HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 17 87 PC MinutesDecember 17, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday,
December 17, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr.
Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Mr. George St. John, County
Attorney; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr.
Mike Armm, County Engineer; Mr. Steve Cresswell, County Engineer Assistant;
and Mr. Jeff Echols, Virginia Department of Transportation. Absent:
Commissioners Michel and Stark. Also present was Mr. John Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
ZMA-87-16 Seville Associates - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately 1.56 acres from RA, Rural
Areas to HC, Highway Commercial. Property described as Tax Map 78, parcels
34 and 60A is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 250E and
I-64. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from December 15, 1987 Planning
Commission Meeting.
AND
SP-87-04 Seville Associates - Request in accordance with Section 24.2.2(12) of
140wthe Zoning Ordinance for a special use permit to allow above grade parking in
conjunction with a conventional facility adjacent to an existing Quality Inn
Motel. Property zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as
Tax Map 78, Parcels 60 and 60A is located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Rt. 250E and I-64. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred
from December 15, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting.
It was noted that the applicant had requested deferral on both these items
to January 26, 1988.
Mr. Bowerman moved that ZMA-87-1.6 and SP-87-04 for Seville Associates be
deferred to January 26, 1988.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
James Wood Apartment Complex Preliminary Site Plan - Request to locate a sixty
(60) unit multi -family apartment complex on 4.62 acre parcel, with a resulting
density of 12.97 units per acre. Six buildings totaling 24,000 square feet
of space are proposed. This site is to be served by a proposed public road.
Property, located at the end of Commonwealth Drive approximately 300
feet from its intersection with Peyton Drive. Tax Map 61W, Parcel 03-3. Zoned
R-15, Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Deferred from
November 24, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. [Note: Mr. Pullen added condition li: County Engineer approval
of retaining wall.]
ad
December 17, 1987
Page 2
Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification as to what the Highway Department
was recommending for the 30-foot wide commercial entrance. Mr. Pullen
explained that VDOT would not accept this road as a public road until
a 30-foot wide commercial entrance is installed for the apartment complex.
Mr. Pullen pointed out that staff is recommending that the entrance to
Westfield Apartments be closed. Mr. Horne clarified that the entrance
which exists does not meet VDOT standards, thus there are two options:
either "someone" reconstruct that entrance to a commercial entrance, or
it needs to be closed. Mr. Horne stated the option can be determined
by the applicant in their discussions with Westfield Apartments. Mr.
Horne confirmed that "staff did not object one way or another."
Ms. Diehl asked if there was a time frame involved with this. Mr. Pullen
responded that it was his understanding that VDOT would not accept the
road until it is constructed, "if it is to be constructed, so it would
fall in the time frame of when it was built and when the Highway
Department accepts the road."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ron Wylie. He recalled that at the
November 24 meeting two concerns had been raised: (1) Access to the public
road; and (2) Construction in critical slope areas. Regarding critical
slopes, he explained that 2 of the 6 buildings will be constructed in areas
where pre-existing grade is 25% or greater, but the finished grade will be
10 to 15%. He pointed out other developments in the area with similar
situations. He stated the County Engineer supports the applicant's proposals
for dealing with the critical slopes. Regarding access, he stated the
applicant has tried to address the Commission's concerns with the current
proposal for a public road with a cul-de-sac at the end. He stated the
adjacent property owner to the right, Dr. Hurt, has agreed to grant the
necessary right-of-way for the cul-de-sac and for the sight easement.
He stated that both the County Engineer and VDOT support the proposed road
in its present configuration. He stated the only remaining issue is the
Westfield Apartments entrance. He stated it was his understanding that
VDOT would require a 30-foot commercial entrance there, "if there is going
to be an entrance, but did not require that the entrance be kept." He
stated the applicant feels "that it would not be appropriate to require
Mr. Wood to construct that entrance, but we will certainly be willing to
accept the requirement that we try to coordinate with the owners of
that adjacent property to give them the opportunity to build that entrance
when the road is going in, because that is certainly the most appropriate
time to have it." He stated he felt the applicant had addressed the
Commission's concerns satisfactorily. He indicated he felt the
issue of the entrance needed to be clarified.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Steve Cresswell asked if he might clarify the issue of the entrance.
He stated it was not the Highway Department that had made that requirement.
He stated that in reviewing the revised plan he had recommended to Mr.
Horne that an entrance be installed to Westfield. He stated, "I did not
see how we could construct a cul-de-sac and simply cut their entrance
off." He added that apparently additional information has been revealed
that that entrance was constructed without any approved plans and was to
be a temporary access and'�fohn feels that we can put the cul-de-sac in
as the applicant has proposed and then rely upon Westfield to submit a
revised or amended site plan to their site in order to construct that entrance
nX
December 17, 1987 Page 3
if they want that entrance reconstructed. He stated it was never a require-
ment of the Highway Department but came from the Engineering Department
staff when he (Mr. Cresswell) reviewed the plans.
In light of Mr. Cresswell's explanation, Mr. Cogan questioned the accuracy of
condition lc (... The Virginia Department of Transportation's approval of
road plans will also require a 30-foot wide commercial contrance be installed
at the apartment complex west of this site.).
Mr. Cogan asked if the road were to be constructed with the cul-de-sac and
the entrance remains as currently exists, "is that road going to be accepted
by the Highway Department?" Mr. Cresswell responded "The entrance
physically couldn't be left the way it is now because that road will be
going right through the entrance,... if a curb cut was made."
It was determined that the second part of condition lc, as stated above,
should be omitted.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Mike Armm, The County Engineer, confirmed that with the proposed retaining
wall, and a walk -out -type building arrangement for the slope areas, the
applicant's proposal was acceptable.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Armm confirmed that he supported
the stabilization methods and the use of the critical slopes as shown on
r the site plan for building.
Mr. Armm added that "stormwater detention plan approval should include
the reservation of that area for later dedication to the County if we
take on our capital project of a large detention basin." He asked if
this could somehow be reflected in the conditions of approval.
Mr. Horne stated he did not believe this could legally be done. He
stated that the applicant can be requested to make the dedication, and,
in this case, it is to the applicant's benefit, but he did not think
the applicant could be required to reserve the land. Mr. Horne agreed
that if the applicant voluntarily agreed, there would be no problem.
Mr. Cogan suggested that staff work with the applicant's engineer to
resolve this issue before final plat approval.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the James Wood Apartment Complex Preliminary Site
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calculations;
to include construction of a public road;
C. The Virginia Department of Transportation's approval of road and
drainage; to include upgrade of intersection at Peyton Drive to the
Virginia Department of Transportation's standards;
PrIO
December 17, 1987
Page 4
d. County Engineer's approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority's approval of final water and
sewer plans;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plans;
h. Fire Officer approval;
i. County Engineer approval of retaining wall.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Official approval;
3. The Final Site Plan may be administratively approved.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Michie Tavern Amendment Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 288 square
foot building for a blacksmith shop and exhibit area, and provide 65 additional
parking spaces. Also proposed are the relocation of a restroom building and
closing the eastern (upper) entrance. Zoned RA, Rural Areas with
SP-288 and SP-76-28.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Osborne. He pointed out that
Michie Tavern is a very successful business and could use the extra parking
spaces. He noted that, unfortunately, the site is very steep, and the only
logical place to locate additional parking is as shown on the plan.
Mr. Greg McDonald, also representing Michie Tavern, addressed the Commission.
He stated the applicant has worked very hard to come up with the present
proposal.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Mr. Echols stated that though there are no current plans for improvements
to Rt. 53, improvements would be limited with a retaining wall as proposed
by the applicant. He stated the wall would eliminate flexibility for
any future road improvements. Mr. Echols also stated that some space
should be included for unloading of buses so that it does not occur within
the public right-of-way.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt this was an engineering feat which he found hard
to accept given the steepness of the grades and the proximity to Rt. 53.
nN
December 17, 1987 Page 5
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Ms. Patterson confirmed that a great
deal of the parking is in 25% slope area and no modification regulation
is required because no actual building construction is proposed on
critical slopes.
Ms. Diehl stated she was having difficulty justifying "grading out that
slope to provide additional parking spaces that are not required by the
Ordinance."
Ms. Patterson pointed out that, given the topography of the site, it would
be difficult to find developable land that was not in critical slopes.
She stated the applicant had researched off -site alternatives, but these
had not worked out.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that some of the parking was possibly going to
be generated by the proposed blacksmith shop. She stated that perhaps
the site has reached its limitations.
Mr. Cogan questioned whether the blacksmith shop would generate much more
parking need.
It was determined slightly more than 100 parking spaces currently exist
on the site.
Mr. Cogan felt this was "too much on too little."
Mr. Wilkerson agreed that it was a lot of construction and a lot of
retaining wall; however, he pointed out that it was for parking which
was providing a service.
It was determined the retaining wall would have the appearance of a grey,
cut stone with a colonial character.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the request was for a 62% increase in parking. He
asked if the applicant was currently turning away that amount of business
on a daily basis because of inadequate parking.
Mr. McDonald replied that this was true only during certain months of the
year, particularly April aid October. He stated people often are forced to
park illegally which causes other types of problems. He stressed that
the business was constantly growing and this proposal is viewed as a long-
term solution.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Ordinance addresses the issue of parking areas
in areas of critical slopes. Ms. Patterson stated there was a general
statement about critical slopes under General Regulations and it states
that building construction on critical slopes is allowed only with a
modification from the Commission. She added that the Site Plan section
of the Ordinance speaks to parking lots to be approved by the County
Engineer in terms of grade, pavement type, etc.
Mr. Cogan asked if "building on critical slopes" was further defined
to differentiate between dwellings, habitable buildings, or any kind
of building.
O,g
December 17, 1987
Page 6
Ms. Patterson responded: "It's under Location of Structures
and it's speaking of structures to be located within the building
site, typically the dwelling or the primary building and then it
says 'No such structure shall be located on slopes of 25% or greater."'
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. St. John if a parking lot and retaining wall could
be considered as a structure.
Mr. St. John pointed out that this business is in existence by special
permit. He understood the question was being asked to see if this
was a "by right" site plan, i.e. how much latitude does the Commission
have. He stated that he felt when a use is by special permit, rather
than by right, the Commission has a lot more latitude than if this was
a site plan for something that was "by -right zoned." He felt the
Commission had "wide discretion" in approving or not approving this
site plan.
Mr. Bowerman pointed that the applicant is proposing to close one entrance
which currently has sight distance problems. He stated this could possibly
be a trade-off, i.e. the elimination of some of the existing
safety problems in exchange for this proposal, even with its undesirable
elements.
In response to Ms. Diehl's former question, Mr. St. John stated he felt
a parking lot was a structure and the Commission had total discretion to
approve or deny this site plan.
Mr. Cogan agreed with Mr. Bowerman, that the issue was a question of a
trade-off. Mr. Cogan stated he could not recall a high -accident rate
of the entrance that is proposed to be closed. Mr. Cogan concluded he
felt this was an over -intensification and stated he could not support
the proposal.
Ms. Diehl agreed with Mr. Cogan and added that she was concerned that
most of the construction would take place in areas of 25% critical slopes.
She stated the Commission would not allow new construction on a site to
take place in such a manner and because this proposal is over and above
the number of parking spaces that are required, she stated she could not
support the proposal.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would support Ms. Diehl's and Mr. Cogan's position.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Michie Tavern Amendment Preliminary Site Plan
be denied.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed (4:1) with Commissioner
Wilkerson casting the dissenting vote.
Graemont (Panorama) Final Plat - Proposal to create 24 lots with an average
lot size of 7.51 acres from an existing 187.8 acre parcel. Two public
roads are proposed to serve the subdivision: one serving seven lots with
an entrance on Route 661 and the other serving seventeen lots with an
entrance on Route 660. Zoned RA, Rural Areas with Special Use Permit
87-06 James B. Murray (Panorama Estates Subdivision). Property located on
the south side of Route 660 behind Crouse -Hinds, and the east side of
Route 661, approximately one-half mile from :its intersection with Route 660.
19
re,01
December 17, 1987 Page 7
Tax Map 31, Parcel 21 (and parcel 21E, and Tax Map 45, Parcel 1). Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Ms. Patterson read a letter from Cooper Industries which pointed out concerns
about (1) the construction and maintenance of the proposed pond; and (2)
Cooper Industries continued use of the right-of-way leading from Rt. 660 to
the lake. Ms. Patterson stated the plat shows no change to the
existing right-of-way. Regarding the pond, Ms. Patterson stated the
County Engineer's Office has stated the pond has been moved from one of the
branches of the stream to the other where it won't be directly discharged
from the Cooper Industries pond.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bob McKee was present to represent the applicant. He offered no
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the pond issue, Mr. Cresswell, representing the County Engineer's
Office, stated that by moving the pond Cooper Industries will be receiving
their water from one side and the applicant's pond will receive water from
the other side.
1,; Mr. Bill Bryant, representing Cooper Industries, stated a correction needed to be made
and explained: "The Cooper Industries lake or pond --the water discharge
from our plant does not go into that lake. It is piped beyond the dam
so the water from the Cooper Industries Plant does not enter the Cooper
lake."
Mr. Cresswell clarified that when he spoke of drainage area he was not
referring to discharge from the plant. He stated the two branches have
distinct sub -areas and where the pond was originally planned it was
contributing to a much larger drainage area, so'we are essentially reducing
the size of the drainage area to the pond."
Mr. Cresswell confirmed that drainage referred to was surface water drainage
and not drainage from a pipe. He confirmed that he did not anticipate any
problems with the proposal.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Graemont (Panorama) Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a) Bonding or construction of public road plans;
b) County Engineering approval of stormwater detention/runoff
control plans and calculations;
c) Issuance of an erosion control permit;
December 17, 1987
Page 8
d) County Engineering approval of notes to plat to include delineation of
all drainage easements;
e) County Attorney approval of homeowner documents to include pond
maintenance and lot 3 driveway maintenance agreements.
2. Compliance with conditions of SP-87-06 James B. Murray.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Federal Express Phase II Preliminary Site Plan - Request to locate a 2.592
square foot building on a previously developed site. The proposal is located
on approximately 7.9 acres, and proposes commercial use. Five (5) parking
spaces are provided for this proposal. The property is located on the east
side of State Route 29, adjacent to the Rivanna River. Tax Map 45B(1), Parcel
1B. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood was present to represent the applicant. He offered no
additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Cresswell, representing the County Engineer's Office, stated that j
staff's statement that this was outside the stormwater detention area was
incorrect. He stated there should be a condition of approval to the
effect that the proposal is "subject to County Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations. He added that due to the
proximity to the Rivanna the impact may be insignificant and therefore
detention may be addressed through other measures other than a detention
pond.
Mr. Armm stated there was a problem with this. He stated the Commission
would have to specifically recognize that because we cannot exempt them
from detention. We can recommend that to you, but only the Commission
can exempt them from detention."
It was decided condition la would have the following added at the end:
County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations,
including stormwater detention, if required.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Federal Express Phase II Preliminary Site
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A Final Site Development Plan will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations, including storwmater detention, if required;
b. The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements; to include permit allowing relocation of cul-de-sac
curbing within right-of-way;
/aI
December 17, 1987
Page 9
C. The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of pavement
section and CBR tests for cul-de-sac;
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; to include plantings
along U.S. Route 29 in accordance with Section 32.7.9.6 and 32.7.9.7
of the Zoning Ordinance;
g. Planning staff approval of technical notes on the plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Official approval;
3. The final site plan may be administratively approved.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms
John Horne, Secretary
l02