HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 18 81 PC MinutesAugust 18, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August
18, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David
Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner, Mr. Richard Cogan, and Mr. James R. Skove. Other officials
present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Katherine
L. Imhoff, Planner, and Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting
to order.
Henry Javor Site Plan - located on the north side of Route 250 West between
Kirtley and Rot well Distributing Companies; a proposal to locate 44 units for
office and other uses totalling 79,200 square feet on a 5.02 acre parcel.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Paul Peatross, representing the applicant, noted the following problems if
access to this property was from Folly Road:
• steep slopes in this area which would be difficult to deal with in
terms of grading and constructing an entrance;
• the location of the septic field in this area and additional parking
required in the area, and;
• traffic generation.
Mr. Peatross noted the recommendation of the Fire Official requesting that the
applicant hook up to public water and that no further commercial development be
allowed in this area until better fire protection is available. He stated that
he felt this was an unreasonable request and noted the distance to the nearest
hook up for public water. He also pointed out that they have no problem with
the alternative suggestion made by Mr. Cortez in his letter of August 17, 1982.
(ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION: In the case of Mr. Javors site, where he plans
to place fire walls at less square footage than required (10,000) and the construction
is on non-combustible materials (masonry), an approved early warning fire alarm
system connected to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Fire Department station,
would be a viable alternative. However, when public water is available hydrants
with a fire flow of 1500 GPM @ 20 PSI would be required).
Mr. Peatross noted that the Staff was concerned because the applicant could
not specify who will occupy or what uses will be housed in the thirty-two
units. He pointed out that there is a note on the site plan that states
"the tenant occupancy will conform to the requirements of Section 32.4-30 for
proposed general use in accordance with uses permitted by right." He stated
that Mr. Javor will make proposed tenants aware of the fact that the use must
be proposed by right.
Mr. Peatross stated that Mr. Javor is requesting that the Commission not
require him to list specific uses, but allow him all the uses permitted in this
zone by right. He also asked the Commission to enumerate additional specificatwo
-
tions or requirements which should be complied with.
Mrs. Diehl Asked Mr. Javor if he had any comment.
Mr. Javor stated that he would respond to any concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
Dick Gibson, representing J. W. Seig $ Company, stated his concern regarding
an entrance on Folly Road. He pointed out that tractor and trailers going to
Rothwell $ Seig use Folly Road which at times causes some congestion as the
tractor trailers may have to back up in order to manuver the turn. He stated
that a proposal of this size could mean as many as two hundred additional
vehicle trips per day creating congestion in the area. He also noted the
steep slopes in this area and stated that extensive grading would be required.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the tractor -trailers mentioned by Mr. Gibson are
parked in front of the Rothwell & Seigh warehouse after working hours.
Jonh Zunk, representing Rothwell Distributing Company, stated that he felt
access to this property would be best served from Rt. 2S0. He noted that
Rothwell uses the 30' easment for tractor and trailers to back up to the
loading dock. He pointed out that cars could manuver around the parked
trailers but problems might occur if access to the Javor site was from
Folly Road.
Joan Graves asked how the health department could approve septic systems when
they don't know what uses will be present. She stated that the intent of the
new ordinance states that areas must be served by water and sewer facilities
when they are reasonably available. She further stated that she did not feel
that uses in a light industry zone should use septic systems. She noted that
the staff report did not have any conditions regarding health department approval.
Ms. Imhoff stated that health department approval has been obtained for this
site. She noted that the health deparment based their computations on four
employees per day. Ms. Imhoff also pointed out that the health department
could check on this site to insure that health deparment regulations are
being complied with.
Mrs. Graves stated her concern about the uses, such as compounding of drugs,
that would be allowed by right.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
is before the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that he favors having the entrance on Folly Road as there
is less traffic generation. He also asked if the ordinance would have to be
amended noting that this is a private road.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance in his opinion, would not have to be
amended as this road was not created under the existing subdivision ordinance.
6A
Mr. Skove ascertained that although Rothwell Distributing Company has moved
to another location, this building will be used as a warehouse facility.
Mr. Skove stated that he favors having access to this property on Folly Road,
but noted his concern because of the number of tractor -trailers using the
road.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt, representing the highway department, what
type of commercial entrance and turn lane would be required.
Mr. Roosevelt stated the plan shows 12' wide curb and gutter, and a 30'
wide entrance, noting that this is acceptable. He also stated that if the
turn lane were extended along the frontage of the property and tie into the
curb and turn lane, this would improve access from Rt. 250.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Staff felt that whether or not full frontage
improvements are necessary, should be decided by the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl explained that a turn lane was to be extended to the property line
of Kirtley, but this is in litigation at the present time.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt full frontage improvements should be required,
noting the amount of traffic in this area.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission had any comments concerning the access
on Rt. 250 versus Folly Road.
Mr. Davis stated that access should be from Rt. 250.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if condition 2.a. of the staff report could be changed
to include the recommendation of the fire marshall.
Ms. Imhoff stated that condition 2.a. could be deleted and substitute "fire
official approval of fire alarm system."
Mrs. Diehl noted that fire official approval of handicapped provisions is
necessary and asked how this could be obtained, noting that the uses have
not been specified.
Mr. Cortez stated that one handicapped provision for each block of occupancies
should be adequate.
Ms. Imhoff asked the Commission to address uses permitted by right in the
light industrial zone.
Mrs. Diehl noted her concern with health department approval for this site
because the uses have not been specified. She also noted that some facilities
such as contractors office and storage yard would require different facilities
than shown on this site plan.
Mr. Davis stated that there are several uses permitted by right in the
light industrial zone which would be intensive on a septic system.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the approval of a site plan, when the uses are not
specified is not the general procedure, and reiterated her concern about this.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt this site plan does not comply with the
ordinance, as the ordinance requires the uses to be specified. He noted
that the different uses may be more intensive in areas such as fire protection,
entrance requirements, sewage capacity, etc. He further stated that in order
for the Commission to review this site plan they would have to assume that
each of the aspects will be designed to accomodate the most intensive use.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the parking requirements was designated as to
the heaviest usage and that pavement specifications would be based on the
use.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission could require the health department
to review this again after the uses have been determined.
Mr. Payne stated that a general use is specified when a site plan is
submitted for review.
Mrs. Diehl reiterated that this site plan should be reviewed for the
highest use allowed by right.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the Commission could require health department
approval for the intended use before a building permit was issued.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the ordinance requires the applicant to specify
the use.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt it would be arbitrary on the part of the
Commission to eliminate uses by right, as the use should be specified by the
applicant.
Mr. Davis stated that until the uses are specified, this site plan will not
comply with the ordinance. He further stated that he did not feel it was the
Commission's responsibility to specify the uses.
Paul Peatorss, stated that Mr. Javor will use the property for uses permitted
by right in the light industrial zone. He noted that tenants for the facility
could not be solicited until an approved site plan has been received. He noted
that conditions could be added to be approved at the building permit level. He
also pointed out that there are laws and regulations that apply to toxic
waste, etc., that must be complied with which will further protect the interests
of the County.
Mrs. Diehl explained that the ordinance does require the uses be specified
for a site plan.
Mr. Bowerman stated his concern because the uses are not specified as they
would be in an industrial park, for example.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not understand the criteria that the fire
official used to review this application.
9
M
610
Mr. Cortez stated that he reviewed this site plan by the least intensive use
because he also has the protection of the fire protection code and building
code. For example, if Mr. Javor should have a facility such as paint or
spray finishing, our department can require under the building code that
certain fire walls be constructed within each separate occupancy. If fire
walls are not sufficient because the use is a high hazzard, then in order
to occupy the facility public water would have to be available or a proposed
chemical system or some other means of fire protection would have to be
available for each individual occupancy.
Mrs. Diehl reiterated that she is relucant to include a blanket health
department approval for this site because the uses have not been determined.
Mrs. Diehl noted that Mr. Payne has stated that he did not feel this was a
valid site plan. She asked Mr. Payne what the procedure would be if the
Commission approved this site plan.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance provides that anything that is approved
by the Commission under the site plan ordinance is deemed to be prima facia
in accordance with the ordinance. He stated that the following alternatives
are possible:
• the decision of the Commission could be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors;
• the Zoning Administrator could deny a certificate of occupancy for
a given use;
• the decision of the Commision would stand approved.
Mr. Cogan stated that the Commission could condition this site plan as
follows:
• no building permit will be issued until further review of the
intended use is made by the health department.
Mr. Kindrick questioned the procedure to be followed if this site plan
was approved for a given use, and then the use changes.
Mr. Payne stated that each new use would be reviewed in accordance with
the site plan requirements for changes in characteristics such as entrance
to the property, and parking requirements. If there are characteristics
which have changed from the orginial site plan.,then a new site plan is
required.
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission,in this case,is approving a site
plan for all uses permitted by right in the light industry zone., noting
that if there are changes in parking or entrance requirements,,a revised
site plan will not be required. _
Mr. Cortez stated that once a building permit is applied for the health
department has to approve the individual use.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt if each use was approved for the maximum
required for that use this should protect the County. He also stated his
concern that each use would not be approved by the health department.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the concensus of the Commission is to have
health department approval for each use rather than sizing the site plan for
the highest use allowed.
Mr._ Payne stated that health department approval of use for each individual
unit should be required when the certificate of occupancy is applied for, noting
that at this time Mr. Javor should know who the tenant is before the building
permit is obtained.
Mr. Davis stated his concern that one of the uses permitted by right is
for a contractors office and storage yard. He noted that screening is
usually more intensive in this case and questioned if a condition of approval
could be added regarding contractors offices.
Mr. Payne stated that a condition could be added to read as follows:
• approval of this site plan does not constitute authorization or
establishing of a contractors office and equipment storage yard.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the following condition should be added to the
conditions of approval for this site plan:
1 fire official approval, when public water is available, of hydrant
location and fire flow.
Mr. Peatross asked if there was no outside storage of equipment by a contractor,
does he have to come back before the Commission for review.
Mrs. Diehl explained that the condition speaks to the fact that this approval
does not constitute approval of the contractors office and equipment storage
yard.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions and dumpster location;
b. Fire Official approval of fire protection measures;
c. Staff approval of landscape plan and screening along eastern and
western property lines;
d. Provide schedule of parking required and provided, and note location;
e. Note location and dimension of loading spaces;
f. Pavement specifications to be designed according to most intensive
use and approved by the County Engineer;
g. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
h. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
i. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
j. Note drop inlet and pipe size;
k. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and curbing;
1/Z,
1. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance, turn lane and full frontage improvements;
m. Note correct building setback and reference variance;
n. Note on the site plan that approval of site plan does not include
authorization for contractor's office and equipment storage yard;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions
have been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire alarm system;
b. Written Health Department approval of use for each individual unit;
3. Fire Official approval, when public water is available, of hydrant location
and fire flow.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1 with
Mr. Davis dissenting.
SP-81-35 Anna Lee Johnson - Request to locate a mobile home on 108.4 acres
zoned RA. Property is located on the west side of Route 623, approximately
1.5 miles southwest of'Boyd Tavern. County Tax Map 94, Parcel 20, Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Mabe presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this special
use permit.
Mr. Allen Kane, noted that technically he is not an adjacent owner, he lives
approximately three tenths of a mile from this proposal. He noted that he
wishes to oppose this request on the grounds that he feels it would be
detrimental to the.public interest and welfare of the citizens of Albemarle.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant is aware that the setback requirement
is seventy-five feet instead of the proposed fifty feet.
Mrs. Diehl asked how the ordinance reads in reference to screening requirements.
Mr. Mabe stated that this has to be in compliance with the ordinance or in
agreement with the Zoning Administrator. He pointed out that the screening
has to be designated at the time the special use permit is applied for.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the present mobile home is not on St. Rt. 623.
Mr. Gloeckner noted the size of this parcel and stated that he felt the
setback should be greater than seventy-five feet.Mr
Mr. Skove asked if the Commission could condition the approval of this
3/3
special use permit as follows:
• setback to be larger than. seventy-five feet.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission needs to decide if this request is
in keeping with other uses permitted by right in this district.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this could be conditioned to give the applicant
the choice of screening or setting the mobile home further back on the
property.
Mr. Payne stated that the condition could read:
• Staff approval of screening and or setback to restrict visibility
of mobile home from St. Rt. 623.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this special use permit, with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Staff approval of screening and/or setback to restrict visibility of
mobile home from St. Rt. 623.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Flowers Bake Warehouse Site Plan - Mrs. Diehl noted that this site plan
has been withdrawn.
Albemarle Veterinary Hospital Site Plan - Requests deferral to August 25, 1981.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the request for deferral of this site plan until
August 25, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association Office Building Site Plan_ - Requests
deferral to September 1 1.
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the request for deferral of this site plan until
September 8, 1981.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr.
Gloeckner abstaining.
91
Motor Specialty Site Plan - Requests deferral to September 22, 1981.
Mr. Skove moved to accept the request for deferral of this site plan until
September 22, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Brinnington Final Plat - Request to amend a condition of approval requiring
a joint entrance.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Gloeckner,rrioved to accept the request to amend condition l(b) to read as follows:
• Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private
entrances.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Twin Group/Jessup Property PUD - Request for approval of slope increase for a
private road.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission has to speak to the change in the slope.
Ashley Williams, County Engineer, stated that private roads are allowed, with
the restriction that they do not exceed 15% grade. He also noted that slopes
of 18% grade are allowed on lenghts not to exceed 3001. He explained that he
does not have the authority to approve slopes of greater than 18%. He stated
that in his opinion, the 24% slope would., in this case, cause less damage to the
property.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Max Evans, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any concerns the
Commission may have.
Mr. Davis noted the difficulty involved in traveling this road in bad weather.
Max Evans stated that the stop sign would be on an approximate 8% slope, noting
that this is an outside curve. He pointed out that in his opinion, the critical
concern involving a steep slope is the length of the slope.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the 24% slope extends for approximately 1751.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the slope were further into the property rather
than on the highway, it would be acceptable.
Mr. Evans stated that the maintenance for a 18% versus 24% slope would be
the same.
Mr. Evans pointed out that they reviewed this proposal with the highway
department. He noted that the existing entrance can not be utilized because
the sight distance is not adequate.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the road could not be shortened in order to minimize
the slope.
Mr. Williams stated that the only alternative would be to tie into the
existing entrance, but noted the concern of the highway department regarding
the sight distance.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Evans if they had explored fully the possiblity of tying
into the existing entrance.
Mr. Evans stated that they have looked into this, noting that if they did tie
into this entrance there would still be a 20% slope.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Williams if he foresaw any problems concerning drainage.
Mr. Williams stated that he reviewed the plans strictly in terms of the
slope profiles and has not reviewed the drainage plans.
Mr. Evans pointed out that the road at the property line has to be 30' wide because
it is a commercial entrance .
Mr. Bowerman noted his concern with the possibility of cars losing control
in this area, noting that the slope is steep and there is nothing to stop
the car before reaching the stop sign at the bottom.
Mr. Cogan stated his concern regarding the 24% slope.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance will not allow the Commission to approve
anything that is dangerous.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support this until she was confident that
every alternative has been explored.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that changes be made in the subdivision which would
allow for the grade allowance.
Mr. Davis moved to deny the request of the applicant to increase the slope on this
private road to 24% and for it to remain at the 18% grade as allowed in the private
road ordinance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Skove pointed out that Mr. Evans has stated that he is willing to defer
this until other alternatives have been explored.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt that any alternatives would still be in excess
of 18%.
VOTE: The motion for denial of this request was unanimous.
6/6
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport Hangar and Office Facility Site Plan -
locatedoff the north side of Route 606, south of the intersection with
Route 649, south of the main terminal; proposal to locate a hangar and office
facility (lS,000 square foot hangar, 6,OOO square foot office). Rivanna
Magisterial District (Tax Map 32, portion of Parcel 10).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Boggs, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any concerns
the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
Jim Hahn, an adjacent owner, stated his concern regarding the location of
this proposal and asked if the location could be pointed out on the vicinity
map.
Mr. Boggs pin -pointed the location of this site plan for Mr. Hahn.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked if someone could explain the purpose of the cross connection
control program.
Mr. Payne stated that this is a program to check the_ connection of one system
into another system to prevent backflow.
Mr. Skove asked why the following condition is being required:
• Cross Connection Control Program personal approval of internal plumbing
and mechanical plans and specifications of the facility.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this is a regulation of the Service Authority and they
have asked the Staff to add this new requirement to the conditions of approval.
Mr. Payne stated that this regulation allows for control of the issuance
of building permits as opposed to the Service Authority having control. He
noted that building permits will not be issued until this requirement has
been complied with.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that health department approval has been obtained for
this proposal.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have
been met:
a. County Engineer approval of parking area specifications and walkway
specifications;
b. County Engineer approval of roadway specifications;
c. Note all pipes and dimensions;
d. Note any existing and proposed utility easements;
e. Compliance with Soil Erosion ¢ Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
�5
f. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
g. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance;
h. Written health department approval;
i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
j. Cross Connection Control Program personel approval of internal
plumbing and mechanical plans and specifications for the facility;
k. Fire Official approval of hydrant location, dumpster location and
handicapped provisions;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition
has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Westfield, Lots 11B and 11C, Final Plat (for Blue Ridge Homebuilders) - located
on the south side of CommonwealtITIrive between Westtield Roadan Greenbrier
Drive; proposal to divide Lot 11, Westfield, into two lots of 15,846 square
feet and 28, 173 square feet. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax
Map 61W, portion of Parcel 9).
Mrs. Diehl noted that the applicant for thi; request was not present and
asked if this final plat should be deferred to a definite date.
Ms. Imhoff stated that it would be best to defer this final plat indefinitely.
Mr. Davis moved to defer indefinitely the above noted final plat.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m..
'��q 7�4j- L), -
. iucxer, ir.,
R