HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 25 77 PC Minutes/99
October 25, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
October 25, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members in attendance were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Leslie Jones;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials
present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Carlos Montenegro, Planner;
and Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Also present was Dr. James W. Moore.
In the initial absence of Mr. Carr, Mr. Easter assumed the chairmanship.
Establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Easter called the meeting to order at
7:30 p.m.
Bertha Anderson Final Plat:
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the applicant has requested deferral
of any discussion and action on this plat. He noted that since no date had been
mentioned by the applicant, that the staff would renotify those adjoining property
owners of the meeting date.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission accept the applicant's request for
deferral.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Ivy Farms Phase II - lots 6 and 7:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the matter had been
deferred in order to establish the shape of the lot. It was explained that the purchaser
of lot 6 wished more property in order to build a dog run. The staff recommended approval
subject to written Health Department approval.
Mr. Jones recommended that a note be added to the plat stating that there could
be no subdivision of lot 6 without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the plat be approved subject to those two conditions.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan :
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that this plan had been
approved by the Commission subject to several conditions. Upon that approval, the
site plan was appealed to the Board of Superivosrs, who found in their discussion with
the Highway Department that it is very likely that no light will be at the intersection
of Dominion Drive and 29 North in the foreseeable future. Mr. Roosevelt stated that
with current traffic flow, the Department feels that the light at Shopper's World
controls the turning of vehicles at Dominion to some extent. He further noted that
even if the developer pays for the light, it is unlikely to be located there. Therefore,
the developer feels that this condition should not be placed on the site plan.
Mr. Montenegro said that the remainder of the conditions of approval as placed
on the plan by the Commission have been addressed in the revised site plan before
the Commission.
Mr. Easter briefly reviewed the history of the site plan for the Commission,
and asked if the Commission would be willing to review the plat in view of the one
condition asked to be waived.
Mr. Peatross said that at this time he is willing to limit the discussion to
that one point.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that this traffic light made entry onto Dominion
Drive more tolerable, and if the light is removed, she feels the Commission should address
other possible entrances to the property.
Mr. Easter said that this was his point, to discuss the site plan in terms
of access.
David Wood and David Ashworth advised the Commission that they were available
to answer any questions.
Mr. Montenegro said that the staff has analyzed the site in terms of traffic
circulation. He said that in terms of traffic circulation, the applicant's proposal
seems to be the least obstructive in terms of traffic flow. He stated that the staff
recommends approval of the site plan with the original conditions of approval, with the
removal of condition #8.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that it might want to consider a right
turn lane for those vehicles getting back onto Route 29.
Mr. Montenegro stated that this would be possible, since the applicant controls
the land across the street.
Mr. Wood stated that this is agreeable, though noted some of the trees would have
to be removed.
Dr. Moore said that of the three alternatives posed by the diagrams, he favored
the entrance to the site from 29 into Charlottesville Shopper's World, since all the
traffic would be controlled by a traffic light.
Mr. Tucker explained that the staff supported applicant's proposal because
it follows the previously established policy of limiting the number of curb curts into
Route 29.
Mrs. Graves stated that if the applicant's proposal is followed, Dominion Drive
is committed forever as an access to that property.
Mr. Guy Mofatt, representing Berkeley Homeowners, stated that the residents of
Berkely favor the Route 29 Entrance Only Alternative.
Mrs. Peggy Denby, representing Four Seasons P do and Townhouse Associations,
opposed to the Dominion Drive Entrance and alsoavor nd
was o
PP / tehe Route 29 Entrance Only
Alternative.
Mr. James Cosby, attorney for the Berkeley Homeowners Assocation, and resident
of the neighborhood, stated as long as the light pattern at Shopper's World remains the
same, he does not feel there will be a conflict in the Route 29 entrance/exit. The
same exists with the Route 29 Entrance Only alternative. He said that either of these
alternatives is better than the applicant's proposal. He stated that with the applicant's
proposal, the traffic from Shopper's World will consider the Dominion Drive the path of
least resistence for exiting. He said that 75% of the homeowners from Berkeley
request no entrance/exit onto Dominion Drive at all. He also stated that 400 families
of that area oppose the Dominion Drive exit/entrance. He stated that on behalf of
Berkeley, he supported the 29 Entrance Only alternative. And Mr. Cosby further stated
that the Highway Department has previously stated that they would not oppose this access.
Mr. Dave Wood said that either the applicant's proposal,or a 29 entrance/exits is
all that is acceptable from an economic standpoint for the good of the businesses.
Mr. Easter asked if the Highway Department's ruling about the traffic light at
Dominion Drive is ironclad?
Mr. Tucker said that at the present time he feels that is the case.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that the previous meeting had shown that whoever
financed the cost of the traffic light had nothing to do with its feasibility.
Mrs. David reminded the Commission that the Highway Department has stated that
traffic count at Dominion Drive is not the issue, however the fact that there is another light
so close.
Mr. Gloeckner asked why the Highway Department had supported the applicant's
proposal, which is also the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Montenegro said that both the staff and Highway Department had supported the
applicant's proposal for safety reasons, trying to limit the number of cuts onto Route 29
to have fewer areas of friction.
Dr. Moore stated that he does not see where the economics of the other proposals
is any worse that the applicant's proposal.
Mr. Easter contended that the traffic light at Dominion is most desirable.
Mrs. Graves moved approval of the site plan subject to the original conditions
of approval, plus the Route 29 Entrance Only Concept.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion for approval.
Mr. Easter questioned the legality of approving something that is not the
applicant's proposal.
Mr. Payne responded that this motion essentially moves denial of the applicant's
proposed access.
LK-00gr
Mr. Montenegro asked if that motion includes a third lane on Dominion Drive
exiting onto Route 29.
Mr. David Ashworth of Pizza Inn asked to be recognized. He stated that he
has checked with the Highway Department regarding exit/entrance from Route 29.
He agreed that such could not be denied by them, since it is a separate parcel.
However, he pointed out that the Highway Department said they would not recommend
this to the County. He also advised the Commission that the businesses cannot
economically survive with only an entrance from Route 29.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he cannot support the motion, since it goes against
the recommendations of. the Highway Department and the Planning Staff.
Mr. Barksdale agreed.
Mr. Easter said that he could not support the motion because in the past the
Highway Department has consistently advised the County to limit the number of accesses
onto Route 29.
( Mr. Carr entered the meeting. )
The motion died, with a vote of 4-4, with Messrs. Easter, Barksdale, Gloeckner,
and Peatross dissenting. Mr. Carr abstained, due to his late arrival.
Mr. Gloeckner then moved approval of the applicant's proposal with a 60 foot
long right turn lane on Dominion Drive, and a full frontage right turn lane into
Dominion Drive from Route 29 North, both of which are to be 12 feet in width.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves said that perhaps the turnlane should be continued on into Berkeley
from Route 29.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he is willing to amend his motion to include the total
turning lane into Berkeley -
Dr. Moore said that this motion desecrates the beautiful entrance into Berkeley.
The motion died by a vote of 4-4, with Mrs. Graves, Messrs. Washington, Moore,
and Jones dissenting. Mr. Carr abstained.
Mr. Guy Mofatt said that in his opinion this is not the point at which to begin
limiting entrances/exits off Route 29.
Mr. Tucker said that there have been other businesses which have not been
allowed access from Route 29, such as Expresso on Greenbrier Drive, and the Western
Sizzlin' from Westfield Road.
Mrs. Denby again stated that she and those she represents are opposed to any
commercial encroachment on a residential area.
Mrs. Graves suggested a two minute recess to brief Mr. Carr in order that
he could serve as the tie -breaker.
113:3
Mr. Carr apologized for arriving late at the meeting, however he noted that
I%Welit has been customary in the past for any Commission member arriving late at the meeting
to abstain due to lack of the benefit of the discussion.
Mr. Jim Hill suggested extending the acceleration lane from Shopper's World.
Mr. Jones moved approval of the site plan with an entrance/exit from Route 29,
with the extension of the accel lane all the way from Shopper's World to the entrance
of Pizza Inn.
Mrs. Graves suggested an accel lane on the other side of Dominion.
Mr. Montenegro advised the Commission that this would be unsafe.
Mr. Barksdale seconded Mr. Jones's motion, noting that it was to put it on
the floor.
Discussion:
Dr. Moore said that he could not support this motion.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he could not support this motion, based on the drawings
of traffic circulation done by the staff.
The motion lost by a vote of 2-6, with Messrs. Easter, Barksdale, Peatross,
Gloeckner, Moore, and Mrs. Graves dissenting. Mr. Carr abstained.
moved
Mr. PeatrossAfor a brief recess to brief Mr. Carr of the discussion in order
that the two original motions resulting in tie votes could be considered.
This motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested electing a tie -breaker.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that there is no provision in the Commission's
rules of procedure for this.
Mr. Cosby asked the status of the site plan if it is not acted on one way or
the other within 60 days of submittal.
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant can request a decision in the circuit court.
Mr. Cosby then questioned the validity of the acting chairman's vote.
Mr. Payne explained to Mr. Cosby that the chairman is in all respects a full
member of the Commission.
The question of Mr. Carr settling the matter again arose.
Mr. Carr said that it has been a long standing policy of the Commission that
those entering a meeting after a discussion begins do not vote on that matter. He said
that he does not feel it proper for him to enter the meeting at the end of the discussion
and then cast the deciding vote.
Mr. Barksdale moved that any action of the site plan be deferred one week.
in
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-0, with
Mr. Carr abstaining.
Mr. Barksdale requested that the staff have Mr. Roosevelt present at the
next meeting.
Mr. Carr assumed the chairmanship.
Mr. Tucker requested that the Commission consider those items in which the
public was represented prior to consideration of the Street Light Discussion.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that this item be moved to the end of the meeting.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Jones, carried unanimously.
SP-77-70. Dr. Charles W. Hurt has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend SP-156 ( Hollymead Planned Community ) to include 14.6 acres zoned
PUD for Residential, Commercial, and Open Space. Property is located in the
Hollymead Community on Route 29 North; County Tax 46, Parcels 27, 27A, 27B1, 29
part thereof; and 26B, part thereof. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the applicant is requesting that the
density lost here be moved to Phase II.
Mr. Montenegro said that the density of SP-156 is to remain the same.
Mrs. Graves asked if all utilities are present there.
Mr. Montenegro replied that they are, but that the Service Authority says
that each case will have to be reviewed individually.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, stated that he feels condition
#2 as recommended by the staff is unfair. He proposed to keep the existing facilities
until the new ones are open. He also explained future plans for Phase II and possible
high density development in that area.
Mr. Jones stated that he does not want to commit himself to a certain density
for another phase, but prefers to consider that when another application is before the
Commission.
Mr. Carr explained that Hollymead is approved for a certain density, and what
the applicant is proposing is a shift in its location.
There was no public comment, and Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request subject to the following
conditions:
1. All lots along Hollymead Road are to have joint entrances;
2. The recreation facilities adjacent to the Hollymead Inn shall remain open to the
members of the Hollymead Homeowner's Association until the new facilities are completed and
,2,:!515
dedicated to the Hollymead Homeowner's Association;
3. This approval is for a total of 650 dwelling units in Phase I.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
Nettie Roberts Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report and the recommended conditions of
approval.
Mr. Danny Graff, representing the applicant, stated that Mrs. Roberts lives on
Parcel A and there is already an entrance onto Route 776 there. Furthermore, he said
that parcel E is unbuildable at the rear with a 75 foot setback.
There was a discussion regarding the 75 foot setback on parcelA and it was
determined that the Zoning Ordinance requires only a 30 foot setback along a side
street with a corner lot.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Parcels B, C, D, and E must enter off the proposed easement;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance location and
specifications;
3. Preliminary Health Department approval;
4. The applicant must obtain a runoff control permit;
5. The private drive shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the County
Engineering Department;
6. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of the access road must include all property
owners adjacent to or using the access road and shall be approved by the County
Attorney's Office and recorded prior to final approval;
7. Add note stating: "There shall be no further use or access to the 30' wide easement
without Planning Commission approval."
8. Parcels A and E should have a 30' setback from the proposed easement;
9. Remove the 44 foot building setback line on Parcel A.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mr. Peatross suggesting amending the note on the plat to say that access will be
along the right-of-way for Parcel A.
Col. Washington stated that he feels that is premature and may never happen since
the house already exists there. He moved that the note regarding this be removed and
the motion be amended to add the following loth condition:
Remove note stating 75' building setback for parcel A.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to remove the note, which carried by a vote
of 7-2, with Dr. Moore and Mr. Jones dissenting.
The vote on the original motion to approve the plat subject to the ten conditions
carried unanimously.
RM
Amanda Zimmerman Final Plat:
Mr. Peatross disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Montenengro presented the staff report, noting that the property is located
on the north side of Route 784 near Stony Point.
Mr. Easter questioned the irregular shape.
Col. Washington said that it falls back to a creek.
Mrs. Graves suggested adding a note to the plat stating "No further subdivision
without Planning Commission approval."
Mr. Tucker stated that this is not necessary since it is a pipestem lot.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the following condition:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Frontage requirement is waived.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
( Mr. Peatross re-entered the meeting. )
Wildwood Final Plat:
presented
Mr. Montenegro/the staff report, noting that the property is located at the
end of Cottonwood Road near Meadow Creek.
Mr. Mike Boggs explained the plan to the Commission, noting that the bearings will
be put on the bike trail.
Mr. William Meyers said that he is a resident of the City living on Cottonwood Road.
He objected to the use of Cottonwood Road as the sole access to this property, and sugg-
ested that there could be two accesses according to Mr. Huja, Director of Community
Development for the city. He questioned if Cottonwood Road is the proper access.
Mr. Carr advised him that there was a great deal of public discussion on the
access to this property during a series of three public hearings. He stated that the
County Planning Staff had contacted the City Planning Staff on at least three different
ocassions for input. All the various views were pursued, and the County made the
decision during the rezoning that this is the best access. However, he pointed out
that this plat will go before the city for review.
Mr. Meyers said that he realized that this is the case.
Mr. Tucker advised Mr. Meyers and the Commission'that the approval of the RPN
is what this plat is based on.
9
2,-P7
Mr. Claude Cotten, the applicant, stated that the city in its meetings with
him and the county staff had recommended one entrance, and had noted that Cottonwood
Road was the better of the two under consideration.
Mr. Easter said that in view of all the previous public hearings he moved
approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of ZMA-77-15 must be met prior to final approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineering Department
approval of Cottonwood Road and Wildwood Court;
3. Water and sewer lines and easements shall be dedicated to the Albemarle County
Service Authority on this plat;
4. Lot 22 must have Engineering Department approval of the site work prior to issuance of
a building permit;
5. Wildwood Court and Cottonwood Road shall have street lights similar to those on the
existing Cottonwood Road;
6. Plat should have signature panels, the owner's notarized signature of approval, and
the bearings of all property lines are to be noted;
7. County Engineering Department approval of drainage facilities;
8. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
9. A tot lot shall be provided in the common area as noted on the preliminary site
plan for ZMA-77-15 equipped to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff;
10. Charlottesville Planning Commission approval of this subdivision;
11. All utilities are to be underground.
Mr. H. Davis, a resident of the city said that he feels the approval is preliminary
until the Planning Commission views the site.
Mr. Carr stated that he and other members of the Commission have viewed the site
in consideration of the accesses.
There was a brief discussion about the possible dedication of the common area
to citizens of that area for recreational facilities. The gentleman questioning the
possibility was informed that this is private property, and can be used in whatever
fashion the residents of the RPN wish.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously.
Crutchfield Corporation Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the property is located
on the east side of Route 606. The proposal is to develop the site with a 40' wide
entrance, the curb of which would have a 35' radius, instead of a 30' wide entrance with
a right turn lane.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Highway Department altered its decision on the basis
that traffic there does not necessitate the previous requirement.
Mr. Crutchfield advised the Commission that the original requirement would cost
between $10,000 and $15,000.
IR
f
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the reason for the requirement in the first place.
Mr. Tucker replied that the staff had felt it to be a commercial entrance, but
at that time the Highway Department had not reviewed the traffic there. Once this
was done, they did not feel the commercial entrance necessary.
Mr. Easter asked who would police this matter. Mr. Tucker replied it would be
the Highway Department who would have to determine when the use becomes more intensified.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Grading permit;
4. If the use of this facility is intensified, a turnlane will be required by the
Virginia Department of Highways and transportation.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
James Gercke Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report and located the property on the west
side of Route 656 just north of Georgetown Veterinary Clinic.
Mr. Sandy Lambert, representing the applicant stated that he has no objections
to the eight conditions in the staff report. `"��
Mrs. Graves questioned the number of entrances. Mr. Lambert replied that there
will be only one.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
2. Director of Inspections approval of location of fire hydrant;
3. Staff approval of landscape plan, noting that items which should die shall be
replaced;
4. Recreational facilities are to include a basketball backboard and basket at the end
of Phase I parking lot, and a tot lot, items of which are to be approved by the
staff;
5. The applicant must obtain a runoff control permit prior to site work;
6. Grading permit is required;
7. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities;
8. The land in Phase II shall not be disturbed until actual construction begins.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
National Bank and Trust Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, locating the property on the
east side of Rotue 29 North near Rio Road.
�1 �
He stated that the Commission should consider access to the adjoining B-1
properites. He said that the staff is concerned about the access to these adjoining
properties, and favor them only if they are safe. He stated further that the staff
does not favor possible short cut routes.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that planning access to the larger tract would be premature,
since it is uncertain how this property will develop.
Mr. Dale Hamilton, representing the bank, stated that there has been work done
on a possible connection to the larger tract. He noted the bank's willingness to work
with what is best for everyone.
The vice president of the bank stated that the bank cannot build the addition
with the 50 foot easement.
Mr. Tucker stated that the policy in the past has been to require the easements
to the adjoining properties that are zoned B-1, however it is not yet certain what will
be safe to the larger tract.
Mr. Payne stated that the easements are only to have an entrance to the adjoining
parcels, without going out onto the arterial. The intent is not to put a roadway in front
of the bank. He also stated that he feels to staff could be delegated the authority,
with the owner's permission, to place the easements at the proper place.
Mr. Easter and Mr. Gloeckner felt that the easement into the service station
is all that is necessary at this time.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities
at both Rio Road and 29 North;
2. Note that all parking spaces are 20 x 10 feet in size;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
4. County Engineering Department approval of drainage facilities;
5. The Route 29 North entrance shall be improved to include a 200 foot long deceleration
lane 12 feet wide with a 200 foot long taper, and curb and gutter as recommended by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
6. If any connection is made to the Montague/Miller property, an amendment to this
plan shall be required;
7. The easement for a 20' wide travelway to the north of the property shall be reviewed
by the County Attorney's Office, platted, and recorded.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Bentivar Section II:
Mr. Montenegro stated that the plat has expired and the staff is recommending
the same conditions of approval in order that the plat can be recorded, plus the
conditions of showing a 75 foot building setback, and a note on the plat stating
No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval."
Mr. Don Swafford stated that the way the plat is drawn does not appearefrom
the recent survey of the propertyAaT-will actually take place. He noted that the
area is divided into large tracts at the moiflent, however stakes appear to divide the
2129
property into small lots. He also stated that cul-de-sacs appear to be staked
out. He said that he understands the property is under firm contract to Dr.
Hurt, and feels perhaps the Commission should find out his intent for the property 144)
prior to approving the subdivision plat.
Mr. Tucker said that no one can divide the property without Planning Commission
approval. In addition, it would be wise to approve the plat with large tracts as
shown, as opposed to giving the developer the opportunity to subdivide into smaller
lots from the very beginning.
Mr. Easter moved any further discussion and action be deferred on Bentivar Section
II until the Commission can determine what the possible intent to further subdivide
Bentivar into smaller lots is.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
The Commission deferred to another date the discussion on street lights.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
mot, I
Rob6 rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secre ary
9