Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 11 87 PC MinutesAugust 11, 1987 **M" The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 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; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish,Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Mr. Keeler introduced Mr. John Pullen to the Commission. Mr. Pullen had recently joined the staff as a Planner. The minutes of July 28, 1987 were approved as submitted. SP-87-62 Gordon and Sherry Zimmerman - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special use permit in order to locate a single wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 33C, Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 784, approximately 1 mile west of its intersection with Rt. 600. err, Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Since it was discovered the applicant was not present at the meeting at this time, the Chairman, after determining there was no public comment on the application, delayed action on the petition until later in the meeting. Since the applicant had not appeared by the end of the meeting, Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Gould, that SP-87-62 for Gordon and Sherry Zimmerman be deferred to September 10, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. Charlottesville Bowling Center (Wrenson Corporation Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 48-lane bowling alley of 45,200 square feet, served by 255 parking spaces. A new road is proposed in the location of the existing Amoco Service Station (to be removed). The applicant proposes measures for an "equivalent buffer." 5.745 acres of 7.17 acre site. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, located on the west side of Rt. 29N, approximately 0.3 mile north of the intersection with Woodbrook Drive. The development is proposed behind the old Hub Furniture store, just south of Better Living. Tax Map 45, Parcels 112C and 112D1. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report, including the following corrections to page 3 of the staff report: "The building is proposed 49 55 feet from the rear property line." "The parking is proposed 49 75 feet from the rear property line." "A six foot high fence/screen will run parallel to or on the property line, the length of the rear parking area and the service/fire lane in the rear of the building. This area will be graded to a 1+4 2:1 or 3:1 slope with timber retaining wall....." cQB/ August 11, 1987 Page 2 Mr. Bowerman asked if underground detention was planned. Ms. Patterson explained that development of this site calls for a stormwater surface pond, but the County Engineer has commented that future development will require that stormwater either be directed to the existing pond, or that detention be placed underground. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Frank Stoner was present to represent the applicant. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked if adjacent property owners to the rear had had an opportunity to see the plan. Mr. Keeler responded and stated he thought Ms. Diehl had misunderstood Ms. Patterson's comments because the adjacent property owners along the back property line were not concerned at the time of the special use permit, rather staff had expressed concern because the property to the rear is zoned Residential. Ms. Patterson confirmed the "acceleration lane shown south of the entrance" had been eliminated. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Charlottesville Bowling Center (Wrenson Corporation) Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions, including the changes in the staff report noted by Ms. Patterson: 1. The building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design, grading and drainage plans and calculations; C. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right turn lane, commercial entrance, and existing entrance closings; e. Fire Officer approval, to include removal of underground storage tanks; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; g. Recordation of plat combining parcels 112C and 112D1, and providing necessary easements from parcel 109; h. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval; b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for access road and stormwater pond. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. It was noted that staff could approve the final plat administratively. 410'11 August 11, 1987 Page 3 Phillips Building Supply Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 28,000 square foot building supply sales and storage facility. The total area of the %haw site is 3.28 acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, located on the south side of Rio Road between the Daily Progress Newspaper building and the existing Phillips Building Supply. Tax Map 61, Parcels 1201, 120K, 120R, and 120V. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Applicant was requesting deferral to August 25, 1987. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Phillips Building Supply Preliminary Site Plan be deferred to August 25, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. Central Fidelity Bank Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 2,870 square foot bank with two drive-in windows. The total area of the site is 1.078 acres. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Property, located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Rt. 29 and Rt. 649 (Airport Road) in the Hollymead area. Tax Map 32, Parcel 37B(1). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. He made the following correction to suggested condition 1(c): "Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance and drainage calculations." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The primary issue of this review centered around access to the site. The staff report stated the following: "The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing access onto Route 29 as an exit only access. The Virginia Department of Transportation, County Engineer, and Planning Staff recommend that the entrance be closed, and that there be no direct access to Route 29. This proposed access does not comply with Section 32.5.8.01 which requires 'entrances on a multi -lane divided highway which are not directly opposite a cross -over shall not be permitted within 500 feet of any cross -over...' The proposed access is approximately 180 feet from the cross -over at the Route 29/ Route 649 intersection. Staff opinion is that safer access to and from the site would be achieved from Route 649 to the controlled intersection at Route 29. Autos accelerating out of the site directly onto Route 29 could create a hazard as they conflict with the higher speed through traffic." In response to Mr. Gould's question, Mr. Benish explained that the proposed access off Route 649 is twenty-four feet from the Maupin's entrance (as close as the Highway Department will allow). He added this entrance location was acceptable to the Highway Department and would place the access to the site as far away from the intersection (of Rt. 649 and Rt. 29) as possible. Ms. Diehl asked if the applicant has an easement which allows the present .,. septic field to be located in the Highway Department right-of-way. Mr. Benish replied that he had not received "a clear answer" from the Highway AI3 August 11, 1987 Page 4 Department regarding this situation, but it was his understanding that the Highway Department is willing to allow the septic field to remain (since it is already existing), but if it should fail, it will have to be relocated. He stated that the Health Department has located two drainfield locations outside of the right-of-way. Mr. Gould expressed concern about the close proximity of the access to Rt. 649 to the Maupin's entrance. He (lid not think this was a good solution. Mr. Wilkerson agreed and pointed out the excessive amount of traffic that a drive-in window will generate. He felt there would be a "bottleneck" created at the Rt. 649 access. Mr. Stark felt also that the traffic pattern within the site would also be bad with traffic being required to circle the site and come back out the same access. Mr. Wilkerson questioned how traffic would be able to exit the site if the entrance is blocked by "stacked" cars. Mr. Benish explained there was adequate stacking space for 12 vechicles in each lane. Mr. Wilkerson felt this was excessive. Ms. Diehl asked if any thought was given to creating a joint entrance with Maupin's. Mr. Benish responded that had been considered but Mr. Maupin was not interested in a joint entrance. Mr. Wilkerson asked if any consideration was given to the applicant's proposal to allow the existing access onto Rt. 29 to remain as an "Exit Only." Mr. Benish explained that because of sight distance considerations (from the north) and the speed at which traffic is travelling at this point, the Highway Department felt that traffic exiting onto Rt. 29, at 0 speed, would create too much of a conflict. He stated that an acceleration lane had not been given serious consideration. Mr. Gould pointed out that traffic is currently exiting the site onto Rt. 29 (and also entering at this same access). Mr. Bowerman questioned the difference between the State's policy of "Right Turn On Red After a Stop" and "Exit Only From a Zero Stop." Mr.,Steve Creswell, representing the County Engineering Department, explained that if there is inadequate sight distance at the intersection it would be posted as "No Turn on Red;' so at the intersection (of Rt. 29 and Rt. 649) adequate sight distance exists to the north . Mr. Bowerman interpreted this must mean that there is less than the required 550 feet of sight distance at the proposed "Exit Only" due to the crest in the road. Mr. Benish explained that the Highway Department's recommendation to close the Rt. 29 access had also taken into consideration the fact that vehicles would be able to make "Right Turns on Red" at the Rt. 29 and Rt. 649 intersection. August 11, 1987 Page 5 M In response to Mr. Cogan's question about actual sight distance at the Rt. 29 access, Mr. Benish responded that the Highway Department had not included these specifications in their comments. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Highway Department recommendation had been based on the fact that the Rt. 29 access is less than 500 feet from the intersection, and not on sight distance. Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problems with the site plan as recommended by staff. He felt stacking space for 24 cars was adequate and the circulation was as good as any bank. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Creswell, representing the County Engineering Department. He explained that his department had originally recommended denial of the proposal based upon the belief that adequate circulation could not be achieved if the Rt. 29 access was closed. However, he stated that his department has since met with the applicant's consultant and worked out several circulation patterns that would be "more adequate." Therefore, he stated his department's recommendation would be "to change it and allow approval with the closing of the entrance and the circulation to be worked out by staff." He confirmed he was referring to "interior" circulation. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Sam Saunders, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant was agreeable to all conditions of approval except that which called for the Rt. 29 access to be closed. However, he stated that if the Commission should require closing that exit, minor revisions can be made to the plan to allow the circulation to "work pretty well." Mr. Jerry Vinson, Regional Manager for Central Fidelity Bank, addressed the Commission. He asked that the "Exit Only" onto Rt. 29 be allowed and pointed out that he could not recall any accidents resulting from this access in the past. He feared that the circulation pattern that would result from the closing of this exit would create a hazard for the walk-in customers. He also felt allowing the exit would relieve some of the congestion at the Rt. 649 access, particularly as the bank clientele grows in the future. He envisioned having to hire off -duty police officers to direct traffic. Mr. Bob Mojay, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He, too, asked that the exit onto Rt. 29 be allowed. He pointed out the extra time that would be required if southbound customers are forced to circle the site and then exit onto Rt. 649 in order to get back to Rt. 29. He felt strongly that allowing southbound traffic to exit directly onto Rt. 29 would allow the best circulation for the site. Mr. Cogan expressed an interest in knowing the exact sight distance at the Rt. 29 access. He felt this was the crux of the problem. No one at the meeting would answer this question. 9A5� August 11, 1987 Page 6 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he found it difficult to justify allowing the access onto 29 given the County's policy of limiting access onto Rt. 29. He felt the site could be adequately served by access from Rt. 649. Mr. Gould disagreed. He felt it would not be contravening County policy because the access on Rt. 29 is already in existence. (Mr. Wilkerson agreed.) Mr. Gould added that he felt allowing access only via Rt. 649 would be "making a mess of Rt. 649." He stated he could not support the recommendation as presented by staff. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. Mr. Wilkerson pointed out the problems that will occur when a car exiting the site and wishing to turn left and thereby blocking several cars who wish to turn right. It was pointed out there would be two lanes exiting the site, i.e. one for left turns and one for right. Mr. Keeler stated: "A site plan is required when there is an intensification of use, and you review it for full compliance with the Ordinance. So the fact that an entrance exists or doesn't exist is meaningless when it comes to the review. You've closed entrances before. ... If you choose the approve the access to Rt. 29, that constitutes a waiver of the Ordinance. Well, it's not really a waiver (but) you'd have to make certain findings in order to approve that entrance to Rt. 29." Mr. Payne quoted the following from Section 32.7.2.2 of the Ordinance: "In the case of any multi -lane divided highway no such entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall be permitted within 500 feet of any such crossover except upon findings by the Commission that (1) there is no other reasonably practicable access to such development except within 500 feet of any such crossover; (2) that no reasonable means of alternative access is available to such development; and (3) that the provision of an entrance within 500 feet of any such crossover will be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare." Mr. Cogan asked if the Ordinance referral to "entrance" meant any access, entrance or exit. He asked if this would apply since this is an exit. Mr. Payne responded: "The general section, Section 32.7.2 speaks in terms of safe and convenient access. The first sentence is 'Each development shall be provided with safe and convenient egress from and ingress to one or more public roads....' What I just read you is a sub -section of that section. I believe that an 'Entrance Only' or 'Exit Only' would be subject to that regulation. The fact that it's an 'Entrance Only' or 'Exit Only' may effect your decision as to the qualifying factors." August 11, 1987 Page 7 OR OR Mr. Keeler commented that in the staff report the term 'entrance' included both in and out. Ms. Diehl moved that the Central Fidelity Bank 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 grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance and drainage calculations; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans; f. Planning staff approval of revised site plan indicating the closure of access directly to Route 29. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Verification that well abandonment is in accordance with State Water Control Board regulations; b. Direct access to Route 29 shall be prohibited (existing entrance to Rt. 29 shall be closed). 3. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Mojay pointed out that the Highway Deparment had not brought up the issue of sight distance inadequacy. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the matter could be deferred to allow for Highway Department representation at the meeting. Mr. Gould indicated he would be in favor of written comment from the Highway Department. He felt the Highway Department should demonstrate that allowing the exit onto Rte. 29 would be contrary to the public safety in a far greater way than currently exists. He stressed that the exit has been in existence for 13 years. Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned about the possibility of substituting one safety factor for another safety factor. He suggested that closing the exit onto 29 might be creating a hazard with the internal circulation of traffic. However, he was also concerned about going against the Ordinance, as read by Mr. Payne. a 11 August 11, 1987 Page 8 Mr. Cogan pointed out that the present proposal was based on the assumption that an "Exit Only" would be allowed onto Rt. 29, and if that was not going to be the case, then perhaps the plan needs to be revised. Mr. Wilkerson stated he would like to hear Highway Department justification for their recommendation. Mr. Benish reminded the Commission of Mr. Creswell's earlier comments which had indicated that some modifications to the circulation pattern would be required if the exit onto Rt. 29 was disallowed. That being the case, Mr. Cogan stated he would like to see the plan again. Mr. Gould stated he would make a substitute motion, if Ms. Diehl was agreeable to withdrawing her previous motion. Ms. Diehl stated she would not withdraw her motion, but she was not opposed to a substitute motion being made. Mr. Gould moved that the Central Fidelity Bank Preliminary Site Plan be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. (Mr. Payne explained that Mr. Gould's motion was a substitute motion and should be voted on first and if the substitute motion should not carry, then the original motion was still on the floor.) It was made clear to the applicant that the Commission wished to know the definitive sight distance existing at the exit onto Rt. 29. Mr. Cogan cautioned the applicant that this would not be the only determining factor in the Commission's final review and if it was found that sight distance is adequate there is are other concerns regarding internal circulation. The motion for indefinite deferral passed unanimously. Mill Creek, Section III, Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 22 lots with an average lot size of .32 acre. The total area of the site is 11.93 acres. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property, located on the west side of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742), just south of I-64. This section is south of Section I, and west of Section II. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36A. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Mr. Benish, in response to Mr. Bowerman's question, confirmed that this section of this development is at the bottom of the hill and will have adequate fire flow. 4700 August 11, 1987 Page 9 Mr. Cogan asked if condition 5 was necessary (Building permits will not be issued on those lots so delineated on the final plat until the County `�Mrr Fire Official gives approval to adequacy of fire protection.). Mr. Benish explained that conditions two through five were "general conditions that unning with all the sections." However, he confirmed that, for this section, that condition was not necessary. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He asked that condition 5 be removed. He stated that the fire flows are "demonstrably adequate" and it is an administrative burden to require that all the building permits be approved by the Fire Official. He explained that condition 5 was not necessary for this section. Mr. Keeler suggested that condition 5 be deleted as requested, but that it be included as condition 1(g): Fire Official approval of adequacy of fire flow (prior to the signing of the final plat). Mr. Benish pointed out that condition l(e) already stated "Fire Officer final approval." It was therefore suggested that condition 1(e) could be amended to include Mr. Keeler's suggested condition as follows: Fire Officer final approval for adequacy of fire flow. Mr. Keeler pointed out that in the event that the Fire Official should approve development on every other lot (determined by adequacy of fire flow), then staff will "do that administratively." Ms. Diehl expressed some confusion as to what Mr. Keeler was suggesting. Mr. Payne explained: "What he is suggesting is if the Fire Official will not approve this as a condition of signing the plat, then staff will have the discretion to amend your approval to reapply condition No. 5 so that he can sign the plat, but building permits are subject to verification." Ms. Diehl felt condition 5 could be left in but would not have to be complied with unless there was a problem. Mr. Payne could foresee no problem with staff's suggested way of addressing the issue. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was decided 1(e) would be amended to read: Fire Officer final approval for adequacy of fire flow. Condition 5 would be deleted. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Mill Creek, Section III, Preliminary Plat be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; C. Issuance of an erosion control permit: PR9 August 11, 1987 Page 10 d. County Attorney approval of homeowner's documents; e. Fire Officer final approval for adequacy of fire flow; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. 2. Grades on driveways not to exceed 20%. All driveways with slopes in excess of 7% shall be paved, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on these lots. 3. Maximum slope of 4 to 1 for drainage areas located on proposed lots, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. 4. Public roads in this phase of development shall be dedicated and brought into the public road system when 80% of the certificate of occupancy permits are issued for Section III, or prior to the signing of a final plat for a fifth phase of development, whichever shall occur first. 5. Administrative approval of final plat. (originally condition no. 6) Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Jefferson Supply Distribution Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a one-story building of 20,000 square feet, comprised of office and storage area. A total of 28 parking spaces are provided. 4.11 acres, Zoned LI, Light Industrial, with proffer. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 250E, on the north side of Hunter's Way and adjacent to I-64. Tax Map 78, Parcels 49G; Tax Map 79, Parcel 4B. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She made the following addition to suggested condition l(c): County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations, to include guardrail or approved substitute on the entrance road. She explained that the applicant is going to work with the Engineering Department and may perhaps use some type of landscaping material in place of guardrail. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards who offered no significant additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that the Jefferson Supply Distribution 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. Zoning and Planning staff approval of technical notes to the plan; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; It c. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and *40 calculations, to include guardrail or approved substitute on the entrance road; T701 August 11, 1987 Page 11 IR En d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and commercial entrance; e. Fire Officer approval; f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; g. Recordation of plat or deed combining lots 7 and 8 (parcels 49G and 4B). 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met; a. Final Fire Officer approval. 3. The site shall be limited to 13 employees, without further Health Department approval. 4. The final plan may be administratively approved. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion about the Highway Department's plans to close the crossover north of Woodbrook and allow U-turns at the Woodbrook crossover. (This had been mentioned in the Charlottesville Bowling Center review.) Mr. Keeler explained this would not be done until the entire 29 North improvements are made. Ms. Patterson confirmed that the Highway Department has indicated that the crossover north of Woodbrook will not be changed until Woodbrook has been reconstructed so as to allow U-turns. Mr. Cogan questioned the wisdom of allowing U-turns at the Woodbrook location. Mr. Payne announced he would be resigning his position as Deputy County Attorney, effective September 1, 1987. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. a,�, —/ -�) q , K�. `--/8^ John Horne, Secretary DS W