Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 23 1996 PC Minutes7-23-96 1 JULY 23, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 23, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; and Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington. Other officials present were: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Claudia Paine, Planner; Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner Finley. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of July 9, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the July 17th Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Worth Park Modifications - Shared parking and grading within the 20' undisturbed buffer "° area. In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Lilley pointed out areas where grading will take place. Ms. Huckle also asked about screening from the townhouses on the adjacent property. She said residents were concerned about the loss of the pine trees and about light spillover. Mr. Lilley said landscaped screening will be required as a part of the final site plan. He said the developer will have to replace any existing screening which is lost as a result of grading. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 96-052 Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 60 one -bedroom units and 6 two -bedroom units on 4.96 acres zoned R-15, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C(8), is located at the end of Colonnade Drive, on the south side of Rt. 250 West in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 6. The proposal also included the request for waivers for critical slopes and access aisle grades. Ms. Paine presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both waivers and of the ..r Preliminary Site Plan, subject to conditions. are cm 7-23-96 2 The applicant was represented by Mr. David Anhold of Cox Company, engineers and architects for the project. He said this is a good design for a challenging site. He explained that the difficult topography of the site creates the need for the waivers. He explained that the road for which the waiver is requested is not a public thoroughfare. It serves as access to the water tank and will probably only be used a few times a month for maintenance of the tank. In response to Ms. Huckle's question about access to the parking area "for the right-hand building," he explained that the underground parking areas are connected to each other so the access is the same as for the left-hand building. He said all three buildings will sit on top of the same parking deck base. Ms. Huckle said she felt the proposed changes were "headed in the right direction." However, she expressed concern about the waiver for critical slopes because of the high visibility of the site. She suggested rearrangement of the buildings so that the building on the right is moved to the location of the parking lot it would mean most of the critical slopes could be avoided. Mr. Anhold agreed Ms. Huckle's suggestion would move the building out of critical slopes, but he questioned where the parking would then be located. Ms. Huckle questioned why so much parking was needed. Referring to Ms. Huckle's suggestion, Mr. Tice wondered if there should be a waiver for critical slopes or a waiver for parking requirements. Ms. Huckle agreed. Mr. Anhold said approximately 23-26 parking spaces would be lost if that parking area were removed. He said, however, "We would love to explore that option." Because the tenants in the apartments will be predominantly university students who will bike or walk, he agreed there are probably a premium of parking spaces. The possibility of reducing the number of parking spaces was discussed. Staff said it was their belief a waiver of parking requirements could only be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Commission cannot grant this waiver. Mr. Nitchmann said this is an issue which is going to be coming up regularly if the County desires to encourage infill development. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that moving the building forward would also result in lowering the amount of slope. Mr. Nitchmann said moving the building would also result in more green space behind the building. Based on the plans presented, Mr. Dotson questioned the percentage of critical slopes that will be disturbed. Mr. Anhold agreed, saying he did not believe it was actually 26%. Mr. Tice asked about stormwater detention plans. Mr. Anhold said an underground system will be provided. Public comment was invited. 041 7-23-96 3 Ms. Julia Campbell, owner of "45 acres at the top of the hill," addressed the Commission. She asked that the County place the following requirements and restrictions on this development: --That the applicant not be allowed to use the Lewis Mountain name for the project; --That the applicant agree "in writing" not to "overload the road." --That a road maintenance agreement be required. --That the applicant be required to acquire from the St. Anne's property enough additional footage to widen the road; and --That a fence be required adjacent to her property. (Note: Ms. Campbell's property is not adjacent to the applicant's property. The fence she referred to would have to be placed on the University Heights property, which is not owned by the applicant.) There was some confusion on the part of the Commission as to how this development impacted Ms. Campbell's property. Mr. Kamptner explained that the road issue is one which must be worked out between the property owners. Also, the County has no authority to prevent the usage of the Lewis Mountain name. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said she believed the infill concept was a good one, but, presently, the design plans are not yet in place to deal with all aspects of infill development. She said development on 26% of the critical slopes is not an insignificant area. She also pointed out that this proposal does not follow either the Open Space Plan, or the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Plan. She suggested the item be deferred so that the consideration could be given to reducing the parking requirement so that a waiver for critical slopes would not be needed. Mr. Kamptner confirmed that a reduction in the parking requirements would require BZA approval. He said the criteria which the BZA will use in making this determination include the consideration of unique circumstances and hardship. It was determined the 60 day time period (for action on the proposal) was near. (The application was submitted May 28th.) Mr. Anhold said he did not have the authority to agree to a deferral. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there would be any problem with a 2-week deferral, to allow time for Mr. Anhold to determine if the applicant would be agreeable to moving the "right-hand" building, and to allow time for staff to determine the proper procedure for requesting a waiver of parking requirements. Mr. Anhold could not answer Mr. Nitchmann's question definitively. He wondered how long it might take to get through the BZA's hearing process. Mr. Dotson thought the best approach was for the Commission to address the issue, i.e. "if we're behind a proposal that requires a modification in parking, I would think that would be �" quite persuasive to the BZA, rather than the customary practice of going to them first without 7-23-96 4 loftw necessarily having a fully developed plan. Mr. Nitchmann questioned whether the Commission could approve a "nebulous" site plan, one which would move the building and change the parking. Mr. Anhold said he believed the applicant would be agreeable to exploring the possibility of moving the building because the elimination of the parking lot would save expenses. But he expressed concern about how being thrown into another process would impact the schedule for the development. Regarding the 60-day limitation, Mr. Kamptner said: "We would go past the 60 days if we deferred 2-weeks, but we're close enough so that I don't think there's any real danger. There's a requirement that we act within 60 days. At the end of that 60 days, if we haven't acted, the applicant has the opportunity to go to court, but they also have to give us 10 days' notice of that, and we would be within that period. So, a 2-week deferral would not jeopardize the county in any way." Mr. Cilimberg explained that during the 2-week deferral, the following two things could take place: (1) Staff can consult with the Zoning Administrator as to how a reduction in the parking requirement would be handled by the BZA, to make sure that is a variant situation; and (2) The applicant will have the opportunity to consider whether they wish to make such a `` change. He said such a change in the plan would probably necessitate further site review, which could take longer than 2 weeks. Mr. Dotson said he hoped the applicant would look not only at moving the building, but also at keeping as much of the parking as possible, so the necessity of the variance would be minimized. Mr. Anhold again declined to agree to a deferral. He said: "I'm here to get approval of that plan, so it would be better if you (took action)." MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that the Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan be deferred to August 6. Mr. Tice seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-20 Helen Hawley - Petition to establish an Antique and Thrift Shop on approximately 2.2 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. [10.2.2(36)] Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 57A is located on the south side of Route 250 approximately 600 feet out of Route 744 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not in a designated growth area. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. cm CR 7-23-96 5 MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-96-20 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-25 The Tandem School - Petition to amend the current Special Use Permit (SP-96-06) to increase the allowance of total school enrollment and on -site staffing from 177 persons to 200 persons [Section 13.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance]. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcels 2A and 2B, is the site of the existing Tandem School, accessed on Route 20 South, approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 64, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is zoned R-1, Residential and is recommended for institutional use in Urban Neighborhood 4. Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Huckle asked if a previous approval for this applicant had required that any additional enrollment would require connection to public water and sewer. Mr. Lilley recalled discussion about a probable connection when an "ultimate development plan" was presented. He said this is an interim plan and is not the applicant's ultimate development plan. He said the construction of the county's new high school will bring water and sewer much closer to this property, but it will still be 1,200 to 1,500 feet away. Mr. Nitchmann noted that there is no condition requiring expansion of the drainfields. Mr. Lilley said site development is not a part of this request. It is just an increase in enrollment. Expansion of the drainfields will be addressed by the Health Department. Mr. Dotson recalled there had been questions, about adequate water for fire protection. Mr. the review of this request. with a previous application for this applicant, Lilley said fire protection was not an issue in The applicant was represented by Ethan Miller, Vice Chairman of the Board for Tandem School. Regarding the issue of public utilities, he said the school is going to prepare a "plan sheet for extension of water from the county school to the Tandem school." That project is expected to go to bid August 15th. He said it is anticipated that the water line will be extended to Tandem. However, the water line is not expected to be built for another 6 - 12 months. The current request is for an expansion of enrollment beginning with the September 96 school year. He said plans for sewer are more complicated, but, with the expansion of the drainfield, the existing system is adequate at this time. He agreed that with the ultimate planned enrollment, a connection to public sewer would be necessary. He was unable to say for sure when that would occur. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. �2;,Zo 09 7-23-96 6 MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP-96-25 for Tandem School, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Total school enrollment and on -site staffing shall be limited to 200 persons. 2. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a new special use permit. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-24 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Petition to extend the timeframe for outdoor garden center sales/display from February 15 thru July 5 to February 15 thru September 15 each year, and to expand the area allowed for outdoor storage and display to allow merchandise display on the sidewalk in front of the store and to allow storage in containers on the south side of the store, within view of the Entrance Corridor, Route 29 [Section 30.6.3.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance]. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 68D5, is the site of the existing Wal- Mart store, on Route 29 North, in the Rio Magisterial District. The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor, and is recommended for Regional Service in Urban Neighborhood 1. Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Fred Amein. He presented photographs of the site from Rt. 29. Comments included the following: --In response to the ARB's recommendation, the brick wall will be 9'6" tall. The applicant is also amenable to moving the brick wall all the way to the front of the store. --The temporary storage containers will be present only during the busiest seasons. --Contrary to the ARB's recommendation that the outdoor display of lawnmowers and garden tractors (all under 4 ft. in height) not be allowed, he asked for permission to display those items. He noted that Section 30.6.3.2 of the Entrance Corridor Ordinance allows outdoor sales, without restriction to the types of items. He pointed out that those items were displayed when the photographs were taken and they are not visible from Rt. 29 in any of the photos. --Contrary to the ARB's recommendation that landscaping be installed adjacent to the fence on the south side of the property, he asked that landscaping along the fence on the south side not be required given the fact that the south side is not visible from Rt. 29 (except for about 30 feet) and given the fact that the south side is considerably lower than the adjacent property and there already exists a mature stand of trees in this area, so the landscaping would serve no purpose. --He felt the fact that the front of the store is more than 500 feet back from Rt. 29 "helps to mitigate" the impact of this proposal. A1-21 7-23-96 7 With the exception of those two instances cited, Mr. Amein said the applicant had no objections to any of the other staff recommendations. Mr. Amein's answers to Commission questions included the following: --The sidewalk where items will be displayed is 10 feet wide. Approximately 3 feet is used for display. A clear walking path will always be provided. --The outside storage containers are needed by Wal-Mart during high volume seasons. Six containers are requested in the permanent location. The balance of any containers that are required will be placed in the temporary storage location on the south side." The temporary containers are brought in for the back -to -school season (August) and are removed after the holiday season (February). They are all delivered at one time and removed at one time. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Washington questioned whether the landscaping along the fence on the south side was necessary. Mr. Nitchmann agreed saying it appeared all that would be accomplished would be "trees to block the view of other trees." Ms. Huckle asked if there would be any opportunity to require the trees along the south side NO, fence at a later time. Mr. Lilley said the applicant has submitted a site plan amendment along with this special permit request. Buffering and landscaping between the properties will depend on the zoning of the adjacent property. If the undeveloped property (adjacent to the south, behind Jim Price Chevrolet) is Commercial zoning, there will be no landscaping requirement between the two properties. Mr. Lilley understood the ARB's intent was to soften the view of the fence from Rt. 29. Staff confirmed the applicant will be required to get a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg explained the Board, when making its decision, will establish the conditions under which the site plan will be developed and the Certificate of Appropriateness must be issued. He concluded: "So if you were to change any condition as recommended by the ARB, that would be the standing condition (but) the Board would make that ultimate decision." Mr. Nitchmann said the Commission needed to decide whether it supports the ARB's recommendations on the two items which the applicant has asked for relief from: (1) The disallowance of the display of mowers and garden tractors; and (2) The requirement for landscaping adjacent to the fencing on the south side. Mr. Nitchmann said he has no problems with the display of lawnmowers and other gardening related items. He also said he felt the landscaping adjacent to the fence on the south side was unnecessary and would be an unnecessary expenditure. 7-23-96 P Mr. Dotson agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. He felt the display of lawnmowers would not be inconsistent, given the fact that it is adjacent to a parking lot full of cars. He also understood the logic related to the trees along the fence, given the fact that the site is lower than the adjacent site. Mr. Tice agreed that the display of lawnmowers was not a problem. In relation to the tree buffer along the fence, however, he did not think the argument regarding cost savings was a good one because he felt the expenditure for the trees would be recovered in reduced maintenance costs. Ms. Washington said she supported the proposal. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that SP-96-24 for Wal-Mart Stores be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the conditions stated in the staff report, with the deletion of the trees along the fence on the south side and with the recommendation that the display of mowers be allowed, within the 4 feet height limit. (NOTE: This condition was reworded after further discussion and is restated below.) Before the motion had been seconded, discussion continued. Ms. Huckle asked if just the mowers were to be included. Ms. Washington said it was her intent that it be "garden equipment, subject to the 4 feet height limit." Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Kamptner asked if garden equipment was meant to include gardening supplies such as bagged mulch, etc. Mr. Nitchmann said he considered those to be gardening, planting materials. Mr. Tice read from the applicant's request (Attachment B to the staff report): "...merchandise would include but not be limited to bikes, boats, trampolines, swimming pools, riding and push lawnmowers, swing sets, patio furniture, Little Tyke toys and plants." He asked if it was Ms. Washington's intent that all those items be allowed. Ms. Washington said, given the 4 feet height limit, she had no objections to any of those items listed. She said when you are driving along Rt. 29, all that is visible is a parking lot full of cars. Ms. Washington restated the motion: MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that SP-96-24 for Wal-Mart Stores be recommended to the �`` Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions, with the "deletion of 7-23-96 9 the shrubs to the south side and to include the attachment of both equipment and garden material, as well as anything else that will fall within the 4 feet height cap:" 1. Outdoor display of garden center merchandise may be continued in its approved location (as allowed by SP 93-38) from February 15 through September 15 each year. Such merchandise shall be limited to plants and planting materials. All materials including greenhouse shall be removed from view of U.S. Route 29 from September 16 through February 14 each year. 2. Approval of an amended site plan to include: a. Replacement of existing Note 7 with: "Display/Storage/Sales to be confined to areas shown on plan and time periods allowed by special use permit." b. Replacement of Note 1 with "The 30,000 square foot future expansion is not approved at this time. Future development to be limited by availability of parking." ** c. Specification of February 15 through September 15 for areas shown as "Temporary Outdoor Sales Display Area" and "Outdoor Sales Display Area for items up to 4' High" and specification that the "Outdoor Sales Display Area for items up to 4' high" be limited to plants and planting materials only. d. Specify "4' Height Limit, Year Round Display" for the "Outdoor Sales Display Area". W e. Indicate plants/shrubs to be placed around "Outdoor Sales Display Area". f. Indicate brick wall and opaque fence and landscaping on the south side of building as specified in the July 11, 1996 Architectural Review Board action letter, with the exception that the trees on the south side of the wood opaque fence may be omitted. (Note: This last phrase was added after further discussion.) Ms. Huckle asked for a clarification of (f), i.e. does "indicate" mean to actually "build." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "It's for the amended site plan.... The site plan is to include that." It was at this point that condition 2(f) was clarified further. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the ARB's recommendation had been "trees should be planted along the east side of the brick screening wall and along the south side of the wood opaque fence." He asked if it was intended that both those requirements be dropped, or just on the south side of the wood opaque fence." It was determined the intent was to delete the trees along the south side fence only. The motion for approval, as restated, passed unanimously. SP-96-22 Branchlands Land Trust - Proposal to establish an assisted living facility on approximately 1 acre zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, parcel 5A, is located in the Branchlands PUD on Branchlands Drive just west of the existing Manor House. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is ** NOTE: Condition 2(c) is stated incorrectl i thes minutes. They were approved before the mistake was detected, buT He conionwas corrected by action of of the Planning Commission on Sep ember 10, 1996. c 42 7-23-96 10 recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 2. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Ron Langman. He explained there is a need for this type of facility and a special permit is a part of the requirement for being licensed as an Assisted Care Facility. Public comment was invited. Robbie Nowell, Managing Agent for Branchlands Village, addressed the Commission. He asked for a clarification of the density. He understood the original plan had been for 120 units, but this proposal is for 49 units. (Mr. Langman explained why the change had been made which was related to parking requirements.) Mr. Nowell asked how infrastructure and building requirements will differ between 120 units vs. 49 units. Mr. Langman said the building is the same as was approved with the plan, but changing to an assisted living facility reduces parking requirements by 21 spaces. Mr. Ed Kotch, a resident of Branchlands Drive, expressed concern about increased traffic on a narrow road, particularly delivery trucks which will be serving the assisted living facility. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kelsey (Chief of County Engineering) to comment on the status of the Branchlands drainage situation. He said the Branchlands channel had been designed and engineered to carry all the drainage from the full development of the Branchlands PUD. The design was re-evaluated and it was determined that the channel would contain a 100-year storm as it was originally intended. Nothing has changed in the past year or two to change the results of that study. The County is not presently maintaining the detention pond, but is in the process of taking over the maintenance. That process is near completion. Noting that this facility will require 21 fewer parking spaces than "shown on the footprint," Mr. Tice asked if the runoff situation would be improved if a condition of the special permit would be that the parking not exceed that number. Mr. Kelsey agreed less parking area would reduce the amount of the impervious cover on the site, but he thought such a change "would not really change anything." Before agreeing to give up parking spaces, Mr. Langman said he would need to study the idea further. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 7-23-96 11 Mr. Loewenstein said he feels the use of this building as an assisted living facility meets an existing community need. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP-96-22 for Branchlands Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Development limited to 90 units containing not more than 120 beds. 2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall present to the Zoning Administrator proof of licensure by the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Social Services. 3. This use shall be operated only under licensure of the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Social Services. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-23 C.W. Hurt Contractors, Inc. - Petition to establish a private school on approximately 5.4 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. [16.2.2(5)] Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 91 is located on the west side of the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This special use permit will replace SP-95-15 which authorized a day care facility. This site is recommended for Transitional use in Neighborhood 1. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Steve Melton. He was accompanied by representatives of the Northside Baptist Church (which will operate the school). He said a final site plan is almost complete and all VDOT concerns have been met. Ms. Huckle said she been unable to locate the "fenced 2,500 square feet" play area was located on the plan. Mr. Melton said that area has not yet been defined so it does not show on the plan, but there is adequate room. In response to Ms. Washington's question, the applicant expressed no concerns about conflicts with the nearby Adventure Land site. Ms. Huckle questioned how 2,500 square feet was adequate room for an exercise or play area (50' x 50'). The principal of the school, Ms. MaryAnn Templeton, explained the exercise program which will be followed. She said there is ample room for the physical education program. She confirmed that all the children are not in the play area at the same time. a�� 7-23-96 12 There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the small play area. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-23 for C.W. Hurt Contractors be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Enrollment limited to 130 students. 2. Access limited to Woodbrook Drive. 3. VDOT approval of revised traffic figures for signalization timing. The motion passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Miscellaneous Staff presented the schedule (for the next year and a half) for the completion of the Comprehensive Plan review and study of development area initiatives. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. N: M