Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 11 90 PC MinutesSEPTEMBER 11, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 11, 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. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; 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 August 21, 1990 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Branchlands Phase IV Site Plan Amendment (SDP-89-Q„Z) - Proposal to construct 18 townhouse/condominium units. Access will be from private roads intersecting Branchlands Drive near its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. The site is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District and is described as Tax Map 81Z, Section 3, Parcels 4 and 5. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell gave a brief explanation of the proposal. Mr_ Rittenhouse expressed some concern about the condition requiring an engineer's report for the retaining wall, certifying that the wall is constructed according to approved design. He questioned whether this was a practical condition since a structural engineer would certify the design, "if he did it," but probably would not certify its construction. Mr. Tarbell explained that this was a condition of the Engineering Department and he felt they had suggested the condition so as to place the burden for inspection on the developer and not on the County Engineering Department. It was finally decided the condition would be amended to read as follows: "Sealed and signed report from a certified professional engineer stating that the retaining wall is constructed according to approved design if deemed necessary by the Director of Engineering." Addition to Carter's Bridge Agricult_Ural/Forestal District - Referral to Advisory Committee - Consists of 19 parcels totalling 2,236.134 acres located in three areas of Rt. 20 South. The proposed time Period is the same as for the _-Vo September 11, 1990 Page 2 original district, or 10 years from April 20, 1988. The existing Carter's Bridge District contains 7,969.72 acres. With this addition, Carter's Bridge District will be the second largest district in the County. - Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent Agenda be approved with the amended condition for the Branchlands Phase IV Site Plan Amendment as stated above. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-9 - 31 Stillfield PrMliMinary PIRf - Proposal to create seven new lots averaging 2.1 acres with a 6.4 acre residue from three existing parcels totalling 22.43 acres. Six of the lots are proposed to be served by an internal public road. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcels 69A, 69A1, and 69F, is located on the north side of -Route 654 (BArracks Road) approximately 8/10 of a mile west of Georgetown. Road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Tarbell presented a brief history of the development and explanation of the development rights. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the maintenance of the shared driveway for lot 7. Mr. Tarbell explained that part of the driveway was on lot 7 (the existing Newman property) and part of it is in Montvue Drive's dedication. Mr. Tarbell stated a condition could be added addressing this concern, i.e. that Lot 7 and the Newman property would share the maintenance of the shared entrance. Mr. Tarbell explained staff's reasoning for the wording of condition 1(e): ["Staff approval of an amended road maintenance agreement for the Lot 7 access to Montvue Drive = a comparable agreement to the satisfaction of the Montvue Homeowners' Association.] Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted staff's explanation as follows: "In other words, the Montvue Association controls the land that you're restricting the driveway to." (Mr. Tarbell confirmed this was accurate.) This issue was discussed again briefly later in the meeting but it was ultimately decided that no change in the condition was necessary, �- September 11, 1990 Page .3 Mr. Rittenhouse expressed some confusion about condition 1(f) in relation to location: ["Note on the plat: 'The driveway to Lot 7 is restricted to the shared access with Parcel 69F. The driveway shall be constructed no less than 40 feet and not more than 125 feet from Montvue Drive."'] After Mr. Tarbell explained the issue further, Mr. Rittenhouse expressed understanding. Ms. Huckle expressed surprise that a road maintenance agreement was not being required for the shared driveway. She noted that though the arrangement may be clear to the current applicant, it may not be clear to some future purchaser. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He stated the developer had no problem with staff's recommendations. He offered no further additional comment. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson felt there were some potential future problems with restricting the location of the driveway to Lot 7. He felt the restriction was "unreasonable and unnecessary," Mr. Tarbell pointed out that any further subdivision would result in a third lot on a private road and then the private vs. public road issue would have to be decided. Mr. Tarbell stated he was not aware of the developer's future plans and acknowledged that he may encounter design problems. He noted that future plans were not before the Commission at this time. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Stillfield Preliminary Plat (formerly Highlands Preliminary Plat) - SUB-90--131 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; C. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; ., M September 11, 1990 Page 4 e. Staff approval of an amended road maintenance agreement for the Lot 7 access to Montvue Drive OR a comparable agreement to the satisfaction of the Montvue Homeowners Association; f. Note on the plat: "The driveway to Lot 7 is restricted to the shared access with Parcel 89F. The driveway shall be constructed no less than 40 feet and not more than 125 feet from Montvue Drive." 2. Dedication of additional right-of-way on Route 654 if necessary to accommodate the 100 foot taper lane. 3. Administrative approval of the final plat. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. (There was a brief discussion as to whether or'not the motion included a condition related to maintenance for the shared driveway. Mr. Peeler explained: "If it's maintained by the Montvue Homeowner's Association, it's very simple --their maintenance agreement is going to be to agree to let the Montvue Homeowners' Association maintain it." He felt the condition was adequate as stated. There was some suggested language but it was finally decided that no additional language was necessary.) Mr. Wilkerson confirmed his motion was for approval subject to staff's original conditions, The motion passed unanimously. D -90-63 - Wray Partngrs ip Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to construct a 6,000 square foot building on 3.6 acres. Property described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 4N, is located on the south side of Hunters Way and is approximately 1800 feet North of Route 250 East_ Zoned LI, Light Industrial in the Rivanna Magisterial District.f The site is not located within a growth area. (SDP-87-062 approval allowed construction of a 12,000 square foot building and a 9,800 square foot storage yard served by 30 parking spaces). Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if condition No. 4 ["Completion of erosion control measures and planting of landscaping .�.W September 11, 1990 Page 5 required by prior approval."] would address the need for rip -rap on the ditch along the northern property line. Ms. Lipinski responded affirmatively. Mr. Rittenhouse commented on the Health Department's approval of service for 30 people. He asked if this should be made a condition of approval. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. Mr. Johnson asked if staff felt all the provisions in Attachment D (letter from the Department of Transportation dated 8-8-90) were either covered in the conditions of approval OR were not pertinent. Ms. Lipinski responded affirmatively. The Chairman -was represented by Mr. Stan Tatum. He offered no additional comment. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked if there was a time limit for completion of the measures of the first building. Mr. Keeler responded: "That would be up to the Zoning Administrator; they are in default of their performance bonds now. The surety has been renewed but the bond has not been extended so the performance dates are still the dates that are in the report. Obviously, not obtaining their building permit will be an incentive for them to complete the work." To address Mr. Rittenhouse's concern about Health Department approval, it was decided the following condition would be added: "Occupancy of all buildings shall not exceed 30 persons without additional Health Department approval." (Mr. Keeler also noted that the conditions of approval had been improperly numbered. He explained the correct numbering which is reflected below.) Mr. Grimm moved that the Wray Partnership Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall neither accept the submittal of the final plan nor shall it be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; .3841 September 11, 1990 Page 6 b. Department of Engineering approval of an amended Erosion Control Plan; C. Zoning Department approval to include parking calculations; d. Completion of erosion control measures and planting of landscaping.required by prior approval; e. Planning Department approval of the revised landscape plan to include screening along storage yard fenceline. 2. Staff approval of final site plan. 3. Occupancy of all buildings shall not exceed 30 persons without additional Health Department approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.. Entrance 7Qrridgr Overlay District - Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Board had referred this proposed ordinance back to the Commission for additional comment, taking into consideration a written proposal made by the Piedmont Environmental Council. Though the Board had requested that the Commission review this issue at this meeting (September 11.), Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that the Commission hear the item at a work session on September 25th. He explained the reason for the extended period was because of the importance of the item and the need for additional time to allow staff to review the issue further. After a brief discussion, Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to review the revised EC Ordinance on September 25th at it's regular meeting time. The motion passed unanimously. DOTE: Mr. Johnson asked for a copy of the Board's minutes related to the discussion of this item. Mr. Keeler stated he would make this request to the Clerk of the Board, but he had no authority to require. MISCELLANEOUS There was a brief discussion about different.types of bonds which the County can require. Mr. Keeler explained that there are basically two types of bonds: (1) Performance 395- September 11, 1990 Page 7 bonds to insure that work is done; and (2) Maintenance bonds for roads. Ms. Huckle expressed concern, as she had at previous meetings, about some sort of bond which could be held for a certain length of time to insure that a measure was actually going to achieve the intended objective. There was a brief discussion about the Commission's upcoming meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there were any times which would not be convenient for any commissioner. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. DS _ .b V. Wa Cilimbe g, cretary 3% �i I lF ,