HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP198700033 Minutes 1987-07-14 Imiligg::::=1.1rree'llatiiiiira.r_ C.-1 a'L Proposal to locate a
lcL 11
5,280 square foot o :e building served by 30 parki spaces. 0.865
acres (this proposed Lot C-2) . Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development,
designated for commercial use. Property located off the north side of Rt. 743
(Hydraulic Road) on a private road (extension of the existing driveway)
serving the Earlysville Forest Commercial area. Tax Map 31B, Parcel C.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
July 14, 1987 Page 7
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. A main issue of discussion was
sight distance and condition 1(d) : "Virginia Department of ransportation
approval of entrance(s) to include measures to maintain sight distance
per letter of June 11, 1987;" The staff report explained:
"The Virginia Department of Transportation has noted in their review of
this site plan that sight distance to the west from the existing
entrance to Rt. 743 is periodically blocked by vegetation on the slope.
Regrading the slope and removal of vegetation to obtain sight distance
must be complete prior to either signing the final plat (for
Earlysville Forest Commercial Area Final, approved April 7, 1987)
or issuance of this building permit, whichever comes first."
Ms. Patterson added: "I think staff's recommendation is going to
change in terms of sight distance achievement by grading the slope.
After further discussion with the Highway Department I now understand that
they can, and do in fact, have sight distance without the regrading of the
slope. . . . I don't think that we really should require it. The slope is
in the Highway right-of-way and they can meet the minimum sight distance. "
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions with the suggestion that
condition 1(d) be amended to read as follows: "Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of entrances."
Referring to the Highway Department's comment that "sight distance is
periodically blocked," Mr. Bowerman stated he could not recall ever
having seen such a statement before. He asked how much "clearance"
is present when the vegetation is cut. Ms. Patterson could not answer
this question. Mr. Bowerman stated this seemed like a "marginal condition"
and "if the solution is to mow or cut the vegetation every week" as
opposed to trimming the slope, then it would be more satisfactory to
bring the slope down. He stated, "Although you have dismissed it, I
wouldn't want to preclude that" because there is a considerable
volume of high-speed traffic on this section of 743 and this is
a significant issue.
Mr. Horne stated staff would have no objection to leaving that option
in, but they were somewhat concerned with "what's the break point?"
Mr. Bowerman felt it should be the Highway Department's option to
require that the bank be cut down if that was the most practical
way to maintain the sight distance (as opposed to mowing it frequently) .
Mr. Horne stated, "It's absolutely their option to require it (but)
we're sort of in a position of 'Are they recommending this solution or
are they going to issue a permit?' If they require it to be cut back
for the entrance permit, they require that it be cut back for the
entrance permit and we have nothing to say. We just felt we are not
really in a position now to tell you that if they say it's not
required, but it is recommended, then we as a County can say something
in the right-of-way owned by the State of Virginia, that currently
does have the ability to get an entrance permit, that we ought to
make them grade back the slope."
Mr. Michel pointed out that if this issue was going to come up again, it
would be helpful to have a clarification of the Highway Department's position.
Mr. Horne agreed.
July 14, 1987 Page 8
Mr. Payne added that Mr. Horne's point was well taken, i.e. that the
County should not get involved at this point, but rather leave it
as an option between the developer and the Highway Department.
Mr. Horne confirmed that he would seek clarification from the Highway
Department and would keep the Commission informed.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Kurt Wassner, representing the contract purchasers of the property,
addressed the Commission. He stated the owner of the property, Mr.
Craig, has been working with the Highway Department regarding the
sight distance issue and "the attitude of that interchange has been com-
pletely cooperative." He was confident that the matter would be
resolved successfully. He stated his clients had no objections
to the suggested conditions of approval.
There being no public comment , the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined Ms. Patterson's suggested change to condition 1(d)
was acceptable to the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Earlysville Professional Center Preliminary
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have
been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and cal-
culations;
c. County Engineering approval of retaining wall design;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances;
e. Health Department approval of construction and connection to central
sewage system;
f. Fire Officer approval;
g. 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 Officer approval.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Note: Staff was Rranted administrative approval of the final plat.