Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 12 82 PC MinutesJanuary 12, 1982 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, January 12, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Richard Cogan; and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, and Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Planner. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. She announced that the first item on the agenda was the election of Planning Commission officers, and she turned the meeting over to Mr. Payne for this procedure. Mr. Payne announced that he would entertain nominations for the office of chairman of the Commission. Mr. Skove nominated Mrs. Diehl as chairman, and Mr. Davis seconded the nomination. Mr. Payne asked for all in favor of the nomination to say aye; Mrs. Diehl's election was unanimous. Mr. Payne announced that he would next entertain nominations for the office of vice-chairman. *Awl Mr. Skove nominated Mr. Bowerman as vice-chairman; Mr. Kindrick seconded the nomination. Mr. Payne asked whether there were further nominations. When there were not, he asked for all in favor of the nomination to say aye. Mr. Bowerman's election was unanimous. Mr. Payne said that he would now entertain nominations for the office of secretary to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman nominated Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, as Secretary; Mr. Skove seconded the nomination. When there were no further nominations, Mr. Payne called for a vote on the nomination, which passed unanimously. Mrs. Diehl announced that the next item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of June 16, 1981. When there were no corrections or additions, these minutes stood approved. DEFERRED ITEMS Flowers Bakery Warehouse Site Plan - Deferred from December 8, 1981. 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. (TM61W, Parcel 03-6) Ms. Imhoff gave the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. When he did not, she asked for public comment. When there was none, she announced that the matter was before the Commission. She asked the Commissioners whether they had any questions. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Williams, Acting County Engineer, to review for the Commission how he reached a determination on the stormwater detention area. Mr. Williams explained that the applicant had proposed the ponding of water in three locations. He said that the plan was feasible and the amount of water that would leave the site after development would be the same amount leaving the site before development, based on a ten-year storm frequency. Mr. Williams said that there had been a lot of discussion of the plan and a significant amount of grading had been done on the site in order to get a somewhat level area. Mr. Williams further explained that with the current proposed plan, water would pond to 1.1 feet over the catch basins. He mentioned that another location had been examined and discarded for two reasons, (1) a gas line easement prevented excavation and (2) it was uphill. He added that rooftop storage was a concept thought of in the beginning of the ordinance; he said that this method had been recommended in a couple of instances, including Fashion Mall. Mr. Williams said that it did become a structural problem, however, in the designing of a building. He said that this method also posed a hazard in retaining large amounts of water, more than on a flat roof. Mr. Williams stated that underground storage, such as septic tanks, was another method or alternative. He said that this was used in Crozet for the Cold Storage building. He said that the above -ground storage method was apparently the most popular. Mr. Williams said that an extra design had been included to handle an overflow in the event of a storm greater than the ten-year, which was a cut in the cum ing and the use of riprap dca n to the stream channel, providing an escape route for higher levels of water. W . Williams stated that the applicant had probably proposed the best stormwater detention plan for this particular site. Mr. Williams explained that the applicant had been forced to provide for stormwater detention in the rear of the site and had to overcompensate on one side of the site. Mr. Williams observed that although he did not advocate pond detention, in this instance no danger was posed by this method. He added that if expense was not a factor other alternatives could have been considered; he stated that this method did not hamper either employee or customer parking and was the best for this site. Mrs. Diehl asked how long it would take for those basins to drain from the 1.1 foot level. Mr. Williams answered that in a ten-year storm it would be a maximum of 28 minutes. He added that it looked from examining the figures as though it would be about 20- 24 minutes after the storm abated, with a total of 35 minutes for the level to be back down. He clarified that the 20 - 24 minutes was the length of time for the ponding to take place. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was the first such plan Mr. Williams had reviewed. Mr. Williams responded that it was not. Mrs. Diehl specified that she was asking whether Mr. Williams had seen any other plans that place stormwater detention in parking areas. He replied that he had seen a number of such plans, but that he would have to check on which plans they were. Mr. Williams added that at the present time such a plan was being considered for the proposed Hardee's on Pantops. 2 so IR Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Williams if he believed a precedent was being set for placing detention basirs in parking areas. Mr. Williams replied not really. He added, however, that in attempting maximum commercial development on small sites, innovative methods of stormwater detention were being examined, such as the use of part of the parking area and underground storage. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether they had questions of Mr. Williams. Mr. Cogan ascertained that there was a maximum allowance of one and one-half feet for the projected 1.1 foot level. Mr. Skove asked about whether permission was needed from the adjacent owner for condition la. Verification of grading easement prior to issuance of a grading permit. Ms. Imhoff said that was correct and that she would want a verification subject to County Engineer and County Attorney approval. Mr. Payne said that he did not believe an easement as such was needed. Mr. Payne said that he believed the concern was not to have a plan showing this grading, get the building half built, and then find that the proposed grading cannot be done. When there were no other questions, Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission wished to take action. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the site plan, subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A building permit can be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Verification of grading easement prior to issuance of a grading permit; b. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; d. Fire Official approval of fire protection measures as per site review memo dated November 5, 1981; e. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan as per Staff comments; g. Show all outdoor lighting and add note "Outdoor lighting is to be directed towards the site and away from adjacent properties and roadways."; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow. 3. The Planning Commission is not approving any signs or their location at this time. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. 13 ZMA-81-28 William A. Lynch, Jr. WITH PROFFER - Requests deferral to February 2, 1982. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners to take action on the applicant's request for a deferral. Mr. Bowerman moved for deferral, which Mr. Skove seconded. The motion passed unanimously with no discussion. SP-81-61 Monticello Memory Gardens, Inc. - Request to locate a mausoleum on 26 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, in accordance with Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is located on the north side of Route 53, approximately one quarter mile east of I-64/Route 20 interchange. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 33, Scottsville Magisterial District. Requests deferral to February 2, 1982. Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant was requesting deferral to February 2 in order to obtain further highway information on traffic flow. He further stated that two adjacent owners had objected to the requested deferral date, saying that they would be unable to attend the public hearing. Mr. Keeler said that the applicant did not wish to have any further delay beyond February second, by which date all outstanding information should be available for the Engineering Department, Health Department and Highway Department. Mr. Fred Heblich, an assistant to Mr. Ronald R. Tweel of Michie, Hamlett, Donato & Lowry, represented Mr. Tweel, attorney of Monticello Memory Gardens, Inc. Mr. Heblich stated that Mr. Tweel's position was that any delay until March would be unreasonable and that he requested the petition be heard on February 2. Mrs. Diehl asked whether any of the Commissioners wished to discuss this request. She added that she did not believe that it had been the policy of the Commission to defer a petition to the date requested by adjacent property owners. When there was no comment from the Commission, Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission wished to take action. Mr. Davis moved for deferral of the special use permit request to February 2, 1982. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with no discussion. SP-81-59 Adrian Pols - Request to locate a public garage attached to house, on 1.69 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, in accordance with Section 10.2.2(37) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is located on the west side of Route 20 North, south and adjacent to Redbud Creek. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 5A, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He added that the Highway Department, in a letter received today from Byron Coburn, had indicated that should the special use permit be approved for a limit of two years, no improvement/upgrading of the existing entrance would be required. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Pols if he wished to make a statement at this time. Mr. Pols replied that he would. He said that conditions four and six were ones he had been forced to "hedge on" in the past. He further explained that at times certain jobs required that work be done outside, although most of it was conducted inside the garage. With regard to the four vehicles, Mr. Pols said that probably the average was around four. He said that sometimes a repaired car sat on the site awaiting an owner. He suggested that he needed some flexibility on the number of cars allowed on his site. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment on the special use permit request. When there was not, Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis wondered how temporary a garage this might be, since Route 20 is designated a Scenic Highway, and this the second request foran extension. He suggested that perhaps a screened parking lot for vehicles might be desirable, but that would pose some expense for a temporary operation. Mr. Davis asked why Mr. Pols thought his situation might be different in another two years. Mr. Pols responded that basically, it was a matter of having underestimated the length of time it takes to develop a business. Mr. Davis asked the applicant if he did indeed plan to relocate the business. Mr. Pols replied that he did and hoped to within the next six months to one year, but that he did not want to commit himself. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he saw any way to rewrite condition four, retaining the intent, but allowing some work to be done outside, such as installation of a battery. Mr. Payne asked to comment. He said that these conditions were working very well as outlined by staff. Mr. Keeler added that they were self -enforcing conditions. Mr. Skove said that it sounded that as the conditions stood there was enough leeway. Mr. Keeler explained that should there be a large number of vehicles on the site and a complaint received, the condition was a recourse for the County. On the other hand, if there were at times one or two vehicles over the recommended number, there had been no complaints from the Zoning Department inspectors, he continued. When Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners if they were ready to take action, Mr. Cogan moved for approval of the special use permit request, subject to the following conditions: 1. This special use permit and all authority granted herein shall expire two (2) years after approval by the Board of Supervisors; 2. Not more than one (1) sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area, shall be permitted; 3. No employees shall be permitted; 4. All work is to be conducted in the garage; 5. No outside storage of parts including junk parts; 6. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors at any one time. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. M NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Diehl announced that a proposal to add 5.54 acres to the common open space of the Hickory Ridge PUD was the next item on the agenda. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, explaining that should the Planning Commission agree, this addition to PUD open space could be approved administratively, subject to County Attorney approval of appropriate homeowner documents. Mrs. Diehl asked if Mr. Bruce Lord Browne, the applicant, wished to speak. When he had no comment, she asked for public comment. There was no public comment, and Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before the Commission. There was a consensus that no one had any problem with the request, since it resulted in less density and additional open space. Mr. Skove moved for administrative approval of the request, subject to County Attorney approval of appropriate homeowner documents. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Skove asked how staff determined when to use its discretion in administratively approving a request and when to bring a request before the Commission. Mr. Keeler responded that opinion had varied from Commission to Commission, but that general policy was that something varying from the preliminary plan could not be administratively approved. He added, however, in the case of a PUD, it was believed that some flexibility should be allowed and that this particular request seemed reasonable. Mr. Keeler said that general practice was in case of any question, to bring the matter before the Commission for guidance. OLD BUSINESS Mrs. Diehl asked whether each Commissioner had seen a copy of the letter from Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator and Director of Inspections. Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commissioners of the work session scheduled for Thursday, January 21, 1982, to be held at 4:30 p.m., in the Joint Conference Room, Meeting Room 4, County Office Building. Mr. Davis remarked that he would be interested to know what would occur on February 15, if 84 Lumber had not complied with the conditions. There was a concensus to keep abreast of this issue. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. R bert W. Tucker, Jr. Sgcretary