HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 12 88 PC MinutesJanuary 12, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 12, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard
Gould; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Peter Stark;
and Mr. Tom Jenkins (newly appointed). Other officials present were:
Mr. George St. John, County Attorney; Ms. Amelia Patterson; Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Mr. John Pullen; Ms. Laura Hill; and Mr. John Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development.
Acting as Secretary, Mr. Horne called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
and established that a quorum was present.
Mr. Horne called for nominations for the position of Chairman of the
Commission. Mr. Gould moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that Mr. Bowerman
be elected Chairman of the Commission. There being no further
nominations, Mr. Bowerman was unanimously elected Chairman.
Mr. Bowerman then assumed his position as Chairman and called for nominations
for the position of Vice Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Stark moved,
seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that Mr. Gould be elected Vice Chairman of
the Commission. There being no further nominations, Mr. Gould was
unanimously elected Vice Chairman.
Mr. Bowerman called for nominations for the position of Secretary of the
Commission. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that Mr. Horne
be re-elected as Secretary of the Commission. There being no further
nominations, Mr. Horne was unanimously re-elected Secretary of the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman introduced Mr. Tom Jenkins, the newly appointed representative
from the White Hall District.
Mr. Bowerman also announced that Commissioners Michel, Gould and Wilkerson
had been reappointed from their respective districts.
SP-87-99 Gertrude D. Taylor - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on 75.04 acres, zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map.28, Parcel 35A, is located
on the east side of Rt. 671, ±1.4 miles south of the intersection of Rt. 609
and 671. White Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Hill gave the staff report. She noted that two letters of objection
had been received which objected on the grounds that the mobile home would
de -value surrounding property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Taylor addressed the Commission. She pointed out that the area is
rather isolated and because she will be living alone, she asked that
screening not be required on all sides. She indicated she would not
object to providing screening on the north side between the mobile home
and an existing dwelling.
#0
January 12, 1988
Page 2
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Wallace Bedell, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission
and expressed his opposition to the application. He felt a mobile home
was unappropriate in a neighborhood of single-family homes.
Mr. John Eckstein, a participant in an agricultural -forestal district in
the vicinity:of the proposed mobile home, expressed his opposition to the
application and felt a mobile home would "downgrade" the area.
In response to Mr. Stark's question, Ms. Taylor stated the mobile home
would be her permanent residence and the property has belonged to her family
for some time.
mr. Smiths, a property owner across the road, addressed the Commission..
He pointed out that the suggested location is very close to the road and
is underneath the power lines. He suggested that the proposed site be
moved further back from the road, into the woods.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
fir. Bowerman asked Ms. Hill if there were any other mobile homes within
1/2 :wile radius of this site.. Ms. Hill responded that one has been approved
on the adajcent property to the east. She stated that currently there are
no mobile homes along the road.
It was determined that the usual setback requirement is 75 feet, but
Zoning approved a 50-foot setback, under Section 6.0.1, a non -conforming
section of the Ordinance which says that the setback that is in effect
at the time the subdivision plat is approved stands. 'sir. Keeler read:
"In the case of any subdivision which is approved pursuant to Chapter 18
of the County Code prior to the adoption of this Ordinance and which was
of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side and front
yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the
time of such approval shall apply to all lots within such subdivision."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed, however,
that the Commission has discretion on the placement of a mobile home.
Mr. Keeler referred to Section 31.2.4.3 of the Ordinance: "Such
conditions shall relate to the purposes of the Ordinance, including
but not limited to the prevention of smoke, dust, noise, traffic
congestion, flood and other hazardous, dilatorius, or otherwise under-
sirabie substance or condition, and provision of adequate police,
fire protection, transportation, water, sewage, drainage, recreation,
landscaping and/or screening or buffering, the establishment of special
requirements relating to building setbacks, front, side and rear yards,
etc."
Ms. Diehl asked Ns. Hill to describe the topography of the 75 acres.
Ms. Hill responded that it was wooded and moderately sloping and
had little change in elevation across the acreage. (Mr. Horne later
indicated this wasnotentirely accurate and explained that the
site had some topographic constraints which would make it difficult
to move the building site back farther than 75 feet.)
January 12, 1988 Page 3
Mr. Bowerman suggested that, as in past cases, it might be possible to
consider a relocation of the mobile home which would allow the applicant
to make use of the property while at the same time recognizing the
objections of neighboring property owners.
Ms. Diehl stated that given the character of the area, considering the
fact that there are few mobile homes in the area, and given the acreage
that is included in the request, she was not agreeable to the location
as requested. She felt there was a lot of room on the 75 acres to relocate
the mobile home.
Mr. Gould indicated he understood Ms. Diehl's position, but he pointed
out that the applicant has expressed a concern for her safety and thus
he is not as willing to be as flexible on this matter as on past
requests, particularly since the applicant owns the entire piece of
land. He felt there could be some room for movement, but he was not
in favor of a 150-foot setback.
The Chairman asked Ms. Taylor to comment further on her site selection.
Ms. Taylor stated that in consideration of the nearest neighbor she had
moved the location farther away than she desired and she also noted that
the location was set back farther than zoning requires. She also
noted that the land "goes downhill a good distance." She indicated the
property had some steep constraints.
It was at this point that Mr. Horne stated that he believed there
would be a severe topographic constraint if the mobile home were
moved back more than 75 feet. He stated that the land does slope
fairly severely away from the roadway at this particular location.
He noted that though this is a very large parcel, he believed this
was the only road frontage so it would be difficult to go deep into
the interior of the property.
Regarding the screening issue, Ms. Diehl stated she felt the screening
should remain as required by the Ordinance.
Both Commissioners Wilkerson and Stark stated they could support a 75-foot
setback.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-99 for Gertrude D. Taylor be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions and
with the requirement that the mobile home be set back 75 feet from Rt. 671:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Installation and maintenance of screening on three sides of the mobile
home, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize
visability from adjacent properties.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl stated she would not support the motion because she felt there
were other sites available on the acreage.
416
January 12, 1988
Page 4
The motion for approval. passed (6:1) with :pis. Diehl casting the dissenting
vote.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on January 20, 1988.
SP-87-101.Ph llis R. & Clarence Morris (Roger Taylor) - Request in accordance
with Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile
home on 6..6 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax
Map 9, Parcel 3B, is located on the east side of Woodridge Road, ±.l mile
south of its intersection with Rt. 633. Vhite Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated one letter of
objection had been received from an adjoining property owner whowas.
concerned about aesthetics and property devaluation.
Ms. Patterson pointed out the following correction in proposed setbacks:
front setback from the right-of-way, 200 feet; from the rear, 1,800 feet;
from the north side, 150 feet; and from the south side, 35 feet.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roger Taylor addressed the Commission. He noted that the mobile home
would be new and that the lot was wooded and secluded and therefore the
unit would not be visible to surrounding property.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined the 35-foot south side setback met the requirements of
the Ordinance.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-87-101 for Phyllis R. and Clarence Morris (Roger
Taylor) be reco;n;nended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following condition:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on January 20, 1988.
SP-87-97 John Pratt - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance to locate a double wide mobile home on .440 acres zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Xa.p 99A, Parcel 13, is located
±1/10 mile northeast of the intersection of Rt. 712 and Southern Railway
underpass. Samuel Miller Magisterial.District.
Prior to Mr. Pullen's presentation of the staff report, Mr. Keeler
made some preliminary comments. fir. Keeler stated that a portion of the
property is subject to flooding; however., the property is not subject to
the Flood Hazard Overlay District because it has not been mapped by the
Corps of Engineers. He brought up this issue because of insurance concerns.
Mr. Keeler also pointed out that there appears to be no place on the property
for the location of a septic system because of the proximity to wells
(within 100 feet).on adjoining property. He stated the Health Department
/7 I
January 12, 1988 Page 5
has already suggested the idea of a central system to the applicant, but
the applicant has chosen not to pursue Health Department approval before
Commission review of the special permit. Mr. Keeler stressed that this
issue was relevant to the review only in its relation to the proposed
location of a double -wide mobile home on the property, because septic
system restraints may make a double -wide impossible. He stated that if
the Commission is concerned that the unit be a double -wide, as opposed to
a single -wide, that could be made a conditiou "otherwise (the Commission
should) ignore the representation that thiaYtela double -wide mobile home."
Mr. Keeler confirmed that decision about the septic system would have the
same problems with either a double -wide or a single wide. Mr. Keeler
stated: "The problems that I have just outlined to you in terms of
flooding, in terms of Health Department approval, are not peculiar to
the location of a mobile home on this property, but to the location of
any dwelling on this property. What is germane to your review in that
regard, however, is that the location as shown on here may not be
where it is ultimately located because we don't know where the drainfield
is going to go, if in fact, one can be located on the property and the
representation in the report that it is a double -wide may not, in fact,
be the case."
Mr. St. John stated he did not think any of Mr. Keeler's comments had any
relevance to the issue before the Commission, "as a matter of law."
He explained that "all those factors mitigate against any ... dwelling
being put on this lot." He stated the question before the Commission is
whether or not to allow a mobile home on the lot.
Mr. Pullen then gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Pratt addressed the Commission. He stated he felt it was unusual for
staff to comment on a request prior to the presentation of the staff report.
He felt the septic system question was an issue to be addressed by the
Health Department. He disagreed that the property was subject to excessive
flooding. He felt the Commission should disregard the letters of objection
since a mobile home had been approved for Ms. Thomas (one of the objectors)
just last year.
Mr. Keeler again clarified his comments and stated: "The issues of the Health
Department approval and flooding have relevance to your review only in
regard that you cannot approve a specific location for the mobile home because
you don't know where the drainfield is going to go, if, in fact; it is
going to go on the property." He stated clearly that those issues were not
part of the special use permit and would be encountered with any residential
development of the property. He stated he had mentioned the issue of flood
insurance because he, too, questioned how this lot could flood substantially
without the lots on either side flooding similarly because they appear to
be in the same contour. He stated he had mentioned the issue of flooding .
because of insurance concerns. He explained he had made his comments at the
beginning of the review to distinguish those two issues from the special
use permit review.
The Chairman invited public comment.
142
January 12, 1988 Page 6
Ms. Thomas, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. She
explained that flooding is -worse on Mr. Pratt's property because the
creek is much closer.to his lot. Stating that it was for information
purposes, Ms. Thomas explained the extent of previous flooding. She
stated her primary concern was for the protection of her well.
Mr. Paul Thomas addressed the Commission and stressed that the proposed
location for Mr. Pratt's mobile home is much closer to the creek than
an existing mobile home on neighboring property and the creek "bends"
at that location also, thus the flooding is worse.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Pratt pointed out that the creek is the back property line for all
the lots.
There was a brief discussion about a former dwelling which had existed on
this property and burned in 1986. Ms. Laura Thomas stated that that
dwelling had had no electricity, no well and no septic system.
Mr. Pullen noted that the Thomas lot is more sloping and therefore probably
not as subject to flooding.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the flood issue was not relevant to this review.
Mr. Pratt questioned Mr. Pullen's expertise in determining flood probability.
Mr. St. John again stated that the issue before the Commission had no
relevance to flooding, wells, septic systems, etc. because those issues
would be equally applicable to any other kind of dwelling. He stated
the "consideration should turn on whether this man owns this land and
needs this mobile home for housing," and other typical questions that
are asked of all other mobile home requests.
Ms. Diehl .asked if the flooding issue had any relevance with respect
to the fact that a mobile home does not have the innate protection
against flood waters that a permanent residence has.
Air. St. John stated he had considered that question along with the
fact that this type of dwelling would pose a danger not only to its
occupants, but also to persons downstream. should it be carried away by
floodwater. However, he stated, "I feel that is more a question of
siting the mobile home than a question of whether a permit for some
spot on this lot should be granted."
Aar. Bowerman again closed the public hearing.
It was determined 2 mobile homes currently exist within a 1/2 mile radius
of this site.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Pullen to refresh the Commission on the requirements
of Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Air. Pullen read the following
requirements: "(a) Albemarle County building official approval; (b) Con-
formance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements. for district
in which it is located; (c) Skirting around mobile home from ground
level to base of the mobile home to be completed within 30 days from
"91
January 12, 1988 Page 7
issuance of a certificate of occupancy; (d) Provision of potable water
supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the
zoning administrator and the approval of the local office of the Virginia
Department of Health if applicable under current regulations; and (e)
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be
provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator."
Mr. Pullen confirmed that, with new regulations, location of the septic
system would have to be 100 feet from any wells on adjacent lots.
It was determined the applicant did not intend to occupy the mobile home.
Mr. Bowerman felt this was a key point. He stated he had never voted
for a mobile home application which was not specifically for the use
of the applicant or his immediate family, or some other closely related
reason.
Mr. Stark agreed.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-87-97 for John Pratt be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on January 20, 1988.
Willow Lake Master Plan Amendment - Proposal to revise the distribution of
dwellings on the master plan, with no increase in the total number of
dwellings.- The proposed changes are as follows: change the quadraplexes to
triplexes on the top of the hill (G, H, I and J); change the single .family
detached units to triplexes on the right after the Shoffner house (P, Q, and
R); change the single family detached units and public road extension to
quadraplexes and a private road (V, W, X and Y); and redesign the single
family units near the end of Willow Lake Drive to create an overall total
of 120 dwelling units. Property is located off the west side of Route 20
just south of Piedmont Virginia Community College and adjacent to Lakeside
subdivision. Tax Map 77E1, Parcels 1 and 2. Zoned R-4.
It was determined staff was requesting deferral to February 9 in order to
correct a notification error.
Since several members of the public were present, the Chairman invited
public comment.
Mr. Daniel Lowe addressed the Commission. He distributed a copy of a
letter which was signed by several property owners in the Lakeside
Subdivision. Ms. Sue Evans then read the following letter into the
record:
January 12, 1988.
Page 8
anuary 11, 1988
To AIJermarle County Planning Commission:
We, the property owners, on Drookhill Avenue, Laxes:ae Subdivision,
hereby request that the Albemarle Cour.ty planning Commission delay
approval of the proposed Willow Lake Development site plan Amendment
until said developers complete the necessary corrections needed on
that part of Willow Lake Drive, from Route 20 South to the necessary
point past Brookbili Avenue, and this section is accepted into the State
Secondary Road System.
Wher. this is accomplished it will -eet the final condition for the
work to b-egi:h on Brookhil'l Avenue, and to bring this road, also, into
the State Secondary Road System. arookhill Avenue ::as been held hostage
for too long at the mercy of the Willow''.ake Developers.
work on Brookhiil Avenue has been delayed now going into the second
year because Willow Lake Developers have failed to complete the necessary
corrections. We have been promised, tit:te after time, that this work would be done
in tour to six weeks. But this has not been realized.
the late tail of 1986, Mr. Ban Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, was
unable to .Irocued with work ca Brookhili Avenue due to waiting on this
completion. Un May 14, 1987, Mr :.icosevelt wrote a 1-etter to the developers. Ua
?lay 1t$ Mr. 1'reC iieru:anson, :resident of Willow .ake Developers, replieC
to tnjs 'letter. In Mr. i!crtganson's reply he stated, and we quote: ''Mr.
Alien :Jri..ard :as inspected the culV!erts and we have requested Mr. Ar:;;
to arrange a conference between, his inspector, Mr. Dillard, and cur Mr.
�Ihra:hamse. It is our hope after this conference the s:shall number of
_teas to coh�hplete this road can be accomplished expeditiously allowing
the :lrouuh:'1 extension to be completed during the summer.'
W"un summer dragged on into early tall we approached the Willow Laice
Developers, and again they said these were only a few small ;.texas ana
promised to be expedient.
.he ot::ice of ;fir. Corr. Trevillion, Department of Engineering, wrote
..I '.ate October 1y87 stating to the developers what still needed to be
corrected.
To this date only one of the ten items of corrections has been made.
.romiscs :have provento be of no avail. implementation only will.
satisty the residents on Brookhill Avenue.
. The Property owners of Drookhill Avenue petitioned the Albemarle
county Board o. Supervisors for assistance in upgrading this road in
the spring of 1981. Through patient process this road was approved
and l:ton:.us trorrr both state funds and property owners have been set
aside for this pro;;cct.
'.he residents of Brockhill Avenue live an the worst road, to our
',nowie:lge in Albemarle County. The people are working together to get
.ills corrected.
4e tecl lIat this request to you the Planning Commission is both
^_asonable and proper. We, .also, feel that approval of the developers
ahaended plan would be a signal cordoning their.negiigence and would
continue to keep our road hostage. �J�
ResnJ'1 vc
n a = tz
2t
l2-r
January 12, 1988
Page 9
It was determined there was a total of 20 signatures on this letter
(though only 12 were shown at the bottom), which represented all the
residences in Lakeside.
Mr. Fred Hermanson, President of Willow Lake Developers, addressed the
Commission. He wished to respond to some of the statements made in
the letter read by Ms. Evans. He stated that things have not proceeded
as rapidly as hoped and that weather and engineering problems have
affected the situation. He stressed that all work has been accomplished
by reputable contractors who stand behind their work and all work has
been done according to state -approved plans. He stated that major
culverts have been repaired, or replaced, at the entrance to Willow Lake
Drive. He stated the road had been submitted for acceptance into the
State system in August and 12 - 14 items were required to be corrected.
He stated several of these items are now being discussed by the sub-
contractors and the. Engineering Department„as to whether or not they
should be required. He stated that, as a developer, he was pushing as
rapidly as he could. He stressed that much of the impetus and much
of the financing to correct the road came from Willow Lake Developers.
He concluded that he felt the internal changes which he is requesting
within the development are unrelated to the road issue. He felt it
was well documented that he has done what he has been require& to do
on the road issue and was correcting the problems as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Evans, a resident of the corner lot of the Lakeside . Subdivision,
addressed the Commission. He presented several photographs showing severe
damage to his property by the culvert problems. He stated he has spent
$15,000 repairing his property. He also stated that because the Commission
had approved a 2:1 slope "down front" he cannot move his lot with a
riding mower. He asked that this be given consideration when future
subdivisions are approved. He stated that the conditions shown in the
photograph had not existed two years previously.
Ms. Alice Brower addressed the Commission. She stressed the serious
condition of the road. She also stated that a screen of pine trees were
promised but have never been planted. She stated that though the trees
were not shown on the drawing as being behind her lot, she had objected
and the developer had agreed to continue the trees to her lot also.
Mr. Fisco addressed the Commission. He stated he had purchased his home
with the understanding that only single-family homes could be constructed
to the rear of his property. He expressed his opposition to the
applicant's proposed amendment because he felt it would detract from
his property. He asked if the dimensions, of the proposed triplexes would
be the same as the originally proposed quadriplex. He questioned the
schematic boundaries. He felt the proposal would create a "Casbah"
appearance and would present an increased fire hazard. He questioned
the adequacy of the water supply to provide adequate fire protection.
He asked that if the amended plan is approved, could lot 17 be eliminated
as a building lot since any structure on this quarter -acre triangle
would be so close to his home it would look "ridiculous."
Mr. Hermanson responded to some of Mr. Fisco's comments and stated that
lot 17 was not on the current proposal before the Commission. He also
stated that at one point he had spoken with Mr. Fisco and asked him
if he would be interested in purchasing lot 17 and supporting the
developer's application in exchange for no building taking place on
/Z&
January 12, 1988 Page 10
that lot. Mr. Hermanson stated that though Mr. Fisco had verbally agreed
to such an agreement, he later decreased his offer for the lot and the
developer said "no we'll keep the land and we'll keep the proposal as it
is without the house on it." He felt some of Mr. Fisco's statements
were inaccurate.
Mr. Fisco responded that he had "not given any approval on anything."
Mr. Bowerman closed the discussion.
Mr. Michel moved that the Willow Lake Master Plan Amendment be deferred
to February 9. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it was highly desirable that a satisfactory
solution to the issues brought up at this meeting be reached before
February 9.
Mr. Horne stated staff would endeavor to resolve these issues.
University Village Revised Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 230
dwelling units in five mid -rise condominium buildings on a 33-acre site.
The ultimate proposal for this site will be for 236 units, the 230 con-
dominium units and 30 townhomes which are to be proposed with a future
phase of development. The site will be served by 322 parking spaces. The
proposed marketing center (University Village Marketing Center) site plan
is currently under review by County staff: The site is located on 01d
Ivy Road (Route 601) adjacent to and north of Huntington_ Village. Tax
Map 60, Parcel 53. Zoned R-10, with proffer. Jack Jouett Magisterial
District.
The applicant was represented by Mr. S.W. Heischman who requested
deferral of the item.
Mr. Stark moved that the University Village Revised Preliminary* Site Plan
be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
Taco Bell Preliminary Site Plan/Riverbend Limited Partnership Final Plat -
Proposal to locate a 2,592 square foot fast food restaurant with a drive-in
window on a newly created 0.77 acre parcel. This proposal will be served
by thirty-two parking spaces, and proposes access from Riverbend Drive,
the shopping center's ring road, and an existing ingress/egress easement
located south of the property. The property is located on the west side
of Riverbend Drive approximately .5 miles from its intersection with State
Route 250, near South Pantops Drive. Tax Map 78, Parcel Development
Shopping Center. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report.
It was determined that the off -site easement which the applicant had
acquired would eventually be used by both property owners.
Mr. Pullen stated this plan is the same as was the conceptual plan which
was presented to the Commission and Board.
/? h
January 12, 1988
Page 11
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Green who offered no additional
comment at this point.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about a possible conflict arising over the
,joint easemnt with the adjacent property. It was determined Ms. Diehl
was mistaken about the traffic pattern for .the drive-in window traffic.
She was concerned about automobiles having to cross traffic. She
could not recall another situation where an access easement was shared
with a drive-in window. (Both Mr. Horne and the applicant pointed
out several such situations which currently exist, though none of the
ones mentioned compared favorably with this particular situation.)
Mr. Green pointed out that the object of the joint access was to limit
access to Riverbend Drive.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he did not see any problems with the joint easement
provided sight distance was adequate.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Engineering Department had had any comments about
the traffic flow. Mr. Creswell, representing the Engineer Department,
stated he felt this proposal was "the best situation that met everyone's
concerns." He stated he understood Ms. Diehl's concerns but he felt
this could be controlled on site when the site plan for the additional
property is presented.
Mr. Bowerman stated he understood Ms. Diehl's concerns, but he did not
share those concerns. He felt there were trade-offs and that basically
this was a good site plan.
Mr. Stark agreed.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Taco Bell Preliminary Site Plan/Riverbend
Limited Partnership Final Plat be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. A final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and cal-
culations;
b. The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
c. Approval of an erosion control plan;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
e. Fire Official approval;
f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Official approval.
/.? Y
January 12, 1988 Page 12
3. The final site plan and final plat may be administratively approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Panorama.Agricultural/Fores.tal District - 842.25 acres located at the end of
State Route 661 near Earlysville.. Tax Map 45, Parcel 1, and Tax Map 31,
Parcel 23A. Planning Commission receives application. No action necessary.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report which included a schedule for the
review of the proposal.
The Commission received the application. No action was required.
Consideration of Consent A ends - Mr. Keeler presented a memorandum for
the Commission's consideration. Staff was proposing a "one-year trial
period for a consent agenda under which staff would request administrative
approval on a.case-by-case basis for development proposals which may
not require (additional) Planning Commission consideration." The
memorandum listed several cases which might fall under such a consent
agenda.
It was decided the Commission would discuss the proposal further at the
January 19, 1988 meeting.
Jefferson Square Site Plan — Request for administrative Approval - Mr. Keeler
explained that the plan was almost identical to one reviewed as part of the
re -zoning. He stated that the plan was submitted September 9 but Highway
Department issues had caused delays, He explained that all issues related
to roads had been resolved at a meeting held January 11, 1988. He stated
that staff would not request administrative approval if.they were not
confident that the plan "that's on the wall", together with "yesterday's"
discussion will result in a development that is consistent, in all fashions,
with the Ordinance and withthe zoning agreements that were placed by the
Commission and the Board of Supervisors on the zoning for the property.
Mr. Xichel moved that staff be granted administrative approval for the
Jefferson Square Site Plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
,ir. Bowerman reminded the Commission of a 3:00 meeting with the Board
of Supervisors to be held on January 13, during which the Comprehensive
Plan, would be discussed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
DS