Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP199200018 Action Letter Final Site Plan and Comps. 1992-03-10 � I � 804) 12*/ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 March 12, 1992 Michie Tavern c/o Greg McDonald Rt. 6, Box 7A Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Michie Tavern Site Plan Tax Map 77, Parcel 27 Dear Mr. McDonald: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 10, 1992 , unanimously approved the above-noted site plan. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Ql 13.0.' Staff approval of the landscape plan; (1". 11 : Z b. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion Control Permit. In order to be eligible for administrative approval by the agent, a final site development plan shall be submitted on a submittal deadline with the appropriate fee within six (6) months of Planning Commission approval of the preliminary plan. In any case, the final site development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary plan or the approval shall expire. During the above time period, the applicant shall work to satisfy the conditions of preliminary site development plan approval. The applicant shall have the appropriate agency notify this Department, in writing, that the applicable conditions have been met. Michie Tavern Page 2 March 12 , 1992 To obtain tentative approvals for the final site development plan from the agencies represented on the Site Review Committee, the applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and materials to each agency, individually, for their review. Once the plans have been tentatively approved by each agency, the applicant shall have each agency notify the Planning Department, in writing, that tentative approval has been secured. Once tentative approvals are secured, the final plan shall be submitted to this Department, as stated above. The final plan mylar can be signed at the scheduled Site Review Meeting if after staff review, the final plan meets all ordinances and conditions of approval. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Yolanda Hipski Planner YH/j cw cc: Amelia Patterson Jo Higgins Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 March 20, 1992 Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc. 700 East High Street Charlottesville VA 22901 ATTN: Brian Smith Re: ARB-F(SDP) 91-40 Michie Tavern Site Plan Tax Map 77 Parcels 27 and 29 Dear Mr. Smith: The revised drawing (revised date 3-18-92) illustrating the above noted site plan conforms to the conditions imposed by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board. Therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness has been granted for the Michie Tavern Site Plan. Approval received from the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board is predicated on the fact that the materials as proposed and exhibited for review will be used. The acceptance of approval implies ,that the applicant has agreed to use the materials as indicated on the site plan, attachments and samples submitted to the Albemarle County Zoning Department. Any change in the approved materials will require an amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator or Architectural Review Board if changes are deemed by the Zoning Administrator to be substantial. If you have questions please call me. Sincerely, Marcia oseph Design Planner MJ cc: Amelia Patterson Cindy Conte Yolanda Hipski Bob Shaw SDP-91-079 M' -'iie Tavern Site Pi - Prc--sal to relocate eight existi log cabins to sup• t exl its and crafts. Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 27 is located on Rt. 53 behind the existing Michie Tavern site. Zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Hipski distributed copies of a letter from the County Engineering Department indicating that the grading and drainage plans and stormwater detention plans have been approved. The applicant was represented by Mr. Brian Smith. He offered to answer questions. He stated the applicant had no opposition to the suggested conditions of approval . He explained that the requested revisions to the landscape plan had been made and would be re-submitted to Ms. Joseph (ARB staff member) March llth. In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Smith described the stormwater channels. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson expressed concerns about "the way this has been handled. " He stated: "For reasons unknown to me, a letter dated 16 September of last year was sent to George St. John from Mary Sue Terry. It addressed three questions which had 3-10-92 18 been posed to the Attorney General 's Office. The third question was: 'Whether the Architectural Review Board may require an applicant to relocate his proposed building on its site or otherwise alter a site plan previously approved by the local planning commission. ' The answer in part was 'local governing body could define the Architectural Review Board's evaluation of architectural compatibility to include a review of a proposed building or a structure's location in a site plan. In the absence of such assignment, that board would lack authority to overrule or modify a site plan previously approved by the entity designed in the local ordinance to perform that function. ' What it is saying is that unless unless the Board of Supervisors authorizes the ARB to change something after we had passed the final site plan, they have no authority. Our ordinance covers that by saying in Section 30. 6. 4 . 1 'The Commission shall not approve any final site development plan unless and until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued. So our local ordinance has pushed this function of the ARB prior to the approval of the final site plan. I began to get concerned as I looked at dates here. My concern was that the ARB, as far as I know and I have checked in depth, the ARB as a unit, or as an individual, has not seen the plan as it exists now at least since the 5th of November. Their last report was dated the 5th of November. At that time--in my estimation and here it's a matter of interpretation, I guess--they did not necessarily approve it, in my eye, but 'the Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of granting a Certificate of Appropriateness. . . . ' Subsequent to that we. . . didn't authorize administrative approval of the final site plan but said we wanted it to come to us. That' s where we are now--the final site plan is brought to us in conformance to our request as being concerned with the treatment of the critical slope. My concern is, and continues to be, is that the ARB, who has the aesthetic evaluation and concern over the whole thing, including the treatment of critical slopes from an aesthetic standpoint, has not, as far as I know, . . .met on it. We have a purported approval here, by the ARB, of something that they have never seen--the final version they haven't seen. That concerns me. In addition, when we discussed the Sign Ordinance, there was a request by either the ARB or the BZA that the requirement to review signs be included in any site plan. There are bound to be some signs on this, I am sure, but there is no mention of that. Basically, we're asked here to approve this, and I am sure we will, but predicated on the information that the ARB has seen it when they haven't. . . . This concerns me; it just doesn't seem like a very businesslike way to run an organization. " Mr. Grimm asked staff: "Has this plan changed significantly enough to have merited another review of the ARB?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The plan on which the ARB based its approval, with the condition of staff approval of the • 3-10-92 19 landscape plan, indicated a general approach to grading and the treatment of the area to be graded that were very similar to what is now on the plan. It was the view of the staff person of the ARB, who was essentially given final administrative approval with the landscape plan, that this plan, here, included all the necessary and critical elements of the original plan that they approved. We can only go by that, but that is a staff determination based on the decision that the staff person knew that the ARB made. " Ms. Hipski confirmed this was an accurate assessment of the situation. Ms. Hipski also stated that the plan that was now being presented to the Commission had been reviewed by the ARB's staff member "this afternoon" and she had granted administrative approval, as she had been authorized to do by the ARB on November 5th. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "The bottom line is that the staff person given that final approval found this plan to be in substantial accord with the plan that the ARB reviewed and approved. In her determination, there was no reason to take it back to the ARB and there is no plan to take it back to the ARB. It is now an administrative item. " Mr. Nitchmann concluded that "we must trust the ARB' s judgment that it was well within the knowledge and the expertise of their staff member to approve any minor changes that might occur after they had essentially approved it. " Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's conclusion and disagreed with Mr. Johnson' s position. Mr. Blue also questioned why the final site plan had come back to the Commission. He felt it was the Commission's task to set or revise policy but "we are not expert enough to get into the little details of the grading and critical slopes. " He felt detail should be left up to staff. Mr. Johnson stated he agreed with Mr. Blue, but he continued to question the ARB' s action. He stated: "On November 5th they say they voted 4 : 1 ' in favor of granting' , they didn't say 'we grant approval, ' they just said ' in favor. '" He concluded: "But not approving it, never seeing, and just having a statement by Marcia Joseph that she sees nothing wrong with it--the Architectural Review Board isn't doing their part, in my estimation. " Mr. Cilimberg stated that is "the language the ARB is using as their approval language. " Mr. Blue interpreted that the ARB had approved the plan "subject to their staff having a final look at it. " Mr. Keeler pointed out that, early on, it had been decided that ARB approvals would work much the same way as site plan approvals. 3-10-92 20 Mr. Bowling asked staff: "The ARB has approved this application--have they not?" Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes. " Mr. Johnson continued to argue that a step in the process had not taken place, i.e. "they (did not) take action between us reviewing the preliminary and the final. " Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission had reviewed the preliminary on October 29, 1991 and the ARB met after that date (November 5, 1991) . Without further discussion, Ms. Andersen moved that the Michie Tavern Site Plan Amendment be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Staff approval of the landscape plan; b. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion Control Permit. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Cilimberg brought the Commission up-to-date on the status of the Sign Ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary DS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (1w -To 'PG MEMORANDUM TO: Yolanda Hipski, Planner Ac FROM: Wayne A. Smith, Sr. , Civil Engineer II V0-0 DATE: March 9, 1992 RE: Michie Tavern Site Plan Amendment (SDP-91-078) Summary of Memos Concerning this Project Memo dated 10/14/91 - referred to the "T" turnaround - the Site Review Committee comments did not apply since this is to be a walkway. Memo dated 10/21/91 - referred to critical slopes and soil erosion - only a portion of the walkway and the western courtyard will be located on critical slopes - the possibility of soil erosion will be kept to a minimum by using temporary sediment traps, silt fencing and berms. Action letter dated 10/30/91 from Planning and Community Development - Department of Engineering approval of a) grading and drainage plans and calculations; b) approval of retaining wall design; c) issuance of an erosion control permit; d) issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness (approval) from the Architectural Review Board. Tentative approval dated 2/19/92 - approval given with the following exception: erosion control plan was approved subject to minor procedural corrections. Architectural Review Board Status dated 11/5/91 - Board granted approval subject to approval of the landscape plan. All the above items have been addressed including adequate channels for stormwater management for erosion control; rainfall intensity for the reoccurring two year storm and rainfall intensity for the reoccurring ten year storm on the finished project in accordance with Final Regulations VR 625.02.00 adopted by The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board on July 11, 1990; effective date September 13, 1990. This project has been reviewed in exceptional depth. It is my personal opinion that further review would be futile in light of the number of staff hours expended already. If you have any questions, please contact me. WAS/vlh ��yor ni.e�,r GitJep >R:INn tN,Iq-f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 MEMO To: Yolanda Hipski From: Marcia Joseph, Design Planner Re: Michie Tavern Site Plan ARB-F(SDP) -91-40 Date: March 10, 1992 I have reviewed the grading, pathways, and the building placement on the proposed Site Plan dated 2-3-92 scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on March 10, 1992 , and find it to conform to the site plan sketch reviewed by and granted a conditional approval by the Architectural Review Board on November 5, 1991. The Landscape portion of this plan has been reviewed. The applicant must revise the drawing to: 1) Label the existing trees on the Landscape plan. 2) Indicate that the proposed plantings of mountain laurel, rhododendron, and rose bushes, will be 36" in height. The selection of plant materials and their location on the plan are approvable once the revisions have been submitted to this office. A Certificate of Appropriateness will be granted if the revisions are made to the Landscape Plan. 6, laY m ,•` . C-11Qeri•1 "To COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5861 February 14 , 1992 Mr. Brian Smith Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc. 700 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Michie Tavern Exhibit Buildings Erosion Control Plan #1292 Dear Mr. Smith: The above referenced plan was reviewed on February 14 , 1992 , and has been approved subject to the following conditions and plan and narrative corrections: 1. Tentative approval of the final site plan must be obtained from the appropriate site review committee members. ,,/ 2 . Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans is required. ,/ 3 . Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention 7 and/or approval of adequate channels conforming to Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations VR 625-02-00. 4 . A certificate of appropriateness must be used by the Architectural Review Board. 5. Soils information must be included in the narrative. 6. Dust control must be provided for in the narrative or on the plan sheet. 7 . Design a silt trap in front of the stormwater drain on the lower side of the site. Prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a precon- struction conference must be held with the owner and contractor. Also, a performance bond in the amount of $5, 400. 00 must be posted on a County form and approved by the County Attorney and County Engineer. The acceptable forms of surety for the erosion control FAX (804) 979-1281 Mr. Brian Smith February 14, 1992 Page Two bond are a letter of credit, certified or cashier's check, passbook savings, certificate of deposit, or bonding company. Please contact Ms. Babette Thorpe, Zoning Assistant, for specifics regarding the bond (804-296-5875) . If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert A. Shaw Erosion Control Officer RAS/ps Copy: Michie Tavern Corporation Ms. Babette Thorpe