HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 20 87 PC MinutesJanuary 20, 1987
5�ft'" The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 20, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms.
Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials persent
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.
En
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
Turtle Creek Phase VII Revised Site Plan - This is a proposed amendment of
the method of stormwater detention on the approved Turtle Creek Phase
VII Site Plan. As required by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
the Planning Commission must approve the method of stormwater detention.
The total area of the site is 5.5 acres. Zoned R-15, Residential (with
proffers). The property is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive
and the north side of Northwest Drive adjacent to Eldercare Gardens.
Tax Map 61W, Parcel 22. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained: "The applicant is
requesting the change in stormwater detention facilities due to the
prohibitive cost of constructing the previously proposed underground
detention tank. There has been no other change or complication on the
site, or change in the development proposal that would necessitate a
change of the method of detention." Staff recommended denial of the
request for the following reasons: (1) There has been no change
in circumstance on the site since the previous site plan was approved;
(2) The alternative site for proposed picnic area is unacceptable
due to the topography of the site, its proximity to Commonwealth Drive
and its infringement into the ravine area; and (3) Surface detention should
not be located in close proximity to areas where pedestrian traffic will
be prevalent.
Mr. Benish confirmed that it had been a part of the applicant's proffer
that the ravine area would remain undisturbed.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained that at the time of the original approval, the applicant
had not yet obtained cost estimates for the proposed underground
facility. It was later found that the cost was prohibitive. He stated
that it is the applicant's intention to place a very high fence around
the proposed pond. He also explained that the picnic area would not
infringe on the ravine area but would rather be at the top of it.
He also pointed out that there should be few children in the recreation
area since the development is made up totally of one -bedroom units.
/6
January 20, 1987
Page 2
The staff report also explained that the applicant is proposing a grade
change for buildings located on the northwestern portion of the site
which will eliminate the need for most of the retaining wall
previously shown on the northern property line. The report stated:
"The staff does not foresee any adverse impact from the grade change
and recommends approval of this change."
In response to Mr. Cogan's question about the difference in cost between
the two alternatives, Mr. Edwards indicated the cost of the underground
facility would be approximately $60,000 and the now -requested above-
ground detention facility essentially already exists, so the cost
difference would be $60,000. He also stated that'several thousand
dollars" would be saved by the elimination of a part of the retaining
wall.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer.
Mr. Armm addressed the Commission. He explained that both detention
facilities would work from a hydraulic standpoint, but that he has concerns
about the appearance, aesthetics and "other than hydraulic function" of
the new proposal. He explained that because of the steepness (12:1)
of the proposed basin, he has required that the applicant show that the sides
will be stoned, rip -rapped and gravelled. He stated he felt there would
be additional grading and fill required for the new picnic area location
and suggested that the applicant should take this additional cost into
consideration.
Mr. Cogan stated he was not aware that anything greater than a 2:1 slope
was allowed in the County.
Mr. Armm replied, "We have been trying to hold 2:1 as a maximum. ... I
think it was found that a 2:1 cannot be achieved and still keep it within
the property. The only way that we would allow the plan to be approved,
submitted with a 12:1, is to show the entire pond to be grouted and
rip -rapped."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Benish, hypothetically, if he had been shown
an original plan with whatever recreation area was required and
above -ground detention facilities, would he have thought the use of
the site was too intense to accomplish the parking, buildings,
detention basin, and recreational area. Mr.. Benish responded that
he would not have called the site "overdeveloped" but he would have
required that changes be made. He added, "But now it is approaching
a situation where I would call it over intensified" due to the way
the rest of the site has already been developed.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the request for the change in
the detention facility. She recalled this is one of two or three
site plans which has used a proposed underground facility as a selling
point for the original plan and then requested a change later after
costs are discovered .
1
January 20, 1987
Page 3
Mr. Gould expressed his agreement with Ms. Diehl's comments.
,*AW, Mr. Stark questioned why the developer had not researched the costs
of the facility much earlier on in the development of the property.
He stated he felt the Commission was being asked "to give up
everything without gaining anything for the people who will be
living there." He stated he could not support the requested change.
Mr. Gould moved that the proposed amendment to the Turtle Creek Phase
VII Site Plan, allowing for a change in the method of stormwater
detention, be denied, with the exception that the request for a grade
change for buildings located on the northwestern portion of the site,
eliminating the need for most of the retaining wall, be approved.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
James L. Wood Final Plat - Proposal to divide 6.04 acres into 2 lots: 2.04
and 3.10 acres. These lots will be served by a joint driveway. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas. The property is located on the cul-de-sac of Pheasant Lane,
off of the south side of Ivy Farm Drive approximately 800 feet from Rt. 658.
Ivy Farms (Milkey Tract) Subdivision. Tax Map 44, Parcel 32G. Jack Jouett
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Patterson confirmed that this
lot was one of those previously proposed to be two lots, but which the
Commission had reduced to just one lot. Mr. Bowerman recalled that
15 lots had been proposed on the preliminary plat, but had been reduced
to 13 lots on the final plat, and this particular lot was one of those
which had been reduced from two lots to one. Ms. Patterson confirmed
that the file showed a proposal with this lot divided into two lots
"exactly as they have divided it here", back in 1980.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne who had the authority to approve a septic
field on a slope of greater than 20%. He was under the impression this
required the approval of either the Commission or the Board. However,
Mr. Payne stated that the provision was for slopes greater than 25%.
He added, "There is, what amounts to, a recommendation in the Ordinance
directed to the Health Department concerning 20% and then there is
expressed provision to deal with 25%." He confirmed that under 25%,
no further approval is needed beyond that of the Health Department.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ron Wiley, representing Mr. James L. Wood, addressed the Commission.
He stated he was present to answer questions.
Mr. Buddy Edwards, also representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stressed that the applicant has demonstrated that
two buildable lots are possible. He questioned the reason for
condition l.a. (Issuance of an erosion control permit.) since no
grading will be necessary for driveways. Ms. Patterson explained,
"That condition means that the erosion control permit must be
alp'
January 20, 1987
Page 4
obtained before we sign the plat, if a permit, in fact, will be required.
So if one will not be required, and the County Engineer says it's O.K.,
we will say that that condition is satisfied." Mr. Edwards indicated he
understood.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Clyde Gouldman, II, attorney for Mr. William Edgerton, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Gouldman referred to the lot in question as lot 8. His
comments included the following:
--Mr. Edgerton has two major concerns: (1) Is the present application
deficient because it does not include a request for a special use
permit because Lot 8 has no development rights? and (2) Protection
of critical slopes. It was his contention that Lot 8B did not have
a lawful building site.
--The topography of this development places it in an area of critical
slopes,
--Lot 8B does not meet the requirements of Chapter 4 (page 25)
of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a building site that has a
contiguous area of 30,000 square feet and "no one side any greater
than five times the smallest side." The County Engineer, in a
July, 1986 memo, determined that Lot 8B did not have such a building
site. However, the County staff does not agree with that determination
at this time, though in a memo dated February 5, 1981, the County
staff stated that the lot (the entire 6 acres) had only one building
site and locations for two drainfields. The County staff has now
changed its position and has determined there to be two building
sites and 4 drainfield locations.
--This lot did not exist as a recorded parcel at the time the current
Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The parcel was recorded in March, 1981,
and development rights, if they went along with the lot, were required to
be
recorded on the plat.
--Chapter 10 of Zoning Ordinance has consistently been interpreted by
the County staff to require any lot which comes into existence after
the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) to obtain a
special use permit for subdivision of the lot.
--Mr. Gouldman felt that a septic drainfield fell within the definition
of a "structure" as defined in the Ordinance and should therefore not
be located "within" the setback area.
The drainfield for Lot 8B is partially located within the setback
area and should not be since the Ordinance prohibits drainfields
from being located in open spaces except in emergencies.
--His client feels a mistake has been made in the boundary line
on the proposed plat, but that is a private matter between the
parties involved. His client feels there is an area of approximately
1,900 square feet which is his property. Since the plat shows
one of the drainfields in this area, the Commission should be
aware of the dispute.
--The plat does not show lawful building sites on each lot, i.e. it
does not show the location, area and dimensions as required by
Section 18-55.0 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
--Staff has twice requested the applicant to supply the deed book
reference for the easement which runs from the cul-de-sac, but
the applicant has not yet supplied this information. He cautioned
that approval of this plat might inadvertently imply that the
-2i
January 20, 1987
Page 5
Commission is supporting a throughway to Ivy Farms.
He asked the Commission to consider whether the cul-de-sac is
permanent or temporary.
--All plats submitted have shown a different location for the
stream. He felt the location should be definitely determined
because of setback considerations and also the effect
on the buildable area of the lots.
Mr. Gouldman asked the Commission to deny the application.
Mr. William Edgerton, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission.
He presented a series of overlays which showed the various locations which
have been shown for the stream. His presentation showed that there have
been six different locations for the stream, and he also showed how the
variation in locations has effected the setbacks. Mr. Edgerton also pre-
sented overlays showing areas of 25% or greater slopes (by his calculations).
He stated he had presented his calculations to Mr. Armm, the County
Engineer, and Mr. Armm "had no difficulty" with areas as presented by
him.
The following residents of Pheasant Lane addressed the Commission and
expressed their concerns about the proposal:
Mr. Tom Jorgenson - Mr. Jorgenson also presented a petition signed
by all the residents of Pheasant Lane.
Mr. David McLauglin, President of Ivy Farms Home Association
Mr. John Haffner
Their concerns included the following:
--The possibility of a road that will connect Pheasant Lane to the
1%01 back 100 acres of the property. Residents purchased their homes
with the understanding tint Pheasant Lane was a dead-end cul-de-sac
and could not be extended. They questioned the existence of an
easement since their plats do not show one.
--Allowing this division will set a precedent which could allow
anyone in Ivy Farms with more than four acres to divide their property.
--Increased traffic on a non -tolerable road.
--Locating drainfields on steep slopes.
--Erosion which will be caused by grading.
By a show of hands, the Chairman acknowledged the presenceof six other
members of the public who were present and supported Mr. Jorgenson's
and Mr. Edgerton's comments.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Wiley to respond to some of the issues that were
raised.
Mr. Wiley's comments included the following:
--An easement does exist and was granted for the benefit of the
owner of the back 100 acres to allow him access to that property;
however, it is extraordinarily unlikely that it will ever be used
since that person also has an access to Fox Run Lane which has
much less difficult topography. He pointed out that this issue
was irrelevant to the matter at hand.
--Regarding the legality of the building sites, he stated that the
Commission must consider whether or not they trust staff's
`44W determination. He stressed that staff has researched the matter
�z�
January 20, 1987
Page 6
at great length and have determined that drainfields and building sites
do exist and meet all the requirements of the ordinance.
--Regarding the discrepancy of the stream location, he stated that
is not an important issue since building sites and drainfields
can still be located regardless of the location.
--He did not address the issue of the boundary dispute since he agreed
this matter was not before the Commission.
Mr. Edwards also responded to some of the issues raised. He stated that had
he known the stream location would be such an issue, he would have located
it at numerous points (possibly every 5 feet) rather than at only a few
points as has been the Case. He stressed that the location of the stream
was never really "relevant" because the septic system sites are far enough
away so as not to make any difference. He stated that two different soil
scientists have verified that that there are adequate drainfield sites for
the property to support two lots. Regarding the easement question he
stated: "True on an approved subdivision plat it was not shown on that.
After that subdivision was done this lot was still owned by Dr. Hurt and
he has a very good friend who owns the property that joins this, Mr. Timothy
Eckels. ... Mr. Eckels likes to go out and visit his property and walk
up and down it. He has a fee -simple strip that he owns from the end of
Fox Lane to this property. This particular strip --he just wanted another
means to go out there and park and walk to that end of his property. This
thing could never be turned into a dedicated public right-of-way without
the owner of the lot that it's on agreeing to it. He just has the right
to, more or less, walk up and down it. I suppose he could try to construct
a driveway, but he doesn't have the wherewithall to cause it to be dedicated
to become a street. So there really shouldn't be any concern on the part
of the people." Regarding the boundary dispute, he pointed out that when
he had done the initial boundary survey, the corners that were used already
had existing irons in place. He added that since this has been going on,
those irons have had to be reset several times because they keep disappearing.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman asked for comment from the County Engineer.
Mr. Armm commented, using Mr. Edgerton's overlays: "When I first inves-
tigated this...I made an interpretation that was very similar to one seen
here where I did not include the side setbacks and the rear setbacks in
the, quote, building site. It was later pointed out to me by members of
the Planning Staff and by the Zoning Official that the interpretation has
been that the building site is to include this area (pointing to the drawing)
on both lots, the reason being that the building site is the area required
not just for the structure, but also for the two septic areas, the main
system and the alternate. In that septic systems can be built within
the setback area, it has been the practice of the County, apparently,
to interpret that building site include these side and rear lot setbacks.
So I believe that was later revised and an additional memo sent out and
it was discussed among staff. I was under the same impression that Mr.
Edgerton was when I first analyzed this and did come to agreement with
Mr. Edgerton on the 25% slopes, and had received pretty much the same
finding that Mr. Edwards has just mentioned that regardless of the
stream location, I believe the 100-foot setback is not as critical
as the 25% slope area. It is common practice in survey and engineering,
January 20, 1987 Page 7
in order to locate a line, such as a stream that meanders, to go out and
only shoot spots along it in sort of a dot -to -dot (fashion). The more
*, shots that are taken, of course, the more accuracy there will be."
He confirmed that he felt the finite location of the stream would not
have much bearing because the 100-foot setback taken from the one of
the most critical locations of the stream, being furthest up the hill,
still does not cover the area that the 25% slopes would cover."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Armm for his current interpretai.on of the setback
area being included with the 30,000 square foot required area. Mr.
Armm responded: "My current interpretation is that it is our policy
as staff to include the rear property setback and the side property
setback as part of the building site (i.e. part of the required
30,000 square feet)."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Armm to comment on his memo of July 15, in which he
stated that "the ratio of 1:5 for the 30,000 square feet cannot be
accomplished on Lot 8B." Mr. Armm responded: "I had not analyzed it
with the adding in of this additional area. Of course that gives you
more bulk to measure that 1:5 in. I think another point to bring up
at this time is an interpretation of how is that 5:1 measured. If it
must stay entirely within the lot lines, that's one thing; it it's an
averaging of the lot area --there aren't too many lots that are approved
by either staff or this Commission for subdivision that are perfectly
rectangular and you can simply take a scale and measure a 5:1. It is
my understanding that there has been a lot of past practice in averaging
out a line, so to speak. This would be interpreted into a diagonal
across these two areas. The only way we can look at this is to go
by past practices of staff's interpretation."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to comment on some of the issuEs that had been
raised. Mr. Payne responded that he would prefer to answer the
questions in "generalities" and if more precise,detailed answers were
desired, he would prefer to do that in executive session. He made
the following comments on the issues raised:
--Special Permit: "I believe that that matter has already been
settled. It has already been litigated extensively. This
very issue has already been settled in my opinion. Mr. Gouldman
is in error and there is no requirement for a special use permit
in this case."
--Is the drainfield a structure and therefore should not be permitted
in the setback area?: "If you read the definition of a structure,
a drainfield is simply not a structure.
--Does the ordinance require the actual delineation on the plat of
the 30,000 square foot building area?: "I believe, typically, a lot
of these materials are not shown on the plat that is to be recorded,
but rather on another copy of the plat which is not to be recorded,
simply because it is not necessary to depict all these things that
are necessary for planning purposes for purposes of the title to the
property.... Therefore, it is my understanding that the practice is to
submit perhaps several documents. In any event, the real question is
not whether it's depicted on a particular copy of a plat, because
obviously if it isn't depicted on a particular copy of a plat, it
§Oftr should be done. The real question is whether it exists. It is my
understanding that a depiction has been made and that the staff
-:2 7
January 20, 1987
Page 8
has (a plat) showing this 30,000 square foot building site. If it
hasn't been done, it should be done. "
(Mr. Keeler added, "If a surveyor certifies that there is a 30,000
square foot building site on the lot, and he puts his stamp on
the plat, it's good enough for me."
--Easement Question: "The Subdivision Ordinance requires all easements that
are on the property to be shown on the property. It's proper, if
such an easement exists, to show it on this plat. It probably should
reflect the Deed Book citation."
(Mr. Horne added that staff will require verification of the existence
of the easement before the plat is signed (should it be approved).
--Setback Question - Does the 30,000 square foot area include the setback
area?: "I agree with Mr. Armm. In my judgment, the 30,000 square
foot area for the building site does include all the setbacks. In
this case the front setback is irrelevant because it's in 25% slope
anyway. That area certainly is permitted to be included, and I don't
think this is a matter for interpretation. The language of the
ordinance is perfectly plain. The staff's application of the
ordinance, as reflected in its recommendation to you tonight, is
plainly correct and is plainly consistent with the way it has been
enforced for the last six years."
--Open Space: "Open space is not an issue in this case. Open space
is a term of art in this ordinance and there is no open space
in this subdivision as that term is used in this ordinance. So Ivo
the discussion of open space as a term of art is irrelevant to
this discussion."
(This concluded Mr. Payne's comments.)
Mr. Cogan stated he had spoken with Mr. Rice (Health Department) and he
had indicated there is enough space to locate the drainfield in an area
of less than 20% slope. He also stated there is a possiblity that
pumping will be required for lot 8B. Mr. Rice had further stated that
if it is required that the drainfield be moved for lot 8A so that it is
entirely out of the 20% area, then the dwelling will be restricted to
three bedrooms.
Regarding the easement, Mr. Keeler made the following statement: "This
easement was not reflected on a plat that (the Commission) approved.
Therefore, you have not endorsed the use of this easement, if it exists,
of it it doesn't exist, for any additional development to Pheasant Lane.
That would be new business if you are presented with a development
proposal."
Mr. Michel asked if anyone recalled the development right issue at the
time of the original approval. Mr. Bowerman recalled that the develop-
ment right question had not been an issue at that time. He also recalled
that the original application had been for 17 lots, but the Commission
had approved it with 13 lots. He added that he and Ms. Diehl had visited *4101
the property at that time and had determined that there were not two
building sites on lot 8.
January 20, 1987 Page 9
cm
Mr. Michel stated he felt this was a very aggressive use of the land
and this is a "marginal" subdivision.
Mr. Keeler stated this plat meets the "bare minimum" requirements of
the Ordinance, but it DOES meet the requirements.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was somewhat concerned about Mr. Armm's change
in his interpretation of the requirements, i.e. at one point he
felt this could not meet the requirements for a lawful building site,
but now he feels it does meet the requirments.
Mr. Stark stated that he would support the application since staff
has determined that it falls within the requirements of the ordinance.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the development is still marginal but since
staff has determined it meets the requirments of the ordinance, she
would support it, although reluctantly.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed with Commissioners Stark and Diehl.
Mr. Bowerman stated he could not support the proposal because he felt,
as he did six years ago, that this should be a single lot. He stated
that it has not been shown to him that the property can positively
support two lots and if there is any doubt at all he preferred to
err on the side of the property. He stated he felt the use was too
intense and there were arguments raised at the time of the original
approval which are still pertinent.
`%or Commissioners Michel, Gould and Cogan indicated their agreement with
Mr. Bowerman, though Mr. Cogan stated he did feel some reluctance in
not supporting the proposal in view of the fact that the County staff
has determined that the division is possible. He felt, however, that
the lot was more developable as one lot than as two marginal lots.
Ms. Diehl moved that the James L. Wood Final Plat be approved, subject
to conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which failed to pass, with Commissioners
Wilkerson, Diehl and Stark voting in favor, and Commissioners Gould, Cogan,
Michel and Bowerman voting against.
Mr. Michel moved that the James L. Wood Final Plat be denied because
the critical slope issue has not been adequately calculated and thus
the 30,000 square foot building area has not been accurately shown
to meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan suggested that a deferral might be more in line. Mr. Horne
stated, however, that he did not think the applicant would be able to
present any further information.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Edwards to address the Commission. Mr. Edwards
`"Ar, used the map and explained how a 30,000 square foot site could be
obtained which was not five times longer than it was wide. He explained
that the Commission was confused because they were looking at the
January 20, 1987
Page 10
proposal from the wrong angle.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt this was still a marginal proposal and
stated he felt the proposal was still not entirely clear. He felt the
applicant should show "irrefutable" building site locations.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support a motion for denial because
the Commission must rely on staff's expertise. She added, however,
that "emotionally" she was not in favor of the division of the lot.
Mr. Cogan stated he was changing his position because he could not
find that the proposal was in violation of the ordinance and also
because he could not advise the applicant as to what changes could
be made to make the application comply.
The motion for denial was defeated (4:3) with Commissioners Bowerman,
Michel and Gould voting for denial, and Commissioners Cogan, Diehl,
Wilkerson and Stark voting against denial.
Ms. Diehl again moved that the James L. Wood Final 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 Attorney approval of joint driveway maintenance agreement.
C. County Engineer approval of stream location shown on plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed (4:3) with Commissioners
Diehl, Cogan, Wilkerson and Stark voting in favor and Commissioners
Bowerman, Michel and Gould voting against.
The meeting recessed from 9:25 to 9:35.
Teledyne Chemical Storage Building Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 2,000
square foot building for the storage of chemicals which are presently
unsheltered. The proposed building will be located behind the plant,
adjacent to the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport. Zoned LI, Light Industry.
Property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 66, is located on the east side of
Rt. 743 and north of Rt. 606. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report which included an addendum to the report.
A significant issue in the application was the Fire Official's recommen-
dation that an additional containment system be installed
which would contain the runoff of water from the sprinkler system, since
said water could conceivably exceed the containment capacity of the
building. An alternative to this additional containment system would
be the use of halon or carbon dioxide sprinkler systems.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
�7
January 20, 1987 Page 11
Mr. Sam Darnell, representing Teledyne, addressed the Commission.
He stated he was unprepared to address the containment issue
`,. raised by the Fire Official since he had just been made aware of
the problem. He pointed out that he felt the Fire Official's
comments were recommendations only and could not be made a
requirement. He questioned how it would be possible to determine how large
a containment system would be necessary for the sprinkler discharge since
it is not possible to predict the extent of an accident or how much
water might be discharged. He stated that a water system is the
preference of the applicant since the plumbing is already in place.
Mr. Cogan pointed out the importance of this issue because of
its relation to possible groundwater contamination.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the applicant might wish for the matter to
be deferred to allow him time to meet with the Fire Official to
to discuss the issue of the additional containment system.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission could go ahead and act on
the application if the applicant was willing to change to one of
the chemical sprinkler systems.
Mr. Darnell stated it was his understanding that the BOCA Code required
that the structure be "sprinklered" and his interpretation of
"sprinklered" was with water.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Jenkins, the Fire Official, to comment. He stated
*rr. W that the Building Code says the building must be protected by a
fire supression system and gives a table of the means by which it
can be protected, i.e, water, halon, carbon dioxide, dry chemicals.
He stated that it was left to the discretion of the building official
and the architect as to which means would be most feasible.
Mr. Michel stated the choices were to (1) defer the item; (2) approve
it with a different system; or (3) approve it with a containment
system as recommended by the Fire Official. Mr. Michel pointed out
that the cost of a dry system might be less than the containment
system that is being recommended by the Fire Official.
It was determined the applicant preferred that the matter be deferred.
Mr. Michel moved that the Teledyne Chemical Storage Building Site Plan
be deferred to February 3.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Better Living Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to redesign interior to allow
4,200 additional square feet of furniture sales area, in lieu of warehouse
area. This amendment necessitates ten additional parking spaces and
one additional loading space, all spaces to be provided on existing
paved area. 12.369 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is
located on the west side of Rt. 29, adjacent to the north of the Hub
Furniture Store, south of Jim Price Chevrolet. Tax Map 45, Parcels 68C1,
69A, 112A, and 112B.
January 20, 1987
Page 12
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
amendment, with no conditions.
Mr. Horne confirmed that the applicant's decision not to dedicate the
right-of-way for the possible future Rio/Hilton Connector Road did
not have much effect at this time because the applicant is not proposing
any construction in that area.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Nunelly who offered no additional
comment.
Mr. Michel moved that the Better Living Site Plan Amendment be approved.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
ti
John Horne, Secretary
DS