Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 13 1992 PC Minutes10-13-92 1 OCTOBER 13, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 13, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Mr. Cilimberg briefly previewed actions taken at the October 7 Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Berkmar Lot 6 Final Site Plan - Proposal for the construction of a 6,621 square foot building for retail/warehouse use and 37 parking spaces on a 22,729 square foot parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 61U, Section 1, Parcels 5 and 6; and Tax Map 61, Parcel 120F, is located on the northeast side of Berkmar Drive approximately 475 feet west of Rt. 29. Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1). Zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay -District. Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Capital Improvements Program - Public hearing to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the 1993-94 through 1997-98 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Baker briefly described the process and explained the most recent changes as a result of Commission work sessions. The following members of the public addressed the Commission to seek support for various projects: Mr. Jim Dillenbeck, Coach at Albemarle High School, (Item No. 41 - Track Resurfacing, Albemarle High School) Ms. Evelyn Meese, Scottsville resident representing the Scottsville Park Development Association (Item No. 29 - 24 1Q-13-92 2 Scottsville Community Center Outdoor Recreation Improvement and Item No. 35 - Scottsville Elementary School Outdoor Recreation Improvements) Ms. Meese emphasized that currently there is no playground in southern Albemarle County, nor is there a soccer program. She stated the Town of Scottsville is willing to provide a parcel of land, adjacent to the existing County -owned property at the old Scottsville School, for the proposed recreation facilities. She stated the community feels the first priority should be to provide a playground. She described antiquated, dangerous equipment that is currently being used at the school. She expressed concern also about the lack of safe surface material for the playground. Ms. Meese felt it would be more cost effective to coordinate the two projects. As a result of these comments, Ms. Huckle ask to be provided with an itemized list of playground equipment and costs. Ms. Huckle felt it should be possible to replace the surfacing material immediately. Mr. Martin Beakman, Mr. David Rady and Mr. Ben Orr, representing the Lane -Babe Ruth Baseball League (Item No. 6 - Lane Baseball Field Light and Bleacher Improvements.) Ms. Pam Starling, representing the Woodbrook School PTO (Item No. 62 - Woodbrook Elementary Outdoor Recreation Improvement) She noted that the project has been "bumped" for several years and she asked for assurance that it will not be bumped again. She asked that the Community commit to the program of community parks and the needs of established communities. Ms. Meg West, representing Brownsville PTO (Item No. 31 -Brownsville Elementary Expansion and Item No. 69 - Brownsville Elementary Outdoor Recreation Improvement) She asked that the playground project be phased ahead of the construction. She felt this would make "the school feel they are getting something while they are waiting." Mr. Johnson interpreted that Ms. West was requesting that the two projects be combined and "appropriately phased." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission discussed the concerns which had been raised by the public. Mr. Jenkins expressed the hope that Mr. Mulaney (Dept. of Parks and Recreation) would be made aware of the public comments. On the Scottsville Recreation projects (Items 29 and 35), Mr. Johnson suggested that a note be added recommending that some high priority funding be allocated for playground surfacing material because of the safety factor involved. (Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that a note would be added to both those projects. He also stated �9s 10-13-92 3 that a similar note could be added to any of the currently existing facilities in similar situations.) Ms. Huckle suggested that someone in the County should have the responsibility of seeing that the high school tracks are installed properly and maintained properly. Referring to the third "General Note," which stated that the Commission "feels unqualified to evaluate school construction projects based on the information provided," Mr. Johnson commented: "I'll accept it, but I think we should recognize that we have the authority, according to the Code, to request such information from the school organization and the fact that we didn't, we could be called to task on it." Mr. Johnson made the following additional comments on other Notes (listed under Ranked Projects): --Note No. 10 (Henley Middle School Masonry Repairs): He suggested the addition of the following sentence: "Any cost savings which might accrue as the result of combining Item 4 with 27 should be identified and evaluated." --Note No. 21 (Northside Branch Additional Materials): He suggested the addition of a comment to suggest that some funding be allocated to this project, even though it may not be to the extent requested. --Note No. 24 (PVCC Site Improvements): He commented: "If that should receive approval, we certainly should go ahead with the few dollars necessary for the site improvements as our share. I think we should indicate that degree of cooperation." --Note No. 28 (New County Fire Station): He commented: "I'd like to see some part of that note incorporating the evaluation of the Northern site into that (analysis)." Regarding the Albemarle High School track resurfacing, Mr. Nitchmann felt that if it was a safety issue, then it should be moved up the list. Mr. Nitchmann expressed frustration about the difficulty in ranking these projects without knowledge as to how much money is actually going to be available and how many projects will actually be funded. As a result of the public comments, the Commission made the following shifts in the rankings of projects: --Moved item No. 62 (Woodbrook Elementary Outdoor Recreation Improvement) to position No. 51 and moved item No. 51 (Avon Street/Route 20 Connector) to position No. 62. --Moved item No. 41 (Track Resurfacing - AHS) to position No. 37 and moved item No. 37 (Rivanna Boat Launch) to position No. 41. Mr. Blue pointed out that the Lane Baseball Field Light and Bleacher Improvements is already ranked No. 6 on the list. 10-13-92 4 Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr.Jenkins, that the Capital Improvements Program be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as presented in the staff report dated October 8, 1992 with the changes cited above. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-92-080 Willow Creek Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create four lots averaging 6.5 acres and leaving a 63.43 acre residue. Access through a proposed private road. Property, described as Tax Map 7, Parcel 29, is located on the south side of Rt. 687 approximately one mile east of Rt. 810 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area I). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Michael Milner. He answered Commission questions about flooding of the road and access to lots 4 and 5. Mr. Johnson noted that the plat shows two dedications --a 25 foot right-of-way to the road and a re -alignment of the road. He pointed out that neither of these is required by either the Virginia Department of Transportation or by any government organization "based on the lack of connecting it to a requirement generated by a property." Mr. Johnson asked: "What assurance can you give me that the property owner is aware that he is under absolutely no obligation to make those two dedications, to convince me that there is no inference, or no possibility of any kind of unintentional suggestions or anything else on the part of anybody involved in the government on reviewing this plan, recognizing that he can always, if the property owner desires in the future, he can go ahead by his own free well and propose these, but by putting them on the plat here, then we become party to this agreement. What assurance can you give me, if any, that the property owner is fully and undeniably aware of his right and (is under) no obligation to make either one of those dedications?" Mr. Milner explained: "In the process of developing the plan, for safety reasons, we felt it was very important to take that little hump out of the road to give you much better sight access and to make a much better place for access to and from the site and that we were proposing this, this was not something required by the State. We were merely doing it for safety reasons. ... He understands it very clearly. He has been comprised (sic apprised) of all the notes back and forth and I have had extensive meetings with Yolanda and she has been extremely helpful, that it is not a requirement that he dedicate the 25 feet, but that it was brought up and we were offering it, not to get anything, but just that in the future the road might, in the year 2050, be expanded and he would like to go ahead and get things done properly and 197 10-13-92 5 get them done now so that he has a solid plan." Mr. Milner confirmed that the applicant did this of his own "free will." Mr. Milner confirmed that the Health Department has already approved the lots for drainfields. Ms. Hipski noted that there are no septic fields on slopes greater than 20%. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the Willow Creek Farm Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and associated drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Staff approval of road maintenance agreement; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of plans for improvement to Route 687. 2. Staff approval of final plat. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Next Joint Meeting with the City Planning Commission - Mr. Grimm explained that the following dates had been suggested by the City: November 9, 11 or 30. No objections were raised to any of the dates suggested. Staff is to finalize a date and inform the Commission. Mr. Grimm asked that staff be present at the meeting. Fee Schedule - Mr. Blue asked about the status of staff's study on possible adjustment of some fees. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff is still working on this issue. Mr. Blue expressed surprise that a fee is charged for a determination of development rights by the Zoning Administrator. (Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that a fee is charged for an "official" determination of development rights.) Mr. Blue also expressed concern that proffers which are attached to a piece of property are not recorded even though they are a legal committment. Mr. Bowling confirmed that proffers are not recorded "unless they are listed on a plat 10-13-92 3 somewhere." Mr. Cilimberg added that the proffers are part of the County's records (Zoning Department) because they are part of the zoning. Mr. Nitchmann was concerned because proffers would not show up in a title search either. He felt there should be an obligation on the part of the County to notify the Clerk's Office of proffers which should be attached to deeds. Mr. Bowling explained that a conscientious attorney will check on these matters for their clients. Mr. Blue asked if the collection of fees (on site plans) could be changed so that the entire fee did not have to be paid "up front." Mr. Cilimberg explained that there are two separate fees, i.e. one for the preliminary plan or plat and another for the final plan or plat. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary DB