HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 22 88 PC MinutesNovember 22, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 22, 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. Peter Stark; and
Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner;
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Michel and Jenkins.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of November 1; 1988 were approved as
submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA -
Addition to Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District
Addition to Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District
Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District
The Commission was asked to take action to refer the four proposed districts to
the Advisory Committee.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Consent Agenda be adopted.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Centre at Branchlands Phase Two Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate
an 86,888 square foot shopping center on 9.074 acres. This site is to have
access from Branchlands Boulevard and Hillsdale Drive, and is to be served
by 380 parking spaces. This property is located on the southeastern corner
of the intersection of Branchlands Boulevard and U.S. 29, Zoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development. Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 1. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Regarding condition 3:
"A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. All required improvements as outlined in the PUD conditions of
approval must be physically complete to include completion of
construction of wetlands area and establishment of vegetation."
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Do you mean all of the conditions in the PUD including
these two or the conditions in the PUD simply referring to these two?"
November 22, 1988 Page 2
Mr. Pullen replied: "All the conditions that are applicable to the development
of this parcel." Mr. Horne added: "Which are more than just these two things
that we note."
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Pullen stated the wetlands plan would
probably be reviewed jointly with the Engineering Department. Ms. Diehl stated
she was personally interested in seeing the plan.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant .was represented by Mr. William Roudabush. Referring to conditions
2(a) and 2(b)---VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements along Rt. 29 to
include location of guardrail and issuance of a highway permit as applicable;
and VDOT approval of road and drainage plans and calculations for Hillsdale
Drive, Phase II --Mr. Roudabush stated it was his understanding that road plans
had been approved as submitted by Dr. Hurt, specifically frontage improvements
on Rt. 29 and the plans for Hillsdale Drive. Mr. Pullen stated it was his
understanding that road plans for Hillsdale Drive, Section 2, had not received
VDOT approval. Mr. Roudabush asked if frontage improvements along Rt. 29
had been approved with Branchlands Blvd. tir. Pullen responded that he felt
frontage improvements refers to the increased shoulder that's needed to
locate the guardrail.. Referring to condition 1(d)--Department of Engineering
approval of wetlands area plan --Mr. Roudabush stated he was under the impression.
that was part of the overall approval of the PUD. Mr. Horne stated that was
incorrect. He explained: "There was a grading plan issued which set the
limits of grading. There has never been a plan approved. One has been
discussed with the original applicant of the PUD and he is aware of what needs
to be done to actually establish a wetlands as opposed to just grading a
wet area--thathas not been approved. It is not a major item and it is
something that can be done but it has not been done to date."
Mr. Roudabush stated: "But that wetlands area was originally attached to
this parcel as a part of the property, but when our applicants purchased
the property it had been detached and no longer a part of this parcel."
Mr. McElwain, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
indicated that, with the exception of the wetlands, the applicant was aware
of all the issues and was working toward their accomplishment.. Mr.. Bowerman
asked 'Mr. McElwain if the conditions of approval were things over which the
applicant had control. Mr. McElwain responded affirmatively but pointed
out that the wetlands was the exception. He noted that .there is an escrow
agreement with the former owner of the.property which covers all the issues
with the exception of the establishment of the wetlands. He stated that
was "in essence, beyond our control." He stated it was beyond the applicant's
control, from a legal point.
The Chairman invited public co=aent.
Mr. Richard Carter, representing an adjoining property owner, Mr. Robert Brew,
addressed the Commission. He stated hisclient had the following concerns:
(1) The former oun.er.of the property graded on Mr. Brew's property (13,160
square feet encroached upon); (2) The grading violation not only took
land, but also took part of a 30 foot road running along the property's
boundary line (15 feet of which is on Mr. Brew's property and 15 feet
on the applicant's property). It the road is a legal right-of-way; then
the site plan should show the road and should make provisions for what usage
is to be made of the road. Though Mr. Carter conceded that it was not in
/_/1 Z
November 22, 1988 Page 3
the purview of the Commission to decide when or how the road would be replaced,
he felt the Commission should not condone violations by approving a site plan.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Carter stated he had spoken with
Dr. Hurt's attorney but had gotten "nowhere." He stated there had been little
discussion with the applicant's attorney.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowling if the Commission had any authority to withhold
an approval based upon a violation of a property right. Mr. Bowling responded:
"I don't think so. ... It appears to me that what you have here is a private
legal dispute that the Planning Commission is being asked to help resolve. I
have real problems with the Commission going down that primrose path."
In relation to the road issue, Mr. Bowerman asked: "If there is a deeded
right-of-way in existence, should it be shown on the site plan?" After
determining that the applicant did not plan to use the right-of-way as an
entrance or exit for this development, Mr. Bowling responded: "As far as
this application is concerned, unless he puts it through the site plan
process, I don't believe he can use it." Mr. Bowerman asked: "If it
exists, it exists in fact whether it's shown on this site plan or not?"
Mr. Bowling responded: "That's correct."
Mr. Carter stressed that "before the -grading could be done, the County
had to issue a grading permit and the authority that went with that was
violated." He felt the situation was very unfair to Mr. Brew.
Mr. Bowerman stated he understood Mr. Carter's point, but "the Commission
is powerless at this point to address the alleged wrong that was done with
the grading. Assuming that what you said is correct, it was not a willful
violation and if the extent of the grading permit was exceeded and was
not caught by the County, it's unfortunate but it seems there is nothing we
can do at this point. The only remedies you have are with the original
property owner who did the: wrong ...."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Roxenne Hill, the developer, explained the design and architecture of
the building. She stated that it would not be the same as Phase One
but that the landscaping would be uniform.
There .was a brief discussion as to whether or not condition 2(d) should
be deleted [Army Corps of Engineers approval of stream channel alterations
for Hillsdale Phase II.]. Mr. Pullen explained that approval had already
been received. It was finally decided the condition would remain.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Centre at Branchlands Phase Two 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 road and drainage plans and
calculations for Hillsdale Drive, Phase II;
November 22, 1988 Page 4
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Department of Engineering approval of wetlands area plan.
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has
been met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of=way improve-
ments along Rt. 29 to include location of guardrail and issuance of a
highway permit as applicable;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations for Hillsdale Drive, Phase II;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of upgrading Greenbrier
Drive to include required plans and/or.details as necessary;
d. Army Corps of Engineers approval of stream channel alterations for
Hillsdale phase II.
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer.approval;.
b. A11 required improvements as outlined in the PUD conditions of approval
must be physically complete to include completion of construction of
wetlands area and establishment of vegetation.
4. administrative approval of the final site plan..
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Eades Building Systems Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 5,100 square
foot warehouse and workshop on .91 acres. This site is to have access off a
private road intersecting Route 649, and is to be served by 10.parking spaces.
Located on the north side of Route 649 1/2 mile west of U.S. 29. Zoned LI,
Light Industrial: Tax Map 32, parcel 1E. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
yIr. Eades addressed the Commission. He pointed out that he was a general
contractor and would be selling building services NOT supplies. He noted
that he was presently leasing space on the adjacent site.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Eades Building Systems 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) Planning Department approval of.landscape plan;
b) Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
jYZ/
November 22, 1988
Page 5
c) Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
d) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit.
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has
been met:
a) Completion of Doble Ann Drive (formerly Wahoo Drive).
3. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a) Final Fire Officer approval.
4. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Department of Forestry Headquarters Office Building Site Plan -- Project description
and site plan for a proposed headquarters office building and administrative
support facility for the Department of Forestry, Department of Mines,
Minerals, and Energy Division of Mineral Resources, State Police and Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control. For Informational Purposes Only.
Mr. Horne explained that the Commission was being shown this project under
Section 151-457 of the Code of Virginia which requires that agencies of the
State must notify areas of plans to build in an area covered by a
Comprehensive Plan. He stressed that this was for informational purposes
only and that the only action possible, through the three-way agreement, was
if the Commission sees a -problem they can recommend to the Board that the
Board request an arbitration procedure.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Dan Jordan, Director of the Thomas .lefferson Memorial Foundation, owner
of Monticello, addressed the Commission. He stated he was also representing
Kenwood, Ash Lawn and Michie Tavern. He asked that the presentation be delayed
until the public could be .made aware of the proposal and given more time to
respond.
It was determined the University was involved in this matter because it owns
the property upon which the building will be situated.
Regarding notification requirements, Mr. Bowerman stated it was his understanding
that in matters such as this the State had no obligation to notify anyone
except the "governing jurisdiction." Mr. Horne stated he was only familiar
with the requirements of Section 15.1-457.
Mr. Werner Sensbach, representing the University of Virginia, addressed the
Commission. He stated that Monticello had been contacted approximately
two weeks earlier.
Mr. Jordan felt very strongly that the people of Albemarle County deserved
the right to comment on this proposal. He did not feel anything would be
lost be delaying the presentation.
/W
November 22, 1988 Page 6
Mr. Bowerman expressed some concern about delaying the presentation because he
felt the Commission did not really have any "standing" to require that notice
be given.. He noted that the university, the City and the County were usually
very cognizant of making the public aware of such issues, but this one had
apparently "fallen through the cracks." fir. Bowerman stated he was inclined
to proceed with the presentation because the project's architects were present.
Ms. Peggy Flick, a reporter with the Charlottesville Observer, noted that
an article would be published the following day, thereby making more members
of the public aware of the proposal.
It was determined that the presentation would not necessarily be heard by the
Board of Supervisors. Air. Horne pointed out that there was no "formal
mechanism" for the presentation to go beyond the Commission.
It was finally determined the Commission would hear the presentation.
Mr. Sensabach gave a brief presentation. using several drawings. lIe was
followed by Mr. Jig: Kenning, architect for the project, who presented
several drawings of the building. Mr. Sensabach pointed out that "this
is just a request going to the State Legislature for funding." Mr. Pennick
then explained how the site was selected. Mr. Pennick confirmed that
the Architectural Review Board was aware of the proximity of Monticello
at.the time the site was being selected. It was determined that the building
would revert back to the University if it were ever abandoned by the
Department of Forestry.
The Chairman again invited public comment.
Mr. Jordan again addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the architect
had expressed a willingness to return to make a second presentation.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that much of the materials would be available
in the Planning Office for public view.
It was finally determined the Commission would hear the presentation again
in January (date to be determined by Mr. Horne). This would allow the public
more time to respond.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had no authority to notify
surrounding property owners, but the matter would be advertised.
The meeting ecessed from 8:50 to. 8:55.
Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood Study - Presentation by
staff of study completed under the City/County/University Three Party Agree-
ment which was being recommended for Commission approval as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan by the Planning and Coordination Council Policy Committee.
Mr. Cilimberg led the discussion. No action was required of the Commission
at this time. The staff report stated that staff supported "all County
recommendations as presented, except that the two alternative north -south
connectors (Sunset Avenue/Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Avenue/Route 29)
should not be shown on the land use map." Staff felt "bath connectors require
further study for need, feasibility, and alignment."
14i
November 22, 1988
Page 7
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Staff requested comments from the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she agreed that road alignments should not be shown at this
time. She expressed concern about upgrading this area to medium density
before there is a "through road" (to Rt. 29) to serve the area. She preferred
that it remain low density until a road is constructed to justify an increase
in density.
Mr. Horne commented that he felt a through road to Rt. 29 should not be antici-
pated, partially because of difficult terrain. He stated staff feels that
medium density would be supportable with -the proposed improvements.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had a problem with the philosophy and policy of having
a use (i.e. the proposed University arena), that can't provide all its
parking requirements on that site. He stated he disagreed with that concept.
It was determined that, other than the comments made by Commissioners Diehl
and Bowerman, the Commission was in basic agreement with the study.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
/f7