HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 25 83 PC MinutesOctober 25, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 25, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman; Mr. Allen Kendrick, Mr. Jim Skove and Mr. Richard Cogan.
Other officials present wereP Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Joan Davenport, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioners Michel, Davis and Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 17, 1983 were approved
as submitted.
William Coughlin Final Plat - Located off the west side of Route 676,
in the Whispering Pines Subdivision, approximately 2.0 miles west of Ivy;
pro-osal to divide approximately 11.11 acres into two lots with an
average lot size of 5.55 acres. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Tax Map 57B, Parcel A. Deferred from June 28.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Kendrick moved, seconded by Mr. Skove, that the William Coughlin Final
Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
Wilco Site Plan - Located off the east side of the northbound lane of
Route 29, approximately 1/4 mile north of Carrsbrook Drive; proposal to
locate an 1800 square foot service station and convenience store on a
41,385 cquare foot lot. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax
Map 45B1-5-A-0.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Kendrick, that the Wilco Site Plan be
indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
Frye/Winston Preliminary Plat - Located on the east side of Route 631
about 1 1/2 miles north of its intersection with Route 708; proposal
to divide 9.5± acres into three lots of 2.0±, 2.5± and 5.0± acres.
Scottsville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 101, Parcel 25).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale.
Mr. Payne reviewed the history of the roadway. He concluded: "What I would
be looking for, if you approved this with a private road, is an
appropriate deeded easement, consistent with the subdivision. A public
road would have to be dedicated to public use."
m
October 25, 1983
Page 2
Mr. Gale noted that the owner of parcel 3A is aware that he will need
to establish a legal easement. He also stated that a setback variance
will be required, even if everything else is approved. He noted also
that the requirement for a state road would make the project cost pro-
hibitive and, therefore, it would not proceed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
There was a brief discussion about the road issue.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan, that the Frye/Winston Preliminary
Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
The final plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. County Attorney approval of right-of-way or easement to Rt. 631;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
private street commercial entrance;
c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans and profiles.
The motion passed (3:1) with Commissioner Kendrick casting the dissenting
vote.
Maynard Wood, Jr. Preliminary Plat - Located off the west side of Route 20
South and about three miles south of its intersection with Route 742
(Avon Street Extended); proposed division of one two -acre lot, leaving
9.92 acres of residue. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 102,
Parcel 1C, part of).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Wood. He felt it would be difficult
to bring the road up to state standards because there is no record of
the width of the right-of-way. He explained that the road is used by
7 or 8 families and there have never been any problems. Regarding the
maintenance of the road, Mr. Wood explained that when the property was
owned entirely by family, it was just understood that everyone would
share in its maintenance, and when some lots had been sold, it was his
understanding that the deeds had required that those persons contribute
to the maintenance of the road.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, addressed the Commission.
He explained that recommendations were based on what would be required
if this were a new subdivision being proposed. He noted that sight distance
is needed for safety's sake. He felt "the line had to be drawn somewhere'
50
October 25, 1983
Page 3
for getting the entrances onto Rt. 20 upgraded, and this was the
opportunity to do that.
Mr. Wood voiced his objection to the requirement to upgrade the
entrance. He stressed there had never been any accidents on the
road.
Mr. Skove indicated he agreed with Mr. Roosevelt, i.e. that the
line had to be drawn somewhere.
Mr. Bowerman explained the County's position to the application.
The applicant was very displeased with the County's position.
Mr. Skove moved that the Frye/Winston Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat willnot be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance
onto Rt. 20;
b. County Engineer approval of private road provisions;
C. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
George Cason Fruit and Vegetable Speciality Food Store Site Plan - Located
on the west side of Route 29 North, just south of its intersection with
Dominion Drive; proposed 1,500 square foot storage building, sales area
and 15 parking spaces on one acre. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Because of the lack of information
submitted by the applicant, the staff recommended denial of the request.
Mr. Cason addressed the Commission. He disagreed with the staff report
in its entirety. He noted statements in the report which he felt were
incorrect. He stated he had had all the necessary permits and site plans
approved "at least once and in most cases twice." Mr. Bowerman explained
to Mr. Cason that the permit he had been issued was a temporary one and
expired December 31, 1982. He explained further that the reason a site
plan had not been necessary originally was because the permit was for a
temporary use. Mr. Bowerman stated also that the Highway Department
entrance permit had expired in February, 1983. Mr. Cason disagreed. He
stated the Highway Department had advised him they would review the permit
once a year. Mr. Cason felt this was a needed service to the County and
could not understand the staff's position.
The Chairman invited public comment. (Ms. Davenport circulated a letter
rrw from an adjacent property owner. The contents of that letter were not
explained.) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
.3& o
October 25, 1983
Page 4
the Commission.
Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, attempted to explain
the Highway Department's position. He stated that no upgrading had been
required when the business was operating under a temporary permit, but
now that the County has determined that a site plan is needed, which
would, in effect, allow the use to continue indefinitely, then the use
is no longer temporary and the entrance should be upgraded to a commercial
entrance status.
Mr. Cason again stated that he was requesting a permanent use.
Mr. Bowerman attempted to explain to Mr. Cason why a site plan was now
required, i.e. because of the apparent permanency of the use. He added
that the site plan before the Commission meets none of the conditions of
the Ordinance. Mr. Cason responded: "I'm there, though; what are you
going to do with me?"
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Ms. Davenport read the conditions
which had been placed on the temporary permit, which had expired December 1,
1982.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there any approvals in effect at this time. Ms.
Davenport responded negatively, though she was uncertain about the legal
ramifications of the appeals which are in the making. Mr. Payne
confirmed there were no current approvals in effect on the site, and
the current request is an attempt to bring the use in compliance with
the Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman summarized that staff was recommending denial because the
site plan, as presented, lacked the technical details necessary for
staff review.
Mr. Payne briefly reviewed a history of the site.
Mr. Kendrick questioned why the business was still operating when it had
been ordered to close.
Mr. Payne confirmed if the Commission did not approve the site plan, the
business would be closed (as it should have already been). Mr. Vaughn,
the Zoning Administrator, stated it was standard procedure to give
2 or 3 days' notice. Mr. Vaughn noted that he had advised Mr. Cason to
submit a site plan, which had resulted in the matter before the Commission
at this time. He added that though Mr. Cason had made a "good faith" attempt
to comply with his direction, he was disappointed with what he had heard
at this meeting. He stated that with the Commission's action tonight,
"due process" has been met.
It was determined Mr. Cason had been advised by staff on October 6, 1983,
that his site plan was inadequate.
Mr. Skove moved that the Goerge Cason Fruit and Vegetable Speciality
Food Store Site Plan be denied. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
October 25, 1983
Page 5
Peter W. Williams Final Plat - Located east of the intersection of Inglewood
Drive and Solomon Road and west of the intersection of Inglewood Drive and
Inglewood Court; proposal to divide 5.033 acres into two parcels.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 60, Parcel 74)
AND
Forest Lane Townhouse Development Site Plan - Located at the eastern
end of Inglewood Drive, south of its intersection with Solomon Road;
proposal to locate 15 townhouse units on 3.02 acres. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. (Tax Map 60, Parcel 74, Part of)
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions. Ms. Davenport explained in more detail the
requested waivers.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Pugsley. He explained the
site plan, including the reason for the waiver requests. He also
explained drainage and off -site improvement plans.
The Chairman invited public comments.
The following persons expressed their opposition to the proposal:
Mr. and Mrs. Hagg; Mr. and Mrs. McDermont; Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman;
Mr. Carroll; Mr. Bucannon; Ms. Stevens; Mr. Nelms; Mr. Chops; Mr.
Gary Kendall (representing Mr. and Mrs. Purvis); Mr. Jim Gardner; Ms.
Ellen Yancy; and Mr. John Lowry. There reasons included:
--The density does not fit with the existing neighborhood;
--Increased traffic on already dangerous road;
--Existing drainage problems will worsen.
Mr. Carroll presented a petition of opposition containing 46 signatures.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that the access for the entrance at the point
proposed meets minimum requirements (without much to spare).
Mr. Elrod commented on drainage issues. He stated he was not aware of
the problem referred to by the neighboring property owners.
Mr. Allen, representing the applicant, explained the applicant's plans
for runoff control. He stated the applicant's proposal will not in any
way make the drainage problem worse.
Mr. Kendrick felt it was the County's responsibility (not this applicant's)
to address existing drainage problems.
The applicant stated their runoff detention plans should alleviate some
of the existing problems.
October 25, 1983
Page 6
Discussion continued about the existing drainage problems and possible ways
to address these problems.
In response to Mr. Cogan's request, Mr. Payne explained the waivers
in more detail.
Mr. Cogan noted that though he agreed that this development would not
be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the zoning is already
in place. He stated, however, that he would only support the proposal
with a state road, and the road would not connect from one side of
Inglewood Drive to the other.
Regarding screening, Mr. Bowerman stated that he would be in favor of
additional screening to minimize the impact on the existing neighborhood.
He explained he was referring to live screening which would be effective
year round, e.g. shrubs, white pines, etc.
Regarding the road, he concluded none of the Commission was in favor of
the connection.
Mr. Elrod stated he would be reviewing the project in terms of how it
will effect existing runoff.
There was discussion about deferring the item to allow time for the applicant
to provide more information about drainage plans. The applicant questioned
how much more information he would be able to provide. He felt that
analyzing the runoff all the way to the County line would be extremely
expensive. Vao
Noting that the County Engineer had not yet reviewed the applicant's
computations, Mr. Skove stated that a deferral would allow time for that
to take place. He Skove stated he would also like to see the County
perform a comprehensive study of the runoff problems in that area.
Mr. Elrod expressed some confusion as to exactly what he was expected to
require of the applicant. He noted that this three -acre development
drains into a 12-acre area which in turn drains into approximately 100
acres, and by the time it reaches the 100 acres, this three -acre develop-
ment has very little impact.
Mr. Kendrick stated he wanted more information about downstream problems.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Forest Lane Townhouse Development Site Plan be
deferred to November 22, 1983 to allow time for the drainage question to
be studied further and also to allow time for submittal of a plan showing
a public road and with special attention being given to buffering.
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Regarding the subdivision plat for Peter Williams, Mr. Keeler stated he
felt it was an integral part of the site plan and action should not be
taken separately.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Peter Williams Final Plat be deferred to
November 22. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
October 25, 1990
Page 7
SPBA Office Building Site Plan - Located on the south side of Berkmar
Drive, approximately 1/2 mile from its intersection with Route 29
North; proposal to locate a 3,660 square foot office building on a
27,882 square foot parcel. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 61M, Parcel 12-1, part of).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Mr. Allen Scouten represented the applicant. He explained landscaping
and runoff plans.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Elrod commented on drainage matters, including existing problems
in the area.
There was a discussion about protection of the mature trees on the site
particularly during construction. The applicant noted that the trees
would be protected by fences during construction.
Mr. Cogan moved that the SPBA Orrice Building Site plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans;
C. County Engineer approval of drainage computations;
d. County Engineer approval of designs for retaining wall, paved
ditches and disposition of roof drains;
e. Issuance of erosion control permit;
f. Fire Official approval of hydrant and dumpster locations;
g. Fire Official approval of handicap provisions;
h. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met by the applicant:
a. Fire Official approval of fireflow.
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Bojangles Restaurant Site Plan - Located west of Route 29, approximately
1/8 mile south of its intersection with Rio Road (Route 631); proposal
to locate a 2,981 square foot fast food restaurant on a .868 acre parcel.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax Map 61, Parcel 120V.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. County staff was concerned
about proposed circulation patterns. Staff felt the proposed plan would
be feasible without the drive -through window.
541�
October 25, 1983
Page 8
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Giver. He explained his
background. Regarding the drive -through, he stated it would not be
economically feasible to omit this because it generated 60% of the
business. He explained the reasoning behind the design and the
layout.
Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Commission. He explained that the
plan was in compliance with the Ordinance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, commented on the
issue of sight distance. He felt the elimination of some none essential
parking spaces would meet sight distance concerns. Mr. Rick Richmond,
representing the applicant, stated that the parking spaces referred to
by Mr. Roosevelt belonged to Hardee's and, therefore, the applicant
could not delete them. He added that the applicant has approached
Hardee's on this issue, but they were not responsive.
Mr. Bowerman felt this was an extremely congested circulation pattern
for this size lot.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that changing the orientation of the building
could alleviate some of the problems.The applicant expressed a lack of
understanding as to how this could be accomplished given the locations
of the existing easements.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the plan needed some revision. He pointed out
to the applicant that the Commission has no interest in the requirements
of the franchise, but only in the health, safety and welfare of the
County's residents.
Mr. Skove moved that the Bojangles Restaurant Site Plan be deferred to
November 22, 1983. (The applicant agreed to a deferral.)
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Spring Hill Preliminary Plat - Located south of Route 738 near its inter-
section with Route 786, south of the Village of Ivy; proposal to divide
65.904 acres into 17 lots with an average lot size of 3.577 acres.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Tax Map 58, Parcel 95, part of).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Will Riley. He offered little comment,
except to explain the physical layout of the property. He made no
objections to the suggested conditions of approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
October 25, 1983 Page 9
Ms. Joan Graves asked if the request qualified for administrative approval
of the final. Ms. Davenport explained that Health Department approval
had not been received. The applicant asked if the final could be
administratively approved, provided Health Department approval is
obtained. He added that the Soil Scientist's report confirms that
the soil will perk and the lots are large.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
There was a discussion about the proposed road. Mr. Payne advised that
it would be in everyone's best interest to have the roads dedicated
to public use initially. He stated that all that would need to be done
is to show the dedication on the final plat. He explained that any
other approach would required an "affirmative action" to dedicate the
road and "affirmative action" to accept the road.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was in favor of the Commission reviewing the final
plat.
The applicant argued for administrative approval, but was not successful.
Mr. Skove moved that the Spring Hill Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road
plans and profiles;
c. County Engineer approval of road plans and profiles;
d. County Engineer approval of drainage easements;
e. Compliance with Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance;
f. Street signs bonded or installed;
g. County Attorney approval of homeowners and maintenance agreements.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Crozet Foods (United Services Industries) Final Plat - Located between
Route 240 and High Street, south of the C & 0 Railroad and north of Jarman
Gap Road in the Village of Crozet. Proposal to create a .1524 acre parcel
with .3629 acre in residue. (Tax Map 56A1-1, Parcel 58, part of).
Mr. Keeler explained the proposal briefly. There was no applicant comment
and no public comment.
Mr. Skove movedthat the Crozet Foods Final Plat be approved subject to the
following condition:
Remove note referencing that"parcel X being added to Parcel 52."
October 25, 1983 Page 10
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There was a brief discussion about when to schedule discussion of the
private roads issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
V.
WIM
ilimberg, SJretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 4-90
_qtoI