HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 30 80 PC MinutesSeptember 30, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, September
30, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Charles Vest, Mr. James Skove,
Mr.Corwith Davis,Jr.,Mr.Kurt Gloeckner,Mrs.Norma Diehl,Vice-Chairman; & Col. William
Washington, Chairman. Also present were: Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior
Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Dan Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order, after establishing a quorum.
The approval of the minutes was deferred.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
SP-80-55A. Charles Edward Younger
Mr. Douglas Eckel gave the staff report.
The applicant was not present.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for deferral to October 14th.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
The vote for deferral was unanimous.
SP-80-57. Mary H. Lupton and Thomas G. Lupton
Petition to the Board of Supervisors for a planned community on 486 acres zoned A-1.
Property is located on the east and south side of Route 743 behind Earlysville
Green and Earlysville Heights. Tax Map 31, Parcel 31, Rivanna District.
The staff report was given by Mr. Ronald Keeler.
Mr. Allan Kindrick said he was concerned about insuring access to his property thru
the development.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said he was available to answer questions.
Col. Washington ascertained that the yellow portion on the plan would be a state road.
Mr. Roy Parks, speaking for the applicant, presented various maps and plans showing
the area under consideration. On one of the plans, he showed the decidious trees,
growth, streams and swales. On a soil map, he showed the soil problems, with the
ensuing problems with septic systems. On another map, he showed the gently rolling
site, with the slope areas, and flood plains. He put an overlay of the proposed lots
on this last map of the plan. He then showed the village green area, the commercial
3a �
area, all the lots would have access to the recreational area and open space;
the lots would all have access to the public road. He also stated that they
would prefer the commercial area be approved after Phase 2 rather than Phase 3.
He further stated that the public recreation facility should not be a burden
to the developer, that the County Parks & Recreation Department was going to take
over the 8 acres they were dedicating for recreational space and the County
department should decide how these were to be developed and then do the developing
themselves.
Col. Washington questioned the access to the Kindrick property.
Mr. Parks told the Commission that he had been told when Wakefield Farms was sold,
the owner thought there was no public road. A lawyer was hired to take care of
abandoning the road, if there was a public road. The lawyer told Mrs. Lupton
that this was unnecessary, because there was no public road.
Col. Washington cited that this made a difference in the depth and width of the
road.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that this was correct, the road should be designed to the
ultimate use and the 200 plus acres would increase the base and width requirements.
Mr. Keeler remarked that because of the Hilton case this was now a concern. It was
not a concern before because there were provisions in the ordinance to require off
site improvements.
Mr. Parks expressed the idea that if absolute maximum development were going to
be assumed, it should not be for all the land in the area, but for only that in
the immediately surrounding area.
Mr. Kindrick asserted that he had not received notification of this item at the
same time the other adjacent owners did, but his notification was later. He
further stated that the road was a public road, with no record of abandonment;
that Mr. Dancy had a right to the road right-of-way; that he felt he had a public
right-of-way also. He mentioned that there were cemeteries on the property; there
was also a private right-of-way, which was taken by the airport some years ago.
He requested that if the Commission acted favorably on this plan that it act contingent
to a public right-of-way, not a private right-of-way, which he said he had been
offered. He also told the Commission that he had protected the other end of his
property by dedication.
Mr. Wendell Winn, attorney for the Luptons, commented that the blue line on the old
tax map that was shown is not and was not a public road. A public road must be
established by either condemnation, dedication, or continuous use and maintenance
by the public, none of which applied in this case. The Highway Department had no
record of a public road. He further stated that this road was used as a private
right-of-way; the title had been searched to 1857 and there was no record in the
chain of title of a public road, there was reference to the cemetery and to the
right of ingress and egress. There was reference to other roads, there was no
reference to a private right-of-way either. Maps of the County dated 1875 and
1907 showed no road in this area. There was no evidence that this is or was a
public road. Mr. Kindrick does have other means of ingress and egress and it is
not fair to put a financial burden on Mrs. Lupton to build a higher category road
because of some very contingent possibility that this is a public road. He also
said that part of the road was heavily grown up in trees for the last 30-40 years.
Mr. W. H. Dancey, who is an adjacent property owner, stated that at the time of the
construction of Chris Green Lake, the County was not aware he lived on his property
close by. The County made plans for the dam without considering his rights as a
property owner. He gave the County flood easement for part of the lake and case
easement across the stream. The flood easement cut the property in two sections
and the County does not want him to build a road over the flood easement. The
County told him he had access to the public road in the back of his property and
the neighbors use this road. He stated also that there was not always a written
record of public roads, there was no record on Route 606 as late as fifty years
ago. The property owners gave the state the right-of-way. But no record of this
existed, even though this had been a public road since 1902.
Mr. Barry Dofflemyer, adjacent to parcel 5, said he owned Wakefield Kennel, and
he felt consideration should be given to a buffer from the Kennel. He said there
were about seven house sites that eventually would probably complain to him about
the noise from his kennels. He said he had had the kennel about 14 years. He
further commented on the fact that there were two roads that exist on the property
and he had partly maintained the one in question.
Mr. Roosevelt stated, in answer to questioning from the public, that there were no
plans or funds at the present time for widening or improving Route 743.
Mr. Tommy Turner who lives in the house on the corner, expressed the fact that he
and the other adjacent owners did not want the road connected to be a throughfare,
they would like to keep the road the way it is now. The residents felt there was
danger to the children in the area. He said they were not opposed to the develop-
ment, but felt the entrance should be moved a mile or half mile.
Mrs. Ayres, another adjacent owner, said that on Route 743, the Advance Mill side,
her son had built a home and the Planning Commission had made him redevelop the
entrance. She said she was opposed to the project proposed because of the traffic
it would generate.
Mr. Kindrick mentioned that the road had been used until the loblolly pines were
planted.
Mr. Eugene Wright re-emphasized the point about the overcrowding of the schools.
He further said that at the end of Ridgemont Road was a cul-de-sac, the road was
opened and there was a large increase in traffic. The same thing would probably
be true in this section.
Mr. Wilson Morris of Earlysville Heights said that his lot backs up to Wakefield
Road. He was questioning the location of the public recreation area and he also
said he assumed that there would not be heavy development close to the road.
Mr. Keeler said the commercial area would be anywhere from 50 feet to 100 feet
from the improved road to lot number 1.
Mr. Morris also said he agreed with Mr. Wright about the overcrowding of the schools.
He stated that when any of them had been to the School Board for funds for Broadus
Wood School,no more money was considered. Now he said there was a problem with
155 additional homes, that would probably mean 155 additional students for the
Broadus Wood School.
Mr. Keeler said there were enrollment projections and that all of these projections
from subdivisions were sent to the School Board. However, he stated that the homes
would take some time to build; it would take 10-15 years for full development and
for full occupancy. The projection would be about three additional teaching
positions. The improvement to facilities would be up to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Turner suggested that another consideration would be the Western Albemarle
High School line was not far away and if children had to attend this school,would
increase the length of the bus trip.
Mr. Bill Pender stated that if Viewmont cut across the main road and the Parks and
Recreation Department took over the recreational area and made this open to the
public, this would create additional traffic because of the general use of the
area and the fact that it was a good facility. This would also increase traffic
on Route 743.
Mr. Wright was concerned about the water in the area. He stated that Teledyne had
had trouble with the water; Earlysville Heights was on existing wells. He suggested
that any further drilling and tapping this water could deplete the underground supply
in the area and create problems.
Mr. Parks commented that traffic had been a major concern. He said they had met
with the Highway Department and the intersection was the Highway Department's idea.
He said that the development would take ten or fifteen years and the Highway
Department could plan according to the development in the area for the roads.
The public hearing was closed.
Col. Washington ascertained that it would cost approximately fifty to one hundred
thousand dollars to jack a sleeve for water under the runway of the airport.
Mr. Payne commented that the Commission did not have a choice on Viewmont Road, the
subdivision ordinance required this road connection. On the other road, he said
he did not have the benefit of research and he did not know whether this is or is
not a public road. If it were a public road, there would be no choice, there would
be a connection there. Even if it was not a public road, the Staff may recommend
that the connection be made. It was possible and not uncommon for the dedication
of a public road to be done orally many years ago, and accepted by the users. The
records on these roads are extremely scanty. The Board of Supervisors minute books
with a one paragraph reference would be all that was necessary, and you do not really
have to have that; all that would be really necessary would be actual maintenance.
It would not be exhaustive to say that because none of the maps showed this and
none of the deed books showed this, that it did not exist. Researching something
of this nature would be extremely difficult. Mr. Payne said it really was only
a matter of degree, a public road required access through there. He cited for
Mr. Skove that this was Section 18-37a of the ordinance.
Mr. Skove also questioned what made a public road.
Mr. Payne said that one way would be to establish user and maintenance. People
who live out in that area who remember county crews fixing the road could be
contacted.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if this were the actual alignment Viewmont would have.
Mr. Keeler said the road exists in this location. He added that in order to avoid
increasing traffic to Earlysville Heights, an internal private road, Forest Run,
was relocated away from Viewmont.
Mr. Davis established that the roads in Earlysville Heights were public roads.
3-�? r/-
Mrs. Diehl commented that the upper recreational area could only be reached by trails.
Mr. Parks said there would be a gravel road for the fire pumper trucks to get water.
Col. Washington ascertained that the lake goes in after Phase 3.
Mrs. Diehl wanted to know if the people in the area, as well as the Parks and
Recreation Department had a say in the parks in that section.
Mr. Keeler stated that in 1977 the Parks and Recreation Department conducted a survey
of the needs, and though this had not been adopted, it served as a guideline. Also
the Department worked with the principals of the schools, who probably have some
input from the PTA.
Mrs. Diehl inquired when this particular area would be dedicated and turned over to
the County for development and use. She said the plan called for this to be done
after Phase 3.
Mr. Parks replied that naturally they did not want to level S acres until they knew
what was to be done with it. He said this should be done through the Comprehensive
Plan and Earlysville residents should decide what they want.
Mr. Davis asked if there were guidelines for noise levels from the airport.
Mr. Keeler said the noise would affect some lots near the lake. The buildings
should be constructed so that the average daily levels of interior noise would
be lowered. There should also be disclosure on the plat of the fact that these
lots were within the airport noise area.
Mr. Keeler stated, in reply to Mrs. Diehl's questioning, if the application were
approved under the planned community designation and subsequently the airport
impact ordinance were adopted, the ordinance would apply. However, the Commission
could not prohibit the subdivision of land based on the noise level. The most
that could be done is represented by the proposed ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that testing had not been done for a central well system.
Mr. Skove asked who would build the Viewmont connection, if the developer did not
build it and the people who live in the area do not want it.
Mr. Payne said the subdivision ordinance required the road to be built.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this area was in the North Fork Rivanna watershed.
Mr. Keeler stated that about half of the Earlysville village in the Comprehensive
Plan was in the Rivanna Reservoir watershed, however, this development was not in
the watershed.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the plan protected the drainage areas and the formation
of the lake and inquired if the plan had been looked at for the technical impact on
Chris Green Lake.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Parks and Recreation Department had commented on the
impact on Chris Green Lake. He said this lake is a physical device to serve
as recreational device, but also as part of the impoundment process upstream from
Earlysville Lake similar to the impoundment filtering process found in the ordinance
for the Rivanna Reservoir watershed. If this project were in the watershed, there
would be no runoff requirement as this would not meet the minimum impervious- coverage
C
which triggered the plan. So the runoff control ordinance for the Rivanna Reservoir
which is the drinking water for the area assumes a certain amount of development
does not adversely impact the Reservoir. If that was the case with drinking water
supply, then this applied even more here.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the water supply for the subdivision.
Mr. Parks said the water plan was submitted and there would be a general alignment
of water lines, which would fit into the county system, if and when this were
to become available. He said at this stage it was impossible to tell the number
of wells necessary.
Mr. Bowerman was concerned if there would be enough water.
Mr. Keeler said the conditions of staff recommendations would take care of this
problem.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the triangle area was a separate lot, a pipestem.
Mr. Parks said this parcel had one access.
Mr. Bowerman queried Mr. Kindrick on whether he had a deeded private easement.
Mr. Kindrick replied that he had a private easement, but not on the Lupton property.
Mrs. Diehl was concerned about the water resources.
Mr. Davis remarked that there should be public water for this subdivision and
questioned what process was necessary to extend water to this section.
*44
Mr. Keeler stated that this area was not within the Water Authority service area.
It has to be determined if public water is reasonably available and then the cost
of public water is weighed against wells, to see if this is feasible.
Mr. Vest questioned condition (6) - County Engineer approval of the dam specifications.
He asked who would inspect the construction of the dam.
Mr. Keeler said that from experience, no one inspected the construction of the
dam. The County Engineer approves the specifications for the dam.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that this be added as a part of condition (6): County
Engineer and Zoning Department inspection of the dam construction. He said that
the Zoning Department was responsible for erosion and the County Engineer for the
dam specifications, so they were the logical ones to follow up on the construction
of the dam.
Mrs. Diehl suggested changing the condition for the proposed recreational area.
Mr. Gloeckner said that dedication giving the eight acres as opposed to four acres
should be sufficient without the construction of the area also. The eight acres
should be planned by the county and the professionals.
After further discussion among the Commissioners about the water, road and dam,
Mr. Skove made a motion for denial, saying he felt this was not in keeping with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The vote for denial was 1-6, Mr. Skove in favor.
Mr. Vest made a motion for approval, subject to the conditions on the attached sheet.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that condition 11 be added to the conditions: Maximum
possible buffer for Lots 36, 37, 38, and 39 from Wakefield Kennel. This was because
of the noise from the kennels.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
There was a brief discussion of the cost of extending public water, and the actual
cost of the wells.
Mr. Bowerman said he was not in favor of building a Class III road to serve possible
development of adjoining land.
Mr. Gloeckner said he wanted the Board of Supervisors to recognize the need for
public water in that section.
The vote on the motion was 5-2, Messrs. Bowerman and Skove dissenting.
ZMA-80-14 Louis A. and Nancy Skidmore and Holkham Associates, Ltd. -Request for
Amendment to Lewis Hill RPN
Petition to the Board of Supervisors to amend ZMA-79-12 (Lewis Hill RPN) to add
2.57 acres to the residential planned neighborhood. Property is located off the
northeast side of Route 678 in the Lewis Hill Subdivision, Section III, north of Ivy.
Tax Map 58, Parcels 181, 234, 233, 232, 231, and 230, Samuel Miller District.
Miss Caperton gave the staff report.
The applicant, Pam Critzer, stated that the reason for the action was that part of
the entrance road to the Holkham Subdivision was titled to the Skidmores. The
applicant was deeding 57/100 of an acre lot and the Skidmores were deeding 57/100 acre
of road and they were exchanging the land.
The public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if the Commission had to act on the road separately.
Miss Caperton said the road was not advertised.
Mr. Payne said he was reluctant to advise the Commission to act on something that
was not advertised. However, if the Commission erred on this, it would not be
earthshaking.
Miss Caperton said these were the standard conditions when an interior road was being
used. The applicant was requesting relief from the Board of Supervisors' action.
Mr. Gloeckner said that since this item had to be considered by the Board of
Supervisors anyhow, he would make a motion for approval, with the following conditions:
1. Approval is for the addition of two lots for a maximum of 62 lots. Location
and acreage shall comply substantially with the approved plan. Open space
shall be dedicated to include these two lots in Phase I.
J
2. County Attorney approval of inclusion of two lots into the homeowners'
agreement, prior to final approval;
3. Written Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each
lot. No septic field shall be sited on any slopes of 250 or greater;
4. Compliance with other applicable conditions of ZMA-79-12.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if Mr. Roosevelt and the Highway Department had any comments
on this item.
Mr. Roosevelt said he and the department had no comments.
The vote was:5-0-2, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Bowerman abstaining.
The following items were deferred on request of the applicant:
Old Oak Court Townhouses Final Plat - deferred to October 21, 1980
Old Oak Court Townhouses Site Plan - deferred to October 21, 1980
Robert C. Walker Preliminary Plat - deferred to October 28, 1980
Mrs. Diehl made a motion for deferral.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
The vote for deferral was unanimous.
POLO GROUNDS PRELIMINARY PLAT
Located south of I-64 off Mechunk Road, east of Route 616; proposed division of 23+
acres into 9 lots with access from Mechunk Road. Rivanna District.
The staff report was given by Miss Caperton.
Mr. Roudabush, speaking for the applicant, said the road leading out to Route 616
was approved for Woodcreek Subdivision when they had the final plat approved,
with the condition that the existing road and the entrance to the road be brought
up to state standards. This was appealed to the Board of Supervisors, and the
Board upheld the Planning Commission's decision. The Woodcreek subdivision needs
a right-of-way from the Icgoren property in order to complete this road. The
subdivision has not moved forward, however, the Icgoren's are willing to make the
land available to bring the road up to state standards. Woodcreek would have to
build the road. The applicant would like to have the road approved now as a private
road, if there are more than nine dwellings built, then the Woodcreek Subdivision
would have to bring the road up to state standards. The residue of this property
is about 15 lots, which can not be developed as they are in the flood plain of
Mechunk Creek. The Icgorens purchased this 30 acre tract for the use of the
stables and the polo field is used for training horses. There is a one acre
site for a house on the area near the polo field. The applicant has no intention
of subdividing this area,it will remain agricultural.
Mr. Mike Lindburg of Mechunk Road, said there were dust problems and something
needed to be done to prevent further traffic until something was done to improve
the road.
Attached to Planning Commission Minutis - September 30, 1980
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SP-80-57. May H. Lupton and Thomas G. Lupton
A. General
1. No final site plan or subdivision approvals shall be given until three
(3) copies of a revised preliminary plan for the entire development,
relfecting conditions of approval contained herein, have been submitted
to the Department of Planning. Such plans shall be submitted within
sixty (60) days of Board approval of this petition.
—2. Approval is for a maximum of 155 single-family lots subject to conditions
contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall
comply with the approved plan. In the final site plan and subdivision
process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots
_ approved. The Commission may permit dedication of a lesser acreage of
open space in a particular case due to the remoteness of open space areas
from that section platted; provided that, in no event, shall open space
consist of less than 25% of the cumulative area,platted; and provided
further that the cumulative total of 209 acres shall be dedicated concomittant
with the approval of the final phase of residential development.
No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary
for road construction and lake construction as approved by the County
Engineer;
4: No grading shall occur in any area until final subdivision or site plan
approval has been obtained;
5. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements prior
to final approvals to include maintenance of private roads, lake and dam,
and con -non open space;
6. County Engineer approval of dam specifications; County Engineer and
Zoning Department inspection of the dam construction;
7. The public recreation area shall be dedicated prior to any site plan
or subdivision approval. The private recreational facilities shall
be constructed prior to any Phase 4 approvals.
8. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, pedestrian ways,
lake, or other i.mproverments are to be located shall be disturbed; all
other land shall r•2main in its natural state:
9. Phasing of development shall be in -the chronological ordeir on the approved
plan;
10. Zoning regulations governing development in the vicinity of the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport are currently under consideration by the
Board of Sunervisors;
11. Maximum possible buffer for Lots 36, 37, 38, and 39; from Wakefield Kennel;
B. Co=ercial Area
1. No commercial use shall be approved until all residential lots of Phase 3
have been approved and recorded;
2. Uses permitted within the commercial area may be established as follows:
a. The following retail sales and service establishments:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion, and craft shops;
2. Clothing, apparel, and shoe shops;
3. Department store;
4. Drug Store, pharmacy;
5. Florist;
6. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as
bakery, candy, milk dispensary, and wine and cheese shops;
7. Furniture and home applicances ( sales and service );
S. Hardward store;
9. Musical instruments;
10. Newstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops;
1
11. Optical goods;
12. Photpgraphic goods;
13. Visual and aduio appliances;
14. Sporting goods;
15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
b. The following services and public establishments:
1. Administrative, professional offices;
.2, Barber, beauty shops;
3. Churches, cemeteries;
4. Clubs, lodges - civic, fraternal, patriotic;
5. Financial institutions;
6. Fire and rescue squad stations;
7. Funeral homes;
8. Health spas;
9. Indoor theaters;
10. Laundries, dry cleaners;
11. Laundromat ( profided that an attendant shall be on duty at
all hours during operation );
12. Libraries, Museums;
13. Nurseries, day care centers;
14. Eating establishments;
15. Tailor, seamstress;
16. Automboile service stations;
17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding multi -
legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers,
pipes, meters, and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution
and sewage collection lines, pumping stations, and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority;
18. Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds,
and roads funded, owned, or operated by local, state or federal
agencies; public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines,
owned or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority;
19. Temporary construction uses;
20. Temporary events of local non-profit organizations;
21. Medical center.
c. By Special Use Permit
1. Commercial recreation establishments;
2. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers;
gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations, and appurtenances;
unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro -wave and radio -wave
transmission and relay towers; substations, and appurtenances;
3. Hospitals;
4. Fast food restaurant;
S. Veterinary office and hospital.
"3. A building setback of 80 feet from the centerline of Route 743 shall be
*"WOW maintained.
C ,
C. Roads
1. County Engineer approval of private road plans;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of public
road plans prior to any final site plan or subdivision approvals. In
such review, Virginia Department of Highways should be mindful of the
County's intent to limit encroachment of the public road on Earlsyville
Heights to the maximum extent practical.
3. The applicant shall provide connection between Viewmont Road and the
public road subject to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval;
4. Prior to any final approval, the applicant shall propose a method of buffering
adjacent lots in Earlysville Heights from the public road. If practical,
such buffer shall be installed prior to any grading and/or construction.
D. Utilities; Fire Protection
1. Virginia Department of Health approval of two (2) septic field locations
within each lot prior to Planning Commission aprpoval of any such lot.
Any lot not having adequate septic field location shall be combined with a
buildable lot and/or added to the common open space. In addition, Homeowners'
Association agreement shall include provision for use of open space for
residential septic drainfields, if necessary;
2. All uses shall be served by one or more central water systems approved
in accordance with the regulations of the Virginia Department of Health,
the Code of Albemarle County, and all other applicable law. Water lines
and appurtenances shall be sized and designed in accordance with Albemarle
County Service Authority specifications for possible -future acceptance;
3. If a central well system is employed, Fire Official approval of appurtenances
for future possible fire hydrant installations. Fire Official approval
of dry hydrant system prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy in
Phase 3;
4. If a public water -system is employed, Fire Official approval of hydrant
locations and fire flow prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy;
5. A building separation of 100 feet shall be maintained for dwellings.
GAZEBO PLAZA SITE PLAN
Located off the north side of Route 250 East at the I-64 interchange; proposed to
be used as a commercial development for office and retail uses. Rivanna District.
The staff report was given by Miss Caperton.
SOW
Mr. Roudabush said that he represented the Central Fidelity, and there were no
objections to the conditions. The applicants were present. To questioning from
Mr. Dimberg, Mr. Roudabush replied that the slope of 2-1 was shown, the County
Engineer requested a slope of 3-1.
Mr. Dimberg was concerned about the screening between the structure and the
surrounding territory.
Mr. Roudabush told Mr. Dimberg and the Commission that the site plan showed screening
and landscaping. A landscaping plan would be submitted, and he would recommend to
the applicant that a professional landscapper be engaged.
Mr. Dimberg said he was more concerned about the screening than the landscaping.
Mr. Gloeckner told him the staff would see the landscaping plans and check on the
landscaping and screening.
Miss Caperton mentioned the fact that between commercial and residential property
there was extensive screening required.
Mr. Dimberg remarked that another thing that bothered the residents of Glenorchy
was the distance, the height of the slope and the parking lots. They were concerned
that the headlights from the cars could be annoying to the area residents in their
homes.
Mr. Roudabush asserted that the building would be about 130 feet from the line and
there would be a 30 foot strip undisturbed at the top of -the slope. The building
would be 600 feet from the right-of-way on Route 250.
Another resident of Glenorchy was worried about the traffic and what was going to
be done in that area to correct that problem. There was traffic- from homes on
the top and now there would be traffic from the shopping center, as well as all
the traffic from State Farm.
Mr. Roosevelt said there werelno plans to change the road, mainly because there
were no funds for this. For shopping centers, such as Fashion Square, there were
service roads to Route 250. He was not ,sure what the service road or frontage
road was proposed to be; he was not sure what the county could require this
development to do.
There was further discussion of the traffic problem associated with this
development.
Mr. Roudabush said he had talked with a representative from the Highway Department
and they had agreed on an additional lane on the frontage road, 3 lanes to the
entrance, taper beyond the entrance on the frontage road, provisions for left
turn traffic into the entrance to the other property, a right turn lane from the
frontage property, and right turn and left turn lanes off of Route 250, also curb
and gutter at the entrance.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the traffic count on the frontage road was 179 per day;
after Ashcroft, this would be approximately 1000 per day.
Miss Caperton said that the requirements for this commercial entrance would tie
into Ashcroft.
Mrs. Diehl said she would like to see the improvements for Ashcroft, she would
like to be able to see the whole area. She also commented that 4� acres under one
roof was a large area and she could not envision this on the scale plat presented. She also
said she would like to see the landscape, sewer, traffic flow and traffic generation.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there were 30 acres impervious for stormwater detention.
Mr. Roudabush stated that there was provision for controlling the rate of runoff,
there was a receiving stream on the eastern boundary.
Mrs. Diehl made a motion for deferral until October 14th.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
The vote was 6-1, with Mr. Gloeckner opposing.
MINOR LAND TRUST #2 FINAL PLAT
Located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Westfield
Road; proposed division of 67,583 square feet into two parcels of 44,711 square feet
and 22,872 square feet. Charlottesville District.
Miss Caperton gave the staff report.
Mrs. Graves said she doubted the number of vehicle trips per day was correct. She
said this count was taken the week before school started, also the population of the
area decreased the last week of August. She further stated that the two entrances
were right next to each other on Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Roudabush said he did not know the source of the traffic count.
Miss Caperton said this was the 1978 traffic count, the 1979 and 1980 have not
been published. She further stated that the Highway Department did not comment on the
entrances.
Mr. Roudabush said the owner had built the streets for commercial property and there
should be no question of the use of the streets now because a subdivision had been
built.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval, subject to the following condition:
1. The plat will be signed when the following condition has been met:
a. Compliance with Section 15.1-482 of the Code for vacation of the previous plat.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
SOUTHLAND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OFFICE BUILDING SITE PLAN
Located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and
Westfield Road; proposed location of a 2,1980 square foot office building for
an insurance company. Charlottesville District.
The staff report was given by Miss Caperton.
Mr. Roudabush said he had no comment.
Mr. Skove questioned Mr. Roudabush about the elimination of one entrance.
Mr. Roudabush stated that it would be difficult to get the number of parking spaces
without the two entrances.
Mrs. Diehl cited the fact that only 13 parking spaces were required with this size
operation, the applicant would be providing 17 spaces.
Mr. Roudabush remarked that there was a difference in what the county required and
what the applicant felt he needed.
Mrs. Graves said she would think the entrance would take away parking spaces; she
also said that an insurance company did not need entrances and parking spaces like
other businesses.
The public discussion was closed.
Mr. Skove said if the applicant felt he needed the parking spaces, he was willing to
approve this plan that way. He made a motion for approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been
met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
c. County Engineer approval of stormwater drainage facilities;
d. Provide additional landscaping adjacent to the Wynridge property.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if Commonwealth was one of the streets where the County had a
policy on road cuts. She said that she was aware of the fact that Route 29 was one
of these.
Mr. Payne said this applied only to Route 29 - the ordinance speaks to divided highways.
Mr. Bowerman said that other than convenience, he could not see the necessity of two
entrances; there would not be that much traffic generated and he agreed with the
staff about the concern about the second entrance.
There was a discussion on the parking and how this could be done both with and
without the two entrances.
The vote was 5-2, with Col. Washington and Mr. Bowerman dissenting.
OLD BUSINESS:
J.R. WINGFIELD FINAL PLAT - Request for Reconsideration
Part of parcel 21B, Tax Map 44, Jack Jouett District; located off the north side
of Route 676 adjacent of the Rivanna Reservoir. The applicant is requesting
reconsideration and a waiver of Section 18-36(d) so that the commercial entrance
is no longer required.
Miss Caperton gave the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl questioned where the second 6 acre parcel was located.
Miss Caperton showed her on the plat.
Col. Washington asked where the 50 foot right-of-way served.
Miss Caperton said it served the 6 acre parcel to the east, and showed him on the plat.
Public discussion was closed.
Mr. Skove made a motion to reconsider and a motion for the waiver of Section 18-36(d).
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Wingfield stated that he did not think the commercial entrance was necessary.
He said he lived on the south side of Route 676, the other property was on the north
side; any adjacent property could be served by a different road.
Mrs. Diehl mentioned that if he wanted to redivide the residue he would have
another entrance on another road, which would create two entrances to the property.
The vote was 6-1, with Mrs. Diehl dissenting.
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
t
rt W. Tucker, Jr., Secre
R