HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 05 88 PC MinutesJanuary 5, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission :h?ld a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 5, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. George St. John, County Attorney; Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief
of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Ms. Laura Hill, Planner.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of December 8, 1987 were approved as
submitted.
Ashcroft Section V - Ashcroft Section V Phase I Final Plat - Proposal to
create 24 lots from 28 acres, including 13.9 acres in open space. Lot
size ranges from 40,702 square feet (0.9 acres) to 89,199 square feet
(2.05 acres). Lots are to be served by proposed private roads off North
Pantops Drive. Property is located off the north side of Route 250,
off the west side of North Pantops Drive adjacent to Sections I and II.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 55. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development.
Rivanna Magisterial District. DEFERRED FROM DECEMBER 8, 1987 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She began by explaining that the
section under consideration is still part of Phase I. She also added
that the Westminister Canterbury Plan (pending) envisions relocating
North Pantops Drive and in view of this, the applicant intends to
construct the Lego Drive access out to the frontage road with a
commercial entrance to the frontage road to serve this development
in Ashcroft. She stated that North Pantops Drive would still be passable
but would be built to a lesser construction standard. Ms. Patterson
also read a letter from the applicant which stated that it was his
intention to construct the Lego Drive access.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, including the
addition of condition 1(h) as follows: "Construction of Lego Drive
to a commercial entrance connection with the frontage road."
Mr. Cogan expressed some confusion about the conditions of ZMA-80-03
as they relate to this application. He stated it did not appear to
him that any of the conditions of ZMA-80-03 require -that Lego Drive be
constructed prior to any approvals of any phase beyond Phase I, as
suggested in the staff report, ncrdo any of those conditions speak
to the timing for when this transition should take place. He asked
if this had been previously established, or if staff was proposing
that the Commission make this determination at this time.
Mr. Patterson quoted the following from condition C-5 of ZMA-80-03:
"...Construction by developer and/or bonding of these improvements and
Lego Drive shall be accomplished prior to any approvals of any phase beyond
phase 1."
!03
January 5, 1988 Page 2
Mr. Bowerman asked if construction was the same as bonding.
Mr. Keeler attempted to clarify the.mat.ter and statedthat the conditions
are being met "a little faster than was originally anticipated." He
explained that the existing North Pantops Drive does not exist within .�
dedicated easement and there is no access, at this time, adequate to
serve the subdivision, thus the need to construct Lego Drive at this
time.
Ms. Patterson pointed out the position of Lego Drive on the map.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff, by the addition of.condition
1(h), was contemplating the actual construction of the roadway prior to
any approvals beyond phase I? Mr. Keeler responded: "Construction of the
actual roadway prior to signing any more plats for development." He
added that "You can review all you want, but there is no access that
meets private roads, or public roads, or anything, through the development."
Mr. Bowerman stated he understood Mr. Keeler's point, but he pointed out
that there has never been any access and he was just trying to understand
the meaning of condition 1(h) as added by Ms. Patterson.
Mr. Keeler responded: "It means 'Build the road before we sign any plats."'
Yls. Patterson affirmed this and added "without bonding, actual construction."
Mr. Keeler added that the only way he felt any type of bonding would be
acceptable would be if the property owner between Ashcroft and Rt. 250
grants an easement to continue to usethat road for a specific length of
time such as October, 1988, then the County would take a bond to, for
example, August, 1988, "because we have to have an amount of tire to
call the bond and cause the road to be constructed.°°
�Jr. Horne stressed, "This plat will not be signed until the road is built."
The Chairman invited applicant torment..
The applicant was represented by fir. Tom Gale. tie expressed some confusion
about the Lego Road issue. He asked if this plat, for Section 5, would not
be signed until Lego Road is totally built. Mr. Creswell, representing
the County Engineer's Office, responded "Yes." fir. Gale asked if that
meant that the road also had to have been accepted into the State system.
Mr. Keeler responded that he did not think it would have to be accepted.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the condition refers to "construction" of the
road. Mr. Keeler repeated that staff is talking about the actual
construction of Lego Drive, not the acceptance of it by the Highway
Department.
Mr.. Creswell pointed out that .the plans have been approved by the County.
Engineer's Department and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
However, he expressed confusion about Ms. Patterson's statement that
"it be constructed to a commiercial entrance." Mr. Cogan explained that
Ms. Patterson was referring to the distance, i.e. "it will be constructed
out to the commercial entrance at t�e frontage road." Mr. Creswell
stated he wondered if this meant i was "to be constructed in accordance.
with the approved plans, they are contemplating a temporary tie to an
existing commercial entrance," or what.
/ay0
January 5, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Keeler stated he had worked that out with Mr. Roosevelt, "to the commercial
entrance at the frontage road."
Mr. Creswell askedffit was actually being built to the approved plan standard
at this time.
Mr. Rick Beyer, representative of the applicant, explained "We are building
to the approved standards right now, including the commercial entrance."
He suggested that the wording for staff's condition 1(h) be changed to read:
"Connection of Lego Drive including a commercial entrance connection
with the frontage road."
Mr. Keeler repeated that staff was concerned about having an adequate and
servicable access into Ashcroft. He added that improvements to the frontage
road would remain tied to Phase II construction since that is not a concern
at this time.
It was finally determined condition l(h) would read "Connection of Lego
Drive including a commercial entrance connection with the frontage road
F-179."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Janet Michie, Acting Chairperson of the Architecture Review Committee
for Ashcroft. Her main concern was the setback distance from lot lines.
She stated her committee would be supportative of a 31-foot setback
(but not a 15-foot setback). She also asked that the restrictions of this
phase be no less restrictive than the current Sections 1 and 2. She
asked that lots with unusual topography be considered on an individual
basis.
Ms. Patterson explained that the 31-foot setback was intended to be a
building separation, and the 15-foot setback was from the side yard.
Ms. Michie repeated that her Committee was opposed to said 15-foot setback.
She pointed out that such a setback would make it difficult to maintain the
natural environment.
Mr. Cogan stated that though the setbacks may be contrary to Ashcroft's
Architecture Review Committee, the Commission has no control over such
matters so long as fire safety requirements are met.
Mr. Tom Michie addressed the Commission. Mr. Michie was chairmanof the
Ashcroft Road Committee. He stated he was concerned about the plans for
North Pantops Drive and the implications of closing that road. He
stated his organization wanted the developer to complete Lego Drive with
a commercial entrance and also wanted it to be made clear that the road.
does not have to be taken into the State system in order for the plan to
be approved. He pointed out that taking the road into the system would
trigger the closing of North Pantops Drive. He asked that North
Pantops Drive not be closed prematurely."
Mr. St. John questioned how property owners in Ashcroft had been able
to obtain title to their property if there was no legal access. Mr.
Michie explained there is a legal access via a dirt road.
/05,
January 5, 1988
Page 4
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the issues had been ironed out.
Mr. Michel moved that Ashcroft Section V, Phase I Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calcu-
lations;
b. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans
and calculations;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents;
e. Fire. Officer approval, including notation on plat regarding
building separation;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans;
g. Health Department approval of the delineation on each .lot of
approved septic areas and notation restricting disturbance of
these areas;
h. Construction. of Lego Drive including a commercial entrance connection
with the frontage road F-179.
2. The final plat may be administratively approved.
3. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-03.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-92 Burger Busters, Inc - Request in accordance with section 24.2.2(4)
of the Zoning Ordinance for a special use permit to allow a fast-food res-
taurant on a vacant parcel; zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping
Center. Property, described as Tax Map 61M-00-12-lD is located on the
northwest corner at the intersection of Seminole Trail (Rt. 29) and Dominion
Drive (Rt.. 851). Charlottesville Mag.isterial.District. Referred Back to
the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors.
The Chairman noted that the applicant was .requesting indefinite deferral.
�4r. Bowerman moved that SP-87-92 for Burger Busters, Inc. be indefinitely
deferred.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Brady Bushey Ford (Rt. 29N) Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
4,000 square foot building for motor vehicle sales and 56 parking spaces
on 1.267 acres. Property described as Tax Map 45B1, Parcel 05-A-10 is
located on the east side of Rt. 29N, adjacent north of Real Estate III
January 5, 1988 Page 5
and west of Carrsbrook, Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Hill gave the staff report. (Note: Ms. Hill deleted the following
sentence from page one of the staff report: "Further, the Virginia
Department of Transportation would like to see that curbing be provided
on this site at the location shown on the plan." She explained that
a discrepancy about right-of-way has been resolved.) The staff report
concluded: ""The applicant has addressed staff's major concerns with
development of this site, and further revisions to the plan that remain
are minor and can be addressed prior to the approving the final plat.
The site plan meets all of the requirements of the HC, Highway Commercial
zone as a use permitted by right." Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions. Ms. Hill deleted condition l(b): "Show curbing on Real
Estate III site as recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation
and Planning staff."
Ms. Diehl asked if the double row of low shrubs suggested by staff could
be made a requirement rather than just a request. Mr. Horne responded
that he thought that could be made a requirement.
Mr. Cogan asked why it was more difficult for the applicant to get the
permit to plant within the Highway Department right-of-way than it is
for the County to intervene. Mr. Horne responded: "It is very difficult
for a private developer to post a perpetual bond for trees... therefore,
what we're hoping to do, since the intent is to get those trees in there,
is that we will take out the permit, but then we will encumber the private.
developer to make sure that they're maintained internally. But we'll
take out the permit because we don't have to post a perpetual bond; we
can just pass a resolution and that's our bond." Mr. Cogan asked what
guarantee the County would get from the owner. Mr. Horne responded that
staff would try to work out some type of internal mechanism where it will
be tied to a certificate of occupancy, or something similar. He pointed
out that this has not been done before.
Mr. St. John asked : "This is a perpetual committment on our part to.
maintain these trees?" Mr. Horne responded: "To have the trees maintained."
Mr. St. John explained this was an outgrowth of what had been used to
finally resolve the sidewalk issue. Mr. Horne stated it was similar.
Mr. Cogan wondered if the County really wanted to get involved in such a
situation for only 6 trees.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He stated the applicant
was agreeable to the conditions of approval. He noted that he did think
the applicant was going to have to dedicate some right-of-way and he asked
if staff could be authorized administrative approval of that plat.
Mr. Horne stated that if there should be a need to .dedicate right-of-way
for some of the improvements, "I don't think that's necessary for you to
address . that. "
647
January 5, 1988
Page 6
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Commission. He expressed his support for
the application.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked if there would be a means to get alternate types of land-
scaping should the Board of Supervisors choose not to enter into an
agreement.
Ms. Hill stated the Ordinance requires that street trees are to be planted
on streets. Mr. Horne added "We can't get street trees except where
we're proposing; we can get the shrubs and that's why we want the shrubs
supplemented."
Mr. Cogan again questioned whether the County should get involved in such
an arrangement for 6 trees.
Mr. St. John questioned whether "we, at this level, can enter into what
amounts to a perpetual committment." He stated he felt the Supervisors
were the only ones who could do this. Mr. Horne agreed and stated staff
is only saying "If we can."
?sir. Keeler pointed out that there are other properties to be developed in
this area so there will eventually be more than just 6 trees involved.
It was determined condition f(2) would be amended as follows: "Provision
of street trees off -site in the public right-of-way, if approved by the
Board of Supervisors."
Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of how the septic tank drainage field
for the car wash would operate.. She asked if there was to be a septic
tank on site as well as a connection to public sewer.
.Mr. Edwards was not familiar with this issue. He stated he assumed everything
would be going into the public sewer.
Mr. Steve Cresswell stated apparently the septic tank was for removing
solids, e.g. sand and grit, and then the car wash water is discharged into
a drainfield. Mr. Cogan asked why a drainfield was necessary. Mr.
Cresswell responded "To keep from having to discharge that water into
the Kivanna." It was determined that only "washed off oils" would get
into this system. Oils drained from cars would be collected and disposed
of
Mr. Keeler asked Ms. Hill where the letter referring to the septic tank
issue had come from. 'GIs. Hill responded that she had found the letter
in the file. fir. Keeler stated he thought this letter might be referring
to their Pantops location. Ms. Hill stated she would research this
matter further and resolve it before the final site plan.
/do
January 5, 1988 Page 7
Mr. Horne stated staff would not sign the final site plan until a report
on the septic tank issue had been made to the Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that the Brady Bushey Ford (Rt. 29N) Preliminary Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Add a note 'Storage of inventory vehicles shall be limited
to designated display parking spaces."
b. Indicate that existing entrance pavement on the adjoining property
will be removed, and replaced with grass.
c. County Engineer approval of the following:
1. Grading and drainage plans and calculations;
2. Stormwater detention plans and calculations;
3: Retaining wall design.
d. The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements.
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit.
f. Approval of a landscape plan with revisions to include the
following:
1. Screening shrubs along the service road pursuant to Section
32.7.9.8.c.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Provision of street trees off -site in the public right-of-way,
if approved by the Board of Supervisors.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Montfair Golf Course - Driving Range - Proposal to construct eighteen (18)
golf tee spaces and a driving range on existing grade, located on
approximately 6.6 acres. Construction of this driving range will precede
the construction of the proposed nine (9) hole golf course. A special use
permit for this property was approved in July of 1987 to locate a nine (9)
hole golf course on a ±129 acre parcel. The property is located on State
Route 673, approximately one -quarter of a mile, west of State Route 810.
Tax Map 26, Parcels 33A, 33B, 14 and 8. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, with
special use permit for noted use. White Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Hill gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the driving range was shown on the original special
permit approval. Ms. Diehl stated she could not recall the special
permit having included a driving range.
Ms. Hill stated it was on the master conceptual plan.
Mr. Wilkerson recalled that it had been discussed because he could remember
discussing the proximity of the balls to the parking lot.
January 5, 1988
Page 8
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Phil Sheridan was present. He offered no significant additional
comment.
Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that the Commission was concerned about what
was located.in.front of the driving range and whether or not someone
could drive into that area.
Ms. Hill pointed out a 100-foot buffer zone which she stated was
"pretty dense."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
ylr. Stark expressed concern about the possibility of a ball which could
conceivably be hit 300 yards almost reaching the road.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the ball .would have to actually be hit
400 yards in order to clear the trees.
Most of the other Commissioners did.not share Mr. Stark's concern because
of the feeling that it is unlikely that a ball could. be hit 400 yards.
GIs. Diehl expressed concern about a driving range in close proximity to
a campground. She asked if the Commission could be liable for such an
approval such an accident occur.
Mr. St. John indicated that the Commission was immune from financial
liability.
Mr. Michel stated -that though he shared some of the concerns, he had
no objections to the conditions suggested by staff.
Mr. Michel moved that .the Montfair Golf Course - Driving Range, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plan must be prepared by a certified land surveyor, engineer
or landscape architect, licensed in the State of Virginia.
2. County Engineer approval of.grading and drainage plans and calculations.
3. The Virginia Department of Transportation's approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit.
4. Issuance of an.erosion control permit.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Stark asked if it should be required that signs be posted advising of the
possible danger, or if that was understood.
fID
January 5, 1988
Page 9
Mr. Stark expressed particular concern about a driving range be attractive
to children who might wander onto it to collect balls.
Mr. Cogan stated that if this was a concern of the rest of the Commission,
he wouldfavor some type of fencing rather than signs. Mr. Cogan questioned,
however, how far the Commission should go to protect the applicant from
his own liability.
Mr. Bowerman felt the natural vegetation was adequate protection.
Ms. Hill noted that the applicant was proposing to install warning signs.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -made motion for approval.
The motion passed 6:1 with Mr. Stark casting the dissenting vote.
ZTA-87-03 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend Section 4.6 LOT REGULATIONS to permit reduction of lot
frontage on cul-de-sacs and to amend Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS to include
"easement," "cul-de-sac," and revise "frontage."
MUD
STA -87-01 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a
resolution of intent to amend Section 18-36 of the Code of Albemarle County
(subdivision of land) to prohibit with certain exceptions two lot subdivisions
involving easements for single-family detached residential development in
urban areas.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that the purpose of the
amendments were to: (1) Clarify method of measuring lot frontage; (2) Provide
for reduction of lot frontage in certain cases; and (3) Restrict residential
subdivision involving two lots served by an easement to the Rural Areas
zone and VR, Village Residential zone. He stated the purpose to be
served are to provide uniform zoning and subdivision ordinance regulations.
Mr. Keeler stressed that the proposed amendments were "not any different from
what we've done for ten years."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman moved that ZTA-87-03 to. amend Section 4.6 and Section 3.0
of the Zoning Ordinance and STA-87-01 to amend Section 18-36 of the
Subdivision Ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows:
January 5, 1988 Page 10
1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS:
3.0 Definitions
Frontage - The continuous u_ninterrated distance
along which a parcel abuts a si- ngle adjacent road
or street.
Cul-de-sac - A vehicular turnaround area at the
end of a dead-end street provided for the purpose
of safe and convenient reverses of traffic in one
continuous forward movement.
Easement - A ri ht in the owner of one parcel of
_land by reason of ownership of such parcel to use
the land of another for a special purpose not
inconsistent with the general property in the
owner.
4.6 LOT REGULATIONS
4.6.1 FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS
4.6.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in 4.6.1 and
4.6.6every lot shall front on an existi
ublic street or a street dedicated b
subdivision lat and maintained or design
and built to be maintained by the Virgini
Department of Transportations, tha
private roads shall be permitted in
accordance with Section 18-36 of Chapter
of -the Code of Albemarle.
4.6.1.2 Except as specifically permitted in this
section, frontage shall not be less than
reauired by the regulations_ of the distr
in which the lot or parcel is located:
a. Frontage an a public street cul-de-sac
or on a_j2rivate road cul-de-sac may be
reduced to not less than fifty 60 )
feet; provided that driveway separation
shall be in accordance with Virginia
Department of Transportation standards.
b. For a lot located at the end of an access
easement, frontage shall not be less than
the full width of such easement.
e�x
January 5, 1988
Page 11
4.6.1.3 Minimum lot width shall be measured at the
building setback line and shall be at least
the same width as the frontage required for
the district in which such lot is located.
Lot width shall not be reduced under 4.6.1.1.
4.6.3.1 Front yards of the depth required in the
district shall be provided across the full
width of the lot adjacent to the street.
Depth of a required front yard shall be
measured from the right-�of-way line of the
street in such a fashion that the building
line of such yard shall be equidistant from
the street right-of-way at all points. Areas
in parking bays shall not be considered as
part of the street or access easement for
purposes of determining front yard depth.
(Amended 7-1-81).
4.6.3.2 Other yards adjacent to streets shall have a
minimum width -or depth,'as-the-ease-may-be;-of
eighty-f8 0-pereent of the minimum front yard depth
required in the district in which the lot is
located. This provision shall apply to lots in
the RA or residential districts only.
2. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 SUBDIVISION OF LAND OF THE CODE
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
18-36 (b) The commission may approve any subdivision
served by one or more private roads under the following
circumstances:
(1) No lot of such subdivision to be served by such
road shall be less than five acres in land area;
or
(2) For property zoned RA Rural Areas or VR Village
Residential, where such subdivision contains only
two lots and such private road serves only the
lots in such subdivision; and is the sole and
direct means of access to a road in the State
highway system; or
(3) Such subdivision is intended for non-residential
or non-agricultural purposes; or
(4) Such subdivision is not located within a rural area
of the comprehensive plan and.'such subdivision shall
be into lots and/or units to be occupied
exclusively by residential structures other than
single-family detached dwellings including
appurtenant recreational uses and open space; or
(5) Such subdivisions constitute a "family division"
as defined by section 18-56 of this chapter.
January 5, 1988 Page 12
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed. unanimously.
Willoughby East Corporate Park —Request for Extension - Mr. Keeler explained
this issue -involved some property on 5th Street presently zoned LI. He
stated the Commission had approved the preliminary subdivision plat previously.
Mr. Keeler explained that the owner of the property has seriously been
considering the entire tract of land to one industrial user (rather than
several different industrial uses as originally envisioned). However,
those negotiations have fallen through and the onwer of the property now wants
to continue on with the subdivision plat. Mr. Keeler stated there have
been no changes in circumstances and staff has no objection to a 6-month
extension.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Willoughby East Corporate Park be granted
a 6-month extension to June 23, 1988.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Wrenson BowlinE Alley -- Request for Additional Grading - Proposal for
additional grading on both sides of the entrance road off Route 29
south -bound lane.
GIs. Patterson gave the staff report. Both staff and the County Engineering
Department recommended approval of the request based on "the insignificant
increase (7%) in the volume of additional earthwork," and on the
following: (1) The increase in earthwork proposed is a volume of 7,000
cubic yards or 7% increase in required burrow area; (2) The loss of ex-
isting vegetation will not, in staff's opinion, impose additional adverse
impact on adjacent properties; and (3) Grading at this time will avoid
future construction traffic crossing the entrance road and sanitary and
storm sewer lines.
X.r. Bowerman felt this request was clearly distinguishable from the
Heritage Hall request because of adjacent properties and the minor
amount of additional earthwork that is involved. He stated he had no
problem with this particular request.
Mr. Cogan stated he had no problem with the request based on the County
Engineer's report, but he wanted to be cautious.of reviewingsite plans
which present a proposal with: "perhaps knowledge that it can't really be
done that way."
Mr. Gould stated he was bothered by this issue. He stated: "I .
think it's appropriate for the staff to bring forward a policy rather
than bring forward an issue." He stated he could not support the request.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the request. She stated that
traditionally the Commission has not approved grading beyond the limits
of which a project is intended to.be. She could see no reason to deviate
from this in this situation simply for owner convenience.
Mr. Cogan understood the additional grading was necessary to construct the
road, and this had not been the case with Heritage Hall. However, fir.
Cresswell, representing the County Engineering Department, stated that
January 5, 1988 Page 13
was not the case. He stated the need was mostly for the convenience of
the developer to utilize the equipment while it is available in order
to get some additional earth to fill in a low spot. He confirmed that
the request had no impact on the road, but it could provide for some
additional parking in the future.
Mr. Wilkerson questioned why the Engineering Department had given their
approval if the request was for the. -convenience of the applicant.
Mr. Cresswell stated that a massive area is already being cleared and
the additional area requested is felt to be insignificant. He also
stated that had this small portion been included with the original
proposal, it probably would have been approved. He conceded that
this is different than has been done in the past, and stressed that
"we don't want to get into setting a precedent."
Mr. Michel asked if it would be easier for the applicant to employ
"best management practices" if the grading is done all at one time.
Mr. Cresswell responded, "It's really a toss-up."
Mr. Gould recalled that when Heritage Hall had made a similar request,
the reasons given were those of convenience because the equipment
was available.
Mr. Horne stressed that the issue of convenience has nothing to do
with staff's position. He stated he understood the Commission's
concern but staff does feel there are circumstances, as stated previously.
which distinguish this from Heritage Hall. He pointed out that .with
Heritage Hall, they were proposing to remove designated buffer areas
which were against residential areas.
Mr. Wilkerson was concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Horne
stated; "Anything you do sets a precedent in some sense; this sets
a precedent for similar circumstances. We do feel there are some
unique circumstances here that would separate it from an example
such as Heritage Hall. But, yes, it sets a precedent for similarly
situated sites."
Mr. Gould stated he was unclear as to when the staff would bring
something to the Commission and when not.
Mr. St. John asked the Commission to ask themselves "What would (we)
have done if this had been presented as part of the original site plan."
Mr. Cogan also pointed out the possibility of this same piece of property
coming up with a new.user with a site plan. He stated this question
would come up again in such a case.
Mr. Horne stated: "There's no question about that from staff's-point of
view. Eventually this will be developed, but, to us, that's not an
argument for doing it now. Clearly this is intended for commercial use
and when there is a proposed commercial use it's going to get graded
if it's not graded now. So it's a matter of timing to us and do you
. .FA
January 5, 1988
Page 14
allow speculative grading,in a sense, on a site. You have tended not to
provide for that in the past."
Mr. St. John explained that once these sites are separated, if the grading
is not done now, then the possibility of doing it later is."foreclosed"
because once the sites are separated then transportation of dirt from
one site to another constitutes a "borrow situation" and the Zoning
Ordinance doesn't allow that.
There was a brief discussion about staff possibly presenting the Commission
with some criteria to address this issue further. However, M-s. Diehl
indicated she felt a policy is already in effect, i.e. "The Planning
Commission and Staff have traditionally opposed grading beyond what was
necessary to develop the project."
Mr. Keeler gave a brief history of this issue.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not see any harm in approving such a request
when there is the possibility that an application might have been incorrect
because a developer makes a mistake. He stated, "When that does happen
and when there is no public detriment in coming back before us and
requesting a change, .even though it's something that deals with something
that's given us a lot of trouble in the past, if it makes sense and it's
reasonable and on a pragmatic basis, if you are not setting.some sort
of extraordinary policy that's going to really corrupt your other
positions in the future, I don't see that it's that big a problem."
He noted that this is commercial property with commercial property on
both sides;'it's going to happen." He stated "I just don't see that it's
that big a thing, nor does it set a.poli.cy."
:sir. Michel indicated his agreement. He added, however, that he felt
staff should develop some criteria for when such situations "trigger
our review."
Mr. Gould stated he felt Mr. Bowerman's arguments were good, but he was
still unp.ersuaded that the .Commission should deviate from its usual
policy.
The applicant was represented by N;r. Tom Gale and Mr. Frank Stoner. Mr.
Stoner felt the decision should be left up to the professionals. He
felt that in this case this was the right thing to do and the policy
needs to be flexible, and each case should be judged on its ou-n merit.
Mr. Stark recommended that the [vrenson Bowling Alley Request for Additional
Grading be approved.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (5:2) with Commissioners
Diehl and Gould casting the dissenting votes.
Lee Tennis Products Preliminary Site Plan - Request for administrative approval
of preliminary site plan.
Ms. Hill gave the staff report.
rA"
January 5, 1988
Page 15
The report stated:
"The Commission may recall reviewing a site plan for this site presented
in conjunction with a petition for a special use permit on October 6, 1987.
Having received approval, the applicant is now seeking preliminary approval
of the site plan which is similar to the site plan presented when the
special use permit was petitioned for. The applicant has met the conditions
of the Site. Review Committee and the proposal meets all the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Staff requests administrative approval of the
preliminary and final site plan."
It was determined notification requirements had been met.
Mr. Keeler noted that this was not at all uncommon with minor site plans
which are submitted with a special use permit. He stated that generally
staff asks at the time of the special -use permit if the site plan can
be approved administratively. He stated this is a very simple site plan.
Mr. Horne added that it will be required to meet all the requirements
of site plan review.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be granted administrative
approval of the Lee Tennis Products Preliminary Site Plan.
Miscellaneous - A Work Session on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan was set
for January 26, 1988 at 5:15.
It was announced that Mr. Cogan was resigning his position on the Commission..
Mr. Bowerman presented him with a gift.
Mr. Cogan introduced Mr. Tom Jenkins who is a candidate for Mr. Cogan's
seat on the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
I Vv��
ohn Horne, Secretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms