Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 03 1993 PC Minutes8-3-93 1 AUGUST 3, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Johnson The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 13, 1993 were approved as submitted. SP-93--19 John Alford - Petition to construct a footbridge in the floodplain of the Moorman's River [30.3.5.2.1(2), 30.3.5.2.2(1), 30.5.5.2d(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 12 is located on the south side of Route 614 approximately 400 feet west of Route 674 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area III). Deferred from the July 13, 1993 Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz distributed a copy of a letter from Mr. Fred Landess which stated that the Scenic Streams Committee had no concerns about the request. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue asked if the applicant, or a previous owner, had ever requested approval of a vehicle crossing. Mr. Fritz replied that there had been a request on an adjacent property but there was no history of a request for a vehicular crossing on this property. Mr. Blue asked if staff had any information on the dimensions of the bridge. (He assumed it would be high enough to clear the floodplain.) He calculated, based on what was upstream, that a height of at least 6 feet would be necessary. Mr. Fritz replied: "That's likely what it will be. is He's already got, by using the bank, some elevation. Mr. Blue felt the proposed location was a good one from a canoeist standpoint. /e�s 8--3-93 2 Ms. Huckle wondered about the choice of facade treatment. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant had chosen a facade which would blend with his existing house. The applicant, Mr. John Alford, was present and offered to answer Commission questions. He stated he would be using the existing parking area, with no enlargement planned. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, he explained that he lives on the property, "full-time." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, SP-93-19 for John Alford Supervisors for approval conditions: seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that be recommended to the Board of subject to the following 1. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design to ensure that no portion of the span is within the floodplain elevation. 2. County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with Section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, if necessary. 3. County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream. The motion passed unanimously. Redfields Recreation Center Ma'or Site Plan Amendment - Modification under Section 4.12.6.5(c) (to allow for parallel parking) and reduction in setback required under Section 5.1.16(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both modifications. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the request could have been approved administratively were it not for the modifications. Mr. Keeler called attention to a letter from Dr. Ian Stevenson (adjoining property owner) which expressed concerns about noise, lighting, hours of operation, screening, traffic, and possible future enlargement. Addressing one of Dr. Stevenson's concerns, Mr. Keeler explained that the pool will be for the use of Redfields /.�6 8-3-93 3 residents only and will not be open to the general public. (Mr. Blue pointed out that parking would not be adequate for public use.) In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Keeler stated no lifeguard could be required. Mr. Keeler added that a land use ordinance could not cover "every aspect of human life." The applicant, Mr. Gayland Beights, addressed the Commission. He offered to answer Commission questions. Regarding hours of operation, he explained the recreation center will be dedicated to the homeowners' association which will deal with those types of issues. He noted that the use will be seasonal and felt it unlikely that there would be much after -dark usage. He added that it is required that lighting be shielded from roadways and neighbors. He explained that the plans for the recreational amenities had been changed to meet the wishes of the current Redfields homeowners. It is felt that the pool will be accessed from hiking and biking trails and that 15 parking spaces will be adequate. He pointed out that the site is very "tight" because of the location of various utility and drainage easements. Regarding Dr. Stevenson's request for a row of evergreens on the east side of the recreation center, he asked that he not be required to block the view of the open-air pavilion from the road as that serves as an illustration of the quality of the development. He pointed out that once the lots across the street have been developed Dr. Stevenson's view of the recreation center should be blocked by a double row of houses. In answer to Ms. Andersen's question about whether other sites had been considered, Mr. Beights explained that the recreation center must be completed before the second phase of development can begin. There is no other property available in phase 1. Regarding the possibility of building the pool in the next phase of development, he pointed out that the 47 current homeowners expect the pool to be constructed now. The Chairman invited public comment. Dr. Ian Stevenson addressed the Commission. He repeated the concerns noted in his letter (as described above). He also expressed concern about the anticipated disturbance to his horses and the possibility of trespassers. He preferred that the recreation center be moved "far back" from his residence and also from the Redfields residences. He asked that restrictions be placed on the lighting and noise levels. He noted that control of the recreation center would ultimately be in the hands of the homeowners who might not be as conscientious as Mr. Beights. He did not think the houses would serve to block his view of the recreation xa7 8-3-93 4 center as described by Mr. Beights. He was "almost certain" he would still be able to see the area. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Beights confirmed that the entire development could have access to the pool. He noted, however, there is always the possibility there could be other recreation areas (and pools) in other phases. Ms. Andersen asked if the ultimate size of the development had been taken into consideration when determining the parking requirement. Mr. Keeler explained that the pool has a "practical limit" and the parking requirement is based on the surface area of the pool. Ms. Margaret Stevenson addressed the Commission. She noted that the development will ultimately have 600 units which could cause considerable pressure on the recreation area. Regarding restrictions on sound levels, Mr. Keeler stated that the sound limitations of the Ordinance (.e. no greater than 40 decibels at the nearest property line) are applicable 24 hours per day and "it is a lower sound level than the police enforce at night." For the benefit of Dr. Stevenson, Mr. Keeler read the notes addressing sound and lighting limitations which appear on the plan. He also pointed out the recreation center is restricted to non-commercial recreational structures and uses. In response to Mr. Blue's question about the possibility of requiring further recreational areas in the future phases of the development, Mr. Keeler explained that this type development has no recreational requirements since the dwellings will have yards. However, because recreational area was shown on the zoning plan, it is required here. He added: "But as to the nature of it, what they do in the recreation area, that was voluntary on the part of the applicant to show it as recreation, and so the facilities we viewed as being voluntary." He stated that because the timing of the recreation area was part of a condition in the zoning, any change to the timing would require the approval of the Commission and the Board. In response to Mr. Jenkins' questions, Mr. Keeler pointed out the area where Dr. Stevenson was requesting evergreen screening. Mr. Jenkins suggested the developer might voluntarily plant "some trees in that far corner" of the lot most directly in line with Dr. Stevenson's view. In response to Ms. Hackle's question, Dr. Stevenson stated he objected to having the pavilion in his line of sight. He said he was not familiar with the proposed design of the structure. Ms. Huckle felt the description did not sound as /1-P 9 8-3-93 5 if the structure would be unsightly. Dr. Stevenson said his primary objection was to noise and lighting. In response to Ms. Andersen's questions, Mr. Keeler explained that it is the need for an additional 3 feet (from an existing dwelling on an adjoining property)--122 feet is present, but 125 feet is needed --and an additionl 5 feet (from the nearest property line)--70 feet is present, but 75 feet is needed --which causes the request for the modifications. Regarding the parking modification, it was noted that 8 spaces are possible without a modification. Allowing the parallel parking will allow the 15 spaces which are required. It was noted that a "clubhouse -type facility and planning field" were originally anticipated on the site in question. Mr. Blue felt it was reasonable to conclude that the change to the pool would actually decrease the nuisance level to both the Stevensons and the residents of Redfields. Mr. Grimm pointed out that the present proposal is a more seasonal type use. Mr. Blue felt the modifications requested were minor. Though he was sympathetic to Dr. Stevenson's concerns, he noted that they were issues which had arisen with the original subdivision and were not a part of this consideration. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the Redfields Recreation Center Major Site Plan Amendment be approved. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Andersen asked if the homeowners' association could, at some future time, limit the number of users of the facility if it is found that it is not large enough to serve future phases of development. Mr. Bowling responded: "It depends on how he sets up his homeowner's agreement." Mr. Keeler added that the homeowners could always add additional open space and recreational areas (subject to County approval). Ms. Huckle noted that it is difficult to predict how many people will actually use the pool. The motion for approval passed unanimously. /C� 8-3-93 6 Review of Planning Commission Draft Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the Neighborhood 3 Stud Mr. Benish reviewed revisions made to the Neighborhood 3 Study as a result of the Commission's recommendations. The Commission reaffirmed it's intent to forward the document to the Board for comment before scheduling it for public hearing. Mr. Nitchmann stated the revisions addressed all his previous concerns. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Neighborhood 3 Study be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Nitchmann requested that staff arrange for a decibel -level demonstration or present some information as to what types of sounds generate certain decibel levels. The Commission was also interested in the history of how the 40 decibel limitation had been arrived at. Mr. Grimm suggested a field trip to visit the sites of the proposed roads for the Meadowcreek Parkway. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15. . Wayne Cilimbe� ecretary lbl;