Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 13 83 PC MinutesDecember 13, 1983 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 13, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Allen Kendrick; Mr. Jim Skove; Mr. Richard Cogan; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. H. Wilson Davis Final Plat - Located on the west side of Route 643, one-half mile south of its intersection with Route 743; proposal to create two lots with an average size of 2.5 acres with private easement. Tax Map 45, Parcel 54, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Deferred from November 15. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Ray. He offered no significant additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, addressed the Commission. He noted that if only two lots will be served by the entrance, then it will be viewed as a private, rather than a commercial entrance as stated in condition No. 3. He suggested that condition No. 3 be amended accordingly. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the H. Wilson Davis Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private roads; 2. Private road to be constructed per approved plans or bonded; 3. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation issuance of a private entrance permit; 4. Health Department written approval form; 5. Note on plat: Lot B is subject to Health Department approval of the size of house to be constructed. Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion. LLI December 13, 1983 Page 2 The motion passed unanimously. Briarwood Final Plat - Request for approval of 80 lots in Sections III and VII. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that approval was being sought for 26 lots only (not 80 as requested by the applicant) because the Service Authority has stated there is presently capacity for only 26 lots. He noted also that the pumping station has not been approved, but these 26 lots are not dependent on that pumping station. He clarified that this was a modification of the previous application. There was some question as to whether or not the previous conditions of approval were still applicable. Mr. Payne responded: "If the application is amended so that approval speaks only to 26 lots instead of 80, then two of the previous conditions do not apply [(1) Certified sewage handling capacity for the additional eighty (80) lots; and (2) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the pumping station.]" There was a discussion about attempts by the County to secure bond money for completion of roads and sidewalks. Mr. Payne explained the status of an existing bond on a portion of the property which is in default. Mr. Davis questioned why consideration should be given to a request from a developer "who has not honored what they said they were going to do." He asked the applicant's representative to respond. The applicant was represented by Ms. Nina Herold. She stressed that 80% of the work is complete but "extenuating circumstances" have caused problems with completion of the work. She stated that "interior roads are totally finished" and the only uncompleted roads left under the $50,000 bond are incomplete because construction of dwellings is not complete in some areas. She indicated it was the developer's policy to finish the roads after construction of the dwellings is complete to avoid having to tear up the roads for utilities and also to prevent damage from heavy construction equipment. She also indicated there were financial reasons for completing the roads after the houses are complete. She noted the applicant's objection to conditions 1 (a), (b) & (f). She noted sidewalks had not been constructed because the homeowners were opposed to them. Mr. Bob McKee, engineer for the project, was present but offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their satisfaction with the development: Mr. Jim May (a resident of Briarwood); Ms. Pat Wilhelm (a realtor involved with marketing the development); and Mr. Rick Cathcart. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. December 13, 1983 Page 3 There appeared to have been no complaints from the residents except for those related to the tot lot. Mr. Keeler interpreted that the applicant objected to "putting this road into the state system until it is back out to 29, which means that none of these roads that are to be built on will go into the state system." Referring to the applicant's statement that the homeowners were opposed to the sidewalks, he noted that deletion of the sidewalk requirement would "have to go back through the entire re -zoning process because it was a condition of the rezoning." He noted that he felt condition 1(e)--In construction of sidewalks, the developer shall relocate or replace mailboxes, landscaping, and other improvements at his expense with no expense to the lot owners --would address some of the homeowners' concerns about sidewalks. He noted that most of the homeowners are unaware that sidewalks are supposed to be a part of the development. Mr. Davis indicated he was opposed to any further approvals being given that were not contigent upon bonding and he noted that the bonding process did not appear to be working with this development. There followed a discussion about the bonding issue. Mr. Maynard Elrod, the County Engineer, gave a history of the problems that have occurred with this development, particularly with the roads. He concluded that if the residents had no complaints about the lack of "services", then he "would be the last to say 'Let's call the bond'." However, Mr. Payne noted that Mr. Elrod had no discretion in relieving the developer of requirements imposed by the Commission. There was a discussion about what action the Commission should take -- denial or deferral --and also on exactly what was being requested --approval for 26 lots or 80 lots. Mr. Keeler questioned whether denial would provide any public purpose. Mr. Davis indicated he was in favor of denial. Ms. Diehl moved for indefinite deferral of the Briarwood Final Plat until such time as the concerns indentified by the staff and the Commission were satisfactorily addressed by the applicant. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Mr. Davis casting the dissenting vote. McDonald's Site Plan - Request for median break on Riverbend Drive, Pantops, south of Route 250 East. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17F2, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated: "...the Commission's discretion in this matter is effectively limited at this time by prior requirements of and committments to Riverbend Limited Partnership." Mr. Keeler explained the Commission's only possible actions on this request were either deferral or denial. The report concluded: "Staff would caution the Commission regarding comment or action which could be deemed in any fashion as promisory or indicative of some future action." �V December 13, 1983 Page 4 Mr. Payne explained the main issue which the Commission needed to address was whether or not the road is to be a public or private one. If it is determined that it can be a private road, then it doesn't comply with the PDSC and the Commission will have to address that issue. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, explained the crossover policy. He summarized the department's position as follows: "In summation, there are several assumptions and statements made in the 'Traffic Analysis and Signalization Study' for the proposed McDonalds Restaurant, which we cannot accept and our review of the report does not provide us with any realistic additional justification to change our previous recommendation of providing a four -lane, divided facility with a continuous raised median from its intersection with Route 250 to its intersection with South Pantops Drive." Mr. Herbert Deskin, representing Jefferson Savings & Loan, addressed the Commission. He distributed a written copy of his request for a cross -over in the Riverbend Drive median and then verbally reviewed the request. Dr. Garber, a professor of traffic engineering at the University of Virginia, addressed the Commission. He gave a very technical description of the prob- ability of traffic difficulties and concluded that a cross -over in the median would not create a hazardous situation. Mr. Deskin pointed out that without a cross -over in the median traffic would be forced to make U-turns at the end of the median. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Davis expressed concern about the issue of an applicant presenting a proposal which would invalidate someone else's site plan. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the best way to deal with this situation was to consider it on its own merit without cognizance of past actions or commitments. Mr. Keeler noted that he did not think the applicant had ever sought information about the status of Riverbend from the Highway Department. Mr. Davis indicated he felt not taking into account past actions could "throw out the window a lot of development that has taken place." Mr. Davis moved that the request for a median cut in Riverbend Drive (made by Jefferson Savings & Loan in relation to the McDonald's Site Plan) be denied on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the with the plans for the road and because of the probability that it could cause a safety hazard. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS There was a discussion of the agenda for the joint Planning Commission/ Board meeting scheduled for January 18, 1984. December 13, 1983 Page 5 Madison Park Office Condominiums - Request for administrative approval. (Mr. Michel excused himself due to a conflict of interests.) Mr. Cogan moved that staff be granted administrative approval of the Madison Park Office Condominiums site plan. Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion which passed unanimously. General Electric Temporary Office Trailer - Request for administrative approval. Mr. Keeler presented a brief staff report. There was no objection to staff approving the request administratively. No action was necessary. Nettie Marie Jones Final Plat (Tax Map 87, Parcel 22) - Request for administrative approval. Mr. Keeler presented a brief staff report. There was some debate as to whether or not staff should be granted adminis- trative approval. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff would review the final plat. Mr. Davis expressed his opinion that he was not in favor of staff approval of items. He felt decisions should be made at a public forum. River Heights Sewer Line - Review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report in the form of a letter written by him to Mr. J.W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority. It was determined the Commission wished to review the plans for the sewer line in terms of "its capacity and what it's going to serve and the area it's going to serve so that this Commission and the public knows what to plan for that area and what needs are going to be met by that line." Mr. Payne noted: "If you determine that the line that they propose is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, then they can't build it." It was determined this item would be scheduled for public hearing There being no further business, the mee in adjourned at 10:50 p.m. IN4W ' . Way e Cilim rg, Se reatary DATE Recorded by: Stuart Richard Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 1-90 0