HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 05 1998 PC MinutesM
5-5-98 1
MAY 5, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 5,
1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr.
William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker, and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr.
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Washington.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes
of April 21, 1998, were unanimously approved as amended.
ZMA 98-06 S.W. Heischman - Request to amend the proffers on properties zoned R-15
(with proffers) described as tax Map 60, Parcel 24C totaling 24.9 acres, and a 3.44 acre
portion of Tax Map 60, Parcel 24C1. The properties are located on the north side of Old
Ivy Road (Rt. 601), east of, and adjacent to, the Route 29/250 Bypass. The properties are
located in Neighborhood 7, in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The properties are
designated for Urban Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. Access is from
Old Ivy Road.
Staff requested deferral to June 2, 1998 due to an advertising error.
t
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZMA 98-06 be deferred to June 2,
1998. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-08 Redfields - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to accept revised proffers which
would allow zero lot line platting and other setback changes as an option within Phase 3
(except 3A), Phase 4 and Phase 5 of the Redfields Planned Residential Development.
The property to which zero lot line platting would be available is described as Tax Map
76R, Parcel 1, and Tax Map 76R1, Parcel 1, consisting of 165.59 acres, zoned PRD,
Planned Residential Development situated in Urban Neighborhood 5 in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Neighborhood Residential (3 to 6
dwellings/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended "the Board of Supervisors
accept the applicant's revised proffers allowing for zero lot line and other yard
modifications (proffer 8) in Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phase 4, as outlined and depicted in
Attachments C, D, and E. Since Phase 5 is currently shown as open space and its
development would be subject to a separate future zoning action, staff recommends the
zero lot line pattern for Phase 5 be dealt with at that time. If the Board agrees, this should
be reflected in its action. "
N,,40,,. Mr. Keeler explained the first 7 proffers already exist on this property. Proffer #8 "seeks to
incorporate the Zoning Text Amendment language that was developed earlier this year for
zero lot line development." He said the County Attorney's office will be making some
5-5-98
2
editorial changes to the proffers prior to the Board hearing. He called attention to two
illustrations which were on display, one showing a zero lot line platting approach and the
other showing the currently available platting approach. The zero lot line approach
provides the property owner with a more useable side yard.
Mr. Rooker asked staff to explain proffer 8b. [in the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle
County fire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this proffer....] He said he did not understand why the
yard reduction would trigger this, and why the County Fire Official would be the agent who
would require deed restriction disclosures. Mr. Keeler replied: "How I would read this is if
a vacant lot was sold, the deed for that lot would make it clear that the side of the house
on the lot line would have no windows, and that sort of thing. It is probably intended to
recite the Fire Official's requirements in the deed." Mr. Kamptner said he had raised a
similar question when he reviewed the proffers, i.e. "not quite understanding what kind of
guarantee was envisioned and what was intended to be covered by the deed restrictions."
He said that will be clarified before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kamptner summarized the County Attorney Office staffs comments about the proffers:
#1: The first sentence duplicates what is already required by the Zoning Ordinance.
It is suggested the second sentence should be clarified as to whether it would apply only if
there is no reasonable alternative alignment for the driveway as provided in Sec. 4.2.2.1,
last paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance, to eliminate any confusion or argument that the
50-foot limitation supersedes the Zoning Ordinance standard.
#2: We just had a general question as to whether or not those standards were
acceptable to VDOT and Engineering. We also requested that they reference a specific
plan.
#3 and #6: Do these proffers apply to all of the Redfields development or just this
phase? When these two proffers are read together, "there is a reference to units in #3
which apparently doesn't apply to what is proposed in all phases covered by these
proffers, and then #6 has the total. It is confusing if the proffers only apply to these
particular phases."
#4: The proposed recreation center should be identified.
#5: The meaning is uncertain. The proffer needs to be re -written in a complete
sentence.
#6: The proffer needs to be re -written in a complete sentence.
#7: It is suggested the Engineering memo be made a part of the proffers or that
its substance be included in the proffers themselves.
#8: Several minor clarifications needed. Should this be part of the PRD approval,
rather than a proffer?
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the first seven proffers, which have been in place for some
time, were not authored by this applicant. Mr. Keeler addressed some of Mr. Kamptner's
comments: Re: #3 and #6, he said it is intended that these proffers apply to the entire
development. Re: #8, he said "I would think because we don't have it in the Ordinance
now, the full content of 8 would be a problem. If we had already adopted zero lot line, you
would not see 8 (a) through (g) here." Mr. Kamptner responded: "Right, but would that
be something that would be included in the PRD zoning application plan where the Board
5-5-98
is allowed to make some changes to otherwise underlying standards, since what is in here
you could look at it, in one way, as being more liberal than what is required by the Zoning
Ordinance?" Mr. Keeler asked: "You mean postured as a modification (of the PRD
approval)?" Mr. Kamptner said: "The substance will be the same. It is really just the
form as to where it goes."
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to explain why proffer #5 is included. [No access from
Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision.] Mr. Keeler said this proffer was
requested of the residents of Sherwood Farms.
Mr. Tice asked if the plans for Phase 5 will require a Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Keeler
responded affirmatively. Mr. Keeler added: "The plan that is on display here, if this
petition is approved, will replace the other plan that we have on file. That plan shows
Phase 5 as open space, or no development. That was done because at the time there
was question as to whether or not fire protection could be provided at higher elevations."
Mr. Rieley asked staff to comment on the justification for proffer 8(f), i.e. "the discrepancy
between the setback for the house and the garage." [At the sole discretion of the
applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to 20'. Garages may be set over the front
setbacks by 10'....] Mr. Keeler deferred to the applicant.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Missel. His comments included the following:
11�w --Proffers 3 and 4 have been completed.
--Regarding justification for #8(f), he said the developer has requested that there be
an allowance, in this area, for the opportunity to use garages and to set them closer to the
road. Presently off-street parking is provided. The 10 foot difference is to provide closer
access for the garage to the street.
--The applicant has no concerns about the County Attorney's comments about
changes to the proffers.
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-08 be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers, to be perfected, as described by the Assistant County Attorney, prior
to the Board hearing. (Mr. Nitchmann confirmed that his motion does not include approval
of Phase 5.) [NOTE: After further discussion, proffer 8(f) was amended as described
below.]
Discussion:
Mr. Rieley said he supports "wholeheartedly" the zero -lot line provisions, and the bulk of
this proposal. However, he said he does not understand "moving the garages 10 feet
closer to the road in order to get them 10 feet closer to the road." He said it is usually
desirable to keep garages back farther so as not to create a street-scape of garage doors.
He questioned the applicant's justification. He said he could support the reduction to 20
5-5-98 4
feet, but he felt the setback should be consistent for everything. He also expressed
concern about proffer #5 and the fact that every subdivision wants to be separate from
every other subdivision, and "cutting off all opportunity to knit these neighborhoods
together into a network of streets that serve an overall transportation system." Mr. Rooker
commented: "Unfortunately, the neighborhoods don't seem to share that view."
Mr. Tice said he agreed with Mr. Rieley's comments, particularly those related to the
garages.
Mr. Rooker wondered if the applicant has some design justification in mind. Mr. Missel
responded: "In some cases these lots are pretty tight, ... so it would allow you to use that
front area for the car. ... Some of the lots could benefit from having that additional area
used for the garages."
Mr. Tice wondered if there was any reason not to just allow the front setback to be 10
feet, with no distinction made as to whether the space is used for a garage or for an
additional room for the dwelling.
Mr. Rieley said: "I don't have any difficulty at all in allowing a narrow setback. I do object
to having, in the proffers, the garages being in front of the houses."
Mr. Rooker pointed out that an advantage of this proffer is that more homes will be built
with garages, whereas presently they have off-street parking. It was suggested that
proffer 8(f) be amended to read: "At the sole discretion of the applicant, the front setbacks
may be reduced to 10 feet." (The remainder of 8(f)to be deleted.) The applicant was
agreeable to this amendment.
Both Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Rooker agreed to amend the motion to reflect the change to
proffer 8(f).
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP 98-008 Farmington Indoor Tennis Building Preliminary Site Plan Waiver Request -
Request for a waiver of Section 32.2.7.6.1 for fire flow requirement in conjunction with
indoor tennis building located on part of 273.472 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Citing a Conflict of Interests, Mr. Rooker excused himself from participating in either the
discussion or action on this item.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The staff recommended denial of the request, based
on the Fire Rescue Division's recommendation.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Kamptner to clarify the matter which is before the
,,. Commission.
0
5-5-98
5
Mr. Kamptner explained: "What you are considering tonight are the fire hydrants and
distribution systems as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and you are not looking at the
sprinkler systems that would be required in the building itself, which is addressed by the
Building Code."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Peter Sheeran. His comments included the
following:
--This is a very simply building --"a simply metal box enclosing three tennis courts."
--The 1996 BOCA code would not require that the participant sport area be
sprinkled. The applicant has come to an agreement that the two small changing areas
and the small office will have to be sprinkled. This can be accomplished with the use of
the domestic water system.
--New tests on the existing fire hydrants showed 700 gpm (as opposed to 400 gpm
which is referenced in initial correspondence). The difference is the result of a fairly
recent connection of a Service Authority 10-inch line to the existing 6-inch line. The
Insurance Service Organization (ISO) recommends 1,700 gpm. He said he believes in his
discussions with Mr. Crow (Administrative/Training Officer, Albemarle County Fire &
Rescue Administration), that "we were talking off the top of our heads when he was
referencing 2,100 gpm." A very large line would be required to provide 2,100 gpm. A 10-
inch line is approximately 1,200 feet away. The Zoning Ordinance says these fire flow
standards should be met if water is reasonably available. "In this case, water is
reasonably available to provide a limited area sprinkler system as proposed for the
occupied areas. However, public water is not reasonably available to the extent needed to
provide 2,100 gpm."
--if this building were not in the jurisdictional area for water or sewer, the section of
the Zoning Ordinance, 32.2.7.6, would not apply. The fire flow requirement in the Zoning
Ordinance is referenced for buildings within the jurisdictional area.
--All alternatives have been considered. Sprinkling the entire building is an
alternative, but it will cost $45,000 to $58,000, the same cost as extending the water line
from Farmington.
--He asked that the Commission look subjectively at the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and "understand that we are dealing with a building that is 2C construction ---an
all steel building of non-combustible materials --and the areas where there are smaller
spaces are being sprinkled."
--The other items set forth in the Building Code are being met in terms of number of
required exits and having them opening directly on grade.
--The Service Authority has had recent on -going discussions with Farmington to
upgrade all the water system in the subdivision. If that happens, it is envisioned the fire
flows will be able to meet the recommendations of the Insurance Service Organization. It
would be a waste of the applicant's money to extend an 8-inch water line at this time
without considering how the installation of that pipe might interface with the whole upgrade
of the system that could happen in the next few years.
Mr. Sheeran's answers to specific Commission questions were as follows..
--The building is approximately 22,000 square feet total, with the three tennis courts
comprising 20,000 square feet. There is a 40x20 foot spectator space which is open to
the tennis area at the same floor level.
5-5-98
C.
--The occupant load of the building is limited to 24-26.
--The cost of a sprinkler cost (dry -pipe system) is estimated to be between $35,000
and $45,000. This cost could "kill the project."
--The pond below the site is used to irrigate the golf course. It is 40 feet below the
floor level of the building. It is not a viable solution because ISO recommends no more
than 20 feet.
--The playing surface will be asphalt with latex color coat.
Mr. Loewenstein once again reminded Commissioners that the only issue before the
Commission is a request for a waiver of fire flow requirement.
Comment was invited from Bruce Crow, Administrative/Training Officer, Albemarle County
Fire & Rescue Administration. His comments included the following-
--His office has worked diligently with the applicant to try to solve this problem, and
will continue to work with the applicant.
--The intent of the Ordinance, in relation to required fire flow, is based on a "worse -
case scenario." ISO bases fire flow on square footage and building classification. In this
case, the reason the fire flow is so high is because of the size of the building.
--The fire flows are critical to fire fighters. It is very frustrating to have to fight a fire
with limited fire flow.
--The "reasonable availability" clause in the Ordinance is there so as not to place
an applicant in a "Catch 22" situation. That is not the case here because only 1,200 feet
of water line is needed to bring the required fire flow to the site.
--When considering life safety issues, the safety of the fire fighters must also be
considered.
--An adequately installed, working sprinkler system reduces the need for large fire
flows because "we have smaller fires when we get" to the site.
--Occupancy loads are posted in all public buildings, but they are ignored. Even
though the intended use of this facility will result in a low occupancy, the potential exists
that it can be used for other events, including large spectator events.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Crow if he feels there are reasonable options available to the
applicant. Mr. Crow said the applicant has considered a dry system and there are ways to
accomplish the flows from a dry system. An engineer has to design the system to find out
exactly what the flows will be for a dry system. The applicant has not done that yet. He
indicated that a wet system could also work. He concluded: "Before we rule out some of
the other issues, they need to look a little closer at some of their options." Mr.
Loewenstein concluded: "So the answer is 'yes."' Mr. Crow responded affirmatively.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said his main concern is the fact that there is no way to insure that the
building will not be used for large events, and there is no efficient way to monitor the
usage. He said if he did not have that concern he would see no reason to sprinkle the
building, other than in those spaces which the applicant is already proposing to sprinkle.
M
5-5-98 7
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that there are some buildings along Rt. 250 east which he
understands the County will not allow to connect to public water to sprinkle their buildings
because of a "deal" that was made when Glenmore was built. He said: "Knowing that, I
wonder if we are talking out both sides of our mouths when we require that a building with
only 24 people be sprinkled, but we have buildings where people are working every day
that we won't permit to be sprinkled even though the water line (is very close to the
building)."
Mr. Sheeran was asked how many exits the building will have. He explained: "There are
three entrances and exits to the buildings. There are two 3-foot wide doors that provide
the day-to-day entrance into the waiting area that goes directly into the courts, and in the
tennis box itself, at each of the two far corners, there are a pair of doors that exit to the
outside. So there are three exits, all at remote distances, in the building, to get out."
Addressing the possibility that the building could be used for other events, he pointed out
that street shoes will not be allowed on the floor, unless the floor were covered with a
protective covering. He said this would greatly reduce the chance that a spontaneous
event of a large number of people could occur. He said Farmington is a law-abiding
citizen in the County and if the building is limited to 24 people, he believes they will abide
by that limitation.
Referring to the language in the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Finley said the determination the
Commission must deal with is that of "reasonable" availability. He said it sounds as
though cost is the main consideration.
Mr. Kamptner responded to Mr. Finley's comment: "I think the issue is actually whether or
not applying 32.7.6.1 would forward the purposes of the Ordinance or otherwise serve the
public interests (quoting from 32.3.11.1). When you are looking at 32.7.6.1, it provides
two alternative scenarios. One is if water is reasonably available, and one where public
water is not reasonably available. So even if you determine that public water isn't
reasonably available, there is still a fire protection requirement that applies and, in that
situation, it is more in the discretion of the Fire Official to come up with an alternative
means of providing adequate fire protection. So what you really have to decide tonight is
whether or not granting this waiver --saying that 32.7.6.1 doesn't apply --is whether or not it
would forward the purposes of the ordinance."
Mr. Loewenstein said the Fire Official's testimony weighs heavily in his consideration of
this request. He said even if 24 is the largest number of people who may ever be present
in this building at a given time, given the number of exits, and given the fact that even in a
fire -proof building almost anything can happen, he is very concerned about increased risk
to public health and safety that approval of this waiver request would create. He said he
is not convinced all other options have been fully investigated. Though he acknowledged
there are cost considerations involved, he said he is not convinced the cost factors, to the
extent they have been investigated to date, constitute an unreasonable hardship on the
applicant. Referring to the applicant's statement that to spend this money at this time
would be a waste of money given the possibility that the Farmington water line may be
upgraded in the next few years, Mr. Loewenstein said "I don't think protection of public
safety, under any circumstances, when it doesn't involve an expenditure any greater than
7
5-5-98
this, given the probable total cost of this facility, constitutes a waste of money." He
concluded that he would support staffs recommendation for denial.
Mr. Finley pointed out the upgrade to the Farmington line is an uncertainty at this point,
and even if it does happen, it is not known if the line will be brought to the area which
would serve this building.
Mr. Loewenstein said the uncertainties about the potential upgrade of the Farmington line
only confirms his position.
Mr. Rieley said he agrees with Mr. Loewenstein, and "when the National Fire Protection
Association sets standards and our Fire and Rescue Division take an unequivocal stand, I
am loath to say that I know more than they do, particularly in an issue where public safety
is the underlying factor."
Mr. Tice agreed. He said there are technical issues here with which he is not familiar, so
he must put great weight on the County's professional staffs analysis.
MOTION: Based on the Fire and Rescue Division's recommendation and their conclusion
that alternatives have not been fully evaluated, Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that
the Request for a Waiver of Section 32.7.6.1 to allow a reduction in fire flow requirement
for the Farmington Indoor Tennis Building Preliminary Site Plan, be denied.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Loewenstein reported that Commissioners Rooker and Washington swapped
committee assignments. Ms. Washington will serve on the Development Areas Initiatives
Committee and Mr. Rooker will serve on the Meadowcreek Parkway Design Committee.
Mr. Tice asked about the status of Rt. 29 landscaping. Staff was not able to answer his
question. Mr. Tice said he will check with Lisa Glass.
Mr. Tice asked if staff had any information on the City's plans for the development of the
old Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment site off Penn Park Lane. He said he has some
significant concerns about intense development of this site which would dump a lot more
traffic onto Rio Road if the Meadowcreek Parkway does not get built. He said this an
example of why the City and County Planning Commissions should be discussing some of
these issues. Mr. Loewenstein said he has spoken with the Chair of the City Commission
about this topic.
14,�---------------
0
5-5-98 9
Mr. Tice called attention to a presentation on "sprawl" to be given Thursday, May 7, by the
Horizon Institute for Public Policy. It will be held at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers.
Though he appreciated the update given by Mr. Keeler a while back on the UREF project,
Mr. Tice said he hopes Mr. Rose can be invited to a future Commission meeting to give
Commissioners an idea of where the plans are for the North Fork Park.
Mr. Nitchmann said he has met with three subdivision homeowners' groups located south
of town and all have expressed 100% support for some type of shopping center, "as long
as it has a village concept." The developers appear to be taking the citizens' comments to
heart. He said he has not heard anything from Brass, Inc. as to whether or not they
intend to meet with the subdivision groups.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the County is working with adjoining counties in an attempt to
identify potential cellular tower sites. He said there is a new tower, in either Fluvanna or
Louisa (he was uncertain which), just a mile or so south of the recently approved Keswick
tower . Mr. Keeler said he will ask Mr. Fritz to respond to Mr. Nitchmann's question in the
form of a memo to the Commission.
Mr. Finley said he has been getting a lot of calls about the letter which was mailed to
property owners on the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. Many people have
expressed concern about insufficient time to respond. Ms. Scala said the public hearing
before the Commission is scheduled for May 19th.
Mr. Nitchmann asked for more information about the Rt. 250 east waterline that extends to
Glenmore. Given the growth that is going to continue to take place, he said it would be
helpful , to know the history. He said: "it seems a shame to me that there is a waterline
running out there, and we are not permitting people to hook up to install a sprinkler
system. That doesn't sound like good practice to me if you are considering health, safety
and welfare. I don't care what the reasons were politically, I think they need to be
reviewed." He stressed there are a lot of existing buildings with a lot of employees. He
said he could understand a desire to limit residential growth, "but there is a big difference
between where people work and where residential growth takes place, although, if you're
talking about in -fill, and you've got the water there, why not put the houses there?"
There being no further business, the meeting adjourneed' tat 8:30 p.m.
U, W
V. Wayne ilimberg ecre
DB
2