HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 22 83 PC MinutesNovember 22, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, November 22, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, VA. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman,
Chairman; Mr. Allen Kendrick; Mr. Richard Cogan; Mr. Jim Skove; Ms.
Norma Diehl; and Mr. Mike Davis. Other officials present were: Mr.
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; and Mr.
Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
Bojangles Restaurant Site Plan - Located west of Route 29, ±1/8 mile south
of its intersection with Rio Road (Route 631); proposal to locate a
2,981 square foot fast food restaurant on .868 acre parcel.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61, Parcel 120V).
Deferred from October 25.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Osborne. He offered no significant
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was concern about the fact that pedestrian traffic would be crossing
the drive -through lane. Mr. Cogan asked that the applicant install some
cautionary measures to advise people of this conflict. It was determined
the following condition would be added: "Adequate cautionary devices, by
means of signs and/or painting in the roadway, will be used to
warn motorists in the drive -through lane of pedestrian traffic."
Mr. Cogan moved that the Bojangles Restaurant 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. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Control Ordinance;
c. Adequate cautionary devices, by means of signs and/or painting
in the roadway, will be used to warn motorists in the drive -
through lane of pedestrian traffic.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
M
November 22, 1983 Page 2
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). Deferred from October
25.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Davis moved, seconded by Mr. Kendrick, that the Forest Lane Townhouse
Site Plan be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
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). Deferred
from October 25, 1983.
The applicant was requesting deferral to December 20, 1983.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, that the Peter W. Williams Final
Plat be deferred to December 20, 1983. The motion passed unanimously.
Spring Hill Final Plat - Located south of Route 738 near its intersection
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, part of Parcel 95).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Davis expressed some confusion about the road issue. Mr. Payne explained
the difference in the acceptance of the dedication of the road to public
use and the acceptance of the road into the state highway system. Mr.
Davis questioned why a note would be placed on the plat requiring acceptance
of the dedication by the Board if there was no assurance that would happen.
Mr. Kirk Hughes, representing the applicant, asked that the following be
added to the statement which staff was suggesting be placed on the plat:
"...provided that such division shall be conditioned upon the Board's
acceptance of such roads at such time."
Mr. Payne questioned why the applicant was making this request because he
felt it was inviting trouble. However, he noted that it was not unlawful,
even though it was, he felt, awkward.
Mr. Ethan Miller, representing the applicant, felt the request for the
additional language would make him feel more confident. Mr. Davis indicated
he had no objection, but he questioned the value of the statement. He
noted that "sometimes less is better."
Mr. Payne advised the Commission if it was desired that the development
have public roads, that decision should be made now.
November 22, 1983 Page 3
Mr. Cogan noted the Commission was trying to "avoid runaway private roads."
Ms. Diehl asked if an applicant could request relief from a note on
a plat, the same as if it were a condition of approval. Mr. Payne responded
affirmatively.
Mr. Cogan suggested the possibility of making it a condition of the final
plat and removing it from the preliminary plat.
The Chairman invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was considerable discussion about the road issue. Mr. Payne explained
that, historically, the problems with trying to change from a private road
to a public one have been: (1) The adequacy of the initial design of the
road; (2) Inadequate maintenance; and (3) Possible changes in Highway
Department standards. He again stated that if it is not required now, there
is no assurance that the roads will be taken into the system later.
Mr. Cogan noted that the roads will be designed to state standards
in the beginning. Mr. Cogan also noted that whoever develops the residue
might not have the authority to dedicate the road. Mr. Keeler pointed
out that development of the residue might not be permitted. He explained:
"Right now, thEy've got 32 lots and a 500 acre residue and this business
about building the roads to Highway Department standards is based on the
applicant's intent to develop the residue. The County hasn't authorized
that...."
Mr. Cogan felt the note on the plat should be removed (i.e. "Further division
of residue acreage shall require dedication of roads in Phase I and II
to the public"). He felt this could cause problems later.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the owner of the road should
have the right to dedicate it. Mr. Payne explained this would give
the homeowners' association a say in what happens with the road.
Mr. Miller expressed some confusion about the issue. He asked if this would
mean the homeowners' association would have veto power over the developer.
Mr. Payne responded: "If that's what the Commission wants, that's what
I'll apply."
It was determined the developer had the right to dedicate the roads for
Phase I.
Mr. Davis interpreted: "The owner will have the control over the road, but
if there is a deed restriction, it gives it away to the developer."
There was continued discussion about this issue and some degree of confusion.
Mr. Bowerman summarized: "Mr. Payne, you understand that what we're
contemplating is the developer has the right, rather than the homeowner's
association ?" Mr. Payne acknowledged understanding. Mr. Payne also
acknowledged that the maintenance of the roads would still be up to the
homeowners' association.
S9-P-
November 22, 1983
Page 4
Mr. Cogan moved that the Spring Hill Section Two, Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat may be signed when the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans and profiles;
b. County Engineer approval of road plans and profiles;
C. County Engineer approval of drainage and easements;
d. Compliance with Soil Eorsion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
e. Street signs bonded or installed;
f. County Attorney approval of homeowners and maintenance agreements
including provisions for future dedication of roads to state
standards.
and also that the note on the plat stating "Further division of residue
acreage shall require dedication of roads in Phase I and II to the public"
be removed.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Larry Wyant Antique Shop Site Plan - Located at the intersection of Route 810
and Route 614 at White Hall. Proposal to convert use of an existing
building (1,100 square feet) on a 2.00-acre tract. White Hall Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 44, Parcel 24.)
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Larry Wyant. He offered no additional
comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves commented on Condition 1(c), but her comments were
inaudible. The dealt with the requirement for an employee toilet at
some future time.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Larry Wyant Antique Shop Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the applicant has
met the following requirements:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance including curb radius;
b. Final Fire Official approval;
c. Note on site plan "Any future division of the parcel, or sale or
lease of the converted building will require an employee toilet
be installed in the shop building with Health Department approval;"
d. Note on site plan "No outdoor display or storage;"
e. Note on site plan "No auctions."
�-93
November 22, 1983 Page 5
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ivy Farm Lot 20B, Phase I Preliminary Plat - Located at the end of Stillhouse
Road in Ivy Farms Subdivision off a private easement. Proposal to divide
a 11.4 acre tract into two 5.7 acre parcels. Jack Jouett Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 44, Parcel 56A).
The applicant was requesting withdrawal.
Mr. Davis moved, seconded by Mr. Skove, that the Ivy Farm Lot 20B Preliminary
Plat be withdrawn. The motion passed unanimously.
Pollock Preliminary Plat - Located north of Windsor Road in Farmington
Subdivision ±z mile north of Route 250. Proposal to create a 3.0-acre
lot leaving 20.54 acres in residue. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 59, Parcel 59).
The applicant was requesting deferral to December 20, 1983.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Skove, that the Pollock Preliminary Plat
be deferred to December 20, 1983.
The motion passed unanimously.
Wholley Preliminary Plat - Located on the north side of Route 637, at its
intersection with Route 682. Proposal to create 6 lots ranging in size from
21.00 acres to 5.0 acres served by a private easement. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. (Tax Map 73, Parcel 17).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Tom Gale represented the applicant. He commented on the issues of
access and sight distance, and road improvements. He asked to be allowed
to use the existing road because it is acceptable. He suggested that
the waiver for the entrance could be conditioned on the Highway Department's
approval of the entrance.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Frank Tomlin addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the
condition of the road.
Mr. David Booth addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the
road interfering with the layout of the land.
Ms. Lawson commented on the traffic count on the road. Mr. Tomlin also
expressed concern about problems with the road.
November 22, 1983
Page 6
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
*4004
In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to whether the 21-acre parcel
could be divided again, Mr. Payne explained that it could not.
Ms. Davenport confirmed that the proposal met the requirements for
staff approval of the final plat.
There was a discussion about the boundary lines for lots 2 and 3. Mr.
Davis pointed out that lot 2 did not reach to the center of the road.
Mr. Davis noted he could envision problems with lot 1 because he is
bisected twice by a private road. He questioned whether it conformed
to the Ordinance.
Ms. Davenport pointed out that if there is a problem with the road,
the applicant might want to consider five lots because a waiver would
not be necessary.
There was further discussion about the shape of lot 1. Mr. Cogan stated
he had a real problem because it appeared to be in three pieces.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the three lots fronting on Rt. 682 could be handled
separately with the subdivision of the other lots? Mr. Payne replied that
was possible but that would require a waiver also because of double
frontage. He also stated that lots lot 1, 5 and 6 could not be divided
as proposed without Commission approval.
Ms. Davenport confirmed a waiver was requested for lots 3 and 4.
Mr. Davis (and Mr. Cogan) felt lot 1 needed to be redrawn.
There was a lengthy discussion about the configuration of the lots.
Ms. Diehl asked if it was premature to consider a waiver for double
frontage. Mr. Cogan noted that the applicant had not requested such
a waiver. There was a discussion about the waiver which the applicant
had requested (i.e. a waiver of 18-36(d) related to road access.)
Discussion continued about the lots and road access. Mr. Cogan again
pointed out that there would be no problems at all if the proposal was
for five lots.
It was finally determined to be the consensus of the Commission that more
information was needed on: (1) The odd shape of lot 1; (2) The easement
issue; and (3) The sight distance on Rt. 682. This would also give the
applicant the opportunity to request a waiver for double frontage.
Mr. Gale noted that there was no ulterior motive behind the shape of lot 1.
He questioned whether a deferral would be of any benefit because he did
not know that he would be able to say any more about this issue than
what is presently known.
November 22, 1983 Page 7
Ms. Diehl moved that the Wholley Preliminary Plat be deferred to
December 20, 1983.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Wholley indicated he would have no objection to five lots instead
of 6.
Mr. Bowerman noted that other issues were still unresolved, e.g. the
joint entrance.
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
Light Industrial Complex Site Plan - Located on the north side of Avon
Street Extended (Route 742), adjacent to Moores Creek and the City of
Charlottesville Corporate Limits. Proposal to locate a 28,400 square
foot industrial building on 3.478 acres. Scottsville Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 77E1, part of Parcel 1).
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Osborne. He noted applicant
concern about condition 1(i)--Health Department approval of septic drain -
field, if allowed by the Planning Commission. He felt it would be
an economic hardship to connect to public sewer at this time.
(Mr. Cogan explained that because this is a LI zone, there are many
industrial uses which would not be acceptable on a septic system, even
though this particular use might be acceptable.) Mr. Osborne explained
that this use would have only a household -type waste, i.e. from a sink
and bathroom.
Mr. Ed Anderson, also representing the applicant, stressed that septic
usage would be the same as for a normal household.
There was a brief discussion about the cost of installing the sewer line.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission. She felt urban development
requires urban facilities. (Many of her comments were inaudible.)
Mr. Ray Barry, a representative of the seller/applicant, addressed the
Commission. He felt it was unreasonable to installa line at this time
which would be insufficient to serve future phases of development.
He stressed that the proposed use would have less waste than an ordinary
family of four.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
November 22, 1983 Page 8
Mr. Bowerman felt it would cost no more to install a 4-inch line than it
would to install a septic system. He stated he was in favor of public
utilities because of the location within the urban area and the public
line already exists on the land.
Ms. Diehl agreed. She also referred to the 12 parking spaces with Phase I
which would imply a retail use. Mr. Eric Anderson, representing the ap-
plicant, explained that there would be no walk-in type business.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Osborne stated the applicant
had no problems with conditions 1(b) or 2(b).
There continued to be discussion about the question of whether or not
to require connection to public utilities.
It was finally determined connection would be required though the size
of the line (4" or 6") would be left to the discretion of the applicant.
Mr. Skove moved that the ANTEC - Light Industrial Complex Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. No building permit for any construction phase will be issued until
the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
b. Planning staff approval of dedication for right-of-way for
turn lane and taper along Rt. 742;
C. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and profiles;
e. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
g. Fire Official approval of hydrant, dumpster locations and
handicap provisions;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer connections.
2. No building permits for Phase II or Phase III will be issued until:
a. County Engineer approval of site improvements;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
highway improvements, as required by the Planning Commission.
3. No certificate of occupancy for any phase of construction will be
issued until the applicant has met the following condition:
a. Final Fire Official approval.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
:5q7
November 22, 1983 Page 9
There was a brief discussion about landscaping.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Briarwood Final Plat, Sections III and VII - Located west of Route 29,
southeast of the intersection of Briarwood Drive and Austin Drive in the
Piney Mountain Village. Proposal to create 80 lots for single-family
attached units on 7.39 acres with an average lot size of .092 acres.
Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1).
The applicant was requesting deferral to December 6. However, staff
was recommending deferral until the applicant has satisfied the following:
a. Certified sewage handling capacity for the additional 80 lots;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the pumping
station;
C. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations;
d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans;
e. County Engineer (preliminary) approval of compliance with Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance for the building
lots.
Mr. Payne stated he had interpreted Mr. Wood's letter, which stated
"we will withdraw... from the Planning Commission Agenda," as a request
for deferral.
Mr. Skove moved that the Briarwood Final Plat, Sections III and VII be
indefinitely deferred until such time as the conditions listed in s_aff's
letter of November 22, 1983 have been addressed.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, - ,-
am