Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 08 1991 PC MinutesOCTOBER 8, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 8, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle (7:15). Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner, Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 24, 1991 were approved as amended by Ms. Huckle. CONSENT AGENDA Virginia Oil Final Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 4,000 square foot gasoline station and convenience store on a 1.14 acre site. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 37A1 and 37B2, is located on the west side of Rt. 29N approximately 480 feet south of Rt. 649. Zoned C-1, Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-91-42 McDonald's Corporation - Proposal to locate a fast food restaurant with a drive through window (22.2.2.4, 22.2.2.10, 24.2.2.131 on 1.7 acres zoned C-1, Commercial HC, Highway Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 4, (part) and 4A, is located on the west side of Rt. 20 approximately 250 feet north of Rt. 250 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-91-42 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-91-079 Woodbrook Village North Major Site Plan Amendment -Proposal to delete the required construction of a 24-foot travel aisle on the north side of the Ron Martin building and revise the Woodbrook Drive site entrance to allow two inbound lanes and one outbound lane. Property, described as I'll 10-8-91 2 Tax Map 45C, Section 2, Parcels 1 and 1.A, is located at the intersection of Rt. 29N and Woodbrook Drive. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Deferred from the September 24th Commission meeting. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. He concluded: "Staff recommends the travelway still be required in accordance with previous staff efforts and previous Commission action as it would provide better on -site circulation." In response to Mr. Johnson's question regarding coordination between the sites, Mr. Tarbell responded that he thought there was some coordination possible between parcels A, B, and C. Mr. Johnson suggested that the "substantial access" to D might be able to be used by the other parcels and a circular traffic pattern could then be used to serve all the parcels. Mr. Tarbell responded that he did not know how the owners of Stereotypes would feel about such a proposal. The applicant was requesting that the travelway be deleted or delayed until the development of parcel B or C. Mr. Tarbell explained that if the Commission should view the applicant's request favorably, then staff would recommend that the travelway be deleted because it was felt that it "would be unreasonable to require parcel B or C to construct the travelway for the Ron Martin site." (He noted that the concrete median is not an issue --it will be required by whichever site develops next, B or C.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Brian Smith. He described the history of the site. Other comments included the following: --Parcel C is still owned by the applicant. --If the travelway is constructed now it may have to be removed later -because the ideal location of the travelway cannot be determined until Parcel B is developed. --The applicant is requesting either that the travelway be deleted or else "tied to the requirement for the concrete curb" because it will be necessary at that time. --No change to the "two exits out and one in" is being requested. Mr. Johnson felt the applicant's explanation did not agree with the staff report, i.e. the report stated the applicant was requesting "a deletion justified on the basis of truck circulation." Mr. Johnson interpreted: "Now you're saying you would like to have it, at a minimum, deferred, until 10-8-91 3 other events occur with the view in mind it is not just useful for truck circulation but for general access to Ron Martin." Mr. Smith confirmed this was accurate. Mr. Smith explained that the Ron Martin business does not use large trucks because deliveries are made from a separate warehouse. Only a pickup truck is used at this site. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Ron Martin business could be sold at some future time and another use might use large trucks. Mr. Rittenhouse asked why a site plan amendment is being requested at this time since the construction of the travelway has been delayed since 1986. Mr. Smith explained that the concrete divider had been planned with the development of either Parcel B or C and when the site plan was approved in 1986, the travelway in question was shown to be constructed and was a part of the Ron Martin site. The travelway is not necessary and can be tied to the development of the other sites. Mr. Smith explained that the owner of the property (Mr. Smith) would be glad to do whatever is necessary to notify the purchaser of Parcel C that there are other offsite improvements to be made, i.e. "the concrete median and this 24-foot access." In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Smith confirmed the 24-foot easement had been part of the Ron Martin site plan. Ms. Huckle asked if the site plan is "legal" if this travelway has not yet been constructed. Mr. Keeler responded: "That's why they are here tonight, to ask to get out of that construction. I believe the County is still holding a bond on the site." Mr. Keeler reiterated that if the Commission chooses to defer the construction of the travelway, then staff recommends that it NOT be attached to Parcel B or C. He explained: "It's Mr. Martin's decision that he does not want to build it now, but it's to serve his site and we feel he should be the responsible party to build it later. We will not be susceptible to any aragument to delete the raised concrete median at a later date. We do feel it is appropriate to attach the construction of the median to parcel C." Mr. Smith confirmed the deletion of the travelway would be acceptable to the applicant. It was determined no action was necessary to tie the construction of the median to the other parcels. Mr. Tarbell stated: "I think everybody is agreed on that and it is well -documented." 10-8-91 4 Mr. Johnson interpreted the reason for the request was to "get rid of the bond." Mr. Tarbell explained that the bond has been renewed several times, but the Zoning Administrator has indicated the situation needs to be resolved, i.e. the travelway either needs to be constructed, or the requirement removed. He explained that either deleting the travelway or postponing the requirement would allow the bond to be released. Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff is NOT recommending that the easement be deleted because it is felt that Mr. Martin will find that he needs that access at some future time (when the concrete median is constructed). Mr. Jenkins noted that the site has been working for some time and to require the construction of the travelway at this time would not accomplish anything. Mr. Grimm agreed. He repeated the applicant's statement that it might have to be removed at a later time if it is constructed now. Mr. Smith confirmed that there is a platted easement on the three lots so there is a right to construct the travelway at a later time "by anybody, Ron Martin or Buddy Smith." The location is set and cannot be changed unless agreed upon by all property owners. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the commission. Mr. Johnson stated he felt it was a reasonable request given the fact that the easement will remain. Mr. Johnson moved that the applicant's request for deletion of the requirement for the construction of the 24-foot travelway on the northside of the Ron Martin site be approved, but that the easement NOT be deleted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - Recommendations regarding the Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1995-96 CIP. Mr. Benish presented the list of priorities which included recommendations as discussed by the Commission during several work sessions. He also called attention to two revised pages--6 and 7 of the spreadsheets. Both changes resulted in a reduction in funding (Albemarle Co. Master Drainage Plan and Wyndham/Jarman Gap Road Channel Improvements). 'V�g 10-8-91 5 The Chairman invited public comment. Project 63 / Building Service Building Site Improvements: Mr. Bob Dewey and Ms. Kay Russo (Georgetown Green Homeowners Association) requested that a sound -barrier, which is a part of this project, be given a higher priority because of the nuisance the Maintenance Building is creating for adjoining residential properties. They described excessive noise and trash. Mr. Dewey pointed out that the Education Department has changed the use of this facility from what it originally was and it "is not a good neighbor." He described that the building sits above the adjoining residential properties and is very close by. Mr. Dewey was uncertain as to what type of barrier should be constructed though a concrete wall was discussed. Mr. Dewey felt the use might be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Project 23 / Northside Branch Additional Materials: A representative of the Northside Boosters (she did not identify herself further) requested that this be "a priority item" in the recommendation to the Board of the Supervisors. Funds for an additional 20,000 volumes ($300,000) were being requested. Mr. Douglas Hurt (President of The Friends of the Jefferson -Madison Regional Library) expressed his support for this project. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission discussed at some length project 63, in particular the suggested sound wall. It was the consensus of the Commission that a study needed to be performed in order to determine actual noise levels and the best and most acceptable way to address the concerns of the property owners. Mr. Benish suggested that staff could meet with the Engineering Department and the Education Department on this issue and perhaps some "mitigating measures" could be arrived at which would make the situation more bearable until the project can be addressed in its entirety. Mr. Wilkerson asked that staff pursue Mr. Benish's suggestion and report both to the Board and back to the Commission. It was finally decided that Comment No. 17 related to this project would be amended to the effect that if funds are needed for a study, then funds for such a study be given a high priority separate from the entire project. The Commission did NOT move Project 63 higher in the priority list. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Capital Improvements Program Priority List be recommended to the Board of Supervisors as set forth in the staff report (Attachment A). 10-8--91 N. Discussion: Mr. Johnson read a very lenthy statement regarding many of the projects in the program. His statement is attached to these minutes as Attachment B. His statement concluded: "A partial and temporary moratorium in the allocation of capital improvement funds is appropriate until the entire plan can be given an additional comprehensive and cohesive evaluation. In view of those feelings, I cannot support furthering this with a recommendation. I feel that the community deserves better in an analysis of how their funds are going to be spent." The motion for approval of the CIP passed (6:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. SUB-91-117 - Glenmore Phase I Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 314 lots averaging 0.49 acres on a 250.84 acre portion of the 1141.7 acre property. Of the 250.84 acres, 153.9 is in residential lots, 39.6 acres in common area, and 57.34 acres in road right-of-way. Property, described as Tax Map 93, parcel 59 (part) and 60, Tax Map 94, Parcel 11, and Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6 and 7, is located on the south side of Route 250 east approximately 9/10 mile east of Route 22. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development in the Rivanna Magisterial district. This property is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He pointed out that the plan before the Commission was "almost identical" to what they had seen before with the exception that detail has been added. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dan Beeker, whose property adjoins the fire station site, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the close proximity of the proposed fire station, effects on groundwater supplies and devaluation of property. (It was noted that the fire station site plan was not a part of this review.) He also expressed concern about the placement of a Gate House which will be located directly in front of his property. Mr. Keeler explained the status of the fire department site and the status of utilities. He stated that the fire department will not be filling their trucks from the well. He explained that the zoning plan has been through the ,.1.41 10-8-91 7 public process and both the County the right to rely on the plan that accepted at that time. Mr. Keeler staff is "working on" matters that but "it would be very difficult, at fire station." and the applicant have was presented and advised Mr. Beeker that are of concern to him, this time, to move the Mr. Runkle explained the approximate location of the Gate House. He was uncertain as to whether or not it would be visible from Mr. Beeker's property. He explained that the re -location of the driveway to the Manor House was a controlling factor in the siting of the Gate House. Mr. Beeker did not recall the location of the Gate House having been discussed in previous hearings. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked if there was a requirement that the Fire Station be on public water. Mr. Tarbell explained that the site plan had been scheduled for the Consent Agenda, but had been removed because of public comments received. If those concerns cannot be addressed by staff, then the item will be placed on the Commission's regular agenda. Mr. Wilkerson moved that Glenmore Phase I 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 private roads and drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Route 250 right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance for Glenmore Way; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations relative to Glenmore Way; f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance plans for Piper Way; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans; h. Fire Official approval of final water plans; i. Reservation of right-of-way dedication at the terminus of the Glenmore Way cul-de-sac; j. Label the Glenmore Way cul-de-sac temporary; o��a1 10-8-91 8 k. Staff approval of homeowners' agreements to provide for maintenance of the private roads and common area; 1. Bonding of sewage treatment plant and other necessary improvements. 2. No lots shall be sold until the State Water Control Board issues a construction permit for the sewage treatment plant. 3. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the sewage treatment plant is operational. 4. Administrative approval of the final plat. 5. Administrative approval of the country club facility site plan. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Sara Watson Preliminary Plat - Subdivision of Tax Map 30, Parcel 15E with 2 lots (3.3 acres and 6.17 acres) served by an exclusive access easment off the west side of Rt. 662 approximately 0.5 miles north of its intersection with Rt. 660. Property is zoned Rural Areas and is in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. Ms. Sprinkle presented the staff report. The report explained: "This type of two -lot subdivision served by a private road is routinely approved administratively. However, staff is referring this plat to the Planning Commission due to the steep slopes, limited building and septic areas and the associated requirement for waivers/variances. Staff advised the applicant that there are possibly other configurations of the two lots which would conform to our ordinances; however, the applicant has opted to proceed with this plat." The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the applicant has not demonstrated that (1) this plat would satisfy the purposes of Section 4.2, nor that (2) Section 4.2 prohibits or unreasonably restricts the use of the property, nor that (3) granting this waiver would serve a public purpose. Staff recommendation is for denial of the waiver and the plat." Ms. Huckle asked if pumping would be required for either of the drainfield sites shown. Ms. Sprinkle explained that if a variance from building setback were granted then a gravity system might be possible if allowed to build within the "?16.6 10-8-91 9 building setback. Without a variance, the building site would be lower and pumping would be required. She explained the variance would be a separate item to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Sprinkle confirmed that staff's objections are based on two facts: (1) Pumping will be required; and (2) The backup drainfield is outside the building site. Ms. Sprinkle also noted that the site has a lot of steep slopes. The applicant was represented by Mr. Kirk Hughes. (Ms. Watson was also present.) Mr. Hughes' comments included the following: --The Health Department has confirmed that the proposed sites have adequate drainfield areas. --Pumping is not uncommon in this area. The Ordinance does not require a waiver to allow pumping, nor does pumping require Commission approval. --Pumping will result in the drainfield areas being located farther away from the reservoir. --Building on the higher ground would result in drainfields 600 feet closer to the reservoir. --The County Engineer indicated "she had no problem with waiving any requirement of the Runoff Control Ordinance for this," i.e. she had no problem with pumping in this situation. --Building will be on slopes less than 250. --There are building sites which would not require major earth -moving activities. --The road access is already in place; a new road will not be necessary. Utilities are already in place. --A note on the bottom of Gary Rice's approval (Health Department) says that the two larger drainfield areas are sufficient to serve a three -bedroom home. The smaller area shown was just pointed out because it is a possibility for additional drainfield area. --A waiver is needed because the backup drainfield is outside the 30,000 square foot building site. Ms. Watson, the applicant, also addressed the Commission. She stressed that the Health Department has approved two drainfield sites "and a third one if the waiver is approved." She explained that she had met with Gary Rice (Health Department) and he had assured her that pumping is acceptable "if all the proponents for unhill pumping are installed." She also felt that pumping would probably be required in either building site. It was determined the applicant was asking for approval of (1) division into two parcels; and (2) a waiver to allow building within the setback area. ,,�2 T 10-8-91 10 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. David Watson, co-owner of the property, expressed opposition to the request. (He explained the property was currently part of a divorce settlement.) He felt there was a better solution, topographically and visually. Mr. Keeler confirmed that no waiver is required for pumping. He continued: "But the County has, in an Ordinance, determined that the requirement to pump uphill to a drainfield is onerous to the extent that the County has determined --for existing lots when the Runoff Control Ordinance was adopted --if you have one location within the septic system setback for the reservoir and another location where you had to pump to it, you could go to that location (i.e. within the setback). We're not going to make you pump uphill, we'll let you get close to the reservoir. The applicants have indicated that is no problem. So, i assume that in the future that would not be an argument to the BZA to grant a variance setback, that they would not say, 'Well, the Commission knew when they approved this that if we didn't get up here we'd have to pump to the drainfields.'... We not sure even if you grant all this that the BZA won't be looking at this for a setback variance to avoid pumping." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about pumping systems during power outages. Mr. Keeler clarified: "You have one tract of land that appears to have significant area available for drainfields. You are being asked to create two lots, one of which does not comply with the strict language of the Ordinance and requires a waiver. We cannot approve it administratively because a building site is defined as having area approved by the Health Department for two drainfields within the building site." Mr. Johnson concluded: "And one of the two drainfields is outside the building site area." Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. Ms. Watson pointed out that the request is for only one house site. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Grimm stated he could not support the request because it is a waiver solely for the benefit of the individual and not for the public welfare. a,96- 10-8-91 11 Ms. Huckle noted that protection of the County's groundwater is a primary concern. She stated she could not support the request. Mr. Johnson noted that both drainfield sites are at the "same level" so all that is being reviewed is "whether or not we will approve a longer pipe to the distant one." He did not think this was sufficient reason to deny the request. Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "The Ordinance says you are to have two drainfields within the building site." Mr. Johnson responded: "It does --within 100 feet. So I , think we ought to be able to evaluate the ordinance and say that this satisfies the intent that there are two septic sites reasonably available to the building site even though one is off by 50 feet." Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he agreed with Mr. Grimm. Mr. Grimm moved that the Sara Watson Preliminary Plat be denied. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. SUB-91-115 - Taylor's Mountain Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create seven lots averaging 6.06 acres from two parcels totalling 42.4 acres. The lots are proposed to be served by private roads. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcels 39C and 39D, is located on the west side of Route 708 approximately one mile south of Route 637. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. in response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding the location of drainfields, Mr. Keeler explained that a drainfield cannot be closer than 100 feet to a well, but he was not aware of any drainfield setback requirements from a dwelling. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. .36 10-8-91 12 There was a discussion about development rights. Mr. Keeler explained: "The applicant has offered to do away with these additional development rights. We view that as an entreaty to the Planning Commission to approve this plat and we believe that you can accept that and that it is enforceable by the County. There is nothing in the Subdivision Ordinance that gives staff the authority to negotiate the deletion of division rights .... They are entitled under the Zoning Ordinance to 'x' number of division rights and we don't feel that in administerial review of the subdivision that we have authority to say 'if you really want our support, you have to do away with the rest of your division rights.' We will not do that. But in any case where an applicant comes before you and says 'there's some more developable land up here, but to guarantee that this is the only road construction that you will ever see, I'm going to do away with the rest of the division rights so this property can't be divided any further.' We feel that you can accept that and that, in fact, can be enforced by the County." Mr. Keeler confirmed a note would be placed on the plat. It was also decided a condition would be added as follows: "No division rights remain with any of these parcels." Mr. McKee agreed to this additional condition. Mr. McKee also indicated that this would be made a part of the covenants and restrictions in the homeowners' documents. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the Taylor's Mountain 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 drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion Control Permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit; e. The applicant shall obtain fee or easement for off -site construction. f. Modification of note on plat to read: No division rights remain with any of these parcels. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-91-113 - Foxhall Final Plat - Rural Preservation 437 10-8-91 13 Development proposal to create 29 development lots with 165.24 acre preservation tract, from four parcels totalling 350 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 72 Parcels 17, 18, 21, and 45, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 64 and Route 635. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommeded approval subject to conditions. (Note: Mr. Fritz explained that condition 1(b) had been a mistake and should be deleted. The 100 foot buffer was related to the southern boundaries of various lots and that is already shown on the lots.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Von Stork. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that the Foxhall Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Recreation Facilities Authority approval of Rural Preservation Easement Documents. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Change in Meeting Date - It was decided the Commission would not meet on November 5th (Election Day) but would meet on Thursday, November 7th instead. There being no further business, 9:45 p.m. V• 0 V. Wav .: the meeting adjourned at CilirqSerg, Y;,,bcretary