Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 18 1991 PC MinutesJune 18, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 18, 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; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Andersen The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 4, 1991 were approved as submitted. SP-91-17 Mooreland Baptist Church - Petition to expand the existing church facilities by approximately 2,100 square feet [10.2.2(35)] on approximately 4.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcels 21 and 22A, is located on the east side of Route 710 approximately 0.5 miles north of route 29 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in the Village of North Garden. AND SP-90_IQ Olivet Presbyterian Church - Petition to expand the existing church facilities by approximately 5,300 square feet [10.2.2(35)] on approximately 9.35 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 43, Parcels 8, BA, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9A, 9A1 and 9B, is located on the south side of Route 614 approximately 750 feet west of Route 876 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area III). BOTH THESE ITEMS WERE WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINED THAT SPECIAL PERMITS WERE NOT REQUIRED. A letter dated June 18, 1991 from Ms. Patterson explained that both churches predate the existing Ordinance and Section 6.4.2 "permits any building or structure built prior to the current Zoning Ordinance to be expanded, enlarged or extended in accordance with the applicable setbacks." - Proposal to construct a 5,358 foot addition in three phases to the existing church (Tax Map 43, Parcels 8, 8A - D, 9A and 9A1) located on the south side of Rt. 614 approximately 750 feet west of its intersection. with Rt. 676. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial district. This site is not located within a designated growth area. June 18. 1991 Page 2 Staff was requesting administrative approval of both site plans. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about possible sight distance problems with the existing entrance for the Mooreland Baptist Church. (He suggested that the access be moved to the eastern portion of the property.) Mr. Fritz explained this issue would be dealt with at the time of site review. He added that the applicant has indicated a willingness to cooperate. Mr. Johnson asked if the new well and septic system for the Olivet Presbyterian Church would require Health Department approval. Mr. Fritz responded that approval would be required for the septic system only. Mr. Johnson asked if there was a way to enforce requirements that the well be located a certain distance from the drainfield, etc.? Mr. Fritz stated he was not familiar with well regulations. Mr - Johnson asked that staff be mindful of his concerns when reviewing the site plan. Mr. Wilkerson moved that staff be granted administrative approval of Olivet Presbyterian Church Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Wilkeroon moved that staff be granted administrative approval of the Mooreland Baptist Church site plan (should one be necessary). Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Albemarle High School Final 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 June 11, 1991 Commission Meeting.) Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. he also handed to the Commission the following additional information: --A letter from Mr. William Raines, Principal of the school, to the Virginia Crime Prevention Association which outlines the method of implementation of the plan; --A copy of verbatim minutes from a previous hearing related to the lighting of the baseball field; and --A letter from Mr. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, supporting the lighting of the baseball fields. U June 18, 1991 Page 3 Staff was recommending approval of the plan subject to conditions. Mr. Cilimberg stated he had spoken with Chief Miller (Albemarle County Police Department) and determined that the Police Department has no safety concerns about the proposed plan. Mr. Reeler pointed out the following changes to the plan: --A reduction of 50 parking spaces which will save approximately 15,000 to 20,O00 square feet of pine trees; --The addition of a drainage pipe which will pick up drainage which is currently draining into Georgetown Green and take it to the detention basin; --Inclusion of a 6-ft. high chain link fence completely surrounding the detention basin; --Relocation of the chain on the road leading to sewage pumping station (to block it). Mr. Reeler stated that staff proposes to make an inspection of the property after construction to see what other screening might be necessary for the Georgetown Green neighborhood. Staff was proposing additional conditions of approval (to be added to those approved for the preliminary site plan). Mr. Charlie Steinman, representing the County Engineer's Office, distributed a copy of the Runoff Control Report and explained the Runoff Control Plan. He stated: "The applicant has accomplished equity of runoff volumes between the existing condition and the proposed condition, i.e. the runoff volume for the 10-year storm is the same." He also noted that the applicant has achieved approximately a 45% reduction in current sediment loadings and 80% reduction in the total phosphorous loadings from existing conditions. In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, Mr. Steinman stated that there is some soil loss because erosion control is not an exact science. However, he stated: "The applicant has satisfied the Engineering Department, the Runoff Control Officer, and the Erosion Control Officer, that the provisions in the Ordinance have been met." Regarding capacity of the basins, he explained: "In this case, we required the applicant to size the functional portion of the basins,...for the 10-year storm; however, we required the applicant to harden the basins so that they will survive a 100-year storm." He explained the temporary basin would be sized to handle "67 cubic yards per acre of disturbance above that basin." (11 June 18, 1991 Page 4 The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed concerns about the project: --Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle (See ATTACHMENT A); --Patricia Hurst, President of Georgetown Green Homeowner's Association; --Approximately 25 persons showed their support for Ms. Hurst's comments by a show of hands; --Mr. Charlie Hummel, a resident of Georgetown Green; --Ms. Emily Kaiser, a student at Albemarle High School; --Tom Edwards, a resident of Georgetown Green; --Mr. Ashley Colvin Their concerns included: --Loss of pine tree grove, --The possible future use of the baseball field by the entire community which will result in increased noise, lighting, and traffic in the Georgetown Green neighborhood. --The closeness of Basin B to a residential property line (33 Georgetown Green --Mr. Hummel --is only feet from the basin). Mr. Hummel asked that funds be allocated to insure that the area will be restored to its present condition after construction. --The pine trees which will be saved are the weakest and likely will not survive on their own. Preservation of the white pines would be preferrable. --Lack of detail in notification process. Mr. Al Reeser, representing the applicant, offered no additional comment. Mr. William Raines, Principal of Albemarle High School, and a resident of Georgetown Green, addressed the Commission. He addressed some of the public comments and answered Commission questions. His comments included: --There were only 4 home football games last fall (not every Friday night as had been stated by Ms. Hurst). --He had never experienced any problems with ballgame traffic parking in Georgetown Green. --Baseball games draw at most 100 spectators and there is ample parking to accommodate these games. --The path between Georgetown Green and Albemarle High School is not easily passable. (Ms. Hurst later disagreed with this comment.) --Security problems at Georgetown Green have come from the residents and not from outsiders. --Softball will not be played on any of these fields. Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Raines to comment on Mr. Mullaney's inference that the field could be used for youth baseball programs, thus the need for lighting. Mr. Raines felt there were adequate facilities already available and did not feel there was a need for the AHS baseball field to be used for the youth programs. Mr. Cilimberg added that it 9.11 June 18, 1991 Page 5 was his understanding that Mr. Mullaney does not anticipate that this baseball field will be used as a softball field. Mr. Raines noted that approval of the use of the fields by Parks and Recreation would have to come from the High School. Mr. Raines estimated that approximately 16 home, nighttime baseball games (10 varsity, 6 jr. varsity) would be played during the year. In response to Ms. HuckleIs question about the need for so many football fields, Mr. Raines explained that there are two teams which practice at the same time (2 fields), and a third field is needed for games. (Practice should not take place on the game field because of damage to the field.) It was noted that the practice fields also serve for other sports (soccer, lacrosse, etc.). Mr. Johnson noted that he could see no changes which had been made to the plan to reflect the comments of the Virginia Crime Prevention Association. Mr. Raines noted that the following aspects of the plan reflect the study done by the VCPA: --More comprehensive lighting. --Consolidation of the majority of the parking in front of the building. --Access via the road from the football field will be "cut off." There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to public comments, Mr. Rittenhouse asked if other locations for the baseball field had been considered. Mr. Al Reeser responded and explained that other possibilities had been considered but the present proposal is the best arrangement due to existing utility lines, topographic problems, and school needs. Regarding the issue of the "location of trees to be saved vs. quality of trees to be saved," Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Board has indicated that the County is willing to "naive Ordinance requirements on number of parking places, or to reduce the size of the parking lot and maintain that buffer." He also pointed out that the "Board has endorsed the concept of staff administratively reviewing that modification to the site plan in order to implement that direction from the Board of Supervisors and the School Board." He added that he felt it was contemplated that landscaping be maintained and replaced if it should die. Mr. Rittenhouse also summarized that the location of the baseball field and the access to said field was of primary 9'_;�3 June 18, 1991 Page 8 concern to the Georgetown Green residents. He also asked if any thought had been given to "specific landscaping adjacent to the baseball field ... and between the field and Georgetown Green." Mr. Keeler responded that he questioned whether any additional landscaping in that area would be effective though he stated that some screening close to Georgetown Green might be possible. He described the area and stated that he felt the only thing which might be "practicably effective would be a chain link gate across the road and some hostile vegetation (e.g. thorns, etc.)." Mr. Keeler noted that staff historically allows schools to handle their own "internal landscaping." Staff deals only with screening and buffering measures. It was noted that baseball and softball fields are not easily interchangeable. For this reason, Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Mr. Mullaney feels the field will only be used for baseball. Mr. Rittenhouse felt that the intensity of use was an important distinction to make, i.e. highschool baseball use (and even youth baseball use) vs. the intensity of nighttime softball use. He felt the intensities were greatly different in terms of traffic and type of crowds. He emphasized: "I think it's clear --we've heard from staff, we've heard from the principal of the high school --that there's no nighttime softball use foreseen for that field in that site. That's consistent with our deliberations on the preliminary site plan." Mr. Jenkins felt the 100 yards would make a nice buffer. He expressed concern, however, about possible traffic problems for the residential neighborhood. He stated: "It seems to me that whatever additional protection (might be needed to protect this neighborhood from disturbance) once this facility begins to be used, should certainly be understood at this point, that's it been addressed in a meeting like ours, and may well be an additional cost at some point in the near future if it in fact turns out like some of these people (envision)." Mr. Rittenhouse felt it was important to note that this is a permanent applicant (the school system) and not one which is subject to change, i.e. "the County's going to be here to address citizen concerns," Mr. Johnson felt there was "an overiding safety concern on the whole area." He stated he was not satisfied that it had been addressed significantly. It was his understanding that the majority of police reports indicate that problems stem from the existing parking lot layout. He stated: 94 June 18, 1991 page 7 "Observing the plan, 1 see no reduction or improvement of entries relative to monitoring by anybody.... If anything, there are additional parking areas being established." He again noted that he felt the applicant had not reacted adequately to the crime study. Regarding lighting and referring to the minutes of the previous hearing, he stated: "I see nothing to refute the statement that appeared in the minutes that said there would be no night baseball." He noted that "lighting is a paramount aspect" of the safety issue, i.e. lighting of the parking area. He felt the best way to deal with security problems was to have the parking in one area with only one controlled entry. He noted positive aspects of the plan were the additional classroom space and the change in the bus routing. He stated: "I would favor the partial approval of the plan including the building addition and the parking as a turning basis for the buses, deferring the balance of it to be reviewed further with appropriate security and safety officials and the residents of Georgetown Green to see if there is a better, more adaptable method of arranging these facilities." Mr. Johnson also noted that at the time the Capital Improvements Program had been reviewed, the field house had been included with the express understanding that 50% would be funded "by outside subscription and donations." He concluded: "With these concerns, I can't support the plan as it stands, but I certainly would support it as a limited approval for the building addition and the bus turning basin with the balance being subject to further consideration." Ms. Huckle commented: "Of course everyone agrees that the educational purposes of schools serves the public good. The Rivanna Reservoir also serves the public good. These extended playing fields are not directly educational in nature. Removal of trees and the soil disturbing activity during and after construction of these sports fields on steep slopes draining into the reservoir, pose a threat to our major water supply. I feel that the capacity of the reservoir is more important, especially since it has been stated that there are only 4 football games and the baseball games only draw 75 to 100 spectators. I would propose the deletion of the two fields from the steep slopes. This would help the reservoir and would solve the problems of Georgetown Green and I think it would be much better ... I feel that the cost is too great to endanger the reservoir for these fields that are not really educational." Mr. Grimm commented: "The school system has obviously felt as though they need these extra fields in order to have potential programs that are needed to round out their educational programs. ... The Engineering Department has felt as though the layout of this plan will meet the 9 _; June 18, 1991 Page 8 requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance; that the basins that are going to be established there will help to keep the runoff erosion at a level at which it occurs at the present time and I can support that." Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Runoff Control report prepared by the County's engineer, indicates a 55% reduction in sediment loading in the "as constructed state" and a 20% reduction of phosphorous loading. He concluded: "On that basis, those construction loadings would seem to be beneficial when compared to the pre -construction loadings." He stated he was prepared to support the final site plan. Mr. Rittenhouse emphasized: "My support is predicated on my understanding of what the level of intensity will be. My understanding is that that will be a high school baseball field. There is a hint at a potential for youth baseball activity. We have consistently heard that there is a_Q intended community nighttime softball, or daytime softball, activity planned or contemplated for that field. I think with that provision the potential for intrusion on Georgetown Green residential properties is greatly diminished." He felt the School Board would make every effort to be responsive to problems which may occur within the residential neighborhood. He concluded: "On that basis, I am prepared to support the site plan." Mr. Johnson recalled that during work sessions where projects were given consideration, he felt that justification for additional playing fields was on the basis of "universal availability and use by all residents of the community." Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Wilkerson disagreed. Mr - Rittenhouse noted that the "public does not have any guaranteed access" to school playing fields unless said field has been jointly developed and funded and so acknowledged. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse and moved that the Albemarle High School Final Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer review to ensure that lighting spillover at adjoining residential property lines does not exceed one-half foot-candle; b. Staff approval of a landscape plan to include: -Infill planting along the perimeter of Georgetown Green to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community development; -Continuous screening material between the parking lot and Hydraulic Road. June 18, 1991 Page 9 Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed (4:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Johnson casting the dissenting votes. Mr. Johnson made the following motion: "I move that this final site plan be referred to the Board of Supervisors for review. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Board had already discussed this issue at length with the School Board and had authorized staff to address many issues administratively - He noted that the school is anxious to get its grading permit. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Boards actions: --Deletion of the parking area and the administrative approval associated with that (subject to approval of the final plan); --Board left it up to the School Board as to the location of the softball field. The School Board decided (by a vote of 4:3) to keep the baseball field as proposed. He concluded that he felt the Board had made their decision in terms of this plan. There followed a discussion as to who had the right of appeal to the Board. Referring to Section 32.3.10 of the Ordinance, it was determined an "agrieved" person could call up a plan to the Board. Mr. Bowling explained that "person agrieved" was limited to the "applicant, persons required to be notifed as adjacent property owners, the Commission or any member thereof, the agent, the Zoning Administrator, the County Executive, the Board of Supervisors or any member thereof." It was clarified that it was the intent of Mr. Johnson's motion that the Commission appeal the plan to the Board. The motion died for lack of a second. It was noted that an individual Commissioner could be agrieved. An appeal must be filed within 10 days of a decision. There being no further business, the meeting adY ourned at 8:50 p.m. / � , 1 4 `A . W. . WaynjK/Cilimberg, S)�cretary 97