Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 26 85 PC MinutesNovember 26, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 26, 1985, 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. Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Harry Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order to 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the November 12, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Ivy Farms & Wyngate Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 24 lots which range from 2.2 to 15.7 acres, for an average lot size of 6.4 acres. Lots to be served by public roads. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Ivy Farms lots are located off an extension of Wingfield Road, off Ivy Farm Drive and Route 658. The Wyngate lots are located on the south side of Route 676 West, approximately one mile east of Route 660. Tax Map 44, parcels 21F, 21F2, 21F3, and 34. Jack Jouette Magisterial District. Deferred from November 12, 1985. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that the Ivy Farms lots are to be served by an extension of existing Wingfield Road; the Wyngate lots are to be served by Rt. 676 and a new road, Wyngate Road. She explained that the proposal utilizes all development rights, thus there can be no further division without a special use permit. Ms. Patterson stated that Health Department approval was received after the staff report was written. She explained that a minor change was suggested by the Soil Scientist's Report which resulted in a parallel lot line shift on lot 5, adding more area to lot 5 for septic area and subtracting a small area (50-foot strip) from lot 6. She added that the Health Department had commented that some pumping may be necessary. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated there were no objections to the conditions of approval and requested administrative approval of the final plat. The Chairman invited public comment. z9 November 26, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Saul Cooper, representing the Ivy Farms Homeowners' Associa- tion, addressed the Commission. He stated he was generally pleased with the plat, but noted the following concerns: --No further subdivision should be allowed without a special use permit. --Asked that the Homeowners' Association be notified when additional subdivision is planned within the new plat. (He asked for clarification of the policy concerning notification of such associations since they are not actually adjoining property owners.) --Dangerous status of Rt. 658. (He asked that a new vehicle count be taken and that consideration be given to widening the road.) --Asked that no "through" road be constructed to connect Wyngate and Wingfield roads since it would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood and would be an enticing shortcut. In relation to this issue, Mr. Cogan explained that no right-of-way exists through any of those lots and the very steep grades involved would make such a road impractical. Ms. Patterson added that the construction of such a road would also involve crossing a floodplain, which is a major issue. Mr. Henry Wyching addressed the Commission and expressed his concern about the dangerous condition of Rt. 658. He asked that consideration be given to improving the road. Mr. Sean Flynn asked at what point the application will be approved or disapproved. It was explained that action would be taken on the subdivision request at this meeting. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the notification policy, Mr. Bowerman explained that adjacent property owners are notified for subdivisions, but not for site plans. There is currently no system for notifying homeowners' associations although it is being looked into. Mr. Horne added that interested parties can submit stamped, self-addressed envelopes if they wish to be notified. He indicated there is some concern about the managability and scale of this type of additional notification. Regarding the request for improvements to Rt. 658, Mr. Bowerman explained that the Highway Department operates with a Six -Year Plan which is periodically updated. He asked Mr. Echols, of the Highway Department, to explain the procedure. Mr. Echols explained that Rt. 658 pre -dated the subdivision and developers cannot be required to improve existing state roads except what is necessitated by their development, i.e. at the entrance, turn lanes, etc. He explained that the Six -Year Plan is revised every two years and there are certain criteria which must be met for a road to be considered for inclusion in the Six -Year Plan. It is up to the Highway Department and the Board of Supervisors to decide the major -1D November 26, 1985 Page 3 priorities. He stated that a road carrying 800 vehicles/day in Albemarle County is not in the top 10% or 150 of road volumes, since there are many with heavier road volumes. He stated there is nothing in the current Six -Year Plan for Rt. 658. He further explained that any gravel road which carries over 50 vehicle trips/day is eligible, but that priority will be given to those where the necessary rights -of -way have been obtained. He explained that the minimum right-of-way required is 40 feet, preferably 50 feet. He stated that existing right-of-way on old roads is a 30 feet perscriptive easement, i.e. 15 feet each side of the center of the road. Mr. Cogan summarized the steps the homeowners should follow if they wish to have the road upgraded: --They must obtain the necessary right-of-way width from all involved property owners. --Once that is done, they should contact the Supervisor from their district and request that it be included in the next Six -Year Plan update. Mr. Echols confirmed that their chances would be better if the right-of-way is obtained first. He added that his department would meet with the interested parties and show them what right-of-way is needed. Ms. Cooke stressed that it is the responsibility of the interested parties to obtain the right-of-way before approaching the Board of Supervisors and it must be total participation from the property owners involved. Mr. Skove stated that the public should be advised, in all honesty, that the chances of getting the road improved, given the current funding and and the state highway system, are "slim to non-existent." Regarding further subdivision of the property, Mr. Cogan pointed out that that would require a special use permit and would be advertised in the paper before going to public hearing. Mr. Skove asked if the application was for two subdivisions. Ms. Patterson replied that it could possibly be considered that way, but they are both shown on one plat and there are sufficient development rights for what is being proposed. Regarding Wyngate Road, Mr. Edwards explained that it was constructed as a private road, but was built with the intent that it would someday be a public road. Regarding the Soil Scientist's Report, Ms. Diehl asked if it was customary for this report to be done without the lot lines having been "flagged." Though Mr. Edwards stated the lots lines had been flagged, Ms. Diehl pointed out that the cover letter with the report had stated that they were not. Mr. Edwards explained that some of the lines in Ivy Farms V November 26, 1985 Page 4 were flagged as the soil scientist was working. It was determined Health Department approval has been received, thus the Commission does not have to see the final plat. Mr. Michel asked if owners of those lots which front on the reservoir are still able to build "into the water." Mr. Payne replied, "I don't think so." Mr. Michel felt that was the case also, but stated he was curious because "there are some on otter parts of the reservoir." Mr. Payne recalled that those were done as a matter of contract when the land for the reservoir was acquired. Mr. Skove moved that the Ivy Farms & Wyngate Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions and with administra- tive approval of the final plat: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; C. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations, and private street commercial entrance on Route 676; e. Planning staff approval of technical notes to plat; f. No building on slopes of 250 or greater, without Planning Commission approval of modification of regulations. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Edwards pointed out that the Soil Scientist's Report reflected the shift in that one lot line. Ms. Diehl stated she was still concerned that the Soil Scientist's Report had stated that "the lot corners were not set and the lot lines were not flagged" and another report had stated that the "lot lines were not flagged." She stated she felt it was imperative that the soil scientist know the perimeters of the area he is working with, particularly in an area where there are critical slopes. Both Mr. Gould and Mr. Skove agreed. The previously -stated motion for approval was unanimously approved. 19 1,1 November 26, 1985 Page 5 r' Charlottesville Retail Center - Proposal to locate a one-story retail building of 14,400 square feet served by 76 parking spaces. Property is located on the west side of Rt. 29 southbound lane, on the south side of Berkmar Drive and adjacent to Shoppers World Shopping center. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 61U, parcels 1-15, 1-16, and 1-17A. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Though Ms. Patterson was unsure exactly where the proposed turn lane would begin, she confirmed that the Commission could require full frontage improvements across the entire front of the property. Mr. Skove asked if previous site plans (for this proposal) had shown entrances on Rt. 29. Ms. Patterson stated this is the first time an entrance on 29 has been proposed. She explained that the applicant, at a previous Commission review had sought input from the Commission regarding a possible entrance on 29, since the proposal is not feasible without the entrance on 29. She added that, at that time, the staff had not opposed the entrance on 29, but the Commission had reserved comment until the proposal had been before the site review committee. Ms. Patterson confirmed the parking is adequate for the proposed tenant (Color Tile). The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Dale Ladner, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He asked why staff is requiring that a barrier be erected preventing through travel with Shopper's World (l.f.). Mr. Bowerman explained this was to prevent the traffic from Shopper's World from exiting on this site, which would be an undesirable situation. Mr. Ladner stated that if the Commission could not approve both the ingress and egress on Rt. 29 (which he preferred), then, as a compromise, could the barrier requirement be deleted so as to allow his customers to exit through the shopping center. He explained that ham only an ingress from Rt. 29 would not invite traffic from the shopping center onto his site because of the necessary angle of the ingress. Mr. Ladner stated that the proposal was not economically feasible if only the one ingress was allowed. He explained that the purpose of buying the third lot (i.e. putting it under contract) had been to allow for a better circulation pattern. He stated he would not be able to find tenants if only one entrance was available. Mr. Bowerman stated he understood Mr. Ladner's concern, but explained that this site must "stand on its own." November 26, 1985 Page 6 Ms. Patterson stated she could see two problems with Mr. Ladner's suggestion, i.e. ingress only from Rt. 29, with traffic allowed to exit from this site into the shopping center: (1) Parking from an adjoining use comes right up to this property line; and (2) There are already tremendous circulation problems on the Shopper's World lot. Mr. Michel suggested that some of the problems might be helped if some traffic were to use the service road into Shopper's World. Mr. Ladner indicated he would not be opposed to erecting the barrier, if he could also be allowed an egress. He also stated that he "would be able to build it, no question, if (he) had at least an ingress off Rt. 29." He also stated he would be willing to put the "speed lane all the way down across the front." It was determined he was referring to the third lane on the Rt. 29 southbound lane. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Horne stated, as he understood the applicant's last statement, that was exactly what was on the plan, i.e. ingress only on Rt. 29, full frontage improvements, and the barrier. He confirmed that staff is recommending an ingress only on Rt. 29. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the site should stand on its own. He added that traffic using this site, and desiring to go on to Shopper's World, has two options: (1) To exit onto Berkmar and go down Rt. 29; or (2) To exit onto Berkmar, make a left and go up the service road to Shopper's World. He felt it was inappropriate to try to make the site work by incorporating overflow traffic or back -and -forth traffic from Shopper's World. He felt staff's recommendation for an ingress only from Rt. 29 was the only logical way to deal with the proposal in view of current policies for Rt. 29 North and required distances from crossovers. He added that allowing an ingress was going further than the Commission often intends for Rt. 29. There was some discussion about the applicant's need to use the service road. Mr. Ladner explained that he had to be able to use the service road for his truck traffic and that was what the road had been designed for. The Chairman asked Ms. Patterson to clarify the exact status of the abuttment between the service road and this property. Ms. Patterson stated that curb exists part of the way, but not entirely along the service road frontage. She stated the applicant is proposing an opening of approximately 50 feet. It was suggested that a sign could be erected stating "Authorized Vehicles Only" though it was felt such signs are not always heeded. Ms. Patterson confirmed that it was intended that customers would be able to use this also. It was the consensus of the Commission that allowing this use of the service road was not a problem. Ms. Patterson stated a lot of businesses feel that that is not sufficient access. za November 26, 1985 Page 9 �ftw Mr. Bradshaw explained how certain figures are determined, i.e. the amount of rent that can be charged for a particular unit, and the amount of subsidy a low-income family can receive. He explained that the the money comes directly from HUD to the department who distributes it. (This money does not go through VHDA.) Mr. Bradshaw asked for the Commission's help in selling the program to landlords who might have units that are in need of rehabilitation. OR Review of 1984 Amendments to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 - Ms. Imhoff explained that included in the Commission's packet was a summary of the 1984 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. She explained there had been 11 amendment requests and of these 4 were denied, 6 approved, and 1 was indefinitely deferred and is still pending. She added that a new section had been added to the Comprehensive Plan relating to the Urban Drainage System. WORK SESSION Presentation of a Preliminary Schedule for Reviewing "Pedestrian Obstacle Study Phase I" Recommendations - Staff outlined a tentative agenda for Commission review of the five elements of this study: CTS routes, rural roads and intersection improvements, streetlights, sidewalks, and asphalt paths. Ms. Imhoff explained the Commission is being requested to adopt a schedule for reviewing in detail the recommendations of the Pedestrian Obstacle Study in order to prioritize recommendations. The Commission approved the following schedule for reviewing the five elements of the study: December 3, 1985 Charlottesville Transit Service Routing Recommendations January, 1986 Rural Road and Intersection Improvements January, 1986 Streetlights January, 1986 Sidewalks February, 1986 Asphalt Pathways Ms. Imhoff stated the Highway Department has commented that these studies are more useful if they can be prioritized. -1T November 26, 1985 Page 10 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) - This item was moved to the December 3, 1985 agenda. Old Business Screening of Mary Patricia Brown Commercial Subdivision from Berkeley Subdivision - (At the November 19, 1985 Commission meeting, the Commission had directed staff to research this issue.) Mr. Horne stated he felt part of the confusion lies between requirements contemplated on the subdivision phase and requirements that are beginning to be dealt with on individual site plans on the subdivided lots. Mr. Horne explained that at the subdivision stage there was extensive discussion about the need for some protection between the subdivision and the properties to the rear; however, there was no definitive requirement placed on the subdivision by the County stating that the property must be either landscaped or screened. He added that the following condition did exist on the subdivision: Grading Permit: With the Soil Erosion Committee being mindful of protecting the existing trees as much as possible, especially the treeline dividing Berkeley Subdivision and the proposed access easement. This may call for treewells for protection. He pointed out that this condition had not been definitive and, in fact, the trees were not protected and the construction of the road caused the removal of the trees. Mr. Horne stated he had asked the County Attorney if that condition was sufficient for the County to now go back to the subdivider (Ms. Brown) and require that the trees be replaced. Mr. Payne felt the condition was not sufficient to make such a requirement. Mr. Michel asked if the Commission can now turn to the developers of the individual lots. Mr. Horne replied that the Commission can certainly require that individual sites be screened. He added that he felt it would be very "touchy" and he would not recommend using an individual site plan to go onto that roadway surface off the site and require something that clearly seems to have been intended to be the responsibility of the original subdivider. He added, however, that it is conceivable that the Commission could interpret that private road- way as being a part of each individual site since it is, in effect, the driveway access. (The County Attorney has not yet given a definitive opinion about such an approach.) 91 if November 26, 1985 Page 11 Mr. Cogan suggested that first Ms. Brown, or her representatives, should be approached to explain what was the original intent of the Commission and to get her reaction. Mr. Horne stated this had not as yet been done. Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned about Mr. Keeler's having indicated he had taken part in discussions between the applicant's attorney and the concerned property owners. He felt this was an awkward position for a county representative. Mr. Horne stated he agreed because this can give the impression that county approval is given to a private agreement. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the memo, as presented by Mr. Horne, was insufficient since it did not give Ms. Brown a clear idea as to how the problem should be addressed. He again suggested that Ms. Brown be approached. Mr. Horne indicated this would be done. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. DS RIN