Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 11 1997 PC MinutesEn 3-11-97 MARCH 11, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 11, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Acting County Engineer; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Tice. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of February 25, 1997, were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the March 5th Board of Supervisors meeting. SP 97-01 The Frost Montessori School - Proposal to establish a pre-school in an existing building (Broadus Memorial Church), on approximately 5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.7]. Property, described as Tax Map 62, parcel 25C, is located on the east side of Route 20 approximately 3/4 miles north of the intersection of Route 250 East in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a Development Area (Neighborhood 3) and is designated Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Huckle asked if there are plans to construct a fence around the play area. Staff said no fence is planned. Rt. 20 is some distance away and the children will always be well supervised. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Bain. He said the applicant has no concerns about the proposed conditions. He offered to answer Commission questions. Addressing Ms. Huckle's concern about the lack of a fence, he said the people who are operating the school are very responsible so he is certain a fence will be installed if one is needed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. ,2/0 3-11-97 2 %.W. Mr. Kamptner suggested that condition No. 1 include a specific date for the expiration of the permit. (The applicant expressed no opposition to this suggested amendment to the condition.) on MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-01 for The Frost Montessori School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions- 1 - Approval is for the use of a portion of the existing Broadus Memorial Baptist Church building for a preschool for no more than eighteen children for a period of two years, expiring June 30, 1999. 2. The supplementary regulations of Section 5.1.6 dealing with day care and nursery facilities be applied to this special use permit. Discussion: dryJew- 1 Because the play area is next to a -highway ; Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that a fence will be installed. The motion for approval passed unanimously. ZMA 96-26 Forest Lakes Associates - Proposal to rezone approximately 0.2 acres from R-15, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. The total site consists of 6.2 acres, of which approximately 6.0 acres is currently zoned HC. Property, described as Tax Map 46134, Parcels 1 and A2 is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Timberwood Blvd in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in the Community of Hollymead and is recommended for Community Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. Ms. Huckle asked whether this site would have direct access to the road. Mr. Fritz explained that this is not a "free-standing" parcel --it is part of the larger piece. The applicant was represented by Steve Runkle. He addressed Ms. Huckle's question about access, explaining there will be no direct access to this small part of the property. He said this piece will most likely be used for parking. He said the part which is shown as common area will not be built on. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that ZMA 96-26 for Forest Lakes Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. ill 3-11-97 ,, The motion passed unanimously. 3 ZMA 96-25 River Heights Associates Limited - Proposal to amend the existing proffers of ZMA 95-17 to eliminate the requirement of a connection between the mobile home sales area on Route 29 and the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A, is located on the west side of Route 29 just south of its intersection with Timberwood Blvd. This site is located in the Community of Hollymead and is recommended for Regional Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request. The report explained: "Staff opinion is that elimination of a road connecting the sales center with the mobile home park would be inconsistent with prior actions and the Comprehensive Plan." Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Fritz if it is a requirement of the Ordinance that developments with more than 50 dwellings must have a second entrance. Mr. Fritz said, "where practical, staff tries to get a second entrance for developments of more than 50 units." Though Mr. Fritz said he could not find any statement in previous minutes or staff reports which said this road would provide for emergency access, Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the July 13, 1993 minutes (Attachment C to the staff report) and the statement made by Mr. Wood "that the road could be used as an emergency route in `*..r the event Rt. 606 was blocked." Mr. Fritz said the concept behind the original approval had not been related to emergency access, "but the road could clearly serve that dual purpose." Ms. Huckle pointed out that there will be 100 units in this first phase of development and she believed these types of dwellings are more fire prone than stick -built structures. She also pointed out the close proximity to the airport and the possibility that an accident could block the main entrance to the development. on In response to Mr. Finley's question about the storage area, Mr. Cilimberg said the special permit recently approved allows for no more than 2 displayed mobile homes, visible from Rt. 29, and an area for storage to be completely screened from Rt. 29. There was no restriction on the number of units which could be in the storage area. Mr. Cilimberg assumed a certain number of for -sale units would be stored on the lot. (Mr. Wood later said only models will be stored on the site. Customers will order a unit which will be delivered directly to the mobile home park. He said very few units will actually be moved from this site to the park. ) Mr. Dotson asked if this road is a condition of the special permit. Mr. Fritz responded: "We would require it before the issuance of a CO for the Mobile Home Sales Center." Mr. Kamptner added: "The requirement is that the road be built by the time of the establishment of the mobile home sales use. So before the mobile homes sales use can happen, the road has to be constructed." This request is now asking that that ,-I/A 3-11-97 4 requirement be dropped, i.e. the road would no longer be a condition in establishing the mobile home sales. The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission. [NOTE: Mr. Wood's beginning comments are almost inaudible on the tape.] He said he is seeking to delete the proffer related to the road because the cost of making the road usable by emergency vehicles is prohibitive ($225,000). He explained it was his original intent to use this road, which is currently an existing "farm road," for the movement of only a very few mobile homes to the mobile home park. It was always intended that the use of the road would be "limited. He estimated the road would be used no more than 15 times (total). He had not realized the County would require him to build a road which would meet "emergency vehicle standards." Ms. Huckle said the road could possibly be used for other purposes once this property is developed in commercial or industrial uses, as it ultimately will be. Mr. Wood disagreed saying the location of this road, at the end of the property, is such that it would be of little benefit. Mr. Finley asked staff about the classification of the road. Mr. Fritz said he was not certain how it would be classified, other than as an "emergency access road." He said it does not fall into the private road definition in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to explain the differences between secondary road requirements and emergency access road requirements. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Acting County Engineer, addressed the Commission. [ NOTE: Some of Mr. Kelsey's comments were almost inaudible on the tape.] He said there are several emergency access roads in the County. He gave as an example a road which serves Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek South. For this road, he said the design was one which could provide the vertical and horizontal alignment needed to accommodate an emergency vehicle, but it was not built to secondary road standards. He said: "I would not require any more than we have done for other locations." Mr. Cilimberg added that design of the road in question would probably be driven more by what is needed to accommodate the movement of a mobile home than by what is needed for an emergency vehicle. He said a mobile home is larger and wider, and probably weighs more, than does an emergency vehicle. (Later Mr. Wood disagreed with this statement saying that a fire truck weighs much more than a mobile home.) Mr. Kelsey said that a mobile home is very long, with the wheels centrally located, so a very flat vertical alignment will be needed to keep the back of the unit from dragging. Mr. Nitchmann, after hearing Mr. Kelsey's comments, summarized: "What you're saying is that the design of the road is really up to Mr. Wood because we do have emergency roads which are nothing more than grass lanes ... so it is up to him to design the road so that the mobile home can travel on it. If the road will 3-11-97 5 accommodate a mobile home, we are just going to assume that an emergency vehicle can also be accommodated. So there are really no more requirements put on this road because of the fact it was stated that the road could be used for emergency vehicles." Mr. Finley asked what would be required for the creek crossing. Mr. Kelsey said it would probably be a 10-year storm design. Mr. Wood said he was told, at site review, that he would have to meet the requirements of a State statute in the construction of an emergency access road. "That was how this had all come about." After hearing Mr. Kelsey's comments, he said: "If that is not the case, then that changes the scenario." Mr. Cilimberg said he was not familiar with a State statute, but staff will check the site review comments. He added that determinations as to road standards are not made during site review. Those determinations are made by the Engineering Department. He said the Fire and Rescue component of site review may have made some comments about a desirable type of road. He said he felt the Engineering Department would be aware of any State statute. Mr. Nitchmann said there are some emergency access roads that are nothing more than a "path through the woods." He said when he voted on the original rezoning, it "%NW was his understanding "it was going to be a little more glorified farm lane that the applicant could move the mobile homes on and (we thought), 'that's great because we can get a fire truck through there if we need to.' That is the intent I had at the time." He said requiring the applicant to build a substantial road would add $1,500 to the price of the lots in the park. He said it had not been his intent that a $225,000 road be built. Mr. Wood said he had also understood Mr. Kelsey to say tonight that "there is no problem to cross the stream." He commented: "You have heard enough requests from individual owners to cross streams ... and they are not simple issues." He said he had also understood Mr. Kelsey to say this was "an easy matter." Mr. Wood commented: "If it's an easy matter, then we'll do it, and if we have to do it I hope that standard of being no problem to cross the stream (will be the case)." Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the matter be deferred to allow the applicant to get with planning and engineering staff to clarify "what is actually needed, because there seems to be some misunderstanding." Mr. Dotson supported this suggestion. Having had a chance to quickly review the site review comments, Mr. Cilimberg said there is a reference to something in the Fire Code which came from the Fire Official (not Engineering). He said, if the applicant is agreeable, staff can meet with the applicant, Engineering and the Fire Official to discuss "what is actually necessary." 7i� 3-11-97 6 lk%W Mr. Cilimberg repeated that he feels the design of the road will be driven by the width and length of the mobile homes. This will effect the horizontal and vertical design, and the curvature of the road. on 09 Mr. Wood wanted the record to be clear that he was not trying to get out of doing anything that he had agreed to do. Mr. Wood again explained that it is envisioned that this road will be used no more than 15 times because units which are ordered by customers will be delivered directly to the park. They will not come first to the sales facility and then be moved to the park. Mr. Loewenstein understood Mr. Wood was saying he would be able to move the trailers on the road with a minimum of improvement to the road. He asked Mr. Wood how he plans to deal with the stream crossing. Mr. Wood said he will have to put a pipe in the stream, but it will not be to secondary road standards. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Wood if he had done any research on the potential cost of the road prior to creation of the proffer. Mr. Wood replied: "I did not anticipate that this would be a major (road)." He said he felt he would be able to use the road as he has described with only the removal of some trees, minimal grading, and with the stream crossing. He was not aware of any "emergency road standards" until site review. Mr. Nitchmann asked what time of day mobile homes are usually moved. Mr. Batchelor explained that is regulated by the State. They cannot be on the roads during the hours schoolbuses are in use, nor on Saturdays or Sundays. A unit 16 feet wide can only be on the roads between 12 midnight and 4 or 5 a.m. Mr. Finley said a fire truck would probably use the Rt. 606 entrance because this property is served by the Earlysville Fire Department. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that an emergency access is desirable in the event the main access is blocked. It is not so that an emergency vehicle will have a choice of entrances. A second access also serves as an exit route in the event the main access is blocked. Public comment was invited. Ms. Lisa Harmon, representing the Earlysville Area Residents' League, addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the deletion of the road. It was her recollection the applicant had introduced the idea of this second access when there was some question as to whether or not he was going to be able to create a sufficient turning radius at the Rt. 606 entrance. She expressed concern about the fact that the cost estimate for the road has come from the applicant; the County has not performed a cost estimate. Additional concerns were: �/S 3-11-97 7 --The County is setting the applicant up to have a monopoly because "only the homes from his mobile home sales area can be placed in the mobile home park." --The mobile homes should come through the sales area before being delivered to the park. She explained that delivery of these units will have a serious impact on the intersection of Rt. 29 and Airport Road. --The emergency access road is important not only in its relation to the emergency service at the park, but it will also serve as an emergency route if Airport Road is blocked (by the delivery of a mobile home) and the Earlysville Fire Department is trying to reach a property in the Proffit Road area. --Proffers are an important part of the rezoning process because they offer the County and the applicant the opportunity to compromise. Allowing proffers to be deleted "would seriously undermine the process." 0(ic Mr. Peter Hallick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, expressed opposition to the request. (Their statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A.) There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Finley noted that the rezoning of this property has increased it's value and therefore increased the applicant's tax payment to the County. Ms. Huckle said the tax revenue increase is insignificant when weighed against the increased costs to the `*4mwl County in terms of educational needs for the children of the park's residents. cm Ms. Washington asked if the applicant was agreeable to a deferral. Mr. Wood said he was agreeable to allow time to meet with staff to clarify the criteria for the road. Staff was uncertain how long it would take to get everyone together on this issue, but felt it could probably done within 2 weeks. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 96-25 for River Heights Associates be deferred to March 25,1997. The motion passed unanimously. 1996 ANNUAL REPORT Mr. Dotson asked if staff had drawn any conclusions based on the information, e.g. are any trends or patte.1% indicated? Mr. Cilimberg said the Development Activity Report and Status of the Plan Report answer the questions raised by Mr. Dotson. ."/6 nq OR 3-11-97 MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the 1996 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning Commission be approved. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. V. Way e Cilimbe Sec tary ")/