Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 25 84 PC MinutesSeptember 25, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, September 25, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Ms. Patricia Cooke. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Bowerman stated that approval of the September 11, 1984 minutes would be deferred until October 2, 1984. SP-84-57 OTIC REALTY SERVICE CORPORATION (UNOGEN)- Pharmaceutical laboratory and production facility to be located in the existing Tull building. Located on the south side of Route 738 near Ivy on 9.67 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. Tax Map 58, parcel 37C (part of). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Mary Joy Scala gave the staff report. At the end of Ms. Scala's report she stated that Mr. Keeler had just learned from David Papenfuse, a School Board member, that the School Board has no objections to the UNOGEN proposal. In addition to her report, Ms. Scala added that the State Health Department had shown concern regarding the quantities of cell cultures and culture medium being disposed of via septic tank drain field and it was their feeling that should the amounts to be disposed of ever exceed a few gallons per day an aerobic unit would be needed for pretreatment prior to discharge into the absorption field. Ms. Scala said she could anticipate there might be a need for the applicant to apply for this aerobic system sometime in the future. She added that an opinion from the State Water Control Board had not been obtained, and it was her belief that they would have the final authority since they regulate industrial waste. Mr. Cogan asked for clarification as to whether or not staff was requesting a site plan from the applicant. Ms. Scala said a complete site plan was not being requested, but that a sketch was needed showing that adequate parking was available to the facility. She added that staff wanted to insure that the vegetative buffer would remain in place. Mr. Gould, referring to Dr. Macrina's letter of August 21, 1984 to Dr. Woodward, asked for clarification of the "exemptions" from NIH regulations which were referred to in said letter. Ms. Scala said she did not feel this to be of concern to staff since it dealt with laboratory procedures. 0 September 25, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from the applicant. mr. Fred Landess, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated several authorities in regard to this matter were present at the meeting and,available to answer questions. Mr. Landess stated that, according to his understanding of the Ordinance, a special permit was not really needed in this matter since, by matter of right, the applicant's Proposal fell within all the criteria stated in the Ordinance. He felt the only possible reason a'special permit might -be needed revolved around the term "laboratory" since medical or pharmaceutical laboratories did require a special use permit. However, he interpreted that to mean facilities which were strictly laboratories, not a manufacturing facility which had a laboratory as an ancillary part. Dr. Michael Woodward, Staff Scientist for UNOGEN, addressed the Commission. He stated there were no biological hazards involved in this type.of work since the bacteria to be used will not grow in human or animal intestines, He stressed that scientific research has proven this to be true. He stated UNOGEN's procedures would exceed the guidelines recommended by the Federal and State regulatory agencies. In answer to Mr..Gould's former.question regarding exemptions, Dr. Woodward stated i'NIOGEN falls into a classification known as PI Containment Levels which means that not more than 10 liters at a time of bacteria culture media can be processed. He stated UNNOGE\'s containment facilities would exceed that and they would not have to go beyond the P1 level. Dr. Woodward further stated that all hazardous chemicals or potentially hazardous chemicals would not pose a threat to the surrounding community because: (1) UNOGEN uses rigorous safety and containment procedures --locked, explosion -proof cabinets with different chemicals being stored apart from one another; (2) The amounts of chemicals used are very small. In regard to testing of well -water, he stated UNOGENN would have no objections.to doing this since the quality of the water was also very critical to their operation. He stated there would be no problem with the hazardous waste pick-ups being made outside of school hours and at low traffic use times. Dr. Woodward stated that radioactive isotopes would be used at the facility, but only infrequently and when absolutely necessary, and in very small amounts. He stated their use is strictly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and UNOGEN is currently trying to obtain.a license from the NRC.to use these isotopes. He stressed that no product that UNTOGEN sells would have radio -active isotopes in it. Again he noted that regular safety and containment procedures would be followed in the use of these isotopes. In case of a spill, he stated spill -kits would be in each lab with monitoring equipment on hand. He pointed out that the research labs would not have floor drains (eliminates the possibility of these going into the septic system). He stated that CH2M Hill is currently processing an application to go to the State Water Control Board concerning what UNOGEN will be allowed to put into the septic system. He added that L'`OGEN is in contact with Mr. Cortez and that he is certain they will be able to satisfy Mr. Cortez's requirements concerning fire regulations. Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from the public. X.s. Beth Seltzer, a resident of Ivy, addressed the Commission. She first submitted a petition to the Commission, on which she had obtained several signatures, opposing the UNOGEN proposal. She stated her feeling that, no matter how well intentioned and safety conscious UNOGEN may be, there September 25, 1954 Page 3 is always the chance for error. She referred to examples given by Sheriff Bailey at a meeting held the previous week regarding chemical spills in the area and radio -active bags found along the side of the road. She stated concern in regard to pollution of the ground water and the safety of the children at Murray Hill School (next to the proposed site) should such an error occur. She also stated concern as to the future expansion of the facility or a different use coming into being. She further stated concern regarding the company which UNOGEN will employ to remove their hazardous wastes, since many of these companies have been cited for being u nsafe.A major concern in this regard was what type of hazardous materials would already be present on the truck when it makes its pick-up at UNOGEN. She pointed out that these trucks would be traveling through a residential community on roads that were already heavily traveled. She pointed out the site would not have suitable access to Rt. 250 and all trucking must pass through residential neighborhoods. She concluded by stating her feeling that no company should be allowed that pose any risks to the watershed and surrounding well water. Ms. Leslie Reed, an Ivy resident,addressed the Commission Ms. Reed stated she had obtained information on American Recovery Company, the company UNOGEN had proposed to remove their hazardous wastes, which shows that company to be under criminal investigation in Maryland for numerous violations. She said this shows this company to be careless in the treatment of the wastes and she added some of the violations involved relate to transport. She added that said company has had three explosions on their site due to having chemicals present which had not been allowed and also because of incorrect handling of incompatible wastes. She said EPA had referred to this company as being "sloppy." She said she had Confronted UNOGEN with this information and they had not been aware of this history regarding American Recovery Company. She stated her concern that UNOGEN had not researched the record of the company more thoroughly since this was such an important aspect of this matter. She stated that, although UNOGEN has not yet contracted with American Recovery, there is no assurance that they will not do so, or that they will not contract with a company that . may have a similar safety record. She stated her agreement with the recommendation that the pick-up trucks not be allowed during school hours, but she did feel this could not be enforced. Mr. Russell Seltzer, an Ivy resident, addressed the Commission. He stated concern in regard to the future expansion of the business. -He added his belief that this proposal was Clearly in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan and the down zoning of the Ivy area. Mr. Seltzer felt that even though the examination and testing of well water may be a nobel undertaking, once well water is contaminated, it is too late. Though this testing would protect the residents by keeping them from drinking the water were it to become contaminated, the property would then be worthless. He felt that recent history has shown that once water becomes contaminated, it is almost a "forever" type of situation. He felt that the testing of the well water was just not a sufficient. restriction in regard to the protection of properties. He also stated concern as to where the water would come from to meet Mr. Cortez's requirement for 1,500 GPM necessary for fire protection. Mr. Payne entered the meeting at this point. //10 September 25, 1984 Page .4. Mr. Seltzer continued, stating he would like for the actual times that waste pick-ups would be allowed to be stated clearly, days, hours, etc. He also felt that L'NOGEN should be required to post some sort of security bond which would insure against..property damage .to residents, said bond being nonrefundable for several years after the company's dissolution. He concluded by stating he ,was against this proposal..' Ms. Terra McLaughlin, an Ivy resident, addressed..the Commission. She stated that, as a parent, she is concerned about the hazardous wastes since she will have a child at Murray Hill School. She did not feel that the residents should have to carry the burden for this company. There being no further public -comment, the matter was placed, before the Commission.. Mr. Cogan determined that comment still had not been obtained from the State Water Control Board and only partial comment had been secured from the Health Department. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to how many additional pick-ups would be needed in case the State Water Control Board.disallowed.the applicant's proposal to dispose of some of these materials, Dr. Woodward stated that while a slightlylarger storage area might be needed, no extra truck trips would be needed (twice yearly would still be sufficient). He pointed out that the Health Department has said that.the material is safe to go into a septic system. In response to Ms. Diehls' question as to the disposal of glacial acetic acid and various alcohols:' Dr. Woodward stated that glacial acetic acid would not be dumped into the septic system. He explained that any acid solution must first be neutralized until they become a material that is acceptable for disposal into a septic system (e.g,., acetic acid would become a salt). He added if any acid solution could not be neutralized, it would be hauled away. Concerning the disposal of alcohols, he said they would be disposed of in low concentrations so as to be metabolizable by the bacteria that would be currently in existence in the septic system. It was determined that this type of disposal would account fok approximately 4%-5% of the. total volume of waste per day. In response to Mr. [tiilkerson's question regarding the information that had beer. presented tonight on American Recovery Company, Dr. Woodward stated that he was very interested in the information. He added that he had checked with other institutions inthe area which use this company and had found these institutions to be satisfied with said company's performance. He said he,. too, had found this information very distressing and that UNOGEN was looking into the possibility of using two other companies. He stated no .contract with American Recovery was in existence. He admitted .that a thorough background check had not been made by.L`OGEN, but stated that they had checked with UVA and Piedmont Virginia Community College (users of American Recovery }. These two sources had reported no problems with the company. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question regarding the training and qualifications of employees of UrtiOGEN, Dr. Woodward stated that he was the current laboratory supervisor and that all persons employed would be quite competent and well - trained. September 25, 1984 Page 5. In regard to Ms. Diehl`s question regarding fire protection requirements, Dr. Woodward stated that he had spoken with Mr. Cortez at length and that a chemical -based sprinkler system would be installed (a water -based system would destroy. the equipment). He said that Mr. Cortez had indicated that such a system, which meets NFPA regulations, would be satisfactory and no pond would be needed on the premise. Dr. Woodward pointed out that this type of chemical system would insure that a fire would be contained within the building. He also pointed out that the building was well buffered from the surrounding community. Mr. Ia.ndess added that if a sprinkler system covered the entire facility, then, as he understood it, a huge quantity of water from outside would not be required. Mr. Cogan addressed Mr. Payne to make him aware of Mr. Landess` statement at the beginning of the meeting regarding his feeling that a special permit was not actually needed in this case. Mr. Payne indicated understanding. Ms. Scala, referring to recommendation No. 8 in the staff report, stated if any change were made in the use of the facility, the applicant would have to secure approval once again, including any change in the physical building. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question reaarding the quarterly testing of the wells, Ms. Scala indicated she was unsure as to who would receive these reports. Ms. Cooke asked Dr. Woodward if the proposed testing of the water was to be done for the benefit of UNOGEN (to insure the water quality met their needs) or for the benefit of the residents (to insure its safeness). Dr. Woodward responded that it would be tested for both reasons. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the hazards associated with this type of facility are of more of an unknown nature to the public, thus making them more frightening. He further stated that both the Light Industrial Statement of Intent and the Comprehensive Plan Industrial Standards recommend the use of public utilities. He stated he agreed with that recommendation and thought this to be the main issue in this case. He expressed concern about the various types of monitoring that would be necessary in this type of operation. Mr. Cogan also stated his feeling that the applicant should have researched the background of the hauling company, American Recovery, more thoroughly, since this information seemed to have been fairly easy to obtain. He felt if something of that importance could be overlooked, other things could be overlooked also. He added that no matter how well-intentioned UNOGEN might be, there is always the potential for human error. Mr. Cogan said that there is a place in Albemarle County for this particular use, but he felt it should be where public utilities are available and better road conditions exist. He said he felt this particular facility would be better suited for use as a warehouse or something of that nature. Ms. Diehl stated that the very nature of this operation would ensure a sterile environment and precise handling of materials. She also pointed out that small quantities of materials would be used. She stated she could support the special permit with the conditions of staff. Mr. Skove stated that even though he agreed with a former comment that this type of activity was not appropriate for the watershed, he felt he must go along with the experts and that he would support the special permit with the conditions of staff. T2 September 25, 1984 Page 6 Air. Gould stated that, given the recommendations of staff, and considering the openness with which the applicant had presented the application, he could support the special permit. Mr. Wilkerson, stating he could support the special permit, moved. that SP-84-57 be approved with the recommendations as outlined by staff. Air. Bowerman asked that recommendation.No. 5, regarding the testing of wells, be amended to include "and an interpretation of the results of said testing shall be made available to the School Board and the Planning staff." It was also determined.that the second option under recommendation No. 3 was preferable. . It was determined that recommendation No. 11, regarding the pick-up of waste materials, be amended to include "including busing hours before and after school." Dr. Woodward indicated that iJNOGEN'would be glad to schedule these twice yearly pick-ups during school vacation periods. Mr. Wilkerson restated his motion and moved that SP-84--57,.Otic Realty Services Corporation (UNOGEN), be approved with the recommendations as outlined by staff and as amended as noted. Air. Gould seconded the :notion. The special permit was approved with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr'. Bowerman, Ms. Diehl, Mr. Gould, Mr. Michel and Mr. Skove voting in favor and Mr. Cogan voting against. It was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 3, 1984. . The meeting recessed at this time (9:00 p.m.). Mr. Gould left the meeting at this point. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. THORNLEY PRELIMINARY PLAT - Located on the east side of Route 729, adjacent to the south of the University of Virginia ?airport at Milton. Proposal to create four lots ranging in size from 6.2 to 25.0 acres to be served by a private road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 93, parcel 58. Scottsville Magisterial District. )1r. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, stated it was the applicant's desire that the Commission consider approving a private road. There being no public comment, the matter was placed.before the Commission. Mr. Skove stated he did not feel he could make an exception in this case and would prefer that a public road be approved. Mr. Cogan asked for clarification as to why this would be an exception if the private road requirements were met. September 25, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Skove, reading from the staff report, stated "private roads are intended to be the exception." In response to Mr. Michel's request, Mr. Keeler reviewed the five cases where private roads may be permitted: (1) Where all lots are five acres or greater; (2) Where only two lots are involved in the subdivision and the road serves only those two lots (a state road is not allowed until there are three lots); (3) For non-agricultural and non-residential uses (e.g. the road around the edge of Fashion Square Mall is a private road); (4) In growth areas for uses other than single-family dwellings (e.g. townhouse -type developments where a public road would consume a lot of land); and (5) Family division. He added that the Subdivision Ordinance states that the Planning Commission may authorize a private road in one of the above -stated cases. He confirmed that this had been done before. Mr. Bowerman stated that the issue of public vs. private roads keeps coming up. He added that public roads are the norm in almost every area of the state with the exception of Albemarle County. He stated that in the past few years most applications in the rural areas have been for private roads with no apparent need for the private road other than the economics and the cost of building a public road. He reminded the Commission that the Private Road Ordinance that was recently adopted was an attempt to limit the use of private roads to those situations where there existed clearly definable reasons for a private road. He stated, in this case, he did not see a clearly demonstrated need for a private road. He said that in many cases, these private roads must eventually be accepted into the county or state system because of their high maintenance cost. Mr. Cogan asked if it would be possible to move the location of the road to a place that would be acceptable to the Highway Department and if no such place existed, then, at that time, the Commission would consider approving a private road. Ms. Diehl moved that the Thornley Preliminary Plat be approved with the conditions as outlined by staff and amended as follows: The second option (a.) under No. 1, ,dealing with a private road, be eliminated and the first option (a.) be approved with the following addition "...and all lots to enter only on the new road"; and recommendation No. 1 (d.) be amended to read as follows "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans and entrance permit, including entrance location and sight distance and drainage plans and computations." Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. The Thornley Preliminary Plat was unanimously approved. LOCUST HILL FINAL PLAT - Located on the north side of Route 678, approximately 1/2 mile north of Route 250 west, north of Ivy. Proposal to create five lots ranging in size from 2.516 acres to 5.017 acres, served by a proposed public road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 58, parcel 84. Samuel 14iller Magisterial District. Ms. Amelia McCulley gave the staff report. September 25, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, stated there was no problems with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. ?Michel moved to approve the Locust Hill Final Plat with the recommendations as outlined by staff. Mr. Wilkerson.seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl commented that generally before a final plat comes before the Commission, more.of the conditions of approval have already been. met. The Locust Hill Final Plat was unanimously approved. OLLIE FITZGERALD, LOTS 6 and 7 FINAL FLAT - Located on the west side of Route 660, adjacent to Fairgrove Subdivision. Proposal to create one 5.31 acre parcel and one 5.42 acre parcel served by a private road, with access to lot 5. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax 'Map 30, parcel 24. Rivanna Magisterial District.. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. In response to Ms. Diehl's question concerning how many lots were currently being servedby this current entrance, Ms. McCulley explained that there are .three. lots, but one lot has its own entrance. Mr. :Morris Foster, representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the road, and stated the applicant felt the tract could be put to better use with the division into two parcels. Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment. Mr. James Mergner, an adjoining property owner,addressed the Commission. He stated he had no objections to the division of.the property but that he was concerned about the runoff from the road onto Lot 14., He stated that staff had addressed his concerns in their recommendations. He stated it was his desire that the existing conditions would not be aggravated by a new road. There being..no further comment the scatter was placed before the Commission. mr. Skove moved that the 011ie Fitzgerald, Lots 6 and 7 Final Plat be approved with the conditions as outlined by staff. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. The 011ie Fitzgerald Final Plat was unanimously approved. SANDRA LLOYD PRELIMINARY PLAT - Located on the east side of Barracks Road between the intersections of Rickey Road and Bennington Road. Proposal to create four (4) lots, average lot size 11,867 square feet from a 1.090 acre parcel, to serve a single family house and a triplex. Zoned R-4,. Residential. Tax Map 61K, parcel 8-A-12. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. :McCulley gave the staff report. September 25, 1984 Page 9 In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, 14s. McCulley stated the lot size of Lot C to be 3,580 square feet. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Payne stated there was nothing in the Ordinance to preclude a driveway going to lots 12B, C and D. Mr. Payne pointed out the request was not actually a waiver since the Ordinance contemplates this approval if it is determined that this arrangement is superior in terms of general public interest. He said the alternative to allowing this private road would be multiple separate entrances. Mr. Michel commented on the fact that Lot 12C was very small (being only 20 feet wide). Mr. Payne explained that the Zoning Administrator (two or three years previously) determined the Ordinance to permit this situation. (Mr. Michel noted this was one-half the size that the City would allow.) Mr. Payne said he did not necessarily see this as being wrong, if the alternative would be to make it a condominium. He added if single-family dwellings exist that do not impose a minimum lot size, it would be necessary to keep very careful records in case of future development. He said that was what Ms. McCulley was concerned about with Lot 12A and he, too, felt this presented a significant problem. Mr. Bowerman asked for comment from the applicant. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He pointed out the reason for not using a typical type of driveway was so that the trees could be preserved. He also stated that with any type of attached housing the lot size would be dictated by the particular width of such housing. He stated the proposal was a good use for the site. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Foster said that consideration had been given to rotating the building, but this would be difficult to do and still preserve all the large trees. Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment. Mr. Gaston Fornes, a resident of Canturbury Hills, addressed the Commission. He indicated opposition to the small size of the lots being proposed. He also voiced concern as to the increased traffic problems, this being a very dangerous intersection. (Ms. McCulley clarified for Mr. Fornes that only three additional units were being proposed.) He also indicated -opposition to having additional rental units in this area. Mr. Grant Woodford, a resident of Rickey Road, addressed the Commission. He stated his opposition to the proposal because he felt it would devalue his property. Mr. Arthur Stubbs, a.resident of Bennington Road, expressed his opposition to the plan because he felt it would devalue his property. Ms. Katherine Ayers, a resident of Bennington Road, expressed her opposition because of increased traffic problems and devaluation of property. 0 September 25, 1984. Page 10 There being.no further public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated that although the zoning is R4, allowing 4 units per acre, he felt that putting a triplex in this location would be out of character. He felt that the particular layout of this lot was too intensive and that he did not feel he could support the application even though it did meet Ordinance requirements. :GIs. Diehl stated she felt this to be an exaggerated increase in density and she could anticipate that this might set a precedent for in --filling. She also asked if the existing private driveway which the VDH&T had recommended be upgraded were the one that is shown of if the one shown is a relocation. It was determined that the existing driveway exists where shown. She agreed with Mr. Bowerman that she ,could not support the application. Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel it was the intention of the R4 to cram three dwelling units onto Mess than.1/2 acre of.land. Mr. Cogan moved that the Sandra Lloyd Preliminary Plat be denied because of the unusual lot sizes not being conducive to the surrounding area and because of the over -intensification of the land. Mr. Payne .stated it would be difficult to consider this an "odd -shaped lot" because the Ordinance so specifically contemplates subdivision of land to provide for townhouses. Mr. Cogan stated that if.a reason were needed to deny this, then the Commission did not have.to grant the double frontage. Mr. Bowerman asked for a second to fir. Cogan's motion to deny. Mr. Cogan then withdrew his motion. Mr. Bowerman stated that although this proposal might meet the letter of the law, it does not meet the spirit of the law because the density on the half -acre would be much in excess of the four dwelling units per acre allowed. (Mr. Michel pointed out this would be creating.R6.) Mr. Bowerman said this was not what was expected in an existing sub- division. Mr. Cogan pointed out that a private road would not normally be permitted in this area, but the Commission was being asked to do this because it was more feasible than putting in four driveways -given the configuration of the lots. Mr. Keeler, reading from the Ordinance, stated "Private roads are intended to promote sensitivity towards the natural characteristics of the site and encourage subdivision consistent and harmonious with the surrounding development." Mr. Cogan, agreeing with this, said he could not approve a private road and he would not approve four driveways. Al-7 September 25, 1984 Page 11 Mr. Payne, in response to Ms. Diehl's request, quoted the statement of intent of the R4 as follows: "This district, hereafter referred to as R4, is created to establish a Plan Implementation Zone that: provides for compact, medium -density, single-family development in planned residential areas having a high degree of supporting public facilities and utilities within community areas and the urban area, permits a variety of housing types; provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental, and development amenities. R4 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations designated on the comprehensive plan in proximity to supporting facilities, and where water and sewerage utility services are available or to be available within two years of rezoning application date." In response to Ms. Diehl's question as to how this area came to be zoned R4, Mr. Payne stated that the density of the subdivision approximates four units per acre. Mr. Cogan again moved to deny approval of the Lloyd Preliminary Plat based on the over -intensification of the land and also because the Commission does not recognize private roads in an R4 district in the urban area and because of the safety factor involved in allowing four entrances onto Bennington Road. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Foster addressed the Commission, stating that he felt it was incorrect to say that private roads were not allowed in the R4 district since most all townhouse projects have private roads. He also stated that the elimination of the private road would not necessarily mean there would have to be four driveways onto Bennington Road. Mr. Cogan agreed that such roads did exist, but they were not laid out the way this one was. Mr. Keeler stated this was not one of the five areas stated where private roads might be permitted, adding that private roads in the growth areas are for dwellings other than single-family detached. He said the mixing of single-family and single-family attached in this instance makes this a special case. He confirmed, in response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, that this was discretionary. Mr. Skove, Ms Diehl and Mr. Wilkerson stated they could not support a motion to deny. The motion to deny approval of the Lloyd Preliminary Plat was defeated with Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cogan voting in favor, and Mr. Wilkerson, Ms.'Diehl, Mr. Michel and Mr. Skove voting against. Mr. Skove moved to approve the Lloyd Preliminary Plat with the conditions as outlined by staff. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion with the addition of recommendation 1. (h): All trees as shown on Plat will be maintained and any trees damaged during construction will be replaced with similar trees. The Lloyd Preliminary Plat was approved with Ms. Diehl, Mr. Michel, Mr. Skove and Mr. Wilkerson voting.in favor, and Mr. Cogan and Mr. Bowerman voting against. N September 25, 1984 Page 12 Mr. Bowerman noted that the Planning Commission would see the final plat. FOUR SEASONS OFFICE - RETAIL CONDOMINIUMS - Located on the south side of Rio Road (Route 631), adjacent to the intersection with Four Seasons Drive., in the Four Seasons PLD. Proposal to locate a 16,020 square foot, two story building on .750 acres. Zoned Planned Unit Development. Tax Tap 61X(1), Parcel 2B. Charlottesville Ma.gisterial.District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. :sir. Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that while there was no problem with.most of the recommendations of staff, he would prefer that No. 2 (a) be changed since some of the space might be leased and some Night be sold. (-Mr. Payne pointed out that this was not possible.) Mr. Edwards said he interpreted No. 2 (a) to be that if a condominium was not created then occupancy of the building would not be allowed. Mr. .Edward Amato, part owner .of the property, addressed the Commission. He stated concern that the original entranceway. into Four Seasons (as referred to in staff recommendation 'No. 1 (a) had not been done correctly originally, and he felt that expecting the applicant to upgrade this entranceway was penalizing the applicant for something that should have. been done originally. He also expressed concern over theparking easement recommendation (No. 1 (e)). He further pointed out that the site plan had been changed a lot since it was originally reviewed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman indicated concern in regard to available parking. He stated that as additional uses came into being in the future, if no more parking space were available, =developable land might be the result. He added that not being aware of what these future uses might be, it was not possible to determine the amount of parking that would be required. He felt staffs.attempt to deal with this question now to be appropriate. Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, responded to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding the Highway Department's recommendations in this :natter. He stated that the current entranceway had been there for some time and does not meet current standards. The increased usage created by this current proposal would necessitate the upgrading of this entrance. He added there was nothing in the current Six -Year Plan for allocating of monies for improvement of this section of Rio Road, although he noted there is some money for the development of the road plans for that project, but said plans are very pre- liminary. -Mr. Skove stated he did not see much alternative, but to go with the Highway Department's recommendations for the entrance. Mr. reeler stated that one alternative had been discussed with the applicant -- closing the entrance. It was noted that this entrance serves other through traffic and that the Fire Department can use this entrance as it currently exists. _/1 F September 25, 1984 Page 13 In summary, Mr. Keeler stated that were no definite plans for Rio Road at this time, and he felt it was in the applicant's interest to consider the additional setback line so that parking space would not be lost in the future. He added that the Ordinance did not give the Commission the authority to consider preliminary plans. He stated that this was an existing entrance and even though the Highway Department has said it is inadequate, he did not think any additional permit was required. He pointed out that the Highway Department has recommended if the entrance is going to continue to be used, and with this additional use, it should be upgraded. He said there were three options: (1) To close the entrance; (2) To upgrade it; or (3) To ignore the Highway Department's recommendation. In regard to recommendation 1. (f) concerning availability of parking space for future development, Mr. Keeler stated that the other property owners involved realize that some spaces within the right-of-way may be lost. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that this particular site does not support, with parking places, the proposed uses for condominium, office and retail space, and that parking would have to be off site. In reference to recommendation 2. (a), Mr. Bowerman asked how this might be expressed in order to satisfy the applicants desire to have some flexibility in the use of the property. Mr. Payne stated this should read: Administrative approval of condominium documents and plat if the developer desires to create condominium regimes. Ms. Diehl moved for approval of Four Seasons Office - Retail Condominiums subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Upgrade entrance as recommended by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation including installation of taper and turn lane, increased entrance width and removal of traffic island: b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of maintenance agreement with Rhew's Market for existing private sewer lateral; c. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans including Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review of on -site drainage measures; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Attorney approval of parking easement documents; f. Written acknowledgement from all commercial property owners that future development may be limited by parking availability. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: 60 September 25, 1984 Page 14 a. Administrative approval of condominium documents and :plat if the developer desires to create condominium regimes, b. Fire Official approval of fire protection measures; c. Cash contribution to off -site stormwater detention facilities; d. Staff -approval of landscape plan. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SOUTH PA'VTOPS OFFICE COMPLEX SITE.PLAN - Located on the south side of South Pantops Drive, approximately 1/4 mile east of Riverbend Drive. Proposal to locate a-6,100 square foot office building on a 32,181 square foot -parcel. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 78, parcel 1.5C. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Edwards, representing the applicant,.stated there were no problems with the recommendations of staff.. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission Mr..Wilkers.on moved for approval of the South Pantops Office Complex Site Plan 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 road and drainage plans and computations for South Pantops Drive from Riverbend Drive to State Farm Boulevard; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations for South Pantops Drive from Riverbend Drive to State Farm Boulevard; c. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. County Engineer approval of drainage and grading plans for this site; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer line plans and profiles; f. Revise plan to.show no portion of any parking space within 20' of right-of-way of South Pantops Drive. Revise entrance to show radii of curvature at not less than 25'; g. Placement of guardrail as determined by County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; h. Revise plan to show CG-11 as opposed to CG-l0A at entrance as recommended by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. 2. No certificate of occupancy will be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Relocation of hydrant to reasonable satisfaction of Fire Prevention Official; 13/ September 25, 1984 Page 15 b. Staff approval of landscape plan to include provisions reflective of roadway landscape plan for Pantops area; 3. Administrative approval of final plat will not be given until, in addition to other appropriate requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has complied with the following: a. Dedication of water and sewer line easements as may be re- quired by the Albemarle County Service Authority; b. Construction/bonding of South Pantops Drive from Riverbend Drive to a point east of the site, mutually agreed upon by the applicant and County Engineer. Provision/bonding of a temporary turn around. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Under OLD BUSINESS, Mr. Keeler stated that several months previously Woodbriar Associates had requested approval of a subdivision plat and at that time there was no available capacity at the Camelot Treatment Plant. (There was physical capacity, but it had all been alloted to General Electric.) Mr. Wendall Wood, representing Woodbriar, requested the Planning Commission to approve a plat which would permit him to negotiate in order to obtain some of the capacity that had been alloted to GE. Mr. Keeler stated that negotiations took place and documents were signed in March under which GE allocated a certain amount of capacity to Mr. Wood based on future actions. Mr. Keeler stated he refused to sign a subdivision plat based on a promissory action of that nature and that he would not sign the plat unless GE irrevocably assigned the capacity to Woodbriar Associates. He stated Woodbriar had been given 22 weeks to perform certain actions and it has now been more than 60 weeks and GE has now requested that the Service Authority not permit Woodbriar Associates to use any of that available capacity. He stated the Service Authority would take this matter up on October 18. Mr. Keeler also noted that Mr. Wood has paid the Service Authority for 26 connections. Mr. Payne stated that since this was a private agreement between Mr. Wood and GE, the only issue that the Planning staff need be concerned with is whether the Service Authority takes the position that there are 26 connections still irrevocably committed to this project. If not, then the capacity belongs to someone else and there is no capacity for sewer for Woodbriar and the Commission's conditions cannot be fulfilled. Mr. Keeler stated he was bringing this before the Commission at GE's request. Under NEW BUSINESS, Mr. Bowerman appointed himself, Ms. Diehl and Mr. Gould to serve on the Comprehensive School Facilities Plan Steering Committee, and stated the first meeting had been tentatively set for October 1 (no time has been chosen). Mr. Bowerman stated a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors was scheduled ' for November 7, 1984. 3:30 p.m. There being no other new business, the mee 'ng adjour d at 11:45 p.m. DS James R. Donnell Secretary .Sad