Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 19 85 PC MinutesFebruary 19, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 19, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. The following officials were also present: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Amelia P�icCulley, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Pair. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the January 29 meeting were approved as written. CPA-85-1 Request for a Resolution of Intent: To study possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Hollymead Community; specifically amending Map 10 to delete/amend potential school sites. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. In respponse to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Ms. Imhoff stated that sites 4, 5 and 6 are currently shown on the plan as Institu- tional Areas, indicating they were reserved on the Compre- hensive Plan for either park areas or potential school sites. She further explained that deleting these as school sites will mean that other appropriate land uses will have to be examined for those sites and,this will need to be included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment which will be presented in May. She stated that the suggested new sites (2, 3 and 7) are residential areas. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was appropriate to limit this studv just to school sites or to the Hollymead community in general since it appears some of the density will be shifted around. He in- dicated he felt it would be desirable to look at the entire question. Ms. Imhoff agreed and indicated it was felt that the sites being deleted would probably replace the low density residential areas that are being suggested for the new sites. She stated that the matter needs to oe stz..�.' � ,d to see if those areas are appropriate for residentil,,.1. a��i� February 19, 198� Page 2 Ms. Imhoff confirmed that this had become a priority because of the recent development activity in Hollymead. She suggested that a work session might be appropriate with the Planning Commission sometime in April. It was determined that Dr. Hurt owns most of this property and that staff has not yet communicated with him or with any of the other property owners involved. Ms. Imhoff indicated contact would be made before the final amendment is presented. It was determined the School Facilities Committee is working with the Board of Supervisors to determine what actual schools are needed. r, ir. Bowerman stated that at some -time a 5-year plan, going through a 20-year plan, will be presented which will incorpor- ate locational standards for -the schools which will r)e in com- �Iiance with the Comprehensive Plan. 1-Ale statect he did not know if this would include specific site selections. He confirmed that the committee would also study the question of need l'or another high school. He emphasized that no determination has yet been made. Ms. Imhoff confirmed this was just an attempt to ideritify suitable sites and it was 'based on the maXim-am development potential of the Hollymead. Community as proposed by the C oi-ripre liens ive Plan. P4r. Bowerman explained that the results of the study by the School Facilities Committee will be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan itself so it must be compatible. It was confirmed that selection of potential school sites in the Hollymead Community does not corm -At the County to actually locating schools in those sites if a need for such schools does not materialize. Mr. Bowerman pointcul out that since this area is under development, if there is a possibility of obtaining low-cost or no -cost sites, they should be identified now. He also stated he would be agreeable to a work session scheduled for April and he also indicated he had no objections to a Resolution of Intent. Ms. Imhoff indicated it was staff's intent that the focus of this Comprehensive Plan amendment would be the impact and response of changing the school sites. Ms. Diehl moved that a Reso'LAon of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it re,' ;.es to the Hollymead Community, and specifically relating t s1c'hool,s*!_tes (CPA 85-1), be adopted. � �;6j February 19, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. SP-84-89 Monticello Memorial Gardens - Request to locate a mau- soleum on a 26.00 acre parcel which has an existing cemetary and office building. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, the property, de- scribed as Tax Map 77, Parcel 33, is located on the northern side of Route 53 across from Michie Tavern. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report. It was determined that, according to the Highway Department, adequate sight distance could be obtained if the entrance were re -located approximately 170 feet to the west (and this might create a need for sight easements). Mr. Payne stated that the words "County Sheriff" should be changed to "Chief of Police" in staff condition No. 2. It was determined that condition No. 2--Traffic controls shall be provided for all funeral processions to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Police; OR VDH&T approval of commercial entrance in accordance with letter of January 22, 1985--would give the applicant a choice of complying with either one in order to satisfy the condition. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Chuck Rhoades, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant is agreeable to whatever is needed for traffic control. He stated there would be 495 crypts in the mausoleum rather than the 490 stated in staff condition No. 1. He indicated that re -location of the entrance was the less desirable option. Mr. J.R. Copper, a land surveyor representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the trees shown on the drawing would be preserved. He indicated that soil erosion and drainage matters were being taken care of. He also stated that some unused gravesites would be abandoned. Regarding staff's condition No. 4--Location of mausoleum building to be shifted in a westerly fashion as to avoid grading/arainage across gravesites and encroachment/removal of cedar trees to the south. Parking to be provided along "Terrace G." Site plan approval by Planning Commission reflective of this condition -- lie stated that if the building is shifted it will be shifted into some trees, including a large_; cedar tree and he felt the proposed location of the bull,"'�ng was preferable since it would not disturb any trees. February 19,1985 Page 4 The Chairman invited pui,lic comment. Mr. Greg MacDonald, representing Michie Tavern and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Conte, who are adjoining property owners, addressed the Commission. He stated that the building being proposed is not offensive since it is well hidden from the road. However, tie stated his concern is whether or not this change of land use will set a legal precedent which will allow additional buildings on the property. Mr. Benjamin Dick, attorney for the Conte's, addressed the Commission. fie stated that the application he had reviewed in the Planning Office had no site plan. Ile felt the applicant should be required to submit a site plan before requesting approv- al. He stated he felt the current cemetery is fitting for the area, but indicated his clients were against the mausoleum. He made reference to the fact that the applicant is an out-of- state corporation. He stated the applicant also owns a cemetery on Rt. 29 North and he felt this would be a more suitable lo- cation for the mausoleum. Referring to the fact that there are no building or site plans on record, Mr. Dick called upon the Commission to require the applicant to make known his intentions. Mr. Max Kennedy, representing Mr. Dettor, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated Mr. Dettor does object to the proposal and referred to previous soil erosion problems at the cemetery. Mr. Ronald Twe:el, attorney for the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He took exception to Mr. Dick's implication that the applicant had not presented the required documents, and stated that the applicant has made every effort to satisfy the requests of staff. He explained the applicant was requesting a special use permit because the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of Virginia have ruled that the applicant does not have a "vested right" to build the structure. Mr. Tweel presented an aerial photo showing the proposed location of the building. He stated the "red box" drawn on the Nhoto represented the mausoleum, though lie said the box was not drawn t.o scale. Mr. Rhoades, the applicant, stated a copy of the building drawing, etc. had been forwarded to Mr. Keeler. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Rhoades did riot know how long it would be until the building was fully used. He stated he felt there was a need for this type of burial in this area. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined Mr. Copper w+s a land surveyor, riot an archi- tect, but he stated he was so. --what familiar with the drawing and would try to answer any c, .,stions. It was ascertained the dimensions of the building we e 24' x"48', 4,600 square feet of floor area. 19 February 19, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if approval was granted for this 1, application, would it be possible to deny a later application for expansion or for an additional facility. Mr. Payne responded that this application, like any other, had to be viewed on its own merits. He stated if the Commission found that a later application was consistent with the public health, safety and welfare, it could be approved. Mr. Cogan interpreted Mr. Payne's statement as being that approv- al of this application would not be precedent setting. Mr. Payne stated it was difficult to anticipate such a situation. He stated the Board of Supervisors had contemplated allowing this use somewhere in the RA district since it is a permitted use by special permit. He added that since there are no mausoleums currently in existence in Albemarle County, whether the first one is put here or someplace else, it will be breaking new ground. He indicated he felt it would be difficult to say, one way or the other, whether this would be setting a precedent. Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel this use would generate any substantial change in traffic. He felt the traffic would be the same for a funeral whether it was an above or below -ground burial. Ms. Diehl stated she had no problem with the application since `fir' she felt it was compatible with the present use. Mr. Skove indicated he was opposed to development along that sec- tion of Rt. 53. Ms. Diehl pointed out that it is an existing use and it is not development in the usual sense. Mr. Cogan stated he agreed with Mr. Skove and he was also concerned that approval would be setting a precedent. Mr. Bowerman stated he was in agreement with Ms. Diehl. He added, however, that were this a more conventional type of use proposed for this section of Rt. 53, he too would be opposed. He pointed out that the current proposal was less than 1/3 the size of the original proposal. Mr. Michel stated he was concerned because this was a special use permit and not a use by right and he stated he was also concerned about the precedent setting possibilities. He also stated he felt there were other cemeteries in the area more suited for this use, including others owned by the applicant. Mr. Bowerman pointed out this is a permitted use in a cemetery. Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Diehl. �l1_2 February 19, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman stated he did not see a distinction between above and below -ground burial, and he did not feel the structure would be injurious to the area. Ms. Diehl felt this proposal was preferable to gravestones and plastic flowers. Mr. Cogan referred to the fact that this matter had been taken to court once and it was decided that the applicant did not have a vested interest; however, if this application is approved and the building is erected, he felt there would then be a vested interest. He agreed that this one structure would not be im- posing, but he again stated he was concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Gould stated he agreed with Mr. Payne in that he did not feel the Commission would be bound by the decision made on this application in terms of other applications. Mr. Bowerman stated the Courts had ruled that the Commission has legislative control through the special use permit, and the applicant's proposal was not a use by right. Mr. Payne confirmed this was correct. Therefore, since the Commission has discretionary control over the issuance of special use permits, Mr. Bowerman stated he did not feel approval of this application would be setting a precedent. Mr. Cogan agreed that this was a good argument. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-84-89 for Monticello Memorial Gardens be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (1) Mausoleum shall be limited to 495 crypts; (2) Traffic controls shall be provided for all funeral processions to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Police; OR VDH&T approval of commercial entrance in accordance with letter of January 22, 1985; (3) Removal and appropriate disposal of existing debris on site prior to any construction; (4) Location of mausoleum building to be shifted in a westerly fashion as to avoid grading/drainage across gravesites and encroachment/removal of cedar trees to the south. Parking to be provided along "Terrace G." Site plan approval by Planning Commission reflective of this condition. (5) Any future stockpile of overburden to be maintained in such manner as to prevent soil erosion. Mr. Payne explained that condition (4) meant that a shift of the building would not be required unless such a shift were necessary to avoid interference with "active" gravesites or to avoid removal of cedar trees. February 19, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved (4:3) with Messrs. Wilkerson, Bowerman and Gould and Ms. Diehl voting in favor, and Messrs. Cogan, Michel and Skove voting against. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 6, 1985. ZMA-84-30 Blue Ridge Land Trust - Request to rezone 9.00 acres from RA, Rural Areas, to R-10, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 21, is located on the west side of Hydraulic Road behind the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. (Previously known as the Garlick Tract). Jack Jouett Magisterial District. It was determined the applicant had requested deferral until March 12. Mr. Michel moved, and Mr. Gould seconded, that the applicant's request for deferral be approved. The motion was unanimously approved and ZMA-84-30 was deferred until March 12, 1985. Mill Ridge Final Plat - Located east of Waverly on the west side of Route 614, just west of the intersection of Route 678 ` and Route 614. Proposal to create five lots with an average size of three acres on 16.5 acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 42, parcel 37A. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Susan Riddle, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated the site plan had not been revised since the last Commission review, and all requests from the VDH&T and the County Engineer have been complied with. She stated this subdivision complies with all the Zoning Ordinances and requests from the County officials. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he still had concerns in relation to the safety along Rt. 614 and, being very familiar with this section of highway, he indicated he was still in favor of a turn lane to maintain safety. Mr. Michel, also familiar with this section of highway, indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan. He mentioned the high accident history of this section of highway. �Ge'l February 19, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Skove, referring to the fact that Mr. Cogan and Mr. Michel are very familiar with the situation, stated that if they felt a turn lane was needed it should be required as a condition of approval. It was determined there were no written statements from the highway department concerning the decision not to require a turn lane. It was ascertained that what Mr. Cogan and Mr. Michel had in mind was a left -turn lane, and it was also determined it was the consensus of the Commission that this requirement be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Hughes, speaking for the applicant, indicated he felt a turn lane was not necessary. He stated there was almost 600 feet of stopping sight distance. Mr. Cogan pointed out the conditions were different in winter than they were in summer. Mr. Cogan read the following to be added as condition (1) f: • f) Left turn lane to be installed subject to VDH&T approval of plans and specifications. Mr. Cogan stated he was also concerned about the odd shape of the lots. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Mill Ridge 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 Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and computations. b) Issuance of erosion control permit. c) County Engineer approval of the actual final plat. d) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans and drainage computations. e) County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement for lots three and four. f) Left turn lane to be installed subject to VDH&T approval of plans and specifications. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The meeting recessed at 8:50; reconvened at 9:05. Pantops Shopping Center Final Plat - Located on the south side of Rt. 250 East between Rivanna River and Riverbend Drive. Proposal to create 3 lots and combine 1.6412 acres to range in size from 2.8724 acres to 5.5100 acres. Zoned PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Tax Map 78, parcel 17G. Rivanna Magisterial District. February 19, 1985 Page 9 Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. He explained that what was happening was what had been contemplated in the original PDSC. At the time of that approval he stated that the land that was approved for the PDSC was on three or four different tax parcels. He stated that in December, in order to have a loan closing before the end of the year, the land that was within the PDSC boundaries (but outside of what was already existing as Phase 1) was combined into one parcel (administratively). He stated the reason for the 5.1 acre parcel was because a prospect is being dealt with who wishes to put a large store in this area and would like to either own or lease the land that the store will stand on. In order to accommodate that, he explained the applicant is subdividing the 5.1 acre parcel. He stated the rest of the residual parcel will be the rest of the shopping center. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Pantops Shopping Center Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement. b. Owner has signed the plat, and his/her address has been indicated. C. Service Authority has approved water and sewer ease- ment locations. d. Staff approval of technical items, i.e. vicinity map, building line on corner lot, permanent reference monuments. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Earlysville Green Phase I Grocery Store Revised Site Plan - Located east side of Rt. 743 just north of its intersection with Rt. 660 in Earlysville. Tax Map 31A, parcel A and Tax Map 31, parcel 32. Rivanna Magisterial District. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. It was determined staff was recommending three different plantings of white pines: one on the north side (already required); and two on the east side. Ms. Scala stated other landscaping would occur in the parking area. It was also ascertained the require- ment on the north side had been increased to a double, staggered row. It was determined that if the trees in the back (adjacent to Lot 5) had not been removed, nothing additional would have been required in that area. February 19, 1985 Page 10 The Chairman invited applicant comment. A representative of the applicant addressed the Commission and stated the applicant had no objections to staff's recommendations. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Bill Porter, a civil engineer, and adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated he was not opposed to the construction of the store, but he was opposed to the stormwater detention pond. He pointed out a number of problems that can occur with these ponds and stated there are usually other ways to handle stormwater run-off. He pointed out that this par- ticular pond, as required by the County Engineer, adjoins residential property and has necessitated the destruction of an existing sight and sound barrier. He stated he felt in this case, a detention pond is overly expedient, and is somewhat insensitive and perhaps irresponsible. Mr. Porter asked who would maintain the pond and also asked if the County inspects and monitors the ponds. He stated he felt a preferable, and simpler, solution would be to enlarge the downstream pipe capacity and not detain the water at all. He stated that if this were not feasible (because of possible downstream property damage), then other solutions might be either parking lot detention, roof -top detention, or an underground detention tank. Ms. Anne Zimmerman, a resident of adjoining Lot 5, which has been most severely damaged, addressed the Commission. She presented photographs showing her property before and after the grading for the pond. She pointed out that none of the residents of Earlysville Heights were against the store and had only asked that there be adequate sight and sound barriers. She stated that the trees that were behind the lot were acceptable and ade- quate. With the removal of those trees, she stated her lot had been severely damaged and devalued. She stated she felt a "living" barrier was no longer adequate, and indicated some additional type of barrier is now required. She stated the residents are also concerned about the well and the detention pond, and added the residents are greatly concerned about the safety of their children in relation to the pond. She requested that the Commission try to salvage what was, up until two weeks ago, quite acceptable, but is no longer. Ms. Mary Sullivan, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had been present at the time of the original approval of the site plan and had been assured that other than a "living" barrier would be placed around the dumpster and loading dock area (which backs up to her property). She said that now it seems that only a row of pine trees is going to be required. She strongly urged the Commission to help the residents of Earlysville Heights. Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the County Engineer had agreed that C February 19, 1985 Page 11 a stormwater detention pond was preferable, taking into consid- 11#4w eration the possibility of downstream flooding and damage. He stated that it had not been anticipated that the back row of pine trees (owned by Mr. Whyte) would have to be disturbed. He said this would be a dry pond, i.e. water would not be standing it the pond for long periods since it would run off quickly. He agreed that the site was currently unsightly, but indicated it would not be after it was seeded, trees replanted, etc. M M Mr. Allen Kendrick, an Earlysville resident, addressed the Com- mission. He indicated there seems to have been some changes from what was originally planned, due not only to the applicant, but also to the County staff. He requested that the Commission try to work with the applicant to reach a solution to the problem as quickly as possible. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked if the change in the drainage plans was requested by the applicant, or suggested by the County Engineer. Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, addressed the Commission. He explained the applicant's engineer's first design for the drainage channel had crossed the well lot and he did not approve the computations for that design and had sent them back to the engineer to be redone. Instead of redesigning that plan, the applicant had come back with the plans showing a detention basin, so eventually the basin had grown to the size it is now and he felt this had satisfied the original condition of approval, i.e. to control erosion across that well lot, at least over to the culvert underneath the road. He explained the original condi- tion had allowed two choices: to either build a channel that would take the water away, or to provide detention to avoid channel erosion problems. Mr. Elrod stated he had not encouraged or discouraged either alternative. Ms. Diehl asked if there had been any requirement in the finally approved plans for the pond that made it necessary to remove the trees along the back. Mr. Elrod apologized that the trees had been removed, but stated he was not aware that it was a requirement that the trees were to stay. He stated if it had been, he would not have approved the detention basin. He stated it was not a written condition on his list that the trees be left. It was determined that the Erosion Control ordinance deals with stormwater detention and states that stormwater must be discharged into an adequate channel. Mr. Bowerman asked if the ability of the culvert, underneath the road, to handle the run-off had been discussed. February 19, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Elrod responded negatively. He added that he had been in favor of the pond because not only would it control erosion across the well lot, but it would also be beneficial all the way downstream. Ms. Diehl asked why it had been necessary to remove all the trees. Mr. Elrod explained that the channel was 20 feet wide. He stated that the basin could probably have been placed elsewhere on the site and he again apologized that the trees had been removed, but he again emphasized that he had not known the trees were to remain. Ms. Diehl stated that both the applicant and his engineers had been aware that the trees were supposed to remain, but no attempt was made to see that they were not removed. She stated she was appalled that this had happened, in light of all the discussion that had taken place regarding maintaining the existing trees, primarily because it was thought to be the most expedient for the applicant. Regarding the ability of the culvert on Viewmont Road to handle the run-off if the channel had been enlarged, Mr. Elrod stated he felt the culvert would have been able to handle the water, though it would have caused a back-up (in essence creating a detention basin at that point). With that in mind, Mr. Elrod confirmed that he had felt widening the channel was not the best solution. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Ray why this plan was implemented when the concern about sight and sound barriers was well known to the applicant. Mr. Ray stated the plan had not been implemented without concern, but it was felt this was the preferable solution in terms of possible downstream flooding and property damage. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a County method for inspecting detention basins. Mr. Elrod stated the initial structure is checked, but there is no official periodic inspection. He confirmed it was the property owner's responsibility to maintain the basins. Mr. Payne stated there is an enforcement mechanism, but not a regular inspection plan. He said if complaints should arise, there is a method for addressing a violation of the Ordinance. In response to Ms. Diehl's questions, Ms. Scala stated that an additional row of white pine screening had been required all February 19, 1985 Page 13 along the northern boundary (10 feet apart, 5-6' high). She W stated no fence had been required but an enclosure will be required around the dumpster. Ms. Diehl asked if the applicant had received the landscape requirements in written form, particularly that the "trees along the rear boundary will not be disturbed". Ms. Scala stated the trees (along the rear boundary) were shown on the plan and it had been discussed at the Planning Commission meeting that those would be saved, but because they were shown on the plan, it was not made a written condition of approval. She also stated there had been no anticipation that a pond would be constructed, and there had been no reason to expect the trees would ever be removed. Therefore, the condition had not been written. She stated that since a year had lapsed before Mr. Elrod had received the plans, it was understandable that the condition could have been overlooked. It was determined that the original site plan had not stated that the trees would not be disturbed, but it was very clearly presented at the Commission meeting that it was intended that the trees shown on the plan would remain. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the applicant had negated some of the conditions that had been put on the site plan and she felt the applicant should be expected to reproduce those conditions as best possible. She stated she was also concerned about the safety of the pond and felt that a fence should be required around the pond. It was determined that staff felt two rows of pine trees would be adequate around the loading area without a fence. The Chairman allowed Mr. Bob Taylor (an Earlysville Heights resident) who had joined the meeting late, to speak. He stated his concern in relation to the well. He stated this well serves 25 houses and is already weak. He said the applicant had purchased this well and expressed concern that it might be the applicant's intent to serve the store with this well. He asked if the question of possible contamination of the well had been addressed. Mr. Bowerman once again closed the meeting to public comment. It was determined that all grading that has taken place was necessary and had not been excessive. Mr. Elrod stated he had been surprised, upon coming to work for Albemarle County, that a buffer is not required between residential and commercial areas. As a result, he stated this type of problem occurs frequently. He also stated he felt it was just as unsafe to put a fence around a detention pond since children will crawl over or under the fence and then find it difficult to get back out. He stated it was preferable that the basins be 4 7ra February 19, 1985 Page 14 designed in such a way so that they would be as shallow as possible and thus minimize the danger. Thus the requirement for the pond being as large as is proposed, since increasing the size reduces the depth. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, he stated he did not feel there was any danger of run-off from the parking lot contami- nating the well. Mr. Elrod stated that he has gradually been increasing his design requirements for these ponds so they will not be the nuisances they have been in the past. Mr. Bowerman stated he was bothered by a number of aspects of this situation: (1) The spirit of the original approval has been voided; and (2) The Commission is faced with this situation for a revised site plan "after the fact." He stated that this situation has resulted because of a number of errors on the part of both the County and the developer. He stated he was not in favor of having the site re -graded back to its original condition since that would not restore the original buffers. However, he stated that the buffering that is now going to be required should be such that there is no longer the eyesore that now exists, and possibly should be even better than what it was before the removal of the original buffering. He asked for comment from the Commissioners as to whether or not a solid fence might now be appropriate. Ms. Scala explained that the staff is not in favor of fences in general because it is felt that living buffers are more attractive and fences create a maintenance problem (debris blows against; fence deteriorates, etc.). She stated that in this case staff would require at least 6 feet high pine trees along the back boundary. Mr. Bowerman stated he was concerned because even this would not provide immediate screening, since there would be gaps and a lack of height. Ms. Scala also stated the person most affected (Ms. Zimmerman) has requested an 8-foot fence, and staff feels that is excessive. However, because of what has happened in this case, a 6-foot fence might be reasonable. Ms. Scala stated she felt a double staggered row of white pines, as originally suggested, would be effective. Both Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Skove referred to the fact that the need for screening is an immediate problem. Mr. Cogan stated it would be difficult to find a quick and per- manent solution. He indicated he was in agreement with staff regarding the disadvantages of fences. He suggested it would be preferable to put some plantings along that embankment and not erect a fence. Ms. Diehl agreed. ,)-7'/ February 19, 1985 Page 15 Ms. Diehl suggested including dogwoods, or other ornamentals, in this area (between the double row of pines and the detention basin, the side which faces the Zimmerman property). Ms. Scala asked the Commission to clarify what was being suggested for the loading area. She confirmed there would be a double row of pines on the property line. It was determined that this double row of pines on the property line, and the enclosure around the dumpster, would be acceptable. Mr. Cogan stated that staff is aware of the Commission's concerns and he felt that staff would be able to work with the applicant to work out the problems. He also stated he hoped that the applicant and staff would invite input from the residents of Earlysville Heights who have been affected. Mr. Payne read the original condition of approval which dealt with landscaping: • Staff approval of screening, a landscape plan, and internal parking layout; with special attention to dumpster/loading area; Mr. Bowerman pointed that what was being discussed was very specific. Mr. Cogan indicated that it might be desirable to add more specific requirements to condition 1.(b) (as stated above), particularly since conditions have changed since the original approval. Ms. Scala repeated what staff would require: --A double row of white pines, minimum 6' high on 10' centers, all along Lot 5's rear boundary line; --At the top of the bank, a single row of 10' on center, 5-6' high white pines; --Along the bank, ornamental small trees and shrubs; --A row of 5-6' high white pines, 10' on center, from the well -lot corner all the way to in front of the first house; --Possibly, behind the loading area, another row of white pines may be required. (It was determined a single row still exists.) It was determined that it would be a further condition that if any of these plantings die, they will be replanted. Mr. Payne confirmed that all this could be handled under condition 1.(b). Ms. Scala stated that all the conditions have been met, and only the screening problem has been holding up the plan. She added it was possible to approve the revised site plan with the original conditions of approval, but with specific attention given to screening as discussed at this meeting. -�77.=2 February 19, 1985 Page 16 Mr. Elrod stated he felt it would take the pond 3 - 5 hours to drain after rain has stopped. Ms. Diehl indicated she was still in favor of a fence around the detention pond. Mr. Wilkerson stated that, though the Commission had probably done all that could be done, he still did not feel that the concerns of the public had been adequately adressed, and he indicated he felt badly about not being able to do more to remedy the situation. Mr. Cogan stated he agreed, but it was not possible to instantly put the trees back that had been removed. Regarding the fence around the detention pond, Mr. Elrod indicated a fence is seldom recommended and he was not in favor of it in this case. He agreed that a risk was involved whenever water is "ponded" up, and he conceded that a child could drown even in a 3 foot pond. He also stated that he was in agreement with what Mr. Porter had presented earlier regarding the problems with detention ponds and the difficulty and expense involved in maintaining them. Mr. Cogan moved that the Earlysville Green Phase I Grocery Store Revised Site Plan be approved subject to previous conditions of approval dated October 19, 1983, excepting those conditions that have already been completed, but with particular attention to condition 1. (b) as discussed with Ms. Scala at this meeting, February 19, 1985. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Mr. Cogan stated he hoped that staff and the applicant could work together in a way that would repair the damage that has been done as soon as possible. It was determined that any further problems would be brought back to the Commission. The above -stated motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Bowerman stated there was a right of appeal to the Board of Supervisors if made within ten days. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Bowerman stated there would be a tour of some of the sub- standard housing on March 7, 1:30 - 4:00. He said he would not be able to attend and requested that someone else take his place. Mr. Skove stated he would try to make the tour. It was determined the tour would meet at 1:30 in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building. '9-71-'? February 19, 1985 Page 17 Mr. Bowerman stated he would be absent at the February 26 meeting. It was determined that staff be requested to look at buffering and screening requirements. Ms. Scala stated she would include this at the next landscape discussion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. A JAJ1 I P 0 James D ne ly, Secretary DS on