HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 26 84 PC MinutesJune 26, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 26, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, VA.
Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Jim Skove;
Mr. Richard Cogan; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials
present were: Ms. Pat Cooke, Ex-Officio; Ms. Amelia McCulley; Ms. MaryJoy
Scala; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners
Wilkerson and Diehl.
Bri s-Waff Preliminary Plat - Located off the west side of Rt. 645 near Orange
County line. Proposal to divide existing parcel into two parcels of 100 acres
and 40 acres, served by a private road. Tax Map 36, Parcel 37. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The report stated there were no problems
with the plat and that the County Engineer had recommended approval. Staff
also supported the applicant's request for administrative approval of the
final plat. Staff provided recommended conditions of approval including
the 'addition of (d) as follows: "The question regarding right-of-way and
adjacent owners shall be resolved before the plat is signed."
Regarding the applicant's request for a waiver of the 30' right-of-way
requirement under Section 18-36(g), Ms. Scala explained that one of the
things that can be waived is the width of the right-of-way if there is
an existing right-of-way, provided that right-of-way is sufficient width
to accommodate whatever road improvements are required. She stated that the
County Engineer felt that right-of-way was adequate for the lots that are
proposed.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Briggs was present but offered no additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Frank Walker, representing the Gibsons and the Marshalls, addressed the
Commission. He stated the concern of both his clients was the same, i.e.
the issue of right-of-way across this applicant's property. He quoted
a description of the right-of-way from an old deed. He stated that without
this right-of-way the value of the Gibson property would not be as high.
He asked that this issue be resolved now so as to avoid the possibility of later
problems.
Mr. Briggs, the applicant, addressed this issue. He stated he was familiar
with the deed and was aware that a right-of-way had existed at one time
but that it had been abandoned 26 years ago. He asked how long such a
right-of-way would continue, particularly if there was other access to
the property.
o�V�
June 26, 1984 Page 2
V1r. Walker responded ana stated that the question of another access was not
relevant and the question of 'whether or not this is an abandoned right-of-way
must be decided. He pointed out that Dr. Marshall had had the right-of-way
cleared 10 to 12 years ago to permit travel on it two or three times a year
"for this very purpose."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
�1r. Bowerman asked if the Commission was in favor of deferral to allow time
for the right-of-way issue to be resolved.
Mr. Skove indicated he could agree either to deferral or to the addition
of condition (d):
• The question regarding the right-of-way and the adjacent owner
to be resolved before the plat is signed.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the item be deferred.
Mr. Gould moved that the Briggs-Waff Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Michel seconded the notion which passed unanimously.
Free Will Baptist Church Revised Site Plan - Located on the east side of Rt. 742
(Avon Street Extended). Proposal to locate a 6,400 square foot church building
and 49 parking spaces on 3.9 acres. Tax Nap 90, Parcels 35B and 35E.
Scottsville Magisterial District. Zoned R-1 with special use permit.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Blane Wade. He offered to answer
questions.
There was some discussion about recommended frontage improvements. It
was.det.ermined curb and gutter existed on the adjacent property but Mr. Wade
pointed out that property was zoned Highway Commercial and this property
was zoned R-1. Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, indicated
the recommendation was an effort to maintain consistency.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Discussion centered around entrance improvements and parking and driveway
areas. (Many of these comments were inaudible.) Though staff felt that
a "12' paved lane with curb and gutter is not required on the north side of
the entrance for drainage reasons," Ms.. Scala indicated that if it is felt
that these improvements were necessary to tie into the remainder of the property
when it develops, for safety reasons, then these improvements could be
required.
It was determined the parking lot would be gravelled.
June 26, 1984
Page 3
Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of curb and gutter on both sides of the entrance.
Mr. Skove felt it probably could be required if it was a real threat to safety.
Mr. Bowerman felt that not requiring full frontage improvements would be
a change from what has been done in the past. He stated: "We've been
getting full frontage improvements wherever we thought it was necessary
(since the Hilton decision)."
Mr. Gould moved that the Free Will Baptist Church Revised Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
a. County Engineer approval of revisions to drainage on entrance road.
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit.
c. Stormwater detention will be required if the parking lot is paved in
the future.
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance including frontage improvements with full width
turn lane and curb and gutter.'
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department - Located on the north side of St. Rt. 240,
t1900 feet east of its intersection with St. Rt. 810 (School Road). Proposal to
locate a 9,600 square foot fire station and ±78 parking spaces on 1.138 acres.
Tax Map 56A2-1-35. Zoned C-1.
The applicant was requesting deferral to July 10, 1984.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan that the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department
be deferred to July 10, 1984. The motion passed unanimously.
Solaris, Section 3 Final Plat - Located on the south side of the intersection
of St. Rt. 640 and St. Rt. 641, off Helios Path and Solaris Road. Proposal
to divide existing parcel into 4 lots; 5.112, 5.158, 4.043 and 7.415 acres
with 25.50 acres residue. Tax Map 22, Parcel 4. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Highway Department, responded to Mr. Gould's
question and explained how the intersection would be improved.
Mr. Michel asked if further subdivision was expected on this road. He asked:
"If we agree to this are we locked in to not having any real entry onto
the state road?" Ms. McCulley responded that there was a residue parcel
which would also, if subdivided, be served by Helios Path.
0
June 26, 1984
Page 4
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Morris Foster. he stated he had met
with the Highway Department and they are in agreement about the road plans. He
concurred that the applicant is willing to make the improvements to change
the "Y" intersection to a "T" intersection, even though that improvement
cannot actually be required by the Highway Department. He stated the applicant
was very concerned about the safety of that intersection for his development.
He confirmed that the applicant had secured the easements necessary for
obtaining sight distance. yir. Foster explained briefly the design of the
intersection.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Echols confirmed that the Highway Department felt the plans for the
intersection were a satisfactory solution.
It was determined the residue acreage for parcel 4 was 25.5 acres.
It was determined the distance between an entrance for lots D and C and the
intersection was..300 feet. Mr. Echols confirmed this was acceptable to the
Highway Department.
Mr. Cogan stated he would be in favor of granting the waiver for minimum lot
size and allowing lot D to use the joint entrance.
Mr. Gould agreed.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Solaris Section 3 Final Plat be approved, including
the approval of a waiver of Section 18-36.b.1 to allow Lot D to use a joint .
entrance with lot C to Rt. 640, and subject to the following conditions:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of improvements
to the intersection of the entrance, Rt. 640 and Rt. 641.
b. County Attorney* approval of the maintenance agreement.
c. County Engineer final approval of road plans and pavement specifications.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Berkmar Car Wash Site Plan - Located on the north side of Berkmar Drive,
at its intersection with U.S. Rt. 29 North. Proposal to locate a 10-bay
car wash and a one-story building of 4,000 square feet with 6 bays for
related automotive service/retail needs, all to be 61U-1-1, and 61U-1-2.
Zoned RC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Lisa Sessoms. Her comments included the
following:
--The applicant disagrees with two of staff's recommendations: (1) Full
frontage improvements along Berkmar Drive. She explained that to
give a 26=foot paved area would necessitate cutting into the applicant's
property. The applicant felt full -frontage improvements
WAI
June 26, 1984
Page 5
along Berkmar Drive should not be required. (2) The applicant felt a
6-foot planting strip was sufficient, as opposed to a 10-foot one.
She stated a 10-foot strip would require that the entire plan be re-
organized.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about the nature of the "service" provided. He
stated he could anticipate problems with parking if cars are left for service.
He also stated he had "no sympathy at all" for the applicant's request regarding
improvements along Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Skove expressed concern about the possibility of cars "backing up" to
use the facility. Ms. Sessoms stated the applicant felt 10-bays should be
sufficient to keep this from happening.
Mr. Skove stated he supported staff's recommendation for a 10-foot planting
strip.
Mr. Bowerman stated he shared Mr. Michel's concerns about the exact use of
the building. He stated also that he shared Mr. Cogan's concerns about
the intensive use of the site.
There was a brief discussion about stormwater detention and its effect on
the 100-year floodplain.
Mr. Skove expressed some concern that the operation of the carwash might be
subject to change at some time, i.e. it could change from coin operated
to "the other kind." He asked if another approval would be necessary if
this were to happen.. Ms. McCulley replied that the parking was sufficient
for either type of carwash. Mr. Payne pointed out that the parking
requirement might be different because a full -service carwash would have
more employees than a self-service one. Mr. Bowerman felt that the type
of carwash would significantly influence the "stacking."
Mr. Cogan felt the following statement contained in the staff report was
significant: "The Commission should determine whether approval of the building
with no specified use is appropriate at this time, or whether subsequent staff
or Commission approval would be,warranted."
Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned about a somewhat unknown use on a.
very intensive site.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission was "suggesting some sort of phasing or
just eliminating it?" Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if part of the site plan
could be approved. Mr. Payne replied: "I suppose you could. ... I think
you are entitled to review the site plan to ensure that the design that you
have is adequate to satisfy all your proper concerns with respect to the
uses that are going to go in there. If you find that the use is insufficiently
specified to allow you to make that analysis, then T think you don't have to
approve it."
Mr. Bowerman asked if the facility were to change as to the actual type
of carwash, would another review be required? Mr. Payne replied it would
if it occasioned different parking or a different entrance requirement.
June 26, 1984 Page 6
Mr. Bowerman asked -Mr. Payne: "Do you see any problem with the improvements
on Berkmar Drive as the concern evidenced by the applicant that it would.
extend 26 feet from the center line on the road?". fir. Payne replied: "As I
understand it, what the staff is saying is that in order to have the entrance
according to highway standards you do need .the appropriate acceleration and
deceleration lanes. Because of the proximity to the intersection you can't
get this. ... Because of that shortness you can't do it the way you normally
would do it but a substantial equivalent.to that is the full frontage
improvement across Berkmar frontage. ... I think that either the Highway
Department or the County, as long as the County is following the Highway
Department's recommendations and regulations, is entitled to require whatever
improvement is necessary to ensure the safety of the entrance. That's
what I think the staff is telling you when they say they don't think you
can require the improvements on Rt. 29 because they are not directly occasioned
by this development, but the others are directly related to the entrance.
Assuming you find that to be true about the facts, yes I think you can do it."
In response to -Mr. Skove's question as to how parking requirements were
determined if the exact use of the building is unknown, Ms. McCulley explained
they were determined under "automotive service" which.i.s a category that
does delineate any. breakdowns.
Ms. McCulley pointed out the location of the parking spaces.
There was a brief discussion about the parking requirement.
Mr. Bowerman stated he could go along with the carwash, but he had difficulty
with the other part of the site proposed for future development.
Ms. Sessoms confirmed there was a contract purchaser for the carwash. She
asked..if the Commission could grant approval for Phase 1 (the carwash) with
staff being granted administrative approval of the other part when a
purchaser has been secured and the use is known.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Sessoms to show how the site would be separated into
Phase 1 and Phase 2. tiffs. Sessoms responded.
Mr. :Michel questioned whether. or not it would be possible to require full
frontage improvements at this time if the site were reviewed as two parcels.
Mr. Payne stated that it was "clearly appropriate to have entrance
improvements on the south side." He added that he did not interpret
Ms. Sessoms' comments that way, but rather that they pertained to the
interior of the site, i.e, building, parking, etc. his. Sessoms confirmed
this was correct.
Ms. Scala pointed out that if the applicant does draw a line for
phasing the landscaping should still be required along Rt. 29.
Mr. Payne felt the Commission's concerns would best be handled by the
addition of the following:
Note on Plat: Approval constitutes only approval for the carwash
and related improvements and not for the second proposed use.
C:?/O
June 26, 1984
Page 7
Mr. Bowerman asked if this was "tighter" than a phasing line. Mr. Payne felt
that it was because a phasing line is a -geographic line whereas the other
is more a chronological line so that whatever improvements are needed for
the carwash can be made regardless of where they are on the site.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Berkmar Car Wash Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have
been met by the applicant:
a. County Engineer approval of drainage and grading plans and computations;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. County Engineer acceptance of developer contribution to regional
stormwater detention basin costs;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrance and frontage improvements on Berkmar Drive;
e. Compliance with the requirements of the industrial waste ordinance;
f. Recordation of a plat combining parcels 1 and 2 into one parcel;
g. Fire Official approval of: hydrant location, handicapped provisions;
dumpster location and screening;
h. Provide 10 foot planting strip along Rt. 29;
i. County Engineer approval of finished floor elevations to insure
bay pits are above 100 year flood level;
j. Note on plat: Approval constitutes only approval for the carwash
and related improvements and not for the second proposed use.
2. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the following
conditions must be met by the applicant:
a. Fire Official approval of fireflow;
b. Staff approval of landscape plan to include Albemarle County Service
Authority approval of any plantings located within water and sewer
easements.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
In response to Mr. Gould's question about condition 1(a) Mr. Payne explained
that the County Engineer could give his approval without knowing the second
use because the entire site would probably be graded in any case.
It was determined the approval for the second use would require Commission
review.
The Commission confirmed that this approval included the requirement for
full frontage improvements on Berkmar Drive and the planting strip along Rt. 29.
Earl sville Green Dentist Office Site Plan - Located northeast side of Rt.
743 at its intersection with St. Rt. 660 in Earlysville. Proposal to locate a
1,500 square foot dentist office which will be served by 36 parking spaces.
Tax Map 31, Parcel 32. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Rivanna Magisterial District.
June 26, 1984 Page 8
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Clifton McClure, representing the applicant addressed the Uommission. He
stated the applicant objected to condition 1(c)-LA plan for a new entrance on
Earlysville Forest Drive and the closing of the entrance on Rt. 743, adjacent
to Earlysville Forest Drive is to .be approved by staff and bonded for completion
at such time when Earlysville Forest Drive is accepted into the State secondary
system." He stated he did not think the Highway Department wanted to channel
the traffic off the highway onto a residential road. He felt it was neither
logical nor economically feasible to construct the road until the rest of
the property was developed. He stated if this requirement remained, then
the proposal could not take place. h1r.McClure pointed out that there had
never been an accident at the existing entrance.
There being no public co=ent, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was..determined the existing entrance was in place several years before
Earlysville Forest Drive was constructed. Mr. James Whyte (the applicant)
explained that a gravel road existed which served 3 or 4 houses but it
was not Earlysville Forest Drive.
Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Highway Department, explained the Highway
Department's concerns which centered primarilyaround the possible future
development of the property.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible to condition this approval in such
a way that any future development of the property in the rear would occasion
the triggering of building the other road. He felt that would be an acceptable
way to deal with the application..
Mr. Cogan agreed with -1r. Bowerman's suggestion.
There was a brief discussion about future development and the entrance issue.
Mr. Cogan noted that though the Highway Department was concerned about the
close proximity of the existing entrance to Earlysville Forest Drive, the
entrance existed before Earlysville Forest Drive. existed.
Mr. Payne .suggested the following means of addressing the issue: Delete
conditions 1(c) and 2(a) and substitute a new 1.(c) as follows:
• Entrance onto Rt. 743 to be closed upon construction of connector
road on Earlysville Forest Drive when occasioned by future development.
He explained this would leave this entrance open until the.road that "is shown
in gray on the site plan" was required to be built as the result of future
development of the site.
4;91A
June 26, 1984
Page 9
Mr. Michel moved that the Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have
been met:
a. Board of Supervisors approval of central systems, if applicable;
b. Approval is limited to an office for one dentist, or as otherwise
limited by the Health Department;
c. Entrance onto Rt. 743 to be closed upon construction of connector road
on Earlysville Forest Drive when occasioned by future development;
d. Recordation of a 30' access easement from the proposed grocery store
entrance on Tax.Map 31A, parcel A to the proposed entrance on Earlysville
Forest Drive;
e. Staff approval of technical requirements;
f. Recordation of a plat dedicating 25' from the centerline of Rt. 743;
g. County Engineer approval of stabilization of fill on (north) west side
of property.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Lamb's Road Baptist Church Site Plan - Located on the northwest corner of Rt. 743
(Hydraulic Road) and Rt. 657 (Lamb's.Road). Proposal to locate an 8,534 square
foot church building and 76 parking spaces on 5.084 acres. Tax Map 61, parcel
6. Zoned RA, Rural Areas with special use permit. Jack Jouett Magisterial
District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
There was a brief discussion about grading and stormwater detention plans.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, confirmed the detention basin was sized
to handle only the runoff from the site.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dale Hamilton. He indicated there were no
problems with staff's suggested conditions of approval. He indicated there
was some discrepancy about the size of the detention pond and added that he
had been under the impression that the pond had been sized to retain some of
the water that comes off the highway, though Mr. Elrod had stated otherwise.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod if it was possible the detention pond had been
sized "for more than the site?" Mr. Elrod responded: "It was sized to
pass the water through there. ... As far as meeting the requirements of the
Runoff Control Ordinance, it was sized for the site."
There was some discussion about the possibility of replanting the trees in
the detention pond area. Mr. Elrod stated that for the purposes of runoff
control and to meet the requirements of .the Ordinance, it would not be
necessary to replant the trees. In fact, he stated "the situation would
probably be better without the trees."
June 26, 1984 Page 10
However, he stated he would have no objection to replanting the trees
"as long as you didn't get them in there too thick."
Regarding the possibility of future development of the site, Mr. Bowerman
asked if any future changes would require Health Department approval. Ms.
Scala replied affirmatively. She added that "Unless the septic field
fails for some reason, I think there is adequate room for future
additions." She also added that stormwater detention was already sized for
the whole site and further Fire Official approval was probably possible
as long as there is a fire wall. She stated "I think they are in pretty
good shape but I did caution them to check now rather than be surprised
later."
Mr. Payne added: "Staff is forewarning the applicant. I don't hear anything
in what she is saying that would inhibit the approval of this. It's just
that she's saying that there may be things that would inhibit future
expansion."
The applicant interjected that he had checked with the Health Department and
with a geologist both of which agreed the site would accept the expansion
to a 500-seat sanctuary at a future time. He also stated the Fire Official
had indicated there would be no problem with future fire protection.
To address the Coumission's concern about replanting of trees in the area of
the construction road, it was determined condition 1(h) would be added as
follows:
e Staff approval of landscaping and replacement of trees in certain areas.
Mr. Skove moved that the Lamb's Road Baptist Church 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. Plat to be recorded showing 25' dedication from centerline of Lamb's
Road and a sight distance easement to the satisfaction of Virginia
Department of Highways &. Transportation;
c. County Engineer approval of retaining wall;
d. County Engineer and Watershed Official approval of runoff control plan;
e. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans;
f. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
g. Future additions will require site plan approval;
h. Staff approval of landscaping and replacement of trees in certain areas.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
a/�
June 26, 1984
Page 11
Amvest and Ednam Forest Lake Cottages Site Plans - Request to reconsider conditions
of approval regarding deceleration lane on Rt. 250 West.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The report explained the situation as follows:
"The applicant has objected from the beginning to the requirement to extend
the existing eastbound turn lane. The turn lane is presently about 145'
long with the same length of taper. The current standards require a 200'
tangent section with a 200' taper. The problem is that the existing lane
cannot be extended without either filling on property which is not owned
by the applicant, or building a retaining wall. The adjacent property
owner refuses to grant an easement to permit the slope to be extended.
Therefore, in order to meet the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation's requirement, a retaining wall is necessary. The
applicant is .requesting relief from condition l(d) of the Amvest site plan
and l(c) of the Lake Cottages site plan, both of which read, "Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance improvements
on Route 250 West."
The report concluded:
"The staff's opinion is that we must rely upon the Highway Department
for transportation expertise. The Commission should follow the recom-
mendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation unless
the improvements cannot be required for legal reasons.. Therefore, staff
does not recommend any change to the conditions as previously approved."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Ms. Scala read a letter from Mr. von
Burgsdorff, the adjoining property owner and a letter from the applicant.
(Ms. Scala discovered there was not a letter from the applicant.)
Mr. Ancona, representing Ednam Forest Lake Cottages, addressed the Commission.
He felt it had been decided at one point that the developer and the Highway
Department would work out something and "come back so that the Commission
can accept a negotiated settlement." He felt both the developer and staff had
been under the impression there was "middle ground," however, the condition
has not been changed and there has been no resolution of the issue. He
pointed out that the applicant had acquiesced on a number of items. He
explained that the only way to construct the retaining wall would be to do
all of the construction work on the "highway side," i.e. taking one lane of
traffic for construction vehicles. He had consulted with Faulconer Construction
Company and they question the manner in which this could be done and estimate
that a small retaining wall (100 feet) would cost $60,000. He pointed out that
he was not aware of any accidents within the last 10 years at the entrance to
Ednam Forest. He stated that it was "virtually impossible to make this change
without disturbing a neighbor who is not willing to participate." He indicated
there would be no problem with extending the lane another 50 feet, but
the "total improvement could not be made." He concluded: "We feel the
recommendation from the Highway Department is one that just cannot be met and
is outside of our control and we are therefore asking for relief from that
recommendation."
� "
June 26, 1984
Page 12
M.r. Gordon Windfield, representing Amvest,.addressed the Commission. He stressed
that this access was not heavily used by westbound traffic. He felt relief
from the VDOT recommendation was appropriate.
:sir. James May, President of the Ednam Forest Homeowners Association, addressed
the Commission. He expressed concern about the increased traffic over a road.
that is more than 20 years old. (It was pointed out to Mr. tifay that this was
not relevant to the issue before the Commission.) Mr. Bowerman pointed out that
the issue before the Commission would have no effect on the interior road.
Mr. Chase, a resident of Ednam Forest, expressed concerns similar to Mr. May.
Mr. Paul Stinnard, a homeowner, addressed the Commission. He felt the Highway
Department's recommendation for 200 feet must have been based on safety
considerations and should be upheld.
There being no further comment, the -:matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jeff Echols, rqreserting the Highway Department, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Echols explained that the recommendation was based on the current speed
limit and the turning movements. He stated the recommendation for the
additional 55 feet (from 145 feet to 200 ) was also based on increased usage
at the entrance. Mr. Echols explained precisely what was envisioned by the
Highway Department.
There was some discussion about the possibility of reducing the speed limit
in this area.
Mr. Michel suggested the possibility of doing just the taper at this time.
Vfr..Skn-%re stated he was sympathetic to the applicant's position but he also
was bothered at the possibility of not following Highway Department
recommendations.
It was determined the applicant had agreed with the Highway Department that
the taper length could be extended and widened some, "from full to the
narrow point, and we have said we are willing to do that." He confirmed
the applicant would be willing to.include the guardrail.
There was some discussion about the speed limit and the questionable method
for reducing speed limit.
Mr. Payne stated he had some difficulty with postponing road improvements.
He explained. that "assuming no independently intervening factors (e.g. speed
limit change or.change in VDOT standards), what would the Commission's
decision.be for the next development there, i.e. "how would you make a
distinction between that development and this one?" He stated: "So I think
if you decide not to follow the Highway Department's recommendation for
whatever reason, I think you should reconcile yourself to the likelihood
that it's not going to be done."
a2%A
June 26, 1984 Page 13
There was some discussion about the possibility of something less than strict
adherence to Highway Department standards. Mr. Echols stated that based
on those standards, the Highway Department felt the 50 feet would make a
difference.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was sympathetic to the applicant but he was also
concerned about highway safety and, therefore, he would have to be convinced
that if the requirements were lowered, public safety would not be endangered..
Mr. Skove stated he was not willing to go against the Highway Department's
recommendation and therefore he moved that the Amvest and Ednam Forest Lake
Cottages request to reconsider conditions of approval regarding deceleration
lane on Rt. 250 West be denied.
Mr. Skove's motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Gould stated he was both reluctant to oppose Highway Department recommendations
and reluctant to sympathize with the applicant, but in this case he felt
the Commission had to be practical. He stated he would be willing to have
the taper extended and the guardrail installed.
Mr. Gould moved that the applicant's request for relief from condition l(c)
of the Ednam Forest Lake site plan approval and condition 1(d) from the Amvest
site plan approval be approved with those conditions being amended as follows:
• Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance
improvements on Rt. 250 West, including specifically lengthening the
existing full width turn lane to the maximum extent practical within
existing right -of --way and extension of existing taper to 200 feet, and
provision of guardrail to reasonable satisfaction of the Highway Department.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Payne restated what he believed to be the Commission's intent, i.e. to
endorse the Highway Department requirements except with respect to the
turn lane and to grant a reduction in the length of the turn lane to some
extent, probably 40 or 50 feet, and to additionally require a guardrail.
The Commission confirmed this was accurate.
Mr. Cogan stressed that this was not setting a precedent because it was
a matter which dealt with peculiar physical facts at this particular location.
The motion for approval passed (4:1) with Mr. Skove casting the dissenting vote.
Cason Site Plan - Mr. Bowerman reported that Mr. Cason had requested a 60
day extension of the site plan and that Mr. Tucker would be dealing with
this issue.
There being no further business,
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms,
the meet' g a journed at ll: 0 p.m. J
John Horne, ecretary /
1D-88
a