HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 15 1997 PC Minutescm
M
4-15-97
APRIL 15, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 15,
1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey,
Chief of Engineering; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Tice.
The meeting was called to order at 7:0
minutes of March 18, 1997, and March
amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
0
p.m. and a quorum was established. The
25, 1997, were unanimously approved as
UVA Healthsouth Slope Waiver Request - Proposal to modify the slope provisions of
Section 4.12.6.3b of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the slope of the parking
lot (Attachment A). The proposed slope is approximately 5%. Property, described as Tax
Map 76, 17B and 17131, is the location of the Fontaine Research Park located on the
south side of Fontaine Avenue in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
No concerns were identified by the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 96-24 N&S, L.L. C. - Petition to rezone approximately 43 acres from R-2,
Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to R-15, Residential and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Properties described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 54, 54A,
55B, 55D, are located on the north side of Rt. 631 (Fifth Street Extended) approximately
.2 miles southwest of Interstate 64 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Parcels 54, 54A,
55B, are recommended for Transitional Use in Neighborhood 5. Parcel 46A (pt), on the
west side of Old Lynchburg Road, is recommended for Neighborhood Service in
Neighborhood 5.
Both the applicant and staff were requesting deferral to April 22, 1997.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 96-24 be deferred
to April 22, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
4-15-97
Addition to Carter's Brid a Agricultural/Forestal District - Applications to add four parcels
described as Tax Map 102, Parcels 19, 19A, 19B and 19C totaling 262.75 acres located
on the west side of State Route 627, Carter's Mountain Road, to the Carter's Bridge
District in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is designated Rural Areas in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
The applicant was not represented at the meeting.
Public comment was invited. None was offered. The public hearing was closed and the
item was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Addition to the Carter's
Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-06 David and Joseph Wood - Proposal to establish drive-thru windows at a
proposed bank [22.2.2]. Property, described as Tax Map 61 M, Section 12, Parcels 1 and
1 H, consists of approximately 2.4 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. This site is located in
the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Dominion Drive in the Rio
Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 1
of the Comprehensive Plan.
AND
SDP 97-029 First Citizens Bank Preliminary. Site Plan - Proposal to construct a bank of
approximately 3,800 square feet with drive thru windows and an automated teller machine
on 2.387 acres zoned C-1, Commercial.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that the preliminary site plan is before
the Commission at the request of an adjacent property owner. Staff recommended
approval of both the special permit and the preliminary site plan, subject to conditions.
Staff answers to specific Commission questions were as follows:
--On-site lighting will be addressed by the Architectural Review Board, as it relates
to Rt. 29. The Commission may, if it desires, add a condition to address lighting in
relation to adjoining properties. Mr. Dotson was concerned about lighting of the drive-thru
areas which might "cast a lot of wasted light in the wrong areas." He was also concerned
about the possible use of spotlights.
--The Ordinance requirement [Section 32.9.81 for screening between commercial
and residential developments is "5-6 feet high white pines planted 15 feet on center in a
staggered row, or an opaque fence and a single row of pines, or alternative methods of
"'"` vegetative screening as proposed by the applicant and approved by the agent (Director of
4-15-97
3
Planning)." Staff favored screening shrubs over trees because they tend to shield
headlights better.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Peter Bishop. He offered to answer Commission
questions. Answers to specific Commission questions were as follows:
--This will be the first branch of this bank in this area, though there are branches
on other parts of the state.
--Addressing Mr. Dotson's question about providing a sidewalk along Old Dominion
Drive, Mr. Bishop said "would not be a problem."
--The location of the ATM at the rear of the building was dictated by on -site
circulation needs. The ATM will be visible from Rt. 29. The applicant does not feel the
ATM is in an unsafe location.
--The applicant proposes to place, "along the rear property line," adjacent to
residences, "landscaping, mixed with trees. He pointed out that the residences behind
the building are at a considerably higher elevation. He stressed that the existing
vegetation along the drainageway will not be disrupted in any way. The applicant plans
to choose vegetation which will provide adequate screening, but will not provide a hiding
place for potential robbers.
--In response to Ms. Huckle's question as to whether the applicant plans to clean
up the streambank, Mr. Bishop replied: "We're going to clean up the site and make it
look right. We don't want something that looks trashy to our customers. Yes, we would
clean it up to the best of our abilities without disturbing the current growth."
--In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the location of the fill activity which
will occur in the floodplain, Mr. Bishop located the area on the map and described it:
"Where the floodplain is located on this dashed line --it currently runs through the existing
parking lot and the building which currently exists. We propose to leave all this area
completely alone. The area which is in the red line is where the bottom of the fill material
will come to." (He pointed to this area on the map.)
--As referred to in the County Engineer's comments, the applicant is currently
looking into revising the flood study previously prepared by Earth Tech, and whether or
not the filling will raise the flood levels by any significant amount. The applicant believes,
after a cursory review, there will be an "inconsequential effect." If that is not the case,
other approaches will be explored at that time. (Ms. Huckle said she was uncomfortable
being asked to give an opinion when all the information is not yet available.) Mr. Bishop
said those issues will be addressed during the site review process, and "we wouldn't go
that far if we can't solve those issues." He reminded the Commission that tonight's
review is for a special permit for the drive-thru window.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Kathryn Fulton, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. Her primary
concern was about the type of barrier proposed between the bank and her residence.
She did not feel shrubbery or white pines are adequate. She pointed out that white pines
are prone to disease and also are not thick enough to provide a shield from lighting.
Also, trash will blow through the pines. She was concerned about the possibility that
escaping bank robbers would escape via her yard. She asked that a more permanent
4-15-97 4
barrier --a high fence --be required. In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Ms. Fulton
described flooding which occurs on her property. Mr. Finley said it appears, because the
work in the floodplain will be downstream from.the Fulton property, it should not cause
existing flooding problems to worsen. Ms. Fulton wondered if it might cause the water to
"back up" onto her property. She said the flooding problems she experiences are "about
the came" as they were before the culvert under Rt. 29 was replaced.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, answered Commission questions about the
proposal.
--The grading plan on which the Earth Tech study was based "shows additional
filling which does not show on this particular map.... They could fill at least to that point
without changing the study which was already submitted." But filling proposed by the
applicant in other areas (he pointed those out on the map) will add fill which was not
taken into consideration in the Earth Tech study_ It is for that reason that the Engineering
Department is asking for verification of that study, based on the applicant's proposed
contours.
--Because of the very large drainage area, there will always be high water in this
channel during heavy rainfall. There has been some improvement with the increased size
of the culvert.
--The small change in impervious area which is proposed is not likely to cause
`°'-►� much impact to the drainage. If there is an increase in post -development runoff, the
provisions of the Runoff Control Ordinance will have to be complied with. If runoff is
increased, stormwater detention will be required, "even if it is a drop in the bucket." The
applicant will be required to provide an analysis of existing runoff vs. post -development
runoff. That will be a part of the final review. ( The applicant's representative, David
Collins, said the runoff may decrease because the impervious area may actually
decrease.)
--The rear property lines of properties abutting this property are also in the
floodplain. Any fence which is erected either on this property or adjacent properties will
have to be located away from areas where the velocity of the water might wash it out. (it
was determined that the shrubbery shown on the plan, adjacent to the parking area, was
not located in the floodplain.) A fence located in the area of the landscaping shrubbery
should not pose a problem.
The Commission discussed at length the question of fencing. Staff confirmed that the
Commission could require a fence, as a condition of the special permit. Ms. Huckle said
she feels this is a good use for the site, but she favored some type of privacy fence in
addition to shrubbery. She felt the addition of a fence would help to minimize the
possibility of trespassers on residential properties. Mr. Kamptner said the Commission
has the discretion to require whatever type of fence it feels "will address the impact,
which in this case is the privacy and headlight impacts on the adjoining property because
of the teller windows and ATM allowing for extended night time hours."
4-15-97 5
Mr. Keeler noted that the fence should not encroach into the floodplain, as Mr. Kelsey
had cautioned against.
Mr. Dotson asked if the ARB desires to make further stipulations related to a fence, will it
be able to further modify a condition of the special permit? Staff said the ARB cannot
modify a special permit condition. Mr. Keeler further explained that a provision of the
Entrance Corridor District says that "if there is a conflict between the Commission action
and the ARB action, if the Commission action serves public health or safety, the
Commission action stands."
Mr. Dotson said he has a concern about an opaque fence which may create an area
where someone could hide. (Ms. Huckle pointed out that someone can also hide in
vegetation.) He said he was not convinced a fence would really improve screening,
beyond what the existing vegetation already provides, given the elevation differential. He
said he would not oppose the special permit, but he wanted to voice his concern. (Mr.
Finley agreed.)
Mr. Loewenstein understood Mr. Dotson's concern, but said that "in balance," he felt a
fence might address some of the other concerns expressed by adjacent property owners.
There was some confusion as to whether the fence should be on the "residential side
(outside) of the shrubs or the bank side (inside) of the shrubs." Mr. Keeler said that the
shrubs are intended to screen the use from the residential area, so it would seem logical
that the fence be on the bank side of the shrubs, otherwise there would be no use for the
shrubs. However, the applicant expressed the preference that the shrubs be in front of
the fence (i.e. the shrubs would be on the bank side, with the fence behind them on the
residential side).
Ms. Washington asked if the applicant would consider planting shrubs on both sides of
the fence, so as to make it attractive for both the bank customers and the adjoining
residences. The applicant did not respond.
It was ultimately agreed that the fence should be at least 6 feet high, of a stockade,
opaque style and would be located on the northwest side of the building and outside of
the landscaping abutting the parking area.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP-97-06 for David
and Joseph Wood be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Drive -through windows will be limited to four (4), three traditional and one ATM
window.
2. Screening shrubs shall be planted along the residential side of the parking area and
bypass lane.
4-15-97
A
3. Erect and maintain an opaque stockade -style fence, six feet in height, on the
northwest side of the building and outside of the landscaping abutting the parking area,
as shown on the preliminary site plan, except where such area is in the floodplain.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that: (1) the First Citizens
Bank Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions; (2) A waiver
of Section 4.12.6.2 be granted to allow one-way internal circulation; and (3) The
Commission review the final site plan:
1. The Planning Commission shall not review the final site plan until the following
conditions have been met-
a. Planning Department approval of landscape plan, sidewalk location and lighting
plan.
b. [23.6.6.d] Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of grading and
drainage plans and computations. Due to the filling within the existing 100-year
floodplain, the flood study previously prepared by Earth Tech will require revising to show
no adverse impact on neighboring properties;
c. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB.
2. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site
plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Engineering Department approval to include:
1. Delineate and label proposed easements for water lines, gas lines,
sanitary sewers and storm drainage pipes. Provide an appropriate drainage easement
over the existing stream. According to VDOT's US 29 Road Improvement Plan, there is a
drainage easement over the existing endwall.
2. The proposed drive-thru and bypass layout scales 47 feet from the ATM
pad to the rear gutter. This width provides enough room for one vehicle to wait patiently
for the ATM while the second vehicle encroaches into the 15-foot bypass lane. The only
way to guarantee enough room for adequate bypass is to stripe the lanes to each drive-
thru lane. Therefore, pavement striping must be shown to verify adequate width for the
bypass lane or an alternative alignment/layout proposed.
3. [Albemarle County Engineering Policy] VDOT approval of plans and
drainage computations.
4. [32.7.4.3 - Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance] VDOT approval of
plans and drainage computations.
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval to include:
1. Obtaining an additional easement around the existing sewer line.
2. Remove the proposed sewer line near the entrance and use the existing
meter.
c. Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include:
on
4-15-97
1. Approval of Special Use Permit SP 97-06.
2. Recordation of the subdivision plat.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Resolution of Intent Re: Day_Care and Square Footage Ratio - Mr. Cilimberg reported
that the Zoning Administrator has revised a previous determination related to a rezoning
request in Crozet which was to change from Industrial to C1 for a day care use. (Heard
by the Commission March 25, 1997) The Zoning Administrator has provided a written
determination that a special permit for this request is a possibility, which is contrary to her
previous opinion. (This new opinion was the result of further investigation of the
qualifying language (Section 9.4) as to the discretion of the Board of Supervisors which
says the Board can use its discretion to waive the percentage requirement in a particular
case.) The request is scheduled for the Board April 16th and the applicant is requesting
a withdrawal of the rezoning request so that it can be refiled as a special permit request.
Regarding the Resolution of Intent which the Commission passed as a result of the
rezoning request, Mr. Cilimberg advised that it be "put on hold" until the special permit
review has taken place.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
MD
7