HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 21 78 PC MinutesM
February 21, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
February 21, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William Washington,
Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Norma A. Diehl; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Huffman; and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom,
ex-Officio. Absent from the meeting was Dr. James Moore. Other officials present
were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner;
and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of November 15, 1977; January 3, 1978; January 31, 1978; and February
14, 1978 were approved as submitted. Minutes of February 7, 1978, were to be
checked with the tape in order to determine if the conditions of approval set forth
in SP-77-82(specifically condition #4) exactly represented the intent of the Commission.
They were approved subject to this condition.
Flora Rush Plat:
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Gloeckner moved that this item be
deferred until March 21, 1978. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 5-2-1, Section 6-2-1, and Section 6-1-21(10) of the County
Zoning Ordinance, changing the word "net" in each section to "gross" as it
relates to density.
Mr. Keeler reported that in January the Commission had recommended to the
Board that the R-3 Residential District be amended to provide a gross density of
20 units per acre by right and up to 34 units per acre by special permit. At that
time, the Commission adopted the resolution of intent before them to amend the
density provisions in the R-2 and R-3 Districts by changing the term "net" to
"gross" in all cases. He read the staff's recommendation for the amendments:
Section 5-2-1 Category 1: Residential developments served by a central sewer system
and a central water supply shall have a maximum gross residential
density of 8.5 units per acre.
Section 6-2-1 Category 1: Residential developments served by a central sewer system
and a central water supply shall have a maximum gross residential density
of twenty (20) units per acre; provided, however, that the Board of
Supervisors may, by special use permit issued pursuant to Section 11-13
of this ordinance, authorize, in particular cases, residential developments
of greater density, not to exceed thirty-four (34) units per acre, upon
a finding by the Board that the same will be compatible with the public
health, safety, and general welfare and with the character and development
of the neighborhood.
19
3Y-9
M
L
Section 6-2-21(10) Residential uses having a maximum gross residential density
of more than twenty (20) but not more than thirty four (34)
dwelling units per acre.
There was no public comment, and Mr_. raster_ closed the public hearing.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the amendments recommended by the staff,
noting that he did not feel this needed much Jiscussion since these amendments
had previously aeen discussed at length by the Commission and this i.,-ordinr needed
to catch up with the other amendments recently adopted.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mrs.
Graves dissenting.
James Sprouse Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stat_ng that the property is located
on the north side of Route 610 near Eastham and is zoned A-1. The proposal is a division
of one 2-acre lot, leaving about 8.1 acres residue. The lot will be conveyed to
Mr. Sprouse's dau,4hter .for a building site. The lot has adequate frontage but
had to be reviewed by the Commission because of the odd shape. The staff stated that
it had no problem with the lot since the shape is due to the ridge line. The staff
recommended approval subject to the following conditions: (Mr. Montenegro noted that
this was a final plat. though the plat was stamped "preliminary" by the surveyor
since he himself had several things he needed to add prior to recordation)
1. Health Department approval;
2. Waiver granted of odd shape lot.
The applicant had no comments and there were no questions From the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
Barracksdale Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report; located the .58.99+ acres zoned
A-1 on the southeast corner of Routes 614 and 766 near White Hall. He read the
conditions of approval on the preliminary plat approved by the Co.l+,mi.ssion in June, 1977.
He stated that the final plat proposes to divide the acreage into fifteen (15) lots ranging
in size from 2.0 to 5.268 acres. Lots 4 and 5 are pipestem lots, which need a waiver
of the minimum frontage requirement. Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 will share a common driveway.
Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 will also share a common driveway. The property
is in the watershed of the South Fork of the Rivanna River and has already received
preliminary Health Department approval for two alternative septic fields. An easement
should be shown across Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the common driveway. The staff recommended
approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
2.
3.
County Engineering Department approval of common driveways with adequate turnaround
areas;
Grading permit;
Add note to plat stating: "No further division without Planning Commission approval."
4. Show an adequate access easement for common driveway of Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6.
5. Lots 3 and 6 are to extend to center of access easement.
Col. Washington seconded the motion.
The Commission noted for the record at Mr. Keeler's request, that the pipestems
are approved if the ordinance is changed in such a fashion to make them lawful,
therefore, deleting condition #4. There was no dissent in this clarification.
Camellia Garden Apartments Site Plan:
Mr. Easter prefaced the presentation by stating that he felt he had no conflict
of interests with this due to the business in which he is part owner that is located
approximately 100 yards down the street.
The Planning Commission felt it proper for him to be part of the discussion and
vote.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the 3.464 acres zoned
R-3 is located on the northwest corner of Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive.
He said that this plan is a proposal to develop forty-nine (49) townhouse dwelling units
on 3.464 acres, at a net residential density of 19.6+ dwelling units per acre. Two
entrances off Whitewood Road are proposed, and the property will be served by public
water and sewer. The staff noted that since this development is proposed to take place
in three phases, the staff prefers that the recreation facilities be provided with
the first phase. The issued of when Greenbrier Drive will be extended has
already been determined as a reslut of the plat mentioned in the approval in 1971.
Greenbrier Drive will have to be constructed when the rest of the Minor tract is
developed. The staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to a series of
conditions. Mr. Montenegro said that the Engineering Department is requesting that
the S-5 pavement be put on the site in conjunction with the third phase of development,
as opposed to after the development. Mr. Montenegro also reviewed for the Commission
the history of the Minor Tract.
Mrs. Graves said that perhaps the staff should check the zoning of Tax Map
61, Parcel 28(A), since she is almost certain that it is R-2.
Mr. Lindstrom questioned if this plat takes into account the new size of
parking spaces recently approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Montenegro replied that it does, and Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the
applicant, explained via the plan the amount of decreased parking space.
Mr. Boggs also explained the curvature of the road to Col. Washington and the
degree to which it is to be upgraded according to the requirements of the Highway
Department.
Mr. Easter questioned if the recreation plan can be developed prior to a certificate
of occupancy for Phase I. Mr. Boggs said that this would not be possible.
Mr. Montenegro said that this will be reviewed by the staff and it is
up for discusssion.
Mrs. Huckle asked how many square feet of play area is provided,and Mr. Boggs
replied that there are 2700 square feet.
35 )
Mrs. Diehl established that the tot lot will be fenced from the volleyball
court.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions-
1. County Engineering Department approval of storm drainage facilities;
2. County Engineering Department and Albemarle County Service Authority approval
of water and sewer facility;
3. Staff approval of landscape plan;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commerical
entrances;
5. Grading permit;
6. The recreation facilites shall be completed prior to issuance of any certificates
of occupancy;
7. S-5 pavement to be put on site in conjunction with third phase of development.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion.
Discussion: Col. Washington said that he would like condition *4 amended to include
Highway Department approval of the curve and its improvements, since Mr. Boggs had
previously stated that this would be approved by the Highway Department, anyway.
Messrs. Gloeckner and Huffman were agreeable to amending the condition to
read as follows:
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrances and curve, with a note to pay particular attention to the curve.
The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
Westgate IV Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the R-3 property is
located behind the existing Westgate Apartments off Route 743, and the office is
off the east side of Route 656. The apartments are proposed to be located on the 4.48
acres and the office is to be located on a larger tract of approximately 17 acres.
After reviewing the history of the last phase of development, he stated that this
proposal is twofold:
1. To develop a portion of the Cathe Mowinkel property as part of the Westgate
apartment complex at a net density of 18.2+ dwelling units per acre;
2. To develop a professional office building on the 17+ acre residue of the
Mowinkel property.
Both sites will be served by public water, however, the apartments will be served by
public sewer, and the office building will have a septic system. He further noted
for the record that the office building will have a septic system only if the Service
Authority is agreeable to this.
,• The office building site will require review by the County Runoff Control Officer
because it falls within the Watershed Area. The proposed apartment development makes
parking allowances for the future loss of parking due to the improvements of Hydraulic
Road.
35Z
Mr. Montenegro read the following recommended conditions of approval:
1. Note on plan and record dedication of right-of-way 25' from the centerline
of both Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road;
2. Fire Official approval of location of fire hydrants;
3. Staff approval of landscape plan;
4. Note reservation of right-of-way 40' from the centerline of Route 565 and 45' from the
centerline on Route 743;
5. County Engineering Department approval of water and sewer and storm sewer plans;
6. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
7. Virginia Department of Health approval of septic facility for office building;
8. Approval of office building site from Runoff Control Officer;
9. City gas division approval of grading plans prior to obtaining a grading permit;
10. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance
on Georgetown Road;
11. Grading permit;
12. Approval of this plan does not constitute a subdivision approval;
13. Jogging path should be looped.
Mr. Montenegro stated that no additional entrance for apartments is planned
and the office is to be served by an entrance from Georgetown Road.
Mrs. Graves stated that the adjoining property owners need to be listed on the
site plan.
Mr. Rotgin representing the applicant, stated that the actual number of
floors per building is 231, and this is consistent with what exists in the other
phases. He stated that he had no complaint with conditions 2, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, and 12. He said that he did wish to address several of the other conditions.
Mr. Easter stated that the Commission has no control over condition #8 and
that it must remain as part of the conditions of approval, assuming that the site
plan will be approved. He explained to Mr. Rotgin that all sites lying within Rivanna
Watershed Area are subject to this condition.
At this point Mr. Rotgin discussed condition #13, and more specifically
the future planned recreation area. Upon completion of a detailed study of the
area, the owner plans a very large recreational complex, including pool, clubhouse,
volleyball and basketball courts, jogging path, etc. He said that the jogging
path will be usable with this phase, but will not be exactly as planned for later on.
Mr. Easter said that his concern is that the jogging path be usable on a temporary
basis, until the future plans are effectuated. Mr. Rotgin said that this path
will temporarily be looped through the parking lot.
Mr. Montenegro said that frankly the staff prefers a basketball half -court
with this part of the development as opposed to a tot lot, since the development
is not oriented to children. He noted that the owners permit one child in the
two bedroom apartments, and there are not that many two bedroom apartments. Therefore,
it is more logical to have adult -oriented recreation.
Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Diehl stated that they do not agree with the location of
the proposed tot lot, since it is at the rear of the property, and that area has
a drainage problem.
Mr. Rotgin stated that this is the area of the two -bedroom apartments,
and that some clearing will have to be done to handle the tot lot to make it more
visible from the apartments.
353
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that with the tot lot and the jogging
path, the applicant has met the technical requirements for size as set forth in
Skle the ordinance.
Mr. Easter said that the real concern is that if the future plans are not
completed, there is a necessity for adequate recreational facilities with this
phase of development. He suggested that the matter be handled by having a tot lot
and basketball half -court, with both size and location, approved by the staff.
He further stated that he felt the jogging path should be looped at this time as well.
Mr. Rotgin said that another area of concern is with moving the storm sewer
and the Engineering Department's approval of the storm sewer plans. He said that he
is aware of the fact that the Highway Department wants the storm sewer sized and
located to accommodate future upgrading of Hydraulic Road; `?r. Rotgin felt that this
is unreasonable, since this has nothing to do with this phase of development at the
moment. He further pointed out that it is not established at this time when Hydraulic
will be upgraded. He further noted that five years ago the storm sewer was installed
at the owner's personal expense, and did not feel that any of that should be considered
as far as the plans for storm sewer facilities in this phase of development.
Mr. Rotgin said that he is willing to give the Highway Department an easement, but
that is as much as he is willing to do.
Mr. Montenegro interjected at this point that the applicant will bear expense
at the time of upgrading Hydraulic Road only if what is slated for this site makes the
storm sewer that will exist inadequate.
Mr. Rotgin said that he agrees to this in theory but is concerned how it will
be handled at a later date.
Mr. Easter said that if the runoff can be handled by the storm sewers the
applicant pro.-osed, he does not feel the applicant should pay for drainage that will
result from Hydraulic's upgrading.
Messrs. Gloeckner, McCann, and Huffman agreed.
Mr. Rotgin did concede that he feels the staff has the right to review drainage
plans and storm sewer plans for each new phase of development. However, he did not
see that plans approved five years ago for other phases had anything to do with this
current phase.
Mrs. Graves stated that she is aware of other drainage problems in the earlier
phases.
Mr, Easter asked if the County Engineering Department is going to require
the applicant to upgrade the storm sewer to handle future runoff from the upgrading
of Hydraulic.
Col. Washington pointed out that the applicant is not losing control of the
line through the 25' dedication.
Mr. Easter did not feel that the Commission could do anything about the
request by the Highway Department.
Mr. Rotgin said that the wording of the conditions of approval regarding this
matter appear to be standard language, however in this case they might not be.
354
Mr. Easter asked if the County Engineer would require this. Mr. Keeler
said that he didn't guess that he would if the Commission directed him not to.
Mr. Montenegro said that the condition could be worded/iat it gave the
County Engineer approval of only on -site drainage.
Mr. Payne said that he did not see this as a problem. If the Highway
Department puts water from its right-of-way onto Mr. Rotgin's property, it has to
do either one of two things: it has to either have Mr. Rotgin's permission,
or it has to condemn that permission. If the Highway Department does it without
his permission, he can require that they condemn it. Now if Mr. Rotgin says that he
is willing to give an easement over his property for this storm drainage, it would not
be unusual for that dedication to be made subject to Highway Department providing the
physical improvements to accommodate the water passing through that easement.
In his opinion, the Commission did not need to speak to the matter. In essence, if
the Highway Department puts water onto his property, they are trespassing.
Mr. Easter therefore did not feel that there was anything the Commission could
say to protect Mr. Rotgin from the Highway Department. Mr. Payne said that he
feels Mr. Rotgin already has his protection from the Highway Department.
Mr. Rotgin said that if the Commission takes the position that it does not want
to speak to that item he is adamantly opposed to any dedication of anything to the
Highway Department. If the Commission will word the condition to consider only on -site
drainage in the new section, he said that he would be willing to dedicate along
Hydraulic Road and along Georgetown Road.
Mr. Payne said that the only problem he sees with that is that the ordinance
does speak to on -site and off -site drainage. He said that he does not know the v�
physical facts of the property, but if the water is draining from Section I to Section
II, then the County Engineer should have the discretion to make sure that the
different drainage is not segregated. That does not necessarily mean that the
system in the first section has to be reworked, but County Engineer should be able to
size the line and provide for something that will carry off what is there and what is
going to be there.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it seems the Highway Department is going to use the
leverage over the applicant to increase the size of the line because of the road upgrading.
He felt that that point has nothing to do with the on -site drainage. He said that
he felt just site drainage should be stipulated.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested the wording "on -site drainage and downstream off -site
drainage." He felt as though the problem would then be taken care of.
Mr. Easter asked if the Commission agreed that when they were speaking of
on -site drainage they meant the old portion of Westgate and what is before them that
evening ( this means Westgate I, II, III, and IV ). There was a consensus that this
was the case.
Mrs. Graves did say that she was concerned about the drainage going onto
Georgetown Road.
Mr. Easter reminded her that the Commission had just reached a decision on
the definition of on -site drainage for this situation.
355
At this point, ^?r. Montenegro read into the record letters from D. P. Howard
and Gay Johnson Blair.
Mr. R. E. Lee, a resident from Georgetown Road, said that he warts to make
sure that when the time comes for Georgetown Road to be ungraded th.at all the
land necessary for this has been secured by the County.
Mrs. Blair expressed sentiments to those of Mr. Lee.
Mrs. Huckle questioned how the tot lot is consistent with the drainage basin.
Mr. Keeler replied that this will be covered by condition #l4. ( This had been
proposed earlier in the meeting by Mr. Easter to state that the tot lot and the
basketball half -court are to be approved by the staff. )
Mr. Easter asked if any simple wording can be put in the conditions of
approval to give concurrence to Mr. Rot --Tin xTit'. regard to his comments of the
Highway Department'srequirements for the storm sewer.
Mr. Payne said that since the Commission had defined on -site drainage for
this property, the wording suggested by Mr. Gloeckner ovas an_prooria.te.
He again noted that what the Highway Department expects may not be what they have a
right to expect.
Mrs. Graves questioned if the sizing of the water lines shou.'_d be approved
by the Fire Official. Mr. Montenegro replierl that those have a' -ready been anoroved.
Mr. Keeler expounded on this by stating that the Fire Official, Service Authority,
and Building Official now have a cooperative effort in these matters that did not
previously exist.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the handicapped facilities a.nJ the park_inc for the
handicapped.
Mr. Montenegro replied that they are located as they are due to grade of the
property. Mr. Rotgin related the handicapped parking to the type of units being
proposed.
Mr. Lindstrom. asked if any of the proposed amendrlents on density for the R-3
affect the density in this development.
Mr. Payne stated that with the propsoed amendments, the density could be greater.
Mr. Montenegro advised .Mrs. Diehl again that the State Code covers handicapped
facilities on all such developments.
Mrs. Graves said that she hopes that condition #7 does not mean that the Commission
approves of the septic facility, since where public sewer is available it is to the
County's advantage to require it.
Mr. Keeler said that the condition could be amended to read: Virginia Department
of Health approval of septic facility for office building, if sewer is not required
by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Col. Washington moved approval of the Site Plan subject to the following conditions:
3510
1. Note on the plan and record on separate plat a dedication of right-of-way
25' from the centerline of both Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road;
2. Fire Official approval of location of fire hydrants and sizing of lines;
3. Staff approval of landscape plan;
4. Note reservation of right-of-way 40' from the centerline of Route 656 and 45'
from the centerline of Route 743;
5. County Engineering Department approval of water and sewer and on -site drainage and
downstream off -site drainage( "on -site" is defined as Westgate I, II, III, and IV );
6. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
7. Virginia Department of Helath approval of :peptic facility for office building
if sewer not required by Albemarle County Service Authority;
8. Approval of office building site from Runoff Control Officer;
9. City gas division approval of grading plans prior to obtaining a grading permit;
10. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance
on Georgetown Road;
11. Grading permit;
12. Approval of this plan does not constitute a subdivision approval-
13. Jogging path to be looped;
14. Tot lot and basketball half -court to be approved by staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that they are too meet on -site of the
proposed Farber Mall at 10:00 a.m., February 23, 1978.
Col. Washington stated that he feels that this meeting is an on -site
orientation.
Mr. Easter stated that even informal meetings have to be the information of
the public.
At the request of the staff, the Commission adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the frontage, setback and lot width regulations, as well as the definitions
setforth in the Zoning Ordinance. This motion made by Mr. Gloeckner, and seconded
by Mr. Vest, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
JZV—�.-
rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretar
9