HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 21 84 PC MinutesFebruary 21, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, February 21, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, VA. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman,
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould; and
Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were: Ms. MaryJoy Scala,
Planner and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Diehl and Skove.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
Bobby Martin Preliminary Plat - Located on the west side of Route 631
just north of its intersection with Route 706. Proposal to create 4
lots ranging in size from 2.0 acres to 23.5 acres served by a private
easement. Samuel Miller District. (Tax Map 89, Parcel 74) Deferred
from January 31, 1984.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the
plat because it did not meet the current requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale who offered no additional
comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Bobby Martin Preliminary Plat be denied because
it did not qualify under the Private Road Ordinance in terms of minimum
lot size, i.e. some lots were less than 5 acres.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
_Dogwood Landscaping Site Plan - Located on north side of Route 866
(Greenbrier Drive); east of Route 29 North. Proposal to locate a nursery
sales facility with Daly's Rent -All, Inc. facility on about 1.318 acres.
(Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block B, Lot 2, Zoned C-1 Commercial) Charlottes-
ville District.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The report stated: "Staff is
concerned about approving this site plan while there are still problems
with Daly's Rent -All Site Plan. Daly's is operating without a certificate
of occupancy. A bond has been posted for remaining site work but it does
not include highway improvements by omission. Materials are being stored
outside and trucks are being parked randomly. Staff would like to see
these problems corrected before permitting this plan to proceed."
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Ms. Scala explained the relationship
between the applicant and Daly's Rent -All, i.e. Daly's owns the property
and will lease it to Dogwood Landscaping.
�Y�
February 21, 1984 Page 2.
The applicant was represented by ^1r. Steve Gisendanner. He explained
that the the trailer would only be temporary (one year) and would be
a new unit which would be connected to water and sewer and heavily
landscaped. He explained that some of the delays with Daly's are the
result of waiting for construction to begin on this use.
Mr. Kirk Hughes, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He commented on various aspects of the plan, e.g. landscaping, location
of paved areas, etc.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Ron Langman expressed concern about the appearance of the Greenbrier
Drive area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman expressed concern about the appearance of the site. He
noted that he had visited it and found it appal3ing. He was concerned
that conditions of approval were not being complied with even though
the building has become occupied (Daly's). He indicated he had not
heard a satisfactory explanation as to why conditions have not been
completed. Mr. Cogan agreed.
Mr. Gisendanner stated he felt his site plan would address some of the
problems about which the Commission was concerned. However, Mr.
Bowerman continued to express concern about the situation with the
Daly's site.
Mr. Cogan stated he had no objection to the nursery proposal, but he.
was reluctant to approve this application, "adding conditions on top
of conditions that were never met previously and, therefore, I can't
support it."
Mr. Bowerman asked if bonds had been posted for all the unfinished work.
Ms. Scala replied that a $12,000 bond had been posted but it did not
cover all the entrance improvements, etc. She also stated she did
not know why a certificate of occupancy had not been issued since the
bond has been posted.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the option of deferral rather than denial.
Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of deferral because the present
problems had not been caused by this applicant.
The Commission asked to be made aware of which conditions the
Daly site has not complied with. Mr. Bowerman felt that a bond should
be posted for any requirement which has not been completed.
NIr. Hughes indicated he had been led to believe that sidewalk, entrance
and paving had been bonded. He asked that this be clarified.
February 21, 1984
Page 3
Mr. Cogan moved that the Dogwood Landscaping Site Plan be deferred to
March 20, 1984.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Westfield Offices Site Plan - Located on the north side of Route 1452
(Westfield Road); east of condominium buildings containing 5,000 square
feet net office space in each and 50 parking spaces total on 1.1 acres.
(Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block C, Parcel 5, zoned C-1 Commercial)
Charlottesville District.
0
Westfield Offices Preliminary Plat - Located on north side of Rt. 1452,
east of 29H. Proposal to divide 1.1 acres into two equal lots for the
purpose of office condominiums. (Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block C, Parcel
5, zoned C-1 Commercial) Charlottesville District.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Daggett. He offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated the proposals seemed in order and he had no
objections to staff approval of the final plat.
Mr. Michel moved that the Westfield Offices 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. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
entrance permit;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and com-
putations;
C. Fire Officer approval;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Offim approval of fire flow.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Westfield Offices Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions and including staff approval of the final
plat:
iS-77
February 21, 1984
Page 4
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for joint
entrance and stormwater detention structures;
b. Issuance of soil erosion permit;
c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
entrance permit;
d. Stormwater detention to be required for both lots at site plan
stage.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Virginia Depart ent of Highways and Transportation - DISCUSSION of
Conditions of Approval
Ms. Scala introduced the topic and referred to a letter dated January 23,
1984 from Mr. Dan Roosevelt in which he recommends that the wording
of certain conditions be changed. The Highway Department was
recommending the following:
"It is recommended that the county reword its conditions of
approval on site plans, subdivisions, special permits and rezonings
to indicate a county staff position as the party to determine
compliance. The condition could still indicate that the staff
position is to consider or be bound by certain recommendations
or requirements of the Department. The option of determining when
the condition had been met, however, would rest with county staff people
rather than the Department."
The Commission debated this issue at some length with -Mr. Dan Roosevelt
from the Highway Department.
Mr. Roosevelt explained it was the desire of the Highway Department that
staff and the Commission follow Highway Department recommendations but
that the final determination as towhether or not these conditions
have been met should rest with the County. He felt the problem was one
of "who has control over these items." He felt that the Commission's
passing some of this authority to the Highway Department was, in effect,
passing on approval that the Highway Department should not have.
Mr. Cogan stated he didn't see any problem with the present format and
did not feel the need to change. He felt the Highway Department's
suggestion wouldn't change anything and would just put the County
Engineer in the middle and make the process even more "cumbexsomd' than it
is now.
Mr. Payne agreed and added that the change would not :Hake any significant
difference to anybody and therefore, was not objectionable. He did
agree with Mr. Roosevelt's theory, i.e. that the responsibility
is ultimately the County's. Mr. Payne added: "It is extremely unwise for
this Commission or any other County agency to approve anything that
relates to the Highway Department's business, especially the design of a
road that is to be put in the state highway system EXCEPT in accordance
with the Highway Department's recommendations."
a-11
February 21, 1984
Page 5
The Commission did not look upon Mr. Roosevelt's suggestion with
enthusiasm.
Mr. Roosevelt asked that at least his department be consulted on the wording
of conditions.
It was finally determined that the Highway Department would play a more
active role in wording of conditions where they are the ones giving
the approval for a test period of six months.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 7-89
S9
I�
k �j�