HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 01 84 PC MinutesMay 1, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 1, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Jim Skove; Mr. Richard
Cogan; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other present were:
Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
The approval of the minutes of September 21, 1982 was deferred.
For the benefit of the general public, Mr. Bowerman explained how the meeting
would be conducted.
ZMA 84-9 First Federal
s and Loan Association and American Federal
0UVL11s ana Loan association and Revised Site Development Plan - Request to
amend Four Seasons PUD, Tax Map 61X(1), Parcels 4,4A; County Tax Map 61X(2),
Parcels 4B, 4C, 4D, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Revised proposal
to locate 76 condominium units on 11.94 acres with average density of 6.37
dwelling units per acre, zoned Planned Unit Development. Located east of
Four Seasons Drive and north of Woodlake Drive in Four Seasons PUD.
Deferred from April 3, 1984.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and in so doing, made several changes.
He pointed out, in summary, that the applicant has proposed 76 units, 48
condominium flats near the large lake, 28 townhouse units near the upper
pond. Planning staff has recommended approval for 72 as opposed to 76
units. The four units would be deleted and replaced by a play area. About
two acres, Area C, will be dedicated as common open space for use of all
residents of Four Seasons. Area A would be dedicated to the county for
use in stormwater management purposes if the Board of Supervisors so chooses.
Mr. Cogan questioned the number of units and buildings shown on the proposal.
It was established that there are twelve structures and sixteen buildings.
Mr. Bowerman noted, for the benefit of the record, that he is a member of
the Board of Directors for the "Y", but stated he did not feel there would be
a conflict of interest, therefore, he is not disqualifying himself from the
discussion of this item.
Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing the applicant, presented a brief history
of Four Seasons as it related to this -site. He noted that in 1970, when the
planned unit concept was first initiated in Albemarle County, this was the
first development approved. He explained that there was to be a central
area where there was a clubhouse/tennis courts/swimming pool. In 1975 the Four
Seasons Swim & Racquet Club came to an end, due to financial constraints. In
1978, American Federal and First Federal became the owners of the property.
A day-care center, run by American Pre --school, was located on the property in
1980.
May 1, 1984 Page 2
Mr. Davidson, President of First Federal Savings and Loan Association in
Lynchburg, stated that they had employed a firm to make a study of the club
and determine what could be done with it. It was the consensus of this
firm that the club had no economic value unless it could be rezoned. He
also pointed out that attempts had been made in the past to sell this facility
to different associations. He noted that a development that is properly
done and supervised would make this area even more attractive than it is today.
Mr. Bob Hauser, also representing the applicant, pointed out that they are
proposing 28 townhouses, on two levels; for approximately 1,200 square feet.
The 48 one -level mid -rise, low-rise homes would be approximately 1,000 square
feet. Depending on the grade they will be two and a half stories out of the
ground or three stories out of the ground.- All units will be sold under a
condominium regime, managed uniformly. In addition, "we feel as a responsible
developer that the designs of the townhouses would be compatible with the
existing neighborhood." He pointed out the location of the road into the
subdivision. Mr. Hauser noted that with regard to the lake, it is their
intent to retain both lakes. In working with Mr. Elrod, County Engineer,
discussion has been made of dedicating the lower lake to the county for
the purpose of stormwater detention. adequate water and sewer facilities
exist on the site. With regard to recreational facilities, "we plan to
retain the 2 existing tennis courts and upgrade them if necessary." He noted
that they did not choose to retain the swimming pool for two reasons:
(1) Size is too large for the type of community; and (2) It is not actively
used.
Mr. Hauser noted that the proposed plan would increase traffic on four
Seasons Drive, although there is no way of determining the amount of traffic.
He also pointed out that if the property were actively used with its current
zoning as a swimming pool, tennis club, this operation could generate as
much traffic as the residential development proposed. He pointed out that the
current traffic (3,676) indicates that. the road needs upgrading. It is his
belief and understanding of the Highway Department that the number of vehicles
they would be adding would not alter the extent of improvements currently
needed.
With regard to staff proposal to dedicate Area A, which is.the lower lake,
to the County,4ge have no problem with dedicating this property to the County,
as we would like to see the lake retained but the final design of the
detention pond would be of interest to us before we dedicate this property."
He also stated that they have no problem with dedicating Area C as a common
area with tot lot and playground.
In summary, fir. Hauser.stated that the site is at this time deteriorating.
He stated that they have attempted to come up with compatible uses of the
property with the neighborhood. He stated that he would answer any questions
the Commission may have.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. .Tack Taggart, representing the Townhouse uwners Association and the Patio
Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission. He asked that those persons
present who were members of these two organizations stand. (Those persons
stood.) He presented a copy of the original Four Seasons sales brochure and
called particular attention to the 11.81 acres in question. He felt Mr.
Keeler was correct in his initial observation questioning whether there has
been a showing that this area is not appropriately used. He asked if there
/3g-
May 1, 1984 Page 3
was really a need for a change. Mr. Taggart felt there was no such need and
that the property should be left as is and some reasonable recreational use
developed for it. He cited increased traffic problems that would result
with the addition of 76 dwelling units and also lossof openness and the
unattractive view of the backs of buildings that some residents would be
faced with. Mr. Taggart presented a petition containing 500 signatures
of persons who were opposed to the amendment to the PUD.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their concerns about,
and opposition to, the proposal (All were residents of Four Seasons or Berkeley):
Ms. Jane Sprouse Alley; Ms. Mary Riason; Kerry Pernell; Ms. Susan Myer; Mr.
Chris Johnson; Ms. Jane Walpole; Mr. Bill Damen; Ms. Emily Reubelum; Mr.
Robert Zack; Ms. Rogers; Ms. Joan Graves; Mr. Bob Kritzer; Mr. David Williams;
Mr. Thornton; Mr. Will Ways; Ms.. Jill McKleusa; Ms. Wanda Acock; Mrs. Quincy
Williams; Ms. -Barbara Graham; Mr. Jeff Negras; Mr. Andy Myers; Mrs. Bill,
Gwaltney; Ms. Hanna and Mr. Walpole. Their comments and concerns included
the following:
(1) Proposed amendment would have a negative effect on the quality of life;
(2) Inadequacy of the roads to handle increased traffic;
(3) All residents of Four Seasons are against the proposal;
(4) Need to keep the open space for recreational facilities for children;
(5) Proposal would place unattractive buildings in the middle of town-
houses and patio homes;
(6) Devaluation of existing townhouses and patio homes;
(7) The creation of more impervious area will add to drainage and flooding
problems;
(8) Additional noise.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mr. Zack's question about the.detention basin (the lower lake),
Mr. Bowerman explained that the issue before the Commission was the proposal
for the condominiums and the townhouses. He explained: "The Staff has made
a recommendation to us that a certain portion be dedicated to the county
for stormwater detention. ... That question specifically is not before us,
but simply if we approve this tonight, that portion is part of our approval to
be dedicated to the county for ultimate solution. There has been no finalized
plan for that."
Mr. Zack asked if the Board of Supervisors was going to vote on whether or
not to drain the lake. Ms. Cooke responded that there was no way of knowing
the answer to that question at this time.
Ms. Cooke, the liason between the Board of Supervisors and the Commission,
explained that she was very concerned about the density of the whole
"Hydraulic Loop/29" area in terms of traffic, soil erosion, water runoff
control and school impact. She stated that as a result of the termendous
amount of building that is taking place in that area, the amount of impervious
surface was staggering. She stated that until such time as an extensive
study could be done on this area, she was "in no way inclined to support
increasing the density of that area not one unit's worth."
/'q6
May .1, 1984
Page 4
Ms. Diehl asked for clarification on the current zoning of the parcel and the
present uses allowed. Mr. Payne replied: "The zoning on Four Seasons is
that which has been approved on the original plan, plus special use permit for
the day-care center. So basically, the existing recreational facilities
and day-care use are the uses that have been approved on the clubhouse
tract at this time." He confirmed that it would be possible for other
special permit requests to come before the Commission.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the density in question was a "gross density before
any dedication."
fir. Wilkerson asked Mr. Taggart to read the text of the petitions in his
possession.
Mr. Taggart stated there were two separate petitions. He explained that
the .first one was done at a time "before this reduced density." That
petition was as follows:
"We, the undersigned, do hereby declare our.strong opposition at any
attempt to rezone property in the Four Seasons -Berkeley Area as
described in ..."(they gave the description.) "which is currently zoned
Planned New Development. We further oppose the planned 96 condominium
project currently being proposed by Republic Homes. We are also in
opposition to any attempt by private developers of the county to
drain the large lake and pond in this area."
The second petition was as follows:
"I, the undersigned, join with the residents at Four Seasons in
opposition to the rezoning request of Republic Homes, Inc., that would
permit the construction of 96 additional condominiums in our
established neighborhood. We are convinced that the construction of the
proposed 96 units will have a significant negative impact on the
already established community by adding a large number of additional
residents to the area thatis presently densely populated. The
proposed three-story buildings are not designed in conformity to the
existing structures and would most certainly be a detriment to the
present attractive plan of the area. The proposed three stories would
dwarf the existing structures and the 96 fire places that are in the
plans for construction would outnumber the total number already in the
community, which are significant in themselves to cause significant air
pollution and danger of fire. We're also concerned that the proposed
price range will substantially lower the value of the surrounding
property and would cause a definite financial loss to the present
owners of the property in our area. This concern has been
confirmed by several realtors. This in turn would lower the tax value
of the existing properties. The projected increase of 600 daily trips
on Four. Seasons Drive, which is already carrying over twice the amount
of traffic for which it was designed, would certainly be a most serious
consideration."
Mr. Taggart added that approximately 450 of the 500 signatures were on the
first petition.
/3r
May 1, 1984
Page 5
Mr. Cogan stated he would approach this request for a zoning map amendment in
two ways:
(1) Physical issues:
(A) The issue of Four Seasons Drive which is already beyond
designed capacity;
(B) The issue of water runoff which would be greatly increased by
the impervious surfaces resulting from this proposal; and
(C) The reduction of remaining recreational area or open space.
(2) A "moral quasi -legal" issue:
The current residents invested their money based on a promise,
or implied contract, that there was going to be 11.81 acres of
open area. (Mr. Cogan felt they were entitled to having that
promise kept, unless they consented otherwise.)
Regarding the economic burden that the applicant was faced with, Mr. Cogan
stated he felt the economic burden to the residents would be far in excess
of that being sustained by the applicant. Regarding the underuse of the
recreational facilities by the residents, Mr. Cogan wondered if the reason
could be because the facilities were "run down," suggesting a management
problem. In conclusion, Mr. Cogan stated "I can only say that I am not in
any way in favor of this zoning map amendment."
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Cogan and stated: "The critical issue in
my mind —was the original PD application and what was promised in that
application. ... That promise I don't think has yet been fully achieved
and I don't want to do anything myself here tonight to foreclose that
possibility in the future." Mr. Bowerman concluded that he did not look
favorably on the application.
Stating that he had hoped that the open space would remain and stay a
focus of the area, Mr. Skove stated he would not support the rezoning at
this time.
Ms. Diehl stated: "I think it was rightly a natural expectation by the
residentsthat the land that was intended for open space and recreation
since the inception of the PD would remain that way. My feeling is that
the current zoning should remain in place."
Mr. Wilkerson stated: "I think the group as a whole has pretty much said
that they saw it, they liked it, they want to keep it and I support them."
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-84-9 for First Federal Savings and Loan Association
and American Federal Savings and Loan Association be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial based on the previously -stated reasons
given by several commissioners.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was
to be heard by the Board on May 16, 1984.
The meeting recessed from 9:35 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.
4V
May I , 1984 Page 6
SP--84-16 Thomas C. Baber, Jr. - Request in accordance with Section 5.6.1
to locate a single -wide mobile home on 5.0 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located
on the east side of Rt. 600 (±1/2 mile off road), ±k mile south of its
intersection with Rt. 22, County Tax Map 65, Parcel 26, Rivanna Magisterial
District.
It was noted that opposition to this request had been withdrawn, thus the
item was deleted from the agenda.
ZMA-84-10 James and Virginia Hahn - Request to rezone 1.6 acres from Rural
Areas to Commercial Office. Located south side of Rt. 649, near airport,
adjacent to Deerwood commercial area, County Tax '2iap 32, Parcel 48, R.ivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The staff report concluded: "Staff opinion
is that some alternative zoning of the property may be warranted. Of the
commercial districts, CO, Commercial Office would be most appropriate adjacent
to a residential subdivision. Staff recommends approval."
M.x. Michel expressed concern that approval of this request might commit
this area (all the way out the Airport Road) to commercial office or non-
residential uses.
Mr. Cogan asked if the Highway. Department knew what portion of fir. Hahn's
property they would want reserved. Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway
Department, replied that he felt the alignment of the roadway was fairly well
set though there was some question about the location of the center line.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the site plan showed a dedication, though it was
pointed out that the site plan was not before the Commission at this time.
Recalling that this issue was presented to the Commission previously when
a change .was being requested to Commercial, Ms. Diehl asked if the request
for Commercial Office was enough of a change to warrant its being before
the Commission again.. Mr. reeler responded: "Yes, ma'am." He explained
that the Board's main concern was over retail use of the property, but
they were not as concerned about commercial office. He stated "They
tended to look favorably on the office use."
Mr. Payne also commented on Ms. Diehl's question: "The Board, in my opinion,
is the body that makes that determination, and I think you're entitled to
include your recommendation as to that issue in your action if you choose.
If you choose to recommend in favor of it, I think implicitly that would be
a statement, if you don't consider it substantially the same. If you decided
that it should not be considered because it is not substantially different,
then I think it might be appropriate for you to so state to the Board, as
part of all of the recommendation."
the Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. William Roudabush. He explained that
the applicant had amended and made a new application, strictly for commercial
office use and also had amended the site plan to remove all the retail
uses from the site plan. He stated the applicant was willing to accept
the commercial office only on this property. He explained the applicant
/�9
May 1, 1984 Page 7
intended to locate his real estate office on the property. He stated the
site plan was submitted with the original rezoning petition and had gone
through site review and all the changes that were recommended by staff
had been made. He explained that the site plan showed a 40--foot reservation
from center line of the road for future highway widening and a 30-foot
setback to the main structure would be from that proposed right-of-way
line. He stated that the Health Department had approved the site for
septic tank use and that public water is available to the site.
The Chairman .invited public comment.
Mr. Tom Terrell, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He
asked if the applicant intended to screen the property from the residential
area at Deerwood. Mr. Roudabush responded that the plan showed extensive
planting between this property and the residential property. Mr. Bowerman
added that if the rezoning is approved, the issue of buffering will be
addressed as the time of site plan submittal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Skove stated he felt this was a less intensive use than the original
proposal and he would support the request.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-84-10 for James and Virginia Hahn be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
A brief discussion followed related to the zoning on surrounding property.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on May 16, 1988.
At this point, Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission needed to
hear the Thomas Barber request (SP-84-16).since the opposition had been
withdrawn. (Note: Mr. Payne had not been present earlier in the meeting
when this item had come up on the agenda.) Mr. Payne stated that
the Commission could instruct the Zoning Administrator that the Commission
had no opposition to the permit being issued administratively. (Mr. Bowerman
asked if there was any public comment on this petition. There was none.)
It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission that the Zoning
Administrator could issue the permit administratively and staff was instructed
to communicate this to the Zoning Administrator.
SP-88-24 Woodbriar Associates - Request in accordance with Sections 30.3.5.2.2
and 30.3.6 to expand Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant, 1.230 acres zoned
Light Industrial. Located on the east side of Rt. 29 North behind
Badger-Powhatan, County Tax Map 32, Parcel 5D. Rivanna-Magisterial District.
/�O
May 1, 1984
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Page 8
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Keeler stated the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority does not endorse any further expansion of the Camelot
Plant beyond this present request. Mr. reeler added that the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority both
had recommended that expansion of the package treatment plant was not the
most desirable way to provide sewer service to that area, but it is acceptable
as an interim measure.
Mr. Keeler explained further that the alternatives were as follows:
(1) Continue expansion of the package treatment plant; (2) Construction
of a conventional plantin this location; (3) A gravity interceptor dorm
the lower fork of the Rivanna; or (4) Pump and force main over Route 649
parallel to Route 29, carrying it back down to the Moore's Creek Treatment
Plant.
Mr. Keeler confirmed this expansion would cover the total development planned
for Briarwood.
Cogan asked if it.were possible that this expanded plant could be
incorporated into the Rivanna Sewer Authority network at some future time,
or, if one of the other options Caere adopted, would this just be abandoned?
Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively to the first part of Mr. Cogan's
question and stated that though it was possible that it could be abandoned,
he did not think that would happen.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood was present to represent the applicant. He stated the alternatives
listed by Mr. Keeler were. mtfeasible. He explained that all the alternatives
listed would cost over a million dollars and all parties in question, including
the Service Authority, the Sewer Authority and the property owners, had
indicated they were either unable or unwilling to participate in any of the
other options. He stated the "short term" servicability of this proposal
was 15 years. He stated all state and federal approvals had been received.
Regarding the Commission's previous concern about overflow into the floodplain,
Mr. Wood explained that the project was redesigned so that the tank was moved
out of the floodplain. He stated the plant was ready to be installed and
had been paid for by himself (854 and by GE (15%). He added that the plant
would be donated to the Albemarle County Service Authority once is was
completed.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question about the plant's capacity after the
proposed expansion, Mr. Wood explained that it was to designed for its
maximum capacity, which would serve Briarwood, the :industrial park, Camelot,
GE, Badger-Powhatan, and the other commercial land that is currently there.
He added that the plant would have an excess of 100000 gallons capacity.
The Chairman invited public comment.
AIX/
May 1, 1984
Page 9
Mr. Jim Neblett , representing General Electric, addressed the Commission.
He expressed his company's support for the proposal. He noted that
this plant would allow future expansion of GE which would not be possible
without additional capacity.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer regarding the safety
and floodplain issue.
Mr. Elrod responded and explained that this proposal has moved the plant
"back into a little area that looks like an indentation in the embankment
of the floodplain" and it would not create any increase in the flood height.
He confirmed that the tank would be "open." Mr. Bowerman asked if the
tank would be -buoyant at flood level. Mr. Elrod replied: "Well, it would
except for the fact that it is anchored in the earth on one side."
He explained that the tank would be sitting in the slope of the earth.
He stated he could see no evidence of erosion on the slope. In response
to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Elrod stated the top of the tank was ap-
proximately 1 foot above the 100-year flood limit. He also stated there were
no safety features built in in the event the water should rise above the
100-year floodplain, and it was difficult to speculate on what might
happen in such a case. It was determined the elevation of the proposed
tank was approximiately one foot lower than the elevation of the existing
tank. Though Mr. Elrod stated he was not aware of any problems which have
occurred with the existing plant, he stated he could "easily conceive of the
water jumping up ten or twelve feet." Mr. Cogan asked if the walls of the
tank could be made a couple of feet higher. Mr. Elrod explained that if
the walls were too high, it would cut down on the ventilation across the
top of the tank. Mr. Elrod concluded that the tank was out of the hundred
year floodplain and that he was satisfied enough with the proposal to
recommend approval.
Mr. Skove stated: "In view of the fact the County Engineer feels that this
doesn't cause any significant increase in the flood level nor would it
present a danger to the public health, I move for approval under the (following)
conditions:
1. Issuance of landfill permit by County Engineer in accordance with
regpreme�ats of 39.3.61;
2. Issuance of a development permit by the Zoning Administrator in accordance
with 30.3..3.2, 30.3.3.1 and all other applicable law;
3. Approval of.appropriate local, State and Federal agencies;
4. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-29 as required by the Planning
Commission on December 14, 1982, during review for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan:
a. Expansion of the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant shall be for one
additional package unit such that the total capacity of that plant
441
May 1, 1984
Page 10
should not exceed 365,000 gallons per day. Recommendation for
expansion of the Camelot Sewage.Treatment Plant has been made in
view of accommodating short-term demand. At this time, the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority does not endorse any further expansion;
b. The capacity allotted the developer shall be the difference in
State -certified plant capacity after expansion as compared to State -
certified plant capacity prior to construction;
c. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority review and approval of plans for
and construction of plant addition;
d. The developer shall be responsible for the costs of materials,
labor, permits and all other costs related to acquiring, placing,
and integrating the package unit into the existing system, including
land acquisition, if necessary;
e. Immediately following certification by the State Water Control Board
and approval of other appropriate State and local agencies, the
developer shall dedicate the plant addition and all appurtenances
to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Dedication shall be
irrevocable on the part of the developer and his successors in
interest.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Cogan asked that the County. Engineer look into the possibility of raising
the top of the tank another foot, as a precautionary measure. He said if
it could be done, he would be in favor of its being done. Ms. Diehl agreed.
There being no further discussion, the motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on May 16, 1988.
ZMA-84-11 Woodbriar Associates - Request to amend previously approved
ZMA--79-32, condition No. 9, to provide relief from sidewalk construction
on Austin and Briarwood Drives, Heather and Whitney Courts, and all future
roads within Briarwood Planned Residential Development. Located on the
west side of Route 29 North, north of Camelot Subdivision and south of
General Electric, in Briarwood PRD. County Tax Map 32G, inclusive of all
lots, parcels, sections, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ir. Reeler gave the staff report. Staff was recommending that condition
No. 9 be amended as follows: "Sidewalks shall be provided along the
southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and
along the easterly side of the entire length of Briarwood Drive."
Mr. Bowerman asked about the Highway Department's position on the sidewalks.
Mr. Keeler responded that it was his understanding that the Highway Department
would not accept any sidewalks within the development, except those where
road plans have already been approved under the old policy.
May 1, 1984
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Page 11
Mr. Willis Fennell was present to represent the applicant. He stated it
was the developer's intent to create an affordable, attractive subdivision.
He implied that too many rigid requirements would make it impossible and
economically unfeasible to realize the intended price that the developer
wants to deliver the lot to the builder to sell to the public. He pointed
out that the lots in the subdivision are small and sidewalks would cut quite
a bit into the front yards, and would also interfere with existing
fencing and landscaping. He questioned whether any of the residents would
actually wish to walk down to Rt. 29, since it would be a considerable distance
and would require that the GE property be traversed also. He felt there
was sufficient room for pedestrians to be able to walk safely on the sides
of the streets. He asked that sidewalks be eliminated in Briarwood so
that the developer could afford to provide affordable homes.
Mr. Fennell confirmed that his request for elimination of the sidewalks
included those on Austin Drive and Briarwood Drive.
Mr. Fennell was unable to answer Mr. Gould's questions related to the
number of lots available and the acreage -.and density. However, Mr. Keeler
responded that density was in the range of 4 to 6 units per acre. He
added that the original proposal included an additional 100 lots on the other
side of Route 606, which the Board of Supervisors deleted. He stated
the density had never been recalculated after the deletion of those lots.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that just because the Highway Department would not
accept sidewalks for maintenance did not mean that sidewalks could not be
constructed along Briarwood and Austin Drives, but they would have to be
maintained by someone other than the Highway Department, either a homeowners
association eventually, or the developer initially.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed their opposition to the proposed sidewalks:
Mr. Mattick; Mr. Crews. Their principal reason was the fact that the
construction of sidewalks would eliminate much of their front yards and
existing landscaping.
The following persons expressed their support for the proposed sidewalks:
Ms. Margaret Cooney; Ms. Tammy Grymes; Ms. Cheryle Watkins; Mr. Charlie
Mallory; Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Tim Mistley. Mr. Mistley presented a
petition of support for the proposed sidewalks which contained 10 signatures.
Their primary reason for support was related to increased safety for
children.
Mr. Keeler pointed out to the members of the public that sidewalks were
required before any plats were put to record and before any building permits
were issued; therefore this was not a new proposal.
Mr. Nebblett, representing GE, questioned the proposed location of the
sidewalk along Austin Drive because it did not lead to the proposed
_ shopping center.
(Note: At least three other persons made comments but their names and
comments were inaudible.)
May 1, 1984 Page 12
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman invited Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department,
to comment on the Highway Department's sidewalk policy.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that sidewalks in subdivisions approved after June 30,
1981 would be contingent upon them complying with Commission policy that
sidewalks will be accepted on streets that (1) are adjacent to and in the
immediate vicinity of multiple businesses or public buildings; or (2) are
on one side of subdivision streets within the specified range of the county's
required pedestrian transportation policy from home to school. He added
that though local jurisdictions might determine sidewalks are needed in other places,
the Highway Department will maintain them only in those two places.
fir. Bowerman asked specifically if the Highway Department would accept.
for maintenance any of the sidewalks as proposed "tonight." MLr. Roosevelt
responded: "If we have approved plans prior to this June 30, 1981 date, then
yes, we will accept those roads or those sidewalks for maintenance, ... if
they were shown on the plans." Mr. Roosevelt concluded it was his personal
opinion that sidewalks were needed along the major streets.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler stated he was uncertain,
beyond lot number I on Briarwood Drive, as to whether or not the road plans
had been approved.
There was some discussion as to why the homeowners had not beer. made aware
of the requirements for sidewalks, by the developer. There was some
discussion related to the developer bearing the expense for relocating
any shrubbery or mailboxes, etc. which construction of the sidewalks
would necessitate.
It was suggested that the sidewalk on Briarwood might be located on the
west side rather .than the east side because there were fewer currently
developed lots on the westside, thus fewer residents would be effected.
Mr. Keeler acknowledged that Mr. Neblett's comment about the location of
a sidewalk on Austin Drive was correct, i.e. that a sidewalk along Austin
Drive would be delivering people down on GE property and they would still
have a hundred to two hundred feet to go to get to the commercial property.
Ms. Diehl asked if that changed staff's recommendation. Mr. Keeler stated
he felt residents in the northern end of the development would walk down
Austin Drive to reach the commercial development. However, he acknowledged
they would either have to trespass on GE property or walk in the right-of-way
of Rt..29 in order to get from Austin Drive to the commercial development.
It was pointed out t1, t hough pedestrians might have to walk in the right-
of-way of Rt. 29, it/nnot be in the travelled portion, but on the grass
portion.
It was determined the construction along GE would be Mr. k'ood's responsibility.
Mr. Keeler commented: "That was shown on this plan before he sold that property
to GE, so it would not be GE's responsibility.
May 1, 1984 Page 13
Ms. Diehl asked if staff's condition was worded in such a way that would
allow the requirement of a sidewalk in some later phase of the development.
Mr. Keeler replied negatively. He stated: "I think if you endorse this
language, you're telling the developer that he's responsible only for
sidewalk along one side of Austin and one side of Briarwood." He confirmed
this meant the entire length of these two streets.
Mr. Keeler pointed out this proposal would reduce the amount of sidewalk
construction that was originally proposed in the development.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Payne if the County would /liable in the event a child
should be injured as a result of the deletion of the sidewalks. Mr. Payne
replied: "I would think not."
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler again stated he felt
if the Commission endorsed staff's proposed language, the requirement
for any sidewalks in future phases would be foreclosed.
Mr. Michel felt staff's proposal was "the best we're going to get."
Though Ms. Diehl stated that if Austin Drive had a sidewalk from Rt. 606
to 29 she would be slightly more satisfied, it still would not make her
in favor of this amendment because she felt "we're closing down our
options."
Mr. Gould indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl. He added that he felt the
density required sidewalks for the safety of the children. He stated
he was in favor of sidewalks "wherever it's required according to the
original recommendations."
There was a brief discussion on the requirement for Whitney Court. Mr.
Keeler explained that sidewalks would not be on both sides of Whiteney,
but "on the outside of Whitney, starting at lot 77." He added that it was
not along the entire road, but only a portion.
Mr. Cogan noted that it appeared that the Highway Department would not accept
for maintenance the "internal sidewalks" (i.e. other than those previously
indicated by Mr. Roosevelt), thus they would not have to be constructed to
Highway Department standards. He pointed out that this meant that they would
be less imposing to the property owners and less expensive for the builder
to install. He agreed with Ms. Diehl that he did not want "to waive our
options for sidewalks as originally intended" and suggested that the developer
could go to the county engineer and find out what type of sidewalk would be
suitable in those areas where the Commission feels they are necessary.
Mr. Michel stated he had a problem with this suggestion because he had some
question as to who would maintain the sidewalks. Mr. Cogan and Mr. Payne
stated that either individual property owners would maintain them or the
Homeowners' Association. Citing the history of problems with this project,
Mr. Michel indicated he was uncertain about letting some unknown standard
be used in building. He felt this was too vague. Mr. Cogan pointed out
that it was his suggestion that the County Engineer would approve the
plans for the construction of the sidewalks. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cogan
if he wished to amend condition No. 9 to incorporate Mr. Cogan's suggestion.
May 1, 1984
Page 14
Mr. Wilkerson asked for ti clarification as to what the Commission was now
suggesting.
After determining that the sidewalks.on Austin and Briarwood.Drives were
not going to be maintained by the Highway Department, Mr. Cogan stated:
"Then my proposal would be that the sidewalk plan be as initially installed
in the original site plan or the amended s.te plan to show the sidewalk there;
however, that they be constructed in accordance with specifications provided
by the County Engineer." He confirmed he meant, "in those cases where
they are not going to be maintained by the Highway mepartment."
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr.' Cogan confirmed this meant that
whatever sidewalks were originally proposed would remain, but they would be
built to slightly different standards. He explained further this meant
sidewalks would beprovided along roads serving 60 lots or more and major
roads.
There followed a discussion about exactly how condition 9 should be worded
and also about the maintenance issue. fir. Payne pointed out that
Section 18-39(n) of the Subdivision Ordinance addresses the issue of sidewalks
which are not being accepted by the Highway.Department.
Ms. Diehl expressed some confusion about whether Austin and Briarwood Drives
were going to be accepted by the State Highway Department. She thought
it had been determined earlier in the meeting that those streets would be
accepted and then Mr. reeler had later indicated they would not. She stated
if they could be built to State. standards, she would like to see those two
built to those standards and maintained by the state.
Mr. Keeler stated that Whitney, Heather, Austin and Briarwood were approved
prior to the policy change andtherefore sidewalks would be eligible for
maintenance on those streets. He added: "The Commission required Highway
Department approval of those road plans their entire length, but I won't
know if the term 'approval' in the context of the sidewalk policy is the
same thing that was given for the entire length of the road. There are
'approvals' and there are 'approvals."'
Mr. Cogan stated he felt there were some unanswered questions on this
matter and suggested that it be deferred to give staff time to meet with
the Highway Department, the County Engineer, the County Attorney, and
the Homeowners' Association, keeping in mind the intent of the Commission.
Mr. Skove stated the Commission's intent was "To have these sidewalks as they
were originally designed, the last time we got together at any rate, and
wherever possible maintained by the State Highway Department, if at all
possible." Mr. Bowerman added: "Andizhem not covered by that, built to
the specifications as required in the Ordinance."
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-84-11 be deferred indefinitely. Mr. Gould seconded
the motion which passed unanimously.
Briarwood Final Plat, Sections III and VII - Relocation of Tot Lot and
Playground -
May 1, 1984
Page 15
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that the proposal was to
relocate the existing playground and tot lot equipment to a different area.
It was determined the proposed area was approximately 17,000 square feet.
Mr. Keeler stated this was not the only playground area proposed for the
subdivision.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fennell. He explained that the
new location was more centrally located. He asked that the requirement
for paving of the basketball court be deleted because of added expense
and the questionable safety of having it so close to the tot lot. He pointed
out that it had been the developer's idea to include a basketball net in the
original 5 pieces of equipment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed their support for the relocation of the
playground area: Ms. Diane Proffit; Mr. Baker; and several other persons
whose names were inaudible.
Mr. Martin expressed concern as to how the playground would be accessed.
Mr. Mike Shaver expressed concern about noise and also the fact that the
playground was in a high traffic area.
Mr. Fred Anderson expressed concern that the existing woods remain which
separates his property from the new playground area.
The applicant, Mr. Wood, addressed the Commission. He expressed his desire
that the housing remain affordable and questioned whether this would be
possible if some of these measures were required. He pointed out that, to
date, the homeowners have not been asked to contribute any amount and all
costs have been bome by the developer. He stated he was prepared to do
whatever the Commission required, but added: "...but keep in mind whatever
you want us to do does cost money and somebody will have to pay for it."
The Chairman closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the
Commission.
There followed a discussion during which Commissioners suggested various
amendments to staff's suggested conditions of approval which would address
the concerns expressed by the public.
After the amended conditions were agreed upon, Mr. Gould moved, seconded by
Ms. Diehl that the Relocation of the Tot Lot and Playground for the Briarwood
Final Plat, Sections III and VII be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Obtain building permit for installation of equipment;
2. Only movable structures to be located in sewer easements;
May 1, 1984 Page 16
2. Only movable structures to be located in sewer easements:
3. County Engineer approval of paths designed and constructed to permit
access by baby carriages, taking into consideration water runoff;
4. Staff approval of equipment location. No equipment to be located within
twenty-five (25') of a residential lot line;
5. Installation of standard -height basketball goal and thirty by thirty foot
(30' x 30') hardsurface, as well as layout, to be approved by County Engineer;
6. Area to be seeded with vigorous -growth grass to avoid future erosion
due to play area use;
7. The Planning Commission may require installation of additional equipment
in future phases of development;
8. Existing playground and tot lot to be reseeded when vacated;
9. Construction of playground and tot lot to be completed by July 1, 1984,
or bond will be called.
The motion fur approval passed unanimously.
George Cason - Wayside Stand - Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Cason was seeking
approval to reopen in his previous location. (He had previously been granted
approval for a temporary use.) It was determined an application for a
temporary use was approvable by the Director of Planning and did not require
Commission review. -Mr. Payne explained: "It is not covered by the ordinary
provisions of the Site Plan Ordinance. The site plan provisions refer
you back to one of the supplementary regulations and the supplementary.
regulations specifies administrative approval. Your review would be advisory
to the Director of Planning."
Though Commissioners Skove and Cogan indicated they were opposed to the
temporary use, Mr. Payne stated: "I don't think that's going to apply...
Mr. Cason has a right to bring in this thing and have it renewed by the
Director of Planning ... and if it's in order he.has a right to have it
approved. If it's not in order, he doesn't have a right to have it approved."
It was determined Mr. Tucker was simply asking the Cotramission for comments.
Mr. Cogan stated: "I think the only thing we can say at this point ... would be
to make sure that every T is crossed and every I is dotted and every requirement
is met and every regulation is fulfilled. And that having been done by law, he
is required to approve it. He is going to have to approve it. There is
nothing else we can do about it. "
Mr. Payne confirmed that a preliminary site plan would be required.
INis. Diehl felt if 'Mr. Cason.was aware that the Commission would be commenting
on the request, it would give fir. Tucker more leverage in dealing with the
issue.
May 1, 1984
Page 17
There followed a brief discussion about the possibility of amending the
ordinance to prevent this type of use (wayside stand) in the urban area.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the use was currently permitted by --right in the
RA, HC and Cl districts. Mr. Payne suggested that the way to amend the
ordinance would be to appeal the provision for wayside stands in all
districts other than the RA.
Mr. Skove pointed out that it was his recollection that a wayside stand was
designed to sell locally grown produce. Mr. Payne added that the RA district
permitted wayside stands only on the property where the produce is grown.
Mr. Cogan indicated he would not like to see the problems that have
occurred with this particular situation hurt other similar legitimate uses.
Mr. Bowerman agreed but pointed out that the problems that have occurred
with this use have far outweighed the benefit of the service it provides.
It was concluded the Commission wished to meet with Mr. Tucker to make
their concerns known to him before he acted upon the request.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Recorded by: Stuart Richards
Transcribed by Huffman's Court Reporters, Spring 1987
Condensed by: Deloris Sessoms, July 1988