HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 26 82 PC MinutesOctober 26, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday October 26, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 5/6, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virgin_�.a.
Those memberes present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David
Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.,
Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. Richard Cogan. Other
officials present were Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner, Mr.
Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Ellen V. Nash,
ex-Officio.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the
meeting to order.
Rappahannock Electric C
Deferred from September
erative Site Plan
1982.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
ute 29 North -
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Barry Leonard, 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.
Mr. Skove ascertained that a subdivision approval is not required
prior to the approval of a site plan.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following:
1. A building permit will be processed when the applicant has met
the following conditions:
a. Compliance with conditions of SP-82-30;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance, if necessary;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
the commercial entrance;
d. Administrative approval and subsequent recordation of a
subdivision plat to be accomplished and shall include
sight distance easements on Rt. 606/763 as approved by the
Highway Department;
e. County Engineer approval of stormwater drainage facilities.
2. Be advised that the Planning Commission is not approving the
sign or its location at this time.
74 1
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Forest Lodge Final Plat - Deferred from September 21,1982.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Ms. Minor stated that she 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 that the applicant is requesting waiver of Section
18-36(b)(3) which requires the propel^ty line be located at the
center line of the existing 60 foot right-of-way. He stated that
he did not feel this would present a hardship for the applicant as
it is simply a matter of complying with the ordinance.
Mr. Cogan stated that he agrees with the statement made by Mr. Davis.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that waivers of Sections 18-29 and 18-15
(which refer to the shape of a parcel and a substandard subdivision)
are not necessary as it was determined that the area of the residue
created by this division has several suitable building sites and given
topographic features of the land is logically designed.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this final plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. County Attorney approval of the inclusion of the 40.0 acre
parcel into the existing maintenance agreement;
b. Compliance with Section 18-36(b)(3) to locate the property
line at the center line of the 60' right-of-way.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Northfields, Lots 1 and 2, Block A, Addition Two Final Plat - Deferred
from September 21, 1982.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the applicants request for withdrawal of
this final plat.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
J%%
144W Larry D. Snead Preliminary Plat - Deferred from September 21, 1982.
REQUESTS DEFERRAL UNTIL NOVEMBER 16, 1982.
Mr. Skove moved to accept the applicants request for deferral until
November 16, 1982.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Western Albemarle Shopping Center Site Plan - located on the south
side of Route 250 West, west of Brownsville and east of Western
Albemarle High School; proposal to locate a grocery store (12,000
square feet), a restaurant (1,600 square feet), retail stores (1,400
square feet each), a bank (3,900 square feet) and professional
medical offices (8,200 square feet) on 7.75 acre parcel. White Hall
Magisterial District. Tax Map 56, portion of parcel 17. REQUESTS
INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Skove moved to accept the applicants request for indefinite deferral
of this site plan.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders Model Home Site Plan - (Northside Industrial
Park) - located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
Route 29 North (southbound lane) and Northside Drive adjacent to the
Pyrofax Gas site; proposal to locate a 1,064 square foot model home and
sales office, a temporary model home location and 800 square foot con-
struction shed. Rivanna Magisterial District. Tax Map 32, parcel 74.
REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the applicants request for withdrawal of this
site plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Lesco, Inc. Site Plan - located on the east side of Hydraulic Road
(Route 743); just west of its intersection with Route 29 North;
proposal to locate a 4,508 square foot Laundromat and office, a
2-bay car wash and retail gasoline sales. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. Tax Map 61W, parcel 03-23.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
J79
Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that this site
plan is not occasioned by the owner of the property, pointing
out that the Highway Department and County are taking right-of-way
across the front of the property which uses the existing parking
space. He pointed out that this is an existing site, and noted that
no additonal use and/or change in use is proposed. He noted that
the reason this site plan is before the Commission is because of the
uncertainty of Section 32.2.1.E of the Zoning Ordinance which reads:
A site development plan shall be submitted for any construction,
use, change in use or other development in all zoning districts;
provided that no such plan shall be required for the following:
e. Any change in or expansion of a use except where the sale of
gasoline is involved; provided that (1) such change or expansion
does not occasion additional parking under the requirements of this
ordinance; (2) no additional :ingress/egress or change in
ingress/egress isrecommended by Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation based on intensification of use; (3) no
additional ingress/egress or alteration of existing ingress/
egress is proposed.
Mr. Roudabush offered the following points related to the above
noted Section of the Zoning Ordinance:
• There is no indication as to whether this means the addition
of the sale of gasoline, pointing out that gasoline is already
sold on this site. No additional Gasoline sale is involved.
• The use of this property does not occasion the addition of any
parking. He noted that the widening of the highway requires the
need for additional parking.
• The change in the ingress/egress was occasioned by the Highway
Department. He noted that the entrance has been moved to the
northwest to line up with property (for parking) being leased
from Sperry Rand.
Mr. Roudabush reiterated that additional parking is required due
to the widening of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743). He stated that they
did not obtain Fire Official approval for the gas tanks and dispensers
as these are already located on the site.
Mr. Roudabush noted the applicant objection to the recommendation
that the gas pumps be removed, pointing out that these have existed
on the site for some time. He also noted that the applicant wishes
to continue to use the front access to allow for improved traffic
circulation.
Mr. Roudabush noted that the applicant would like to keep the two
parking spaces at the front of the site, noting that staff has
recommended that these be deleted.
M
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the widening of Hydraulic Road is
being done by the State, therefore the entrances to this property
will also be done by the Highway Department.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out on the site plan the location of the
access (in front of building) which the applicant would like to keep
and the location of the two front parking spaces.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was public comment regarding this site plan.
Mr. David Ripley, representing Lesco, Inc., emphasized the importance
of the driveway and two parking spaces proposed in the front of the
building. He reiterated that they have to add additional parking
because of the widening of Hydraulic Road.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that compliance with the Soil Erosion
Ordinance is required, noting that there is grading shown on the plan
but staff has not been notified that this has been approved or a
permit issued. She also noted that the condition speaking to Fire
Official approval speaks tothe location of the hydrant. Also, the
County Engineer has not determined whether stormwater detention provisions
are necessary, therefore this condition has been added until this
is determined.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the egress would be blocked by cars
on both sides of the islands (at the gas pumps).
Mrs. Diehl noted that there is a 14' travelway at the western side of
the building, noting that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20' travelway.
Mr. Davis stated that the two parking spaces in the front of the
building are important for this type of business and asked if these
could be marked "loading spaces only."
Mrs. Diehl noted that the two front parking spaces are located near
the corner of the building, noting the potential for traffic
congestion.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible to change the location of the
entrance.
Mr. Roudabush stated that this was not investigated as the applicant
did not wish to change the structure of the building.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there is no rear entrance to this property.
Mr. Skove noted the change in setback and ascertained that a varinance
is not necessary as they are not building anything. He noted that the
Commission is reviewing this site plan because of the additional parking
and the relocation of the entrance.
Mr. Davis stated that he has no objection to the existing entrance,
if the traffic flow were one-way and the gas pump eliminated.
Mrs. Diehl stated her concern that out -going traffic would cross
in front of the in -coming traffic (at the proposed second entrance).
Ms. Caperton pointed out that if the 14' travelway were eliminated,
this would mean that the front parking spaces would have to be eliminated.
Ms. Caperton reiterated that this site plan is not occasioned by the
applicant and noted that the applicant (to the best of her knowledge)
has not explored other possibilities (i.e. redesign of building, traffic
circulation.)
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is sympathetic to the applicant as the
site plan was not occasioned by him, but noted that there are some
definite concerns regarding this site plan, such as:
• location of the front parking spaces
• 14' travelway
• traffic leaving the site will have to cut across entrance way
• gas pumps.
Mr. Ripley stated that they will post signs stating that this is
"one way traffic"and a "no entry" sign will be posted near the exits.
Mr. Ripley stated that he has not thoroughly investigated the possibility
of relocating the gas pump. He pointed out that this is a leased item
and noted that the sale of gasoline is important to his business.
Mr. Cogan stated that the access points to the property could be
marked as follows: "Exit Only" and "Entrance Only."
Ms. Caperton pointed out that experience has shown that this is not
complied with.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Commission is sensitive to the plight of the
applicant but pointed out the concerns regarding traffic control on
the site.
Mr. Cogan stated that he is reluctant to delete the two front parking
spaces and stated that maybe the applicant and the County Engineer
could reach a solution regarding this.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the Commission deferred this site plan, this
would give the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns of
the Commssion.
.�91
'Now Mr. Roudabush stated that instead of deferring this site plan they
would like the Commission to approve it subject to approval by the
County Engineer.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that in a memorandum from Mr. Trevillian,
County Engineer, he stated that the traffic circulations could be
improved and noted that the two front parking spaces should be
deleted.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that a condition be added to read as follows:
• County Engineer approval of provisions for regulating vehicular
traffic.
Mr. Davis suggested the following condition:
• The two front parking spaces shall remain if the applicantis able
to relocate the gas pump to the satisfaction of the Fire Official.
If the gas pump can not be relocated to the satisfaction of the
Fire Official, then the parking spaces will have to be removed.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions shall be complied with by April 26, 1984:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Compliance with the stormwater detention provisions, if
deemend necessary by the County Engineer;
C. Fire Official approval;
d. County Engineer approval of traffic circulation and signage
to regulate traffic;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
f. Planning staff approval of revisions to the plan for all
technical requirements;
g. A grading easement must be recorded by separate deed or plat
in compliance with the limits of grading shown on the site plan;
h. An easement must be recorded by separate deed or plat for the
area leased from the Sperry Rand Corporation; this easement
must be approved by the County Attorney.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
J8z
C. Edward Wyant Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 614
at the intersection with Route 810 in White Hall; proposal to redivide
two parcels totalling 6.10 acres into two lots of 2.0 acres and 4.10
acres. White Hall District. (Tax Map 41, Parcel 35).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report„
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing the applicant,, stated that they wish to subdivide
this property in order to obtain financing. He pointed out that they
can not obtain financing as long as the store and house are located on the
same site. He stated that he has no objections to the recommended conditions
of approval as outlined by staff. He also noted that they are requesting
a waiver of Section 18-8 of the Subdivision Ordinance, pointing out that
the additional 10' dedication would mean that the right-of-way is located
in front of the existing dwelling. He stated that he would respond to
any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment regarding this final plat.
Ms. Florence Bruce, an adjacent property owner, asked if an additional
dwelling unit is to be placed on the site, will this be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if the four acre parcel were divided, this
division would have to be reviewed by the Commission. She also noted *404
that a dwelling could be built on the four acre parcel without Commission
approval.
Ms. Bruce stated that she has no objection to this division, but noted
that she would like some protection regarding the possibility of another
residence built on this site.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out for the benefit of the public that the applicant
could, without this division, build two dwelling units on this property.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission would not be setting a
precedent by allowing a septic easement.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that a waiver of Section 18-8 is necessary
on this plat in order to comply with the variance that was granted (VA-82-58).
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant does not need to obtain a
variance for the barn as this is an accessory structure.
.�93
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Revise the plat to show a full dedication of 25 feet from the
center line of Rtes. 614 and 810 except in front of the store,
and revise the acreage accordingly;
b. Revise the plat to show a septic drainfield easement on the
4.10 acre lot for use by the 2.0 acre parcel;
C. Written Health Department approval of two septic drainfield
areas on each lot and the use of the existing septic system
and drainfield.
2. Waiver of Section 18-8 is granted since the additional area directly
in front of the store cannot be dedicated.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Windham Place Site Plan Amendment - located off the west side of
Route 240, south of the C & O Railroad and adjacent to the Virginia
National Bank site; proposal to amend the approved Windham Place site
plan for the addition of the Crozet Foods Grocery Store (4,800 square
feet). White Hall District. Tax Map 56A, parcels 58-63.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Wyant, representing the applicant, stated that he would respond
to questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Wyant noted that the operator of the grocery store would like
to have this completed as soon as possible.
Mr. Wyant pointed out that the library will now be located in the
old railroad station.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this site plan amendment subject to
the following:
1. A building permit will be processed when the applicant has met
the following conditions:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans, if required;
J$
b. Planning staff administrative approval of a plat to show the
following: parcels of record on the Windham site; changes in
parcel lines to accomodate the grocery store; all water and sewer
line easements; area of dedication on Rt. 240; and access and
parking easements through the Windham site;
C. County Attorney approval of a maintenance, access and parking
agreement between owners of the Windham Place development;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
all entrances;
e. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
f. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans and traffic
circulation;
g. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Turtle Creek Condominiums, Buildings 102, 104, 110, and 112 Final Plat -
located on the east side of Hydrauli Road (Route 743) and north of
Commonwealth Drive (extended); proposal to divide 48 condominium units
in four buildings (12 units per building) on a 3.836 acre parcel
leaving 18.6 acres for future development. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. Tax Map 61, parcel 45, portion of.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that they would
respond to questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Ms. Nash stated her concern regarding snow removal on private roads.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the maintenance agreements have a provision
which speaks to the removal of snow.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these are rental units.
Ms. Caperton stated that these should be sale units; noting that the
applicant could have requested administrative approval from sale to
rental units prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
pointing out that to the best of her knowledge this was not done.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the approval of and recordation of condominium
documents was to be accomplished prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy.
Ms. Caperton noted that each unit has a temporary certificate of
occupancy, pointing out that this was a determination of the Zoning
Administrator.
j g>
Ms. Caperton pointed out that it was not the intent of the site plan
approval that temporary certificates of occupancy be issued for individual
units. She noted that this could be a violation of the site plan ordinance.
Ms. Caperton stated that she would send clarification of the conditions
relating to certificate of occupancy to the Zoning Department along with
any action the Commission may take to prevent this from happening in
the future.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. County Attorney and Virginia Real Estate Commission approval of
condominium regime documents to include provisions for the
maintenance of roads, landscaping, open areas, other improvements
stormwater detention and appurtenant structures;
b. All improvments shall be completed in accordance with the
approved site plan;
C. Owner's notarized signature(s);
d. Show entrance improvements at least to the right-of-way line.
2. Waiver of Section 18-36(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Subdivision
Ordinance granted to allow for private roads.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission directed Ms. Caperton to inquire how temporary occupancy
permits are issued.
Ms. Caperton stated that she would also send to the Zoning Administrator
clarification on the intent of the site plan.
Greene Gardens Revised Site Plan - Request to amend the Planning Commission
Commission's February 23, 1982, action on the site plan to delete the
requirment for a connection to public sewer.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Rick Walden, 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
is before the Commission.
Mr. Davis noted that the applicant was to connect to public sewer
on or before October 1, 1982. He asked if the Commission should
take action on this requesting as the time allowed has expired.
Mr. Payne noted that the Commission can, if they choose, take action
on this request. He also noted that if the Commission chooses not
to change their original condition, then the bond posted for this
connection should be enforced.
Mr. Bowerman stated that public sewer connection was required for
this site because it is located in the urban area and there was some
change (i.e. additional buildings) from the original site plan.
Ms. Caperton noted that the Commission required connection to public
sewer because this site is located in the urban area and because sewer
connections were reasonably available. She noted that the Commission
could require this because the site plan had been submitted for an
intensification of use, not because the use was being intensified.
Mr. Michel asked if the Commission would have the opportunity to
review plans submitted for this site for a change in use.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that if the change in use required additional
parking, then this would require either Planning staff administrative
review or could be presented to the Planning Commission for their review.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it would be moire feasible if the connection
to public sewer was connected to the :issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Davis noted the problems regarding water and sewer in this area
and stated that public sewer connections are reasonably available.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt anything in the urban area, that has
public sewer reasonably available, should be connected.
Mr. Walden stated that he felt $19,500.00 was an unreasonable amount
noting that a bond has been posted in this amount to cover the cost
of this connection.
Mr. David Blankenbaker, representing -the applicant, noted that the
topography of this area is one factor which has contributed to the
cost of this connection. He pointed out the problems with the streambed
and noted the cost involved in building up this streambed. He stated
that it is not feasible to run a pipe across the streambed.
Mr. Blankenbaker pointed out that there is a public sewer connection
in Woodbrook, but noted that the applicant would have to obtain
easments from private property owners.
.o
Mr. Walden noted that there are two retention ponds located on the
site which are used for watering plants and one used for catching
silt.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the applicant had reached an agreement
with the Service Authority relating to the billing for water usage.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt is was a hardship to require the
connection to public sewer, noting that there is only one restroom
facility and the cost involved. He stated that the replacement
condition as recommended by the staff should address the Commission's
concerns. (REPLACEMENT CONDITION #2: The applicant shall connect
to public sewer when either of the existing septic systems or drainfields
fail and/or additional use of the site requires an expansion of existing
facilities.)
Ms. Caperton pointed out to the applicant that any additional change
on the site would be considered an intensification of use.
Mr. Bowerman asked that the Planning Commission be notified of any
additional use or change in use of this site.
Ms. Caperton stated that if it is an administrative approval, the
Planning staff could bring this to the Commission without having
to go to the Site Reivew Committee.
Mr. Cogan stated that the replacement condition as outlined by the
staff should be altered to read:
• The applicant shall connect to public sewer when either of the
existing septic systems or drainfields fail and/or additional use
or change in the use of the site requires an expansion of existing
facilities. The existing septic systems and drainfields cannot be
expanded or amended.
Mr. Payne pointed out that this conditions as worded above, will
alert the Health Department when this system fails.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of the applicant's request to delete
the requirement for the connection to public sewer. Condition #2
of the February 23, 1982 approval is amended to read:
• The applicant shall connect to public sewer when either of the
existing septic systems or drainfields fail and/or additional use
or change in the use of the site requires an expansion of existing
facilities. The existing septic systems and drainfields cannot be
expanded or amended.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Home for Homeless Alcoholics - Status Report.
Ms. Caperton noted that the County was requested to grant an extension
for the use of the Pantops property as a home for the homeless alcoholics.
She noted that this extension is to expire January 30, 1983.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Payne noted that the appeals made by Central Virginia Electric
Cooperative have been denied by the Supreme Court. He pointed out
that this has been remanded to the Board of Supervisors. He stated
that the Board of Supervisors have been given a time period within which
time they must review this petition. :He stated that the Board
may impose reasonable conditions on the permit within certain limitations.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Board can not put conditions that would
disallow the acquisition and use of additional riaht-of-way sought by
the petitioner, not to exceed 50', as :may be reasonably necessary to
allow construction, maintenance and operation of additional electric
transmission line which is cabable of being upgrade to a 115KV line.
He also noted that the Board can not require the removal of the existing
line.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m..
rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Sucre
,3 S 9