HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 23 1998 PC Minutes6-23-98
JUNE 23, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 23,
1 °Q8, in ii vounty u iL nuiiding, CiiQrioiiv�viii , ,v it Ull u. Tiivc�v mw�b 1v prc:.c7�viiL `Amhrem-
Vv�_l
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Dennis
Rooker; a nnr onrrl p r,,., +I.nr rs:n nln nnnr.+ /IAr. Dnr. U 1 t^ t ;nrF s
r \ooker , and 10r . V V 111 r iieley . Other officials present lI were: M . Ron 1 r\eeler, , Vi 11G1 01
Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner;
Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Maynard Sipe, Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of
er,.:rr,.r:r... ne n... v.,,,...+rrr, n,,,,:..+,...+�.... +., AA-+,.r..,... ,� pnr P-1. Attdersl/tt II\/A
rE IIJ. lr reef rr g; turf . Greg Rat r ptl Per , P1ssistar rt County t-UtOr I tey, and Purr. . , v vn
Representative. Absent: Commissioners Finley and Washington. (Commissioner Finley was
out of the state.)
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. The minutes of
11An.. 1 7 7 919US Tune 7 41 9F9 nrl 1 n -1 nr94 were
unanimously
sly r�.�+rr...ed n amended
May Imo, IdJV, aJUIIG L, 13JV, arru �unc , ro-u, vrcrc iarParrrrrrvuary aV VVGu as arrrcrrucu.
Action on the May 19th minutes was deferred at the request of Mr. Tice.
Mr. Keeler summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their June 17th
1 leeti rig.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP 98-64 Fontana Recreation Center - Request for waivers to allow grading on critical
I rA rfl .J c.I. ..... +t•.,. 'I.,I:.-.... aL.....r, rs 4 4 Cl -;unction
.. ith it ..r......1........ ent
slopes �`*.G1] al to r educe the builds ry set"al,n [J. 1 . t . V�, it Ir col ijiJi r1L L1 r vvrtr r Q site ucvcrtlF.rr r rcr rt
plan to construct a private recreation facility consisting of a 3,300 square foot clubhouse,
tennis courts, swimming pool, and associated parking on a portion of the open space in
Cnnt1nj CIIh�iliicinn 7nnpprl DA Door I Aro c D_4 D_/1 and D_r^ Doeirlo GA n�nrl Di`
1 VI l QI IQ VW✓VI V IJIVI 1, LVI IGV 1 \A 1 o o GI A VaJ, 1 \ 1 , 1 \ —T GI IV 1 \ V, 1 \GJI\./GI IIIQI, I IV 1.—V,
Entrance Corridor, with proffers. This property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 57, is
rnn rt +►.n o:..nn nnnr. n+nr:nl District rJ n11 a for Neighborhood d [)ensity /a c
IVlcateu 111 lllc 1\IVQIIna IVIaIJ.IsIGIIat vistl ll.l allu Iel..Vl111tIGIIueV IVI rutty IUVI loon Vcllslty ♦,\J-V
dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood Three in the Comprehensive Plan. It is located on
the east side of Stony Point Road (State Highway 20) approximately 1 mile north of the
junction withl the Richmond Road (RL. 25V East)
No issues were raised by the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
r�r.rr..c�c•1 ihn mr�+'nr. nnnr,•i•i r+nr�irv�c+..nl.•
appr V veu. The a 11 rutiur r passcu unanimously.
i t ously.
SP 98-12 Charlottesville Catholic School - Request for a special use permit to construct a
nri n+n nnhc+nl fc+r G/� n +..r♦r`r,+n .� '17 n nn nnl c+� lnnc•) nlc+nr. D;- D.,nA hr.+...c+nr+ Dc..•�r.
I,JIIVaIG s\c11VV1 IV
VVV students on a 11-a4re �ar4Gl VI Ia11V a1V111� 1\IV 1\VaV beIVVGen r GIIn
Park Road [Rt. 768] and Penn Park Lane [Rt. 1481]. The property, described as Tax Map
61A, Parcel 29, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. It is zoned R-4, Residential.
i.n...r ti cinr.n'+,. +6. rnr� a cln.�n"+.. i G �iA dwelling nc. +n .+nr r,rn
The area is shown t as urban density will I a proposed de Idly, of 6-3i t d elli g units s per acre
in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Pian. A conceptual plan accompanies this request.
Deferred from June 2, 1998 Commission meeting.
171
M
Im
6-23-98
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request, subject
to conditions.
The petition included a request to waive the two-way circulation pattern for student drop-off
near the front of the school.
Staff answers to Commission questions were as follows:
--Approximately 100 - 500 residences could be built on this property if it were to be
developed residentially.
--The proposed "right turn only" access is located across the street from the existing
subdivision.
--The timing of the construction of the second entrance has not been established. It
will be "later on, during the buildout of the site."
—Regarding condition No. 4, related to construction of a pedestrian path and bonding
of connections to adjoining neighborhoods, Ms. Echols explained that reason fort -he last
sentence— "... if those improvements have not been constructed by completion of the second
entrance to the school, the bond will be released and the pathway not installed." --is so that
the applicant's bond will not be held "forever."
--Regarding condition No. 3, related to the use of temporary units, no time limit has
been proposed because the temporary units will be treated as site -built units. Staff looked at
the Commission's action on the Peabody School, and the use of temporary units did not
seem to be of concern to the Commission for that request.
--Staffs traffic analysis did not consider the potential construction of the Meadowcreek
Parkway, because the traffic signal is warranted now, and improvements that are
necessitated by this project will be required regardless of whether or not the Meadowcreek
Parkway is built.
--Staff did consider the City's project at the old treatment plant in terms of timing of
improvements.
--The present level of traffic service along this section of Rio Road is "D." It will
remain a "D" even after the construction of this school. The service will improve to a level
"C" if the Meadowcreek Parkway is constructed. The traffic signal is warranted at the
intersection with Penn Park Road, even without the Parkway. Current plans for
improvements to Rio Road will take place next summer.
--The distance between this proposed signal and the proposed signal at the
intersection of Rio Road and the Meadowcreek Parkway is approximately 1,600 feet.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Heidi Parker. Her comments included the following:
--The property is 17 acres with the main entrance off Penn Park Road. The
secondary access— "right -in, right -out only off of Rio" --will be constructed only if needed, but
VDOT has already approved the second entrance.
--The facility will include an administration building, elementary, middle and high
school buildings, two athletic fields, a cafetorium, and a gymnasium. Construction will be
phased in, but the applicant hopes to be on -site next fall with approximately 200 students, K-
5. It is anticipated the school will add one grade each year, adding 50 students each year,
until an enrollment of 600 students is reached, with classes K-12. Full buildout is expected
to take eight years.
6-23-98
3
--The site is in a residential area; adjacent to a park; and is located on a roadway that
is very accessible. .
--This proposal meets the criteda for issuance of a special permit:
(1) It will not he detrimental to adjacent properties.
Residential development of this property would be much more intense
and hawe a for greater impact on adjoining neighborhoods and on county
services
_ Adjoining property owners; who .responded to the apnlic�.ant's
notice about the project, met with the applicant and were very supportive.
Concurne tmen, e expl .sWsed about uufficuut ihn ali^.ant belie- ecu thos
concerns will be addressed with the traffic sianal.
(2) The school will not change the character of the district.
Public schools are allowed by -right in the R-4 district.
(3) it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
(lrrlinennc and the erlinininn nrnnerfies
u u
(4) The use is in harmony with by -right uses,
Ms. Parker presented letters of support from adjoining landowners. Addressing Mr.
T�ve's giiesat;on about the use of tempura{ fuvii:u1es, oho mar:: it ;e nyt Lnnxrin hn,Yi lyng
temDorary facilities will be needed, but the applicant wants to be in a permanent
facility as soon as possible." She estimated the temporary units would not be needed
more than 2 years. Addressina Mr. Loewenstein's question about the lack of buffer
along the Rio Road frontage, she said it is still not known where the pedestrian
path —Z%1 along Pin Will go.
�1rrd
Public comment was invited.
Mr Paul Grady, a Crozet residP_.nt, addressed the_. Commission. Mr. Grady was
concerned about the potential for traffic "gridlock" on the Rt. 250 Bypass, and the use
of Rio Road to relieve the, pressure fr ory,n, 25v. Though he did not ex.p;ems ,^f po .iti^n
to the school, he recalled a proposal for a "Rio Road Connector" which had been
proposed many years ago. He distributed a drawing which showed the location of that
road and his own proposal for an alignment of the road; should it ever be built. His
alignment would impact the school property. He said he would not want to see
enrrtethiny built that :".�^:1I�1 �nrerl��le the �.^.nc.�tru^t.^,n, ^f thJw f,(�+tent,'al f0.�.d I _
suggested that the reservation of a 100-foot strin along Penn Park Road be reniiirPrI
He also suggested that rotating the building 90 degrees, so that it faces Rio Road,
A,Fo:.e'd Dlj{minaie +hp need for the long entrance rood off Penn Part one and :.'viald
address his concern.
Mr. Loewenstein explained to Mr. Grady that the Commission can consider only the
current information that has been presented.
There being no further comment; the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he has no concerns about the request. The school will help meet
• the educational needs of the community and the applicant has addressed the
neiahbors' concerns.
6-23-98 4
Mr. Tice agreed with Mr. Nitchmann, but he did have concerns about the bonding of
the pedestrian pathway and about the lack of a time limit on the use of the temporary
buildings. He suggested a 3 or 4 year limit on the temporary buildings and pointed
out that an extension could be granted if needed. He said he would like for the bond
to be in place for a certain number of years.
Given the applicant's prediction of an 8-year buildout, Mr. Nitchmann said he did not
think 8 years would be an unreasonable amount of time to hold the bond. Mr. Rooker
agreed. He said he could see no reason to tie the bonding of the pathway with the
completion of the second entrance.
Regarding Mr. Tice's concern about the temporary buildings, Mr. Nitchmann said
temporary units are in place at almost all county and city schools. He was concerned
about a placing a time limit which might make the applicant have to "jump through a
lot of hoops." He said the units could be needed longer if the school's growth is found
to exceed projections. He said he would not object, however, to a time limit of eight
years, the time within which the maximum capacity is projected to be completed.
Mr. Rooker said the time limit is a way to protect against the possibility of permanent
facilities not ever being built. He suggested two possible approaches: (1) Time this
so that they will begin construction of permanent facilities within a certain period of
time; or (2) The site will not be occupied solely by temporary units for more than a
certain period of time.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant will have to either locate temporary facilities or
begin construction of the permanent facilities within 2 years of the Board approval of
the issuance of this special permit, or the permit will expire. He said, traditionally, "we
have used, pretty consistently, five years." He pointed out that there is a condition
limiting enrollment to 600 students.
Mr. Rooker said: I don't think we are so concerned about the augmentation of
permanent facilities at a future time, as we are with ending up with a situation where a
permanent facility is not built for a long period of time and they are operating out of
modular units entirely." He asked Mr. Keeler to explain the 5 year time limit. Mr.
Keeler responded: "To get under construction with permanent facilities, but that does
not preclude having a mix of permanent and temporary facilities. I am not sure there
is an easy way to solve that except to put a time limit on it and if at the end of five
years there is some problem, then they can come back for an extension." Mr. Keeler
said he is reluctant to attach conditions that seem to be promissory because a
different Commission may be reluctant to extend the use of the temporary units.
Based on the applicant's explanation of anticipated phasing, the Commission felt 5
years should be adequate time for the use of the temporary buildings.
Mr. Rieley said though he supports the request, he does have reservations about
adding 1,000 vehicle trips/day to a road which already has 26,000 vehicle trips/day,
but can safely carry only about 8,000. He said he is also a little concerned about the
6-23-98 5
number of playing fields and the amount of open space. However, he said he is
aware of how long the applicant has been trying to find a site and the plan is
"handsome and dignified" and will be a good addition to this area. Related to Mr.
Loewenstein's question about lack of screening along Rio Road, he said he thinks it
should not be totally screened from Rio Road because this is the type of building we
want to see from public streets. He liked the proximity to Penn Park and also felt the
neighbors' support was important.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-12 for Charlottesville
Catholic School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. The site plan shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated June 5, 1998,
submitted with this petition. Relationships of recreational areas to property
boundaries, buildings to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access parallel
to Rio Road and from Rio Road into the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian
access shall be provided from parking lots to the school buildings.
2. Enrollment will be limited to not more than 600 students.
3. Use of temporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed, such
construction to commence within 5 years of site plan approval. A full site development
plan will be required for the facility regardless of the use of temporary units or
permanent construction.
4. A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the project, if
the County is able to fund adjoining connections to Penn Park Lane and Penn Park
Road. If such connections cannot be made at that time, then the school will bond
pathway improvements to be constructed by the school when the County is able to
fund the adjoining connections. If those improvements have not been constructed
within 8 years of site plan approval, the bond will be released and the pathway not
installed.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the applicant's request to
waive the two-way circulation pattern for student drop-off near the front of the school,
for the Charlottesville Catholic School, be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-08 Crossroads CV 143 - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the
provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for a waiver of the 25 foot side
setback to construct a telecommunications facility on Tax Map 87, parcel 7A. This
property is zoned VR, Village Residential and is located 260' from the west side of St.
Rt. 29 South, approximately one mile south of State Route 710. This site is located
Yr
on
6-23-98
1.1
within the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated
growth area. Deferred from the June 9th Commission meeting.
Mr. Morrisette recalled the history of this application. He said the staff report had
changed very little since the June 9th meeting. The report concluded:
Staff opinion is that the provision of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance is
designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards
should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved
subject to a condition requiring approval of a tower designed to collapse in the
lease area in the event of structural failure. In this situation the proposed tower
is a wooden pole which cannot be designed to collapse in a predictable
manner. Relocation of the tower to the south would increase land disturbance
with the access road extension and it would also place the tower in an open
area with no tree coverage, making it visibly more obtrusive to Route 29 South.
Should the tower collapse in the requested location, it would not be near any
dwelling on adjacent property. The area of the adjacent property nearest the
tower is located uphill from the tower and in areas of critical slopes which
cannot be built on. In the event of collapse no improvements would be
endangered. Therefore, staff is able to support this request.
Staff recommended approval of the waiver request.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Sheeran. He presented no new
information, but offered to answer Commission questions.
Mr. Rieley asked, as he had at the June 9th meeting, if CFW considered any other
properties in this area. Mr. Sheeran said a lot of sites along the 29 South corridor
have been looked at during the last year. Based on engineering studies and the
terrain of this property, "this site met our needs." Mr. Rieley said he realizes this is
the ideal spot from the applicant's perspective, but "what we are looking for is the ideal
spot that will serve your needs, but will also meet the public's interests, and if you
haven't looked at any other sites, you put us in a difficult position." Mr. Sheeran
explained the site selection process in more detail. He said once engineering studies
have been done to identify sites which will meet the current need, then a willing
landowner must be located. More than one landowner was approached. Mr. Sheeran
concluded: "Yes, we have checked with other locations. We know, because of
engineering studies, that site --the Shifflett property --will work for us. The issue is the
setback. Mr. Shifflett's property-- because of foliage --in order to meet the setbacks we
would be setting it into an open area, and that is not satisfactory for Albemarle
County."
Mr. Morrisette asked the applicant if complying with the setback requirements would
result in the need for a taller tower, given the fact that the elevation would be lower.
Mr. Sheeran responded affirmatively.
Public comment was invited.
6-23-98 7
Mr. Richard Oliva, adjoining property owner to the north, and the property most
impacted by the side yard setback, addressed the Commission. He expressed the
belief that a tower of any type will devalue surrounding properties. He said this
proposed tower, if granted the setback waiver, will be only 25 feet from his property
line, and, should it fall, it will endanger his property. He disagreed with the
comparison of this structure to a telephone pole, because a telephone pole is only
about 40-45 feet tall, whereas this pole is 80 feet tall with a 10-foot antennae on top.
He asked that the setback waiver be denied.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Oliva how close his dwelling is to the proposed tower location.
Mr. Oliva estimated it to be 1,000 yards, but he said the land between the tower and
his dwelling would be developed with possibly two more dwellings. Anything built on
that part of his property will be endangered by this tower.
Mr. Rooker read a section of the staff report which stated that adjacent property
closest the tower was located in an area of critical slopes which could not built on.
Mr. Oliva said that statement did not refer to his property, and, to his knowledge, his
property did not fall under any critical slope provisions. Mr. Rooker asked staff to
comment. Mr. Morrisette said it is difficult to work with 600 scale topos, but "it looks
as though there are some critical slopes in that area, but a more detailed topo would
be needed to pinpoint the location. Mr. Rooker was trying to determine how close to
this proposed tower site Mr. Oliva might be able to build, and still avoid critical slopes.
. Mr. Morrisette said: He would have to be 50 feet from the tower--25 on both sides."
Mr. Oliva said the land flattens out as it gets closer to the tower.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Rieley expressed concern about conflicts in the documentation. He explained:
"Attachment B shows the wireless location at a scale of 1" = 600'; it shows the
location at least 500 feet from the Shifflett residence. If we are talking about moving it
to meet adequate side yard requirements, we are talking about moving it 65 feet, yet
we have a simulated photograph which shows it about 50 feet from the back of the
house." He concluded: "Either the map is wrong, the parcel is wrong, or the
simulation is wrong." He continued: "The fundamental question is if the only suitable
site on this piece of property does not meet the setback requirements, is it a good
place for a tower? I am exactly where I was the last time we looked at this because
the applicant is exactly the same place he was the last time we looked at this. And
that is that there needs to be an investigation of the surrounding area to see if a more
suitable location can be found which will meet the setback requirements and still serve
the applicant's requirements."
Mr. Rooker said: "I also have difficulty approving a waiver of the setback when there
is objection from the neighboring property owner, and, in fact, he could develop his
property within the area where the pole might fall as a matter of right. So we would
be negatively effecting his property by waiving the setback. He is not the one deriving
the revenue from this tower. The landowner who is renting the site is. If anyone
�3
6-23-98 8
should bear the burden of the tower being close to their improved property, it would
seem to me to be the party who is getting the lease payments. So I have a problem
with this application because of that."
Mr. Rieley said he had a procedural concern, i.e. "We already approved the tower on
this site. We just didn't approve the setback waiver. I think we need to communicate
very clearly to the Board that we regarded that as a two-part arrangement and that we
do not think they should approve this setback waiver."
Mr. Rooker said: "I don't necessarily agree with that. I don't necessarily object to the
tower site. I object to the waiver of the setback requirement."
Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks the Board is going to want the discrepancies identified
by Mr. Rieley cleared up, i.e. "which of the three things is right?" Mr. Rooker said "I
would like to see a simulation of what we would have if that was the proposed tower
site."
Mr. Nitchmann said he shared Mr. Rooker's concerns about the impact to the neighbor
(Mr. Oliva). He said he could not support the waiver request.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-08, Setback
Waiver Request for CFW Wireless at Crossroads, be recommended to the Board of
W Supervisors for denial.
The motion passed 4:0:1. Mr. Tice abstained because he had not been present at the
June 9th meeting when this item was discussed.
Mr. Keeler said the Board may wish comment from the Commission on the question of
whether or not "you would have recommended approval of this with it depicted in the
open area as shown on one of those (simulations)."
Mr. Rieley said: "That is precisely the point I was trying to make. I would not have
voted in favor of the site if this is the location. If you cannot either meet the setback
or improve on this, I think that is an unsuitable tower location and I would have voted
against the tower. I think the Board should be aware of that."
Mr. Rooker pointed out that if Mr. Rieley had voted against the tower, it would not
have been approved because the vote had been 4:3.
ZTA 98-04 Off -Site Parkinq for Industrial Uses - Request by GE Fanuc to amend the
zoning ordinance to allow for off -site employee parking in conjunction with an industrial
use of property. The zoning ordinance currently allows off -site parking only in
conjunction with historic properties in the Rural Areas.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the ZTA (as
set forth in Attachment C to the staff report).
6-23-98
M
In answer to Mr. Loewenstein's question about the deletions shown in Attachment C,
staff explained the deletions that are shown reflect staffs changes to the applicant's
proposed text.
Commission comments and suggested changes were as follows:
--5.1.3(4) and 5.1.3.b: Mr. Rooker said these two sections are duplicative. He
said: I don't know that the availability or unavailability of alternate transportation
opportunities necessarily diminishes the need for additional parking, but I think we
adequately address that in section (b)--the kind of showing that would be required in
that particular area. He suggested (4) be eliminated, and paragraph (b) address that
concept. Mr. Tice viewed the first paragraph of 5.1.3 [which includes (4)] as a
statement of the purpose and intent that then justifies the remainder of the section.
He wondered if the elimination of (4) would then raise the question of the relationship
of (b). Mr. Tice suggested it might be better to reword (4) than to eliminate it. Mr.
Rooker suggested deleting (b) and rewording (4) as follows: Alternate transportation
opportunities are not available which would result in a diminished need for vehicular
parking or which would eliminate the need for vehicular parking. He explained: "It
may reduce the need but it may not eliminate it and they still may need additional
parking, so I think you would have to say which would eliminate the need." Mr. Tice
repeated his preference that both (4) and (b) should remain, but he agreed that the
wording of (4) should be improved. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that there is a similar
parallel between 5.1.3(1) and 5.1.3.a. He said he had no concern about both (4) and
(b) remaining "if it makes the intent of those initial statements --(1) through (5)--clear
at the beginning of the section." Ms. Echols suggested wording for (4): Alternate
transportation opportunities have not diminished the need for additional parking on the
site. Mr. Rooker preferred: Alternate transportation opportunities have not eliminated
the need for additional parking on the site. He said this wording would address his
concern. Mr. Tice was agreeable to Mr. Rooker's suggested wording.
--5.1.3.b.: Mr. Tice said he has some concern about the ability to clearly
determine what is a good faith effort. He proposed: Applicant shall demonstrate that
he has exhausted all reasonable measures to make public transportation available or
to provide for alternate transportation opportunities ... (etc.). He said he feels this
language will be clearer to future Boards and Commissions.
--5.1.3(1) and 5.1.3.a: Mr. Tice questioned the meaning of the term physically
desirable. He asked: Physically desirable to whom --to the applicant or to the public
interest?" He quoted from the Subdivision Ordinance (section on Private Roads):
"Where, for a specific identifiable reason, the general public interest as opposed to
the proprietary interest of the subdivider would be better served by the construction of
such roads." He said: "in terms of determining what is physically desirable, some
definition of that type may be desirable in this case." No objections were raised to the
addition, at the end of 5.1.3.a, of the following language: For the purposes of this
section, the term 'physically desirable' shall mean that the general public interest as
opposed to the proprietary interest of the applicant will be better served.
--If the ZTA were not approved, Mr. Rieley asked what other avenues are
available to structure the applicant's property so that it could be used, "presuming that
everyone agrees that this is a suitable use for this particular piece of property in this
particular situation." He asked: "Is there a less generic and general way to deal with
6-23-98 10
it without the zoning text amendment?" Mr. Echols said the applicant could request a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would include a review of not only this
applicant's situation, but any industry in a similar situation. She added: "A parking lot
by special permit would, generally, have less impact than a property that has the
entire industrial zone on it because the use would not be the manufacturing user.
There are several ways to try to get at it, but none of them is really cut and dry." Mr.
Benish added that the CPA process would then require a rezoning and also a zoning
text amendment. Mr. Rieley concluded: So it is a more onerous process but it is
more specific and it doesn't have the onus of being so general county -wide." Mr.
Rooker added: It also seems to me you have less control over the conditions upon
which it takes place." Mr. Kamptner interjected: "Unless it is proffered. They could
proffer out all the other uses." Ms. Echols said another approach would be to
consider an "overall zoning text amendment that relates to off -site parking for a
number of uses and to look at the appropriateness of other uses. That would be more
general and you would still have the specific ability to control any individual request
with a special use permit. Mr. Nitchmann said such a review would take a very long
time. Mr. Keeler added that special use permit criteria already exist in the ordinance
and off-street/site parking could be added, by special permit, in all zoning districts.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that if this amendment is passed by the Board, the applicant
will still have to request a special permit, pursuant to these provisions.
--Mr. Tice asked why this use had not been considered along with the original
zoning for the property. Mr. Benish said the acquisition of the property had occurred
in two phases and this additional area was acquired after the location for the building
had been decided upon. Mr. Keeler said he believes the property was already zoned
for LI usage when GE acquired it.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Heidi Parker. She described expansions which
GE has experienced which have resulted in more employees and the need for
additional parking. There is presently a serious parking shortage for the 1,100
employees and it will soon become worse when the applicant has completed Phase II
of its long-term expansion. It is estimated approximately 147 more employees will be
hired as a result of the expansion. To address the parking problems, GE has (1)
Encouraged car pooling; (2) Instituted flex -time; and (3) Made public transportation
available (through JAUNT) for employees. None of these measures have solved the
problem. Car pooling and public transportation have not been very successful. The
possibility of an on -site parking garage was considered but was determined to be
financially unfeasible. After considering a rezoning for the property which would
introduce the potential for new uses, staff convinced the applicant that the best
approach is with a zoning text amendment. Ms. Parker said she believes the
proposed amendment prepared by staff is better than the one she submitted and it
will help other companies in the same situation. She said she believes the zoning text
amendment "strikes a balance between the county's responsibilities to encourage
economic development but at the same time to protect the rural areas." She said
"encouraging economic development does not mean only inviting new companies to
the county, it also means helping existing companies to grow." She said another
advantage to this approach is that it is not a very time-consuming process, as a Comp
Plan amendment would be. She pointed out that there are already by -right uses
OV
6-23-98 11
allowed in the rural areas which require a lot of parking, e.g. commercial stables and
tourist lodging. Parking is a very low -impact use which is a good buffer between an LI
use and a RA use. She asked that the Commission recommend approval of the
amendment, as proposed by staff. She had no objections to most of the changes
which were suggested by the Commission. Her one concern was with 5.1.3.b, stating
that the applicant shall demonstrate that he has exhausted all reasonable
opportunities for public transportation. She said: "I think that leaves it so open it
would be next to impossible to prove what the applicant has done." She said the fact
that GE has provided public transportation opportunities shows that it has made a
good faith effort.
Mr. Rooker asked when the expansion of the work place is expected to take place. A
representative for GE answered that if the parking situation can be remedied, the
ground breaking is scheduled for August.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a
statement opposing the proposed amendment. Her statement is made a part of these
minutes as Attachment A.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Nftol Mr. Rooker asked if the county has any Ride -and -Share lots in the rural areas. Mr.
Benish responded affirmatively. Mr. Rooker asked if there have been any objections
to these lots. Mr. Benish said he is not aware of any objections. He added that the
lots are limited and an effort is made to use existing lots, such as church parking lots.
Mr. Tice said that though he believes the changes he suggested would strengthen the
amendment, he has serious reservations about approving the zoning text amendment.
He explained: "I think it erodes this current effort to keep development within the
development area boundaries. This may be an issue the Development Areas Initiative
Committee would want to look at.... While I think the couple of changes we have
talked about do make it stronger, in the end, I still cannot support this." He conceded,
however, that the applicant had made a good point about the parking that is currently
allowed by -right within the rural areas related to historic structures and commercial
stables. He said: "The difference though is that you don't have --as in this case --an
adjoining property on the opposite side of the road with significant parking and
industrial use.... Parking on both sides of the road will cause a significant change in
character." He concluded that he could not support the amendment.
Mr. Nitchmann strongly disagreed with Mr. Tice. He said: "Not to support this would
send a very wrong message to the industries in this county that permit us to provide
the services that the citizens of this community want. We are talking about companies
like GE, Sperry and Comdial that need the ability to grow, and you want to stop them
from growing because they need the land across the street from them --contiguous to
them --they need for parking, to supply jobs to county citizens, their children and
97
6-23-98 12
grandchildren....." He pointed out that these companies pay wages that are
considerably above minimum wage. GE is the county's second largest employer and
one which offers jobs which help county residents improve their standard of living. He
said: "And you want to tell them, 'no, you can't grow.' That is wrong. That is not the
right thing to do. You can't do that." He commended staff for their work on the
amendment. He stressed that the use would still require a special use permit which
the Commission could either deny or approve, or approve with changes. He said he
agreed with some of the changes proposed by Mr. Tice, but he did not agree with the
term "exhaustive study" because that has a different meaning to different people. He
said: We approved this 24,000 square feet addition. By golly, I'm awfully sorry we
did that not realize they were going to need some parking for it. But we are
Americans and we want to drive our cars, and we don't have bus routes (that can
meet the needs of the county or surrounding counties). Even if we had bus routes, i
would bet the majority of people would not use them because they want to use their
cars. We can't say the applicant has not tried. They have, with JAUNT, etc. If we
are to sustain sound economic well being in this community, we need citizens like GE
here that want to grow. We cannot sit back and say 'I'm sorry, but that land across
the road from you --too bad you're growing but we can't let you put cars there, no
matter how nicely you are going to landscape it.' And I can't believe that the
Piedmont Environmental Council would say 'no justification.' Do you mean to tell me
that providing jobs for future generations is not a justification to permit an industry
such as GE or Sperry or Comdial to have additional parking in the rural area that we
did not plan. I can't believe we would not allow that. If we have good partners here
that can grow and grow with us, we don't need to be going out looking for other
businesses to come here, where me may not know what type of business it is. Mr_
Tice, I can't believe where you are coming from."
Mr. Tice responded: "If this is about GE or Sperry or Comdial, then GE or Sperry or
Comdial should come to us with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning
for this site saying 'we want to partner with the county and we are good for this
county' so that the Board can make that decision specifically, as opposed to a zoning
text amendment that is not specific to this site and is open to the entire rural area of
the county and is an erosion into the rural area of the county."
Mr. Nitchmann disagreed that it was an erosion into the rural area because it will still
be controlled by a special use permit. He said he agrees with staff, that "this is the
best route for this."
Mr. Loewenstein reminded the Commission that the matter before the Commission is
a Zoning Text Amendment.
Referring to the five issues listed in the beginning paragraph of 5.1.3, Mr. Keeler
explained: "It says the off -site employee parking may be authorized only when....
This is inclusive. You have to meet all five cases. The fifth case is if the parcel on
which the off -site parking is located is either contiguous with the property on which
the industrial use being served is located, or if the two parcels are not contiguous, the
60308 13
two subject parcels are separated only by public or a private road. This would not be
Mr. Nitchmann said he understands that, but denial would send a message of
Iit 1 the
rtcoopefation from the. t.�ourSty government, that we do not warm tyre industries that
are important to the livelihood of this community and to future generations... to be able
to improve their standard of living." He said: "We can't always preserve everything
for the rural area in tars cun-u-nuniiy, especially in situations where it Irneans putting
bread and butter on the table vs. keeping a piece of green grass. I would venture
most people would prefer the bread and butter."
Mr. Rooker said: "One question I would have is that I am not certain the rezoning
route would give the Board and Corr, rnission any snore control over a particular
industry that needs to improve its parking situation than the special use permit process
does. The circumstances under which this proposed ordinance can apply seem to me
1__-_1.______1__ 1'._-:1__I __I 11_-_.- :_ articulated
�-1 l criteria
11__1 .____I 1
to be exuernely iintited aria there is articulated a very strict set or criteria that need to
be made that might not even be able to be made in cases where they could make a
good case for a rezoning. I'm just not sure that the overall objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan
ian t be better met -witha special use permit process
like this.
. e
do recognize the importance of the things Mr. Nitchmann is saying. If that is the case
1 r_._rt �__ t L_.__ia :._ r:__.�t tl__1 ..._._t_ L_ JJ some
1-:--
I don't t see a great benefit in requiring an fi applicant that wants to add so i ie panting,
meeting these limited criteria, being required to spend 9 months or a year to meet that
objective as opposed to the couple of months it might take following a special permit
application.
A _ _.._ review
_ _ _:___ 1-- 11_- results
_1 _ would
._._-1_-LI__ L._ LI__ ___-_- 11
application. Assuming our review is simiiar, the results would probably be the sarne.
Mr. Tice responded: "I understand that. Here it has already been 6 months. First we
I___I _r[_t1_ parking
r__1_:_1__•_ _i1_ because
_I 11_-1
had off -site parking for historic uses arid now, partly because or that, we have tilis for
industrial uses. Six months from now are we going to have one for commercial uses
and six months after that one for multi -family uses?" Mr. Nitchmann responded: "We
;t .vlong."
might, and we :usa w:f.ave to a.die ahei heaey af
Mr. Rooker said: "In some ways I am more comfortable dealing with this --if we put the
GE request into this iffvuef that we've gut iJCIVre us ar'rti it's a Special use Neiriiit
application, I would be much more comfortable dealing with it, looking at these criteria,
1 4 1.. _ _ 1- _ .,,. the
Plan
_ -� -.i 1 ..
than r I would a rezoning request, which involves changing igii rg «re Cor r �p Plai r and looking
at the various factors involved there. This appears to be a reasonable balance in
preserving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, yet not requiring applicants that have
somewhat of ail immediate need to get art answer --one way or Zile otiler--
expeditiously. In that regard I can support the Zoning Text Amendment with the
changes discussed earlier in our discussion."
Mr. Rieley said Mr. Rooker's point about the time is a good one. He said: "I am
1 i__..L the
discrepancy
the
1 r t:...__ Ir 'Lake about the discrepancy in tyre arnounu of erne one process would Lane over
the others. He continued: "I do feel, though, in simply looking at the issue of parking
with an industrial zone adjacent to a rural areas zone, the appropriate thing is not to
give a -special provision fur something that is cortipretery out dt ckiaracier in a rural
area. If that is appropriate in that adjacent (property), change the zoning to make it so
0
6-23-98 14
that it is compliant with the spirit of that zoning. I thought Ms. Parker and Mr.
ti 'f1 '' !!l made e f k t�l s_ ti!? tn;4t 3i}"YfifL'iCig ii3 that i_)i_:.'�3iif_5i, iT;,Ak
we don't want to unnecessarily hamstring any manufacturing facility from people being
able to get to work. But it seems to me that the zoning text amendment is
fun-'amentally tife wrong avenue to address that. The difficulty for me is that the
special use permit process is for a very rare occurrence. It would not even apply, as
has been pointed out, to Sperry, for example because it is not contiguous. So the
very rarity of the occurrence suggests a more rigorous process that actually brings the
use into compliance with the zoning, rather than making an on -the -books special
provision for it, seems more appropriate."
Mr. Rooker said: "if you look at the Sperry situation as an example, i think if you
require them to go for a rezoning and a change in the Comprehensive Plan, they
might decide if they are going to do that they might as well deal with the whole 40
acres while they are at it. Then we would be looking at a much larger change in use
in the rural area, which is bothersome to me. This allows you to deal with a spot
situation in a very small way --and you can make sure it is an unobtrusive way with the
conditions you put on the special use permit and the various factors that are to be
considered, including the impact on adjacent property. It seems to me that this allows
you to deal with the problem with a scalpel as opposed to a carving knife. As we said
earlier, there are going to be very few situations which can fit into this particular
circumstance. But I think we may be looking at rezoning requests in which we have
less control and which may have much broader applicability than what we are looking
at here.''
The Chairman called for a motion.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZTA 98-04, to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to allow for off -site employee parking in conjunction with an
industrial use, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as proposed
by staff, with the following changes:
--5.1.3.a. - Add at the end: For the purposes of this section, the term
'physically desirable' shall mean that the general public interest as opposed to the
proprietary interest of the applicant will be better served.
--5.1.3.b. - Change first sentence: Applicant shall demonstrate that he has
made a reasonable good faith effort to make public transportation available to
employees of the industrial use, ...(rest same).
--5.1.3 (4): Change to read: Alternate transportation opportunities are not
available which would eliminate the need for additional parking.
The motion passed, 3:2, with Commissioners Rieley and Tice casting the dissenting
votes.
*40. SP 97-64 Bethel Baptist Church & SDP 98-59 Site Plan Waiver Request - Request to
allow for expansion of an existing church use of an adjoining parcel. The property,
described as Tax Map 21, Parcels 25 and 26 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
al
6-23-98 15
described as Tax Map 21, Parcels 25 and 26 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District at the intersection of Burnley Station Road [Route 6411 and Watts Passage
[Route 600]. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Also a request to allow for
expansion of an existing church use onto an adjacent residential property, for an
additional driveway entrance, and for one-way circulation without development of a full
site plan. The Land Use Plan shows this property as Rural Areas.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both the
special permit and the waiver subject to conditions.
Staff answers to Commission questions:
--The location of the barricade shown on the plan is accurate. The delineation
of the parking spaces is just to show where parking could be located, but is not
necessarily accurate.
--The Commission can require that lighting be directed downward.
--The area adjacent to the area where vegetation was cleared is presently used
as a pasture. The screening proposed will be located inside a fence, but provision will
need to be made to protect the screening trees from the animals in the pasture.
Mr. Tice compared staffs recommendation for 8 inch high trees, planted 15 foot on
center to another statement in the staff report which states: "...trees could be planted
to grow a screen so that in 3-4 years, vegetation blocking the view of the adjoining
properties will be reestablished." He said 8 inch high trees could not possibly grow
enough in 3-4 years to create a screen. Ms. Echols agreed that it would not be a 5-6
foot screen in 3-4 years, but it could be a 3-4 foot screen. Ms. Echols said staff, in its
recommendation for screening, had considered the expense involved in a requirement
to plant 3-4 foot tall trees. Mr. Keeler did not think the usual screening requirements
of the Ordinance would apply because screening of a church is not usually required.
Mr. Loewenstein said he is familiar with this site and the vegetation that was removed
by the applicant was more substantial than what is proposed in staffs condition. Mr.
Tice said: "If our objective is to get a screen in 3-4 years, then we need to tighten up
on the spacing --go with probably 6 or 7 foot centers."
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the screening is proposed close to the road instead of close
to the parking. Ms. Echols said adjoining property owners expressed concerns about
a loss of privacy, so staff tried to "strike a balance between what the ordinance
requires for screening and replacement of that. She said Mr. Keeler is correct, the
Zoning Ordinance would not require a screen at that location. But it can be required
as part of a special permit and staff was trying to arrive at "middle ground." That is
why the full requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are not recommended. Mr. Tice
thought Mr. Nitchmann's question was a good one because it appears there might be
room, between the fence and the parking lot, for the trees. Mr. Rieley said he has
never heard of a pasture having to be screened. Mr. Rooker pointed out less
screening may be required if it is moved closer to the parking lot. Mr. Loewenstein
said it appears putting the screening close to the parking lot will do more to protect the
neighbors' views. Ms. Echols said staffs recommended location for screening had
been based in part on the possibility of future church expansion. An expansion in that
yi
6-23-98 16
area would require the trees to be removed. Staff had attempted to screen the
perimeter. Shrubbery was proposed around the parking lot. Mr. Rooker pointed out
that the special permit is limited to what is shown on this plan. No expansion is
proposed and it is unknown whether an expansion would take place "in that direction."
Mr. Loewenstein said he thinks that is another good reason to locate the screening
"closer in."
Mr. Nitchmann said his experience has shown that half of the trees that are planted
will probably not survive. In the proposed location it will be difficult to keep them
watered. He said 15 feet apart could eventually become 45 feet between some trees.
Mr. Rooker said the condition can require that those that die be replaced. Ms. Echols
said the intent is that the screening will be maintained.
The applicant was represented by Rev. Wendall Lamb. He explained how the church
had acquired the adjacent property. He said the removal of most of the vegetation
was done by the previous owner. The applicant removed trees only from the area
between the existing parking lot and the house. He said most of the neighboring
houses cannot be seen from the church lot. He said the church will be glad to plant
trees along the "backside" though the church is quite a ways from the neighbor in the
back.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Rev. Lamb to describe what exists on the opposite side of
where the words "Proposed Screening" appear in the plan. Rev. Lamb described the
location of Ms. Fox's home. (Ms. Echols said staff received a letter from Ms. Fox and
she is the person who is most concerned about the loss of privacy. She added that
Ms. Fox's home is surrounded by dense vegetation, as is the area on the other side of
her house, to the south.)
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Steve Ferguson, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
(Referring to the plan, he described his property as being "all the property below the
words 'Bethel Baptist', and to the right, which is basically the entire length of the house
property.) He expressed concern about the loss of vegetative screening and being
adjacent to a parking lot. He was not concerned about the house on the church's
property, or the church, but rather what is between his house and the church. He also
had concerns about drainage.
Mr. Rooker commented: "It seems to me screening along that side is as important as
it is anywhere on the site. Ms. Echols said there are existing trees along the border
of Mr. Ferguson's property. Having visited the site, Mr. Loewenstein said the row of
trees shown on the plat is more extensive than what actually exists, i.e. "it makes it
appear the boundary is much more substantial than is fact." He said it might be
appropriate to extend the screening farther down.
Mr. Vince Mancini, an adjacent property owner, expressed concerns about parking lot
lighting, which he said shines directly into his bedroom. He questioned the legality of
qOT,
6-23-98 17
the church's incorporation of the adjoining property to the church use. He feared
potential future uses such as day care. He did not think the screening, as proposed,
would be become an effective screen during his lifetime. (It was determined Mr.
Mancini's property is the next property "to the right of the Ferguson property.")
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said the lighting needs to be addressed and there is a need for more
screening. He suggested the location of the screening could be pinned down before
the Board hearing.
Mr. Loewenstein said he is concerned about the fact that the only prohibited use of
the house is day care. He feared there are other uses which could be made of the
house in the future, though the church has indicated it does not wish to pursue any
other uses at this time.
There was a discussion of how to amend condition No. 2 to address the Commission's
desire for more screening. Mr. Tice suggested: Staff approval of a landscape plan
that adequately screens the improvements from the adjacent Fox and Ferguson
properties.
It was decided the following condition would be added to address concerns about
lighting: All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded .
Mr. Rooker said he is somewhat troubled about getting an application "in this state."
He explained: "Because I am not so sure that we would approve the combination of
these properties in the first place and we are looking at this as a fait accompli." He
asked staff: "If we are going to limit the use of the new acquisition property to a
parcel, which is basically a residential use, is this special use permit necessary?" Ms.
Echols responded: Yes, because they expanded the parking lot onto that adjacent
property." Mr. Keeler added: "if this had all been one piece of property to begin with
they could have expanded the parking lot without a special use permit."
Mr. Rooker said: "In light of what has happened here, I think the landscaping
requirements to protect adjoining properties should be pretty extensive. I think the
language recommended by Mr. Tice is good (but) I hope staff will make sure we are
not talking about skimpy landscaping that years from now may provide adequate
screening. I think we are looking at something to provide more immediate screening.
Ms. Echols said the Commission can require that the screening be in conformance
with the Zoning Ordinance, and "that will take care of it." Mr. Rooker said he does not
think even the screening recommended in the Ordinance is adequate screening, in
this instance, for four or five years, and in light of the fact that we are getting this
after the fact --we never would have approved what has been done here. I think there
needs to be some reparation that takes place here to protect adjoining landowners. I
think the landscaping plan approved should provide immediate screening for the
adjoining landowners, not something that five or six years from now might provide
screening if all the trees live and grow as they are expected to grow. That would be
c?_�
6-23-98 18
° my request." Mr. Nitchmann cautioned that requiring trees which are 3-4 inches in
diameter could be very expensive for the applicant. Mr. Rooker said he is uncertain
about the particulars of tree size and density, but he wants the record to be clear that
"when we talk about an adequate landscape plan to screen the existing properties,
we're talking about screening that is now vs. five years from now. Maybe dense 4-foot
trees do that." Mr. Rieley later suggested adding the requirement for "25 trees, in the
6-8 foot tall category." He said: "I really worry that if we get a solid evergreen
screen behind the parking lot and along the property line, we may be doing more
harm than good to this setting. So I think if we put something in so that the individual
species are of some size, but not overdo it and try to make a wall around it, I think we
would be better served." Ms. Echols asked if Mr. Rieley had a time period in mind. It
was agreed the 18 months suggested in the original condition was acceptable. Mr.
Rieley confirmed that it was his intent that 25 trees would satisfy the screening for the
entire property. With Mr. Benish pointing to the locations on the plan, Mr. Rieley
confirmed the trees were to be located so as "to take care of the Ferguson and Fox
concerns and to screen the parking lot."
There was a discussion about the potential uses for the property. Mr. Loewenstein
was concerned, given the history of the zoning violation, that some of the uses listed
in the applicant's request could potentially result in an intensification of use. Rev.
Lamb was allowed to address the Commission and explain the types of uses that are
envisioned, e.g. to accommodate visiting missionaries or ministers, as a practice
place for visiting musicians, as a place for children's crafts during Vacation Bible
School. He said nothing is envisioned that would not be acceptable in a normal
residence. Mr. Rooker said it does not sound as if any of the uses described by Rev.
Lamb would be inconsistent with a residential use. If any uses became so regular that
they became a commercial type use then the Commission should look at it again. He
concluded: "I would not be comfortable expanding the use right now beyond a
residential use." Mr. Loewenstein said that classroom usage, as mentioned in the
staff report, would not be considered a normal residential use.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 97-64 be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the site plan waiver
request dated June 5, 1998, and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic
tables, and childrens' play equipment.
2. Staff approval of a landscape plan that adequately screens the improvements from the
adjacent Fox and Ferguson properties. Screening shall be established within 18 months of
the approval of the special use permit, and shall include 25 trees, 6-8 feet tall. The
landscaping must be maintained and replaced if it should die.
3. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit
4. All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded.
5. The house shall be used for residential use only.
9�
6-23-98
The motion passed unanimously.
19
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Site Plan Waiver for
Bethel Baptist Church be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The sketch plan shall meet all of the conditions for approval established through
the special use permit process.
2. The entrance from Burnley Station Road shall be established as "entrance only"
through use of signage meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirements for an "incidental
sign."
3. The driveway to the house on Parcel 25 shall be barricaded or otherwise physically
discontinued from the parking lot for the church so that through traffic is not allowed.
The type of barricade or modification to be used shall be indicated on the sketch plan.
4. A plat combining the two properties owned by the church shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Department.
5. Screening of the recently constructed parking area shall be shown on the sketch
plan and made in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 98-039 Blandemar Farm Estates, Phase IV Final Subdivision Plat - Request for
final plat approval to create a total of 33 lots on approximately 751 acres. The
property is described as Tax Map 88, Parcel 1 and is located approximately one mile
east of Taylors Gap Road (Route 708) on Blandemar Drive in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. The property is zoned Rural Area (RA) and is designated Rural
Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sipe presented the staff report. The report explained: Staff is reviewing materials
related to a maintenance agreement for the shared access easement serving Lots 35
and 37. "The proposal meets all other final subdivision requirements and staff
anticipates that this plat will be ready to sign subsequent to the Commission's
meeting."
This item had been called before the Commission by Commissioner Tice. He
explained he had made this request "primarily to try to get a better understanding of
what happened regarding construction of roads." Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of
Engineering, was asked to comment.
Mr. Kelsey said two items were of concern to the Engineering staff: (1) The clearing
and grubbing for the alignment of the proposed roadway; and (2) The stream crossing
that was constructed as part of that clearing. The stream crossing was required to be
removed. The Virginia Department of Forestry addressed that issue. The crossing
was removed and the streambanks were repaired and the last inspection showed
f�
6-23-98 20
things to be in good shape. An erosion control plan was required for the road area
and the majority of the erosion control measures have been installed and are in place,
and seem to be functioning properly.
Mr. Tice said he understands a meeting took place between the County Engineering
staff and the Department of Forestry staff about cooperating to prevent this type of
situation from occurring again. Mr. Kelsey said: "There have been conversations
back and forth, and it has given us the opportunity to clarify what our policy procedure
will be as far as dealing with forestry and agricultural roads --when they cross the line
to actually being a development. Our policy now is that they cross that line if they
have demonstrated an intent to develop the property --once they have made some type
of application to the county."
Mr. Tice said there was a reference in the file related to a question as to whether or
not the dam should have had a special permit before it was built. He asked if that
question has been resolved. Mr. Kelsey said he would have to do some research
before he could answer this question. (The representative of the applicant, Mr. Kirk
Hughes, later addressed this question and explained that no permit was needed for
the dam in 1979. The 100-year floodplain had not been delineated at that time.)
Mr. Tice asked if staff (particularly Engineering and the Water Resources Manager),
when reviewing stream crossings, evaluate not only the crossing for the private road
but also the configuration of lots that could cause driveways to be built across streams
in order to access buildable building sites. Mr. Kelsey responded: "We look at those
when the building permits come in. We look to see where the lots are in relationship
to the roadways. If several stream crossings are proposed in close proximity we try to
see what can be done to reconfigure lots to minimize the number of crossings, or
eliminate them completely. It is something we do look at." Mr. Keeler added: "If it
is a case of a private road and it's crossing a mapped floodplain where the Floodplain
Ordinance applies, it is a prerequisite to obtain a special use permit before we
approve the plat."
On this particular plat, Mr. Tice suggested there might have been a way to adjust the
boundary between lots 38 and 39 which would eliminated a stream crossing. Mr. Sipe
said staff does not re-evaluate, at the final approval stage, the approvals that were
given at the preliminary stage. He said the kind of design issues raised by Mr. Tice
were more appropriate at the preliminary stage.
Mr. Tice again explained: "My main purpose in calling this up was because I knew we
had this controversy about the road construction and stream crossings and I was more
interested in seeing what steps were being taken to prevent something like this from
happening again elsewhere in the county, and making sure that it has been resolved
on this site." Mr. Kelsey replied: "We hope so. We're taking a good stab at it but I
am sure there will always be a loophole somewhere."
Referring to Note No. 6--A 20-foot permanent drainage easement exists over all
streams and water courses. --Mr. Rooker asked: "Do we mean around all streams, or
6-23-98 21
over them? It sounds like we have a drainage easement that crosses the stream as
opposed to being around it." Mr. Kelsey explained: "Usually that language refers to
being 'over' the center line." Mr. Sipe said it might be more proper to say "centered
on." Mr. Rieley suggested: "runs along." Mr. Rooker said: "20 feet around, centered
on the stream. Is that what we are saying." Mr. Sipe said staff could possibly ask for
that note to be revised.
Mr. Tice pointed out, on sheet 4, that there is a drainage easement, with the letters
L5, L6, L7 along it, which meets another drainage easement at a right angle. He said..
"Given hydraulics, that seems to be an angle that is prone to problems." Mr. Sipe
said he would point this out to the applicant. Mr. Kelsey said a drainage easement
with a right angle is something the Engineering Department would take a look at. He
said there have been problems in the past so those 90 degree turns are looked at
more closely than they were in the past.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kirk Hughes. He said this is the final phase of
construction and all the permits are in place. Construction is now taking place in the
areas which were cleared. Regarding the drainage question, he said the velocity of
the drainage there is very low and is not of high quantity, but if there is a need to
revise the easement, the owner has reserved the right to do that prior to acceptance
into the State system.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice said the road incident was regrettable, but it appears steps are being taken to
reduce the chances of something of this nature happening again.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Final Subdivision Plat
for Blandemar Farm Estates, Phase IV, be approved, subject to the following
condition:
1. Staff approval of maintenance agreement.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Tice reported he had attended a reception of the Sustainability Council for the
unveiling of the Sustainability Accords. Supervisor David Bowerman had given a
presentation at the reception. He suggested that Mr. Bowerman be invited to give the
same the presentation to the Commission at some future time. The Commission
supported this suggestion.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
�w
DB V. Way e Cilim