Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 24 87 PC MinutesNovember 24, 1987 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 24, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. Laura Hill, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr. Mike Armm, County Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Gould. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of November 10, 1987, were approved as submitted. Key Estate Final Plat - Proposal to create three lots from 7.91 acres. Lot size served by a public road ranges from 2.0 to 3.1 acres, and served by a private road ranges from 2.01 to 3.22 acres. Proposed Lot C is presently improved with a single family dwelling. The applicant requests a special case for a private road to be permitted (Section 18-36C). Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, is located on the north side of Rt. 659 (SPCA Road) adjacent to the Woods Condominiums. Tax Map 45, Parcel 76. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated that the applicant's proposal was the same as previously reviewed by the Commission, except that additional soil and slope studies have been completed to provide information requested by the Commission. The report also stated that staff's previous recommendation for denial had been changed to "approval of three lots served by a private road." The report explained that staff's previous recommendation for denial had been based "primarily on staff's opinion that it resulted in the creation of an odd -shaped lot (lot C)." The Commission had questioned whether the proposed lot lines were fixed by the requirements for minimum lot area, building area, etc. In response to these concerns, the applicant subsequently submitted two alternative compliant subdivision plats of redesigned lots complete with additional soil study and Health Department approvals. The report stated: "As a result of these further studies, staff no longer maintains that proposed lot C is odd -shaped to meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance." The staff report explained further that "once it has been established that a plat is approvable for three lots served by a public road, the Commission can consider the applicant's request for a special case to allow a private road." The staff identified the following aspects of the proposal which, in staff's opinion, were public benefits to be gained which outweigh the fact that the proposal doesxnt meet all of the typical circumstances in which a private road is permitted: (1) A total of three residences will be served by the road; (2) The property is located on the banks of a watersupply reservoir; (3) The construction of a public road would necessitate additional en- vironmental degradation as a result of increased grading and travelway width; (4) Permitting 2.0 acre lots on a private road in this circumstance does not result in the creation of additional lots; and (5) Neither scenario could be shown to further preserve valuable agricultural land. November 24, 1987 Page 2 In addition to the staff report, Ms. Patterson called the Commission's attention to two letters from adjoining property owners. One letter was in support of the proposal being approved with a private road and the other expressed concern about additional development adjacent to the reservoir and additional traffic on SPCA Road. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Armm stated that the slope on a private road would be 18% and for a public road, 132%, both of which are the maximum allowable. Mr. Cogan asked about the long-term maintenance of a public vs. a private road. Mr. Armm responded that in the long-term there would not be much environmental difference between the two since the road is a short section and there isn't much difference in width. He stated that in the short term there would be less disturbance with a private road. Mr. Armm acknowledged that there could be a maintenance problem with a private road. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Jim Murray addressed the Commission. He pointed out that this is a by -right division and the only issue is that of a private vs. a public road. He stated that the road is actually a "300-foot driveway to one house." He felt requiring this to be a public road would be a "travesty." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan and Mr. Armm discussed the actual specifications for a private road. Mr. Armm stated that it was his understanding that "under private road standards, the County Engineer acts as the. Resident Engineer ... and if safety and maintenance are involved as a question,prime and double seal could be required." Mr. Armm confirmed that a private road would be built to County Engineering standards. Mr. Keeler pointed out another "favorable aspect" for allowing a private road was that it would provide more area for building site usage. Mr. Michel stated he tended to support the proposal, though he was somewhat concertabout the precedent issue, i.e. "what makes this particular case different from any other property in the watershed area that isn't seeking an additional lot?" He was uncertain about the unique aspects of the proposal which were listed in the staff report. He felt only items (2) Property located on the banks of a watersupply reservoir; and (3) Con- struction of a public road would necessitate additional environmental degradation as a result of increased grading and travelway width; were legitimate arguments and item (3) would be true in any case. Mr. Keeler pointed out that item (3) "is probably correct for most rural area subdivisions but it is not correct when it is 20 lots or more unless it's an issue of horizontal and vertical alignment." Ms. Patterson confirmed that staff is satisfied that item (2) is sufficient justification for allowing the private road. Mr. Bowerman agreed that only item (2) was sufficiently unique to justify the waiver. 0 November 24, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Murray pointed out that he felt the key issue was one of environmental impact and the differences between the two types of roads has been clearly `%Sw identified by both the applicant and the County Engineering department. He also pointed out a 6th unique aspect of the proposal, i.e. that only one lot is actually being served by the road. cm Mr. Cogan stated that the inclusion of Section 18-36(c) in the Ordinance must have anticipated that there would be certain instances where a private road would be more logical than a public road. Mr. Armm pointed out that items (2) and (3) should be considered together because the environmental degradation is of particular importance in this case because of the proximity to the reservoir. Mr. Cogan stated that, all things considered, he concurred with staff's recommendation. Mr. Michel agreed, though he still noted some concern about the precedent issue. Mr. Bowerman moved that the Key Estate 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) County Engineering approval of private road and drainage plans; (b) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance; (c) Issuance of a runoff control permit, as applicable; (d) Issuance of an erosion control permit; (e) County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mill Creek Redivision of Parcel A - Proposal to create two lots from a 21+ acre parcel. The proposed access for the parcels will be from the proposed collector road (90 foot right-of-way) and 60 foot right-of-way from Rt. 742, adjacent to the National Guard Armory, in the Mill Creek Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 76M, Parcel A. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The following two primary issues were highlighted in the staff report: (1) Direct vehicular access to Avon Street for Lot Al; and (2) Developability of Lot Al. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that there is a potential building site on this parcel, though such a site would be marginal for some uses, and certain waiver requests may be required depending on the nature of the development proposed. The development potential of this parcel could be better reviewed when a specific proposal is submitted for review through the site plan process. Approval of this subdivision is not an endorsement of any particular development proposal for this parcel." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. H 9 November 24, 1987 Page 4 Regarding the issue of direct access to Avon Street, the Virginia Department of Transportation recommended "that both the northern Armory entrance and joint security complex entrance on Route 742 be closed and their access be off the new internal road." If this was not done, VDOT recommended that "parcel Al have access to the proposed collector road through parcel A2." Ms. Diehl suggested that a note should be placed on the plat to the effect that the site may not be appropriate for some industrial uses and may require a waiver. Mr. Keeler suggested that the area suitable for development could be outlined on the plat with the note that any development outside that area would require a special waiver of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cogan indicated he was not in favor of this approach. Mr. Benish pointed out that a disclaimer as suggested by Ms. Diehl was really just a restatement of what the Ordinance would require in any case. Mr. St. John questioned the appropriateness of adding such a note to a plat. He stated: "I don't think it's a good idea to put reminders of what's in the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance to record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court where the chain of title is." Mr. Michel asked Mr. St. John if he felt the same way about Ms. Diehl's concern being addressed through a condition of approval. Mr. St. John responded: "I feel that conditions of Subdivision approval ... haxe no business being put in deeds that go to record in the Clerk's Office. They are here in the Planning Office." Mr. St. John stated it is the duty of a prospective buyer of a piece of property to find out what can be done with that property. Ms. Diehl stated she was still in favor of the note being placed somewhere. Mr. Cogan noted that it was in the staff report and is a matter of public record and it is impossible for the Commission to try to cover every base. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. George Gilliam addressed the Commission. He felt the only reasonable access was the pipestem. Mr. Gilliam pointed out that the entrance shown on the plan has been shown on every plan which has been seen by the Commission and is part of the approved master plan. (Mr. Keeler took exception to this statement. He stated that on several occasions staff had told the designer to take all entrances off the plan because no entrances were being approved.) Mr. Gilliam stated that the applicant could not compel the Jail or the Armory to close their existing entrances as suggested by VDOT. Therefore, he asked that the entrance shown on the plan be allowed and condition No. 3, requiring a joint entrance for lot Al, be deleted. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. IM November 24, 1987 Page 5 Mr. Armm, the County Engineer, repeated his department's position on the access issue, as stated in the staff report. He also stated that there is "a fair amount of land that is usable" on Lot Al. Mr. Jeff Echols, representing VDOT, repeated his department's position on the access issue. He stated his department was mainly trying to reduce the number of access points on Avon Street. Mr. Echols stated that "unless there was some overriding factor" his department could not compel the Jail and the Armory to close their access points and use a joint access. Mr. Benish stated it had been staff's hope that the access issue would have been resolved. But the applicant had chosen not to approach the Jail and Armory about a possible joint access. The applicant explained that the Jail and Armory had not been approached because of the time that would have been involved when dealing with the State and the National Guard Armory, and because the applicant felt he had a legal right to use his right-of-way, and if the County would like for the Jail and Armory to use the applicant's right-of-way, then it is up to the County to pursue the issue. Mr. Michel stated he could not "quarrel" with what he had heard and therefore he moved that the Mill Creek Redivision of Parcel A be approved subject to the following conditions (deleting staff's original condition (3): 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. The following notes shall be added to the final plat: 1. Zoning designation (PUD-85-29, Forest Hills); 2. "Access to Parcel A2 to be from collector road only (90 foot right-of-way)." 2. Access to parcel A2 to be from collector road only. Direct access to Avon Street is prohibited. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. St. John asked that the record clearly state that by approving this application, the County was not guaranteeing the right-of-way, but was simply acting on the representation that the right-of-way is available. Ms. Diehl stated she would not support the motion because no effort had been made to find out if a joint access was possible and she also could not support the deletion of condition (3). The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Ms. Diehl casting the dissenting vote. James Wood Apartment Complex Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 24,000 square foot, 60 unit multi -family apartment complex on a 4.627 acre parcel, with a resulting density 12.97 units per acre. Development is to be accessed by proposed driveway off an existing public road and will provide 125 parking spaces. Property is located at the end of Commonwealth Drive approximately (I / November 24, 1987 Page 6 300 feet from its intersection with Peyton Drive. Tax Map 61W, Parcel 03-1. Zoned R-15, Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Prior to the presentation of the staff report, staff clarified the location of the property. Mr. Keeler added: "The property that the apartments are on is shown on the plat as being 4.627 acres. None of Peyton Drive is in the State system and the extension of Commonwealth Drive between Peyton and this property is not in the State system." It was determined the "red line" indicated the end of state maintenance. Mr. Keeler stated: "So right now, the 4.627 acres has no direct access to a road that is in the State system." Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The report highlighted the following issues: (1) Site access; (2) Critical slopes; and (3) Stormwater detention. Regarding the issue of site access, the applicant was requesting a private road. VDOT and the County Engineer recommended that a public road be con- structed within the existing right-of-way and a cul-de-sac be located at it's terminus. Regarding the issue of critical slopes, the applicant was asking for modification of Section 4.2 to allow construction on slopes of 25% or greater. Regarding stormwater detention, the report stated: "The County Engineer is recommending that the applicant/owner dedicate a portion of the proposed site, located in the south eastern portion of the site, for future completion of the regional basin. County Engineer has suggested the applicant proceed with proposed stormwater detention facilities. Upon completion of the regional basin, the County would acquire the site's existing stormwater facilities and incorporate the facilities into the regional, County maintained, basin." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Pullen added a third condition which did not appear in the staff report: "Final site plan may be administratively approved." Mr. Keeler gave a history of the road issue. lie explained that the applicant must have access to a public road and does nct currently have access to a road that is in the state system. His comments addressed two sections of the road: (1) the intersection of Commonwealth and Peyton; and (2) the road segment leading into the property. Mr. Keeler explained that when the issue had first come up the Board had directed Mr. Tucker (then Director of Planning) to approach property owners along Peyton Drive to try to get contributions for 1/2 the total sum for the upgrading of Peyton Drive, but Mr. Tucker had not been optimistic about this being successful. Mr. Keeler stressed: "A critical point is whether or not it is a state road. If you approve it as a private road, the County Engineer is still going to require a cul-de- sac because under the Private Roads Ordinance he is acting as the Highway Department Resident Engineer. So the only issue between public road and private road, in. this particular case, is the difference in the road category. As a private road it would lave to built to accommodate the traffic that's already on it, plus the traffic that the applicant is adding to it. As a public road, in order to get it into the system, it would have to be built to a standard to accommodate the traffic that is already on it, the traffic that the applicant would be putting on it, plus traffic that would be generated to it from this commercial lot. Ncw that all is based on the premise that (1) this commercial lot would want to have access out that way so as not to compromise a lot of the property; and (2) the Planning Commission, in fact, would require that commercial lot to have access out that way as opposed to coming into a curve like this." November 24, 1987 Page 7 Mr. St. John made additional comments on the access issue. After ascertaining from Mr. Keeler that the extension of Commonwealth Drive between Peyton and yr this property, though not in the state system, has been dedicated to public use, Mr. St. John stated "Under the statute, any road that is shown as dedicated to public use, fee simple vests in the County as of the time the subdivision plat is put to record. Taking a road into the state system is a totally different step from accepting dedication of the land on which the road is to built." Mr. Keeler confirmed that a plat was put to record showing the dedication and the plat was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John continued: "Under the statute, if what you say is correct, the County owns the fee simple to this strip right now." Mr. St. John stated that though the section under discussion was shown as a right-of-way, it was not a right-of-way, but a "strip that is dedicated for public use of a road." Mr. Keeler confirmed this fts correct. Mr. St. John stated the point he wished to make was that area where the applicant wishes to build a private road is now owned by the County. with private access roads Referring to the Ordinance, Mr. Keeler stated that a subdivision/Cannot be approved unless and until the Commission shall determine, among other things, that "the fee of such road is to be owned by owners of lots abutting the right-of-way thereof, or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by such road." Mr. St. John felt this information should be made clear to the Commission and the applicant. Mr. Keeler added that if the Commission was inclined to approved a private road, between the preliminary plan and the final site plan, the Board of Supervisors would have to vacate the right-of-way in order to be consistent with the Ordinance. Mr. St. John pointed out that if the right--of-way was vacated, the parcel would then be "landlocked," and he did not think this was likely to happen. In response to Mr. Stark's questions, Mr. Armm explained further the regional detention issue. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ron Wylie. He felt the real issue was not a public vs. a private road, but rather "what would be required of the applicant to get a public road accepted into the state system in this case." He questioned whether it was appropriate to require all of that of the applicant. He questioned the County's authority for requiring the applicant to upgrade the intersection to a category 6 status when the applicant's develop- ment was not generating the need for such improvements. Mr. Wylie expressed surprise that the County Engineer would require a cul-de-sac at the "terminus" of the property. He stated that the applicant would have to obtain right-of-way from adjoining property owners in order to construct a cul-de-sac. He stated that the applicant had contacted the adjoining property owner about this issue and learned that the property owner would probably have no objection if his property was not adversely effected. %w He stated the property owners to the "left" of the site had not been contacted because a cul-de-sac at the terminus of that road would have to cut into a steep slope. Mr. Wylie stated it was his understanding that VDOT November 24, 1987 Page 8 did not accept Commonwealth Drive into the state system just to the corner, because they would not accept a road that "just stops." He stated he understood that VDOT was treating the intersection as a temporary turnaround and had accepted thE! roadway, in its present configuration. He felt the applicant should be able to access that intersection and treat that as access to a public road.. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jeff Echols, representing VDOT, addressed the question of what would be required to make the road acceptable into the state system. He stated that the determination has been made that after Peyton Drive is "built out" vehicle trips per day will exceed 3,000, which requires a category 6 road for both Peyton Drive and the intersection. Regarding the road that leads to the apartment complex, beyond the intersection, Mr. Echols stated that before VDOT would accept the road it would have to be built to a standard sufficient for all the properties having access to it, which currently includes the existing complex, this proposal, and possibly the other lot on the corner. He added that in addition, in order for it to become a state road there would have to be three separate users. Mr. Echols was uncertain as to exactly what would be required to upgrade the road to a grade 6 because the existing makeup of the road was not known. In response to Mr. St. John's question, Mr. Echols stated VDOT would not accept a road into the state system, even if built to state standards, if it did not terminate in a cul-de-sac or tie into another state -maintained road. Regarding Mr. Wylie's statement that VDOT would not accept a road into the state system that "just ends" Mr. Echols explained "It's an unusual situation that state maintenance ends without a cul-de-sac, but we do have an easement for a turnaround using the intersection with Peyton Drive. The only reason that was done is that it was considered a temporary connection knowing that the County assured us that sometime in the future there would be another road that would tie in." In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Armm confirmed that even if the road were a private one, the County "would still like to see a cul-de-sac at the terminus of the road." Mr. St. John pointed out that after 1973, there were no roads that were dedicated to public use, but privately maintained. He stated it was pre- supposed that these roads were going to be in the state system before occupancy permits were issued. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the date Mr. St. John was referring to, 1977, was just a survey date, and the apartments were built long before that. Mr. St. John stated he was not advocating the action the Commission should take, but he wanted to make the Commission aware that this is a situation that is not unique and it does not occur only in those situations where roads have failed to get into the system. He also pointed out that the Hilton case had nothing to do with this situation. He stated that he did not see how the road in question could be a private road. *4104 /J November 24, 1987 Page 9 Mr. Cogan pointed out the following problems to the applicant, which he felt might create an entirely different concept than presented in the preliminary site plan: (1) If the segment of Commonwealth Drive leading to the applicant's property is, in fact, dedicated to public use, then a public road will have to be constructed. (2) If a public road is necessary, then a cul-de-sac will be required, and if the adjoining property owner will not grant an easement to allow for the cul-de-sac, then it will have to be placed on the applicant's property thus resulting in an entirely different layout of the site. Mr. Cogan asked if the applicant wished for the Commission to take action, or to defer the matter to allow time for consideration of these issues. Mr. Wylie stated he would like time to confer with his client (the applicant) on this question. First, however, he questioned how the applicant would be able to meet the Highway Department's requirement that there be three users on the road in order for it to be accepted into the State system (provided it could not connect to a through road). Mr. Armm addressed the question and stated it was his understanding from the Highway Department that the extension of Commonwealth Drive, beyond Peyton, would not be treated as if it needed three users. He stated that since Peyton is not in the system now, "essentially what you have is one long road of Commonwealth from Hydraulic all the way to the terminus, which would be (the applicant's) property." Therefore, Mr. Armm stated there are already three users on Commonwealth, even if extended. Mr. Wylie stated he had not understood Mr. Echolb comments as explained by Mr. Armm. Mr. Wylie stated he disagreed with Mr. St. John's comment that the Hilton case was not applicable in this instance. He pointed out what he believed to be a significant difference in this case and those examples mentioned by Mr. St. John, that being that this is not the first user on this road. The Chairman asked Mr. Echols to comment on the issue of required number of users on the road. Mr. Echols stated that by including the intersection of Peyton and Commonwealth Drive there are several users using that stretch which would meet the qualification. The meeting recessed from 9:27 to 9:37. During this time Mr.Wylie conferred with the applicant about his preference for either definitive action or a deferral. Mr. Wylie stated that the applicant was not in favor of a deferral. He asked for clarification of the following issues: (1) Since there had been indication that the County was willing to assist in 1/2 the cost for improving Peyton Drive, Mr. Wylie asked if the Commission would include in its action some recommendation that the County assist in bearing 1/2 of the cost of improving that portion of Peyton DrivQ which sits in the intersection. He stated, "We'll build�wtith the County helping to pay part of the cost." l� h November 24, 1987 Page 10 (2) He asked for some clarification of the nature of the review of the road plans by both County Engineering and the Highway Department. He stated that has been an area of confusion and concern. Mr. Armm responded to the second concern regarding review of road plans. He explained: "The State Highway Department does not accept a public road until well after it is built and they do a final inspection and there are three users on the road. So generally it is up to the County to work with the developer to make sure that the road is built to standards that the Highway Department will take at a later date." Regarding the suggestion that the County share the costs of upgrading the intersection, Mr. Cogan staged this was not the time to discuss this issue. Mr. Keeler added that the applicant should contact Mr. Tucker, Deputy County Executive, to discuss this issue, since the Board has already directed Mr. Tucker to discuss contributions with adjoining property owners. Mr. Cogan noted that the Commission had not yet addressed the issue of steep slopes. Mr. Armm explained it was his interpretation that 50% of two buildings was in excess of 25% slope. He stated that, based upon the type of construction (a split-level type of arrangement), this could be constructed satisfactorily with proper landscaping and proper protection methods. Ms. Diehl stated she did not agree with putting 40% to 50% of a building in an area of more than 25% slope. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission was willing to accept that some parcels of land in the urban area are not buildable, as is implicated by Ms. Diehl's comments. Ms. Diehl stated she did not thank it was possible to achieve an R-15 density out of every piece of land that is zoned R-15. In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Armm went over the the detention plans for the proposal as well as the regional detention basin plans. The Chairman called for a motioa. Ms. Diehl stated she was reluctant to vote on the proposal at this time because the final site plan will be very different than the current proposal. Mr. Cogan agreed and stated that "under these circumstances, I could not vote favorably at this time." Ms. Diehl moved that the James Wood Apartment Complex Preliminary Site Plan be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Keeler clarified that it was the Commission'sdesire that when the plan is re -submitted, a cul-de-sac be shown along with the effects of that cul-de-sac and that more information be presented on the issue of building on 25% slopes. �• c November 24, 1987 Page 11 Mr. Bowerman seconded Ms. Diehl's motion for indefinite deferral. (The applicant indicated willingness to accept a deferral.) The motion passed unanimously. Village Woods Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 5 single-family residential lots of an average size 4.5 acres from a 23.18 acre parcel. The proposal is to be served by a proposed internal public road off State Route 660. The parcel is located on the west side of State Route 660 approximately 600 feet west of its intersection with State Route 743. Tax Map 31, Parcel 14D. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Hill gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Gary Summers who offered no significant additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel stated that the application was in order. He pointed out that it should be noted that the approval was for a public road. Mr. Michel moved that the Village Woods Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a) Issuance of an Erosion Control Permit; b) County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; c) The Virginia Department of Transportation's approval of road and drainage plans and calculations. 2. The final plat may be administratively approved. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Haffner Equipment Company Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a one- story, 7,200 square foot building to be used for farm equipment machinery sales and service, and 600 square feet of outdoor display area on a 2.56 acre parcel. Development is to be accessed by an existing public road off State Route 250 East. The property is located in the Northeast quadrant of the intersection of State Route 250 East and Hunter's Way, adjacent to Lowes. Tax Map 49, Parcel 4P. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Hill gave the staff report. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Ms. Hill confirmed that Health Department approval had been given with the knowledge that the primary system would be located under the parking lot and the second field was to be located under the loading area. 67 November 24, 1987 Page 12 Ms. Diehl expressed some concern about the waste oil disposal system since it was not the usual method. She asked why this system (i.e. the oil was to be collected in containers which will be put in a storage area with a dike built around them) was to be used instead of the usual underground reservoir system. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bill Roudabush represented the applicant. He explained that some of the oil would be reused so it would be stored in a containment area in case of an accidental spill. He stated the applicant was agreeable to the conditions of approval except for l(d)--VDOT issuance of a commercial entrance permit. He explained that the road is not yet in the state system so the Highway Department will not issue an entrance permit for a road that is not state maintained. He stated the Highway Department's recommendations for the entrance have been followed and are what is shown on the site plan. Mr. Haffner explained that the oil that will be stored will be re -used in the oil furnace to heat the building. Mr. Roudabush added that the methodology has been discussed with the Watershed Management Official and this system was at his recommendation. The Commission asked that the County Engineer review the waste oil collection system before final plan approval. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding condition l(d), Mr. Keeler stated that Mr. Roudabush was correct and suggested that condition 1(d) be deleted and l(c) be amended to include "including issuance of commercial entrance permit if applicable." Mr. Michel moved that the Haffner Equipment Company Preliminary 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; b) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; c) The Virginia Department of Transportation's approval of right-of-way improvements, including issuance of a commercial entrance permit if applicable. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a) Final Fire Officer approval. 3. Recommend approval of landscape plan to include the following: a) Provision of screening shrubs at the front of the outdoor display area in accordance with Sections 32.7.9.8 a-c; b) Submission of conservation checklist. 4. Final plan may be administratively approved. a November 24, 1987 Page 13 Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Mr. Cogan called the Commission's attention to a letter from Mr. Mark Osborne in which Mr. Osborne volunteers to offer information on a stormwater management project for the Beaver Creek Watershed. There was some question as to what Mr. Osborne was actually offering and also some question as to the proper procedure that should be followed. It was determined Mr. Cogan would seek more information and report to the Commission at a later time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30. DS M G� 9