Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 09 1993 PC Minutes9-9-93 1 SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, September 9, 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. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, 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. -93-25 as rax Entertainment, (applicant), Rio Associates Limited PartnershiR (owner) This item was unanimously deferred to September 21 at the request of the applicant. SP-93-23 Albemarle County Fair. Inc (applicant) Roy & Bonnie Coggin (owner) This item was unanimously deferred to September 28 at the request of the applicant. SP-93-24 Demmie Main (applicant). Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (owner) - Petition to operate a day care for up to 20 children in the existing Chestnut Grove Baptist Church [10.2.2(7)]. Property, described as Tax Map 19, parcel 17, consists of 10.7 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located in the northern corner of the Rt. 663/Rt. 664 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area I). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Because of a lack of adequate sight distance on both 663 and 664, staff was recommending denial of the request. [NOTE: 450 feet was needed at both access points; 250 feet was available at one entrance, and 275 at the other.] It was determined staff had not received a copy of a letter (dated September 6) which the applicant had sent to Commissioners. The applicant was represented by Ms. Demmie Main. She gave a presentation during which she presented the results of studies she had made in relation to sight distance and traffic counts. Her comments included the following: /5y 9-9-93 2 --The Earlysville area is full of winding roads and many situations which do not, by VDOT standards, have adequate sight distance. --She questioned the necessity for 450 feet of sight distance during times other than peak traffic hours. --She disagreed with VDOT's measurments. Her measurements had shown there to be 300 feet (rather than 275) on Rt. 664. She presented photographs which depicted how, and at what locations she had taken the measurements. --No parents have ever expressed the feeling that the access points are a danger to their children. --The school hours (9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.) are not peak traffic times. --VDOT has been contacted to see if "Caution -Children Playing" signs can be placed on the highway. --VDOT is going to see if it may be possible, after having performed a speed study, to reduce the speed limit the area. (This would result in a reduction in the sight distance requirement.) --The church is a highly used facility and is used by many groups throughout the week. at in --It is a goal of the school to meet the needs of lower income families. Mr. Blue pointed out to the applicant, that though he was sympathetic to the request and impressed by the research done by the applicant, the Commission must rely on the Virginia Department of Highways as its traffic expert. He stated that if measures could be taken (such as signage and a reduction in speed limit) which would cause VDOT to determine that safety was no longer an issue, then he would have no problem in supporting the request. But, "unless we can do that, we, as a Commission, would be remiss to approve something that our experts--VDOT--say is unsafe and may cause accidents." Mr. Blue pointed out that traffic numbers really have no bearing on an unsafe situation except for the fact that the likelihood of an accident increases with increased traffic count. But if a situation is unsafe, it only takes one car travelling at an unsafe speed from the north to collide with a parent pulling out onto the road (Rt. 664). He concluded: "And if we approve something that VDOT says would be unsafe because of that I think we would be wrong." He hoped the applicant could work out some alternatives with VDOT which would lead them to change their recommendation. Ms. Main felt that not all rules can apply to Rural Areas and that some exceptions might need to be made. She felt there was a growing need for day-care and preschools in rural areas. She pointed out that placing these children in vehicles on Rt. 29 (to reach preschools in town) is certainly as dangerous as having them in preschool only a couple of miles from home. %6�r, 9-9-93 3 In response to Mr. Johnson's inquiry, Ms. Main explained the present status of the pre-school operation and the history of its existence. She confirmed that, over the last year, she has been operating with 20 students, from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., just as she is currently requesting. She had only recently become aware that she was operating in violation of the Ordinance and is attempting to correct that error. Ms. Main pointed out to the Commission that it is possible to see, when there is no foilage on the trees, around the curve on Rt. 664. She stated she would make all of her parents aware of this situation. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons expressed support for the request and praise for Ms. Main: Mr. Kenny Williams; Ms. Marge Wolfrey; Mr. Greg Quinn; Mr. Steve Williams; Ms. Kim Davis; Ms. Deb Short. Their comments included the following: --A pre-school (with 12 to 15 children) has been operating at the church for approximately 12 years. There has never been a school -related highway accident during that time. --It may be possible to close the access on Rt. 663, during the hours the pre-school is in session. (Mr. Blue agreed that the exit onto Rt. 663 is much more dangerous than on Rt. 664.) --There is a need for this type of early christian education. --Closing this school will make it impossible for several children to attend pre-school. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Blue acknowledged that there are other similar situations throughout Earlysville and even at this same church which is used by several different organizations throughout the week. However, he stated the Commission did not have the responsibility of addressing those situations. He felt the safety issue was "paramount." He asked if staff felt it was possible to work with VDOT to arrive at some other alternatives which might improve the situation, other than re -grading the road. Mr. Keeler responded that staff would work with VDOT to see if a combination of possibilities might be possible. Staff would inform the Commission of VDOT's comments. Referring to a comment made by Ms. Main about an "engineering study" which VDOT told her they were going to do, Mr. Keeler felt this was probably a "speed study" and may or may not result in a reduction in the sight distance requirements. Past history has shown that these studies often show that traffic is actually travelling faster than the posted speed limit which could result in an even greater sight 9-9-93 4 distance requirement. Mr. Blue suggested that the possibility of closing the exit on Rt. 663 should be explored with VDOT. (Mr. Johnson agreed. He also suggested that the possibility of "Caution" signs should be posed to VDOT.) Mr. Keeler offered to arrange a meeting with the applicant, staff and VDOT officials. Mr. Grimm expressed support for a deferral. Mr. Johnson expressed support for staff's suggested conditions. He suggested that a third condition be added addressing the hours of operation (9:00 a.m, to 12:30 p.m.). There was a brief discussion as to whether or not a deferral would be to a specific date or indefinitely. Mr. Bowling stated that an indefinite deferral would require readvertising the item. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that since school has already commenced he felt the applicant, and patrons of the school, would not be anxious for a long delay. He pointed out that the church has been there for many, many years (220 years). He concluded: "I don't want to be guilty of approving something that causes an accident, but if I weigh all the issues, I'll vote for it." He stated he would support the request even if VDOT continues to give unfavorable comments. Mr. Blue noted that there might be other Commissioners who shared Mr. Jenkins' view. Mr. Nitchmann stated he was in agreement with Mr. Jenkins. He noted the following points which he felt were favorable to the request: --The church has existed at this site for many years; --The applicant will make parents well aware of safety considerations; --Parents with children in their cars are likely to take all safety precautions necessary; --"It's not a perfect world and we all have to take some risks." Commissioners Huckle, Andersen and Grimm indicated they were in favor of a deferral. (NOTE: Mr. Grimm changed his position later after further discussion.) Ms. Huckle reiterated a point made earlier by Mr. Keeler, i.e. that it is not those involved with the school who will cause the accidents, rather it is those persons who will be coming around the curve too fast to stop when someone is exiting from the church onto the road. l-57 9-9-93 Mr. Johnson was in favor of the matter proceeding with the addition of a third and fourth condition: (3) Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (4) Prohibition of access to Rt. 663 during school hours. Though Mr. Johnson suggested a fifth condition ("VDOT be requested to provide appropriate information traffic signs and review local speed limits."), Mr. Keeler informed him that that was not an appropriate condition, but rather could be a separate action. He explained that the applicant would have no way of achieving such a condition. Mr. Keeler stated that staff would contact VDOT regarding the signage issue. Mr. Blue stated he would be able to support the request with the conditions added by Mr. Johnson. He explained that he felt the Rt. 664 exit was "much, much safer." Ms. Andersen asked if there was a question of legal liability in the event of an accident. Mr. Bowling responded: "You don't have any personal liability." Mr. Blue stated he was not concerned about personal liability. He added: "One thing I've tried to be consistent on is public safety and while I have all the sympathy in the world for this group --and I'd like to see it continue and I hope it can --I'm not going to vote knowingly for something that is unsafe according to the VDOT experts...." However, Mr. Blue indicated that he could support a motion for approval with a condition requiring that the 663 exit be closed, at least during school hours. Mr. Johnson hoped that VDOT comments could be obtained before the September 15 Board hearing. Mr. Keeler stated staff would "do its best." MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP- 93-24 for Demmie Main (applicant), Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. No such use shall operate without required licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operaator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to %.15`9 9-9-93 31 promptly admit the Fire Official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; C. These provisiions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal agency. 2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department. 3. Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 4. Prohibition of access to Rt. 663 during school hours. Discussion: Ms. Andersen stated she would not vote for the motion because she preferred that the matter be pursued further with VDOT before taking action. She concluded: "My leanings are that public safety is very important." Mr. Grimm stated he would support the motion because he felt "VDOT was tied into this thing." Ms. Huckle expressed a preference for a deferral to September 21. She expressed the understanding that if the request is approved by the Commission and the Board, there will then be "nothing that VDOT can do." Mr. Jenkins stated: "I would sure hope that they could. There are things about looking at the speed limit --whether it's proper- -to identify a school zone and things like that --hopefully they'll do that regardless of our action based on the request from Ron. The school people have already contacted VDOT. They ought to do it based on what the school people have done." Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff would not drop the matter with VDOT even if the motion is passed. Mr. Johnson described a personal experience with VDOT where he had requested safety signs for a road and his request had been honored. The motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Andersen casting the dissenting vote. 9-9-93 7 MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Grimm informed the Commission that the next joint meeting with the City Planning Commission was tentatively scheduled for October 7. No opposition was expressed to this date. ------------------- There was a discussion of the upcoming worksession on the Meadowcreek Parkway (September 14). Mr. Grimm suggested that public comment not be invited at this worksession, but rather delayed until the public hearing. Mr. Blue and Mr. Johnson were not in favor of this suggestion though they expressed no opposition to the worksession not being advertised as a public hearing. They also expressed no opposition to the Chairman establishing some rules and limiting the time for public comment. Both Mr. Nitchmann and Ms. Huckle indicated their support for Mr. Grimm's suggestion. Mr. Nitchmann felt it would be difficult to limit the comment if the meeting is opened up to the public. Ms. Huckle felt it was difficult for the Commission to have a productive worksession when constantly being interrupted. Mr. Blue concluded: "I would just as soon leave it as it is and if the Chairman feels it is appropriate to do, I just wouldn't want to pass a hard and fast rule saying that the Chairman can't do this." Mr. Grimm expressed the belief that the comments which might be offered at a worksession would be repeated at the public hearing. Mr. Keeler suggested the possibility of limiting public comment to a certain amount of time at the end of the Commission's discussion. Mr. Keeler reported that a "wholesale revision" of the Subdivision Ordinance has been completed. Copies of the draft have been distributed to the Site Review Committee and to various citizen and development groups with a request for their comments. It is anticipated that it will be ready to distribute to the Commission on September 28, with a worksession tentatively set for October 12. He explained the three major changes to the Ordinance: --The unification of the language with the Site Plan Ordinance; --The codification of the administrative approval process so that subdivisions would only come before the Commission if they are appealed by adjoining property owners or if a Commissioner wants to review the subdivision (just as site plans are currently being handled); --Extension of the validity of plats from the time of approval of the preliminary plat until the recordation of the final plat from 2 1/2 years to 3 years, including the adjustment of 3 deadlines within that timeframe. 14,0 9-9-93 8 Ms. Huckle expressed concern about some problems she had recently viewed at a subdivision. She noted that currently there are no provisions in the subdivision ordinance to address problems with driveways on very steep property. (Mr. Keeler stated he hoped Engineering was considering that problem because he had pointed it out to them some time ago.) Mr. Johnson again brought up the question of why VDOT will not approve mountainous terrain standards in this county. He noted that Mr. Cilimberg had asked for VDOT comments on this question several months ago. ----------------- Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to check on a "dumping site" on a gravel road which runs behind the reservoir off Rt. 29 (Rt. 643) . Mr. Johnson expressed concerns about the Daily Progress' policy on running Commission agendas. Apparently they have stopped running block ads but have agreed to run some type of notice if they receive information by 10:00 a.m. on Friday morning. Mr. Nitchmann felt it was outrageous that the Daily Progress could not perform this simple public service for the people who provide its revenue. ------------------ There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. DB