Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 02 1993 PC MinutesKI:PAMIr] 1 FEBRUARY 2, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 2, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. CONSENT AGENDA The Commission was asked to receive the applications for the following Agricultural/Forestal Districts: Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District Addition to Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District Withdrawal from Iyy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins that the applications be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. In answer to Mr. Johnson's question as to the basis for the request for withdrawal from the Ivy Creek District, Ms. Scala explained the justification was "a change in circumstances." She stated that the property in question was the "preferred" route for the Bypass, but because the property was in an ag/forestal district the Bypass had to be routed around the property and through an established subdivision, causing a hardship to the owners of that subdivision. SDP-93-086 - ACAC Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to construct three new tennis courts, relocate the tennis shop, modify the pool deck, and reconfigure the parking lot to accommodate nine new spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 61X1, Parcels 4 and 4A and Tax Map 61X2, Parcels 4B, 4C, and 4D, is located on the east side of Four Seasons Drive approximately 1/2 mile south of Rio Road. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (N1) and is recommended for Medium Density Residential. Deferred from the January 5 Planning Commission Meeting. a�5f 2-2-93 2 Mr. Tarbell briefly reviewed the request. (The staff report, which had been presented at the January 5th meeting, was not repeated.) Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Von Stork. He reported that a meeting had taken place with the neighborhood assocations and concerns were broken down into two categories: operational (e.g., noise, security) and development. Additional landscaping has been provided for "specifically effected neighbors." This two -week period provided the opportunity for a dialogue to commence between ACAC and the neighborhoods and it is hoped that that dialogue will continue so that neighbors will feel their concerns are being addressed on a more regular basis. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dennis Wanluss (9 Lakeview Drive) asked what specific changes had been made to the plan. [Mr. Tarbell pointed out the changes: a wind -screen fence around the tennis courts; 9 trees added across the back of one area; 6 trees added behind Mr. Wanluss' lot; addition of photinia around the dumpster; 4 red maples in the median of the parking lot.] He stated that the neighbors continue to be concerned about security and it was hoped that the site plan would include some type of chain or gate across the entrance to keep people away from the facility after business hours and also some additional parking lot lighting. It was Mr. Wanluss' understanding from the owner that additional fencing is being considered to "close off the bottom of the map on the side that goes into the town homes section." He asked that these things be made a part of the site plan. Ms. Gwathmey (9 Tennis Drive) expressed concern about the close proximity of the new tennis courts to her dwelling (50 feet from her window). She asked that only two courts be allowed. She expressed doubt that white pines or photinia would survive in the location proposed, and she also was opposed to tall plants which would shade her plants. Mr. Ken Houchens and Ms. Hamish again expressed concerns about excessive noise. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question regarding noise regulations, Mr. Tarbell explained that time -of -day restrictions are addressed in the Standard County Code while the Zoning Ordinance establishes a limitation of 40 decibels at the property line. The Public Nuisance Section of the State Code also addresses noise issues. (Mr. Johnson noted that Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance relates to noise c- 41 2-2-93 3 from clubs and lodges and references 40 decibels between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. Additionally, Section 4.14.1 applies at all times with varying levels, depending on frequency, with the proviso that between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., it would be 5 decibels less for residential areas. Mr. Johnson concluded that there applicable noise regulations in the Ordinance for all 24 hours.) Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission could restrict the approval to two tennis courts. Mr. Bowling responded: "As I understand from staff, this plan meets the requirements of the site plan ordinance and the whole plan that was envisioned for this area and therefore it is legal." Mr. Tarbell explained: "It has really nothing to do with the original plan. They had shown larger buildings, but also, at that time, they envisioned expanded outdoor recreation facilities." Mr. Blue felt the Commission had done all it could to give the homeowners and applicant time to address concerns. He did not feel the Commission had the authority to deny the request based on the objections which have been raised. Mr. Blue moved that SDP-93-086, ACAC Major Site Plan Amendment, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans for new fire hydrant; d. Zoning Department approval of parking schedule note. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion for the reason stated by Mr. Blue. He reminded the neighbors, however, that there is civil recourse to certain violations. I;Z-2 2-2-93 4 He also urged the applicant to try to "accommodate at least two of the residents with respect to the top tennis court." Mr. Grimm stated he would support the motion because he felt the proposal will improve the existing situation and may reduce some of the problems with after-hours use. He also felt that tennis was a "benign, reasonably quiet" sport and not incompatible with the area. Ms. Huckle stated she would not support the motion because she felt parking on Four Seasons Drive creates a safety hazard. Mr. Jenkins called attention to a letter from the owner which, though "neighborly and nice," does not fulfill the need to deomonstrate to the neighbors that the facility can perform in a manner that is acceptable to the neighborhood. The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Colonial of Charlottesville Major Site Plan Amendment - The applicant is proposing to delete 56 parking spaces and an internal access road from the previously approved plan and permit parking on the north side of Myers Drive. The 10-acre site is currently occupied by the Colonial auto dealership. The site is located on the west side of Rt. 29N just south of Rio Hills Shopping Center in the Charlottesville Magisterial Disrict. The property is described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 94A and B and is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. This site is located in a designated growth area (Ni) and is recommended for Regional Service. Deferred from the January 5 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz distributed a letter from the County Engineer and allowed the Commission time to read the letter. (NOTE: Due to equipment failure, approximately 20 minutes of the meeting, beginning at this point, were not recorded. This included staff's report, Mr. Myers comments and a portion of Mr. Collins' comments. Transcription of these 20 minutes is taken entirely from notes.) Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of the request to delete the internal access road, but was recommending denial of the request to allow parking on both sides of Myers Drive for the following reasons: --The County Engineer's determination that parking on both sides would create a safety hazard; --Applicant's proposal to delete parking areas required on the original plan; and .2�?O 2-2-93 5 --A substantial parking surplus exists on -site. The applicant was represented by Mr. Carter Myers. Mr. Myers explained that the applicant is not requesting the actual deletion of 56 parking spaces, but rather is asking that those spaces be deleted from the bonding requirement. He did not propose to remove the spaces from the site plan. He explained that employees are already parking on both sides of Myers Drive, without incident. He stated that more parking space will be needed as spring inventory increases. He disagreed with the County Engineer's interpretation of the AASHTO parking standards and her determination that 40 feet is not wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides. He also disagreed with her treating this road as a "major arterial." He felt it was unreasonable to require the maximum standard on this road. Mr. Jeff Collins, the applicant's Engineer, addressed the specifications in the AASHTO standards. He pointed out that this area should not have industrial standards applied to it because it is a commercial area. He noted that the standards state that parking spaces, 8 - 10 feet wide are acceptable in industrial and commercial areas and are usually provided on both sides of the street. He noted also that the "gutter pan" may be included in this width. Referring to VDOT standards, he pointed out that streets with curb and gutter are 40 feet wide "from face of curb to face of curb." This private road is 40 feet wide. He estimated the vehicle trips/day to be no greater than 500. He stressed that this is not a major avenue of traffic; it is not an "arterial roadway." He concluded: "We are looking at a private roadway serving commercial establishments with a 40 foot wide street, that has ample room on both sides to allow for parking lanes and at the same time allow for two through lanes, going east and west, coming out of the site, without, by any stretch of the imagination, being in conflict with AASHTO standards." Mr. Myers presented slides showing various places in the County where parking occurs on both sides of the road. In answer to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Myers explained that the road is owned jointly by Colonial and Rio Hills Shopping Center. Colonial pays taxes on half the road. Mr. Blue noted that, based on existing County parking standards, the use should have plenty of parking spaces, but, apparently, the applicant feels that extra parking is needed during busy times. He asked if the applicant felt, as he did, that the County's standards for this type of use are not adequate. Mr. Myers felt the standards were not applicable, but he was uncertain as to how the standard could be defined. He suggested that "projected volume of the business" would be the best measure for the parking 2-2-93 6 standard. He did not feel it could be based on the square footage of the building, because a small building can sell a lot of cars. Mr. Myers offered to have 15 mph speed limit signs erected on the road. Regarding the applicant's request to be relieved of the bond requirement for the 56 parking spaces, Ms. Huckle noted that it seems that those 56 spaces are needed now. Mr. Myers explained that it is not financally feasible to put in that parking area at this time, but he assured the Commission that those spaces will be needed in the future. He noted that the employees have gotten into the habit of parking on the road and it was a good habit which he hated to break. The Chairman invited comment from Ms. Jo Higgins, the County Engineer. She explained that her determination had been based on the application of the "whole standard" and not just clauses pulled from various sections. It was her feeling that the AASHTO standard had been appropriately applied and she stood by her determination. She explained that allowing parking in the gutter interferes with stormwater runoff. She pointed out that a speed limit could not be enforced on a private road, though she agreed that posting a 15 mph sign is a good idea. She pointed out that the largest tractor trailers on the road will be using this road, which also serves the Rio Hills Shopping Center. She pointed out that the ultimate future use of this road had been a consideration in arriving at her determination. She concluded that she had been unable to find any evidence that this was "needed" rather than "convenience" parking. Ms. Higgins explained that a 10 foot minimum (parking width) had been used in her determination (8 feet from the edge of pavement + 2 feet of gutter). She concluded: "When you consider on -street parking, in any case, where there is not a need for the parking, you are putting people at risk." In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Higgins stated she had not classified the road as an "arterial," rather she had looked at the standards as a whole. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the AASHTO standards say that "a 10-foot travelway and an 8-foot parkingway is permitted in industrial areas" and where curb and gutter sections are used, they are included in this 8-foot figure. Ms. Higgins again stated that she had looked at the "whole standard and how it would apply ... you have to read the whole thing in context you can't just take the pieces out." She concluded: "My decision stands. If you want to allow it on some other basis, just don't use an interpretation of the AASHTO standards." ,�)30 2-2--93 7 Mr. Keeler pointed out that Ms. Higgins was being asked to respond to information which she had not been aware of, i.e. the applicant's argument in relation to a different interpretation of the AASHTO standards. Mr. Blue again raised the issue of whether or not the existing parking standards for this type of use should be changed. Mr. Keeler stated staff would have to review this issue, but he was not sure there was any "magic way to determine that." Ms. Huckle, referring to the previous application for ACAC, agreed that there appears to be some problems with the parking standards. She wondered if there was some way to change standards at some future time after uses have expanded. (Mr. Keeler stated he would make VDOT aware of the Commission's concerns about parking along Four Seasons Drive.) In answer to Mr. Jenkins' question, staff explained that, because this is a private road, VDOT would have no authority to disallow street parking on this road if problems occur in the future. Mr. Jenkins raised the issue of precedent should this request be approved. Mr. Keeler explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires that all parking for a use be provided on site and, technically, the applicant needs "cooperative parking with the shopping center to park on the far side of the road." Mr. Blue noted that even without VDOT's control, if the parking causes problems for the shopping center, then the shopping center will disallow Colonial's use of their side of the road and, likewise if the parking causes problems with stormwater runoff. Mr. Keeler agreed. Mr. Keeler felt the only control which the County might have would be if the travelway were to be reduced below that which is required for a fire lane. Mr. Myers pointed out that he felt the road meets the Comprehensive Plan's definition of a "local road, internal" for functional classification. He felt Ms. Higgins had "interpreted it one way but she has backed it up with information for the wrong classification of roads." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, the applicant had permission, from to park on one side of the street. "So they are not in compliance with Fritz responded affirmatively. Mr. Mr. Fritz stated that the original site plan, Ms. Huckle concluded: their site plan." Mr. Fritz agreed, however, 2-2-93 8 that the situation has changed since it is no longer intended that the road will be connected to Berkmar Drive. Mr. Blue felt the applicant and the County were "struggling over semantics," in terms of the road classification. It was his feeling that the 2-foot difference in width, in this case, really does not make a practical difference. He stated he would be opposed to the request if the applicant were asking to delete parking on site and replace it with this street parking. But that is not the case. The applicant is asking to be relieved from the bonding requirement, because County standards no longer require it, but he is not being asked to be relieved of the requirement to provide that parking. He felt that puts the request in a different category. He felt that if the businesses who own the road, maintain it and pay taxes on it, have agreed that this is reasonable then he would not oppose the request. Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Colonial of Charlottesville Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Revision of parking calculations noting deletion of 56 parking spaces from required parking and noting the area as future parking. [NOTE: This reflects amendment to the originally proposed condition to reflect the applicant's request to be relieved from bonding for these parking spaces, but retaining the parking area for future use.] b. Extension of CG-2 to edge of building adjacent to future service parking area. C. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. d. Revision of parking calculations noting parking on both sides of Myers Drive and revision of the site plan to indicate the parking. Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated he would support the request because based on his interpretation of the standards, a 38-foot road width is allowed and this road is 40 feet. Mr. Grimm stated he felt the request was reasonable given the current situation. He noted that one interpretation of the standards can support this type of situation. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SDP-92-087 - Old 29 Office Place Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct two buildings of 8,901 and 11,088 -V2 2? 2-2-93 9 square feet to be utilized in conjunction with the existing 16 unit motel for a physical rehabilitation complex on a portion of the 12.009 acre site. Property, described as Tax Map 76, parcel 12A, is located on Old US Route 29 approximately 800 feet west of Buckingham Circle. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (N7) and is recommended for Neighborhood Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He offered to answer questions. He confirmed that the project would be connected to public utilities. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Paul Rood, a resident of Buckingham Circle, raised the following questions: --What are the plans for the wetland area --will it be drained, improved, or remain as is? --What type of lighting is planned for the facility and for the parking area? He noted that bright lighting could interfere with the observatory. --Will there be access to the property through Buckingham Circle? --How high will the buildings be? --Will there be additional traffic? Mr. Bill Goldean expressed the same concerns as Mr. Rood. He also asked about the type of facility --how many beds and hours of operation? He noted that there currently exists a hazardous situation at the egress to Buckingham Circle. He asked that at least a 25 mph speed limit sign be placed at the end of Fontaine Avenue. He concluded: "I basically support the development; I'm not opposed to it in any way." Mr. Muncaster explained that this will be a physical therapy facility. He was unable to answer questions about lighting at this time. Regarding the pond, he explained that the pond is not a part of this site plan, but he noted that the "contract purchaser" of the property has expressed an interest in restoring the pond. Mr. Bowling explained the procedure which must be followed for the placement of a speed limit sign. Regarding lighting, Mr. Bowling stated it would have meet the Site Plan Ordinance. Mr. Fritz added: "That is something that we can require, and have required under approval of a 'Landscape plan." He suggested the addition of the following condition: "Staff approval of landscape and lighting plan." 1�2_aa 2-2-93 10 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In answer to Mr. Nitchmann's questions, Mr. Muncaster explained that this would be a private hotel to be used only by the clients of the physical therapy facility who must stay overnight. Mr. Nitchmann asked if a change to a traditional type of hotel would require another approval. Mr. Fritz explained that hotels are a by -right use in the HC district. Mr. Nitchmann expressed an interest in the type of rehabilative therapy which would be used and if any loud noise is anticipated. Mr. Muncaster explained that the physical therapy would be for patients who have had injuries and the only type of music he was aware of would be low -volume. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Zoning Administrator had determined that this is a permitted use. Mr. Blue noted that the only reason the plan was brought to the Commission was because of the critical slopes issue. He stated the plan would have to meet all the requirements of the site plan ordinance and the erosion control ordinance and he could see no reason to go into any further detail. Mr. Blue moved that SDP-92-87 for the Old 29 Office Place Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; e. Staff approval of road name; f. Building Official approval of handicapped spaces; g. Building Official approval of a ramped walkway to the Pool Building for handicapped accessibility; h. Staff approval of a landscape plan and lighting plan. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until Fire Officer approval has been obtained. -;a 2-2-93 11 3. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson noted that the critical slopes provisions in the Ordinance should be reviewed to see if they can be "adapted to the administrative approval process." He suggested that the the controlling factor would be "with the proviso that Engineering Department approval for the critical slope was granted." SDP-92-089 - HollyMead Middle School Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 94,500 square foot school building adjacent to the existing elementary school. improvements proposed included 114 new parking spaces, four tennis courts, soccer field, baseball field and an asphalt play area. Property, described as Tax Map 46B1, Section 1, Parcel 1, is located on the south side of Powell Creek Drive approximately 500 feet east of Hollymead Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Public Use. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about tennis courts being built on fill areas which have to be replaced every few years. Because of the close proximity of the school to residences, Mr. Johnson wondered if a situation similar to the one which exists between Albemarle High School and Georgetown Green residents is being created. Mr. Tarbell did not anticipate the same situation because the Hollymead residents have been aware of the school complex for a long time. Mr. Blue asked that Sheet 2 of the site plan, General Note #7, be corrected to show the survey day as 1971, NOT 1991. The applicant was represented by Mr. Jack Clark, architect for the project, and Mr. J.K. Timmons. Mr. Clark briefly reviewed the project data. Regarding the location of the tennis courts, Mr. Timmons stated the applicant is aware of the poor quality of the soil. Options being considered include a structural slab which will "float" the tennis courts, or the replacement of the soil with better quality fill. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Joe Farinholt, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He had questions about the pond and about fencing around the tennis courts and pond. (The applicant ol35_ 2-2-93 12 confirmed there would be fencing around the tennis courts. He also noted that the pond would be a dry one.) There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Hollymead Middle School Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; e. Staff approval of a final landscape plan to include vegetative screening of the proposed stormwater detention pond; f. Staff approval of pavement markings for the parents' dropoff loop. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated that he would support the motion. However, he asked the question: "Has the life -cycle cost for a one-story building been determined and compared to a two-story building and if there was a difference, with a two-story building having a lower life -cycle cost, was there some other overriding reason, which can be documented, to support the one-story?" Mr. Nitchmann asked if the design was such that a second story could be added at a later time. The applicant replied negatively, explaining that the site is at its maximum capacity given the requirements for parking, play area, etc. The motion for approval passed unanimously. 2-2-93 13 There being no further business, the regular public hearing ended at 9:25 p.m. A Work session on Affordable Housing followed the meeting. DS ov z l'