Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 19 84 PC MinutesJune 19, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 19, 1988, Meeting Room 7; County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. James Skove; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Bowerman and Ms. Pat Cooke, Ex-Officio. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. James R. Hahn Site Plan Phase 1 - Located south side of Route 649 (Airport Road), west of Route 29 North. Proposal to locate a commercial/office building containing 2,196 square feet and 31 parking spaces on 1.6 acres. Tax Map 32, Parcel 489 zoned Commercial Office, Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from May 29, 1984. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The applicant was represented by Ms. Lisa Sessoms. Ms. Sessoms offered little additional comment except to confirm that the applicant was aware of restrictions on future development of the site. There being no public comment, the matter was placed -before the Commission. There was. a brief discussion about screening from the residential area to the rear. Ms. Scala explained the detention pond would have a board fence on the Deerwood side with a four -foot high chain link fence around the remainder of the pond. She stated that hemlock trees would screen the parking lot. Mr. Michel stated the site plan was in order and moved that the James R. Hahn Site Plan Phase 1 be approved subject to the following: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance permit; c. Area for turn lane to be dedicated to satisfaction of Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation across Hahn property and adjacent properties; d. County Engineer approval of retaining wall. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: '�' a. Fire Officer approval of fire flow. June 19, 1984 Page 2 3. Applicant is put on notice that: a. This site is located in an airport noise impact area; b. Future development will require public sewer. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Bailey Realty Office Site Plan - Located on the northeast side of St. Rt. 631 (East Rio Road), 800 feet northwest of St. Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road). Proposal to locate offices for Bailey Realty in existing 2,072 square foot building, to be served by twenty-one (21) parking spaces. TM 61, parcel 128. Zoned R-10, Residential with special use permit pending. Charlottesville Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting deferral to July 10, 1984. Mr. Gould moved that the Bailey Realty Office Site Plan be deferred to July 10, 1984. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.which passed unanimously. Revelle Preliminary Plat - Located southeast of the intersection of Rt. 791 and Rt. 688, bounded on the south by the Mechums River. Proposal to divide two parcels into 11 lots ranging in size from 5.8 acres to 36.5 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Tax Map 72, parcels 27 and 28. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Rip Thorson. He explained that originally it was understood that assigning division rights to Lot 21 would allow a subdivision of that parcel, but "that was a misunderstanding on their part."' (He later confirmed that it was now understood why a division right would be of no value on Lot 21.) He asked that the division right be re -assigned to parcel 6. He stated there had been a mistake on the building site on Lot 6, i.e. it should not have been under the power lines, but rather to the west, out of the power lines. in response to Mr. Gould's request, fir. Cogan.explained the applicant's request for a waiver from Section 18-36(f) and (h), i.e. to allow lot 4 to have a separate access to the State road. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding condition No. 1, it was decided the word entrance should be plural since.the condition referred to a joint entrance for lots 9.and 10 and a joint entrance for lots 7 and 8- Ms. Davenport briefly explained the division rights issue to Ms. Diehl. /9AI June 19, 1984 Page 3 Regarding the applicant's request for administrative approval of the final plat, Ms. Diehl stated she wanted it understood that this meant any final plat that was substantially the same as the one presently before the Commission. (This was the consensus of the Commission.) It was also determined that if the division right was assigned to any lot other than lot 6, the Commission wished to review the proposal again. Ms. Davenport pointed out that it had not yet been determined if there was an acceptable building site on lot 6. Mr. Payne stated this was not important at this time because "if they reserve a development right for something and then it doesn't meet subdivision ordinance requirements, you just can't subdivide it." He pointed out that the Commission, in assigning a development right, was not approving.a subdivision. Ms. Diehl moved that the Revelle Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following, including the approval of a waiver of Section 18-36(f) and (h) to allow lot 4 to have a separate access to the State Road: 1. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrances, in conformance to preliminary plat general locations; 2. County Engineer approval of runoff control and erosion control permit, .if deemed necessary; 3. County Engineer approval of private road plans (for lots 1, 2, and 3); 4. County Attorney approval of homeowners documents, including river access and bridle path easements; 5. Note the following technical information: a. 100-year floodplain contour (approximately 550'); b. Width of utility easement; C. Signature panels; d. "Only one dwelling unit per lot;" e. "No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval." Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Floor Fashions of Virginia Site Plan - Located east of the northbound lane of Rt. 29, adjacent to Carrsbrook Subdivision., about 1/2 mile south of the South Fork Rivanna River. Proposal to locate a 24,000 square foot carpet sales building with office, warehouse, storage and showroom on 1.267 acres, served by a service road. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. TM 45B1, parcel.5-A10. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr'. Carl Lando. He explained the reasoning behind the positioning of the building and also commented on the proposed access. He suggested that an escrow account be established for the develop- ment of the service road, instead of the burden being placed on the first developer. June 19, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Mark Osborne, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He asked if staff was "not requiring the third lane and the relocation of the hydrant?" Ms. Davenport replied that staff could not require either of those things. 'Mr. Keeler confirmed that the third lane could not be required, but stated that this was the first time the issue of hydrant relocation had come up. Mr. Osborne stated the site was.."within the 400 foot hose pole length" and though relocating the hydrant might be more convenient, it was not absolutely necessary. Regarding the issue of adequate fire flow, Ms. Davenport stated that "if they sprinkle 'the building they may be able to get by with existing flow (2,000 gpm)." Mr. Osborne stated that if the fire flow is adequate, the applicant would do whatever is necessary in terms of the sprinkler system to satisfy the fire narshall. (It was later determined that if the applicant did not sprinkle the building the third lane would have to be provided.) fir. Cogan later stated he did not feel inclined to "burden the applicant" with the requirement for the third lane.) It was finally decided condition. 1(g) mould be amended .to read as follows: • Fire Officer approval of facilities for fire protection, handicap provisions, hydrant and dumpster locations. There was some discussion about the extension of sewer to the property. Mr. Keeler stated staff was not recommending that this developer extend the sewer line. It was finally decided (and agreed .to by the applicant) that condition l(i) would be added as follows: s Sewer line to be relocated 10 feet to the west of location shown in site plan. SFr. Cogan expressed some concern about a bank on the eastern edge of the property which had been eroding for some time. It was decided condition l(e) would be amended as follows: • County Engineer approval of retaining wall and stabilization of enbankment (at eastern edge of -property) forerosion control. Ms. Davenport pointed out one further item which had not been discussed relating to condition l(b) [Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer approval of service road plans and profiles including: commercial entrances; the closing of the existing Real Estate III entrance; the location and maintenance bond of trees in the right-of-way.]. She explained that this condition would include the County holding.a maintenance and construction bond on the service road until the time that the Highway Department will accept the road for maintenance, which may not be until the road has been completed. ,ir. Gould moved that the Floor Fashions of Virginia Site Plan be approved subject to the following .conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following approvals have been obtained: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of southbound turn lane; June 19, 1984 Page 5 b. Virginia Department of. Highways & Transportation and County Engineer approval of service road plans and profiles including: commercial entrances; the closing of the existing Real Estate II entrance; the location and maintenance bond of trees in the right-of-way; c. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations; e. County Engineer approval of retaining wall and stabilization -of embankment (at eastern edge of property) for erosion control; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; g. Fire Officer approval of facilities for fire protection, handicap provisions, hydrant and dumpster location; h. Staff approval of landscape plan: i. Sewer line to be relocated 10 (ten) feet to the west of location shown on site plan. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Officer approval of fireflow; b. Recordation of parking and access easement with Real Estate III property. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Hollymead Square Phase II Site Plan - Located on the east side of Powell Creek Drive, adjacent to the north of Hollymead Square Phase I in the Community of Hollymead PUD. Proposal to locate 120 rental units on 13.88 acres with a density of 8.64 units per acre. Zoned PUD Rivanna Magisterial District, TM 46, parcel 26B. It was determined the applicant was requesting deferral to July 17, 1984. Ms. Diehl moved that the Hollymead Square Phase II Site Plan be deferred to July 17, 1984. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Ednam RPN, Section '"A" Midrise Condominium Site Plan - Request for administrative approval of site plan. Planning Commission approval expired April 21, 1983. This section is located adjacent to the west of the Manor House. After Ms. Davenport began the staff report she noticed that no one was present to represent the applicant. It was decided the Commission would move on to the next agenda item. William Coughlin Final Plat - Request for relief of condition of approval for a private street commercial entrance at the intersection of the private road with Route 853, adjacent to Glenaire Subdivision. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. The report concluded: "While staff is sympathetic to the applicant's appeal, minimum sight distance requirements are June 14, 1984 Page b a matter of public safety for vehicular travel on State routes, as well as access to and from the private road. Therefore, for public safety reasons, staff cannot support the waiver of minimum sight distance." In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to why.170 feet of sight distance was acceptable in one direction but not the other, Ms. Davenport explained this was because the road takes a sharp turn and there is no physical way to get sight distance. Mr. Payne added that speed was also a consideration. The applicant, Ms. Coughlin, addressed the Commission. She explained that the tree which would have to be removed to obtain sight distance was on adjoining property, the owners of which were not agreeable to its removal. There was a discussion about how the speed limit was determined. Mr. Payne explained that a speed limit of 25 mph was based on a study of actual speeds made by the Highway Department. He stated further that if the actual speed is less than the posted speed the required sight distance can be reduced. Mr. Payne explained that the Highway Department would :Dt issue a commercial entrance permit if sight distance requirements could not be met. He added that he felt the Commission should "not'get in the business of authorizing entrances that are not in compliance with Highway Department regulations.".— Though Ms. Coughlin pointed that all other Hlghway'Depattment recoM. endations could be met, Mr. Payne stated it didn't matter because the work could not be done within the Highway Department right-of-way without the issuance of the permit. Mr. Wilkerson stated that based on Mr. Payne's comments, he could not support the request. Ms. Diehl agreed and moved that the William Coughlin Final Plat Request for Relief from a condition of approval requiring a private street commercial entrance be denied. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Note: The Commission was sympathetic to the applicants' dilemma and recommended that they continue to work with the Highway Department to try to resolve the issue. Ednam RPti, Section "A" - Since the applicant still had not arrived, it was decided this item would be deferred. Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Ednam RPN; Section "A" Site Plan be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Citizen Request for Resolution of Intent - to amend the land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan to show residential as opposed to industrial use for a portion of the Woolen Mills Area. June 14, 1984 page 7 (Mr. Payne excused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interests.) Mr. Keeler explained the background of the request. He stated staff did not feel they could support the rezoning because it would result in a small piece of Residential surrounded by Industrial. However, Mr. Keeler stated the Fire Official would prefer residential development in this area as opposed to heavy industrial. Public Comment: Mr. Lawrence gave a brief history of the property. Ms. Peggy VanYahres explained that it would be difficult to use this property for industrial purposes because of topographic restrictions, e.g. floodplain and inadequate parking area. There was a brief discussion about notification of adjoining property owners. Mr. Michel asked that those persons "south of the line" be notified also. There was some discussion about other residences in the area and definitive boundaries of the request. Mr. Keeler stated that the area under consideration in the County was approximately seven lots on the north side of the railroad. Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl, that a Resolution of intent to amend the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan to show Residential, as opposed to Industrial, use on the property in question in the Woolen Mills area be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. Mobile Home Study - Staff request for guidance as to the Commission's desired scope of this study, including possible locations, size, utilities, etc. It was determined the study should include both parks and subdivisions and a major consideration was the utility issue. Staff was asked to include a list of existing parks, their locations and the number of mobile homes in each. NEW BUSINESS Village Square - Mr. Keeler explained that this item had appeared on a recent Board of Supervisors agenda at which time it had been deferred. The Board had asked to be made aware of the Commission's reasons for denying the development. It was agreed the Commission's concerns had been as follows: (1) There were concerns about the dedication for the Meadowcreek Parkway. The Commission feared that if the road should not be built, the developer could get the property back and build on it, even though he had already received a bonus for dedication. (Mr. Keeler pointed out that the developer has since prepared a document which will make the dedication of the land irrevocable.) /q June 19, 1984 Page 8 (2) The Commission was concerned that with the bonuses, the density was exceeding what the Plan recommended. (3) The Commission felt it was not "appropriate to grant bonuses for that which could be otherwise required by the Ordinance." fir. Cogan noted that the Commission had felt that the developer was also trying to use bonuses which were not.applicable. X.s. Diehl noted that had the proposal been presented without the bonus factor, the Commission would have looked upon it more favorably. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15'p.m. Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 11-88 C/lOhn Horne, Secretary 0