HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 14 84 PC MinutesFebruary 14, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, February 14, 1984, in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor,
Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David P. Bowerman,
Chairman; Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. James R. Skove,
Mrs. Norma A. Diehl and Mr. Butch Wilkerson. Mrs. Patricia Cooke
entered the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. Richard F.
Gould were absent. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer with the Highway Department;
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer; and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of
the Planning Division.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order. The Chairman introduced each member of the
Commission, as well as staff, present and explained the procedures
followed during public hearing, for the benefit of the public.
ZMA-83-22 James or Virginia Hahn Request to rezone 1.6 acres from
Rural Areas to C-1 Commercial, County Tax Map 32, Parcel 48, Rivanna
Dist. Located west of Route 649, near airport, adjacent to Deerwood
commercial area.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Bowerman asked.Mr. Keeler to indicate where Route 606 was
presently located. Mr. Keeler responded that it was not shown on the
site plan and would be relocated east of this property.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant or his representative wished
to speak at this time.
Mr. W. S. Roudabush explained that he represented the Hahns, who were
also present. Mr. Roudabush told the Commission that the purpose of
this rezoning request was to obtain commercial zoning so that they
could construct a facility which would include their real estate
business. Mr. Roudabush said that the Hahns had been operating out
of their home in Earlysville while looking for a suitable location for
their business. He added that the Hahns needed other uses in addition
to their real estate business in order to make this a feasible project.
Mr. Roudabush said that soil tests had been conducted to make sure
that office uses could be pursued; he said that a topographic study
was done and an architect engaged by the Hahns. Mr. Roudabush said
that this property was in the immediate area of other commercial uses,
including a storage site for Avis and a Light Industrial site where
Manson and Utley are located, as well as other commercial facilities
Ij along the highway. Mr. Roudabush stated that it was his understanding
that this property had previously been zoned B-1, but due to its not
having been developed and not having submitted a site plan, it had been
February 14, 1984
Page 2
zoned back to Rural Areas. sir. Roudabush remarked that the
Highway Department had indicated that Route 649 would ultimately
be widened and therefore the Hahnst'site plan was redesigned to
accommodate such a widening. DIr..Roudabush said that he and the
applicants had worked closely with County staff and Highway
Department personnel. He said that the applicants had no intention
of using the property for anything other than retail or office use.
Mr. Roudabush explained that possibly a gift and notions shop might
locate on the property, serving airport travelers. He added that
the applicants would be glad to give whatever assurances were needed.
Mr. Roudabush also said that the Hahns.had no problem with hours
of operation, although they hoped to have operational hours coincide
with those of the airport.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the buffering shown in the site plan had
been amended to show a great deal of buffering along the boundary
with Deerwood. He said that the applicants were willing to do
anything within reason to comply with the Commission's concerns.
Mr. Roudabush indicated that there would be some area reserved for
future development, but that the Hahns had no idea what future uses
might be considered or any plans for them at this time.
Mr. Hahn stated that they would be willing to take down the existing
building.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any public comment on this
petition. Seeing none, the Chairman declared the matter to be
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that a rezoning could not be conditioned.
He asked whether anything had been received in writing indicating
intent to limit hours or use. It was ascertained that nothing had
been received.
Mr. Skove observed that there was no way to tie the site plan to
this rezoning request.
Mr. Cogan said that sometimes the Commission reviewed a site plan
and rezoning request simultaneously. Mr. Skove added that sometimes
a proffer accompanied a rezoning request. Mr. Cogan agreed that
such a proffer could eliminate concerns and questions of staff.
Mrs. Diehl observed that even if the Commission reviewed a site plan
along with the rezoning request, a site plan could lapse and the
zoning could still be in place. She added that without a proffer,
she would be reluctant to act favorably on this request.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the Commission could review this rezoning
request accompanied by a proffer, the site plan and answers to the
concerns related to leaving an adequate amount of right-of-way
(raised by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation);
Mr. Cogan observed that the applicant could bring this whole "package"
back to the Commission and tie up all the loose ends.
Mr. Keeler cautioned that the site plan had not been submitted as
part of a proffer. Mr. Bowerman clarified that no proffer had been
received. Mrs. Diehl stated that as an unrestricted C-1 rezoning
she could not support it. Mr. Skove concurred that with what was
February 14, 1984
Page 3
before them, he could not either. Mr. Bowerman indicated that the
Commission could either act on the petition tonight or defer it.
He indicated that should it be denied by the Commission, the applicant
could still proffer before the Board met.
Mr. Roudabush responded that the reason the site plan was not
proffered was due to its not having been reviewed. He asked whether
it would be too late to make the proffer at this point and whether
he could consult with his.clients.
Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mrs. Diehl observed that the proffer would
be tied to the rezoning.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the applicants would write a proffer.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne for his opinion on whether this would
be proper. Mr. Payne responded that it would be unusual and that
he believed the Commission's general policy in such instances was
a recommendation for denial with the understanding that there was
a consensus that had there been a proffer, the action would probably
have been favorable. Mr. Payne also stated that in this case the
Commission had clearly encouraged the applicant to offer a proffer
before going before the Board.
Mrs. Diehl moved that ZMA-83-22 be denied at this time. Mr. Skove
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
Mr. Skove requested that a statement be added indicating that the
Commission would have acted favorably on the petition, had the
property been limited to retail and office usage; if the hours of
operation were consistent with commercial development adjacent to
residential areas; and if there were adequate buffering and screening
of the development from adjacent residential properties.
Mr. Cogan seconded Mr. Skove's request. Mrs. Diehl stated that she
was not real comfortable with such a formal statement. She indicated
that she would prefer something more informal in the way of an action.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1, with Mrs. Diehl voting against
the addendum motion.
Mr. Payne asked that the record show he had no conflict of interest
with the question raised, but had removed himself from earlier
deliberations or participation.
February 14, 1984
Page 4
ZMA-84-1 Willow Lake Developers, Incor orated - Request to
rezone 21.976 acres (Parcel 2) and +25.644 acres (part of Parcel 1),
County Tax Map 77E(1), Scottsville District, from current zoning
of R-1 Residential to become R-4 Residential with proffered general
plan of development showing 35 single-family dwellings on 20.47
acres, 148 quadraplex condominiums on 14.37 acres and 12.78 acres
of open space for a total gross residential density of 3.84 dwelling
units per acre. Located on the west side of Route 20 South,
+2,000 feet south of its intersection with Route 53.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler whether the applicant wished to request
deferral to March 13.
Mr. Keeler responded that it has his verbal understanding that the
applicant would make such a request; he explained that it had been
the Commission's policy to go forward with scheduled public hearings,
if a deferral request was not received in time to allow for
notification to adjacent property owners.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were members of the public present
who wished to comment tonight. When the Chairman determined that
there were persons present who wished to speak, he explained that
public comment would be heard, the Staff Report would be presented,
but the Commission would not hold discussion until March 13.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report Summary, adding that the Code of
Virginia puts considerable constraints on staff review of any
proffered rezoning.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant or any of his representatives
wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Mark Osborne (of Gloeckner, Lincoln and Osborne), representing
the applicants, stated that the comments contained in the Staff
Report were well -taken. Mr. Osborne explained that this was the
first attempt at developing this property and that he hoped to
solicit some comments from the Planning Commission tonight.
Mr. Osborne indicated that a lot had been learned already from
working with staff and many changes were already planned to make a
better plan. He said that his basic goals in developing this plan
were to come as close as possible to four units per acre, which he
stated is permitted by the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
Mr. Osborne explained that they had only been able to manage 3.8
units per acre on the project.
Mr. Osborne added that the roads had been located in an attempt to
accommodate the scenic roads setbacks and 25% slope requirements.
In most instances, Mr. Osborne continued, the roads were outside
of the 25% slopes, although some small bands might protude into
these areas. Mr. Osborne said that the best slopes are right
along the property line with Piedmont College; he added that this
area also turned out to have the major defects of the high -intensity
lighting in the parking lot and some of the noise that comes from
the baseball fields during the summertime.
443
February 14, 1984
Page 5
Mr. Osborne explained that it appeared to him an area that had
lighting and noise problenia-would be better suited .for mid -density
development than single-family development. He added that he
believed people in these areas would generally be accustomed to
more traffic noise and to being closer together. Also, he continued,
parking requirements for mid -density development would have to be
built on flatter slopes than could be obtained in some of the
other areas. Rr. Osborne observed that this area suggested itself
right away for high -density.
Mr. Osborne remarked that although they are not shown on this plan,
and perhaps not visible from the aerial, a strain of maple trees
exists, running a line generally parallel to the property line,
between the road and the first row of buildings. Mr. Osborne said
that they tried to set up this regime so that they could rake use
of those maple trees now there. He added that a fifty -foot buffer
zone around the property is being provided, which they intended to
have consist of three rows of white pines, staggered, and where
necessary to have a wooden fence as a sound barrier.
Mr. Osborne said that access to this area is through a road which
averages eight percent (8%); he said that it comes from a spot on
Route 20 which has good sight distance in both directions. He
said that it seers fairly reasonable.
Mr. Osborne told the Commission that the remaining areas that are
to be developed are in wooded areas and are proposed to be developed
as single-family houses, as a Wintergreen resort -type development,
where a house would be sited and only several trees cut down
where the house would go and where the driveway would come out,
leaving all the other trees protected.
Mr. Osborne said that the lake is a major recreational feature
with parking, fishing and boating, and swimming included. He
pointed out another area that could be developed for recreational
use. Mr. Osborne continued, saying that the units were separated
far enough apart so that a state road could be designed, with a
cul-de-sac additionally. Mr. Osborne said that it was their intent
to revise the plan to show this and that this revision would make
still another area available for possible recreational use.
Mr. Osborne stated that to protect the drainage regimes, there
would be stormwater detention in areas at headwaters of these
streams, near this high -density, and it would protect erosion from
taking place down along those contour recir•.'ies .
Mr. Osborne said that they think the basic concept of the plan is
a good one and that it meets the general densities outlined by the
Comprehensive Plan. He said that it would allow for economic
development of the property, bringing in utilities which would also
help the County to develop the other parts south of town.
Mr. Osborne said that they recognize that this plan will require
considerable modification before it can be approved by the
Commission and that they would certainly like to have some way to
get comments from the Commission tonight or to enlist the aid of
r
February 14, 1984
Page 6
Mr. Keeler between now and the next meeting in order to come up
with additional changes which would be beneficial. Mr. Osborne
said that the owners were here to demonstrate what the general
building types would be like, colors to be used, to further prove
to the Commission that the overall look of the development would
be compatible with the general vicinity of Route 20.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Osborne and recognized the next speaker.
Mr. Pat Coffey spoke as one of the principals of the project,
saying that he would be primarily involved with marketing. He
assured the Commission that they were very sensitive to the unique
situation of this property in regard to highway twenty, the
tourism business of the County and Monticello. Mr. Coffey said
that it was their intention to build houses with natural earth
tones, to blend them into the sites and to remove as little as
possible of foliage. in fact, Mr. Coffey continued, he was sure
that by the time they are through there will be more foliage on
the site than when they began. Mr. Coffey said that at present
there is a lot of open space and that the intent is to build the
houses tastefully, into the site with berming, natural earth tones
and a good recreational system. Mr. Coffey said they are very
concerned about aesthetics, that they will be passing -by this
development and marketing it, so for a number of reasons want it
to be a unique, tasteful, aesthetically -pleasing development.
Per. Bowerman thanked Mr. Coffey and asked whether there were any
further comments on the part of the applicants or their representatives.
When there were none, the Chairman opened the meeting to public
comment.
Mr. Evans identified himself as a property owner of Lakeside
Subdivision. Mr. Evans said that he had one basic question for
the developers of this project. He asked if this lake they call
a recreational area and the area that is around here that they
propose is an asset for meeting the densities requirements - if
this area and lake are in fact owned by the developers. Mr. Evans
stated that he lives adjacent to this property and had been chased
off the property on numerous occasions. He added that if the
developers consider this a recreational area, then he would assume
they have control or own this property.
Mr. Evans added that he bought his property originally under the
consideration that he had to have two and a half acres, he believed
at the time, to develop his property. He said that this was the
premise that he went on, that in this area they would have to have
two and a half acres to put a single-family dwelling on and now
they were talking high -density housing. Mr. Evans pointed out that
this was pretty much adjacent to the property he is on in Lakeside.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Evans and recognized Mr. Hermanson.
Per. Fred Hermanson identified himself as another of the principals
with Willow Lake Developers. He explained that they do have an
option and will own the lake in question. He added that it is ?part
of the forty-seven acres and is part of this designated open land.
February 14, 1984
Page 7
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Hermanson. The Chairman asked whether
there was further public comment.
Mr. P. J. Jenkins introduced himself as Dean of Administrative
Services at Piedmont Virginia Community College. He explained that
he was appearing here on behalf of Piedmont to object to the
proposed rezoning. He added that two primary reasons that they
were objecting are selfish - one being that the high -density area
proposed is, as had been mentioned, adjacent to and right under
the softball field lights. Mr. Jenkins said that the softball
fields were lighted by the City and County, are used by the softball
leagues of the City and County and are regularly utilized on
Friday nights during the summer.
Mr. Jenkins stated that a complaint was received from Mrs'. Shoffne r,
who lives down here, last summer after the area was first lighted,
indicating that the lights were objectionable. Mr. Jenkins said
that he believed it was being rather callous to indicate that the
people who would be living up here would therefore be accustomed
to lights. Mr. Jenkins remarked that just because they are perhaps
looking for lower -cost housing does not mean they would like the
lights any more than the people who can live further away.
Mr. Jenkins said that..another objection was having all of these
units here without any recreational facilities. He said that again
he could not understand a plan such as this not providing such
facilities. He said that if you notice, referring to the exhibited
plan, an entrance -way is shown into Piedmont Virginia Community
College property. Mr. Jenkins stated firmly that there is not an
entrance there now nor will there be. Additionally, 'sir. Jenkins
told the Commission that on Piedmont property there are four tennis
courts put up by the City and County and.that they could imagine
the problem Piedmont will be faced with if all of the nearby
residents should depend on these tennis courts as well as on other
Piedmont recreational facilities.
Apart from. this, Mr. Jenkins continued, as indicated in the Staff
Report, this proposal would be entirely out of character for the
whole area, which has 120 acres of Piedmont property, the Visitors'
Center, the Tandem School and all fairly open area. Mr. Jenkins
contended that this proposal, put down right in the middle, would
interrupt the character of that whole area. Mr. Jenkins added that
this was also in fact a scenic highway. He said that he did not
know, talking about maple trees, but right along the highway, along
Route 20, you would be looking up at what today is an open hill but
would become a Copely Hill, spread out on that open hill.
Mr. Jenkins concluded by saying that if there were to be more W
trees planted, so that there would be more shrubbery there when the
developers leave than before they came, it would be twenty years
before you could take advantage of any new planting.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Dean Jenkins and asked whether there would
be further public comment.
A&
February 14, 1984
Page 8
Mr.,
Joseph Garland identified himself as a property -owner and
homeowner in Lakeside Subdivision also. He remarked that since
most of Lakeside residents had talked about this proposal,
because it is a'threat to them, they had investigated a variety
of considerations which they did not think in some cases were in
good faith. Mr. Garland stated that most residents if not all had
moved to that subdivision in the first place because they wanted
more of a rural community flavor. He explained that after
examining very carefully all of the directions around Charlottesville,
this one seemed the least likely to lend itself to any such
report that they felt would be necessary so that the density of
such property could draw the population there to require the
residences that would need to be built.
Mr. Garland said that they did not see either that the University
of Virginia with its medical facilities there or with any other
connection with Piedmont Virginia Community College or anyone else
down the highway, would enter .into any such report that would make
that desirable for that part of Charlottesville. Also, Mr. Garland
continued, when they went out there (Mr. Shoffner he added, is no
longer with us), most if not all were under the impression that
the property now being discussed would be kept in acre -lots or so
and that the trees mentioned would outline an avenue to similar
pieces of property which are now being used there. Mr. Garland
said that they strongly object to this project on that basis alone,
without being redundant or entering into further issues.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Garland and clarified to one of the
applicants that comment at this time was restricted to the public.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was still further public comment.
Mr. Daniel Lowe, a resident of Lakeside Subdivision, asked to
read a letter he had written to Supervisor Peter Way (attached).
After reading the letter into the record, Mr. Lowe pointed out the
location of Lakeside Subdivision in relation to the proposed
development, Willow Lake. Mr. Lowe indicated that the twelve acres
scheduled on the proposed plan are really a floodplain. Mr. Lowe
further stated that an area adjacent to R-1 Residential was
described in the Staff Report as equivalent to R-10 Residential.
Mr. Lowe said that here in this area were 35 units, including the
Shaffner home. He added that he did not know how the Shoffner
home was proposed to be used - whether it would be used for rental
units or sold.
Mr. Lowe said that in addition to the historical area, when or if
it is developed as proposed, the paved roads, the paved parking
areas, the sidewalks and the houses of the quadraplexes suggested
would mean that there would be at least seven or eight acres where
there is no absorption of water; there would be runoff. He
suggested that if the Commission were to go out there today it would
see the water that's built up because a previous Commission and a
previous Board of Supervisors permitted the development without any
provision for the water and now they are faced with the problem on
their road. Mr. Lowe further indicated that in addition to the
existing water problem there would be more coming down after this
development, without any provisions shown on this plan. He thanked
the Commission very much.
47
February 14, 1984
Page 9
Mr. Bowerman thanked lair. Lowe and asked for further public comment.
Mr. Keeler asked to address a question to Mr. Lowe. (Lost in
changing of cassette.)
Mr. Lowe responded in part by pointing to the exhibited plan,
saying together with this area here, is lumped together to make it
the density of 3. (three point); Mr. Lowe added that this is the
main area they will be seeing coming down from Lot Seven and seen
from Route 20 it will be the density really of R-10. He again
thanked the Commission.
The Chairman asked whether anyone else wished to speak at this
time.
Buddy Hiter said that he would like to make a statement as a
property owner in Lakeside Subdivision. He stated that tonight
as he was coming out he noticed that water completely covered the
bottom. He explained that this was one of the problems and that
if more houses were put on the hill he believed that there will
be even bigger problens. Mr. miter said that he was just one of
those flooded at the present time.
Mr. Bowerman thanked the speaker. Mr. Lowe asked the Chairman
for permission to have all of those residents of Lakeside
Subdivision attending the meeting stand. They did so.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any further public comment.
when there was none, the Chairman stated that he would temporarily
close the public hearing portion of this meeting with the intent
of deferring this application until March 13, at which time he
would reopen the public hearing and have a Staff Report, as well
as comments from the public and comments from the applicants.
Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. Keeler whether an impact study could
be obtained, as had been done in the past on other applications
as to what effect this proposal would have on schools in the area.
Mr. Keeler indicated that he would obtain this information.
Mrs. Diehl requested that the minutes covering the public comment
on this petition be transcribed in advance of the deferral date
and that any letters or petitions received be made available to
the Commission as well.
Mr. Skove moved for deferral of ZMA--84-1 Willow Lake Developers,
Incorporated to March 13; Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Keeler told the Chairman that he understood from Mr. Osborne
that there was intent on the part of the applicants to address some
of the concerns raised; any revisions, sir. Keeler stated, in order
to allow time to write an additional report, would have to be
received no later than February 28..
Mr. Bowerman noted that this date was two weeks from today and
observed that Mr. Osborne was writing down this information.
0
February 14, 1984
Page 10
ZTA-8.4-1.• Proposed amendment of Section 5.3..4.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding mobile home park provisions. (Resolution of
Intent adopted by the Planning Commission, January 17, 1984.)
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and read the proposed amendment.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment; when there
was none, he declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan moved to recommend approval of ZTA-84-1 to the Board;
Mrs. Diehl seconded the; motion, which passed unanimously with no
further discussion.
ASTEC - Mr. Keeler told the Commission that a few months previously
it had approved a request for a Light Industrial complex on the
west side of Avon Street, south of and adjacent to Moores Creek.
Mr. Keeler said that the approved plan showed a building of 28,400
square feet. Since that time, Mr. Keeler continued, the property
had changed hands and new applicants were proposing 19,600 square
feet of building area with a different building orientation.
Mr. Keeler explained that the new plan had been sent through the Site
Review Committee and it did not appear that there were any problems
with the new plan, although he did not have any final approvals in
hand. Mr. Keeler said that unless the Commission objected, he
believed this new plan, since it entailed lesser development than the
original plan, which had received Planning Commission review, could
be approved administratively, subject to similar conditions to those
on the original plan.
Mr. Skove responded that this seemed reasonable to him. He added
that he recollected that the problem last time had been the sewer.
Mr. Bowerman concurred, adding that the applicant had been required
to connect, as one of the conditions..
Mr. Keeler stated that the original plan had been in three phases
with road improvements tied to those phases; he explained that this
current plan was in two phases and it was Mr. Keeler's understanding
that the Highway Department agreed with the road improvements as
shown with the proposed phasing. Mr. Keeler stated that should there
be any problems with the plan, he would bring it to the Commission.
Mr. Cogan said that his only question concerned the building on the
original plan which was to be constructed in the first phase was
not as large as what was now shown on the new plan. Mr. Keeler
answered that the first phase building on the original plan was
proposed to be 5,000 square feet. Mr. Cogan asked, then, what the
size of the first -phase building area was on the new plan. Mr. Keeler
replied 10,000 square feet; Mr. Cogan ascertained from Mr. Keeler
that this presented no problem.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether septic had been required on the original
plan in the first phase. Mr. Cogan responded that sewer had been
required and he trusted it was a condition still on the new plan.
Mr. Keeler replied that it was and sewer line was shown.
a
February 14, 1984 Page 11
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were written comments available on
the sewer alignment on the new plan. Mr. Keeler said that although
he did not have written comment, the plan had been examined in Site
Review and the reason the new applicant had redesigned the plan was
because it was a solar outfit and they had relocated the building to
take advantage of the sun, to get solar orientation.
Mr. Keeler again reiterated that the plan had gone through Site Review
with no known problems; if any problems should develop, he continued,
that could not be.resolved administratively, staff would bring the
new plan back before the Commission. Mr. Skove said that he had no
problem with this arrangement.
Mrs. Diehl said that although she could not see the plan that well
(from her seat),.it did appear to be a significant change in layout
and square footage. Mr. Bowerman observed that if she was not
comfortable with it, the Commission should see.it. He added that he
recalled the main issue of contention on the original plan was some
question with the Highway Department and the scale of development as
it was phased in the connection to the sewer. Mrs. Diehl confirmed
that it was conditioned as totally sewer; "fir. Bowerman clarified that
the applicants had originally requested septic system on the first
phase, but the Commission required sewer from the first. He added
that the rationale had been that it was just as costly to put in
septic as to run a four inch sewer line in, since sewer was available.
A;rs. Diehl indicated that if no one else had any problem with this,
she would go along with having it taken care of administratively.
Air. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if all he needed was^a consensus;
Mr. Keeler .replied that it was. Mr. Bowerman Jt442d that there was
a consensus to approve the new plan administratively. He then suggested
a ten-minute break.
When the Commission reconvened, Air. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler,
regarding the item under discussion before the break, on which
Mrs. Diehl had expressed some concerns, to see that the Commission
receives any written comments from Site Review concerning the parking
and paving. 'airs. Diehl observed that if she was reading the new plan
correctly, there appeared to be an increase of about twenty spaces
in the parking area and no paving -- a gravel parking area. She said
that the previously approved plan was all paved and she would like
the see what the comments were concerning this change. Mrs. Diehl
said that she was not comfortable with this increase in parking
coupled with no .paving. (Note: This issue was discussed again at the end
of the meeting.)
Mr. Keeler asked Mrs. Diehl if they paved the area, if that was her
concern. Mrs. Diehl replied that she believed she had a twofold
-D
February 14, 1984 Page 12
concern. She asked whether Mr. Keeler had any comment from the
County Engineer on the increased parking. He replied that he would
have to check the file but did not recall any problems on this matter.
Mrs. Diehl said that it appeared that the first phase was being
increased by two and a half to three times the area of the initial
plan and yet all the parking was gravel and she was not sure she was
comfortable with this. Mrs. Diehl reiterated that she would like to
see the County Engineer's comments on this, since she believed he
was a better judge than she on this issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Diehl whether if the County Engineer's comments
were favorable, she had no further problem, but if they were not
favorable she wanted to see the plan. Mrs. Diehl responded that she
would like to see if he has any concerns about those variations
in the internal alignment, too. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thought
thit;was-.'reason enoughto bring it before the Commission; he asked
Mr. Keeler to check the County Engineer's comments and let the
Commission know whether he had any problems with the plan.
Proposed amendment of ROUTE 29 NORTH CORRIDOR STUDY to include a
service road (to intersect Route 29 North at River Heights Hilton
Hotel crossover; proposed to serve as sole means of access to Route 29
North for existing Real Estate III property and five other vacant
properties to the north). Resolution of Intent adopted by the
Planning Commission on January 17, 1983.
Mr. Keeler gave the the background on the Route 29 North Corridor
Study —and explained that the monitoring report made in October of
19 33 had not been fully discussed, due to a long agenda. Mr. Keeler
exhibited a plan for two possible service road alignments, one
described by the Highway Department as the "preferred location" and the
other as an "acceptable location." The preferred location would be located
to the rear of the properties, at the toe of the existing graded slope. The
Highway Department felt the preferred alternative "better serves both
traffic on Route 29 and the traffic generated by the commercial properties
using the service road." The acceptable alternative would be located at the
front of the properties, mostly within existing rights -of -way. The Highway
Department felt that "while this would be a more traditional locaction, traffic
flow would not be as desirable as under the preferred plan."
The purpose of the presentation was to seek guidance from the Commission
as to the acceptability of the proposal.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Frank Kessler, owner of Real Estate III, addressed the Commission. Mr.
Kessler made a lengthy statement expressing his opposition to the
"preferred" alignment. He felt it was "totally ridiculous." He asked
Mr. Roosevelt to explain how much buildable area and parking area would
be available under the present setback requirements and zoning. He felt
the construction of a road as proposed would devalue his property.
Mr. Tab Williams addressed the Commission. He felt the "preferred" plan
would devalue property. He agreed with Mr. Kessler that the construction
of such a roadway would not leave any buildable area.
6-1
February 14, 1984
Page 13
Ms. Kathryn Womack, representing Phil and Karen Ryder, property owners, addressed
the Commission. She expressed opposition to the 'preferred" plan because
it would devalue property. She pointed out that much buildable area would
be lost as a result of the plan. She also pointed out that it was not usually
desirable for a commercial business to have an entrance at the rear.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked either Mr. Keeler or Mr. Roosevelt how much buildable
area would remain (with existing setbacks) if the "preferred" (green) alignment
were constructed. Mr. Keeler explained 50 feet would be lost (20 feet setback
from the service road plus 30 feet setback from the existing right-of-way
on Rt. 29.)
Mr. Roosevelt addressed the issue of why a service road is desirable. He
explained that at.some future time the crossover located at the Hilton Hotel
would be a major intersection as property in that area develops. He
explained that anyone coming.from the properties located on the east side
of Rt. 29 (e.g. Real Estate III) and wishing.to return to Charlottesville
would have to drive a mile North before they would be able to turn back
towards Charlottesville. He felt the property would be more valuable
if users could get gack to Charlottesville without having to drive two miles
out of the way. He pointed out that the "preferred" plan would only work
if the County relaxes the setback requirements. He indicated he had
met with staff and they have shown a willingness to do that in order to
get back a majority of the usable land that would be taken by the
"green" plan. He felt the County should decide if it is desirable that
these properties be served with individual entrances and the property
owners should decide whether they want their customers to have to go two
miles out of their way to get back to Charlottesville.
Mr. Cogan asked why the "red" plan did not have an exit onto Rt. 29 at the
northern end. fir. Roosevelt felt that would be possible. .
Mr. Kessler asked if Mr. Roosevelt could review the "first" plan. (fir.
Roosevelt seemed not to understand what Mr. Kessler was referring to.)
Mr. Kessler explained that the plan which he referred to was one which
had required him to install a third lane across the front of his property
at an expense.in.excess of $25,000. 'Mr. Kessler was very upset and stated
that the Commission and the Board should offer protection from this type
of situation. Mr. Roosevelt explained that the third lane referred to by
Mr. Kessler was part of the approved'CATS plan and part of the approved
Rt. 29 Corridor Study.
Mr. Williams stated he felt it was unfair to property owners when the
Highway Department and the Commission "have taken this kind of approach."
The matter was once again placed.before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the "red" plan would be adequate. He noted that
the "green" plan (preferred by the Highway Department) would "cut the lots
in half." He stated he was in favor of the "red" road with an exit on the
northern end leading back onto Rt. 29
Air. Keeler confirmed that the properties between the northern end of this
property and the river could use an exit At the northern end of this property.
It was clarified that those properties referred to by air. Bowerman could
"use this exit as an entrance."
�a
February 14, 1984
Page 14
Mr. Bowerman stated he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan, i.e. the "acceptable
location" with two entrances. He felt this was more logical than the
Highway Department's "preferred location."
The Chairman called for a motion.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Rt. 29 North Corridor Study be amended to include
the "red" service road as shown on the map with an access at
both the northern and southern ends of the service road.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
The motion passed (4:1) with Mr. Skove casting the dissenting vote.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on March 7, 1988.
NEW BUSINESS
Urban Drainage Improvement Report - Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, presented
a report on drainage problems in the urban area. He reported that 16 projects
had been discovered, at a total cost of approximately $800,000.
Mr. Elrod gave a slide presentation showing some of the problems.
No action was required of the Commission.
Mr. Irving Andrews addressed the Commission and expressed concern about
flooding problems on his property which were caused by the stream
running behind his property and Pizza Inn. Mr. Elrod explained that the
proposal to drain some of the detention basins (Four Seasons and Berkmar) would
alleviate the problem somewhat, but would not stop the flooding entirely
due to the inadequacy of the pipe under Rt. 29. Mr. Bowerman stated he
was familiar with Mr. Andrews problems and pointed out that they are
caused not only by the stream but also by the flow of water across Dominion
Drive.
Regarding Mr. Cogan's question about possible incentives for developers to
dedicate property for detention basins, Mr. Keeler explained that in
residential districts there is a bonus density of up to 15% for
dedication of land to public use that is not otherwise required by the
ordinance. Mr. Keeler was unsure how to provide incentives for industrial
and commercial property.
It was determined the following items were to be added to the February 21,
1984 meeting:
--Discussion of Annual Report
--A discussion of the adequacy of meeting rooms 5, 6 & 7. The Clerk of
the Board had requested -comments from the Commission and staff.
--A discussion of conditions of approval of site plans and subdivisions
as they relate to the Highway Department.
February 14, 1984 Page 15
ASTEC - Mr. Keeler explained that the current plan showed an increase of
20 parking spaces and a building that was twice the size of the building
in the original plan. Mr. Elrod stated the plan was not much different in
concept than the original plan. Ms. Diehl pointed out that the previous
plan had shown a paved parking lot and travelways and the new plan shows
these areas as,gravel. Air. Elrod explained he felt the change was made
in order to save money because using gravel on the parking area would release
the applicant from having to comply with the StorTugater Detention Ordinance.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Elrod if he was "comfortable with having a gravel parking
lot on an industrial site." Mr. Elrod responded: "As long as it's not
an erosion problem or dust problem." Ms. Diehl stated she was unaware that
site plans for industrial lots could be approved with gravel parking lots.
'though she indicated she was "not comfortable" with the gravel, she stated
she would defer to Mr. Elrod's expertise.
Air. Keeler asked if the Commission wished to see the new plan or if it
could be administratively approved.
Ms. Diehl stated if the applicant would agree to pave the parking area as
previously proposed, she would be willing to go along with administrative
approval.
Air. Keeler confirmed that, ultimately, the use of the site was less intense
under the current plan than the original,.though the initial phase was
more intense.
It was determined if the applicant wished to gravel the parking lot, the
Commission would review the site plan, but if the parking lot was to
be paved, administrative approval would be granted.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 D.M.
04'64
Recorded by: Stuart Richards
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, August_
">-*7L