Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 29 1991 PC MinutesOCTOBER 29, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 29, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Jenkins and Grimm. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of October 15, 1991 were approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Forest Lakes Townhouse "C" Final Site Plan_ - proposal to construct 69 townhouse units on 10 acres zoned R-15, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 46B4, parcel 1. is located on the west side of Timberwood Boulevard across from its intersection with Worth Crossing in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell briefly reviewed the item. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-91-079 - Michie Tavern Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to relocate eight existing log cabins to support exhibits and crafts. Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 27 is located on Route 53 behind the existing Michie Tavern site Zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. The applicant was requesting a modification of Section 4.2 to allow grading on critical slopes. Both the Planning staff and the Engineering Department supported this request. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson expressed surprise that this building is not listed on any historical register. (The applicant later explained that the tavern is not currently listed on any 10--29-91 2 historical register; however, application is being made again. The problem has been that the structure does not sit on its original site, having been moved to the current site in 1927.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Greg McDonald. He answered Mr. Johnson's question related to listing on an historical register. He offered no significant additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. William Viswanger, representing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, owners and operators of Monticello, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the "handling of the slopes and the preservation of vegetation" given the visibility of the curve in which the buildings will be placed. Mr. Brian Smith, engineer for the project, commented on the slope issue. He explained that the steeper slopes (over 25%) are on the western side of the courtyard. He stated that currently the plan is at the preliminary design stage and the slopes will be looked at closer to see if grading can be minimized even more. He mentioned the possibility of tiering or retaining walls which are not shown on the current plan. The applicant is interested in keeping the rustic character of the site and that includes preserving as many trees as possible. Looking at the applicant's drawing, Mr. Johnson interpreted that approximately 75% to 80% of the square footage to the southwest is critical slope. Mr. Smith pointed out the "limits of construction" in relation to the area described by Mr. Johnson. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Smith estimated the slopes were 25% to 30%. He explained that final contours will be 2:1. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the applicant would have any objections to some sort of surface treatment on the exposed side of the retaining walls, if so required by the ARB. Mr. Smith reponded that the retaining walls would be either railroad ties or stone (as currently exist at the tavern) He did not think concrete was a possibility (as mentioned by Mr. Rittenhouse). Mr. Greg McDonald explained that the proposed site plan would allow the applicant to offer a greater variety of educational exhibits to visitors. Each building will be architecturally accurate for the time period it will �7f_n 1_.0-29-91 3 represent. Buildings will be disassembled and stored while site work is taking place and then will be reassembled. He stated exhibits will be strictly educational and no sales will take place. Ms. Marsha Joseph was present to represent the Architectural Review Board. No questions were asked of her. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler explained the history of the special permit for the tavern, including the history of the easement. Ms. Buckle wondered if Commission action should be delayed until grading plans are more definite. Mr. Keeler explained the sequence of the approval process. He concluded: "I think it is appropriate for the Commission to authorize the activity. They still have to satisfy the Engineering Department in terms of the technical aspects of the design and the aesthetic aspect will be left to the determination of the ARB." Mr. Johnson expressed extreme concern about the slope issue_ He indicated he agreed with Ms. Huckle. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that staff was requesting administrative approval of the final site plan. However, he stated that the Commission could choose to review the final site plan if so desired. (Condition No. 2 would be deleted.) He noted that the current request contemplates a waiver of Section 4.2 to allow building on critical slopes and once approval is given to this site plan amendment, "we have acknowledged that we are willing to have that grading take place and then we might logically say that we can rely on staff to insure that the proper measures are in place on the final site plan to satisfy our concerns." He felt it was appropriate to leave the aesthetic issues to the ARB. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that either the Commission, or staff, whichever reviews the final site plan, will have to be satisfied that the grading is appropriate or approval will not be granted. Both Commissioners Johnson and Huckle expressed the desire to review the final site plan. Ms. Huckle moved that the Michie Tavern Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 10-29-91 4 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not 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 retaining wall design; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The motion did NOT include administrative approval of the final site plan. WORK SESSION Six Year Road Plan - First work session to discuss Six Year Secondary Road Plan issues. Mr. Banish presented the staff report. He was assisted by Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Virginia Department of Transportation. Commission comments: Huckle - She wondered if the bridge at Advance Mills should remain on the list since she was aware there was neighborhood opposition to the project. (Mr. Benish stated staff was not aware of any strong opposition from residents.) Ms. Huckle also expressed extreme concern about project No. 30 (the intersection at the airport). She felt it should be moved higher on the list. In the meantime, she suggested that the signage be studied to see if the traffic patterns and habits can be improved. Johnson - He asked how the condition of bridges in relation to their being able to accommodate rescue vehicles is factored into determinations. He noted particularly existing bridges which have insufficient weight limit ratings. He noted concern about response time if a bridge cannot be crossed by a heavy vehicle. 07t.. 10-20-91 5 Mr Johnson also interpreted that the priority list seemed to be different than what had been stated in information given to the Commission in May, 1991. Mr. Benish and Mr. Echols both stated that the priorties had not changed, but some items may move through the process quicker than others because of "incremental funding." Mr. Johnson asked that staff try to more clearly represent the status of projects in future reports. Mr. Johnson also asked questions about total funding. He noted that more money is anticipated next year and wondered how this could be when State officials have recently stated there would be a decrease in funding. Mr. Benish and Mr. Echols explained that it was "significantly less than what was projected in the '90 plan." There was some discussion about the Berkmar Connector Road. Staff explained that a substantial portion of the road will have to be built by County funds. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the new elementary school being finished before the road is built. Mr. Johnson also recommended that "these anticipated dollar figures be reviewed and upgraded to the maximum extent possible." He found it difficult to believe that funding would approach last year's level. Mr. Johnson expressed the feeling that the Virginia Department of Transportation's criteria based rating system was "fatally defective because it does not address, at any priority level 'highway safety."' He felt this was a "fatal error in the planning cycle of the County relative to all roads." The Commission expressed no objection to the four recommendations highlighted by staff: i.e. (1) No change in the ranking of the first 28 projects; (2) Priority No. 22 be split into two projects; (3) The County"s continued participation in the Revenue Sharing Program; and (4) Continuance of the minimum funding allocation policy related to unpaved roads. Staff was to review again all bridge projects. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40. La.. V. ale Cilim V , Secretary DB 1*6, S