Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 11 84 PC Minutes• December 11, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, December 11, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. James Skove and Ms. Patricia Cook, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the November 27, 1984 meeting were approved as written. Precision Performance Site Plan - Located on the north side of the intersection of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 631 (Rio Road), on the Rock Store property. Proposal to utilize the existing garage building as an auto repair with two stalls, served by six is of spaces. Tax Map 45, part of parcel 22 (±13,788 square feet of a 5.593 acre parcel). This part is zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Adcock, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the conditions of approval, he stated the following: (a) The barrier between the garage and the store has been removed; (b) He is in the process of installing a chainlink fence as a barrier to pro- hibit access from Rt. 743 along the frontage of the garage; (c) He has installed No Parking signs in front of the building; (d) He is awaiting a return call from the Health Department regarding the septic field; (f-1) 2" of No. 57 aggregate has been added to the existing gravel area; (f-2) Waste oil will be stored in 55 gallon barrels, buried in a ventilated pit, until it is sold to a re -cycler who will remove it, and radiator fluid will be filtered through a sand and gravel mixture, collected in a "Stay -Dry" clay absorbent, then disposed of in the regular trash; (f-3) The floor drains have been cemented shut. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Echols of the Highway Department stated a chainlink fence would be an acceptable barrier, though it should be installed on the owners property so that it would not have to be torn down in the event of future road construction. ;j December 11, 1984 Page 2 Ms. Diehl moved that the Precision Performance Site Plan be approved subject to the conditirnsof staff, deleting condition (f-3). Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. It was determined that condition (f-3) would not be deleted, but should remain just as a matter of record. The Precision Performance Site Plan was unanimously approved subject to the following conditions: a. Removal of barrier to access between the garage and the Rock Store; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of means for prohibiting access from Rt. 743 along the frontage of the garage; C. No parking is allowed directly in front of the building; d. Health Department approval of the adequacy of the septic field; e. Planning staff approval of technical items; f. County Engineer approval of: 1. Addition of 2" of No. 57 aggregate to existing gravel area; 2. Disposal facilities for waste oil and radiator fluid; 3. Closing of floor drains. CPA-84-7 (Route 742/631 Roadway Link) and Interstate Access - Review of alternatives for providing interstate access for industrial property along Route 742 (Avon Street) and evaluation of proposed road segment shown in Neighborhoods 4 and 5 of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002). Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Payne entered the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, addressed the Commission. Mr. Elrod presented an engineering report prepared by his department which dealt with five alternate road connectors between Route 631, Route 742 and Route 20. He discussed the five options. Option 1 - From Avon Street, across Biscuit Run, through Oak Hill Subdivision to Old Lynchburg Road; Option 2 - From Avon Street, down to and northwardly along Biscuit Run, under I-64 Bridge, to 5th Street at Holiday Inn; Option 3 - From Avon Street, across old City land- fill, between Moores Creek and M.C. Thomas Warehouse, to existing bridge and to 5th Street; Option 4 - From Route 20 at Quarry Road, across Moores Creek, then running approximately parallel to I-64 to Avon Street at Hamilton Paper Company; Option 5 - Same as Option 4 except tie-in to Avon Street near Moores Creek. Mr. Elrod stated Option 2 was not recommended due to steep grades, severe environ- mental problems created by cutting into a fill slope, and the difficulty and expense involved in going under a bridge. He stated Option 3 was not recommended due to steep slopes, crossing a December 11, 1984 Page 3 deep ravine and having to cross a sanitary landfill. He stated Option 4 was not being recommended because it was proposed only because it would tie-in with Option 3 at Avon Street, and since Option 3 is not recommended, Option 4 should also be deleted. Option 4 is also longer and more expensive than Option 5 and would disrupt the existing businesses on Avon Street. Mr. Elrod explained the most feasible of the routes was Option 5, and even though it had to cross Moore's Creek and come up a steep embankment, it was still less expensive and had the advantage of not disturbing the businesses. He added Option 5 had less engineering problems than the other options and it fits in with preliminary plans for the development of the remainder of the area. Though Mr. Elrod did not eliminate Option 1, he indicated there were drawbacks to this route, i.e, steep grades, high fills, the high bridge over Biscuit Run and the disruption of the Oak Hill Subdivision. Mr. Elrod confirmed that Options l and 5 are feasible in terms of engineering standards -and the next step would be to actually locate the alignments in relation to the property lines and topography. Once that is done a more accurate cost estimate can be prepared. He stated that Options 2, 3 and 4 were not feasible and indicated that Options 1 and 5 were the "best of the worst" since all the options had severe problems. Mr. Elrod indicated he was not familiar with what problems might occur with having to go through the University of Virginia land or into the city. In regard to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Elrod stated it would be desirable for the Highway Department to go ahead and make a study now, but he did not think this would be done since the Highway Department would not consider the matter for even a study since they do not feel that a connector road is needed at this time. Mr. Bowerman stated the alignment which is in the Comprehensive Plan and the CAT study is no longer feasible, and this alternative would still provide the desired east -west connection between Rt. 20 and 5th Street. He indicated he felt this was a matter of changing the alignment since the goal was to accomplish the same result. Mr. Echols of the Highway Department, addressed the Commission. Referring to Mr. Roosevelt's letter to Ms. Davenport, he stated Mr. Roosevelt felt this was a change to the Comprehensive Plan and the CAT Study and he felt it was too localized. Mr. Roosevelt's letter had indicated an entire transportation study needed to be done periodically to reflect all changes and when such a study was done it would be determined if an interchange is warranted at the intersection of 742 and 64. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Echols stated he did not feel this project was eligible for any of the three types of funding, i.e. Interstate Funds, Primary Roads Funds, and Secondary Roads Funds, because it is not in the interstate system, the only primary road involved is Rt. 20 which does not need improvement in this section, it would not alleviate problems on existing roads. 14 7 December 11, 1984 Page 4 He added a fourth fund exists, Industrial Access Fund, but this use is determined by a specific industry that is going to be served. Mr. Cogan, noting that all the five options presented seem to have severe problems, asked Mr. Elrod if there are any other possibilities available. Mr. Elrod stated the only other option he was aware of would use the existing road that goes through Piedmont Virginia Community College, and the Commission had instructed him not to consider that possibility. The Chairman invited public comment. Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Commission and questioned the need for such a road, particularly in view of the tremendous problems and expense involved. He stated if such a road were to be built the most reasonable route would be to use the existing road through the community college.He added he did not feel there would be much industrial use of that road for a long time to come. Mr. Robert McLeod of EI Design Associates, addressed the Commission. He indicated both he and his clients questioned the need for this roadway. He suggested.a possible connection between 5th Street and Rt. 20 farther south would provide some improved access. Mr. Floyd Artrip, an Avon Street landowner, addressed the Commission. He suggested another possible route that might be considered would be through the Willoughby property. Mr. Artrip indicated he was in favor of the roadway since 30% of the industrial property in the County is on Avon street and more development is anticipated since this area is one of few that is zoned Industrial and has public water and sewer. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to the MPO's role in this matter, Ms. Imhoff responded that this connector road was not included in the CAT Study because at the time the study was done there was no current demand for the roadway. She said that in order for the MPO to consider this, it would have to be entered into the work program for approval. She added that the Highway Department, being a member of the MPO, votes on how to use funds and, based on Mr. Echols comments, she felt they might have some objection to studying a roadway when there is not a current demand for it. Ms. Imhoff confirmed staff was recommending that the Rt. 742/631 roadway link be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan and not be replaced for some time, until more time can be spent looking at options 1 and 5, including contacting the city of Charlottesville and UVA to see if these options are viable. She stated several months would be needed for this type of study. She stated this Comprehensive Plan amendment had been generated by the road /� 8 December 11, 1984 design on Hillcrest and once deleted the pressure will be to build to the 45 mph design Page 5 the Rt. 742/631 road segment is taken off the Hillcrest developer standard. It was determined staff was seeking a deletion of the Rt. 742/631 roadway and a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include options land 5 as presented on the County Engineer's report; however, it was decided it would be preferable not to adopt such a resolution since this might put a time restraint on the study, and staff could still study the two options without a formal resolution. Mr. Cogan stated he had been in favor of ari interchange on Rt. 742 and I-64, but this idea had not gained much acceptance. He indicated when the study on these options had been completed, it might be found that an interchange is a more feasible idea than any of the five options. Mr. Cogan moved that CPA-84-7 deleting the Rt. 742/631 roadway link from the land use map of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Virginia Farms (Rugby Farms) Preliminary Plat - Located south of Route 22, north of the C & O Railroad, east of Keswick, west side of Route 648. Proposal to create 10 lots with an average lot size of 27.98 acres, with 220.09 acres in residue. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Tax Map 80, Parcel 75C and Tax Map 81, Parcels 11A, 12A, and 16. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated it was the applicant's desire that a private road be approved since it was felt this would afford the property owners a greater degree of privacy. He added it was the applicant's. intent to construct the road to state standards, making it readily acceptable into the state system at a later time if necessary. Regarding the abandonment of the existing 20 foot right-of-way out to Rt. 685, he stated there was no intention to use this road as an access to the property, and he added it was not possible to abandon the road because there are other property owners who use this road as their sole access. He stated the road has long been used as a horse trail for many of the residents of the area. He explained there would be no vehicular access to that road within this subdivision and it would be used only for riding purposes. He stated the easement cannot be abandoned by this owner since there are approximately 20 other owners who use the road. i rr December 11, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Roudabush continued and stated,in regard to a resident's • concern about degradation to this road from heavy construction equipment, once the grading of the site is completed there will be no continuous use of that road. He stressed the main concern of the applicant was that the road be approved as a private road. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission and stated she would like to have an explanation of staff condition No. 5--Planning staff approval of technical items. (There was no response to this request.) There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In answer to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Roudabush confirmed there would be no vehicular traffic on the existing private road once construction is complete. He also confirmed that the applicant would have no objection to a condition which stated that the road would be closed to vehicular traffic, within the subdivision, up to the point where it is used by other owners. Mr. Payne suggested a way to achieve posts, five to six feet apart, at the division road. This would not impair prohibit vehicular use. this would be to plant vertical intersection of the sub - equestrian use but would Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of a private road. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod to explain why he was strongly.in favor of a public road. Mr. Elrod responded that since the road would be built to state standards anyway, it would get better maintenance if it were a public road. It was determined the County must make a request for a road to be taken into the state system. Ms. Diehl confirmed she would be in favor of staff condition No. 2 being amended to read something similar to "County Engineer approval of private road to be built to state standards." Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of a private road because of the nature of the development, i.e. large lots with a great deal of road frontage. He felt buyers. will be attracted to this development because of the privacy it affords. He stated a state road offers no control to the residents as to how or by whom the road would be used. Mr. Roudabush confirmed the road will be built initially to state • standards and no upgrading will be necessary in order for it to be taken into the state system at a later.time if desired. /6D December 11, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Cogan, referring to Mr. Bowerman's comment regarding the cost 0 issue of private roads vs. public roads, agreed that cost was not an issue in this case, only privacy. Mr. Bowerman stated the privacy argument had been heard before but not without the question of cost along with it, making this a unique situation. Mr. Payne stated this was what was contemplated for private roads in the first place, referring to the Lake Monticello development where a guard gate exists on the road. He added this current proposal was the same concept. Mr. Payne suggested the wording for amending staff conditions No. 2 and No. 7 as follows: (2) County Engineer approval of private road plans to comply with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and (7) Existing private road to be restricted from vehicular access within the subdivision. Mr. Cogan moved that the Virginia Farms (Rugby Farms) Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions and with staff approval of final plat: 1. County Engineer approval of the revised plans and compu- tations to show that there will be no increase in the floodplain on adjacent properties. • 2. County Engineer approval of private road plans to comply with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. 3. Issuance of an erosion control permit. 4. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private roads within the subdivision. 5. Planning staff approval of technical items. 6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance to road. 7. Existing private road to be restricted from vehicular access within the subdivision. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Brookmill Condominiums (Branchlands Condominiums) Phase 1, Site Plan Located off the east side of Route 29 North, just north of the City limits, and adjacent on the west side of Greenbrier Heights. Proposal to locate 24 condominium units served by 63 parking spaces on a 13.9 acre parcel. Zoned P.U.D., Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 61(Z)-3, Parcel 1. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. • In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Ms. Joseph confirmed the proposal had been carefully reviewed for compliance with the December 11, 1984 Page 8 original PUD. She added the density had been reduced and the only other impact from the original conditions was the bike trail. She stated there are conditions concerning open space requirements and recreational areas that will be addressed as the other units come in. It was determined this was a portion of area D of theiPUD. In answer to Ms. Diehl's inquiry concerning the bike trail, Ms. Joseph confirmed the bike trail does pass through this portion though it is not shown on the map. Mr. Keeler further explained there are currently several owners of this.PUD and, though no amendment to the PUD has been proposed, certain amendments have been discussed, one of which would be either the deletion or re -location of this bike trail. He stated the trail had been included when the plan was first adopted ten years ago and at that time the city had plans for a bike trail along the Meadow Creek floodplain. He stated he understood this plan was no longer active. Therefore, bonding for this trail, through this section, is being requested at this time. If amendments do come later either deleting or relocating the trail, the money can be refunded, or the trail will be constructed at a later time. Ms. Diehl indicated that if bonding is being required, the trail should be shown on the plan. Mr. Keeler agreed a design would need to be submitted showing the trail on the plan, but this could be submitted separately. He also stated it was not required for the applicant to submit a plan for the entire section at this time. Mr. Cogan recalled that this had been done before, i.e. approval of a portion of a phase. Ms. Diehl expressed concern that by not having the bike trail shown on the :site plan there is the risk of eliminating it just by omission. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Robert Hauser, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the bike trail had not been omitted for the benefit of the applicant since he is aware that it is required and that bonding will be required, but he was not sure where the trail was supposed to go. He stated 80 units are shown in the current stage which will be townhouses and stacked flats. He said he was attempting to provide affordable housing for young singles and young couples. He indicated water and sewer were available and provision has been made for storm water detention on site. Regarding the Highway Department's recommendation for Brookmill Drive, he stated the applicant is proposing a category 3 design with a rural section, i.e. 22 feet with a ditch line, and the Highway Department is requesting an urban section. He explained he felt a rural road was preferable because it iK"a December 11, 1984 Page 9 would allow 750 car trips/day, which was more than sufficient for 90 units; it is a cul-de-sac with no possible tie-in to another road; a rural road will take up less space; an urban road would increase runoff and would also increase cost. He stated the project was scheduled to begin in February 1985 and be completed in two to three years. He indicated he had no objections to any of staff's conditions of approval. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Lane Kheedler, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated he was not opposed to the applicant's proposal, but he was concerned about the steady deterioration of Meadow Creek. He stated it was his hope that this project, along with some others upstream, could be used as a focal point by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors to take a serious look at the additional water problems being caused along Meadow Creek. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In order to address the Commission's concerns about the bike trail, Mr. Payne suggested that staff's condition No. 4 have added at the end "..., plans to be approved by the County Engineer and • alignment shown on site plan and subdivision plat." Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Echols of the Highway Department to explain why an urban road is recommended. _ Mr. Echols responded that a wider pavement would eliminate the shoulders and the future maintenance problems that are connected with the shoulders. He explained that one side of this road would run along the creek and this invites erosion problems with the shoulders. Mr. Michel moved that the Brookmill Condominiums (Branchlands Condominiums) Phase 1, Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and computations. 2. Issuance of erosion control permit. 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance and road plans. 4. Agreement and bonding by applicant to construct physical improvements to be dedicated to public use, i.e. bike trail to comply with rezoning condition, plans to be approved by the County Engineer and alignment shown on site plan and subdivision plat. 5. Planning staff approval of technical items. 6. Planning staff approval of street names. December 11, 1984 Page 10 In answer to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Elrod stated the detention _basin as proposed meets the ordinance requirements for this phase, but future phases will require that something different be done. He confirmed that Mr. Kneedler's.problems ,with the erosion of Meadow Creek would probably be made worse by this project. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. (The meeting recessed at 9:35; reconvened at 9:40) OLD BUSINESS Procedural flow charts for Development Tracking System (DTS) presented for Planning Commission information - Ms. Imhoff presented a series of flow charts explaining the different departmental approval processes. Charts were included from: (1) Inspections Department - Building Permits; (2) County Engineer - Subdivision, Site Plan and Soil Erosion Control; (3) Service Authority - Water and Sewer; (4) Planning - Subdivision and Site Plan; (5) Planning and Zoning - Special Permits, Zoning Map Amendments; Zoning Text Amendments and Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and (6) Graphics - Street Name Identification. She stated these were still in a preliminary stage, and as they are refined they will be made available to the Commission. She stated flow charts for administrative and exempt plat processes have not yet been completed. Ms. Imhoff indicated staff has been collecting this information for some time as a result of the current computerization (Development Tracking System). Mr. Michel asked if staff could prepare a list of the "bottlenecks" which were discovered during the preparation of the charts. Mr. Cogan explained that staff had been requested to collect this information as a result of the Board of Supervisor's recommendation that a committee be formed to study problems that currently exist in the system. He felt this information would be a good beginning for such a committee. He also indicated some sort of explanation as to how to interpret the flow charts was needed. He pointed out that this matter should not be put off too long. Ms. Imhoff stated each department would need to explain their par- ticular chart. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the committee is actually formed, as suggested by Mr. Lindstrom, and gets started in January, the information obtained from the flow charts should be available at that time, and the committee would then decide in which direction to go. Letter from Mr. King (State Highway Department) regarding Piedmont Corridor - It was generally felt the letter was noncommital and did not really answer any of the questions posed by the Commission's letter to Mr. King. Mr. Michel stated his feeling that the letter was purposely evasive. Regarding a meeting which had taken place /6 -1 December 11, 1984 Page 11 during the week with representatives of the Commission and Board 40 of Supervisors, Mr. King, delegates from the state legislature, Senator Michie and other interested citizens. Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. King had been quick to point out that only in one case (Rt. 66 through metropolitan Washington, D.C.) has the High- way Department ever gone against local wishes. However, Mr. King would not drop the western bypass as an alternative. Mr. Bowerman further stated that Mr. Fisher, at some length, had explained the situation as to the watershed (referring to insufficient ground water in the area) and Mr. King had seemed surprised that the tributaries had been mapped and the watershed defined and included in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated Mr. King promised a letter back to.all participants of the meeting which should indicate the alternatives and whether or not a western bypass is still a possibility. The meeting had tried to discover why, if there are alternatives, is there only one line. Mr. Bowerman said it had been pointed out that the objection is not to the Piedmont Corridor as a whole, but to the western bypass, a portion of that corridor. Mr. Cogan expressed doubt that Mr. King could have this much of a misunderstanding of the situation at this late date, in view of all the correspondence and discussions that have taken place. Mr. Bowerman stated no one will say where the line came from or why it was done. He further stated that he felt Mr. King's surprise was genuine. Mr. Bowerman again emphasized that even though many attempts were made to persuade Mr. King to delete the western bypass as a alternative, he would not do so. Mr. Cogan asked if the people who are in the path of the proposed road alignment and are suffering a very adverse effect as a result would have any grounds for starting a class-action suit against the highway department. Mr. Payne responded negatively. Mr. Bowerman stated it was his impression that this project was much more imminent than the 20-30 years that has been discussed. He referred to the same projects which are under construction around Warrenton and the Danville -Lynchburg area. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Bowerman stated Mr. King had stated there is no current funding for this project in the six -year plan. He said the Highway Department had funded 2z billion dollars for highway construction, though they had projects totalling 17-18 billion. It was determined this was strictly a state project with no federal funds available. It was generally felt the state officials are not presenting all the information that is known on this project. It was stressed that pressure needs to be continued to have this proposed alignment deleted because once a great deal of money 40 has been spent on preliminary studies, it is too late. Mr. Bowerman pointed out it is important to have the alternatives in writing, including major improvements to Rt. 29. He indicated a western bypass would be of no benefit at all to this area, par- 16, December 11, 1984 Page 12 ticularly since it would not eliminate any of the problems on Rt. 29. He stated a report was promised from the State Highway Department around March 15 which would include all the alternatives. Mr. Bowerman stated that it was very important to `keep the oposition alive at this point, but beyond that he did not know what other position the Commission can play. He pointed out that the MPO and the CAT study had made all the ob- jections known to the Highway Department and that.the MPO plays a very important part in this. Ms. Imhoff confirmed that this was so. It was determined the next step was to await Mr. King's promised letter outlining the Highway Department's position and listing the alternatives. Remaining December Meetings - It was determined a quorum would be present at the two remaining December meetings, the 18th and the 20th. Formation of a Committee as proposed by Mr. Lindstrom - It was felt the Commission is awaiting a response from the Board as to the next step to be taken if a committee is to be formed. It was determined the Board of Supervisors would take up this matter at their December 12 meeting. Mr. Keeler stated he was under the impression the Commission had not decided if they wished to endorse the idea of a committee. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. DS James R. Donne y, Secretary 16,6