HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 14 87 PC MinutesM
July 14, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 14, 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;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner;
and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 23, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
Riverrun, Phases 5A & 6B Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 71
townhouse and condominium units, to be served by 131 parking spaces.
Access to the site will be from Riverrun Drive, off of Pen Park Road. The
total area of the site is approximately 7 acres. Zoned R-6 Residential.
The property is located off of Riverrun Drive in the Riverrun development,
adjacent to Pen Park. Tax Map 62D, Parcel 1 (part of) and Tax Map 62,
Parcel 17A (part of). Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The major issue of discussion was
construction on slopes of 25% or greater. The report stated:
"The applicant is requesting a modification of regulation of Section
4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of dwellings
on slopes of 25% or greater. The County Engineer has reviewed this
request and has determined that the construction will be consistent
with sound engineering and design practices and does not anticipate any
difficulties from construction activity in this area."
The report also stated that the applicant had agreed to update the master
plan and road plans per Virginia Department of Transportation recommendations.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Benish estimated there were
possibly two more phases remaining with this project. He confirmed
that "updated plans shall be submitted and approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and County Engineer prior to the approval of any
further phases of development."
Mr. Cogan recalled that previous phases of this development have also
requested a waiver to allow construction on slopes of 25% or greater.
He asked if the Commission had been aware of the extent of building
on such slopes at the beginning of the project. Ms. Diehl shared this
concern and asked how closely the current proposal corresponded to the
original submittal.
,q5,q
July 14, 1987 Page 2
Mr. Benish explained that it was his understanding that the original
proposal had been based upon topography which later turned out to
be inaccurate so building on slopes turned out to be greater than
originally suspected. Mr. Benish added: "If the County Engineer
feels that construction on these slopes can be done adequately so
that there will not be any erosion problems with construction or
structural problems subsequent to the development of this site,
then, generally, ... we would not recommend for denial."
Mr. Cogan stated he had visited the site and found it to be a "very
clean operation." He also noted that it appeared that there would
be very little land disturbance in those areas of 25% slopes.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated the applicant had no objections to the suggested conditions
of approval. He explained that the original topographic information
had been inaccurate because it was found that there was a "fair
discrepancy between the urban topo that was flown" and on -the -ground
field survey. Mr. Osborne pointed out that the developer has done a
good job of retaining sediment on the site during construction. He
gave a brief explanation of stormwater detention plans for the project.
Regarding road plans, he explained that the entrance has been moved
further north and the pavement width and thickness is the same
throughout the entire length of Riverrun Drive and therefore the
road is adequate to handle the generated traffic volume. He
confirmed that the applicant will be updating plans for the
Virginia Department of Transportation and will be meeting their
sight distance and drainage requirements on final submittals.
Mr. James Gercke, owner/developer of the property, addressed the
Commission. He explained that "re -approval" of phases has been
required because he has attempted to continually improve upon the
original plan. He said azeffort has been made to design this phase
with the least significant impact on the existing topography and
in order to do that it was necessary to "minimize the footprint of
the buildings" and the road plans were changed to minimize grading.
He stated: "The reason that we request waivers periodically on the
slope conditions is that we believe that we have found a superior
way to plan for the site. ...The burden that is placed upon us is
tlE to create architectural solutions, i.e. to take care of the slope
conditions through the architecture of the buildings themselves
rather than through the site design and planning process." He
stressed that waivers were not requested for economic reasons.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated that his questions had been answered satisfactorily.
July 14, 1987 Page 3
Mr. Michel agreed that the proposal was in order and moved that Riverrun,
Phases 5A and 6B Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are
met:
a. County Engineer approval of road plans, grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and calcu-
lations;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans and
drainage calculations;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions are met:
a. Planning staff approval of subdivision plat;
b. Completion of recreation facilities as per approved
recreation plan;
C. Fire Official final approval;
3. Waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
4. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Lowell Pines Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create five lots ranging from
2.1 to 14.9 acres, for an average 5.5 acre lot size. Proposed access is
from a proposed public road directly off Rt. 743. 27.5 acres total. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas. No additional development rights remain as a result of
this subdivision. Property located on the east side of Rt. 743, across
from Bedford Hills Subdivision and about one mile north of the intersection
with Rt. 643. Tax Map 45, Parcel 50E. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that a letter had been
received from an adjacent property owner expressing concern about
inadequate sight distance at the entrance. In relation to this issue,
Ms. Patterson explained that the Highway Department has visited the
site and determined that it will be necessary to trim across the
frontage of "their" property, removing vegetation in that area and
possibly initiating a permanent sight easement across that frontage.
Ms. Patterson stated: "We won't approve the subdivision plat until the
Highway Department is satisfied with that sight distance." Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the sight distance issue was an important one
and asked that staff remain cognizant of this issue.
July 14, 1987 Page 4
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Kirk Hughes represented the applicant. He pointed out that the
Highway Department has "field tested" the entrance location and has
determined that adequate sight distance exists in both directions.
He added that some vegetation (to the north) will have to be cut back
and before the entrance permit is granted the Highway Department will
check again to see if there is a need for a sight easement. He
felt that "putting the easement in" would take care of the vegetation
in question.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Lowell Pines 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. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer approval of public road plans and calculations, to
include commercial entrance;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of public road plans
and calculations, to include commercial entrance and dedication of a
a sight easement if applicable.
The final plat may be administratively approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Wray Brothers Construction Preliminary Plan - Proposal to locate a 12,000
square foot building and 11,700 square foot storage yard, served by eighteen
parking spaces. The building is to be used as a contractor's office, with
other undetermined tenants. 2.51 acres. Zoned LI, Light Industrial with
proffer. Property, located near the end of Hunter's Way and adjacent to the
north of Lowe's on Rt. 250E. Tax Map 79, Parcel 4K. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. A major item of discussion for this
proposal was the proposed central well and septic field. The report
explained:
"Because the building is proposed for three (3) or more separate
businesses, the Zoning Administrator determined that the well and
septic field constitute central systems (Reference Section 3.0).
The present Site Plan Ordinance requires Board of Supervisors'
approval of a central system prior to site plan approval. The
applicant requests a waiver (Section 32.7.5.3) to permit the Com-
mission to approve this site plan prior to Board of Supervisors' ap-
proval of the central systems. This request is based on the fact that
'planning of this facility and consultation with the County began
before the new ordinances were adopted on May 1, 1987.' Further-
more, with additional time, future tenants may be secured."
July 14, 1987 Page 5
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
There was a brief discussion about suggested condition No. 3:
"3. Future occupants may be limited by and/or subject to the
following:
a. Availability of approved parking spaces;
b. Health Department approval for well and/or sewage usage; and
c. County Engineering approval of Certified Engineer's
report in accordance with Section 4.14."
Mr. Cogan questioned whether this should be included as a condition since it
is more a cautionary statement. It was the consensus of the Commission
that the statement should occur "someplace." Mr. Horne suggested that
it could be placed in the action letter to the applicant if the Commission
felt it should not be included as an actual condition. It was finally
decided that the condition would remain as part of the conditions of
approval. Mr. Payne stated that it would not hurt to leave No. 3 in
and it might have a marginal advantage since it would be more obvious
to zoning inspectors.
Mr. Michel expressed some confusion about the central well. He thought
there was a "restriction on how many types of usage" were allowed on
a septic system based on acreage. He confirmed that he thought it
was tied to area requirements. Ms. Patterson responded: "You're right,
but a central system, i.e. a system that serves three or more businesses,
is considered just like a public system. Therefore, they don't have
minimum area requirements except for what is applicable in that district
and in this case there is no minimum area requirement."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Rubenkonig. He stated the
applicant has worked closely with the County staff and has abided
by the County's "requests." He pointed out that an attempt
has been made to save existing vegetation. He explained that two
entrances are provided to provide for potential future problems and to
make for a more smoothly operating plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the applicant's request for a waiver of Section 32.7.5.3, Mr.
Cogan stated he was not too familiar with that section.
Mr. Payne explained: "All that does is require that the Board of
Supervisors approve the central systems before your approval. What you're
doing, in essence, is approving this conditioned upon their approval."
He did not think this was out of line.
Mr. Cogan indicated he understood, but questioned the appropriateness of
granting such a waiver. He was concerned about the "chronology" of the
process. Mr. Horne explained: "The reason we wrote that in is that there
July 14, 1987 Page 6
has been some confusion in the past with systems in certain circumstances
as to whether the design of the system was going to be adequate for
all contingencies. In this case, we consider this central system to be
the simplest variety, (i.e.) you have one owner of the system (and) there
may be other tenants, but it's on one site, in one building. ... So we felt,
in this case, what made it most appropriate is that we've got one owner,
we've got one site plan, and we've got one piece of property involved, so
it's the simplest version of a central system we're dealing with."
Mr. Payne added that the worst that could happen is if the Board did not
approve the system, then the building could not be built.
Mr. Gould moved that the Wray Brothers Construction Preliminary Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Board of Supervisors' approval of central well and central sewage
systems, in accordance with Title 15.1, Chapter 9, Article 7 of the
Code;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit in compliance with approved
conservation plan;
c. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
f. Fire Officer approval.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Future occupants may be limited by and/or subject to the following:
a. Availability of approved parking spaces;
b. Health Department approval for well and/or sewage usage; and
C. County Engineering approval of Certified Engineer's report in
accordance with Section 4.14.
4. Waiver of Section 32.7.5.3 is granted to permit preliminary plan approval
prior to Board of Supervisors' approval for central systems.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Earlysville Professional Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
5,280 square foot office building served by 30 parking spaces. 0.865
acres (this proposed Lot C-2). Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development,
designated for commercial use. Property located off the north side of Rt. 743
(Hydraulic Road) on a private road (extension of the existing driveway)
serving the Earlysville Forest Commercial area. Tax Map 31B, Parcel C.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
July 14, 1987 Page 7
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. A main issue of discussion was
sight distance and condition l(d): "Virginia Department of ransportation
144wr' approval of entrance(s) to include measures to maintain sight distance
per letter of June 11, 1987;" The staff report explained:
"The Virginia Department of Transportation has noted in their review of
this site plan that sight distance to the west from the existing
entrance to Rt. 743 is periodically blocked by vegetation on the slope.
Regrading the slope and removal of vegetation to obtain sight distance
must be complete prior to either signing the final plat (for
Earlysville Forest Commercial Area Final, approved April 7, 1987)
or issuance of this building permit, whichever comes first."
Ms. Patterson added: "I think staff's recommendation is going to
change in terms of sight distance achievement by grading the slope.
After further discussion with the Highway Department I now understand that
they can, and do in fact, have sight distance without the regrading of the
slope. ... I don't think that we really should require it. The slope is
in the Highway right-of-way and they can meet the minimum sight distance."
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions with the suggestion that
condition l(d) be amended to read as follows: "Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of entrances."
Referring to the Highway Department's comment that "sight distance is
periodically blocked," Mr. Bowerman stated he could not recall ever
having seen such a statement before. He asked how much "clearance"
is present when the vegetation is cut. Ms. Patterson could not answer
this question. Mr. Bowerman stated this seemed like a "marginal condition"
and "if the solution is to mow or cut the vegetation every week" as
opposed to trimming the slope, then it would be more satisfactory to
bring the slope down. He stated, "Although you have dismissed it, I
wouldn't want to preclude that" because there is a considerable
volume of high-speed traffic on this section of 743 and this is
a significant issue.
Mr. Horne stated staff would have no objection to leaving that option
in, but they were somewhat concerned with "what's the break point?"
Mr. Bowerman felt it should be the Highway Department's option to
require that the bank be cut down if that was the most practical
way to maintain the sight distance (as opposed to mowing it frequently).
Mr. Horne stated, "It's absolutely their option to require it (but)
we're sort of in a position of 'Are they recommending this solution or
are they going to issue a permit?' If they require it to be cut back
for the entrance permit, they require that it be cut back for the
entrance permit and we have nothing to say. We just felt we are not
really in a position now to tell you that if they say it's not
required, but it is recommended, then we as a County can say something
in the right-of-way owned by the State of Virginia, that currently
does have the ability to get an entrance permit, that we ought to
make them grade back the slope."
Mr. Michel pointed out that if this issue was going to come up again, it
would be helpful to have a clarification of the Highway Department's position.
Mr. Horne agreed.
July 14, 1987
Page 8
Mr. Payne added that Mr. Horne's point was well taken, i.e. that the
County should not get involved at this point, but rather leave it
as an option between the developer and the Highway Department.
Mr. Horne confirmed that he would seek clarification from the Highway
Department and would keep the Commission informed.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Kurt Wassner, representing the contract purchasers of the property,
addressed the Commission. He stated the owner of the property, Mr.
Craig, has been working with the Highway Department regarding the
sight distance issue and "the attitude of that interchange has been com-
pletely cooperative." He was confident that the matter would be
resolved successfully. He stated his clients had no objections
to the suggested conditions of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined Ms. Patterson's suggested change to condition l(d)
was acceptable to the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Earlysville Professional Center 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;
b. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and cal-
culations;
c. County Engineering approval of retaining wall design;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances;
e. Health Department approval of construction and connection to central
sewage system;
f. Fire Officer approval;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Note: Staff was granted administrative approval of the final plat.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Michel brought up the issue of whether or not plans should designate
if square footage figures include a second floor. Mr. Horne confirmed that
staff would look into how this should be addressed.
1__�13_9
July 14, 1987
Page 9
Underground Detention Facilities: Mr. Horne reported that staff had received
a first draft of a policy statement (not an ordinance regulation) from
Mr. Armm addressing this issue. He stated that will be presented to the
Commission after it has been revised.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
DS
on
( a 741
John Horne, Se etary
T 6 0