Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 24 90 PC MinutesJULY 24, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 24, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, 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. The minutes of July 10, 1990 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Carter's -Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of 12 parcels totalling 2,080.79 acres located on Route 20 South in two areas near Carter's Bridge and near Keene. The Commission was required to take action to accept the applications. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-90-08 Woodbriar Associates - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend ZMA-79-32 for the deferral of the bonding requirement for construction of Briarwood Drive to Route 29 [Section 33.2.1]. The Briarwood Subdivision consists of all parcels on Tax Map 32G totalling 173 acres located on the west side of Rt. 29N, just south of GE-Fanuc. The property is located within the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded: "As more development occurs in Briarwood another access point will be necessary, therefore, staff recommends approval of this request to amend ZMA-79-32 with conditions requiring the construction of Briarwood Drive with the completion of Phase I." Referring to condition No. 1 [Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can be served by the c 90 July 24, 1990 Page 2 existing gravity sewer, the applicant shall proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phase plan.], Mr. Rittenhouse asked if we could "require" that the applicant proceed with Phase I. Mr. Tarbell responded affirmatively and stated that the applicant had agreed to that condition. He added that staff had requested that the applicant explain exactly how the development will proceed. Mr. Rittenhouse also asked that condition No. 4 be amended to read: The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with the letter from Wendell W. Wood to Richard Tarbell dated June 29, 1-990. Ms. Huckle recalled that the comDletion of Austin Drive to Rt. 606 had been a condition on a previous approval (March 1990). She asked if that was correct. Mr. Tarbell stated the condition had been that the final plat Would not be signed until Austin Drive to Rt. 606 was either built or bonded. He added that staff had not signed the final plat at this point. He also stated that it had been neither built nor bonded "because they won't bond that until they are ready to submit the final plats...and when they are ready to be signed, he must either build it or bond it --I assume he will bond it --before it is signed by us giving it final approval." Ms. Huckle stated that it was her understanding that two accesses were required and "bonding does not provide an access." Mr. Tarbell explained that two accesses are required for safety reasons in the.event one access point should be blocked for some reason. - Referring to Attachment D to the staff report, a memo dated May 30, 1990 from Kathy Dodson to Mr. Tarbell, which seemed to indicate that the plat had expired, Ms. Huckle asked to which plat the memo referred. Mr. Tarbell responded: "That may have been referring to the 80-some lots which the preliminary was done for. I don't know why John Horne, the director at that time, decided that the bond was not necessary." Ms. Huckle noted that the memo stated that the plat was "null and void," and asked if that meant that he had to start over. Mr. Tarbell replied: "No. I think that was for a section in here (he pointed on the plan), and I assume what he meant was it wasn't for any lots that access Sriarwood." Mr. Rittenhouse felt Ms. Huckle's concern about two points of access was a valid one. He asked if "we could wind up with literally one access with this development continuing July 24, 1990 Page 3 on under a bond with no time frame within which a second point of access would actually have to be constructed?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "You'd have a bond for the completion of the second access." He was unsure about the time frame for the bond. Mr. Cilimberg added that there are already phases approved which still have only one access constructed and a second access bonded. (Ms. Huckle interjected: "It hasn't been bonded yet.") Mr. Cilimberg responded that bonding was related to the further subdivision of the properties and it would be bonded at final plat. Mr. Tarbell stated that an option might be to require that Austin Drive actually be built before proceeding with the next phase, as was done with Briarwood Drive. Mr. Rittenhouse asked how many lots could be completed with only one point of access. Mr. Tarbell responded that 178 were possible. Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 2 could be changed to read: Briarwood Drive shall be built AND bonded... (changing "or" to "and"). He felt this could avoid more lots being built with only one access with a second access supported only by a bond. Mr. Tarbell explained that the use of "or" would leave it to the applicant's discretion to start the project by bonding and then the condition, in the second sentence, is clarified with the requirement that "Briarwood Drive shall be completed with completion of Phase I." Mr. Cilimberg added: "That's language that's apparently not present on the Austin Drive completion. We only have a bonding condition —in Phase IV and that's the way we word all subdivision plat approvals that require the building of a state road." Mr. Johnson still felt the word "or" should be replaced with "and." "You would just drop the bonded part of it. It would just be 'Briarwood Drive shall be built for its entire length prior to any final plat approval for Phase I." Mr. Cilimberg questioned whether this would be an "allowable" condition because there's no reason for bonding if you build it. Mr. Johnson stated: "If it's built to standards." Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would be required that it be built to standards or else it won't be approved by the County." Mr. Johnson was under the impression that the bond was to insure that the road would be built to State standards. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the reason for the bond on Austin Drive is to insure that it gets built and when it is built that it meets State standards. July 24, 1-990 Page 4 Mr. Rittenhouse asked if staff was comfortable with Austin Road just being bonded with additional lots being plated. Mr. Tarbell responded: "Yes. I think that was the condition when you imposed it at the preliminary." Mr. Cilimberg added: "I think the real question is what the applicant would be willing to do in addition to what is required under the Ordinance." Referring to condition No. 14 of ZMA-79-32 (No final site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or dwelling unit served by either road X or road Y prior to dedication to public use and construction or bonding for acceptance into the Virginia State Secondary Highway System of roads X and Y.], Ms. Huckle asked if a subdivision plat had been approved. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Portions of the plats that are covered by that condition have been approved and those have been approved with the bonding requirement for Austin Drive and the bonding requirement for Briarwood Drive ... has been deferred on at least one occasion. Mr. Tarbell added: "All the lots were done while the bond was still in place for Briarwood Drive,.the existing lots out there, except for the 28 which we brought to you in the fall of 1989, and the 28 which are under preliminary plat approval at the moment." Ms. Huckle stated that it seemed that they had not met the original conditions. Mr. Cilimberg responded:, "Well, they had not met it and it was deferred by the Planning Commission that they didn't.have to meet it and now we're trying to get it squared away again and realizing that that condition hasn't been met we've said 'Let's stop this deferral --let's take.it though the rezoning process and let the Board tell you whether or not you have to meet that condition or an amended condition." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was first represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project. He explained the situation as follows: "When the rezoning took place, Briarwood Drive was to be bonded. About the time they were ready to start Phase 1, they had to build the road for GE so they didn't build Phase I. That's why the phasing is out of order. The difference between what has just recently been approved and Briarwood Drive is that Mr. Wood has lots fronting on what has just recently been approved so he's got to build that road if he's going to sell those lots." In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Muncaster stated that some 1299 July 24, 1990 Page 5 construction has taken place on the access to 606, but it is not completed. Mr. Muncaster concluded the applicant was in agreement with the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Susie Hoffman expressed concern about Austin Drive being connected to Rt. 606 because it would then be a "through road" and would invite a lot more traffic. She also stated that if Briarwood is connected to Rt. 29, then two of the four roads in Briarwood will be "through roads." she indicated she felt this would change the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Joan Kindig, a resident of Camelot, addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the further development of Briarwood causing more traffic (if one of the Briarwood roads is connected to a Camelot road); about the destruction of wildlife; and about runoff to the river. She also noted that Camelot has never had two access points. She felt the development of Briarwood would negatively effect her property value. Regarding the issue of only one access to Camelot, Mr. Cilimberg explained that at one time it had been planned that Camelot would be connected to Briarwood but Camelot had been approved prior to existing Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Mr. Wendall Wood, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated 150 units have been built to date and the properties have continued to increase in value. He stated the development has increased the value of adjoining property. He explained that the current request is a continuing effort to "hold costs down" so that affordable housing can be provided. He gave a brief history of the project. He stated that Austin Drive is being extended as lots are built on it and lots are being built in sequence. He stated that if the market is strong, the road should be completed by fall. He stated approximately 30 more units must be built before Austin Drive is completed. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he stated houses are planned all the way to Rt. 606. He added that all the curb and gutter is in, but the blacktop is yet to be added. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. ,Vg4 July 24, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-08 for Woodbriar Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can be served by the existing gravity sewer, the applicant shall proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phasing plan. 2. Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for construction for its entire length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat approval for Phase I. Briarwood Drive shall be completed with completion.of Phase I. 3. Phases IV, V, VI and the rest of Phase VII shall proceed in that order in accordance with the original phasing plan. 4. The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with the letter form Wendell W. Wood to Richard Tarbell dated June 29, 1990. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Tarbell explained that the total number of lots which could be completed before the roads are completed is 324 .(250 before Phase I + 74 in Phase I). Ms. Huckle asked if all these lots could be served with existing gravity sewer. Mr. Muncaster responded that all those 324 lots can be served by gravity sewer. Mr. Cilimberg added that the Camelot Treatment Plant (built and dedicated to the Service Authority by Mr. Wood) has a reserved capacity to serve the full development of Briarwood. The previously stated :notion for approval passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson asked staff to check into the issue of how so many lots could have been allowed with only one access if the requirement for two accesses is based on a safety requirement. He wondered if an error could have been made. He felt that if this was a safety issue, it should not be ignored. �qlc— .1W July 24, 1990 Regarding the issue of Camelot Cilimberg noted that a second been planned for Camelot, but been opposed because of a conc so the Board had deleted that Page 7 only having one entrance, Mr. access (through Briarwood) had the residents of Camelot had ern about increased traffic, requirement. SDP-90-50 - Applied Technology Engineering Office Building PreliminaKy Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 6,912 square foot building on 0.92 acres of land zoned LI, Light Industrial, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E4, is located approximately .6 mile west of Route 29 on Rt. 649 and, approximately 640 feet north of Dobleann Drive. The site is located within a designated growth area. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the item be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-90-049 - Star Enterprise Canopy and Pump Island Revisions Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to rearrange the pump islands and construct an 86' x 38' canopy on the existing 1305 square foot Texaco gas station on a 0.69 acre site. Property, described as Tax Map 45C, Section 2, Parcel Ar 2, is located on the east side of Route 29 North at its XW intersection with Woodbrook Drive. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that condition 2(b) be changed to read: "Engineering Department review and approval of the final site plan." Staff expressed no objection to this suggestion. Mr. Johnson asked if this plan would be effected by the possible widening of Rt. 29. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the improvements to 29 are still undetermined, but the plan does not infringe on the right-of-way of Rt. 29 as it currently exists. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff could not apply conditions related to an improvement which has not yet been identified. a9G July 24, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Johnson asked how the removal of the northern access to the site would be accomplished. Mr. Tarbell responded that staff would expect that the landscaped median would be extended. There was a brief discussion about whether or not the access on the Woodbrook Drive side of the site lined up with the access which was across the street. Staff explained that these accesses did not line up. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "This is an off site exit and entrance in terms of this site plat_." Mr. Tarbeil added: "This is an existing situation. ... This is a separate parcel from the shopping Center and the entrance and that's why we have the condition requiring that they continue to provide access...." The applicant was represented by Mr. Charles Watson, the site engineer, and Mr. Don Went. Mr. Watson explained that the proposed site revisions would bring the site into conformance with the Zoning ordinance by meeting setback requirements and eliminating an existing nonconforming use and they would also result in greater convenience and safety for customers. He also explained that the proposed revisions would cause a minimum disruption to the site. With regard to the access issue., he stated the applicant "took exception" to the closing of the northern access and also to the access across the rear parcel. Mr. Went explained that the applicant wanted to give the facility a newer look and also increase its volume. He objected to the requirement to close the northern access because he felt this would result in no increase in volume and thus the expenditures to make the improvements could not be justified. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he supported both staff and VDOT's recommendations. He felt the improvements would increase the volume of business and thereby increase traffic which would exacerbate an existing substandard condition. Ms. Huckle moved that SDP-9C-049 for Star Enterprise Canopy and Pump Island Revisions Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Removal of the northern entrance on Route 29: 2. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: .2177 July 24, 1990 Page 9 a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements in accordance with their Site Review Committee comments dated June 21, 1990; b. Engineering Department review and approval of the final site plan; c. Staff approval of an access easement between Parcels 2 and 4 on Tax Map 45C, Section 2; d. Staff approval of pavement markings to delineate circulation patterns. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-90-051 - I-641250 East Exxon Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 2,160 square foot gas station/convenience store on 2.22 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 33B, is located on the south side of Route 250 approximately 750 feet west of its intersection with I-64 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the exit -only in accordance with Section 4.12.6.1, staff recommends approval of this preliminary site plan with ... conditions." Mr. Johnson asked about the project's impact on the Rivanna River's designation as a scenic river. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it was his understanding that the Advisory Committee of the Scenic Rivers Act was to deal with proposals that were actually in the river itself. Ms. Huckle asked if consideration was being given to the issue of runoff from the project into the river. Mr. Cilimberg explained that condition 1(a) would address issues of runoff. He noted, however, that this area was not in a stormwater management area in terms of the County's ordinance. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on VDOT's lack of support for an "exit only" based on its position in relation to the crossover. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Tarbell first explained the history of the existing zoning on the property. Regarding the issue of the "exit only" Mr. July 24, 1.990 Page 10 Tarbell felt it was a matter of distance between the exit and the crossover in relation to speed which could be achieved within that distance. Mr. Tarbell also explained that the road begins to converge from two lanes into one at this point which is also a consideration. Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted: "So there are three things potentially going on: A reduction in the number of travel lanes; traffic using the crossover; and traffic entering that road from this exit only." Ms. Huckle asked what would be the advantage of the "exit --only." Mr. Tarbell explained that staff felt it would reduce traffic conflicts from east -bound traffic. There was a brief discussion about traffic patterns. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "What is included in 1(g) is a condition that would provide signage on site to direct eastbound traffic only out of the 'exit -only.' It will tell westbound traffic to go to the crossover by the circulation in the site." In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Tarbell explained this would by a by -right use on the existing zoning and proffer on the property. He stated that only employee bathrooms would be available because of limitations on the drainfield. The Commission continued to discuss traffic movements, including deceleration, and acceleration lanes. Though Mr. Grimm asked if there was room for an eastbound acceleration lane, staff explained that staff is never in favor of such lanes and one would not be possible in this situation because of the fact that the road narrows to one lane in such a short distance. Mr. Johnson.felt this was an extremely dangerous traffic situation given the fact that traffic is exiting 1-64 into two lanes which suddenly become one. He felt an acceleration lane, which would allow traffic to get up to speed before it entered the highway, would be desirable. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Tarbell confirmed this elan would have to meet the new landscape regulations. Mr. Wilkerson also expressed concern about the aesthetic appeal of the facility given its location on one of the entrances to the city. He asked particularly about landscaping on the western side of the site. (Mr. Tarbell explained this was off site.) Mr. Wilkerson asked about .299 July 24, 1990 Page 11 landscaping on the property line itself. (Mr. Tarbell explained that the existing tree line would be preserved and there would be minimal grading.) Mr. Johnson asked about the property line running through the access. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the access in question was not a public road but was rather a private joint access easement shared with other properties located adjacent to that road. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. David Sutton addressed the Commission. He stated he was in agreement with staff's recommendation for the "exit -only" because he felt it was the safest configuration for the site. He stated that 75% of the traffic using the site will be eastbound. He also stated that it was his understanding that VDOT's position regarding the distance between the exit and the crossover was based on the Rt. 29 Study and was not an actual VDOT requirement. He also stated that the orginal plan had included an acceleration lane but that had been modified in favor of the current plan at the request of the Highway Department. He explained that the facility would have an appearance similar to the one at the corner of Barracks Road and Rt. 29 North. He stated the applicant would be happy to comply with suggestions made by representatives of Monticello to plant white pines on the :► eastern and southern edges of the property. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Sutton stated the height of the sign would be no more more than 30 feet and probably would not be visible from the Interstate. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. David Wood, representing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (Monticello), addressed the Commission. He called the Commission's attention to Section 15-1-5032 of the Code of Virginia which deals with the preservation of historic sites, particularly Monticello. He also called the Commission's attention to Section 30.5.5.2 and 3 of the Ordinance (Scenic Overlay District). He stated his organization was encouraging the County to implement these sections as soon as possible to "try to preserve Monticello and it's area from unattractive development." He stressed the value of Monticello to the community's economy. He stated that he understood the applicant's right to develop the property, but his purpose in attending this meeting was -106 July 24, 1990 Page 12 to request that the Commission require a buffer zone around the site. s"ie pointed out that all the land "immediately to. the east (of the site in question) and all the land immediately across the river is part of the Monticello land holdings ... and the land between 250 lying immediately east of the site is the Shadwell tract, the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson." Regarding the Shadwell tract, he stated that though there are no current plans for its development, the Foundation "is in the process of initiating plans for the development of the Shadwell site --trying to keep it as much like it was when Thomas Jefferson was here." It was for that reason that the Foundation was very interested in requiring a buffer zone on the east side of this site as well as on the west and south side of the site. He noted that the site under consideration sits on approximately the same level as the Shadwell site, though Monticello looks down on the site. He asked that the Commission require whatever it saw fit to protect the viewshed of Monticello. Ms. Huckle asked what width of buffer Mr. Wood envisioned. Mr. Wood was uncertain how the buffer could be accomplished given the extensive pavement on the site. Mr. Wilkerson questioned if the applicant could be required to install a buffer off site. Mr. Wood pointed out that the applicant also owns the surrounding property. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "The site plan before you is for a specific parcel created by subdivision and that parcel line runs in the middle of the road. Any activity on the outside of that parcel is not addressable in this site plan review." Mr. Cilimberg added that he felt Mr. Wood wanted to make sure that there was an adequate area of trees and "non -development" between the developed area and any adjacent parcels, particularly to the east, but also to the south. (Mr. 'Wood added: "And to the west.") Mr. Cilimberg stated that not much could be done to the west because that is off site, "except for landscaping in the island to the west side of the building." He added, however, that there were areas of natural woods which would be undisturbed. He also noted that the applicant has indicated a willingness to do additional plantings next to the parking areas on the south, east, and north side of the site. Mr. Wilkerson noted that the applicant had indicated he would install a double row of white pines. He asked what height would be required for these trees. Mr. Tarbell responded that a noICe could be placed on the landscape plan which says 115 to 6 feet in height when planted." July 24, 1990 Page 13 Ms. Huckle asked if there could be a condition requiring that the vegetation on the south and east remain undisturbed. Mr. Tarbell responded that the plan did not show any grading on the existing tree line. He also stated that condition (1f), which includes a conservation checklist, would address the preservation of the existing tree line. Mr. Wood pointed out that a "scenic study" of Monticello had just been completed which reveals what areas throughout the northeastern and southeastern view from Monticello could be developed without vision from Monticello. He stated that the site under consideration is classified as "not visible with foliage in existence," though it is visible when foliage is absent. Mr. Wood added that if the County and the State had addressed the issue of preservation of historic sites and the scenic overlay districts before development had begun, "we wouldn't have any problems with taking care of the problems which are before us right now." He felt this issue needed to be addressed as soon as possible for other sites. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle stated she was uncomfortable with the plan. She felt the exit -only situation would be very dangerous. She also indicated she was not comfortable with the proposed architecture of the building. She stated she could look more favorably on a different design, such as a wood or brick --something which looked less typically like a gas station. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that though the applicant could proffer a certain building design, there was no mechanism for requiring a certain architecture on a site plan review. Mr. Grimm asked if VDOT had concerns about any safety issues. Mr. Tarbell responded that VDOT recommends that any access to a site be at least 500 feet from a crossover. He also indicated there was concern about the merging patterns with the exit only. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff felt it was better to try to segregate the exits rather than have traffic conflicts on site. He noted that the final decision was up to the Commission. He added that if the Commission did not choose to approve the exit -only, then "you refer it back to us to look at how the on -site circulation might be better addressed knowing that there's not going to be an exit -only." ,1D2 July 24, 1990 Page 14 Mr. Johnson stated he was very familiar with the road and adding an exit -only would result in three lanes funneling into one. He felt the exit would only make sense if an acceleration lane were included. There was a brief discussion about the dimensions of the site. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he had several problems with the plan including: (1) VDOT does not support an access within 500 feet of the crossover; (2) The dangerous situation which exists with the high speed traffic on Rt. 250 merging with the traffic coming from this site; (3) The "turning geometry" appears to be inadequate; (4) Specific landscape plans are warranted at this preliminary stage because of the impact on Monticello. He concluded he could not support this site plan. Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse and moved that the I-64/250 East Exxon Preliminary Site Plan be denied. (Note: This motion never received a second and another motion for denial was made later on.) Discussion: GIs. Andersen expressed concern about the lack of public restroom facilities. She felt this was an important part of this type of use. She felt it would be difficult to restrict the bathroom usage to employees only. She felt if public facilities could not be offered, then this type of use should not be in this location. Ms. Huckle indicated she was in favor of a buffer of trees of the western perimeter of the property. She felt this should be possible since the applicant owns both properties. Mr. Bowling stated: "I don't think you can make him landscape off -site since (the Planning Commission) previously approved this subdivision. I don't know of any requirement that would allow you, under your existing ordinances, to require such a buffer. Part of the problem here is that you don't have in place an Historical Cooridor Ordinance which would tie you into an Architectural Control Board and some of the other things you were talking about earlier." Ms. Andersen suggested a buffer on the western edge, on -site, which might require that the site be redesigned. J?02 July 24, 1990 Page 15 Mr. Bowling pointed out that the access easement was approved when the subdivision was approved. Mr. Tarbell pointed out that the access easement on the western side was not subject to relocation because it had to be lined up with the crossover. Mr. Johnson concluded: "It looks like the only way we can reject this if we don't like it is through the safety factor the access has identified." Mr. Rittenhouse added that he agreed with the State's comments. Mr. Jenkins moved that the I-64/250 East Exxon Preliminary Site Plan be denied based on concerns about the safety of the proposed egress. He added that "on the second go -round" particular attention should be paid to the vegetation on the site. (Mr. Grimm withdrew his previous motion.) Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SUB-90-092 South 29 Land Trust Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 18 lots on 6.034 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 46B(2) Parcel 03-E is located between the two intersections of Powell Creek and Tinker's Cove Road approximately 3/4 mile from Route 29 via Hollymead Drive. Zoned P.U.D., Planned Unit Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated growth area. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on VDOT's recommendation for "limited entrances to these lots since there is sufficient right-of-way along the frontage to accommodate the ultimate four -lane divided road section on Powell Creek Drive" and staff's comment in the staff report that "staff can support joint entrances subject to Virginia Department of Transportation approval and any needed site easement improvements." Mr. Cilimberg explained that the current proposal is for only half the number of lots of what was originally proposed (12 lots on Powell Creek Drive instead of 24), and for only 6 joint driveways. He also pointed out that the current plan also includes open space which the original plan did not. He stated staff felt the July 24, 1990 Page 16 "tradeoff was a reasonable one in terms of allowing the joint driveways rather than coming internally with a service road for less lots, pushing these lots back to a point where most, if not all, this open space may be lost." Mr. Cilimberg explained some of the history of Powell Creek Road and the future plans. He also explained that due to the uncertainty of definitive road plans for this area, staff felt "in considering the development proposed, it was not reasonable, under our ordinances, to require that type of internal access. We could not identify this as a major road in our current planning work." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He stated the applicant had no objections to any of the conditions of approval. He explained this plan attempts to preserve the majority of the wooded areas. He added that by cutting the number of units in half, the amount of runoff will also be reduced by more than half. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Edwards to comment on drainage problems which were referred to in the staff report. Mr. Edwards stated that no improvements had been proposed with this plan. He confirmed that the "improvements" referred to in the staff report were the reduction in the number of units and the resulting reduction in the amount of impervious coverage. Mr. James Hill, the applicant, was also present and asked to be allowed to address public comments at the end of the comment period. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Greg Anderson, a resident of Tinker's 'Cove Road, expressed concern about existing drainage problems on his property. He explained these problems in some detail and expressed the fear that the existing problems will worsen with this new development. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he felt Mr. Anderson's concerns would be addressed by condition 8: "On -site and/or off -site stormwater management shall be approved, and completed or bonded to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department." Mr. Jeff Johnson, a resident of Tinker's Cove Road, was not opposed to the proposed development, but he, too, expressed concern about the drainage problems. He presented photographs showing flooding of his back yard. 1565 July 24, 1990 Page 17 Mr. Hill, the applicant, addressed the issue of the existing drainage problems. He stated he was aware of the problem but felt it was also a problem of the Homeowners' Association. He indicated the pond which was causing the problems was supposed to be monitored by the Homeowners' Association. Referring to a statement in the staff report which stated that "due to questionable siting, buffering and drainage, this project was indefinitely deferred on June 11, 1985, Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Hill what had changed since that time. Mr. Hill explained that this plan has more buffer and less ground cover. Mr. Edwards added that the previous plan had included a roadway running through the lots which resulted in a lot more impervious surface. He stated the original plan had included an enclosed piping system to handle runoff but this plan does not require such a system. He also pointed out that requiring stormwater detention on this site would result in the loss of many of the existing trees. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle stated that if this request was approved she was in favor of requiring that off -site and on -site work be "approved and bonded to be completed." There was some discussion about this suggestion. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that if the work has been approved, then it has been completed. Mr. Cilimberg interpreted Ms. Huckle wanted a bond to assure that the measures would continue to work and be maintained after they were installed. Mr. Cilimberg stated he was not familiar with this type of bond but noted that the County has not, in the past, required long-term bonding. Mr. Rittenhouse referred to this as a performance bond. He stated traditionally bonding is required to insure that construction will be done. Mr. Johnson questioned whether this type of bond was feasible. Mr. Bowling was also uncertain. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that such a bond would actually be asking the applicant to insure that the County's Engineering Department was correct in their approval of the structure. He stated that if the County is to rely on it's technical branches, i.e. on the Department of Engineering's approval, then we are asking them to confirm that the design will work. Mr. Bowling added that normally Engineering will not give approval until the plan has been tested and at that time the bond is released. ,30� July 24, 1990 Page 18 Mr. Cilimberg stated he was not familiar with any type of bond which the Zoning Department might take on behalf ofthe Engineering Department in the area of stormwater management facilities past the point of construction of those facilities. He concluded: "But T don't think that anything above what we do right now is directly allowable in our ordinances." Mr. Cilimberg noted that these type of facilities usually do not experience problems for the first several years and that type of long-term bonding is certainly not possible at this time. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SUB 90-092 for South 29 Land Trust Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: (1) Virginia.Department of Transportation approval of entrances; (2) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage calculations; (3) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of walkway redesign or adjustment to accommodate entrances; (4) Fire Official approval of required fire flow: (5) Department of Engineering approval of drainage easement plats; (6)_ Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations (7) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; (8) On -site and/or off -site stormwater management shall be approved, and completed or bonded to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department; (9) Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; 110) Planning Department approval of a revised homeowners' agreement to include the new 50,214 square foot "open space's area; (11) Staff approval of.a conservation plan in order to obtain required tree canopy and to maintain natural area between existing and proposed lots. Mr. .7enkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Blue Ridge Shopping Center Preliminary Site Plan Extension request - The applicant is requesting extension of the J0I July 24, 1990 Page 19 previous approval for 74,800 square feet of retail, office, and warehouse use on 6.25 acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The previous approval expires on August 8, 1990. The applicant is requesting that approval be extended to April 4, 1991. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels 109B, 110 and 110A (part) is located on the south side of Rt. 250, approximately one mile east of the Rt. 250/Rt. 240/Rt. 635 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. The site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report which included a detailed history of the project. Mr. Cilimberg concluded that staff felt an extension of the site plan approval was not warranted. He pointed out that since preliminary plan approval there have been changes in the building site provisions of the Ordinance which may effect the development. of this site and should be considered in any extension for final site plans. Though the staff report stated that "the Planning Commission has typically granted unencumbered extension when delay has been caused by a reviewing agency," staff felt that had not been the reason for delay in this case, but rather the delay had been caused by the deferrals requested by the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant was requesting a deferral to April, 1991 and if the Commission should choose to grant an extension as requested by the applicant, the final site plan should comply with current regulations as has been required in the past. The staff report pointed out that the new provisions of the Ordinance which may alter the design of the development (if waivers are not granted) include those which prohibit structures, improvements and earth moving within 100 feet of streams within the watershed and on slopes of 25% or greater and those related to tree canopy. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the options available to the Commission: (1) Deny the extension request in which case the applicant remains within the one-year limit to submit his final site plan (by August 8); (2) Agree with the applicant and grant an unencumbered site plan extension to April 4, 1991; or (3) Grant a conditional extension which would include the intent that review of the final site plan be in terms of the Ordinance provisions which are now in place. The Chairman invited applicant comment. NEVVIA MW July 24, 1990 Page 20 The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner, developer of the property. Mr. Wagner made a lengthy statement which included a detailed history of the project. He explained that the plan which the applicant would like to do is superior to the plan which has already been approved because it has less square footage which will result in less traffic. He noted that approval of the new plan would require that waivers be granted, but he also pointed out that if the existing plan were to be approved "today", it, too, would require waivers. He explained that the new plan would be beneficial both to the developer and the County because with PD-SC zoning the property would be easier for county staff to manage because parking requirements would remain constant. He felt the plan would be beneficial to the community because re -zoning to PD-SC would include a committmer_t from the applicant on the types of uses. He stated the applicant would agree to to eliminate many less desirable uses which are currently allowed by -right under the present HC zoning. He pointed out that if the property remains zoned HC, "we build the thing that's up .there and there's no committment as long as parking requirements are met as to what that property can be used for." He asked that the Commission grant the applicant's request, but noted: "For this to work, the extension would have to be unencumbered... (otherwise* we would have no choice but to meet our August date." He felt the extension would allow the applicant to "build a shopping center which will respect the scenic highway, be more attractive and better serve the community than the plan —which can be built right now by right." The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. John Marston expressed his opposition to the development. He gave a brief history of the opposition which has accompanied this development. Mr. Heinz Adam asked for a definition of "unencumbered extension.." Mr. Rittenhouse explained that in this case it would mean that the approval would be extended until April, 1991 with no additional requirements attached to the extension. Mr. Adam asked what a rezoning, as referred to by Mr. Wagner, had to do with this A° -. _.;;�� request. Mr. Rittenhouse responded that the request was simply for an extension. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. J&V July 24, 1990 Page 21 Mr. Wagner responded to Mr. Adams' question regarding rezoning and explained that the applicant would prefer to make a rezoning request in order to implement the alternative plan and that plan cannot meet the August 8, 1990 deadline, but the applicant cannot afford to lose the approval on the plan which has already been approved. He explained that if he could get an extension on the existing plan he could set it aside and pursue a rezoning request to implement the alternative plan. Mr. Adam interpreted that the request for an extension was an ulterior motive for a rezoning request. He urged that the request for an extension be denied. Mr. Wagner also pointed out that the deferrals which had been requested by the applicant were the result of the applicant's efforts to work with staff, the public and engineers to try to come up with a better plan. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted that the applicant would like to do something other than "what is present on this preliminary site plan" and that would require waivers. He explained further that if an extension is granted with the final site plan to be reviewed under the current ordinance, "the applicant still has the opportunity to go foward and request waivers." He noted that one issue of importance ---a 100 foot setback from the stream vs. a 20 foot setback from the stream --was likely not to change for either a conditional extension or an unencumbered extension. Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that he was in favor of consistency in the Commission's approach to such requests and, therefore, he had no problem with an extension, but with the requirement that staff review the final site plan, under the extension, in light of the ordinances that are currently in place. Mr. Rittenhouse recalled that staff had been granted administrative approval of the final site plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "If you grant the extension as you've mentioned, we'll review it based on the regulations that are now in place." Mr. Johnson stated: "I accept your word on that, but I don't think the responsibility should be yours to do that --that in approving or extending this, the Commission ought to �/O July 24, 1990 Page 22 say that it will be reviewed for conformance with existing Code." (There was some confusion about the meaning of Mr. Johnson's statement.) Mr. Johnson clarified: "We would require --if we extend it --it would be with us telling you to review it in line with the current Code rather than passing the buck over to you...." Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Blue Ridge Shopping Center Preliminary Site Plan Extension be approved to April 4, 1991 with the requirement that the final site plan be reviewed by staff under the current ordinance requirements. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there was nothing different about this approval than any other site plan approval, i.e. if the applicant takes issue with any of the conditions, he has the opportunity to appeal to the Commission and request waivers. It was also noted that the applicant could still submit the already approved plan by the August, 1990 deadline. The motion was seconded by Mr. Grimm. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins noted that this request had included some "surprises," but he did not think he had enough information to make a decision as to what was best for the Crozet area on such short notice. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Johnson called the Commission's attention to an article which had appeared in the Washington Post, July 24, 1990, referring to Howard County, Maryland's "Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance." He stated this ordinance allows the staff, Commission and Board to "retain the authority to disapprove development applications on the basis of non -supporting roads and schools." Mr. Johnson suggested that staff look at this article. Mr. Cilimberg responded to Mr. Johnson's statements: "It's not allowed under Virginia State Code." However, he explained that currently "there is a sub -committee in the Virginia General Assembly that is investigating adequate public facilities ordinances, transfer of development rights, impact fees, and other growth management mechanisms for application in Virginia...." July 24, 1990 Page 23 Mr. Johnson asked if it was appropriate, if the County supported these provisions, that a representation be made to the sub -committee in the name of the County of Albemarle. Mr. Cilimberg stated staff could bring that issue before the Commission in the fall. Mr. Johnson brought up the issue of the proposed pay raise for the Commission. He made the following motion: "In recognition of the budget problems currently faced by local, state and federal governments, we hereby request that the Board of Supervisors take no further action relative to any increase of salary applicable to members of the Planning Commission; and furthermore, we hope that all other non -elected "volunteer" members of local government boards and commissions take this same position relative to any compensation they may receive." Mr. Johnson felt a raise was "bad precedent and bad publicity" and turning down a raise would "raise our image in the sight of the community." This issue was discussed briefly but the motion died for lack of a second. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. I X� yne gifimbetg, S ., lb