HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 20 84 PC MinutesMarch 20, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 20, 1984, Meeting Room 5-6, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould;
and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Ms. MaryJoy Scala,
Planner; Mr. Mike Tompkins, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Keith Mabe, Chief
of Community Development; Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer; and Mr.
Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Cogan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
Dogwood Landscaping Site Plan - Located on the north side of Route. 866
(Greenbrier Drive), east of Route 29 North. Proposal to locate a nursery
sales facility with Daly's Rent -All, Inc. facility on about 1.318 acres.
(Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block B, Lot 2, zoned C-1 Commercial, Charlottesville
District). Deferred from February 21, 1984.
Mr. Kurt Hughes, representing the applicant, requested deferral to April 17,
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Skove, that the Dogwood Landscaping Site
Plan be deferred to April 17, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
Carrsbrook Final Plat (Lots 3,4,5,E on proposed Gloucester Court) - Located
on the northern side of Route 1424, Cloucester Road in Carrsbrook Subdivision.
Proposal to divide four lots ranging in size from 40,000 to 66,742 square
feet. (Tax Map 45B(2), Parcel 2-1, zoned R-1 Residential, Charlottesville
District)
The applicant was requesting deferral to April 17, 1984.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Carrsbrook Final Plat
be deferred to April 17. The motion passed unanimously.
Wippoorwill Hollow Lots 70, 83, 84, 85 Final Plat - Located on the northern
side of Thrush Road, west of the intersection of Route 839 in Whippoorwill
Hollow. Proposal to redivide Lots 70, 83, 84, 85 into four new lots with an
average lot size of 2.214 acres. (Tax Map 42, Parcel 75, zoned RA Rural
Rural Areas, Samuel Miller District)
The applicant was requesting deferral to April 17, 1989.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Whippoorwill Hollow
Final Plat be deferred to April 17, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
M10
March 20, 1984
Page 2
1984 - 1990 Albemarle County Secondary Road Six -Year Plan - Recommendation
to the Board d Supervisors.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, initiated the discussion.
The Chairman invited public comment.
fir. Maxfield asked if there was a schedule for the projects. Mr. Roosevelt
explained that the schedule for the projects was based upon a financial
scale.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the 1984-1990 Secondary Road Six -Year Plan be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company Site Plan - Located on the south side of
Route 660, approximately .8 mile southwest of the intersection with Route 743
in Earlysville. Proposal to locate a 9,600 square foot building with 40
parking spaces on 2.23 acres to accommodate a volunteer fire company. (Tax
Map 31, Parcel 21A, zoned LI Light Industrial, Rivanna District).
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Ms. Scala also read a letter of opposition
from Mr. Glen Breeding.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Ray. He stated the applicant
had no objections to staff suggested conditions of approval, though
there was some disagreement with the"highway Department as to what type
of curbing should be constructed. He explained that the Highway Department
was recommending curb and gutter and the applicant preferred plain curb.
There being .no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
yLs. Diehl stated her only concern was with the buffering from the adjacent
residence. After a very brief discussion no additional conditions were
felt necessary.
Mr. Skove moved that the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance
permit;
b. Issuance of a runoff control permit;
c. County Engineer approval of grading plan and drainage plans and
computations;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Final septic permit from Health Department.
March 20, 1984 Page 3
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Isotemp Research Building Site Plan - Located on the northern side of Boardway
Road (Route 1115); proposal to locate a one-story building for production/
processing, containing 6,000 square feet and 25 parking spaces on .57 acre.
(Tax Map 77, Parcel 40D, part, zoned LI Light Industry, Scottsville District.)
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended deferral until a
proposal could be submitted for off -site detention and to allow time for
the plan to be revised to eliminate the on -site pond.
Mr. Bowerman asked ifAad been clear, at the time the property was originally
subdivided, that detention would be required for the entire site. Ms.
Scala stated she had not been aware of this requirement and no comments
had been made at site review. Ms. Scala added that the applicant had
been told that if the property was under 20,000 square feet, no detention
would be required, but that was not correct and7detention basin will be
required to serve both lots, and preferably the residue also.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John ureen. tie stated the reason
the stormwater detention facility only serves this property is because
"he is at the top of the hill and even if he catches all the rainwater
that falls on his property he can't catch enough to compensate for the
other property that's been developed." He asked that the Commission grant
approval of the application and not defer it.
Mr. Lloyd Tignor, also .representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He asked that no parking spaces be deleted; he stressed that there would be
very little traffic to and from the site and the parking spaces were
needed for employees.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Garber addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about how the
runoff would effect his property. (Most of his comments were inaudible.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer.
Mr. Elrod explained that though he had neglected to "warn" the subdividers
that stormwater detention could be required, the Ordinance does require
detention, and the applicant, and particularly his engineers, are aware of the
Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Elrod confirmed that "we have no control over the Garber tract" now
because it is finished. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County had any control
over the residue parcel since this parcel was split off from that
parcel. Mr. Payne responded affirmatively. Mr. Payne added that an issue
which makes this "relatively easy" is the fact that the applicant has
not yet closed on the property, i.e. the subdivider still owns the property.
March 20, 1984
Page 4
Mr. Payne added that he felt this issue would come back to the subdivider,
Dr. Hurt. Mr. Elrod added that Dr. Hurt was aware of the Ordinance requirements
when he sold the property.
Mr. Bowerman stated it was not the Commission's intent to get involved in
private matters. He felt the item should be deferred to allow time for
the issue to be worked out between the participants.
The applicant expressed concern as to how Dr. Hurt could be persuaded to
do something he did not want to do. Mr. Bowerman explained that if Dr.
Hurt wished to sell the property then he would have to meet the requirements.
Mr..Bowerman stated that the Commission felt the present proposal was not the
best solutionfor the subdivision of the property.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Peatress, requested that the Commission
attach whatever conditions might be necessary, but to go ahead and act
or. the request and not defer it.
Mr. Tignor, also representing the applicant, explained that Dr. Hurt had
indicated he understood the situation and would do whatever was necessary
to gain approval, though nothing had been put in writing.
Mr. Michel stated he would like to be able to approve the request and felt
an approval could be worded so that the applicant would be required to
come back to the Commission.
Mr. Payne commented that there were two "real holds" on Dr. Hurt: (1) "If
Mr. Tignor declines.to close on this transaction until Dr. Hurt acts, then
that is a major deterrence to Dr. Hurt's.not acting; and (2) The County should
not approve anything else on the residue of this parent tract until the entire
problem is resolved."
Mr. Payne felt a slight amendment to condition 1(a) would address the Commission's
concern, i.e. "County Engineer approval of stormwater detention design and
computations for Parcels 40D, 40H (Garber's Inc.) and this parcel."
Mr. Elrod :pointed out that Mr. Hurt did not own parcel 40D. Mr. Payne
responded that that was irrelevant, but the condition did not mean that
Mr. Garber had to participate.
Mr. Garber asked if this would prevent him from "putting something else on (his)
land." Mr. Bowerman explained that any proposal would have to comply with
the Ordinance requirements.at the time and be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Garber stated it seemed that he was being told he could not place another
building on his property unless he provided a detention basin. Mr.
Bowerman stated: "I think it means you would be a participant in the entire
plan to the extent that you contributed to the problem." fir. Payne added:
"I think it depends very largely on what the overall solution is.
Mr. Bowerman felt it was desirable to "word this in such a way that it will
deal with the whole parcel." Mr. Payne agreed.
67
March 20, 1984 Page 5
Mr. Payne again stated he felt amending condition 1(a). as previously stated,
would address the Commissions concerns. He added that he saw very little
difference between an approval, with conditions, and a deferral, except in
two regards: (1) A deferral might bolster Mr. Tignor's position; (2) It
could make it easier to deal with the problem of redesigning the parking
lot if this pond were deleted.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission would be "prejudicing the agreement by
granting an approval at this point." Mr. Payne stated: "Not in my
opinion.... It's my understanding that the contract is contingent upon
site plan approval. It's my opinion that a site plan that is approved with
conditions is not fully approved until the conditions are complied with."
Mr. Peatress, counsel for Mr. Tignor, felt the stronger legal argument was
to have the request deferred. He added, however, that he still felt the
applicant had a strong legal argument if the proposal were approved with
conditions.
Ms. Scala asked that it be made clear that if the proposal is approved with
conditions (1) The applicant cannot get a building permit until someone
submits a stormwater detention plan and the County Engineer approves said
plan; and (2) A bond will have.to'be posted for the construction of
the pond before the building permit is issued because so many different
applicants are involved.
Mr. Payne noted that it was not really that complicated so long as Dr. Hurt
is amenable to doing what needs to be done.
The applicant expressed concern as to how long a deferral would take. He
asked if staff could approve the plan administratively once all the criteria
was met. It was determined staff would not be granted administrative
approval. Mr. Peatress asked that the matter be deferred to as early a
date as possible.
There followed a discussion about possible deferral dates.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Isotemp Research Building
Site Plan be deferred to March 27, 1984. The motion passed unanimously.
Ridge Lee Farm final Plat - Located on south side of Route 682 (Broad Ax Road),
about one half mile west of its intersection with Route 787 near Ivy. Proposal
to create 5 parcels ranging in size from 8.1 acres to 50.6 acres on a private
road. Tax Map 57, Parcels 43.B and 47 Ipart), zoned Rural Areas, Samuel Miller
District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
In response to Ms.. Diehl's request, Ms. Scala explained the development rights
on the property. Mr. Payne also made brief comments on this subject.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Stewart Stevens who offered no additional
comment.
ge?
March 20, 1984
Page 6
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel stated the proposal was "straightforward" and moved that the
Ridge Lee Farm 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. County Engineer approval of private road plans:
b. Road bond;
c. County. Attorney approval of maintenance agreement;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private
street commercial entrance permit:
e. Issuance of soil erosion and sedimentation permit;
f. Plat revised to show entrance relocation.
1Ir. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
STREAMLINING:
Mr. Mabe led a discussion concerning work session dates for the work program.
Mr. Bowerman expressed concern that the Commission did not have enough time
to become more involved in planning issues. He felt the Commission was only
reacting.to proposals presented by developers and the Commission was not
controlling policy, but was rather being controlled by the development
community. He suggested that either the Commission would have to meet more
often, or would have to change the way site plans and subdivisions are
reviewed. He suggested the possibility of allowing staff to approve
administratively those site plans and subdivision which have no public
opposition.
Ms. Diehl was not in favor of this approach. Regarding the Commission spending
more time with planning issues, she felt that "we are not planners, that is
not our function."
Several Commissioners (Michel, Bowerman, Skove) indicated they would be in
favor of some type of administrative approval process. Ms. Diehl questioned
the particulars of such a process. Mr. Bowerman stated those would have to
be worked out. tits. Diehl was afraid this could lead to a process that would
be just as involved as the present process.
Ms. Diehl agreed that planning issues were important, but she stated she was
not willing to change the Ordinance at this point.
Mr. Bowerman asked the Commission to give some thought to the problems
which will be discussed again at a later work session.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
qL
',
/:P - Ait*
John Horne, Secretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 4-89
z