Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 17 84 PC MinutesJuly 17, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on. Tuesday, July 17, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; and Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio, and Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Crozet Volunteer Fire Department - Located on the north side of St. Rt. 240, ±1,900 feet east of its intersection with St. Rt. 810 (School Road). Proposal to locate a 9,600 square foot fire station and 41 parking spaces on 1.138 acres. Tax Map 56A(2)-1-35. Zoned C-1, Commercial, White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from July 10, 1984. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Stephen Phillips was present to represent the applicant. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Referring to the applicant's request for a variance of the height restriction in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 4.10.2.1 limits buildings to thirty-five feet unless certified by the Fire Official), Mr. Bowerman asked when the Commission or the BZA gets involved in such requests. Mr. Payne responded that the BZA would not get involved in this request because it is zoned C-1. He added that the limit is 65 feet provided the Fire Official certifies the height of over 35 feet. Mr. Cogan asked why stormwater detention was not applicable in this case. Ms. McCulley responded, "Because it's in a runoff control area and as I understand it, it is either one or the other." Mr. Payne added that stormwater detention only applies in the urban area. In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to whether or not this site would drain into the Lickinghole Creek area, Ms. McCulley explained that the runoff would go to a detention basin on an adjacent property. Ms. Diehl asked if the County Engineer had given any kind of approval of the off -site detention plans. Ms. McCulley replied that approval had not yet been received, but would be required for final approval. a� 7 July 17, 1984 Page 2 There was a brief discussion as to which way the drainage would go. Ms. McCulley indicated there did not seem to be any problem with the proposal to use a detention basin on an adjacent property. Mr. Payne explained briefly the difference between the Stormwater Detention Ordinance and the Runoff Control Ordinance. He stated that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance is a flood prevention measure and the Runoff Control Ordinance addresses the issue of water quality, rather than quantity. Ms. McCulley stated the site would drain ultimately to the Beaver Creek area. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, to comment on the runoff control question. Mr. Elrod responded that he had not yet seen plans. The Chairman asked the applicant, Mr. Phillips, for further information. Mr. Phillips responded that the owner of the adjacent property has given his assurance that the drainage plan is acceptable though the applicant has postponed the legalities pending Commission approval of the application. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Elrod stated he had seen plans for on site drainage but he has not seen plans for the detention basin. He confirmed that the plan would not meet the ordinance unless the detention basin is acceptable. I ir. Cogan pointed out that since this would drain to the Beaver Lake area, which is the water source for Crozet, the type.of stormwater detention was important. Ms. Diehl stated she felt this issue should have been decided before Commission review. Mr. Gould asked for what purpose the private road was being used and to what extent was it being upgraded. Ms. McCulley explained the road was necessary because meetings would be taking place at the site and because it was the most efficient and best way for fire trucks to access the site. She added that it would be upgraded to levels that the County Engineer would accept. She confirmed that the access would be both exit and entrance and that it would also serve the adjacent property (owned by Caleb Stowe). She added that there did not seem to be a great deal of traffic on the road. Ms. McCulley confirmed that the Health Department had approved the septic system and was aware that it was under paving. Ms. Diehl pointed out a discrepancy in.the number of proposed parking spaces, i.e. she calculated 43 spaces, while the plan showed 41. Ms. Diehl asked if the Fire Department had considered hooking into the public sewer when it becomes available. Ms. McCulley replied that it would probably depend on the timing of the development. Mr. Phillips confirmed that the applicant would hook to the public sewer -when it becomes feasible. Ms. Diehl was in favor of a condition being added addressing this issue. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff was still in favor of a joint funding proposal for the Fire Department and the Rescue Squad. Ms. McCulley responded: "Z don't think so in light of the fact that there's not many other real suitable uses for the current fire station." 0 July 17, 1984 Page 3 Ms. McCulley stated it was understanding that these projects would be included with the regular CIP projects. Mr. Bowerman asked if she would recommend that the two be proposed together in terms of total cost and the feasibility of doing both at the same time. Ms. McCulley stated she did not think that was possible because they are taking out a loan. She stated there was a lot of confusion about this issue, but after speaking with members of the Finance Department, ".the final line is they will be paying us back." Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to compose a condition addressing the issue of hooking to public sewer. Mr. Payne suggested condition No. 3 as follows: "Station to be served by public sewer and septic system abandoned within a reasonable time after public sewer becomes available." Mr. Skove moved that the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department 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 improvements to the 30-foot private road; b. County Engineer approval of drainage and grading plans and compu- tations; c. County Engineer issuance of runoff control permit; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of both commercial entrances; f. Recordation of drainage easement to the detention basin; g. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the 30' private road; h. Fire Official approval of: hydrant location; handicapped provisions; dumpster location and screening; gasoline pumps locations; and hose drying tower location. 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. Planning staff approval of the landscape plan to include Albemarle County Service Authority approval of any plantings located within water easements. 3. Station to be served by public sewer and .septic system abandoned within reasonable time after public sewer becomes available. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was necessary to deal with the variances in the motion. Mr. Payne responded: "I don't think so. I don't think a variance is required without the waiver, with the exception of 18-36(f). This is a pre-existing situation." Ms. McCulley confirmed that the private road was already in existence. July 17, 1984 page 4 The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously. Hollymead Square Phase II Site Plan - Located on the east side of Powell Creek Drive, adjacent to the north of Hollymead Square Phase I in the Community of Hollymead, Hollymead PL'D. Proposal to locate 120 rental units on 13.88 acres with a density of 8.64 units per acre. Zoned PUD Rivanna Magisterial District. Tax Map 46, Parcel 26B. Deferred from June 19, 1984. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Davenport confirmed that State Maintenance currently ends at the intersection of linker's Cove Road. Mr. Gould pointed out that it was stated that the applicant had submitted an updated density plan for the undeveloped section of Hollymead.. He asked if this meant that density had to be reduced by 18 units someplace else. Ms. Davenport responded affirmatively. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by 'Mike Kuzmuk. He offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. James Brill addressed the Commission. He asked if the applicant intended to place any kind of barrier around the cemetery. He also asked "How long will the record remain open for questions or input?" He asked if approval required the permission of eight adjacent property owners. (Mr. Bowerman explained that the adjacent property owners were notified of the public hearing and if they wished to comment on the application, this was their chance to do so. 'He stated if the request was approved, and no appeal was made to the Board of Supervisors, no further public hearing would be held.) Regarding Mr. Brill's second question, Mr. Bowerman explained that once approval is granted the issue is "basically closed" unless an appeal is made requiring Board of Supervisors review. Regarding the cemetery, the applicant's representative stated that that portion which is on the applicant's property would be enclosed with chain link fence. . GIs. Davenport stated she had failed to point out that the parcel is 25 acres but only 13-1-2 acres are being developed. She stated it was her understanding that the rest of the parcel would be added to a parcel that belongs to Virginia Land Company. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols of the Highway Department. Mr. Echols explained that currently State maintenance ends at the intersection of Powell Creek Drive and Tinker's Cove. He stated that if Powell Creek Drive was to become a State road in the future, it needed to be decided upon now because his department could not take a road into the state system unless it was built to its ultimate design. He stated the State part of the road could not be extended beyond its present termination point with just a temporary cul-de-sac unless there was an understanding the road was to be continued at some time in the future. He was uncertain what the ultimate design would be. Mr. Gould asked who would supply the necessary data. Mr. Echols responded, "The developer." July 17, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Bowerman brought up the issue of the road crossing the dam. Mr. Echols stated the last correspondence he had seen on this issue was dated May 20, 1981. He pointed out that the road must be built to a standard which could cross the dam and the fill slopes would have to be adequate. He added that since this will be a public road over a dam, some governmental agencies will also be involved. Mr. Jim Hill stated that all computations for the 100-year storm have been presented to the Corps of Engineers and the Highway Department is waking for their response. He stated the Corps of Engineers has indicated that u„bat has been submitted is acceptable and a permit will be issued, but it was not known when this permit would be received. He explained that once that permit is received and submitted to the Highway Department, all necessary steps have been taken. Mr. Bowerman asked if that would answer the Highway Department's questions about the ultimate design standard of the road in terms of the vehicle trips per day that it is going to serve. Mr, Echols responded that though it would answer the questions about the dam, it would not answer all questions. He noted that the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway would run somewhere in this vicinity. Mr. Bowerman asked if this was the same road alignment as the Parkway. Mr. Echols responded, "This side of the road it is not; once it crosses the dam there's a possibility." Mr. Hill attempted to clarify the issue by giving a brief history of the development. He stated when Hollymead was first started it was 740 units but the developer had it rezoned to allow single-family on both sides of Hollymead Drive (which was originally multi -family). He stressed this had nothing to do with the dam which "was not in the Hollymead PUD as we see it today." He stated the units had been decreased from 740 to 534. He stressed the dam had nothing to do with the Hollymead PUD and is not included in the Homeowners' Association. He stated the original plan was "to turn everything back out Hollymead Drive;" it was not to go out Powell Creek Drive. Ms. Davenport confirmed it was staff's recommendation that Powell Creek Drive be a temporary cul-de-sac just beyond the entrance to this subdivision. Ms. Davenport added that "we do not want to jeopardize the rest of this road becoming a public road in the future." Mr. Bowerman asked if the road would be.sized to accommodate just the traffic generated by this addition. Mr. Echols responded that the road could not be accepted unless it was sized to its ultimate design. Mr. Payne pointed out that i9acgually be a temporary "turn around" rather than a cul-de-sac. Mr. Gould asked if Hollymead Drive was an issue also. Mr. Hill responded affirmatively. He stated that one of the conditions of the original PUD was that when the ultimate number of units is reached "you have to upgrade the road that's in there now." Mr. Payne stated the answer to Mr. Gould's question was that "it's not an issue; it has to be done." Mr. Echols added that it had already been approved. aW July 17, 1984 Page 6 *Mr. Skove asked a question about sidewalk policy. Mr. Echols responded that if the sidewalks are within 1 mile of an elementary school, the Highway Department would maintain them, (he estimated Hollymead Elementary was less than 1/2 mile away,) if they are in the Highway Department right-of-way. M.s. Davenport explained that there are currently no sidewalks in Hollymead, but there are asphalt paths that run to Tinker's Cove Road. She added that it was staff's suggestion that there be a sidewalk along "this" private road to serve these apartments. Mr. Skove asked how it would be maintained. Ms. Davenport was uncertain whether or not the sidewalk was in Highway Department right-of-way. She indicated the developer of the apartments would be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Payne added: "This is not for sale, so the owner maintains everything.." Mr. Cogan asked if the County Engineer should be consulted about the type of sidewalk to be constructed. M.r. Skove responded that he felt it could be left to "their" discretion. Mr. :Michel asked if Mr. Echols had the data at this time to determine what the capacity of the road would be. 'Mr. Echols explained this would be determined by'iahatever zoning is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the number of acres." Mr. Payne stated: "Don't be misled by the problems they are having farther to the north of this because that was a case involving "thru".traffic and it would have been occassioned by the road in the Comprehensive Plan. This is not a thru road." %ir. Michel interjected: "What's misleading is that this will require some agreement, as yet unnamed." Mr. Payne continued: "The problem in that development was that you had the Meadowcreek Parkway running through there ... that would cut into this somewhere to the north, as I understand it. So, with this section, you don't have the traffic, all you have is the traffic.for the development. In other words, if I am going to Alexandria I have to go through the development to get to this road. If the Meadowcreek Parkway was in, I could go all the way on it, but this is not the Meadowcreek Parkway so it's a much easier problem to solve." Mr. Bowerman asked fir. Echols ifn9eykadafafriveRtat a design standard for the 250 feet of roadway from Tinker's Cove Road to the temporary turn -around. Mr. Echols responded negatively. He stated not many details have been discussed on anything. Mr. Kuzmuk added that this could not be determined until a"count" is done. He added that it would depend upon what Mr. Echols wants to include for the rest of Hollymead. He explained that "we could say we are just forgetting about everything that is north of the dam and just talk about the original PL'D area down where we are, then all we would have to do is add our 120 units to what is already there and we could come up with a design standard real quick. I understand it to mean you are also looking for once the road's in the State system across the dam." Mr. Echols pointed out there were other traffic patterns in Hollymead to be considered also. Mr. Bowerman asked sir. Hill if that would be a problem. fir. Hill responded that it would not be a problem across the dam because the Meadowcreek Parkway would not go across the dam, but rather to the northeast of it. He said the daze would not be included and was not included presently. July 17, 1954 Page 7 In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Hill confirmed there is developable land to the north of the current dam. Mr. Bowerman asked how that land was going to be served, i.e. by Meadowcreek Parkway or Powell Creek Drive, or are they "one -and -the -same?" Mr. Hill felt north of the dam was an entirely different issue. He explained the PUD has been approved and "now we are taking the PUD out of context and wondering what's going to happen 1� or 2 miles farther up the road." He pointed out that an existing road in that area had been blocked off several years until the School Board opened it. Mr. Hill stated he understood and appreciated what the Commission and planners were trying to do. However, he asked that the developers' viewpoint be considered, i.e. "that we can't build everything for eternity when we don't even know what it is." Mr. Bowerman stated: "If we approve this thing as it is with the understanding that the applicant and developer get together on some design standard for this road, it is clear to me that there is no common ground. It appears there are two different approaches to this, and I don't want to see this thing again." Mr. Hill felt there was common ground. He explained that Powell Creek Drive, in front of the school, was designed to take all the school traffic, the 100 units that exist, plus more than 100 units. He stated the road is classified as a category 4 by.the Highway Department and all that would be required would be that it be overlaid when the ultimate number of units is reached. He stated it was the same with Hollymead Drive and it all depends on the traffic count that is generated off the road. He stated: "We have to go back and do it all --overlay that whole road. The same thing here. If it's contingent upon the same specifications as this category 4, if and when something else was going in it would probably have to be upgraded too. But this also. When that gets up to category 4, that's all you need back there. And the existing pieces that are in the Highway Department now were built to their ultimate standard at that time and they've changed them, of course. But that carries the traffic and it will continue to carry the traffic. We just have to sit down with the Highway Department and convince them which way they want to go, and that's sometimes a monumental task. What I'm saying is, if the dam'is right here, if the Highway Department wants to take that road over to there and build a cul-de-sac it is their purpose to do it. We can cut that dam off and block it off and never use it again. ... We've got access out to Rt. 29 and out to Proffit Road for the remaining Hollymead area. We don't need the dam." He pointed out that "we are only talking 250 feet." Mr. Kuzmuk stated he did not think there would be any difficulty in meeting with Mr. Echols to arrive at a solution tothe problem. Mr. Gould asked Mr. Echols if that meant that whatever the upgrade it would satisfy the potential development that is "south of your sidewalks on the other side of -the road?" Mr. Echols responded that "that would have to be taken into account with this before final approval." Mr. Skove asked if it was known how many Section VIII units were planned. July 17, 1984 Page S Ms. Davenport responded that she believed 23 units were authorized (out of 120). Ms. Diehl asked if the Fire Official felt the fire flow was going to be a problem. M.s. Davenport explained that fire flow was kind of "relative" and it may be different when tested again. She added that with a com- bination of fire walls and possibly sprinkling, the Fire Officer feels that fire flow would be adequate under a number of different circumstances. Ms. Diehl asked for comment from the County Engineer regarding drainage and stormwater detention plans, particularly in light of the high erosional features of the soil. Mr. Elrod stated that the plans and computations presented so far were well prepared and he felt, in general, it was a good plan. He confirmed he did not think there would be any problems meeting ordinance requirements. It was determined the recreation plan could be approved by staff. Ms. Diehl moved that Hollymead Square Phase II Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: (Note: Ms. Diehl amended condition 1(g) slightly and added condition 1(h).) 1. A building permit will notbe issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. County Engineer approval of drainage and stormwater detention plans and computations; c. Fire Officer approval of sprinkling system, firewall specifications, hydrant location, or firelanes as required to obtain adequate fireflow; d. Fire Officer approval of dumpster location and handicap parking; e. Virginia Department of Highways &Transportation approval of improvements to segment of Rt. 1521, entrance, and turnaround provisions; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; g. County Engineer approval of private road plans and pavement specifications, including sidewalks. h. Record plat showing lower PUD density. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval; b. All improvements installed or bonded; safety improvements may not be bonded; C. Staff approval of landscape and recreational plans; d. Hollymead Drive upgraded to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ay� July 17, 1984 Page 9 Sachem Village 1, Site Plan - Located on the north side of Whitewood Road, approximately k mile east of the intersection of Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road). Proposal to locate one building for commercial use (total gross floor space 6,200 square feet with 29 parking spaces on .773 acres). Zoned C-1 Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax Map 61, parcel 24C. Deferred from June 19, 1984. and Sachem Village II, Site Plan - Located on the north side of Whitewood Road, approximately k mile east of the intersection with Rt. 743 adjacent to the proposed County Park, Whitewood. Revised proposal to locate 76,900 square feet (gross floor area) of commercial office in 11 buildings with 294 parking spaces on 6.67 acres. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax Map 61, parcel 24B. Deferred from June 19, 1984. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Bowerman asked staff to explain why the site plan listed a total gross square feet of 6,200 and the staff comment had indicated only 2,900 square feet was to be used for rental. Ms. Davenport explained that the applicant will be using the difference (6,200 - 2,900 = 3,300) for storage and it will not be open for retail usage. She confirmed that the 29 parking spaces are based on a net of 2,900 square feet. Mr. Gould asked when the major drainage structure would begin. Ms. Davenport responded that most would be constructed with Phase II, "or the first development of the second site plan." Ms. Diehl questioned this and asked if the conditions of approval require that they be installed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on phase I. She was referring to condition 2(b): "Installation.of all proposed improvements, including stormwater detention facility on adjacent parcel and fence around facility (if required)." Ms. Davenport responded "The stormwater detention facility has to be provided." Mr. Cogan referred to staff's condition No. 5: "The applicant is put on notice, the sale of any unit will require Planning Commission approval of condominium regime documents;"and note No. 6 on Site Plan I: "Each building shall contain one or more condominium units." He asked: "Can that contain a condominium unit without going through a condominium regime?" Ms. Davenport responded: "I think it's anticipating what may happen in the future. ... It is my understanding that the applicant is operating under the assumption that all of these will be rental units and he may lease those three individual units at some point in the future." She stated that it was her intention that "any sale of any units would require a condominium regime." Mr. Payne added: "I think condition No. 5 is not really a condition; it's a note in the record that there's no question that the applicant's on notice for that. It needn't ever be said that if the applicant sells it without appropriate approval, it is a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance." a-115- July 17, 1984 Page 10 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. James Gercke represented the applicant. He stated that it is intended that all the buildings becondominiums and in order to sell them "we will have to come back through the condominium subdivision process." He added: "Whether we sell them or not, we still intend for them to be condominiums." Regarding the stormwater detention issue, he explained that the applicant has proposed that stormwater detention be handled on site. He added that the applicant supports the county's effort to provide regional facilities and would make a contribution to those facilities in lieu of building "our own,." He noted, however, that the cost for contribution to a regional facility is 250% of the cost of complying with the ordinance through an on -site facility. He stated the County Engineer had indicated that he had the authority to "preempt" the applicant's election of complying with the ordinance with an on -site facility. He stated that if that was the case, he asked that the issue be settled now so that the record could reflect the deletion of on -site facilities if that was to be the requirement. He questioned whether or not it was staff's intent that the retail space be erected before any of the office space. Regarding. interim stormwater detention mechanisms, he stated the applicant would be happy to comply with whatever measures satisfy the County Engineer. Regarding staff's request to review the.plans again at the time of Phase III, he felt this was not.necessary because the current plans include those phases. He saw no need to re -submit subsequent phases. He made the following objections to staff's suggested conditions of approval: --Regarding sequential development: The applicant felt site I should be able to be developed independently of any phasing in site II, but once site II development begins, "we are prepared: to follow a sequential orderly pattern." Reason: Market demands may indicate a different timing. --Regarding the landscape easement: He stated that while the applicant supports coordination with the County and the School 'Board, he did not think it should be a condition of approval of the site plan because the applicant should have the right to a site plan whether the county grants an easement or not. --He asked that re -submittal of. development plans for phases III through VII not be required, provided no changes are :Wade. --He asked that a decision be made now as to whether or not contribution to a regional stormwater detention facility will be required and, ifso, he asked that all references to an on -site facility be deleted. --Regarding the condition which requires that all proposed improvements be in place before a certificate of occupancy is issued, he asked that this be changed to state "...either installation or bonding..." Mr. Gercke clarified that he objected to condition 1 and condition 2(h) of recommended conditions of approval for Sachem Village II. He also asked that the Commission consider amending condition condition 4 (Sachem Village II). Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Commission and explained briefly the stormwater detention plans. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman requested fir. Elrod, the County Engineer, to comment. Mir. Elrod stated it was his recommendation that the applicant be required to contribute to an off -site detention basin, in lieu of on -site detention. Contrary to a statement made by ':sir. Gercke related to Mr. E1rod's authority, he stated he did not have the authority to require this of July 17, 1984 Page 11 the applicant. He stated that was for the. Commission to decide, based upon his recommendation. He explained further the need for the regional detention basin. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Elrod could foresee any problems with the phasing of the runoff control measures during development even if Site I should develop first. He stated he did not see any problem with doing the project in phases. He added that if the Commission agreed with his recommendation for contribution to off -site detention, he felt it would be possible to work with the applicant to decide on the amount for each phase. Mr. Gercke stated that if the applicant could "phase payments based on development phases, we would have no problem." He added that he did have a philosophical problem, i.e. "If we can comply with the ordinance for $12,000, then why are we contributing $30,000?" Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on the question of whether or not the Commission can require the additional cost since it is over what would be required for on -site detention, i.e. detention basins are designed for 100-year storms and this site has a requirement for detention of only a 10-year storm. Mr. Payne responded, "Yes." Mr. Elrod added that the detention basin had to be built all at one time. He stated the county has the option of using public funds to build such a basin and then collecting the money from the developers as development occurs. Ms. Diehl asked how the "fair -share cost" was determined, did it depend on impervious surface. Mr. Elrod explained the formula for calculating this amount. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Davenport stated staff had no problems with site II beginning before site I. There was some discussion (and confusion) as to how to amend the conditions to reflect this. Ms.Diehl asked if staff felt there had been sufficient time, at this point, to review all the phases within Section II. Ms. Davenport stated that the reason for this condition was because it is anticipated that development will take a number of years and the ordinance might change during that time. She pointed out that she had not recommended that all phases go back through Commission review (unless a problem should arise). She also pointed out that staff had not seen any architectural drawings, and that parking area was "extremely tight." Ms. Davenport confirmed she was referring to site review and not Commission review. Mr. Michel asked how long the site plans would be valid. Ms. Davenport explained that when everything is linked together in this way, and the conditions of approval are linked together, the policy has been that the site plan is considered valid provided the developer proceeds to construct the first phase within 18 months. Mr. Gercke stated the applicant had no problem with staff reviewing the buildings for compliance, but he did have a problem with additional site.plan reviews. He felt the site plan was "vested because it is all interrelated." ��r July 17, 1984 Page 12 Mr. Payne explained that the applicant has 18 months to get construction underway, i.e. to make a significant effort to get started. He continued: "For example, if phase I is substantially* completed within 18 months, then in my opinion, you have a right to proceed with the rest of it." He stated that if some substantial construction has not begun within 18 months, then the site plan expires. Ms. Diehl asked if the building .area/ parking ratio was staff's main concern or was it more general. Ms. Davenport confirmed the building area/parking ratio was staff's key concern, though other agencies may have other concerns, e.g. is an additional drainage easement going to be necessary; do utility lines need to be reevaluated by the Service Authority. She stated she did not see how site review comments would hinder development of the site plan. -Mr. Gercke asked: "If the plan is approved subject to some future opportunity for someone to disapprove, how can we proceed with any of it?" Mr. Bowerman stated he had not heard anything tonight which puts the plan in jeopardy or.which caused him to share the applicant's concerns about the future development of the site. He pointed out that staff is not suggesting additional Commission review, but rather is suggesting that as phases develop they go through site review. Mr. Skove indicated he was in favor of seeing the entire site plan at one time. Ms. Diehl suggested that it might be desirable to consider some other kind of time limit for phased development in the ordinance. Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with Mr. Skove. He felt phase development, being developed one by one had the potential for many more problems. Mr. Gould stated that though he was sympathetic to the developer, he did not think staff had any "evil intentions" in what they were trying to accomplish. He supported staff's position. Mr. Cogan stated he felt there shsuld be some wording that would satisfy both parties. Mr. Gercke again stressed that the entire project was "interrelated." He again stated he did not want to be subjected to a new ordinance in three years. He indicated he was agreeable to working out a compromise. Ms. Davenport suggested that -allowing staff the opportunity to review building plans might be the "middle ground." Mr. Gercke indicated that was acceptable. It was decided condition 4 would be deleted and replaced with the following: "Staff approval of final building plans." It was decided condition 1(h).would have the following added: "...;if no such easement can be obtained after reasonable efforts, grading shall be limited to the reasonable satisfaction of the staff and the County Engineer, so as to provide landscaping on the site." C19-0 July 17, 1984 Page 13 Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt this was very confusing. He stated: "I'm not sure what we're approving and not approving, if we choose to approve it." He asked for suggestions fran Mr. Payne as to how to proceed if the Commission chose to follow the County Engineer's recommendation for off site detention. (Mr. Bowerman's confusion was related to all those conditions which referred to detention and drainage and how they should be amended.) He suggested that it might be advisable to defer action to allow staff tore-work some of the conditions of approval. The applicant stated he was not in favor of deferral. There followed a discussion in which Mr. Payne suggested the wording for amending several of the conditions. Ms. Diehl moved that the Sachem Village I Site Plan and the Sachem Village II Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: Sachem Village I 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention and drainage plans; including pro rata share of off -site stormwater detention facility; b. Issuance of Soil Erosion Control Permit; c. Fire Officer approval of dumpster locations and handicap provisions; 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval. b. Bonding or installation of all improvements. Sachem Village II 1. Site development shall occur in sequential order, beginning with Phase II. 2. A building permit for construction of any Phase II-VII will not be issued until the following conditions of approval have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance, full frontage improvements and storm sewer design compu- tations; b. Recordation of sight distance easement plat; c. Issuance of erosion control permit, erosion control plan for entire parcel, including location of construction roads; d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations, including pro rata contribution to approved off -site stormwater detention facility; e. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications, signage and bumper blocks along sight easement; f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant and dumpster locations, fire flow and handicap provisions; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; July 17, 1984 Page 14 h. A grading and landscape easement approved by School Board for adjacent property; if no such easement can be obtained after reasonable efforts, grading shall be limited to the reasonable satisfaction of the staff and the County Engineer, so as to.provide landscaping on the site. 3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued for construction of Phase II until the following conditions have been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval; b. Staff approval of landscape plan (by construction phases). 4. Staff approval of final building plans. 5. The applicant is put on notice, the sale of any unit will require Planning Commission approval of condominium regime documents. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting recessed briefly. SP-84-35 James M. & Betty C. Higgs - Proposal to locate a mobile home on the east side of Rt. 795, approximately 1.5 miles south of its intersection with Rt. 20. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 103, parcel 2H. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. It was determined the trees on the property were hardwoods. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant, Mr. James Higgs, was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the -matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Scala confirmed that those persons who had made written objection to the application had been notified of the date of the public hearing. She added that the Reynolds' had not been notified because they had only recently purchased the property and their names had not yet been added to the tax records. She added, however, that the Reynolds' had heard about the hearing by "word of mouth." Ms. Cooke pointed out that this type of application is placed on the Board's Consent agenda and is not heard unless there is public comment. Noting that because there was some question as to whether or not the Reynolds' were aware of the public hearing, Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-84-35 be deferred. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Michel asked if the Commission could ask the Board "to pull this out of the Consent Agena." Ms. Cooke stated this happened quite often but she was uncertain as to who made the request. She added, however, that if the Commission had concerns, she would ask that the application be heard by the Board. July 17, 1984 Page 15 Ms. Scala pointed out that she had talked with someone at the Reynolds' household, though it was neither Mr. or Mrs. Reynolds. She explained that she had attempted to call both the objecting parties, the Morrises and the Reynolds', .to find out their specific objections. She added that she would call both these parties the next day to remind them of the Board of Supervisors hearing. Based on staff's offer to give additional notification to the interested parties, Ms. Diehl moved that SP-84-35 for James M. & Betty C. Higgs be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Mobile home to be located as described on sketch submitted with special use permit; 3. Clearing of trees to be limited to driveway and house site. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously. (Mr. Payne confirmed that the notification which had taken place was proper.) The motion passed unanimously. Ridge Lee Farm Revised Preliminary Plat - Located on the south side of Rt. 682, approximately � mile west of its intersection with Rt. 787, near Ivy. Proposal to subdivide one five acre parcel on a private road leaving 106t acres in residue. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 57, parcels 47 andpart of 43B. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial for the following reason: "Staff cannot recommend the waiver as serving a public purpose or alleviating degradation to the environment. If the Commission approves the waiver, then the 104 acres will be limited to two parcels until Rt. 682 is improved. It may be impossible, at a later date, to obtain the necessary 30' right-of-way across parcel 43B in order to properly locate a commercial entrance." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Stewart Stevens. He explained that presently the acre parcel was for sale subject to the establishment of a 75-foot easement. He expressed a lack of understanding as to why -an easement could not be granted at .a later date. He stated that a development right had been granted to the 30 acre parcel and it was his understanding that the owner planned to divide the -parcel into two lots at some future date. (Ms. Scala pointed out that she felt the 75 feet referred to by Mr. Stevens was a setback and not an easement.) Mr. Stevens stated this was not the case and what he was referring to was a 75-foot strip being deeded giving access to the back portion across lot 8. Ms. Scala stated she was referring to the fact that "if this land were to be developed in the future and this was sold, they would have no way to get out." Ms. Scala added that the development right was not pertinent to the present issue. AV July 17, 1984 Page 16 adjacent Mr. Stevens asked if an/property owner was to buy this house and five acres, what would her options be for access to the state road? Ms. Scala explained that she would be required to get subdivision approval if she wanted it as a separate parcel.. She added that if she were to add the five acres to her existing parcel, subdivision approval would not be required. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Scala confirmed that the 8 acres, and the entire large parcel, including the five acres, is currently under one owner. She stated there are currently no improvements on the 8 acres. Mr. Cogan felt the entire issue was that of the waiver. Ms. Scala agreed. Ms. Diehl questioned why a waiver was being requested if it would eliminate the possibility of future subdivision. Mr. Cogan asked if the applicant was actually requesting a waiver. Ms. Scala explained the applicant was aware of the problem and she considered his letter to be a written request for a waiver though no specific request for a waiver was made. Mr. Skove asked what was before the Commission, the waiver or a re -subdivision? Air. Payne explained that the issue before the Commission was a preliminary subdivision plat. Mr. Skove stated it would be possible to approve a re -subdivision without the waiver, if he wanted to "take back the subdivision." Ms. Scala stated this was not possible. She explained: ";If he has three parcels on the same entrance he can't do it because he can't get a commercial entrance. The only way he can cut off his 5-acre parcel as he desires, using that existing road, he would have to have a waiver." Mr. Skove stated he could not support the waiver. Air. Cogan asked if there was any "latitude" in approving a waiver, or if it could only be for those reasons cited in the staff report? M.s. Scala stated it was very specific and had to be for one of those reasons. Ms. Scala confirmed that if the 8 acres were under different ownership, there would be no problem. she added: "And if they had not previously brought in that plan," the issue would not be so complicated. Ms. Scala repeated that staff was recommending denial of the waiver and "there- fore the preliminary plat could not be approved as shown." Ms. Diehl moved that the R.idge Lee Farm Revised Preliminary Plat be denied because without the waiver of Section 18-36(f) the plat would be in non-conformance of the Ordinance. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously. July 17, 1984 Page 17 (Note: From this point, the tape for this meeting was lost. Transcription is entirely from notes.) Ednam RPN, Section A Site Plan - Located south of Rt. 250 West, on the south side of Worthington Drive, adjacent to the east of the Manor House. Proposal to locate 17 apartment condominium units in two buildings on 1.3 acres with a density of 13 dwelling units per acre. (Previously approved, expired site plan). Zoned RPN, Residential Planned Neighborhood. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Tax Map 59D2, parcel 6-1. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Fred Pugsley represented the applicant. He stated the project is the same as originally approved though some additional information has been added to the site plan as a result of site review. He stated the buildings had been moved slightly (7 to 10 feet). He explained proposed grading plans. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked if the trees were in jeopardy. Mr. Pugsley responded that some of the trees would be removed. There was a brief discussion with Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Elrod explaining stormwater detention plans and drainage. Mr. Michel moved that the Ednam RPN, Section A Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of drainage and stormwater detention plans and computations, including the portion of the existing road within the same drainage basin; b. County Engineer approval of paving specifications and sight distance at entrance; c. Issuance of erosion control permit; d. Fire Officer approval of sprinkler system or firewall specifications; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of completion of Ednam water pump station; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans and profiles. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents; b. Approval and recordation of condominium regime documents; c. Final fire officer approval; d. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; planting or bonding of all materials. a�3 July 17, 1984 Page 18 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of :Mobile Home Park Study - Ms. Scala led the discussion. She explained that staff had taken the Commission's comments and formulated a scope of study for issues related to mobile homes. A work study was scheduled for July 31, 1984 at which time the Commission's comments would involve study in three areas: Comprehensive Plan Recommendations; Zoning Ordinance Regulations; and Locational Considerations/Physical Development. Resolution of Intent - Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl,that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to recommend that properties on the north side of Rio Road (Rt. 631) situated between the Putt -Putt Golf Course and Old Brook Road (Rt. 652) be shown for commercial office as opposed to medium density residential usage be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, July. 1 Z �r John Horne, Secretary 88