HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 13 90 PC MinutesNOVEMBER 13, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, November 13, 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; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski; Mr. Richard
Tarbell; 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.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Commission was taking action to refer the following two
applications to the Advisory Committee.
High Mowing Agricultural Forestal District - Six parcels
totaling 622.440 acres located just south of Batesville.
The proposed time period is ten (10) years.
and
Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - One
parcel of 90 acres located on the north side of Rt. 610.
The proposed time period is the same as for the original
district, or eight (8) years from September 3, 1986. The
existing Keswick District contains 5,922 acres.
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent
Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-90-83 Juanita L. Wilson - Request in accordance with
Section 13.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance
of a special use permit to allow a private dance school in
the existing Maple Grove Christian Church. Property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 29C and 29 is located on
the south side of Rt. 649 at its intersection with Rt. 785.
Zoned, R-1, Residential, in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This property is located within a designated
growth area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to December 11.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-90-83 be
deferred to December 11, 1990. The motion passed
unanimously.
99
b,
November 13, 1990 Page 2
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 the October 23, 1990 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Mr. Tarbell briefly introduced this item and explained that
"everything is worked out in terms of what VDOT is
recommending for improvements and what the applicant is
willing to provide." He stated that all the transportation
issues had been resolved to the satisfaction of all. He
noted also that staff was recommending approval of all the
waivers requested by the applicant.
It was noted that conditions 1(b)--Department of Engineering
approval of road and drainage plans and calculations for the
extension of Hilton Heights and Berkmar Drive --and
1(f)--Department of Engineering approval of drainage
easement plats --would be moved to come under condition 2,
i.e. they would be tied to the signing of the final site
plan and not to the issuance of a grading permit.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Tarbell explained
briefly the stormwater detention plans. Mr. Keeler added
that there would be no detention "per se" on this property
because it discharged directly to the Rivanna River. Ms.
Huckle expressed concern about how parking lot pollutants
would be removed.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Wendall Wood. He
offered no comment at this time.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters,
read a statement which raised questions about the
"provisions for the collection and disposal of stormwater
from this site since the Rivanna River is the final storm
water receiving channel." Her statement is made a part of
these minutes as ATTACHMENT A.
In relation to this issue, Mr. Keeler quoted from Section
32.7.4.2 of the Ordinance: "In addition to the provisions
of Section 414 and other applicable law, provisions shall be
made for the minimization of pollution of downstream water
courses and groundwater where such measures are deemed
warranted by the Commission due to the peculiar character of
a particular use. In determining what measures, if any, are
I
November 13, 1990 Page 3
warranted, the Commission shall consider the recommendation
of the County Engineer and, where applicable, the Watershed
Management Official, in light of the character of the
proposed use, including but not limited to storage of
petroleum products, pesticides, poisons, synthetic organic
compounds or other substances which, if improperly stored or
inadvertantly discharged, may reasonably be anticipated to
pollute surface or groundwaters." Mr. Keeler explained that
it was his interpretation that this provision was for "uses
which have some peculiar character by virtue of the use."
Mr. Keeler stated that this was a determination for the
Commission to make. He added, however, that "it's awkward
for us to have these questions raised at the meeting. If
we'd known this was a concern before hand, we could have
gotten with the County Engineer on the rate of discharge
from the pipe and that sort of thing." He noted that "this
system was approved at the time of the approval of the site
plan for the hotel and that preceded this ordinance." He
again pointed out that this section speaks to "peculiar"
characteristics of the use. He stated that the rate of
discharged from the pipe was an engineering matter and he
saw no problem with the County Engineer reviewing that.
Mr. Wood described the location of the 5-foot drainage pipe.
He also explained that the pipe had been lowered so as to
reduce the force of the discharge into the river. He
explained that the work has been done and the County holds a
bond to complete the one item which has not been completed,
i.e. the placement of Class One rip -rap and concrete in the
bottom.
Dr. Lee Webber, representing the residents of Woodburn Road,
addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the
preservation of a large wooded area between his neighborhood
and this development.
There being no further public or applicant comment, the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse reminded the Commission of the waivers which
were being requested: (1) A waiver of the cross -slope
requirements from 2% to 3%; (2) A waiver related to critical
slopes; and (3) A waiver of the number of required loading
spaces. Staff had recommended approval of all these
waivers.
Ms. Huckle asked if approval of this request would result in
Berkmar Drive Extended being built to the "extent of this
property." Mr. Tarbell responded affirmatively. He
explained that the proffer on the rezoning required that the
applicant build a portion of Berkmar Drive on this property
47/
i
November 13, 1990 Page 4
and also the Hilton Heights Extension to it. He stated this
would be required with this site plan approval, i.e. "they
will either have to build it or bond it." He was uncertain
of the timetable for the "ultimate connection through to
Rio."
Regarding staff approval of the final landscape plan, Mr.
Johnson pointed out that this site is located on an Entry
Corridor and is very visible from the road. He asked that
particular attention be paid to shielding the parking lot
from Rt. 29.
Mr. Keeler noted that the Board of Supervisors was scheduled
to appoint the Architectural Review Board at its November 14
meeting. With this in mind he stated: "If we approve the
landscape plan, I believe the Architectural Review Board can
require more if they have an opportunity to review it." He
stated the question is whether or not the Architectural
Review Board will be in existence at the time the final plan
is signed.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SDP-90-52, the Walmart Store
Preliminary Site Plan, be approved subject to the following
conditions, including approval of those waivers requested by
the applicant and with the recommendation that the County
Engineer review those concerns about provisions for the
collection and disposal of stormwater runoff:
1. A grading permit shall not be issued until tentative
approvals have been forwarded to the Planning Department for
the following conditions:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of
retaining wall designs;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans;
f. ASCA approval of grading activities in the
vicinity of the existing water and sewer lines along
the south side of Hilton Heights Road;
g. Planning staff approval of a final landscape
plan;
h. Planning staff approval of a surety, in the
form of a bond or a contractual agreement, to ensure
the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Hilton Heights Road and the entrance
into the Walmart site at such time as recommended by
the Virginia Department of Transportation;
9z
November 13, 1990 Page 5
2. The final site plan shall not be signed, nor shall it be
submitted for signature until tentative approvals have been
obtained for the following conditions:
a. The conditions of approval as outlined in
Condition 1;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvement plans to include:
1. A 200' x 200' turn lane on the
southbound lane of Route 29;
2. A double 200' x 200' turn lane on the
north -bound lane on Route 29;
3. Dual turn lanes on Hilton Heights Road to
provide left turns to the northbound
lanes of Route 29 in a design as
recommended by Virginia Department of
Transportation;
4. A traffic signal at the intersection of
Hilton Heights Road and Route 29;
5. A traffic signal at the intersection of
Hilton Heights Road and the entrance of
the Walmart site to be installed at such
time as recommended by VDOT.
c. VDOT approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations for the extension of Hilton Heights Road
and Berkmar Road;
d. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations for the extension of
Hilton Heights and Berkmar Drive;
e. Department of Engineering approval of drainage
easement plats.
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire officer final approval.
4. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Grimm noted that the items which were of concern to the
Commission had been addressed.
Ms. Huckle stated she was "uncomfortable" because the
parking lot pollution had not been addressed. She expressed
hope that the Engineering Department would consider some
type of filter strip or man-made Swale in considering this
problem.
99
November 13, 1990 Page 6
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SUB-90-117 Ouiet Woods Final Plat - Rural Preservation
Development to create 13 development lots and a 40.32 acre
preservation tract from five existing parcels totalling 81
acres. Average lot size of the development lots is 3.02
acres and the lots are to be served by a public road.
Property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcels 19, 19A, 19C,
19C1, and 19G are located on the east side of Rt. 785 one
mile north of Route 649. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the
Rivanna Magisterial district. This property 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 Mr. Keith Woodard. He
offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Quiet
Woods Final Plat be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. Staff and Public Recreational Facilities
Authority approval of the conservation easement on the
rural preservation tract;
b. Staff approval of a road
between Lots 7 and 8;
c. Department of Engineering
drainage plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering
erosion control permit;
maintenance agreement
approval of road and
issuance of an
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and calculations.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB-90-180 Redfields Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create
34 single-family residential lots with an average lot size
of 9,496 square feet and 0.99 acres of open space from
11.617 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels
23, 49, 49A, and 49B, is located on the west side of Route
C?*
November 13, 1990
Page 7
781 (Sunset Road) approximately 500 feet north of Route 631.
Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This property is located
within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. Staff was also recommending
approval of the waiver for double frontage lots.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gaylon Bates. He
offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Andersen moved that the Redfields Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions, and including
approval of the waiver request:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans;
f. Staff approval of a final landscape plan;
g. The recreation center shall be built or bonded
for its construction. No further sections of Redfields
shall be submitted for review until this condition has
been satisfied.
2. Admninistrative approval of the final plat.
3. Administrative approval of a site plan for the proposed
recreation center in accordance with the sketch included
herein as Attachment C.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SUB-90-178 Castleberry Court Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 5 lots from 1 existing parcel totalling 21.806 acres.
The average lot size is 4.24 acres with a range of 3.856
acres to 4.884 acres. The lots are to be served by a
November 13, 1990 Page 8
public road. Property, described as Tax Map 71, Parcel 4 is
located on the southwestern quadrant of Route 689 and Route
250. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. Staff was also recommending
approval of a waiver of Section 18-34 to allow double
frontage lots.
Regarding the waiver Mr. Keeler added: "The Subdivision
Ordinance was written in 1974... and it's pretty much
directed at small urban lots. Since the adoption of the
Subdivision Ordinance in 174, we've endeavored to have rural
subdivisions served by internal roads. This comes up many
times with these rural subdivisions --the distance from the
new internal road to the existing state road can be
significant in many cases. So, most of the time, when a
rural subdivision comes before you with a request for a
waiver from that provision, we will be recommending
favorably on that."
Ms. Huckle asked if there was room for a building site and a
drainfield (on lot 5) which would not be on 20% slopes. Ms.
Lipinski responded affirmatively.
Mr. Johnson noted that the applicant was requesting a waiver
from VDOT regarding road standards. He asked if the project
would be abandoned if this waiver were not granted. Mr.
Keeler stated he did not think that would be the case. He
explained that the road in question is short and VDOT
subdivision street standards do not recognize the length of
the road. He explained that a 35 mph design speed would be
difficult to attain on this road so the applicant is
requesting a reduced design speed "which would allow less of
a cut to get the road in, but in either case, they will
build a public road."
Ms. Huckle suggested that a condition be added which would
require that drainfields for lots 4 and 5 be located as far
up slope as possible (as recommended in the staff report).
Mr. Keeler responded that the Ordinance prohibits
construction on 25% slopes. He pointed out that the
applicant has shown "the building sites not being located on
20% slopes." He added that the house site which is shown on
Lot 4 was as far from Stockton Creek as possible and the
same was true for Lot 5 (unless the site encroached on the
drainfield area). He noted that the applicant has shown
these sites on the plan, but the Commission could require
those sites as shown on the plan if it so wished. Mr.
Rittenhouse noted that staff's comment was advisory. (Note:
Such a condition was NOT added.)
916
November 13, 1990 Page 9
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kirk Hughes. He noted
that all lots have Health Department approval. He also
noted that the building sites are close to 200 feet back
from the stream and are in the most gentle slope areas of
the sites. He stated that though the sites could be moved
four or five feet, they would still be in the same types of
slopes.
Mr. Jenkins asked the applicant if he objected to a
condition requiring that the house sites be as shown on the
plan. Mr. Hughes responded: "I think that would be more
restrictive than what you have in the Ordinance. Your
Ordinance is pretty clear --it's 25% and 20% slopes." Mr.
Bowling confirmed Mr. Hughes was correct.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed opposition to the proposal:
Mr. Blain Tilman and Mr. Robert Johnson. Mr. Tilman noted
the issue of the Scenic Highway and expressed concern about
residential development not being in harmony with his farm.
Mr. Johnson felt the proposal was not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan because it was not in a designated growth
area. Mr. Tilman also expressed concern about the adequacy
of the roads.
Ms. Edith Sing, owner of the property, noted that Rt. 689 is
a good road at this point.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SUB-90-178, the Castleberry Court
Preliminary Plat, be approved subject to the following
conditions, and including the approval of the requested
waiver:
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
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of
drainage plans and calculations;"
C. Department of Engineering issuance of
Erosion Control Permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation
of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a
commercial entrance permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation
of road and drainage plans and calculations;
f. Septic fields shall not be located on
greater slopes.
grading
road and
an
approval
approval
20% or
97
November 13, 1990 Page 10
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Wilkerson would be willing to
include a condition related to building sites on lots 4 and
5, as had been discussed earlier. Mr. Wilkerson responded
that it was his understanding (based on the County
Attorney's comments) that the Commission could not require
more than was allowed by the Ordinance.
Mr. Bowling stated that if the applicant would agree to such
a condition it would be acceptable.
Mr. Keeler noted: "I don't believe there is anything within
the building site provisions that authorizes you all to say
where within the building site an applicant can put his
house."
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was comfortable with the conditions
as presented by staff. He made no change to his motion.
Ms. Andersen stated that though she would support the
motion, she was concerned about development outside a
designated growth area.
The previously stated motion for approval passed
unanimously.
SDP-90-088 Kegler's of Charlottesville Major Site Plan
Amendment - Proposal to locate four speed bumps on two major
thoroughfares within the existing Kegler's Bowling Alley
parking lot. Property, described as tax Map 45, Parcel 112C
and 112D1, is located on the western side of Rt. 29
approximately 0.8 mile south of the Rivanna River. This
site is located within the Charlottesville Magisterial
District and is within a designated growth area.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Based on concerns
about public safety expressed by the Engineering Department,
Zoning Department, and Inspections Department and due to the
Jefferson County Fire and Rescue Association's vote not to
allow speed bumps within emergency accessways, staff was
recommending denial of this request.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Stoner. He noted
that he felt the Fire Official has voted against speed bumps
because of possible damage to fire vehicles and
90
m
November 13, 1990 Page 11
inconvenience, and not because of any violation to State
laws. He pointed out that speed bumps are not a violation
of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. He
explained that the applicant is concerned about potential
liability problems in the event of an accident in their
parking lot. He explained that the speed bumps have
alleviated the speeding problems which were occurring in the
parking lot. He noted that there is alternative access
which will allow fire vehicles to service the building
without having to drive over the speed bumps and the
alternative route would only add 5 seconds to the arrival
time. He felt it was unfair for the County to mandate the
removal of the speed bumps based on the Fire Official's
judgment given the potential liability faced by the owner of
the property.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson strongly disagreed with the statement that "the
Fire Official has denied these speed bumps." He felt this
was inaccurate. He referred to Mr. Hurt's letter which he
felt stated that the speed bumps are allowed in the state
and then he (Mr. Hurt) noted that the Jefferson County Fire
and Rescue Association has voted not to allow the bumps.
He concluded: "We have no recommendation from the Fire
Official." He felt that Mr. Hurt had not recommended
againpt the devices, though he admitted that neither had he
recommended approval. He noted that the applicant has
stated that the speed bumps have been effective in
preventing accidents and this is a safety matter. He
concluded: "In the interest of protecting the safety of the
public, the applicant should definitely be allowed to retain
these speed bumps."
Mr. Wilkerson did not disagree with Mr. Johnson's
statements. He noted however, that there are no other
public parking lots in the County which have these devices
and he also noted that he was aware of no other parking lot
where vehicles travel at a speed of 45 to 50 mph. He found
this of great concern.
Mr. Johnson again stated that the Fire Official had not made
a negative recommendation for the request. Mr. Rittenhouse
disagreed and pointed out that Jay Schlothauer is the County
Fire Official.
Mr. Johnson stated that he had spoken with Mr. Schlothauer,
who has not visited the site, but who bases his comments on
Mr. Hurt's comments.
a
November 13, 1990 Page 12
Mr. Rittenhouse felt "the bottom line" is that Mr.
Schlothauer's letter states that "the installation of speed
bumps is not acceptable." He felt his position was clear.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance states
that these devices will be considered on an individual case
basis.
Mr. Johnson continued to argue that the Fire Official had
not definitely recommended against the speed bumps for this
particular site. Mr. Rittenhouse continued to disagree.
In response to Ms. Huckle's statement that the City
maintained a different position in relation to speed bumps,
Mr. Keeler explained that the City grandfathered speed bumps
which were already in existence at the time the ordinance
was passed. He stated this situation is different because
the County Ordinance does exist and the applicant installed
the devices without any authority to do so and without any
recommendation from the Fire Official.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission, if it so desired,
could defer the petition and staff would see that the
officials involved would be present at the next hearing.
Mr. Keeler explained that it would be helpful for
Commissioners to direct their questions to the Planning
Staff rather than having staff discover at meetings that
Commissioners have talked to agencies without staff's
knowledge. He stated that it was staff's interpretation of
both Mr. Hurt's and Mr. Schlothauer's memos that the speed
bumps were not acceptable. He stated that staff could not
be responsible for conservations to which they had not been
a party.
Mr. Mike Slummer, a representative of Mr. Hurt's office was
present. He stated that Mr. Hurt's office had not made a
definitive recommendation in regards to the speed bumps. He
felt the Jefferson County Fire and Rescue Association's main
concern was damage to the equipment.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the problem was primarily caused
by the speed of the vehicles in the parking lot. He noted
that the County did not design the parking lot, nor did it
dictate the traffic patterns. However, the County does
assume the responsibility for fire protection and also for
keeping the equipment servicable so that it can "fight the
next fire after this site." He stated he was reluctant to
make an exception for this site because of a problem with
traffic circulation. He, too, raised the question of why
there are problems with this site and not at other
establishments. He concluded that allowing the bumps to
remain was contrary to the recommendations of local fire
fighting organizations. Mr. Rittenhouse did note, however,
November 13, 1990 Page 13
that Mr. Hurt's letter had recommended that the issue be
studied further but it had not made a positive
recommendation for the speed bumps. He felt the Ordinance
requires a positive finding by the Fire Official.
Mr. Wilkerson stated that though he was sympathetic to the
applicant's problems, based on staff's recommendations and
current zoning regulations, he moved that Kegler's Site Plan
Amendment be denied.
Mr. Jenkins seconded this motion.
Discussion:
This item continued to be debated.
Mr. Johnson felt action should not be taken until a
definitive response was received from the Fire Official
related to this site in particular. He felt that the
Commission should not base it's action on the comments
presented in the staff report and attachments if the persons
making those comments had not visited the site.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt that Mr. Schlothauer's comments were
site specific and that he had had the opportunity to respond
affirmatively but had not chosen to do so.
Mr. Grimm stated he would support the motion based on
Section 4.12.6.1 which states that "speed bumps are
prohibited unless otherwise recommended by the Fire
Official."
Mr. Keeler noted that the zoning provisions had come from a
previous Albemarle County Fire Official. He stated staff
would have no objection to deferral in order for Mr. Hurt
and Mr. Schlothauer to address the Commission in person.
There was some discussion about the possibility of the speed
bumps being relocated so that they would still slow down
traffic but would not interfere with the emergency vehicle
access.
The applicant indicated a deferral was acceptable.
Mr. Wilkerson withdrew his motion for denial (Mr. Jenkins
agreed).
/O/
November 13, 1990
Page 14
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Kegler's Site Plan Amendment be
indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:18 P.M.
V. Wayne ilimberg, tary
DS
/oz