HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 13 88 PC MinutesDecember 13, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 13, 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. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; 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 November 29, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
Albemarle --Charlottesville Joint Security Complex Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal
to locate a 2,828 square foot building addition for recreational facilities
and miscellaneous office and storage area. The plan shows a potential
additional future building area on 8.3 acres. Property is located on the
west side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street), adjacent to the south of I-64 and north
of the Armory. Zoned Rl, Residential. Tax Map 77, Parcels 11A and 11C.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Yancey_ Elementary School Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to expand the
existing elementary school, to include gym and library facilities. In
addition, some classroom expansion and minor renovations are proposed. Property,
described as Tax Map 128A, Parcel 8, is located on the east side of Route
627, just south of the intersection of Route 6 and 627. Zoned RA, Rural
Area. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Stony Point Elementary Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to expand the
existing elementary school, to include gym and library facilities. In addition,
one classroom expansion and minor renovations are proposed. Property,
described as Tax Map 48, Parcels 17, 18C., and 19A, is located on the east
side of Route 20, just north to the intersection of Route 600 and Route 20.
Zoned VR, Village Residential. Rivanna Magisterial District.
(Note: The first few minutes of this meeting were not recorded due to
equipment problems.)
The Consent Agenda items were discussed very briefly. The Commission was
satisfied with staff's explanations.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Consent Agenda be adopted.
Crozet Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 3,000
square foot building served by 16 parking spaces for a veterinary clinic on
4.296 acres. Plan A proposes access directly from a new entrance to Route 240;
and Plan B proposes access from an existing entrance to Route 240 at Parkview
Drive. Property is located on the north side of Route 240 in front of the
/65-
December 13, 1988
Page 2
existing clinic, adjacent to the east of Con Agra and Starke's Market. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas with SP-88-60 Martin Schulman. Tax 'Nap 56, Parcel 67.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The primary issue of discussion was
proposed access to the clinic. The staff report explained that the applicant
was proposing a new individual entrance to Route 240, but staff was recommending
access from the internal private road, Parkview Drive. The report stated:
"To permit access directly onto Route 240 requires amendment of that sub-
division with a specific waiver of Section 18-36f of the Subdivision
Ordinance, which requires access be limited•to the internal road upon which
the lot fronts. However, as the Commission is aware, private roads are not
typically approved to serve a mix of residential and commercial uses."
After citing several reasons for denial of direct access to Route 240, the
staff report concluded: "Planning, Engineer and the Virginia.Department
of Transportation staff can find no justification for a new entrance to Route
240. The conditions of approval have been written to reflect. if the
Planning Commission should allow a new entrance, staff recommends installation
of a standard right turn lane to serve it."
Staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to conditions, and in
addition staff recommended that "a note be placed on the plat reserving
Parkview Drive for future dedication for a public road." She stated the
note would be as follows: "Reservation of 50-foot right-of-way for
future dedication upon demand of the County." She stated this could be
handled administratively once the access issue has been addressed, provided
the applicant did not disagree, in which case the matter would be brought
back to the Commission.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Dr. Schulman addressed the Commission. He pointed out the County policy that
a private road should not mix residential and non-residential uses. He
pointed out that the school bus stop is at the same point of access as
favored by the staff. He felt this presented a public safety concern,
which could be addressed by allowing another entrance 400 feet away.
The Chairman invited public comment.
.Nfr. Steve Melton, a homeowner on Parkview Drive, expressed his support for
the applicant's request for an entrance off Rt. 240. He expressed a concern
for his children's safety at the school bus stop.
Mr. Branum also expressed support for the applicant's request.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that normally it is recommended that commercial
and residential traffic not be mixed. He asked Ms. Patterson to explain
staff's position in this case..
Ms. Patterson explained that the clinic is already using Parkview Drive
and the proposal would result in only a minor increase in traffic. She
added that "generally we try to avoid new entrances to a public road when
166
December 13, 1988
Page 3
there are alternative internal roads." She stated that Rt. 240 would
play an important role in the future development of Crozet and would
carry even more traffic. She explained that the road (Parkview Drive)
is already built to a standard to handle the traffic and a maintenance
agreement exists and can be amended to more evenly distribute the maintenance
burden. She confirmed that staff felt the public benefit,therefore,weighed
in favor of the existing situation.
Mr. Jenkins stated that though he was sympathetic to both arguments, he
would support staff's recommendation, i.e. access on Parkview Drive.
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Rittenhouse agreed.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he did not feel the school bus conflict was a
major concern because he was confident that if a problem should arise the
Education Department would take steps to remedy the situation, possibly
by moving the pick-up point.
It was clarified that staff's conditions of approval did not contemplate
a waiver of Section 18-36f of the Subdivision Ordinance.
It was agreed that an additional condition addressing run-off control would
be added as follows:
• The final plan shall be.revised to show run-off control methods not
to include parking area detention.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Crozet Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site 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 issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit:
d. Access shall be restricted to Parkview Drive. The Virginia
Department of Transportation and/or County approval of 1) sight distance
at Route 240 and of 2) the separation between Route 240 and the proposed
entrance off Parkview Drive;
e. Approval of Engineer's report addressing performance standards of
Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
g. Fire Officer approval;
h. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan;
i. The final plan shall be revised to show run-off control methods not
to include parking area detention.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Compliance with SP-88-60 Martin Schulman.
/6 7
December 13, 1988 Page 4
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Automart USA Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 5,250 square feet of
building area on 1.1 acres. This sitewill have access through the proposed
service road, and will be served by 8 parking spaces. The proposed use is
motor vehicle retail sales. Property, described as. Tax Map 45B(1), Parcel 4,
is located on the east side of Rt. 29, just south of the South Fork Rivanna
River adjacent to the south of Federal Express. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
:U . Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions, including the addition -of the following to condition 1(g):
• ...plan; this site plan shall meet the requirements of 32.7.9.8
Screening of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant was represented by MIr. Bob McKee. He offered no additional
comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Kirk, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He
expressed concern about lighting from the project and screening. He stated
that he was also representing a neighbor, Mr. Cecil Dunsmore.
Mr. Lucas, also a neighboring.property owner, addressed the Commission..
He was extremely concerned about the erosion of the bank. He asked
that measures be required which would prevent further erosion of the bank.
Ihere being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Regarding lighting, My. Pullen explained that the Ordinance requires that
lighting be directed downward onto the site and away from surrounding
residences. Regarding screening, he stated that the Landscape Ordinance
requires that commercial districts be screened from adjacent residential
districts and staff will ensure that screening is adequate. There was
some question about how the issue of the erosion on the bank would be
addressed..
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Pullen stated that a landscape
plan is not required with a preliminary plan if impervious cover is less
than 80%. He confirmed that a landscape plan would be required with
the final plan.
There was a brief discussion about how many "for sale" vehicles would be
allowed on the lot and where they would be parked. Mr. Pullen was uncertain
how many vehicles would be parked in the display areas.
There was discussion about the erosion on the bank. Mr. Pullen stated
the problem was severe because the undergrowth has not caught on and been
able .to stabilize the bank. :sir. Bowerman asked if the County was powerless
to deal with the erosion, did the property owners have civil recourse?
Mr. Pullen pointed out that the person originally responsible for the grading of
168
December 13, 1988 Page 5
the bank was no longer owner of the property. Mr. Bowerman asked why some
sort of ground cover could not be required on the slope. Mr. Rittenhouse
suggested the possibility of a retaining wall. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he
was not comfortable with a situation where the County is aware that
a problem exists and is willing to just "wait and see and hope that the
vegetation catches on."
Ms. Diehl suggested one way to deal with this would be to delete condition
No. 4 (Administrative approval of the final .site plan) and require that the
Commission review the final plan. She felt there was insufficient information
at this point to address some of the concerns that have been raised. The
Commission was particularly interested in the possible solutions for dealing
with the erosion of the bank and also in the landscape and screening plan.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the Engineering Department be
requested to do a further analysis of ways to stabilize the slope.
Mr. McKee pointed out that the owner of the property was planning to park
his stock (cars) adjacent to the bank in question. He stated the "toe" of
the bank would be disturbed but not the top 50 feet. He felt it would be
a mistake to try to regrade the bank. He also felt if the bank continued
to erode the owner of the property would be quick to take corrective action.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that screening may involve the necessity of easements
from some of the residential property owners. He also suggested that
Mr. St. John explain, at the time of the final review, the County's authority
in dealing with the erosion issue. Mr. Keeler felt that the County had
authority not only under the Site Plan Ordinance but also under the Soil
Erosion Ordinance. He also felt it might be possible that a site plan
was not needed in order to require an erosion control plan if damage
was being done to others.
It was decided the Commission would review the final plan, thus condition
No. 4 was deleted.
Mr. Michel expressed some confusion about which preliminary plan was being
approved. It was determined .the Commission was reviewing the plan posted
on the board which showed 12 parking spaces for employees and customers.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Automart USA, 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 stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plan and
calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations for the proposed service road;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements:
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
/6 ?
December 13, 1988
Page 6
g. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan; this site plan shall meet
the requirements of 32.7.9.8 Screening of the Zoning Ordinance;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer
plans.
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has
been met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance
permit.
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion smith passed unanimously.
Federal Express Phase Three Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
46,000 square foot building on a previously developed site. This site will
have access through the proposed service road, and will be served by 125
parking spaces. The proposed uses are office, retail/wholesale, and
accessory warehousing. Property, described as Tax Map 45B(1), Parcel 1B, is
located on the east side of Rt. 29, just south of the South Fork Rivanna River.
Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Wendall Wood. He offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was a brief discussion about the requirement for a CBR test. Ms. Diehl
asked if this was usually required. 'Mr. Pullen replied affirmatively and
explained that this was a test to determine the load bearing capacity of the
soil based on traffic generation. He further explained that it is required
in this case because the State requires it for roads which are to be accepted
into the State system. Mr. Rittenhouse added that it is usually -used to
determine pavement design.
Mr. Michel stated he had no problems with the 25% slopes because it is such
a small area and also because of the engineer's comments about its being a
man-made slope.
M-r. Michel moved that the Federal Express Phase Three 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;
/7O
December 13, 1988
Page 7
b) Department or Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements, including permit allowing relocation of cul-de-sac
curbing within right-of-way;
d) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the pavement
section and CBR test for cul-de-sac;
e) Planning staff approval of landscape plan;-
f) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a) Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about grading on the slope, Mr.
Pullen explained that the grading would actually flatten the slope.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
River Heights Retail Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a total
of 37,000 square feet of building area on 4.5 acres. This site is proposed to
have access to Route 29 and Hilton Heights Road, and will be served by 189
parking spaces. The proposed uses are retail and office. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D, is located on the west of Route 29,
just south of the South Fork Rivanna River in front of the Hilton Hotel.
Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The main issue revolved around access to
the property. The staff report stated: "Since 1976, it has been County policy
thatstaff recommendations reflect the best transportation -and access improve-
ments for each development review with the Planning Commission/Board of
Supervisors exercising discretion regarding actual requirements. Staff recommends
that access to this development be from the Sheraton Hotel Access Road and
Rt. 29." The report explained that this scheme would alleviate all U-turns.
The applicant was proposing one point of access to Rt. 29 which would
result in putting all U-turns on Rt. 29. Because the Planning Staff and
the Virginia Department of Transportation found the applicant's proposed
access to be least favorable of the alternatives, staff recommended denial
of the site plan.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. He commented on the three access
schemes described in the staff report. He stated that the applicant was
in favor of one point of access to Rt. 29, or, as a second choice, access
to Hilton Heights Road and Rt. 29.
i 7/
December 13, 1988 Page 8
Mr. Buddy Edwards, engineer for the project, addressed the commission.
Regarding the concern about U-turns on Hilton Heights Road, he suggested
the possibility of posting "No U-Turn" signs at the time when the parallel
road is completed (the proposed road which will parallel Rt. 29).
Mr. Bentencourt, architect for the project, addressed the Commission. He
very brieftly described the design for the development.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Lucas, who had voiced concerns about the grading and erosion problems
on the Automart site earlier in the meeting, pointed out that the applicant
for this project was the same person who had created the existing erosion
problems on the Automart site.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's request, Mr. Pullen again explained.the
traffic movements that were envisioned. Mr. Pullen also explained the
three plans .that were displayed, one being the original plan, one the
revised plan submitted at the time of application deadline, and one being
a concept plan drawn by the applicant to determine if staff's suggested
scheme was feasible..
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had considered any other scheme "to get
down onto the site" other than the one before the. Commission. Mr. Edwards
pointed out some possibilities that had been considered and concluded that
they were not feasible.
Mr. Stark indicated he felt "No U--Turn" signs were not very effective because
they are often ignored.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was not comfortable with any development which would
require U-turns on Rt. 29.
M.r. St. John pointed out that if the Commission wished to deny the site plan
it must.be stated "urhat can be done to make it acceptable."
Mr. St. John.asked the applicant how the L-shaped easement had been put to
record in a place which is unusable. Mr. Wood confirmed that the difficulty
with the easement had not been created be subsequent grading.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that the Commission had been assured, at the time of
the original approval, that there was a viable access "from that road down
to this property."
mr. Wood felt that the scheme preferred by staff would be "building a road
that nobody would use because it is not a circuit that the average person
would take...." He reviewed some of the history of the development and
reminded the Commission that the applicant had made some compromises, i.e.
he had given up two entrances onto Rt. 29.
/7;?
December 13, 1988
Page 9
Mr. Bowerman recalled the original subdivision review and remembered that
Mr. Roudabush at that time had stated that access as envisioned by staff
was feasible. He stated that the Commission had been convinced that
safe ingress and egress was possible from this parcel by using Rt. 29
and the private hotel road. He stated that the applicant was now saying
that though feasible, "it is not practical to develop this site in
the manner that was originally contemplated when we did the subdivision."
Ms. Diehl stated that when the original subdivision was approved it had
been with the assurance that an internal access road was possible. She
stated that she could not approve access to Hilton Heights Road because
it was a convoluted egress and created a dangerous situation at the
intersection. She also stated she could not support the applicant's
proposal for one access to Rt. 29, thus she could not support either of
the two plans presented by the applicant.
Mr. Stark stated the arguments had not changed since the last proposal,
two years ago. He stated the plan was not approved at that time and
he could not support it now.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that .making the applicant stick to what was contemplated
at the time of the original subdivision, i.e. access from the hotel road, does
not preclude the use of the site though it might preclude the use of the site
in the present configuration.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could not support the applicant's proposal for
a single access road because it would require U-tums on Rt. 29.
He added that he felt the plan "on the far right" had the best chance of
being viable provided the Berkmar Extension is constructed. However, he
stated he could not support this plan presently because of the absence of
the Berkmar Extension.
Ms. Diehl stated that she could not support either of the schemes presented
by the applicant and therefore moved that the River Heights Retail Center Pre-
liminary Site Plan be denied because of the lack of safe access.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
It was clarified that for the site plan to be approvable the applicant must
present a scheme that shows access to the hotel access road (similar to staff's
scheme "A") .
The meeting recessed from 9:55 to 10:05.
Cooper Industries Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 902 square foot
chemical storage building on 32.61 acres. This property currently occupied
by Cooper Industries, and no change in entrance or parking is proposed.
Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 21A, is located on the south side
of Route 660 approximately 1 mile west of Route 743. Zoned LI, Light Industrial.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
1172
December 13, 1988 Page 10
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by fir. Frederick Russell In response to !GIs.
Diehl's question, he stated a general list of the types of substances
that would be stored in the structure, including oils, acids,.caustic soda, and
lime.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined that the chemicalsstored in the building would be used up
and would not be returned to the building.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Cooper Industries Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following.conditions:
1. The final site 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 issuance of an erosion control permit;
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has
been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Pepsi Place Office Building Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 24,000
square foot office building on 3.1 acres. Proposal is to be served by 93
parking spaces and is to have access from Pepsi Place. Property, described
as Tax Map 61W, Section 5, Parcel 1A (part), is located on the east side of
Pepsi Place, just south of Greenbrier Drive. Zoned C-1, Co=ercial.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions, including the addition of condition l(g): Planning Staff
approval of landscape plan.
The applicant was represented by tilr. Ron Langman. He stated the applicant
asked that it be pointed out that the pond, located in the city, will serve
not only this office building, but also the existing.Pepsi building, the
Senior Center, and Tract A. He stated all the pipes would be sized "up
front" so that they would be able to accommodate Tract A when it is developed.
He stated that City approvals would be forthcoming. Regarding condition l(f)--
Staff approval of documents for the necessary off -site easements-- he stated
all the necessary easements had already been obtained, but if any additional
ones were necessary they should be no problem because most of the property
is owned by Pepsi or the Senior Center with which Pepsi has a comprehensive
agreement.
/'74Z
December 13, 1988
Page 11
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Pepsi Place Office Building Preliminary Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final 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) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans;
e) Staff approval of documents for the necessary off -site easements;
f) Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has
been met:
a) City of Charlottesville approval of site plan.
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a) Fire Office final approval.
4. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
South Plains Presbyterian Church - Request for Extension of Site Plan -- Mr.
Keeler explained that there currently exists a church building and a residence
on this property and in order for the church to be able to afford the addition
to the building it must sell the residence, which requires the approval of
surrounding property owners. He explained that acquiring these approvals is
taking some time and thus staff feels the request for an extension is justified.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the South Plains Presbyterian Church Site Plan be
extended for a period of one year.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous:
The Commission asked that "location maps" be included for consent agenda items.
The Commission also asked that they be made aware, one week in advance, of
items that are to be on the following week's Consent Agenda.
There being no further business, the meeti g djourned at 1 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
DS in