HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 26 88 PC MinutesJuly 26, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday.
July 26, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms.
Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; and Mr. John Pullen,
Planner; and Mr. George St. Sohn, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of July 12, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
Dunlora Phase I Final Plat - Proposal to create 153 lots from 1ZZ acres,
for an average lot size of 0.44 acres. The development will be served by
public roads with 2 entrances to Rt. 631 (Rio Road). The preliminary plat
for 275 lots was approved by the Planning Commission on December 15,.1987.
Zoned R-4, Residential. Property, located on the east side of Rio Road,
adjacent just north of Pen Park, across from the VOTEC Center, and
adjacent to the west of the Rivanna River. Tax Map 62, Parcels 16 and 16B.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Mr. Michel asked for an explanation of condition 2. (Condition 2: Access to
the Dunlora residue parcels (16A, 16C, and 16D) is to remain as shown on
the plat until any development in the future.- At that time, the existing
Dunlora private road may be relocated in whole or in part.) Ms. Patterson
explained: "That was because the residue parcels --you probably remember
the old plat where they were approved with a private road and we decided
that they should be allowed to continue to use that road with a
commercial entrance to the new roadand then once they have developed to
their potential they would come in at a new point —with a major
connection to a new public road. There was no reason that they couldn't,
in their undeveloped state , continue to use the old Dunlora Road."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Morris Foster who offered no
significant additional comment.
It was determined the trip generation was 1,975 vtpd (7/dwelling unit x 275 units).
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman said everything appeared to be in order.
is-Z
July 26, 1988
Page 2
:fir. Wilkerson moved that the Dunlora Phase I Final Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a. County Engineering approval of public road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Virginia Department of -Transportation approval of:
1. Road and drainage plans and calculations including turn lanes; and
2. Plat showing required sight easements and right-of-way;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Fire Officer approval, to include hydrant locations;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
f. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents;
g. Planning staff approval of access to open space areas.
2. Access to the Dunlora residue parcels (16A, 16C, and 16D) is to remain as
shown on the plat until any development in the future. At that time, the
existing Dunlora private road may be relocated in whole or in part.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the developer understood that "sooner or later there's
going to be a road right down the middle" of his property. Mr. Bowerman
stated he felt the developer was very much aware of that issue. He added
that he felt the primary area impacted would be the recreation area and he
hoped there would not be a large impact on "developed" areas. Mr. Horne
added that the majority of the effect on the property would involve the
interchange. He felt it should be possible to tell the developer where
the interchange will be located within two to three months.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
Brookmill Phase II Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 19 condominium
units on 3.9 acres. This site will have access through an extension of
Millpark Drive and is to be served by 53 parking spaces. The property is
located at the terminus of M.illpark Drive, approximately 220 feet from its
intersection with Greenbrier Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
and
Broolcaill Phase III Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 34
condominium units on 7.1 acres. This site will have access through an
extension of Millpark Drive and is to be served by 81 parking spaces. The
property is located at the terminus of �1illpark Drive, approximately 300
feet from its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development. Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 02-1. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
J;6,
July 26, 1988 Page 3
Mr. Pullen made the following corrections to the staff report:
"The Pepsi Cola Bottling Company exists to the east west. Greenbrier
Heights neighborhood exists to the west east."
Condition l(e): Planning Staff approval of recreation and open space
requirements; to include pedestrian walking -through walkways and
designated open space areas.
Add condition l(g): County Attorney approval of homeowners' documents.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Hauser. Regarding the floodplain
issue, he explained that the HUD defined floodplain is 399 feet and regulations
require that the buildings be 1 foot above that. He stated he believed
the buildings' finished floor elevation was 403 feet. He made the following
requests of the Commission: (1) He asked to be allowed to waive the
requirement for a tot lot in consideration of the fact that a pool will
be provided and also because there would be a very small proportion of
small children. He asked that staff be allowed to evaluate his request.
(2) He asked that staff be given the latitude to deal with the issue
of pedestrian walkways. He pointed out that the property was not Large and
did not have a great deal .of open area.- He felt being required to build
sidewalks behind, as well as in front of, houses was bad planning and a
waste of money. He stated he understood the need to get people from inside
the neighborhood out to Greenbrier Drive and he also understood the need
to provide a walkway wherever it is possible to fit it in outside the VDOT
right-of-way. (3) He asked that staff be granted administrative approval
of the condominium plats. (Mr. Horne stated staff already has that authority.)
(4) He asked that the proposal be approved.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the issue of the tot lot requirement, Mr. Pullen stated staff
had advised the applicant that if he could prove there would be no children
in the development then a tot lot would not be required. Since the appli-
cant had not been able to .provide that information, staff felt that the
applicant, at the minimum, should at least provide one tot lot. He explained
that the applicant was actually requesting a "modification of the type of
equipment." Mr. Horne stated staff is given the ability to approve such
modifications unless an impasse should be arrived at in which case the
Commission could make that decision. Mr. Horne added that it is staff's
concern that while there may currently be very few young children, this is
the type of housing units (2 and 3 bedroom) which attract young families.
Mr. Hauser explained that the applicant was asking that staff be given
the "license" to relieve him of the requirement for a tot lot and that
the pool and passive recreaction areas be allowed as a substitute.
He concluded: "All I am asking tonight is that the staff have the right
to relieve us of that requirement if we can convince them or the
right to reduce the number of pieces (of equipment) required for the
tot lot."
Mr. Horne commented: "Staff has that leeway and is looking for the
argument."
July 26, 1988
Page 4
Mr. Hauser stated the applicant would present their argument to staff and
would then "live with their decision."
Mr. St. John confirmed the Ordinance gives the staff the latitude to
deal with these matters. He quoted the following: "Substitutions of
equipment facilities may be approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Development provided they are for a recreational amenity
equivalent to the facilities listed above and are appropriate to the
needs of the occupants." Mr. St. John asked if the applicant was
requesting that staff apply that provision or was he asking that
staff be allowed even :►►ore latitude than that provision already gives.
Mr. Horne stated it was his understanding that the applicant was asking
that staff apply that provision.
Mr. Stark noted his objection to Mr. Hauser's argument and stated he
was in favor of leaving the determination up to staff.
Mr. Bowerman stated it was clear that there must be 14,000 square feet of
recreation. Mr. Horne confirmed the area was not in question, only
the facilities.
It was determined the pool would be outdoors.
Mr. Horne confirmed that passive area could be substituted for active
area.
Mr. Horne stated that staff was open to the applicant's argument.
Mr. Hauser noted that he had requested relief from this requirement earlier
in the process but through a misunderstanding it had apparently "gotten
lost in the shuffle."
The Commission then_ discussed Mr. Hauser's request regarding the pedestrian
walkways. Mr. Bowerman called the Commission's attention to the fact that
"this was not included when we did the permits." fir. Horne confirmed this
was accurate and added that "it was put back in exclusively by the Board."
Mr. Pullen read the following condition from the original rezoning:
C M : "kith the exception of Mill Park Drive pedestrian walkways will be
provided on one side of all public roads to GOT standards. Additional
pedestrian walkways will be provided across area C to Hillsdale Drive
and on one side of the existing church road. Pedestrian trails should be
constructed along open space quarters or sewer easements. Such construction
shall occur within each phase of development on the open space quarter
and sewer easements located within or immediately adjacent to that phase
of development." Mr. Pullen pointed out where.pedestrian trails were
suggested. (He explained that when staff received the plans the walkways
were not shown because the plans were submitted after the Board approved
condition C(1).
Regarding the material to be used for the walkways, ?1r. Horne stated that
in this case, the maximum required would be asphalt.
-OK
July 26, 1988 Page 5
Mr. Horne pointed out that he felt the Board had wanted to provide the Com-
mission with discretion in this area. He felt it was the Board's intent
that there be the "ability for someone to walk-through the open area of
the Branchlands PUD, generally, through the combination of open areas and
along public roadways.." He stated it was staff's intention to provide
some system where people could get from the parking areas to Greenbrier
Drive.
Mr. Bowerman felt that residents should be able to get out to Greenbrier
and into the Branchlands system on some sort of pathway. He stated he
had no preference as to the exact location. He added that if this area
of Meadow Creak was scenic, it might be desirable to have a pathway back
to that area. Mr. Bowerman stated he did not feel some of the open
space was as meaningful (he pointed out the area on the plat) as the open
space along the creek. He stated he would leave it to the discretion
of staff to determine if the open space along the creek was meaningful.
Mr. Stark agreed that he felt there should be some sort of pathway at least
along the creek.
Mr. Horne stated that additional identified stabilized accesses into the
open space along the creek was a potential trade-off for some of the
equipment question. He noted, however, that staff was not convinced that
all the children's equipment should be traded off.
Mr. Hauser felt getting pedestrians to the Branchlands system was accomplished
by sidewalks which are in front of all the units. (Mr. Bowerman felt these
didn't connect to anything.) Mr. Hauser explained they connected to Mill
Park Drive "at which point if it is desirable to get them to Greenbrier"
it would be necessary to establish what type of pathway to use. He
confirmed he would consider something outside the VDOT right-of-way.
Mr. Hauser indicated he was not in favor of pathways in close proximity
to back patios because of a loss in privacy.
Mr. Hauser again stressed he was asking that staff be granted latitude to
listen to an argument and not be tied to a Board approval.
Mr. Bowerman summarized the Commission's intent as follows: "I think what
I've heard here to night is that there are some tradeoffs... at a minimum
we are looking for access to .Greenbrier with a paved system and it is
at staff's discretion to work out whether there are any meaningful pathways
adjacent to Meadow Creek or if there are any tradeoffs between the tot
lot and the recreational areas." He stated he was content to let staff
deal with these issues.
Mr. Hauser stated he was happy with that decision.
It was determined there were no other issues of concern.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that Brookmill Phase II Preliminary Site Plan and
Brookmill Phase III Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the
following conditions:
.2-ri
July 26, 1988 Page 6
1. The final site development 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 issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
d. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
e. Planning staff approval of recreation and open space requirements;
to include pedestrian &walkways and designated open space areas;
f. Planning staff approval of technical notes on the plans;
g. County Attorney approval of homeowners' documents.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Staff request administrative approval of the final site development
plans.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Hauser about plans for the "dogleg." Mr. Hauser
stated that at this time that area was not buMable. He said if it
was ever buildable, the access would have -to be from Brandywine Drive.
He stated that the plan had been approved for 90 units and he currently
has proposed 72. He was.reluctant to state that that area would never
be developed because the ordinance might change. He confirmed that
at this point it was part of this plan.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
Photoworks Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 10,000 square foot
building on 1.0 acre. This site will have direct access to,State Route 631
(Rio Road), and will be served by 29 parking spaces. The proposed use is a
combination of retail, lab/studio, and storage uses. The property is
described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 101A and 102,.juat west of its intersection
with Route 29. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
sir. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The.Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne. He stated the applicant
had no objections to staff's suggested conditions of approval. He stated
the applicant had no problems with the parking limits. He stated his
client was aware that the use of the property was restricted by parking
availability, i.e, any use which would generate more parking needs than
the site can accommodate would not be allowed. He stressed that the
July 26, 1988
Page 7
applicant has no intention of securing a fast food restaurant or a video
store as tenants. He felt the staff report addressed the issues accurately.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman felt all questions had been answered.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Photoworks Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been 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. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
f. Recordation of plat showing the reservation of right-of-way on
Rio Road and the proposed joint access easement;
g. Planning staff approval of technical notes on the plat;
h. Board of Supervisors approval of SP-88-48.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has beea met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Staff requests administrative approval of the final site development plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
expand the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport. The proposed expansion will
occur in two phases. The first phase proposes 161,605 square feet of
building area. Phase II proposes 309,205 square feet of building area.
With the ultimate completion of the Airport expansion, approximately 1,387
parking spaces will be provided.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. (Mr. Pullen explained that the expansion "to the north and
to the south" was not presently before the Commission, but was merely
referred to for informational purposes.)
The Chairman invited applicant comment..
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike Boggs. His comments and replies
to Commission questions were as follows:
-10
July 26,. 1988 Page 8
--The Airport authority concurs with all staff's recommended conditions.
--If the proposed bypass were to go north and swing to the west of the
airport, it would limit the airport in two ways: (1) The existing runway
could not be extended to the north which is the most reasonable way to
extend it because of the property's terrain; and (2) The possibility of
a parallel runway would be limited.
--The current terminal is handling 130,000 passengers (in -plane) and the
new terminal will handle approximately 220,000 in -plane passengers.
-The recent expansion at the airport was only for parking and some
roadway modifications.
--Moving the terminal site to the north will do the following: (1) It
will separate the large planes from the small planes; and (2) It will open
up the interior of the loop road to allow more parking. This site plan
will allow 750 spaces on grade plus a deck can be added at some time in
the future which will allow 750 more spaces.
--In reply to Mr. Michel's question as to whether there was anything
the Commission and County could do.to "further along the access to industrial
state highway monies" Mr. Boggs explained there is an Airport Access Fund
which was created some years ago, but it has been very difficult to work
with the Highway Department and to get access to those funds. He stated
the funds are for correction of some of the problems from Rt. 29 to the
airport on Rt. 649. He stated any support the County could offer would be
helpful. Mr. Horne confirmed that these improvements are in the current
Six -Year Plan and a number of things can be done to accelerate the process.
He explained that the Board, just this year, embarked upon revenue sharing
funds with VDOT. He explained that there is a separate fund from Airport
Access, where VDOi will match 1-to-1, up to $500,000/year. He stated the
Board was "essentially going for the full $500,000 at this time.".
He continued: "So they are authorizing the expenditure of one-half million
dollars in County funds on state projects in order to accelerate many
projects." He stated there were a lot of ways this could be funded but
the first issue to focus on is "what needs to be done?" after this is
determined, then the most expeditious way to fund the project should
be addressed. He stated after the airport expansion gets under way, staff
envisions more sessions with 'OOT staff and airport staff to determine an
ultimate plan of action. Mr. Michel stressed that.the Commissionis
very concerned about Rt. 649. Mr. Horne thought it was reasonable that
by the next review of the Six -Year Plan (1990) a planned design for
that road and intersection should be ready and financing mechanisms.can
then be looked at.
--In response to Mr. Michel's question regarding future hook-up to
public sewer should it become available, Mr. Boggs stated he could not make
such a commitment for the Authority. However, he stated that based on
previous conversations, he felt that as soon as the system gets within
a reasonable distance and the Authority can afford to have it connected,
it will be done.
--In response to Mr. Stark's question regarding Enterprise Travel
which is located in this area, Mr. Boggs stated.that business was going
to be relocated downtown and the building would be taken over by the
University of Virginia Pegasus medical flight service.
--Mr. Boggs stated there was a tremendous demand for light -aircraft
hangar storage.
S_Irf
July 26, 1988
Page 9
--In response to Mr. Michel's question about the need for another runway,
Mr. Boggs stated another runway was not necessary to meet the expected aircraft
traffic demands.
The Commission stressed that the access to the airport (Rts. 649 and 606) was
a problem.
Referring to a statement made in a letter dated June 23, 1988 from Mr.
Jeff Echols (VDOT) which implied that a previous Wn had showed.a
relocation of Rt. 606, Mr. Rittenhouse asked woyimplement such improvements
and with what funds. Mr. Rittenhouse felt this statement was contrary
to a statement in the staff report which stated there are currently
no design solutions. Mr. Horne explained there is "2/3 of an existing
plan." He explained briefly the existing plan. He felt the letter
referred to by Mr. Rittenhouse from VDOT "simplified matters" somewhat.
He explained that the current plan cannot be implemented because it
does not envision the current proposed expansion plan.
Mr. Horne stated he was convinced that Phase I of the proposed plan could
proceed before the access is improved because it will not necessarily
add more traffic. He added: "I'm convinced by the time we are ready to
do Phase II we're going to have that scheme devised ... and along with
the physical scheme we are -going to have (I hope) a commitment by the
Airport Authority, the Board of Supervisors, and whoever else has to
participate, on how it is going to.be funded."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would "encourage very aggressive planning
from a timeliness standpoint to try to solve what is, in my mind, not
a roadway system to get from Rt. 29 to a facility as modern as that one
will appear, and be." (It was the consensus of the Commission that
staff pass this on to the Board.)
Mr. Horne stressed that it was important not to get boged down on
"who's going to do what."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Dennis Gorman and Ms. Lucille Miller addressed the Commission and
expressed concern about traffic problems on Rt. 606. A third member
of the public, who failed to identify himself, expressed concern about the
increased noise level. He pointed out that the noise was much worse
after trees were removed for the recent improvements to the parking area.
In response to this concern, Mr. Charley Lamm, representing Delta Association,
explained that some landscaping is envisioned with the expansion, but
there would not be room for significant buffer. He pointed out that
trees offer very little actual buffer from noise, though they may offer
some protection from ground noise.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked for a clarification of condition 1(e).
i(e): "VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of commercial
entrance permits; to include the installation of right turn lanes
at the entrances of the proposed T-Hangars,..."
July 26, 1988
Page , 10
He asked if these were the 200-foot right-turn.lanes proposed by VDOT
or the 100-foot turn lanes proposed by staff. fir. Horne confirmed
this condition implemented the staff's proposed length as opposed to the
VDOT recommended length. He asked if this would make VDOT look less
favorably on improvements if their recommendations have not been followed.
Mr. Horne stated he did not feel there would be any effect and, "at any
rate it's a secondary road so we control what the improvements are."
It was determined this expansion would have no effect on the "airport
impact overlay."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport Preliminary
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Site Development Plan will not be signed 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. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of cotmercial entrance permits; to include
the installation of right turn lanes at the entrances of the
proposed T-Hangars, Hangar and Office area General Aviation
Terminal parking area, and the Main Terminal building. Also,
installation of a left -turn lane at the Main Terminal building.
f. Construction of improvements included in Phase II shall not begin
until staff, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Airport
Authority have formulated and agreed upon the ultimate access and
transportation scheme for the Airport and the immediate area;
g. Final Health Department approval;
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 development plan,
to include the final terminal building site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
It was noted the motion contemplated staff approval of final plat.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
3`/
July 26, 1988
Page 11
Wind River Subdivision. - Mr. Yuiien mane the Commission aware of a change
in the Wind River subdivision plat. He explained that though staff had
recommended moving one of the building sites, it was determined the area
suggested by staff did not have adequate area for a septic system and, therefore,
the building site had reverted to the applicant's origina* roposed location.
No action was required of the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:27.
DS
.$e a
r%
L