Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 28 85 PC MinutesMay 28, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, May 28, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1985-1990 - Multi -year scheduling of public physical improvements with Planning Commission recom- mendations as to funding level and fiscal year scheduling. A total of $12,729,240 has been requested for inclusion in the CIP 1985-1990. Ms. Imhoff gave a brief summation of the proposal. She offered the following comments: --Administration and Courts: The Commission supported a request for $10,000 for Old Jailor's House improvements. --Education: The Commission is recommending approximately $300,000 for 1985-86. Regarding the $5,000,000 request for the Ivy School project and the $5,000,000 request for Equity projects, the Commission felt it would be premature to make a recommendation since the school consultant's study is not yet complete. Instead, the Commission created a new category, "Contingency Fund for Future School Needs," and earmarked $10,000,000 for that fund, with no proposed funding for 1985-90. --Police, Fire and Rescue: Commission supported the requests for the Fire Service Training Center and the Volunteer Fire Department Advance Allocation. --Highways and Transportation: Commission supported a study relating to the construction of a walkway along Hydraulic Road. --Miscellaneous: Commission supported a request of approximately $300,000 over five years for computer upgrade ($187,000 for 1985-86). --Parks and Recreation: Commission recommends funding for eleven of the fourteen projects requested. Though the Commission did not support all the requests for handi- cap accessablity improvements, they did support all those projects required by Federal regulation. --Utilities: The Commission supported the County Engineer's recommendations in all areas. 6^5 May 28, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Gould asked what had happened to the re -roofing projects which had been shown last year, and spread out over a number of years. Ms. Imhoff explained those projects had been incorporated into the schools' operating budgets, rather than being included with CIP projects. In response to Mr. Cogan's question regarding the $91,000 "prior allocation" for the Lickinghole Creek project, Ms. Imhoff explained that has already been allocated and that was a "match to pull down the grant," but it is not known if that will be necessary at this time. She further explained the project has changed character several times and it now appears as if that will be split between the EPA and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Thus the $91,000 may never be spent. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Edward Bain, representing the Murray and Merriweather school districts, addressed the Commission. He stated he understood the Commission's reasoning behind the $10,000,000 "School Contingency Fund," and indicated he would reserve his comments to the Commission until after the school consultant's study has been completed. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked why the Greenwood parking lot resurfacing had been deleted. Ms. Imhoff explained there had been some question about this much being needed for that project ($8,000) and it was the consensus of the Commission that there were other projects with higher priorities. It was determined all requests for the Scottsville Community Center had been funded, including the handicap access improvements. Regarding the Commission's concern about the $200,000 Advance Allocation to the Volunteer Fire Departments and the mechanism whereby the funding is replenished on an annual basis, Mr. Imhoff explained the $200,000 was supposed to be a revolving loan fund and had been an error on the County's records which is being corrected. She confirmed that the funds have been identified. Ms. Diehl moved that the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Year 85-86 be passed on to the Board of Supervisors, including the ranking established by the Commission containing twenty-two items. F5 In S4 May 28, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. It was determined the Board of Supervisors would hold a work session on this matter on June 12, 1985 and a public hearing on June 19, 1985. Glenview Business Center Site Plan - Located on the north side of Route 250 West just west of the Boar's Head Inn. Proposal to locate a light industrial building measuring 57,600 square feet on a 5 acre site. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Tax Map 59, parcel 23B. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. It was determined that it was the Board's intent that only those areas of the parcel which can be served by gravity -fed sewer can be used. She added that since no plans are available at this time for the Service Authority to review, it is not known which of the buildings on the site can be gravity fed. Mr. Bowerman added that the usage for the buildings is also unknown, thus the type of discharge into a septic system is also unknown. Mr. Payne stated his understanding of the conditions is that `Orr those portions of the parcel which cannot be served by the Service Authority simply do not meet the conditions of approval and in order for it to be developed a new business would have to be proposed and re -submitted for approval. Ms. Diehl asked if that could be stated in the conditions. Mr. Payne stated he felt that is the intent of the conditions as they are. Ms. Joseph stated that the conditions actually leave it up to the Service Authority. Ms. Diehl stated the conditions do not speak to the buildings that cannot be served by the sewer line, but yet are on the site plan. Mr. Payne stated if the Commission feels the conditions are ambiguous, they can be modified, but he felt the condition is adequate in light of this discussion and in light of the staff report. Ms. Cooke recalled when the Board had reviewed this issue there had been concern about the drainage of the property since part of it drains into the watershed, thus making the requirement for gravity sewer necessary. She also recalled that additional grading was not to be allowed in order to divert the water into the sewer system. 57 May 28, 1985 Page 4 Ms. Joseph stated she thought this problem had been resolved with a very large stormwater detention basin. In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Joseph stated she could not point out which sections of the site can be served by gravity sewer. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Pack, representing the County Engineer's office. Mr. Pack stated condition (l.e) should be changed to read: • County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. Regarding the drainage problem, he stated the issue had been resolved with the detention pond, i.e. the runoff water will be diverted from the watershed into the detention pond. He confirmed that the water that will drain out of the detention basin is within the watershed. Mr. Pack indicated he did not know which part of the site could be served by gravity sewer since this was the Service Authority's area. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Edward Bain, representing the applicant, Mr. Javor, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant is fully aware that septic systems are not allowed on the site and it is the applicant's belief that all the site can meet the condition for gravity sewer. He asked staff to explain the Highway Department's rationale for recommending CG-6 along the total frontage of the property. Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, explained the recommendations are for full frontage improvements which includes an additional third lane, along with curb and gutter and appro- priate storm sewer system. He explained a partial third lane already exists (from the Kirtley property) and it would be a matter of completing the third lane across this property and then providing the adequate stormsewer system for the drainage. He stated the staff report had omitted that the Highway Department is also recommending that the existing turn lane on Folly Road be upgraded to current standards. He pointed out that the site plan shows the parking spaces are to be served by Folly Road. Regarding the question concerning CG-6, he explained that CG-6 is curb and gutter and CG-2 is just curbing. He said the Highway Department prefers CG-6 for drainage purposes because it keeps the water from flowing onto the pavement and takes it into an adequate stormwater system. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Echols stated a rural cross section (shoulder and ditch) currently exists along the other properties in this area. SW May 28, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Bain stated the applicant does not of a third lane, but he does object to requirement when nobody else has it. recommendation for the de-cel lane for he did not think the applicant should else's property. The Chairman invited public comment. object to the construction the curb and gutter Regarding the Folly Road, he stated have to improve someone Mr. W.J. Kirtley, owner of the property west of the applicant's property, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern that the only issue seems to be the requirement for a de-cel lane for traffic going west, when the most crucial traffic problem is for traffic going east and attempting to turn left into any of this property. He felt this was a very dangerous situation since there is no left turn lane. Mr. Terry Sieg, owner of the property east of the applicant's property, addressed the Commission. He felt it was critical to look at the usage and the amount of traffic that may be generated. He indicated he would be opposed to the proposal if heavy traffic would be added because of the safety factor. He explained the dangerous situation which currently exists because of the high speed at which the road is travelled combined with the lack of turn lanes. He felt it would be one of the most dangerous places in the County to locate a high usage building. Mr. Sieg also read a letter from Mr. Knickerbocker, a neighboring property owner, which stated he was opposed to the application because of the additional danger that would result from increased usage of this section of Rt. 250. Ms. Susan Wild, an adjacent residential property owner, addressed the Commission. Though she was not opposed to the application, she asked that adequate screening from lights, noise, etc. be required between the applicant's property and the residential property. Mr. Javor, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated he would be willing to sell his property to Mr. Sieg and Mr. Kirtley to use as they see fit; however, that not being the case, he did not feel they had the right to prevent his use of the property. He stated the Highway Department has commented that Light Industrial usage of this property would generate 500 vehicle trips/day, which he felt was not significant. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Echols stated the Highway Department has not considered the requirement for a left turn lane into these three properties for eastbound traffic. He explained that currently three lanes exist, two westbound and one eastbound. He stated as these sites develop it might -V9 May 28, 1985 Page 6 be possible to consider changing the center lane into a ` left turn lane. He added that at some future date this road will be widened to four lanes with some type of turning movements. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Echols indicated the traffic count had been based on the square footage and the acreage for LI zoning, and had not taken into consideration possible uses. Mr. Gould asked about the requirement for curb and gutter. Mr. Echols responded that the Highway department cannot require curb and gutter, but it is preferred because it handles the water better and provides better access. Mr. Cogan indicated he would be in favor of a left turn lane. Mr. Michel expressed confusion about the elevation figures in relation to the sewer line. (They seemed to indicate that the applicant's proposal was considerably lower than the sewer line.) Mr. Cogan, too, questioned the meaning of the figures since they did not seem logical. He was unfamiliar with the term "invert elevation." Ms. Diehl expressed concern about dealing with a site plan which will only allow development on that portion which can be gravity fed, and there does not seem to be any way of telling, from the current information, which portion that is. Mr. Bain explained the difference in the elevation figures by pointing out a note on the plan which explains there is a 200 foot difference in the two sets of figures because two different scales were used for measurement. Mr. Michel interpreted this as meaning that 200 feet should be added to all the internal elevations. Regarding screening, Mr. Bowerman explained that it is required that lights be directed away from adjacent parcels and screening concerns will be met with the landscaping requirements. Ms. Joseph pointed out the applicant has indicated white pines, 20 feet on center, 4-5 feet high, towards the rear of the property. Because the development is restricted to those portions which can be gravity fed, Ms. Diehl stated she felt the applicant should have first established what portion of the parcel is useable. In this regard, she felt there was not sufficient information to act on this proposal at this time. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Pack (County Engineer's Office) stated that he thought it had been determined at site review that all the lot could be served by gravity sewer, though he emphasized that he could not say this for sure. 60 May 28, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Javor again pointed out that if gravity flow sewer could not be obtained, then none of the project would be built. However, he added that it has already been determined that all of the site which is proposed for use can be served. Mr. Cogan pointed out that, with the 200 foot adjustment to the figures, everything on the site plan is over 600 feet, and the bottom of the sewer line is 593 feet. Thus gravity flow should be obtainable. Ms. Diehl questioned why there was no statement from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority if the matter is that simple. Mr. Bowerman stated it would have been in the applicant's interest to have obtained such a statement. Mr. Javor indicated he had a statement, on a previous site plan, from an engineer (Mr. R.L. Snow) which states that the entire site can be served by gravity sewer. Mr. Bowerman stated the restriction (for gravity flow sewer) had been placed by the Board of Supervisors and he felt it was the staff's intent that this be brought to the attention of the Commission and the applicant so that they would be aware that if this requirement could not be met, the property could not be developed. **MW Mr. Bowerman stated he would be in favor of adding to the first condition a statement to the effect that "in no case shall any part of the site be served by septic system." He added he would not be opposed to requiring the extra taper lane in front of the Sieg property since the usage of Folly Road would be increased because of this development. 05 Mr. Cogan indicated he could agree with that, but he did not feel curb and gutter should be required since everything in the area is a rural cross section, and the road is going to be widened at some future time anyway. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne how condition (l.b) should be modified to reflect the desires of the Commission. Mr. Payne stated it would be sufficient to add the statement "rural cross section permitted" at the end of the condition. Regarding the concerns about sewer service, Mr. Payne suggested adding the phrase "to allow sewer service by gravity only" to the end of condition (l.a). He added that he did not feel it was necessary to include a statement disallowing a septic system, since it is clear that this plan is approved con- templating only public sewer. If the applicant wishes to present a plan using a septic system, then it must be re -submitted. 61 May 28, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Bowerman asked if any plans have been approved in the past in the Light Industrial zone where the usage of the buildings has been unknown. Mr. Payne indicated it has been done with commercial development though he could not recall it having been done with light industrial development. Mr. Gould asked for clarification as to the actual square footage. Mr. Javor responded that 69,000 sq. feet is the gross building area, and 55,000 sq. feet is the net leasable area. Mr. Gould questioned the 500 vehicle trips/day figure and indicated he felt this was low. Ms. Diehl agreed. Mr. Cogan also agreed and stated he felt there was a need for further study for a left turn lane for this entire area. Mr. Cogan asked what could be done if a highly intensive use of the property should come in at a later time. Mr. Bowerman stated if it was felt that public safety would be jeopardized by a particular proposal, it could be denied, but what measures could be taken to make the proposal approvable would have to be determined, and those measures would have to be reasonably accomplishable. He added that he felt the Light Industrial zone did not anticipate an intense amount of retail traffic. Mr. Cogan moved that the Glenview Business Center Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit can be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Service Authority approval of water and sewer lines, to allow sewer service by gravity only. b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances and frontage improvements (rural cross-section permitted). C. Issuance of runoff control permit. d. Issuance of erosion control permit. e. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan and technical items. g. Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit a certified Engineer's Report for County Engineer review to comply with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and fire flow. b2 May 28, 1985 Page 9 im Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman stated he would liked to have seen some additional information from the applicant and from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority regarding what section of the site plan can be served by public sewer. He stated this would have been very helpful to the Commission. Mr. Bain pointed out that this has been through several site review meetings where all the proper authorities were present and this information was never requested. Mr. Echols asked for clarification as to the Commission's desires for Folly Road. Mr. Bowerman confirmed the Commission agreed with the improvements to the taper lane in front of the Sieg property. Ms. Diehl stated she did not feel it was the applicant's responsibility to furnish the sewer information, but rather official information should have been available from the Service Authority. The previously stated motion for approval was approved (4:3) with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Skove voting in favor and Ms. Diehl, Mr. Michel and Mr. Gould voting against. 0., BFI Office and Shop Building Site Plan - Located on the east side of Route 742 just north of its intersection with Route 20. Proposal to create a 4,000 square foot office and equipment storage facility on a 0.65 acre site. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Tax Map 90, parcel 35U. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. Patterson explained that septic system approval was required because no system currently exists (a portable toilet is being used). The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant is agreeable to staff's conditions. He added that floor drains will either be eliminated or will correct into the septic system, or whatever the Health Department requires. Ms. Patterson pointed out that the Health Department specifically prohibits floor drains from emptying into the septic system. Mr. Osborne stated that, in that case, the floor drains will be eliminated. 63 May 28, 1985 Page 10 There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the floor drains should empty into a holding tank rather than a septic system. Mr. Michel moved that the BFI Office and Shop Building Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions and with the understanding that no floor drains will empty into the septic system: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations, and storm water detention plans if necessary; C. Fire Official approval of fuel pump relocation and fire wall on southern property line; d. Health Department approval of suitability for septic fields, to include impervious surface above the primary field; e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; f. Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit to the County Engineer a certified Engineer's Report to comply with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance; g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance and frontage improve- ments; h. Either no floor drains or no discharge into the storm water or septic system; 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official final approval; 3. In the event that both drain fields fail or the well becomes inadequate, or that the Zoning Administrator deems it reasonably available, this site must connect to public sewer and/or water. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Carpenter Final Plat - Previously approved; expired April 30, 1985. Located on the north side of Rt. 20 North, ±0.1 mile east of its intersection with Rt. 600 in Stony Point. Proposal to divide 11.8 acres into 2 lots of 7.5 and 4.3 acres. (FAMILY DIVISION). Request for relief of Section 18-36a to allow two existing residences on one lot (4.3 acres). Tax Map 48, parcel 14. Rivanna Magisterial District. b4 May 28, 1985 Page 11 Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that all of the original conditions of approval have been met and this is before the Commission because the preliminary plat has expired. The applicant offered no comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that the Carpenter Final Plat be approved with no conditions, since all previous conditions have now been met. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. U.S. Postal Service, Keene, Virginia - Request to locate a temporary mobile home/office for the U.S. Postal Service. Located on the south side of Rt. 712 at the intersection of Rt. 20 and Rt. 712. Tax Map 121, parcel 91. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. I"' Mr. James Murray, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the Postal Service has been attempting to construct a new Post Office for the Keene area for several years. He stated negotiations are almost complete for construction of the new building, and the offer that has been made to give the site for the temporary structure is contingent upon a signed lease for the new building. Thus this trailer will not be placed on the site unless a new Post Office is definitely going to be constructed. He explained the owner of the existing Country Store where the post office is now located has refused to renew the lease, which expires June 1, 1985. This is being presented to the Commission on an emergency basis. He stated he thinks a portable toilet will be used to serve the temporary structure, but there is a septic system on site which is not presently being used which can be used if necessary. He stated that whether or not the new structure would be ready to be occupied within 6 months would depend on the postal service. He added there are some documents which still need to be signed by the postal service and as soon as that is done the trailer can be put in place and construction can begin. He further explained that there would be no problem with constructing the building within 6 months, since it was a fairly simply structure, but the issue is that construction cannot begin until all the documents have been signed. 6S May 28, 1985 Page 12 Ms. Fran Plate, representing the Postal Service, addressed the Commission. She stated the only thing which could delay the matter would be a delay in receiving the documents back from the Virginia State Clearing House. It was determined that the site plan for the new structure would have to be approved by the Commission and the review date would depend on when it was submitted. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant should be granted an additional three-month period, since it would be at least July before the site plan could be placed on the agenda. Ms. Plate asked if the Commission could indicate their approval of the proposed site plan at this time. Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission could not do that. Mr. Skove explained that this body does not make the review to which Ms. Plate is referring. He stated this requires an "inter -governmental review" which will be done by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Mr. Murray explained the applicant does not want to have expensive site plans prepared without the Postal Service first being committed to new buildings. When that committment is secure, a site plan will be promptly submitted. He said it is planned that a request will be made at the same time to have that 6 acres zoned commercial, thus two separate applications will be filed simultaneously. Mr. Payne explained the site plan would not be contingent on the rezoning because a post office is a permitted use in the RA district. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the request to locate a temporary mobile home/office for the U.S. Postal Service, Keene, Virginia be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Building Official approval of trailer/office. 2. Operation of the Postal Service trailer/office for a six month period, operations beginning June 1, 1985, and terminating December 1, 1985, and staff approval for an additional three months beginning December 1, 1985 and ending March 1, 1986, if necessary. 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of parking in Row and limitation of access. in May 28, 1985 Page 13 4. County Engineer approval of gravel surface treatment for parking area. 5. Health Department approval of septic site. 6. Maintenance of existing vegetation adjacent to Route 20 and proposed trailer/office. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Ms. Joseph informed the Commission that Mr. Keeler has learned that the Health Department has put Greene Gardens on notice, because of a failing septic system, that he has 30 days to connect to public water and sewer. She pointed out that the Commission's action had stated that if the septic system failed, public water and sewer would then be required. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. DS it) F.-- James�R. Donne QLIASecretary 67 M