HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 24 83 PC MinutesMay 24, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
on Tuesday, May 24, 1983, 7:30 p.m., 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, Mrs. Norma Diehl,and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.
Other officials present were Ms. Ellen Nash, ex-officio, Mr. Frederick
W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer
and Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent from the meeting were
Mr. James R. Skove and Mr. Tim Michel.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order.
The minutes of April 19, 1983 were approved as submitted.
Hydraulic Road Garden Court Townhouses Site Plan - located on the
southeast side of Hydraulic Road Rt. 743), south of the intersection
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 District. (Tax Map 61, parcel 13)
Deferred from March 22 and April 26.
Mrs. Diehl moved for indefinite deferral of this site plan.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Calvary Baptist Church (Scottsville) Site Plan - located on the
southwest side of Rt. 20 South, north of Rt. 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). Deferred from April 26.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, stated that he would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
/63
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
*4104
Mrs. Nash questioned the location of the septic field.
Ms. Caperton pointed out the location of the septic field, noting that
it is to the west of the building.
Mr. Osborne noted for the benefit of the Commission the type of shrubs
trees, etc., which exist on the site.
Mrs.Diehl moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit will be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; this shall include
review by the Watershed Management Official;
b. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
C. County Engineer final approval of the drainage plan;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of commercial entrance;
e. Staff approval of revisions to the site plan to note the
sizing specifications of the landscaping (4' - 6' white pines
and 12" to 2" hardwoods).
2. All improvements on the site plan shall be completed or bonded
prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
3. Any change in the uses on this site shall be reviewed and approved
by the Health Department due to the limitation of the septic
drainfield soil.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan - Plan 2 - located off the east
side of Riverbend Drive, south of Route 250 East at Pantops;
alternative plan development of a 183,600 square foot shopping center
on an 18.2 acre site. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 78, a portion of
parcels 17D, 17G and 15C1).
Ms. Caperton read a memorandum dated May 24, 1983 from Ronald S. Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning, which recommended deferral of this site
plan until June 7, 1983.
Mrs. Diehl moved to defer this site plan until June 7, 1983.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Riverrun, Phase Two, Exton Court, Lots 1-47, Site Plan - located
off the east side of Fox Crossing, east of Phase 1 Qlerion Green)
and north of Pen Park Road (Route 768); proposal to locate forty-
seven (47) townhouse units on a private roadway (Exton Court) on
a 5.040 acre parcel. Rivanna District (Tax Map 62, parcels 17A and
17B, portions of).
Riverrun, Phase Two, Exton Court, Final Plat - located off the east
side of Fox Crossing, east of Phase I (Merion Green) and north of
Pen Park Road (Route 768); proposal to divide townhouse lots in
accordance with the site plan. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 62,
parcels 17A and 17B portions of).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report for the site plan and
final plat.
(THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN AND FINAL PLAT SIMULTANEOUSLY).
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant's representative had any comment.
Mr. Osborne stated that the overall plan for this phase of Riverrun
was designed to protect the character of the open space. He noted
the landscaping provided on the site. He asked that condition l.a.
of the final plat be deleted, noting that condition l.e. of the
site plan reads "County Engineer review and approval of grading
plans for the townhouse units," pointing out that he felt this should
be sufficient. (CONDITON l.a.: Compliance with the soil erosion
ordinance for grading of the lots).
Mr. Osborne stated that he would like this condition removed from the
subdivision plat because units in one portion of the development
could be ready for occupancy but could not be occupied if the subdivision
plat was not approved. He pointed out that a soil erosion plan will
be submitted which will show the soil erosion control measures and
the grading immediately around the units. He noted that the problem
with the condition is that all of the units will not be constructed
simultaneously.
Ms. Caperton stated that she has no problem with removing this
condition (l.a.) from the final plat, noting that the applicant
will have to meet the conditions required on the site plan.
Mrs. Diehl suggested rewording condition l.a. of the final plat
to read as follows:
• Compliance with the soil erosion ordinance for grading.
Mr. Payne stated that if the overall grading for the entire site
has been approved, the plan could be amended at a later time to
show the final site preparations for the various buildings and that
this condition could not be deleted.
/65r
Mr. Cogan stated that grading plans for individual lots could
change from the grading plan submitted for the overall plan,
therefore, he felt this condition (l.a.) should remain as written.
Ms. Caperton explained to the Commission the concerns of Mr. Osborne
regarding grading and soil erosion plans and noted that according to
Mr. Payne the plans can be amended to show the necessary changes.
Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, stated that he did not envision the
plan changing drastically.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant will be able to subdivide
and sell the units as they are built unless there is a problem in
getting the soil erosion plan approved.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the detention basins have been approved
for this proposal by the County Engineer.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building permits for any unit or group of units will be processed
when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
b. Staff approval of the landscaping plan;
C. County Engineer approval of locations of easements;
d. County Engineer review and approval of final drainage plans
for any unit or group of units to include provisions for
roof drainage and lot grading;
e. County Engineer review and approval of grading plans for the
townhouse units/lots.
2. Street signs shall be installed.
3. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the subdivision
plat has been recorded.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of the Riverrun, Phase II, Exton Court
Final Plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance for grading of
the lots;
b. Albmearle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
164
C. County Engineer approval of location of easements;
d. Street signs shall be bonded or installed;
e. Landscaping shall be provided or bonded in accordance with
a detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the staff;
f. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include
the maintenance of Exton Court, open space, landscaping,
drainage and appurtenant structures.
2. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued until the subdivision
plat has been recorded.
3. Building permits shall not be issued until the Engineering Depart-
ment has granted final clearance of the drainage plans regarding
roof drains and lot grading.
Mr. Kindrick seconded 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 inter-
section 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).
Deferred from April 26, 1983.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report noting that the density on the
site is non -conforming, therefore, the thirty approved units are
non -conforming to the density allowed in the R-6 zone. She pointed
out that the applicant will have to obtain a variance or other relief.
She also asked the Commission to review this plat pending the
outcome of a variance or other procedure.
Ms. Caperton noted that six units per acre and up to ten units with
bonus provisions are allowed in the R-6 zone.
Ms. Caperton explained to the Commission that there was an error
in calculating the acreage for this proposal and this is the reason
for the confusion about the density. Bonus provisions were never
reviewed by the staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission reviewed this plat subject to a
response from the Board of Zoning Appeals, will this set a precedent
for future applications.
Mr. Payne stated that this is an unusual situation and noted that he
did not feel a precedent would be set if the Commission reviewed this
plat.
Mr. Payne noted the following alternatives which are available to the
applicant:
lkkme • obtain a variance to allow the increased density;
/6 7
• approval of the appropriate items to obtain the bonus
density;
• rezoning the property.
Ms. Nash asked if the transaction from apartments to condominiums
could be grandfathered.
Mr. Payne explained that this proposal is non -conforming, pointing
out that the Subdivision Ordinance requires any division to comply
with the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that
a condominium conversion should be reviewed as if it were two single
family dwellings on a lot.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Commission chose to review this
plat subject to the alternatives as outlined by Mr. Payne.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Wyant, representing the applicant, stated that he would like
the Commission to act on this proposal at this time subject to one
of the three alternatives as outlined by Mr. Payne. He noted that
they are voluntarily meeting several of the requirements for bonus
provisions, such as a dedicated footpath over a highway easement and
not distrubing the landscaping (trees) on the site. He 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. Bowerman ascertained that the alignment of Georgetown Road, with
reference to the full frontage improvements as outlined by the
Highway Department, has been determined.
Mr. Coburn, representing the Highway Department, noted that the County
has developed a plan for a pathway along Georgetown Road which is not
in the ultimate location. He noted that the Highway Department feels
that a four lane facility will be needed along Georgetown Road and
pointed out that the sidewalks as developed by the Engineering Depart-
ment sould be in conflict with this proposal.
Mr. Coburn explained that if the applicant is required to install
full frontage improvements these would be done at the ultimate grade
and will tie into the adjacent property.
Mr. Elrod stated that the proposed footpath as shown on the plan
meets with his approval.
/69
Mr. Coburn noted that the recommendation of the Highway Department for
a four lane highway in this area is not recognized by the Board of
Supervisors.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could support the twenty six unit condominiums
but did not feel that the four additional units should be added. She
also noted that she felt some improvements to the front of the property
are necessary.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt a turn lane and taper should be
required even though a four lane highway is proposed for this area.
He noted that the turn lane and taper would alleviate some of the
problems with the entrance at this time.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he felt a turn lane and taper should be required
noting the traffic volume in this area.
Mr. Cogan noted his concern about maintenance of common areas in condominiums.
Iie also stated that he could support the turn lane and taper and felt
that the number of units should be restricted to twenty-six.
Mr. Payne stated that the four units, if not allowed to be converted
to condominiums, would be common elements (used for storage, etc.).
Mr. Payne suggested the following conditions be added to the conditons
of approval:
• Change condition l.i. of the staff report to read: Compliance
with the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards
for up grading of the entrance by installation of appropriate
right turn lane and taper.
• Add condition j to read: approval limited to 26 existing units.
Add condition #4 to read: This approval subject to approval of
a variance or other appropriate action to ensure compliance
with the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. County Engineer approval of the drainage plans and pavement
specifications;
b. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
C. The dumpster must be moved to a location 30 feet from
any building;
d. Note the water meter and water line locations on the plat;
e. County Attorney approval of homeowners agreements to include
the maintenance of parking areas, open space, drainage and
appurtenant structures, etc.;
/6 9
f. Provide owners' notarized signatures;
g. Delete the 3 parking spaces and note them at rear parking area;
h. The parking area improvements, including the marking or parking
spaces, shall be completed or bonded;
i. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
standards for upgrading of the entrance by installation of an
appropriate turn lane and taper;
j. Approval is limited to the twenty-six (26) existing units.
2. The plan submitted and received on May 10, 1983 is to become a
part of this application for condominium conversion and all
improvements.
3. This approval is subject to the approval of a variance or other
appropriate action to ensure compliance with the density requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
University of Virginia Scott Stadium Multi -Purpose Annex Site Plan -
iocated off the east side ot A Erman Road at Scott Stadium; proposal
to locate a 20,000 square foot multi -purpose annex at Scott Stadium.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if parking will be provided for this site.
Mr. Ui�Lller Hunt, representing the University, stated that there are some
limited parking spaces which will be used for this proposal.
Mr. Hunt noted that construction of this building will begin this
fall and should be completed by 1985. He noted that this proposal
will provide space for locker room facilities, office for coaches,
tutoring rooms, dining facilities, etc.
Mr. Hunt noted for the benefit of the Commission that they are required
by State law to comply with the soil erosion and stormwater control plans.
Mr. Bowerman noted that it is the concensus of the Commission to adopt
the following recommendations of the staff:
• Staff suggests that the following items be addressed by the
University as the plans develop beyond this stage:
a. Proper measures be taken to comply with the best practices for
stormwater detention, soil erosion and drainage.
b. Adequate parking should be provided if uses within the building
should occasion the need for additional parking spaces.
70
University of Virginia/Birdwood Golf Course Clubhouse - located off
the south side of Route 250 West in the center of the golf course;
proposal to locate a 3,988 square foot clubhouse building with a
temporary pro shop and cart shop adjacent.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Waller Hunt, stated that they are proposing to replace the
existing barn with this clubhouse. He noted that ample parking
will be provided on the site. He also noted that this will be a
temporary cart arrangements pointing out that the pro shop as well
as the rental of carts will be provided for in phase two.
Mr. Hunt pointed out the location of the sewer lines to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that it is the concensus of the Commission to
adopt the following recommendations of staff:
Staff suggests that the following items be addressed by the
University as the plans develop beyond this stage:
a. Proper measures to taken to comply with the best practices
for stormwater detention, soil erosion and drainage;
b. Adequate parking should be provided if uses within the building
should occasion the need for additional parking spaces.
C. Compliance with the regulations of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for water and sewer service;
d. Adequate screening and landscaping materials should be provided
to lessen the visual impact on adjacent residential areas.
University of Virginia Observatory Hill Dining Hall Addition - located
at the corner of Alderman and McCormick Road; proposed addition to the
existing dining hall.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Waller Hunt, stated that this proposal will not generate any
additional parking requirements because it will serve the students
in the area.
Mr. Hqnt noted that this proposal will be completed in phases and
could possibly be completed in the fall of 1985.
Mr. Bowerman noted that it is the concensus of the Commission to
adopt the following recommendations of the staff:
• Staff suggests that the following items be addressed by the
University as the plans develop beyond this state:
a. Proper measures be taken to comply with the best practices
for stormwater detention, soil erosion and drainage.
b. Adequate parqing should be provided is uses within the
building should occasion the need for additional parking
spaces.
Wynrdige, Phase II, Final Plat Revised Phasing Plat - located off the
end of Westfield Road (Extended), adjacent to the existing subdivision
and Westfield Court; proposal to amend the phasing of the previously
approved plat to include duplex lots 49-56 and 67-69 (total of 18 lots)
on this plat. Charlottesville District. (Tax Map 61W2, portion of
parcel 45).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Ms. Caperton noted that the applicant is willing to bond the full extent
of Westfield Road instead of constructing a temporary turnaround.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bob Hauser, representing the applicant, stated that they have
no objections to the condition of staff and noted that he will 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. Davis moved to approve the request made by the applicant to
amend the phasing of the above -noted plat as proposed.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Braxton and Janie Gallup Final Plat - located on the northeast side
of Rt. 640, east of its intersection with Rt. 784; proposal to divide
23.51 acres into 4 lots with an average size of 5.5 acres. Rivanna
District. (Tax Map 34, Parcel 74.)
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Wilson Cropp, representing the applicant, stated that there are
two existing dewllings which have a right-of-way over the existing
gravel road as well as a number of tracts which will also have a
right-of-way over this road. He noted that they will not be able to
use this road and comply with the County ordinances for maintenance
agreements, etc.because of the difficulty in obtaining permission for
the maintenance agreement from all of the adjacent property owners.
i7a
Mr. Morris Foster, also representing the applicant, stated that the
applicant had originally intended to use the existing road to serve
the parcel in the rear of this proposal and have the remaining lots
fronting on the State road. He noted the difficulties in obtaining
the maintenance agreement.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Ms. Caperton noted that the applicant could have a plat signed for
lot #1, noting that this could be done as an exempt plat because
the necessary road frontage is provided.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are grading problems for this proposal
noting condition l.a.l of the staff report. (Condition l.a.l - County
Engineer approval of the road plans to include the requirement of
prime and double seal, if deemed ecessary.)
Ms. Caperton stated that this is added to put the applicant on notice,
pointing out that there are three lots and a fourth lot could be
created.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that any future divisions along this road,
will require the applicant to participate in the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Davis stated that he could support granting a waiver of Section
18-36(d) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there is a deeded right-of-way.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road plans to indlude the
requirement of prime and double seal, if deemed necessary;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
3) Note on the plat: "Only one dwelling unit permitted per
lot."
b. Note the width of the "existing dirt road" or right-of-way
width, whichever is applicable;
C. County Engineer approval of drainage easement locations;
d. Correct Note #1 to read: "No further division of lots 1-3
without special use permit."
2. The Planning Commission granted the applicant's waiver request
to allow lot 1 to have a separate access on Rt. 640.
/'T.3
3. Any further division of lot 4 will require Planning Commission
approval and may require upgrading of the road.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Cogan noted that there will be three lots using the new private
access easement and two lots using the existing dirt road, therefore,
he felt the entrance to lot #1 should be along the northern boundary line.
Mrs. Diehl stated her concern regarding the additional entrance.
Mr. Coburn stated that the new entrance is beneficial as it provides
better sight distance.
The above noted motion carried unanimously.
Ron Carter (Shack Mountain Property) Preliminary Plat - located on the
east side of Route 657, east of the Ivy Farms, Phase II Subdivision;
proposal to divide 16.35 acres into five (5) lots with an average size of
3.2 acres. Jack Jouett District. (Tax Map 45, portion of parcel 19.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that all the development rights for this
parcel, if this proposal is approved, will have been used.
Mr. Davis stated that this should be noted on the final plat.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Ron Carter, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. David Blankenbaker, representing the applicant, stated that the
road name will be changed on the final plat.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this
preliminary plat.
Ms. Elizabeth Langhorn,-Reeve, an adjacent owner, noted the following
concerns:
a she pointed out that there is a shortage of water in this area;
• she noted for the benefit of the Commission that she has, in her
deed, rights in perpetuity to a sewage field, noting that in effect
her sewage drainfield is on the adjacent property;
• she felt that the entrance should be relocated.
in
174
Mr. Bedford Moore, an adjacent property owner, stated his concern
for a buffer zone between this proposal and his property, noting
the County's interest in protecting historical sites. He also
noted that the Board of Supervisors had previously required this with
the Evergreen rezoning application.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the proposed entrance provides adequate
sight distance.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the septic easements will be noted on the
final plat.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant disagrees with the request for a
60' buffer.
Mr. Blankenbaker pointed out that the location of a house for lots
one and two will be located near the cul-de-sac rather than the State
road. He also pointed out that they intend to maintain the existing
tree buffer.
Mr. Cogan explained the rationale behind drilling for water, noting
that on lots of this size drilling a well will not deplete the water
supply of another well.
Ms. Langhorn-Reeve reiterated her concern regarding the availability
of water in this area since she had to drill a new well during a
recent summer drought.
Mr. Cogan asked if the Commission could require a 60' buffer of
trees along the western boundary of lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Payne stated that this could be added to the conditions, but noted
that the applicant would have to agree to this.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval of the road plans for acceptance by
the State;
C. Written Health Department approval of the soil scientist's
report prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
f. County Engineer approval of a drainage plan;
g. Street signs shall be installed or bonded;
/ 75
h. A 60 foot buffer of trees shall be maintained along the
western boundary of lots 1 and 2.
2. Three copies of the final road plans shall be submitted for
County Engineer's review prior to the Site Review Meeting.
3. Only those areas where roads, driveways, utilities, dwellings or
other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other areas
shall remain undisturbed to a reasonable extent.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wendell W. Wood (Route 29 North) Commercial Area Site Plan - Parcels
A, B, and C - located on the west side of Route 29 North (southbound
lane) adjacent to Briarwood Planned Residential Development; proposal
to develop a commercial strip along Route 29 into commercial uses
allowed in the C-1 Commercial zone for a total of twelve (12) buildings
with a total of 92,322 square feet of gross floor area on 22.74 acres.
Rivanna District. (Tax Map 32E, portion of parcel 1).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Wood, the applicant, noted that the staff is recommending that
the direct access proposed on Parcels "A" and "C" be deleted. He
asked that the Commission not delete this entrance pointing out that
there is adequate road frontage and noting that tenants prefer access
onto Rt. 29. He also noted that they are willing to comply with the
requirement of the Highway Department for a 200' turn lane and 200'
taper for Parcel "B".
Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, stated that grading plans
have been adjusted which will allow the third lane to be constructed
on Rt. 29 at a later time without interfering with this site plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment concerning this
site plan.
Mr. Jim Neblett, representing General Electric Company, stated that
they are concerned with the usage of Austin Drive during the con-
struction of this proposal. He noted that Austin Drive has not been
accepted by the State because the continuation of Austin Drive into
Briarwood has not been completed. He noted the safety benefits for
both the GE employees and the residents of Briarwood, when this road
is accepted by the State for maintenance. He also questioned who
would be liable if the road was damaged by construction vehicles.
/?G
Mr. Neblett stated that they would like Austin Drive accepted into
the State system prior to construction on the site.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Coburn to explain the concerns of the Highway
Department.
Mr. Coburn, representing Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation,
stated that it is the understanding of the Highway Department that
the entrances as shown are in compliance with the County's separation
requirements. He pointed out that the entrances have adequate sight
distance and all show a minimum turn lane length of 200' with a 200'
taper. He noted their concern that the weaving maneuvers generated
by the use of the entrance without a full third lane could create
problems. He noted that they recommend that the third lane be built
from Austin Drive to south of Briarwood Drive to eliminate the weaving
maneuvers in and out of this turn lane. He also pointed out that if
the entrances on Parcels "A" and "C" are eliminated, then there will
be no need for a third turn lane.
Mr. Cogan asked if the Highway Department would permit a third lane
to be constructed the same as the turn lane (a rural section).
Mr. Boburn pointed out that the width of the shoulder and ditch section
creates additional grading problems, therefore, the installation of
curb and gutter will reduce the overall impact.
Mr. Ray stated that the cost factor for curb and gutter and the
additional drainage structures that this would necessitate would
not in his opinion be cheaper than constructing a rural section.
Mr. Davis stated that considering the road frontage for this proposal,
he could not support the recommendation for a third lane. He also
stated that the connection to Austin Drive should not be allowed as
this road has not been accepted by the State.
Mr. Cogan stated that he has no objection to allowing four entrances
for this proposal, noting that there is adequate distance between each.
He also noted that Austin Drive should be accepted by the State before
it is used for this proposal.
Mr. Coburn explained that in order for Austin Drive to be accepted by
the State, the plant mix surface needed to be completed. He pointed
out that the drainage structures, curb and gutter and stabilization
has been completed.
Mr. Coburn stated that they have some concern with the entrance for
Parcel "C", noting that although adequate sight distance is available,
it enters on Rt. 29 on the crest of the hill. He pointed out that the
Highway Department plans to lower this hill by 14' to correct a sight
distance problem which exists at Camelot Drive.
/7q
Mr. Coburn stated that if this entrance is approved they would
recommend that some site grading alteration be done to accept a
reasonable grade in the future.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the road will be lowered by 14'
Mr. Cogan ascertained that relocating the entrance to the south would
not be beneficial.
Mrs. Diehl stated that Parcel "C" has more space to be developed, there-
fore, it would better serve the property if this entrance was not
installed at this time.
Mr. Coburn explained that if the entrance were installed at this time,
and the Highway Department at a later date made improvements to
Rt. 29, the cost for the improvements would increase as they would
have to replace the entrance.
Mr. Ray explained the topography and new grades of parcel "C" to
the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the elevation of the road, where it crosses the
sewer line could be maintained and lower the road from this point to
Rt. 29N.
Mr. Ray stated that this could be done using a 10% grade and tying
into the 14' grade onto Rt. 29.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she still does not feel that an entrance is
necessary for parcel "C" noting the reasons for deleting this entrance
in the staff report.
Mr. Cogan stated that he could support deleting the entrance for parcel
"C" because the remainder of this parcel is undeveloped. He also
pointed out that Briarwood Drive could serve this parcel.
Mr. Bowerman noted that fill will be leaving this site for highway
improvements to the North Fork Rivanna Bridge.
Mr. Coburn stated that if this site plan is approved and a grading
plan obtained, then fill will be taken from this site to construct
the new bridge. He explained that as part of the "bridge project"
the southbound lane of 29 will be closed and detours built to divert
traffic into the northbound lane.
Ms. Caperton pointed out on the site plan the screening proposed by
the applicant (white pines, oaks, pin oaks and dogwoods).
Ms. Caperton noted that if it is not the proper time to plant, then the
site will have to be stabilized until the trees can be planted. She
noted that the screening of this site could be bonded.
Mr. Bowerman noted that this is a rural area and the screening along r
Rt. 29 would be in keeping with the character of the area.
/7$
Mr. Cogan stated that an alternative would be to have shoulder
and ditch from Austin Drive to Briarwood Drive incorporating a
third lane.
Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, suggested that conditions l.b. and l.e.
of the staff report be revised to read:
l.b. County Engineer approval of detailed grading and drainage
plans (larger scale plans may be required) and drainage
easement locations;
l.e. Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority review and approval of an engineer's report,
to be provided by the applicant, to determine the effect of
the sewage pumping/storage systems on the Camelot treatment
process and collection lines.
Mr. Cogan stated that the following condition should be added:
o No use of Austin Drive until it is accepted into the State
system for maintenance.
Ms. Caperton stated that this could be worded to read:
o Austin Drive should be accepted for maintenance by the Highway
Department prior to any construction on Parcel "A".
Mr. Bowerman reiterated the concerns of the Commission and asked
Mr. Payne to suggest the proper wording.
Mr. Payne suggested the following conditions:
l.g. - Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrances on Parcels "A" and "B" and Briarwood
Drive, including the northbound turnlane at Briarwood Drive,
and full third lane designed for a rural section from Austin
Drive to Briarwood Drive inclusive.
l.h. - Delete the entrance on Parcel "C" shown directly onto Rt. 29
North (southbound lane).
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building permits for any building on Parcel "A" and/or Parcel "B"
and/or Parcel "C" will be processed when all of the following con-
ditions have been met by the applicant:
a. County Engineer approval of interior access road plans and
specifications;
b. County Engineer approval of detailed grading and drainage plans
(larger scale plans may be required) and drainage easement
locations;
C. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
r&
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of construction
plans for water and sewer lines; availability of sewer shall be
demonstrated for these uses and other uses approved for use of
the sewage treatment facility at Camelot;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority review and approval of an engineer's report, to be
provided by the applicant, to determine the effect of sewage
pumping/storage systems on the Camelot treatment process and
collection lines;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
g. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrances on Parcels "A" and "B" and Briarwood Drive,
including the northbound turnlane at Briarwood Drive, and full
third lane designed for a rural section from Austin Drive to
Briarwood Drive inclusive;
h. Delete the entrance on Parcel "C" shown directly onto Rt.
29 North (southbound lane);
i. Staff approval of a detailed landscaping plan, for any phase
of development, to include provisions for street trees along
the access roads, decorative landscaping around the buildings
and parking lot landscaping;
j. The caliper (size) of the oak trees on the screening plan must
be noted; note additional screening on the plan around the
bank site.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE
MET FOR ANY APPLICABLE PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT.
2. Construction on either Parcel "B" or "C", whichever comes first
will occasion the need to construct Briarwood Drive from Rt. 29
to the end of the commercial area, and the required turnlanes,
northbound and southbound.
3. Parcels "A", "B", and "C" shall be considered as separate phases
of the same site plan and as such improvements shall be completed
as shown on each sheet. Changes in phasing must be returned to the
Planning Department for review. Construction on any one of the
three plans must include all buildings, parking lots, roads,
entrances and other improvements shown on that phase.
4. Screening, as shown on the site plan and including minor revisions
noted in condition l.g., shall be provided after grading has occurred.
The County Engineer shall require a bond with the grading permit.
The landscape materials shall be provided as soon as seasonal planting
periods allow, in accordance with the recommendations of the County
Engineer.
5. All disturbed areas shall be seeded and stabilized subject to the
discretion of the County Engineer.
WE
6. The access road on Parcel "C" to Camelot Drive shall be only for
construction and hauling access associated with the Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation's construction work on the
bridge.
7. Signs shall be approved in accordance with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
8. Subdivision of these parcels shall include access and parking
easementstas necessary.
9. The sewer pumps noted on the plan to serve individual buildings
will not be accepted for maintenance by the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
10. Actual uses in buildings on this site plan shall comply with the
uses in the C-1, Commercial zone.
11. Availability of parking shall be reviewed as each use applies for
occupancy or a building permit to assure that each use on the site
has adequate parking facilities.
12. Austin Drive, from Rt. 29 to its intersection with Briarwood Drive,
shall be accepted into the State secondary system prior to any
grading or construction on Parcel "A".
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
wvv vV t
Rob rt W. Tkicker, Jr. - S cret
/8/