first section (A-D) to be developed; private road sections
1 and 3 shall be bonded;
i. All other improvements not noted above to be constructed or
bonded by section prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for that particular section;
j. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
k. Subdivision approval of condominium regime prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for section D noted on Play 3, 1983
15A
site plan.
1. Construction (no bonding) of safety barrier for retaining wall
in Section D.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
South Pantops Drive Final Plat - located on the south side of South Pantops
Drive, bordered by the Rivanna River; proposal to divide a 1.492 acre parcel,
currently used as Bressan Catering, from the larger parcel. Rivanna
District. (TM 78, portion of parcel 20).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Ms. Melody Bisner, representing the applicant, questioned the need for
condition l.f. and l.g. noting that this road extends up to the State Farm
entrance. (Condition l.f.: Construction of South Pantops Drive to its
ultimate section to the end of dedication and according to plans to be
approved by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation for accep-
tance into the State system and according to plans approved by the County
Engineer). (Condition l.g.: Note temporary turn arounds at end of
dedication for South Pantops Drive).
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that both of these conditions speak to the
ultimate road design, as per plans to be approved by the Highway Department.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification regarding condition l.c. of the staff
report. (Condition l.c.: Note easement to parcel 15C(1) or combine parcel
15C(1) with parcel 15C to assure access).
Ms. Imhoff stated that this parcel (15C1) as shown on the plat does not have
access to the 60' right-of-way, therefore you must provide for an easement
or join parcel 15C to 15C1 which would provide for an entrance on the
right-of-way.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the staff is only requiring the applicant to build
the ultimate section of the road up to the 1.49 acre parcel.
Mr. Byron Coburn, representing the Highway Department, stated that they
have completed a preliminary review of the road plans and have submitted
this to the County Engineer. He stated that an investigation of the existing
farm road needs to be done in order to determine if what was built is suit-
able for inclusion into the State system. He stated that the road can be
built if one assumes that no road has been built. He also noted that if the
road was built (or improved to State standards) at one time then there
should be no further technicalities.
/53
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met
by the applicant:
a. Delineate 100 year flood plan location;
b. Note all drainage and utility easements;
C. Note easement to Parcel 15C(1) or combine Parcel 15C(1) with
parcel 15C to assure access;
d. Provision of a street sign;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
f. Construction of South Pantops Drive to its utlimate section
to the end of dedication and 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;
g. Note on the plats temporary turn arounds at end of dedication
for South Pantops Drive.
2. The plat dedicating portions of Riverbend Drive and South Pantops
Drive must be recorded prior to or simultanteouslv with the South
Pantops 1.492 acre Final Plat. Please note on the plat temporary
turn arounds at the end of dedication for South Pantops Drive and
Riverbend Drive.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Archibald Craige Final Plat - located off the north side of Route 22,
just west of its intersection with Route 744; proposal to divide a
10.0 acre parcel leaving 254.08 acres in residue. Rivanna District.
(TM 79, portion of parcel 46).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Archibald Craige, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment regarding this plat.
Mr. Paul Peatross, representing Springdale Land Trust, stated that they
have two concerns with this proposed subdivision, they are as follows:
1) He pointed out that the existing entrance of Rt. 22 is not the
actual entrance in accordance with the deeded right-of-way. The
1%W actual entrance is approximately 40-50 feet to the north.
2) There is approximately three hundred and eighty (380) feet of
sight distance to the north, pointing out that the requirement
is five hundred feet (500'). He stated, for the record, that the
owner of Springdale Land Trust would like to be notified if there
is any cutting on Springdale property as opposed to the right-of-way
in order to obtain the necessary sight distance.
Mr. Peatross asked if the entrance is located where it should be
according to the legal right-of-way would there still be a problem
with sight distance.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that according to Mr. Peatross the existing
entrance is approximately 40' to the north of the right-of-way.
Mr. Peatross pointed out on the plat the location of the right-of-way
according to recorded deeds.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the position of Springdale Land Trust is
regarding the right-of-way.
Mr. Peatross stated that it is their preference to use the actual (deeded)
entrance and the road as shown on the plat, which is the legal right-
of-way, as opposed to using the existing entrance.
Mr. Byron Coburn, representing the Hi-ghway Department, stated that
the entrance was shifted to the northeast because of utilities located
along the right-of-way. He stated that sight distance can be obtained
through some minor clearing most of which is along the State highway
right-of-way. He pointed out that if the entrance were shifted back as
shown in the deeds, the utilities would have to be moved, and that sight
distance could be obtained. He pointed out that when the Highway
Department issues an entrance permit the actual owner of the property must
sign the permit.
Mr. Craige stated that he did not know when the existing entrance was
built pointing out that the road has been in existence for years. He
also noted that he felt there was adequate sight distance.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the Highway Department will review the
existing entrance to be sure it is used only as an agricultural entrance.
Mr. Cogan stated that the applicant will have to meet the requirements
of the Highway Department, therefore he moved for approval of this plat
subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met
by the applicant:
a. Provide the deed book reference for the existing 20' right-of-way;
b. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
a) County Engineer approval of road plans and specifications;
lSS
b) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Earlysville Forest Doctor's Office Site Plan - located off the north
side of Route 743 near the corner of the intersection of Route 743 and
Earlysville Forest Drive; proposal to locate a 1,400 square foot (1
story with basement) building on 3.77 acre parcel in the Earlysville
Forest PUD. Rivanna District. (TM 31B, parcel C). REQUESTS
DEFERRAL TO JULY.
Mrs. Diehl moved to defer the above noted site plan to July, 1983.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
George A. Taylor Lots 2-4 Final Plat - located on the west side of
Route 663, south of the intersection with Routes 664 and 665, north-
west of Earlysville; proposalto create three lots of approximately
3.0 acres each leaving 34.27 acres in resideu. White Hall District.
(TM 19, parcel 21.)
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that he would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that he could not justify granting the waiver of
Section 18-36(b)(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Imhoff stated that either a waiver would have to be granted for
this final plat or for the George A. Taylor Lots 5 & 6 and A-D Final
Plat, noting that there is not enough acreage to create the lots and
obtain the density of one dwelling unit per ten acres.
Mr. Davis pointed out that this proposal is in the watershed. He also
pointed out that the Commission, in order to grant a waiver, should
decide if the private roads are necessary because of topography and
if the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan are met. He stated that
he can not support the request for the waiver.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the density in this area is one unit per
ten acres, noting that if the Commission does not grant a waiver of
Section 18-36(b)(5), lot #4 could be relocated, which in turn would
add an additional entrance.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that if the waiver was not granted an additional
entrance would be created. fronting on Rt. 663.
Mr. Skove stated that the Zoning Ordinance is not in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan regarding private roads, noting that the Commission
has granted this waiver in the past.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to minimize the number of
entrances onto Rt. 663. He pointed out that the issue relating to
private roads is being review at this time by the Private Roads
Committee. He also stated that the Commission has waived this
provision in the past, therefore a precedent has been established.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out instances in the past where the Commission
did not grant the waiver of Section 18-36(b)(5) of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Mr. Foster explained to the Commission how this division could be
accomplished administratively (for lot #3), and the remainder of the
proposals submitted with a density of greater than ten acres, pointing
out that this is not the best planning for this property.
Mr. Foster stated that they did not consolidate the two lots becasue
of problems that occur when bonding for improvements to roads (construction).
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that there will be over five lots served by
this private road, therefore the road requirements will be 14' travel -
way, 6" stone and prime and double seal.
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.
Correct magisterial
district to "White
Hall";
b.
Compliance with the
private road
provisions including:
1) County Engineer
final approval
of road plans;
2) County Attorney
approval of a
maintenance agreement;
C.
Compliance with the
Soil Erosion
& Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d.
County Engineer approval of final
drainage plans, if applicable;
e.
Virginia Department
of Highways &
Transportation approval of
private entrance permit.
l5-7
2. Waiver of Section 18-36(b)(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance granted.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1.
Mr. Davis voted against the motion.
George A. Taylor Lots 5 and 6 and A-D Final Plat - located on the west
side ot Route 663, south of the intersecti-o-F-w-Tit-IT Routes 664 and 665,
northwest of Earlysville; proposal to divide the 34.27 acre residue
from the George Taylor Lots 2-4 Final Plat into two lots of 9 and
25 acres and to divide approximately 34 acres into four lots ranging
in size from 3.6 acres to 20 acres. White Hall Magisterial District.
(TM 19, portion of parcel 21, TM 18, parcel 44D).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that he would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that a soil scientist report has been completed
for this property and a copy of it will be submitted to the Planning
Department for the file.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Correct magisterial district to "White Hall:"
b. Compliance with the private road provisions including:
1) County Engineer final approval of road plans and profiles;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
C. County Engineer final approval of drainage plans;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a private street commercial entrance;
f. Provision of a street sign;
g. Submit a copy of the Soil Scientist report for Planning Department
files.
Mr. Miche seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
/ S. Y
Fountain Court Condominiums Final Plat - located off the west side of
Rio Road East (Route 631), north of Greenbrier Drive; proposal to con-
vert the fifty-eight (58) existing Fountain Court apartment units into
condominiums for sale. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (TM 62A(1),
parcel 02-6). REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Cogan moved to accept the request for indefinite deferral of this
final plat.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Inglewood Square Condominiums, Final Plat - located on the north side
of Inglewood Drive, west of Hydraulic Road and east of Berkshire Road;
proposal to convert the forty-two (42) existing apartment units into
condominiums for sale. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (TM 61K,
parcel 05-1B). REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Cogan moved to accept the request for indefinite deferral of this
final plat.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
University of Virginia Gilmer Hall Addition Site Plan - located on
the south side of McCormick Road; west of its intersection with Route
29 (Business); proposal to construct a 60,000 square foot addition to
the existing Gilmer Hall for use as research space for the Departments
of Biology and Psychology.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Waller Hunt, representing the University, stated that a three story
addition to Gilmer Hall is planned and intended to expand the capacity
of the biology and psychology departments. The lecture hall will seat
two hundred and fifty (250) students. He pointed out that they have
presented their proposal to the State Art & Architectural Review Council
and noted that they approved this plan.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the undergraduate students will be allowed
to use this library.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the runoff from this site will go directly
into the storm sewer.
Mr. Hunt stated that there are no plans to increase parking around
Gilmer Hall.
45:17
Mr. Skove pointed out that one of the Planning staff's concerns is
that there is not adequate parking provided.
Mr. Hunt noted the problems relating to parking in and around the University
area, but stated that they did not feel that the University should provide
parking. He noted that their Capital Program does include provisions
for parking garages in the future.
The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Hunt for the opportunity to review
this plan and noted that copies of the staff report and the County
Engineer's comments will be sent to him for his information.
The Planning Commission noted that they would be interested in being
informed on how their comments are incorporated in the actual construction
of University projects. They also noted that if possible they would like
more detailed plans or as -built plans submitted to the Planning Department
for their review.
University of Virginia Student Activity Building Site Plan - located at
the northeast corner of Alderman and Stadium Roads on the northwest
corner of the west parking lot at Scott Stadium; proposal to locate a
8,000 square foot student activity building.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Waller Hunt, representing the University, stated that this building
will be located near the dorm and will be used as a group meeting place.
He noted that this proposal will tie into the existing stormwater
detention facility used by the dorm. He aslo stated that he felt some
additional landscaping was needed and pointed out that they will consider
the recommendation of a sidewalk along the frontage of Alderman Road.
Mrs. Diehl noted her concern with pedestrian traffic in this area.
Mr. Bowerman again pointed out that the Commission would be interested
in knowing how their comments are incorporated by the University.
The Planning Commission expressed their concern with the safety of the
Alderman and Stadium Road intersection. While this project is not
located directly at this intersection, the Planning Commission is
concerned with vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated to and from
the proposed activity building. The Planning Commission recommends
that the University explore all possible safety measures for the
Stadium/Alderman Road intersection and methods to reduce hazards to
pedestrians along Alderman Road. A copy of the staff report as
prepared by the Planning staff and the County Engineer's comments will
be sent to Mr. Hunt for his information.
400
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Skove stated that he felt the Commission should adopt a policy
speaking to runoff control.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the County Engineer uses the State Soil
Erosion Best Management Practices Handbook as a guide in their review
of proposals.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that there is a seminar held at VPI which outlines
needs for detention basins, types of planning methods. She pointed out
that this seminar is attended by planners as well as engineers.
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS:
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there is a problem in the interpretation
of the ordinance. He noted that the County Attorney, County Engineer
and Planning staff are working on the proper requirements for condo-
minium conversions.
Ms. Imhoff stated that they are having difficulties in determining
what needs to be shown on the plat to make it a legal condominium
document. She noted that the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
which speaks to condominium regimes can be enforced by the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission. The requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance can not be enforced unless the applicant states that his plat
will conform with the Zoning Ordinance. Under the Subdivision Ordinance
you can require drainage plans. She pointed out that the Commission
should not review condominiums as existing buildings, but strictly as
division of property (subdivision).
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Commission could only deny a condominium
conversion if they found that it was not in compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance. She stated that a condominium conversion does not have to
comply with the Zoning Ordinance unless the public offering statement
states that the conversion shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Imhoff noted, however, that the Subdivision Ordinance states that the
lot size must comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that one of the problems with converting apartments
to condominiums is that often there are not enough parking spaces provided.
i�%
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Michel stated that the Private Roads Committee has a meeting
scheduled to work on the issue of private roads, after this meeting
they will present their findings to the Planning Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m..
rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secre
/( A