Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 25 89 PC MinutesJuly 25, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 25, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and established that a quorum was present The minutes of July 11, 1989 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA IBM Office Building Plan Amendment - Proposal to locate a 5,000 square foot addition to the existing office building, to total 18,400 square feet. The development will be served by 96 parking spaces. Property is located on the south side of Old Ivy Road (Rt. 754), just east of its intersection with Rt. 250W and adjacent to the C & 0 Railroad. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Tax Map 60, Parcel 48. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. Berkmar Lot 6 Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 5,570 square foot retail and wholesale warehouse on a 22,729 square foot lot. The development is to have access from Berkmar Drive and is to be served by 33 parking spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 61U, Section 6, is located on the north side of Berkmar Drive approximately 500 feet west of Rt. 29. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Kirk Hughes. He stated the applicant was in agreement with the conditions of approval. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Berkmar Lot 6 Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 6r July 25, 1989 Page 2 1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit. c. Virginia Department of -Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit. d. A contribution of $3,862 to the County's Berkmar Detention Basin will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. Planning Department approval of landscape plan. 2. Administrative approval of Final Site Plan to include notation of off -site parking as employee parking. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-89-9 Mechum River Land Trust - Request to rezone 192.410 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 and 29D is located between the C & 0 Railway and Rt. 240, approximately one-half mile west of intersection with Rt. 240 and Rt. 250, a smaller piece of the property is located on the north side of Rt. 240 between Rt. 240 and Rt. 802. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from July 18, 1989 Commission meeting. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors not make a zoning decision at this time, so as to allow for final engineering design of the (Lickinghole Creek Basin) and/or policy determination of the site area appropriate for urban residential zoning." Mr. Cilimberg further clarified that staff was recommending that the Commission either delay any rezoning consideration or only take action on that part of the application which naturally drains to the basin's location. There was a brief discussion about how maintenance of the basin would be addressed. Mr. Cilimberg described three possibilities: (1) County expense; (2) Homeowners' associations; or (3) Developer bond. In response to Mr. Michel's question about the status of the Lickinghole Creek project, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the project is funded in the CIP for the engineering studies and is listed in the CIP as a future project, but the County, at this time, has not appropriated money for the actual construction. The applicant was represented by fir. Hunter Craig. He felt this project would funnel growth into a designated growth area. He pointed out water and sewer is available to the property and schools in the area are currently underutilized. He felt that the development would improve the quality of run-off after construction is complete. Regarding the Lickinghole Basin, he stated it was not._designed.to meet the needs of residential development and even if it were already constructed it would not sufficiently meet run-off control needs and on -site run-off control measures would still be necessary. %2 July 25, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman asked if the Lickinghole Basin were being designed to meet the amount of run-off generated from this area after development. Mr. Moring, the County Engineer, responded affirmatively. Mr. Craig asked Mr. Tom Muncaster, Engineer for the applicant, to comment on the basin issue. Mr. Muncaster explained that the basin is designed to remove 45% of the phosphorous it collects.. He continued that if the undeveloped part of this land develops it will increase the phosphorous load five times but the Ordinance says that the amount.of phosphorous after development cannot exceed what it was before development. Therefore, if the Ordinance is strictly followed, additional controls will still be needed, not only with this development, but through- out Crozet. Mr. Daley Craig, also representing the applicant, addressed -the Commission. He stressed that the Lickinghole basin was not designed to handle residential run-off, but rather was designed for agricultural purposes. He also commented on possibilities for maintenance of the detention basin. He felt the most equitable solution for maintenance would be through a homeowners' association or possibly to have the homeowners make a monthly contribution to the County and let the County then maintain it. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Moring to comment on the purpose of the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Mr. Moring declined comment explaining that he was not familiar with the project as it was done several years ago. Mr. Cilimberg commented that it was his understanding that Lickinghole was designed as a detention basin for that growth area. He felt the issue was not agricultural vs. residential, but rather efficiency in removal of phosphorous. He stated that the question of whether or not additional detention would be required has not yet been answered, nor has it been determined whether or not current or future development in Crozet should bear part of the cost of this basin. Mr. Bowerman stated it was his understanding that the only way a growth area could be accommodated in the watershed was if there was a way to protect the water supply, thus the proposal for the basin which was supposedly the most efficient way (rather than have multiple basins). Mr. Cilimberg added that it was an alternative of doing sub -regional basins which, though possibly more efficient, would have been much more costly. Mr. Cilimberg felt cost "was a contribution to the whole consideration." He pointed out that the City and the Rivanna Authority had declined to participate in this project., though the EPA contributed $300,000. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Peyton Robertson, the Watershed Management Official. Mr. Robertson explained that typically regional basins are meant to accommodate large drainage areas (200 acres or greater) with the idea being "individual contributions to systems are then managed so that the entire basin is maintained without individual on -site maintenance required." He continued and explained that "smaller individual on -site basins are used for 20-acre drainages or smaller...." He stated his understanding, after reviewing the files, was that the 44 July 25, 1989 Page 4 rationale behind the Lickinghole Basin was to accommodate growth in the area in a regional basin "for the simple reason that on -site facilities do require maintenance and a regional basin would be under one control and would not end up with individual on -site systems located in various places." He explained that various locations had been considered and Lickinghole had been chosen because of its proximity to. Crozet. Mr. Bowerman asked if it had been the Commission's understanding that there would be additional basins or if this was to be "the basin which would protect the reservoir from the development in Crozet?" Mr. Michel recalled that it had been a "two pronged" issue, i.e. that the Lickinghole. Basin would provide the large area detention and the potentional for primary on -site detention would contain all the run-off control needed in Crozet, but if the primary systems failed to be maintained properly, then the Lickinghole Basin would still provide a measure of protection for the growth area. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about the status of the design, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the final engineering design had not only not bear completed, it had not been contracted. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there was any reason why it could not be designed to handle all the runoff for the area in question. Mr. Cilimberg felt it was a question of "how it is located in relation to the railroad and whether or not another dam location would be feasible." Mr. Moring added that the environmental work had been done several years ago but the structural work and actual location could possibly still be looked at. Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that the performance level was set, and Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it was assumed that it would handle the entire area under discussion. Mr. Robertson confirmed that a 45%-50% efficiency level was typical of this type of basin. He added that efficiency could be increased with a series of basins. Mr. Hunter Craig pointed out that on -site basins are much more efficient (65%). Mr. Daley Craig again stressed that the Lickinghole Basin was only meant to accommodate agricultural runoff. He felt it's existence, or non- existence would make no difference to development in Crozet because residential run-off would have to be addressed through individual, on -site devices. He felt the Commission had been misled. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition.to the rezoning request: Mr. Robert Sable; Ms. Adelaide Spainhour; )1r. Clarence Clayton; Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle; Mr. Scott Peyton; Mr. John Marston; fir. Clay Sprouse;. Ms. Ellen Woff; and Mr. Corey Newman. Their reasons included: --Too many unanswered questions about the Lickinghole Basin. --Request is premature. --Inadequate, dangerous roads. Ms. Bev E.rgenbright also addressed the Commission and asked for an explanation of the growth area map. 'Mr. Cilimberg complied. 4.41 July 25, 1989 Page 5 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark stated he felt there were too many unanswered questions about the Lickinghole Basin issue. He concluded he could not vote favorably on the request at this time. Mr. Michel agreed. Commissioners Diehl and Rittenhouse agreed also. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there seemed to be serious disagreement as to whether the proposed basin works or not. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. Noting that this development lies in his district, Mr. Jenkins pointed out to the public that growth in the Crozet area was inevitable, though, unfortunately, the improvements to the roads would not come until after growth has occurred and the roads have gotten worse. He noted that the property under consideration is designated for growth, partly because of the availability of sewer. Mr. Bowerman stated that many hours have been spent on the Comprehensive Plan over the years in trying to arrive at a plan for the development of this community that the people can accept. He continued that the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan shows the majority of this area in the growth area of Crozet and at some point we must start trying to make the Plan work by taking measures which will actually implement the Plan. He felt, "in general, the application before us is proper." He felt the degree of the rezoning still needed to be resolved. He agreed there were unanswered questions but he did not think the developer should be expected to wait four years for a decision to be made. He concluded: "We are either wrong in the way we view what is before us tonight, or the Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed." Mr. Michel stated he felt Mr. Bowerman was "overstating" the issue because that was certainly not his feeling. He simply felt the Lickinghole issue needed to be clarified. Mr. Jenkins stated he wanted more information about plans for runoff even if there isn't a Lickinghole Basin. There was a brief discussion about the Commission's options for dealing with the request, i.e. deferral to a date specific, indefinite deferral or denial. Mr. Bowling interjected that the Commission did not have the option of indefinite deferral unless the applicant concurred. The Chairman asked the applicant his preference. Mr. Craig responded that the applicant did not "have the luxury of waiting." He stated he did not understand the issue and asked that the Commission approve the request with the condition that the applicant meet the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance. 165' July 25, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman explained that part of the concern is the ultimate location of the darn for the Lickinghole Basin which could effect whether the 117 acres is entirely or only partially in this basin. Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-89-9 for Mechum River Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on staff's recommendation and on the feeling that there are too many unanswered questions about the Lickinghole Creek project. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Bowerman noted that he wouldhave been in favor of a deferral.and would not support the motion for denial. Ms. Diehl noted she was also concerned about the possible density increase if only 117 acres were used. The previously -stated motion for denial passed (4:3) with.Co:amissioners Bowerman, Jenkins and Michel casting the dissenting votes. ZMA-89-10 Scottsville School - Request to rezone approximately 1.81 acres from R-10, Residential to R-15, Residential and approximately .46 acres from VR, Village Residential to R-15, Residential to allow for the development of 34 low to moderate income elderly apartment units. Tax Map 131, part of Parcel 81A, and Tax Map 130A(2), Parcel 76A and part of parcel 76. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to proffers as offered by Jordan Development Corporation and accepted in ZMA-88-02, including a fourth proffer as follows: • The property will not/used for any of the uses allowed under R-15 zoning prior to the satisfaction of all terms, conditions and contingencies set forth in the contract dated January 13, 1988 between the petitioner and the County of Albemarle, and any amendments or extensions thereto. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about the recreational facilities that had been provided at the school, Mr. Cilimberg explained those would continue to be provided at the site and would remain under County ownership. The applicant was represented by Ms. Jane Saunier who offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the *natter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-1.0 for Scottsville School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to proffers as offered by Jordan Development Corporation and accepted in ZMA-88-02, including the fourth proffer read by Mr. Cilimberg (and stated above). Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Gk July 25, 1989 Page 7 Mill Creek Driveway Pavements - Mr. Cilimberg reviewed a memo from Mr. Keeler to the Commission dated July 19, 1989 which explained this issue. The memo concluded: "Staff would recommend that the requirement to pave certain driveways be set aside and unless the Planning Commission objects Staff will grant relief from this requirement in accord with Section 8.5.6.3 although this is a specific condition imposed during subdivision review." Mr. Bowerman recalled that the issue of rural vs. urban cross section had not dealt with the issue of driveway paving, but rather with issues of driveway separation, drainage control and other technical items. He thought the matter of driveways had been a separate issue because the slope of the driveways was such that the County Engineer felt that a gravel driveway could not be maintained adequately. He did not recall that it had been a "tradeoff." He alsorecalled that though the applicant had objected, he did accept the condition. Mr. Stark asked if that was an accurate recollection, then did that mean that the developer was now "getting away with something." Mr. Bowerman responded: "Yes." Mr. Keeler's memo explained that "The Engineering Department currently states that 'the enforcement of this condition of approval by the Department of Engineering has proven unworkable,' noting that no driveways have been paved though a substantial number of certificates of occupancy have been issued." The memo also explained that the Engineering Department was now referring the matter back to the Commission for .a resolution of .this matter as to (1) what requirements can be legally imposed on the developer and (2) what constitutes equitable treatment of this particular project? Staff felt the applicant had accepted the paving condition, proceeded with development and made no effort to appeal the condition to the Board. Therefore, staff considered it a "done deal." Regarding the issue of equitable treatment, staff could find no projects approved since Mill Creek I where similar conditions were recommended by the Engineering Department and subsequently imposed by the Commission. Therefore, staff recommended that the requirement to pave certain driveways be set aside. Mr. Cilimberg stated he had.some impression that there was a tie-in between the driveway design and the rural vs. urban cross section because of the drainage question, i.e. Mr. Horne had stated that the condition was meant to apply only to those driveways that sloped down to the road and not those that sloped up to the road. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the drainage worked satisfactorily without the driveways being paved. Mr. Cilimberg responded that some erosion was occuring. Mr. Moring confirmed this. Ms. Diehl asked if the condition, which was imposed by the former County Engineer, Mr. Mike Armm, had not been found acceptable by the current County Engineer, Mr. Moring, and therefore he had not enforced it. 411 July 25, 1989 Page 8 Mr. Moring responded: "No." He explained that routinely the Engineering Department has nothing to do with the Certificate of Occupancy, and thus they were granted without the Engineering Department ever picking up on the condition. However, during the final road inspection it had been discovered that the driveways were not paved and that was when discussion began as to how to get the driveways paved. He recalled there had been a lengthy discussion with the developer and his attorney about whether or not the County could require a bond and the County Attorney had determined that was not possible because the driveways were not a public improvement. Mr. Moring continued and explained that he did not think the paving of driveways was the way to address the issue, but rather it should be addressed through the critical slopes provisions. He suggested a way to approach the problem would be to require a grading plan for each lot. Mr. Bowerman noted that this has been. required on some subdivisions, i.e. grading plans for each individual lot or for specific lots, but he did not know if it had ever been enforced. Mr. Moring stated it was difficult to enforce because of the differences in the way building permits are handled between residential and commercial development. Mr. Jenkins moved that the requirement to pave certain driveways in the Mill Creek project be set aside and that staff be authorized to grant relief from this requirement in accord with Section 8.5.6.3. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Note: Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that if the Commission wished to make a provision, for future development, which would require paving of driveways which were over "V % grade, the Ordinance would require an amendment. But for the time being, if a project comes in.where the grades are suspect, the Commission can require a grading plan for those particular lots.. Mr. Bowling confirmed the requirement for a grading plan was acceptable. There was still some question as to whether or not the Commission could require paving even if the grades were found to be excessive, therefore, it was decided it should be addressed through the Ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. DS . a CilimbXecretary jv Q