HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 23 87 PC Minuteson
June 23, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 23, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard
Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David
Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 9, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
Westgate V Apartments Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 24 apartment
units in 4 buildings. The units will consist of 18, 2-bedroom units and 6,
1-bedroom units to be served by 47 parking spaces. Access to the site
will be from existing entrances on Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads, through
the existing Westgate Apartments. The site is located on the south side
of Georgetown Road (Route 656 and adjacent to the Old Dominion Day School
and Westgate.) Tax Map 60A1, Parcels 35,33 and (a portion of) 29. Char-
lottesville Magisterial District. Zoned R-15, with Special Use Permit
(SP-78-22).
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The major issue to be resolved by
the Commission was the method of stormwater detention. The report
explained:
"The proposed stormwater detention facility is an open pond approximately
140 feet long and four to five feet deep. The top of the berm will be
approximately five feet from the proposed day care center building,
adjacent to a 20-foot utility easement, 22 feet from the proposed
edge of pavement for the future private internal road, and 12 feet
from the proposed sidewalk for the closest apartment building.
... Planning and Engineering staff recommend that the applicant
utilize some form of detention other than an open pond. The
applicant has obtained a ball park estimate of $35,000 for underground
detention and decided against it on the basis of cost. The County
Engineer has noted that some alternatives include porous pavement
design, infiltration trenches, and off -site detention, among others.
Recommendation for another method of detention is based on the
following: (a) The proximity to the expanded child care facility;
(b) The proximity to sanitary sewer and other utilities; (c) The
proximity to proposed buildings, sidewalks; and (d) There appears to
be little or no room for landscaping the pond and day care center
from Georgetown Road."
The report also stated that a more suitable location for the recreation
area was desirable, but if that was not possible, then "staff will
require higher fencing and more screening than proposed."
June 23, 1987 Page 2
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
There was a brief discussion about an alternative location for the
recreation area. Ms. Patterson confirmed that possibilities were very
limited unless underground detention was used.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant was
agreeable to all the suggested conditions of approval with the
exception of that part of condition l(c) which disallowed the use
of an open pond for detention [County Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations for method of detention not to include
an open pond]. He pointed out that the applicant has "done some
things in advance" of when they would normally be required in consideration
of the concern about the stormwater issue. He stated that as a result
of discussions with staff related to limited screening possibilities,
the size of the pond was "revised" and made larger and shallower.
He explained that the pond could possibly have 2 feet of water in it
during a 10-year storm. Mr. Wagner did not feel the proximity to
the day care facility was a significant concern since the pond would
have water in it only occasionally and the children from the facility
would never be outside unattended, and would not be outside at all during
a downpour. Regarding staff's requirement that the pond, if approved, would
have to be entirely fenced, Mr. Wagner pointed out that when there is
no water in the pond, it will be a grassy area which might be used as an
extended play area. He felt a fence "on the farside" would be sufficient.
(Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Wagner to comment on the concerns of Ms. Blair
regarding runoff onto her property.) Mr. Wagner responded that he
was under the impression Ms. Blair's concerns were about "potential"
drainage problems. He explained that past problems have been caused
by a stopped -up pipe under Georgetown Road. He felt the current proposal
would result in less water crossing the road because drunoff from the
parking lot and most of the roofs will be picked upHaken "the other way."
He stated some past problems have been caused by the gravel road which serves
Old Dominion Day School and this situation will be alleviated with the
installation of "inlets" if Westgate is built before the Day Care Center
road is improved.
In response to Mr. Gould's question as to why the pond was made larger,
Mr. Wagner explained this took some of the steepness out of the design
and also gave more room between the buildings and the pond for landscaping
and sanitary sewer.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Gary Kendall, representing Ms. Gay Johnson Blair, owner of the property
across the street from this proposal, addressed the Commission. He
again stressed Ms. Blair's concern about potential runoff problems. He
presented photographs showing Ms. Blair's property and photographs
taken during a storm showing runoff. He stressed that runoff from this
development will flow into the reservoir. Ms. Blair was also concerned
that if the detention pond is moved closer to Georgetown Road and then George-
town Road is upgraded at some future time, then the property to allow
,o �
June 23, 1987
Page 3
for that upgrading will have to come from Ms. Blair's property. Mr.
Kendall pointed out that the safety issue should also take into consideration
SWI, children from the apartment complex itself and not just those at the
day care facility. Mr. Kendall stated that if the project could be
constructed in such a way so as to give (1) adequate buffering; (2) con-
sideration to the ultimate widening of Georgetown Road; and (3) resolution
of the existing water problems, then Ms. Blair has no objections.
However, he stated Ms. Blair has concerns that what is currently being
proposed will not take care of the problem. He stated Ms. Blair agreed
with staff's recommendations.
Ms. Sharon Jones, operator of Old Dominion Day School, addressed the
Commission. She clarified that the day care facility had no plans
to use that section of property at the back of the building as
an official playground area, though it could possibly be used
occasionally for ball playing. She stressed that children at
her facility area well supervised, but this might not be the case
with the neighborhood children. She asked that the Commission
approve the proposal.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Wagner a final response.
Referring to some of the photographs presented by Mr. Kendall which
had depicted runoff problems, Mr. Wagner stated he felt that situation
had occurred in 1978 and has since been corrected and there is no
danger of it happening again.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Armm, the County Engineer.
Mr. Armm addressed the Commission. He explained that this is a case
where there is a public advantage to be derived from taking the
water from the watershed and diverting it into the stormwater detention
watershed so as to eliminate pollutants from getting into the reservoir.
He also stated that if this project is constructed before the
Day School or improvements to Georgetown Road, then "the intersection
drainage improvements will have to be put in... so that the outlet for
the pond can be diverted into that." He confirmed that the
pond originally proposed was probably adequately sized. He stated
that calcuations had not been done on the revised pond. He
stated: "I'm convinced that some sort of open detention could work
there; some sort of closed detention could work there. It's more
of a policy matter than it is an engineering matter."
There was some discussion as to how much water would be in the pond
during a ten-year storm. Mr. Armm estimated approximately 3 feet.
(Note: This was for the originally proposed pond, not the "revised"
pond.) It was determined that a ten-year storm is one which has
a 10% probability of occirring in any given year. Though Mr. Armm
stressed that it was difficult to make exact predictions, he
confirmed that the pond could have a foot of water in it several
times a year. He was unable to predict how long the water would
stand in the pond. He also confirmed that the pond would be detaining
water from this site only. He also stated he could foresee no
r✓ detrimental effects to the Bennington Channel, except for the
possibility of a "lesser frequency storm."
,!23*7
January 23, 1987
Page 4
Mr. Wagner added that the pond had been sized to include the runoff from
the eventual paving of the Day Care facility.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked if the detention facility was underground could that area
be used for the recreation area. Ms. Patterson said it was possible.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that it seems that developments in the R-15 seem to
constantly be "running out of space," i.e. no room for buffering, recreation
areas, etc. He felt if this was going to continue then developers were
going to have to spend more money on the facilities that are necessary to
serve that development.
the Mr. Bowerman recalled that in/past applicat:ionsYdintLrground detention
have been at the request of the applicant in order to accommodate his
development and accomplish stormwater detention on site. He asked if
staff has ever recommended underground detention in opposition to the
applicant.
Mr. Horne could not recall such a case.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was somewhat uncomfortable with requiring
underground detention just because "it might be better to stick it
underground." He stated, "It either meets the requirements of the
Ordinance above ground or it doesn't." He stated he was unclear
as to whether or not staff feels above ground detention meets the
requirements of the Ordinance including landscaping, screening, and
public health and safety. Regarding landscaping, Ms. Patterson
stated it would probably meet the minimum requirements. She stated
it is difficult to tell if more landscaping will be called for and
that it will be "really tight."
Mr. Bowerman could not recall visibility having been an issue in
previous applications. He indicated he was very hesitant to deviate
from past policy.
Ms. Patterson pointed out that with the present landscaping requirements,
staff has a little more discretion to require screening of objectionable
uses and this is listed as one of the objectionable uses. She
stated that with some of the previous projects, staff did not have
that discretion.
Mr. Horne added: "In terms of the general issue, I think there has been
a change, to a certain extent, between the old site plan ordinance and
the new site plan ordinance. We started out the old site plan
ordinance basically dealing purely with the County Engineer's recommendation
as to whether something was feasible from an engineering point of view.
As we got more and more into recognizing the potential impact with
detention areas, I think the Commission seemed to, as a matter of
policy, start to slowly get into some more :indications of methods of
stormwater detention. Specifically, in the new ordinance ... we intentially
put that in there as one of the things the Commission needs to do, at
the preliminary site plan stage, is approve the method of stormwater
detention. We will always, from a technical point of view, make sure
a39
June 23, 1987
Page 5
OR
we don't approve something that doesn't detain the water. We understood
it was the Commission's intent, by recent past actions, and clearly
it was formalized in your new site plan ordinance, that you are to
approve the method of stormwater detention, not just the technical
aspects."
Regarding the location of the recreation area, Mr. Horne stated he
did not feel staff intended to make a direct connection between the
location and the detention issue. He stated, "I think we can put
a safe playground in where it's shown now."
Mr. Stark questioned how such a pond could be made safe. He was
particularly concerned about neighborhood children since it was
established that the day care children would be closely supervised.
Mr. Stark indicated he was in favor of underground detention.
He agreed with staff's recommendations.
Mr. Gould stated he was in agreement with Mr. Stark. He added that
he questioned whether or not the proposed pond could be satisfactorily
screened.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he agreed with Commissioners Stark and Gould.
He added that he was in favor of relocation of the recreation area.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if underground detention was going to
be the choice, in the R-15 areas, then it would be done in every case
and he was'hot prepared to do that" at this time. He pointed out
that staff has acknowledged that adequate landscaping is possible.
He added, "I see the staff recommendation on this becoming the
standard rather than the exception and I am not sure that was
contemplated when the applicant has demonstrated that he can do
it the other way."
Mr. Michel stated he disagreed with Mr. Bowerman, for this particular
project, primarily because of the proximity to the day care facility.
He did not think this was a "regular situation" and stated, "To
me it's a safety issue as much as anything else."
Mr. Michel moved that the Westgate V Apartments Preliminary 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 in compliance with approved
conservation plan;
b. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
c. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations for method of detention not to include an open pond;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
-I.Iq9
June 23, 1987
Page 6
e. Fire Officer approval;
f. Recordation of plat such that a) all setbacks are in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, and b) additional right-of-way is
dedicated as applicable to this property;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan and recreation plan;
h. Planning and engineering staff approval of revision to existing
Westgate parking lot which permits access connection.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would vote for the motion because he did not
wish for the application to be denied based on his comments. How-
ever, he felt this could be inviting future problems. He also added
that he did not feel above -ground detention would be a safety hazard
in this case because of the fencing that would be required, otherwise
he too would have favored underground detention.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
It was determined the motion had included staff approval of the final
plat.
Willoughby East Corporate Park Preliminary Plat - This is a proposal to
create twelve (12) lots with average lot size of 2.5 acres. The total area
of the site is 50+ acres. The property is zoned LI, Light Industrial with
proffer (ZMA-85-14 Claude Cotten). The property is located off of Fifth
Street Extended (Rt. 631), just south of the Willoughby residential
development. Tax Map 76M(1), parcels 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4B, 4C, and 4C1.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
Mr. Claude Cotten was present to represent the applicant. He commended the
County staff for their assistance and he pointed out the advantages
of this location, including the availability of public utilities,
natural buffering, and proximity to I-64.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Willoughby East Corporate Park Preliminary
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 and drainage plans and calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
ALn
June 23, 1987
Page 7
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
e. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
South Fork Farms, Phase III, Final Plat - Proposal to create 17 lots with
an average lot size of 10.48 acres. The total area of the site is
178+ acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located off
of Rt. 710, just north of its intersection with Rt. 29 (approximately
1.5 miles northeast of North Garden). Tax Map 87, Parcels 17A, 23 and
24. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
applicant's request for a waiver of Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Or-
dinance to allow for the creation of a double frontage lot. Staff
recommended approval of the final plat subject to conditions. Mr.
Benish added that the applicant had already met the requirements of
condition l(d)--[Planning staff approval of final plat noting the reser-
vation of septic drainfield sites on lots 14, 15 and 16. Construction is
prohibited within these reserved areas. Relocation of reserved septic
drainfield area is subject to the approval of the Health Department.
Driveway entrances shall also be noted on Lots 14 and 15.1
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. David Blankenbaker who offered no
significant additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Steve Clark, an adjacent landowner, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Clark objected to the proposed location for the entrance road
for the development because he felt it would be creating a "crossroads."
He was also concerned that in order for sight distance requirements to
be satisfied some trees would have to be removed from his property.
(The Chairman assured him that no trees could be removed from his property
without his consent, except for those which are in Highway Department
right-of-way.)
Ms. Vicki Brurgess asked for an explanation of Highway Department
requirements for this project. Mr. Cogan explained that the Highway
Department would require the applicant to install a commercial
entrance according to Highway Department specifications and once
the road is completed it will be taken into the state road system.
He stated that a right turn lane, 100 feet long, 12 feet wide, with
a 100 foot taper, was also proposed to serve the entrance.
Mr. Bowerman questioned why the commercial entrance was not referred
to in the conditions of approval, as is usually the case. To address
4 *%
June 23, 1987
Page 8
this concern it was decided condition l(b) would be amended to
read as follows: Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations in accordance with comments
contained in VDoT letter dated March 26, 1987.
Mr. Benish added that all the sight easements that will be required
are on the applicant's property.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the South Fork Farms, Phase III, Final Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations, and in accordance with comments contained
in Virginia Department of Transportation letter dated March 26, 1987;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit:
d. Planning staff approval of final plat noting the reservation of
septic drainfield sites on lots 14, 15 and 16. Construction is
prohibited within these reserved areas. Relocation of reserved
septic drainfield area is subject to the approval of the
Health Department. Driveway entrances shall also be noted on
Lots 14 and 15;
e. Planning staff approval of road names.
2. Waiver of Section of 18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit
double frontage on lot 8.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Rosemont Final Plat - This is a proposed redivision and subdivision of
19 existing lots to create a total of 26 lots. The average lot size is 4.4
acres for this proposal. The total area of the site is 113.74 acres.
The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located on the
south side of Rt. 637 and east side of Rt. 681, approximately 2 mile west
of Rt. 637 intersection with I-64. Tax Map 74, Parcels 33-41, 46-48,
and 51-57. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report which concluded: "Staff is of the
opinion that the proposed redivision is an improvement over the
existing subdivision, and will provide for safer, more convenient access
to the public road." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Benish also stated that condition No. 2 should be added as follows:
"Waiver of Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow for double
frontage lots." Mr. Benish explained: "Once these internal roads are
created some of these lots that were on the existing road (681) will
become double frontage lots. Double frontage is necessitated to give
them access to the new cul-de-sac roads and the plat has specific notes
restricting their access only to the internal roads." Staff recommended
approval of the waiver.
a4a
June 23, 1987 Page 9
on
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mike Boggs addressed the Commission. His comments included the following:
--Though the property had 41 additional development rights, the applicant
is asking for only 7.
--A 3-acre lot size has been set as a minimum.
--50-foot side and rear setbacks have been required.
--All pipestems in Section 1 have been abandoned and all
direct access to Rt. 681 and Rt. 637 has been eliminated.
--State roads are proposed to serve all the lots, along with two
short 30-foot access easements.
Mr. Boggs also stated: "Deed restrictions with Section 1 and Section 2
will prohibit any further division of any of the 26 lots before you
tonight or the existing 21 parcels in the rear."
He explained this would be an "exclusive and restricted" development.
Mr. Boggs felt this plan was far superior to the existing plan for the
property and offered many advantages to neighbors and potential
purchasers. He stated the applicant was agreeable to all staff's
suggested conditions of approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Fred Ganoe addressed the Commission. He first questioned the
legality of the use of the name "Rosemont." (The Chairman advised
him this was a legal matter to be dealt with privately with the
applicant and was not an issue for consideration by the Commission.
Mr. Payne declined to comment on this issue.) Mr. Ganoe felt
this was an inappropriate use in an agricultural area. He was
concerned about the inadequacy of the roads and the long-term
implications of allowing this type of development. He indicated
he did not object to the seven additional lots, but he did object
to the spacing of the lots along the road and possible additional
development with future phases.
Mr. Rick Thompson, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission. He questioned the legality of the plat since he was
under the impression "no irons had been put on the property."
He pointed out that the development will be highly visible to the
area. He was in favor of a "less intense development."
Ms. Phyllis Gilmer, an adjoining property owner, addressed the
Commission. He expressed her opposition to the proposal. She
was concerned that her property would eventually be re -zoned
and she would be "taxed out of existence."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan was somewhat concerned about the number of double
frontage lots (lots 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26).
However, he felt this was a better plan than the existing situation
since it eliminates 19 potential entrances onto the state road.
.244-1
June 23, 1987 Page 10
Referring to Mr. Boggs statement that further division would be restricted
by deed, Mr. Michel asked if this applied to both phase 1 and 2 or just
phase 1. Mr. Boggs responded, "That's for the total property --the
21 parcels in the rear which are not before you, and the 26 parcels
in front. Redivision would be prohibited." Mr. Boggs confirmed he
would have no objection to that being made a condition of approval.
Mr. Michel also expressed concern about the status of the public
road which will end in a cul-de-sac and will be continued at some
future date. Mr. Boggs responded, "That simply, from the cul-de-sac on,
will be a private road maintained by the homeowners on the rear section."
Mr. Michel stated that he was sympathetic to some of the neighboring
property owners, but "there is very little we can do except take the
opportunity to tie up the development rights and try to see that this
is done in the best manner possible."
Mr. Michel stated he felt a "trade-off" for allowing a waiver of Section
18-34 would be that "no further development rights would be put on
this plat."
Mr. Cogan stated, "I just want it understood that we're not completely
bound under the Ordinance because of that waiver provision."
Mr. Michel clarified that he was in favor of "no further development
rights, period and not "no further development rights without
Commission approval."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if he felt this was enforceable.
Mr. Payne responded: "Yes. The Ordinance, as you know, requires the
developer to assign the remaining development rights among the parcels
being divided and the developer can do that any way he wants to
as long as it doesn't exceed the aggregate number and assuming the
density is maintained, etc. What the developer is saying is that he
chooses to assign no rights."
Mr. Benish recalled a previous similar situation (Harmony) where the
applicant placed a note on the plat stating "No further subdivision
without issuance of a special use permit." Mr. Benish stated if
this was the Commission's desire, a condition should be added
requiring a revised final plat with that note affixed.
It was the desire of the Commission that the statement should be
"No further division rights" with no reference to a special use permit.
Mr. Payne commented, "You can't bind the Board of Supervisors not
to grant a special use permit. I think Mr. Benish's wording is appropriate
because I don't think the developer can be bound to say that 'I will
not allow the Board of Supervisors to exercise its legislative discretion
at a later time.' That's not the same thing as saying 'I give up my
development rights by right.' I think he can do that. But I don't
think you, or the developer, or the Board of Supervisors can say
'The Board of Supervisors will not exercise its legislative discretion
at a later time.' I think Mr. Benish's language is preferable. It
eliminates any ambiguity as to what was intended."
9
,a44 Z
June 23, 1987
Page 11
The Commission felt this "weakened" the intent. Mr. Payne disagreed.
The Commission was not in favor of Mr. Benish's language and it was
decided condition l(f) would be added as follows: "Note to be placed
on plat: No further division rights."
Mr. Michel moved that the Rosemont Final Plat be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are
• met:
a. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreements for
access easements (on lots 1 and 2 and lots 7 and 8) and maintenance
agreement for pond on lots 5 and 6;
e. Planning staff approval of final plat showing the reservation of
septic drainfield locations on lots 2-11 and lots 18-22. Con-
struction is prohibited within these reserved areas. Relocation of
reserved septic field area subject to the approval of the
Virginia Health Department.
f. Note to be placed on plat: No further division rights.
2. Waiver of Section 18-34 to allow for double frontage lots.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Ioil
Nn
John
Horne,
Secretary