HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 28 83 PC MinutesJune 28, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on
Tuesday, June 28, 1983, at 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. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Tim Michel, Mr. James
R. Skove and Mrs. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were Ms. Mason
Caperton, Senior Planner, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner and Ms.
Ellen V. Nash, ex-officio. Absent from the meeting were Mr. Corwith Davis,
Jr. and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order.
The minutes of May 24, 1983 were approved as sumbitted.
Hydraulic Road Garden Court Townhouses Site Plan - located on the
southeast side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743), south of the intersection
with Rio Road (Rt. 631) and adjacent to the Townwood development;
proposal to locate 53 condominium townhouses on a 4.307 acre parcel
with bonus provisions. Charlottesville District. (TM 61, parcel 13).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Hank Browne, the applicant, stated that they are willing to use the
S-5 bituminous concrete as recommended by the County Engineer, rather
than the prime and double seal. He stated that he has no objections
to the recommended conditions of approval and noted that he would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted the 20% bonus request for landscaping and asked if
this was a more extensive landscaping plan from the one previously
submitted.
Mr. Browne stated that is essentially the same landscape plan with
the exception of the caliper of the trees and the size of the shrubs.
go
Mr. Bowerman asked if the central area shown on this plan is the
same as the one shown on the previously submitted plan.
Mr. Browne pointed out that the area which was shown on the previous
plan for a pool has been removed. He noted that this was shown on
the previous plan as "pool by condominium association, not by the
developer."
Mr. Bowerman asked what type of surface would be used on the jogging
trail.
Mr. Browne stated that a tan bark surface would be used, pointing out
that this would be put over plastic and edged.
Mr. Skove ascertained that if additional road frontage is needed for
the widening of Hydraulic Road, this will be taken from the other
side of the road.
Mr. Browne stated that the Highway Department has approved the entrance
subject to the documentation. He stated that in the event that the
land which has been donated for the widening of Hydraulic Road is not
needed, the Highway Department has agreed to return this land to them.
Mr. Michel noted the bonus for landscaping and asked if the applicant
would be willing to vary the size of the trees on the site.
Mr. Browne stated that the trees shown on the plat are five to six
feet tall, also noting that there are existing trees on the site which
they are trying to preserve.
Ms. Caperton stated that a condition which would allow staff to approve
a variety of tree sizes could be added to read:
• Staff approval of amendment to landscape plan noting the
size of trees.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building permits for any phase of development will be processed
when the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
the commercial entrance;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
C. Dedication of 25 feet from the center line of Rt. 743 by
separate deed or plat (if property is not needed by the
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, it is under-
stood that it may revert to the condominium association with
Highway Department approval);
94
d. The maintenance or roads, parking areas, open space,
recreational areas, drainage and appurtenant structures
shall be conducted by the homeowner's association;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
f. Only those areas where buildings, roads, utilities, or
other improvements are to be located shall be disturbed;
all other areas shall remain in a natural state;
g. County Engineer approval of the pavement specifications;
h. County Engineer approval of the detail of the jogging
trail specifications;
i. Staff approval of amended landscaping plan noting existing
or new large trees.
2. No certificate of occupancy will be processed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Subdivision approval for the condominium regime to include:
1) Homeowner's agreements;
b. County Engineer approval of the design and construction of
on -site stormwater detention or a contribution of $8,118 for
basin No. 2 and $2,044 for basin No. 1 being made to the
County by the developer for off -site drainage facilities.
The County Engineer will decide which of the above options
are to be selected. If basin NA. 1 is eliminated off -site
drainage work will be required to transport the runoff
to the natural watercourse 500 feet to the south.
3. Trees shall be maintained within the 20 foot rear yards where
possible, or the provision of new trees if a significant
amount are lost during grading and construction.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
At this point in the meeting Mr. Bowerman noted for the benefit
of the public that the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County
(which has been updated) is available for purchase in the Planning
Department.
,2? /5
William Coughlin Final Plat - located off the west side of
Rt. 676, in the Wispering Pines Division, approximately 2.0 Y
miles west of Ivy; proposal to divide approximately 11.11 acres
into two lots with an average lot size of 5.55 acres. Samuel
Miller District. (TM 57B, Parcel A). REQUESTS DEFERRAL.
Mrs. Diehl moved to defer the above noted plat to July 26, 1983.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously.
Ron Carter (Shack Mountain Property) Final Plat - located on the
east side of Rt. 657, east of Ivy Farms, Phase II Subdivision;
proposal to divide 16.37 acres into five (5) lots with an average
lot size of 3.22 acres. Jack Jouett District. (TM 45, parcel 19).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Carter stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns
the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that the matter
was before the Commission.
Ms. Caperton noted the location of Shack Mountain for the benefit
of the Commission.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the 40' strip which is to be donated to and
become part of the Nature Conservancy will protect the historic
value of the adjacent property.
Ms. Caperton noted that proof of a 30,000 square foot building
site was submitted on the preliminary plat.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the 35' rear building setback is
required.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is unsure if the Commission could
require the 60' buffer along the rear of lots 1 and 2 to protect
the historic value of adjacent property.
Ms. Caperton stated that this was made a part of the conditions of
approval for the preliminary plat, noting that it is non -enforceable.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the applicant would have to agree
to an increase in the setback requirements.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the location of the interior paths with
relationship to the property line.
Mr. Blankenbaker, representing the applicant, stated that the
paths are within 2 mile of the property line.
OM
Mr. Blankenbaker pointed out for the benefit of the Commission
that there are steep slopes along the rear property line of lot #2.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are other residential properties which
abut the Ivy Creek Natural Area.
Ms. Caperton noted that Ivy Farms, Phase 2 and the Burton property
are residential properties in this area.
Mr. Michel reiterated that it would be beneficial to have a wider
setback along the reservoir (on the Ivy Creek side) but noted that
the Commission does not have the authority to require this.
Mr. Blankenbaker pointed out that the building sites on lots #2 and
#3 would be along the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval of the road plans for acceptance
by the State;
C. County Engineer approval of a drainage plan;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Demonstrate acceptance of the "conservation area: 0.505
acre" by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors or
this area shall be noted as an easement;
f. A street sign shall be installed or bonded.
2. Only those areas where roads, driveways, utilities, dwellings
or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all
other areas shall remain undisturbed to a reasonable extent.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1.
Mr. Michel voted against the motion.
Riverrun Phase VII Site Plan - located off the north side of St.
Rt. 768 (Penn Park Road), northwest of Riverrun Drive and Riverrun
Phase I; proposal to locate sixteen (16) duplex units and thirty-two
(32) condominium units on a 612 acre parcel with an average density
of 5.99 dwelling units an acre for the entire Riverrun project.
Rivanna District. (TM 62, parcel 17).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
J1 7 _?
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bill Daggett, representing the applicant, stated that this plan
is indicative of what would be encountered on the northern side of
the site. He pointed out that the original plan shows the road in
the same approximate location as shown on this plan. He explained
that the concept of having the road cut into a loop road down into
the slopes, is to allow for the installation of sewer lines and to
disturb the tree line only once. He noted that this concept has
been altered because of the slopes in the area. He pointed out that
they propose to keep the road above the units, as in condominiums,
to limit the disturbance to the area.
Mr. Daggett noted that the booklet presented to the Commission
shows that the roads are to be built to state standards. He also
noted that the booklet shows the placement of the dwelling units
along the road. The site section of the booklet shows that having
the units at the top, rather than garages, would create a better
situation in terms of maintenance of the slopes as well as a better
sense of neighborhood.
Mr. Daggett 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. Bowerman stated that the access roads (to serve the dwelling units)
as shown on the original plan were to be private roads located behind the
unit.
Mr. Daggett pointed out the change in the location of the units,
reiterating that this has been changed in order to better maintain
the slopes as well as creating a better sense of neighborhood.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant feels that they are
protecting the majority of the land surface by not grading, and by pulling
the concentration of the steeper slopes in the smaller confined areas.
Mr. Daggett stated that larger buildings would require more grading and
cutting into the slopes.
Mr. Daggett explained that if the road did not exist and the buildings
were shown in this location some portions would be on 250 or greater
slopes. He noted that these buildings are all above the 25% slope
and further noted that the slopes have been created by the building
of the road.
J) 9
Mr. Mark Osborne, also representing -the applicant, noted the following
alternatives regarding storm water runoff:
• design the detention basin in the swale approximately 400'
above the units. The size of this detention basin is dependent
upon the entire northern area of the Riverrun draining through
it as shown on the overall site plan.
• to establish what the capacity is of the existing stream between
the development of phase seven and Rivanna River, that is
approximately 2600'. He noted that they have made cross -sections
along this stream every 100' for the first 1000' and every 200'
for the remainder. They have established that the drainage from
Phase #7 without the rest of the development would not create an
eroding condition in the existing stream. He noted that they are
of the opinion that the stormwater from the remainder of the
development could be diverted along the slopes and brought directly
into the Rivanna River.
Mr. Osborne noted that they would prefer not having to build the
detention pond in the swale, noting that a large number of trees
would have to be removed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there has been any discussion of stabilizing
the stream channel.
Mr. Osborne stated that they are prepared at the outfall of the storm -
water pipe for Phase 7 to install 200' of rip rap along the existing
stream which does have the proper geometry to carry the water within
its banks.
Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, stated that he had discussed the two
alternatives for stormwater runoff with the applicant. He noted
that he felt for this particular section a detention basin should be
required, to be sized for this section, because of the drainage onto
adjacent property.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had envisioned a
regional type of structure which would better serve the community.
He noted that if this detention basin serves more than the one phase
of development, then in effect this type of structure would exist.
He pointed out that this would have a significant impact on the
stabilization of the channel.
Mr. Osborne stated that he agrees with Mr. Elrod that the water could
be carried, from other phases, directly to the river. He stated that
in doing this they would be disturbing the existing forest and would
reduce the overall amount of stormwater to the stream. He further
stated that they would prefer not to install a detention pond for
phase seven.
.2t17
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt a detention pond would better serve
this phase of development, noting that he does not support the
alternative of having the runoff run directly into the existing
stream.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she agrees with Mr. Cogan that a detention
pond should be required.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that if a small detention basin is required
for this phase of development, it would not perclude expanding the
basin in the future.
Mr. Bowerman noted the recommended condition of approval, l.a., and
ascertained that based on the information submitted at this time,
the County Engineer would require a detention basin for this phase of
development.
Mr. Osborne stated that one of the reasons for establishing the
capacity of the stream is because of the concern of the character
of adjacent developments. He stated that he did not feel that
by allowing the runoff from phase seven to go directly in the
existing stream would cause the existing stream to erode.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the County Engineer would like to have
the ability to require a "water control plan" which would benefit
the adjacent properties.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt it would be beneficial to the
Commission as well as the applicant if in the future an overall
plan for runoff control could be submitted for review to the County
Engineeer.
Mr. Elrod reiterated that he felt a detention pond should be required
for this phase of development.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission is in favor of a
detention basin for this phase of development.
Mr. Williamson, representing the developer, stated that they did
not want to disturb the existing forest. He stated that they would
prefer to post a bond for the detention pond, to be built if future
phases were to be tied to the river.
Mrs. Diehl stated that a complete stormwater detention plan should
be submitted for this project. She noted that she could support the
request to bond this detention pond, but pointed out that she is
opposed to the approach of directing runoff into the streams.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the stormwater control plans for the
next phase of development could be submitted for review by the
County Engineer prior to the request being reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
FAR
Mr. Osborne proposed that a detention pond for phase seven be
designed, said pond to be bonded, and an overall plan be prepared
showing that this detention pond is not necessary.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the following wording for this condition:
• final plans for a small detention basin for phase seven to be
bonded. Construction of basin to be delayed giving the County
Engineer and the applicant time to work out the best solution
for this project.
Ms. Caperton suggested the following wording for this condition:
• compliance with the stormwater detention provisions for Phase 7.
The facility may be bonded until the ultimate plans are approved
by the County Engineer.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that he felt the detention pond for phase
seven should be built.
Mrs. Diehl noted the following note on the plat and asked if this
implies that there could be a change in the location of the buildings:
• Note #6: Exact configuration of condominium buildings subject
to change in response to market conditions and will be
adjusted, if necessary, when plans are submitted to
Building Inspections Department.
Ms. Caperton explained that this note is to allow the applicant
to shift the location of the buildings (several feet) without coming
back to the Planning Commission for approval.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. Building permits for any unit or group of units will be processed
when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. County Engineer approval of the road specifications; also review
and approval of final drainage plans for any unit or group
of units to include provisions for roof drainage and lot
(unit) grading;
b. Compliance with the stormwater detention provisions;
C. Note the location of the jogging trail (as attachment to site
plan) and the picnic area and the total square footage of the
recreational facilities;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
2. Certificates of occupancy will be processed when the applicant
2� 1
has met the following conditions:
a. A street sign shall be installed or bonded;
b. Subdivision plat shall be approved and recorded;
C. Recreational facilities shall be completed or bonded.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Robert Maupin Final Plat - located on the west side of St. Rt. 635,
south of 250 East and Rt. 635 intersection; proposal to divide 33.91
acres into three (3) lots with an average lot size of 11.30 acres.
White Hall District. (TM 56, parcel 19B).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, stated that a
topographic map was not submitted for staff review. He pointed
out that the setback for septic and building sites are shown on the
plat. He also stated that he felt that with Health Department approval
of the sites, this confirms that there is suitable building sites.
He asked that the Planning Commission either approve or defer this
final plat.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment regarding this
final plat.
Mr. Ed Amato, representing the applicant, stated that he would like
the Planning Commission to approve this division at this time, noting
that the applicant is working under deadlines, etc..
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Planning Commission looks to the Planning
staff for information in order for them (Commission) to make a
recommendation. He noted that the following information was
not submitted:
• larger scale map showing the building site, slope study, _
floodplain information, slopes in excess of 15% and 25%,
building setbacks, etc.
Mr. Skove stated that because of the lack of information, he felt
this final plat should be deferred.
Mrs. Diehl moved to defer this final plat to July 26, 1983.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion for deferral to July 26, 1983, which
carried unanimously.
a;2a
Branchlands Retirement Village Phase One Final Plat - located off the
east side of U.S. Route 29N, off the north side of Greenbrier Drive
and south of the Fashion Square Mall; proposal to divide approximately
3.15 acres into 20 lots for townhouses with an average lot size of
2,500 square feet. Of the total acreage, in Phase One, 1.78 acres is
common area. Charlottesville District. (TM 61Z, parcels 03-4, 5).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Ron Langman, the applicant, noted that the drainage easments
will be noted on 1" = 10' scale rather than 1" = 20'. He pointed
out that the commercial entrance at Branchlands is completed and
has been approved by the Highway Department. The construction of
access Road #2 will be bonded and Greenbrier Drive is near completion
and will be bonded to its ultimate. He also noted that construction
of Branchlands Drive has been completed to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer.
Mr. Langman 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
is before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Fire Official is recommending that the Com-
mission require a fireflow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 PSI
(residual) .
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this final plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Note material of permanent reference monuments;
b. All drainage easements must be noted and approved by the
County Engineer;
C. Provision of street sign;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
e. Extension of Greenbrier Drive from the end of state maintenance
to the Branchlands collector road shall be designed in
accordance with Virginia Department of Highways & Transpor-
tation standards to accomodate traffic anticipated from the
Branchlands collector road and Areas C & 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
and Transportation standards to accomodate traffic anticipated
from Areas C and D and dedicated for acceptance into the State
system. Plans shall be approved by the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation and the County Engineer.
f. 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;
g. Provide the County Engineer with details and hydraulic computations
for the bridge for Access Road #2;
h. 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;
i. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
j. County Engineer a-proval of final drainage and grading plans for
Section A, B, and C. (These plans to be drawn to 1" = 10' scale).
2. In addition to the above, the following items if not completed
must be bonded prior to signing of the plat:
a. Construction of Access Road 2 to be bonded according to road
plans approved by the County Engineer;
b. Construction of Greenbrier Drive extended including commercial
entrances to be bonded according to its ultimate design as
approved by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation*„
and the County Engineer;
c. Construction of Branchlands Drive (34 foot wide private road)
to be bonded according to plans approved by the County Engineer.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
University of Virginia Special Materials Handling Facility Site Plan -
located on the west side of Edgemont Road, north of the newly con-
structed UVA recreation building, and northwest of the Alderman/McCormick
Road intersection; proposal to locate a special materials handling
building.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Waller Hunt, representing the University, stated that the
building will be used for storage of new materials which have to be
purchased in bulk. With regard to radioactive materials, these
are low level contaminated materials which have to be stored until
they can be properly disposed of. He noted that the Fire Official,
Mr. Cortez, is recommending that 2,000 GPM at 20PSI residual be
22d-
required. He pointed out that they do not have this capacity
at the site. He further stated that he intends to discuss with
the engineers as to how this capacity might be increased.
Mr. Hunt stated that there are only three parking spaces provided
for this facility. He stated that he would answer any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the transportation of materials.
Mr. Hunt stated that new materials will be transported via commercial
trucks, etc. He pointed out that they will, using their own trucks,
transport material from the hospital.
Mrs. Nash questioned what other facilities are adjacent to this
proposal.
Mr. Hunt noted that the adjacent facilities are: the recreation
facility, office area, the road that runs to the reactor and Physical
Accelerator Building, and the highway department research building.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the containment barrier would prevent
the passage of contaminated materials into other parts of the
building.
Mr. Keeler noted that neither the City of Charlottesville or
the County fire department have an established "HAZMAT TEAM", he
'%we asked if the Univerisity has any intention of establishing such
a team.
Mr. Keeler also pointed out that the Jefferson Area Volunteer Firefighters
is attempting to establish such a team, and asked if the University
would be interested in participating in this.
Mr. Hunt stated that they are presently working with the Charlottes-
ville fire departments to establish an "HAZMAT TEAM", pointing out
that they also have chemists who can respond to this type of fire.
CONCENSUS: The Planning Commission stated that they appreciated the
opportunity to review the University projects and expressed
their appreciation of the University's continued
cooperation with the County. They did note, however, that
they would appreciate being informed further as to how
the County comments are actually incorporated in the
construction of the University projects.
aa5 ;
University of Virginia Birdwood Maintenance Building Site Plan -
l.ocated in the middle of the Birdwood Golf Course off the south
side of Rt. 250W; proposal to locate a 6,000 square foot maintenance
building with a storage yard and gas pumps serving the Birdwood
Golf Course.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Hunt stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns
the Commission may have.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that no additional landscaping would be
provided for this site plan.
Mr. Hunt noted that this facility would be used by the students,
staff, guests, and golf teams.
Mr. Bowerman noted his concern regarding a bank, which was part
of the grading for the golfcourse, which has not been stabilized.
Mr. Hunt explained that this bank should be planted in the near
future.
COACENSUS: The Planning Commission thanked the University for the
opportunity to review University projects.
Crozet Shopping Center Addition Site Plan Waiver Request - located
off the north side of Rt. 240, east of Rt. 810 in Crozet; proposal
to construct a 1,680 square foot addition for retail use on an
existing structure. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the site
plan requirement. (TM 56A(2), parcel 29).
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the applicant for this request is
not present.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission could review a waiver request
if the applicant is not present.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant could appeal the decision
of the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors if they were
in disagreement.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning
this site plan waiver.
142-26
Mrs. Joan Graves questioned the location of the septic field.
Ms. Imhoff stated that Mr. Jeff McDaniels, from the Health
Department indicated that the septic field is located under the
gravel parking area in the rear of the existing building.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated
that this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this waiver request subject to
the following conditions:
1. A building permit may be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Revise the site plan as per Fire Official's approval to
note new location of dumpster;
b. Provide an additional parking space to replace deletion
of one space in front of the IGA and note on plan;
C. Note correct zoning on plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following
conditions have been met:
a. Complete all improvements on site as shown on the revised
site plan (dated June 2, 1983) including marking of all
parking spaces.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(NOTE: WAIVER OF ARTICLE 32.2.1 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS GRANTED).
7-Eleven (Hydraulic/Rt. 29) Site Plan - Request for a temporary building -
located on the northwest side of the intersection of Hydraulic Road
and Rt. 29 (southbound lane); proposal to construct a temporary
structure for purpose of monitoring gasoline sales until construction
of the principal building (2,318 square foot convenience store) is
completed. Charlottesville District. (TM 61W, parcel 3-25).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. John DeBell, representing the applicant, stated that he has
no objection to the recommended conditions of approval as outlined
by the staff. He did note that condition #3 reads: "site plan approval
of the temporary structure shall expire on September 1, 1983." He
asked that this date be changed to November 1, 1983.
He stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the
a91
Commission may have.
With no public comment, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if construction activity on the site would
interfer with the sale of gasoline.
Mr. Debell stated that he did not envision any problems, noting
that the site work will be completed by this date and that there
is ample parking for the site.
Mr. DeBell explained that the Southland Corporation is scheduled to
close on the purchase of a gasoline refinery on August 1, 1983.
Since Virginia law prohibits a refiner from operating any new
retail outless within 1� miles of another existing retail outlet, it
is necessary that Southland have their gasoline sales operational at
this site prior to that date, in order to achieve "grandfather" status.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the Commission looses some flexibility
in reviewing site plans, when an approval is given for a particular
plan then the applicant submits a revised plan.
Mr. Skove stated that he has no problem with changing the date
of the temporary structure to November 1, 1983.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this request subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit for the temporary structure can be issued when
the following conditions have been met:
a. Five copies of a revised plan must be submitted deleting the
proposed 30' entrance onto Rt. 29N (southbound lane);
b. Proper permits for the installation of a temporary structure
shall be obtained from the building official;
c. Approval by the appropriate authority of a separate permit
for the installation of gas tanks and dispensers.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
temporary structure, the following conditions must be met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
b. Sufficient bond to cover removal of the temporary structure
shall be posted;
C. Site plan approval of the temporary structure shall expire on
November 1, 1983.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
--7�28
NEW BUSINESS:
Hatton Canoe Livery Plat:
Mr. Keeler explained to the Commission that he felt this plat could
be signed administratively but because it is in the floodplain and
is three separate parcels, he felt the Commission should be aware of
this. He pointed out that a special use permit for a canoe livery
was approved for this site.
Ms. Nash questioned the ownership of the property adjoining this
site.
Mrs. Nash asked if the parcels are individuals parcels of record
can they be sold separately.
Mr. Keeler stated that there is only on deed book reference for
this property (694).
Mr. Keeler stated that the Hatton Ferry is not shown for expansion
in the near future.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission must decide if they think
the plat is appropriate or not.
Mr. Keeler explained that there is no appeal process available
when a plat is signed administratively, noting that no adjacent
property owners are notified.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that this plat has been submitted for
subdivision approval.
CONCENSUS: The Commission felt this Plat should go through
the normal site review process and be reviewed by the
Commission.
Streamlining Site Plan and Subdivision Review - review of procedural
statement for Board of Supervisors review.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report, noting that she has
incorporated suggestions made by the Commission at the last meeting.
She pointed out that the conceptual review of site plans was not
adopted and that the administrative review process, similiar to that
of the City, was deleted.
Mr. Bowerman stated that item #4 assumes that a preliminary plat
has been reviewed by the Commission. He asked if the Subdivision
Ordinance allows this, if only the policy is adopted. (#4: Administra-
tive approval of final subdivision plats shall be permitted on
subdivision plats preceded by an approved preliminary plat. The final
plat must be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat (i.e.
�g9
the number of lots shall not increase, improvements shall not be
relocated to adversely affect adjacent property owners, etc.).
Ms. Caperton read the following from the Subdivision Ordinance:
• "no plat of subdivision shall be recorded unless or until
the plat shall have been submitted to the Board of Supervisors
and approved and certified by the Board,or its agent, in
accordance with the regulations set forth in this chapter."
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to be certain that this
"streamlining" would not require a change in the ordinance.
P4s. Caperton read the following from the Subdivision Ordinance
to explain why a preliminary conference would be beneficial:
• "before the preparation of preliminary plan or plat, a
subdivider shall confer with the Board of Supervisors'
Agent, relative to the regulations contained in this
chapter, the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and
other applicable ordinances. The purpose of such a conference
is to assure that the applicant is made fully aware of all the
requirements and interpretations of the existing ordinances
plus any amendments which are pending at the time of the
plan or plat preparation."(Section 18-44. Conference required).
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the wording of #5 should be
changed to read:
A preliminary conference shall.........
Mr. Bowerman stated that it was essential that the applicant have
the preliminary conference so that they know what would be required
on the final plat.
Ms. Caperton stated that the preliminary conference could be via
telephone or in person.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the payment of the fee for plat varies,
it could be paid when the plat is submitted or after site review.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated the purpose behind the change in site
plan and subdivision review procedure.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the Commission as well as the Site
Review Committee has the authority to approve, defer, or deny a
plan/plat.
The Commission agreed to change the word "should" in condition #5
to "shall."
CONCENSUS: The Commission unanimously agreed to recommend to
the Board of Supervisors that the changes in site
plan and subdivision review procedure be initiated
for six months. They stated that after the six
month trial period they would ask for input from the
area surveyors and engineers on how the procedure
work. They also stated that this should be done as
a policy issue, therefore, not requiring a change
in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Caperton noted that this will be presented to the Board of
Supervisors in September.
*Copy of procedure attached.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Michel noted that there is a meeting of the private road
committee scheduled for Thursday, July 7.
Ms. Mason Caperton was honored by the Planning Commission for her
years of service as a Planner for Albemarle County.
Mrs. Joan Davenport was introduced to the Planning Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se ret
a'51