HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 22 85 PC MinutesOctober 22, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, October 22, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard
Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner;
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia
Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the October 8, 1985 meeting were approved as
written.
Thomas D. Blue Final Plat - Proposal to divide one 2.092 acre
parcel on an existing exclusive twenty foot right-of-way off
Wild Flower Drive in Key West Subdivision. Residue acreage of
55.18 acres to have access on Chestnut Ridge Road. Tax Map 62,
parcel 49F. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
It was determined this item had been withdrawn by the applicant.
Covey Hill Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 97.388 acres
into 3 lots of 5.0 acres each, leaving a residue of 82.388
acres. Lots to be served by private road, Covey Hill Road,
located off the north side of Windsor Road in Farmington.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas (only one development right remains with
the residue). Located between Flordon and Farmington, adjacent
to the Farmington Country Club. Tax Map 59, parcel 59A.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She pointed out that the
section of the road which the County Engineer is recommending be upgraded
is that section from the intersection of Oak Circle North and
Farmington Drive to where Ivy Lane and Windsor Roads split off.
She emphasized that staff is recommending that the roads
from Route 250 to the entrance on Windsor Road be upgraded to
public road standards, but remain privately maintained. Ms.
Patterson also pointed out that, after having met with the
Engineering Department, the applicant's attorney and various
planning members to discuss the Subdivision Ordinance and the
waivers which are allowed, it was determined that the road
design standards may not be waived in this case, i.e. because
it is not a family division which would be subject to other
provisions. She cited sections 18-36(d)(1) and 18-36(e)(4) as not be-
ing subject to a waiver request (Section 18-36h).
October 22, 1985
Page 2
Ms. Patterson read from the County Engineer's comments which
explained what would be required in the upgrading:
Category 1 Basis: Pavement width must be 20 feet;
shoulder width 5 feet in a fill,
4 feet in a cut.
She added that the County Engineer was uncertain as to the
cost of the improvements and had stated that cost was not an
issue and that "development has exceeded road design as it
exists."
Ms. Patterson stated the property also has frontage on Broomley
Road and staff is uncertain as to what requirements might be
required on Broomley Road, if any.
Ms. Patterson pointed out that Health Department approval had
not been received as of yet.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr.
the
Ralph Feil, representing the applicant (Mr. Steve Hill), addressed
Commission. He made the following comments:
--The main issue is that of the upgrading of the road.
--The applicant is pleased that staff is not recommending
that the roads be taken into the public road system.
--The parcel has had legal access over the Farmington
road system (i.e. that portion that is under discussion)
since 1934.
--This parcel has no restriction on it as to subdivision.
--Prior to the creation of the Quayle lot, the applicant
negotiated with the Farmington Property Owners' Associa-
tion and with the Country Club and reached agreement
that Mr. Hill would subdivide the property into no more
than 4 lots. In exchange for that agreement Mr. Hill
agreed that he would make the resulting lots
subject to the typical Farmington Subdivision restrictions.
--After approval of the Quayle lot there was no inclination
on the part of the parties involved that the County would
suggest that existing roads would be changed in any manner
whatsoever.
--The roads are well maintained and very scenic.
--The right-of-way over which the roads pass is approximately
60 feet wide and is owned by Farmington Country Club, but
the road surfaces vary in width from 20 feet to 16 feet
(for that section which the staff is recommending be
upgraded).
--Property owners have landscaped the shoulders of the roads
(including shrubbery, fences, mailboxes, etc.).
--No one, including the applicant, wants the roads changed
in any way.
--Money is not an issue in the debate.
--Upgrading the road will cause a hardship not only to the
applicant but also to the current residents of Farmington.
W
19
3//
M
October 22, 1985
Page 3
--Private roads for this subdivision are approvable
under either Section 18-36(b)(1.) of the Subdivision
Ordinance or Section 18-36(c).
--The upgrading to state standards of that section
of road described previously by staff would require
the widening of the pavement and would include
cutting, filling and ditching. These improvements
are not warranted in light of the impact this
would have on the current residents.
--Though the County Attorney is of the opinion that
the requirement for these design standards cannot be
waived according to Sections 18-36 (a) , 18-36 (d) (1) and 18-36 (e) (4) ,
Mr. Feil was of the opinion that they could be waived
and cited the following section of the Subdivision
Ordinance as a basis for his argument: 18-3(b)(Variations
and Exceptions).
--It is foolish to think any provision of an ordinance
is written in such a way that it can never be waived.
--Mr. Feil emphasized the phrase "except as otherwise
expressly provided herein..." from Section 18-36(a)
as a basis for granting a waiver.
--Mr. Feil asked the Commission to read their
waiver power broadly.
Before opening the meeting to public comment, the Chairman
explained that the private covenants and deed restrictions of
Farmington are not an issue before the Commission and asked
that citizens refrain from commenting on that issue.
He also asked that speakers try to avoid repetition in their
comments.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following Farmington residents addressed the Commission and expressed
their opposition to the recommended upgrading of the roads: Mr.
Gerald Ferguson, Mr. Wilson Newman (representing Mr. Jack Armitage,
President of the Property Owners Association), Mr. Karl -Adam
Bonnier, Mrs. Elizabeth Bonnier, Ms. Elizabeth Peters , Mr. and
Mrs. Wittnebel, Mr. Kenneth Lee, and Mr. Charles Patterson. Their
reasons for opposition included the following:
--Not benefit the Farmington property owners;
--Improvements are not needed or necessary;
--Detrimental effect on the community as it will create ill feelings;
--Damage to existing properties;
--Increased traffic;
--Will divide Farmington into North and South;
--Will invite increased speeds.
There were also concerns about potential negative effect on
already inadequate water pressure and about the adequacy of
drain fields.
A/ 2-�
October 22, 1985
Page 4
In addition, a petition of opposition was presented by Ms.
Elizabeth Peters containing 97 signatures. (A copy of that
petition can be found in the Covey Hill file in the Department
of Planning and Community Development.)
It was determined that the Property Owners' Association was opposed
both to making the roads public and to upgrading the roads to state
standards even though they would remain privately maintained.
Mr. J.P. Robertson addressed the Commission and stated he
did not have the same view as the Property Owners' Association
and he asked that the Commission base their decision on what
would be required of any developer and that no special
exceptions be made. He indicated he felt his view was shared by
many other Farmington property owners.
Mr. Frank Quayle addressed the Commission. Referring to a
statement made earlier, he clarified that no additional
parcels are being requested, only the 4 that were originally
discussed. He also indicated he was under the impression
when the property was purchased from Farmington Country Club
that there was not one right-of-way, but unlimited right-of-way
to the Farmington roads. (There was strong disagreement
to this statement among those present.) Mr. Quayle added that
he had understood that the Property Owners' Association
recognized this unlimited right-of-way. He stated that
the Property Owners' Association had welcomed the opportunity
to limit what would happen with this parcel of land.
It was also requested that no access be allowed onto Brook Road
from the Covey Hill Subdivision.
Dr. Charbonnier addressed the Commission and expressed his
concern about access onto Brook Road. He asked that no access
be allowed onto Brook Road now or at any future time.
Mr. Eric Heiner, a potential purchaser of one of the four lots,
addressed the Commission and asked that good judgment and
common sense prevail and that the recommendation that the
roads be brought up to state standards not be approved.
Mr. Wilson Newman addressed the Commission once again and made
reference to an agreement dated October 10, 1985, signed by the
applicant, which he stated "limits the subdivision so that only
those three lots, and it surrenders every other way of coming
into Windsor Road." The Chairmain stated he could see no
relevance to this agreement andtheissue before the Commission.
Mr. Newman indicated he felt it was important in relation to
future traffic generation. The Chairman stated that future
development is not the current issue. He added that the Commission
is well aware of the extensive tracts of land that surround
Farmington, the problems that have arisen in the past and will
probably arise in the future, in regard to access should those
tracts ever subdivide. He said that was an important concern
of the Commission.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
:�U :t
October 22, 1985
Page 5
The Chairman invited comments from Mr. Pack, representing the
County Engineer's Office.
Mr. Pack stated that many of the roads in Farmington are below
current standards and the County Engineer is asking that the
roads be brought up to current standards and if this is not
done, they are requesting that the proposal be denied. He
said the problem is not just the travelway, but also the
ditches leading off the roads, i.e. there is not distance
between the edge of pavement to the ditch. Thus the
recommendation is for widening the travelway as well as
the shoulder and ditches which will require approximately
a 20-foot travelway and a 4-foot shoulder on each side.
He confirmed that the existing travelway is approximately
16 feet (in the section recommended for upgrading) and has
no shoulder in some sections. He added there are also some
sight distance problems. Mr. Pack stated he was uncertain
as to whether or not any houses would be severely impacted by
the recommended improvements. Mr. Pack also confirmed that
the local private road standards and state design standards
are essentially the same (though if it were a a public road
being taken into the system, the sight distance requirement
would be greater). Mr. Pack stated that although some cutting
and grading would be required because of the slopes, he did
not think it "would be that bad."
The Chairman asked for Mr. Payne's opinion as to what the
Commission could, or could not, waive in this case, and why.
Mr. Payne responded as follows:
"About two years ago you all were having a lot of
problems with the Private Roads section of the
Subdivision Ordinance, and one of the problems
was that it was practically routine for developers
to request some sort of variation from the terms
of the ordinance. You all spent (approximately) six
months discussing how you were going to handle this,
and, if you recall, my admonition to you at the time
was not so much that you should adopt any particular
set of regulations, but that you should adopt a
set of regulations which was so designed that in your
experience, and in the staff's experience, and in the
staff's projections of reasonable possibility, that
most of the probable situations would be covered by
the ordinance so that the number of times you would
have to waive it would be minimum. The ordinance was
comprehensively amended and it was done in several
ways. One of those ways was quite consciously in
Sect18-36(h), and I don't agree with Mr. Feil
thatt merely a procedural section. What is says
,,, is that if you are going to waive or modify any
Elm
October 22, 1985 Page 6
any of the provisions of the Private Road Ordinance,
(I call it that loosely --it is Section 18-36 of the
Subdivision Ordinance) it can only be done in very
limited instances, and basically those are three: I.e.,
18-36(c) which talks about roads which otherwise wouldn't
qualify to be private roads except for extraordinary
circumstances --that doesn't apply here; 18-36(f) which
deals with access onto a public road from a lot that
also has access onto a private road; and 18-36(g) which
is the circumstance where the developer doesn't have
adequate right-of-way width but can build the road
within the right-of-way--e.g. if the minimum requirement
was for a 50-foot right-of-way but, because of the
topography, he can put his 20-foot or 16-foot or whatever
it is travelway and ditches and slopes, etc. within
that smaller right-of-way, then he can do that. I think
the record is really quite clear that the Commission made
a conscious effort to reduce its discretion and to design
the ordinance in such a way as to minimize the discretion
which would be otherwise subject to being exercised.
As I have said before, the first two sections that I
have noted, i.e. subsections (c) and (f),obviously don't
apply. (c) only deals with whether or not it is going
to be a public road and I think everybody has conceded
that it is an appropriate place to have a private road
under (b)(1), therefore (c) doesn't apply. (f) doesn't
apply because we're not talking about one lot and whether
it should access onto an adjacent public road or not, and
(g) doesn't apply because, to my knowledge, there is no
issue as to the adequacy of the width of the right-of-way.
That being the case, the Commission simply doesn't have
the discretion to determine whether or not these standards
are to be met. The Commission has developed an ordinance
which you recommended to the Board of Supervisors and
the Board of Supervisors approved which is applicable
across the board, and it says that, in certain circumstances,
if you build a private road, you will build it to standards
specified in the ordinance and that, as you know, is
designed according to a sliding scale depending on the
number of lots served. In my judgment, you don't have
the discretion simply to say, 'Well in this case we're
just not going to apply this.' In my judgment, you made
a conscious decision to limit your discretion with
respect to construction standards for private roads which
you previously had exercised under Section 18-3(b). That
is the one that Mr. Feil cited to you and I think the history
of it, and your recollection is probably as good as mine,
is that you intentionally rejected that because it had
become a major problem to you. That being the case, the
issue is not whether or not this subdivision is permitted,
and not whether or not it should be a public road or not,
and staff has recommended that it should be a private road,
and the ordinance clearly permits it to be a private road.
The issue is whether or not the ordinance requires the
improvement in question, and, secondly, if it does, do
you have the discretion to reduce it to something less.
2 ia'''
October 22, 1985
Page 7
And my answer on those questions is that it clearly does
require (what) staff has recommended to you and that you
do not have the authority to waive it. I think the
problem is that if you do waive it in this instance,
you are doing it without the benefit of a standard,
and you are doing it in derrogation of your considerable
time spent developing these amendments."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Payne confirmed
that when a piece of property is sold which is not on an
existing roadway, it should have easements through other
parcels to connect with a road. Mr. Bowerman asked how it
is decided how many people can have rights of access over that
easement, i.e. is it done by deed, by the Commission, by both?
Mr. Payne responded that there are two different controls at
work and it can be controlled negatively (i.e. it is not
controlled, it is unlimited) or it can be limited by deed, i.e.
a deed of easement could easily say that the property can't
be subdivided into more than a certain number of parcels.
He explained that is a matter of property rights between the
dominant and servient tracts. As to the county's authority to
review it, that does not deal with property rights, but rather
with the sovereign interests of the county in regulating, pri-
marily, traffic. He stated the county does that from time
to time and one of the ways it accomplishes this is to regulate
the standard to which the road is to be developed. He added
that, in this case, it is clear that when Farmington was
originally developed the county really didn't have much to say
about it. He stated that the easement, in this case, is
dated around 1934, and would be controlled by its terms. He
added "if this would violate the terms of that easement, that's
up to the property owners to deal with that."
Ms. Patterson confirmed a deeded right-of-way exists and it
is 60 feet throughout its length.
Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Patterson to explain where the access to
the Quayle property lies. Ms. Patterson explained that the easement
which is named Covey Hill Road was created with the Quayle
plat to serve Mr. Quayle's lot, thus this is the access to
Windsor from the Quayle lot and will also serve the proposed
three lots.
Ms. Patterson added that it had not been made clear in the
conditions of approval what road standard will be used for
Covey Hill Road, but it is intended that it also be a private
road. She suggested the addition of the following condition:
County Engineer
specifications
accordance with
09
approval of road
for private road,
Table I, Section
plans and
Covey Hill Road, in
18-36(e).
October 22, 1985
Page 8
She also suggested that another condition be added as follows:
No direct access onto Brook Road.
(This was a condition of the Frank Quayle plat also.)
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the Commission did not have much
latitude in the issue since the applicant has a right to
subdivide the lots and the Commission must require
the improvements as described.
Mr. Skove agreed and moved that the Covey Hill Preliminary Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer approval of road plans for roads
from Route 250 to this entrance on Windsor Road:
road to remain private but be upgraded to
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
standards;
C. County Attorney approval of revised road maintenance
agreements for Covey Hill Road, Farmington roads,
and the 20-foot pedestrian access easement to
Farmington Country Club;
d. Note on plat "20-foot access easement to Farmington
Country Club for pedestrians only, and no motorized
vehicles;
e. Health Department approval for septic sites;
f. No building on slopes of 25% or greater, or septic
on slopes of 20% or greater without Planning
Commission approval of "modification of regulation;"
g. County Engineer approval of road plans and
specifications for private road, Covey Hill Road, in
accordance with Table I, Section 18-36(e).
h. No direct access onto Brook Road.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
It was determined the Commission would see the final plat since
Health Department approval has not been obtained.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on the latitude the
Commission has in consideration of a either a preliminary or
final plat, e.g. if a site plan meets the requirements of the
ordinance, it basically must be approved unless there are
special circumstances dealing with public safety, traffic, etc.
Mr. Payne explained "the approval of a subdivision plat is an
administrative act which, assuming the plat meets the requirements
of the various ordinances that are applicable, is ministerial
in character and the Commission has some discretion in some
aspects of subdivision approval, e.g. whether or not a road is
.317
October 22, 1985
Page 9
to be public or private, private roads being, in themselves,
under the terms of the ordinance, the exception. If the
developer satisfies you that his development, as proposed,
is in accordance with the terms of the applicable ordinances,
you don't have any discretion to turn it down. In order
to turn it down, by statute, you are required to tell the
developer in what respects the development does not comply
with the applicable ordinances and outline to him those
steps which he can take to rectify that and make it approv-
able. You don't have the kind of discretion you do, for
example, with a special use permit where you have the
discretion of a legislative body."
The Chairmain called for a vote on the motion for approval.
The motion for approval of the Covey Hill Preliminary Plat
was unanimously approved, with Commission review of the final
plat.
The Chairman informed the public the matter could be appealed,
through a member of the Board of Supervisors, within ten days.
The meeting recessed at 9:10; reconvened at 9:25.
Turtle Creek Phase VI Site Plan - Proposal to locate 55 townhouse -
condominium units served by 112 parking spaces. All the units
are to be four bedroom townhouses. Total acreage is 5.5 acres.
Zoned R-10, Residential. Located on the north side of Common-
wealth Drive and the east side of Northeast Drive,
between Eldercare Bardens and Jefferson Town Apartments.
Tax Map 61W, Section 3, parcel 22. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
It was determined this had been withdrawn at the request of the
applicant.
Cooke -Taylor Warehouse Site Plan - Proposal to locate two One-
story buildings of 20,000 and 8,000 square feet to be utilized
as warehouse space. Thirty-two parking spaces provided.
Acreage of site 3.0 acres (130,680 square feet). Zoned LI,
Light Industry. Property is located on the north side of Quail
Road, adjacent to the Milodon building off the east side of Rt.
606. Tax Map 32, parcel 19A1. Rivanna Magisterial District.
(Ms. Cooke excused herself due to a conflict of interests.)
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that the applicant
has received verbal approval from the Health Department.
Ily
October 22, 1985 Page 10
Mr. Cogan noted there was no condition relating to Fire Official
approval. He stated he was under the impression that any
building not served by public water was limited to 12,000 square
feet.
Ms. Patterson stated that if fire wall separations are used in
the larger building, the Fire Official has said he will
approve it and will review it along with the building permit
application.
Mr. Cogan said he thought the issuance of the C.O. is subject
to Fire Official approval. Ms. Patterson said in this case
there is nothing for the Fire Official to review other than
the building permit. She added that the condition could be
added if the Commission felt it was necessary.
In response to Mr. Skove's question regarding condition (1)(a)--
Board of Supervisors approval of each central utility --Ms. Patterson
explained that if more than two connectirns are made to the well
or septic field, it becomes a central system.
Mr. Skove asked if the conditions require that Quail Road
be built to the ultimate standards. Ms. Patterson explained
they are not required "to build the road to the ultimate road
plans that are approved for the through road. We are accepting
what the County Engineer has said is acceptable for their
development, which is adequate width and base for that through
road." Mr. Skove indicated he was concerned that a situation
similar to State Farm Blvd. could develop.
Mr. Payne indicated he felt that was "not as much of a problem
as it might otherwise be" because the great majority of the
development is in the industrial park. He felt the development
here is limited by what could be developed that is not in
the industrial park.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. David Cooke, representing C & G Properties, addressed the
Commission. He stated the applicants' only disagreement
on the conditions of approval is with (1)(e)--VDH&T approval
of sight distance and upgrading to 200 foot turn and 200 foot
taper lane. He said there currently exists 150 feet turn
and 200 feet taper with a width of 10 feet, and the applicant
feels this is adequate for the current development, and the
applicant should not be required to upgrade the turn and taper
in anticipation of proposed use of adjacent University property.
It was determined there would be some tractor -trailer usage
for the proposed warehouse.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
3/9
October 22, 1985
Page 11
R
M
Ms. Diehl asked if a condition relating to Section 4.14.8
and hazardous materials should be added at this time.
Ms. Patterson stated a condition could be added if so desired
by the Commission, but it was her understanding that each new
occupant must receive a zoning clearance and the requirement
for an engineer's report could be imposed at that time. She
added there are no tenants known at this time.
Mr. Payne clarified that each occupant must receive a
zoning clearance, not only new tenants.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that this condition had been added to
similar applications in the past and would "come into play"
at such a time as it might be determined that hazardous
materials are to be stored.
Mr. Payne stated he felt Mr. Tompkins has determined that a
warehouse is a use of an industrial character and the way
the ordinance contemplates that it be done is for the occupant
to submit his engineer's report to the extent that it is
applicable.
It was determined that the following condition would be added:
Applicant will submit to Section 4.14.8 if
deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Cooke -Taylor Warehouse Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Board of Supervisors approval of each central
utility proposed;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
C. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations;
d. Western entrance to be decreased to 40 feet in
width, and setback at least 12.5 feet from the property line;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of sight distance and upgrading to 200
foot turn and 200 foot taper lane;
f. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans
and computations;
g. Staff approval of landscape plan;
h. Recordation of septic field easement;
i. Applicant will submit to Section 4.14.8 if
deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until
the following conditions have been met:
a. County Attorney approval of road maintenance
agreement;
UWA
October 22, 1985
Page 12
b. No vehicle shall overhang the 10 foot planting strip
along Quail Run.
3. Use of the existing building on parcel 19A will be
limited by the availability of parking. This is a
self-imposed hardship; therefore, no variance should
be granted for parking requirements;
4. Only two individual tenants total are allowed to occupy
these two buildings, until connection is made to a central
water and/or sewerage system. The number of tenants
is determined by area requirements in Section 4.1.3
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Raintree Phase IV Final Plat - Proposal to create 32 lots with
average lot size of 11.476 square feet. Proposed access from
Old Brook Road, Ramblewood Place and Farm Brook Place.
Acreage of site is 16.9 acres, zoned R-2, Residential. Property
is located primarily on the west side of Old Brook Road (Route 652)
abutting the north side of Section 2 of Raintree and the east
side of Woodbrook. Tax Map 61, parcel 125 and 126. Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
r
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Green, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated this fourth phase is almost exactly as it was at
the time of the preliminary plan, as had been the case with
the other three phases.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the lot with 25% slope and
possible stormwater detention plans. Mr. Benish indicated
everything seemed to be in order.
Mr. Skove moved that the Raintree Phase IV Final Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat for phase IV will not be signed until
the following conditions have been met by the
applicant:
a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention
plans and computations;
b. County Engineer approval of public road and
drainage plans and computations;
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road and drainage plans and computations;
A 1.1
October 22, 1985 Page 13
d. Issuance of soil erosion control permits;
e. All street trees shall be bonded or planted ,
and shall be planted in conjunction with improve-
ments to Rt. 652.
f. Staff approval of landscape plan;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
sewer and water plans.
h. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners
documents.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Ancona Project at Boar's Head - Mr. Keeler presented a copy of
a letter written by Ms. Scala to the Zoning Administrator
(copy to Mr. Ancona) which outlined the Commission's intention
in regard to the road improvements for this project. Mr.
Keeler explained that it had not been stated specifically
in the conditions of approval that the turn lane must actually
be installed before a CO could be issued, though Ms. Scala's
letter to Mr. Tompkins states that that was the intent of
the Commission. Mr. Keeler added that, in fact, the ordinance
gives the Zoning Administrator the authority to require that
as a matter of public safety and public safety matters cannot
be bonded. Though the memo was undated, Mr. Keeler stated that
it had been sent "today", i.e. October 22, 1985. Mr. Michel
emphasized that the applicant's representative had said that
"it would be done." The Commission asked staff to check to see
if any of the buildings are occupied, or if any type of CO's
have been issued.
WPED Application - It was determined the Commissioners would pick
up their materials on this application, thus they would not have
to be mailed. It was also determined that the numerous letters
did not need to be copied.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
DS
3.22
LM