HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 23 90 PC MinutesOCTOBER 23, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 23, 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. Richard Tarbell, Planner;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski;
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.
SP-90-84 L.F. Jr. and PatriciaE. Wood owner Sovran Bank
a licant - The applicant is requesting a special use
permit to allow five drive through windows [24.2.2(13)] on a
one -acre portion of 35.52 acres zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E
(part) is located adjacent to Bonanza on the north side of
Route 631 approximately four -tenths of a mile east of Route
29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He stated
the applicant was in agreement with the conditions of
approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-84 for Sovran Bank be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Approval is for four drive -through windows and one
drive -through automatic teller machine only. Any additional
drive -through facilities require a separate special use
permit petition.
2. The development shall be in accordance with the Sovran
Bank Preliminary Site Plan dated October 23, 1990 and
initialled RET.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Sovran Bank at Rio Road -Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
construct a 2,915 square foot bank with five drive -through
October 23, 1990 Page 2
windows on a one -acre site. Property, described as Tax Map
61, Parcel 124E (part), is located adjacent to Bonanza on
the north side of Rio Road approximately 4/10 of a mile east
of Route 29 North. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located
within a designated growth area.
(Mr. Tarbell had presented this staff report along with the
report for the special permit.) Staff was requesting
administrative approval of the preliminary site plan,
subject to the Board's approval of SP-90-84 and subject to
conditions.
Mr. Grimm moved that staff be granted administrative
approval of the preliminary site plan for Sovran Bank, said
approval subject to the following conditions:
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. Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of road and drainage plans and calculations
based on their review and approval of a traffic
generation analysis for the ultimate development of
the proposed access road;
b. Department of Engineering approval of
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval
of water and sewer plans;
e. Staff approval of a final landscape plan;
f. Staff approval of a maintenance agreement
for the joint stormwater detention facility.
2. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
4. Administrative approval of the subdivision plat to
create the one -acre bank site. The plat shall not be signed
until the following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
-j
October 23, 1990 Page 3
Mr. Johnson asked staff to explain the reasoning behind
condition No. 1 (as stated above). Mr. Keeler explained
that "tentative approval allows us to accept the submitted
site plan and then distribute it to the Site Review
Committee." He explained further that a tentative approval
is an indication that that department is prepared to sign
the site plan. Mr. Keeler explained how the process works.
SDP-90-082 - City of Charlottesville Public Works Center
Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to create a 3.72 acre
inert material landfill on a total acreage of 50.87.
Property, described as Tax Map 77E(1), Parcel 1 is located
on the northern edge of Interstate 64 approximately 0.55
miles west of the I-64/Route 20 interchange and is located
at the existing Public Works Center. Zoned LI, Light
Industrial, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This
site is located within a growth area.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. The staff report
summarized: "Due to its visual impact to the I-64 entrance
corridor and the absence of a regional effort to locate an
inert landfill, staff cannot recommend that the proposed use
is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriate
screening of the site from I-64 would address the visual
integrity the Comprehensive Plan desires to maintain. Staff
would recommend cooperative effort between the City, County
and, if appropriate, University of Virginia in siting an
inert landfill as an alternative to this proposal."
(Staff offered conditions of approval if the Commission
chose to approve the plan.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bruce McNab, Assistant
Director of Public Works for the City of Charlottesville.
Regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, he offered
the following arguments against the staff's position: (1)
The property is in a growth area, not a rural area, and the
applicant feels the project would not have an adverse impact
on the vitality or quality of life in the county; (2) There
are no established criteria for local scenic highways. The
applicant does not feel this section of I-64 is a local
scenic highway. The applicant feels that application of
this standard would be arbitrary in this case; (3) The
applicant disagrees that the plan should be considered under
the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as the plan was
submitted to the County prior to the approval of the
District; and (4) The applicant believes the site will not
be visible from I-64.
Mr. Tony Edwards, also representing the applicant, presented
a video tape showing how a passenger in a vehicle on I-64
would view this site.
46
October 23, 1990 Page 4
Mr. McNab stated the applicant is in agreement with the
staff's recommendations for screening of the site and the
plan provides for the maximum amount of screening. He
pointed out that VDOT is not willing to permit additional
screening within their right-of-way. He also pointed out
that the proposed use is temporary with an expected life of
five years. He stated the site would be "just as good if
not better than it is currently" at the end of that five
years. Regarding staff's comment about solid wastes, he
noted that "the formal recommendations of the City -County
Public Task Force are not actually included in the County's
Comprehensive Plan." He stressed that the proposed site
plan addresses an immediate, short-term need for the City
and "the City remains committed to the Task Force and its
recommendations and the City is willing to create the
regional inert landfill site." He pointed out that the
proposed site called for in the Solid Waste Committee
recommendations is approximately 30 acres while this
proposed site is less than 4 acres. Therefore, it is not
viewed as the substitution of one for another. He stated
this site is viewed as being an addition to the regional
site. He also pointed out that development of this site
would reduce the amount of inert material going to the
landfill which is a recommendation of the Solid Waste Task
Force. Regarding compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, he
stated it is the City's position that the state's Solid
Waste Regulations would permit the deposit of these
materials at this site. He stated the applicant agrees with
staff's comments regarding utility easements.
In answer to Ms. Huckle's question about use of the property
at the end of the five years, Mr. McNab explained that there
were no immediate plans though it was possible the site
might be used for storage of vehicles or construction of
storage facilities. He noted that the Entrance Corridor
Overlay would be in place at that time and the applicant
would be happy to have any future projects reviewed at that
time.
In response to Mr. Johnson's questions about elevation, Mr.
Keeler explained that when the use is finished, the property
will be a plateau at the same elevation as the self -storage
building (currently on the site).
The applicants responded to Commission questions with the
following additional information: (1) Fill for covering
will come from the site itself; (2) The site will be
leveled off as the use progresses; (3) There will be no
monitor at the site, but the site will be secured by a gate
system; (4) City trucks and contractors for the City will
be able to use the site.
'I7
October 23, 1990 Page 5
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson made the following comments: (1) This site
will be very visible from 1-64; and (2) Natural materials
is defined in the Ordinance and none of the proposed
materials fit this definition so "a waiver would have to be
given to this definition" to allow this use. He concluded
he could not support the request "from a visual site
standpoint."
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in agreement with Mr.
Johnson. He added that the site would be even more visible
after the leaves have fallen.
In response to Mr. Grimm's questions about Ordinance
compliance, Mr. Keeler explained that the fill aspect of the
proposal had not been included in the City's original
proposal.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SDP-90-082, the City of
Charlottesville Public Works Center Major Site Plan
Amendment, be denied because of visual impact. (Note: This
motion was restated later in the meeting.)
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins stated he was sympathetic to the request because
of the need for this type of facility. He noted that the
use would be for a limited time and would not be
unattractive at the end of the use.
Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Jenkins.
Ms. Huckle noted that if this is approved, the City might
have less incentive for working toward a regional solution
to the problem.
Ms. Andersen expressed concern about the safety element
given the lack of monitoring.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was reluctant to support the
requests because of the visual impact and the uncertainty
about the effectiveness of screening while the site was in
active use.
The motion for denial passed (5:2) with Commissioners Grimm
and Jenkins casting the dissenting votes.
(The applicant left the meeting at this point.)
ED
October 23, 1990 Page 6
Mr. Bowling advised the Commission that the Commission's
reason for denial should be stated more definitively and the
applicant should be informed as to what changes could be
made to make the application approvable.
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the City
of Charlottesville Public Works Center Major Site Plan
Amendment be reconsidered. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that that the City of Charlottesville
Public Works Center Major Site Plan Amendment be denied
because the plan is in non-compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan under Section 32.7.11 as that section requires
Commission review under Section 15.1.456 of the Code of
Virginia and because the site could not be screened
adequately from the public road as required under Section
32.7.9.8 (landscape provisions) because of Virginia
Department of Transportation restrictions against
landscaping in their right-of-way and because the Commission
is not willing to waive Section 5.1.28 of the Zoning
ordinance.
(Mr. Keeler suggested that it would be appropriate for the
City of Charlottesville and the Board of Supervisors to
adopt a joint resolution requesting that VDOT permit
landscaping in the right-of-way.)
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Jenkins casting the dissenting vote.
Mr. Bowling noted that the applicant needed to be informed
of the right to appeal the Commission's decision.
SDP-90-068 - Browning Ferris Industries Major Site Plan
Amendment - Proposal to construct a dumpster maintenance
area on 1.3 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 90,
Parcels 35U and 35T, is located on State Route 742,
approximately 1 1/2 miles south of Interstate 64 at 1831
Avon Street Extended. Zoned LI, Light Industrial, in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. This is located within a
designated growth area.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. (Note: Ms. Lipinski noted
that condition 1(d) related to a Pollution Abatement Permit
was no longer necessary because a letter had been received
from the Water Control Board stating that would not be
needed.)
49
October 23, 1990 page 7
Mr. Johnson asked if a condition should be added requiring a
site plan amendment at the time the Saddlery building is
destroyed. It was decided a condition would be added to
address this concern.
Regarding VDOT recommendations related to the upgrading of
the entrance. Mr. Johnson asked if a condition should be
added requiring the upgrading of this entrance if the
Saddlery building is destroyed. Mr. Keeler stated that
would be covered in the site plan amendment.
Regarding VDOT's comments about closing of the Saddlery
entrance, Ms. Lipinski explained that the Saddlery is to
remain open for another 5 years so it is not appropriate to
close the entrance at this time.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Ms. Lipinski explained
landscaping plans. It was also determined that adjacent
property is industrially zoned and there are no screening
requirements between properties with the same zoning.
Mr. Johnson asked if condition 1(c) [Health Department
approval of relocated septic field] inferred the granting of
a waiver of Section 32.7.5 which would require the
connection to public sewer if reasonably available.
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Commission would have to
either grant a waiver of that section or require connection
to public sewer.
Mr. Johnson felt the condition, as written, was not clear.
It was decided that condition No. 3 would be added:
"Removal of the Horseman's Saddlery building will require a
site plan amendment."
Mr. Johnson pointed out that this road is one of the
designated Entrance Corridor roads (though it had been
omitted and a public hearing must be held to add it back to
the list).
The applicant was represented by Ms. Nancy Long, architect
for the project. She stated the applicant had no objections
to the suggested conditions of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Regarding the question of "reasonable availability of the
sewer line," Mr. Keeler explained that the Service Authority
estimates the cost of extending the line 1,100 feet would be
S6
October 23, 1990
Page 8
approximately $50,000. Based on that information, it was
staff's position that public sewer was not "reasonably
available." He added that the Commission should take a
specific action regarding waiving that provision of the
Ordinance.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SDP-90-068, the Browning -Ferris
Industries Office and Shop Major Site Plan Amendment, be
approved subject to the following conditions and that a
waiver of Section 32.7.5 be granted:
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 issuance of an
Erosion Control Permit;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water line hook-up;
c. Health Department approval of relocated septic
field;
d. Planning Department approval of combining two
parcels (Tax Map 90, Parcels 35T and 35U) into a single
lot by plat or deed.
2. Administrative approval of final site plan.
3. Removal of Horseman's Saddlery will require a site plan
amendment.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins wondered why the Water Control agency was not
interested in this process. Ms. Long explained the current
water disposal procedure which has been reviewed extensively
by the State Water Control Board. She explained that
location of the dumpsters would not change this procedure.
She pointed out that the Commission has a letter from the
State Water Control Board stating that this method of waste
containment is appropriate.
The previously stated motion for approval passed
unanimously.
SDP-90-083 - Southern Regional Park Boat Ramp preliminary
Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 1,500 square foot boat
ramp and 43 parking spaces in a 2.2 acre portion of Tax Map
100, Parcel 37. The Southern Regional park property,
described as Tax Map 100, Parcel(s) 33, 35, 37, and 39,
157
October 23, 1990
Page 9
consists of a total of 530 acres and is located on the south
side of Route 631 approximately 6/10 of a mile south of its
intersection with Route 708. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located
within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Michael Milner, landscape
architect for the project. He stated there were no
objections to staff's recommended conditions.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SDP-90-083 for Southern Regional
Park Boat Ramp Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to
the following conditions:
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 road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
d. Staff approval of a landscape plan.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed for 10 minutes.
SUB 90-163 - Watterson Farms Prelimina Plat - Proposal to
create 23 lots from six existing parcels totalling 163.61
acres. The average lot size if 6.94 acres with a range of
2.02 acres to 22.80 acres. The lots are proposed to be
served by private roads. Property, described as Tax Map 59,
Parcels 36, 36A, 36B, 36C, 38, and 39, is located between
Ivy Creek Subdivision and Farmington off of Broomley Road
approximately 1 1/2 miles north of its interseciton with
Route 250. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This property is not located within a
designated growth area.
S-A
October 23, 1990 Page 10
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. staff recommended
approval of the private road request and the preliminary
plat subject to conditions. He noted the following addition
to condition 1(f)(5): "...in accordance with letters from
Fred Payne and Dennis Rooker dated October 23, 1990."
Regarding this addition, Mr. Tarbell explained that there
had been negotiations between the applicant and Farmington
residents and the letters referenced are a reflection of the
resolution of those negotiations. Mr. Tarbell stated staff
is comfortable with the agreement which has been worked out.
Mr. Keeler added: "Under our Subdivision Ordinance, I think
this agreement is enforceable only to the extent that it
allows you to restrict access to the other lots to the
internal road system only. Anything else would be
enforceable between the parties themselves. We don't want
to get the County involved in enforcing other types of
agreements which don't really fall under the Subdivision
Ordinance. I think you do have the authority to limit the
number of units that can go out to Old Brook Road."
Ms. Huckle asked if internal roads were built to mountainous
terrain standards (rather than rolling terrain standards as
proposed), could the existing paved road be kept thus
eliminating the need for extensive fill activity? (It was
determined the road to which Ms. Huckle referred was near
the barn.) Mr. Keeler and Mr. Tarbell responded that staff
could not answer this question because that possibility had
not been proposed and thus had not been reviewed by staff.
Mr. Keeler added that this question could not be resolved at
this meeting. He stated: "If you and the other
Commissioners intend that the roads be designed to avoid
disturbance in that area to the maximum extent possible,
then you could direct the County Engineer to employ the
minimum standards in the Ordinance. The Planning
Commission, under the Ordinance, doesn't have the authority
to waive any design standards of the private roads but
certainly they can (authorize) the minimum standards and
probably reduce some of the grading. But I don't think
we're going to be able to answer the question tonight of
whether you can go to mountainous standards and stay in that
existing alignment because the County Engineer would have to
know both the horizontal and vertical curvature of that
existing road to be able to tell you that."
Mr. Tarbell explained that if a private road is approved,
the County Engineer has agreed to use mountainous terrain
standards. However, if a public road is required, VDOT will
only accept rolling terrain standards. He explained that if
a private road is granted, upgrading requirements will be
minimal. Mr. Tarbell pointed out that if the Commission
chooses not to approve a private road, then the subdivision
should be denied because staff has not done an analysis of
the project with a public road.
-6-3
October 23, 1990 Page 11
Mr. Reeler explained that for private road development
proposals involving more than 20 lots, the County Engineer
acts as the Resident Engineer in the review of the road
plans. Rather than requiring Broomley Road to meet state
standards under the rolling terrain category, as would be
required by VDOT, the County Engineer has agreed to utilize
the mountainous terrain category of VDOT standards in order
to minimize the impact of the road improvements." He added
further that if public roads are required, VDOT will require
rolling terrain standards which will result in 1,700% more
grading and construction.
Referring to Attachment F to the staff report [as referenced
in condition 1(f)(4)], Mr. Johnson called attention to the
comment: "...might be more appropriate for the County
erosion and sediment control inspector to inspect the
maintenance of E & S structures instead of the Architectural
Review Board." (Note: The Architectural Review Board
referred to was that noted in the applicant's documents, NOT
the newly approved County Architectural Review Board.) Mr.
Tarbell responded that if that is a concern of the
Commission it could be included as a condition. Mr. Tarbell
explained that he had considered the Watershed Management
Official's suggestion, but had decided that County E & S
inspection was not necessary. He felt it was in excess of
what can be required under the Ordinance.
Ms. Huckle asked the County Engineer, Mr. Moring, to comment
on the use of mountainous standards "on the road farther
up." Mr. Moring was uncertain of the location of the road
referred to by Ms. Huckle. Mr. Tarbell attempted to point
out the location of the road on the plan. (Mr. Tarbell
stated that the road was actually a driveway.) He added
that the applicant had not submitted an analysis of this
possibility.
It was determined that mountainous terrain standards were
being applied to Broomley Road (not shown on this plat) but
rolling terrain standards have been planned for this
development.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked about runoff control. He quoted the
following: "The applicant has proposed a conservation area
to provide for protection of the critical slopes in the
floodplain area of Ivy Creek." He asked if that
conservation area was shown on this preliminary plat now
being considered. Mr. Tarbell responded that it was not
shown on the large plat but it was shown on the attachment.
He asked if staff felt that conservation area was
appropriate.
54
October 23, 1990 Page 12
Mr. Keeler responded: "I think anything what an applicant
offers to entreat you to approve their subdivision, you can
make a condition of approval of the subdivision and I think
it's enforceable." (Mr. Bowling confirmed this was
accurate.) He stated that the issue of the County
inspecting erosion and sediment control could be included as
could this preservation area.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if staff would endorse such
conditions.
Mr. Tarbell stated that the conservation area is voluntary
so "anything is better than nothing." He noted that
condition 1(f)(4) would incorporate the conservation area
shown in the draft document. Regarding the erosion and
sediment control he explained that the applicant has
offered to do that, but has not offered to allow the County
Engineer's office to make those inspections. (The applicant
noted that he did not know if the County Engineer's office
would be willing to "take this on.")
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Roosevelt, representing VDOT, "if
there was anything in here which precludes the County
Engineer from adopting mountainous road criteria internal to
this development?"
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it was important to
remember that the mountainous standards had not been
requested by the applicant and no review has been made of
this possibility.
Mr. Johnson noted that mountainous standards could have less
impact on the environment.
Mr. Keeler interjected that the Commission was not precluded
from making that recommendation. He again pointed out that
the primary purpose of private roads in the rural area is
environmental sensitivity, and "if you feel that is not
being served by meeting rolling terrain standards, and the
County Engineer has the mountainous terrain standards
available to him, I think you can direct him to review this
and have it redesigned under mountainous terrain standards."
Mr. Moring commented that if it is found that there is not
enough "relief" in the terrain, then nothing will be gained
by going to mountainous terrain standards.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Martha Hardy,
representing McKee/Carson, engineers for the project. She
read a statement which explained briefly the applicant's
S�
October 23, 1990
Page 13
proposal and justification
statement described in so
would have on surrounding
(Ms. Hardy's statement is
ATTACHMENT A.)
me
for requesting private roads. The
detail the impact a public road
properties and the environment.
made a part of this record as
Ms. Huckle asked Ms. Hardy if the applicant would be
interested in using the road which she had pointed out
earlier in the meeting (referred to as a driveway by Mr.
Tarbell). Ms. Hardy stated the applicant would be willing
to investigate that possibility. She confirmed that
mountainous standards had not been considered up to this
point because the applicant felt limited to rolling terrain
standards.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Fred Payne, representing the Farmington Property Owner's
Association, addressed the Commission. He explained his
clients' concern was the proposed connection into Farmington
and that concern had been resolved through the documents
referred to in staff's condition 1(f)(5), letters from
himself and Mr. Rooker. He presented a copy of these
letters to the Clerk and they are made a part of this record
as ATTACHMENT B. He explained that recordation of this
document will release all easement claims and in return a
new easement will be granted over the existing road for the
benefit of these two lots. He explained further that the
document will make this entrance a secondary entrance. He
stated that it is understood that the County has no
intention of enforcing this document. He stated also that
the Farmington Country Club (who owns the roads) has
expressed agreement with this document. He concluded: "We
think this is a favorable idea and based on that the
Farmington Property Owners' Association would not oppose
this request." He asked that the document be made a part of
the conditions as suggested by staff.
The following residents of Flordon and the Broomley Road
area addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition
to the proposal: Mr. Jerry Donnolly; Mr. Wade Trembley; Mr.
Chauncey Hutter; Mr. Ruban (?); Mr. Theodore Gould; Ms.
Barbara Desenza; Mr. Bill Harper; Ms. Cindy Call. Their
concerns included the following:
--Upgrading of Broomley Road will invite higher travel
speeds and thereby decrease safety;
--Erosion of the rural setting;
--Removal of trees. (Note: Mr. Gould asked if the
Commission had the authority to limit the removal of trees
to building sites only. Mr. Keeler stated the Commission
did not have such authority without amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. He noted that this is a rural area and forestry
is a permitted use in the rural areas.)
5&
October 23, 1990 Page 14
--No need for this high priced housing in
Charlottesville at the present time.
--The existing maintenance agreement for Broomley Road
prohibits its upgrading without the approval of all lot
owners. This issue was discussed at some length by the
Commission. Mr. Keeler pointed out that this property was
not a part of the property subject to the Ivy Creek rezoning
and probably is not subject to that maintenance agreement.
He added that whenever additional development occurs where
there is an established road and maintenance agreement, the
agreement is amended so that it is still based on a prorated
share of the cost. Mr. Keeler advised that the Commission
not get into the question of whether there is access back to
this property. He stated it is staff's position that access
exists. He further stated that if the homeowners in Flordon
maintain that their maintenance agreement precludes any
other lots from being developed and there is no access to
this property over Broomley Road, then they can pursue that
through a civil action. Mr. Bowling stated this was not an
issue for the Commission to resolve. Mr. Rittenhouse stated
it is the Commission's policy not to try to evaluate or
comment on private homeowner's agreements as those are civil
matters. He also stated that the Commission's action would
have no bearing on any civil rights which homeowners may
have under private agreements.
--Mr. Donnolly questioned the advisability of asking
the applicant to research the possibility of other accesses.
He felt this should be done by the County Engineer's office.
(Mr. Rittenhouse explained that county staff does review
data submitted by applicants and would not recommend
approval of a project based on data which was found to be
inaccurate or biased.)
Mr. Whitten Abel, a resident of Brook Road in Farmington,
asked for assurance that the present agreements would ensure
that no more than these two lots would have access to Brook
Road. Mr. Tarbell stated that though there was some dispute
about how many lots had access to Brook Road, the documents
referenced in condition 1(f)(4) would address this concern
and finally limit access to these two lots only.
Mr. Dennis Rooker, attorney for the applicant, pointed out
that the applicant has no control over the Flordon road
maintenance agreement though Ivy Creek must contribute to
that fund. He added that Watterson intends to include in
its covenants an obligation to contribute to the maintenance
of Broomley Road through the Flordon Road Maintenance Fund
and if that fund should cease to maintain the road, then the
obligation for maintenance for Broomley would become the
responsibility of Watterson and Ivy Creek. He also
confirmed that Mr. Payne's representation regarding the
agreement with the Farmington property owners was accurate.
.S 7
October 23, 1990 Page 15
Regarding the issue of access across Ivy Creek, Ms. Hardy
stated this possibility had been considered and it had been
discovered that it would require 20 to 25 feet of fill for
approximately 1,90o feet. She stated this would definitely
endanger the watershed.
Mr. Rooker gave a history of the access issue and also
commented on the question of impact. He stated that the
applicant intends to abide by all private agreements,
"though obviously we have a different view of some of these
agreements than people who have read parts of them to you.,,
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Andersen asked if VDOT had considered the safety issue
of the Rt. 250 entrance to Flordon in their comments. Mr.
Roosevelt responded that that section of road is considered
non -tolerable and is eligible for improvement, but it does
not mean that the road is unsafe. He stated that he could
not say that this additional traffic would make the road any
less safe than it is now. He stated that he did not
consider improvements to this intersection a high enough
priority to be included in either the primary or secondary
road projects.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Keeler
confirmed that the applicant's description of the
substantial earth moving that would be required to cross Ivy
Creek was accurate.
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the issues before the Commission
as follows:
(1) Whether to approve a waiver of Section 18-34 to
allow double frontage lots. The Commission expressed no
opposition to this waiver.
(2) The issue of private roads vs. public roads. The
Commission was in favor of private roads within the
development.
(3) Whether to endose the upgrading of Broomley Road
to mountainous terrain standards rather than rolling terrain
standards. The Commission was in favor of mountainous
standards. Ms. Huckle asked that the applicant be
encouraged to consider the mountainous standards. She and
Mr. Johnson also asked the County Engineer to consider the
approval of mountainous standards throughout the
development. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it was not the
County Engineer's job to "inject" anything into this plat,
but rather to review what has been submitted. Regarding
this issue, Mr. Chris Halstead, representing the applicant,
explained that rolling terrain, as it applies to Watterson,
doesn't have much effect on the existing topography because
October 23, 1990 Page 16
the roads are designed "with the land." He explained that
the mountainous terrain standard is applied at the end of
Broomley Road where the damage would be much greater if the
rolling terrain was applied. He concluded: "There is no
threat of damage within the Watterson project currently by
virtue of our not having used a mountainous terrain
standard."
(4) Whether to serve this development via Broomley
Road or by a crossing of Ivy Creek. The Commission
unanimously favored access through Broomley Road. Mr.
Halstead explained that crossing Ivy Creek would take at
least 760,000 yards of fill.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Flordon residents' concerns
had been the same in 1980 (at the time of the Ivy Creek
review), i.e. they do not want Broomley Road upgraded. He
stated that the Board had made the decision at that time not
to upgrade the road and the Commission could make the
decision to continue with that determination if so desired.
Mr. Jenkins suggested that the applicant consider the
inclusion of a biking and walking path.
Regarding the possibility of not requiring the upgrading of
Broomley Road, Mr. Bowling stated the Commission could: (1)
Take the position that the Board has ruled as far as the
upgrading of Broomley Road is concerned; or (2) Follow the
strict requirements of the Ordinance.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would be reluctant not to require
the upgrading of Broomley Road. He felt it would be
unjustifiable to add more traffic to the road and not
require its upgrading. He felt this could be setting a
precedent. He noted that he felt the property owners were
objecting to the increase in traffic on the road and not to
upgrading. If that increase is "a given", then he felt they
would not object to the upgrading given the fact that said
upgrading would increase the safety of the road.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse. He did
not think a decision made by the Board ten years previously
(by different Board members) should influence the
Commission's decision.
Mr. Johnson stated he could support the proposal. He
stated, however, that he would prefer that the applicant use
the County erosion and sediment control inspector rather
than a private Architectural Review Board. Mr. Halstead
addressed this concern and explained that the design
guidelines which are proposed are quite strict in many
October 23, 1990
Page 17
regards, including the preservation of trees. He stated
that as a practical matter it may be easier for the ARB to
enforce it because they will be inspecting the construction
sites to uphold other standards which are being applied. He
noted that runoff control permits will not be required for
any of these sites unless 5% of the site is exceeded, which
he did not believe would happen. However, he stated he
would accept the County's inspector if that was the
Commission's desire.
Mr. Johnson stated he accepted the applicant's explanation.
Mr. Johnson moved that SUB-90-163 for Watterson Farms
Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following
conditions, including a waiver of Section 18-34, an
endorsement of private roads, and with staff approval of the
final plat:
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. Department of Engineering approval of drainage
easements as required;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water plans if the jurisdictional area is amended by
the Board of Supervisors;
f. Staff approval of covenants and restrictions
to include:
1) Road and maintenance agreement for the
proposed private roads;
2) Amended road maintenance agreement for the
existing private roads;
3) Maintenance agreements for the proposed
ponds if necessary;
4) Design guidelines in accordance with the
draft document submitted October 5, 1990
by Chris Halstead to Peyton Robertson;
5) Language assigning any existing access
rights onto Old Brook Road from the
current parcels of record to specific
proposed lots within this subdivision.
Access to the remaining lots shall be
restricted to the proposed internal roads
only in accordance with letters from Fred
Payne and Dennis Rooker dated October 23,
1990.
g. Staff approval of revised subdivision plat.
October 23, 1990 Page 18
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 11:20 to 11:25.
SDP-90-52 Walmart Store Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
construct 114,513 square foot retail store served by 727
parking spaces on 13.28 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D1, is located
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 29 and
Hilton Heights Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. This site is located within a designated growth
area. DEFERRED FROM OCTOBER 9, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
Mr. Tarbell summarized the staff report which had been
presented at the October 9th meeting and the Commission's
previous action. Staff had no new comments.
Mr. Rittenhouse reviewed the three alternatives which were
available to the Commisison (as stated in the October 9
staff report). He repeated these alternatives several times
during the course of the discussion.
Mr. Johnson recalled the only point of contention had been
the recommendation for a traffic light on Hilton Heights Rd.
Mr. Tarbell also pointed out that the primary difference
between staff's recommended conditions of approval and those
requested by the applicant was that the Commission would not
review the final site plan under the applicant's conditions.
Mr. Keeler also stressed that though the light was an issue,
staff repeatedly advised the Commission that staff did not
know what improvements might be required, in addition to the
light. Mr. Rittenhouse recalled that the timing of grading
of the site had also been an issue.
The item had been deferred to allow time for VDOT to review
the traffic study submitted by the applicant.
The Chairman invited comment from the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Roosevelt, representing VDOT, addressed the Commission.
His comments included the following:
--There are some problems with the traffic study,i.e.
disagreement with the percentage of truck usage which would
effect the level of usage, no through -traffic has been
figured into the traffic generation figures, traffic
61
October 23, 1990 Page 19
generation has been figured at 19,000 vtpd but the current
proffer is for 16,000, and there is no analysis of the
entrance using the Walmart figures alone.
--Two weeks is not enough time for VDOT to analyze the
figures presented in the staff report and arrive at answers
to these questions. He felt these questions need to be
answered between the applicant, the County and VDOT.
--It is clear from the study that a traffic signal and
dual left turn lanes will be required at 29 and Hilton
Heights Road as a minimum and there needs to be a traffic
signal "at the intersection where the Walmart entrance is
going to come in." He stated he could not say for certain
that Walmart's traffic alone would generate the need for the
traffic signal at the Walmart entrance. (Mr. Roosevelt later
stated that IF Hilton Heights Road were going to remain a
dead-end road with only Walmart and the Sheraton using the
road, then a traffic signal would not be needed.)
--It is not VDOT's responsibility to be generating this
information but rather to be review a study that has been
done by someone else.
Mr. Roosevelt concluded that his Department was not prepared
to make a recommendation at this time. He pointed out that
the Highway Department has been asking for certain
information since this plan was first submitted and now
rough figures have been supplied and the Department is being
asked to do a traffic analysis with those figures. He
stated VDOT is being asked to "run the figures and do the
charts" which it was thought would be a part of this study.
Mr..Keeler pointed out that if the County wants Hilton
Heights Road to be taken into the State system, then either
the applicant will have to pay for the traffic signal, or
the County will have to pay for it. (He repeated some
variation of this statement several times during the
discussion of this item.)
Mr. Roosevelt confirmed that the traffic signal would
eventually be needed and would have to be installed before
the road could be taken into the state system. He confirmed
that the Highway Department would not pay for that signal.
Mr. Wood adddressed the Commission and repeated his comments
of October 9th. He expressed frustration because he felt
the applicant had cooperated fully with staff. He stated he
was under the impression that the deferral of the item on
October 9th had been to request that VDOT comment only on
the Walmart development, but Mr. Roosevelt's comments were
directed at the development of the entire property. He
noted that the traffic study stated that the interior
traffic light will be needed in the year 2010 if Walmart
69-
October 23, 1990
Page 20
and Sam's are not built, but will be needed now for the
Sam's project, but NOT the Walmnart project. He again
stressed that further delays will result in the loss of this
project. He stressed that he had been asked to do the
traffic study for the Sam's project rather than Walmart.
Mr. Johnson interpreted that the applicant was agreeing to
any improvements that VDOT might require with the exception
of the internal traffic signal. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that
was not completely accurate, i.e. that the applicant has
agreed to improvements which are the result of their traffic
study, but VDOT may not agree with that study.
The Commission contemplated their possible action on this
application. Mr. Keeler stressed that approval would be
without any Highway Department recommendations. Mr. Keeler
stressed that this was a more complicated issue than just
designing for 8,000 vehicle trips. He stated that neither
staff nor the Highway Department had the answer to these
questions. He pointed out that the issue was exactly as it
had been at the time of the first review and staff's
recommendation has not changed. He pointed out that the
Commission, if it chose to approve the request, would have
to determine what road improvements to require because
neither staff nor the Highway Department could make those
recommendations at this time.
Mr. Johnson felt that only those improvements which were
occasioned by this project--Walmart--should be required at
this time. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the Department
of Transportation has neither agreed, nor disagreed, with
the applicant's contention that Walmart will not occasion
the need for the internal traffic light.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Roosevelt if 8,000 cars using that
entrance would require a traffic signal.
Mr. Roosevelt responded: "If you're just talking about
Walmart and the hotel and the existing dead-end road, no,
there doesn't need to be a traffic light there. We're
talking about the ultimate traffic on this road. I'm
telling you that when you get ready to add this road to the
system, whether next week or twenty years from now, the
Department is not going to add that road until we're sure
that there's going to be a traffic signal at that
intersection when the road is ultimately developed. Whether
you can burden Walmart with this or whether it's someone
else's burden, whether it's the County's burden, the State
doesn't care. All the State is saying is that the traffic
study and what little review we've done of it indicates that
there's going to need to be a signal wherever that Walmart
43
October 23, 1990 Page 21
entrance comes in. Whether it's made necessary 100% by
Walmart and something else that develops on the other side
of the road or the fact that there's such a great volume of
traffic going through that intersection is immaterial in our
eyes. A signal is going to need to be there. It's a road
that is not now in the system and our policy is that 100% of
that cost will be born by someone else other than the State.
We're telling you you're going to need a signal there.
You've got to decide whether you can burden Walmart with
this. ... My recommendation would be that you burden them
with the traffic signal and let them and Mr. Wood figure out
what percentage of that signal they should pay. He controls
all the other properties at that intersection."
Mr. Roosevelt reviewed a history of the road. He concluded
that it now appears that there will be traffic volumes on
Hilton Drive which will exceed the design that exists and
therefore changes are anticipated. He stated that if Hilton
Heights Road were going to remain a dead-end road with only
the Sheraton and Walmart using the road, then a traffic
signal would not be needed, but if Berkmar Drive is going to
be extended as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, then
the traffic volumes will require both a traffic signal and
probably the widening of Hilton Heights Road.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Roosevelt
stated that if this were approved and only Walmart were
constructed but Berkmar was not yet extended, the State
would NOT take that section of the road "up to Walmart" into
the State system "without somebody telling (VDOT) how the
additional improvements, including the traffic signal, were
going to be paid for as they are needed."
Mr. Wood pointed out that he posted a bond 5 years ago to
ensure the maintenance of that section of the road leading
to Walmart.
Mr. Johnson was in favor of "rearranging the conditions" so
that the request could be approved. He felt there was very
little difference in the applicant's suggested conditions
and staff's conditions. Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed.
Mr. Rittenhouse cautioned against the Commission placing
itself in a position of letting a proposal go forward
without VDOT comments. He pointed out that the State has
not agreed that it will ever take that road into the State
system. Mr. Johnson questioned how that could be made a
contingency on the Walmart application. He stated it was
"not their problem whether the State takes it in, it's our
problem." Mr. Rittenhouse stated it was "our problem if
we're willing to accept it as our problem." He felt this
was the bottom line.
0
I
October 23, 1990 Page 22
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the County has been stuck with
maintaining roads in the past.
Mr. Johnson continued to try to convince the Commission that
Walmart should not be required to "develop a whole
neighborhood."
Mr. Keeler summarized the issue as follows: "The staff has
been looking at that road as though it exists now (Berkmar
Extended). There's absolutely no guidelines here. If you
think it's appropriate not to require the road to be
constructed in such a fashion that it can go immediately
into the system and the County, in this particular case,
come back and make retro-fit--and in all other cases down
along the road because you can make the same argument all
the way down --then that's fine. ... Either you approve it
subject to Highway Department approval or just approve
whatever the applicant wants and we'll come back and spend
the money to get this squared away in the future."
Mr. Wood objected to this statement.
Mr. Grimm stated: "I feel like we are in an entirely unfair
position here. We don't have any idea what's expected of
us. We have no information to go on that is based on the
usual kind of information that we have to rely on and I
can't sit here and make a decision based on the
recommendations of a developer without having some counter
recommendations made by the department that we depend on to
help us make these kind of decisions."
Ms. Huckle agreed with Mr. Grimm.
Mr. Rittenhouse again reviewed the three actions available
to the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Walmart Preliminary Site Plan
be approved as set for forth in staff's Alternative 1--with
staff's recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Johnson seconded this motion. The applicant objected
to this action and the motion was never voted on. An
alternative motion was made later.
After further discussion Mr. Wilkerson withdrew his original
motion and moved that the Walmart Preliminary Site Plan be
deferred to November 13.
(The applicant reluctantly agreed to a deferral.)
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
es
I
October 23, 1990
Page 23
Mr. Roosevelt stated he would try to have an answer to these
issues in a couple of weeks "but somebody is going to have
to give me the information when i ask for it."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
1:15 a.m. j
i
V. Wayn Cilimber cretary
DS
66