Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 22 84 PC MinutesMay 22, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 22, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer. Absent: Commissioners Skove and Diehl. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. ZMA-84-8 Hillcrest (Hurt Investment Company) - Request to rezone 176.07 acres from R-1 Residential to PUD, Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, Scottsville District. Located east of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) and west of Rt. 20 South. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and.pointed out that the main discussion would center on transportation issues. He noted that the road issue would arise whether or not the property were rezoned. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Roy Parks. He stated the.developer felt Alternative 3 was the only viable one, i.e, a subdivision road designed for subdivision traffic only. He stated the dispute about the pavement design was not really a dispute but rather a question of how many vehicles would be using the road per day. He made further comments about various aspects of the road. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, repimealig the Highway Department, addressed the Commission. He stated that the only issue raised by his department was if the Comprehensive Plan is going to be followed, then the road should be designed for what it is going to carry, i.e. through traffic from Rt. 20 to Fifth Street. He felt the only issue presently was whether or not to amend the Comprehensive Plan. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman summarized that an impasse had been reached on the road issue because the Highway Department is looking for certain design standards because the road is in the Comprehensive Plan, and those standards may or may not be possible on this site because of slope considerations, and the applicant "wants to do something else." Mr. Gould asked if any of the alternatives explained in the staff report could create long-term problems. Mr. Keeler responded and discussed the impact of industrial traffic on the different alternatives. Referring to the following statement in the staff report, Mr. Wilkerson asked if any of the three alternatives discussed would serve the same purpose: /7�0 May 22, 1984 Page 2 "As currently proposed, the Route 20 South -Route 74L-Kout.e b31 link.road in the Comprehensive Plan would serve three functions: (1) To provide for east -west traffic movement in Neighborhood Four; (2) To maintain the functional integrity of I-64 as an interstate by providing an alternate east -west route for local traffic; and (3) To provide a more direct access to I-64 for industrial uses on Route 742 than current routes through City streets." Mr. Keeler indicated the proposals needed to analyzed more completely before raking that determination. Mr. Michel asked)ie had understood that the applicant would not object to a cul-de-sac, with no.thru road. Mr. Parks responded affirmatively. He added that the applicant would be happy to leave a pedestrian right -of --way, 50 feet wide, "in case somebody changed their mind." Mr. Bowerman felt it should be determined if the road proposed in the Comprehensive Plan was feasible in that location. He added that he would "be hesitant to require a road for this development that would achieve that if at the other end of that road it can't be had." He questioned whether the issue had been analyzed to allow,that judgment to be made. Mr. Cogan stated it needed to be determined how well the three alternatives suggested accomplish the three desired functions (as stated above). He felt more information was necessary. Mr. Keeler asked if the Commission could "prioritize" the three functions, i.e. determine which is the most important.. Mr. Michel stated he did not feel the Rt. 20/631 link was as important as the Rt. 631/742 line. He also felt it would be helpful to more clearly define "Neighborhood Four." It was finally decided this issue would be discussed again at the June 12 work. session. No action was taken. Mr. Roosevelt commented that he felt the top priority should be to provide direct access to I64 from the industrial uses along Rt. 742. He added that he felt the interstate system would provide for east -west traffic movement in Neighborhood Four. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that to provide industrial access as described by Mr. Roosevelt would result in industrial traffic travelling through residential neighborhoods. Biltmore Arms Amended Site Plan and Request to amend Previous Conditions of Approval - Located north side of Route 631 (Rio Road), east of Rt. 2.9N. Proposal to locate 48 multi- amily condominiu::is for retired persons and 62 parking spaces on 35.67 acres. Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E, Charlottesville District, zoned R-15 Residential and C-1 Commercial. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The report explained that the applicant was requesting two major changes in the site plan: (1) a temporary emergency access road to serve the site from the adjacent property and (2) a rural section on the private road rather than an urban section with curb and gutter. Staff recommended approval of the amended site plan subject to conditions. 177 May 22, 1984 Page 3 In response to Mr. Michels question, Ms. Scala explained road requirements further. She stated that the part of the private road which the applicant would be required to build would be "just to the end of his property." Mr. Payne added that if phased construction was going to be allowed, then the road must be a private one. He stated further that the standards to which it must be built would be the same, because of the number of units, for either a private or a state road. Mr. Michel felt it was desirable to clarify the issue of how much more development should be allowed on this private road before it must be brought up to state standards. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ray Gaines. He stated that the only issue with the road was one of cost. He also stated that the applicant "took issue" with new condition 1(m) which required 1/2" bituminous concrete for the parking area. He asked that "surface treatment" be allowed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, commented on the issue of concrete vs. surface treatment but his comments were unaudible. Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problems with the proposal. He asked if the Commission wished to "tie down when the road would become a state road." He asked Ms. Scala to comment. Ms. Scala suggested certain language which was amended by Mr. Payne. It was finally decided the following would be added at the cond of condition (3): 0 Commission reserves the right to require inclusion of the road for its full .length in the secondary highway system in any future phase of development. Mr. Michel moved that the Biltmore Arms Amended Site Plan and request to amend previous conditions of approval 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. Rural section is permitted based on off-street parking and a limit of six (6) entrances as shown on the site plan; 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 to Biltmore Arms for private road to be designed to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation; e. County Engineer approval of temporary emergency access road on adjacent property to be replaced with permanent connection to the adjacent site when that property develops; 1?1 May 22 ,. 1984 Page 4 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. Delete (water and sewer plans have been approved); j. The following improvements shall be bonded for construction: --Proposed State road and improvements on Rt. 631 --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 --Stormwater detention facilities; k. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of two proposed curb cuts on proposed State road for putt -putt facility; 1. Recordation of access easement for temporary emergency access road and sidewalks; m. Parking areas to be paved with 1Y" bituminous concrete. 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. Delete; c. Staff.approval of condominium documents. 3. As future development occurs, future developers shall extend the private road, and construct it for future acceptance by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The Planning Commission reserves the right to require the inclusion of the road for its full length into the State secondary highway system at any future phase of development. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Pantops (Riverbend Drive) Final Plat.- Located in southeast corner of U.S. Rt. 250E.and State Rt. 20NN at Riverbend Drive. Proposal to delete restriction: "Access will be limited to Riverbend Drive." Tax Map 78, Parcel 17F2, zoned Highway Commercial Rivanna District. GIs. Scala gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by �1r. Herbert Beskins. He explained the appli- cant's request, including the present situation and the implications of staff's suggestion. He stressed that this is the "'only individually owned lot that does not have access to traffic in both directions." He felt that "taking off the restriction and leavingit to the site plan process is the most intelligent way to deal with the problem." He felt it made more sense to allow left turn movements that are already taking place than to create a totally new problem at the intersection of Riverbend and State Farm Blvd. l! f May 22, 1984 Page 5 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Don Wagner, representing Riverbend Limited Partnership, addressed the Commission. He stated his property was in a similar situation but that he had not asked for access because he had been led to believe it would be useless to do so. He had originally thought the "ring road" would allow for reasonable access to the property. He stated he supported this applicant's (Jefferson Savings and Loan) efforts to create access to this property. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dan. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, confirmed that a fast food use was probably the highest use possible for this size parcel in relation to traffic generation. He explained that the Highway Department's position on this parcel has been directed at transportation while the owner's interest is in making the property more attractive to a developer. He stated the Highway Department has been attempting to work with the owner and realizes, "however reluctantly," that if the property is zoned commercial, "you've got to give them a little better access than a U-turn." He confirmed that this was more acceptable than a cut through the median on Riverbend Drive. He also confirmed that he felt access problems for this property were "unique to those between here and the city limits line." Commissioners Gould and Wilkerson indicated they favored "no egress." Mr. Bowerman stated it "seemed a reasonable use of the property to allow ingress and then use Pantops to get out." There followed a brief discussion related to possible traffic patterns. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the site was unique because of the median. He added: "I think that allowing ingress to the site on eastbound traffic on Rt. 250 is reasonable, as long as it's not a fast food use." Mr. Cogan agreed. Mr. Bowerman added that "I think what we'd lose by allowing a left turn lane off 250 would be too great." Mr. Keeler again explained staff's position. He stated that staff could support a right -turn "in" because that would improve access to the property, but a right -turn "out" would not improve access. He continued that staff felt maintaining Riverbend as the right -turn out from the property was safer because it takes the vehicle to a controlled intersection and eliminates one more point of conflict on Rt. 250. Mr. Bowerman refreshed the Commission's memory and stated that the request was to delete the restriction which limited access to Riverbend Drive. He stated there seemed to be a consensus to remove at least part of that restriction. Mr. Cogan moved that the Riverbend Drive Final Plat restriction on access be changed to read: Access to be limited to Riverbend Drive except that right turn ingress will be permitted at the easternmost end along Rt. 250. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously. /1d May 22, 1984 Page 6 :pis. Scala introduced a newly hired planner, tics. Amelia McCulley. Village Offices - Phase I and II Amended Site Plan - Located on the east side of Berkmar Drive, mile south of its intersection with State Rt. 631 (Rio.Road). Proposal to revise Phases I and II of Village Offices Site Plan to remove the stormwater detention pond and twelve (12) parking spaces and to include one additional building of 5,400 square feet and twenty-two (22) parking spaces. Tax Map 61U-2-5 and 61U-3-1, zoned Highway Commercial, Charlottesville District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The report noted that "The conditions of approval outlined herein are to supersede the conditions not yet met for Village Offices Phase II. It was determined the applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Bowerman suggested that deferral was in order, though public comment would be taken. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Joan Graves addressed. the Commission and made comments about the detention basin. Most of her comments were inaudible. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There followed a brief discussion about the status of the detention plans for this area. :sir. Elrod, the County Engineer, stated he hoped the project would begin "next year." It was determined the item would be deferred. Mr. Wilkerson moved that Village Offices - Phase I and II Amended Site Plan be deferred to June 26, 1984. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Albemarle Baptist _association - Request to fill property prior to site plan approval, Tax Map 61, Parcel 6. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. (No written report was used..) He explained that the applicant has the opportunity to get fill dirt from a highway project but the site plan is not scheduled for review until June. He.presented a copy of the site plan which had been submitted and was currently going through the site plan process. He stated staff had no problems with the request but he wanted to make the applicant aware of some issues: (1) Two drainfield locations will be required and the Health Department will not permit drain - fields in fill, though they can be located beneath the fill; (2) Entire developed area of the site will be filled to raise to the level of Hydraulic Road and to provide bi-level access. This will result in a steep slope at the rear adjacent to parking area which may require a retaining wall. Mr. Keeler noted that the County Engineer has recommended that the applicant "stockpile" the dirt until grading and drainage plans have been approved. / f/ May 22, 1984 Page 7 It was decided the Commission had no objection to the fill being stockpiled. Mr. Keeler confirmed the applicant needed approval from the Commission to allow for the stockpiling.' Mr. Elrod pointed out that they needed approval to clear the trees to create an area for the stockpiling. Mr. Cogan moved that the Albemarle Baptist Association's request to fill prior to site plan approval be allowed as follows: "stockpiling of fill dirt to be permitted with a minimal removal of of trees, said removal of trees to be at the discretion of the County Engineer." Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Bowerman confirmed that the motion included the requirement for Watershed Management Official review. There followed a discussion of the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors held May 16, 1984. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m. Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 12-88