HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 15 83 PC MinutesNovember 15, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, November 15, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Allen
Kendrick; Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan; Mr. Jim
Skove; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Mike Davis. Also
present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala,
Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
ZMA-83-15 Gleco Mills, Incorporated - Request to rezone ±1.8 acres from
Rural Areas to Light Industrial, County Tax Map 88, Parcel 26A, Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. Property is located on the east side of
Route 29 South, at Gleco Mills. (Deferred from November 3, 1983 meeting.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Bain. His comments dealt
primarily with Highway Department recommendations in relation to
sight distance and a commercial entrance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Keeler explained how the applicant's proffer would effect possible
future uses in terms of Fire Official approval. He stated that the
way the proffer is written gives the Fire Official "a free hand."
Ms. Diehl noted that some of the uses which remain (after the proffer)
have the potential for creating more traffic. (Mr. Bain stated the
Highway Department had told him that the sight distance would remain
the same, regardless of the number of vehicle trips per day.) Ms.
Diehl also expressed concern about other possible uses discharging
hazardous materials into the septic system. Mr. Keeler explained that
any uses of an industrial character would have to comply with Section 4.14
of the Supplementary Regulations which are performance standards. However,
he did not think this section addressed this issue so it was possible
that the County would have no additional review.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about the issue of precedent in rezoning
from RA to Industrial. Mr. Payne responded: "In this location, I
don't see how you could do much better. He pointed out that the
property has a number of peculiarities which makes it of very limited
utility with practically no possibility of agricultural use. He stated
it was for the Commission to determine if the proposed uses are reasonable
and are the environmental risks sufficiently outweighed by the necessity
of providing reasonable use of the property? He stated in his opinion,
"these proffers are pretty close to what you can get to protect the
1#4W County if you allow industrial zoning on this property."
.311
November 15, 1983 Page 2
There was a discussion about possible uses and their fire potential.
Mr. Cogan expressed concern about possible future problems, e.g. "the
applicant will think he has something he doesn't have or we're going
to think we didn't give something that we did give."
Ms. Diehl stated she had anticipated a different type proffer with
more limitations on the uses. She asked if Commission approval would
be required for subsequent uses. Mr. Keeler explained that a site
plan would be required for the initial use, but "thereafter, any use
of an industrial nature has to submit a report to the County Engineer
that addresses the criteria of the performance standards of 4. 14.
Those critria do not address the issues that the Commission has raised."
Ms. Diehl stated she had no problems with the proposed use, but she
felt some of the uses which remain with the proffer were not reasonable.
Mr. Bowerman felt this seemed to be a reasonable approach though he, too,
would have preferred that more of the possible uses were deleted.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-83-15 for Gleco Mills, Incorporated be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the proffers of the
applicant as stated in letter dated November 15, 1983 from Mr. Ed Bain
to Mr. Robert W. Tucker and amended at November 15, 1983 Commission meeting.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl stated she was in favor of the suggested use, but she could
not support the proffer.
The motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Michel and Diehl
casting the dissenting votes.
H. Wilson Davis Final Plat - Located on the west side of Route 643, approximately
1/2 mile south of its intersection with Route 743. Proposal to create two lots
with an average lot size of 2.50 acres, serving one lot by a private easement.
Charlottesville Magisterial District (Tax Map 45, Parcel 54).
The applicant was requesting deferral to December 20. Ms. Diehl moved,
seconded by Mr. Kendrick, that the H. Wilson Davis Final Plat be deferred to
December 20, 1983. The motion passed unanimously.
Miran Forest Section 3 Preliminary Plat - Located east of Route 694 and south of
Route 692, about 12 miles southeast of Batesville. Proposal to divide
385 acres into five lots ranging in size from 20 acres to 185 acres. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. (Tax Map 85, Parcel 40).
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The report explained that the
applicant was requesting waiver of the private road requirement for
prime and double seal surface treatment. Staff recommended approval
of the proposal subject conditions and requested administrative
g
November 15, 1983
Page 3
R
approval of the final plat.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Barbara Albert. She explained
that it is intended that the road will be prime and double sealed, but
it is being done in phases because of the expense.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel and Mr. Skove indicated they could support the request. Mr.
Skove state he felt this was a case where the waiver was justified.
Ms. Scala explained that the reason for the suggested note on plat ("No
building permit for new residences to be issued on lot 24, Parcel A, B,
or natural areas without Planning Commission approval.") was related
to the request for the waiver, i.e. the lots cannot be built on until
the road is upgraded, without Commission approval.
Ms. Scala explained the history of the development.
Mr. Davis could not recall the Commission making a distinction between
residences and lots. He stated: "We do not create unbuildable lots."
Mr. Keeler stated there had been similar situations in the past, though
not recently (i.e. where lots could not be built upon without Commission
approval.)
Mr. Davis expressed concern about precedent.
Both Commissioners Cogan and Michel expressed their support for the
proposal. Mr. Cogan stated he thought it was environmentally sensitive.
Mr. Michel moved that the Miran Forest Section 3 Preliminary Plat be
approved, including approval of a waiver of the private road construction
standards so that the road is not required to be upgraded at this time,
and also staff approval of the final plat, and subject to the following
condition:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following condition has
been met:
a. County Attorney approval of the existing homeowners' documents as
they apply to this subdivision.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Discussion:
There continued a discussion as to whether or not the applicant's letter
was intended as a proffer and exactly what note should be placed on the
plat.
� g3
November 15, 1983 Page 4
Ms. Scala explained that it is intended that "no building permit will be
issued on any of the five parcels and that will be noted on the plat."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Solomon Court, Section III, Site Plan Amendment - Located north of
Solomon Road, near the intersection with Berkshire Road. Proposal to
locate 50 rental units on a 90,000 square -foot lot. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A).
The applicant was requesting deferral to December 20. Ms. Diehl moved,
seconded by Mr. Michel, that the item be deferred to December 20, 1983.
The motion passed unanimously.
Berkshire Woods Site Plan - Located north of Solomon Road, near the
intersection with Berkshire Road. Proposal to locate 22 duplex units
on a 2-2-acre parcel. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map
61, Parcel 42A).
The applicant was requesting deferral to December 20. Mr. Cogan moved,
seconded by Mr. Davis, that the item be deferred to December 20, 1983.
The motion passed unanimously.
Riverbend Shopping Center Phase I Entrance Site Plan - Located on the
west side of Riverbend Drive approximately .1 mile from the intersection
with Route 250 East. Proposal to relocate shopping center entrance on
Riverbend Drive. Rivanna Magisterial District. Tax Map 78, Parcel
17D.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She explained that the question
before the Commission was "whether or not this entrance must be constructed
as part of Phase I development." Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. George Gilliam represented the applicant. He explained the history
of the road alignment, including the differences in the proposed alignment.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, also representing the applicant, added that the Highway
Department had not been in favor of the entrance shown on the original plan.
(Mr. Colombini indicated his support of the proposal.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Dick Gibson, representing First Virginia Bank, stated this support
of the originally approved plan which he felt provided the best flow for
the bank and also provided the safest access for both the bank and adjacent
parcels. He explained the reasons he felt the proposal was deficient. He
asked that it first be determined if there will be a median cut in
Riverbend Drive before the present proposal is resolved. He felt the
9
G
a S�
M
November 15, 1983
Page 5
developer should be encouraged to develop property around the location
of the road rather than the reverse. He asked that the Commission
approve the original plan and NOT the proposed modifications.
Dr. Colombini again addressed the Commission and stated it was his
recollection that the plan had been a temporary one and there had
been no firm agreement about the road alignment.
Mr. Gilliam disagreed with Mr. Gibson's statements and pointed out that
the excerpt which Mr. Gibson had read (from a letter dated June 7) was
misleading when taken out of context. Mr. Gilliam read other portions
of the letter which he felt proved this. He stated the applicant has
had ongoing discussions with the bank about the road. He explained
the alignment preferred by the bank and the reasons the applicant feels
the current proposal is more favorable.
(Both the applicant and the bank representative agreed that the issue of
the location of the Automatic Teller was not an item which should be
decided by the Commission.)
Mr. Gilliam concluded: "We hope that you'll approve this, knowing that
it's temporary, knowing that as each one of these site plans comes in,
you'll get another bite at the apple."
Mr. Papst (?), representing the bank, stated that the letter referred to
by Mr. Gilliam was not an exact duplicate of his letter (as Mr. Gilliam
represented it to be) because his map had not included the bank.
Dr. Hurt, one of the applicants and also owner of a large part of the
adjoining property, noted that he was in favor of the current proposal
(shown in orange) and NOT the original alignment.
Mr. Rotgin, one of the applicants , again stressed that the applicant
had spent many hours trying to work this issue out with the bank and
also trying to integrate the neighboring property owners into the
shopping center. He indicated the bank had been less than cooperative.
(The applicants and the bank representatives continued to argue about
the history of the development and who was causing the delays.)
The Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Diehl asked if the second access into the site plan was necessary
for the public safety or if it was primarily for convenience. Ms.
Scala responded that the original reason was to serve the out -parcel
and especially the bank because staff anticipated that there would be
a median there.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to comment on the question of legality, i.e.
is the County bound by the previous action?
cgs'
Novemberi5, 1983
Page 6
Mr. Payne asked: "Are you asking whether it is legally permissable
for the Commission to delete both those roads (i.e. the grey and orange
roads)?" (Ms. Diehl responded affirmatively.) Mr. Payne stated: "Off
the top of my head, I think the Commission could do that. Whether it
is advisable is up to the staff."
Staff confirmed both the bank and Dr. Colombini's lots presently have
access to Riverbend Drive. (For Dr. Colombini Ms. Scala explained: "It's
undeveloped, but the plat which was approved shows a location for a
possible joint entrance. I'm not sure if that means that he is entitled
to an entrance or whether he is restricted to a joint one".)
Mr. Payne explained that the governing principle is that all properties
abutting public roads are entitled to some reasonable access to those
roads (and) what access that is is a matter which is subject to your
review based on the public health, safety and welfare."
Ms. Diehl stated she did not like being placed in this position and
was willing to delete 'both those access roads and let the applicant,
and the two parties in question, work it out for themselves."
Mr. Bowerman understood Ms. Diehl's position, but pointed out that
such action would result in the bank and Dr. Colombini having no
access to Rt. 250 after the median is constructed, other than to
go to the end of the street and make a U-turn.
Ms. Diehl agreed that an alternative access was acceptable, but in this
case she did not feel the Commission should be placed in the position of
judge and jury on an issue that should be resolved by the parties
in question.
Mr. Payne stated that the only issue of importance to the Commission
was "whether the proposal can be executed," and whether it meets
requirements for public health, safety and welfare. He felt Ms. Diehl
was correct in that the Commission should not get involved in "internal
negotiations." He advised that the Commission should approve what it
feels will best serve the public interest, and "the only concern you need
to have about individual property rights is whether the plan can lawfully
be implemented. Anything else is immaterial to this Commission."
Mr. Rotgin confirmed that the road would be temporary in terms of standards
and exact location, but would have a hard surface treatment. He also
stated that the bank would be given access and that an integrated parking
area was planned to serve the businesses.
Mr. Cogan stated he favored the new alignment because he believed it
would channel more of the traffic to the shopping area through the main
entrance and thereby be safer. He noted he was concerned about the
parking area on the Colombini property.
Mr. Payne noted that the record should clearly show that the present
proposal was not in any way a site plan for the Colombini property, and
the Commission was not approving any particular parking design for the
Colombini property. Mr. Keeler added that action on this application }
was not prohibiting any particular parking arrangement on the Colombini *90
property.
�D4l
November 15, 1983
Page 7
After continued discussion, Mr. Cogan moved that the Riverbend Shopping
Center Phase I Entrance Site Plan be approved for a time limit of
two years and subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrances on Riverbend Drive.
2. Temporary access to be constructed as shown prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for Phase I of the shopping center.
3. Access road location and construction to be finalized at the time of
site plan approval of the out -parcel.
4. Access and parking easement and maintenance agreement to be approved
for the access road.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the road through the parking lots. She
asked if the Commission would have the opportunity to review this at a
later time. Mr. Keeler replied: "Absolutely."
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission would be seeing a site plan for this
road prior to the opening of the shopping center. Mr. Payne responded:
"This is it."
Mr. Bowerman stated he would probably vote for the motion, but he was not
pleased with what was happening, i.e. "in terms of by our action settling an
issue which should have been settled without even coming before us." He
expressed hope that this type of thing would not happen in the future.
The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously (6:0). (Note:
Ms. Diehl was out of the room and did not vote on the motion.)
Solomon Court Final Plat - Phases I and II - Request to delete condition of
approval No. 1(b) ["Planning Commission conditional approval of amended
site plan for Solomon Court Phase III."]
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the request
be deferred until December when all the plans could be heard together.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Elick Hamilton. He asked that the
Commission act on the request. He explained that this part of the
development has no connection to Phase III and does not impact adjoining
properties in any way. He stressed that a delay would be injurious to
his project.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, developer for other portions of the property, addressed
the Commission. He explained the history of the project, the problems
which have occurred and the plans for the remainder of the development.
_�S7
November 15, 1983 Page 8
There being no thty
g �pu is comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Maynard Elrod, the County Engineer.
Mr. Elrod explained the location of drainage areas, existing erosion problems
and possible problems which could result from this development. He
explained there were two options with the Solomon Court project: (1) Make
improvements ($45,000); or (2) Provide stormwater detention if studies
show that is more feasible. He noted that this project could help alleviate
existing problems.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
(Note: Mr. Kendrick left the meeting.)
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Scala confirmed staff was
recommending that amendment to Phase III would require review under the new
Stormwater Detention Ordinance. She added that this is the only foreseeable
potential problem. Mr. Elrod confirmed that it would fall under the require-
ments of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne: "Any amendment to an approved site plan would
bring it back under the terms of the new ordinance?" Mr. Payne responded
affirmatively. He explained: "The Commission is entitled to use the new
rules whenever there's an amendment to the site plan. The Commission's
policy, as it has stated before, is that where there is no substantial
increase in the amount of impervious cover from an approved site plan, they
won't go back and treat it as new business."
Ms. Diehl noted that the applicant was making this request, and she could
see no advantage to the applicant in waiting until December 20. She
indicated she could support the request.
Mr. Davis questioned who the proper applicant for this type of request
actually is given the applicant is not the owner of the land. (A represent-
ative of the owner addressed the Commission and explained that there would
be no problem with a delay to December 20th, but any further delay would
be a problem.)
Mr. Davis moved that the Solomon Court Final Plat - Phases I and II request
for deletion of condition of approval 1(b) be deferred to December 20.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Key West - Well Lot - Mr. Keeler explained that Key West has found it
necessary to increase the amount of domestic water supply and therefore
have drilled a new well. He explained that staff will approve , administratively,
a 100 x 100 foot well lot and will be looking for two separate drainfield
locations on the residue for Lot 12. He noted that it has not been clear
November 15, 1983
Page 9
in the past whether or not the staff had authority to approve well lots.
The Commission expressed no objection to staff administratively approving
the well lot.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
� l
�l
V. Wayne limberg, Seeta
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms: 3-90