HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 06 89 PC MinutesJune 6, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 6, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Char-
lottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins, Mr. Harry Wilkerson (entered meeting at 8:00); Ms. Norma
Diehl; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr.
James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of
Community Development; and Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner.
Absent: Commissioner Stark.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 23, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA - Preview
Reynovia Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 100 acres into 112 lots
with an average lot size of 0.4 acres. Proposed development is to be
served by new public roads. Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcel
36 is located on the west side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended)
approximately one mile south of 1-64. Zoned R-4, Residential in the
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Brookmill Phase III Final Site Plan - Proposal to locate 34 condominium
units on 7.2 acres, with a resulting density of 4.7 dwelling units per
acre. This site will have access through the extension of Millpark
Drive and is to be served by 81 parking spaces. The property is
located at the terminus of Millpark Drive approximately 300 feet south.
Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 02-1. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave a very brief preview of Consent Agenda items scheduled
for June 13, 1989. No action was required of the Commission.
SP-89-28 Richard & Geraldine Muller - Request in accordance with Section
10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit
to allow for the transfer of four development rights. Property, described
as Tax Map 47, Parcel 16 and 16A is located on the east side of Rt. 20,
adjacent to the Rt. 649/Rt. 20 intersection. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from the May 23, 1989 Planning
Commission Meeting.
AND
The Riggory Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create eleven
lots from an existing 70.6 acre parcel.- A private road is proposed to
serve these lots. This request is being reviewed concurrent with a
special use permit. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 16 is
5
June 6, 1989
Page 2
located on the east side of Rt. 20, adjacent to the Rt. 649/Rt. 20
intersection. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, Rivanna ATagisterial District.
Deferred from the May 23, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and explained how the two issues
of concern ((1) public vs. private road; and (2) physical layout of the
subdivision] had been addressed by the applicant. In relation to the
road, he explained that the applicant had agreed to construct a public
road. in relation to the physical layout, he explained the applicant
is proposing to "move the road down -off the knoll some, restrict the
building sites and add back to the Riggory a strip of land 200 feet
deep (6-8 acres) and to specify Eastern White Pines as screening measures
planted 20-30 feet on center. He stated that with these changes the
staff was recommending approval subject to conditions.
Regarding condition No. 2 related to the preservation of the Riggory,
Mr. Keeler explained that staff will attempt to persuade the State
to clearly identify which of the outbuildings are of historic value.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that reference to "The Riggory" included the
outbuildings as well as the Riggory itself.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler pointed out on the
plat the location of the conservation easement which will provide a
visual buffer "as you approach from the south."
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any concern from the Community
Development office in regard to the visual impact from Rt. 20 .
Mr. Cilioberg responded and explained that visibility would be minimal.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee who offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel expressed concern as to how the County was going to effect
perpetual preservation of the Riggory. There was considerable discussion
about this issue. Mr. Keeler suggested that the "easement" may go to
the. State, but if not, the County should have the easement. Mr. Bowling
questioned what type of easement was envisioned, i.e. "an easement to
do what?" .Mr. Michel asked if the house. could be torn down.. 'Mr. Keeler
explained that there is a provision in the State Code which speaks to
the razing of historic structures. He felt that would be an appropriate
measure to include in this transaction. Mr. Bowling pointed out the
following questions: What degree of preservation is intended?
What body will carry out the preservation? He noted -the County presently
has no way for carrying out such a device. Mr. Keeler noted that
the State agency which would be involved is the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation. sir. Michel felt this issue should be looked into further,
preferably before the Board hearing.
42
June 6, 1989
Page 3
Mr. McKee explained it was the intent of the applicant to restore the
property so that the owners could live on the property, and there
was no intent to tear it down. He stated he did not think the applicant
had considered a type of legal conservation easement.
Mr. Bowling asked Mr. Michel what he wanted to see preserved. Mr.
Michel replied: "What exists now."
The Commission felt Mr. Michel's concern was a legitimate one. Mr.
Bowerman stated that "the applicant and the County can work together
to arrive at a compromise situation and that would preserve both
the Riggory and protect the County's interest...." Mr. Bowerman
asked that additional information on this issue be made available to
the Board. Mr. Bowerman clarified that it was the Commission's
intent that the building be maintained as a dwelling "forever,
within the restrictions of the property owner having the right to
do with it, basically, as he sees fit within the constraints that
State historic preservation representatives feel are appropriate."
It was determined the words "and significant outbuildings" would be
added to condition No. 2.
Ms. Diehl.asked that the Commission be informed of any additional
information on the preservation issue "prior to final plat review
but not related to the final plat."
Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-28 for Richard & Geraldine Muller be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Development to be served by a public road aligned to intersect
Rt. 20 across from Rt. 649;
2. Prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat, County
Attorney approval of documents to effectuate perpetual historic
preservation of The Riggory and significant outbuildings, con-
servation easements, and appropriate buffer strips;
3. Prior to Planning Commission review, agent approval of screening
measures.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Chairman then called for a motion on the Riggory Preliminary
Subdivision Plat.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Riggory Preliminary Subdivision Plat be
approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
June 6, 1989 Page 4
SP-89-30 Edward R. or Gloria M. O'Brien - Request in accordance with
Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home
on 28.610 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 78,
Parcel 49, is located on the north side of Rt. 250E, approximately .8
of a mile east of its intersection with I--64. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
:Mr. O'Brien was present but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-30 for Edward R. or Gloria INT. O'Brien be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the 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
Health Office 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;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
7. Special use permit is issued for the use of Edward R. and Gloria M.
O'Brien's family only;
8. Mobile home is to be located as shown on the attached plat,
200 feet from Route 622, 70 feet from the southern property line,
140 feet from the proposed western property line and 40 feet from
the proposed northern property line.
tiIr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-88-82 Akwenasa Community,_ Inc. - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2.42 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use
permit to conduct twice annually such events as festivals, civil war
reenactments, demonstration and sale of periodic crafts and tours of the
premises. Property, described as Tax Map 135, Parcel 25C consisting of
19.435 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, is located on the east side of.Rt. 602
about 1/2 mile north of Rt. 724 at Howardsville. Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial based
41
June 6, 1989
Page 5
on the following: "(1) Unsafe access due to the lack of required sight
distance; (2) Insufficient easements providing for off -site parking;
(3) Higher traffic volumes on a portion of Rt. 602 which is currently
non -tolerable."
Responding to Mr. Wilkerson's question about the road, Mr. Fritz
again explained that the section of the road at the entrance to the
site is tolerable, but the section between the parking area and the
entrance is non -tolerable.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. David Hurd. He began by giving
some background information on the Akwenasa Community. Other comments
included the following:
--Crowds of 350 to 800 are anticipated.
--Staff has determined that the proposed events are in character
with by -right uses in the area and the public health, safety and
welfare.
--Sight distance is 60 feet short of what is required.
--Parking is not possible at the mansion because of a very steep
driveway.
--Parking is available at the intersection of Rts. 602 and 626
by means of a letter from Mr. Baber, a neighboring property
owner, on an event -by -event basis. Mr. Baber would not agree
to any kind of permanent parking easement. If permission
for parking is not received then the event cannot be held.
--Regarding the road, Mr. Hurd noted that there was very little
traffic on the road and compared it to the driveway at the
County Fair.
Albemarle County Police will be present to direct traffic
during events.
--The applicant proposes to file a site plan with staff before
each event showing parking arrangements, medical facilities,
bathroom facilities, etc.
--Regarding the grading required to achieve sight distance,
the applicant feels the cost for such grading would be
prohibitive and would also require an easement from Con-
tinental Can.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Hurd confirmed that events had
been held on the site in the past and there had never been any problems
with any of the events. He added that parking for those events had
been accommodated, without problems, at the same two fields which are
presently proposed for parking. He confirmed off -duty police officers
were hired to direct traffic.
Mr. Hurd explained that the application is for one -day events only at
this time.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Johanna Ackard, a nei.gh.borin.g property owner, expressed her support
for the proposal. She noted there had been no problems with past events.
Jr
June 6, 1989
Page 6
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Fritz confirmed the section of the road referred to as "non -tolerable"
was that section between Rt. 626 and Rt. 724.
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the parking issue because there
"was really nothing to compel Mir. Baber or anyone else to provide parking
and once we recommend approval for a special permit we somehow sanction
this method of operation." He noted that Mr. Baber has indicated he is
unwilling to commit to any sort of long term obligation to provide that
parking and "in the absence of that the special permit really does not
include a parking provision." He questioned whether this proposal was
"viable from a parking standpoint."
Mr. Bowerman asked �1r. Bowling to comment on the application. Mr.
Bowling responded: "It's a permanent special permit with a temporary
condition... because each year, in order to hold this festival the
applicant has stated he's going to have to have the parking available
in the field and I assume there's some mechanism to be worked out for
staff to approve that."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked how staff would monitor such a condition.
Mr. Bowling attempted to recall how the permit for the County Fair had been
handled. fir. Bowerman explained that the original permit had been for one
year and then had been renewed for three.
Mr. Keeler pointed out: "In staff's opinion, they have no parking."
He noted that even though Mr. Baber might give permission for parking,
he can also rescind it, even at the last minute.
The Chairman asked if there were any other concerns other than the
parking issue, e.g. the tolerability of Rt. 602 and the sight distance
issue.
Mr. Michel stated he did not consider this a concern for just two
temporary events.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that he was familiar with the road and he agreed
with Mr. Michel.
Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about the possibility of "pedestrian
traffic" from the parking site to the house. Mr. Fritz stated that
it was almost a mile from the parking area to the house so he doubted
that this would be a.serious problem.
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated -he was in favor of treating the application
in the same manner as County Fair, i.e. "I would feel better about
some history of success on traffic control and the navigation of the
non -tolerable road provided that the parking question is settled."
ep
June 6, 1989 Page 7
Regarding the kind of parking accommodations which would be acceptable,
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "If it were a temporary permit the parking
would have to be conditioned for the period of time that the permit
ran." He felt there should be some type of formal agreement attached
to either a temporary or permanent permit.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that such a parking permit would have to be
irrevocable on the part of Mr. Baber, "which is basically an easement."
an
Mr. Bowling disagreed and stated: "No. He?give a license to park in
his field on a day certain if that's what the Commission will find
acceptable."
Mr. Keeler agreed but pointed out: "But it's our understanding that Mr.
Baber would not do that in an irrevocable fashion."
Mr. Michel referred to the applicant's good track record and stated he
was willing to grant a one-year permit provided Mr. Baber can, in some
form satisfactory to the County Attorney, allow_ the applicant to use
his field for parking.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Ms. Diehl agreed but noted her only concern would be the continued use of
off -site parking and the possibility of an increased number of events.
There followed a discussion about conditions to attach to a temporary
permit. Mr. Fritz read several conditions addressing Commission concerns,
one of which required compliance with Section 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Reeler quoted the following from Section 5.1.27:
"Except as the Board of Supervisors may expressly add or delete
conditions in a particular case, each such permit shall be subject
to the following conditions:
a. A preliminary plan showing access, parking, vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, and method of separation of the same
shall be approved by the director of planning;
b. Such organization shall have made adequate arrangements with the
County Sheriff, fire and rescue squads, and the local office
of the Virginia Department of Health for the conduct of such event;
c. Adequate arrangements have been made for the removal of trash
and debris, reseeding and general restoration of the site
following the event. The Board of Supervisors may establish
and require the posting of a bond in an amount deemed by the
zoning administrator to be sufficient for such purpose."
The applicant expressed concern about the possibility of a bond being
required as stated in 5.1.27. Mr. Bowerman noted that a bond should
not be a significant hurdle if everything cicc can be overcome. Mr.
Rittenhouse added: "We're not recommending a bond'but the Board has
the right to impose one if it deems appropriate."
2
June 6, 1989 Page 8
Mr. Bowerman stated: "I think it is very important to understand the
nature of our action. I think the Commission is trying to accept the
application in the spirit.that you have offered it in terms of allowing
it there. I think you have heard some very serious concerns both by
staff and the Commission about the scale and the frequency and in the
event that in the future these should prove to be very successful, or
if you should choose to expand .them either in number or in attendance,
you could have very definite problems before the Commission and the
Board expanding this particular location under these circumstances.
In the event that we give you approval and the Board gives you approval,
I don't think you should take that as any granting of rights in the
future beyond what we are specifically giving you now."
Ms. Diehl also pointed out: "It does not preclude the requirement
for a commercial entrance (at some time in the future)."'
Mr. Michel moved that SP-88-82 for Akwenasa Community, Inc. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Provision of traffic.control shall be at the expense of the applicant
and shall be in a form acceptable to the Chief of Police.
3. Applicant shall belimited to two 1-day festivals, one in the fall
of 1989 and one in the spring of 1990.
4. Provision of adequate parking on Tax Map 139, parcels 1.6 and 17 in
a form acceptable to the County Attorney.
5. Access from the parking area shall be by shuttle bus and shall
not be pedestrian access or by private vehicle.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Willow Lake Development Preliminary Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to amend
Blocks P, Q & R to allow a total of 13 units. Access is to be from. Maple
View. 27 parking spaces are proposed. Property, described as Tax Map
77F(1), Parcel 1 and a portion of Parcel 2 is located on Rt. 20 just
south of Piedmont Community College. Zoned R-4, Residential. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz presented the
staff report.
Commission discussion dealt primarily with the issue of drainage and
flooding, particularly problems with Cow Branch Creek. The staff
report explained:
"10 greater overall disturbance of critical slopes is proposed.
At the Planning Commission's meeting on April 12, 1988 the master
plan for Willow Lake was amended. At that time concern about drainage
and flooding were expressed. The applicant has worked with the
engineering department to determine the cause of flooding. It
June 6, 1989
Page 9
has been determined that additional work must be performed to
improve the drainage of Cow Branch Creek and improve the
storage capacity of Willow Lake. The Engineering Department will
need to review revised drainage plans and calculations and approve
any improvements to Cow Branch Creek and Willow Lake prior to
approval of the final site plan. This recommendation is based on
the fact that these improvements are currently needed with the
existing level of development."
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Moring, the County Engineer, if it was possible to
make improvements to handle thedensity of the development. Mr. Moring
responded that density is not the question, but rather difficulty with
the existing channel, not with the inadequacy of the lake. Ms. Diehl
asked if it was an engineering problem that can be solved. Mr.
Moring replied that though he had not yet seen any design plans, it
appeared to be a solvable problem. He confirmed that condition
1(i) would require that the requirements of the ordinance be met
before the development could be approved. Mr. Moring noted that the
applicant has been cooperative and no problems are anticipated.
There followed a brief discussion about drainage studies related to
this area and about recent flooding of Rt. 20.
Mr. Fritz noted that the culvert referred to in a letter from a neighboring
property owner was under Lakeside Drive and therefore not under the control
of the applicant. There was some confusion as to the exact location of
particular culverts, etc.
Mr. Keeler quoted the following from the Ordinance: "Provision shall be
made for the disposition of surface water runoff from the site including
such on -site and off -site drainage facilities and drainage easements as the
Commission, upon recommendation of the County Engineer, may deem adequate."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "What we can do is approve this subject to Mr. Moring's
approval and it's under his discretion as to what he requires."
Mr. Keeler expressed some confusion because he didn't think this was
supposed to be reviewed by the Commission until a solution to the problem,
not just the problem itself, had been identified. He stated: "What
we've got is an identification of the problem; we don't know what
the solution is. The way the conditions are written, the project can't
go forward until the problem is corrected."
The applicant was represented by Bob Hauser. He confirmed that he had not
been aware of either Mr. Moring's or Mr. Cresswell's comments until
this day. He stated the applicant's main concern was condition 1(i)--
"Construction of drainage improvements to Cow Branch Creek and/or
Willow Lake to the satisfaction of the County Engineer." He expressed
concern that no definitive objectives have been set in regards to the
drainage issue. He noted that if the objective is to meet the stormwater
detention Ordinance, i.e. "to hold a ten-year storm based on the additional
runoff created by this development," he can at least "sink his teeth into
that." However, he felt it was unfair for the Engineering Department
to ask that he "look at 10, 50 and 100-year storms." He asked for
specific direction from the Commission, more than just requiring
"County Engineer's approval." Mr. Hauser repeatedly asked for specific
direction and identification of the problem. He was concerned because
Q
June 6, 1989
Page 10
"no one would tell me that a 10-year storm is where we're going to stop."
Mr. Keeler interjected that staff was not suggesting that the developer
should be responsible for problems other than his, but he pointed out
that the County Engineer's memo says that the applicant does not have
detention because the stream overtops the lake. He assumed the County
Engineer's comments were based on a 10-year storm because detention
requirements are based on a 10-year storm. He concluded: "So if they
do not have detention, it would.seem appropriate that they correct
that before any further development occurs. We're not saying that this
developer is responsible for the entire watershed."
Mr. Bowerman added that the Ordinance only requires a 10-year storm and
that is all that can be required, "regardless of what the circumstances
are." He continued: "I believe that this contemplates certain aspects
of the site both prior to development and after development and first
we have to ascertain what's going on there first, that could be part
of it, but based upon the activity that's gone on there, we should be
able to determine what size detention is necessary for a 10-year storm
based on the calculations that engineering can do and then the improvements
have to accommodate that...."
Mr. Hauser stated: "I have no problem with the new condition proposed
by Ms. Cresswell, because I feel that's specific. But I would not like
to fix in the Commission's mind that the solution necessitates dredging
that :channel." He concluded: "I'm asking that I be left to deal with
it just like I normally would under any other development scenario."
-Mr. Bowerman indicated he thought "that's what we're saying, because
it sounds like it's the only thing we can do."
�1r. Keeler responded: "I really don't know. What hasn't been separated
here is whether or not the existing stormwater.management ordinance
has been met for what's already there. We don't know that."
Mr. Bowerman asked if this was something that shmld be determined before
action is taken on the application or "is it something we can proceed
with with the understanding that fir. Hauser and the County Engineer can
agree on a solution?"
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that Mr. Cresswell had suggested the substitution
of his condition (i) in place of staff's condition (i). He asked
if staff agreed with this. Mr. Keeler responded negatively because
staff had not had the opportunity to discuss the issue with Mr.
Cresswell. He stated: "I think if what is constructed is adequate
for the development I'm not sure there's any problem with Mr.
Cresswell's condition. I don't know about the propriety of bonding
stormwater detention facilities. In my opinion they ought to be in
place when development occurs. (Mr. Bowerman agreed.) If what exists
there is not adequate for the existing development, the -planning staff
would recommend that that be corrected before any other development
occur. I think we can leave this up in the air in that regard --we
can word that condition in that fashion should the County Engineer's
Department determine that the stormwater detention facilities are
adequate for the existing development, then Mr. Cresswell's condition
would apply. If they determine that it's not, we would recommend that
n
June 6, 1989
Page 11
the facilities be constructed."
Mr. Hauser noted that he had been looking for a definitive determination
of the problem since October.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Moring if he anticipated any problems in evaluating
what improvements are needed. Mr. Moring indicated he did not anticipate
any problems. Mr. Bowerman stated: "You tell them what needs to be
done and they do it --they don't bond it, they do it."
Mr. Hauser stated he had a "technical" objection. He explained: "Let's
assume I was starting from scratch ... I would come to you and say I wanted
to develop 90-some townhouses and one of the conditions would be to meet
the requirements of the detention ordinance. I'd meet it --I'd post my
soil erosion bond, which I'm being required to anyway and I'd go out and
build a detention facility because that's what Bobby Shaw would make me
do. And all I'm asking right now is that I be held to the same standards.
If we determine that the pond needs improvement, let me do it as part of
my construction PQ and R like I normally would."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "That's reasonable."
Mr. Michel suggested it could be tied to occupancy.
Mr. Hauser stated he would have no problem with that though he would "have
a little problem with having to get it built and fixed prior to starting
the development. I think that's unusual. I am just trying to get back
to what is normal practice in Albemarle County and this subdivision is
far from it. ... I have no problem with 10-year storm detention and posting
a soil erosion bond."
Mr. Keeler asked: "So you're saying under normal circumstances that you would
build a detention basin before you actually got building permits and do it as
part of the grading plan?"
Mr. Hauser replied: "I'd do it concurrently as part of the soil erosion
plan."
Mr. Keeler stated: "I don't have any problem with that."
Mr. Hauser also noted that he did not want to have to post a new soil
erosion bond if the existing one was sufficient.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that staff's condition 1(i) be moved to 2(b)
which would result in "having it completed before we get the occupancy
permit issued which gives the developer enough flexibility to manage
it during the time of the construction of his new units." Mr. Bowerman
continued: "Then if it's determined that the flooding conditions are
not caused by the applicant or the flooding conditions are out of the
control of the applicant and beyond the purview of the Ordinance, the
Engineering Department should look at the necessary improvements that
are necessary to prevent flooding at Rt. 20 and whatever else is necessary
to correct the situation and recommend it as a capital improvement."
10
June b, 1989
Page 12
Mr. Hauser asked that condition 1(i) be elaborated so as to include
reference to the 10-year storm.
Mr. Keeler suggested that condition 1(i) be deleted and ;= new 2(b) be
added as follows:
a Stormwater detention facilities adequate for the entire Willow Lake
development approved to date, including this section, be in place, as
approved by the County Engineer.
Mr. Bowerman asked: "In order to get any more density they'd have to
come back with another application, right? You envisioning this as common
open space for the units that have already been proposed because you're
creating some more open space ?" Mr. Hauser responded: "The areas where
the single families were? (Mr. Bowerman replied affirmatively.) Yes, sir."
Referring to comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation,
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there should be a condition requiring that VDOT
review drainage calculations. Mr. Fritz replied: "With the County
Engineer approval of the road drainage plans and computations, they would
get in touch with the Virginia Department of Transportation and not
approve it until they had VDOT approval."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Willow Lake Development Preliminary Site Plan
Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A final site plan or subdivision plat will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit or amendment of existing
permit as applicable;
b. County Engineer approval of construction on slopes of 25% or
greater;
c. County Engineer approval -of parking lot design, sidewalk and
pavement specifications;
d. County Engineer approval of road drainage plans and computations;
e. County.Attorney approval of homeowner association documents;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans and easements;
g. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and building
separation;
h. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
b. Storrnaater detention facilities adequate for the entire Willow
Lake development approved to date, including this .section, be
in place, as approved by the County Engineer.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
- ay� (;�q �0 z
DS AZ Acting Secretary