HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 14 1996 PC Minutes%w 5-14-96
MAY 14, 1996
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May
14, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were° Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chairman; Ms.
Babs Huckle, Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Finley; and Mr. David Tice. Other
officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior
Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney; Absent: Commissioner Washington.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of April 23, 1996 were unanimously approved as amended.
Gilbert Station Woods Final Plat - Proposal to establish a rural preservation
development consisting of 20 development lots averaging 5.31 acres and two
preservation tracts containing 79.5 acres and 100 acres. Property, described as Tax
Map 33, Parcel 31 and Tax Map 34, Parcel 22 is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located
on the west side of Rt. 640 approximately 0.6 miles west of Rt. 784 in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This property is not in a designated Growth Area (Rural Area 2).
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. The item was before the Commission
because the approval granted on June 13, 1995, expired. Staff determined "no changes
in circumstances have occurred since the original review. " Staff recommended
approval of the request subject to conditions.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bill Marrow addressed the Commission. He said his residence is across the road
from this property. His main concern was about the impact of this development on Rt.
640, which he described as a narrow, gravel road with blind curves at the entrance to
this project. There were three school bus accidents on the road a couple of years ago.
Also, loaded school buses cannot cross the 7-ton bridge. He was concerned about
increased enrollment at Stony Point School, which is already overcrowded. He said
there are presently 50 other lots for sale within a half -mile of this project.
The applicant, Mr. Katurah Roel, addressed the Commission. He agreed Mr. Marrow's
description of the condition of the road were accurate, but he noted there is a "good
access" to the property from the other direction. He said the applicant will dedicate
frontage all along the property so the road can be improved. Additional comments
included the following:
--All points about conservation have been addressed and will be recorded with
the plat and included in the deed description.
%W 5-14-96
F
--By-right development would allow the development of 22 lots. (Staff later
confirmed that 22 lots could actually be achieved on the property.)
--By-right development would require approximately 1,500 more feet of road.
--The plat expired because of delays in receiving Health Department approval.
Delays were caused by inclement weather and insufficient Health Department staff.
--He asked the Commission to consider granting "preliminary approvals for at
least 9 months or a year (in the future) to get the practical rudiments of the process
completed." He felt 6 months is inadequate.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Commission's discussion dealt primarily with the condition of Rt. 640. Mr.
Shepherd said VDOT has approved the entrance and the road serving the
development will be a public road. VDOT considers Rt. 640 "non -tolerable" and has an
estimated 85 vehicle trips/day presently. It is not currently in the Six -Year Road Plan
for upgrading, Mr. Keeler explained the criteria Community Development uses in the
development of the Secondary Road priority list. Those criteria, for gravel roads,
include traffic volume, safety issues, and whether or not the road is located in a growth
area. It has also been the County's policy, on the improvement of gravel roads, that
they will not be improved unless the property owners along the road dedicate the right-
,% ` of -way so that the road can be built to VDOT standards, or at least "approaching"
VDOT standards for horizontal and vertical alignment. Staff could not say whether or
not there has been right-of-way dedicated along this section of Rt. 640. He said there
are presently some gravel roads with two to three times the traffic volume of this road.
Mr. Keeler recommended that the residents along the road contact David Benish, the
Chief of Community Development, for further information on the process.
Mr. Dotson asked the County Attorney what latitude the Commission has in terms of
action on this type of proposal, i.e. what types of things can be considered? Mr.
Kamptner responded: Generally, your review is ministerial, looking for compliance with
the Subdivision Ordinance. With respect to the improvements to Rt. 640, the County is
authorized to require off -site improvements to existing public roads only if it is shown
that the need for such improvements is substantially generated by this particular
application. I assume, because we have not imposed that condition, that this project
has been found not to be substantially generating the need for any additional
improvements to upgrade the road."
Mr. Keeler said staff needs more definitive information from VDOT before they could
make any type of recommendation as to the road improvements which might be
necessitated by this project. If the Commission makes a "positive finding" that this
project's impact to the road (i.e. the increased vehicle trips substantiates the need for
improvements) is such that the applicant should be required to upgrade the road as a
condition of approval, then the Commission must make that finding based on sound
information and must be prepared to defend that finding. Mr. Kamptner pointed out if
ICI
5-14-96 3
the road is already classified as "nontolerable" by VDOT, it may be impossible to show
that a particular development substantially generates the need because the need
already exists.
Mr. Nitchmann said the road issue should probably be addressed by the residents
going through the proper procedure to get the road into the Secondary Road Plan. He
said this project is trying to follow the Rural Preservation Development, which the
County has encouraged as being preferable to by -right development, in most instances.
He thought the road issue would take time to address.
Mr. Dotson said one of the questions to be answered in an RPD is whether the design
and layout are preferable to spreading the same number of lots out over the entire site.
He said, "I don't have any problem saying this is preferable. It saves the applicant
money in terms of road improvement costs which then translates into housing costs,
and it disturbs less land. He said he finds it surprising that if this project does add
significantly to the traffic "that we would have the ability to address some of those
concerns" He asked if it were possible to get more information from VDOT in order to
either rule out that this is a major contributor, or say "yes, in fact, it is."
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out 22 lots can be built by -right, whether further information is
''" W supplied or not, and the impact will be the same. He questioned what would be gained
by a deferral. Mr. Dotson said it was his understanding, based on Mr. Kamptner's
earlier comments, that whether the property is developed as an RPD or by -right, if it is
determined this project will have a significant negative impact to the safety of Rt. 640,
the County can require this applicant to upgrade the road. Mr. Kamptner said: "If
we're looking at impacts, we look at what they could do by -right as a yardstick." Mr.
Dotson concluded the impact would be the same, whether by -right or by RPD. Mr.
Keeler said the Code allows a locality to "accept" off -site road improvements in the
subdivision process, but he was uncertain as to whether they can be required. Mr.
Keeler said if VDOT makes a finding that the addition of this project would make the
road "unsafe," that may be a basis to require the applicant to make improvements.
Ms. Huckle thought some of the comments made by Mr. Marrow indicate that this is,
indeed, a dangerous road. Mr. Keeler said staff may be able to obtain information from
the Education Department about the school bus accident record on the road.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that it has been very seldom that the County has denied a
subdivision based on the condition of a road. He could recall only two cases in his 22
years with the County, and one of those was based on the number of school bus
accidents which had occurred on the road. He stressed that such a finding by the
Commission must be clearly articulated. He said even if the property does have by-
*AWI right development potential, the Commission is "not obligated to create a public safety
hazard."
5-14-96
Mr. Finley pointed out that the preliminary plat had been approved in 1995. He
wondered how the traffic situation had changed since that time. Mr. Nitchmann agreed
that nothing appears to be different.
Mr. Dotson asked if staff could contact VDOT and the Education Department for more
information and report back to the Commission, orally, in one week. Staff questioned
whether one week was adequate time to receive responses.
Mr. Dotson summarized his position. He said he had entered the meeting thinking this
proposal was preferable to by -right development and was really just a "house -keeping"
matter because it had been approved previously. However, significant questions have
been raised which can only be answered by VDOT and, therefore, it is important to get
additional information..
Ms. Huckle asked if schools are ever considered "intolerable." Mr. Keeler said the
issue of schools is an entirely different matter. He said: , The County has an obligation
to educate the school children. The County is divided up into school districts and builds
schools (to serve those districts). Then, if you take the position that we're not going to
approve any more development because schools are full, I don't think you can do that.
... I don't think any locality has been successful in denying development based on
1�ft' schools which that locality controls the development of. You would be saying 'we're not
going to build any more schools and have any more people move to Albemarle County,
and anybody who has additional children will have to move out." Mr. Kamptner said:
"Localities' authority with respect to schools in Virginia is non-existent."
Staff said they would try to get the information requested by next week. Mr. Nitchmann
asked also that staff include a clear explanation of the options which are available to
the County.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded that Gilbert Station Woods Final
Plat be deferred to May 21, 1996, so that staff can attempt to contact VDOT and the
Education Department to obtain information about Rt. 640 and to report their findings
orally to the Commission. Also to be included in the oral report are the County's options
for action. (Mr. Dotson said he was not interested in deferring this item to allow for an
extensive traffic study to be performed.)
Mr. Roel noted that Rt. 640, to the right, is a tolerable road, i.e. a level, graveled, wide
road which goes to Stony Point School." It is only that section, "past this subdivision,
which is intolerable, and there are only 2 homes on that section."
The motion passed unanimously.
om
M
5-14-96
ZMA-96-08 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors - Monticello High School and
Associated Public Facilities - Proposal to rezone approximately 101 acres from R-1,
Residential to R-15, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 2 is
located just south of PVCC, between Avon Street Extended and State Route 20, south
of Interstate 64, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is currently
designated for Low Density Residential use in Urban Area Neighborhood 4 and is
proposed for Institutional use in the update of the Land Use Plan.
AND
SDP 96-024 - Monticello High School Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a
public high school for approximately 1,500 students with approximately 135,000 square
feet and associated athletic facilities and parking on a site of approximately 67 acres.
Property, described as Tax Map 91, parcel 2 is located just south of Piedmont Virginia
Community College, between Avon Street Extended and State Route 20, south of
Interstate 64, in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Public comment was invited prior to staff and the applicant's presentation.
Several members of the Willow Lake Subdivision addressed the Commission. Though
they did not express opposition to the proposal, they listed several concerns. Those
who spoke were: Jonathan Lind (He presented a brief slide show which illustrated the
location of the playing fields in relation to the subdivision and also some slides showing
existing erosion problems on some Willow Lake lots.); Mary Hughey (She showed the
Commission a bushel -basket containing approximately 40 softballs which she had
collected from her property in the last year. Several other members of the public
indicated, by a show of hands, that they have similar collections of softballs collected
from their property.); Sue Mantz, President of the Homeowners' Association of Willow
Lake (She presented a petition signed by 71 Willow Lake residents); David Brock;
Sandra Gubin; Crickett Javor; Eileen Brand.
Concerns of the Willow Lake residents were as follows:
--Noise pollution from the playing fields.
--Light pollution from the playing fields.
--Soil erosion caused by the loss of natural groundcover.
--Trespassing and crime.
--Loss of privacy.
--Loss of beauty provided by the natural foliage and wildlife in the area.
--Damage caused by "errant fly balls."
--Incompatibility of public uses and private uses adjacent to one another. (Willow
Lake will now be faced with being adjacent to two public access areas --the high school
and PVCC. )
--Increased traffic on Rt. 20 South.
5-14-96 6
To address these concerns, the Willow Lake residents were requesting the following
conditions be placed on the site plan:
--Preservation of the 140-foot deep buffer of trees between the school property
and Willow Lake. (This would address many of the concerns listed.)
--The construction of a tree -bordered, 8-foot fence between the school property
and Willow Lake properties --on the school side --high enough so that it could not be
crossed easily. ("An 8-foot fence sends a much stronger message that this is a real
barrier than does a 6-foot fence.")
--Relocation of the playing fields to the north and west so that existing tree buffer
can be preserved.
Ms. Bill Edgerton, a local architect, said he was troubled by this site plan. He said it
appears considerable effort has been given to maximizing the use of this site. He said:
"Perhaps a more sustainable site plan could be developed if portions of the program
were shifted to another site. Specifically if a different location could be found for the
Parks and Recreation athletic fields, the impact on this site might be minimized
substantially." He concluded: "In an effort to solve too many of the County's
programmatic needs, it appears much of the potential sustainability of this site plan has
been sacrificed."
,%W Ms. Barbara Strang, President of SOCCA, expressed support for the plan. She
stressed the importance of organized sports for young people and the critical need for
the playing fields which are proposed for this facility.
Mr. Will Riley expressed surprise at the proposed site plan. He said there are "too
many facilities to fit gracefully on this site or to preserve any of its natural charm or
integrity." He pointed out that the plan shows grading on a critical slope to
accommodate the building pad, a 20-foot fill section to accommodate a path to a
practice field, playing fields on slopes much too steep to be economically or functionally
reasonable, and the football field is located on a 30-foot fill section at the inlet of the
pond, the site's primary drainage system. He wondered how the same proposal from
a private developer would be viewed by the County. He concluded: "Clearly the
pressure for public facilities is greater than this site's capacity to accommodate.... To
avoid this in the future, we need a concrete and defensible athletic facilities plan and a
public resolve to overcome the NIMBY voices that have defeated better plans than this
one in the past."
Ms. Marsha Joseph, a member of the Design Team for the high school, addressed the
Commission. She described the process which had been followed in the design of the
building and the site. An attempt was made to address many varying concerns and
plans were based on the belief that this is a "community/County use." She said a
conscious attempt was made to put a lot on this site "so that none of these programs
would have to be presented anywhere else." She stressed this property is "destined
ICY
5-14-96
for development, is in the urban ring, and represents in -fill development. She
emphasized there were many voices heard in the creation of this design.
Ms. Brand stressed there should be a "balance between athletics and scholastics and
respect for a small community which finds itself, through no fault of its own, far too near
a new school."
There being no further public comment, the staff report and applicant comment were
then presented.
Mr. Lilley gave a summary of the proposal. Approval was being sought for: (1) The
rezoning of 101 acres from R-1 to R1-15; and (2) The preliminary site plan including
modifications of Sections 4.2.2.2 (grading of critical slopes), 4.12.6.2 (one-way
circulation), 4.12.3.4 (parking space distance from entrances), and 4.12.6.5 (curvilinear
parking). Staff was recommending approval of all items.
[NOTE: Mr. Lilley pointed out that a section of the property located between the
Tandem School property and the proposed connector road should be omitted from the
rezoning action because that property is to be combined with the Tandem School
property.]
Mr. Tice asked why there are no proposed conditions attached to the preliminary site
plan as is usually the case. Mr. Lilley said conditions such as erosion control plans and
other final details are typically a part of the final site plan review process. Mr. Tice
commented: "With as much grading as is necessary with this site, it seems a significant
enough issue, particularly with the critical slopes involved, that I would recommend that
we look at that." Mr. Lilley said the Commission can place conditions on the preliminary
plan if it so chooses.
Mr. Finley asked about the implications of the ARB's comments related to the number
of playing fields and maximizing the buffer. Mr. Lilley replied: "I think in terms of the
ARB's purview, they wanted to go on record and express their concerns. They are
advisory to the Board of Supervisors on such matters, but really are limited to what is
within view of the Entrance Corridor roads--Rt. 20 and Rt. 742."
Mr. Dotson asked if, by changing the zoning on an area which is much larger than the
actual school facility, "are we opening up possibilities under R-15 that didn't exist under
R-1?" Mr. Lilley replied: "Yes. But in this case there are firm County plans for County
facilities which would be allowed in either district and which have been reviewed under
the 456 Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. That is not a real
concern --that R-15 residential development would go on the property instead of County
facilities." Mr. Dotson summarized: "in terms of County facilities, it really doesn't make
any difference in terms of setback, possible County use of the land, or any other
cm
5-14-96
requirements, it simply enables the building to be taller." Mr. Lilley replied: "That's
right."
Referring to erosion which was shown in the slides presented by the public, Mr. Lilley
said there has been no County development of the property which would cause that
type of erosion. He suspected the problems were the result of "the way the Willow
Lake property was graded."
Ms. Jo Higgins, Albemarle County Director of Engineering and a member of the Design
Team, described the plan in detail and the process which had been followed, including
in the development of the plan. She called attention to displays showing ten different
layouts which had been given careful evaluation before this plan was finally decided
upon. Comments and answers to specific Commission questions were as follows:
--Runoff from the road and parking lots has been reduced by approximately 25%
by changing the road from four lanes to three lanes. This reduces the runoff to the
pond, which is being used as a stormwater detention facility. The use of this site for
this purpose greatly reduces the amount of impervious area from that which would
result if the property were to be developed residentially.
--A major consideration was "how to balance the ecology of the pond." To
increase the buffer between Willow Lake would mean pushing the playing fields "down
the hill towards the pond." This would cause the loss of "major trees" on the east side
of the dam.
--The Team felt an earthen berm would act as a better buffer than trees.
--Placing a fence at the top of the slope will maximize the height. A 6-foot fence
was proposed but consideration can be given to an 8-foot fence adjacent to Willow
Lake. If the fence is placed at the top of the slope it will be into the school site
approximately 12 feet, and will leave a slope that is landscaped along the front of the
townhomes. A vinyl coated fence is proposed, and could be installed prior to the
beginning of earth moving activities on the neighboring Lakeside site early this summer.
The fence can be tied to the PVCC fence, thereby leaving no opening to the Willow
Lake property.
--The number of playing fields proposed is an effort to "meet the athletic needs of
the schools" for a balanced program. Losing fields at this location would mean students
will have to be bused to other locations for practice. This is also meant to serve as a
community facility. The County's Community Facilities Plan calls for educational
campuses to include community -use fields. Two fields are being paid for from Parks
and Rec's CIP budget. PVCC has said they have no fields they can share with the
school. However, four tennis courts for the high school will actually be built on the
PVCC property, adjacent to their existing tennis courts. There may also be some
shared use, with PVCC, of the Humanities Building auditorium.
--No baseball or softball fields are proposed in the area adjacent to Willow Lake.
--Lighting will be "neighborhood friendly, down -lighting." Lighting plans will be
reviewed by the ARB.
��C1
5-14-96 9
--Grading plans are tied to "maintaining access and getting the fields in without
getting into significant rock."
--Though the lake on the site has been used as a sediment pond by the
Lakeside Development, it is considered an amenity to the site and an effort has been
made to protect it as much as possible. A significant effort has been made to protect
the critical slopes and the natural spring below the building. Consideration is being
given to the construction of a wetland area in the swale between the baseball field and
the parking lot.
--Question: Has more consideration been given to trying to shift the location of
the fields so as save more of the tree buffer?" Answer: The size of three fields have
been decreased. It may also be possible to pull the slope to a 2:1 instead of a 3:1,
which could give 5 to 8 feet more in the buffer area. It might be possible to squeeze
another 10 feet on the top of the berm.
--Trees which are lost during grading will be replaced with a staggered strip of
trees.
--The drainage problem which some Willow Lake residents are experiencing will
be helped somewhat by grading on the high school site because after the cut is made
everything from the top of the berm will drain to the pond.
--Question: "Why can't some of the other property (reserved for County usage)
be used for relocation of the playing fields?" Answer: Those areas are too far removed
from the main building, causing students to have to walk long distances, resulting in a
loss of class time. The Education Department also has concerns about lack of
supervision of students when they must cross the parking and travelway areas. Safety
of students is also a concern. Also, some of the property is reserved for fire and rescue
facilities.
--Question: What percentage of time will the fields be used by other than the
high school students?" Answer: The schools have first use of the fields, then
community use comes afterwards. During the spring, the school will have 100% usage
during the week, with community use on weekends. There would be a majority of
community use on two of the fields in the fall. During the summer, the fields will be
used for community use by students.
Mr. Pat Mulaney, Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation, said he had no
guilt about trying to maximize the use of the site given the fact that it is an expensive
piece of property which was purchased with taxpayer money. He also said he does not
feel badly that it might be difficult, from an aerial view, to distinguish the facility from a
recreational site. He pointed out that the Community Facilities Plan says that "our
schools are to serve as district and community parks." He pointed out that even though
the fields will be used as recreational space at times, during parts of the school year
they will be used entirely by school teams. Elimination of one of these fields will mean
a team will have to be bused to some other location for practice. That means not only
will the recreational needs of this school be inadequate, the needs of some other facility
will be compromised by having to share it's facilities with teams from this school. He
questioned the wisdom of opening a new school which would have an insufficient
1,51
"'A' 5-14-96 10
number of playing fields to serve its own students from the beginning. He concluded:
"In Parks & Rec, if we can't develop the fields that we need on school sites, I don't know
where we will be able to go to meet the need that is so pressing right now." Answers to
specific Commission questions included the following:
--Mr. Mulaney said the estimated cost of a soccer field is $25,000. (Mr. Tice
pointed out that Mr. Reaser, Director of Albemarle County Public Schools Building
Services Department, has said these new fields will cost $100,000 each. He said: "It
would seem there is a responsibility to the taxpayer in deciding if this is the best place
to spend that money if we talking about a difference of $100,000 vs. $25,000. For
$75,000 per field we could buy some land that is appropriate without the grading
problems and the buffer problem.") Mr. Mulaney pointed out it is difficult to locate fields
because of neighborhood opposition and there are also additional costs involved such
as parking lots, restroom facilities, road improvements, etc. Mr. Keeler pointed out that
the "dual use concept" serves sustainability because development does not have to be
spread out.)
Miscellaneous Commission suggestions and comments:
--(Dotson) Planting a dense hedge may be more effective as a screen than
trees. Also, some sort of thorny vegetation may act as a deterrent. Ms. Higgins noted
that cutting off access to the high school site completely will also cut off Willow Lake
residents' pedestrian access to the facilities at PVCC and the high school, such as
tennis courts, the running tracks, etc.
--(Huckle) Non -competition fields would best be located adjacent to Willow Lake
because they will have less intense usage in terms of spectators and noise. Ms.
Higgins said usage will be influenced by available parking and handicapped
accessibility.
--(Nitchmann) Because there will be additional playing fields as the result of this
facility, is it critical that there be 6 fields instead of 5?
--(Nitchmann) PVCC could be a better neighbor if they would plant more trees
along their boundary.
--(Nitchmann) It is hoped the cost of a higher fence (an 8' fence rather than a 6'
fence) will not be viewed as a significant problem by the county, given the fact that the
adjacent residents will have to live with this facility for a long time --in some cases, for
"the rest of their lives."
--(Nitchmann) It is going to be very difficult to preserve the "integrity" of the pond,
given the amount of grading that will take place on this site. Ms. Higgins said the pond
has been used as an erosion control facility for development which has taken place
over several years. The fact that it is already in place was "figured in the price of this
property." It will be used in the same manner during the development of the school and
then it will be restored and will continue to serve as a regional stormwater facility for
several properties.
NW --(Huckle) "The main criticism I've heard is about the playing fields. This is
meant to be a school. That's what its reason for being is. You look at this plan and you
see this tiny, minuscule thing that is the school, surrounded by this huge amount of
M
5-14-96
11
playing fields. I think if you listen to the coaches and Parks and Recreation, the whole
thing would be playing fields and there wouldn't be any school there at all. So I think
the 'tail is wagging the dog'. We need to focus on what this thing is for. It's a school
and the playing fields are strictly subsidiary to that. I think they've gone overboard on
this." Ms. Higgins said she had never considered a grassed playing field to be an
intense usage.
--(Finley) What impact will this project have on property values in Willow Lake?"
Being a homeowner in Willow Lake, Ms. Higgins said she anticipates the facility will
have a positive effect on property values.
--(Nitchmann) "Are we trying to overutilize this site and not pay as much
attention as those people who are going to be impacted by it the most --the neighbors to
it?"
--(Tice) He distributed copies to the Commission of research he had done on
"how sustainable design relates to site planning." (See Attachment A.)
Noting the Willow Lake residents' concerns and all the many letters of concern which
Commissioners have received, Mr. Finley said it did not appear the Design Team was
willing "to give an inch.; you're saying it's just not possible." ( This comment was
*%W directed to Ms. Higgins.) Ms. Higgins replied: We can push the fields farther down
towards the pond but we'd have to sacrifice large, significant trees and we'd possibly
have to grade into the pond. We balanced that with the buffer area. We met the
setbacks and the buffer requirements that the County imposed. It is up to somebody
above me to make the decision as to how much of the land that the County purchased
can be used for this. Then we get into the issue of how far the kids can travel and get
back to the school and the supervision of the children. The reason I have shown you a
list of all the meetings which took place, and have brought with me all the plans which
were considered, is that we weighed all these factors over and over, very carefully, and
this is the plan with the least impact to the concerns that have been raised." (Mr.
Nitchmann said he did not see listed a meeting with adjacent property owners.) Ms.
Higgins said: "Their concerns were balanced every step of the way."
Ms. Higgins repeated several times that many different layouts were considered. The
Design Team thought the ecology of the pond was very important and that's why the
fields are lower and the buffer is not greater. If we want to give up trees that are 6 feet
round, we could put the fields back down towards the pond, but we'd end up grading in
the pond." Mr. Nitchmann said it may not be necessary to grade into the pond if the
number of fields were reduced.
There was a brief discussion about the neighbors' request for a 140-foot buffer. Ms.
Higgins said it might be possible, by changing the slope to 2:1, to come up with a 20-
foot buffer, but that is still 120 feet less than the neighbors want. She said a 140-foot
buffer could add up to several acres of land. She said: "We don't typically fence out
significant portions of county properties and fence them into adjacent property owners.
It is not something that would be required of a developer." She concluded: "But we
/15
cm
5-14-96
12
want to be good neighbors. We think the residents of Willow Lake will be using this
facility. We'll look at the fencing issues. We can go 8 feet and locate it at the top of the
berm as a balancing act between the property boundary ... (sentence incomplete).
Putting it inside of the school where we've already graded would not be appropriate
because we'd have it on the flat. It wouldn't be as good a buffer if it is down the slope
on the other side."
Regarding changing the slope to 2:1, Ms. Higgins described problems that are
associated with steeper slopes in terms of maintenance, etc. Mr. Nitchmann suggested
consideration be given to a retaining wall. About the use of retaining walls, Mr. Tice
said: "From a cost standpoint, our Board of Supervisors made a very strong
commitment to the idea of sustainability of this school, a commitment in which they
expressed a willingness to invest up to $2,000,000 dollars in sustainability efforts.
Sustainability is obviously very important here, and if that's what it takes, when we're
looking at $100,000 to build a soccer field anyway, then we need to be looking at those
kinds of solutions." Ms. Higgins responded: "Putting a retaining wall in to save trees
that can be replaced at less expense, is not, from my position, a sustainable issue."
There was discussion about the request for a waiver to allow grading in critical slope
areas. Mr. Tice felt it was a contradiction to use as a justification for grading that it is to
"make it match with the surrounding character of the land." Mr. Nitchmann asked what
would happen if the Commission did not approve the requested critical slope waiver.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the playing fields are not in areas of critical slopes. Mr.
Nitchmann responded: "I'm just trying to get a hook. I don't think everyone where
agrees with this (plan). I think you're trying to put 5 lbs. in a 1 lb. bag.... Maybe, as Ms.
Huckle said, we're losing sight of the fact that the school is there to teach academics.
understand that athletics is an important part of ... the learning cycle, but is it all that
important that we try to solve all that on this one site and (not look at other sites) for
solving this (playing field) need."
There followed a discussion of the Commission's options for taking action on the three
matters before it: (1) The Zoning Map Amendment; (2) The Preliminary Site Plan; and
(3) The four modifications. Mr. Kamptner explained that the Commission's action on
the ZMA was advisory to the Board of Supervisors. The other two items do not require
Board action, unless they are appealed. Mr. Kamptner confirmed an action could be
appealed by the applicant, a member of the public, a Planning Commissioner or the
Commission as a whole. Mr. Keeler pointed out the applicant in this project is the
Board of Supervisors, which makes this item somewhat unique. He said if there is
some message the Commission wants to send to the Board, any action should make
that message clear.
Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to have a motion that would move the items forward
to the Board with a statement that they "take very close note of what went on here this
5-14-96 13
evening. Maybe staff can look at whether there is any compromise situation that can
come about between now and June 12th."
There was a discussion about what conditions the Commission favored being added to
the site plan. Mr. Nitchmann said he wanted to see a requirement for an 8-foot fence.
Mr. Tice said he liked the idea of (1) a constructed wetlands in the swale between the
baseball field and the school; and (2) a bench around the lake for wetlands which
would more than compensate for the loss of wetlands which will be effected by the fill
for the football field.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Kamptner about the proper procedure for making the Board
aware of the Commission's concerns. Because the Board would not normally review
the site plan, Mr. Kamptner said the site plan would have to be appealed in order for it
to go on to the Board. He suggested a procedure whereby an individual Commissioner,
or the Commission as a whole, could appeal the Commission's decision to the Board.
This approach was somewhat confusing to most all the Commissioners.
Mr. Ntichmann expressed the fear that the Commission's concerns might get buried in
the minutes and not be easily picked out by the Board. Mr. Keeler suggested that
I%W Commissioners submit to staff, in writing, their individual concerns about the site plan.
Those comments can then be sent on to the Board.
Noting that the Commission has no authority over the expenditure of funds, Mr. Keeler
suggested: "That can be your posture. You don't have the authority over the purse
strings and the concerns that the Commission has may require expenditure beyond
what is shown on this site plan and that is a determination properly made by the Board
of Supervisors."
Mr. Loewenstein said he hoped neither the Board nor the Commission would limit
themselves to thinking about fiscal issues exclusively. He said: "If there's a need to
spend a small additional amount of money in something that is already a very large and
very expensive project, I think it is possible, under some circumstances, that might be
justified, depending on the purpose. Also, if we don't do some things that this site plan
calls for, we may save money in some areas as well and that savings could then be
used in another way."
At the suggestion of Ms. Higgins, it was ultimately decided that the Commission would
take action on the site plan, attaching whatever conditions were determined to be
necessary to meet the concerns raised. The applicant, (represented by the Design
Team), would then make the decision as to whether or not it could meet those
conditions, and, if not, they would take the proper steps to appeal the Commission's
action on the site plan to the Board of Supervisors, within the ten-day appeal period.
The Chairman called for individual motions on the items before the Commission.
5-14-96
14
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that ZMA-96-08 for
Monticello High School and Associated Public Facilities (Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors) be recommended to the Board for approval as presented by staff,
EXCEPT with the omission of that part of the property which lies between the Tandem
School Property and the connector road.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Tice then suggested the following conditions for the site plan.
(1) Preservation of a tree buffer (width to be determined), together with a fence at
least 8 feet in height, along the border of the Willow Lake Subdivision. (Later
amended.)
(2) Submission of a lighting plan acceptable to the ARB. (Later deleted)
(3) Submission of a landscape plan acceptable to the ARB. (Later deleted)
(4) Installation of Best Management Practices, to include constructed wetlands to filter
the runoff from paved surfaces.
(5) Creation of wetlands along the margin of the lake to mitigate the filling of wetlands.
(6) Reduction of the number of playing fields, or redesign of the playing fields on the
site. (Later amended)
(7) Further investigation of alternatives for the relocation of the football field that would
retain the natural drainage. (Later reworded)
Mr. Nitchmann wondered what type of precedent might be set by requiring ARB
approval of items on a project over which the ARB does not have purview because the
developed part of the site is not within view of either Avon Street or Rt. 20. Mr.
Nitchmann said lighting and landscaping concerns could be addressed by requiring
Commission review of the final plan.
Ms. Higgins asked for clarification as to the location of the tree buffer. She asked: "Is it
possible to limit the additional buffer to where the townhouse section is?" She pointed
out areas where there is already a significant tree buffer. There was no objection to the
tree buffer being planted "to the end of the townhouses" as pointed out by Ms. Higgins.
+ w Mr. Keeler asked: "And if there is area within that 100-feet that is not currently wooded,
it is to be planted?" Mr. Nitchmann responded: "Sure." Mr. Tice added: "I think that
would be part of the landscape plan."
5-14-96
15
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that the Monticello High School
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) Preservation of a minimum 100 foot tree buffer, together with a fence at least 8 feet
in height, along the border of Willow Lake Subdivision.
(2) Installation of Best Management Practices, to include constructed wetlands to filter
the runoff from paved surfaces.
(3) Create wetlands in the margin of the lake to mitigate the filling of wetlands.
(4) Reduce the number of soccer fields by one.
(5) Relocate the football field to preserve the natural drainage, unless mitigation is
accomplished by installation of a forebay and wetlands in the end of the lake to filter the
runoff.
(6) Commission approval of the final site plan.
Ms. Higgins asked if the Commission would consider a 50-foot buffer "reasonable." Mr.
Nitchmann said she had time to study that question before Board review. Ms. Higgins
responded: "Well, it (may be) the difference between appealing it or not appealing it."
Mr. Keeler asked if condition No. 4 was "completely exclusive" of condition No. 1. He
asked if it was intended that a field be dropped regardless of whatever redesign might
be possible. Mr. Nitchmann said: "From my perspective, if you're going to meet No. 1,
then you're probably going to have to do No. 4." Mr. Tice made no amendments to his
motion.
The motion to approve the preliminary site plan with the conditions listed passed
unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.2.2.2, to
allow grading in critical slope areas, be granted for the Monticello High School plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2,
to allow one-way circulation, be granted for the Monticello High School plan. The
motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a waiver of Section
4.12.3.4, to allow a modification to parking space distance, be granted for the
Monticello High School plan. The motion passed unanimously.
5-14-96
16
MOTIOn: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that a waiver of Section
4.12.6.5., to allow curvilinear parking, be granted for the Monticello High School plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA-96-01 - Resolution by Planning Commission to amend Zoning Ordinance to
require posting by staff of public hearing notice signs for rezoning and special use
permit petitions. Deferred from the May 7, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
Staff asked that the item be deferred because of the County Attorney°s feeling that the
newspaper ad was incomplete in its description of the item.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that ZTA-96-01 be deferred
indefinitely.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m:
Me.
lM