HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 26 83 PC MinutesApril 26, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
on Tuesday, April 26, 1983 at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second
Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman,
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Tim Michel,
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. and Mrs. Norma Diehl. Other officials present
were Ms. Ellen Nash, ex-Officio, Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning and Mr.
Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent from the meeting
was Mr. James R. Skove.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called
the meeting to order.
The minutes of July 27, 1982 were approved as submitted.
*00, Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan - located off the east side of
Riverbend Drive, south of Route 250 East and southeast of Free Bridge
and north of the Rivanna River; proposal to locate a 140,000 square
foot shopping center on a 16.4 acre parcel. Rivanna District.
(Tax Map 78, a portion of parcels 17D, 17G and 15C1). Deferred from
March 22, 1983.
Q
Mr. Keeler stated that the Planning staff is recommending deferral of
this site plan to its meeting on May 10, 1983. He noted that the staff
is recommending deferral of this site plan in order to allow for a
comprehensive review of the proposal.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the applicant, stated that the original
site plan for this proposal was submitted in February,1982 and with-
drawn because of concerns of the Highway Department regarding ingress
and egress to the site. He noted that they are aware of the concerns
regarding erosion on the site and pointed out that they feel ample
measures have been taken to control erosion.
Mr. Wagner stated that time is a major factor to the applicant noting
that they have withdrawn one site plan, had a deferral by the Board of
Supervisors and pointed out that staff is recommending deferral of this
116
site plan until May 10, 1983. He noted that contrary to the
recommendation of the Planning staff for deferral of this site plan,
they would like the Commission to approve the site plan subject to
Planning staff approval of certain technical requirements.
Mr. Wagner reiterated that time was an important factor and stated
that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission
may have.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the applicant, stated that he felt
the public should be aware that the runoff control plan as shown on
this site plan is a result of discussions with the Planning staff.
He also pointed out the ups and downs of the financial market and
noted that they would like to start grading on the site by the middle
of May and obtain the necessary bonds before July 1.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this
site plan.
Ms. Flora Patterson, representing the League of Women Voters, read
a letter from the League dated April 26, 1983 (copy attached.)
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing the Citizens of Albemarle, stated
that he would like to be able to submit a written document outlining
their concerns at a later time.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Planning Commission would accept the
document refered to by Mr. Patterson, pointing out that they would
like to have input from the different organizations.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, stated that he has not had ample
time to review the the runoff control plans.
Mr. Bowerman asked if on site or off site improvements would be required.
Mr. Elord stated that in a letter dated February 3, 1983 addressed to
B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, it was stated that the Pantops
development, under certain conditions, would not have to meet the
requirements of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, as outlined in
Section 18-22 of the County Code. He also noted that on a site of
this nature their (Engineering) main concern is with the point of
discharge into the river.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Urban Stormwater Detention Ordinance was
developed which is intended to provide protection to property located
between a development and a receiving channel. He pointed out that
//7
'4w in this case, as in most of the County, the receiving channel is the
Rivanna River. He noted that the provisions of the ordinance speaks to
the urban stormwater detention being required on the tributaries to
the Rivanna River and does not speak to the properties that discharge
into the Rivanna River.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that in regard to pollution, there is a provision
that states that provisions should be made for minimization of down-
stream pollution. He pointed out that if the Commision chooses to
require provisions speaking to the control of pollution, they should
identify the type of pollutants that would be of concern. Mr.
Keeler pointed out that the amount of pollution that would go into the
Rivanna River from this site, as compared to the City of Charlottesville,
would be insignificant.
Mr. Bowerman noted the concerns of the League of Women Voters with
pollutants from the impervious surface such as heavy metals. He asked
Mr. Elrod if a stormwater detention device as required by the County
prevent pollutants from going into the Rivanna River.
Mr. Elrod stated that minerals and metals would not disolve but noted
that sand and grit would be prevented from going into the river.
Mr. Davis asked if this development would have to meet the requirements
as outlined in the Stormwater Runoff Control Ordinance.
'Iftw Mr. Elrod stated that this development would not have to meet the
requirements of the Stormwater Control Ordinance as it is not a
tributary. He pointed out that the Planning Commission could require
control relating to stormwater requirements if they felt this was
necessary.
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, stated that the standard
which requires the amount of runoff from a development to be the same
after development as it was before development does not apply because
this is a tributary to the Rivanna River. He noted that if the
Planning Commission finds that there is a necessity for some control
of runoff, then they can apply said controls.
Mr. Elrod reiterated that at this time his major concern is with the
point of discharge into the Rivanna River.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that the Planning staff has not had adequate
time to review all the technical requirements of the site plan. He
pointed out that the applicant is asking the Commission to approve
this site plan subject to conditions. He noted that it has not been
the position of the Commission to make major changes in the review
process, noting that the Commission looks to the Planning staff for
guidance.
M
Mr. Cogan noted that it has been the position of the Commission in the
past to try to reduce the number of conditions for approval, therefore
he would be reluctant to approve this site plan subject to conditions.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she is concerned with water quality and stated
that she felt information concerning this should be submitted for
review.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that a two week deferral (May 10, 1983) would
be agreeable to the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman also pointed out that information submitted to the
applicant should be acted upon (if possible) before the May 10 meeting
in order for it to be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Rotgin asked if he could get some input from the Planning staff
on the alternative site plan.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the alternate site plan will be rev.iewprl by the
Planning Commission on May 5, 1983. He noted that adjacent owners
will be notified and pointed out that the Commission's policy is that
revisions be submitted before a plan is reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Davis moved for deferral of this site plan to May 10, 1983.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Coburn, representative of Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation, if he has reviewed the road plan for
this development.
Mr. Coburn stated that the road plans have been reviewed and noted
that he does not anticipate any problems.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that Mr. Elrod would review the concerns of
the public (runoff into the Rivanna, etc) and prepare an alternative
proposal to these concerns if necessary.
The motion for deferral of this site plan to May 10, 1983 carried
unanimously.
/19
M
Hydraulic Road Garden Court Townhouses Site Plan - located on the
southeast side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743), south of the inter-
section with Rio Road and adjacent to the Townwood Subdivision;
proposal to approve the location of 53 townhouse condominium units
on 4.307 acres with a density of 12.3 units per acre, in accordance
with the previously approved plan. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 61, parcel 13). Deferred from March 22.
REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO MAY.
Mrs. Diehl moved to accept the request for deferral of this site
plan until May 10, 1983.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Kenneth G. Maupin Final Plat - located on the west side of Route 601,
about 1.7 mile northwest of Free Union; proposal to divide a 7.015
acre parcel leaving 167+ acres in residue. White Hall District.
(Tax Map 17, Parcel 18) .
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Kenneth Maupin, the applicant, stated that he would respond to
any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this plat. (No conditions of
approval were attached.)
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Branchlands (PUD Retirement village, Phase One Site Plan - located off
the east side of U.S. Route 29 North, on the north side of Greenbrier
Drive and south of the Fashion Square Mall; proposal to locate 20
dwelling units in two 2-story condominium buildings (10 units each)
and 26 townhouse units on 1.38 acres with 1.83 acres in common open
space (total site area, Phase One: 3.93 acres). Charlottesville
District. (Tax Map 61Z, Parcels 03-4,5.) REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO MAY
17, 1983.
Mr. Davis moved to defer this site plan to May 17, 1983.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously.
lao
Calvary Baptist Church (Scottsville) Site Plan - located on the
southwest side of Route 20 South, north of Route 726 and Scottsville
and adjacent to the Scottsville Elementary School; proposal to
locate a 3,600 square foot church building on a 5.0 acre site.
Scottsville District. (Tax Map 130, portion of parcel 25).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report, pointing out that Planning
staff is recommending deferral of this site plan to May 24,1983.
She noted that this recommendation for deferral is due to the fact
that all revisions and approvals were not submitted, therefore staff
has not had adequate information for review.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl moved for deferral of this site plan to May 24, 1983.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minor Townhouses, Phase II, Revised Final Plat - located off the
northeast end of Westfield Road (extended), west of Commonwealth
Drive and south of Four Seasons; proposal to divide 35 townhouse
lots on 1.8+ acres, leaving 4.03+ acres in common open space and
leaving a 3.297 acre residue parcel on Four Seasons Drive.
Charlottesville District. (Tax Map 61W2, portion of Parcel 45).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bob Hauser, representing the applicant, stated that with regard
to the 3.297 acre parcel that would be created by this proposal, he
felt that ample measures have been taken to protect the County.
Mr. Blake Hurt, representing the applicant, stated that they would
abide by the requirements as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. He
also pointed out that he felt it was an undue hardship to require
that this 3.297 acre parcel be a part of this proposal.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the 3.297 acre parcel is not a separate
parcel at this time.
Mr. Payne stated that it is not without precedent to allow the creation
of this 3.297 acre parcel without knowing whether or not it could be
developed. He noted that if the Commission chooses to make this a
is
separate parcel then the note as suggested by staff is adequate.
(NOTE: The applicant and any future owner is put on notice that
any hardship that may be created is self-imposed as it relates to the
ability to build on the land.)
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the 3.297 acre parcel fronts on Four
Seasons Drive and does not have access from Phase 1.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this development will be served by the detention
basin currently on the parcel that serves Phase 1.
Mr. Elrod pointed out that there are three (3) detention basins
planned for this development.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the detention basin empties directly into the
stream under Four Seasons Drive. He pointed out the problems that have
occured with flooding in this area and asked how much runoff is
expected to occur from Phase 2.
Mr. Elrod pointed out that conditions(flooding) would be complicated
by this development for anything over a ten year storm. He noted
that the detention basin has been designed for a ten year storm.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that private roads are necessary for this
development due to the parking configuration.
Mr. Payne stated that private roads are appropriate for this development
because the roads are essentially part of the parking lot.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she has no problems with private roads for
this development, but stated that she felt the 3.297 acre parcels
should remain with the acreage for Phase II until it is established
that it can be built on.
Mr. Michel asked if the private roads would tie into other roads in
the area.
Ms. Caperton pointed out on the plat the location of the private
roads, noting that an easement has been allowed for use as a
turnaround.
Ms. Caperton ascertained that the recreational facilities should
be completed when 500 of the units are ready for occupancy. She
pointed out that the recreational facilities are the same as those
for Phase II development.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the recreational facilities have not been
installed.
Ms. Caperton explained that Phase 1 was approved with eighty-two (82)
units. She noted that the applicant requested to be allowed to move
the recreational facilities from the Phase 1 site to an area that
was to be Phase 2, therefore it was agreed that the recreational
facilities for phase one and two could be combined.
Mr. Kindrick stated his concern regarding runoff in this area.
Mr. Bowerman stated that adequate measures should be taken to minimize
the surface area runoff from this site.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of this final plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Street signs shall be provided;
b. Provide owner's notarized signature;
C. Landscaping shall be provided per landscape plans to be
approved by the staff;
d. County Engineer approval of the drainage and utility easements;
e. Only those areas where structures, utilities, roads, sidewalks,
recreation areas, and other physical improvements are to be
located shall be disturbed; all other areas shall be maintained
a natural state;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance to include the
provision of grading for the lots;
g. The 3.297 acre parcel shall remain with the acreage for Phase
II; it shall not constitute a separate parcel.
in
2. A waiver of. Sections 18-36(b)(4) and (5) of the Subdivision Ordinance
was granted to allow Wynridge Drive and Wynridge Lane to be con-
structed and maintained as private roads.
3. Site plan approval shall be extended to run concurrently with the
subdivision plat approval.
4. Recreation facilities shall be completed when 50% of the units are
ready for occupancy.
5. The plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any certificates
of occupancy.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion for approval.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission noted concerns about stormwater detention in this
area and expressed that particular care be taken in the development
of this property.
R
/, .2
Mr. Hauser asked that the 3.297 acre parcel not be tied to any
phase of development pointing out that it can not be developed without
Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Bowerman noted that he felt the 3.297 acre parcel should remain
tied to Phase 2 pointing out that it can be developed in the future.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the 3.297 acre parcel could be separate
from any open area or common land.
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt private roads are appropriate for
this development noting the density involved.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the private road would be built to state
specifications.
The motion for approval of this final plat as outlined previously
carried unanimously.
Village Offices, Phase II Site Plan - located on the east side of
Ber mar Drive, and adjacent to t e newly developed first phase of
office buildings; proposal to locate two one-story office condominium
rrr buildings with 4,320 square feet in each, on a 1.22 acre site.
Charlottesville District. (Tax Map 61-U, Parcel 2-5).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Elrod noted the drainage pattern for this area. He pointed out that
studies that have been done in the past indicate that there is an
adequate site for a regional detention basin. He pointed out that
they plan to evaluate the storm sewer system to determine the capacity
of the system and then design the detention basin to accomodate this.
Mr. Elrod explained that they are trying to obtain information
from a consultant engineer regarding the design of the detention
basin. He explained that a report outlining the ramifications
of this project will be presented to the Board of Supervisors on
May 11. He explained that consideration of the existing development
will be a major factor and noted that the entire drainage basin is
encompassed by Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any financial recourse for existing
development to dismantle the existing detention basin and hook up
to an area detention basin.
Mr. Elrod explained that there are two methods used:
• estimated the cost to the developer for on site detention basin;
• establish a general drainage district, in which case the County
could access all the landowners for a pro rata share of the
cost of the detention basin.
Mr. Payne stated that an assessment could be taken, similiar to that
used for sidewalks, unrelated to peculiar benefits of the property
in question.
9
Mr. Payne noted the on going cost for maintenance of the detention
basin, pointing out that if the County were to take over the maintenance
of the facilities the owner might be willing to sell or dedicate
the property to the County, thereby being releived of the maintenance
cost.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Elrod what is the feasibility of the on -site
detention basins as shown on this plan.
Mr. Elrod stated that he did not feel that individual detention
basins would solve the problem.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the size of the detention basin is
limited to that of a ten year storm, as required by the Stormwater
Detention Ordinance.
Mr. Elrod reiterated that he would prefer a regional detention basin
rather than a series of multiple on -site detention basins.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
R
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant
is in favor of the off -site regional detention basin as the developer
is not in interested in maintaining the individual detention basins.
He noted that a pond would be cheaper than installation of underground
pipes, but pointed out that a pond in a commercial area uses too much
space. He pointed out that the cost of a regional detention basin would
be less than the installation of the underground pipes and noted that
the regional detention basin could be designed to control the needs
of the area.
Mr. Osborne stated that time is a major factor to the developer and
noted that they would like to start construction within the next
year. He noted for the benefit of the Commission that he has discussed
the location of the parking spaces with the County Engineer.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
is before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that if the Board of Supervisors approved
a regional detention basin for this area, once the applicant has posted
a bond for the agreed upon amount he could begin construction.
9
�aZ-S
Mr. Elrod explained that the parking layout as shown on this plan
does not provide ample room for cars backing out of a parking space.
He pointed out that forty-four spaces is required for this development
and the applicant has provided fifty-three spaces. He pointed out that
if the two spaces located on the eastern end of the lot were omitted this
would help alleviate the problem.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if a regional detention basin is not
required for this area then an underground pipe system would be required.
Mr. Osborne explained to the Commission how an underground pipe
system would be constructed.
Mrs. Diehl asked what is the cost of this underground pipe system.
Mr. Osborne stated that this system cost approximately $5,000. He
pointed out that in order to put in a pond the slopes in the area
would have to be stabilized, thereby increasing the cost. He also
noted that the developer of the first phase of development has reseeded
around the pond three times.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. Building permits will be processed when the applicant has met the
following conditions:
a. A sight distance easement shall be approved by the Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation and noted on the
site plan and recorded by separate deed or plat;
b. County Engineer approval of a drainage plan;
C. Approval of a stormwater detention plan shall be subject to
a decision being made by the County Engineer as to the feasibility
of a regional versus on -site detention facility;
d. Note a turn -around space on the eastern corner of the parking
area;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
f. Fire Official approval of fire flow, fire access and provisions
for the handicapped;
g. Correct the ownership of parcel 120K, tax map 61U;
h. The thirty (30) foot recorded easement shall be vacated by
separate deed or plat.
2. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the following
condition shall be met by the applicant:
a. Submittal, approval and recordation of a plat and other
documents needed for approval of a condominium regime.
3. The applicant is put on notice that the vacation/abandonment
of the 30' right-of-way places a restriction on the development
of parcel 120K and that this is a self-imposed restriction.
/a(.
PFA
Mr. Kindrick3ecorded the motion, which carried unanimously.
University Commons (formerly Georgetown West) Final Plat - located
on the west side of Georgetown Road (Route 656), just north of its
intersection with Barracks Road (Route 654); proposal to convert 30
existing dwelling units in 3 buildings into condominiums for sale purposes.
Jack Jouett District. (Tax Map 60A, parcel 09-15).
Mr. Tom Wyant, representing the applicant, stated that they are
requesting deferral of this final plat to May 24, 1983.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the applicants request for deferral until
May 24, 1983.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
ert W. Tucker, Jr.
retary
9
/Al