Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 07 86 PC MinutesJanuary 7, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 7, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members persent were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Richard Gould. (Note: Two seats on the Commission were vacant at the time.) 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; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Election of Officers - The following officers were unanimously elected to serve during 1986: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; and Mr. John Horne, Secretary. Approval of Minutes - The minutes of the December 10, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Broadway Street, Lots 3, 4, 5 Final Plat - Proposal to create three lots with an average lot size of 1.4 acres. Proposed access from Broadway Street. Property is zoned Industrial and is located between Broadway Street and the C & O Railroad line. Tax Map 77, parcel 40D. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards, but Mr. Edwards offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the Boardway Street, Lots 3, 4, and 5 Final Plat be approved (no conditions). Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Eden Lyster Final Plat - Proposal to divide 13.95 acres into Lot A of 11.619 and Lot B of 2.333 acres, each improved with a residence. The applicant appeals the requirement for this Family Division to upgrade Brook Road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, the property is located on the south side of Brook 97 January 7, 1986 Page 2 Road, approximately 0.2 mile off Farmington Drive. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. *904 Ms. Patterson presented the staff report. She also distributed to the Commission additional letters of opposition, including one from the Farmington Property Owners' Association, and one from the Farmington Country Club who object to the upgrading of any Farmington Roads, and one from Mr. Westaway who objects to any additional traffic on the roads. Ms. Patterson explained this request was before the Commission because it is an appeal of an administration decision, otherwise family divisions are handled administratively. The staff report stated the applicant was appealing the requirement, pursuant to Section 18-4, for this family division to upgrade Brook Road. Ms. Patterson read the following, taken from a letter from Mr. Steve Pack of the County Engineer's Office dated October 28, 1985, relating to this issue: During the review and subsequent preliminary plat approval by the Planning Commission the issue of upgrading Brook Road was not mentioned. Since that time, we have discovered that Brook Road does not meet our current private road standards. Any additional subdividing with access to Brook Road will require upgrading Brook Road to our current standards. The travelway will have to be 14' wide with 4' shoulders and any ditching that is necessary. A portion of the ditching may require an appropriate lining to prevent erosion from occurring. The reasons for the applicant's appeal included the following: (1) As a result of this subdivision, there will be no increase in traffic because both lots are presently built; (2) The existing shoulders allow two cars to pass; and (3) It is unlikely there are a large number of "Family Divisions" pending this outcome. Ms. Patterson explained that staff is concerned about the precedent that would be set if no road improvements are required on a substandard road, even if no additional traffic would be generated, and, therefore, staff recommended that the County Engineer's decision be upheld. It was determined the current plat was for two lots rather than three as had been requested with the preliminary plat. Mr. Gould asked Ms. Patterson if any additional traffic will be generated as a result of this subdivision. January 7, 1986 Page 3 Ms. Patterson responded, "I don't think that there will be based on the fact that there will be no more buildings, but I guess our position is that you've got an existing inadequate road and now is the chance, through the subdivision process, to have that road improved." Mr. Gould asked, "How do you intrepret, what seems to be the unambiguity of 18-36d: There shall be no minimum standards for private roads pursuant to section 18-36b(2) or 18-36b(5), Family Division?" Mr. Payne responded, "There is a section that says that all roads shall be adequate to carry the traffic that they are expected to generate." Mr. Gould stated, "But the subdivision has not generated any additional traffic, so it has changed nothing." Mr. Payne continued, "That's right. The County Engineer has, in his opinion, (determined) that the road is now inadequate and what he is tetting you is that, in his opinion, the minimum standards you should use are the standards set forth in the Ordinance. So, that's where you get that tie-in; that's his opinion." It was determined that all the other conditions which were attached to the preliminary plat have either been met or no longer apply. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Lloyd Smith, representing Ms. Lyster, addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: --3 Brook Road is currently improved by two buildings -- a large house which the applicant occupies with her children, and a smaller house (Lot B). --It is the applicant's desire to convey Lot B to her mother. --The original plan to divide the property into three lots had encountered problems because the County Engineer had felt it would not be a family division with three lots and therefore the roads would have to be improved. --If the waiver is not granted, the applicant cannot possibly improve Brook Road because of the expense and also because the private convenants involved will not allow it. Thus, if the variance is not granted, the subdivision cannot take place. --Only three houses front on the road; everything is in place; nothing is going to be changed. --This is a reasonable request and meets the requirements of the Ordinance including, in Mr. Smith's opinion, the road requirements. January 7, 1986 Page 4 --The Ordinance states that the standards which are set forth (i.e. 14 ft. width and 2 ft. shoulders) do not apply to family subdivisions. The only thing that applies is that the road must be "adequate." --The County Engineer is taking the position that "what is adequate goes back to the specific standards" and that simply "reads the exception that the Board of Supervisors put in right out of existence." The Board says "this doesn't apply" but the County Engineer says "it does apply because reasonable access is 14 feet with 2 feet shoulders." --Mr. Smith felt that was a "foolish administrative intrepretation" though it might not be if there were 14 members of a family and there were 14 new lots involved. --The Ordinance should be applied as it was written. --If this is granted, this lot will then be a conforming lot; currently it is non -conforming in that there are two buildings on the same lot which is contrary to the provisions of part of the private road sections 18-36. The Chairman invited public comment with the following proviso: "Private convenants and deed restrictions between the owners of Farmington lots in regard to other owners of Farmington lots are not in question before this Commission tonight. Those are civil and private matters which will be dealt with by Mr. Smith and the Property Owners' Association at Farmington. We are concerned tonight only with the Ordinance and how the Ordinance applies to this particular application before us, which is a family division. Any comments that you choose to make about issues not before us will simply carry no weight with this Commission because we are not empowered to enforce any of those private covenants." Mr. Joe Wood, representing the Farmington Property Owners' Association, addressed the Commission and voiced his objection to the "touching" of Brook Road in any manner. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman asked for comments from Mr. Pack, representing the County Engineer's office. Mr. Pack offered the following comments and explanation: --The rationale behind the proposed upgrading of Brook Road is that in some sections the road is only 10-11 feet wide and two cars cannot pass. --Fourteen feet is a minimum requirement which will allow two cars to pass. --Any time the County Engineer's Office has the opportunity to improve a situation, then that is the recommendation. --In relation to cost, it will not be too much of a job to bring the road up to minimum standards. 1-1 vig January 7, 1986 Page 5 --The County Engineer department recognizes that this subdivision will cause no increased traffic, yet their recommendation remains the same. --Also considered was the fact that Brook Road serves additional lots, not just those related to this subdivision. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Pack confirmed that improvements to the road would include some "ditching" as well as the necessary widening. Mr. Pack also agreed that using a gravel surface for the three to four feet of additional travelway width was not workable, contrary to staff's report that gravel would be used. He added that "prime and double seal" would be the preferred surface. Mr. Bowerman stated he did not think a precedent would be set by allowing the road to remain as it is, treating it as a family division. No traffic is being added to the road. He emphasized that if that were not the case, he would be inclined to require the improvements. Mr. Gould indicated he agreed. He stated that he sympathized with staff and the County Engineer and their effort to try to increase the adequacy of our roads, and it was his desire to be supportive of the ordinances, but, in this case, he felt "the basis on which we would move is simply too thin, too murky, and would be a misinterpretation of the ordinance." He indicated he did not think a precedent would be set. Mr. Cogan stated he did not think it was the intent of the ordinance to require improvements if nothing was being added to a road and development was already in existence. Mr. Wilkerson indicated agreement. Ms. Diehl also agreed and added that, originally, she had felt it was a proper recommendation (on the previous application) but with the current application, she stated she was "comfortable with allowing it to pass as a family division." Regarding the fact that the smaller dwelling is currently "75% into the setback zone," Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if the Commission was doing anything that would interfere with the "grandfathering" of this situation by approving the said dwelling on its own lot. Mr. Payne replied, "No, because you are not changing the front lot line. The only thing you're doing is establishing a side or a rear, or two of each, or whatever you want to call it. But as a result of this subdivision there is no additional non -conformity created." 2M January 7, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Cogan moved that the Eden Lyster Final Plat be approved subject to the following condition: 1440 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following have been met: a. Planning staff approval of documentation of FAMILY DIVISION. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Craig Office Building Addition Site Plan - Proposal to locate a two-story addition of 4,200 square feet for office and equipment storage for a total of 9,000 square feet served by 28 parking spaces on 1.72 acres. Property is located on the north side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) across from Four Seasons Drive. Tax Map 45, parcel 23. Zoned LI, Light Industry. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She also pointed out that the applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 32.8.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the location of a septic field in the 30-foot buffer zone. She explained that because septic area is extremely limited on the site, the proposed area was chosen by the Health Department and the Health Department has also stated that the area can be restored with white pines. *00 Ms. Diehl asked if there is a later time (after the landscape plan has been approved for the building permit) when the landscaping is checked to see if it is in place. Ms. Patterson explained that the Zoning Inspectors check on the landscaping. She further stated that landscaping can be bonded, but before the bond can be reclaimed by the applicant, the Zoning Inspectors must verify that all landscaping materials "are there." Ms. Diehl asked how long the bond lasted. Mr. Keeler replied, "The new landscaping provisions require bonding for a specified length of time after landscaping is in place, though it is not the full bond amount, it is a reduced bond." Mr. Cogan expressed concern that it appears as if the drainfield crosses the property land. Ms. Patterson explained that the drawing on the plat was misleading and that was not the case. It was determined that the Health Department does allow drainfields to run under paved parking areas. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Pleasants who offered no additional comment. U January 7, 1986 Page 7 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked if the reason staff had not required connection to public water was because the Board did not extend the jurisdictional area to buildings in this location past October 10. Ms. Patterson replied, "Past the buildings that existed in '82." She confirmed that the addition is not in the jurisdictional area, but the existing buildings are in the jurisdictional area for public water. Mr. Horne added that "legally the existing buildings can connect but the additions cannot." Mr. Payne confirmed that this was correct. It was determined the old structure was served by private well. It was determined that public sewer was not available to the site (though it does exist on the opposite side of Rio Road). Staff confirmed that the conditions of approval were adequate to insure that the drainfield would be replanted. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Craig Office Building Addition 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 grading and drainage plans; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; C. Issuance of a runoff control permit; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of 10 foot wide by 180 foot long turn lane west bound with a 40-foot taper to the end of the property, with frontage improvements; e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to include replanting in buffer zone; f. Fire office approval. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Dedication of additional right-of-way in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation proposal; b. Fire officer final approval. 3. All storage shall be within buildings. In the event that outside storage is proposed, staff shall approve method of screening. 4. Waiver of Section 32.8.6.1 is granted. 9w January 7, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. In SP-85-83 Robert M. and Halene S. Huff (134 West Park Drive) and SP-85-84 Robert M. and Halene S. Huff (136 West Park Drive) - Request in accordance with Section 15.2.2.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for the operation of a day care center on .5 acres, zoned R-4, Residential. Existing use as a nursery school in a two-story frame house. Property described as Tax Map 60A, parcel 07-B-12 is located on the east side of West Park Drive in Knollwood Subdivision. Char- lottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that this is being reviewed as two separate permits, though it is essentially the same operation. He stated the first request is for a day care center at 134 West Park Drive which is currently a non -conforming nursery school; and the second request is for a day care center at 136 West Park Drive, a currently vacant residential structure which is directly adjacent to 134 West Park Drive. He confirmed the structures in question are separate and on two different lots. Mr. Keeler further explained that currently, as a nursery school the time which a child may stay on premises is limited and currently two classes are conducted with 10 children in each class, for a total of 20. The applicant has determined there is a need for some children to remain throughout the working day, thus the request for day care approval. This will all require licensing by the Virginia Department of Welfare for both structures. Mr.Keeler pointed out that the State licenses day care centers, but no such license is required for nursery schools. Mr. Keeler explained that, with the current proposal, the total number of children on the premises at one time can increase to 20 (rather than 10 children in two classes at two separate times of day). Mr. Bowerman asked if this would allow the possibility of 20 children in the morning and 20 in the afternoon. Mr. Keeler replied, "No, sir." He added that the proposed conditions of approval "would limit a total of 20 in the two residences at any given time." Mr. Gould asked, "What does the number of children increased by 5 mean?" Mr. Keeler responded, "Now, as I understand it, 10 are in nursery school class and 5 are in babysitting arrangements. So now at any given time, 15 are allowable; under the proposal, you can have 20." Regarding Mr. Bowerman's previous question as to whether it could allow 20 children in the morning and 20 in the afternoon, Mr. Keeler stated, "I think, the way this is written, it could be, but not more than 20 at any given time, but there is nothing to preclude this 20 over here and this 20 over here." However, Mr. Keeler stated he did not think that was the yG5 January 7, 1986 Page 9 applicant's intent. He stated "the applicant's intent is to be able to keep the children that she is dealing with now for a longer period of time and that occasions the need for the day care approval." Mr. Keeler emphasized if this use did not already exist in the area and this were a new request, staff's position would be that it did not meet the criteria for the issuance of a special use permit. However, in this particular case, the use does exist and it can continue on indefinitely as a non -conforming use unless the applicant "shuts the door for two years." He added that expansion would be slight in terms of the number of children who are present at any time and conditions could be imposed which would bring the use more in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Gould asked if the offering of food on the premises would impose additional regulations. Mr. Keeler responded as follows: "Nursery Schools are not required to be licensed by the State Welfare Department provided children are kept only a certain number of hours per day. Our local ordinance requires at least Fire Official approval and requires the operator to demonstrate that they are exempt from State regulations. Day care uses are not exempt from State licensing and the State would be approving the food preparation procedures, etc." He indicated that the State regulations are numerous. He emphasized that, in this case, both of these properties would be brought under State licensing and would be required to meet all the pertinent regulations. Ms. Diehl asked if the licenses would limit the use to 20 children. Mr. Keeler explained that the limitation to 20 children is the county's condition. He added that "if the State Welfare Department limits it to a lesser number, that lesser number would apply." Ms. Diehl asked if the State would take into consideration the fact that there will be nursery school children there who would not ordinarily come under their regulations, but who will be taking up space. Mr. Keeler stated it was his understanding from the applicant that the State is aware of the applicant's operation and that is the reason the State wants both sites to be licensed. Regarding the parking situation, Mr. Cogan indicated concern about there being sufficient room for vehicles to turn around without having to back into the roadway. Mr. Keeler indicated he did not think that would be possible. January 7, 1986 Page 10 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Huff addressed the Commission and offered the following comments: --The applicant is seeking the right to keep approximately 10 children all day. --There would be no increase in traffic because the children "would come from the nursery school to next door." --There is enough room to accommodate a turn -around. --There is no plan to increase the number of children. There was some confusion as to the current schedule and enrollment of the nursery school. Though Mr. Huff indicated there was not an afternoon class, his wife corrected him and stated there is a separate afternoon class but the number of children present at any given time does not exceed 20. Both Mr. and Mrs. Huff confirmed that the total number of children will not exceed 20 with the new application, but they are seeking approval for an additional 5 children to be cared for all day. Ms. Huff explained that 5 children are currently staying all day (no license is required for this number), but in order for that number to be increased to 10, a day care license is required. Mr. Keeler confirmed this is the arrangement contemplated by staff's conditions of approval. In response to Mr. Cogan's question regarding the possible installation of a turn -around area, Mr. Huff indicated there was sufficient room, in the front yard of 134, to create a semi -circle driveway. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr. Leroy Bedreen, an adjacent property owner to the rear, who also presented a petition of opposition bearing 25 signatures; Mr. Chester Titus, 138 West Park Drive; and Mr. William Reinholdt. Their reasons included the following: --Area is not large enough for a day care facility since the combined area of both lots is less than 1/2 acre. --Constant in/out traffic. --Inadequacy of very narrow, unpaved, heavily travelled road which has no available parking. --Day care designation will allow the business to operate at all hours and days. --Street traffic is often blocked by patrons of the facility. --Increase in traffic. --Increased noise. --Lack of privacy. --Change in residential nature of the neighborhood. FA January 7, 1986 Page 11 Ms. Corrine Carr, 142 West Park Drive, addressed the Commission and though she did not oppose the application she expressed the following concerns: --Traffic congestion. --Increased hours of usage. --Future use of the property is uncertain. --Allowing this use in a residential neighborhood may be setting a precedent. Ms. Carr, who was somewhat familiar with State licensing requirements, explained that the State will limit the number of children allowed based on the ages of the children to be served, the amount of space that is available per child, both internal and external, the number of bathrooms, etc. Ms. Deborah Smith, daughter of the applicant and a teacher at the nursery school, addressed the Commission and asked that the Commission grant the special use permit. Her comments included the following: --There will be no increase in traffic since the total enrollment will not increase. --The request is just to enable the applicant to increase the services to the current children. --There is plenty of room for the children and the school has an excellent play area. Ms. Huff pointed out that the traffic problems on Bennington Road are caused by people taking short cuts from Barracks Road and not by her business. She also assured the Commission that she would most certainly comply with the regulations established by the State. Mr. Huff explained that an advantage to including 134 West Park Drive in the licensing request was that it would allow the children to be housed in that facility which is farther away from adjacent property owners. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if lot size is a consideration in our local ordinances in relation to this type of facility. Mr. Keeler responded, "In review of these situations we generally get involved with lot size, student ratios, etc. in cases where the State is not licensing the use. On several occasions we have included conditions requiring the applicant to at least become familiar with the state's regulations and, in good faith, to operate under them, and we have imposed the spatial requirements. In this particular case, the State is going to license the use (and) I didn't see the need to do any repetitive type of review. If spatial requirements are not adequate for the number" sought by the applicant, then the State will not allow that number and the license will limit the number to what can be accommodated. Mr. Keeler stated the State will take into consideration both the lot and the building. 97 January 7, 1986 Page 12 Regarding screening between this property and adjacent properties, Mr. Keeler indicated there was not substantial screening. He also confirmed that the Commission could require screening. (The applicant indicated there does exist a six-foot fence, though there was some confusion as to who had erected the fence.) Mr. Bowerman made the following statement: "The question of what the State requires is something that this Commission cannot deal with; that is a function of the State with the State licensing requirements. What this commission is trying to determine is whether this is an appropriate use in this location at a scale that has been indicated it would be done at. One of the problems I'm having is that I don't know what scale it is going to be done at." Mr. Bowerman added that the applicant has indicated it is her desire to limit the number of students to 20 at one time which would not be an expansion over its current use. He added that even if the State should allow more, staff's recommended conditions of approval would limit usage to 20 children in any case. He pointed out that the existing facility is unlicensed and he felt if the use is going to continue, it would be preferable to have it licensed so there will be some "overview" of the operation. He stated he would be willing to approve the application only if he could be assured it would not be an expansion of the current use, since it probably is not an appropriate use in a residential setting. However, since this is a "grandfathered" use, it must be dealt with differently than it otherwise might be. Ms. Diehl indicated she was leaning toward approving SP-85-83 for the current structure, but not SP-85-84. Mr. Cogan agreed with Mr. Bowerman that if the use were not already existing, he would not be in favor of approval. However, as staff pointed out, by approving this,two additional controls over the facility will be effective: (1) Licensing by the State; and (2) It cannot be assigned or transferred to someone else. Referring to Ms. Diehl's concern about approving both structures, Mr. Cogan stated "we are not really looking at increasing the population of the facility, only the hours of operation." He felt that approving both permits would not create more children, but would only give more space for the current children which might have some advantage. Mr. Cogan stated his main concern was with the traffic situation and he was in favor of adding a condition requiring that some sort of turn -around area be installed. He felt this should be mandatory. Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with Mr. Cogan, but explained the reason she did not favor expansion to include the second house was because she felt it would impact the neighborhood. She indicated she had not been convinced of the need for the expansion since the number of children will not be increased. c1R January 7, 1986 Page 13 The Chairman asked the applicant to explain the reason behind 1firâ–º, the application for the second dwelling. Ms. Huff responded and indicated it was desirable to have a place where the smaller children could be separated from the older ones at certain times since they usually take long naps. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding the age of the children, Ms. Huff stated the children range in age from 21-2 yrs. to 5 yrs. Mr. Wilkerson asked if the children currently use both yards for outside activities. Ms. Huff responded, "136 is mostly open space and the (play equipment) is at 134." Ms. Diehl indicated she understood Ms. Huff's reason for wanting to be able to separate the children. She asked if there would be any way to restrict the use of the second facility to assure that an outside play area did not develop. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the applicant had indicated that a very nice play area exists at the other facility and he felt the Commission could say that the playground could only exist in its current location. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he could support both applications if a circular driveway can be constructed. Though it was not known how long the licensing procedure would take, it was determined that the State requires local approval of the facility first before proceding with the licensing. Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt approval of the application would provide a better situation than currently exists, in view of the fact that there will be control over the total number of children and the use of the facility will not be greater than currently exists. Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission would see a site plan for the facility since it is a change of use. Mr. Keeler stated the Commission could require a site plan. Ms. Diehl indicated she was interested in landscaping and buffering being installed. Mr. Cogan proposed the following language be added to condition (5) : ...and vehicular ingress and egress with provisions for a drop-off and pick-up site. Ms. Diehl proposed the addition of condition (6) as follows: Planning Commission approval of site plan. (It was later determined this should read: Planning Commission approval of sketch plan.) 'A January 7, 1986 Page 14 Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-83 and SP-85-84 for Robert M. and Halene S. Huff be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non- transferrable: 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations: a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning admin- istrator a copy of the original license and all renewals, thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discre- tion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful non- compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; C. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude applica- tion of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. 3. Not more than twenty (20) children shall be on the combined premises of 134 and 136 West Park Drive at any time: 4. Fire Official and Building Official approvals; 5. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of paved entrance and staff approval of parking and vehicular ingress and egress with provisions for a drop-off and pick-up site. 6. Planning Commission approval of site plan. (Later changed to read: ...approval of sketch plan.) Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Payne made the following statement: "I assume it is the Commission's intent, if this motion is adopted, that the condition relating to the vehicular access could be satisfied by one facility." It was determined this was the intent of of the Commission. 160 January 7, 1986 Page 15 Idattempt to clarify condition No. 6, Mr. Keeler stated the following: "I assume that your intent with (condition) 5 is that we work out the design and driveway, etc. and bring it to you to approve as a part of the site plan. (Since these buildings exist) is it my understanding that you want to see the roadway and any buffering provisions, landscaping and fencing provisions? If that's the case, then I am not sure that we necessarily need a site plan that meets all the engineering requirements of the ordinance." Mr. Bowerman asked what term should be used. Mr. Keeler responded, "A sketch plan." It was determined that condition No. 6 should be amended to read: Planning Commission approval of sketch plan. Mr. Cogan amended his motion accordingly and Mr. Wilkerson also agreed to the amended motion. The amended motion for approval was passed (4:1) with Ms. Diehl casting the dissenting vote. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 1986. err ZMA-85-29 Lake Reynovia PUD (Daley Craig) - Request to rezone +236 acres from R-1, Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Develop- ment including 6 acres shopping center; 25.2 acres industrial; 230 square foot detached dwellings; 70 multi -family dwelling units and including roads, recreational areas, and open space areas. Property, described as Tax Map 90, parcel 36A (part) is located on the west side of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742) from the National Guard Armory to the Lake Reynovia entrance road. Scottsville Magisterial District. It was determined the applicant had requested deferral until January 21, 1986. Mr. Cogan moved, Mr. Wilkerson seconded, the the applicant's request for deferral be approved. The motion for deferral was unanimously passed. OLD BUSINESS Whippoorwill Subdivision - Status of Turn Lane Construction - Mr. Cogan expressed concern that it does not appear that construction has begun on the required turn lane for this development and it was determined staff would look into the issue and report their findings to the Commission. / d/ January 7, 1986 Page 16 NEW BUSINESS Fontaine Avenue Resolution to the Board - Mr. Wilkerson moved, Ms. Diehl seconded that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, on December 17, 1985 the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors of ZMA-85-1 South 29 Land Trust and Sariandale Corporation for rezoning of 25 ± acres from R-10, Residential, (Proffered) to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center; and WHEREAS, the applicant as part of his rezoning request has agreed to complete the great majority of the construction of a full four -lane development of Fontaine Avenue from the City limits to Route 29-250 Bypass. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission requests that the Board of Supervisors, should they approve this rezoning, give strong considera- tion to requesting the allocation of primary funds from theVirginia Department of Highways & Transportation for the completion of the sections of the four lane project on Fontaine Avenue in the County. Mr. Horne suggested that the Commission might wish to add a clause suggesting that the Board, if the rezoning is approved, send a similar resolution or memorandum to the City Council. Mr. Gould asked if the resolution, as worded, was requesting a priority within the allocation or an additional allocation. Mr. Horne responded, "There is no allocation for it now in the primary funds, so it would be a new additional allocation of the existing funds." He added it would be "an additional Albemarle County allocation" since we are competing with the rest of the district. It was the consensus of the Commission to let the Board pass a similar resolution to the City if it so chooses. The above -stated motion to adopt the resolution was unanimously passed. Hollymeade Square II - Site Plan Extension - Mr. Horne explained that the current approval will expire on January 17 since the developer has not yet broken ground due to financing and construction problems. He stated the applicant has stated that ground will be broken within the next 6 months and is, therefore, requesting a 6 month extension. Mr. Cogan moved that the Hollymeade Square II Site Plan be extended for 6 months, to July 17, 1986. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. 102.) January 7, 1986 Page 17 UNOGEN Parking Lot - Ms. Diehl expressed concern that the parking SOW lot for this facility is less than satisfactory. However, it was determined that paving of the parking lot had not been required until a later phase of construction. Upcoming Six -Year Road Improvement Plan Review - Mr.Horne stated it was his hope that the Commission could be much more involved with the formulation of this plan than it has been in the past. Annual Report - It was determined that the appointment of a committee to prepare the annual report would take place at the January 14 meeting. Mr. Bowerman advised the Commission that it might be some time before the two vacant seats on the Commission have been filled and, therefore, the necessity of informing the Planning Office of any anticipated absences. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35. DS TP 61hn Horne, Secretary /0