HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 19 89 PC MinutesDecember 19, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, December 19, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and
Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish,
Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Richard Tarbell., Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior 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. Approval of November 28, 1989 minutes was
delayed until January 4, 1990.
CPA-89-03 Hollymead - Status Report - Staff was requesting direction from
the Commission as to how to proceed with further reviewof this amendment.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request for clarification as to the
origin of this proposal, Mr. Cilimberg explained the history of the
request. He confirmed the proposal is a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and the Commission's options are: (1) To deny the expansion as has
been requested with the understanding that the proposal can be re -submitted
after more information is available; (2) Approve the amendment; or (3) Deferral.
The staff report concluded:
To summarize, staff does not feel comfortable with expansion of the
Hollymead Community at this time considering the concerns noted
above. Therefore, staff would recommend that the Board take no
action to expand the Community at this time. This amendment could
be re -considered after the resolution and/or clarification of the
outstanding issues identified previously. If the Commission is
in general agreement with the staff's recommendation, then our office
will proceed with scheduling of a public hearing in order to take
action on this amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff was not in favor of an indefinite deferral because
there was no way of knowing when the missing information would become
available.
It was noted that the Commission could not take action until the request
was scheduled for public hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission
that the item be scheduled for public hearing .
Mr. Keeler asked if it was the Commission's intent that this request be
treated in the same manner as a rezoning application, i.e. any new information
aka
December 19, 1989
Page 2
which the applicants might wish to submit must be submitted tostaff
long in advance of the public hearing so that staff will have ample
time to review it.. Otherwise the Commission will not consider such
information at the public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that staff
would include any such additional information in the Commission's
packets along with an evaluation of the information.
ZMA 89-19 Forest Lakes Associates - Proposal in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
to rezone 4.145 acres from R-1, Residential to C-1 Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 3.2, Parcel 32 (part) is located east of U.S. Rt. 29N
at the southwest corner of the intersection of Worth Crossing and Rt.
649 (Proffit Road). Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers, including an additional
proffer which had been submitted after the staff report had been written,
i.e. "Uyere will not be any type of automotive repair shop of any descrip-
tion on this tract of land."
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed some confusion about proffer No. 2.[To limit the
entrance from Tract IV to Worth Crossing to one entrance.] and its relation
to VDOT comments ["The Department recommends that the access to this
property be to the new internal road (Worth Crossing):'] He asked if
it was staff's ,intent that access "be limited to the internal road and
not to Proffit Road." Mr. Fritz confirmed this was accurate.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. Regarding the access
issue, he explained: "It's our intent ... to .limit the access to the site
to one entrance only and that entrance will be from Worth Crossing. We could
restate that proffer to reflect that...." (Mr. Bowerman asked that the
proffer be reworded before the Board hearing.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Rittenhouse stated he could support the application with that one
provision, i.e. that the proffer be ;codified to reflect that there be only
one entrance and that there be no access to Proffit 'Road.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that ZMA-89-19 for Forest Lakes Associates be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the applicant' --
proffers as follows:
1. To.grant an access easement from Tract IV to Tract III.
2. To limit the entrance from Tract IV to Worth Crossing to one entrance.
(To be clarified before Board hearing.)
3. That.landscaping on Tract IV will be similar to the landscaping
required for ZMA-88-16 (Shopping Center).
4. I will reserve 60 feet from the center line of Route 649 to the
property line of Tract IV, for the future widening of Route 649.
December 19, 1989 Page 3
5. There will not be any type of automotive repair shop of any
description on this tract of land.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(Mr. Keeler noted that it was understood that modification of proffer No. 2
had no effect on Proffer No. 1. Mr. Bowerman confirmed this was correct.)
ZMA-89-20 Mechum River Land Trust - The Mechum River Land Trust is
requesting relief from proffer No. I of ZMA-89--06 to "install a divided
road entrance from Rt. 240 to the first off -road within the subdivision."
Property described as Tax Map 57, Parcels 29 and 29D is located between
the C & 0 Railway and Rt. 240, approximately one-half mile west of
intersection of Rt. 240 and Rt. 250; a smaller piece of the property is
located on the north side of Rt. 240 between Rt. 240 and Rt. 802. White
Hall Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting that the request be dismissed.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that ZMA-89-20 for Mechum River
Land Trust be dismissed. The motion passed unanimously.
Highlands at Mechum River Section I Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create
75 single family residential lots from 49.34 family residential lots from
49.34 acres with an average size of 0.5 acres. Property, described as
Tax Map 57, Parcel 29, is located on the south side of Rt. 250
approximately one mile west of its intersection with Rt. 250. Zoned R-4,
Residential. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Daily Craig. He offered very little
comment except to ask that the Commission follow staff's recommendations
for a rural cross section. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, he
stated the expected price range of the homes would be $87,500 to $150,000.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked if staff's recommendation was still for a rural cross-
section "recognizing the area in the back of the plat which is slated
for future multi -family development." Mr. Tarbell responded: "Yes, to
serve these single-family lots. I guess interior to the multi -family
section, we would review that separately." He confirmed that, in any
case, the lead-in road to the multi -family units would be a rural cross-
section.
Mr. Jenkins asked if screening would be required for the lots that
border Rt. 240. He was concerned primarily about children safety.
December 19, 1989
Page 4
There was a brief dicussion regarding comparison of this development
with dill Greek.
Mr. Keeler explained that staffs recommendation for a rural cross
section was based on a generally endorsed policy, though one that has
not been officially adopted, i.e. "where lot frontages are 70 feet or
greater that it be a rural section provided (certain things are done)."
He continued that one of the provisions in that policy is the separation
of driveways as has been addressed in these conditions.
There was a discussion about the VDOT recommendation for curb and
gutter. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the parking areas for the multi -family
sections and for the commercial areas would have curb and gutter, but the
roadways themselves will be rural sections.
There.was a brief discussion.of other developments where there is a mixture
of rural and urban cross sections.
Mr. Richard Poring, County Engineer, commented that this particular
subdivision, with lot frontages as shown on the plat, is "marginal."
He felt it was appropriate to discuss this issue further as a development
policy. He stated he did not have a great deal of concern about this
particular subdivision.
Mr. Jenkins asked if any on -site drainage basin would be required.
'1r. larbell responded: "This is the part of the property that was
rezoned on the contingency that it is the area that naturally drains
to the drainage basin ." It was noted this was addressed in condition
No. 9(e). Mr. Jenkins recalled previous discussions about the
possible inadequacy of the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Mr. Gilimberg
explained that this issue is presently before the Board, but until
directed otherwise, "it is our anticipation there will not be sup-
plemental on -site detention --the Lickinghole Basin, assuming that it
is built as the regional basin, will be the detention basin handling
the growth area of Crozet." Mr. Jenkins asked what would happen if the
Board decided not to fund the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that such a decision would "throw the whole question of the
Crozet Growth Area up in the air." }1r. Jenkins asked if approval of
this application should be contingent upon the Boards approval of the
Lickinghole Basin. Mr. Keeler responded: "If they don't approve the
basin, that condition is gone and the Runoff Control Ordinance applies
in full force."
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Highlands at Mechum River Section.I Preliminary
Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction of. 200 foot long, 12 foot wide right turn lane with a
200 foot long taper and a 200 foot long, 10 foot wide left turn lane
with a 200 foot long taper on Route 240;
2. The minimum driveway separation for all lots shall be fifty (50) feet
from the edge of pipe to edge of pipe or two adjacent driveways
shall be served by continuous culvert not to exceed 42 feet;
December 19, 1989 Page 5
3. Driveway entrances shall be delineated on the road plans;
4. Driveways shall be constructed to accommodate two cars parked side -by -
side;
5. Installation of a divided road entrance consisting of four lanes and
a raised median from Rt. 240 to the first off -road within the
subdivision;
6. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a driveway which shall accommodate four
cars parked side -by -side;
7. All lots shall access internal road only;
8. Lot 3 shall access Highland Drive only;
9. The final plat will not 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. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering approval of all required on -site and
off -site drainage easement plats;
e. Receipt of written agreement to pay a pro -rated cost -sharing
amount for the County's proposed Lickinghole Runoff Control
Basin in accordance with the fee schedule and policy as determined
by the Board of Supervisors;
10. Administrative approval of the final plat;
(Note:an eleventh condition was added later.)
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
In response to Ms. Diehl's request, Mr. Tarbell pointed out the critical
slope areas.
Mr. Michel askedis understanding that screening would be required for
those lots fronting on Rt. 240 was correct. Mr. Keeler responded that
was a determination for the Commission to make. He questioned what
kind of screening was anticipated, e.g. vegetative, which would not
offer a safety protection for children, or some type of fence. Mr.
Craig added: "We will be happy to put a fence along 240."
December 19, 1989
Page 6
Condition No. 11 was added as follows:
11. Screening shall be provided for the lots which have frontage on Route
240.
The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
Oliver Kuttner Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 12.238
square foot warehouse and a 4,830 square foot addition to an existing
building in the LI, Light Industrial district. Property, described as
Tax Map 90, Parcels 35R and 35S, is located on the east side of Avon
Street Extended (Rt. 742) approximately eight -tenths of a :Zile south of
I-64. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tim }Poore. He offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Oliver Kuttner Preliminary Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will 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 stormwater detention plans
and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit:
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
e. Submittal of a certified engineers report in compliance with
Section 26.7 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance;
f. Department of Engineering approval of all required on -site
and off -site drainage easement plats;
g. Staff approval of final landscape plan;
h. Staff approval of joint access easement plat;
i. Health Department approval of central water and sewer system or
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions are met:
a. Fire Official approval.
a�
December 19, 1989 page 7
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
David Landin - ,Proposal to divide an existing 15.9 acre parcel into three
lots with an average lot size of 2.2 acres, the remaining acreage lies
within the City. Proposal will utilize an existing entrance onto Rio
Road and one existing entrance will be closed. All lots are to be served
by public water and private septic systems. Property, described as Tax
Map 61, Parcels 210 and 210A, is located on Rt. 631 (Rio Road) at its
intersection with Agnese Street. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Bowerman expressed some confusion as to why the entrance which is
being closed was chosen over the other.entrance because it seems to
be the better of the two, presently. Mr. Fritz explained that though
that may be the case, the one which will be closed cannot obtain
proper sight distance, whereas the other one can.
Mr. David Landin was present. He felt approval of the request would
result in a much safer situation than currently exists.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel noted that the proposal would be a major improvement and
moved that the David Landin application be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of all required on -site
and off -site drainage easement plats;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of an
entrance permit to include the closure of the existing
entrance on parcel A-2..
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan -- Moore's Creek. Relief Sewer Line -
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the
project be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Service Authority was represented by Mr. Blue. He offered no
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
-2T8
December 19, 1989
Page 8
Ms. Diehl moved that the Moore's Creek Relief Sewer Line be found in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to compliance with the
Engineering Department's memorandum of December 12, 1989.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Lewis yiountain/University Heights Neighborhood Study - For discussion and
review -
Mr. 8enish presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff
supports all County recommendations as presented in this Study."
There was very little discussion about the study with the exception
of Mr. Michel's co=nents about the Old Ivy Road area. He referred
specifically to page 40 and noted that the wording was not strong
enough. He felt it should be stressed that development in this
area will be severely limited until such time as the roads are
improved. (No action was required of the Commission.)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
r. a.y is /N ii ivaa.cisf
..� 2 dl-7