HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 22 86 PC MinutesApril 22, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, April 22, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard
Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the April 8, 1986 meeting were approved
as written.
City/County/UVA Planning Agreement - Discussion of the content
and implementation procedures for the proposed planning
agreement among the City of Charlottesville, University of
Virginia, and the County of Albemarle.
It was determined the Commissioners had all had the opportunity
to review the memorandum which was to accompany the Commission's
recommendation to the Board, and it was felt said memorandum
fairly represented what had been discussed at the April 15
meeting. Mr. Bowerman explained that the memorandum was a
statement of the Commission's understanding of the proposed
agreement.
Ms. Diehl moved that a recommendation for approval of the
proposed agreement between the City, the County and the University
be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, accompanied by
staff's memorandum.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan expressed reservations about some parts of the agreement,
but indicated he would vote for the motion in spite of his
reservations.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
(The meeting was running ahead of agenda time, so New Business
was called at this time.)
Commons at Georgetown -Site Plan Extension - Mr. Keeler explained
that the current site plan would expire later in the week and
the applicant has requested an extension of the site plan
April 22, 1986 Page 2
approval. He stated there had been no change in circumstances
in the area and the only change in the Ordinance has been the
landscaping provisions. Therefore, staff was recommending
"a six-month approval of the site plan subject to the applicant
meeting the current landscaping requirements."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler stated the
applicant was not aware of additional landscaping requirements.
Ms. Diehl moved that a six-month extension be granted to the
Commons at Georgetown subject to the provision stated by
staff, that the plan would comply with the current landscaping
requirements.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Cooper Industries Electric Distribution (Crouse Hinds) Office
Addition Site Plan - Proposal to locate a three story office
building of 19,200 square feet (gross) to be served by 93
proposed parking spaces. Total acreage of site is 90.054 acres.
Zoned LI, Light Industry. Property, is located adjacent to
the north of the existing plant and to the west of the
existing test lab and offices, on Route 660. Tax Map 31,
parcel 21A. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Ms. Patterson added that
staff feels the office addition will not greatly increase
already existing water shortage problems at the plant, because
"most of the water is used in the processing of their product."
Ms. Patterson also explained that most of the people working
in the new structure already work in the existing office
facility and there will be only a 3 to 4% increase in employees.
Ms. Patterson also explained that the company is investigating
"reclaiming present treated water for use in all processing
and sanitary needs" and this reclaimed water would supply
80% of the plant's needs. Ms. Patterson also stated: "The
approval of this office addition in no way obligates the
Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors to provide
water service to the plant."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if Ms. Patterson's statement
regarding the plant's water needs was sufficient, i.e.
that the applicant is on record as assuming the responsibility
for providing their own water needs.
Mr. Payne responded that the Commission could ask the applicant,
represented by Mr. McLean, if he understood that.
Referring to condition No. 3 (Any residue or material from
package treatment plant scheduled to be destroyed must be
properly disposed of.), Ms. Diehl asked if that should be
tied to a specific date. Ms. Patterson indicated this
would be difficult since it would depend on when the new
plant was operable.
April 22, 1986 Page 3
Ms. Patterson indicated it could be tied to a date effective
after the beginning of the operation of the new plant.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Responding to Mr. Bowerman's question about the plant's
responsibility for supplying its own water, Mr. McLean confirmed
that it was understood by the applicant and that the plant
was "proceeding at its own risk." Mr. McLean further
explained that the plant is investigating the possiblity
of reclaiming its water as a way of addressing the water
shortage problem. Mr. McLean stated the reclaimed water
would be used for everything except drinking and wash basins.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He asked for permission to delete one of the
two proposed fire hydrants which were shown on the plan.
He explained that the Fire Official, in his initial review,
had overlooked one of the existing hydrants that is shown
on the plan and is within 100 feet of a proposed hydrant.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if the Fire Official was satisfied
with the existing hydrant, he could simply notify the Planning
office.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
.r Since the architect for the applicant had not yet arrived,
the Chairman asked Mr. McLean if the architect had planned
to address any particular issues. Mr. McLean responded
that he had no plans to make any particular point except
to agree with staff's report and conditions of approval.
Ms. Diehl asked if the water treatment facilities were not
approved would the current water arrangements still be able
to accommodate the new facilities. There was some confusion
as to whether Ms. Diehl was referring to "treating" the
water or "reclaiming" the water. It was determined Ms.
Diehl was referring to the proposed reclaiming process.
Mr. McLean confirmed the plant would continue its present
system of purchasing water if the reclaiming process
should not be feasible. In an attempt to clarify the issue,
Mr. Horne explained that the sewage treatment facility has
already been approved, but the recycling process has not
been approved, or fully identified.
It was determined the new facility would be "freeing" space
in the existing offices which has become very crowded, but
would not be opening space for additional manufacturing.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the borrow area and asked
what would happen to the area after the dirt was used.
Mr. Osborne explained that approximately 25 feet beyond
the parking lot would be used for the borrow area and that
it would be re -stabilized after use.
April 22, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Stark moved that the Cooper Industries Electric Distribution
(Crouse Hinds) Office Addition 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. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. Issuance of a runoff control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of upgraded entrance in accordance with
letter of March 20, 1986;
d. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
f. Fire Official approval.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until
the following condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Official approval.
3. Any residue or material from package treatment plant
scheduled to be destroyed must be properly disposed of.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Covey Hill Final Plat - Proposal to divide 97.388 acres into
three (3) lots of 5.0 acres each, leaving a residue of 82.388
acres. Lots are to be served by private road, Covey Hill Road,
located off the north side of Windsor Road in Farmington.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is located between Flordon
and Farmington adjacent to the Farmington Country Club. Tax
Map 59, parcel 59A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Though the staff report
stated that lot 1 lacked minimum road frontage, Ms. Patterson
explained that a revised plat was received after the report
was written which showed that each lot had the required
frontage. Ms. Patterson reported that the County Attorney has
approved the road maintenance agreement for Covey Hill Road,
the Health Department has approved the septic sites, and
a revised plat shows required road frontage for all lots, thus
conditions 1. a, b and d have been met. She stated the
Engineering Department has asked that the following additional
condition be added: "Issuance of an erosion control permit."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was present but offered no additional comment.
April 22, 1986 Page 5
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Elizabeth Peters, a resident of Farmington, addressed the
Commission. She was concerned about the possibility of there
being "indirect" access to Brook Road. She explained it was
rumored that Mr. Quayle, who is a friend of Mr. Hill, plans
to put a driveway from his house to Mr. Hill's driveway
which connects to Broomley and then to Brook Road.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if this was something the County
could be concerned with. Mr. Payne responded, "Insofar as it
is related to the subdivision, you can be concerned about it,
but the subdivision doesn't propose any such thing."
Ms. Patterson stated the reason the condition (i.e. No direct
access to Brook Road) does not appear with staff's other
conditions of approval is because it is noted on the plat
and there was no need to re -state that condition.
Mr. Payne asked Mr. Feil to explain what the easement states.
He asked if the residents of Covey Hill have a right to use
Brook Road as a matter of easement.
Mr. Feil responded, "As a matter of right, it is my understanding
that the owners of these lots would have a right to use the
Farmington roads. I don't think that is something the Planning
Commission can take away."
Mr. Payne indicated he agreed and stated, "I don't think you
have any business dealing with the matter of 'indirect' access."
Mr. Feil stated he felt Ms. Peters' concern was "imaginary"
because he was unaware of any plan for a driveway from these
lots through Mr. Hill's property. He stated it was his
understanding of the requirements of the plat that "it would
be a violation of the conditions of the plat for a person to
have such a driveway." He added, "There has been an
informal request made by the Farmington Property Owners
Association that Mr. Hill, voluntarily to the degree that he
can conveniently do so, allow construction vehicles to go
through his farm to get to these lots to help alleviate the
burden of construction vehicles over Windsor Road."
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the condition spoke for itself and
if such a driveway should be constructed, it would be in
violation of the plat and would have to be removed. Mr.
Payne stated he felt Mr. Feil had conceded that.
Ms. Susan Wild, a resident of Farmington, addressed the Commission
and asked if there were any plans for the residue property.
Mr. Bowerman stated that was not an issue before the
Commission at this time.
April 22, 1986 Page 6
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Covey Hill Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of road plans and
specifications for private road, Covey Hill Road,
in accordance with Table I of Section 18-36(e);
b. Issuance of a erosion control permit.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Sherwood Farms Tracts 1-5 Final Plat - Proposal to divide 73.46
acres into five (5) parcels ranging in size from 7.688 to
21.25 acres. Tracts 1-4 are to be served by proposed Chestnut
Oak Lane and Tract 5 is to be served by existing Mountain View
Drive. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is located off the east
side of Rt. 29 South, approximately 0.3 mile south of I-64.
Tax Map 76N, Section 1, parcels El and 8. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Ms. Patterson also
indicated she did not expect the applicant to be present.
(Note: The applicant did arrive after the item had been heard,
but offered no comment.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked Ms. Patterson to elaborate on her reference
to the change in private road regulations which had taken
place after the initial approval of this plat.
Ms. Patterson explained, "The first time it was approved the
regulations were different from the second time and the
present time. At this point it has to meet the new
regulations (which were the same as the second time)."
It was determined the road is in place and is unpaved.
Ms. Patterson stated she had been told that the road was
probably going to require paving in places due to the grade,
though the private road regulations do not require that
a private road segment be paved unless it serves six lots
or more or unless it exceeds 7% slope.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would prevent an applicant from
putting a plat to record if all the work had been done to get
it approved. Ms. Patterson explained that all conditions
had not been met when the plat expired, but all conditions
have now been met. Mr. Payne added that occasionally
people simply just forget to put the plat to record, (though
that was not the case here).
April 22, 1986
Page 7
Mr. Cogan asked what the status of the private road would
be if this final plat is approved, i.e. would any changes
be required in the road.
Ms. Patterson responded, "They have the road plan approved
and any amount that is not constructed is bonded."
Ms. Diehl moved that Sherwood Farms Tracts 1-5 Final Plat
be approved.
Messrs. Wilkerson and Michel simultaneously seconded the
motion which passed unanimously.
Marriott Hotel, Rt. 29 - Site Plan - Proposal to construct a
149 room hotel in the Branchlands Planned Unit Development,
adjacent to Fashion Square Mall. The total area of the
site is 4.13 acres. This property is within the Branchlands
Planned Unit Development (zoned PUD). A special use
permit for the hotel has been obtained. The property is located
on the east side of Rt. 29, behind Albemarle Bank & Trust
Company and south of Fashion Square Mall. Tax Map 61Z,
Block 3, parcel 1. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Regarding the collector road,
he stated that the parties involved have tentatively reached
`�kft+, agreement about the location of the remainder of the road.
The staff report also stated the following: "The staff feels
that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to
review this plan for approval with the understanding that
the Planning Department will not give final approval of the
site plan until an accurate bond has been posted for all road
and utility work. Without final approval by the Planning
Department a building permit cannot be issued for any
construction on the site."
Ms. Diehl asked about the status of the "wetlands." Mr.
Horne explained that no final designs have been approved
but there are no actual designs since this is an experimental
project. However, the concept has been reviewed and found
to be acceptable by the Engineering Department and the
University. Mr. Keeler added, "Dr. Hurt obtained from the
Board of Supervisors a waiver to grade in some areas of
Branchlands and one of the conditions of that waiver
was that the wetlands be constructed by June."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Lee Middleditch, attorney for the applicant, introduced
Mr. Michael Assad, representing the Marriott corporation.
April 22, 1986 Page 8
Mr. Assad addressed the Commission. He presented pictures
of the facility that will be built. He explained that
the facility would have a low profile and would be residential
in appearance. Mr. Assad also praised staff for their
assistance on this project.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Responding to Mr. Michel's question about the road requirements,
Mr. Benish explained, "The conditions of the SP are that they
build Section 3 and the access road to 29 of the collector
road that we have proposed. Until we receive a bond for
the improvements of that road, given the design that is required
by the Highway Department, (Marriott) could not open their
doors."
Mr. Horne confirmed that the Marriott was not relying on sections
1 and 2 for access. He added, "The reasons section 1 and 2
are getting so involved is that the Highway Department refuses
to review the plans for section 3 until they know whether it is
part of a connector road or whether it is just a hook in from
the access road. otherwise, the conditions of approval on
the PUD, read very directly, require only that they build the
access road and section 3, but it is getting to be that in a
practical sense we can't bond section 3 until we know whether
section 1, in particular, is going to go ahead and connect
to Greenbrier Road. We are now confident that it is going to
connect, but that has only become clear in the last week or so.
The road plans for the exact standard of construction are
what is involved with sections 1 and 2, not the actual conditions
of approval of the PUD."
Mr. Bowerman stated, "If it didn't connect, that would require
a revision." Mr. Horne stated, "In the history of the
Branchlands PUD, it is clearly assumed, in my mind, that it
was going to connect, but the connection,as shown on the
nebulous plans that were adopted, showed it connecting in a
location that is off the property of the owners. So while
everyone assumed it was going to connect where it was drawn
to connect, off property that was not a part of the PUD itself,
doing this concept gets it back on the PUD, i.e. gets the
actual connection to Greenbrier Drive back in the area
controlled by the players in the PUD."
Mr. Horne confirmed he was confident that sections 1 and
2 were "moving in the right direction."
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the plan was "fine and the conditions
adequately address the concerns of the County."
3, 7
April 22, 1986
Page 9
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Marriott Hotel, Rt. 29 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. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans and drainage computations;
b. County Engineer approval of road and drainage
plans and computations;
C. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations for both on -site and off -
site improvement plans;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Staff approval of revised plan showing:
1. Walkways along parking area adjacent to
building;
2. Note: "Restaurant capacity limited to 50
persons;
3. 40-foot commercial entrance for access road
onto Branchlands collector road;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
on -site and off -site water and sewer plans;
g. Staff approval of landscape plan;
h. Bonding of all off -site road and drainage facilities.
y% 2. Staff approval of the subdivision plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mill Creek Preliminary Plat (Formerly Forest Hills) - Proposal
to create 39 lots, ranging in size from .46 to .73 acres in
size, for single family residential development. Total
acreage of the property is 201.82 ± acres. The total acreage
of this phase of development is 34.28 acres. Zoned R-1,
Residential. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 742
(Avon Street Extended) north and adjacent to the Lake Reynovia
campgrounds. Tax Map 90, parcel 36A. Scottsville Magisterial
District.
It was determined the applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Mill Creek
Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed
unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
DS
ohn Horne, Secretary
,✓ /y