HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 19 82 PC MinutesOctober 19, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, October 19, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second
Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman,
Vice -Chairman, Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. Tim Michel,
Mr. Allen Kindrick and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other members present
were Ms. Ellen Nash, ex-officio,-Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner and
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the
meeting to order.
SP-82-58 Emmettee Thompson Mobile Home - Request for withdrawal.
County Tax Map 26, Parcel 27, White Hall Magisterial District.
97.250 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, located on the west side of Route
673 approximately one mile south of intersection with Route 672.
Ms. Imhoff noted that staff has only received verbal request for this
withdrawal, therefore, the Planning Commission must act to accept or
�*Uw deny this request.
Mr. Skove moved to accept the applicants request for withdrawal of
the special use permit.
Mr. K•indrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ln
Bennington Terrace Final Plat - located on the east side of Georgetown
Road, north of Hessian Hills Subdivision. Request Planning Commission
review of final drainage plans for a 7-lot subdivision of 1.91 acres.
(Tax Map 60A(1), parcel 32). Charlottesville District.
Ms. Imhoff noted that there are no changes in this proposed division.
The reason for Planning Commission review of the plat is due to the
fact that one of the conditions of approval on the final plat is
"Planning Commission review of the final drainage plans."
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, if all the necessary
computations for runoff control etc., had been supplied.
Mr. Elrod stated that from the Engineering Department's standpoint
all of the conditions have been complied with except for the submittal
of a $4,000 check which will be used for off -site improvements.
3�3
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, to explain
the drainage plans.
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, noted that runoff plans
have been submitted to Mr. Elrod showing the computations for the
stormpipes and ditches. Mr. Elrod will review these computations to
ensure that the size of the pipes and ditches will be adequate to handle
the runoff.
Mr. Gale noted that the applicant has installed a paved ditch which
will channel the runoff into the existing storm sewer. He noted
the problem regarding runoff on the adjacent lots and pointed out
that their plan will help resolve some of these problems.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant intended to tie into the existing
storm sewer.
Mr. Gale stated that they had proposed to tie into the existing 24"
culvert but now they will install a 18" pipe so that they will not
overload the existing pipe.
Mr. Mike Davis, also representing the applicant, outlined the drainage
plans for the benefit of the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the 24" culvert can carry a greater volume
of water than the 18" pipe. *90
Mr. Mike Davis noted that there is a 15" pipe draining into the existing
24" culvert and explained that this could cause ponding.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that erosion in the stream could be controlled
using the $4,000, which will be posted by the applicant to make the
necessary improvements.
Mr. Elrod stated that the $4,000 would be used to build a channel
from the southern portion of Bennington Woods to Bennington Road
with contributions expected from the adjacent landowners. If no
contributions are received from the landowners, then using the $4,000,
improvements can be made from the southern property line to the point
where Georgetown Court discharges into the stream.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod to point out on the map the location of
the design channel.
Mr. Elrod pointed out the location of the design channel, reiterating
that they anticipate that the necessary improvements can be made using
the $4,000 and hopefully contributions from the landowners.
Mr. Elrod pointed out that this drainage plan was more complete than
drainage plans generally submitted for subdivisions.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that requiring that drainage contours be
shown for individual lots is beneficial, expecially in dense
developments.
36#
M
Mrs. Diehl asked if action is required by the Planning Commission
regarding the drainage plans.
Ms. Imhoff stated that one of the conditions of approval on the
final plat was "Planning Commission approval of final drainage plans."
Mr. Cogan objected to approving the plan without a design of the
channel.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Jim Kincannon, an adjacent owner, stated his concern regarding
the adequacy of the junction boxes to handle the additional runoff.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Elrod stated that the applicant would be taking the stormwater
and putting it into a pipe system but not into the existing system
under Bennington Road. He noted that if flooding occurs at the
drop inlet, it would not be caused by this development.
Mr. Elrod explained that development to the northeast of Georgetown
Road would drain into the proposed system and noted that this system
is designed for this purpose.
Mr. Bowerman asked what type of bonds would be necessary for this
development.
Mr. Elrod stated that the necessary improvements would either have
to be constructed or bonded and that a Boil Erosion Bond would be
required.
Mr. Bowerman asked what assurances does the Engineering Department
have that the drainage system will be built as shown on the plan.
Mr. Elrod stated that if the system is not completed as shown, the
bond could be called and the money would be used to make the necessary
improvements.
Mr. Kindrick asked Mr. Elrod to explain what the $4,000, posted by
the applicant would be used for.
Mr. Elord stated that the $4,000 would be used to make channel
improvements from the southern property line of Bennington Woods to
the pipe outfall of Georgetown Court into the stream. He also
noted that if the property owners.contribute money, improvements
can be made upstream from Georgetown Court.
Ai <,
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the final drainage plans for
Bennington Terrace subject to the conditions outlined by the
County Engineer in his memo of October 12, 1982 (memo is attached).
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John R. Rea Final Plat - located off the east side of Route 743
east of its intersection with Route 660 and adjacent to Earlysville
Heights (Yorkshire Road area); proposal to divide a 3.63 acre lot
with an existing residence and join the residue to an adjacent lot.
Rivanna District. (Tax map 31, parcels 47 and 47C).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Frank Gregg, representing 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 the road the Commission is reviewing
is a private road.
Mr. Tom Trevillian Civil Eng
ineer, stated that. the private road
crosses both of these properties and the entrance to the private
road onto the 50' right-of-way jointly serves the properties. The
road serving lots 47 and 47C is ten to twelve feet wide with two to
four inches of -gravel. Mr. Trevillian stated that the road is
adequate to serve this proposal.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the (private road requirement) waiver, speaks to
the private drive serving only the two lots and not to Earlysville
Forest Drive which will be eventually accepted into the State system.
Mr. Gregg stated that until Earlysville Forest Drive was established,
the private road ran to Rt. 743.
Ms. Imhoff stated that, in this case, the private road is little
more than a private driveway with a joint entrance.
Mr. Davis noted that there is little difference between this division
of property and the shifting of a lot line (which would be exempt).
He stated that he felt this could of been approved administratively
as there is no addition of lots on the road, etc. He further stated
that he has no problems in granting the waivers of Sections 18-36
and 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan stated that he also was in favor of granting the waivers of
1400
��e
of Section 18-29 and 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Note side and rear setback lines;
b. Note on the plat a typical road section.
2. The Planning Commission also granted a waiver -of Section 18-29
of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the creation of oddly
shaped lots. The Planning Commission also waived Section 18-39
of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding private road specifications
and the requirement for a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Richard T. Heath Office Building Site Plan - located on the south side
of Commonwealth Drive between Greenbrier Drive and Westfield Road;
proposal to locate a one-story with basement office building (4,152
total square feet) on a 0.57 acre parcel. Charlottesville District.
(Tax Map 61W, portion of parcel 9).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Richard Heath, 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 asked Mr. Trevillian, Civil Engineer, to explain the
recommended changes in the stormwater detention design which were
oulined by the Planning staff.
Mr. Trevillian stated that Blue Ridge Homebuilders is concerned
with the location of a 6' rip -rapped spillway. It is preferred that
the spillway be moved by the adjacent drainage easement in order to
carry the flow in the existing easement rather than across the
adjacent parking lot. This drainage easement on the Blue Ridge
Homebuilders site drains into an existing stream.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the 6' wide drainage filter could be relocated.
Mr. Trevillian stated that the 6' wide drainage filter could be
relocated.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the white pines are to be planted on 30'
centers.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission would like to discuss whether a
temporary or a permanent fence should be required around the cemetary.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if there was a state law regarding protection
of cemetaries.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt it was a reasonable condition to require
fencing around the cemetary, noting that it is a federal crime to
disturb a cemetary.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she favors permanent fencing around the cemetary.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any plans for fencing around
the cemetary.
Mr. Heath stated that at one time prior to his purchase of this property
dirt had been brought in to level off the cemetary. He stated that
he plans to make the necessary improvements woithout disturbing
the grave sites.
Mr. Davis ascertained that there are headstones in this cemetary.
Mr. Kindrick stated that as long as the site is protected during
grading, etc., he does not see the need of permanent fencing
aournd the cemetary.
Mr. Bowerman noted the proximity of the cemetary to the building and
the sidewalks.
Mr. Heath pointed out that the cemetary is located in the rear of
the building. He noted that he has no objection to a permanent fence
as long as this could be a low inconspicious fence. He also stated
that he would prefer to have a temporary fence during the construction
period and, if required, install the permanent fence after construction
has been completed.
Ms. Imhoff stated that staff does not object to a temporary fence
around the cemetary during the construction stage. She pointed out
that a condition of approval for this site plan could be added to
read:
• Planning staff approval of permanent fencing around the cemetary.
19
�8/1Sl
Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Note specifications for interior walkways;
b. Planning staff approval of amendments to landscaping plan
to include planting pine buffer along western property line;
C. County Engineer approval of final stormwater detention plan,
to include relocation of 6' wide rip -rapped drainage filter
and construction of basin with all appurtenant structures;
d. Installation of internal sidewalks and curbing as per spec-
ifications approved by the County Engineer;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance (note protective measures for the cemetary on the
grading plan);
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
g. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions and dumpster
location;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
i. Planning staff approval of permanent fencing around the
cemetary.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the following
conditions must be met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
b. All required improvements must be constructed, planted,
or bonded.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Riverbend Commercial Office Buildings Site Plan - located on the
east side of Riverbend Drive, off the south side of Route 250 East
and bordered on the south by South Pantops Drive; proposal to locate
19,600 square feet (total building coverage of 24,500 square feet)
on a 3.535 acre parcel. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 78, Parcel 17
and a portion of parcel 15C(1)).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. She also presented a road
plan showing the traffic generation calculations for the Pantops
area noting that the staff, the Highway Department and the Engineering
Department had not had sufficient time to review this plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, stated that Riverbend Drive
OR
and South Pantops Drive alignments and road specifications will be
the same as what has been constructed on the first section of River -
bend Drive by the First Virginia Bank. He noted that they need
to work out final road plans with the Highway Department.
Mr. Hill stated that originally Dr. Hurt was required to locate the
sidewalks on private property, as on the First Virginia Bank. He
noted that the Planning staff now wants the sidewalks to be within
the public right-of-way.
Mr. Hill 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. Byron Coburn, representing the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, stated that this is the type of information
(traffic generation figures) needed to devise the ultimate road
design, but noted that he has not had sufficient time to review the
plan. He also stated that the existing 70' right-of-way along
Riverbend Drive is adequate.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Coburn has not reviewed the road plan
in relationship to the site plan being reviewed by the Planning
Commission at this time.
Mrs. Nash asked if this proposal was in the area designated as
PDMC.
Ms. Imhoff replied that the area designated as PDMC is located east
of the Riverbend Commercial Office site.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt the Commission should support the
recommendations of the Highway Department, which is that this site
plan should not be approved until the final road plans have been
approved.
Mr. Michel stated that he agrees that this site plan should not be
approved until the road plans for this area have been approved.
I4r. Davis stated that sidewalks will be needed as reflected in the
staff report, noting that the location and type of sidewalks should
be shown on the revised plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked when this proposal could be reviewed agina if the
Planning Commission chooses to defer it at this time.
Mr. Payne stated that this site plan was submitted on September 21
which means it has to be reviewed by November 20 to be within the
legal response time.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this site plan could be presented again on
November 16.
.37D
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Planning staff feels the sidewalks
should be located within the public right-of-way.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that he was
unfamiliar with some of the recommended conditions of approval
outlined by staff and lodged his objections to this.
Mrs. Diehl stated that there is a checklist which outlines what is
expected to be completed (by the applicant) prior to Planning Commission
review of a site plan.
Mr. Davis moved to defer action on this site plan until November 16,
1982, in order to give the Virginia Department of Highways & Transpor-
tation sufficient time to review the traffic genreration figures
submitted by the applicant for the Pantops area.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charles W. Hurt (Riverbend Drive) Final Plat - located on the west
side of Riverbend Drive, off the south side of Route 250 East,
adjacent to the First Virginia Bank, Central/Pantops location; proposal
to divide a 0.4752 acre parcel leaving 4.6689 acres in residue.
Rivanna District. (Tax Map 79, parcel 17D).
Mrs. Diehl noted that the applicant is requesting deferral of this
plat until November 16, 1982.
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the applicants request for deferral of
this plat until November 16, 1982.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Forest Hill Associates, Inc. Site Plan Amendment - located on the west
side of Hunter's Way, off the north side of Route 250 East and west
of Lowe's of Charlottesville, Inc.; proposal to amend the approved
site plan to locate a 240-square foot storage trailer on the site.
Rivanna District. (Tax Map 79, parcel 49A).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Nash asked why the staff feels it is important to provide landscaping
and buffering along Hunter's Way.
Ms. Imhoff stated that when the final plat for this entire area was
originally approved, the concept was for an attractive commercial
subdivision. When the site plan for Forest Hill Contractors was
revised, the Planning Commission required, as part of the conditions
that maple trees be planted along Hunter's Way. The applicant, however,
awA
planted dogwoods instead which were administratively approved by
the Director of Planning with the condition that the applicant plant
maple trees when any new building was constructed. She noted that
there is a letter from Mr. Walter Lumpp agreeing to this condition
in the original site plan file.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Walter Lumpp, the applicant, stated that he did not understand
where the maple trees were to be planted and what was meant by
buffering. He stated that he believes that he does not own the
property where the staff wants the maple trees planted.
Mrs. Diehl clarified that the staff is recommending planting the
buffering along the 30'right-of-way only if excessive trees are
cleared during construction of the storage shed.
Mr. Lumpp again object to planting the maple trees along Hunter's Way.
Ms. Imhoff stated that an adajcent property owner uses the 30' right-
of-way as shown on the plan and noted that he is concerned that the
buffering be maintained along the right-of-way.
Ms. Imhoff stated that planting of the maple trees had previously
been discussed between the Director of Planning and the applicant.
Mr. Lumpp stated that he was originally told to grade and clear all
this property and this has been done.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she recalled that when this site plan was
first approved by the Planning Commission two years ago, the reason
that the applicant was requested to clear the property was due to
the fact that the vegetation on the site consisted of scrub growth.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant understood the concern of the
Commission regarding the maintenance of trees along Hunter's Way
and the 30' right-of-way.
Mr. Lumpp stated that he did see the need for the trees along the
right-of-way.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the location of the property lines for this
site plan.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this is an as built site plan and differs
from the first site plan with regards to the parking area, etc..
She noted that the original site plan showed four maple trees. She
noted that this is where the letter from Mr. Lumpp was generated
agreeing that when the applicant built a second building then maple
trees would be required along the edge of the 4.08 acre site.
91
_� 7-A
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Len Harkman, an adjacent owner, stated his concern and asked
that buffering along the 30' right-of-way be maintained.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the existing buffering was sufficient
then he did not see the need for the planting of maple trees.
Mr. Cogan noted the condition #d in the staff report speaks to
the planting of trees. (CONDITION #D: Planting of maple trees
along Hunter's Way according to plans to be approved by the Planning
staff).
Mrs. Diehl stated that this was required on the previous site plan
and noted that the applicant had agreed to this condition.
Mrs. Diehl asked how many maple trees would be required along
the frontage of this property.
Ms. Imhoff stated that three or four maple trees in the area that has
previously been cleared and possibly eight total along the entire
fontage of the property.
�rrr°
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Fire Official final approval of building separation and
dumpster location;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance. Review of the grading permit to be subject to
Planning staff approval of additional buffering along Hunter's
Way and the 30' right-of-way, if deemed necessary;
C. Construction of gravel road as per specifications to be approved
by the County Engineer;
d. Planting of maple trees along Hunter's Way according to plan
to be approved by the Planning staff.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
1313
a
Blue Ridge Forest, Section Two, Final Plat (Fishing Lane) - located
off the north side of Route 660, west of its intersection with
Route 661 and behind the existing Blue Ridge Forest Subdivision;
proposal to divide 125.83 acres into 15 lots with an average size
of 8.39 acres (range 3.697 acres to 15.651). White Hall District.
(Tax Map 30, parcel 37).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that they should
hear whether or not the dam would be approved by the State Water
Control Board by the end of the week.
Mr. Tom Trevillian, Civil Engineer, stated that the drainage of the
pond, which backs into the lake, has been taken care of.
Mr. Boggs, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the ?ublic, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Trevillian if he had sufficient time to
review the engineering plans.
Mr. Trevillian noted that he has reviewed the plans which are in
his opinion adequate, but pointed out that the State Water Control
Board has final say on this proposed dam.
Mr. Elrod pointedout that the Highway Department requires a second
access where there is a dam impoundment, pointing out that the
engineering department is not requiring the second access. He noted
that if the road should be flooded there are approximately five lots
which will be without access.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the approximate deepness of this flooding
would be about one to two feet.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the plans for the dam meet with the
approval of the Engineering Department.
Mr. Cogan stated that flooding may be possible but he did not feel
as though this will cause the road to wash out.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
M
rm
NOTE: BLUE RIDGE FOREST, SECTION TWO FINAL PLAT - NAME WAS
CHANGED TO SPRING LAKE ON 8-16-83.
NAME CHANGED AGAIN ON 8-30-83 TO MALLARD LAKE FINAL PLAT.
3?94L-✓/
em
cm
NOTE: BE ADVISED THAT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1983
APPROVED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THIS
SUBDIVISION FROM "BLUE RIDGE FOREST, SECTION TWO,
FINAL PLAT" TO "SPRING LAKE FINAL PLAT."
ALL FILES AND RELATIVE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN
CHANGED TO THIS EFFECT.
J7 - 2
M
IM
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Note flood easement on adjacent property as per agreement
with the Estate of Donald Fitzhugh;
b. Construction of a private road according to plans to be
approved by the County Engineer;
C. Construction of lake, dam and appurtenant structures
as per plans to be approved by the County Engineer;
d. County Attorney approval of a homeowner's agreement
to include maintenance of the roadway lake, dam, drainage
and appurtenant structures;
e. Provision of a street sign;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
g. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of a private entrance for lots 31 and 32 and a private street
commercial entrance for Fishing Lane;
h. State Water Control Board final approval of dam.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commissioners of the meeting scheduled
with the Board of Supervisors, for Thursday, October 21, 1982,
at 4:00 p.m. in Meeting Room #5/6.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
BE ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A MALFUNCTION IN THE TAPE RECORDER, THEREFORE,
THESE MINUTES ARE TAKEN FROM NOTES TAKEN AT THE MEETING.
ert W.,Tucker, Jr. - OVcrery
376`