HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 19 85 PC MinutesNovember 19, 1985
�4✓ The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, November 19, 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; 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; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
Absent: Ms. Norma Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the November 7, 1985 meeting were approved as
written.
Premier Real Estate Site Plan - Proposal to locate a two-story
office building of 4,868 square feet on 0.5607 acres. Proposed
access is from private commercial road. The property is zoned
C-1, Commercial. The property is located on the west side of
U.S. Rt. 29 adjacent to the north of the Thomas Jefferson
Motor Lodge. Tax Map 61, Section 1, parcel 3. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that a revised
stormwater detention plan has been submitted and the County
Engineer has indicated the plan is acceptable.
In response to Mr. Gould's question regarding access to the
property, Ms. Patterson explained the property is served by
a "ring" road which serves the commercial lots in the Mary
Brown Subdivision. The road intersects Rt. 29 at two points
and is a paved, commercial road. Ms. Patterson explained
there is no direct access from the Motor Lodge to Rt. 29;
the Motor Lodge comes off the ring road.
There was some discussion regarding the discrepancy in
square footage figures which were shown as 3,840 square feet
on the site plan, but stated as 4,868 feet in the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ray Gaines, architect for the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He explained 3,840 square feet was the building
"footprint" and 4,868 was the net office area within the
building.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
/7
November 19, 1985 Page 2
The Chairman requested comment from the County Engineer
regarding problems with the ring road and screening.
Mr. Elrod stated he has received letters from Mr. and Mrs.
Ragland, residents of Berkeley, whose property abutts the
ring road. They are concerned about two problems: (1) The
drainage from the property which they feel comes onto their
property; and (2) When the road was constructed, the
fill slope fell across their property line and is actually
on their property. He explained that he disagreed that a
a drainage problem exists since the drainage that flows
between the Ragland's property and the ring road appears
to have always been there. He did agree that the fill is
over the Ragland's property line. In response to Mr.
Bowerman's question as to which property the Ragland's are
concerned about, Mr. Elrod explained the property is that
which is "across the ring road from the hotel ... it doesn't
abutt the site for the hotel, or this particular site, but
it abutts the right-of-way for that private road." He
confirmed that he did not anticipate any problems with the
stormwater detention plan.
Mr. Michel stated none of the conditions of approval address
the problems with the adjoining property as described by
Mr. Elrod.
Mr. Elrod stated he felt the problem with the drainage was
with the subdivision itself, i.e. the Mary Brown Subdivision,
which graded the road and created the lots. He pointed out
that this particular lot (the applicant's lot) does not
impact the Ragland's problems at all.
Mr. Michel asked if the Ragland's problems should be addressed
separately.
It was determined the only real complaint the Ragland's have
is concerning the fill which is across their property line
and this is a private matter between the two parties. Mr.
Payne stated this seems to be clearly a trespass issue
and the Raglands can instigate legal action against the
party who created the problem.
Mr. Elrod added that his office has done what they felt
they could, i.e. letters to the engineers and developers.
He explained that he still holds the bond for the project
and it is his intent not to release the bond until the problem
has been resolved.
The Chairman reopened the public hearing to allow a person
who had just entered the meeting to speak.
Mr. Leon Gorman, adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. He was not opposed to the office building.
However, he stated that when the motel had been approved
it had been indicated that screening would be installed
(pine trees and possibly fencing), but, as of this time, no
NMI
November 19, 1985 Page 3
screening at all has been put in.
The Chairman again closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman asked if screening conditions relating to the ring road
were attached to the original subdivision.
Mr. Keeler explained that was not the case. He stated that at
the time of the motel site plan he had met with Mr. Gorman,
Mr. West (2 adjoining property owners) and the attorney
for the motel and he was under the impression an agreement
had been reached whereby the concerned property owners would
determine what screening was needed (making that determination
during the winter months). He explained that the agreement
was not specifically attached to the hotel site. He added
that he thought the screening was to have been "effectuated"
within a specified length of time. (The negotiations had taken
place approximately 12 years ago.)
Ms. Patterson confirmed that the conditions attached to the
present application would require screening between the parking
area and the ring road, on their property.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson if the plans for either the
subdivision or the motel had had landscape plans attached to
them which showed screening in a similar area, i.e. behind
116rr the hotel on the other side of the ring road.
Ms. Patterson stated the plan for the hotel shows a few large
trees. Ms. Patterson was not familiar with the agreement
to which Mr. Keeler had referred.
Ms. Cooke stated she could recall discussion about screening
in that area as well as fencing and lights. She said the same
discussion had taken place at the Board meeting also. In response
to Mr. Bowerman's question, she stated she felt the discussions
had taken place at the subdivision level. She said she "distinctly
remembered the conversation and those things were required."
Mr. Elrod commented that the plans for the ring road had had a
note on the area across from this site which said that the
existing trees were to be preserved. However, the construction
of the road which had required a fill slope, had not been con-
ducive to saving any trees.
Ms. Cooke stated she had thought if the trees had to be removed
it was stipulated that they were to be replaced with other screening.
She was unsure of the particulars, but she did recall there having
been a lengthy discussion about the matter.
Mr. Elrod stated he did not believe there was such a stipulation
on the road plans though it may have been stated someplace else.
IL7
November 19, 1985 Page 4
Mr. Keeler stated the subdivision plat had been approved in
1979 and he did not recall anyone from the Berkeley Subdivision
who spoke to the screening issue. But when the motel was
before the Commission, there were concerns expressed by Mr. Gorman
and 1�ir. West. An agreement was reached "outside" the
Commission which stated screening would be provided to
reasonable satisfaction. (Mr. Keeler stated. he had been
present when the agreement was reached between the applicant's
attorney and Messrs. Gorman and West.) He recalled that it
had been stated that this condition "may not be attached to the
motel, but there are 6 or 7 more lots out there and the Commission
does expect this to be done." He also recalled that it was
determined the appropriate time to make that determination
was during the winter months, when the motel was in operation.
Mr. Keeler stated he believed the Commission had made a verbal
warning.
Mr. Bowerman asked that staff, by the November 26 meeting,
provide the Commission with some information on the status
of the motel site in terms of screening.
Mr. Cogan stated that Mr. Elrod had indicated he could "attach
the tresspass of the enbankment problem to the bond." He asked
Mr. Elrod if he could also attach the screening problem to
that bond.
Mr. Elrod stated that would be difficult since, to his
knowledge, there was no screening condition.
Ms. Patterson stated there was no specific condition about
screening attached to the motel site plan. She added that there
is a condition for the subdivision plat which states "grading
permit with the Soil Erosion Committee being mindful of
protecting the existing trees as much as possible, especially
the tree -line abutting the Berkeley Subdivision and the pro-
posed access easement. This may call for tree wells for
protection."
Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Gorman if he had the agreement in writing.
Mr. Gorman explained that the applicant's attorney had
verbally told himself and Mr. West that trees would be put in
and that is recorded on the tape of the meeting which occurred
around June 17, 1984.
The Chairman stated the matter needed to be clarified since it
had been the Commission's intent that the screening would be
put in place. He pointed out that the screening issue is
separate from the current proposal.
Mr. Skove moved that the Premier Real Estate Office 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. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
01
November 19, 1985 Page 5
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention
plans and computations:
C. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final
water and sewer plans and either a) agreement for
private sewer line, or, b) upgrading sewer line to
be accepted as a public line:
e. County Attorney and County Engineer approval of
agreement for grading on lot 2;
f. County Engineer and Planning staff approval of
landscaping in 20 ft. buffer strip that will not
obstruct sight distance.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Sandra Lloyd Final Plat - Request for administrative approval
of final plat.
Ms. Patterson explained that because this is located in the
urban area staff does not currently have the authority to
administratively approve the plat. She stated the request
was for two lots: Lot A, 27,693 square feet, on which is
built a single-family detached dwelling; and Lot B, 19,780
square feet, vacant. Because of the area of Lot B, it can
only be developed with one, single-family detached dwelling.
The preliminary plat was approved September 25, 1984. An
extension request was denied and the plat has since expired.
The extension request had proposed the creation of four lots,
ranging from 3,580 square feet to 25,000 square feet and a
tri-plex had been shown on the front section of the plan.
Ms. Patterson explained that the current proposal is less
objectionable and staff recommends that the Commission grant
administrative approval.
Mr. Cogan moved that staff be granted administrative approval
of the Sandra Lloyd Final Plat.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
SP-85-76 Branchlands Land Trust 1 & 2 - Request in accordance
with Section 30.3.2(3) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
for a special use permit to allow for congregate care housing for
the elderly at Branchlands Retirement Village, on approximately
4 acres of a 30.412 acre parcel, zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development. Property described as Tax Map 61Z, parcel 03-4 is
located within Branchlands Village on the west side of Branchlands
Drive. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
.1i
November 19, 1985
Page 6
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that neither of
the petitions currently before the Commission require amendment
to the PUD, both being uses by special use permit. He stated
that staff feels this is a straight -forward proposal, that
it will not increase traffic generation, and is consistent
with the concept that was originally presented by Dr. Langman.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ron Langman, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He made the following comments:
--This is not a nursing home.
--Crises-intervention nursing care will not be provided,
but rather preventive care for the elderly who are still
active.
--These are primarily one -bedroom units with services
attached. Those services include: dining facilities,
commercial kitchen, two small convenience stores,
laundry facilities, and a recuperative care center.
--Rent will be based on single units, though services
may be based on the number of people occupying a
unit. (It is possible that a husband and wife
could occupy a unit.)
--The facility will have 120 units (rather than 120 beds).
--The drainage issue involves the entire PUD and, though
tricky, can be addressed.
--The applicant and Dr. Hurt are attempting to coordinate
their activities to come up with a consolidated drainage
plan for the entire PUD.
--The secondary access road, though needed at some point,
should not have to be built at this time since only
40 units are being built in the first phase.
--80% of the units will be one -bedroom, which will include
a bedroom, a bath, a kitchenette, and a living space.
15% will be studio apartments. 5% will be two -bedroom units.
--Lunch and dinner will be served, with lunch being required
as part of the rent.
--The applicant had no objections to the wording of staff's
condition No. 3.
It was determined that condition No. 1 would be changed to read
as follows:
Congregate care facility limited to 120 units.
It was determined the net density was 30 units/acre which, though
high, was not exceeding the overall density.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr.James Cosby, representing the Church of the Incarnation,
addressed the Commission. He indicated his support for the
proposal and asked that the Church be included in the
process for consideration of the road requirements.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
November 19, 1985
Page 7
Mr. Michel moved that SP-85-76 for Branchlands Land Trust 1 & 2
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Congregate care facility limited to 120 units;
2. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26/SP-80-63;
3. Resolution of stormwater drainage facilities and
acquisition of flood easements (if any) prior to
scheduling of site plan for Planning Commission review.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Skove asked if the bond is still sufficient to cover the
cost of constructing the road.
Mr. Keeler indicated he could not answer that question. He
further stated that the way the conditions are written "you are
not to defer any of the improvements that are required. It is
required at the time of construction and it is not to be deferred
to some future phase of development." He added that, to date,
holding the bond has not created a problem because the retirement
village has been the only thing under construction in Branchlands.
He stated there has been a couple of years of grace period for
amendments to the PUD to come forward and none have been proposed.
He stated that, hopefully, any proposed amendments will come in
before construction is intended for the congregate care facility.
But at this time, there is no real choice but to stick with the
conditions they way they were written and since they were zoning
conditions the Commission may not be able to give any relief.
He confirmed that one of the conditions had been the construction
of that road.
The previously stated motion for approval was unanimously approved.
The matter is to be heard by the Board on December 4, 1985.
SP-85-75 Marriott Corporation - Request in accordance with Section
20.4.1(1) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a
motel/hotel or inn on a 4.1301 acre parcel zoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development. Property described as Tax Map 61Z-03, parcel
1 (part of), is located on the east side of Rt. 29 North behind
Albemarle Bank & Trust in the Branchlands PUD. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for the applicant, addressed the
%aw Commission. He presented aerial photographs showing the site
and its relation to the bank and the shopping center. He
stated the only concern with the staff report is with condition
No. 1 (Motel limited to 146 rooms and restaurant limited to 50
a3
November 19, 1985
Page 8
person seating capacity). He asked that the applicant be
given a little more flexibility with the room figure since
that number had been an approximation.
Mr. Michael Assad, representing Marriott Corporation, addressed
the Commission. Regarding the number of rooms, he stated
there could possibly be a 5-10 room addition depending on the
elevation of the road and the terracing that may be involved.
Mr. Assad presented photographs showing the proposed structure
and explained the design, the decor, the landscaping, etc.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Ron Langman addressed the Commission and stated that this
proposal will also be involved in the "re -doing" of the PUD.
He asked Mr. Landess if he and his client would now also be
involved in the PUD.
Mr. Landess replied that Dr. Hurt would be working with that
aspect, thus Marriott will be involved only indirectly.
Mr. Langman was concerned with more and more people becoming
involved it would be more difficult for decisions to be made.
Mr. Cosby, representing the Church of the Incarnation, again
addressed the Commission and stated he too was concerned
about more and more people becoming involved with the property
and again asked that the Church be included in any
discussions which take place. He added that the Church has
no objection to the Marriott proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if staff's analysis of the proposal
would be altered if the number of units requested was increased
to 160 units.
Mr. Keeler replied that it would not and 160 units would still
fall within the traffic generation for a general C-1 use.
Mr. Cogan asked what form of access would be used for the site.
Mr. Keeler replied that, to a great extent, the road design
would be based on the elevation of the structure. He added
that under the conditions of the PUD, the church road will
have to be closed and a new access road will be built at the
crossover. In addition, section 3 of the collector road
will be required to be constructed. He confirmed that the
road issue will have to be resolved before the site plan
is reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-85-75 for Marriott Corporation
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
Gail
November 19, 1985 Page 9
1. Motel limited to 160 rooms and restaurant limited to
50 person seating capacity;
2. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26/SP-80-63;
3. Resolution of access prior to scheduling of site plan
for Planning Commission review.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
The Chairman advised the parties involved with the Branchlands
PUD to be sure they are of "one -mind" and make a unified presentation
if any changes to the PUD are to be requested.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that both the special use requests made
at this meeting have a condition requiring compliance with
ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63, but if new conditions are substituted
under one unified application, the new conditions would replace
the old ones.
The previously stated motion for approval was unanimously approved.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on
December 4, 1985.
The meeting recessed at 8:47 p.m.; reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
Ms. Cooke did not return after the recess.
WORK SESSION
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Mobile Homes -
Ms. Scala gave the staff report and explained the proposed
amendments, pointing out changes from current regulations
as well as new requirements. The staff report listed the
following changes to the proposed amendments which were made
after the October 29 work session:
1. Mobile home parks by special use permit in RA and VR
districts have been deleted. Setbacks pertaining to the
RA district have been deleted.
2. 5.6.2.d has been changed to require Health Department
approval of water and sewerage facilities if
applicable. Since November, 1982 the Health Department
regulations have required approval of a new water supply
for quantity, quality (coliform) and construction
standards. The regulations pertain only to new con-
struction where a non-public water supply is to be
constructed in conjunction with an on -site sewage
disposal system.
3. 5.8 has been changed to clarify that site plan approval
of a permanent use is required before a temporary non-
residential mobile home may be authorized for the same
site.
November 19, 1985
Page 10
4. The low and moderate cost housing bonus has been expanded
to address the application of bonus factors in mobile
home parks and subdivisions. Staff has made the assump-
tion that all mobile homes can be considered low or
moderate cost housing, based on typical sale prices.
5. Staff has reviewed the supplementary regulations for
mobile home subdivisions for possible amendments.
Mobile home subdivisions are currently permitted by
special use permit in all residential districts, and no
change in this provision is recommended.
6. 5.5.6 has been added, which requires a preliminary plat
to be submitted as part of the special use permit
application for a mobile home subdivision. No plan is
currently required.
7. 5.3.8.4 has been changed so that pedestrian access
requirements for parks are the same as for other
developments in the growth areas.
The Commission had the following concerns and made the following
changes in the proposed amendments:
• Since it was felt that the third paragraph of section
5.3 and section 5.3.3.3 were somewhat ambiguous, it was
determined that the third paragraph of section 5.3
would have the words "where public utilities and other
services are available" deleted and thus would read:
Mobile home parks shall be located in
designated growth areas of the Comprehensive
Plan.
It was felt this change would prevent confusion relating
to private and public utilities and would also allow
more possible locations for this type of development
since Mr. Horne pointed out there are a few places in
the urban area which do not currently have public
utilities.
• Internal Street Requirements: Mr. Elrod (the County
Engineer) presented this part of the report. Mr.
Horne asked the Commission to be mindful of the fact
that while the road standards would make this type
of development more attractive, it might be preferable
to consider some lesser standard in order to maintain
the low and moderate cost range.
Mr. Elrod confirmed that a paved road will cost less,
in the long run, than some other type of less durable
surface. He also indicated that the life of
the road, regardless of the type of surface, will
depend greatly on the quality of maintenance it receives.
It was determined the cost of a prime/double seal
-I/
R
November 19, 1985
Page 11
was approximately 1/3 less than the S-5 surface, but
the life expectancy and aesthetics of the S-5
surface is much greater.
It was determined a rural cross section, with prime
and double seal, could be considered as a compromise
in the interests of keeping the cost down. Mr. Elrod
confirmed that it would be possible to work out
drainage and erosion problems if a rural cross
section were allowed. He added that if the lots were
over 100 feet wide, he "was confident (he) could design,
in most terrains, a road with roadside ditches and
everything would work out all right." He indicated
if the lots were less than 100 feet wide, it would be
very difficult to deal with the drainage and erosion
measures.
In consideration of keeping the cost down so as not to
create additional disincentives for this type of
development, it was the consensus of the Commission that
a rural cross section could be allowed. Staff was
directed to work with the County Engineer on the
necessary amendments to reflect this intent.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Recreation
Requirements - Ms. Scala presented the staff report which
stated that the proposed recreation requirements are intended
to replace the current requirements which are found in the
higher density and planned residential districts. The proposed
mobile home park regulations will also include these recreation
requirements since parks will have the same needs as other types
of urban developments with similar densities.
Ms. Scala explained the proposed amendments, pointing out changes
from current regulations as well as new requirements.
The Commission made the following change:
• 4.16.3.2 will have the words "on advice of" added and
thus will read:
Equipment specifications shall be approved by
the Director of Planning and Community Development
and on advice of the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
It was felt this would eliminate the need for an
applicant to have to get another approval from outside
the Commission.
a
November 19, 1985
Page 12
There was some discussion about the minimum square footage
required for the recreational area. Ms. Scala pointed out
that the requirement was not to exceed five percent (5%)
of the gross site area and most localities require ten percent
(10%). It was the consensus of the Commission that staff's
recommendations were acceptable.
It was determined that both mobile home amendments and recreation
amendments are to be finalized and then scheduled for public
hearing after the first of the year.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
DS
Fri
RE
November 12, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, November 12, 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; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Patricia Cooke,
Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the October 29, 1985 meeting were approved as
written.
Eden Lyster Final Plat - Proposal to divide 13.95 acres into
3 lots: 6.402, 2.333 and 5.217 acres. Two lots are each
improved with a single family residence. Property is located
on the south side of Brook Road in Farmington. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas, Tax Map 60E3, parcel 10. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
It was determined the applicant was requesting indefinite
deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, and Ms. Diehl seconded, that the Eden Lyster
Final Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed
unanimously.
Ivy Farm and Wyngate Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 153.43
acres into 24 lots. Eight lots to be served by new public road,
Wyngate Road, off the west side of Rt. 676. Remaining lots to
be served by an extension of Wingfield Road. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Tax Map 44, parcels 34, 21F, 21F1, 21F3. Jack Jouett
Magisterial District.
It was determined the applicant was requesting deferral until
November 26, 1985.
Mr. Skove moved, and Mr. Wilkerson seconded, that the Ivy Farm
and Wyngate Preliminary Plat be deferred until November 26, 1985.
The motion passed unanimously.
Report on 85-86 Deadlines for Filing, Including Changes in Procedure -
Mr. Horne presented the Commission with a memo explaining the
schedule for 85-86 deadlines for filing. He explained he had
made the following changes in the subdivision and site plan
schedule:
.'a
November 12, 1985
Page 2
--The process has been lengthened by seven days, adding
an extra week between the time that revisions are due
back into the department to the point at which the
staff report is produced. It is hoped this will provide
staff time to tie down loose ends, thereby providing
the Commission with more complete information.
--The adjoining -property -owner notification process has
been changed. This will now take place 10 days (as
required) before the public hearing instead of 3-4
weeks in advance. Waiting to send this notification
will mean that more definite information is known
about the application since the staff report and
notification will take place at almost the same time.
Mr. Horne stated these were the only changes, and everything
else was the same as it had been during the past year.
The Chairman stated he felt the suggested changes were excellent
since they have the potential of helping the Commission deal
with items more quickly (there will be fewer unanswered questions)
and deferrals should be greatly reduced.
It was determined that the 10-day notification requirement is
a local regulation, not a State requirement.
Virginia Power Western Division Headquarters Site Plan - Proposal
to locate an office building on 38,300 square feet on 17.20
acres. Building is to be served by 208 spaces. Proposed access
from Rt. 631 (Fifth Street Extended). Property is zoned
HC, Highway Commercial and is located adjacent to the intersection
of Rt. 631 and Interstate 64. Tax Map 76, parcel 55. Scotts-
ville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
It was determined the property is on the west side of 5th Street.
It was determined the fuel dispensing tanks would be underground.
Mr. Cogan expressed interest in what the fuel was to be used
for since the proposal is for an office building.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Dennis Kaiser, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He explained that the fuel storage is just to
"gas company vehicles", i.e. cars and small vans, but not
repair vehicles, and would serve approximately 75 vehicles.
He confirmed that heavy maintenance trucks would remain at
the Hydraulic Road location. He also confirmed this would
not be a storage location, i.e. no transformers will be located
on the property.
In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Mr. Harold Crowder,
architect for the applicant, presented a drawing of the
proposed building. He explained it would be keeping with the
existing architecture in Charlottesville.
19
,.l
November 12, 1985
Page 3
Regarding lighting, Mr. Benish explained that it is required
that parking lot lighting be directed toward the site and
away from adjacent properties and roadways. He stated that
will be included on the landscape plan.
The applicant stated that a formal landscape plan is not
ready at this time, but that the applicant is definitely
concerned about landscaping and lighting.
Ms. Diehl emphasized the importance of buffering the parking
area from I64.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Diehl suggested that a condition be added which limited
the use of the building to office space only, as had been
stated in the staff report. The applicant indicated there
was no objection to this, though he pointed out that there
would be "in-house" maintenance.
It was determined the following condition would be added:
--The building will be for office and necessary
accessory use only. No storage or warehousing
facilities are to be permitted on the site.
Mr. Payne stated this condition was a sort of "insurance
policy." He explained that the applicant has asked for a
specific use and the staff's analysis was based on this
use; if a different use comes in and is permitted in that
zoning district then it will be a question of whether a new
site plan is required. He agreed with Ms. Diehl that this
condition would act as a "flag" to enforcing agencies.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Virginia Power Western Division
Headquarters 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. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention
plans and computations;
b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations:
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final sewer and water plan;
e. Staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Fire official final approval.
tc-
November 12, 1985
Page 4
3. The building will be for office and necessary accessory
use only. No storage or warehousing facilities are to
be permitted on the site.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Squire Hills - Section Three Site Plan - Proposal to locate 47
two bedroom dwelling units on 4.549 acres served by 94 parking
spaces. The property is zoned R-15 and is located on the west
side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road), west of Phase I and II. Tax Map
61, parcel 129D (part). Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
There was some discussion about the area shown for the tennis
court, since it seemed to be a very large area.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. Regarding the recreation areas, he explained
there will be a swimming pool, two tennis courts and three tot
lots. He added that the plan meets all the requirements as
specified in the ordinance. He indicated the applicant had
no problems with the conditions of staff.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, the applicant explained
the underground detention pipes will be under the parking
lot areas.
Mr. Skove moved that Squire Hills - Section Three 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. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention
plan computations;
b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plan and computations;
C. Issuance of soil erosion permit:
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water plans;
e. Revision of subdivision plat to show sight easement
for two (2) entrances on Mall Drive;
f. Staff approval of landscape plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
There being no further business, the mee i g ad'ourned at 8.05 p.m.
DS /