Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 20 84 PC MinutesNovember 20, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, November 20, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present: Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Tim Michel. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. Theminutes of the October 30, 1984 meeting were approved as written. Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings Site Plan - Located on the east side of Route 29 North, on the south side of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Proposal to locate a one story 24,500 square foot building comprised of a 14,000 square foot ware- house area, 7,500 square foot retail area, and 3,000 square foot office area; all served by 169 parking spaces on a 9.934 acre parcel. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 45B1-6, Parcel 1B. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman invited applicant comment. Mr. Edwards, the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated he had no objections to any of the conditions of approval outlined by staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked for comment from Mr. Elrod, County Engineer. Mr. Elrod addressed the Commission and stated that although he had been concerned about erosion problems with this plan all along, after researching the matter, he had come to the conclusion erosion problems were unlikely to occur. He stated he was concerned, however, about the fact that the plans show the construction going right up to the property line, meaning the work would spill over onto adjacent property owners. He stated that although the drainage problems associated with the entrance at Rt. 29N had not been addressed as yet, he felt they could be handled. He confirmed that he would require the applicant to adhere to a maximum of 2:1 slope. November 20, 1984 Page 2 Referring to the excess of 42 parking spaces, Ms. Diehl suggested that it might be possible to eliminate 10--12 of these spaces in order to deal with some of Mr. Elrod's concerns. Mr. Elrod agreed that this might be possible though he indicated he was not aware of the applicant's reason for the excess number of spaces. Mr. Bowerman asked for comment from Mr. Echols of the Highway Department regarding the cul-de-sac design. Mr. Echols addressed the Commission. He stated an alternative design had been suggested by his department which would satisfy his requirements and at the same time would line up with the entrance off Rt. 29, i.e.. it would move the entrance 30 feet north. He stated since the Highway Department would not take over the service road until it was built, they had no control over it. In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Echols confirmed that when the service road was accepted into the Highway Department system, the "temporary" ingress and egress referred to in this proposal would no longer be allowed and would be closed. Ms. Diehl asked if it was correct.that the service road was not going to be built at this time, and the cul-de-sac at the temporary entrance would be the only ingress and egress. This was confirmed.. Ms. Diehl concluded the Commission was being asked to approve an entranceway onto Rt. 29. It was determined.the properties along the proposed service road were not under one control. Mr. Diehl -stated her understanding that this temporary entrance could exist indefinitely. Mr. Bowerman asked sir. Edwards if he wasaware of any discussion that may have taken place among the owners of the .adjacent properties regarding the construction of the service road. It was determined such discussion had taken place with two property owners and they had indicated they were not prepared to build a service road at this time. Ms. Diehl again stated she was in favor of 10-12 of the parking spaces being removed to give some breathing room. The applicant explained the extra spaces were being requested at this time so as not to limit the possible future uses of the property. Mr. Bowerman expressed frustration with the fact that so much time had .been spent trying to obtain a safe access to the site and then having it develop in this manner, i.e. the furthest parcel from the entrance being developed first. Ms. Diehl stated her feeling that allowing this site to develop in this manner would negate all the time spent on the service road. 119 November 20, 1984 Page 3 The possibility of putting a time limit on the service road was discussed, but it was generally felt this would not be equitable since it could force the applicant to have to build such a road individually without any contributions from the other property owners. Ms. Diehl suggested the possibility of building a service road to minimum standards that could possibly cost the same as con- tributing to a portion of a higher standard service road. Mr. Cogan pointed out the Floor Fashions plan had been denied because of the service road issue and indicated it would be difficult to justify approving this plan. He also mentioned the safety factor which had been discussed by the Commission at a previous meeting. On the other hand, Mr. Cogan stated the Board had apparently approved the service road with a temporary ingress in the middle and egress at the end. He agreed with Mr. Bowerman's statement that the Board's intent may have been to go along with the possibility that development may not be progressive from the entrance. He indicated confusion as to what the intent of the Board had actually been. Ms. Cooke entered the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Cooke to clarify the Board's intent in the proposal of the interim connection and the exit (he indicated the areas on the map). Ms. Cooke stated it dealt with trying to maintain a smoother traffic flow and alleviate any congestion that might occur at the one exit. She further explained the only exit would have been back at Real Estate III and placing an exit at the end would have allowed anyone exiting northbound to exit without having to come back up to go out the other exit. Mr. Cogan asked if it was the intent of the Board that those interim ingresses and egresses were to be used so that the entire service road would not have to be completed, or were they meant to be temporary. Ms. Cooke indicated they were meant to be temporary. She also recalled the bottom entrance was not meant to be temporary, but could possibly be a permanent egress for northbound traffic only. Ms. Diehl stated she would like for whatever was approved for the site plan to reflect what was approved previously, i.e. the service road. Ms. Diehl moved that the Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings Site Plan be DENIED because it did not reflect the approved .service road for that area that had already been discussed by the Commission. In order for the site plan to be approved, the applicant must adhere to the original plan approved by the Board of Super- visors which required egress only from the cul-de-sac on the applicant's property and separate ingress from the center of the service road. A1?O November 20, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman stated he had hoped to be able to deal with this in a reverse manner, i.e. change the conditions of approval to make them reflect the consensus of the Commission. There was some agreement indicated with this idea, but there was confusion as.to how this could be.accomplished. In response to Ms.Diehl's statement regarding the possibility of the Commission reviewing this proposal again, Ms. Scala stated the Commission would not see the proposal again if approved at this time. There being no further discussion,.the motion to deny the Federal Express Site Plan was unanimously approved. In response to the applicant's inquiry as to what he needed to do to have his proposal approved, Mr.. Bowerman stated Ms.. Diehl had stated this in her motion for denial, i.e. a cul-de-sac as shown with an egress only from the applicant's site with some sort of ingress representing what the Board of Supervisors had approved for the service road. The applicant emphasized he did not control the other property and indicated he did not know how he would be able to meet this condition_. Mr. Payne stated there was a public easement across the other properties. The applicant disagreed that such an easement existed. Mr. Bowerman advised the applicant to discuss the matter further.:Tith staff. SP-84-69 Jesse Bloodworth - Request to locate a single wide mobile home on 11.88 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 71, Parcel 45A, has one existing single family dwelling and is located on the west side of Route 635, ±1/2 mile south of its intersection with State Route 64, ±3/10 mile north of its intersection with .Route 688. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She also stated several objections had been raised to this proposal, and one letter of support had been received. Mr. Bowerman invited applicant comment. Mr. Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated he had received two more letters of support and submitted those to the Commission. He stated the proposed location of the mobile home was heavily wooded and indicated it would .not be visible most of the year. He stated the mobile home would be occupied by the applicant's aging parents. He explained the proposed location was important for several reasons: (1) It was adjacent to a paved driveway; (2) It is close to the main home but still at a distance which allows the main house some privacy; (3) The location affords an attractive view. November 20, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Dick continued, stating he did not feel the septic field would create a problem for neighboring lots since the slope of the land would cause the drainage to be away from these lots. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. John Wolfe, a resident of the neighborhood, addressed the Commission and stated his opposition to the proposal because he felt the mobile home would not fit in with the surrounding property values and would lower the value of the surrounding homes. Mr. Wolfe indicated he was opposed to mobile homes in all settings except mobile home parks. There being no further public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl stated she had visited the property and even though it was wooded, she felt there might be a location within the applicant's.property which would be more acceptable to surrounding property owners. . Mr. Cogan stated he would not be in favor of locating the trailer at the proposed site, but he indicated he would have no objection if the location were changed to one of the two alternative sites shown on the applicant's map. Mr. Cogan was concerned about how the trailer would be used after the deaths of the applicant's in-laws, i.e. would it become a rental unit. It was indicated the Commission would be in favor of a location in the vicinity of the westernmost site as shown as an alternative on the applicant's map. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-69 for Jesse Bloodworth be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The mobile home must be located at an alternative site marked by a circled "X" on a plat submitted by the applicant. Said location is described as south of the frame dwelling and west of the primary site for the mobile home, or in close proximity thereto, but in no case shall it be located farther east than the marked alternative site. 2. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Location and screening of mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr'. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. IR a November 20, 1984. Page 6 VEPCO Hollymead Substation Site Plan and Final Plat - located south of the intersection of Route 649 and .Route 29'North on a private road southwest of the Springfield Development. Proposal to locate an electric substation on a 6.72 acre parcel. Zoned R-1, Residential. Tax Map 32 Parcel 37. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report for the site plan. Mr. Bowerman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bill Perkins, representing VEPCO, addressed the Commission and stated the applicant would .have no trouble meeting the staff's conditions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Joseph confirmed the wooded areas around the substation would be preserved and staff was satisfied with the landscaping plans. Mr —Wilkerson moved that the VEPCO Hollymead Substation Site Plan be approved subject'to the conditions of staff as follows: 1. Approval of this plan is subject to : a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Approval of entrance by Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation; C. Planning staff approval of technical items as listed below: 1. Most current deed book. 2. Magisterial District.. 3. Note bearing on southeast corner. 4. Topographic information. 5. Datum reference. 6. Right-of-way lines, width, centerline, proposed right-of-way lines. 7. Centerline curve data. 8. Location, size, type culvert size of ingress/egress. 9. Show acreage. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Ms.. Joseph then gave the staff report for the final plat. Mr. Perkins, representing VEPCO, addressed the Commission and asked if it would be possible to add a second page to the .plat which would show the easement going out to Rt. 649, with the signature on the plat carrying over to page 2. Mr. Payne confirmed that this would be acceptable. November 29, 1984 Page 7 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the VEPCO Hollymead Substation Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning staff approval of technical items as listed below: a. Names and addresses of record holders. b. Names of surveyor, number of sheets. c. Vicinity map (111 = 20001). d. Existing zoning and proposed uses. e. Deedbook reference of instrument whereby parcel was created. f. Tax map and parcel number. g. Notarized owner's approval statement and signature. h. Signature panels for chairman, Planning Commission and agent, Board of Supervisors. 2. Establish to reasonable satisfaction of County Attorney the existence of easement. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. VEPCO Cash's Corner Substation Site Plan and Final Plat - Located 3,100 feet north of the intersection of Route 231 and Route 615. Proposal to locate an electrical substation on .72 acre. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 50, Parcel 45. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report for the site plan. Mr. Bill Perkins, representing VEPCO, was present. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan moved that the VEPCO Cash's Corner Substation Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Issuance of an erosion control permit. 2. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Ms. Joseph then gave the staff report for the final plat. There being neither applicant nor public comment, the matter was v placed before the Commission. November 20, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Gould moved that the VEPCO Cash's Corner Substation Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat recordation approval is subject to: a. owner's signature on plat. Mr. .Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The meeting recessed at 9:10.p.m.; reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Note: Mr. Wilkerson did not return after the recess. Precision Performance Auto Repair Site Plan The applicant was not present, though Ms. McCulley confirmed he had been notified both by letter and by phone. it was moved and seconded that the Precision Performance Auto Repair Site Plan be deferred until December 11. Mr. Payne pointed out this business was already in operation and suggested to the Commission that they might wish to indicate to the Zoning Administrator what action, if any, the Commission would favor . , in light of this information, Mr. Bowerman expressed surprise that the applicant was not present. It was determined the Zoning Administrator was aware of the situation. The motion to defer the matter until December 11 was unanimously approved. It was determined to allow the Zoning -Administrator to use his own discretion in handling this matter. It was agreed that if the operation of the business constituted a public hazard,,it should be dealt with immediately, but if no public or environmental. hazard exists, the Commission indicated they would have no ob- jection to the Zoning Administrator deferring action until December 11. it was determined that if the applicant was not present at the December 11 meeting, the application would be automatically denied. A.T.-Williams oil Company - Wilco Revised Site Plan located north of Interstate Route 64 on the north side of Route 250 just west of new Route 20. Proposal to move convenience store to the rear of the site, provide additional parking and construct an over- head shelter for gasoline pumps. Zoned Cl, Commercial. Tax Map 78, Parcel 3. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. la 5— November 20, 1984 Page 9 In answer to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Ms. McCulley stated the set -back in the Cl zone was determined by adjacent properties. Mr. Artie Williams, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the current proposal to change the arrangement of the convenience store and the gas pumps was being made in order to eliminate parking confusion on the lot and to improve the traffic flow within the lot. He stated the business currently operates on a septic tank/we-ll system and the new arrangement would result in less usage of the restrooms since they would be relocated inside the store. Mr. Williams added that his company also owns the property behind the current business. He concluded by saying that all trees would remain or would be replaced if damaged during construction. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he was in favor of public sewer being extended to the property. Mr. Williams stated his company also owns the property to the corner (where public sewer exists). He said $25,000 has already been spent to get the sewer across the street. He further stated it is his company's plan to develop the other property (sell it) and gradually move the sewer line up to the existing location. However, he felt to extend the line at this time would be a burden,since it would allow the new owners of the other property (after it is sold) to reap the benefits of the sewer line without having shared in its cost. Mr. Cogan pointed out installing the sewer line would make the other properties more valuable to Mr. Williams' company. Referring to staff recommendation 2(b)--Connection to public water and sewer, if deemed reasonably available by the Planning Commission --Mr. Bowerman stated he felt public sewer was reasonably available. Mr. Cogan and Ms. Diehl indicated their agreement with this. Mr. Skove moved that the A.T. Williams Oil Company - Wilco Revised 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. Fire Official approval of special construction measures for building closer than 15 feet to the property line; b. Issuance of fuel tank permits; 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official final approval of fireflow; b. Service Authority approval of public sewer connection; c. Planting or bonding new landscaping. la 4, November 20, 1984 Page 10 Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS - Mary Joy announced the County Employees' Christmas. Dance was scheduled for Friday,Nov. 30, Fry Springs Beach Club. $15 for dinner and dance and reservations needed to be made by 9:00 a.m. November 21. NEW BUSINESS - Mr. Cogan distributed a draft of a letter to be sent to the Board of Supervisors in response to Mr. Lindstrom's former letter suggesting the formation of a Committee to review planning procedures. Mr. Cogan stated he felt it was necessary to determine thsobjectives of the Commission before a committee was formed. He felt that such a committee would need to have some direction as to where problems exist in order for it to be productive. He stated staff was planning to submit to the Commission on December 11 an outline of how the individual processes work. Mr. Skove stated his feeling that Mr. Lindstrom had suggested more of a management study than a technique study. Mr. Bowerman in- dicated he agreed with this and suggested the addition of a paragraph to Mr. Cogan's letter which would deal with a management study. Mr. Cogan was agreeable to this and stated he was merely trying to arrive at a starting point which could be expanded into other areas later. It was agreed that there had been several different interpretations of Mr. Lindstrom's letter. Mr. Bowerman stated his feeling that perhaps the Commission is the least qualified to narrow down the subject matter since they deal with it on a daily basis, and by having a general statement at the beginning of the study, the Committee would then have to determine in which direction to go, and this would involve a. great deal of time. He said Mr. Cogan's letter was an attempt to give the Committee a start. It was agreed an additional paragraph would be added to the letter and would be finally reviewed at the Nov. 27 meeting. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was some question as to whether or not the Commission would consider hearing a Zoning Text Amendment other than on its regular 6-month schedule. No one was familiar with this issue. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. James R. onnell , 'S retary DS ia7