HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 08 81 PC MinutesDecember 8, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
December 8, 1981 at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen
Kindrick, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Richard Cogan, and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr..
Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney
and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mr. James
R. Skove.
After establishing that a quorum was present Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of April 6, 1981, April 7, 1981, May 19, 1981 and May 26, 1981 were
approved as submitted.
Camp Albemarle, 4-H Club, Redevelopment Site Plan - located off the west side
of Route 601 on the Moormans River, one mile southeast of Free Union; proposal
to revitalize the existing site to meet current standards, to provide a modern
camp site and educational facility for residents of the Charlottesville -Albemarle
area. White Hall District. (TM 29, Parcel 65).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments.
Dr. Charles Hamner, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that health department approval for the septic facilities
has been obtained.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following condition has been
met:
a. Fire Official approval as per Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
D1/
Carol M. Morris Preliminary Plat - located off the west side of Route 631,
north of Route 706, and west of the Woodingt:on PRD; a proposal to divide a
5.0 acre parcel leaving 91.94 acres in residue. Samuel Miller District.
(TM 89, a portion of parcel 72).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Ms. Morris questioned the recommended conditions of approval.
Ms. Imhoff explained that these are technical requirements which are
required in the Subdivision Ordinance, noting that this is a preliminary
plat therefore these requirements need to be complied with for final plat
approval.
Ms. Morris explained that she would like to build a house on the five acre
parcel and would like to subdivide this from the 91+ acres in order to obtain
two separate deeds of trust,. She noted that. she is the only one that will
be using this road, therefore because of the expense involved she would request
a waiver from Sections 18-36c(1) and (2), and for the construction of a private
street commercial entrance. She noted that she would make some improvements
to the road but the technical requirements would be expensive.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the following waivers are being requested:
• Waiver of Section 18-36c(1) & (2) which refers to the roadway
requirements and righ-of-way requirements. And a waiver of a
private street commercial entrance.
Mr. Davis noted that Benjamin P. Warthen, an adjacent owner, has a right-of-way
which crosses this five acre: parcel, noting that this should be shown on the
final plat.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any comment from the County Engineer regarding
this road.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the County Engineer has stated that the road is very
steep and the maximum grade of such road may be increased to not more than 18%.
Mr. Davis noted that traffic on this road would be at a minimum, therefore
he would be inclined to grant the waivers providing a note could be put on
the plat to read: " no further subdivision of the residue without Planning
Commission approval."
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he agrees with Mr. Davis, noting that the road
improvements for a five acre division would be extraordinary.
Mrs. Diehl stated her concern that the parcels along this easement could
begin using this road.
Mr. Cogan stated that if these parcels were subdivided they would need
Planning Commission approval because they are located on a private road.
7O
M
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt condition #b of the recommended conditions
of approval should be required because when these parcels are divided the
Commission could require them to take part in the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Cogan stated that he has no problem with granting the waivers as long
as a note stating that "no further division of the residue without Planning
Commission review" is on the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the following condition was necessary:
• No building permit or division of this property permitted on the
residue without Planning Commission review.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt this should be in the conditions of approval
for this plat.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the County Engineer approval of road improvements was
necessary if the waivers are granted.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Commission could require County Engineer approval
of roadway plans.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval:
a. Meet all the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance;
b. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement between all
users of the road, if possible;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Written Health Department approval;
e. Assignment of development rights;
f. Determination of a building site;
g. Deed book reference for easement, note width, and entire length of
the easement;
h. Add note to residue: "No building permit issuance or division of this
property is permitted without Planning Commission approval."
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bruce Van der Linde Final Plat - located off the south side of Route 640
and Route 641, west of the intersection of Route 641 and 644 and south of the
Orange County line; a proposal to divide 21.814 acres into 5 lots leaving
9.892 acres in residue. Rivanna District. (TM 34, parcel 6A).
706
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. She also noted that all the information
needed for Staff's review of this plat was :not submitted by the deadline for
revisions. She pointed out: that the position of the Staff is that if the
necessary information is not submitted by this deadline, Staff will not
review it.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that the soil scientist
report and the health department approval has been obtained, apologizing
because these were not submitted by the deadline for revisions.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked for a conc:encus from the Commission as to whether they
want to review this plat or defer it until the Staff has reviewed all the
necessary information.
Mr. Davis asked when this could be rescheduled for review by the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff noted that this could be rescheduled for the December 15, 1981
Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that. the Commission has until December 28, 1981 to
review this plat and still be within the sixty day time frame.
Mr.
Davis moved for deferral of this plat until
December 15, 1981.
Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Scottsville Library Site Plan - located on the southwest corner of the inter-
section of Bird Street and Page Street adjacent to the Scottsville Corporate
limits; a proposal to locate a one-story, 3,932 square foot, library on a
.496 acre parcel. Scottsville District. ('.PM 130A(2), parcel 90).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
John Farmer, the architect for this proposal, stated that he would respond
to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Davis noted his concern that adequate fire protection be available.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Service Authority is preparing a map showing the
location of the pipes and water lines in various areas, which should help
ther:Prepare a plan for the improvements needed. She pointed out that
the Scottsville area is one of the areas under consideration.
7U
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the applicant should make some type of
alternative arrangement for fire protection.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the library board, which the County is part of,
is the applicant.
Mr. Cogan asked where the nearest source of adequate water is located.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Fire Official did not say where the nearest
source of water was but noted that he did say that there is no hydrant within
400'.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt condition l.b. of the recommended conditions of
approval should not be waived. (CONDITION l.b.: Fire Official approval of
fire protection measures as noted in memo from Ira Cortez to the Planning
Department dated November 5, 1981).
Ms. Imhoff stated that perhaps this could be changed to read:
• Fire Official approval of fire protection measures.
Bill Rice noted that the entire fire system in Scottsville is inadequate.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he did not understand the lack of information regarding
fire protection measures for this area, noting that it is a matter of public
record that this problem has been under consideration for the past two years.
Mr. Farmer stated that he has been informed that improvements have been made
to the system in Scottsville.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the Scottsville Town Council will not review this
proposal.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the condition "fire official approval of fire
protection measures" should be required.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt all the alternatives for adequate fire
protection measures to the site should be explored.
Mr. Gloeckner noted the lack of information and stated that perhaps the Fire
Official could supply information such as an cost estimate to extend water lines
to the site, etc.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the conditions as
outlined in the staff report.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion to defer this site plan for one week until more
information on the water lines and a cost estimate to provide adequate fire
protection was provided.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
rI.
Flowers Bakery Warehouse Site Plan - located on the southwest corner of the
intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Peyton Drive, across from the entrance
of Commonwealth Drive; a proposal to locate a baked goods warehouse, convenience
store and retail gas sales. Charlottesville District. (TM 61W, parcel 03-6).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Herb Daley, the applicant, asked why the Commission is not approving the
signs or their location at this time.
Ms. Imhoff explained that the signs are approved by another committee.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked for some clarification regarding the retaining wall.
Bill Rice, representing the applicant, stated that once the lot has been graded
this will reduce or possibility eliminate the need for a retaining wall. He
noted that the responsibility for this retaining wall will be the present owner
of the lot.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see plans showing the area intended
for ponding stormwater in the truck unloading area.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the County Engineer has stated that it is an acceptable
engineering practice to pond. water. She noted that the site is limited and
ponding will be at the rear of the building.
Mr. Daley pointed out the location intended :for ponding to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there are some items which he felt should of been
cleared up before this was presented to the Commission. He noted that he felt
this was an intense use of the site and felt some of these questions should be
addressed before he could approve the request. Mr. Bowerman noted the
following concerns, which he felt should be addressed before action is taken
by the Commission:
• County Engineer approval of pavement specifications based upon the
utilization of the site;
• Is ponding water in the parking area -the only alternative;
• Will a retaining wall be necessary;
• Some of the technical information was not shown on the plat.
Ms. Imhoff noted that this application was deferred at the request of the
applicant, stating that if the Commission chooses to defer it they need to
review it within the sixty day time frame.
Mr. Cogan noted the number of conditions recommended by the -Staff for
approval of this site plan stating that he felt some of these should be dealth
with before h could vote for approval of this site plan.
C
Toy
Mr. Rice noted that the zoning ordinance states " that no grading can be
err° done until a site plan has been approved." He also stated that he met with
the County Engineer and the highway department and both approved the plan
as submitted. He stated that he did not feel that this should be deferred
as they have met with all the parties involved and basically put their ideas
on paper.
Jim Hill, representing the owner of the lot, stated that the engineers have
designed the stormwater detention to provide for a one hundred year flood.
He noted that the question concerning the retaining wall could not be
dealt with until the lot has been graded.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he felt this site plan should be deferred until
some of the concerns of the Commission have been addressed.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not feel this was a question of grading, but rather
who will pay for the retaining wall.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the following conditions should be met prior
to Planning Commission review:
• Note radius of curb returns for County Engineer approval;
• Existing and proposed utility easements;
• Note setback lines;
• Owner's,�zoning and present use of adjacent tracts;
• Remove all structures located within the 30' building setback;
• County Engineer approval of drainage plan.
Mr. Daley stated that Flowers Bakery will not build the retaining wall, noting
that if the necessary grading can not be accomplished they will look for
another site.
Mr. Bowerman moved for deferral of this site plan until January 12, 1982, he
noted that specific attention should be given to the following items:
note radius of curb returns for County Engineer approval;
• existing and proposed utility easements;
• note setback lines;
• Owner's, zoning and present use of adjacent tracts;
• County Engineer approval of drainage plan;
• County Engineer approval of pavement specifications.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion for deferral until January 12, 1982, which
carried unanimously.
yiv
Rdnam RPN Areas B & C Site Plan - located off the south side of Route 250
West, south of the existing manor house in the Ednam RPN. Applicant is
requesting deferral of Area B to December 15, 1981. In Area C, in a 5.1
acre area, a proposal to locate eight attached units and 12 detached units
with a density of 3.9 dwelling units an acre. Samuel Miller District.
(TM 60, a protion of Parcel 28A).
Ms. Imhoff noted that only Area C is being considered at this time, noting
that Ednam RPN B Site Plan & Final Plat is requesting deferral until January
26, 1982.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Sandy Lambert, representing the applicant, stated that the County Engineer
approval of preliminary road plans/profiles and County Engineer approval
of pavement specifications was submitted on November 19, 1981. He noted
that condition #3 (County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans
(revised) and preliminary drainage plans) applies to Section B and not to
this section. Regarding condition #4 (Preliminary Fire Official approval)
this approval was given for the overall plan and should not be done on a
one to one basis.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the requested revisions were not submitted to the
Staff by the deadline. Nooi
Ms. Imhoff stated that the revisions were submitted to the County Engineer
on November 19, but the Staff did not receive a memo from the County Engineer
until December 8.
Mr. Davis asked when this site plan could be presented again if the Commission
chooses to defer it.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the adjacent property owners would have to be notified
of the deferral, therefore this application could be presented at the December 15,
1981 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Cogan asked if it was proper procedure for the Fire Marshall to give
a blanket approval for a project.
Ms. Imhoff noted that sufficient information would have to be submitted before
the Fire Marshall would give a blanket approval to any project.
Mrs. Diehl noted that final approval for Area C is scheduled for December
15, 1981.
Mr. Davis moved to defer Area C Site Plan until December 15, 1981.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1 with
Mr. Gloeckner dissenting. *404
711
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the reqquest for Ednam RPN Area B Site
Plan and Final Plat until January 26, 1982.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS: River Heights Site Plan (Up -date)
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Commission had requested to be kept abreast of any
grading plans for this site plan, she noted that this could be reviewed at
a later date if the Commission felt this was necessary. She also pointed out
that any questions regarding these grading permits could be addressed by
Bobby Shaw, Zoning Inspector.
NEW BUSINESS: Private Roads
Mr. Payne stated that it is his conclusion that in some cases where private
roads are established and at a later there is a redivision along the road,
it is probable that depending upon the language of the easements and maintenance
agreements any redivision will require the consent of all the property owners
He noted that this is not something the Commission should be concerned about
regarding their review, pointing out that this could be dealt with by the
lawyers when they review the maintenance agreements.
Mr. Payne pointed out that this situation would arise where the easement and
obligation for maintenance were created simultaneously.
Mrs. Diehl asked if Mr. Payne will be suggesting language to be incorporated
within the maintenance agreements he approves.
Mr. Payne stated that this could be delt with by contemplating the resubdivision
in the original maintenance agreement.
OLD BUSINESS: Guard Rails Along Rio Road
Mr. Bowerman stated that he talked with Mr. Coburn, from the highway department,
expressing the desire of the Commission to follow up his memo regarding guardrails
along Rio Road. He noted that Mr. Coburn stated that the road surface is next
to the slope and there are problems associated with this, for instance, the
guardrail is normally set 7',back, which is outside the right-of-way in this
instance. He pointed out that if the guardrail were wet closer to the road
surface it could cause deterioration of the road surface.
Mr. Coburn is going to examine the entire lenght of Rio Road from Park Street
to the top of the hill and will try to prepare some designs where it would be
possible to put in guardrails. He noted that Mr. Coburn stated that if there
was a radical change in the design, this would have to be approved by the
Culpeper office.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Coburn should be in contact with him within
the next two weeks concerning this problem. He noted that he will furnish
reasons why the guardrails could not be installed or what the impact of this
would be.
,,Z
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Coburn did. not suggest any alternatives
to this problem at this time. *404
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m..
W. Tucker, Jr., Secretary
7i3