Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 30 77 PC Minutes- //Z - August 30, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 30, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves, Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington; and Mr. Leslie Jones. Absent were Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman, and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of June 13, 1977, were approved by the chairman as submitted. Mr. Carr asked that these minutes and copies of other minutes that contained discussion of the updated Comprehensive Plan be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. State Farm Insurance Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report. He stated that the CO zoned property is located on a 35+ acre site on the south side of Route 250 East on Pantops Mountain. The proposal is the first phase of an office facility with 208,300 square feet of gross floor area and 138,000 square feet of net office area. The first phase provides 938 parking spaces 8 of which are designed for handicapped people. The building will have a drive-in claims facility on its east side. The facility will be served by water from a central water supply located on the north side of Route 250 East, and by four septic drainfields which have already been approved by the Health Department. A storm drainage system will control runoff from the site. Access will be from Route 250 East at two points. One access point will be by way of a proposed State Farm Blvd.,a four lane divided roadway from Route 250 East to the entrance to the State Farm property. State Farm Blvd. will be dedicated to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The other access point will be by way of a privately maintained 2-lane roadway called South Pantops Drive. It will lead from State Farm Blvd. to the existing entrance across from Route 20 North. The staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions. Mrs. Graves questioned why South Pantops Drive would not be accepted for dedication at this time. Mr. Montenegro replied that they prefer to maintain this privately, since the applicant does not want to go -'the expense at this time of building the road to state standards. Mr. Zimmerman, representing State Farm Insurance, made a few brief comments and explained the facility via an artist's conception of the building. There was no public comment. _113_ Mr. Carr asked if State Farm is willing to comply with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Zimmerman stated that they were. Mr. Jones questioned the expected traffic for the claims window. Mr. Zimmerman said that presently they serve 25-30 claims per week, but this would not be a customer window. Mr. Peatross questioned the anticipated use of South Pantops Drive. Mr. Zimmerman said that it would be used by those living on the east side of town, for the most part. Mrs. Graves asked if any other off -site improvements have been considered, specifically possible improvement of Free Bridge. Mr. Montenegro replied that this use would increase traffic on Route 250 East by 1200 vehicles per day. He further noted that they will be traveling against the rush hour flow. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire Marshal approval of gasoline tank specifications; 2. Fire Marshal approval of water supply system and flow specifications; 3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of storm drainage system; 4. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of central water system; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities; 6. Albemarle County Engineering Department and Highway Department approval of road plans for State Farm Blvd.; 7. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of specifications for South Pantops Drive; 8. State Farm Blvd. is to be built to Category V standards as outlined in the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance; 9. A total of 17 handicapped parking spaces ( 12'x 20') shall be provided; 10. Exit to South Pantops Drive must be a minimum 20 feet wide and 2-way; 11. Note that South Pantops Drive is not being accepted for dedication at this time; 12. If the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation determines that due to the increase in traffic at the intersection of South Pantops Drive, Route 20 North, and Route 250 East that a traffic light will be necessary due to this development, it shall be installed at the developer's expense; 13. Sidewalk specifications are to be approved by the Albemarle County Engineering Department; 14. Pavement is to be marked for crosswalks; 15. No parking is to be allowed on crosswalks; 16. This approval does not apply to Phase II; 17. A grading permit is required; 18. All off -site drainage easements are to be platted and approved by the County Engineer for recordation. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Thelma Morris Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 zoned property is located on th south side of Route 674. The proposal is a division of one 2-acre lot leaving residue of 11.72 acres. It is to be served by a proposed 30' access easement across adjacent property. Access across the subject property is not possible due to location of accessory buildings near the property line. The purpose of the division is a dwelling for the daughter of the property owner. The staff stated that it is not certain, in cases such as this, if dedication of 25' across the frontage of the residue should be required. Generally if the residue has been larger than 5 acres, it has not been required in the past. The staff recommended a series of conditions if the plat is approved. Mrs. Scala also read into the record the letter from the Highway Department. Mrs. Graves asked if this division had been along Route 674 what the staff would have required. Mrs. Scala said that a 25' dedication would have been required, even in administrative approval. Mr. Peatross said that if the property were further subdivided there would be another chance to get the dedication, therefore he does not feel it is necessary at this time. Ms. Donna Davis was present for the applicant, but she had no comments. There was a consensus of the Commission to have a general policy in cases such as this not to require the 25 foot dedication. Mr. Jones moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Highway Department approval; 3. Note on plat: "No further division along this easement without Planning Commission approval." Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Ivy Woods Phase 2 Preliminary Plat Reconsideration: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located on the east side of Route 682. She read the history of the property to the Commission, noting that the questions of improvements to Route 682 would be addressed at final plat stage. The proposal is deletion of the requirement of improvements to Route 682. The applicant's reasoning is that if Route 682 is ever improved, the road would be realigned probably to the west of the existing road. Also the cost of improvements is not justified by the amount of development proposed. The staff reported that the County Engineering Department originally estimated that the improvements to Route 682 would cost about $2,500. The applicant has obtained two estimates of $14,500 and $14,981. Engineering has explained the difference in estimates is due to the fact that it is a small job. If the same contractor did the internal road and improvements to Route 682, the cost would be less. Engineering has given a new estimate of $5,500, minimum. The vehicle count on Route 682 from Route 787 to Route 250 West was 49 trips/day as of July, 1976. Trip generation from these lots would be 18 x 7 or 126 trips/day. - //5 The staff recommends that the improvements to Route 682 be made a requirement of final plat approval, as recommended by the Highway Department. Staff feels that a subdivision of two -acre lots in this area warrants the proposed improvements. The applicant has the alternative of five acre lots if he does not wish to proceed. Mr. Peatross questioned if there is any validity to the applicant's reasoning regarding possible future realignment. Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department replied that when the road is improved, it will be along the existing alignment, with a donated right-of-way. Mr. Carr asked for Mr. Coburn's recommendations with this proposed subdivision. Mr. Coburn stated that the road is narrow and gravel, with little or no shoulder. He feels that this is the best time to get the improvements with the least burden to other property owners in the area. Col. Washington questioned how the final road is proposed to be constructed. Mr. Coburn stated that it is an 18 foot gravel road now. He said that with improvements it would be about 12 feet in width from the centerline of the road. Mr. Stevenson stated that the interior road is approximately 1200 feet in length, and does not involve any great amount of earth moving. He said that he questions the legality of the Highway Department requiring improvements to Route 682, since the improvements will increase the dangers along the curve. He said that realignment would be necessary to avoid this danger. If the road is realigned at a future date, the improvements being discussed to Route 682 at this time would be useless and a waste of money. lvd There was no public comment on the request. Mr. Jones stated that dirt roads are not conducive to development. Either the roads should be improved or development should not be permitted. Mr. Carr agreed that if the County does not get approval at the time development begins to occur, the roads will probably never be improved. However, he said that the road will never be improved to a "super -highway". He said that the question comes to what extent the road should be improved. Dr. Moore stated that the road will become more and more inadequate as new development comes in. Mr. Carr questioned the period of time before the Highway Department would improve the road. Mr. Coburn said that it is not addressed in the Highway Department's 6-year plan. Mr. Stevenson stated that he feels the upgrading of the road will make it more unsafe. Mr. Peatross moved to deny the applicant's request, in view of the staff's recommendations and the Virginia Department of Highway's comments. Mr. Jones seconded the motion to deny, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. James Nunnally Preliminary Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the R-2 property is located on the south side of Penn Park Lane. This proposal is a division of 3.0 acres into three parcels of 1.17 acres, 1.0 acres, and 0.86 acres. Lot 2 contains a single-family residence; lot 3 contains a duplex. The duplex is presently served by public sewer and water; the single-family residence is served by a well and septic system. Lot 1 includes a pipestem to Penn Park Lane; lots 2 and 3 will have an easement over the pipestem and existing driveway. The staff noted that Penn Park Lane is proposed to be constructed to state standards across the frontage of Rio Heights Subdivision. There is one parcel between Rio Heights Subdivison and this property containing about 5 acres owned by Crenshaw. Staff is concerned about permitting further subdivision on Penn Park Lane before it is taken into the state stsyem. The staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions. Mr. James Nunnally explained the road conditions and layout to the Planning Commission, noting that houses already exist there. He said that this subdivision therefore generates no more traffic. He stated that the road is a dead end street. He said that he would like to have a septic system and well on lot #2. There was no public comment on the plat. Mr. Peatross said that he has no objection to a well and septic system on lot 2 and does not see the necessity of the condition addressing bringing Penn Park Lane to state standards from Rio Heights property line to the eastern property line of this property. He said that can be later addressed with the Forloines if it is ever developed. Mr. Barksdale also suggested deleting the condition regarding Highway Department approval of the entrance, since they have no jurisdiction in this matter. Mrs. Graves disagreed, noting that they can advise the applicant on what is appropriate. Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that if either utility is waived, the Board of Supervisors will also have to approve the waiver. Mr. Carr said that the Commission would certainly recommend that they do this. Mr. Peatross moved approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 1 and 3 must be served by one utility and preferably both; 2. Waiver granted of requirement of one utility on lot 2; 3. Note on final plat: "No further subdivision of this property along this easement without Planning Commission approval;" 4. Health Department or Service Authority approval; 5. Maintenance agreement for joint easement. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. MR -- ii 7- Magruder Dent , Jr., Preliminary Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the A-1 property is located on the south side of Route 676. The proposal is a division of four *00 2-acre lots served by a proposed 30 foot easement. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to dedicate 25 feet from the centerline of Route 676. The staff noted that there does not seem to be justification for the waiver, therefore, staff does not recommend approval. Staff would not have a problem with the easement serving up to three larger lots. If the Commission approves the plat, Mrs. Scala gave the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Dent asked that the Commission waive either the 25 foot dedication or the 2-acre lot requirement. Mrs. Graves noted that if the dedication is waived, the Highway Department may come in at a later date, condemn part of the property, and there would still be a 1.7 acre lot. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission cannot waive the requirement of the 2-acre lot size. Mr. Barksdale asked if perhaps the applicant could buy 0.3 acre from Mr. Easter. Mrs. Graves stated that she could not support the waiver. Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission defer action for 30 days until the applicant could consider the comments of the Commission. Col. Washington seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0-1, with Mr. Jones abstaining. Steven Tobias Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that the A-1 property is located at the end of Route 610. The proposal is a division of two parcels containing 8.0 and 7.9 acres, leaving a residue of about 91 acres. Parcels will be served by existing 50' easement and proposed 30' easements. Mrs. Scala presented the preliminary plat history, reading the conditions of approval. The applicant has at this time obtained an entrance permit to relocate the entrance on the 50' easement. The staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions. There were no comments from the applicant or the public. Mr. Peatross moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways approval; 2. Health Department approval; 3. Joint maintenance agreement; 4. Dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 610 along frontage; 5. Note on final plat: "No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Jean Granger Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that this B-1 property is located on the west side of Route 742 ( Avon Street Extended ). The proposal is a division of 1.35 acre -parcel into two lots containing 32,897 square feet ( 0.76 acres ) and 25,91.2 square feet ( 0.59 acres ). Property is served by public water only. A waiver of the public sewer requirement is needed since 40,000 square feet is the minimum lot size permitted with only one utility. The site plan for the auto sales lot was approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1977. A variance was obtained on April 12, 1977, to locate the building 15' from the rear property which is zoned A-1. If approved, Allied Foods may locate a warehouse on this parcel. This parcel is physically divided from adjacent Property to the rear by a steep drop-off. Obtaining additional land in the rear would probably not improve the lots relative to area for septic fields. However, staff could/not rrecommend approval of the waiver. The division would be possible when public sewer is available. The Health Department has approved the plat, though the staff has received nothing in writing from them. When questioned when public sewer would be available, Mr. Tucker replied not before 1980 or 1981. The applicant, Mr. Granger, stated that the Health Department has approved the septic tank. If he has to wait for public sewer, he would have a dead piece of property. Mr. Granger stated that he had had to dedicate 10,000 feet of the property. He told the Commission that 16 people would be employed here. Mrs. Graves noted that the applicant will have to come in for a special permit on this property. Mr. Carr said in his opinion a warehouse is a bit questionable on this property. Mrs. Graves stated that she cannot support the waiver of public sewer. Col. Washington pointed out that there is already one facility on the 1.35 acres, and the land can accommodate only so much use. Mr. Mike Boggs stated that at site plan level it had been stated that the remainder of the property would be used. He suggested a condition that when public sewer becomes available, this use would have to use it. Mrs. Graves suggested the possibility of deferring this until the Board of Supervisors has discussed septic fields with the Health Department. Col. Washington moved that the Commission deny the waiver. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Lake Acres Final Plat - Block B, Lots 7-14: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located on the east side of Chris Greene Lake Road off Route 606. The proposal is eight 2-acre dots with individual well and septic systems. She read the hsitory of the plat to the Commission. Joint entrances are shown on the plat. Staff recommended underground electrical and telephone as required on the last eight lots. Health Department approval has already been received. -//9- There were no comments from the applicant or the public. Mr. Peatross moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Entrances subject to Virginia Department of Highways and Tranpsortation approval 2. Electrical and telephone service to be underground. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Northside Baptist Church Site Plan: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the R-2 property is located on the east side of Rio Road. The proposal is a one story building housing an auditorium and classrooms with 53 parking spaces on 3.33 acres. There will later be a sanctuary, office and classroom buildings and additional parking. There is public water and a septic field. The staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions. Dr. Moore asked if this is the site that has been set aside for many years for a church. Mr. Hamilton, representing the church, stated that it is. Dr. Pascall informed the Commission that the addition will hopefully come in five years. Mr. Jones moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading permit; 2. Health Department approval; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; 4. Service Authority approval of water line; 5. Future improvements require Planning Commission approval; 6. Septic field to be sized at this time to include future improvements. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Elizabeth Breeden Final Plat Amendment: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located on the west side of Route 631 ( Old Lynchburg Road ). The proposal is a waiver of the setback requirement on Lot 6 from 200' to 192'. The staff stated that it had no objection since the 200' setback was originally self-imposed. Mr. Payne stated that an amended plat of lot 6 should be put to record. Mrs. Breeden stated that she is also requesting a side yard variance. Mr. Keeler informed her this would have to be handled with a variance through the BZA. Mr. Barksdale moved that the staff be permitted to approve administratively a revised plat of lot 6 showing the requested 192' setback. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. -12&- PUBLIC HEARING: County Parks and Recreation Five Year Plan: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommends that the Planning Commission not endorse the Local Parks and Recreation Master Plan at this time for the following reasons: 1. As outlined previously, problems exist in the Analysis section of the plan. Reconsideration may result in alteration of proposals and priorities; 2. Staff opinion is that this plan should eventually be adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The planning period of the Parks Plan is coterminous with the proposed revision of the Comprehensive Plan; 3., A park facility for Scottsville is currently under consideration. This facility is not proposed in the Parks Plan. Further staff recommendations included the following: 1. The Parks Plan be referred to the various recommended Citizen Task Forces to serve as a guide to the refinement of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan proposals; 2. Increased coordination between the Parks Commission and the Planning Commission to insure a comprehensive outlook towards provision of recreational facilities and to prevent overlap and duplication. Suggestions in this respect are: (a) Representation of the Parks Department on the Site Review Committee; (b) Review and evaluation of Zoning-Subdivison ordinances recreational requirements by the Parks Commission; (c) Parks Commission participation in the Monitoring/Evaluation program as proposed for the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Harry Gamble, Chairman of the Parks Commission, stated that this plan is a result of 1� years of careful research predicated on the assessment of citizen input and citizen need. He said that there had been careful analysis of the statistical data. He pointed out that the plan has three basic dimensions: 1. It projects certain capital improvements; 2. It establishes a series of new parks throughout the County; 3. It develops a countywide recreational program. Dr. Gamble stated that at the Commission's last meeting, it had endorsed a park in Scottsville at the Mink Creek impoundment. He explained the concerns of the staff report, especially how priorities were chosen. He said that he concurs and endorses the recommendations made by the planning staff. Mrs. Mary Alice Plummer of Greenwood stated her support of the expansion of the facilities for the young and old in Greenwood in the existing communtiy center. When informed by Dr. Gamble that this was one of the proposals recently deleted from the plan, she urged that this again be included. Mr. Guy Moffat _, representing the Berkely Homeowners Assoc. , urged the Commission to support a facility at the Whitewood School Property, since this is one of the most densely populated areas in the county. He urged that this be listed as one of the top priorities. Mr. Roy Patterson asked that the Claudius Crozet Park be recognized in the Parks Plan. Mr. Tucker agreed that this should be included, especially since the Proposed Comprehensive Plan had recognized this park. --/2/ - Mr. Ed Tuin, representing the Four Seasons Patio Houses, strongly supported the comments made by Mr. Moffett. Pat Hansen of the Four Seaons Townhouse Association, supported the comments of Mr. Tuin and Mr. Moffett. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier discussed the proposed park for the Scottsville area. He said that it had probably not f, luded in the Parks Plan because of the recent construction of the Mink Creek Dam. He stated that this is on land adjacent to Scottsville, however the park is intended to served the southern portion of the County. The park plan has been approved by Scottsville's Town Council. This park would supply a public swimming area to the southern part of the County. Col. Washington questioned Dr. Gamble about other omissions from the plan besides Greenwood and Scottsville since the plan had been printed. Dr. Gamble replied that the one at Crozet Elementary School had likewise been deleted. Mr. Walter Perkins felt that existing school facilities should be used. In addition, he felt that existing and future private parks in the County should be addressed in the Parks Plan. Col. Washington stated that he feels places like Greenwood, where citizens are trying to help themselves, should have assistance from the county, and recognition in the County Parks and Recreation plan. Mrs. Graves questioned Mr. Dorrier about the extent of the discussion on revenue sharing funds by the Board of Supervisors. She specifically asked if September 14 is the last meeting the Board will discuss this. Mr. Dorrier replied that there is approximately $1 million left, though not all of it will go to the parks. He said that needs will be considered further on September 14, 1977. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the park in Scottsville will require a special use permit which will be reviewed by the Commission and Board in September. Mr. Carr stated that the more individuals involved in the recreation business the better facilities there will be over the entire county. He noted that not all parks and facilities can be supported by the County. Existing facilities need to be considered to see how they can serve more people. Mr. Carr agreed that the Whitewood Road property would seen to be an appropriate place for a park, since that is one of the most densely populated areas in the County. He felt it would be wise for the County to reserve that 23 acres for a future park. He also felt it would be an improvement to county property .if the existing school facilities were carefully reviewed. Dr. Gamble stated that the Whitewood Road property has not been discarded by the School Board as a future school site. He said that the Parks Commission has not been able to obtain rights to that property, though they have certainly tried to do so. He also explained that the Commission has no allocation funds. -122 - Mr. Carr said that he cannot envision a time when the County will be able to entirely fund a parks and recreation program. He said that the County and the private sector must work together. Mrs. Graves suggested amending any action on the plan to include further discussion between the Parks Commission and the School Board on the Whitewood Road site. Col. Washington stated that Greenwood Community Center not only serves Greenwood but also Batesville, Afton, and Crozet. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that it is urgent they urge the Board of Supervisors to use their influence with the School Board to reconsider the Whitewood Road property. Mr. Carr said that in light of this discussion, it might be wise to defer any action on this plan until the next meeting. 1977. Mr. Peatross moved that any action be deferred until the meeting on Sept. 6, Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Carr asked that any points any Commission member might wish to discuss at the next meeting be taken to the staff, in order that they will be able to have the necessary input prior to any Commission action. New Business: Col. Washington asked that the staff review the western turnlane into Western Albemarle High School in regard to its adequacy. He asked the staff to consult with the Highway Department for its recommendations. The Commission agreed that this was desirable. Mr. Carr asked that this matter be put on the next agenda at the first of the meeting. Since there was no further business he meeti g adjourned at 11:30 p.m. o ert W. Tucker, Jr. - S cret IR