HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 10 86 PC MinutesJune 10, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 10, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, VA.
Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard
Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter
Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner;
and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners
Gould and Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of the May 27 meeting were approved as
submitted.
Heritage Hall XV Nursing Home Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 39,373 square
foot building for a 120 bed nursing home, served by 116 parking spaces (30
spaces are required). Zoned R-6, Residential with SP-84-4 for a nursing
home use. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 26C (part of), is
located north and adjacent to Four Seasons PUD and Berkley Subdivision.
The proposed access is on Rio Road West, approximately 0.1 mile west of
Rt. 659 (SPCA Road).
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Ms. Patterson also referred to a
letter which had been received from an adjacent owner who felt that the
service area should be better screened from residential property. It was
staff's feeling that since the service area will be located on a portion of
the property which is at a lower elevation than the residential property,
it will be adequately screened.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Rob McGinnis, representing the applicant, was present but offered no
additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Gregory Johnson, President of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about stormwater
detention plans and read the following statement:
10
June 10, 1986 Page 2
Although the residents of the Four Seasons Townhouse Section are not '
adjacent property owners, there is a feature of the nursing home site
plan which affects our property and to which we will ?imit our comments.
Paragraph (4) of Robert McKee's 5 May 1986 letter to staff states'
The Four Seasons stormwater detention basin has adequate capacity
to handle the nursing home and, as such, the developer wishes to
make the required contribution to this facility rather than
construct a new basin on or adjacent to the nursing home site.
However, there is some question as to the capacity of the
existing storm sewers in Four Seasons and their ability to handle
the flow from the nursing home. Our calculations show that with
proper inlet shaping, these sewers are adequate....
Tom Muncaster, assistant to the County Engineer, was in charge of
overseeing the development of the plans for the proposed modification of
the Four Seasons lake which would give it the ability to serve as a
storm water detention basihi to offset the flooding caused by the runoff
from Minor Hill and Wynridge. I last talked with Mr. Muncaster on March
12th, at which time he informed me that the studies were not completed.
I checked with the Office of the County Engineer this morning, and was
informed that the plans, in fact, are not completed yet.
Thus, we question the statement that the stormwater detention basin
in Four Seasons has (or*will have) the capacity to handle Heritage Hall
XV in addition to its present watershed. We have seen no credible data
even to support the assumption that the lake can successfully be
modified as has been proposed. Until such time as the plans for the
detention basin are completed, we believe that neither the Office of the
County Engineer nor the Virginia Department of Highways is in a position
to determine whether or not the drainage system can accommodate the
additional water that will flow into the drainage inlets, modified or
not. We therefore propose that the staff "Recommended Conditions of
Approval" be amended by the addition oft
1.9. Receipt by the County Engineer of the commissioned
engineering study certifying that the Four Seasons
detention basin can accommodate the additional runoff; or
if not, County Engineer approval of an on —site stormwater
detention basin.
and rewording of condition 2.b. to readt
2.b. County Engineer approval of $24,360 payment to the county
in lieu of stormwater detention facilities if the Four
Seasons stormwater detention basin is utilized under
condition 1.9. above.
Mr. George Stovall, a property owner in Berkley, addressed the Commission
and indicated his support of Mr. Johnson's statement. He was also concerned
about the service area and the location of the dumpster and the noise
associated with this area. He questioned staff's position that the
lower elevation of the area would act as an effective screen against the
noise.
6,�!
June 10, 1986 Page 3
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mr. Stark's question, it was determined approximately
12 residents of Four Seasons were in attendance at the meeting in support
of Mr. Johnson.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Steve Pack, representing the County
Engineer's Office. He asked specifically, "Was this area originally
scheduled for inclusion in the Stormwater Management Studies, as
flowing into this area?"
Mr. Pack responded, "Yes, sir. There was a question as to whether the
storm sewer through Four Seasons could handle the flow from the Nursing
Home without stormwater detention. We did some detailed calculations,
and I determined that they could." He explained further that the
Highway Department had reviewed his calculations and had agreed with
his determination. He stated, "The piping through Four Seasons can
handle this flow, and the Four Seasons detention basin, as it stands
now, can handle this flow, for a 10-year storm." In response to Mr.
Bowerman's question, Mr. Pack stated the runoff from the site, undeveloped,
is currently passing through Four Seasons and the only difference
after the site is developed will be that the impervious surface will
cause it to run off quicker, causing a higher concentration and higher
flow. He added, "But it is not a considerable amount; we still have
a lot of open space there." Mr. Pack concluded, "Hydraulically, there
is no problem with this development."
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Pack confirmed he was confident
that the piping system could be altered to satisfy the runoff requirements
from this site.
There was some discussion about the improvements to the Four Seasons
basin which had been approved in the Capital Improvements Program last
year. Mr. Pack explained that design has stopped temporarily on
the Four Seasons project while two other projects are being worked on.
Mr. Bowerman asked what had happened to the money that had been
appropriated for this project. Mr. Armm, the County Engineer,
explained that money for the three projects had been lumped
together, but it appears that two of the projects, Berkley and Four
Seasons, are close to budget. He stated that if the design work
can be completed on the Four Seasons project, it might possibly
be constructed this fall.
It was determined the applicant's contribution to this project
($24,360) was fixed and could notbe increased later if the project
should be delayed and costs should increase.
Mr. Bowerman introduced a letter from Mrs. Plunkett, who was concerned
about runoff onto her property after the site is cleared. It was determined
both Ms. Patterson and Mr. Pack had visited the site and determined that
with the construction of a ditch along the applicant's property, the
1*0w- runoff onto Ms. Plunkett's property would not be increased, and probably
would decrease somewhat.
63
June lq 1986
Page 4
Regarding the question about the location of the service area, Mr. Bowerman
asked the applicant's representative how the location had been decided upon.
Mr. McGinnis explained it was felt this configuration had been chosen
because it would minimize the amount of cut and fill that would be needed
and because "it went with the lay of the land a lot better." It was
determined the dumpster was approximately 150 away from the property line.
Mr. McGinnis also felt that since the residential property was "above"
the level of the service area, the sound would be dissipated.
Regarding the buffer area, Mr. McGinnis explained that this area would
be planted in such a way that "not only the existing screen and buffer
would be there, but it also will grow up and provide additional cover."
He stated the applicant plans to seed the wildflower meadow and this
is specified in the plan.
Mr. Pack once again confirmed there was no question in his mind that the
drainage facilities proposed at Four Seasons will accommodate the flow
of water from this site after development.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was satisfied that the plan met the requirements of
the ordinance, and the conditions of approval adequately addressed the
concerns expressed by the Commission and the public.
Ms. Diehl moved that Heritage Hall XV Nursing Home Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have Ifto
been met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading & drainage plans and computations;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
drainage plans and issuance of permit for modification to
drainage inlets;
C. County Engineer approval of public road & drainage plans and
computations;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
public road and drainage plans and computations, to include
commercial entrance and turn and taper lane on Route 631;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Fire official final approval;
b. County Engineer approval of $24,360 payment to the county in lieu
of stormwater detention facilities on site;
c. Recordation of plat dedicating right-of-way on Rt. 631; showing
sight easements; and noting and showing the internal road right-of-way
to be dedicated to public use at some future date upon request by
the County;
d. Planning staff review of landscaping to determine if any additional
plantings or fence are necessary in the buffer area.
3. Compliance with SP 85-4 H.C.M.F. Development Corporation.
June 10, 1986
Page 5
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Stark asked if there would be any problems in adding condition l.g.
as suggested in Mr. Johnson's statement. It was determined that the
Commission felt the conditions were adequate as proposed by staff.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Earlysville Forest Phase A, Section 9 Final Plat - Proposal to create 15
lots and 3.376 acres of open space. Lot size ranges from 0.95 to 3.062
acres. Lots are to be served by an extension of Earlysville Forest Drive and
proposed Carriage Hill Drive. 28.712 acres this phase. Zoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development. Property, located adjacent to the northwest of the
existing Earlysville Forest lots, off the east side of Rt. 743.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He indicated the applicant had no problems with any of staff's recommendations,
except for condition 3 (No lots in addition to Section 9, Phase A shall be
signed until the existing roads intended to be public roads are accepted
into the state secondary road system). He pointed out that the roads
are all fully bonded and stated he was not aware of any maintenance
problems. He pointed out that the applicant has no control over the
Highway Department's schedule and, therefore, it might be some time
before the roads are actually accepted into the state system.
In response to Mr. Gilliam's comments, Ms. Patterson read a statement
from the County Engineer's site review comments: "We have been unsuccessful
in getting the developer to complete the necessary road work in order for
the existing road to be taken into the state highway system. We are holding
a performance bond but as time elapses the road and ditch areas will
further deteriorate and additional bond will be required to make the necessary
repairs. We suggest that the roads be brought up to the standards as
approved by the Highway Department as expeditiously as possible so the
roads can be accepted into the state system." She explained that
condition 3 had been based on these comments.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that "bonds are intended as a courtesy to the
developer" and allow a project to proceed before state highway
acceptance.
Mr. Bowerman stated the staff's concern was well taken by the Commission.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Marcia Joseph, a resident of Earlysville Forest, addressed the Commission.
She stressed that the roads are not presently maintained in winter and
that grading and surface treatment are at a "primitive level." She asked
that staff's condition 3 remain. She also asked for clarification as to
the status of the piece of property that was dedicated to the County for
recreation purposes.
June 10, 1986 Page 6
Mr. Keeler explained, "There was a condition of the original rezoning
which required dedication of 82 acres to public recreation with the
first site plan for the subdivision." Mr. Keeler stated he had
checked with Mr. Payne to see if this had been done, and if the County
does, in fact, own the land. He stated it was Mr. Payne's
determination that the County does own the land. He stated he
had sent a copy of Mr. Payne's comments on this issue to the applicant
but had received no reply. Mr. Keeler stated that recently it has
been learned that the developer is under the impression that he
still owns the land. Mr. Keeler said the real estate records show
that the property is still listed to Earlysville Land Trust and
they have been taxed on it.
Mr. Bowerman asked why the land is still being taxed if the
County does own the land, as Mr. Payne has determined. Mr. Payne
responded, "It shouldn't be. The plat says it is public recreation
and, obviously, approval required that it be public recreation."
It was determined the property in question is not yet improved.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the matter could be pursued. Mr. Payne
responded, "I don't think there's anything to pursue. Mr. Mulaney
is aware of this situation and there is nothing to pursue until the
County decides to do something with it."
Mr. Payne confirmed that this was not an issue before the Commission at this
time. He added, however, "If the developer disagrees with that position,
I think the Commission probably can, and probably should, condition the
approval of this plan on the... relinquishment of any further perfection
of the public dedication that the developer thinks is necessary. I don't
think there is anything further necessary. But if anybody disagrees,
this is a good time to take it up."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Gilliam if it was his position that the 82 acres
had never been relinquished.
Mr. Gilliam stated he did not think this was an issue at this time and
stated that he was unprepared to discuss the matter. He stated, "I don't
think there's any disagreement. I think that the YMCA has some interest
in acquiring this property to put some recreation facilities in that
would be of benefit to everybody. I understand that there has been some
discussions between the County, the YMCA and the developer, and if that
comes to pass, we're going to sign whatever needs to be signed. We've
dedicated it, but we did notice that we've been paying the taxes
on it. I think that this is a problem that's going to get worked out."
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not think the Commission needed to be concerned
with the issue at this time. Mr. Payne agreed, particularly in light of
Mr. Gilliam's comments.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
r G1
June 10, 1986
Page 7
Ms. Diehl stated that of the 56 lots shown, 24 are indicated as requiring
�rry "probable pumping." She felt this was a prime example of "over -building"
on a parcel of land.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had felt that way when this
was originally presented, but the Board had felt otherwise.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Earlysville Forest Phase A, Section 9 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 public road and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road
and drainage plans and computations;
c. County Engineer approval of extension to the central well system;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; erosion control plan to
be reviewed by Watershed Management Official;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water lines and
appurtenances;
f. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents.
2. Fire Officer approval of:
1*40,, a. Hydrant stubs installed every 800 feet along roadway for future
hydrant placement; and
b. New hydrant at lake 1 in functional mode prior to issuance of
certificates of occupancy for section 9.
3. No lots in addition to Section 9, Phase A shall be signed until the
existing roads intended to be public roads are accepted into the
state secondary road system.
4. Building and septic sites shall be in accordance with Section 9 plat by
R.O. Snow, Inc. Copies of septic permits shall be given to plumbers and
septic contractors.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed (4:1) with Ms. Diehl casting the
dissenting vote.
Sachem Village - Site Plan Expiration
Mr. Keeler presented a memorandum explaining this situation to the Commission.
He explained that Phase I of the project and Phases II-VII were treated
as separate projects and while progressing toward compliance with
conditions of approval for Phases II-VII, two situations were encountered
which were beyond the control of the applicant:
(1) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
increased sight distance requirements for the commercial
611
June 10, 1986
Page 8
and
entrance at Whitewood Road from 350 feet to 400 feet;
(2) Poor site materials (poor soils) were encountered necessitating
additional field work and soils analysis.
The memorandum also stated that due to project inactivity, the Albemarle
County Service Authority had withdrawn its approval of water and sewer plans.
The memorandum explained that the applicant has submitted a revised
sketch plan for development of Phase III and staff was recommending the
following actions:
(1) The Planning Commission authorize staff, after review by
the Site Review Committee to reapprove Phases II and VII including
revised Phase III.
(2) Except for alterations as may result from Site Review Committee
review, conditions of approval shall be as set forth in original
Planning Commission approval of July 17, 1984, with condition
1 of that approval being amended as follows:
1. Site development shall occur in sequential order
beginning with Phase II. This site plan shall be deemed
to be active; provided that, actual building construction
within a given phase shall commence within twelve (12)
months of initial issuance of a certificate of occupancy in
the prior phase.
(3) The planning staff may require additional landscape materials in
accordance with current requirements provided such materials can
be accommodated without physical alteration to paved areas or
buildings.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to what was different from the
original approval, Mr. Keeler responded, "They have revised Phase III;
they have not deleted a building, but they have reduced the size of the
buildings in order to reduce the amount of parking, to pull the parking
in some. (This allowed them to establish a sight distance easement.)
The other change since this was reviewed is the adoption of the Landscape
Ordinance." Regarding landscaping, Mr. Keeler explained, "What we would
do would be require plant materials in accordance with current requirements,
but we would not require the applicant to meet all the requirements
of the Landscape Ordinance, or any requirements that may occasion the need
for him to physically redesign his site."
Mr. Keeler stressed that though the site plan has expired, to an extent, this
was a result of conditions beyond the control of the applicant. He stated,
"He was in good faith attempting to meet (the conditions of the site plan
approval)."
June 10, 1986 Page 9
Mr. Payne added that though there was no question that the
site plan had expired, he felt it was a very close question. He stated
that technically construction had not commenced, but, clearly, a lot
of time, money and effort had been spent getting the project under way
and the applicant had met with a lot of adverse conditions.
He added that the applicant should have come back to the Commission for
an extension, but in view of the amount of work that the applicant
had done, he felt the staff's recommendation was a very good one.
He stated further, "I think to require more formalities really would be
almost of questionable propriety. It really wouldn't be fair in light
of the amount of money the developer has spent in getting this site plan
in shape."
Mr. Stark asked how the soil problem could be overcome. It was determined
the applicant had removed a large portion of soil and replaced it with
new soil.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff would
have approved the change to the site plan (i.e. reduction in the size
of buildings, etc.) if it had been presented in a timely fashion.
There was considerable discussion about this issue. Ms. Diehl felt it
was not beyond the control of the applicant to have known about the condition
of the soils from the beginning. Mr. Cogan was concerned about the
soil -exchange process. The Commission was particularly concerned as
to why the Commission was presented with this problem "five months
1�4w_ after the fact" since the site plan had expired in January, leaving
plenty of time for an amended site plan to have been submitted.
Mr. Payne stated the developer should have come in before the site
plan expired (November or December) and requested an extension.
There was also discussion as to how to define "commencement of
construction." Mr. Horne proposed that staff look into this issue
further in an effort to clarify the question for future proposals.
Mr. Payne stated the Commission had three options: (1) To find, as a
matter of fact, that he has vested his rights under the original site
plan, that it didn't expire, and the Commission has nothing further
to do; (2) To say the site plan expired, the staff's recommendation
makes sense under the circumstances, and the Commission is going to
allow this administrative approval which is basically an update of
what was there before; or (3) To say it has expired, it's new business
and must be re -submitted. Mr. Payne added, "I'll be frank to tell you,
with this history, the third option would really be of questionable
fairness."
Mr. Payne stated the issue is, "Did what the applicant do qualify to
vest his rights in this site plan?" Ms. Diehl pointed out that it
was very unclear as to what the applicant actually had done in this
respect. Mr. Payne indicated he was probably more familiar with the
situation than the Commission.
Mr. Horne pointed out that staff did not feel strongly about the
situation, one way or the other, and if the Commission was not comfortable
with administrative approval, that was acceptable to staff.
�I
June 10, 1986
Page 10
Mr. Horne agreed that the applicant should have come in February, but
he pointed out that the Highway Department did change the rules
halfway through which caused a major problem with the site plan.
It was determined Commission concerns at the time of the original
approval had centered around drainage issues and encroachment on
school property.
It was finally determined to be the consensus of the Commission that
there was no public advantage to be gained by requiring a new submittal.
Mr. Stark moved that the Commission approve the recommendations
of staff for the Sachem Village Site Plan, Phases II - VII, as follows:
(1) The Planning Commission authorize staff, after review by
the Site Review Committee to reapprove Phases II and VII
including revised Phase III.
(2) Except for alternations as may result from Site Review
Committee review, conditions of approval shall be as set
forth in original Planning Commission approval of July 17, 1984.
Condition l of that approval shall be amended as follows:
1. Site development shall occur in sequential order
beginning with Phase II. This site plan shall be
deemed to be active; provided that, actual
building construction within a given phase shall
commence within twelve (12) months of initial NOO
issuance of a certificate of occupancy in the prior
phase.
(3) The :Planning staff may require additional landscape materials in
accordance with current requirements provided such materials
can be accommodated without physical alternation to paved
areas or buildings.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the motion because she felt there
had been sufficient time for the applicant to have submitted an amended
plan.
The motion for approval of staff's recommendations passed (4:1) with Ms.
Diehl casing the dissenting vote.
The meeting recessed from 9:05 to 9:20.
WORK SESSION.
Comprehensive Plan - Review of Goals and Objectives - Mr. Cilimberg
continued the review of the goals and objectives.
Significant Commission concerns and comments were as follows:
'70
June 10, 1986
Page 11
Sub -Committees: Mr. Bowerman announced the membership of these
committees as follows: Land Use - Diehl, Michel and Wilkerson;
Other Issues - Cogan, Gould and Stark. He stressed that any
Commissioner could attend any committee meeting.
Goal 4, Objective 2: The Commission was in favor of deleting
Strategy B relating to bonus densities since this might lead
to an over intensification of land use. Mr. Cogan didn't
feel solar energy was justification for reinstating bonus
densities. The Commission was in favor of expanding the
tax incentive program (Strategy D) and identifying other types
of energy efficient measures. It was determined Issue 2,
relating to bonus densities, should also be omitted.
Goal 5, Objective 1: There was some question of the attainability
of the 87% figure projected. There was also some question as to
how this figure was arrived at. Mr. Cogan felt part of Strategy
4 was a "pipe dream" (i.e. "Rural subdivisions should be limited to
family divisions or divisions into tracts of adequate size to support
farming/forestry activities."). He did not feel this was a
good starting point as suggested by Ms. Diehl. Mr. Cogan felt
the "village" factor was the key to attaining the goal.
Goal 5, Objective 2: The Commission stressed that natural topographic
boundaries must not be overlooked.
%*We Goal 5, Objective 3: Mr. Bowerman asked, "Should the County get in-
volved in providing the infrastructure to carry out the goals and
objectives of what it wants to do in the Comprehensive Plan?"
Goal 5, Objective 4: Ms. Diehl felt that to "remain competitive
with other areas" (Strategy 4) should not be a major objective.
Mr. Cogan asked how it would be possible to determine if "major
employment uses" (Strategy 4) would benefit County residents
primarily as opposed to inviting the "influx" of people from other
areas. It was determined staff would research the employment "base"
for the County. Mr. Stark expressed interest in the percentage
of people who both work and live in the area; Mr. Horne stated
staff should be able to get these statistics.
Goal 5: Ms. Diehl stated the main issue was to determine what
the County wishes to do with the urban, rural and village concept.
The Chairman asked that all future Comprehensive Plan materials be
"punched" so that they can be inserted into the notebooks provided
by staff.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
SX r-
ohn Horne, Secre ary
DS
7/