HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199600013 Review Comments 1996-08-19 To: Jan Sprinkle @ acva(Jan Sprinkle)
From: Amelia McCulley
Subject: Re: ACAC
Date: 8/19/96 Time: 3:54PM
Originated by: Jan Sprinkle @ acva on 8/19/96 1:37PM
Replied by: Amelia McCulley @ acva on 8/19/96 3:54PM
I don't follow about them not having the existing# of spaces. Is it for the existing use itself?
Is Stoneking disturbed because this has come up so late? Is there any way to catch things at submittal?
I won't agree to a plan with all of the parking bonded. We've only bonded the final surface for the
parking, not the parking itself, for example I don't know much about pools, but think they'd have to
remove something crucial to the operation and padlock it. They'd be on notice that there is nothing
promissory in future approvals
What do you think?
Re: deferral. how do we tell the neighbors in time'?
To: Amelia McCulley @ acva (Amelia McCulley)
From: Jan Sprinkle
Subject: Re. ACAC
Date: 8/19/96 Time: 4:49PM
Originated by: Jan Sprinkle @ acva on 8/19/96 1:37PM
Replied by: Amelia McCulley @ acva on 8/19/96 3.54PM
1. No one in the past had calculated the required parking precisely The old parking schedule simply
said:
OFFICE 600SF/200SF/SPACE= 3 SPACES
RECREATION 6050SF/125SF/SPACE=49 SPACES
RECREATION 6000SF/125SF/SPACE=48 SPACES
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING= 100 SPACES
TOTAL EXISTING PARKING 159 SPACES
With the various revisions that have been proposed but not approved in the last 2 years, Mike and I have
used floor plans and measured more precisely and come up with different requirements. His new site plan
reflects the numbers that we have come up with and they are trying to comply. Somehow they actually
have 175 rather than the 159 stated on the most recent plan. I'm not sure if a minor amendment was done
that I haven't found or just what happened.
2. Mike didn't seem disturbed--just wanted to know when the nextim eting would be and if it would hold
up the site plan. I explained that it may hold it up slightly, but the review would continue. I just wouldn't
be able to give final approval until the variance was decided. That's when I told him I'd probably be
recommending denial due to lack of hardship criteria to allow the BZA to approve. It was then that he
got real interested in some other solution. I'm not sure if I would have ever caught this at submittal.
Even when writing the ad I didn't realize it and the applicant went over the numbers with me and agreed,
so she obviously didn't think of it either.
3. The plan that would require the bonding would not be an approved site plan--just a sketch plan that
would accompany the affidavit swearing that they won't open the pool until the parking is constructed
Mike thinks they would be fine with drilling a hole in the bottom of the pool or removing the pump
equipment or anything that we can come up with The pool is fenced and always locked when not in use
4. I always thought that you could handle this without variance, but the method is your choice. Mike
seems quite confident that they are above board in their desire to either destroy the entire pool or at a
minimum half of it. They just haven't settled on the final decision of when which and what will cost more
5. Deferral: We have plenty of time to mail letters notifying the adjacent owners
sprinkle@mail.co.albemarle.va us