HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 06 90 PC MinutesMARCH 6, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 6, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr.
Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman;
Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter
Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huekle. Other officials present were: Mr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lapinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of February
20, 1890 were approved as submitted.
Sp-90-03 William A. Davis - Request in accordance with Section
5.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home
on property described as Tax Map 81, Parcel 24. The property is
located approximately 1/4 mile on a private easement off of the
west side of Rt. 799, approximately 3 miles from the intersection
of Rt. 250E and Rt. 799. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant, Mr. William Davis, was present but offered no
additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Frank Biasiolli, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. He expressed his opposition to the request because
he felt it would have a negative impact on the area and would
devalue existing property. He also felt the 15-foot right-of-way
off of Rt. 799 was too narrow. He also stated he was of the
belief that the right-of-way to serve the subject property was
out through his property without his permission, though this has
not been resolved. (Note: Regarding this issue, the staff report
stated: "The attached plat indicates that the property does have
a deeded access. The issue of the legality of access applies to
the property and not the nature of the use of the property and
should be resolved by the disputants.")
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to explain what he thought was a
discrepancy on the plat, i.e. the location of the 15 foot right-
of-way as opposed to a 50-foot right-of-way shown on the vicinity
sketch. Mr. Keeler explained that the 50-foot right-of-way in
the vicinity sketch was located at the other end of the property.
March 6, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated understanding and noted that he had
been mistaken in his interpretation.
Ms. Faye Davis, owner of the property and mother of the
applicant, spoke in favor of the application. She explained a
history of the property and noted that she had a copy of the deed
which conveyed a 15-foot right-of-way to the property. She also
explained that the right-of-way has been in existence since 1902
but was not used and in 1980 the right-of-way had been cleared.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the question of whether
or not a 15-foot right-of-way was a reasonable access.
Regarding the legality of the right-of-way, Mr. Bowling advised
the Commission that it could not get involved with trying to
resolve a private dispute.
Mr. Rittenhouse acknowledged his understanding of Mr. Bowling's
statement and noted that he was only interested in whether or not
the 15-foot was an adequate travelway.
Mr. Cilimberg addressed this question and stated that the
Subdivision Ordinance allows a 14-foot right-of-way for 6-10
dwelling units so this exceeds the Ordinance requirement.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-03 for William Davis be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the following conditions:
I. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for distance in which it is located;
3. Skirting around the mobile home from ground level to base of
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the satisfaction of the zoning
administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die;
F2
March 6, 1990 Page 3
B. Mobile home is not to be rented;
7. Spacial use permit is to be issued for use by William Davis
and his family only.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
- - The applicant is
proposing to locate a veterinary clinic in the Pantops Shopping
Center in accordance with Section 25.2.2 (5). Property is
described as Tax Map 78, parcel 17D and is zoned PD-SC, Planned
Development -Shopping Center, in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he would prefer that the part of the
sentence after the word "area" be deleted; thus the condition
would read: "There shall be no outside exercise area." Staff
expressed no opposition to this change. Mr. Wilkerson also noted
he was in favor of such a change.
Ms. Huckle asked if there would be other access to the facility,
e.g. a rear door. (Mr. Wagner responded that there would be a
rear door.)
Mr. Johnson wondered why there were no provisions for a separate
entry and exit. He did not feel that a glass door Would
'•abdicate" the requirement for separate entry and exit. He also
wondered if consideration should be given to a soundproofing
Provision to avoid interference with the next -door business. Mr.
Fritz stated that presently the Zoning Ordinance does not provide
for soundproofing between adjacent commercial uses. Mr. Johnson
felt that the fact that soundproofing is required in relation to
residential or agricultural property infers that it is indeed a
concern, and in this case the adjacent use is only six inches
away. Mr. Johnson also suggested that the word "confined" in
condition No. 4 be changed to "permitted." He felt animals
should not be allowed outside at all given the fact that this
will be located in a shopping mall.
Mr. Grimm asked it if was usual for this type of establishment to
have separate entry and exit. Mr. Fritz stated staff is aware of
some veterinary practices which do have separate entry and exit.
but certainly not all. Mr. Grimm indicated he understood Mr.
Johnson's concern.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
4
March 6, 1990 Page 4
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. He stated the
applicant had no problems with the staff report as submitted nor
with the changes that have been proposed by staff. He noted that
the Ordinance does not require separate entranoe and exit though
it does suggest that consideration be given to the possible need
for such a design. (He noted that he had anticipated this very
question at the time the amendment to the Ordinance had been
approved which allows this use in a shopping center. He did not
recall it having been "a big deal.") He felt anyone visiting a
vet is very aware of possible conflicts and acts appropriately to
avoid problems. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Wagner
stated the door is totally glass. (Ms. Huekle felt that this was
not a big problem since the door will be glass. She explained
that the vets she has had experience with only have one door and
she is always cautious as she enters the door.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-08 for Riverbend Limited
Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no outside exercise area.
2. Use shall be limited to 388 Pantops Center.
3. Noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential lot
line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels.
4. No animals are to be confined outside.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
7MA_ _01 - Proffered
request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 and 33.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance to amend ZMA-84-32 and ZMA-85-18 in order to allow a
Fast Food Restaurant. Property is described as Tax Map 81W,
Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5, and is located on the north side of
Greenbrier Drive in Greenbrier Square. Property is located in
the Charlotesville Magisterial District and is currently zoned
HC, Highway Commercial.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that the applicant's proffers limit the use in
a manner so as to provide more adequate parking and maintain a
similar level of traffic as the previous occupant. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of ZMA-90-01 Greenbrier Square with the
addition of Fast Food Restaurants to the list of permitted uses
March 6, 1990 Page 5
approved with ZMA-84-32 and ZMA-85-18 and the acceptance of the
applicant's proffers to govern fast food restaurant...."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Murray. He explained
this request was necessary because the present Zoning Ordinance
does not have a definition describing pizza delivery services.
He explained the history of the request. He noted that the
proffers were designed to keep traffic at a minimum.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-01 for Greenbrier Square Limited
Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the applicant's proffers as follows:
1. Used for food distribution off premises only;
2. Ancillary use of retail pick-up or carry -out only;
3. No consumption of food on premises;
4. No seating on premises.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-01 Michelle Matte - Request in accordance with Section
15.2.2(7) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a day care to be
located on 1.775 sores zoned R-4, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 15A is located on the north side
of Rt. 702, three -tenths of a mile west of O.S. 29 Bypass in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. (He noted a correction on
page 2 of the staff report, i.e. the distance to the nearest
public sewer line should have been =, not 400, feet.) Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions. (He also noted a
correction in condition No. 6, i.e. "Health Department approval
of enlarged septic system.)
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that condition No. 4 should state "February
21," not February 20.
Mr. Rittenhouse also asked staff to comment on the significance
of the age and season distinctions in condition No. 1. Mr. Fritz
explained this was how the request had been submitted by the
applicant but the breakdown was not of significance to staff's
evaluation of the request.
Mr. Wilkerson asked about condition No.
employees. Mr. Fritz explained that at
be recuired at all times, regardless of
2 related to number of
least two employees would
the number of children
Sf
March 6, 1990 Page 6
present. Mr. Keeler added that pupil/teaoher ratios are set by
the State and would be addressed through the facility's license.
There was a brief discussion about the location of the sewer.
Mr. Fritz explained that it was approximately 800 feet from the
property, but he was uncertain as to the exact location.
Ms. Huckle asked if it would be "convenient" for this applicant
to work together with the Trinity Church (nearby) on the
extension of the sewer line. (Mr. Fritz did not know if the
applicant had considered this possibility.) Ms. Huckle stated
she did not feel she had enough information to make a decision as
to the "reasonableness" of requiring connection to public sewer.
Mr. Fritz recalled a past action where connection was not
required (Blue Ridge Garden Center - sewer 500 feet distant), and
he noted there had been other actions were the distance was much
greater and connection had not been required.
Mr. Fritz stated that though it has not been definitively
established, it appears that gravity sewer will be possible for
the property.
Mr. Johnson noted that the area behind the Chinese restaurant was
"quite flooded." Mr. Fritz explained that there is a pond in the
area. He was uncertain as to which side the sewer line is on.
The applicant, Ms. Michelle Mattiole, director of the University
Montessori School, addressed the Commission. She gave a history
and description of the school. She noted that it is very
difficult to find a site that meets both the regulatory and
educational criteria necessary for a school. She asked that
those present in support of the application raise their hands.
(28 persons indicated their support.)
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if Ms. Mattiole understood condition No. 4
[Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation comments
of February 21, 1990.], and the fact that VDOT's recommendations
would become requirements if this condition is approved. After a
brief explanation by Mr. Fritz, Ms. Mattiole indicated she
understood.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Ms. Mattiole stated she had
not considered the possibility of sharing the cost of extension
of the sewer line with Trinity Church. Ms. Huckle stated she was
concerned about the fact that there are two houses on less than
two acres, served by a septic system, and failure of the system
could create a serious problem for the school. Ms. Huckle noted
that it might be cheaper to extend the sewer than to upgrade the
existing septic system. Ms. Mattiole stated it would depend
entirely on the distance, and there is some discrepancy about the
March 6, 1990 Page 7
actual distance. (She noted the Service Authority says 1,O0O
feet and staff is saying 800. She stated she had been quoted a
price of $8/foot for extension.) Ms. Huckle asked if it would be
possible to get this information before taking action on the
request.
Mr. Fritz suggested that if the Commission so desired it could
require Commission approval of the final site plan, (not
administrative approval) and delay a decision about the sewer
line until that time. He stated there would be more information
available at that time about soil suitability and location of the
sewer line.
Mr. Keeler interjected that the applicant may not be able to gait
that long for a decision. He pointed out that the applicant will
be required to connect to public water and the acreage of the
property is acceptable for a septic field. He noted that the
usage for the school will be approximately the same as for a
single-family dwelling. (Ms. Huckle stated she found this
difficult to accept considering there would be 37 children
present. Ms. Mattiole pointed out that no showers would be
taken, no clothes washed, no food preparation, etc.) Mr. Keeler
explained that the measurement is 10 gallons/child/day = 360
gallons vs. a three -bedroom dwelling = 450 gallons\day. Mr.
Keeler stated: "It does fall within the realm of the Ordinance
to authorize this type of use on a septic system." He pointed
out that public schools, with 800 students, are served by septic
systems. Ms. Mattiole noted that she had been quoted a figure of
25 gallons/child/day, but she felt this was double what it should
have been. In any case, Ms. Mattiole stated the Service
Authority representatives had stated that even at the 25
gallons/day there was sufficient area for the drainfield (and a
backup field) without interference with the play area. She also
clarified that there would be two separate drainfields and two
separate backup fields for the two dwellings. (Note: Ms.
Mattiole later noted that she had conducted a study of the
bathroom usage by the children and found it to be 3/4 less than
the measurement used by the Service Authority.)
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about the age breakdown in
condition No. 1, Ms. Mattiole stated it was significant only from
an educational standpoint, and not from a planning standpoint.
It was determined the school presently has four employees with no
one residing in the cottage.
Ms. Mattiole stated she was comfortable with the ceiling on
enrollment. She also stated that she had no objection to
connecting to public sewer if the cost is feasible. She noted
that calculations, based on 1,000 feet distance would be
approximately $10,000 vs. $6,000 for upgrading the drainfield.
March 6, 1990 Page 8
Ms. Huckle again suggested the possibility of working with the
Trinity Church. However, Ms. Mattiole pointed out that the
distance for the Church is "enormous," because they are much
farther away. Ms. Huckle pointed out that Trinity has no choice
but to connect because that requirement is in place. (Mr" Keeler
confirmed that Trinity is required to hook to the Maury Creek
Inteceptcxr within 18 months, with an 8-inch line, for a cost of
approximately $60,000. He explained that the Church's usage is
much greater and it had been determined that they did not have
adequate area for drainfields. It was noted that the alignment
for the Trinity connection has not yet been determined,)
Ms. Mattiole explained that she could not afford lengthy delays
in the proceSs. She asked that action be taken on the special
permit with the decision on the sewer connection delayed until
the time of site plan review. She stressed that xu deferral of
the special permit would create a real hardship.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed their support for the proposal:
Ms. Genevieve Keller; Mr. Donald Day; Ms. Cindy Braonhoaarl Dr.
Chris Asp1in; Mr. Denis Palmgrem; and Ms. Nancy Krent.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle stressed that she had no concerns about the quality of
the school itself or about the applicant, but she was concerned
about the sewage system. She asked if it was possible to follow
the possibility described by Mr. Fritz, 1.*a. take action on the
special permit but defer a decision on the sewage facilities
until the time of site plan when more information might be
available.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt that if the Commission was contemplating
conditions requiring connection to public water, then "if we are
to recommend approval without asimilar requirement for public
sewer, then we should be prepared to continue on with that
recommendation without the requirement for public sewer." He
clarified; "Unless we state overtly at this point that we will
require connection to public sewer, then it would be difficult
for us to come back later and say 'now we are going to require
it.' I think this is our opportunity to levy that condition if
we think it's appropriate and we need to decide that now."
Ms. Huckle noted that it was for the Commission to decide if the
sewer was reasonably available. She stated: "And we haven't had
any figures to tell us if this is reasonable or not. That's why
I was suggesting that it come back to us rather than be approved
administratively."
2
March 6, 1990 Page 9
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Commission could require that
the site plan come back to the Commission. He added: "But I
think the task before us is to determine whether we are going to
condition the special permit to require that connection." He did
not think it would be reasonable to require connection at the
time of site plan if the special permit had not been so
conditioned.
Mr. Cilimberg thought it would be possible "to require that it
come back to you for review with the preference for public sewer
if that's what you feel you want. ... If it's not reasonably
available to them in terms of cost, I think that's their biggest
restriction. If there's Health Department approval of an
alternative, then it can be decided at site plan. But that, for
the applicant, may not help here because apparently the applicant
is in a contract situation and I don't know that the special use
permit approval tonight with that condition, and not knowing
what's going to happen with the site plan, leaves her in a
position to deal on her contract."
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the Commission owed the applicant an answer,
"one way or the other."
Ms. Huckle again stated she felt the Commission "had not been
provided with enough information to make an intelligent
decision."
Mr. Wilkerson expressed understanding of Ms. Huckle's concerns;
however, he noted that the Health Department has given their
approval and staff has no problems with that approval. He stated
he would not question the Health Department's expertise.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-01 for Michele Mattiole be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Enrollment will be limited to 12 children in the two-year old
class and 25 children in the 3-6 class from September thru May.
Mid -June to mid -August enrollment shall be limited to 25
children. (NOTE: This condition was later amended.)
2. Not fewer than 2 employees shall be present at all times
during operation of day care center.
3. Fire Officer approval to include compliance with all
requirements and recommendations listed in the December 22, 1989
letter to Michele Mattiole from Jay Schlothauer;
4. Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation
comments of February 21, 1990;
a
March 6, 1990
Page 10
5. Staff approval of plat showing required sight easements;
S. Health Department approval of enlarged septic system;
7. Conneciton to public water;
8. Compliance with Section 5.1.8 of the Zoning Ordinance which
states:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It
shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original
license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or
revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to
do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance of this
ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the
Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure
to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection
shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions
of this ordinance;
C. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any
other local, state, or federal agency.
9. Staff approval of final site plan to be in general accord
with sketch plan prepared by Frederick Schneider dated January
18, 1990. Staff may recommend additional plantings and
relocation of recreation area at the time of final site plan
review.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Noting that he was speaking with mixed emotions in view of the
rather significant reputation held by the organization, Mr.
Johnson made the following statement: "In recognition of the
provisions and intent of: (1) Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.4.2, General
Provisions, of the Zoning Ordinance, identifying objectives of
promoting safety and reducing or preventing congestion in the
public streets; and (2) An extrapolation of paragraph
10.5.2.1.b.8.o from the Special Use restrictions of the RA
District to this R-4 District, opposing any increase of traffic
/O
March 6, 1990
Page 11
on an existing non -tolerable road; and reflecting on the
statements by Mr. Echols in his letter of 21 February that 702
'is currently non -tolerable' and that this request 'would
certainly result in an increase in traffic,' I must oppose this
request."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked that condition No. i be cleaned up. It was
determined this condition would be amended to read: "Enrollment
shall be limited to 37 children." (Both Mr. Wilkerson and Mr.
Jenkins were agreeable to this change in the motion.)
It was determined the motion contemplated staff approval of the
final plat.
Regarding the question of public sewer, Mr. Rittenhouse noted
that it is always a difficult one and the question of "reasonable
availability has been wrestled with a number of times." He
stated it is difficult to quantify what constitutes reasonable
availability. He noted that several factors must be considered
when making this decision, e.g. distance from the property,
terrain of the area, applicant's ability to bear the cost,
availability of easements. He felt in this case it would be
unreasonable to require that the applicant enlarge the existing
septic system in order to operate for 18 months and then require
connection to public sewer later. He felt it unreasonable to
require both. He concluded that, to date, no precedent has been
established for making the determination of "reasonable
availability."
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the Health Department is satisfied
that the proposal can meet their requirements. That being the
case, he questioned whether it was the Commission's job to even
make that type of determination. Mr. Jenkins asked that the
Question be called.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with
Commissioners Johnson and Huckle casting the dissenting votes.
(Nate: Ms. Mattiole stated an easement would be required for
connection to public sewer.)
- The applicant is proposing
to subdivide 102 acres into 16 lots with an average size of 2.7
acres. The proposed lots are to have access over proposed
private roads and are to be served by individual septic fields
and central water. Property is described as Tax Map 59A1,
Parcels A, B, 19-23. The proposed development is located off of
Broomley Road approximately one mile north of U.S. Rt. 250W in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The site is zoned PRD,
Planned Residential Development with ZMA-80-16.
March 6, 1990 Page 12
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Virginia Department of
Transportation's comments had included a recommendation for
"Approval of Rt. 677 right-of-way improvements and issuance of a
commercial entrance permit." He asked why that had not been
included in staff's recommended conditions. Mr. Fritz responded
that it should have been included and could be added as condition
1(g)•
Ms. Huckle asked if this would fall under new State regulations
for private roads. Mr. Fritz responded negatively and explained
that this development was approved with private roads with ZMA
80-16.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the status of public
sewer for this proposal. Mr. Fritz explained that this property
lies outside the jurisdictional area so public utilities are not
available.
Ms. Huckle asked staff to explain why the "road over the
railroad" is now posted for a 15 ton limit. Mr. Fritz explained
that he had not visited the site for some time, but there had
been improvements recently which may have increased the weight
limit. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the railroad bridge had been
improved.
Mr. Johnson noted that weight limits have been changed on several
County bridges, some with improvements and some without.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that this railroad bridge project will
probably be in the Six -Year Road Plan.
Mr. Grimm asked if the weight limit would allow a fire truck to
cross. Mr. Fritz explained that the weight limit was sufficient
to carry some fire equipment, but not all. He added: "One of
the conditions is 'Fire Official approval of dry hydrant.' Fire
hydrants, with water, are going to be provided at various sites
so there will be adequate water on site once the vehicles reach
the site, so (trucks) will not have to carry water with them
(which is a major weight concern)."
Ms. Huckle asked about the weights of construction vehicles. Mr,
Fritz could not answer this question.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Fritz to point out where construction is
currently taking place. Mr. Johnson wondered how the vehicles
"got there." Mr. Fritz did not know.
Ms. Huckle noted that it would be advantageous to be able to use
/.I
March 6, 1990
Page 13
the railroad bridge because the the other two bridges are
frequently under water. Mr. Fritz stated that if the weight
limit on the railroad has indeed been increased, then it will
provide a greater weight limit than the other bridges which are
10 and 12 tons.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Martha Hardy of McKee -
Carson, engineers for the project. She noted that improvements
to the intersection of Rt. 677 are currently taking place. in
response to Mr. Grimm's mention of some trees which have been
removed, she explained this was necessary to improve sight
distance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Ivy Creek Phase IV Preliminary Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final subdivision plat shall not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control
permit;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water
plans;
e. County Attorney approval of homeowner's agreement to
include maintenance of roads, open space, lakes
drainage and appurtenant structures and the use of open
space for septic drainfields if necessary and where
permitted;
f. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant;
g. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Rt.
677 right-of-way improvements and issuance of a
commercial entrance permit.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the "intersection between the
exit from 29 Bypass to 250W, going south, crossing B01, going
under the bridge and up the other side." He stressed the high
accident record of this location and asked that staff request
that VDOT review this intersection for consideration of either
18
March 6, 1990 Page 14
installing a light and/or prohibiting any left turns from 250W
onto the businesses at the north side at that intersection."
He asked that VDOT be asked to respond within thirty days. Staff
acknowledged that they would make VDOT aware of Mr. Johnson's
concern but questioned the reality of a 30-day response time.
Mr. Johnson also expressed an interest in sign restrictions. He
noted in particular the streamers at the Colonial auto dealership
on Rt. 29 North and asked if the sign restrictions might be
interpreted in such a way as to control such displays. Mr.
Cilimberg stated the Zoning Administrator has been looking into
this issue. Mr. Fritz noted that the Colonial dealership would
soon be before the Commission for a site plan amendment and the
Commission could make their concerns known at that time.
Ms.rHuckle asked if a roll call could be taken at the time votes
are cast on motions. She was under the impression the State Code
required a roll call. However, Mr. Bowling stated that a vote
could be taken either with or without a roll call. Mr.
Rittenhouse stated this suggestion would be taken under
advisement.
Mr.-Cilimberg noted that consideration is still being given as to
how to recognize Commissioners whose terms ended at the end of
1989. He explained that staff has investigated the possibility
of an inscribed commemorative cup. He asked for feedback as to
the Commission's desires and haw they might wish to handle cost,
etc. The possibility of a Resolution of Appreciation was also
discussed. Mr. Wilkerson was definitively in favor of the
resolution. Mr. Rittenhouse also noted he felt the cup was a
good idea. The matter was to be decided upon at a later meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:15 P.M.
DS
/�z