Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 10 87 PC MinutesSeptember 10, 1987 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, September 10, 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. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. Patricia Nielsson, Mr. Steve Cresswell, County Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 25, 1987 were approved as submitted. SP-87-62 Gordon and Sherry Zimmerman - Gordon and Sherry Zimmerman petition the Board of Supervisors for a special use permit to locate a single wide mobile home on 2.0 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 33C is located on the north side of Rt. 784, approximately one mile from its intersection with Rt. 600. Rivanna Magisterial District. Applicant had requested that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice. Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that SP-87-62 for Gordon and Sherry Zimmerman be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously. 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 site is 3.28 acres; the property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property is 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. Since the Chairman had been advised that the applicant would again request deferral, Mr. Zunka, representing the applicant, was asked to comment briefly, Mr. Zunka explained that the issue of access to Rio Road was still unresolved and in light of some new information that has recently been discovered, the applicant was requesting indefinite deferral to allow further time for this information to be reviewed. Since there was no public comment on this application, it was decided that the staff report need not be read. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that the Phillips Building Supply Preliminary Site Plan be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. 2M September 10, 1987 Page 2 Virginia High School League Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 4,385 square foot office building to be served by 37 parking spaces. The total area of the site is 1.92 acres, and is zoned PD-MC, Planned Development - Mixed Commercial. The property is located on State Farm Boulevard adjacent to the Commonwealth Clinical Systems office building. Tax Map 78, Parcel 63. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The primary issue of discussion in this review was the current status of State Farm Boulevard and its relation to this application. The staff report stated: "To date, State Farm Boulevard has not been accepted into the State highway system. The Planning Commission has instructed the staff not to schedule for their review any further site plans or subdivision plats along State Farm Boulevard until the road has been approved for acceptance into the State system. Since the Planning Commission has taken this position, the County staff, VDOT and those responsible for the road construction have resolved the major issues related to the road design. Substantial road work has been accomplished and a road bond of $37,100 is being held to insure its completion. Road plans have been submitted to VDOT for approval, but have not been approved to date. The staff is of the opinion that the site could be reviewed and approved on the condition that a building permit not be issued until the final road plans are approved by VDOT." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. It was determined that condition 1(d) [VDOT approval of road plans for State Farm Boulevard.] required that road plans be approved, but it was not necessary that the road acceptance into the State system take place before issuance of the building permit. Mr. Benish added that the applicant had requested that condition l(d) be tied to a Certificate of Occupancy rather than a building permit. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Edward Eichman, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stressed that the applicant has no direct involvement with the "pending circumstance" involving the road. He noted that the parties involved with the road issue are Virginia Land Company (Dr. Hurt), the County, and VDOT. He stressed that such a condition (ld) would impact the applicant's building schedule if tied to the building permit and even if tied to the certificate of occupancy could still mean that after the building was built it could not be occupied. He explained that the applicant must advise the University, from whom it is currently renting space, of a definite time for vacating its present facilities. 9 �t, September 10, 1987 Page 3 It was determined the present owner of the property is the Virginia *41rr High School League who purchased the property from Grant Cosner. Mr. Eichman pointed out that prior to purchasing the property, the applicant had met with County officials and representatives of the Virginia Land Company in an effort to determine if there were any extenuating circumstances involved with the site. He stated that the issue regarding State Farm Blvd. did not come to light at that time. Mr. Eichman asked for the Commission's consideration since the applicant is caught in the middle of a situation over which it has no control. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark asked Mr. Keeler to explain the circumstances surrounding the road issue. Mr. Keeler explained that State Farm Boulevard was constructed by Dr. Hurt several years ago at a time when he would construct roads without approved road plans and then submit them for acceptance into the system. In this case, some road plans were apparently "semi -approved." However, after the County performed a traffic count and traffic figures were arrived at in order to determine the category of the road, it was dis- covered that the base material which was shown on the plans was not on the road. The developer was then required to overlay the roadway. Mr. Keeler stated that this was done after review by the Highway Department, but, at this time, the County still does not have any approved road plans on State Farm Boulevard and there is no guarantee, "unless there is some exercise by the County, that the road is going to get into the system." Mr. Keeler stated that this has been a continuing issue for many years and is a critical situation whenever a site plan comes in. Mr. Keeler stated he was uncertain as to whether or not VDOT had inspected the road after the overlay was required. He stressed that the developer has to request that VDOT come and make an inspection. He added it was his understanding that most of the construction has been completed and the bond has been substantially reduced as a result. Mr. Stark asked if the County could not just take the bond and complete the construction. Mr. Keeler responded, "We cannot make the Highway Department approve the construction." Mr. Benish stated that road plans have been submitted for approval to the Highway Department which are based on the design agreed to by all parties. So if the design which is shown on the plans is actually what was constructed, then VDOT "will approve the road plans" and the applicant must request an inspection of the road so that it can be accepted into the state system. Mr. Cresswell, representing the County Engineer, added that some minor corrections were necessary to the originally submitted plans, and they were then re -submitted. Mr. Cresswell stated he felt final approval was close. Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff's condition 1(d) was tied to approved +ram„ plans and not final acceptance. September 10, 1987 Page 4 Mr. Keeler added that the Site Plan Ordinance requires that a means of access be approved to a public road. Mr. Keeler also pointed out that the Commission took the position that no further plans be reviewed logo until the road was approved long before this property changed hands. Mr. Cogan asked if the position taken by the Commission was meant to be irrespective of ownership of the property along that road, or was it to be applied to only that property along the road that was in the ownership of the developer, the person responsible for the construction of the roadway. He felt that was the key issue. Mr. Keeler responded: "The answer to that is very simple. If a developer sells a piece of property and he doesn't own it any longer --so that's not applicable." Mr. Bowerman questioned how holding up this applicant would speed the process of getting the road into the state. system. Mr. Cogan responded that it would not speed up the process because the applicant has no recourse against the person involved in the construction of the road. Mr. Horne pointed out that the developer has been informed that no further site plans or subdivisions will be approved for property under their control (along State Farm Blvd.) until the issue has been resolved. Mr. Cogan stated he felt that was all that could be done. He added that he was not opposed to the deletion of condition 1(d). Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Virginia High School League 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. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit; (NOTE: This condition was amended later in the meeting.) e. County Attorney and Planning Staff approval of necessary access easements on Tax Map 78, Parcel 63; f. Albemarle County Service Authority final approval; g. Fire Officer final approval. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Further Discussion: Referring to condition 1(d) [Originally condition 1(e) in staff report]-- VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit --Mr. Keeler questioned whether VDOT would issue a commercial entrance permit onto a road for which there were no approved road plans. 1040 3�� September 10, 1987 Page 5 n Om M That being the case, Mr. Stark stated that deletion of original condition l(d) had not accomplished anything. There was some discussion as to whether or not original condition l(e) should also be deleted. It was the consensus of the Commission that it could not be removed. Mr. Cresswell explained that his office has reviewed the entrance plans with VDOT and the entrance is acceptable to the Highway Department. However, if the road still has not been accepted into the state system at the time the applicant is ready to construct the entrance, then the County will issue the entrance permit. Mr. Cresswell suggested that condition l(e) be amended so that approval is required from either VDOT or the County Engineer, whichever is applicable. Mr. St. John, in response to Mr. Wilkerson's request for his comment, stated there was no legal problem in handling the entrance issue "either way." He suggested that it was possible to require that the entrance be constructed to VDOT standards. Mr. Michel asked if both original conditions l(d) and 1(e) were deleted, would a precedent be set for other property along the road. Mr. St. John responded affirmatively, but added that this was a "balancing consideration" on the part of the Commission and was not a legal question. It was determined original condition l(e) (condition l(d) in Mr. Wilkerson's motion) would be amended as follows: new condition 1(d): Commercial entrance improvements to be constructed to VDOT standards and approved by County Engineer or VDOT, as applicable. Mr. Wilkerson agreed to this change in his motion. Mr. Stark agreed also. There was a brief discussion about stormwater detention. Mr. Benish explained that the former County Engineer had exempted the site from stormwater detention. Condition 1(b)--County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations --has been included to allow for additional review should concerns arise, and to allow the current County Engineer to review the site again. Mr. Cresswell added that since there are no intermediate properties between this property and the Rivanna River, and as long as the applicant provides an adequate channel to convey the stormwater, detention requirements will not be imposed. He understood this agreement had been made between Virginia Land Company and Mr. Elrod (the former County Engineer). Mr. Bowerman asked, "But how is this any different than anything else if the other parcels between this parcel and the river are not under the same common ownership now." Mr. Keeler responded, "It isn't. And it is my recollection (that) Mr. Elrod (did not) apply that to all properties under Virginia Land Ownership. It was Pantops Shopping Center. And it was any other properties that flowed directly to the river where there were no intervening properties. This lot was created a long time before that decision." September 10, 1987 Page 6 Mr. Keeler pointed out that the purpose of the Detention Ordinance is to protect what is between the property that is being developed and the receiving channel. So if there are properties between the property Ifto that is being developed and the receiving channel, stormwater detention ought to apply. He stated that is no purpose in detaining water on site if the property is located on the river because there are no down- stream properties to protect. The Chairman repeated the motion which was on the floor, i.e. approval subject to conditions of staff with deletion of original condition l(d) and amendment of original condition 1(e) as previously stated. It was determined that condition l(b) would address any possible concerns about stormwater detention. Mr. Gould stated that though he was not opposed to the proposal being presented, he felt the Commission was ignoring a guideline in reviewing this proposal at this time. He felt the matter should not be before the Commission. Mr. Michel indicated he understood Mr. Gould's concern, but stated he was under the impression this property had been sold before the Commission had set down the guideline referred to by Mr. Gould. (Mr. Keeler stated, however, that this property was sold after the Commission had taken the position not to review any additional proposals for property under the control of Virginia Land Company until the road issue was finalized. Mr. Keeler pointed out that there has been a change in circumstance in the fact that Dr. Hurt has spent a lot of time working on the road, but the problem arises when the process is not followed through.) Mr. Horne added that though there are a few properties that have passed from the hands of Virginia Lane Company, the majority of the property has not been divided, and staff will not approve any further divisions of property until the road is completed. He stated that there may be a limited possibility that a few more lots will show up, they will be those which have already been created. Mr. Cogan again pointed out that withholding approval of this application uDuld in no way put pressure on the responsible party to get the matter resolved. Mr. Keeler pointed out that in approving this site plan, the Commission was "essentially modifying a requirement of the Ordinance because access to Rt. 250 is not approved." Referring to condition l(f)--County Attorney and Planning Staff approval of necessary access easements on Tax Map 78, Parcel 63-- Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Eichman to comment. Mr. Eichman explained that the applicant was to provide access across their site that would permit future access from Commonwealth Clinical Systems. He confirmed there was no problem with this easement. The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated motion for NINO approval. The motion passed (6:1) with Mr. Gould casting the dissenting vote. September 10, 1987 Page 7 Development Activity Report - Mr. Cilimberg, assisted by Ms. Nielsson, presented this report to the Commission. The report discussed three major areas: (1) Activity in building permits that were issued during the year; (2) Subdivision activity that has occurred, including the number of new lots and the characteristics of those new lots; and (3) Major site plans that were approved. The Commission expressed interest in the following additional information: (1) A breakdown of lot sizes, particularly how many lots created were 21 acres or greater; and (2) How many divisions were by right? New Business Westgate Project: Mr. Horne briefly explained that the developer of Westgate V had done some additional work related to stormwater detention and as a result had re -submitted a new "concept" for stormwater detention. The applicant had requested that staff make the Commission aware of the applicant's concept to determine if the Commission was interested in considering the idea further. After Mr. Horne explained the applicant's concept plan, it was determined the Commission was not interested in considering the proposal further. Mr. Cogan read a letter of appreciation from Mr. Fred Payne. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. MI M John Horne, Secretary 0:27