HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 12 88 PC MinutesApril 12, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, April 12, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
John Pullen, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Steve
Cresswell, Asst. County Engineer. Absent: 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.
SP-87-110 Design Builders (Emerald Ridge Subdivision) - 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 located on the west side of Rt. 684, 1/4 mile north of
Mint Strings. White Hall Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Deferred from March 22, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting.
The applicant had requested deferral to April 19, 1988.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-110 for Design Builders be deferred to
April 19, 1988. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mill Creek PUD, Section 4, Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 43
lots, with an average lot size of 0.34 acres from an existing 22.4
acre parcel. Internal public roads are proposed to serve this
development. The proposed use is single-family residential. The
property is located on the north side of Route 742 in the Mill
Creek PUD. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36A. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Regarding condition 1(a)--Public roads for Sections 1 and 2 shall
be accepted into the public road system --Ms. Patterson akalthat staff
be given some "administration discretion in working out some alterna-
tive solutions that are available to the applicant." She stated staff
is very aware of the Commission's intent to "have a working mechanism
and a reasonable time period for these roads' acceptance into the
system." She suggested the addition of the following words at the
end of this condition: ...subject to staff approval. (Note: This
was later changed slightly.)
07.8.2
April 12, 1988 Page 2
At the end of the staff report Ms. Patterson asked the Commission for
authorization to administratively approve future subdivision sections
for single-family residential lots, provided that, after notification
of adjacent owners, no issues arise which require Commission resolution.
She confirmed these would be placed on the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Patterson called the Commission's attention to a letter from an
adjacent owner who was concerned about drainage through his property
causing erosion problems. Ms. Patterson stated it was her understanding
that Craig Builders was going to correct this problem.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. George Gilliam. Regarding condition
l(d)--All driveways in excess of 7% to.be paved --he asked that the
following words be added: ...unless otherwise approved 121 the County
Engineer. He explained this had been included on previous approvals.
Mr. Horne confirmed this was accurate. Regarding condition 1(a) he
stated there was a problem because the roads in Section 2 are possibly
one year away from acceptance, thus it would be a year before l(a)
could be met and this would hold up construction of the collector road.
He suggested that 1(a) be treated: as condition 2 with the following
words being added: ...when 80% of the CO's for Sections 1 and 2
have been issued.
Mr. Horne asked Mr. Gilliam: "What is the particular impediment to getting
those roads into the system before those sections are built out? Why
can't the roads go into the system? Do they have public service on
them, three occupied dwellings?" Mr. Craig replied that all the roads have
public service. fir. Gilliam added that construction traffic is currently
very intense and "you. don't want to put your finished coat on the road
until that's over."
Referring to a statement in. Mr. Cresswell's letter dated March 28 which
read-- "We feel as a condition of approval the design and approval of
the collector road should be completed so as not to delay construction
of the road as the occupancy level for the project approaches 100
units ---"Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Cresswell to comment. Mt. Cresswell
responded'- "Basically the intent of that letter was to go ahead and
get the collector road designed so that we could have the plans and they
could be sitting on the shelf when the time came to construct the road.
We didn't get into a delay in timing of getting those road plans
completed. We've got a lot of lean time right now in getting the collector
road designed. There's no reason to wait 'til the last minute and then
have everybody breathing dorm our necks —to hurry up and get the plans
reviewed because they need to get the road built because it's time to
take it into the system. So I felt with this many platted lots it would
be appropriate at this tir,►e to go ahead and begin the design on the
collector road even though we may not be constructing it for three to
six months down the road."
O-70
April 12, 1988
Page 3
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the drainage problems expressed in
the resident's letter which Ms. Patterson had referred to earlier. She
asked if that -issue had been addressed. Mr. Craig responded that he had
met with the party involved and "I think we have cured all the problems;
we are going to re -seed their grass. ... There are several other items
which I have taken care of."
Referring to his earlier suggestion that condition 1(a) be tied to
issuance of 80% of the CO's, Mr. Gilliam stated that may not work because
of the timing. Therefore, he stated it might be preferable that this
be left to be worked out with staff. Mr. Horne agreed.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "The only thing that I would like to add to that,
because we'll probably do that, is that as this progresses from phase
to phase, lingering problems with the roads ... are going to effect your
future approvals. So it is going to behoove the applicant to come up with
whatever solutions he can, as quickly as possible, as he goes through
this development to keep everybody (satisfied). I am hoping we come up
with a solution which does not occupy, time after time, more Commission,
staff, public or applicant attention."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that Mill Creek Section 4 Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Public roads for Sections 1 and 2 shall be accepted into the
public road system, except as may be approved by staff. (Note:
"except as may be approved by staff" was suggested by Mr. Gilliam
later in the meeting and agreed to by Mr. Horne.)
b. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations for:
(1) Phase I - Section 4 and (2) collector road;
c. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
d. All driveways in excess of 7% to be paved, unless otherwise
approved by the County Engineer;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations for:
(1) Phase I - Section 4,.and (2) collector road;
f. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final onsite and
offsite water and sewer plans;
a-141
April 12, 1988 Page 4
h. Fire Officer final approval;
i. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents.
2. Public roads in this section shall be dedicated and brought into the
public road system when 80% of the certificates of occupancy are
issued for Section 4, or prior to the signing of a final plat for
Section 6, whichever shall occur first.
3. Maximum slope of 4 to 1 for drainage areas on proposed lots., unless
otherwise approved by the County Engineer.
4. The final plat may be administratively approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Commission granted staff permission to place subsequent approvals for
single-family detached subdivision plats to be placed on the Consent
Agenda, provided they are consistent with the PUD application plan and
subject to normal notification procedures.
Willow Lake Master Plan Amendment - Proposal to revise the distribution
of dwellings on the master plan, with no increase in the total number of
dwellings. The proposed changes are as follows: change the quadraplexes
to triplexes on the top of the hill (G, H, I, and J); change the
single family detached units to triplexes on the right after the Shoffner
house (P, Q, and R); change the single family detached units and public
road extension to quadraplexes and a private road (V, W, X and Y); and
redesign the single family units near.the end of Willow Lake Drive to
create an overall total of 120 dwelling units. Property is located
off the west side of Rt. 20 just south of Piedmont Virginia Conunity
College and adjacent to Lakeside Subdivision. Tax Map 77E1, Parcel 1
and 2. Zoned R-4, Residential.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Regarding the acceptance of Willow
Lake Drive into the state system, Ms. Patterson updated the staff report
and stated that all outstanding items had been completed to the satis-
faction of the Highway Department and all necessary paperwork has been
completed.
Regarding the issue of sedimentation and drainage problems in adjacent
Lakeside Subdivision which occur in the area of the stream at the
entrance to Willow Lake the staff report stated:
"The Engineering Department has commented that the drainage and
sedi.-nentation problems have resulted from a major storm of lesser
occurrence than those for which erosion control measures are
designed (two year interval). ... This drainage problem is not a
continual situation and in the Engineering Department's opinion
does not result from the developer's violation of applicable
regulations. This has been discussed with Mr. St. John,
County Attorney, who concurs that this is not properly a matter
for the Planning Commission because it is not caused by a violation
of County regulations, but is instead a civil matter."
A39�
April 12, 1988 Page 5
The staff report concluded: "In sta.ff's opinion, the present proposal
for reconfiguration is consistent with the intent of the proffered
zoning. ... This plan will met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
and staff recommends approval subject to (conditions)."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Fred Hermanson addressed the Commission. His comments included the
following:
--Acceptance of Willow Lake Drive is no longer an issue.
--The owner of Lot 1 (the Shoffner house) has withdrawn his
objection to this current plan.
--The water problem was not on the applicant's property but was
caused by the Cow branch topping Rt. 20.
--Regarding the buffer zone between the college and the subdivision,
he stated there was net as much room as initially thought so
"there was an agreement with the college to .create a greater
playing area, more flat area, in the ballpark area of the college
and the creation of a fence which we are planting with maple
trees and some landscaping. It was a modified plan because the
area we had originally created just didn't exist through error."
He explained this area had been done and signed off by both the
college and the applicant.
--The applicant feels this is a better plan and protects the property
better.
--Because the lake is a major portion of the amenities of the project,
the applicant feels it is beneficial to the homeowners that the
access to that lake be a private road.
--The homeowners and residents have considered the plan and approved
it.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Richard Fisco addressed the Commission. He asked that the reference
to the "Shoffner" house be changed to the "Fisco" house since he is
the present owner of the house. He expressed concern about the lake
overflowing the dam and flowing onto his property, particularly during
periods of heavy rainfalls.
Ms. Alice Brower addressed the Commission. She was a resident of the
Lakeside Subdivision. She asked when the pine trees, which were promised,
were going to be planted which were to act as a buffer between Lakeside
and Willow Lake. She also stated she was under the impression that
the residents of the Lakeside Subidivison were to be allowed to use
the lake.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cresswell to comment on Mx. Fisco's concerns about
the dam. Mr. Cresswell stated he was not too familiar with the drainage
system, but it was his understanding that the drainage from this develop-
ment would continue to flow into the lake because the lake is there to
act as a stormwater detention facility. Regarding the lake overflowing,
-IS4
April 12, 1988
Page 6
he stated that would likely occur in the future during heavy rains.
He added that there are no county or state ordinances for design
criteria for lakes of this size. fir. Cresswell confirmed he had
reviewed the lake as a stormwater detention facility and had
evaluated it in terms of depth and pooling capacity and its
ability to handle a 10-year storm, which is all that is required.
Regarding the buffer area referred to by Ms. Brower, Mr. Hermanson
stated it had not been planted but it has been scheduled for
planting and has been bonded.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission had approved the drain into the lake.
Mr. Bowerman responded affirmatively.
Xs. Diehl stressed that the plantings should be planted as soon as
possible as this is the growing season.
Regarding ls. Brower's question about the Lakeside residents' use of
the lake, Mr..Hermanson explained that property owners in Lakeside
were granted permission to use the lake. He stated it was an oral
agreement with 4 or 5 property owners who lived there at the time
the road was being constructed. He stated the applicant had agreed
to several things: (1) To cross the stream, at the applicant's
expense; (2) To help legally create a homeowner's agreement; (3) To
contribute to the cost of the upgrading of Brook Hill; and (4) That
property owners living in the Lakeside Subdivision could use the lake.
Mr: Fisco asked if the dam.was supposed to be inspected every two years.
Mr. Cresswell stated that there are no requirements for inspection of
the dam. He explained that the only dams requiring his department's
inspection are those which have received permits under the State Water
Control Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if flooding had caused any erosion to the da-m.
A representative of the applicant replied that there was no substantial
erosion on the dam itself. He stated the problem was the result of
the Cow branch overflowing the dam into the lake and was not the
result of the rur_off from the subdivision.
Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Cresswell to check into the situation at the
dam.
It was determined the lake is spring -fed and the stream does not normally flow
into the lake.
Xr. Horne stated: "To clarify the situation, we can insure that the
construction of the dam is adequate to meet its needs for detention,
but we cannot require that it be constructed to some other dam standards
that do not apply to it. But we can insure that it ltructurally sound
to the point that it can function as .the necessary stormwater detention
facility."
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was concerned about the possibility of a stream
overflowing into the lake. :sir. Cresswell agreed that he was concerned
about this also.
o137
April 12, 1988 Page 7.
Mr. Cresswell stated that condition 1(d)--County Engineer approval of
road and drainage plans and computations --would allow him to review
these issues because the detention facility is part of drainage plans.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cresswell to look into the concerns that had
been expressed in relation to the lake. He also asked that Mr. Cresswell
meet with Mr. Fisco.
Regarding the landscape plan.for the new buffer areas, Ms. Diehl asked
if these were to be planted buffer areas. Ms. Patterson responded:
"That's what we'd envisioned. The landscape plan that exists now
doesn't include those areas because most of them were previously shown
for development, so they will have to amend that to show new plantings.
That's what I envision --preserve the existing plantings and supplement
with new plantings."
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the Commission needed to address the issue of
the plantings of the pines in the buffer area. Mr. Bowerman asked
for staff's interpretation as to when that should be done. Mr.
Horne replied: "As soon as possible consistent with the health of
the trees."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Willow Lake Master Plan Amendment be
approved subject to the following.conditions:
1. A final site plan or subdivision plat will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Issuance of -an erosion control permit or amendment of existing
permit as applicable; planning staff approval of any grading
permit for limits of construction;
b. County Engineer approval of construction on slopes of 25% or
greater;
c. County Engineer approval of parking lot design; sidewalk and
pavement specifications;
d. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and compu-
tations;
e. County Attorney approval of homeowner association documents;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans and easements;
g. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and building separation;
h. Planning staff approval of landscape plan and recreation plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
a
April 12, 1988 Page 8
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Bailey Office Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
18,000 square foot building on 1.73 acres. This development proposes
access via a joint access easement with an adjacent property (Caldwell
Banker Realty Office) from Route 631 Fast (Rio'Road). 76 parking
spaces are to be provided for this proposal. Commercial office space
is the proposed use. The property is located on the east side of
Route 631 (Rio Road), adjacent to Bailey Realty and Alliance
Baptist Church. Tax Map 61, Parcel 127B. Zoned CO, Commercial.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bill Romenesko represented the applicant. He offered no additional
comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Richard Thurston, pastor of Alliance Bible Church, addressed the
Commission. He noted, for the record, that the parcel was east of Rio
Road rather than west as stated in the staff report. He was interested
in knowing how many stories the building would be. fir. Romenesko
explained the building would be two stories "from the front" with a
"daylight" basement. Mr. Thurston stated he supported the plan.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked if an easement should be shown for the parking and
landscaping. Mr. Pullen explained that parking easements would be
shown on a subsequent plat.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Bailey Office Center Preliminary Site
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A final site plan will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
c. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design;
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;
4177
April 12, 1988
Page 9
3. Staff requests administrative approval of the final site development
plan.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA - Hollymead Parcel G Final Plat - Proposal to create
3 single family lots from 64,769 square feet (1.48 acres) for an
average lot size of 21,590 square feet. This is an area previously
proposed for 8 lots. Property is located in the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of Powell Creek Drive and Tinkers Cove Road, adjacent
to the lake and open space. Tax Map 46B2-3, Parcel G. Zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development. 'Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Consent Agenda be accepted. Mr. Jenkins
seconded the motion which passed (5:0:1) with Mr. Michel abstaining.
Collector Roadways in Southern Urban Areas - Continuation of discussion
of possible alignments and costs of collector roadways in the Southern
Urban Area.
Mr. Horne led the discussion. He asked that the Commission endorse
the Southern Collector roadway, Avon Street to Rt. 20, and also the
urgent need for the County to proceed.to secure right-of-way for this
roadway.
Mr. Horne explained the alignment for the two roadways under discussion.
Mr. Horne confirmed that the underlying premise for the Southern Collector
as proposed was to get traffic off Avon Street, to Rt. 20 and to the
Interstate.
Though a formal vote was not taken, the Commission was in unanimous
agreement with staff's position for the Southern Collector roadway
as described by staff.
Regarding the Biscuit Run Connector roadway, Mr. Horne explained that
the Mill Creek Development would build a part as a two-lane facility
and would dedicate right-of-way for eventual four lanes. He stated
that only the County, no developers, were interested in this roadway
and that an expensive bridge would be required to cross Biscuit Run.
Mr. Horne explained that.currently the traffic impact of this roadway
is unknown which would help to identify some of the benefits. He
asked the Commission to make a finding as to whether or not it was
felt the physical impact of the roadway, in the proposed alignment,
was so severe that the Commission could not recommend it, and, if
that is the case, the Commission should make a recommendation to
go ahead and remove the proposal from the Comprehensive Plan. He
explained that the presence of the roadway severely complicates
development in the area.
Mr. Bowerman noted that if that decision is made it will probably
permanently preclude any roadway since this is the best place.
Mr. Horne agreed.
1,40
April 12, 1988 Page 10
Mr. Horne stated staff.was "not recommending that actions be taken to
secure the right-of-way or construct (the Biscuit Run Connector roadway)
at this point." He repeated that staff is requesting guidance from
the Commission and the Board as to whether or not to leave the proposed
roadway in the Comprehensive Plan. He added: "We feel that its
usefulness is quite a bit in the future and we cannot really quantify that
for you. We don't know how useful that road would be. " He stated
more information is needed about traffic generation and there is no
means of measuring that accurately at this time. Mr. Horne also
stated: "If you don't iif*e*el, on its face, that the cost and physical
impact totally precludes you ought to leave it in, but if you feel,
from what we've given you tonight, that no matter hots great we say it
is for traffic, you are not going to build it at this cost through
that neighborhood,.then we ought to make that decision now instead of
having it hang out there over people's heads."
Ms. Diehl stated that though she did not like the proposed roadway, she
was hesitant to remove it at this time because of the lack of information
about traffic benefit.
It was finally determined 3 commissioners (Stark, Bowerman and fiiichel) were
in favor of leaving the proposal in the Comp Plan at this time. Their
reasons included: the need for more information on traffic benefits before
making a final decision; and removing it from the Plan would require
re-examination of the Comp Plan in the southern area. There were also
3 commissioners in favor of taking the proposal out of the plan (Diehl,
Wilkerson and Jenkins). Their reasons included: road does not seem to
provide service for a very large area; and it would have little effect
on residential development.
Mr. Bowerman asked for a motion to adjourn to executive session to
discuss personnel matters.
Mr. Michel moved that the meeting adjourn.to executive session Mr.
Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned to executive session at 9:20 p.m.
DS
cost/