HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 30 85 PC MinutesJuly 30, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a
public
on Tuesday, July 30, 1985, Meeting Room 7, CountyOfficeearing
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel;
and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were. Ms.
Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of
Community Development; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the July 9, 1985 meeting were approved as
written.
CPA-85-4 Blue Ridge Land Trust - Request for a Resolution of
Intent to study possible amendment of the Land Use Plan and the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 as it relates to
approximately 9 acres of an 88 acre tract (formerly known as the
Garlick Tract). A plan amendment is sought in order to support a
rezoning from rural areas to multi -family development (R-10).
This item was deferred in order to allow additional watershed
information to be submitted. (TM 45, parcels 16 and 21).
It was determined the applicant was requesting that this item
be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Cogan moved that CPA-85-4 for Blue Ridge Land Trust be
indefinitely deferred pursuant to the request of the applicant.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
ZMA-85-18 Frank Hereford - Request to incorporate as part of the
proffer for ZMA-84-32 (approved by Board February 20, 1985)
Section 24.2.1(20) of the Zoning Ordinance permitting hotels,
motels and inns. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 011
parcel A5, located on Greenbrier Drive between Flowers Bakery
and El Paso Rib Company. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She confirmed that the
applicant had made the request in writing, though she had
not included that in the report.
Ms. Patterson confirmed that the Commission is being asked to
accept a revised proffer.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
16
July 30, 1985 Page 2
Mr. Rick Richmond, attorney for the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He explained that the Commission had been made
aware of the segregation of this one -acre parcel from the
parent tract at the time of the site plan for the warehouse.
He stated that the applicant had not knownof this particular
use at the time the proffer was made on the rezoning of the
entire tract.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the applicant's request, to include
hotels, motels and inns, would apply to the entire tract
and not just to the one -acre parcel that is currently proposed
for the motel.
Mr. Michel indicated he was not opposed to the change, but he
would be in favor of restricting it to just the one -acre
parcel. Mr. Cogan indicated he agreed with this.
Mr. Payne stated the applicant would need to amend his proffer
accordingly.
Mr. Richmond stated he was not sure it would be appropriate
to amend the proffer when the subdivision has not yet been
approved.
Mr. Payne explained that if the applicant declines to amend
the proffer as suggested by Mr. Michel, then it is up to the
Commission to either approve or deny the request. He stated
the Commission can take action at this time, but they cannot
require the applicant to amend his proffer.
Mr. Richmond stated he would not be opposed to amending the
proffer to restrict the addition of hotels, motels and inns
to parcel A only.
It was determined that the boundaries of parcel A need to
be defined more clearly.
Mr. Richmond suggested the following amendment to the
original parcel:
"Amend ZMA 84-32 to include as a permitted use
hotels, motels, and inns on that portion of the
4.34 acres containing approximately 1.25 acres and
being the eastern portion of said 4.34 acre tract."
Mr. Payne confirmed that the proffer can be amended orally
but it must be submitted in writing.
it was determined that a request for a variance from the
sign regulations will probably be made at a later time.
/ L A
July 30, 1985 Page 3
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the applicant should be advised that
the sign will be required to meet the current regulations.
Mr. Cogan moved that an amendment to the proffer for ZMA-84-32
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as
presented by Mr. Richmond, which will allow hotels, motels and
inns on Parcel A only.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The applicant was advised that there should be no variance
from the sign regulations existing in the HC zone on Greenbrier
Drive.
This matter is to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on
August 7, 1985.
Super 8 Motel Site Plan - Proposal to locate a three story 62
unit motel of 21,960 square feet, served by 62 parking spaces.
Property is 1.25 acres on 4.34 acre parcel (Greenbrier Park Site
Plan). Property is located on the north side of Greenbrier Drive,
between Flowers Bakery and El Paso Rib Company. Tax Map 61W-1-A5.
Zoned HC, Highway Commercial (with proferred ZMA-84-32 to be
amended) Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that the
applicant has agreed to comply with the County Engineer's
recommendation for stormwater detention, i.e. a 300 feet long 5
feet deep vee channel, with a concrete bottom and surrounded
by a chain -link fence.
It was determined the proposed fence would be 6 feet high
and the channel would retain water for approximately 21 minutes
during a 10-year storm.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne, engineer representing the applicant, addressed
the Commission. He offered the following comments:
--The County has a large majority of parcels which are
being developed in the headwaters of streams.
--There is little development such as this where major
streams run through the property from 65 acres above.
--The Stormwater Detention Ordinance requires that
a developer contain the amount of stormwater that
comes off a particular site, 4.34 acres in this case.
--Because of the 65 acres above this property, the
total time of concentration for the drainage basin
is approximately 21 minutes, instead of the normal
5-10 minutes for a tract this size.
--The effect of this increased concentration is that
the amount of storage required is increased greatly.
--The applicant and the County Engineer have settled
on 9,000 feet of storage, though at the time the
applicant was contemplating a request for a waiver
� A
July 30, 1985
Page 4
from the Detention Ordinance, it was believed the
requirements would be 12,000 to 16,000 feet.
--If this piece of property were in another location,
without the 65 acres draining from above, only
6,000 cubic feet would have been required by the
County Engineer.
--The 300 feet open ditch is more economical than
84" diameter underground pipes, though it will
be a substantial feature of the site.
--It is possible to have a 24" pipe carry the flow
through the property and eliminate the hazard of
the open ditch, and not cause a significant problem
downstream. The County Engineer's position is that
even though the stormwater is only being increased
by approximately 3%, if this occurs consistently,
problems will develop.
Mr. Michel pointed out that the cost on the original site plan
had been $18,000 (for storage), and that has been reduced
to $7,500, so there should be no reason for complaint.
Mr. Osborne stated he was not complaining about the open ditch
as opposed to the 24" pipe, but he had wanted to point out the
potential hazard that the ditch will pose.
Ms. Diehl attempted to determine what point Mr. Osborne was
trying to make, i.e. that the applicant had been able to
meet the ordinance requirements for his site, but had run
into problems when the drainage coming from above the site
was factored in. Mr. Osborne confirmed this. He explained
the problems were caused by trying to detain the "peak" flow,
which is delayed, and decreases the peak flow off site. He
stated the ordinance does not seem to address this type of
situation specifically, and the applicant feels there are
some cost inequities involved when compared to developing a
similar piece of property in a different drainage area.
Mr. Osborne confirmed that 9,000 feet has been provided for,
as recommended by the County Engineer, which is more than
what the ordinance requires, so that the peak is not exceeded.
Mr. Cogan recalled that at the time of the rezoning it had
been shown that stormwater detention would be underground and
it now seems the options are either a 300 feet open ditch, or
no detention at all. He indicated he was not in favor of
either of these options.
Mr. Osborne pointed out that the ordinance addresses
on -site detention requirements and, in this case, if just
those requirements were met, the situation would be made
worse. He felt the language in the ordinance allows stormwater
detention to be waived if it causes more of a problem than
it solves.
//n
July 30, 1985 Page 5
It was determined the drainage basin for this site is Meadow
we Creek which is partially in the City.
Mr. Osborne stated he felt this was a very complicated
issue because of the 65 acres upstream which the applicant
is not specifically in control of, thus making it difficult
to determine accurately all the factors. He felt the
ordinance needs to be studied in regard to this issue. He
stated the County Engineer had indicated to him that, if
the Commission feels the Ordinance is a problem, he could
have it re -written in a brief period in such a way as „
to identify stormwater detention at the outlet point.
Mr. Michel indicated he was not opposed to asking the County
Engineer to study the issue.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt further study might determine that
underground detention could be fitted on the site by reaching
a compromise figure between the 6,000 and 9,000 feet requirements.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if the County Engineer and applicant
have reached an agreement on the issue, the Commission should
try to live with what the County Engineer is recommending. He
suggested that the 9,000 feet arrived at by the County Engineer
might be the compromise figure.
Mr. Michel moved that the Super 8 Motel Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until:
a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans
and computations;
b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of commercial entrances and drainage plans;
e. Fire Official approval, to include redesigning
handicap parking space;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final
water and sewer plans;
g. Approval of gas company for construction & planting
proximity to gas lines.
Note: (Condition h. added later in meeting)
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until
the following conditions have been met:
M
July 30, 1985 Page 6
a. Fire Official final approval;
b. Staff approval of landscape plan.
3. Approval of and compliance with ZMA 85-18. Compliance
with ZMA 84-32.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mr. Wilkerson suggested that condition (h.) be added as follows:
• A minimum 6 ft. high chain -link fence is to be
constructed around the 300 foot stormwater ditch.
Mr. Michel agreed to this addition to his motion.
Mr. Cogan again stated that he felt underground detention had
been inferred at the time of the rezoning and had influenced
the rezoning. He felt the possibility of underground detention
should be studied further.
Ms. Patterson confirmed that the site would not have any
difficulty meeting parking requirements as well as requirements
for other amenities.
The above -stated motion for approval of the Super 8 Motel Site
Plan was approved (4:2) with Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Diehl, Mr. Skove
and Mr. Michel voting in favor and Mr. Cogan and Mr. Wilkerson
voting against.
Mr. Richmond once again addressed the Commission and indicated
he felt one of the problems with the County approval system
was the reluctance to leave technical aspects up to the
experts.
WORK SESSION
Pedestrian Obstacle Study Phase I, Survey of Existing Conditions -
Prepared in cooperation with the MPO, work session will focus on
recommendations of study including physical improvements and
proposed sidewalk policy.
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She also introduced Ms.
Shelly Page, a Systems Engineering student and departmental
intern who summarized sidewalk and pathway recommendations.
She offered the following comments:
--Pathways on Georgetown Road and Barracks will allow
pedestrian travel to Barracks Road Shopping Center.
--Sidewalks and asphalt paths in the Whitewood/Hydraulic
Road area will provide school access at Whitewood,
Hydraulic and Lambs Road. Shoppers World would be
accessed from the pathways along Hydraulic Road
and Four Seasons Drive.
i . ^
July 30, 1985
Page 7
--Path on Rio Road would provide pedestrian access to
Fashion Square and Albemarle Square, Greenbrier
Drive Commercial area, Pen Park and the Squire Hill
Collector Road.
--A path along Rt. 780 will access Azelea Park,and the
residences at Ivy Park and Huntington Village will
use the path along Old Ivy Road to access the university
and city commercial centers.
It was determined no cost estimates have been done at this time,
since no permission was given to do any engineering with Phase
I. Phase II does have money included to do preliminary cost
estimates.
Ms. Page confirmed these were all the recommendations for side-
walks and asphalt paths, but the report had also included
recommendations for rural road improvements such as shoulder
widening, road edging, street lighting and intersection improvements.
Ms. Page continued her presentation and reported on sidewalk
policies for several other counties in the state.
Ms. Davenport discussed the implementation policy for the
recommendations. She offered the following comments:
--Current VDH&T policy is that sidewalks within
600 feet of a multiple commercial area or in
the vicinity of schools (if the County has an
adopted "walk to school" policy) will be eligible
for maintenance.
--Although this policy was formally adopted in 1981, it
was not applied until 1984.
--Homeowners Associations agreements which try to provide
perpetual maintenance are not a workable solution since
it creates an inconsistent network of maintenance
responsibilities and possibly does not handle liability
and emergency situations adequately.
--Regarding the Highway Department criteria, a basic
element is the County would have to have an adopted
"walk to school" policy for sidewalks in the vicinity
of schools to be accepted for maintenance.
--There are presently no such policies in the County
(with the exception of Woodbrook Elementary).
--Given the present hazardous conditions in all school
areas, the Education Department does not believe it
can guarantee the safety of students walking in the
urban area, and therefore a mandatory policy is
not recommended by staff.
--The current County ordinances require construction of
sidewalks for new developments where density is two
units or greater/acre. A majority of new developments
will be required to provide sidewalks, but very few
of those are going to meet the Highway Department
criteria for maintenance.
--Staff's first suggestion is that current policies
be examined to determined if they are too broad or too
general. Staff feels they are.
/L. :R
July 30, 1985
Page 8
Ms. Davenport presented the following proposed sidewalk policy:
Planning Commission shall determine that the sidewalk
or pathway requirement is reasonably necessary to protect
public health, safety and welfare and that the need,
therefore, is substantially generated by the proposed
development. Provisions shall be made for internal
sidewalks and pedestrian walkways which will enable
pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently between
buildings on site and from the site to adjacent properties.
(This language already exists in the zoning ordinance.)
Connection shall be made wherever possible of all walkways
and bicycleways with similar facilities on adjacent develop-
ment along roadways.
A public sidwalk may be required along at least one side
of a secondary state -maintained or private roadway.
(Under this policy sidewalks would not be required
along primary routes such as Rt. 29 and I64, Rt. 250,
because of the volume of vehicular traffic.)
A development would have to meet two criteria:
(1) Projected traffic volumes will exceed 3,000 vehicle
trips/day or a speed limit of 45 mph or greater exists;
and
(2) Be within one-half linear roadway miles of a school
or planned school scheduled in the CIP or a recreation
center open to the public or a multiple (defined as
three or more businesses) commercial center or public
buildings or shopping centers with a minimum of 50,000
square feet or a major employment facility employing
50 persons or more.
All sidewalks and pathways shall be a standard design approved
by the County Engineer. The Commission may require construction
of a temporary asphalt path in lieu of a standard sidewalk
if the road is of a rural cross-section or other environmental
considerations warrant such.
Sidewalks or pathways located on private property, but
which serve other than homeowners shall be declared public
easements.
All sidewalks and curb -cuts and gutters proposed to be accepted
for maintenance by VDH&T shall be built in accordance with
their construction standards.
All sidewalks and pathways shall have a guarantee of perpetual
maintenance approved or provided for by the Board of Super-
visors. '+
//�
July 30, 1985 Page 9
Mr. Davenport explained that the areas studied and considered
to be priority areas are already developed. She stated that
most of those outlined would have to be financed by the County
through the CIP process, or grants, or the Highway Department
as road improvements occur along that road segment.
Regarding sidewalks that are not eligible for state maintenance,
Ms. Davenport stated several possibilities had been examined
and the most obvious possibility is the creation of a public
works department and for this few number of projects, such
a solution is not justified at this time. An urban service
area is not permitted in Virginia at this time, so it would
not be possible to tax just the urban area for sidewalks.
Both staff and the County Engineer are recommending that
construction and maintenance be done through contractual agreements.
If this were pursued, the County Engineer would have to be
granted authority from the Board of Supervisors to authorize
sidewalk construction permits within the right-of-way. (Based
on the idea that the Highway Department will only accept the
County as a guarantor of perpetual maintenance.)
Ms. Imhoff asked for general comments from the Commission either
at this meeting, or individually in writing.
Mr. Michel stated that he felt it was an excellent report though
he did not agree with all the priorities. He stated he was
in favor of a walk -to -school policy being considered where
�Ww parents, within a certain radii, would have to request that
their children be bussed. He felt this might cover some
of the problems. He stated he was very concerned about the
Barracks Road, Georgetown Road, Hydraulic Road and Whitewood
Road areas. He felt the term "recreational center" needed to
be more clearly defined. He stated he would be in favor of
an appeal of the Highway Department's determination that
Fashion Square is a single business.
Ms. Imhoff stated staff feels it is necessary to get
the desired local ordinance changes together before making
a case with the Highway Department in terms of the Highway
Department's entire policy.
Mr. Michel stated he would not be in favor of the 250 area
to University Heights or the Old Ivy area without some
cooperation from the City.
Ms. Imhoff stated funds are currently available for planning
but not for construction. She added that she felt the
different localities need to band together to deal with
the Highway Department, rather than each locality trying to
do it on their own.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the key issue is to get the Highway
Department to rescind their policy. He felt this policy was
the result of an effort to save money as well as to avoid
liability possibilities.
July 30, 1985
Page 10
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the Highway Department funds as
well as the County funds both come from the same source,
the taxpayer, so it should not matter if it is spent by
the Highway Department or the local governments, and it
should not cost the taxpayer any more money one way or the
other. He felt counties should band together to put
pressure on the Highway Department.
Ms. Imhoff stated she felt it was necessary that the
local ordinance be addressed first.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt that banding with other
counties was useless until politics at the state level
change . He felt all that can be done is to deal with
our own policies to develop something that is workable.
Mr. Michel stated he was opposed to the idea of a Public
Works operation at this time. He suggested the solution
might be a "user" fee though he realized such an idea would
be met with great opposition.
Ms. Imhoff stated that taxes can be raised generally, for
the entire county, but not in districts.
Mr.Michel stated what he had in mind was a development tax,
which is legal.
Ms. Davenport stated that staff had investigated a utility
tax as a possible source of revenue. She explained the County
has the authority to levy taxes on water and sewer users,
but only those people could be taxed who are in the
jurisdictional area, which is basically the urban area anyway.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt such a tax would be vigorously
opposed by the rural residents of the county.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt that whatever is developed should
be a part of the ordinance and not just a policy so that the
issue will not have to be "fought" with each subdivision.
Mr. Michel stated that even if the guidelines are tightened
up, the sidewalks will still not be built because of the
situation which currently exists regarding maintenance.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on what revenue
mechanisms the county has to fund sidewalk maintenance and
construction.
Mr. Payne stated possibilities are very limited. He said
revenue sharing funds could be used, if any still exist and
general fund monies can be used to the extent the problems
are occasioned by suburban development, to the extent that
this can be called a highway problem. Mr. Payne stated the
problem is not construction, but maintenance.
i /_
July 30, 1985 Page 11
Mr. Bowerman asked if maintenance agreements solely for the
maintenance of sidewalks was a possibility.
Mr. Payne stated he felt there is some ambiguity in the High-
way Department's understanding of what constitutes a public
right-of-way and that is fundamental to the understanding of
this entire problem. He explained that a pedestrian right-of-way
that is open to the public is a public right-of-way and to say
that it is not a public right-of-way is to limit its character
very severely. He stated the Virginia Supreme Court has
ruled that if a right-of-way is open to the public, the
ownership of that right-of-way is of no importance because
it belongs to all the people of the Commonwealth. He
stated a maintenance agreement, as used in connection with
private roads, is not a public function, but the County serves
as a "midwife" and requires the developer to establish a
mechanism for maintaining the roads. The County will not
maintain them nor will it oversee the developer's operation
of the roads since they are not the County's roads and there
is no public necessity for the roads. That is the concept
for a private road. If there is a public necessity for maintaining
the sidewalks, then (in Mr. Payne's judgment), it is not
appropriate to have them maintained by a private entity.
If there is a public need, they should be served by a public entity.
He indicated the fundamental problem is that the County cannot
really enforce the terms of a homeowner's association agreement,
and ensure the maintenance of the sidewalk.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the study should first be considered
from the point of effective maintenance possibilities. After
a solution is found for that aspect of the issue, then means
of construction and locations can be addressed.
Ms. Imhoff agreed that maintenance should be addressed first,
but felt that ordinance revisions could be studied at the same
time.
Mr. Payne explained that it was Ms. Imhoff's feeling that by
dealing with ordinance revisions now, it might be possible
to prevent sidewalk requirements in places where they cannot
be maintained.
Ms. Imhoff indicated she was anxious to confront the Highway
Department on the policy issue, but she felt it is necessary
for local policy to be clearly defined first. She added that
there is a waiver possibility with the Highway Commission
which has not been pursued. To pursue such a waiver it
would be necessary for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a
resolution, which would be forwarded to the Highway Commission,
not VDH&T. Ms. Imhoff stated if an appeal were made at
this point, it would be necessary to present an alternate
proposal.
// ry
July 30, 1985
Page 12
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff should proceed
with the study in the following two areas: (1) Recommended
*40
policy for where sidewalks should be located; and (2) Funding
eational
he
possibilities. Other points to be looked at are: (1)
facility" should be more clearly defined; (2) T45 mph speed
limit used as a determining factor by the Highway Department should
be lower i.e. 1135 mph or lower"; (3) Square footage for commercial
areas served should be lower.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had not suggested
any additional priorities, nor that any presented by staff be
deleted.
Ms. Imhoff stated the next step is to incorporate the comments
of the Commission into a memo which will be sent to the MPO
Technical Committee. After the Technical Committee, the
matter then goes on to the MPO Policy Board. Once adopted by
the Policy Board, it will become an official document that the
Highway Department refers to when doing planned projects.
NEW BUSINESS
it was determined the Chairman would ask the County Engineer for
a report on his position on requiring stormwater detention on a
site to account for upstream problems.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
DS