Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 28 1992 PC MinutesJANUARY 28, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission geld a public hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 1972, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were; Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Thomas Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson;, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchman; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, 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. The minutes of January 7, 1992 were approved as submitted. Consent Agenda Preview_- Mr. Baker briefly previewed the Albemarle County Service Authority ACSA) Sewer Line Installation to serve the Route 29/Airport Road Area. The item was to appear on the February 11th Consent Agenda for action. There was a brief discussion about the status of a proposal from a developer which included an offer to install this sewer line in exchange for rezoning of the developer's property. (The Commission had recommended unanimous denial of this developer's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.) Mr. Benish explained that the applicant had requested that the proposal be deferred and it has not been rescheduled. Mr. Brent confirmed that the line would be sized "to accommodate whatever development takes place in the growth area." The line will be funded by the FAA, the State of Virginia and the Airport Authority. The Service Authority will pay to oversize the line to accommodate other development that will occur within the drainage basin and the Service Authority will be doing the engineering and acquiring the right-of-way. The State's share is 10--15% of the total cost. No action was required at this time. ZMA-91-12 Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership - Petition to rezone 1.12 acres from CO, Commercial Office [Proffered] to C-1, Commercial [Proffered]. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 25, is located in the `Y% 1-28-92 2 southeast quadrant of the Whitewood Road/Hydraulic Road intersection in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the possible increase of traffic at a very dangerous intersection. He asked how the change would effect traffic. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant had attempted to proffer out those uses which would be the highest traffic generators. Staff could not answer Mr. Johnson's question definitively. There was a discussion about available parking. Mr. Fritz explained that there was no space for additional parking, and the applicant has been advised that the parking availability may limit the usage. Mr. Johnson noted that the retail parking requirement is almost double that for office usage. Mr. Fritz agreed that would be a limiting factor. He explained that adequate on -site parking will be verified by the Zoning Administrator for each use proposed. Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about uses which might be attractive to the area students thereby inviting them to cross a very dangerous highway. Mr. Fritz indicated that the applicant feels the proffer addresses this concern. The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Wagner. She offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchman indicated he would support the proposal because there appeared to be some control over the uses that could go on the property. Mr. Nitchman moved that ZMA-91-12 for Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins again expressed concern about student safety. He stressed that he would not like to see a use which would be attractive to students. 0 1-28-92 3 Mr. Grimm asked staff if the Commission had any way of addressing this concern. Mr. Fritz noted that this is a rezoning and the proffer from the applicant must be voluntary, i.e. the applicant cannot be required to proffer out certain uses. He stated that if the Commission had concerns about particular uses, then it could recommend denial of the request and the applicant could then amend the proposal before the Board hearing if he should choose to do so. Mr. Keeler noted that there are already several commercial properties in this area which draw students across the street. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. SDP-91-105 Woodlands Day Schaal Preliminary Site „Plan - Proposal to construct a 5,000 square foot building on a 1.92 acre parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 10, is located an the east side of Hillsdale Drive between Branchlands Boulevard and Greenbrier Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, this property is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial district. This site is located in a designated growth area. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of a modification of Section 4.2 to allow grading on critical slopes and of Section 4.12.6.5(c) to permit curvilinear parking. Staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Ms. Hipski confirmed that encroachment on critical slopes was minimal --only one corner of one building. Ms. Huckle asked if additional plantings would be required to supplement the existing buffer. Ms. Hipski explained that "a 20-foot landscaped buffer along the top of the hill will be ensured to remain." The buffer will have to be shown and because it is not shown on this plan, it was made a condition of approval. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He stated that the applicant was in agreement with the recommendations of staff. In response to one of Ms. Huckle's questions, he explained that a white pine buffer will be planted behind the fencing. He stated that the entire area will be fenced with a 5-foot chain link fence. ra 1-28-92 4 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Blue recalled that problems had occurred during the development of an adjacent parcel (3 years ago) when during the construction of a drainage channel it was discovered that construction equipment was about to destroy the main outfall sanitary sewer for the entire area. The project had to be stopped, redesigned and rebuilt at great expense. He stated that had happened because of mistakes by both the developer's and the county's engineers. He felt that a similar situation could occur on this same parcel. He wondered if there should be a condition requiring that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle County Sewer Authority check for sanitary sewer conflicts. He asked if those two organizations are routinely notified of site plan hearings. This issue was discussed briefly. Mr. Keeler suggested that Ms. Hipski would contact the Service Authority to see if there are conflicts. He noted that the Service Authority gets a copy of all site plans and staff relies on the Service Authority to notify the RWSA. He added that he would draft a memo to the Service Authority to make them aware of the Comnmission's concern. Mr. Johnson asked if this would not be addressed through the Engineering Department's approval of grading and drainage plans [condition 1(c)]. Mr. Blue did not think they usually were concerned with the water and sewer lines because that is the Service Authority's responsibility. Without further discussion, Mr. Jenkins moved that The Woodlands Day 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. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans; b. Dedication of waterline easement along the western boundary of property; C. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements including commercial entrance. A permit will be required if the road is accepted into the system; CR-r) 1-28-92 5 f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; g. A note stating "curvilinear parking shall be striped so as to provide uniform aisle widths"; h. Staff approval of landscape plan to include a twenty foot landscape buffer along the back of the property; i. Dedication of 425 foot sight easement per Virginia Department of Transportation comment. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until: a. Virginia Department of Transportation acceptance of Hillsdale Drive into the state secondary road system. Mr. Nitchman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-91-106 Woodridge Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct four apartment buildings for a total of 60 dwellings on a 4.19 acre site. The plan shows the extension of Commonwealth Drive to the north from the Peyton Drive intersection. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 3, parcel 3, is located between Peyton Drive and Greenbrier Drive. Zoned R-15, Residential in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Staff supported a modification of Section 4.2.3.2 to allow construction on critical slopes. Mr. Tarbell also noted that the applicant has agreed to make a dedication of land to the Peyton Regional Detention Basin. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project. He responded to Commission questions, primarily about stormwater runoff. The major topic of discussion was the stabilization of the fill which will cross into the future detention basin. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about to how to protect the fill from possible erosion caused by water in the basin. Mr. Tarbell explained that by the time the basin is constructed, the fill area will be well stabilized. Mr. Muncaster confirmed that the fill would be compacted and stabilized. Mr. Blue asked about erosion control of the fill in the period before it becomes stabilized. Mr. Muncaster explained that the fill areas would be planted with grass or mulch. He added that that issue would have to be addressed with the final site plan. R/ 1-28-92 6 Mr. Nitchman asked who would be responsible for future maintenance of the fill areas in the event of erosion and a change of ownership. Mr. Keeler explained that the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control "has provision that if erosion is occuring to the detriment of a downstream property owner, the owner of the property that is eroding is responsible for correcting it." He added that if a person purchases property from a developer and then experiences erosion on that property, it is a private matter between the purchaser and the developer. Ms. Huckle suggested that netting (jute mesh) be used on the fill slopes until the grass has been established. Mr. Grimm pointed out that this proposal has only one building encroaching on critical slopes whereas a previous proposal had shown all buildings on slopes. He felt there had been a concerted effort to relocate the buildings on more level terrain. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle felt the plan was a good one; however, she wished there were some way to ensure that the slopes would be stabilized quickly. Mr. Grimm indicated that this is a situation where the Commission must rely on the expertise and close supervision of the County staff. Ms. Huckle added that it was also up to the applicant to act responsibly. With no further discussion, Mr. Jenkins moved that the Woodridge Preliminary Plat 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. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer lines; 9-7 i-2S-42 7 f. Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations; g. Staff approval of final landscape plan; h. Note the area reserved for dedication for the Peyton Detention basin; i. Note the area to be dedicated/acquired for the Commonwealth Drive Extension or note the applicable deed book reference; j. Add the Albemarle County General Construction notes to the final site plan. 2. Recreation facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Administrative approval of the final site plan. [NOTE: THIS CONDITION WAS LATER DELETED. COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE FINAL SITE PLAN.] 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. Mr. Blue seconded the motion_ Discussion: Because of concern about the stabilization of the fill areas and other unresolved issues, Mr. Johnson felt the Commission should review the final site plan. Mr. Grimm agreed. Mr. Jenkins agreed to amend the motion to delete condition No. 3. Mr. Blue did not agree with Mr. Johnson's suggestion and therefore withdrew his second of the motion. He felt that staff was aware of the Commission's concerns and that staff had the expertise to approve the final. He did not think it was the Commission's role to "micro -manage these things." Mr. Grimm noted that this was a somewhat unusual situation because of the close proximity of the drainage basin. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion (with the deletion of Condition No. 3). The motion passed unanimously. 9�3 i-28-92 OLD BUSINESS 8 Status of -Sign Ordinance - Mr. Keeler reported that the Chamber of Commerce has appointed an Executive Committee and is to meet with the County staff in mid -February. Status of Mountain -Top Overlay Ordinance - Mr. Benish stated that work on this subject would begin after completion of the Open Space Plan. Status of Georgetown Green Sound Barrier - Mr. Johnson asked that staff confirm (at the next meeting) that a citizen's request for information on the status of this project has been addressed. WORK SESSION COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN / COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION Mr. Benish and Mr. Baker presented the staff report. They were assisted by Mr. Rick Huff. Significant Commission comments, suggestions, and concerns are as follows: --Mr. Blue questioned the acuracy of the parking calculations. There did not appear to have been any consideration given for visitor parking. --Where did the 250 sq. ft./employee multiplier come from? Mr. Nitchman felt this seemed like a lot of space given the changes in technology of office equipment and procedures. Mr. Jenkins felt a lot of the Commission's dissatisfaction "hinged" on this issue. He felt this should be addressed carefully, perhaps on a department -by - department basis. --Is the growth projection of 20% accurate given the recessionary state of the economy? --Has any study been done, or any consideration given, to a more efficient use of existing space in terms of different types of office furniture, storage methods, etc.? --Mr. Johnson felt the chart was "false, misleading and fatally defective." No felt there was no coordination of requests. He suggested that the chart not be used until it has been updated and a study has been done by "disinterested" parties. ---Ms. Huckle asked what had happened to a plan to centralize all development/planning offices (Planning, Zoning, Engineering, Inspections). Staff explained that the idea is still being worked on. She felt this was very important. 1-28--92 9 --Mr. Nitchman questioned beginning the process to expand government facilities during a recession when private businesses are "down sizing." Staff stressed that this was a Ulanning document to address needs of County government administration needs several years in the future. No recommendation is being made for immediate implementation. ---The Commission had questions about the ancillary uses listed, particularly fitness areas, locker rooms, showers, and smoking areas. The majority of comissioners agreed that smoking areas should not be included. It was felt this was a direct contradiction to promoting wellness and providing fitness facilities. --Mr. Johnson felt there did not need to be so many references to conference/meeting rooms. He suggested a different terminology might be in order. --Ms. Andersen wondered if people would be willing to spend more tax dollars for government expansion. --Mr. Johnson felt the plan was "too gold-plated." He felt the plan should address more "scope and technique" rather than specifics. He suggested four steps: (1) Justify the requirement; (2) Identify the acquisition and operational costs of the various offices to meet the requirements; (3) Evaluate functional efficiency; and (4) Community access. He also felt that the "campus plan" suggested would be the most expensive approach. He felt the most cost efficient way would be a multi -story single building. He questioned why the estimate for renovating the existing building is $150-$200/square foot when the estimate for a new school is se2/square foot. --Mr. Johnson questioned the use of the term "objective." He felt the nomenclature was inaccurate and suggested that it be reviewed. ---Mr. Johnson suggested a fourth option for additional space --purchase of an existing building. --Mr. Johnson felt it was important to determine which departments need to be located close to each other. --Mr. Johnson expressed a lack of understanding as to why the Police Department must be central to other county offices. He wondered how much "intercourse" there was between the Police Department and such offices as the County Executive, Planning, etc. He felt this should be documented. --He felt the recommendation that the facilities must be located in the growth area should be given serious consideration. ---Ms. Huckle felt there should be a study of possible "re -arrangement" of space within the existing building. (Mr. Huff explained that because of the original construction of the building --as a school --reorganization of space, in terms of moving walls, etc., was limited.) �4� 1-2B-92 10 --Mr. Nitchman suggested that consideration be given to moving the police department to a separate building, thereby freeing up space in the current facilities. --Ms. Andersen expressed an interest in knowing more about financing possibilities. --Mr. Blue was in favor of utilizing both the existing building's space and the land currently owned by the County surrounding the existing building. He felt it was important that county officies be centrally located. He, too, felt that a multi -story building would be less expensive than several smaller buildings, though he pointed out that aesthetics may be an issue for a multi -story building. He also was strongly opposed to providing smoking areas in any buildings. --Ms. Huckle asked to see the results of a survey which had been made of County employees related to interest in participating in fitness programs and use of showers. ---Mr. Johnson suggested that someone other than an architect should be asked to analyze the situation. It was decided another work session would be scheduled on this topic. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. DB V. Wayne/Cilimberg,lAcretary 0