HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 24 84 PC MinutesApril 24, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 24, 1984, Meeting Room 5-6, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Gould; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. James Skove; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr.
Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman. Other officials present were:
Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Planner; and Mr. Fred
Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
Isotemp Research Building Site Plan - Located on the northern side of
Broadway Road (Route 1115); proposal to locate a one-story building for
production/processing, containing 6,000 square feet and 25 parking spaces
on .57 acres. (Tax Map 77, Parcel 40D, zoned Light Industry, Scottsville
District. Deferred from March 27, 1984.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Paul Petress. Referring to condition
l(b) [County Engineer approval of drainage plans (method of conducting
drainage from asphalt curb to roadway ditch without erosion)], he asked
Mr. Green if a "ditch running down to the road to take care of the
stormwater" had been proposed in the amended site plan. Mr. Green
responded: "We have designed the ditch but it has not been submitted
for approval." Mr. Petress stated that the conditions of approval were
acceptable to the applicant.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Elrod (County Engineer) confirmed
the drainage calculations listed on the site plan would be accommodated
in the off site detention facility.
Mr. Bowerman stated the proposal appeared to be "straight forward."
Mr. Skove moved that the Isotemp Research Building 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. County Engineer final approval of stormwater detention plans and
computations;
b. County Engineer approval of drainage plans (method of conducting
drainage from asphalt curb to roadway ditch without erosion);
/101
April. 24, 1984
Page 2
c. Written approval of adjacent owners to perform utility and curb
work shown adjacent to property lines;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrance permit;
f. Bond posted for construction of stormwater detention pond.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following con-
dition has been met:
a. Fire Officer approval of fireflow.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Further Discussion:
In response to Mr. Gould's question, Ms.. Scala stated a previous condition
requiring Service Authority final approval of water and sewer connections
had been deleted because it was determined the facility would produce
only domestic waste and no industrial. waste.
Village Square, Phase 2, Final Plat - Located west of Route 631, ±1/4 mile
south of Pen Park Road (Route 768); proposal to create 66 lots with an
average lot size of 2,956 square feet on 8.777 acres. Tax Map 61A-3, Parcel
B, zoned R-4 Residential, Rivanna District. Deferred from March 27, 1984.
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions including the addition of the following: 1(g)--County Attorney
approval of homeowners maintenance agreements, including sidewalks as required
by the Planning Commission; and 2(c)--Recreation area to be constructed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant offered no additional. comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Robert Van de Castle addressed the Commission. Mr. Van de Castle was
an adjacent property owner. He recalled some of the history of the development
and expressed concerns about traffic problems on Rio Road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Davenport attempted to address some of Mr. Van de Castle's questions
about bonuses. She explained that this particular case was somewhat confusing
because the Commission reviewed both the preliminary plat and the final
at the same time. She indicated part of Mr. Van de.Castle's confusion was
caused by a lack of understanding of the the difference between clustering
and density bonuses.
/�
April 24, 1984
Page 3
Mr. Bowerman asked if the density bonuses were consistent with what was
originally approved with the preliminary. Ms. Davenport explained that the
major discrepancy was in the 15% density bonus based on maintaining
existing vegetation which is 'but the window." She confirmed that the
applicant had been able to make up for this loss with other factors.
She explained how the density factors had been applied.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Echols (representing the Highway Department) to
comment on the Highway Department's policy on sidewalk maintenance,
particularly why the policy does not apply in these circumstances. Mr.
Echols explained that though this is a high density area, it is also a
fixed generation, i.e. this is the end of the road system in this
location. It was determined that Phase I sidewalks would be accepted
by the Highway Department because they had been completed before the
policy was adopted. Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission would await,
"with great expectation," a letter frond, the Highway Department on the
sidewalk issue.
Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Skove felt the density was high given the location
on Rio Road. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the bonus factors had resulted
in the density being 2/3 unit/acre above what the Comprehensive Plan
recommended and that most of the bonus was met through the dedication to the
Meadowcreek Parkway.
Mr. Cogan noted that he felt some changes needed to be made to the bonus
factor provisions.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Echols commented on the plans
for the extension of McIntire road.and its effect on this section of
road.
Mr. Bowerman stated he hesitated to keep adding more and more development
to Rio Road which is already grossly overtaxes.
It was determined condition l(g) (as previously stated) addressed the
issue of homeowner association maintenance of sidewalks.
Mr. Skove moved that the Village Square, Phase 2, Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plats for Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans and profiles including entrance to private parking area;
b. County Engineer approval of drainage and stormwater detention
facilities;
c. Issuance of erosion control permit;
d. County Engineer approval of private parking area design;
e. Albemarle Bounty Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans;
f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant location;
April 24, 1984
Page 4
g. County Attorney approval of homeowners maintenance agreements,
including sidewalks as required by the Planning Commission.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until:
a. Fire Officer approval of fireflow;
b. Landscape materials bonded or installed;
c. Recreation area to be constructed prior
of occupancy
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Discussion:
to issuance of a certificate
Mr. Cogan again stated he felt the density was too high for this area given
the traffic problems on Rio Road. He noted that Phase 1 had been a much
lower density..than the current proposal. Ms. Diehl felt the Commission had
been "lulled into a false illusion" with Phase 1.
The motion for approval failed to pass (3:4).with Commissioners Bowerman,
Diehl and Skove voting for the motion and Commissioners Gould, Wilkerson,
Michel and Cogan voting against.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that to deny a subdivision, the Commission
must state specific identifiable reasons and advise the applicant as towhat
can be done to make it approvable. He confirmed the same was true for a
site plan.
It was the Commission's desire that the applicant: (1) Reduce the density
to one retiective of the Comprehensive Plan recommendation; and (2) Clarify
the bonus provisions in relation to the original approval.
Ms. Davenport asked: "Are we going to consider. density bonuses separate on
the Phase II and III developments and not look at the density bonuses as they
were applied to the preliminary plat?" Mr. Bowerman replied that the
whole development should be.considered, i.e. the total gross density.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Ms. Davenport read the criteria used
for the landscape bonus provision.
Mr. Gould moved that the Village Square, Phase 2, Final Plat be denied
based on the need fo.r clarification for density bonuses awarded and because
the density needs to be brought into compliance with the density for Urban
Neighborhood 2 as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl stated she would have trouble supporting the motion and though
she felt the density was too high, it was from a preliminary plat that was
previously approved with a 40% increase in bonuses and the applicant.is
only using 18% of the allotted increase from the preliminary plat.
The motion for denial passed (4:3) with Commissioners Gould, Wilkerson, Michel
and Cogan voting for denial and Commissioners Bowerman, Diehl and Skove voting
against.
has
April 24, 1984 Page 5
The Biltmore Arms Site Plan - Located north side of Route 631 (Rio Road), ease
of Route 29 North; proposal to locate 42 multi -family condominiums for
retired persons and 62 parking spaces on 35.67 acres. Tax Map 61, Parcel
124E, zoned R-15 Residential and C-1 Commercial, Charlottesville District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff was recommending deferral in order
for the following issues to be resolved: "Staff's concern regarding this site
plan is.the entrance from the private road to the site, which provides poor
access for emergency vehicles. The County Engineer is recommending two
entrances at either end of the site. He suggests also the possibility of
vehicular access to the adjacent parcels."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Larry McElwain. He expressed some
concern about staff's position regarding the emergency access. He pointed
out that the access was sufficient for fire trucks and the Fire Official
had expressed no concern. Regarding the requirement for construction of
the sidewalk from Rio Road back to the cul-de-sac, on the undeveloped portion
of the property, he explained that the applicant would be subdividing that
parcel and did not anticipate construction "beyond that particular parcel."
He questioned the wisdom of constructing a sidewalk that future construction
might destroy.
Mr. Green, also a representative of the applicant, addressed the issue of
Putt -Putt and the setback (proposed condition 2b). He stated he had
understood that the structures on the golf course did not require a
setback. He asked Mr. Payne to comment, but Mr. Payne declined until he
had had a chance to discuss the issue with the County Engineer.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked the County Engineer to comment on his recommendation
for two entrances when the Fire Official had stated one was satisfactory.
Mr. Elrod indicated it was his understanding that the Fire Official
had raised questions about the access. Mr. Elrod was concerned about the
intensity of the development and felt there was "too much development and
too many points of conflict." He also expressed concern about the
grade.
Mr. McElwain asked Mr. Elrod how two accesses would address the problems
identified by Mr. Elrod. Mr. Bowerman stated it would not be possible to
resolve these issues "tonight" because there appeared to be some major
points of conflict between the applicant and the County Engineer.
Regarding the sidewalk issue, Ms. Scala confirmed the sidewalks could be
bonded. She added: "I really meant that this developer would be respon-
sible for the road up to the end of this property. I didn't mean that he
would be responsible for the road or the sidewalks to this point." She
also stated that since there would be curb cuts in the future, it might be
preferable to bond the sidewalks. She was uncertain as to which would
be best.
119!4
April 24, 1984 Page 6
There was some discussion about the design standard for the road. It was
determined the ultimate design standard for the road was not known at this
time. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible to bond the sidewalks
and curbs until the ultimate road design is determined. He was concerned
about the possibility of installing sidewalks that might have to be
torn up later. Mr. Michel stated the problem with bonding is that it
might be years before developmentof the entire property is complete.
Mx. Payne pointed out that bonding is for a short time. Mr. Elrod stated
that .this particular site could "stay without curb and gutter," and he
agreed that if .curb and gutter were to be installed now it would certainly
have to be torn out later on when future development occurs. Mr. Michel
asked if a bond could be held for 3 years and then the applicant could
come back for a waiver at a time when the development and uses were known.
He felt this was preferable to telling the developer that he did not
have to install the sidewalks now and then ending up with a situation
(no sidewalks) like already exists in many parts of the County. Mr. Payne
stated Mr. Michel's point was a valid one, because, historically, if .
sidewalks are not required with the first development then they are never
built. There was some discussion as to what the length of the bond should
be. Mr. Payne felt it should not be for longer than one year.
There was a brief discussion about the recreation facilities. Ms. Scala
explained that most of it was outside but there was a 300 square foot
inside area planned also.
MLs. Diehl asked the County Engineer to comment on the stormwater detention
plans. Mr. Elrod responded that though he had not completed reviewing
the plans, it was apparent that the plan could meet the requirements of the
Ordinance.
Mr. Michel stated the only way he could vote in favor the application at
this time would be with all.the conditions of approval suggested by staff.
Mr. Bowerman noted that a lot of items.were still "up in the air" andit
would be to the applicant's benefit to work diligently with the County
to.try to resolve all the issues, and any issue which could not be resolved
would have to come back to the Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Ms. Scala confirmed she felt the
concerns of the Commission would be addressed with the suggested conditions
of approval.
Mr. McElwain asked for a clarification of Condition l(c) [Sidewalk to be
included on one side of proposed State and private road plans from Rt. 631
to end of private road cul-de-sac]. Ms. Scala explained: '%7-hen the plans
are submitted for the State road plans and the private road plans a side-
walk should be shown on one side all the way to the end, but what you
are responsible for constructing is up to this point."
Aar
April 24, 1984
Page 7
Mr. Michel moved that the Biltmore Arms 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. Improvements on Rt. 631 and design standards of the proposed State
road to be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation requirements and recommendations including curb and
gutter and storm sewer;
b. County. Engineer approval of private road plans from end of proposed
State road to end of cul-de-sac, including curb and gutter;
C. Sidewalk to be included on one side of proposed State and private
road plans from Rt. 631 to end of private road cul-de-sac;
d. Entrance(s) to Biltmore Arms from private road to be designed
to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards, and
location(s) to be approved by Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation and County Engineer;
e. County Engineer approval of access to adjacent properties, if
needed;
f. County Engineer approval of drainage and stormwater detention
plans and computations, including design of channel between 36"
pipe and detention basin;
g. Issuance of erosion control permit;
h. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private road
and stormwater detention facilities;
i. Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans;
j. The following improvements shall be bonded for construction:
o Proposed state road and improvements on Rt. 631;
o Proposed private road from end of proposed State road to end of
subject property to design required by this development,
for future acceptance by Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation;
o Stormwater detention facilities.
k. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of three
proposed curb cuts on proposed State road for Putt -Putt facility.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Fire. Officer approval of hydrant locations and fireflow:
b. Putt -Putt golf course to be removed from area within 30' setback
from proposed State road.
3. As future development occurs, future developers shall extend the private
road, and construct it for future acceptance by Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
fa�
April 24, 1984 Page 8
Airport Center Final Plat - Located on the north side of Route 649, 1./4 mile
east of.Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport; proposal to create 7 light industrial
lots on 9.80 acres served by a private road. (Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E,
zoned Light Industry, Rivanna District).
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
.ir. Skove moved that the Airport Center Final Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The plat may be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrance including turn lane.
b. County Engineer approval of road plans and profiles.
C. Issuance of erosion control permit.
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mountainwood Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center Site Plan - Located east side
of Route 780 (Old Lynchburg Road), just south of I-64; proposal to locate a
new 17,800 square foot building (10,370 square foot building is existing) on
6.26 acres. (Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F, zoned Commercial Office, Scottsville
District).
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report.
The applicant offered no significant additional comment except to answer Mr.
Bowerman's question about architectural style.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Gaston Fornes, owner of property across the street, addressed the Commission
.and expressed a concern about security. He stressed .he felt there was a
real need for in-house security measures.
There being no furtherpublic cowaent, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the question about security, Dr. Collins (the applicant's representa-
tive) stressed there bad never been any problems with security in the existing
building. He did not anticipate that this would change.
M.r. Michel moved that the Mountainwood.Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center Site
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
April 24, 1984
Page 9
a. County Engineer approval of drainage and stormwater detention plans
and computations;
b. Issuance of erosion control permit;
C. County Engineer approval of retaining wall;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for relocation of
water line and fire hydrant;
e. Fire Officer approval of hydrant and dumpster locations and
handicap provisions;
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of turn
lane (if required by the Planning Commission).
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Officer approval of fireflow;
b. Staff approval of landscape plan; bonding or installation of all
plant materials.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Discussion:
In relation to condition l(f), Mr. Bowerman asked: "Should it be a left
turn out of the city or a right turn and taper coming in, or both?"
There was some discussion about this but a definitive conclusion was not
reached. It was determined this would be decided by the Highway Department.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Team Tires Site Plan - Located on the south side of Route 649 (Airport
Road), ±1/2 mile west of Route 29 North and 1/2 mile east of Charlottesville -
Albemarle Airport; proposal to locate a 5,000 square foot tire sales and service
facility on 2.23 acres. (Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D, part of, zoned Highway
Commercial, Rivanna District).
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by, Mr. Robert Hull. (Note: The remainder of
this tape was damaged; Mr. Hull's comments were not audible.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. ,loan Graves asked if Highway Department approval had been received.
Ms. Davenport responded affirmatively.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
/--320-17
April 24, 1984
Page 10
(tiiote: The remainder of this tape, related to this item only, was damaged.
The remainder of the transcription for this item is taken entirely from
shorthand notes.)
Cogan moved that the Team Tires 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 commercial
entrance and frontage improvements.
b. County Engineer approval of drainage and stormwater detention
plans and computations.
c. Issuance of erosion control permit.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until:
a. Fire Official approval of fireflow.
b. Landscape materials installed or bonded.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Woodlane Apartments Site Plan - Located on the east side of Route 743 (Hydraulic
Road), ±1/4 mile north of Albemarle High School; proposal to locate a 17,078 square
foot three-story apartment building with fourteen two -bedroom units and 28
parking spaces on 1.429 acres. (Tax Map 61, Parcel 23, zoned R-10 Residential,
Charlottesville Magisterial District)
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He offered no additional
comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission. She felt strongly that the fencing
around the cesetary should be installed and not bonded as referred to in
condition 2(c).
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
There was a brief discussion between Mr. :Michel and Mr. Payne concerning
the right -of -Sway and the cemetary easement.
It was determined condition 2(c) would be amended to read:
o Landscape materials and fencing installed.
April 24, 1984
Page 11
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Elrod how he would a=Jve at the contribution to the
detention basin. Mr. Elrod explained that it would be based on the
amount of runoff from this site compared to the cost of the basin.
Mr. Michel moved that the Woodlane Apartment Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
I. A building permit will not be issued until:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrance and frontage improvements;
b. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations;
c. Issuance of erosion control permit;
d. Fire Officer approval of fire access to the building, hydrant and
dumpster locations and handicap provisions;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer easement and
water plans;
f. Staff approval of landscape plan including fencing.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until:
a. Fire Officer approval of fireflow;
b. County Engineer approval of contribution to off -site stormwater
detention facilities;
c. Landscape materials and fencing installed.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
State Farm Boulevard - Panto s Final Plat - Located on the south side of
State Farm Boulevard, 1/2 mile south of Route 250 East; proposal to create
a 1.19 acre lot leaving 4.148 acres in residue. (Tax Map
78, Parcel 71, zoned Commercial Office, Rivanna District).
The applicant had requested deferral to May 22, 1984.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that State Farm Boulevard/Pantops
Final Plat be deferred to May 22, 1984.
Discussion of Planning Commission B Laws - Mr. Payne led the discussion.
There was considerable discussion about the method used for voting, i.e.
should there be an individual role call vote on each action, or is a
simultaneous voice vote acceptable. Mr. Skove felt strongly that there
should be a role call vote.
There was a brief discussion about Section IV (c), dealing with reconsideration
of an item and about applicants requests for deferral.
The following changes were suggested by the Commission:
/S,P-
April 24, 1984
Page 12
Section III (a): It was determined meetings would be held the first four
Tuesdays of each month.
Section.IV (c): It was determined the last sentence,dealing with recon-
sideration of an item, would be removed.
Section IV (e): It was determined "Regular items or public hearings"
would be inserted.
It was decided the Bylaws would be re --typed with the suggested changes before
the Commission took final action.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
7,
John Horne, Secretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: beloris Sessoms; 2-89