HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 05 1991 PC MinutesFEBRUARY 5, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
nearing on Tuesday, February 5, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, 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 22, 1991 were approved as amended.
SP-90-117 Paul Bland Tilman - The applicant petitions for a
special use permit to construct a bridge in the floodway of
Yellow Mountain Creek [30.3.5.2.1] on a 93.6 acre parcel
zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map
71, Parcel 5, is located on the west side of Rt. 689
approximately 0.5 mile south of its intersection with Rt.
250 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This
property is not located in a designated growth area.
The Planning Staff was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr.
Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-90-117 be
indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-90-117 - Albemarle High School Design and Renovations
Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 45,000 square
feet of new building and other athletic field additions.
The proposal includes a 10,000 square foot field house, a
baseball field, two football fields and one football/soccer
field as well as a 35,000 square foot addition to the
existing school. Property, described as Tax Map 60 Parcel
78A, is located at the southwestern quadrant of the Lambs
Road and Hydraulic Road intersection. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas, this site is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District and is not located within a designated growth area.
Deferred from the January 29, 1991 Planning Commission
Meeting.
0
February 5, 1991 Page 2
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. The applicant was
requesting approval of the fallowing three waivers:
(1) Section 4.12.6.5(c) - To allow curvilinear
parking: Staff commented: "...the applicant is attempting
to provide additional parking spaces consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance. Given the existing development,
situations such as this cannot be avoided." Staff supported
the waiver request.
(2) Section 4.2 - To allow grading on critical slopes:
Staff commented: "Staff supports a waiver... because a
majority of the critical slopes are from previous grading
and the applicant is proposing fill rather than cut, which
will be claimed on -site." The Engineering Department also
supported this waiver request.
(3) Section 4.12.3.4 - To allow parking to be located
farther than 500 feet from the entrance of the use: Staff
commented: "Staff can support this waiver due to the
difficulty to design required spaces within this distance.
In addition, the existing development and topography
inhibits additional parking located closer to the building."
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson asked if there was any additional information
from the Engineering Department in relation to natural slope
areas. (Comments had only addressed man-made slopes.) Ms.
Lipinski responded that those areas had not been
specifically addressed, possibly because of the few areas
involved.
In response to Mr. Johnson's questions about landscaping
provisions, Ms. Lipinski explained those issues would be
addressed at time of site plan review.
Ms. Huckle asked if any consideration had been given to an
additional permanent detention basin being constructed "on
the other side of the interior road," given the fact that it
is steep and drains into the reservoir. Ms. Lipinski
explained that "at a minimum what will be required will be a
silt basin ... to catch water during construction." (She
pointed out the location.) She added that if the applicant
proposes an additional pond, or if one should be required,
then County Engineer approval of calculations will be
required.
Mr. Keeler added that a number of methods for detention are
acceptable and those must meet the criteria set forth in the
Runoff Control ordinance. He stated that precise methods of
runoff control have never been approved by the Commission,
but rather require the approval of the County Engineer who
is the runoff control official under that ordinance.
-29
February 5, 1991 Page 3
Mr. Johnson asked if there were any comments from the
Virginia Department of Transportation on sight distance on
road 9985, in the area of the curve. Ms. Lipinski responded
negatively.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Al Reeser. Responding
to Mr. Johnson's question about sight distance, he stated
that the road would be relocated to address that problem.
He explained: "Right at the point of entrance into the
parking lot, the road will go to the northwest."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Jack Marshall, representing the Citizens for Albemarle,
addressed the Commission. He questioned the need for the
extent of the proposed additions because he felt the
proposal exceeded the recommendations of the Public
Facilities Plan. He expressed concern about additional
runoff caused by increased impervious surface. He asked who
would be responsible for addressing the aesthetic aspects of
the plan. He asked that the Commission hold this proposal
up to the same scrutiny as any private sector proposal.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental
Council, addressed the Commission. She expressed concern
about the request for a waiver to allow building on critical
slopes in such close proximity to the watershed. She felt
the County had an obligation to abide by its own regulations
and to protect its own watershed.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman asked Mr. Papenfuse (representing the Education
Department) to address the intensity of the athletic field
development and its relation to the Public Facilities Plan.
Mr. Papenfuse explained that the tennis courts are used very
heavily not only by the high school, but also by the
community, and the expansion of the playing fields is needed
to serve the existing needs of the school. Ms. Jo Higgins
explained that the proposal is actually "short" of what was
recommended in the Public Facilities Plan (i.e. it is short
one basketball court and one soccer field).
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this proposal had met with the
approval of all those involved with the Public Facilities
Plan. He also pointed out that the Public Facilities Plan
has not yet been adopted.
Referring to Ms. Huckle's concern about additional
impervious surface, Mr. Rittenhouse asked if any special
measures were contemplated to protect the reservoir.
February 5, 1991 Page 4
Mr. Pike, civil consultant for the architect for the
project, addressed the Commission. He explained that most
of the impervious cover will be the result of the new
parking lot and the bus loop. He explained that final
erosion control measures had not been shown on the drawing
because the applicant was under the impression they were not
required until site review when they will be reviewed by the
County Engineer. However, he noted that a permanent water
detention facility, which will trap all increased runoff
from the new and existing parking lots, has been shown in
schematic form. He explained that the the facility will be
designed as mandated by the Runoff Control Ordinance. In
response to Ms. Huckle's question about a detention facility
in the bus area, he explained that the Ordinance requires
that the runoff be addressed, but specifics are not shown at
this time because this is a preliminary site plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there would be any greater
liability to the reservoir as a result of this site
development. Mr. Pike felt runoff control would be improved
because: (1) A facility is being built to catch the runoff
from the impervious surface --runoff which is not currently
being caught; and (2) Grading will reduce the existing
slopes resulting in the area being much flatter after
development, thereby allowing a much greater infiltration of
groundwater. He explained that an erosion control device is
also proposed for that particular drainway and will remain
at least through the stabilization of the ballfield and cut
slopes.
Mr. Grimm noted that area proposed for the baseball field
was very steep and would require considerable grading. He
expressed concern about the nearby stream. Mr. Pike
explained that the field was a considerable distance from
the stream and the stream would be protected with erosion
control measures during construction.
Mr. Johnson noted that a slope will be created with the
construction of the parking lot. Mr. Pike acknowledged this
was accurate but noted that another slope would be
flattened. There was also some discussion about the slope
at the exit. Mr. Pike explained that whether or not this
would be left as is (with the preservation of existing
trees) or would be graded would be determined by the need
for sight distance.
Mr. Pike explained that the applicant had "agonized over the
slope conditions" and had attempted to do everything
possible to lessen the impact.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that landscaping and screening would
be addressed by staff at the time of the final site plan
�a�
February 5, 1991
Page 5
review. Mr. Keeler explained that historically screening
for schools has involved screening parking areas with the
remaining landscaping to be left to the Education
Department.
Mr. Rittenhouse restated the issue before the Commission,
i.e. a preliminary site plan with three requests for waivers
(as stated previously in this record). He noted that he
felt it was necessary to differentiate the public nature of
this use in order to find positively on the waiver requests.
Mr. Keeler commented that he felt there was precedent for
the waiver of critical slopes. He stated: "The majority of
the effort on the critical slopes is on man-made slopes and
that was waived for the Blue Ridge Shopping Center in Crozet
and it was waived, very broadly, for Wal-Mart." He noted
that the Blue Ridge Shopping Center was in a reservoir
watershed and outside of the Lickinghole Basin. He added:
"The remaining natural slopes --I think we would recommend to
you are inconsequential. We've done that in the past based
on the following. Based on the operation of the Ordinance
itself --it calls for the critical slope study to be done on
a contour interval of 20 feet --for a more definite contour
interval upon the request of the County Engineer. So, with
a 20 foot contour interval you would have a width on the
plan of 80 feet and that would simply be one strip. So,
basically, what we've recommended in the past is that in any
case where it's less than 80 feet, you just consider it
inconsequential --based on the construction of the
Ordinance."
Mr. Rittenhouse recalled that the Commission has wrestled
with the question of critical slopes in the past with the
result being that an evaluation of each case is now required
from the County Engineer. He noted that the Engineering
Department has given a positive recommendation in this case.
Ms. Huckle noted that one of the County's "highest aims" is
to protect the watershed. Referring to Mr. Keeler's
comments about the granting of a waiver for the Wal-Mart
site, she pointed out that the Wal-Mart site was not in the
watershed and is not as close to the reservoir as this
particular site. (Note: The Blue Ridge Shopping Center
site, also referenced by Mr. -Keeler, is in a reservoir
watershed.) She recalled that the County as gone to great
lengths in the past to prevent high density development "a
half a mile from this site." She concluded: "I cannot
support the development on these critical slopes." She felt
there was no difference in man-made slopes vs. God -made
slopes in terms of soil erosion. (Mr. Pike had concurred
with this statement.) She felt approval of this waiver
would set a precedent. She noted that sometimes projects
look good on paper, but the actual development is often a
disappointment.
February 5, 1991 Page 6
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Pike
estimated that there would be less critical slopes after
development than currently exist. He also felt runoff would
be less after development than currently exists given the
fact that there will be more flat areas which will allow the
absorption of more water. He admitted that runoff could be
greater during construction, but stressed that with the
control measures which are proposed, the preponderance of
the runoff will be trapped in the silt basin.
Ms. Huckle questioned why some of the existing slopes have
never been stabilized. Mr. Pike guessed that those slopes
were greater than 25% and he also pointed out that he was
not familiar with what measures were taken during the
grading of those slopes.
Mr. Jenkins asked what would happen with the dirt that will
be moved. Mr. Pike explained that the development will be
phased so as to avoid having to move large quantities of
dirt around.
Mr. Johnson noted the following advantages of the proposal:
(1) The re-routing of the buses will avoid conflicts
between buses and privately owned.vehicles; and (2) The
additional 35,000 square feet of classroom space will
benefit the academic program of the school. However, he
stated that he shared Ms. Huckle's concerns for the
remainder of the proposal. He felt the plan had been
"forced" based on the desire for the additional facilities
"without any obvious compromise between terrain and
facilities." He stated he could not determine, based on the
information presented, the physical feasibility of the
proposal. He felt approval of this preliminary plan was
"putting our stamp on something which we don't know whether
it will work or not ... based on the information available."
He felt the critical slopes "around the baseball field and
the practice field at the upper left-hand side are
considerably more than inconsequential." He noted: "We
have critical slopes in the watershed and all we have is a
comment that 'they will be treated' without saying how or if
they can be treated." He again noted that he felt there
was a sight distance problem on road 9885. He wondered what
would happen to the parking area if the landscaping and tree
canopy requirements began to eliminate spaces. He also
noted that the parking areas were a considerable distance
from the playing fields. He concluded that he needed more
information before he could vote favorably for the proposal.
Mr. Pike explained that straightening the road would address
the sight distance concerns at the intersection. Mr.
Johnson pointed out that he was concerned about the sight
distance on the road, generally, and not just at the
I�PO8
February 5, 1991 Page 7
intersection. Mr. Keeler noted that two different sight
distances were being discussed, one at the intersection, and
the other being stopping sight distance. He understood that
Mr. Johnson was concerned about stopping sight distance and
stated that staff could "require that in the final plan."
Mr. Pike pointed out that there would be no turning
movements at the point referenced by Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Keeler explained the two-step site plan approval
process, noting that the preliminary plan purposely does not
include all the engineering calculations. He stated the
final site plan could be brought back to the Commission if
.so desired, but he asked for guidance as to what specific
items the Commission wanted to see addressed on the final
plan.
Ms. Huckle was in favor of the Commission reviewing the
final plan. She was interested in "some sort of stormwater
and pollution control device for the bus parking lot" being
shown on the plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked how much of the field development was
driven by school needs vs. community needs. Mr. Papenfuse
addressed this question and explained that currently the
baseball teams must be bused to other schools for practice
and games. He also explained that the girls' soccer team
must play at the middle school field.
It was determined the fields would not be used for
nighttime, community softball games.
Mr. Grimm felt the parking plan was a great improvement over
the existing parking situation, particularly in terms of
school security.
The following were determined to be the concerns of the
Commission:
--Runoff control for the parking lot area, including
the bus parking area;
--"During and after construction" runoff control for
the fields to the "far west" and in other areas with steep
grades;
--Increase in the steepness of the slope in the
location of the new baseball field after grading is
completed.
Mr. Pike noted that protective measures, which are not shown
on this plan, will be shown on the final plan when the
engineering has been completed. He explained what some of
these measures would be. (Ms. Huckle still expressed
concern because because all these measures were not shown on
this preliminary plan.)
- nX
February 5, 1991 Page 8
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there are two aspects of a
development --the construction phase, and the finished
product. He felt it was the commission's job to determine
if the final product was one which represented good design
and good planning. He indicated that erosion control
measures which must take place during construction are a
matter of enforcement. (Ms. Higgins explained how Albemarle
County enforces erosion control measures during
construction. She stressed that enforcement is "to the
extreme.")
Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that the need for the additions
was driven by overcrowding at Albemarle High School and not
by community service needs. (Ms. Huckle noted that the
school's current enrollment is 1,500, though it has a rated
capacity for 1,700.) Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there are
several different "capacity" figures. Mr. Papenfuse
explained "effective" capacity is what is preferred, which
is 80% of "rated" capacity.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that since this is a public facility,
which cannot be moved to some other location, his primary
concerns were whether the development is too intense for the
site given its proximity to the reservoir and the grading
which will take place. However, he felt that these concerns
would be addressed through the drainage control measures and
permanent runoff control devices. He stated he would
support approval of the preliminary plan.
It was decided the Commission would review the final site
plan.
It was.also noted that an affirmative action on the
preliminary site plan would include approval of the three
requested waivers.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Albemarle High School Design
Renovations and Additions 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. Inspections Department approval of handicapped
ramps and accessways;
b. Department of
and drainage plans;
c. Department of
erosion control permit;
d. Department of
control permit;
Engineering approval of grading
Engineering issuance of an
Engineering issuance of a runoff
IVCX5-
February 5, 1991
Page 9
e. Department of Engineering approval of design
and calculations of runoff control structures;
f. Service Authority approval of final water
plans. Fire official approval of fire flow or
sprinkler system;
g. Service Authority approval of depth of
waterline in areas of cut and fill;
h. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of entrances including improved sight distance, if
necessary.
Mr. Keeler determined that the Commission also wished to see
the Runoff Control Plan and Grading Plan along with the
final site plan. He noted, however, that those plans do
"not operate under this ordinance and are not technically
subject to (Commission) approval."
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle noted that though she felt many aspects of the
proposal were an improvement over existing conditions, she
was concerned about the watershed issue.
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
SP-90-118 Gemini Transit, Inc. - The applicant petitions for
a special use permit to expand an existing truck terminal
building [27.2.2(7)] which is located on 3.93 acres zoned
LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor overlay. The
property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 87, is on the
south side of Rt. 240, approximately 1.4 miles east of its
intersection with Rts. 810 and 788 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This property is located in a
designated growth area, Community of Crozet.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Johnson's questions, Mr. Keeler explained
that the existing use is non -conforming (grandfathered).
However, the facility wishes to expand, thus the reason for
the special permit request. Operation under the special
permit will require that the use be brought into conformance
and all previous authorizations are eliminated.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Sullivan. He
asked how the Virginia Department of Transportation might be
persuaded to reduce the speed limit in the area. Mr.
a-
:
February 5, 1991 Page 10
Rittenhouse explained that the Commission had no authority
to make such a request of VDOT. Regarding sight distance,
Mr. Sullivan stated he was not aware of any sight distance
problems. Ms. Lipinski explained there had been some
confusion about sight distance, but condition No. 3
[Platting and recording of sight easement to the west of the
property.] was included because she had not received written
comments from VDOT. Mr. Keeler added that he did not think
condition No. 3 was inconsistent because the sight easement
needs to be platted and recorded in any case. He explained:
"VDOT will not approve sight distance unless there is
control over that area where the sight distance is
required."
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-118 for Gemini Transit be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Administrative approval of Site Development Plan.
2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a certificate of
appropriateness prior to signature of final site development
plan.
3. Platting and recording of sight easement to the west of
the property.
4. There shall be no more than nine (9) shop personnel.
This use shall be confined to Parcel 87. Any expansion
shall require an amendment to this special use permit.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Sherwood Commons Preliminary Site Plan Extension - Tax Map
76, Parcels 46C and 46C3.
The applicant had requested withdrawal of this request.
NEW BUSINESS
Housing Committee - Commissioners Jenkins and Andersen were
appointed to serve on this committee.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:00 P.M.
e�jz' L'L
V. WayCilimb S retary
DB
aa7