Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 11 90 PC MinutesDECEMBER 11, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 11, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman;*Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of November 27, 1990 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Crossroads Village Center Final Site Plan - Proposal to locate 33,468 square feet of building area on 3.95 acres. This plan proposes access to Route 29 and Route 692. This site will be served by 198 parking spaces and a package sewage treatment plant. The property is located at the intersection of Route 29 South and Route 692. Tax Map :�-�C� Parcels 1, 1-A, and 5, zoned C-1, Commercial. Wh! a -Hall So".'o Magisterial District and designated growth area (North Garden Village). Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-90-83 Juanita L. Wilson - Request in accordance with Section 13.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a private dance school in the existing Maple Grove Christian Church. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 29C and 29 is located on the south side of Rt. 649 at its intersection with Rt. 785. Zoned R-1, Residential, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located within a designated growth area. Deferred from the November 13, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Johnson's question about the status of the church, Ms. Lipinski explained that the church will be relocating to a new building soon and the dance school will then occupy the existing church building. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there should be a condition related to the possible need for a sight distance easement. Mr. Keeler explained that condition No. 1 would cover that concern. /.3% i) December 11, 1990 Page 2 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Wilson addressed the Commission. She described her background and the reasons she felt this service would benefit the community. The following persons spoke in favor of the petition: Mr. Sid French; Mr. Robert Foster (representing the church); Mr. Frank Kessler (representing Forest Lakes); and Ms. Lynn Doiker. (Approximately 25 additional persons indicated their support for the request by standing.) Mr. Kessler, as owner of Forest Lakes, indicated that his maintenance department would cooperate with the planning staff and the applicant. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-83 for Juanita L. Wilson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions and including approval of the requested waiver: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of relocation of access to obtain adequate sight distance and issuance of a commercial entrance permit. There shall only be one access; 2. Not more than a maximum of thirty-five (35) students shall be instructed at any one time. There shall be no more than six (6) class sessions held each day; 3. No construction, including grading or clearing, of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any adjacent residential area; 4. Fire official approval of occupancy loading of building; 5. Health Department approval of septic system adequacy. Condition No. 2 notwithstanding, the total number of students shall not exceed septic field capabilities as determined by the Health Department.. 6. Administrative approval of site plan for addition to the school not to exceed 50% of existing building floor area. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson complimented staff on the organization and completeness of the report. He also commended the neighborhood for its cooperation. /3;Z December 11, 1990 Page 3 SP-90-98 Charlottesville Cellular Partnership - The applicant petitions for a special use permit to construct a tower and equipment building for cellular telephone transmission and reception on part of a 30.519 acre parcel zoned RA [10.2.2(6)]. The property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 12, is on the southeast side of Route 600 approximately 2 miles southeast of Route 641 (near Route 29) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is not in a designated growth area (Rural Area II). Deferred from the December 4, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that staff was changing their original recommendation. He commented on two of staff's original concerns: (1) The tower would be not be located in an existing tower farm. He explained that though this was still the case, the applicant had attempted to locate on existing towers and had also studied the possibility of constructing a tower on Piney Mt. which had been found to be impossible. (2) The tower would not users. He explained that the and would provide attachments whip antennae. be designed for multiple applicant had revised the plan for five micro -dishes and ten He explained: "The policy issue which remains is whether or not the Planning Commission and Board choose to approve towers which are isolated from other locations." Staff noted amended conditions of approval which included the original 6 conditions and two additional ones: No. 7: "Staff approval of additional future antennae installation." No. 8: "Tower shall be designed to accommodate a minimum of five microwave dishes and ten whip antennae." It was determined a commercial entrance was being required because the existing entrance already serves three lots. It was determined 3 of the microwave and 5 of the whip antennae would be for the applicant's use. It was determined all the dishes would be located on the tower (not on the ground). The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Carter. (Also present were Mr. Scott Basham, engineer, and Mr. Herring, owner of the property.) He explained that the site for the tower had been decided upon by the applicant and the landowner and was the farthest away from two residences. (Note: These two residences are rental units and are also owned by Mr. Herring ) He explained that Agg December 11, 1990 Page 4 a tower in this location would "allow uninterrupted reception and transmission over the entire area" when combined with the applicant's existing towers . He explained that the applicant had attempted to buy an existing, unused tower on Piney Mt., owned by AT&T, but were unsuccessful. He explained various other problems which the applicant had encountered in trying to find alternative sites. He felt the staff report was a fair assessment of the situation and stated the applicant had no objections to the suggested conditions of approval. In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to what characteristics of the site made it "unique" for a tower, Mr. Basham responded that the site would provide coverage to the northern part of the County which is not currently served by the applicant's Carter's Mt. tower. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Steven Blain, representing the Rivanna Estates partnership, adjacent property owners, addressed the Commission and objected to the proposal. His reasons for objection included: (1) Devaluation of property; (2) visual intrusion on landscape; and (3) Location on an entrance corridor. He asked if car phones were an essential service to the County which outweighed these considerations. He noted also that approval of this application would result in the Rappahannock Power line easement being moved even further onto the Rivanna Estates farm. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the siting of the tower, i.e. it is proposed as far as possible from the residences owned by the owner of the property, but at close as possible to adjacent properties. Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the request for the following reasons: (1) "The site, being in the middle of an open pasture, is not unique for this type of installation; (2) The Comprehensive Plan refers to essential services --I question whether this can fall in that category; and (3) The need for any increased signal strength in this area has not been documented other than a comment that it would improve their competitive position...." Mr. Johnson asked why a stronger signal from the Carter's Mt. tower could not serve this area. He felt this was counter -to the Comprehensive Plan's goal of locating towers in tower farms. December 11, 1990 Page 5 In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Basham explained that the applicant's system was "virtually identical" to that of CENTEL. Regarding the tower's location on an entrance corridor, Mr. Keeler explained that the site was outside the entrance corridor district. He added that this was a needle -type tower and was one of the "least obtrusive" designs. Regarding lighting, Mr. Basham explained that if lighting is required, it will most likely be a "top -mounted red beacon which is constantly lit." Mr. Johnson moved that SP-90-98 for Charlottesville Cellular Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial on the grounds that it is not compatible with the intent or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and no acceptable reasons for going against the Comprehensive Plan were documented. Ms. Andersen stated that she would not support the denial because she felt the applicant had made a good faith effort to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, but had been unable to do so. It was determined the proposed site is 1,200 feet from the nearest residence. However, Mr. Blain pointed out that it is the adjacent owner's plan to build on the farm. He stated there was no plan to subdivide the farm. The previously stated motion for denial was seconded by Ms. Huckle. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked if there was another site in the County where another tower farm might be located. Mr. Keeler explained there are currently three tower farms in the County: Carter Mt., Herd Mt. and Bear Den Mt. He described the characteristics of each site. He explained that the present applicant is "talking about facilities to blanket an entire area which is a different purpose than what you can achieve in these three locations." Mr. Keeler gave a brief history of previous tower applications. Mr. Johnson asked the applicant about the possibility of increasing power from the Carter's Mt. tower. Mr. Basham explained that is a determination of the FCC. Mr. Johnson ISM December 11, 1990 Page 6 asked if it was option. Mr. Basham responded that the FCC has limited the power because the signal is not allowed to "bleedover" out of the boundaries of Albemarle, Greene and Fluvanna counties. He explained that there needed to be overlap between adjacent sites. He also stated that he was not aware of any plans for the FCC to increase power. Mr. Johnson interpreted that "we are considering a convenience item here rather than a requirement as far as services rendered." Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant could apply for more power. Mr. Basham responded: "Typically, no." He indicated that an increase in power would cause a "spillover" into surrounding counties which is not allowed. It was noted that the proposed tower would be 300 feet tall and Mr. Basham estimated the tower by Fashion Square Mall to be approximately 200 feet. The tallest tower in the County was believed to be 350 feet (Crozet). Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the applicant had agreed to design the tower to accommodate other users. However, he pointed out that the applicant was not actually obligated to make that additional capacity available to other users. He questioned how it could be ensured that multiple users would actually be able to use the site. Mr. Grimm felt this was a good point given the question of how desirable this site may or may not be to other users. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that approval of this request might also mean a request for another tower on this site. The owner of the property indicated he had no intention of allowing any other towers. The owner of the property also stated his sons had plans to build on the property in the future. The owner also pointed out that the tower would be surrounded by woods on three sides. Ms. Huckle felt this type of structure would be better suited for an urban area rather than the middle of the countryside. It was determined the owner of the property could not be forced to allow other towers on the property. Based on this information, Ms. Andersen stated she had changed her original position and would support the motion for denial. (Note: Ms. Andersen voted against the motion.) Mr. Johnson again stated he could see no reason, barring interference from other forces and solid physical barriers, why this area could not be covered through an increase in power from the Carter's Mt. tower. December 11, 1990 Page 7 Mr. Basham addressed this point and stated that though an increase in power would increase coverage "in one direction," it had to be considered that Celluar is a dual direction system where a car is transmitting back to this tower and cellular phones are limited in the range they will cover. Thus, even if power were increased as much as allowable, a mobile phone still might not be able to reach back to the tower. Mr. Johnson agreed this was a valid point. Mr. Jenkins asked if it might be possible to decrease the height of the tower. Mr. Basham responded that the applicant's research had found that 300 feet was the minimum for this site. He was uncertain how a lower tower would actually function, but he stated it would be detrimental to competitiveness with CENTEL. He could not say definitively that it would not work without further researching the question. Ms. Andersen asked if the owner of the property could prevent the owner of the tower (the applicant) from accommodating other users. Mr. Bowling responded that would be determined by the terms of the lease arrangment between the owner of the property and the owner of the tower. Mr. Carter added: "We've rented the site and the tower, so what we put on the tower is up to us." Mr. Carter also added that though the applicant has agreed to spend extra money so that future users may be accommodated on the tower, there are currently no County guidelines as to the tower owner's rights, e.g. (1) Does the owner of the tower have to accommodate any user who requests space on the tower? (2) Who sets the rent? He stated the applicant was willing to discuss these issues and willing to be bound by reasonable guidelines for the protection of the County. Mr. Bowling responded: "The problem you will have once you get beyond market force as the reasonable guideline, is that at some point you are going to be taking that man's time for the public good, which you may or may not be able to do under the laws of imminent domain, but if you are taking that time, then you, in turn, are required to compensate the private individual for the use of his private property." Ms. Huckle noted that it did not seem reasonable to require that a tower share facilities with a competitor. Mr. Basham agreed and pointed out that had been exactly the case when the applicant had begun looking for a location. Mr. Carter stated that the applicant appreciates the County's position regarding towers, but the applicant has done everything possible in this instance. /S7 December 11, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was having some difficulty with the application because though he did not want to support the motion for denial, he did not think he could support the application "because what (he) perceived to be the goal of the County is to somehow not have sporadic towers sprouting up --to be able to minimize the aesthetic impact." He stated he was not sure the County, nor the applicant, had the "mechanism for doing that here." He pointed out that the applicant had tried to locate on other towers, but other tower owners had been unwilling to accommodate him. He stated there is no mechanism for forcing that, nor is there any mechanism for forcing this applicant to allow another user onto this tower. He felt this application did not accomplish the goal of trying to cluster towers, but he was uncertain as to how the applicant might accomplish this goal. He noted that staffs original recommendation for denial was based on the idea of clustering of uses and this application had not overcome that and therefore, he stated he could not support an affirmative action. He felt more study was needed on how to accomplish this goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wilkerson stated the demands for towers was going to increase and it would be in the best interests of the County to try to locate areas for future tower farms. Mr. Wilkerson stated he would not support the motion for denial. He stated he would like to see if a shorter tower might be possible. Mr. Carter asked for some indication from other members of the Commission as to whether or not the height of the tower was a primary concern. Mr. Rittenhouse stated the height of the tower was not a major issue to him. He also stated he was not particularly concerned about whether the tower was visible from Rt. 29. He noted this was outside the Entrance Corridor district. Mr. Johnson stated that if the motion for denial should pass it be with the understanding that the Commission feels this is an issue which should be addressed by the County. He suggested the possibility of "some type of municipal buy-out of either land or a tower." Mr. Grimm interpreted the staff report as saying that if the Commission should find favorably on the request, it would be based on the assumption that this is the nucleus for a new tower farm. He questioned if this was the correct assumption. Ms. Huckle pointed out that the owner had indicated he would not allow any further towers= December 11, 1990 Page 9 The motion for denial passed (5:2) with Commissioners Andersen and Wilkerson casting the dissenting votes. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that his vote was based "not so much on the merits of the application itself, but on the considerations of the overriding policy of the broad subject." Mr. Jenkins agreed that he voted for denial reluctantly. He felt more policy and guidelines were needed. This was the consensus of the Commission. SP-90-104 The Wrenson Corporation - The applicant petitions for an amendment to SP-90-47 to allow one additional parcel and its accompaning development right to be utilized in the Rural Planned Development approved August 1, 1990 [10.2.2(28) and 10.5.2]. The additional parcel, described as Tax Map 72, parcel 18, is 2.831 acres zoned RA in the southeast quadrant of I-64 and Route 635 and is in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This is not a designated growth area (Rural Area III). AND SUB-90-198 - Howell Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to subdivide 165.53 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas into 30 lots with an average lot size of 5.052 acres. Lots will be served by public roads. Special Use Permit 90-47 has been issued and SP-90-104 is being reviewed concurrent with this plat. Property, described as Tax Map 72, parcels 17, 18, 21, and 45 is located on the east side of Route 635 south of and adjacent of Interstate 64 in'the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not within the designated growth area. (Rural Area III) Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of both the special permit and the preliminary plat, subject to conditions. i3q December 11, 1990 Page 10 Mr. Fritz explained that the request was to add a parcel (TM 72, Parcel 18, 2 acres), in total, to what was shown as Lot 1 on the original special use permit request, i.e. the originally approved PRD. He stated: "By adding that parcel to Lot 1, its existence is basically eliminated. The development right which is inherent with that parcel would then be relocated to parcel 30 to allow all four of the existing dwellings on parcel 30 to remain." He added that the subdivision was consistent with the special use permit and the entrance has been realigned to allow better site distance on Rt. 635 and the road location was realigned slightly to avoid a drainage swale which was of concern during the review of the previous special use permit. He explained that the general road alignment and lot layout were "virtually identical" to the original special use permit. Mr. Fritz'noted that staff was not requesting administrative approval of the final site plan because Health Department approval had not yet been received. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve von Stork. He offered little comment except to point out that.the request would not create any additional lots or dwellings in the County. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Tom Wyant addressed the Commission. He asked if approval of this request was inviting future development of the residue. Mr. Fritz explained that staff had identified only the acreage involved in the subdivision. He stated: "We didn't want to say it was a subdivision of 300+ acres to give any indication that the preservation tract was under development." He added that the preservation tract is part of the proposal and is governed by SP-90-47 and is subject to those easements. Mr. Wyant also questioned how Lot 30 could contain 4 dwellings because he understood that only one dwelling per parcel was allowed. He also noted that the approval of the original special use permit had included a condition requiring screening from his property. He indicated that if that condition was indeed included, then he would withdraw his opposition "on that count." Mr. Fritz addressed Mr. Wyant's concerns. He explained that the 4 dwellings on Lot 30 are existing dwellings. He also explained that the condition referred to by Mr. Wyant had been approved at the Board level and the buffer is shown on the plan. December 11, 1990 Page 11 It was determined three of the residences on Lot 30 were rental units. It was also determined Lot 30 was approximately 28 acres. Mr. Fritz explained: "It has been allocated development potential to account for these dwellings. That was the reason that under the original proposal one of these dwellings would have had to have been removed. There simply wasn't sufficient development potential. By adding this parcel to the overall planned residential development, it being absorbed by previously approved Lot 1, the development potential of that parcel is freed up and can allow that other dwelling." Mr. Fritz explained that it is noted that all the lots are limited to only one dwelling, except for Lot 30. Mr. Johnson asked if the dwellings could be replaced if they should be destroyed. Mr. Fritz explained: "There is allocated development potential to allow for the four dwellings on the parcel. The particulars of building them back would have to be handled by the Zoning Administrator." Mr. von Stork noted that the "overall project represents by -right density." He pointed out that the applicant has never requested approval of additional density, beyond current zoning. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support the application. He noted that the staff report states that "inclusion of this parcel allows for the relocation of the entrance road to a point where greater site distance may be obtained as well as allow for realignment of the entrance road to avoid a drainage Swale." He interpreted this would result in improved safety and less intrusion into the natural drainage scheme. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Keeler to comment on Mr. Wyant's concern about rural preservation development tracts possibly being allotted development rights at some future time. Mr. Keeler responded that would be a decision for the Board to make, but it would be a wholesale reversal of the last 10 to 12 years of effort in the rural areas. He also noted that the easement runs to both the Board of Supervisors and to the Public Recreation Facilities Authority and in order for development to occur, both those bodies would have to release their interest in that easement. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-104 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition? ml! December 11, 1990 Page 12 1. Compliance with conditions of SP-90-47. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Jenkins moved that SUB-90-198, Howell Farm Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval of Rural Preservation Easement Documents; b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans; c. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; d. Department.of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; e. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit: f. Health Department approval; g. Approval is subject to approval of SP-90-104. 2. Planning Commission approval of final plat. 3. Compliance with SP-90--104. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-90-20 Stanley P. Wilcox - The applicant is petitioning that 2.05 acres be rezoned from C-1, Commercial to PD-SC, Planned Development -Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 56A(1), Parcels 53, 54, 54A, 55, 56 and 57, is located on the west side of Rt. 240 between Rt. 240 and Carter Street. Property to the north is developed by Crozet Foods. The site is located in -the White Hall Magisterial District and is located within a designated growth area. AND SDP-90-10_1 -__B�ue_Goose Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 18,000 square feet of shopping center on 2.05 acres zoned C-1. Property, described as Tax Map 56A91), Parcels 53, 54, 54A, 55, 56, and 57 is located on the west side of Route 240 between Route 240 and Carter Street. Property to the north is developed with Crozet Foods. The site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and within a designated growth area. (Crozet) See also ZMA-90-20 for Stanley Wilcox. 1'la December 11, 1990 Page 13 Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of the rezoning petition and requesting administrative approval of the site plan. Mr. Tarbell explained the only technical issue identified by staff is a need for relief from Sec. 25.3 which requires a minimum of 3 acres for creation of a planned development shopping center district. He stated the 6 parcels under review total 2.05 acres. The applicant's justification was explained in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the waiver. Mr. Tarbell noted a correction to condition 1(b),i.e. the words "to include verification that post -development runoff will not exceed the pre -development runoff" were to be deleted because the applicant will not be providing stormwater detention since the site will drain to the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Mr. Johnson expressed a lack of familiarity with condition 1(e) related to a pro -rated cost -share for the Lickinghole basin. Mr. Tarbell explained that the developers in the Crozet area will be required to contribute to this project based on a fee schedule that is being established. Mr. Johnson also asked if the Architectural Review Board covered landscaping. (He referred to condition 1(f) which required staff approval of the landscape plan.) Mr. Tarbell stated that staff would approve the landscape plan based on the Ordinance and it was his understanding the ARB could require more landscaping if so desired. Mr. Tarbell confirmed that the applicant would not receive ARB approval along with all the other "tentative" approvals. Mr. Keeler noted that he was under the impression that no grading permits could be issued until the ARB has completed its review. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Sanford Wilcox, representing his father, addressed the Commission. He explained that the applicant will rennovate the existing Blue Goose building and "then build replacement space in an L-shape, set back from the street, that will be constructed prior to the demolition of the remaining buildings along Main Street." He described what is envisioned for the shopping center. He explained that additional parking space will reduce on -street parking and traffic flow will be improved by doubling the size of the travelway between Crozet Foods and the northernmost end of the L-shaped building. The project addresses a concern of /�4z '10 December 11, 1990 Page 14 Crozet citizens "to keep this town center defined and to reduce the pressure for commercial development to spill out into the rural areas." He explained the basis for the waiver request was "to facilitate parking and access onto Rt. 240." He stated two existing accesses onto Rt. 240 will be eliminated. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Mr. Jack Marshall, President of Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. He expressed the group's support for the proposal. He noted that the proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and would improve the appearance of Crozet. Another Crozet citizen (her name was inaudible) asked for a clarification of the entrance location. She expressed concerns about additional traffic. She also stated that the citizens of Crozet did not want another building designed like Crozet Foods. Mr. Alvin Toms expressed his support the proposal. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-20 for Stanley P. Wilcox be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Jenkins seconded -the motion. Discussion: In relation to the concerns expressed about the design of the building, Mr. Johnson pointed out that this structure would come under the review of the Architectural Review Board. Commissioners Huckle and Grimm felt this would be a marked improvement. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Mr. Jenkins moved that SUB-90-101, Blue Goose Center Preliminary Site Plan, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: December 11, 1990 Page 15 a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit; e. Receipt of written agreement to pay a pro -rated cost -sharing amount for the County's proposed Lickinghole Runoff Control Basin in accordance with the fee schedule and policy as determined by the Board of Supervisors; f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements; g. Staff approval of a final landscape plan. 2. The final site plan shall not be signed until a Certification of Appropriateness is issued by the Architectural Review Board. 3. Administrative approval of the final site plan. 4. Administrative approval of future subdivision plats for this site provided that no waivers or variances are required. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-90-102 - Virginia Oil Company Prelimina Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 3,500 square foot gas station with fast food service store on 1.14 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 37B2 and 39B2, is located on the west side of Route 29 approximately 350 feet south of Route 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is within a designated growth area. (Hollymead) Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Regarding the access easement and joint maintenance agreement between parcels 37B(2) and 37A(1), Mr. Tarbell explained that he had received a letter from the adjacent property owner indicating his willingness to cooperate in the easement and the maintenance agreement. Mr. Johnson asked if the facility would have public restrooms. Mr. Tarbell deferred to the applicant. The Chairman invited applicant comment. /446- December 11, 1990 Page 16 The applicant was represented by no additional comment except to would have public restrooms. Mr. Tom Gale. He offered confirm that the facility There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler noted that some of the language of 1(f) might need to be changed later because a private citizen cannot connect to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority --the connection must be made through the Service Authority. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the SDP-90-102, Virginia Oil Company Preliminary Site Plan, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements; f. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority approval of water conneciton; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer line easement to Tax Map 32, Parcel 37B(1); h. Staff approval of a final landscape plan; i. Staff approval of access easement and joint maintenance agreement between Parcels 37B(2) and 37A(1) on Tax Map 32. 2. The final site plan shall not be signed until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the Architectural Review Board. 3. Access shall be provided to Phase II and designed to be physically compatible with Phase I. 4. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. /-4f6 .ti December 11, 1990 Page 17 QQnpec&jon to Berkmar Drive Extended Between Rio Hills Shg-PRing Center and Colonial Pontiac - Mr. Keeler explained that staff has been unable to identify any public purpose to be served by such a connection and informed the Commission that staff was going to allow this road to be constructed to a standard adequate to serve the shopping center and the auto dealership (unless the Commission objected to this action). He also clarified that the balance of the road which would actually intersect with Berkmar, would not be constructed, i.e. it would end in a cul-de-sac. The Commission briefly discussed traffic patterns and the implications of this suggestion. Mr. Johnson expressed apprehension about this deletion given the location of the new elementary school. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the County could not hold a bond on the road forever. The Commission expressed no objection to staff action described by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Bowling commented on the Commission's ability to preserve previously approved zoning in the subdivision of lots where an existing lot may have additional development rights. He stated: "That's a part of the political process. You're part of that process and you can exercise whatever influence you have individually as a body to keep your current rules or change your rules to preserve or prevent, or whatever, existing development. But, if the current Zoning Ordinance says that you can do it, you can do it unless that current Zoning Ordinance is changed." He explained that it might be possible to impose restrictive covenants which require the approval of all lot owners if there is to be a change in the nature of the subdivision. However, he explained it would be dependent upon the private developer to impose those restrictive covenants. He confirmed that at the time of subdivision approval a restriction can be included stating "No further lots will be authorized," but that cannot be done "after the fact." Mr. Rittenhouse summarized: "if the Ordinance says that (a developer) can do it, we can't arbitrarily say that he can't (unless the applicant agrees)." Mr. Johnson brought up the following issues at the end of the meeting. (1) He suggested that the Commission follow the Board's policy of allowing public comment, "irrespective of subject." !44% December 111 1990 Page 18 (2) He questioned the validity of petitions which are often presented to the Commission. He felt these should not be given consideration unless the accuracy of the names, addresses, and relation to the application can be verified. (3) He complimented staff, particularly Ms. Lipinski, on the quality of recent staff reports. (4) He expressed his strong feeling that service stations should not be approved which do not have public restrooms. He felt the public had a right to expect this service at this type of facility. (5) He requested that a letter be sent to the local office of the Department of Transportation in relation to the dangerous situation on Rt. 22 which had been the site of another fatal accident. In relation to the first item listed above, Mr. Johnson moved that "in accordance with the procedures followed by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission adopt an agenda item to be exercised at the beginning of each meeting to receive limited statements from the public irrespective of subject matter." Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion "to get it on the floor." Discussion: Ms. Huckle noted that the Board was responsible for many more subjects than the Commission. She felt this was unnecessary. She stated the Commission had no authority to deal with many issues. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed. He noted that the Commission only has the power to approve site plans and all other actions were "recommendations" to the Board. He did not see anything to be gained by Mr. Johnson's suggestion. It was noted that the Commission would have no power to address any concerns which might be voiced. The motion failed to pass (1:6) with only Commissioner Johnson voting affirmatively. Mr. Rittenhouse voiced the Commission's sympathy to Mr. Guy Agnor and his family at the recent loss of their daughter. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. vV V. Wayn Cilimberg,. retary DS 1�4