Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 22 85 PC MinutesJanuary 22, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, January 22, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio; Ms. Norma Diehl and Mr. Richard Gould. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the January 8, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Wisperwood Preliminary Plat - Proposal to locate 4 lots with an average lot size of 5.6 acres from two parcels totaling, 22.4 acres. Property is located approximately one mile north of Woodsons Store on the west side of Route 601, just north of the Route 676 intersection. Lots to be served by existing private road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 43, parcels 34D and 34F. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant had no objections to any of staff's conditions of approval. Regarding the Fire Official's recommendation for a 50' turn radii at the end of the private road, he stated the applicant felt this could be accomplished better with a "T" turn around since it would serve the same purpose but would disturb much less of the surrounding vegetation. He also indicated a private road would have much less envir- onmental impact than a public one. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he felt staff's condition a. (County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans.) would cover the question of the turn -around. He indicated he would have no objections to a "T" design in place of a large radius turn around. He further stated that he felt everything was in line with the application. Z06 January 22, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Cogan moved that the Wisperwood Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the conditions of staff, and that staff be granted administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. It was determined that any further subdivision of the lots would require that the road be built to state standards. Mr. Cogan pointed out that note No. 9 on the plat states "No further division without Planning Commission approval." The above -stated motion was unanimously approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans. b. Issuance of erosion control permit. c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance, and approval of closing existing entrances. d. The Planning Commission has granted staff admin- istrative approval of the final plat. e. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement. f. Staff approval of road name. Westgate V Site Plan - Located on Route 656 (Georgetown Road) near Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) intersection on east side of Georgetown Road. Proposal to locate 30 units on 1.7983 acres resulting in a density of 16.5 dwelling units per acre. Tax Map 60A1, portion of parcels 29, 35, and 33. Zoned R-15, Res- idential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. He requested that the Commission approve the plans in accordance with the conditions of staff with the exception of condition 1. b. (2) (Dedication of additional right-of-way.). He requested that the words "if (or as) required" be added at the end of that sentence. Mr. Wagner explained that when the Commons at Georgetown was approved one condition was that VDH&T approval be secured for the precise plans for the entrance off of Georgetown Road and for improvements that would have to be done to Georgetown Road. An agreement had been reached wherein there would be 100 feet of full -width improvements to Georgetown Road. During these discussions with the Highway Department the appli- cants had said that it was anticipated that Westgate V would _il January 22, 1985 Page 3 materialize at some time in the future, and it was desirable for Westgate V to come out onto this road, rather than adding another entrance onto Georgetown Road. He stated that the Highway Department had agreed with that philosophy with the stipulation that the entrance to the apartment be at least 100 feet back from Georgetown Road. After further discussions it was decided that it was in everyone's best interests to bring this before the Commission at this time, instead of wait- ing until sometime in the future when construction is imminent. He indicated the reason the applicant is seeking approval at this time, even though construction is not imminent, is one of economics, i.e. the applicant would like to get approval on this one last remaining piece of property before further investment is made in continuing with the Commons at Georgetown. Mr. Wagner stated the two main issues in this matter are the drainage and the road entrance. He stated he had been under the impression the road question had been resolved; however the Highway Department recommendations, as presented in the staff report, were not as he remembered from his discussions with Mr. Echols. He indicated he felt these recommendations were "taken from a book" and he stated he assumed the Highway Department would go along with what had previously been agreed upon for the Commons at Georgetown. Regarding drainage, Mr. Wagner stated the applicants had planned, instead of on -site detention, to take the water down through Bennington Woods, which would have resulted in the channel at Bennington Woods being improved, while at the same time benefitting the applicants since on -site detention is often unsightly. He stated the County Engineer had warned that this way of handling the drainage was asking for trouble since it would be difficult to satisfy all groups that would be involved. However, Mr. Wagner stated he and Mr. Tatum had met with some of the residents in Bennington Woods and had formulated an idea to go behind those homes with some improvements to that stream, primarily with a series of pools which would act as spill basins. This water would then pass through the pipe that goes under the entrance to Georgetown Court. It was determined that this pipe would then have to be replaced with a larger, concrete pipe which would empty into a paved ditch. This ditch was not thought to be sufficient to carry this volume of water. It had finally been determined that more research was needed to see if this plan was feasible. Mr. Wagner stated that though the applicants had originally believed this to be the most re- sponsible approach, that is no longer the case. Regarding the dedication of additional right-of-way, Mr. Wagner explained that the Westgate V property has different owners than the other properties, and the additional right-of-way had been sought in order to accommodate the turn lanes for the Commons at Georgetown (which the Westgate V owners are not connected with). He stated that after reviewing some old drawings, he thought that the Westgate V owners may have already dedicated a strip that would give enough width to accomplish the Highway .ID9 January 22, 1985 Page 4 Department's requirements. Mr. Wagner indicated that though it did not appear that the original plan to go through Bennington Woods was feasible, it would be pursued further if it was found that the paved ditch was large enough to handle the expected volume of water. However, he pointed out that if this plan should come to pass, the conditions of approval state that the plan will be returned to the Commission for approval. Mr. Bowerman asked where the water would go if detention were on site. Mr. Wagner explained it might be necessary to rotate some of the buildings 901 in order to create a larger area for detention (he indicated the location on the map). The idea would then be to come along the edge of Georgetown Road and build up a berm several feet high (similar to the one between Hydraulic Road and Turtle Creek). He stated another possible place for detention would be at the point at the far end. He explained the drainage splits into two areas --into the paved ditch or into Bennington Woods. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Gay Johnson Blair, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. Referring to her letter dated January 16, 1985 (mistakenly dated December 16), she indicated her primary concern was with the possibility that the drainage and run-off from impervious surfaces would pose a serious threat to her well (located downhill from the proposed development). She was also concerned with the possibility of silting of her pond. She also requested that the Commission not allow a reduction in the dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Wagner, indicating that Ms. Blair had misunderstood, stated that the applicant was not asking for a reduction in dedicated right-of-way. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Elrod to comment on the applicant's proposed on -site detention locations. Mr. Elrod responded he had notseen any plans as to how this would be done so it would be difficult for him to comment on it. However, he said some steep slopes were involved which might cause problems. Mr. Michel stated that since drainage is a key issue in this matter, he questioned proceeding without knowing which way the drainage would go. He indicated he felt the rest of the application was in order. NIM January '22, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Cogan asked for an explanation of condition l.a.(5)--Provision for on -site runoff control or stormwater detention. Mr. Elrod explained two ordinances were involved--Run-Off Control Ordinance and Storm Water Detention Ordinance. He stated that any water that flows to the south along Georgetown Road will flow into the stormwater detention area and any that flows across Georgetown Road will flow into the run-off control area. He said the main difference, if the water goes into the run- off control area, is that the water still has to be contained to pre -development conditions, but since the water also goes toward the reservoir, the phosphorous must also be contained. Mr. Cogan suggested that the condition should possibly have said "and/or". Mr. Cogan stated it was much to the applicant's credit that a sincere effort had been made to do something that would benefit others as well as himself. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this will be possible. He further stated that since the applicant had indicated that construction is not imminent, it might be preferable to take more time on the matter in order for some of the drainage questions to be answered. Mr. Wagner confirmed this, but stated that the highway question is of concern at this time since the construction is about to begin on the Commons at Georgetown and the roads for the two are connected. He stated most of the problems have been worked out for the road, but the Commission has not given its final approval. He stated the highway situation was the main reason for seeking approval at this time. He stated he would be agree- able to having an additional condition to the effect that the run-off rate into either watershed could not be increased without re -approval by the Commission. In answer to Mr. Wilkerson's inquiry, Mr. Wagner stated he did not agree with the Highway Department's written recommendations, but he was in agreement with staff's recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Payne confirmed that condition l.b.(1)--VDH&T approval of left turn lane and commercial entrance to Rt. 656 and drainage plans and computations --means whatever is legally possible is what will be done. He further explained that the Highway Department is very careful to distinguish between "recommend" and "require," and if they say "recommend" it means they cannot require it. Ms. McCulley explained the recommendation for curb and gutter had been discussed, and Mr. Keeler had stated that the only way this could be required would be if it were necessary to handle the drainage from the site. It was determined that this was not the case, so it could not be required. 2!D January 22, 1985 Page 6 She explained the question of dedication comes in because it is not clear what dedication exists at this time. There may be no need for additional dedication. The suggestion to improve the storm sewer down stream will be handled in the permit application process (permit for the commercial entrance). Mr. Skove stated that although it would seem to be penalizing the applicant after he had made a tremendous effort to work this matter out, he felt he must stay with the idea that all questions be answered before an application is approved. He stressed that he was reluctant,in this case, to defer action. Mr. Cogan stated he felt there were two choices in this matter: (1) To approve it with the conditions of staff, leaving the applicant to do a lot more work with the County Engineer; or (2) To defer it in order to get the drainage question clarified. He stated that in either case the two issues (drainage and high- way) would have to be covered by the applicant in one way or another. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant what was to be gained by receiving approval at this time. Mr. Wagner stated that if this were approved with this set of conditions, the applicant knows exactly where matters stand and exactly what needs to be done. He indicated he was hesitant to put more money into researching the matter further if there was a chance that it was not going to be approved. He stated he would also feel safer in proceeding with the work on the Commons at Georgetown since the road would be the same for both. Mr. Cogan stated that if the matter were deferred, and no agree- ment can be reached with the Highway Department after continued negotiations, then staff could make sure that the Highway Depart- ment is represented at the next review of the application. Mr. Wagner explained that he did not feel there was any real disagreement with the Highway Department, and he had not intended to give this impression. He stated that the Highway Department's recommendations (which he felt were taken straight from a manual), were things they recommended but could not require, and staff feels that these things are not necessary. Mr. Bowerman stated if the matter were deferred he could foresee going through this same discussion a second time. He said that all that is really in question is the final agreement between the applicant and the Highway Department and the drainage, and those things will have to be worked out in any event. He pointed out the conditions are worded in such a way that if on -site detention cannot be obtained, it will have to come before the Commission again, giving adequate control. He indicated that, in this case, he did not feel there was anything to gain by deferral. Mr. Cogan indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman and added that the words "if necessary" should be added to the end of condition l.b.(2). �71// January 22, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Bowerman stated he felt staff had made the proper recommenda- tion by recommending deferral while at the same time including all the necessary conditions if the Commission did choose to approve it. Mr. Wilkerson indicated his agreement with Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cogan and moved that the Westgate V 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: 1) Private road and drainage plans and computations, to include two exit lanes from this site's inter- section to Rt. 656. 2) Pavement specifications, to include sidewalks. 3) Issuance of an erosion control permit. 4) "Pedestrian crossing" and "No blocking intersection" signs and pavement markings. 5) Provision for on -site runoff control or stormwater detention (NOTE: If stormwater detention improve- ments other than on -site are proposed, the plan will be returned to the Planning Commission for re -approval). b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of: 1) Left turn lane and commercial entrance to Rt. 656 and drainage plans and computations. 2) Dedication of additional right-of-way, if necessary. C. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. d. Fire Official approval. e. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the entrance road and all common areas deemed necessary. 2. No certificate of occupancy will be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Planning staff approval of landscape plan to include Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plantings in water and sewer easements. b. Planning staff approval of plat combining the parcels of Westgate V. C. Fire Official final approval of fireflow and hydrant location. c:21t January 22, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was approved with Messrs.Bowerman, Cogan, Wilkerson and Michel in favor, and Mr. Skove opposed. OLD BUSINESS Meeting with Board of Supervisors - Due to a lack of agenda items, it was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Bowerman would recommend to Mr. Fisher that the joint meeting scheduled for February 6 be postponed until March. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. DS 0 James R. Donnelly e ary ,,2/3