Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 03 87 PC MinutesFebruary 3, 1987 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. David Bowerman; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Stark. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of January 6 and January 13, 1987 were approved as submitted. Teledyne Chemical Storage Building Site Plan Waiver - Proposal to locate a 2,000 square foot building for the storage of chemicals which are presently unsheltered on the site. The proposed building will be located in a field behind the main plant. 21.87 acres, zoned LI, Light Industrial. Property is located on the east side of Rt. 743, just north of Rt. 606. Tax Map 32, Parcel 66. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from January 28, 1987. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The primary issue in this review was related to the recommendation of the Fire Official that an additional containment facility, to contain the water that would run off should the sprinkler system be activated, be constructed. The staff report stated the following: "On January 28th, the applicant and his architect met with the Fire Officer, the County Engineer, and Planning staff. The applicant has agreed to staff's recommendation for the installation of a 2,000 gallon underground storage tank .... The construction of the tank will be what is determined as compatible with the substance to be stored. Installation of the tank will be in accordance with the BOCA Basic Fire Prevention Code. ...The County Engineer is satisfied with the performance standard report submitted by Mr. Sam Darnell, Certified Architect." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. There was some question as to why condition 2. (No conditions are required prior to issuance of the building permit) was included. Ms. Patterson explained that since the two conditions recommended to be complete prior to the issuance of a building permit had already been met, she had included this condition to alert the agency coordinator that no approvals were necessary before the building permit is issued. Ms. Patterson stated the condition could be deleted if the Commission so desired. It was decided condition 2. would be deleted. The applicant was represented by Mr. Sam Darnell who stated that the applicant was in agreement with the staff report. -So February 3, 1987 Page 2 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that the Teledyne Chemical Storage Building Site Plan Waiver be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer inspection of existing storm drain system after excavation and prior to backfilling; 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval; b. Final County Engineer and Watershed Management Official approval; C. Submittal of revised plan showing location of 2,000 gallon underground storage tank for containment of fire suppression water. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-86-62 Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited Partnership - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a commercial kennel - indoor only (24.2.2.11) on 1.041 acre of land zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the northeast side of Berkmar Drive, approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the U.S. 29 south -bound lane. Tax Map 61U-02, Parcel 4. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Deferred from December 2, 1986. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained that the applicant was requesting the permit on behalf of Mr. Michael Cronk, who would be operating the kennel on the site. Of primary concern in this review were issues of noise levels and the intensity of the proposal. The report included the following statements: "This proposal was deferred by the Planning Commission on December 2, 1986, until a certified acoustical engineer's report could be obtained on the construction and soundproofing measures proposed for the kennel. Since that time, the applicant has agreed to reduce the number of runs in the kennel to 86 total. A certified engineer's report has been submitted by the applicant which indicates that with the construction of the kennel as proposed the sound even at the nearest residential boundary would be either 26dBA (with gypsum board and acoustical ceiling construction) or 30 dBA (with acoustical ceiling only). This is assuming a noise level based on the boarding of 100 dogs." Mr. Benish added that it had been determined that a maximum of 132 dogs could be at the kennel and the noise levels would increase 5 decibels, i.e. 26dBA would become 31 dBA and 30 dBA would become 35 dBA. The staff report concluded: "The staff has reviewed this petition for con- sistency with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the kennel would not be a substantial detriment to other properties in the area. The noise level at the nearest residential properties will be below the required 40dBA limit." The Chairman invited applicant comment. February 3, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Andrew Boninti was present to represent the applicant. Also present was Mr. Caleb Stowe, the property owner; Mr. Stan Benstead, construction w engineer; Mr. Mike Cronk, who will be operating the facility; Mr. Wildermuth, acoustical engineer; and Mr. Bob McKee, who designed the site plan. Mr. Boninti pointed out that several letters have been received from property owners in the Berkeley Subdivision who are in favor of the proposal. He offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Barry Dofflemyer, owner of Wakefield Kennels, addressed the Commission. He was concerned about the density of the proposal and he also felt the acoustical engineer's report did not explain adequately how the figures were derived. He felt the limit which had been imposed on his facility in 1978 had set a precedent for this type of use. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Wildermuth. Mr. Wildermuth explained that his calculations were based on measured data taken from several kennels. He added, "The calculations of the expected noise level at the site were based on a composite calculation of a 'noise insulation factor' of the entire building, assuming that the noise level would be 105 dBA." He pointed out that 105 dBA would be a worse case situation and likely would never be achieved. He also pointed out that his calculations had not taken into consideration the fact that there will be office area in the front of the kennel area which will act as a barrier and further reduce the noise. He explained that he had not shown detailed calculations because they are somwehat meticulous. In response to Mr. Michel's question regarding density, Mr. Wildermuth stated, "With this type of noise, density doesn't really have any bearing on it because the dogs do not bark at the same time." Mr. Dofflemyer again addressed the Commission and strongly disagreed, based on his experience, that dogs do not bark at the same time. The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer. Mr. Armm felt the acoustical engineer's report "made sense" and that the noise reduction factors used were in agreement with what he had learned in limited research on the subject. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Benish if any of staff's proposed conditions addressed the issue of what would happen if the decibel level were exceeded. Mr. Benish explained that condition No. 2 (Compliance with 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance) requires that the facility stay within the specified decibel level. Mr. Horne added that if complaints were received, and the facility was found to be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, the owner would have to do whatever is necessary to come into compliance. It was determined an outside consultant would probably have to be hired to measure noise levels since the County staff presently has no one who is qualified to make this determination. <3 February 3, 1.987 Page 4 Ms. Diehl asked if staff had considered limiting the number of animals and not just the number of runs. Mr. Benish stated this had been considered but it would be very difficult to police. Ms. Diehl was concerned because the site plan did not show any restrictions either. Mr. Benish explained that the applicant's most recent revision of the plan shows 40 runs that are 3x4 and could accommodate only one dog, and based on this plan the total number of dogs would be 122. He stated that the approval could be conditioned on this most recent plan. It was determined staff's research had not been able to uncover any specific information as to minimum space required for each animal, other than that the dog should not take up more than 30% of the pen. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission had set any kind of precedent with previous similar approvals (e.g. Wakefield Kennels which was restricted to 75 runs and 8,000 square feet). Mr. Payne stated he could not recall the basis for that restriction. He added, "The real question is whether a limitation that you might impose would reasonably serve any proper objective. If the 75-unit restriction in a given case was appropriate because, based on the evidence before you then, it was the most reasonable way to limit production of noise in that case, it would have some precedential effect to the extent in that it probably wouldn't be appropriate to put some other number, either larger or smaller, unless there was some other change in the facts." He could not recall if there had been any relationship between the number and the noise issue. Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission should review these proposals on a case -by -case basis and determine if they meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Horne added that the controlling factor in most cases is the noise level, which will clearly change depending on the location of the nearest residence, the construction of the building, the number of dogs, the terrain, etc. Mr. Payne pointed out that the number of dogs allowed could be related to factors other than noise, such as sanitation, health of the animals, etc. Mr. Keeler added that in the case of Wakefield Kennels, it had preceded the performance standards and 75 was the number of runs that Mr. Dofflemyer had requested. He recalled that the Berkmar Drive facility had had to comply with the limitation on the number of runs and the performance standards. He stated that he did not think that past limitations on runs had been based solely on noise considerations. Regarding a letter received from Dr. Richard Freedman, dated January 16, 1987, in which Dr. Freedman asked that the same restrictions be applied to this proposal as were applied to his special permit for a veterinary hospital in this same area, Mr. Keeler explained that Dr. Freedman's facility, a veterinary hospital, was different than a boarding kennel and also that his property had been zoned C-1 and not HC, and C-1 does not permit boarding kennels. February 3, 1987 Page 5 cm Mr. Cogan stated that if the applicant has demonstrated that he can meet the terms of the Ordinance and the Supplementary Regulations, then the use complies. The Commission invited comments from Mr. Cronk who will be operating the kennel. Mr. Cronk addressed the Commission and stressed that it was his intention to provide a first-class operation which would be an "attribute" to the County. He called the Commission's attention to the letters which were received attesting to his professionalism and reputation. Mr. Wilkerson stated he had visited Mr. Cronk's current facility on Fifth Street and had found it to be clean, well -maintained, and not excessively noisy. Mr. Bowerman stated the applicant had demonstrated that the proposal meets the requirements of Section 5.1.11 and moved that SP-86-62 for Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions. 1. Kennel shall be limited to 86 indoor runs, and layout labeled Exhibit A presented to Planning Commission February 3, 1987, and titled Berkmar Park Pet Motel, dated 1-20-87. 2. Compliance with 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Construction of the kennel shall be in strict accord with the proposed construction and soundproofing measures outlined in the acoustical engineer's report by Wildermuth and Associates, dated December 13, 1986. Soundproofing measure shall include gypsum board and acoustical ceiling construction, and all recommendations outlined in Section 8 of the report shall be incorporated into the construction of the building. Should windows be used in the building, all windows shall be sealed and non -operable. 4. This permit shall be limited to the proposed structure "A" on the Berkmar Park Site Plan by Robert McKee and Associates, dated November 2, 1986. 5. No outdoor runs or other confinements. 6. This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder is issued for a commercial kennel operated by Michael Cronk and is not transferable. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Gould stated he could not support the motion because he felt a special permit in this situation was inappropriate. The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Gould and Michel casting the dissenting votes. 1_ February 3, 1.987 Page 6 Berkmar Park Site Plan - Proposal to locate two (2), one-story buildings for office use (and commercial kennel). A total of 86 parking spaces are to be provided. The total area of the site is 2.49 acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the east side of Berkmar Drive (Route 1403) adjacent to the Village Office Limited Partnership property. Tax Map 61U-02, Parcels 2, 3, and 4. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Deferred from December 2, 1986. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr. McKee who offered no additional comments. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Because the special permit for the commercial kennel which had just been approved (4:2) was to occupy ore of the buildings in this proposal, Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to comment on the effect, if any, the two dissenting votes would have on this application. Mr. Payne responded, "If you're asking would a vote in favor of approval of this site plan constitute an abandonment of a dissenter's position that the special permit not be granted, no, in my opinion, that would not be the case. It would not be inconsistent for a dissenter on the special permit to vote to approve this." Mr. Gould noted that the Commission should be mindful of the fact that on -street parking is already occurring on Berkmar Drive and this may present a problem as this area continues to develop. Mr. McKee presented some tabulations on proposed uses for the remaining building, along with parking requirements. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Berkmar Park Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and calcu- lations; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of Berkmar Drive street and drainage improvement design and calculations, and commercial entrance; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final sewer and water plans; e. Albemarle County Fire Officer final approval of site plan; f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; g. Note added to site plan, "Actual occupancy to be limited by available parking." 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. County Engineer approval of $17,103 payment to the County in lieu of stormwater detention facilities. February 3, 1987 Page 7 Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Airport Acres Lot 14 (Jarvis) Final Plat - Proposal to divide 2.94 acres into 2 lots, one of which is presently improved with a single family dwelling. The applicant requests a waiver of Section 18-36F, to allow the new lot to be served by a new driveway and allow the other lot to continue using the existing driveway. Property is located in Airport Acres Subdivision, on the north side of Airport Acres Road, off the west side of Rt. 29 north of Airport Road. Tax Map 32A, Parcel B-14. Zoned R-1, Residential. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated that two issues were to be resolved by the Commission: (1) Availability of Public Utilities - "The Commission must determine if connection to one or both public utilities is reasonably accessible; and (2) Access - Waiver of Section 18-36F to allow the new lot to be served by a new driveway and allow the other lot to continue using the existing driveway. Regarding the access issue, the Highway Department recommended "that the entrance be located where sight distance can be obtained or that as much trimming of vegetation that can be accomplished be done to improve the sight distance." The Highway Department also commented that "there is a location along the frontage of this site where a driveway could be located that would have adequate sight distance, and this could be used as a joint entrance." The access issue was further complicated by the well location, since the most likely location would make it more difficult to utilize a joint driveway. The applicant's reasons for requesting a waiver were as follows: (a) A large portion of the front yard would be taken up by a road that would connect the two driveways; (b) All landscape, including large trees,would have to be removed in order to locate a joint driveway; (c) Car lights from the joint driveway would shine directly into the front of the house; (d) The location proposed for the joint entrance would create an awkward traffic pattern since it would create a sharp turn into the existing driveway; (e) It would be difficult to remove the present driveway because of the design of the house. The staff report included the following comments: "(1) The parcel has 118 feet of frontage, and the proposed entrances will be approximately 70 feet apart; (2) Staff agreed with applicant's reasons a, b and c except that they did not agree that all landscaping would have to be removed for a joint entrance; (3) In staff's opinion, public utilities are remote, and not reasonably accessible to this property; (4) Due to the difficulty of utilizing a joint entrance with private utilities, this proposal may be premature; and (5) The existing development and proposed lot arrangement better lends itself to two separate entrances." The staff report concluded: "If the Commission determines this subdivision proposal is not premature due to the utility issue, Planning staff recommends approval of this waiver of Section 18-36f" and approval of the proposal subject to conditions. There was some discussion as to whether or not Lot 14B had adequate frontage. Ms. Patterson explained: "This lot, for frontage purposes, is considered like a lot at the end of a cul-de-sac and we do not require that they extend a road to serve no purpose to obtain frontage." She stated that Section 18-30 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows reduction of frontage in such cases. 3& February 3, 1987 Page 8 Mr. Cogan asked why this would be considered a cul-de-sac. Ms. Patterson explained: "Because it's a road that just ends at this lot." She added: "For the purposes of this subdivision the frontage of this proposed lot, 14B, is a 30-foot access easement across the front of lot 14A. For the purposes of frontage, this access easement serves as frontage. The road itself is just like a cul-de-sac in that it terminates once it gets to this lot; there is no reason for it to be extended. It serves no other lots." Mr. Payne added: "The purpose of the frontage requirement is to make a reasonable shape of the lot along the road. The point is if the road is going to serve only that lot, it's going to terminate, essentially, at the lot line anyway, as does the cul-de-sac. ... I think the staff's analysis here is sound." Ms. Patterson explained that letters had been received from both the seller of the adjacent lot (lot 13), who was concerned about the frontage question, and from the contract purchaser of lot 13 who was concerned that this subdivision would decrease the value of lot 13. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Jane Jarvis addressed the Commission. She read a statement which explained the reason for the request was to build a new home for her family on their existing lot. She pointed out that she had attempted to purchase other lots in Airport Acres but had not been successful. She also pointed out that the objections which have been raised have been very recent though she had made her neighbors aware of her intentions as early as September, 1985. Ms. Jarvis also explained that a personal matter involving her health was related to this proposal. She did not elaborate. Ms. Jarvis confirmed that it was her intention to move into the new house and sell the dwelling which already exists on the property. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Carroll Good, contract purchaser of lot 13, addressed the Commission. He expressed some confusion about the use of the term "cul-de-sac" for the driveway, and asked if that meant it would be open to the public. He stated that he would not have made an offer on lot 13 if he had known that lot 14 was to be subdivided since he felt this would decrease the value of lot 13. Ms. Katherine Eply, current owner of lot 13, addressed the Commission. She still felt that lot 14B could not meet frontage requirements. She also expressed confusion about the use of the term "cul-de-sac." She also objected to an additional driveway being constructed. Mr. Cogan again asked Mr. Payne to explain the "cul-de-sac" question. Mr. Payne responded: "The general rule is that you are required to have a certain length of frontage for each lot on the road that serves the lot. In the case of a cul-de-sac, which is to say 'a dead-end access road', that frontage can be reduced. The reason for ... the frontage on the road is related to the design of the lot. When you have a cul-de-sac, .the lot will front less on the cul-de-sac than it would on a straight portion of the road. Anytime you have a dead-end A17 February 3, 1987 Page 9 access, it's going to be, by literal and other definitions, a cul-de-sac." The Commission expressed confusion as to why this was considered a dead-end because the state road "keeps on going." Mr. Payne explained, "The state road doesn't have anything to do with it. The driveway is what they're talking about." Mr. Bowerman asked why this was considered a cul-de-sac as opposed to a simple driveway. Mr. Payne replied, "That's what it is." Mr. Bowerman asked why this argument could not be used in any case where less than 150 feet of frontage is desired, "you put in a driveway and say 'well, it's a cul-de-sac with a dead-end." Mr. Payne responded, "No. Airport Acres Road, or whatever (that road) is called, is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about a two -lot subdivision served by a private road. The private road in this case, subject to your approval of the waiver, would serve only that lot." He confirmed that it is a driveway, but added, "But that doesn't mean that it isn't a private road." Mr. Bowerman still expressed a lack of understanding as to why every driveway would not then be called a private road. Mr. Payne responded, "It is a private road. ... Every driveway you have which is located on more than one lot is a private road under the terms of the Subdivision Ordinance." Mr. Carl Bruner, owner of the lot opposite Lot 14, addressed the Commission. He seemed uncertain about the proposed location of the driveway and also was confused as to exactly what vegetation would have to be removed from his property to obtain sight distance. The Chairman allowed Mr. Jarvis to answer Mr. Bruner's questions. Mr. Jarvis explained that both bushes referred to by Mr. Bruner would have to be removed. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he could not agree with any of the applicant's reasons for requesting a waiver since he felt this was a problem that was being created, and not one which was beyond the control of the applicant. Mr. Keeler explained that the frontage requirements are indirectly related to the waiver request in that frontage in this district is 100 feet on a public road so driveways should not be closer than every 100 feet. He pointed out that, in this case, if a waiver is approved, there will be two driveways within 120 feet. Both Mr. Payne and Mr. Keeler confirmed that this proposal would meet the requirements of the Ordinance in terms of frontage if there was a joint access easement. Mr. Payne pointed out that this was the source of the confusion, i.e. there are two accesses here. Mr. Bowerman felt the proposal could be redrawn in such a way as to make a better subdivision which would meet the requirements of the ordinance and still accommodate the applicant. Both Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cogan stated they could not support the waiver though they agreed that a subdivision of the property could meet the requirements of the Ordinance. .� y February 3, 1987 Page 10 Regarding Mr. Bruner's concern about clearing of vegetation on his land, Mr. Payne stated, "There's obviously question about the status of the right to clear on his land. ... I think it would be appropriate if you are going to permit the division involving further use of an entrance, that there should be a clearing easement." Ms. Patterson pointed out that the applicant did have written approval from Mr. Bruner. Mr. Payne added, "The problem is that, it seems to me, if you have a driveway it is obviously a permanent facility. Assume that these bushes are moved and everything is fine, but ten years from now the growth grows up again. What the Highway Department does, ideally, is that it gets a clearing easement so that it can go through periodically and clear things out and keep it clear. What I'm saying is, even if they are moved today, ten years from now there may be growth that needs to be cleared again and the neighbor at that time may not be as sympathetic. That's why I think an easement is appropriate; it is of record and its is binding on the successors in title and that way there's no ambiguity about what is permitted." The Commission asked Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, to comment on the sight distance issue. Mr. Echols explained that if a joint entrance is constructed in the center of the property, sight distance can be obtained within the Highway Department right-of-way. Mr. Payne suggested that the following be added to condition l.b: "...required sight distance at the proposed joint entrance and County Attorney approval of sight easement to insure continuing existance of minimum required sight distance, if necessary." Ms. Patterson asked that condition l.d. be added as follows: "County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement." Mr. Bowerman moved that the Airport Acres Lot 14 (Jarvis) 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. Issuance of an erosion control permit, if required; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the required sight distance at the proposed joint entrance and County Attorney approval of sight easement to insure continuing existance of minimum required sight distance, if a sight easement is necessary; C. Planning staff approval of technical notes to plat. d. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement. (Note: l.e. is added later in the meeting.) Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl expressed concern that a realignment of the driveway would necessitate the changing of the septic and well locations and should require a reassessment by the Health Department. February 3, 1987 Page 11 It was decided condition I.e. would be added as follows: I.e. Health Department approval of revised plat. Both Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Gould accepted this additional condition as part of the motion for approval. The motion for approval passed unanimously. The meeting recessed from 9:20 to 9:30. Stevenson Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 7.3 acres into 4 lots ranging from 1.0 to 2.8 acres, for an average 1.8 acre lot size. Two joint entrances are proposed to serve these four lots. Property is located on the east side of Rt. 659 (SPCA Road), approximately 0.3 mile from Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Zoned R-6, Residential. Tax Map 45, Parcel 29. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr. Stevenson who explained the purpose of the proposal was to have the flexibility to sell the lots, though "in all probability (the property) will probably be developed later to the more intense use for which it is zoned because it fits in with the adjoining property behind it." He confirmed he had no objections to staff's proposed conditions of approval. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Stevenson Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of joint entrance locations; b. Planning staff approval of technical notes on final plat; C. County Attorney approval of joint entrance agreements and easements; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of future easement locations. 2. Joint access easements shall serve not more than one dwelling unit per lot. 3. Proposed rights -of -way to be dedicated to public use upon request of the County. 4. Administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. 7'/ a February 3, 1987 Page 12 Mr. Michel asked Mr. Horne if it was staff's feeling that the "easement" should be closed if the Rio/Hilton Connector Road is ever built. Mr. Horne responded affirmatively. Mr. Michel asked if that should be added as a condition. Mr. Horne pointed out that that road would not actually front this property, but rather the property behind it. He added, "We are sort of contemplating, as Mr. Stevenson said, there may be a joint development proposal at some point with these parcels and the parcels behind them which would make that connection possible. That's the likely eventuality; but we certainly wouldn't oppose that condition though you would be imposing, essentially, a condition off the site." Mr. Michel stated he to SPCA Road, which Connector Road is go is going to become 1 feared (1) that there could be a through road s undesirable; or (2) that the Rio/Hilton ng to be tampered with in such a way that it ss feasible. Mr. Payne indicated he was not sure he understood Mr. Michel's concern. He explained, "This is merely a reservation at this point, and, if I understood the condition correctly, it is not even to be dedicated unless and until the County requires it to be done. That being the case, there is no road there until the County says so. If I am correct, then I think there does not7FSdbe further language to address your concern." Mr. Horne confirmed Mr. Payne's understanding of the condition. He added, "The road will not even be established on these parcels currently; it is only there to take care of the second best solution for these parcels ... when and if they are more intensively developed we only get one way of here. But then also the alignment would be to take care of some traffic from the back parcels if those are developed intensively and we still don't have the Rio/Hilton Connector Road. But then, again if we have that road and you get a proposal, this does not obligate you in any way to do anything but let them out the other way." The motion for approval of the Stevenson Final Plat passed unanimously. Woodlane Apartments Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 5,800 square foot apartment building containing fourteen (14), two -bedroom apartments on a 1.43 acre site. The site will be served by 28 parking spaces. Access to the site will be from Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road). The property is located between Hill Top Grocery and an existing cemetery, approximately 0.15 mile northeast of Albemarle High School. Tax Map 61, parcel 23A. Zoned R-10, Reisdential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. A major item of discussion of this proposal was stormwater detention. The staff report stated the following: " The total area of impervious surface on this site after development will be 19,422 square feet; therefore, this proposal is not required to have any stormwater detention facilities. Stormwater detention is required when the total area of impervious surface is 20,000 square feet or greater. The County Engineer has raised concern that, 'due to the concentrated development' (proposed on site), stormwater detention may need to be provided. Runoff Z// February 3, 1987 Page 13 from this development could have a significant effect on the downstream drainage facilities. Staff recommends that the County Engineer approve ,%M' drainage calculations demonstrating that the downstream drainage facilities to Route 29 are adequate to convey the additional runoff generated by this site. Should downstream drainage facilities be inadequate to convey the additional runoff, stormwater detention facilities must then be provided for this site." Staff recommended approval of the proposal, subject to conditions. Ms. Diehl asked if condition l.a. (County Engineer approval of site plan, grading and drainage design) allowed the County Engineer the necessary authority to require stormwater detention facilities. It was determined Mr.Payne would add additional language to this condition to address Ms. Diehl's concern. Mr. Payne stated it was his understanding that the County Engineer feels there are two alternatives: (1) That the applicant show that the drainage will not overload the stream facilities; or if the applicant cannot show that, then (2) the applicant will have to redesign the drainage accordingly. He stated he felt the conditions contemplated this situation though they should be "toned up" somewhat. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Craig van der Linde addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant's only concern related to the pathway on the front of the property which would run from Hilltop Grocery, where a fence will be erected, to the cemetery, where it will dead-end. He questioned the usefulness of such a pathway. Regarding drainage, he stated the applicant has been working with Sachem Village, "where there is a drop inlet at the bottom which has been sized for Woodlane apartments, in a completed state, (which leads) to their detention pond and piping." Regarding the pathway issue, Mr. Benish stated elt that with 14 two -bedroom apartments there would be pedestrian traffic between Hilltop Grocery and the high school. Mr. Benish added that he understood Mr. van der Linde's point since there is a portion of the pathway that does not appear to be critical and since it would not be able to tie in with anything because of the cemetery. It was determined this issue would be left up to staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer. Mr. Armm responded, "We do recognize that the impervious area falls just short of the 20,000 square foot requirement for detention. But what does, in fact, happen is there is an increased runoff going onto Sachem Village. We have not been supplied, at this point, with the calculations for Sachem Village to show whether or not that system can handle it. What we're really worried about is the future potential civil matter between the two properties... does the upstream property owner, Woodlane Apartments, have the right to increase flow on the downstream property in excess of what currently is happening now during storms, regardless of how the detention basin ordinance reads." ;11A February 3, 1.987 Page 14 Mr. Cogan stated it was his understanding that just because a property was under 20,000 square feet did not mean that detention could not be required. Mr. Payne confirmed that was correct. He added that it was a two-step process: "(1) If it falls under the Stormwa.ter Detention sections of the Ordinance then you have sort of a 'per se' rule --You will detain it unless the Commission allows something else. That doesn't mean that if the conditions warrant, the County Engineer is required to shut his eyes and allow an improper drainage design to go on. If Mr. Armm is concerned about the drainage, then it should be addressed; the Ordinance does contemplate that. (2) In terms of drainage going off onto Sachem Village, I don't think the real concern is so much whether Sachem Village ends up suing Woodlane Apartments as whether the drainage is adequately controlled. Your concern, and Mr. Armm's concern, is that the drainage be handled in an orderly fashion. That is really what this kind of site plan is about, so I think that is perfectly an appropriate thing to deal with here." Mr. Benish added that staff has received a letter from Sachem Associates which acknowledges that they are aware of Woodlane Apartment's proposed design to run their drainage "on site into their inlet." To address the issues, Mr. Payne suggested that condition l.b. be deleted and condition l.a. be amended as follows: "County Engineer approval of site plan, grading and drainage design, including facilities to detain stormwater if determined by the County Engineer to be necessary to insure adequacy of downstream drainage facilities." Mr. Michel moved that the Woodlane Apartments Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of site plan, grading and drainage design, including facilities to detain stormwater if determined by the County Engineer to be necessary to insure adequacy of downstream drainage facilities; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of right turn lane and commercial entrance; d. Fire Officer final approval of site plan; e. Planning staff approval of plat showing the relocation of right-of-way and location of joint access easement; f. County Attorney approval of joint access easement. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. R February 3, 1987 Page 15 Meriwether Lewis Elementary School Site Plan - Proposal to construct a ±57,200 square foot building with initial capacity for 671 persons expandable to ittw 775 persons (students and faculty). Acreage of the site is 17.68 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 58, parcels 69, 69A, 69C, 69H, and 69B, is located at the intersection of Rt. 678 and 676 across from Ivy Oaks Subdivision. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and also presented a set of amended conditions of approval. The main item of discussion was the issue of access to the site. The report stated that the Highway Department and staff were recommending one entrance while the school administration was proposing two entrances. The report stated: "In order to prevent congestion and conflict in public streets, County policy has been to limit access to a project to the minimum number of entrances necessary to provide safe and convenient access. The school administration proposes two accesses to the site to separate school bus and passenger vehicle traffic. Staff agrees that for safety reasons school bus and auto traffic should be separated, however, staff opinion is that traffic should be separated on -site as opposed to on the public road. In staff opinion one access would provide better service to the school while reducing problems to Rt. 676. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the County Engineer, and the Planning Staff recommend that this project be served by a single entrance. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve two entrances both entrances should be served by right and left turn lanes." Mr. Keeler stated that the problem with two entrances onto Rt. 676 is "basically one of competition between the three types of traffic --regular work traffic, parents dropping off students and then exiting the site, and school buses trying to enter the site." Mr. Keeler explained the applicant's reasons for favoring two entrances: --To separate bus and public traffic. (Staff felt this could be done safer on -site than off -site.) --To reduce the possibility of "foreign" traffic in the bus loading area. (Staff felt this could be addressed through the use of signs.) --One entrance would necessitate a road around the kindergarten play area and to avoid this would require a relocation of the building. Applicant felt the school could not be located further back on the site due to contour considerations. (Staff disagreed and felt that the building could be shifted, at a lower cost.) It was later determined that the applicant was opposed because this would result in the elevation of the building being considerably lower and it would actually be below the level of the road. Mr. Keeler summarized staff's feelings as to the advantages and disadvantages of one entrance as follows: Advantages-- All traffic circulation would occur on site reducing off -site traffic conflicts; -- Provide for improved emergency access and circulation; -- Reduce the amount of improvements required to Rt. 676. Disadvantages-- Requires more roadway on site; -- Will require a redesign of the site plan and a construction delay; -T7 February 3, 1987 Page 16 -- Will require that the school be located at a lower elevation which is unacceptable to school officials; -- There will be no entrance at the front of the school. Mr. Keeler stated, finally, that if the Commission should approve two entrances and require two left turn lanes, traffic counts should be taken to determine if two left turn lanes are warrented. He explained that it is the left turn lane for the public that is in question, since there is no dispute that a left turn lane is needed for bus traffic. Regarding the issue of sewage disposal, Mr. Keeler noted that condition had been amended because the school officials have stated that enrollment should never exceed 550 students, so the existing drainfield will be adequate for both the initial construction and possible future expansion. He explained that the original Health Department comments had been based on State guidelines of 25 students per classroom, but County policy attempts to keep class enrollment at a maximum of 20 students. He stated that Health Department approval has been received for 631 students (plus employees). It was suggested that the condition (l.i.) limit the project to 650 persons as stated in the Health Official's comments. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about vehicle trips, Mr. Keeler explained that it has been determined that 25% of the students do not ride the school buses. Mr. Keeler also stated that one entrance vs. two entrances would result in $20,000 less in needed improvements to Rt. 676 if one entrance is used. He added, however, that on -site costs would be increased, including any redesign that would be necessary. He pointed out that the Highway Department is not yet certain of what additional right-of-way acquisitions will be necessary to accommodate this development. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Dr. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools, introduced Mr. Ken Motley, architect for the project. Mr. Motley addressed the Commission. He explained that all the features of the property are taken into consideration before a building such as this is designed. The design of the building is a result of all these features, and the building is not designed first and then the property made to fit the design. He stressed that safety of the students is foremost in designing a school project. His extensive experience has shown that the bus traffic should be seperated from the everyday traffic. He also stated that it is much more desirable that the buses pull in side -by -side and not front -to -back along a curb. He stressed that his experience has proven that two acceseesto apiece of property are much safer than one. He pointed out that if for some reason the entrance to the property should be blocked, by an accident for example, if there is only one entrance, then there would be no access to the site for emergency vehicles nor could the site be evacuated if necessary. He felt that if the usual State guidelines for entrances could be met (i.e. sight distance, turn lanes, etc.) then there was no reason two entrances could not be used. �5 February 3, 1987 Page 17 He felt that the applicant's cooperation with the County staff during the last several months has resulted in a better plan than was originally proposed. Mr. Richard Rife another architect for the project, addressed the Commission. He felt the two entrances would "police" themselves and did not anticipate the types of problems with confusion that staff was concerned about. He pointed out that a visitor to the school would intuitively drive to the front of the school. He also felt that directional signs would address the concern. He also did not feel that bus "stacking" would be a problem. He also felt that if both cars and buses used the same entrance, there would be competition between the two, with cars trying to beat the buses. He disagreed that the building could be relocated on the site at less cost. (Staff felt the cost would be reduced because less grading would be required.) He stated that the architects and engineers working on the project feel that the proposed location of the building is the optimum for the site, taking into consideration grading, soil types and contour. (Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff was suggesting that the building be relocated at lower elevation while Mr. Wright's comments were releated to relocating the building in such a way as to maintain the desired elevation. Mr. Wright confirmed this was true.) Mr. Wright stated that maintaining the desired elevation with a relocation of the building would require that additional property be obtained in order to locate the septic fields. He acknowledged that the building could be lowered but that it would then put the roof of the building below eye level as viewed from the road, and "the owner finds that unacceptable." Mr. Wright pointed out that this is a public building and he did not think the community would accept staff's suggestion. Mr. Cogan noted that the shape of the building was somewhat unusual. Mr. Wright explained that the design is unique to the site and was drawn in such a way as to follow the topography of the land and at the same time meet the program needs of the school. Mr. Wright added that this was a very efficient design and that there is no wasted space. It was determined that a two-story design had been considered but was found not to be a viable possibility. It was determined the design presented by the applicant was within the funds budgeted for the project. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department. Mr. Echols stated he had nothing to add to the staff report and he added that his department and the planning staff are in agreement on the access issue. He stated that the Highway Department is primarily concerned with the public roadway and has very little to do with the on -site concerns. He confirmed it was the Highway Department's position that one entrance would create less traffic problems on Rt. 676, though he acknowledged that using only one entrance would create more problems on site. He pointed out that the speed at which cars would be travelling on site would be much less than on the public road. February 3, 1.987 Page 18 Referring to the dirt road that would have to be improved if only a single entrance is allowed, Mr. Motley asked where the funds would come from to make those improvements since that is not included in the funding for the school. Mr. Keeler explained that staff would recommend that that is not an obligation of the School Board, since it would be for the general public purpose to realign that road. Of the ten buses that serve the school, Mr. Papenfuse pointed out that at least 4 of the buses would be coming from the north. Mr. Papenfuse also pointed out that Mr. Keeler's plan would cause not only the relocation of the playground, but also the loss of one of the septic drainfields. Mr. Keeler acknowledged that allowing only one entrance would require substantial changes to the plan, many of which are not acceptable to the School Board. The Chairman invited Dr. Overstreet to make a final statement. Dr. Overstreet stated it was the School Board's responsibility to insure the safety of the students above all. else and it is felt that end can be accomplished best by reducing the traffic problems on the site by installing two entrances. He acknowledged that the public road is of concern but pointed out that the school is also in the interests of the public welfare. He also pointed out that Mr. Keeler's suggested plan could not be accomplished without a total redesign which will then present a new set of problems, some quite significant. He stated that after hearing all the arguments, he still supported two entrances as proposed. The Chairman again closed the public hearing. Mr. Cogan noted that, except for the safety factor, the Commission must deal with this site plan as it would any other and must disregard the fact that it is a public facility. Mr. Michel stated that though one entrance would be his preference, he was not prepared to totally disregard the request for two entrances. He stated he felt there was an argument for two entrances. Ms. Diehl stated she felt a greater responsibility to all the citizens of the County, and consequently she was not going to support two entrances. Mr. Gould stated he viewed the safety issue as a "draw" since it was such a close issue. He pointed out that the largest capital committment the County has made has been to the school building program and he did not think more money should be spent going through a re -design. He added that he felt the architects and engineers of the project had considered all the issues and he could see no reason to delay the project further. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the opposite. She explained that the position of the County staff regarding the entrance issue had been known for some time and more could have been done to accommodate that position in the plan. R 7 February 3, 1987 Page 19 Mr. Wilkerson indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl. *00-11 Mr. Cogan felt it was more important that the project be done properly and not just expeditiously. Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with Mr. Cogan. He felt the safety issue must be addressed to its fullest both on and off the site and he felt this was an attainable goal. Mr. Cogan agreed. Mr. Bowerman moved that the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations; b. County Engineer approval of the site plan including but not limited to grades of parking areas and internal roads, guardrails, and bus parking; C. Issuance of a runoff control permit; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit. Grading plans to be reviewed by the Watershed Management Official. Compliance with Section 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance will be required. Grading contractor to post bond directly with County Engineer; e. Wells to be abandoned under State Water Control Board permit; f. Health Department, Watershed Management Official, and County Engineer approval of abandonment measures for septic systems; g. Fire Officer preliminary approval including verification of adequacy of fire flow, and handicapped and emergency access provisions; h. Fire Officer and Watershed Management Official approval of plans for installation of underground fuel storage tank; i. Approval limited to building project to house 650 persons; j. Zoning Administrator verification of adequacy of parking; k. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans; 1. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of one commercial entrance and right and left turn lane to serve the entrance. M. Obtain any additional right-of-way dedication and sight distance easements as may be necessary for access; n. Staff approval of revised site plan to include all technical re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance; o. The Director of Planning & Community Development may defer compliance with foregoing conditions to an appropriate phase of construction provided that all foregoing conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Section 31.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the Zoning Administrator from issuance of an certificate of occupancy until improvements directly related to health and safety such as, but not limited to, fire hydrants and safe and convenient access to *ftmw public roads have been installed and are operational. Other improvements may be bonded. b. Fire Officer final approval. February 3, 1987 Page 20 Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Gould stated he would not support the motion because he had not been convinced that one access was safer than two, and because of the delay and additional expense that result from approval with one entrance. Mr. Michel agreed with Mr. Gould. The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Michel and Gould casting the dissenting votes. The Chairman informed the applicant that the Commission's decision could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors if done within ten days. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. DS John Horne, Secretary IPA ME '� l