HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 03 1995 PC Minutes10-3-95
OCTOBER 3, 1995
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 3, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica
Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of September 12 and September 19 were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken at the September 20, 1995, Board of
Supervisors meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Fontaine Park Office Building Modification Requests - Loading Spaces, Parallel
Spaces and Cross -property Parking - To reduce the number of loading spaces
required, to allow three parallel parking spaces, and to allow the parking lot to extend
onto the adjoining parcel.
Mr. Dotson asked if approval for a waiver on number of required loading spaces goes
with the use or with the site.
Mr. Kamptner explained: "If they change the use and a new site plan is required, it will
be subject to a new review."
Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that the University will be conscious of the parking
situation and will not allow a problem to develop as, in her opinion, is the case with the
University Hospital.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Jenkins
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Blue Ridge Health Alliance Grand Piano Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to locate
a parking lot on 3.48 acres, zoned C-1, commercial. Property, described as Tax Map
45 parcels 104A and 104A1, is the existing Floor Fashion building. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area and is
H
10-3-95 2
recommended for Community Service. (VA-95-12 to allow a reduction in the required
setback is pending.)
Approval of the request requires modification of Section 4.2 to allow activity on critical
slopes and 21.7.3 to allow activity within 20 feet of residentially zoned property.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the
requested modifications are due to the overdevelopment of the site in the initial phases
of development. ...Staff opinion is that approval of activity on critical slopes and
approval of activity within 20 feet of residential property would result in the loss of
aesthetic resources which cannot be replaced with new plantings. Based on this
analysis staff recommends denial of both requests. Should the Planning Commission
choose to approve this request staff will approve the site plan administratively."
Mr. Fritz explained: "Staff is not recommending approval of the waiver request for
development on critical slopes due, in large part, to the Comprehensive Plan Open
Space Plan indication of a buffer zone in this area. The buffer zone is removed and the
plan that shows it ("on the right") does not provide for any screening of the building.
The vegetation located at the base of the wall will screen the wall only and will not
screen the building as the existing landscaping does."
Mr, Fritz also explained that the second plan on display ("on the left") had just been
submitted by the applicant and staff had not had time to review it. This new plan
increases the encroachment into the 20-foot buffer in order to allow additional
landscaped area at the top of the wall, which is intended to provide a buffer between
this site and the adjacent residential development.
Mr. Fritz said the Engineering Department has recommended approval of the proposal,
in terms of engineering procedures.
Ms. Huckle asked if the retaining wall remained unchanged in the second plan. Mr.
Fritz said the wall was essentially the same and the existing trees, in the area adjacent
to the wall, will have to be removed, in both plans.
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the trees which exist on the
residential properties will not be effected.
Mr. Dotson asked how this proposal compares with the previous proposal for a parking
deck. Mr. Fritz explained that the deck did not increase the footprint of the developed
area at all.
Ms. Huckle thought the parking deck had been a good idea. She asked why it had
been abandoned. The applicant addressed the question later in the meeting,
W
10-3-95
explaining that the cost of the parking garage had been found to be almost four times
higher than the initial estimates.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that adjacent property owners had been notified of this proposal.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Peter Sheeran. His comments included the
following:
--This proposal was not made at the beginning because, at that time, the
parking garage seemed like a good idea. However, it was later found the parking
garage would cost $700,000, as opposed to $180,000.
--Investigations have shown that this type of system, with the retaining wall, is
attractive. The wall will be a "concrete block, with a rough texture, dark brown." The
unique aspect of the system is that it can be erected from the back side, so concerns
about heavy machinery, soil disturbance, backfilling, and runoff, do not apply, because
"the wall is built up in 3-4 foot lifts and then additional fill is being added as the wall
comes up."
--The applicant has worked with staff to address concerns about landscaping.
After getting staffs comments a number of weeks ago, a number of revisions were
made which, the applicant thought, addressed all those concerns. Changes were made
to provide more screening of the wall but staff was still concerned about screening of
the building. This new proposal was developed this morning and is intended to address
the concern about the building. Another layer of plantings are proposed at the elevation
of the parking deck which will screen the building. A hedge of rapid growing, Leyland
Cypress is proposed.
--From a design standpoint, the applicant believes this is a better tradeoff than
the parking garage. Though there is slightly more encroachment into the buffer area,
"with the retaining wall we have eliminated a parking structure which came back within
10 - 15 feet of where the parking deck was." The floor level of the parking garage
would have been 8 - 9 feet above the existing grade with a 3 1/2 feet wall above that to
screen headlights, thus resulting in a structure where the top of the wall would have
been 15 to 16 feet higher than the existing grade, "certainly higher than the existing
white pines."
--Every attempt will be made to salvage the existing white pines. The area
beyond the white pines is critical slope and is vegetated with "weed trees."
--The applicant feels this proposal will offer an opportunity to add additional
planting and clean up what presently exists so that the end result will be more attractive
than what presently exists.
Mr. Sheeran offered the following answers to specific Commission questions:
--The proposed 4-foot planting strip is on the parking deck side of the wall (from
the wall to the paved area), and is at the level of the parking surface.
--Ms. Huckle asked if the base of the wall would go all the way down to the
stream. Mr. Sheeran replied: "It varies."
Y3
10-3-95 4
--This new proposal will provide as many parking spaces as the parking garage
would have provided. The parking area proposed is entirely for employee parking.
Ms. Imhoff asked if a landscape architect on staff has had a chance to look at the new
plan. She wondered if a 4-foot planting strip was adequate to support the type of
plantings proposed. Mr. Fritz could not answer the question. Mr. Sheeran said the
reason he proposed the Leyland Cypress is because it is very tolerant to adverse
conditions. He said he would be amenable to a "conditional approval" to allow staffs
landscape architect time to look at the proposal. He said: "If we need 5 feet, we can
make it 5 feet."
Mr. Blue said the requirement for a 5-foot strip could be made a condition of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Dotson's request, Mr. Fritz pointed out those points at which the
retaining wall will encroach into the 20-foot setback. Mr. Fritz pointed out three points
where the footings of the wall will encroach approximately 2 feet.
Mr. Nitchmann felt this proposal had some "pluses" for this plan: (1) "It will make the
property available to the potential user for a use that will not ... have cars driving in and
out all day long; and (2) The potential user will not have to go build another building
someplace else in the County." He also thought it was an advantage to have this type
of use located in an already commercially developed section of Rt. 29. He thought this
was a "win -win" situation. He said he could support the new plan as presented by the
applicant.
Ms. Imhoff said she thought the applicant had, with the new plan, addressed some of
her concerns, but she had been somewhat frustrated by the fact that the applicant had
been told "if you do this use you're going to be limited." She said she had come to the
meeting ready to support staffs position. However, she felt the additional landscaping
makes it fit the area better and it also helps meet the goal of in -fill development. She
said she would prefer to see a 5-foot planting area. She concluded that though she
would, typically, have supported staffs recommendation, she thought staff would have
had a different recommendation if they had had the opportunity to look at the revised
plan. She said she was willing to support the new site plan.
Ms. Huckle said she was surprised staff had not recommended the applicant provide
some type of bus service given the fact that all the parking spaces will be used by
employees.
Mr. Dotson said his principle concern was with the visibility from the residential
properties. He asked: "Is there some way we can assure that the planting at the
MO
10-3-95 5
"bottom is absolutely maxed out?" Mr. Sheeran replied: "We have indicated, at the
lower end, more than the minimum requirement in the Ordinance." He said he has met
with homeowners and encouraged them to call him if they have any concerns or
problems. He said: "We have tried to be good neighbors and we are certainly open-
minded to cooperate in whatever way is necessary. We will work with staff and we will
double the density of the planting if that is what you'd like us to do."
In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Engineering
Department has reviewed the design for the retaining wall.
Ms. Huckle asked if the extra paving would result in runoff onto residential properties.
Mr. Fritz said the stream will capture the runoff from this property and will not impact the
residential properties.
Ms. Huckle said she had seen several "substantial" trees and she hoped every effort
would be made to protect those trees during the construction of the wall. She said
those trees will screen the building during the summer months. Mr. Sheeran said all
activity will be taking place "upslope" from the wall, with no activity happening beyond
the wall.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Blue Ridge Health Alliance and Grand Piano
Site Plan Amendment, dated October 3, 1995, be approved, including waivers of
Sections 4.2 and 21.7.3.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Imhoff commented: "I hope that the planting strip would be increased to 5 feet and
that Commissioner Dotson's comments about adequate screening at the top would be
implemented."
Mr. Nitchmann amended his motion to include the addition of the following condition:
(1) The planting strip shall be five feet in width.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the amended motion.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
nmw
10-3-95 6
Mr. Jenkins asked staff about VDOT entrance requirements for properties along Rt. 680
(from the Mechums River to White Hall). He explained a property owner had built a
house on Rt. 680 and he was under the impression VDOT had required 450 feet of
sight distance. He said there have recently been 4 curb cuts put in on Rt. 680, "as you
leave the reservoir," at least one of which has considerably less than 450 feet. Mr.
Keeler said he did not know why 450 feet of sight distance would have been required,
unless the entrance serves 2 other lots. He explained that a VDOT District Engineer
had taken a position, at some point in time in the past, that commercial sight distance
would be required for all entrances, but that policy did not last long. He said the
building permit for the house referred to by Mr. Jenkins may have been approved
during that time. Mr. Keeler also explained that the curb cuts referred to by Mr. Jenkins
are the result of a 4-lot subdivision. Mr. Jenkins expressed two concerns about the
situation: (1) That there may be two separate sets of requirements on a rural road; and
(2) One of these entrances is quite unsafe. Mr. Keeler said he would request VDOT
look at the road and confirm that the entrances are where they are supposed to be and
that they do meet sight distance requirements.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
V1�
V. Wayn cilimberg retary
98