HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 02 87 PC MinutesJune 2, 1987
�r✓ The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 2, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman;
Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. David
Bowerman; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were:
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 19, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
Turtle Creek Phase VII Revised Site Plan - Proposed amendment to site plan
approved by Planning Commission on May 13, 1986. The proposed amendment
includes the use of a surface detention pond in lieu of an underground
stormwater detention tank. A previously proposed amendment to allow surface
detention was denied by the Planning Commission on January 20, 1987. The
site is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive and the north side of
Northwest Drive, adjacent to Hunter's Creek Apartment Complex. Tax Map
61W, Parcel 22. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Zoned R-15,
Residential.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following
statement:
"The applicant is requesting the change in stormwater detention
facilities due to the prohibitive cost of constructing the
previously proposed underground detention tank. There has
been no other change or complication on the site, or change in the
development proposal that would necessitate a change on the method of
detention."
The report raised the following concerns about the proposal: (1) Location
requires considerable grading on what is now gentle, stabilized slopes;
(2) The pond Iwill be more visible from Commonwealth Drive and
other properties, and will be more difficult to screen; (3) The basin will
be in an area which is more accessible to children in the neighborhood;
and (4) There has been no change in circumstance on the site since the
initial site plan was approved that would necessitate the change in the
method of detention.
Mr. Benish added that staff had received comment from the property
manager at Hunter's Creek who expressed concern about the proposed
basin being more accessible to children from his development and
also that the basin would be a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Benish stated that no regional
basin is available to this area to which the applicant might connect.
—20 7
June 2, 1987 Page 2
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Landess. His comments included
the following:
--The original underground facility was proposed at the insistence
of the former County Engineer.
--The applicant met with Mr. Horne and Mr. Armm concerning this
proposal and understood that this proposal was acceptable.
The applicant is now surprised at the negative tone of the staff
report.
--It is not true that cost is the applicant's main consideration,
but rather the applicant is more concerned about the homeowners
being able to maintain this type of facility and safety factors.
--There has never been this type of facility in Albemarle County.
--Maintenance costs will be substantially higher.
--An underground facility will be of greater danger to children
since it will not be possible to lock the opening. (The cover
must remain loose so that during heavy rains water can "bubble"
over the top.)
--The County Engineer has advised the applicant that the proposal
will "do the job."
Mr. Landess presented photographs showing the proposed location of the
basin.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if consideration had been given to using a steel -
mesh cover for the tank which could be locked yet would still allow
water to bubble over. Mr. Landess acknowledged this was a possibility
though he did not recall this having been considered.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Landess stated he felt the
applicant would be agreeable to providing fencing all the way around the
basin.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Helen Largen, representing the Hunter's Creek Realty Associates,
addressed the Commission. She stated there are currently 140 children
in residence at the Hunter's Creek development and the primary concern
of her associates is the safety of the children. She pointed out that
the basin will be in the "front door" of Hunter's Creek. She stressed
that fences are ineffective in keeping children away from such ponds.
She also had concerns that the basin would become a trash collection
basin for wind-blown debris and that it would become a breeding ground
for mosquitoes. She stated her association was opposed to the change
in the site plan.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Edwards, a representative of the applicant, pointed out that the
pipe area next to this proposed pond (between the pond and Hunter's Creek)
will hold far more water in a 10-year storm than will this basin.
1;W4(
June 2, 1987 Page 3
Mr. Edwards stated there would be approximately 10-15 feet of water in
the pipe area (on the Hunter's Creek property) during a 10-year storm.
The Commission found this surprising though Mr. Edwards stated it was
not unusual for this type of design, i.e. a large pipe going under
a roadway into a gulley.
Mr. Cogan stated that if a piece of property is going to be developed
with the maximum coverage it almost distates an underground facility.
He recalled, uncertainly, that Mr. Elrod had recommended an underground
facility because of the maximized use of the property for the building and
parking coverage. He stated that the applicant "knew what he was
doing" when he submitted the original site plan. He stated he would
have difficulty changing the requirement at this time.
Mr. Stark indicated he shared the concerns about children's safety
since he felt it would take "a ten -foot high fence with barbed wire
across the top" before it would be effective.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to comment on how they would view this
proposal if it were presented today, with no approval already given.
Mr. Benish replied that he felt underground detention would have been
encouraged, though it might have been with the use of oversized storm
drain pipes. He stated he did not think surface detention would
have been recommended.
Since the County has had no experience with underground tanks, Mr.
Michel stated he was a little nervous about such a facility.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that by the time staff received this request,
all the drainage pipe was already in place and it was too late for
an alternate design using oversized pipes.
Mr. Stark asked if Mr. Keeler was aware of the discussion which had
taken place between the County Engineer and Mr. Horne at the meeting
referred to by Mr. Landess. Mr. Keeler stated only that "Mr. Horne
reviews and approves these reports before they come to the
Planning Commission." Mr. Benish stated he had discussed this
issue with Mr. Horne who recalled that it was suggested that it
was a "feasible" location. Mr. Benish pointed out that the
Director has no authority to say that a location is approvable.
Mr. Cogan felt that allowing an above -ground basin would result in
an over -intensification of the site.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt staff's concerns were legitimate ones.
He also questioned the effectiveness of fencing for such a large mass
of water.
Mr. Michel stated he was concerned about the maintenance aspect of
an underground tank since it would be the responsibility of the
homeowners.
Mr. Cogan asked the County Engineer, Mr. Armm, to comment on the
maintenance question.
June 2, 1987 Page 4
Mr. Armm explained the tank would be 36 ft. x 70 ft. x 12 ft. high
with an access manhole in one corner. He stated further that
the facility should be checked after each heavy rainfall and
routinely checked quarterly. In response to Mr. Michel's question,
Mr. Armm stated that though he would approve an underground
facility if designed properly, he would prefer to see an underground
piping design.
Mr. Michel still expressed concern about homeowners being able to
deal with the maintenance of such a facility and stated he would
have a problem "forcing this (requirement)." He was in favor of
above -ground detention.
Mr. Armm explained that given the considerable size of the facility,
it would be possible for someone to actually climb inside to clean
it. Mr. Armor added that he did not feel this type of tank would
have any greater need for maintenance than an open detention basin.
Mr. Cogan did not view maintenance as any more of a problem than with
a surface facility. Mr. Wilkerson agreed.
Mr. Stark moved that the Turtle Creek Phase VII Revised Site Plan be
denied.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Mr. Michel
casting the dissenting vote.
SP-87-36 Gayle and Walter Jaeger - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(34) of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend SP-84-01 to allow for additional
employees. Property, described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 52, is located on
St. Rt. 641 at Burnley. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
modified conditions of SP-84-01.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Jaeger addressed the Commission and presented a petition with signatures
of surrounding property owners who were in favor of the proposal.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following residents of the Burnley neighborhood addressed the
Commission to express their support for the proposal: Mr. Jeffrey Pitts;
Mr. Dave Damon.
There being no further public comment the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-36 for Gayle and Walter Jaeger be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
9
June 2, 1987
Page 5
cm
1. Any renovations of the existing structure shall have County Building
Official approval;
2. Production be limited to custom-made items, i.e., no assembly line
production to be permitted;
3. Employment to be limited to a maximum of ten (10) persons not including
applicants. Any additional employment will require an additional
special use permit;
4. Signing be limited to one free-standing sign, not to exceed six (6)
square feet;
5. All woodworking equipment shall be located within an enclosed area;
6. Sales be limited to only products of the applicants;
7. Special use permit is issued to the applicants only and is nontrans-
ferrable;
8. Staff approval of site plan.
9. Completion of entrance improvements in accordance with Virginia
Department of Transportation letter of May 6, 1987 prior to issuance
of any building permit.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on June 17, 1987.
SP-87-24 Sharon Jones - Request in accordance with Section 18.2.2(7) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a day care center on part of a 0.743 acre parcel,
zoned R-15 Residential. Property, located on Route 656 (Georgetown Road)
adjacent to Old Dominion Day School. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The primary concern of the application
was additional traffic on Georgetown Road. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the
proposal would increase the traffic from this entrance onto Georgetown
Road. However, he explained that currently only Georgetown Court, Barclay
Place, and the daycare facility and offices will now be using this access
to Georgetown Road since several of the other properties in the original
tract have now "gone out another direction." He stated that while originally
375 units (plus several offices) were approved on this property, only
140 units, plus existing Georgetown Court, are now expected to have
access onto Georgetown Road. Mr. Keeler stated the expected traffic count
from this proposal was 450 vtpd, which is less than would normally be
projected because research has shown that many of the children attending
the facility will be sharing rides and the facility will also "capture"
some of the traffic that is already on Georgetown Road.
Staff concluded: "While this may not be an ideal location due to traffic
concerns, it is convenient to residential areas and staff is unaware of
41)
June 2, 1987
Page 6
any opposition. Staff recommends approval of the proposed expansion...."
The Chairman allowed Mr. Don Wagner, developer of some of the surrounding
properties, to speak on the traffic issue. He pointed out the traffic
count from the current proposal will be considerably less than "a site
plan that was approved several years ago." He explained that Barclay
Place had originally been approved for several hundred units and is
now "down to 140."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Jones addressed the Commission. She explained that due to a variety
of programs offered by the facility, traffic would be staggered throughout
the day. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, she stated she anticipated
the maximum enrollment would be reached gradually, though the
infant care enrollment would probably fill immediately because of the
great demand. She confirmed that a special license would be required
to provide for sick children.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Gary Kendall, Attorney for Ms. Gay Johnson Blair, a neighboring
property owner (across the street on Georgetown Road), addressed the
Commission. He stated that Ms. Blair had no objection to the special
permit. She was concerned about water control, erosion and runoff
from these properties and asked that any site plans for this property
be considered "together" rather than in a piecemeal fashion. He stressed
that Ms. Blair's property was the most directly effected by this
development.
Mr. Armm, the County Engineer, acknowledged he was aware of these
concerns and stated he had met with Mr. Wagner to make him aware
of the fact that the development of Westgate V will have to be
coordinated with the development of this property. He confirmed
that he would keep Ms. Blair advised of the situation.
Mr. Wagner again addressed the Commission. He explained that he would
be submitting a site plan for his development within the next few weeks
which would include a design for a "shared" detention facility which will
be sized to handle all the drainage from both properties in one basin.
He explained that it was agreed that it would be built, in its entirety,
by whichever one of the properties is built first. Regarding the
issue of the "turn lane on the Encore property across the street,"
Mr. Wagner suggested that the Commission follow Mr. Keeler's suggestion,
i.e. approval of this site plan subject to the already approved (by
VDOT) scheme for the road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
(Note: Both Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Bowerman disqualified themselves
from hearing the remainder of this proposal, and left the meeting.
Both are members of the Board of Directors of the YMCA, which is
currently considering expanding day-care services.)
-7/a
June 2, 1987
Page 7
Mr. Michel stated he had no objection to the proposal though he was
concerned about the right turn lane issue. He pointed out that
Goergetown Road is becoming a major thru-road. He stated: "I'm
not sure we'd be doing the community a service to ignor the chance
to put the applicant on notice who now at least partially controls
the adjacent properties that now is the time to put in the right
turn lane as well."
Mr. Cogan agreed and pointed out that at the time the site plan is
reviewed the Commission will, "one way or another" enforce a right turn
land for the entrance to this facility. Mr. Cogan added that it
was obvious that "it would not work" without a right -turn lane.
With that understanding, Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-24 for Sharon Jones
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires among
other things licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare;
2. Combined enrollment of existing and proposed facilities shall not
exceed 325 children;
3. Site plan approval. (Note: It was determined this was the most
desirable way to word this condition to allow
maximum flexibility.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously (4:0). The matter
was to be heard by the Board on June 17, 1987.
SP-87-34 Lambs Road Baptist Church - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(7) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a day care center to be located
in an existing church. Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcel 6 is
located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of St. Rt. 656
(Lambs Road) and Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road). Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Applicant had requested deferral to June 16, 1987.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-87-34 be deferred to
June 16, 1987. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-87-37 Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation - Request in accordance with
Section 23.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a
parking deck (approximately 14 feet high) over an existing parking area at
the rear of the site. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcels 25 and
25C, is located on the north side of Rt. 250 approximately 0.5 mile east of
250/29 Bypass. Zoned CO, Commercial Office. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Applicant had requested deferral to June 16, 1987.
ern'
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-87-37 be deferred to
June 16, 1987. The motion passed unanimously.
a43
June 2, 1987
Page 8
WORK SESSION
ZTA-87-05-Amend 4.12 Off -Street Parking and Loading Requirements to Provide
Additional Design Standards
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Significant concerns and comments included the following:
--Mr. Michel was surprised that staff was looking at such a small amount
of parking spaces. He felt 4 was too low.
--Mr. Bowerman asked if this would unnecessarily complicate the process.
Would it leave a lot of things open to interpretation? Staff felt it
clearly outlined what was acceptable to the County.
--Mr. Bowerman asked if staff could offer an alternative recommendation
to the number 4 referred to by Mr. Michel, based on staff experience.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Mark Keller gave a presentation addressing the idea of radial parking.
Mr. Rick Jones asked that the staff be very careful about arbitrarily
picking numbers. His comments were primarily concerned with "foot-candle"
measurements. He cautioned against using a standards book, but suggested
rather than staff personally visit sites before making recommendations.
(Note: Mr. Cogan was concerned about the County getting too heavily
involved in the lighting issue.)
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. Referring to Section 4.12.6.1,
he suggested that staff develop some sort of table so that developers
would have some idea of "what to shoot for." He commented about one-way
circulation also. Referring to section 4.12.6.2, he questioned the
minimum travel width of twenty feet. (Mr. Armm agreed that it should
be clarified so as to mean "adjacent to the parking spaces." )
No action was taken by the Commission. It was determined staff would
make further amendments to the proposal and would schedule another work
session.
The meeting recessed from 9:35 to 9:45.
Septic System Setback from Lot Lines - At the request of Mr. Lindstrom and
Mr. Michel, staff presented a report on locational requirements for septic
systems in relation to adjoining properties, the intent being to protect
availability of adjoining land for well location. The report concluded:
"After considerable discussion, staff concluded that the most appropriate
approach was to amend the Zoning Ordinance Provisions for Building Site to
accomplish this and other purposes and to Amend the Setback/Yard Regulations
of the RA, Rural Areas Zone."
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, including a brief history of
this issue.
19
04
June 2, 1987
Page 9
The staff report outlined two separate issues for consideration by the
Commission: (1) Changes in building site requirements; and (2) Does
*4W11 the Commission want to specifically address the location of wells and
drainfields in relation to other lots?
Regarding the first issue, Mr. Cogan was very concerned about Section
4.2.4.1. He was strongly opposed to restricting the septic system location
to the building site since he felt there might be instances where it would
be more logical to locate the system elsewhere on the property. Mr.
Michel and Mr. Bowerman felt special circumstances such as those envisioned
by Mr. Cogan could be dealt with singularly, or possibly through admin-
istrative approval.
Regarding the second issue, Mr. Cogan did not feel there was any real need
for amendments at this time. He also felt the setback/yard regulations were
not workable.
It was determined the Commission was not in favor of prohibiting
wells and septic systems from required yards, but was in favor
of prohibiting dwellings and septic systems in the reservoir setback
area, on steeper slopes, in 100-year floodplain areas, and in areas
under water (3.e., page 3 of staff report).
There was considerable discussion about this issue and some question as
to whether or not the current system was adequate. The phrase "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it" was repeated several times.
Mr. Michel stated he definitely perceived the issue as a problem
because of the very serious well -situation in Albemarle County.
He was uncertain as to whether or not the proposed regulations were
the answer to the problem. He felt further consideration should be
given to the idea before dismissing it. Mr. Armm indicated his agreement
with Mr. Michel and stated there is a very real problem in the County
which his office must deal with on a day-to-day basis.
The Commission took no formal action. It was decided staff would schedule
another work session to discuss the issue further.
MISCELLANEOUS
It was the consensus of the Commission to hold a public hearing on the
Virginia Byway proposal.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
a246