Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 04 2000 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission April 4, 2000 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, March 28, 2000 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Rieley; Ms. Tracy Hopper; Mr. Pete Craddock. Other officials present were: Mr.Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Department of Zoning; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering. Approval of Minutes — March 21, 2000 The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes with corrections as given to Ms. Golden. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda SDP 00-008 Whitewood Office Park Phase I Final Site Plan — Request to allow grading activity at the 20-foot residential buffer line in Phase I of a two-phase office park with three buildings covering a gross area of 30,000 square feet, on 2.841 acres zoned C- 1. Mr. Thomas asked that the item be moved from the Consent Agenda for discussion, citing concerns about the wording of proposed conditions. He suggested language to replace Condition # 1 to state "any tree that is within 10 feet of the buffer line or that dies due to root disturbance and measures six inches or greater in caliper...." Mr. Kamptner asked staff to clarify the area described as being within 10 feet of the buffer line, if the area being disturbed is a 20-foot buffer area. Mr. Benish responded, "It's 10 feet within the 20-foot buffer. So if there's a tree from 10 feet to the 20-foot line into the site, that's the area they're speaking to." Mr. Kamptner asked, "What's happening between the property line and that 10-foot area?" Mr. Benish replied, "Well it's assumed that there wouldn't be any impact for trees [disturbed] within that half of the buffer. The concern has been disturbance right on that 20-foot line could affect the drip -line of trees close to that 20"' foot in, but once you get to that first half of the 10 feet, there isn't that concern with the drip line." Mr. Benish clarified that the 10 feet is the half closest to the development activity. AlhPmarla Cnimty Planning r'nmmiccinn — Anril 4 ?000 171 09 Mr. Rooker suggested stating "any tree within the buffer area" as a way to better clarify the wording. Mr. Benish said that doing that would allow more discretion within the entire 20-foot buffer. He mentioned that making that change would require replacement of any tree within the 20-foot buffer of 6" caliper or greater that would die, whereas the focus of the original condition had been on damage due to construction within the 10 feet of the buffer closest to the development area. Mr. Thomas said, "I feel like the first 10 feet is really all that's necessary." Mr. Kamptner clarified, "We want to limit the disturbance to the inner 10 feet of the buffer area." Mr. Rooker and Mr. Rieley suggested adding a separate sentence to address this. Mr. Loewenstein suggested making it a separate condition. Mr. Benish suggested coming back next week with some clearer language, adding that the planner who worked on this is not here. Mr. Rieley mentioned that there is a disease that is destroying Leyland Cypress, and asked that that species be Virginia Red Cedar instead. The applicant, stated that they are trying to get a final plan signed tomorrow. Mr. Rooker said that he is comfortable with the language, adding a sentence that nothing will be disturbed in the first 10 feet of the buffer from the property line, and a second part stating that any tree within the buffer that measures 6" or greater in caliper or that dies due to root disturbance shall be replaced. Mr. Benish noted that there is no disturbance within that 20-foot buffer, adding "what we're concerned about is any tree in that undisturbed area because it's right up on there. Grading outside that buffer would cause that tree to die within the buffer." Mr. Rooker suggested saying, "There will be no disturbance in the buffer area, and any trees that die within the buffer [shall be replaced]." Mr. Benish said that the condition is trying to address trees impacted within the buffer area because their root system falls outside of the buffer area. Mr. Rooker emphasized that it needs to be made clear that there shall be no disturbance of trees in the buffer area, and any tree that dies as a result of root disturbance should be replaced. AlhPmarlP Cnnnty Plannino Cnmmiccinn — Anril 4 1000 174 Ms. Hopper asked about the I poplar located on the buffer line as mentioned by the applicant in the staff report, and the applicant's offer to modify the buffer to 25 feet in `"'"W vicinity of the tree if so instructed by the county. She said that she would like to see the modification happen to save the tree, and asked fellow Commissioners for their comments. M Mr. Benish suggested adding a condition to extend the buffer to protect the poplar on the buffer line. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that the staff report says that the conservation plan states that the applicant would be willing to either extend the buffer up to 25 feet in order to protect the poplar, OR to replace any of the trees within 10 feet... Mr. Loewenstein commented that either/or suggests choosing one or the other, and wanted to make sure that the applicant agrees with doing both, if that's what the Commission requests. Mr. Benish suggested letting the applicant speak. Mr. Finley asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Frank Stoner said that they are trying to clarify when a waiver is required, and when it is not required. He stated that they were surprised that they had to get a waiver to grade when they are not encroaching on a buffer area. Mr. Stoner expressed concern that if a disturbance area includes a root system, this opens up potential problems, as root systems can extend very, very far. "It concerns me that we set a precedent with respect to these buffers that isn't necessarily spelled out in the code, and puts us in a very difficult position, particularly on a site like this where we're working in the urban growth area, on a piece of property that's zoned properly." He added, "We prepared the conservation plan, and tried to identify the trees that we thought were significant. There aren't many .... it's not much of a buffer area. The trees that are there are 20 years [old] or less .... most of the tree canopy is 15 to 20 feet in the air." Mr. Rieley commented that he raises a good point, and asked him if he agreed that replace trees that die is acceptable. Mr. Stoner agreed that it is acceptable, and said they are offering to replace any that are killed. He mentioned that the root system may extend further than the additional 5 feet offered, and if the tree dies, it will have to be removed later. Mr. Stoner said he wants to get a tree expert on site to offer an opinion as to whether the tree can be saved. He commented that he really would like to save the tree. Mr. Rieley said that many tree experts would say there is a "50/50 chance" the trees will live or die. AlhPmnrla (minty Planninv rnmmiscinn — Anril 4 ?nnn 175 cm Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Stoner would agree with the rewording of the condition to include trees that die due to root disturbance. Commissioners attempted to clarify the exact language in the condition that would adequately address their concerns. Mr. Rieley read the condition as: "Any tree greater than 6" caliper that is within 10 feet of the buffer area or the buffer line that dies must be replaced with a six-foot high white pine, Virginia Red Cedar, or some other acceptable species." Mr. Loewenstein said that condition works fine. Mr. Finley asked, "What about the poplar." Mr. Rooker said, "It's not within the current buffer, and [the applicant] has expressed a desire to try to save the tree. I don't know that it's proper to impose that as a condition here." Mr. Stoner commented that it would be preferable to save the tree, but he does not want to be penalized if he can't save the tree. "I can't afford to give up any more buffer." Mr. Rooker mentioned that he wanted to make sure which 10 feet of the buffer line was implied. Mr. Benish said, "The buffer line adjacent to the developed area." Ms. Hopper asked him to draw it. Mr. Stoner said that a rendering was included in the staff report. Mr. Benish said that the poplar tree is in the buffer line, and there was a question from zoning as to whether the tree would be impacted because of root disturbance. He said that zoning came back with an interpretation that a waiver would be necessary because of that imminent impact. Mr. Stoner commented that a line goes right through the tree. Mr. Finley asked if Commissioners were ready to proceed. Ms. Golden asked for the Conditions to be re -read. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SDP 00-008 with conditions modified as follows: AlhPmarlP Cnnnty Plannino (nmmiesinn — Anril 4 1000 176 1. Any tree greater than 6" in caliper, that is within 10 feet of the buffer line that dies must be replaced with a six-foot high White Pine, Virginia Red Cedar, or some other `ftw acceptable species and comparable type of screening tree. 2. The six-foot high privacy fence must be placed at least one foot outside the buffer. 3. There will be no disturbance within the buffer area. Em The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rieley asked if this interpretation of when a waiver is required is a new interpretation. Mr. Benish said he believes it is a new interpretation from zoning that arose from this specific application. Mr. Rieley said that it becomes a "mushy line" if the interpretation is to protect everything within a buffer zone. "It's going to be an almost tree by tree call." Mr. Rooker commented that if it is the trunk of the tree that is split, it is a reasonable interpretation that the tree is within the buffer area. "That's an entirely different situation than when you've got a tree that's 20 feet on the other side of the buffer line that may have roots extending into the buffer." Mr. Rieley said that it's clear that a tree within a buffer area needs to be extended, but what is not clear is the protection of the roots that extend onto the rest of the property — outside of the buffer area. Mr. Thomas commented that it was generous of the developer to offer replacement of the trees. "I just wanted more definite wording about what he is going to replace." Mr. Benish noted that if the tree is one foot out of the buffer, the impact could be the same. He added that staff will look into the issue further when time becomes available. Item Rea uestin2 Deferral: ZMA 99-12 Airport Road Office Complex — Request to rezone 1.637 acres from R4 Residential to CO Commercial Office to allow for commercial offices. The property, described as Tax Map 32C Parcel 3-1 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Airport Road [Route #649] at the intersection of Airport Road and Deerwood Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density, recommended for 3-6 dwelling units per acre in the Hollymead Community. Applicant requests deferral to May 16, 2000. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the meeting proceeded. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of deferral of ZMA 99-12 to May 16, 2000 at the applicant's request. The motion passed unanimously. AlhPmarlP rnnnty Planning C'nmmiecinn — Anril 4 ?000 177 M En Deferred Items• ZMA-99-18 Charlottesville First Assembly of God (Sign #79) - Request to rezone 1.496 acres from CO to R4 to allow for a church expansion to be in a residential rather than commercial zone. The property, described as Tax Map 61 Parcel 153a is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on East Rio Road (Route # 631), between CATEC and the railroad bridge on East Rio Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional in Urban Neighborhood 2. Deferred from the March 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. SP-99-75 Charlottesville First Assembly of God (Sign #78) - Request for special use permit to allow church expansion in accordance with Section 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for churches in R-4 residential zoning districts. The property, described as Tax Map 61 Parcels 153A and 153AI contains 4.496 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on East Rio Road (Route # 631) between CATEC and the railroad bridge on East Rio Road. The property is zoned CO and R-4. A concurrent rezoning is requested to rezone the CO portion to R-4 The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional in Urban Neighborhood 2. Deferred from the March 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting that the request is to downzone the commercial part of the property to a residential zone; there is no existing special use permit on property, and the request for the SP is to apply church use on both sites, so that the applicant can construct a modular building for Sunday School, but the building couldn't be put right on the line, as the adjacent property had a commercial zone buffer requirement. She added that the rezoning is for the I'/2 acre parcel, and the special use permit is to apply to both properties. Ms. Echols present a concept plan as submitted by the applicant, noting that it needs modification before it can be approved administratively as a site plan amendment. She noted that there are road plans superimposed on the drawing, to demonstrate possible changes Rio Road/Meadowcreek Parkway widening would bring. Ms. Echols added that the widening would remove a couple of existing parking places, adding that the applicant is showing overflow parking on his site; he can get additional required spaces from CATEC. Ms. Echols explained that with the rezoning, there is a proffer for church use, and the only issue staff was concerned with had to do with right-of-way improvements for Meadowcreek. VDOT does not need any additional right-of-way for the project, but would want access to the property to do some construction work. Ms. Echols mentioned that regarding the Special Use Permit, the church had a lot -clearing activity that violated the zoning ordinance, violated ENS ordinance, and caused some damage to the stormwater basin. She said that staff sent letters to cease and desist the tree cutting — which they did — and gave them information on how to remedy the situation. What they will need to do is modify the plan, so that they can get an additional grading plan and correct the stomwater basin. Ms. Echols summarized that the applicant has agreed to AlhpmnrlP Cminty Plnnnina Cnmmiccinn — Anril 4 7000 17R cm in correct the situation and has made all the applications for that; the zoning violation is corrected with the special use permit. Ms. Echols explained that zoning also asked about the parking arrangement with CATEC, which was made in the 1970's. One of the conditions of having cooperative parking with CATEC was that the applicant was supposed to construct a walkway between the church and CATEC parking lots. She explained that the walkway has never been constructed, even though CATEC is used for required parking spaces. Staff is recommending that the applicant either put in a walkway or accommodate required parking on site. "Either item can be taken care of with their minor site plan amendment." Ms. Echols concluded that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and the special use permit with conditions as mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Rooker asked if it was appropriate to replace any of the trees that were removed. Ms. Echols responded that the trees were in the overflow parking area, and in a recreation area for the children. She added that staff had no objection to the clearing that was done; their concerns are the zoning violation and the erosion problems that it created. Ms. Echols added that the conditions address the erosion problem. Mr. Rieley asked about the overflow parking and the previous agreement showing the walkway. He said that it is a perfect situation for shared parking, with a school that is vacant on Sunday and a church that needs extra parking on Sunday. Mr. Rieley commented that it does not seem to be advantageous to have the option of adding lots of impervious area when it's not really needed. He suggested simply enforcing the original agreement that was part of the original site plan, and insist that it be carried out as originally conceived with a walkway, instead of adding overflow parking. Ms. Echols said that there is a parking lot further away on the CATEC site that could continue to be used, adding that there is a joint letter, where CATEC also uses the church parking. She said that the letter is good as long as both parties are amenable to the situation. Ms. Echols said that if the Commission did not approve the overflow parking for the adjoining parcel, but instead approved the continued overflow parking at the CATEC site, there would definitely need to be better pedestrian access. She added that the church would like to have the parking all on their own site. Mr. Thomas asked if there are two entrances, or if they are planning to close one down. Ms. Echols confirmed that there are two existing entrances, and both plan to continue to be used. Mr. Craddock commented that the drawings seem to show one being closed. A1hPmarlP Cnnnty Planning C"nmmissinn — Anril 4 '7000 "r►i; Mr. Cilimberg said that when Meadowcreek Parkway project is undertaken, there might be some changes to the accesses. The plans have gone to the Commonwealth `%W Transportation Board, and currently show two means of access. Ms. Echols said that VDOT suggested getting better circulation on site, but in talking with the applicant and looking at the site, there is not a good way to connect the parking lots in the rear because there is a ravine back there. She confirmed that VDOT's comments are just a recommendation. cm Public comment was invited. Mr. Pete Harvey, pastor of the church, addressed the Commission. He said that if the church uses CATEC, the parking lot that can be used there is a 150-yard walk. Mr. Harvey said that to use the CATEC lot and come to the church, pedestrians have to walk all the way around to the front of the church or walk on Rio Road. Mr. Harvey said that there is a parking lot behind CATEC that has a chain across it, and he is planning on approaching CATEC officials and discussing using a parking lot that would be accessed with a key. Mr. Harvey said that a sidewalk that would be constructed would have to come all the way across the front of CATEC, and a large berm there would have to be dug out to bring the sidewalk through to the church parking lot. "it would be the difference between a 150-yard sidewalk compared to maybe a 10-foot sidewalk." Mr. Rooker asked if new overflow parking would be needed if the chained parking lot could be used. Mr. Harvey responded that sometimes the lot would work well, sometimes it wouldn't, depending on how many cars are in that lot to be worked on by students. Mr. Finley asked how much of the parking area CATEC uses. Mr. Harvey replied that they use about 20 — 25 church parking spaces. Mr. Rieley commented that if the walkway were constructed as originally agreed, it would be just over 300 feet from the CATEC parking lot to the church. "That's almost exactly what it is from the back of your existing parking lot to the front of the church." Mr. Harvey responded that when church members use the back parking lot, they access a back door to the church. Mr. Rieley said that the distance is also about the same as from the proposed overflow parking, adding that the concern is adding a lot of impervious area right next to an existing parking area with empty spaces. "It seems to me if there's a way of making that work, it would save you a lot of money, and would give you an opportunity for having an AlhamnrlP Crninty Plannino Cnmmiccinn — Anril 4 '7000 1 RO cm iM expanded recreation area, and it would decrease the impervious area, which is good for everybody." Mr. Finley asked if CATEC had weekend classes. Mr. Harvey said he did not believe that CATEC had weekend classes. Mr. Finley asked if the agreement with CATEC would be legally binding. Mr. Harvey said that another issue is that parking on another property provides a "mental barrier" to churchgoers. Mr. Thomas commented that it would be a lot better to have the church parking all in one area. Mr. Harvey strongly agreed, adding that they would continue to allow CATEC to use the church parking. He added that they have a good working relationship with CATEC. Ms. Echols added that in looking at the letter of agreement, it is not legally binding, except that as long as the church is getting 7 parking lot spaces, they are meeting parking requirements. Mr. Finley stated that while he would like to see shared parking, there is always the possibility that the agreement could become a disagreement in the future. Mr. Rieley agreed, stating that while he feels shared parking is important, it shouldn't be imposed upon the applicant to continue with a non -binding agreement for shared parking. He mentioned that the proposal in general is particularly well -crafted. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there will be a sidewalk on Rio Road when the Meadowcreek Parkway project moves forward. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Hopper moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of ZMA 99-18 with proffers as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kamptner suggested changing language of Condition #3 associated with SP 99-75. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SP 99-75 with conditions as recommended by staff, and a modification of the first sentence of Condition #3 so that it reads: "The applicant shall complete the improvements and repairs recommended by Mark Graham in his letter dated 13 January 2000 for the stormwater basin and dam, prior to approval of a building permit for the modular classroom by a date determined by the Program Authority." AlhPmarlP Cnnnty Plannino Cnmmiscinn — Anril 4 '7000 1 R1 M SP 99-74 Townwood Mobile Home Park — Request to amend the existing special use permit to allow for 19 additional mobile home sites on approximately 12.6 acres zoned R-10, Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 8 is located on the eastern side of Rio Road East, just north of the Rock Store. This property is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and is recommended for Urban Density in Neighborhood 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. He explained that there are currently 71 mobile home units on the site; in 1998, the Commission and Board approved 13 additional units. At that time, there was a great deal of discussion and discomfort with prior property owner regarding violations, but the result was approval of 13 additional units. Since that approval, the park ownership has changed, and the new property managers are seeking an additional 19 units. The applicant has indicated that the requested additional lots are necessary to support the level of improvements they would like to make. They are seeking to most of the existing units by shifting them to make their positioning more orderly. He said that staff is viewing the request as 32 units, since the original 13 approved have not yet been put in. Mr. Morrisette noted that in their review, staff felt the access issues also needed attention, as the residents currently have no signal when attempting to exit the park. He said that the applicant has worked to establish an entrance onto Greenbrier Drive, and the entrance has been located where it would have the least impact on the Townwood Townhouses. The entrance is planned to be located between the two existing entrances, entering into the Townwood Townhouse development and located across the new entrance is a drainage/detention area. He indicated that Greenbrier Drive is not a publicly -maintained road, but will be adopted by VDOT soon; he noted that Greenbrier is capable of handling the additional traffic. Mr. Morrisette added that the entrance will be lit. Regarding screening and landscaping, Mr. Morrisette said that the fence that runs along Greenbrier Drive is off the Townwood property line, and VDOT will not maintain Greenbrier until the fence is removed out of the right-of-way. He added that there will be a fence constructed along the new lots along Greenbrier, and along the Four Seasons side of the development. Mr. Morrisette said that there is a 50-foot buffer in rear of site, and the applicant has agreed not to disturb any trees within that buffer. Mr. Morrisette noted that staff is requiring the applicant to go through both the preliminary and final site plan review processes. He mentioned that the new property manager is working hard to make the mobile home park a better place to live. Regarding the site development issues, Mr. Morrisette said that engineering has reviewed this as a schematic plan, but not as full-fledged preliminary site plan. He reported that several issues have been identified by engineering; the department feels that development of the lots may be hindered because of drainage easements and site easements for the internal road that runs through the rear of site. Mr. Morrisette added that there are also possible issues regarding the layout and design of entrance. Mr. Morrisette said that there is a question as to whether the applicant can get the additional lots in there or not. AlhPmarlP r(minty Plannina rnmmicsinn — Anvil 4 900n l R17 cm Mr. Morrisette mentioned that there are two new two lots proposed with the site to be located down the bank from Rio Road west. He said that the development potential of a total of 7 lots could be impacted by issues identified by engineering and planning; these issues can be addressed during the review of the site plan; however, because this proposal fully develops the property, staff is reluctant to provide blanket approval of the additional 19 lots. Staff would recommend that a total number of new lots approved be limited to 25; then, provided the owner satisfies the concerns of the Engineering and Planning Department to the satisfaction of the agent and the county engineer, the 7 additional units will be allowed. Mr. Morrisette explained that the development does provide a negative fiscal impact, as most residential development does, but we felt that it was offset by the fact that it provides affordable housing in a development area, additional amenities on site, and safer entrances into the mobile home park. Mr. Morrisette noted that the phasing of the development tries to make as minimal impact to existing residences as possible, and as minimal impact to surrounding communities as possible. He mentioned that the development impacts to residents that remain will have to incur some type of hardship by having their homes moved. The applicant has provided a letter as to how they would address that hardship; the applicant has indicated they would attempt to minimize the level of disruption as much as possible, and also stated that during all relocations, the management staff will provide moving assistance, and the owner will be responsible for any reasonable expenses incurred by the inconvenienced residents. Mr. Morrisette reviewed the development's favorable and unfavorable factors as outlined in his staff report. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the recommended widening of the internal roads includes resurfacing. Mr. Craddock mentioned that resurfacing is mentioned in the staff report, Section 2, Item 2H. Mr. Finley asked if there eventually will be enough parking spaces, as mentioned in the staff report. He asked what would happen if there were not enough spaces. Mr. Morrisette responded that staff would review the plan in the preliminary site plan stage, where the applicant would have to demonstrate the parking spaces. If he cannot achieve the required parking, the applicant might have to lose a couple of mobile home lots. Mr. Rieley asked what staff would view as an acceptable landscape plan. AlhPmnrlP hnimty Planning CnmmkQinn — Anril 4 9000 1 Rl Mr. Morrisette said that he had initially wanted street trees — one tree for every 50 feet — along the front, which he would like to see along the internal road as well. He noted that `%W the applicant has shown some screening around the tot lot areas and along the frontage of Rio Road west. Mr. Morrisette said that staff could deal with that more at the preliminary site plan stage, adding that having trees along Rio Road will be important, as the trailers are close to the road. He added that the conditions attempt to minimize the impact of the development to the Townwood Townhouses by landscaping as much as possible at the entrances. in Mr. Craddock asked if car headlights will shine into the townhouses, given the new entrance. He expressed concern that there may be a constant flow of light into some of the townhouses. Mr. Morrisette responded that the road loops around, and there are some townhouses facing where the new entrance would be. He acknowledged that there would be light shining in. Mr. Craddock expressed concern about the proximity of one of the tot lots on Rio Road, and asked if it will it be fenced. Mr. Morrisette mentioned that the grade difference provides some barrier to going on the road, and indicated that staff would like to locate it more centrally. He mentioned that a condition could be added to fence the tot lot. Mr. Rooker asked what screening could be required on Rio Road, if it becomes an Entrance Corridor. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the site plan process will apply to this application, and if it is in the EC, it will be subject to the review of the ARB. He emphasized that the ARB has asked that the Commission and Board not apply conditions to an extent that their hands are tied in what they can ask for in terms of screening what is visible from the EC. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the EC goes to board next week for public hearing, and if it passes as recommended, it will be in place at the time this site plan comes through. Mr. Rooker stated that he is very concerned about the appearance of the development from Rio Road, and asked if the mature trees being removed are principally in the back of the site. Mr. Morrisette said that while many of the mature trees are in the rear of the site, some of them are right next to the homes, and moving the homes will disturb the trees. Mr. Rooker said that planting along Rio Road and the internal roads will be very important. Mr. Cilimberg said that anything beyond ordinance requirements should be put in the special use permit. AlhPmarlP rnnnty Plannino CnmmiWnn — Anril 4 1000 1 R4 Mr. Loewenstein asked about fencing for the second tot lot, expressing concern about the %NW proximity of the play area to the detention pond. cm Mr. Cilimberg said that can be addressed in the site plan process. Mr. Rooker and fellow Commissioners complemented Mr. Morrisette on his excellent staff report. Mr. Rooker said that when the Townwood proposal came before the Commission before, many problems were raised by residents regarding the water system, adding that he is comforted to see that in Phase I there is a requirement that water system be dealt with. Mr. Morrisette noted that the service authority is close to approving the water plans, and the applicant would like to get started on improving the system as soon as possible. Ms. Hopper commented that this plan is a great improvement over the current situation, and it would be nice to provide some open space for the older children in the development. Mr. Craddock asked if the cemetery goes with the old church on Rio Road. Mr. Morrisette said there is legal access to the cemetery through Greenbrier Drive. Public comment was invited. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner addressed the Commission. He also complimented Mr. Morrisette on the staff report. Mr. Gloeckner said that the mobile home park has been there since the 1950's and 1960's, and is truly affordable housing in the urban ring. He explained that his goal is to make an orderly arrangement of the mobile homes that exist, as well as providing safety and utilities, a paved street, and more easily accessible parking. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Gloeckner if he was comfortable with staff s recommendation regarding the phasing of the project. Mr. Gloeckner responded that he was. Mr. Finley asked if the homes there are connected to the sanitary sewer by a standard connection. Mr. Gloeckner said that his engineering firm had the service authority examine the system to ensure that the sewer system was built properly. He said that the inspections were all checked by the inspections department when the laterals were hooked onto the system. He added that they have asked the service authority to take the system into their Alhamnrip Cnnnty Planning Cnmmissinn — Anril 4 1000 IRS jurisdiction, but the service authority would rather keep it private because it doesn't extend to any other community. Mr. Gloeckner said that the domestic water system is ` SAO already under construction, and remains private because of the metering situation. cm Mr. Finley asked if the laterals would have to be relocated when the trailers are rotated. Mr. Gloeckner replied that they would, and the utilities would be worked on when the homes are moved. Further public comment was invited. Ms. Pam Struther, who lives on Lot 1, Townwood, addressed the Commission. Ms. Struther explained that her home will probably be moved to an area that is not on the property she lives on now. Ms. Struther noted that her concerns with the moving of the trailers are largely personal, as she has two small gardens. She said that she now has water, after 10 years of living there. She explained that the new owners have been very good, but wondered how "reasonable costs" is defined regarding the owners'obligation to pay for costs associated with moving the trailers. Ms. Struther said that it is possible that the underpinning of her home could be damaged in the moving process, and also wondered how long it would take to relocate her home, and what she would do during that process. Ms. Struther said that two trees would have to be removed in order to move her home. She mentioned that she is glad they want to clean up the trailer park, but also is concerned about her new home site and the financial implications. Mr. Finley said that many other residents affected by the move probably share her concerns, and asked Mr. Kamptner how the Commission could help. Mr. Kamptner replied that many of these issues are between the property owner and the residents. Mr. Rooker suggested that the property owner address some of these issues. Ms. Hopper asked Ms. Struther if she has a lease for her property. Ms. Struther said that the lease expired three years ago. Mr. Finley asked how old her home is. Ms. Struther replied that her trailer is 10 years old. Mr. Finley asked what the normal life of a mobile home is. Ms. Struther replied that the homes can last for 25 years or more, depending on how well they are cared for. Ms. Struther said that currently residents are on a month -to -month lease. AlhPmarle Cnnntv Plannina Cnmmi—don — Anril 4 1000 1 RF Mr. Rieley asked where her garden is located. Nap - cm Ms. Struther pointed out on a map provided the location of her property and her garden. The applicant, Trey Stegman of Management Services Corporation addressed the Commission. He said that they are trying to gain acceptance at this stage of the plan, and then proceed forward with the cooperation of county staff to develop a final site plan. He explained that once that is accomplished, they want to focus on the sites that can be developed without moving any existing trailer homes. Mr. Stegman said that as people move out, they will try to bring in a new trailer in a relocated manner. "All of our concern is to try to minimize impact and work with the people was much as possible... [residents] may experience inconveniences; if [they] elect to stay and get moved, the owner has indicated that everything reasonable will be dealt with — financially, emotionally, as much as we can." Mr. Finley asked if the park owner or the tenants own the trailers. Mr. Stegman replied that the mobile home park owner does not own any of the homes there; a number of people own them as landlords and rent them out. He added that there are some mobile homes on site that are not in great condition. "Our point would be to try to avoid moving all of them until we reach a point when we do have to move them, and try to move the ones that are capable of being moved with the least disturbance. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Thomas commented that this is a great project to redo in the area, and will be a whole lot better looking in many ways than what is there. He added that he is sorry that anyone would be inconvenienced, and he is not sure who the liability for any damaged structures would fall back on. Mr. Thomas asked where the runoff from the site would go. Mr. Morrisette said that the new basin would hopefully catch most of it; the water would then run into the creek. Curbing would also help contain some of the runoff. Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Thomas that this project is an improvement, and commended staff and the applicant for striking a "reasonable balance" in increasing the value of the property by adding units, while making an investment for people who live in the community and serving the people who surround it. Mr. Rieley suggested including more specific information about trees, their location, species, size, etc., and suggested addressing screening, street trees related to Rio Road in Phase I. He suggested language for the expanded condition, emphasizing that the conditions are minimums and should not limit additional landscaping imposed by the ARB. Mr. Rieley said that replacing one tot lot with a larger park and recreation area geared toward older children and adults makes sense. He added that the plan for more orderly AlhPmarle rnnnty Planning rnmmiseinn — Anril 4 )non l R7 trailer alignment really is an improvement, and mentioned that if this were a plan for permanent houses, the density would warrant some kind of central open space, or "green." Mr. Rieley said that simply removing Lot #30 might create a central open space where there could be picnic tables, central green and gathering area. Mr. Rooker asked if fencing of the tot lots needed to be addressed now. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the fencing can be addressed at the preliminary site plan level. Mr. Gloeckner mentioned that the applicant does not have control over street trees along Greenbrier, but added that there could be trees approaching Greenbrier and at the entrances. Mr. Kamptner asked staff if it was necessary to match up specific homes with the different setbacks mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Morrisette said that they don't need to pin down the setbacks to specific homes, as it will be looked at as the overall sum aggregate. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of SP 99-74 with conditions presented by staff, modified as follows: B. Modify Section 31.2.4.4 to allow development improvements to commence within two years of special use permit approval. This development project shall be completed in two years from commencement from such date. The phases and sub -phases are outlined in the following chronological timeline: B. 1. c. Installation of a park and recreation area more suitable for adults and/or older children instead of a tot lot located in the rear of the site. The applicant may install a flat, grassed area in an area to be determined with the review of the site plan. B. 1. d. Installation of Phase 1 landscaping, which includes compliance with the tree preservation area located within the rear fifty -foot buffer. Street trees a minimum of SO feet apart as typically called for in the ordinance shall be added along with screening along Rio Road. All trees should be a minimum of 2" caliper. These additions are minimums and should not in any way limit landscape treatment that the ARB might impose. If any subsequent phases present a threat to landscaping shown in Phase 1, the applicant can bond accordingly the landscaping that may need to be established during other phases. B. 2. i. Installation of Phase 2 landscaping. Landscaping shall include plantings at the new second entrance and the new travelway, with major street Alhamnrla Cnnnty Pl%nnino Cnmmiccinn — Anril 4 ?nnn 1 RR trees every 50 feet on both sides along this internal travelway, and street trees approaching Greenbrier Drive. If any subsequent phases present a threat to landscaping shown in Phase 2, the applicant can bond accordingly the landscaping that may need to be established during other phases. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that DISC presents it's recommendations to the Board on Wednesday, April. 5, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. Mr. Cilimberg circulated "Certificates of Appreciation" for Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington and Mr. William Nitchmann for their service on the Commission. Commissioners each signed them. Mr. Cilimberg decided not to schedule a meeting on April 11, 2000 for a worksession on the Hollymead Town Center area, because many Commissioners could not attend. Planning Commission Request for Information to be Submitted with Rezoning Applications Mr. Rieley re -introduced the revised "Planning Commission Request for Information to be Submitted with Rezoning Applications." Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded adoption of the revised document. Mr. Loewenstein said that the list is a "pretty close reflection" of what kinds of things the Commission is looking for. Citing Item #8, Mr. Finley asked if an applicant would be held to what was presented at the rezoning request during the preliminary site plan review. Mr. Rooker said that it would probably be a question of whether there was a proffer made with the rezoning, and would be up to the applicant whether he wanted to make a proffer. "I don't think that we can necessarily require that an applicant come forward with that particular piece of information." Mr. Cilimberg said that staff is already attempting to guide applicants as to things that will be considered important; during Pre-App conferences, staff reviews with the applicant the application plan section under Planned Developments, even when it is not a PD application, to show in development how the proposal will affect the site. Mr. Cilimberg said that the County Executive wanted to make sure that Planning Staff understands what is expected of them under this request. "He felt that there probably needed to be some feedback to you as to how each of these items might stand in terms of 14%W our ability to do it....he thought it should be shared with the Board, because ultimately AlhPmarle Cnnnty Planning rnmmicsinn — Anril 4 ?nnn 1 R9 En n their the ones that take the actions, so their expectations are ultimately the expectations that have to be met." Mr. Rieley said, "But this is not the Board's request. This is the Planning Commission's request for material that comes to us to help us make the decisions that we have to make. The Board may have parallel ones, they may have entirely different ones. But these are the ones that we have identified over the last several months that we are concerned about." Mr. Cilimberg said, "I think the consistency aspect of expectation is what he was trying to get at. He wanted to make sure that the Commission and the Board were asking for things together... you're reviewing the same thing." Mr. Rieley commented that if the Board doesn't feel they need this information, that doesn't mean that the Commission doesn't need it. "I think that this stands clearly as a Planning Commission request, and it doesn't need to get complicated by whether the Board signs on, or whether the staff has the manpower to do everything that we think we should have... I hope that if it is adopted, it will be accepted as a guideline for the manpower you do need." Mr. Rieley added that he did not limit this to the current staff manpower. "We're saying this is the information we need, [and] if you don't have the capacity to get that to us, we think you should be finding a way to get it." Mr. Rooker mentioned that sometimes the items on the list are already provided, sometimes they're not. "These are very good guidelines for the kinds of information — most of which can be easily provided — that would be helpful to us, and I think probably the Board... in making rezoning decisions. And I don't there are any more important decisions that we deal with than rezoning property in the county." Mr. Loewenstein agreed, adding that what is being requested here is emminently valuable in making planning decisions. He emphasized that there are "reality issues." Mr. Loewenstein said he would like for the items to be moved forward with everyone able to sign onto it at all levels "because it's in the best interest of every resident of the county." He said that it would be helpful to get some feedback from staff, adding that if it helps staff makes its case for expansion, that would be great. "What we're looking for is a way to make the best possible planning decisions we can, and to give staff the opportunity to use a template of our desires, which I think or reasonable, to try to match what you are giving us with what we'd like to receive." Mr. Loewenstein acknowledged that there are critical shortages in Planning Staff, adding that he does not want to see a confrontational situation develop. Mr. Rieley said that he views this as the beginning of the conversation, not the end. "At this stage of the game, we have a clear Planning Commission request for information to come with rezoning. I hope that we can send a very clear request." Mr. Rieley added that the reason he put the requests in this format resulted from a conversation he had with AlhPmnrlP rnnnty Plinnino (nmmiscinn — Anril 4 MOO 19n En the county executive, who suggested that the Commission act on the items as a group instead of through solitary, isolated requests for additional information with applications. Mr. Finley said that he shares Mr. Loewenstein's concerns regarding staffing. Mr. Cilimberg said that if the Commission approves this list as a motion for the information to be submitted, then staff will begin attempting to do this. He added that he will let the Board and the county executive know that the motion has been passed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that he thought it would be a good idea to get feedback as to what might pose difficulties now or later. "We'll begin attempting to do this, and if we come back with something that might pose a legal concern or manpower concern, we'll let you know." Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that he would like for the spirit to be that staff, the Commission, and Board are all working together. Mr. Finley said that decisions on some Planning Commission rezonings are very quick, and this level of detail is not needed. He said he would abstain from the motion. "We're not a single entity here. We're part of a [team]." Mr. Rooker emphasized that the Commission can only get feedback if they make a recommendation, and staff would hopefully communicate if the information requested for a particular application was not reasonable or applicable. "We're not trying to impose mandates. We're trying to let staff know the kinds of things that would be helpful to us on most zoning applications, recognizing that they would exercise some discretion on a case -by -case basis as to whether or not any or all of these things apply to a particular case." Mr. Rooker added that this list is also helpful because when applicants appear before the Commission, the Commission often asks questions that the applicant had no expectation of being asked. "I think this is ultimately to the benefit of applicants because it lets them knows the kinds of things that will be helpful in making a decision on their application. Mr. Finley said that with tax reassessments pending, it may be difficult for the public to support additional staff. The motion for adoption of the "Planning Commission Request for Information to be Submitted with Rezoning Applications" passed, with Mr. Finley abstaining, and all other voting in favor. New Business AlhPmarlP Cnnnty Plannina Cnmmissinn — Anril 4 ynno 101 in The Commission moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that their meeting adjourn to the joint transportation meeting to be held Monday, April 10'h at the Senior Center on Pepsi Place, 7:30 p.m. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg Secretary AlhPmarlP Cniinty Planning Cnmmissinn — Anril 4 ')nnn 141)