HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 17 84 PC MinutesApril 17, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 17,.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. Richard Cogan; and Mr. Richard
Gould. Other officials present were: Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County
Attorney; Ms. Pat Cooke, Ex-Officio; and Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Planner.
Absent: Commissioners Michel and Skove.
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 Rt. 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 March 20, 1984.
The applicant had requested withdrawal.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan that the applicant's request for with-
drawal be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
Carrsbrook Final Plat (Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 on proposed Gloucester Court_) - Located
on northern side of Route 1424, Gloucester 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). Deferred from March 20, 1984
The applicant was requesting deferral to May 22, 1984.
Mr. Cogan moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Carrsbrook Final Plat
be deferred to May 22, 1984. The motion passed unanimously.
Whippoorwill Hollow Lots 70-83-84-85 Final Plat - Located on northern side of
Thrush Road, west of its intersection with Rt. 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 Rural Areas, Samuel
Miller District. Deferred from March 29, 1984.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl, that Whippoorwill Hollow Lots
70, 83, 84. 85 Final Plat be indefinitely deferred.
April 17, 1984 Page 2
Ms. Diehl seconded the .notion which passed unanimously.
Paul Grady Preliminary Plat - Located south side of Route 250 West, about 2
miles east of Ivy. Proposal to add 1.02 acres to adjacent parcel, leaving
4.0 acres residue. (Tax Map 59, Parcel 15, zoned Rural Areas, Samuel :filler
District).
The applicant was requesting deferral to May 15, 1984.
Mr. Gould moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Paul Grady Preliminary
Plat be deferred to May 15, 1984.
The motion passed unanimously.
Free Will Baptist Church Site Plan - Located on east side of St. Rt. 742
(Avon Street Extended), ±1 mile north of its intersection with St. Rt. 20S.
Proposal to construct a 6,400 square foot church building on 3.929 acres
with sixty-seven (67) parking spaces. (Tax Map 90, Parcel 35B, zoned
R-1 Residential,.Scottsville District).
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Blane Wade. He made brief comments
about grading plans. He explained that connection to off -site utilities
would create a tremendous financial burden to the church.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Scala clarified that it was not staff's intent to require connection to
public sewer and water because staff felt they were not "reasonably
available."
There was a brief discussion concerning paving costs and the requirement
for curb and gutter. There was also discussion about the plans for the
parking area, including comments on the angle of the parking spaces, the
steepness of the area, etc.
The staff report explained that the applicant was objecting to paving the
parking lot and to providing stormwater detention and frontage improvements.
The County Engineer was recommending pavement instead of gravel due to the
grade of the parking lot. However, the County Engineer also felt that it
might be possible to grade the site so that the lot would be more level,
in which case gravel would be permitted. (The staff report noted that the
grade of the parking lot was as great as 11% in some places.)
Mr. Bowerman asked the County Engineer if a compromise might be possible,
i.e. grading to 6 to 7% slopes and allowing gravel? Mr. Elrod indicated
it was difficult to answer that question without an actual plan to consider.
114
April 17, 1984
Page 3
Ms. Diehl noted that it was difficult to determine which alternative was
preferable. She stated she had no opinion.
Mr. Cogan felt a lot of grading would be detrimental because: (1) It would
result in a steeper grade coming off Rt. 20; and (2) A lot of property would
be lost on both sides. He felt it was a difficult site to work with and not
really conducive to the plan. He stated it appeared to be a trade-off
between the costs of grading vs. paving, as is, and constructing a detention
pond. He was in favor of paving and installing a detention pond. He noted
the difficulties of maintaining a gravel lot during winter months.
Regarding the issue of paving the parking lot, Ms. Diehl stated she would
be satisfied with whatever the County Engineer determined was best for the
site. She noted that she did feel full frontage improvements should be
required.
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with Mr. Cogan's analysis and would therefore favor
paving. He too was in favor of full frontage improvements.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway
Department, explained the criteria on which the Highway Department based
its recommendations for a commercial entrance and a curb and gutter. He noted
that this was not a cut and dry situation in this case but the recommendations
were based on the fact that this would be an urban roadway at sometime in
the future.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Elrod attempted to clarify his
position on the parking lot issue. He stated that in terms of stormwater
detention, he would prefer gravel if soil erosion and dust could be taken
care of. However, because of the steepness of the lot, he felt it was
preferable that the lot be paved and stormwater detention be provided.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Free Will Baptist Church 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. Parking and driveway areas to be paved with bituminous surface
treatment or bituminous concrete;
b. County Engineer approval of storm sewer and stormwater detention plans
and computations;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance including frontage improvements with full width
turn lane and curb and gutter;
e. Staff approval of landscape plan.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
April 17, 1984
Page 4
Miran Forest Section 3 Preliminary Plat - Located south side of Rt. 692
near Batesville. Request for extension of preliminary plat time limit and
reconsideration of condition of approval. (Tax Map 86, Parcel 40, zoned
Rural Areas, Samuel Miller District).
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The report pointed out that the applicant
was requesting a.waiver of the private road requirement of prime and double
seal surface treatment. The report concluded: "If the Planning Commission
chooses to approve the waiver, then staff recommends approval of the
preliminary plat, including administrative approval of the final plat...."
The report also stated that the applicant was requesting: (1) An extension
of six months to meet the conditions for final approval; and (2) Approval of
the substitution of the following statement regarding lot 24--"Only one
residence is to be permitted on lot 24." Staff recommended approval of both
these requests.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Barbara Albert. Regarding the request
for lot 24, she felt this was reasonable. She pointed out that every
lot in the subdivision is bound by this statement, though it is not stated
in the deed. Shenoted that the original statement [No building permits for
new residences will be permitted without further Planning Commission approval.]
caused a problem for lot 24 because an old residence exists which the owner
wants to replace with a new one. She felt -the request was harmless.
Regarding the request for an extension, she explained that it was necessary
because a delay in receiving information from the County Attorney as to
what will be required in terms of the homeowner's document.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan was concerned about the substitution requested because "then
we have no wording for the remaining four lots." Ms. Scala stated that
was not her intention. Mr. Cogan suggested leaving the original condition
as stated and adding the words "...except that one residence is to be permitted
on lot 24." Ms. Scala explained: "The way the plat was drawn it would show.
a separate lot on each page and so -it worked out fine with the same note
on each page so" it would just on the page for lot 24 that the note would be
different, and it would apply specifically to lot 24. On the other pages
it would (keep the original language.)."
Ms. Diehl moved that the following requests be approved for the Miran Forest
Section 3 Preliminary Plat:
1. An extension of six months to meet the conditions of final approval; and
2. Approval of the substitution of the following statement regarding Lot 24:
"Only one residence is to be permitted on Lot 24."
tilr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
//9
April 17, 1984
Page 5
Burger King .Site Plan - Located on west side of xiverbend Drive and north of
Pantops Center Drive, south of Route 250 East in the Riverbend Shopping Center.
Proposal to locate a 2,693 square foot fast food restaurant with forty-three
(43) parking spaces on a .834 acre parcel. (Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D, zoned
PDSC Planned Development Shopping Center, Rivanna District).
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner (Riverbend Partnership). He
explained that the property would be leased to Burger King by Riverbend
Partnership. He questioned the need for a condition requiring Fire Officer
approval since the staff has already determined the fireflow (2,000 GPM)
exceeds the requirement (1,200 GPM). He noted that the County Attorney had
already approved the maintenance document. Therefore, he suggested that the
condition be changed to the effect that the applicant agrees that the
maintenance document applies to this road. Mr. Wagner discussed the issue
of access and traffic movement. He stressed that the traffic pattern
proposed (involving a U-turn) was common both locally and statewide.
He felt it was unreasonable "to suddenly say 'You can't do that."'
He felt the requirement to close an entrance proposed a hardship on Burger
King. He explained that the travelway configuration proposed had taken into
consideration future development of surrounding properties. He pointed
out that the Highway Department's comments were "recommendations" not
"requirements."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt felt that condition 1(a)--Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval of commercial entrance permit. --should be
revised. He stated: "You want the Department to review and approve the
entrance. I have no problem with that but since this road is not in the
system there isn't any way that we can issue a permit for the entrance and
I doubt that the road will be in the system before they're ready to
build their entrance."
Mr. Payne interpreted that Mr. Roosevelt was saying he "would do it in
substance but he couldn't issue a permit because he doesn't have the juris-
diction."
Mr. Wagner pointed out that the number of internal intersections in the
shopping center had been reduced considerably (from 7 to 2).
Mr. Dan Roosevelt commented on some of the traffic patterns and problems
and possible means of alleviating problems. He felt that designing this
entrance as an "in" only would solve several problems: (1) Traffic backing
into roadway; (2) Commission's concern about free flow; and (3) Concern
about traffic crossing two lanes to get into a left turn lane.
Mr. Wagner felt this would be a "positive step" and felt the applicant would
"go along."
?,o
April 17, 1984 :Page 6
There was some discussion as to how this would be marked so as to achieve the
desired traffic pattern.
Mr. Bowerman asked M.r. Wagner if hewould prefer that the item be deferred
to allow time for the entrance issue to be resolved.
Mr. Wagner stated he would prefer that the Commission act on the application
with a condition that the entrance issue could be worked out to the
satisfaction of staff and the Highway Department.
Ms. Scala confirmed if there were any problems staff would bring the matter
back to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated it appeared a solution could be reached by blocking
off the exit and providing circulation directions to the drive-thru traffic.
He felt the "spirit of what we've.discussed here tonight could be
accomplished."
It was determined condition 1(a) would be amended to read as follows:
• Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review of, and staff
approval of, a commercial entrance.
It was also determined condition.1(f) could be deleted (i.e. Parking bay
entrance adjacent to Riverbend Drive to be closed).
Mr. Cogan moved that the Burger King 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 and Transportation review of, and
staff approval of, a commercial entrance;
b. County Attorney approval of access/maintenance agreement for travel -
way;
c. Service Authority approval of drop inlet location;
d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
f. Staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a. Eire Officer approval of f ireflow.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Pantops - Riverbend Offices - Final Plat - Located east side of Riverbend
Drive and on north side of South Pantops Drive, adjacent to Riverbend
Shopping Center. Proposal to create 3 lots (average lot size 1.195 acres).
leaving no residue acreage. (Tax ?Tap 78, Parcels 17F and 17F1, zoned PDSC
Planned Development Shopping Center, Rivanna District. )
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
I
April 17, 1984
Page 7
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards who offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved that the Pantops - Riverbend Offices 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. Maintenance and access agreements to be approved by County Attorney;
b. Indicate ends of dedication on Riverbend and South Pantops Drive;
c. Change note to read: "iron pins to be set at all corners prior to
issuance of certificates of occupancy."
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Rugby Farms Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Located west of Rt. 648, t 131 miles
southeast of Rt. 22, east of Keswick. Proposal to divide 279.8 acres into
10 parcels (minimum lot size of 21.00 acres) served by private road, leaving
220.09 acres in residue. (Tax Map 80, Parcel 75C; Tax Map 81, Parcels 11A,
12A and 15; zoned Rural Areas, Rivanna District).
The applicant was requesting withdrawal.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the applicants request
for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously.
Jerome Corporation Motel Site Plan - Request to have site plan reviewed
simultaneously with special use permit (SP-84--20). (Tax Map bl, Parcel
119, zoned C-1 Commercial, Charlottesville District.)
There being no apparent opposition to the request, it was determined
to be the consensus of the Commission that the site plan for Jerome
Corporation Motel could be reviewed simultaneously with special permit
84-20.
Discussion of Revised By --Laws - Mr. Payne led the discussion and explained
the proposed amendments. No action was required of the Commission at this
time.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 2/89
2 .::
John Horne, Secretary
��