Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 26 89 PC MinutesSeptember 26, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 26, 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. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 12, 1989 were approved as submitted. SP-89-65 University Village Limited Partnership - Request in accordance with Section 17.2.2(9) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a nursing home/home for adults to be located on approximately 61.50 acres in conjunction with University Village Retirement Community. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcels 53 and 24C is located on the north side of Old Ivy Road (St. Rt. 601), approximately 1900' east of.its intersection with U.S. Rt. 29/250 Bypass and Old Garth Road. Jack Jouette Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "In the opinion of staff, this request is an appropriate use on this property, and is compatible with adjacent residential use. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to ... conditions." Mr. Fritz called the Commission's attention to two letters: One from the applicant restating the reasons for the request; and the second from an adjacent property owner (McGavock) expressing concerns about drainage from the applicant's site. Mr. Fritz explained that staff has looked into the issue of the drainage and learned that the applicant is in the process of obtaining an easement from the University of Virginia to allow a drainage structure. Mr. Fritz confirmed it was his understanding that the applicant intends to take care of the drainage problem, though that is not a condition of approval. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Firster. He explained the reasons for the request for an extension, i.e, delays caused by excessive blasting and inclement weather, and the reason for the request for five extra beds. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. /sd September 26, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-65 for University Village'Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Nursing home facility shall be limited to 45 beds. Future expansion shall require amendment to this special permit. 2. Approval of the appropriate state and local agencies. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked for further information on the drainage issue. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant is operating with an approved drainage plan which feeds onto UVA property and appears to be spilling over onto the McGavock property. He stated that the Engineering Department has confirmed the applicant "is complying with their drainage situation" and therefore if there is a problem, staff feels it is a civil ::latter. He added that the owners of University Village are working towards an alternative drainage method which will direct the water away from the McGavock property. Mr. Fred Landess, representing the applicant, added that he fully expects the University to grant an easement which will allow the building of a drainage ditch which will prevent spilling onto the McGavock property. He stressed that the drainage problem has nothing to do with the current proposal because it arises out of the University Village project. Mr. Richard Milnor, representing the McGavocks, commented briefly on the drainage issue. He pointed out that although the Engineering Department has stated the "drainage calculations are O.K.--it works," he had photographs to prove that it isn't working. The Chairman called for a motion .on the previously stated motion for approval. The motion passed unanimously. Village Nursing Home Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 45-bed nursing home on 5.0 acres. Proposal is to be served by 38 parking spaces and is to have access through the University Village site. Property, described as Tax Map 60, part of Parcels 53 and 24C is located on the north side of Old Ivy Road approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Old Ivy Road and Rt. 250W. Zoned R-10, Residential with proffers (ZMA-87-08) in the Jack Jouett 'Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Diehl expressed interest in the landscaping plans, but most of her comments were inaudible. September 26, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant has been advised that substantial landscaping will be required at the time of the final site plan. The Commission was particularly concerned about the large stockpile of fill dirt on the site. Mr. Bowerman stated: "I think it's pretty clear that any landscaping plan is going to have to go through a complete restoration of that site, including what's not on the site, or you're not going to approve it. Our approval, and your landscaping plan., contemplates complete correction to your (i.e. staff) satisfaction of that entire area whether it's on -site or not." Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowling to comment on whether that presented a legal problem. Mr. Bowling asked the applicant to comment before giving an opinion. Mr. David Anhold, representing the applicant, addressed this issue, He stated.that final designs for stormwater management, berming, landscaping, etc. will be presented with the final site plan. Mr. Bowerman stressed that both the staff and Commission are significantly concerned about the visual aspect of the completed project. He advised the applicant that whatever measures must be taken to satisfy staff and the Commission in this regard will have to be done. Mr. Anhold acknowledged his understanding of this stipulation. Mr. Bowerman confirmed that this could be addressed "with the next step." In response to Mr. Stark's questions about the plans for the dirt pile, Mr. Anhold stated that it is contemplated that the dirt will be reconfigured into a berm parallel to Rt. 250 which will create a screen. To address this issue, it was determined condition (h) would be changed to read as follows: • Planning Commission approval of landscape plan to include screening of the site, including waste area on this and adjacent site, from Rt. 250. Condition No. 3 was also added as follows: • Administrative approval of the final plat. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Michel's questions, Mr. Keeler commented on the traffic proffers. Mr. Stark moved that the Village Nursing Home preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: /1H September 26, 1989 Page 4 a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of private access road and drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of stormwa.ter detention plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design; e. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; f. Department of Engineering approval of all required on -site and .off -site drainage easements; g. Staff approval of easement documents for off -site drainage and stormwater detention facilities, to include maintenance; h. Planning Commission approval of landscape plan to include screening of the site, including waste area .on this and adjacent site from Rt. 250. i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire Officer final approval. 3. Administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.which passed unanimously. Riverrun Phases 3, 4 & 5B Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 178 townhouse and condominium units to be served by 356 parking spaces. Access to the site will be from Riverrun Drive, off of Pen Park Road. The total area.of the site is approximately 29 acres. Zoned R-6, Residential. The property is located off of Riverrun Drive in the Riverrun Development, adjacent to Pen Park. Tax Map 62, Parcel 17A. Rivanna Magisterial District. ti1r. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to fir. Bowerman's request, Mr. Tarbell explained the alignment of the loop road. 'There was also a brief discussion about the Rivanna Greenway Corridor. Ms. Diehl asked to see a site plan showing areas of construction on 25% slopes. fir. Tarbell complied and stated he had performed a quick September 26, 1989 Page 5 analysis comparing the original master plan with had determined there to be very little difference on 25% slopes. He stated significant amounts of in critical slope areas. Recalling the original she did not remember any building being approved, in critical slopes. the present proposal and in terms of construction construction were proposed approval, Ms. Diehl stated two-thirds of which was Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he was not satisfied with the applicant's justification for building in 25% slope areas. He stated he would reserve further comment until after the applicant had spoken. He added that he was also dissatisfied with the Engineering Department's response to this issue. The applicant was represented by Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. He described the history of the project, section -by -section. He noted that though condominium buildings have less impact on a piece of property, trying to locate the parking close to the buildings "tears the site apart." He explained the reasoning behind the parking configuration and indicated an attempt has been made to hide the parking., He explained that Phases 3, 4 and 5B will.be mostly townhouses, except for the four buildings shown, because there is now a need for lesser density. He indicated the thinking behind the design and configuration was to make -it visually attractive to surrounding properties (Pen Park, Key West, etc.). He pointed out that steep slopes exist in only one area in the present proposal and "we have done it in five other situations." Mr. Stark asked Mr. Gloeckner to comment on the Greenway Corridor issue. Mr. Gloeckner felt the owner would be willing to work with the County, but at present there is no mechanism in place to deal with this. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Greenway Corridor was merely a concept at this time and staff is merely trying to make the owner aware of the issue. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was concerned about the critical slopes issue from an Ordinance standpoint, which assumes that there is a problem with development on critical slopes. He felt it had been decided that the applicant would be required to present some mitigating circumstance which would necessitate the need to build in these areas and the request would be reviemd by the Engineering Department. If the Engineering Department felt there was sufficient reason to grant a waiver, the Commission could look favorably on the waiver. He felt that had not taken place with this proposal. He felt the applicant's stated justification for the waiver was not sufficient. He felt the Engineering Department's review were not comprehensive enough to determine that a waiver is appropriate. He was disappointed that the Engineering Department had just accepted an applicant's letter at face value. He pointed out there were no comments from Engineering about the merits of the request. September 26, 1989 Page 6 Ms. Diehl stated she was most concerned about the three condominium buildings in Phase 4 which had significant areas in critical sbpes. She could not recall any similar approvals in the past. Mr. Bowerman recalled that'Mr. Gloeckner's explanation had been accurate, i.e. that the justification for building on critical slopes in the past phases was to :Hake it possible to locate roads in such a position so as to minimize the visual impact of the traffic. He recalled that the applicant had convinced the Commission that it was environmentally sensitive and in the best interest of the public. He further stated that historically when the Commission has allowed construction on 25% slopes it has "generally been incidental to the development of the site." He felt this proposal was different because it would require a departure of the Commission's established policy because a public -interest justification has not been presented, but rather the request is "a way to utilize the land to get (the) density which the original approval called for." (Mr. Tarbell noted the development had been approved for 412 lots and that is exactly they way* it has come out.) Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant: "If the Go=ission disallows this because it violates the principle of the ordinance both in spirit -and in fact and would be starting a different policy for us, where would you get the additional density?" Mr. Gloeckner responded: "We'd just reverse it and put the road where the units are and put the units inside again...," which will result in the parking being visible to Key West. He stated such a change would problably result in the roadway encroaching on critical slopes. Hequestioned what would be protected by not allowing the applicant's request. Mr. Bowerman again explained that though building on critical slopes has been allowed in some situations, it has never been allowed to this degree, i.e. major -elements of three major buildings, and this would be a complete departure of the Commission's policy for granting a waiver of the critical slopes provision. Mr. Gloeckner expressed some lack of understanding as to what had changed since the original approval because the roads on the northside had been "all across critical slopes." Mr. Bowerman responded that that had been more sensitive to the environment. Mr. Gloeckner felt that was still the case with the present proposal. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler stated the applicant had not been guaranteed that 412 units approved in the original proposal would be achievable. Mr. Keeler gave a brief history of the property and proffers. He stressed that this plan had not been proffered. He also noted that he felt there had been a change in circumstance because there had been no critical slopes provision. in .the prior ordinance under which the original approval was made. Mr. Keeler stated that if the Commission chose not to look favorably on the proposal, it was staff's preference that the item be deferred rather than disapproved because the County staff (Engineering) had not provided necessary information. Mr. Bowerman felt that was agreeable. Ms. Diehl pointed out that even after the County Engineer's comments have been made, there is no guarantee that the request will be approved. 4 9 September 26, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that his objections were not to the proposed concept, but only to the lack of an in-depth analysis of the project. Mr. Bowerman felt the request was "dramatically different" from other waiver requests because it appears one-half to two-thirds of some of the units are in critical slopes. Ms. Diehl agreed and stated she could not look favorably on Phase 4 with the magnitude of the critical slope encroachment. She also shared Mr. Rittenhouse's concerns about the lack of an engineering analysis. Mr. Gloeckner stressed that in all phases of this development an attempt has been made to put a good face toward neighboring properties. He felt "there are all kinds of architectural solutions for this without violating the intent of the ordinance to bare face the terrain toward our neighbors." Ms. Diehl moved that Riverrun Phases 3, 4 and 5B be deferred to October 24, 1989 to allow time for an in-depth engineering analysis of the project by the County Engineer and for more information on actual construction. (Note: Ms. Diehl asked specifically for more information on the possibility of a different footprint for the buildings as had been suggested by Mr. Gloeckner. Mr. Gloeckner had stated the footprints appear to be somewhat larger than they actually are because of balconies.) Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. (Though Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission might wish to approve the other two phases and defer only the phase involving critical slopes, Mr. Bowerman stated he was hesitant to take this approach because of the possibility of the applicant needing to look for additional density in those other two phases.) Mr. Gloeckner expressed a lack of understanding as to what technical information the Commission desired. Mr. Bowerman explained the Commission needed more details on the extent of the critical slopes and the actual impact, and more engineering comment. He concluded: "I think the burden of proof is on Mr. Gercke to demon- strate that this is in the public interest. What we're saying is we shouldn't see a plan with those buildingns in that location, period, because it's on critical slopes of such magnitude that we wouldn't look at any other development plan in that light..., unless you can prove to this Commission that we wouldn't be setting a bad policy by doing something different or that thepublic interest would be served by doing this over something else which did not hit critical slopes, perhaps other than aesthetics." The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated motion for deferral. The motion passed unanimously. .14o September 26, 1989 Page 8 Heritage Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide two lots from Tax Map 58, Parcel 24 and reconfigure five existing lots for a total of seven lots with an average of 2.39 acres. The lots are proposed to be served by a private road with access off of Rt. 679. The property is located on the south side of the C & 0 Railroad just west of Rt. 679. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcels 23, 32, 32A, 35, and 36, is zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller'Magisterial District. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded: "It appears that some public interest may be served with this subdivision as it would improve the access to the five existing lots. In regard to environmental degradation, staff opinion is the private road has been sufficiently justified and therefore recormtends approval of this pre- liminary subdivision plat .. " subject to conditions. In response to Ms. Diehl's request, Mr. Tarbell explained how a joint driveway would reduce the number of stream crossings. Ms. Diehl noted that she did not see any public interest to be served by improving the access to the lots. Mr. Tarbell noted that the applicant could develop the property without improving the access easement. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if a condition should be included requiring County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement. Staff confirmed that would be appropriate. Regarding runoff control measures, Mr. Tarbell explained.that a sketchy plan has been presented but staff has not had time to review it adequately. He noted the Engineering Department has stated "it appears it will work." He stated that review would be made with the final plat. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bud Treakle addressed the Commission. He explained that the.five lots are already existing and are substandard under the existing ordinance. He stated the current proposal will improve the access to the lots and will generally improve the property and bring it more in compliance with the ordinance. He stressed that the number of strewn crossings is not being increased but this proposal will maintain the number and control the crossings. Referring to the Watershed Management Official's suggestion to limit the number of stream crossings, Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant to comment. fir. Treakle indicated there would be no objection to such a limit. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked about Health Department approval. fir. Tarbell indicated approval had not been granted for lot G. He also stated that verbal approval had been obtained for the other lots. (Mr. Treakle interjected that since this is a pre-existing lot, the Health Department may not require a second drainfield location. He also stated it is feasible that an easement may be needed across an adjacent parcel and that possibility is being explored.) /If/ September 26, 1989 Page 9 Ms. Diehl pointed out that it has been Commission policy to review the final plat if written Health Department approval has not been received at the .time of the preliminary approval. Staff confirmed this was correct, but staff had felt this was somewhat different because these are existing lots. Ms. Diehl stated she also had concerns about the road. For these reasons, it was determined the Commission would review the final plat. There was a brief discussion about stream capacity during heavy rains and drainage issues. Mr. Michel moved that the Heritage Subdivision Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of road 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. Department of Engineering approval of all required on -site and off -site drainage easement plats; e. Compliance with all Federal, State, and local permit requirements pertaining to the disturbance or alteration of a perennial stream bed; f. Virginia Department of Health approval of a drainfield and reserve drainfield location for each lot, to be shown on final plat; g. Staff approval of private road maintenance agreement. 2. Joint driveway access to the private road shall be required if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. (Note: Administrative approval of the final plat was NOT granted.) Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse noted that this approval would make non -conforming lots more conforming and would allow the road to be located so as to minimize environmental impact. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. Miscellaneous / 4�2 September 26, 1989 Page 10 Resolution of Intent - �Sr. Keeler asked that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to specifically include mobile classroom units in a category of public uses that is listed in every zoning district. He explained that presently the School Board :rust obtain a variance each time one of these classrooms is needed. Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by iir. Rittenhouse, that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to mobile classrooms be adopted.. The motion passed unanimously. (Mr. Keeler confirmed that this change would result in these requests coming before the Commission rather than the Board of Zoning Appeals.) Willow Lake - fir. Keeler brought the Commission up-to-date on detention matters. RA District Amendments - mr. Keeler called the Co=ission's attention to upcoming amendments related to the RA district which would be discussed in a work session October 10, 1989. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. V. Way Cilimber 7retary ds 11-7