Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 09 1991 PC MinutesJuly 9, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 9, 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. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; 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 June 25, 1991 were approved as submitted. SP-90-117 Paul Bland Tilman - Petition 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 .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. Deferred from the June 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He offered no additional comment. (Mr. Tilman was also present.) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Tilman confirmed that the stream is currently being forded. He also stated that no other subdivision of the property will use the proposed bridge. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-117 for Paul Bland Tilman be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Department of Engineering approval of crossing design and implementation. In such approval the County Engineer shall be particularly mindful of the Watershed Management Official's comments of January 18, 1991. //5, 7-9-91 E 2. Any residential development or subdivision which will utilize this crossing will require further review for adequacy. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. CPA-91-1 Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County - Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. This plan recommends a bikeway system strategically located throughout the County to serve the area's bicyclists. The Plan also recommends design standards for bikeways and programs to improve bicycle safety. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Commission comments included the following: Johnson: He felt there should be a distinction made between utilitarian and recreational use. He urged that Rt. 29N be made a part of the plan "in hope that as they develop Rt. 29 there will be a bicycle route on it." (This suggestion was later discussed and the majority of the Commission did not feel Rt. 29 was a viable bicycle route.) He also suggested that Free Bridge, which is currently undergoing improvements, be included in the plan. (Mr. Benish commented that it was too late to include improvements for 250E because construction is imminent, but Free Bridge is being designed for pedestrian crossing.) He felt the University's participation in the plan would "make it or break it." He urged that the plan be made public, through publishment in the newspaper, prior to Board consideration, so that individual neighborhoods which are included in the plan would have a chance to respond. Huckle: She stated that she supported the plan because it was needed in order for the Virginia Department of Transportation to make improvements. However, she voiced the following concern: "I am completely opposed to distribution of any maps or signage which might lead any biker to the feeling that these roads are safe for biking (as they currently exist)." Mr. Grimm agreed. Jenkins: Though he did not disagree with Ms. Huckle's statement, he noted that bikers have a right to know the location of designated routes. He pointed out that designation as a bike route was no guarantee of safety. He stated that though he supported the plan he did not expect that there would be many bike paths constructed in the near future. Mr. Benish pointed out that any map which might be distributed would clearly distinguish between those routes with improvements and those without. Regarding signage, he //4 7-9-91 3 noted that signs also serve the purpose of alerting vehicular traffic to designated paths so that they can take the appropriate precautionary measures. Regarding designation of Rt. 29, he explained that it had not been included because of excessive traffic volumes, high travel speeds, and numerous friction points. (Mr. Johnson agreed with this assessment, but still felt that if it were included then improvements could be planned for in the planning process.) The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. She expressed support for the plan and urged that first phase funding begin as soon as possible. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson asked if an addendum could be attached to the Commission's action to alert the Board of the Commission's comments and concerns. (It was determined staff would make the Board aware of the Commission's comments at the work session on July loth.) Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was in agreement with Ms. Hackle's concerns. Mr. Baker called the Commission's attention to page 53 which states: "Those bikeways indicated in the plan for improvements to increase safety shall not be shown on any map until construction of the roadway is completed unless provisions are made that clearly indicate that that roadway is not presently considered safe for bicycles." He also noted that the draft map contains several disclaimers that "these bikeways that are dashed lines are not considered safe for bicycling at this time." Mr. Baker explained that the solid lines were those with lower traffic volumes and lower speed limits. Ms. Huckle felt that by calling attention to the dashed lines as unsafe, it gives the impression that the solid lines are considered safe. She felt more emphasis should be placed on the fact that none of the roads, as they presently exist, are safe, though some may be slightly less dangerous than others. She felt very strongly that this should be made very clear. She stated: "I think there is an ethical responsibility that people have for other people's safety." Ms. Huckle expressed the feeling that the document should not give bikers "false confidence." Mr. Benish commented that Ms. Huckle's points were well taken and he would make her concerns known to the Board. // 7 7-9-91 4 Ms. Huckle asked if the whole plan would be available for public distribution. Mr. Benish stated that the plan would be available for purchase but it was primarily a planning document. Mr. Johnson again stressed that he felt there should be a separate facility for bikes on Rt. 29 and that said route should be included at this time so that its construction can be included in the plans for Rt. 29 improvements. Mr. Benish noted that Rt. 29 had not met the criteria for consideration as a viable bike route. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he did not feel a route should be included if it was not realistically viable. He did not think 29N was viable. Mr. Wilkerson felt Rt. 250E was not viable either. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the Commission was "all on the same wave length." Ms. Andersen felt there should be some notice on the document explaining that it is a planning document. Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that by including a bar designation in the legend showing paths constructed and in operation --since there are none --would further emphasize the absence of safe routes. Mr. Grimm felt the word "anticipated" should be inserted in the legend, i.e. "Numbers on this map correspond to anticipated bikeways...." Ms. Huckle felt the last sentence, beginning "For more information...," should be striken. (Mr. Rittenhouse did not agree with this suggestion.) She also noted the other maps within the plan did not have disclaimers. Mr. Wilkerson moved that CPA-91-1, the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as presented by staff, and with the notation that the Commission has concerns about signage and would also favor disclaimers being included on all maps. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-91-057 Sam's Wholesale Club Final Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 109,393 square foot retail store served by 778 parking spaces on 14.55 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 68D and 68D2, is located at the end of 7-9-91 5 Hilton Heights Road adjacent to the Sheraton Hotel. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Charlottesville Magisterial district. within a designated growth area. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. approval subject to conditions. Corridor in the This site is located Staff recommended Mr. Johnson questioned the parking figures. He noted that "no two figures agree." Mr. Tarbell explained that the parking had been revised several times and he would need to check before giving a definitive answer. He stated that the Ordinance requires 534 spaces for the proposed building. (Mr. Johnson disagreed and stated that according to 4.12.6.6.1 the required spaces should be 572.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He offered no additional comment but offered to answer questions. In response to Ms. Huckle, he explained the slope stabilization process. He explained that "all adjacent slopes would have to be completely stabilized" before the sedimentation basin would be removed and the area restored. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. DeForest Mellon, representing Citizens for Albemarle, expressed concerns about the application. His comments are attached to these minutes as Attachment A. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson made several comments which included the following: --He suggested that reference be made to Attachments B, E, F & G in the suggested conditions of approval. --He asked that condition l(b) include the requirement for restoration of "more than just the sedimentation basin, that landscaping of all graded areas north of the parking and/or tennis courts be included within that provision." --He felt the "bottom line" of the application was "the effect on the aesthetics of the natural environment caused by the additional parking." He noted that 770-790 parking spaces have been "gratuitously" approved when only 572 are required. He noted that 604 spaces are available "to the left" of the major dividing area. He wondered if the Board had been made aware of the devestating environmental effects caused by the additional parking. He noted that considerably more grading has now been identified than was originally considered (i.e. 100 feet vs. 20 to 55 feet). (Mr. Keeler later pointed out 65 feet of grading is proposed and the distance measured by Mr. Johnson was the result of existing conditions.) He pointed out that if half of the extra parking (to the north and right) were eliminated, the amount of devastation caused by the fill and grading would be greatly reduced. / 7-9-91 5 --He offered the suggestion that the application be deferred to allow consideration of decreased parking or perhaps denying the application with the knowledge that the applicant would appeal the decision to the Board and the Board would then have the opportunity to consider the devastating effects of the additional parking. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the additional parking had been an important consideration in the Commission's discussions, but it was the Commission's understanding "that the Board had accepted a proffered plan that showed the additional parking and, therefore, had bought into that plan." Mr. Johnson agreed that though the parking may have been identified, he questioned whether the Board had been made aware of the effect that the additional grading, necessitated by the additional parking, would have on the environment. Ms. Huckle stated that she remained consistent in her opposition to this proposal. (She noted problems with sedimentation basins at the Albemarle High School construction site.) Mr. Wilkerson stated that though he understood Commissioner Johnson's and Huckle's concerns, the applicant has done all that has been asked of him and after having received approval of a preliminary plan, he could not consider denying the plan at this point. Mr. Rittenhouse ntoed that he had shared Mr. Johnson's concerns about the additional parking at the time of the preliminary review and that issue had been discussed. (Note: Mr. Johnson was not present at that meeting.) The Commission had been advised that it did not have the latitude to delete the additional parking. He recalled that the County Engineer had stated at that time that he would not recommend approval of the plan if all engineering requirements could not be met. He pointed out that staff, the Watershed Management Official, and the Department of Engineering would not be recommending approval if all requirements had not been met. He concluded: "Requirements have been placed upon the applicant and'our County government has confirmed that the requirements have been met and on that basis I think that we are in a position to approve the final site plan with those conditions." Mr. Grimm noted that the runoff control plan appeared to be "extremely substantial." He agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the Board had reviewed the proposal again after the Commission's approval of the preliminary plan and he felt the message from the Board was clear. He stated that though they may not have envisioned /a?0 7-9-91 7 the effects of the additional parking, "they've gone on record as saying they accept it." Mr. Keeler quoted the following from a memo which had gone to the Board related to this issue: "Staff is requesting the Board's input before completing review of the final site plan as to its legislative intent in the approval of the rezoning. One of the main issues identified by staff in the review of the rezoning and the preliminary site plan is the construction of 254 parking spaces above the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. This parking area will occasion encroachment on critical slopes and construction activity in close proximity to the Rivanna River. In presentation of the rezoning proposal to the Board of Supervisors, the concept plan for the development did not indicate such an encroachment." Mr. Johnson pointed out that the the entire plan could be modified effectively by just eliminating 90 parking spaces and not the 254 which the Board was led to believe. No alternatives were presented to the Board. He emphasized that he did not feel the Board had been presented with the same information as was now being presented to the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that if the Board was willing to accept 254 parking spaces, they don't feel it is a problem. And, therefore, they are not looking for a solution if they don't see a problem. Mr. Wilkerson noted that though the commission agreed with concerns which had been voiced, the applicant has meet the conditions of the preliminary approval and the County would be remiss in denying the plan at this point. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Sam's Wholesale Club Final Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Recordation of grading easement, landscape easement, parking easement, and private road maintenance agreement and notation of deed book reference for each on the site plan; b. Staff approval of restoration plan for replanting of deciduous trees in the area of the erosion sedimentation basin; C. Issuance of a permit for storm sewer outfall by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; /Z2 / 7-9-91 8 2. A grading permit shall not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Staff field inspection and approval of the installation of the protective fence to be located at the limits of clearing; b. Issuance of a permit for the storm sewer outfall by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 3. All proffers of ZMA-89-23 will remain in effect; however, the following proffer is specifically identified in the conditions of approval as it is directly related to the final site plan and will require immediate compliance for issuance of a building permit: "Upon issuance of a building permit on Tax Map 45, Parcels 68D, Wendell W. Wood agreees to contribute $25,000 for the construction of the jogging/walking trails on Tax Map 45, parcels 30, 69, and 68D or for construction of like projects in the County Capital Improvement Program." 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Wilkerson would agree to an amendment to 1(b) to include additional landscaping. There was some question as to whether or not what Mr. Johnson was suggesting was within the limits of what the Ordinance can require. It was also noted that because of the steepness of the slope (2:1), it would be extremely difficult to maintain plantings. No amendedment to condition 1(b) was made. The motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Johnson and Huckle casting the dissenting votes. (At the end of the meeting Mr. Wendell Wood commented on the sizes of the sedimentation basins for Wal Mart and Sams. He stressed that the basin for Wal Mart had held all the runoff from the recent heavy rains.) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ac .'Wayne Slim erg,` cr tary M;