Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 22 88 PC MinutesMarch 22, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 22, 1988, Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Steve Cresswell, County Engineer. Absent: Commissioners Diehl, Wilkerson and Gould and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 1, 1988 were approved as submitted. SP-87-110 Design Builders - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(28) of the Zoning Ordinance to issue a special use permit to create 33 lots from a 375 acre parcel, requesting different configuration than by right development. Property, described as Tax Map 39, Parcel 20 is lo- cated on the west side of Rt. 684, 1/4 mile north of Mint Springs. White Hall Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The applicant had requested deferral to April 12. Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that SP-87-110 for Design Builders be deferred to April 12, 1988. The motion passed unanimously. _SP-88-7 A.T. Williams Oil Company - A. T. Williams Oil Company petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to authorize the placement of fill in the floodway fringe of the Rivanna River. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 2A, 2B, 2C, 4A, and 4B, is located on the north side of Route 250 East at State Route 1421 (Elk's Drive), adjacent to the west of the Wilco gasoline station. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff and the County Engineer recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark .Osborne, engineer for the project. He offered little comment. Mr. Michel asked if the applicant had any objections to the plan for Elks Drive to be a cul-de-sac in conjunction with the construction of the Rivanna Park., Mr. Osborne replied that this would have no effect on the applicant's access and he has no objections. Mr. Michel asked if there was a use in mind. Mr. Osborne replied: "A commercial use that is compatible with the C-1 zoning. It is somewhat dependent upon whether the extent of the fill is allowable tonight or not, whether it ends up being a very nice shopping center or a small lumber yard if the fill is not approved." Mr. Osborne confirmed that a commercial March 22, 1988 Page 2 development would require that floor levels be above flood stage. He added: "The grading that we have shown will accommodate a nice commercial area with absolutely no impact by the floodplain on the buildings and parking areas." It was determined the site consisted of approximately 5 acres. Hr. Bowerman asked what ground area the fill would cover. Mr. Cresswell estimated 1 to lk acres. Mr. Michel stated his only concern was that the applicant not be surprised "if we intend to close that road." Mr. Osborne again stated, "We've discussed the options with the staff extensively and that won't have any impact on our proposal." The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. John Housley addressed the Commission. tie was concerned about the area that would be filled, particularly the. "culvert coming from Berlin (Auto)." Mr. Osborne responded : "I expect we will be filling in an area in that location ." Mr. Housley pointed out that water "already backs up above Rt. 20'(at.Berlin Auto) because it has already. been filled. Mr. Housley also asked if the fill would go over top the telephone cable.. Mr. Osborne responded that provision will be made to relocate whatever utilities are in the way. Mr. Housley asked how far above the road the fill would be at the creek on the north side. Mr. Cresswell.responded "approximately 20 - 25 feet.". Mr. Osborne indicated "20 feet." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel expressed concern about traffic generation and particularly the intersection of Elks Drive and Rt. 250E. ?1r. Cresswell stated staff would not support access off of Elks Drive, but rather off of Rt. 250 and Rt. 20, and this would be discussed at the time of site plan review. Mr. Bowerman explained that this issue was critical, at least in Mr. Michel's mind, to this application. Ms. Patterson stated that staff did not see that access off of Rt. 250 and Rt. 20 would have any impact on the plan to cul-de-sac Elks Drive. Mr. Bowerman felt the discussion should be limited to the present issue, i.e. filling in the floodplain, and the other matters would be dealt with at the time of the site plan. Mr. Stark :roved that SP-88-7 for A.T. Williams Oil Company be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the *following conditions: 1. Limits of fill in general accordance with the A.T. Williams Preliminary Plan dated January 22, 1988, by Gloeckner and Osborne, Inc. (Site plan approval is subject to separate review by the Planning Commission). .4I9 March 22, 1988 Page 3 2. County Engineer approval of construction activity in the floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson why a special permit is required for filling in the floodplain. Ms. Patterson stated that question had been discussed and it was felt that there would be some cases where "we really do need the discretion afforded through a special use permit, through a legislative act." Mr. Bowerman asked if it had anything to do with the possibility that such fill activity, in and of itself, could be a danger to development in close proximity. Mr. Cresswell stated that he did not know if "in and of itself" it was a danger. He explained that requiring the special permit was a regulatory process so that "we do not have wholesale, by -right filling in the floodplain and floodways which would cause water to back up farther upstream." Mr. Bowerman also asked if there were environmental reasons for being very cautious about this issue. Mr. Cresswell confirmed that those considerations were taken into account when the other aspects are reviewed. Mr. Cresswell added that such proposals should be evaluated to determine whether or not an Army Corps of Engineers permit is required for filling in wetlands. There being no further discussion, the previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously. Mill Creek PUD Multi -Family Preliminary Plan - Proposal to locate sixty (60) dwelling units with a range of one, two and three bedrooms, in a total of six (6) buildings. A total of 151 parking spaces are proposed. Access is proposed from Mill Creek Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property located on the west side of Route 743 (Avon Street) and the south side of Mill Creek Drive at their inter- section. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36B. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. George Gilliam. He offered no significant additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the Mill Creek PUD Multi -Family Preliminary Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plan will not be signed until the following conditions are met: J %�V March 22, 1988 Page 4 a. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and commercial entrance; c. County Engineering approval of the location of curb and gutter in the parking lots and travelways; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans onsite and offsite; f. Fire Officer approval; g. Planning and County Engineering approval of directional signage and pavement markings at intersections; h. Planning staff approval of recreation plan, to include provision of tot lot; i. Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to include conservation plan for trees on Avon Street frontage. 2. A Certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: .a. County Attorney approvalof homeowner documents; b. Final Fire officer approval to include fireflow adequacy; c. Compliance with relevant conditions of ZMA--85-29 Forest Hills. 3. The condominium plat may be administratively approved. The sub- division plat creating the proposed lot at the corner of Avon Street and Mill Creek Drive may be administratively approved contingent upon approval from the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Garden Patch Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 3 buildings totalling 6,760 square feet. The two larger buildings will be used as nursery sales area, while the smaller building will be used as a storage shed. An area reserved for exterior sales is also proposed. Property, located on the east side of Rt. 29N, immediately south of the Federal Express development. Tax Map 45(B) (1), Section C, Parcel 4. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial based on the opinion that "access as proposed does not provide safe and convenient access to this site." Mr. Pullen explained that there would be only a 10' radius for vehicles to 'T-turn" from the turn lane on Route 29 onto the service road for this site and this would make.it difficult for a car to negotiate the turn and larger vehicles would not be able to make the turn. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Ms. Marilyn Gale. (The owner/applicant, Mr. Jim Darnel, was also present.) Ms. Gale stated there did not seem to be an alternative way to access the property other than to provide a turn and taper lane directly into the site. She stressed that the proposed access would be a temporary one. She stated the owner has March 22, 1988 Page 5 attempted to work with an adjoining property owner to locate an access but has been unsuccessful. She stated the applicant has already recorded a subdivision plat for his parcel and has dedicated to the Highway Department 3,445 square feet for construction of the service road and is quite willing to build his section of the road at the appropriate time. Mr. Darnel added that the proposed access is only temporary until the proposed service road is completed. Mr. Darnel also stated that with "the right modifications" a vehicle would be able to use the access safely. He explained the modifications he referred to were to shift the beginning of the service road inward 4 to 6 feet which would provide a wider radius and a divider could also be installed to divide incoming and outgoing traffic. He also recommended the use of a sign in the de-ce1 lane which would state "15 mph when exiting." In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Pullen explained that the temporary access would be in use until all the parcels along the proposed.service road were developed and there is no way of knowing when this will take place. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he was very familiar with the site and with the entire area. He stated he had grave concerns about allowing this to continue to develop "on an entrance which isn't supposed to be an entrance to begin with; it's actually a cul-de-sac." Mr. Bowerman stated that this entire access issue has been "backended and now we are starting to serve the entire site from the other end" than what was originally intended. He was concerned about the substantial amount of traffic that could be using the site. He regretted that this -issue had not been dealt with when the subdivision was approved. He felt it was unfortunate the applicant was in this position. Mr. Pullen pointed out that the applicant was aware of staff's position about access before he made the decision to subdivide the property. There was a brief discussion between Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Keeler and Mr. Stark about the possibility of relocating the entrance. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that the one thing that was hoped to be accomplished with the development of this site was to control the access for these parcels. Mr. Keeler suggested "It may be to the applicant's interest to talk with (the adjacent) property owner about sharing the costs of some of these improvements and just carrying a marginal road to his site at this time." Mr. Michel asked: "Could he do that? It wouldn't be a dedicated public road; it would just be a driveway in the right-of-way." Mr. Keeler responded: "We'll get it as these properties develop, but still it is going to have to be a servicable road approved by the County Engineer. It would be to a lesser standard than what's required for the service road." -F4 March 22, 1988 Page 6 Mr. Jenkins moved that the Garden Patch Preliminary Site Plan be denied. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman pointed out the denial was based on concern about access to the site. The motion for denial passed unanimously. The Chairman advised the applicant he had 10 days in which to appeal the Commissions action to the Board of Supervisors: Rio-29 Self Storage Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 8 buildings totalling 42,130 square feet on 3.5 acres. These buildings are to be used as individual self -storage facilities. A reception building will be located at the entrance on this development. The site is located on the test side of Rt. 29 approximately 600' north of Rio Road. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Stark's inquiry, Mr. Pullen stated no access was proposed to Rio Road. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. George Gilliam represented the applicant. He stated the owner and his engineer were both present to answer questions. He stated the applicant had no objections to the suggested conditions of approval. There being no public comment, the ::latter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark expressed concern about possible future expansion which might include the need for an access to Rio Road. Mr. Pullen confirmed that any such change would require Commission approval. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the other end was zoned C-1. He also stated that the proffer for the rezoning had restricted the access to Rt. 29. Mr. Bowerman recalled that the Commission had recommended denial of the rezoning but the Board had approved it. Thus, he had no problems with the current proposal since it met the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Michel moved that the Rio-29 Self Storage Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site development plan will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. County Eigineer approval of.stormvater detention plans and cal- culations; c. The Virginia Department of Transportations approval of drainage calculations, right-of-way improvements, right turn lane, and commercial entrance permit; oll/ March 22, 1988 Page 7 d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Final Fire Officer approval; 3. Staff request administrative approval of the final site plan. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Hollymead Village Shopping Center Preliminary Site Plan - McKenzie Properties, Inc. of Chatanooga, Tenn. proposes construction of a 51,870 square foot shopping center on 9.204 acres zoned PUD, Planned Unit Develop" went. Two outlots would be reserved for future development. Property, described as Tax Map 46B(2), Parcel 2 is located on the east side of Rt. 29N between North Hollymead Drive and South Hollymead Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This proposal was not reviewed because the applicant had requested withdrawal, without prejudice,'prior to the meeting. Old Business 1987 Annual Report - Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Annual Report be accepted as submitted with the following change: Eliminate ZTA's on page 4 and 5. The report was unanimously approved. Oakwood Mobile Home Site Plan - Mr. Keeler reported that this item should have been included on the Consent Agenda but was inadvertantly omitted. He explained that Oakwood Mobile Homes must relocate because of the rezoning of the present site for the Jefferson Square Shopping Center. He stated the owner was on a very short time schedule because work is imminent on the shopping center. He explained the proposed site for relocation is located on the East side of Rt. 29, north and adjacent to Badger-Powhatan. He asked that staff be granted administrative approval of the site plan. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that staff be granted administrative approval of the Oakwood Mobile Home Site Plan. The motion passed unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Parcel "Y" Subdivision - Proposal to create a Z.92 acre parcel from an existing 25.8 acre parcel and a 7.1 acre parcel. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 29N, adjacent to the Wrenson Bowling Alley site. Tax Map 45, Parcel 109, 112C, and 112D(1). Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. AV !d March 22, 1988 Page 8 It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be given consent to approve the Parcel "Y" Subdivision administratively. At the end of the meeting Mr. Michel again brought up the issue which had been raised with the A.T. Williams proposal, i.e. the intersection of Elks Drive with Rt. 250. He felt the county was "myopic" by not dealing with this issue. He asked %Thy weren't we able to consider that?" He continued: "Stile are creating a more developable parcel by far which could easily handle a small shopping center at a junction of an incredibly over -utilized road, a new bridge, and we want to cul-de-sac the road. I just don't quite know why we are backing ourselves into this corner." Mr. Bowerman felt that the Commission had not created anything except the right to fill in the site. He added that whether or not the site is developable for the use they intend, is entirely another question. Mr. Michel stated the issue he did not understand was the fact that staff was recommending dual access, to Rts. 20 and 250, and the Commission has discussed cul-de-sating the road because of safety problems. ?1r. Bowerman interpreted Mr. Michel's concern as "Why would you allow an access onto Rt. 250 to begin with knowing our concern for access that close to the bridge.it Mr. Michel pointed out that the Highway Department had agreed -with this. Ms. Patterson explained that that there are five separate parcels and the applicant has agreed to do a unified site plan. She stated they have also indicated if access is not allowed to 250 with the unified site plan, they will develop it in two pieces and the parcels that only have access on Rt. 250 cannot be denied access to 250. She said it was a "tough call" because plans for Rt. 250 are still unknown. Mr. Michel stated he hoped Mr. Osborne had understood his concern because he would have a real problem with a site plan on this location. There was a brief discussion about the plans for Elks Drive. The Chairman asked that staff relay to the applicant that the Commission is concerned about viewing this as a unified parcel and has serious reservations about its development. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. at 8:52 p.m. DS John Horne, Sec etary .2�g