The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10 10 89 PC MinutesOctober 10, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 10, 1989, Auditorium , County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Marry 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. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 26, 1989 were approved as submitted. Capital Improvements Program - The Albemarle County Planning Commission was being asked to make a recommendation regarding the 1989-1995 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Cilimberg began by explaining the Commission's role in the CIP process. In particular he addressed the urban Elementary -School project because there was a great deal of citizen interest in the siting of this school. He explained that any public facility must come before the Commission in accordance with Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, in a separate review,to determine if the request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stressed that all that is being reviewed at this time is a request for funding and a determination of need and NOT the actual siting of the school. Mr. Bowerman confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Cilimberg's statements. However, he stated that because the School Board had already made a recommendation for the location of this school, he did not think discussion of the location was outside the bounds of this hearing and he would allow -public comment on the location. Mr. Benish briefly reviewed the 51 projectslisted as URGENT for FY 89-90. The Chairman invited public comment. addressed the Commission The following persons/and expressed their opposition to the Whitewood Road school site and their support for the maintenance of the existing Whitewood Park: Mr. Sam Kaplan (See Attachment A); Mr. Garth Anderson, who presented a petition containing the signatures of 178 neighbors (See Attachment B); Ms. Krista Thomason; Ms. Betty Sevachko; Ms. Erma Dawson; Ms. Tina Millard; Ms. Faye Satterly; Mr. Ron Chandross; Ms. Debbie Johnson; Ms. Mary Bryant; Ms. Kathryn Ervin; Ms. LeeAnn Kelly; and Ms. Kim Haynes. Their primary.reasons for opposition were: --The park is a "priceless" amenity because there is so little open space left in the urban area;- --Whitewood Road is much too dangerous for children to have to cross. A-5'7 October 10, 1989 Page 2 Ms. Dennis Dockerty expressed his support for the Tdh.itewood Park as a school site. He felt the park was undertilized and that a school would be a better use for the property. Mr. Don Kno.� asked that the Commission give consideration to the Rickey Road drainage problems "more immediately than 6 or 7 summers down the road." Mr. Bob Critzer, representing the Charlottesville Tennis Patrons Association, spoke in support of the Tennis Court Renovation (Lighting) scheduled for 1990-91. He stressed the need for more courts. The Chairman asked for comment from the Department of Education regarding the Urban School Project. Mr. Tolbert responded that comments would be reserved until the public hearing for the actual siting of the school. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the Albemarle High School Tennis Court Addition (42), Mr. Rittenhouse asked the Department of Education to comment as to why they have not yet endorsed this request. Mr. Papenfuse stated that this is a Parks and Recreation request and though the Department of Education does support the request, they ask that it be coordinated with the construction of the Phase I improvements to Albemarle. MIr. Bowerman added that he felt this was an important project because there is currently a severe shortage of courts. It was determined the Commission was in agreement with the priorities as listed in the staff report. mr. Bowerman made the following statement: "I understand that what's before us tonight is a funding request for the entire Capital Plan which includes some items put before us by the administration of the schools for capital needs, and I understand - that what we're doing tonight is finding whether these items are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of meeting the public need. That's what we're about. However, because the School Board has formally adopted the recommendation for the site, it's important for me to make some comment about my opinion on the Whitewood Road site as a school. Number one, I think it's an excellent school site --there's no question about that in my mind. I think it's also an excellent park site --there's also no question in my mind about that. The plan as it's proposed by the architect's report ... does not accommodate both uses on the same site with any degree of maintenance of open space which that facility currently provides. So, as it stands now, it seems like it has to be one or the other. The Comprehensive Plan which was just recommended for adoption by this Commission and the Board of Supervisors recognizes that use as a park site, open space park site. What I'm saying.is, while I'm going to vote to recommend this funding to the Board of Supervisors: for adoption, I am going on record as saying that I think since we know specifically what the recommendation is of the School Board, I am personally opposed to that as a school location because I feel that that's the last piece of green space we have in the urban area, especially in that densely A50 October 10, 1989 Page 3 populated Rio-Hydraulic-20 semi -circle and 20 or 30 years from now it's going to be an extremely important amenity. I think that education will not suffer if we build the same facility in another location to accommodate the needs of our school children and provide them with an education at a different site. I see no conflict. I want to go on record tonight as saying that my endorsement of the Capital Plan is no endorsement of the Whitewood site as a school." He added that consid- eration of this specific site would be reviewed by the Commission at a later date. He noted also that he agreed with the School Board that the schedule of funding and the schedule of construction was extremely important. Mr. Bowerman asked that a note accompany the Commission's recommendation to the Board indicating that the Commission is not endorsing the Whitewood Road site at this time. Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with Mr. Bowerman and that she did not want her endorsement of the Capital Improvements Plan to signify an endorsement of the use of this site for the Urban School. She noted that issue would be addressed at a later time. Mr. Stark indicated his agreement and advised those persons present that they should return when the site is under consideration. Mr. Stark moved that the Capital Improvements Program 1989-1995 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows with an additional note advising the Board that the Commission is not endorsing the Whitewood Road school site at this time: October 10, 1989 Page 4 CIP 1989 - 1995 PLA,NKENG CONKISSIQN PRIOR-ITIES Urgent projects -- Recommendation for funding in FY-1989-9U (Dec) *1. Ivy Landfill Improvements 2: Keene Landfill Closure 3. Underground Storage Tank Removal (Request by Department of Parks & Recreation) 4. -Aio Road Sidewalk *5. Joint Security Complex Expansion and Renovation 6. Lickinghole Creek Detention Basin 41. +Rose Hill Alternative High School Renovations #6. -Murray Elementary Renovations 9. Highway Revenue Sharing {1989-90.) Hazardous Material Vehicle #11. +Albemarle High School Expansion & Renovation Phase I #12. +Broadus Wood Elementary Expansion #13. +Urban Area Elementary School 14. Crozet Park Buildings and Grounds Improvements 15.. Greenwood Community Center a. Building Improvements (door replacement) b. Recreation Improvements #16. Jefferson Country. Firefighters & Rescue Association (advance allocation) 17. Information Services Computer Upgrading *18. a. Gordon Avenue Library Restroom Renovation b. Gordon Avenue Library Interior Painting #19. Hollymead Elementary Library Expansion/Internal modifications 20. Hurley Middle School, Pavement Outdoor Recreation 21. Windham/Jarman Gap Channel Impoveirents, Phase II 22. Berkshire 'Road Channel improvements 213. Berkeley Storm Sewer improvements, Prase II 24. Smithfield Road Storm Sewer Improvements, Phase II #25. North County Branch Library, Leased Facility *26. Ivy Creek Natural Area, Handicapped Access *27. Melbourne Road Field Girls' Softball Backstop i� n October 10, 1989 Page 5 28, Streetlights, Hydraulic/Georgetown Iri:,ersection 29. Streetlights, hydraulic%Commonwealth Intersection 30. County Office Building, PBX System Replacement 31.. Maintenance Shop Equipment Storage (Education Request) #32. Myers Drive Reconstruction and Extension Urgent Projects - Recommended for funding in FY-1990-91 *#33. Charlottesville -Albemarle Health Department Clinic Wing 34. Fifth Street Sidewalk 35. Georgetown Road Pathway Replacement #36. Avon Street to Route 20 Connector Road 37. Highway Revenue Sharing (FY-1990-91) *38.. Rivanna Park 39, Chris Green/Mint Springs Parks, Swimming Area Improvements *#40. Central Library Entrance Renovation 41. Hollymead Middle School - New Facility #42. Albemarle High School Tennis Court Addition-, (Request by Department of Parks & Recreation) 43. Woodbrook Elementary HVAC System Modification 44. Streetlights, Hydraulic Road (Whitewood to Georgetown Road) 45. Streetlights, Hydraulic Road ( Georgetown to Commonweal, th ) 46. Mint Springs Park Tot Lot Improvements #47. Earlysville Community Park - Master Plan 48. Bus Shop Interior Modification (Request by Department of Education) 49. Brownville Elementary, Repaving 50. Chris Greene/Mint Springs Parks, Entrance Booth Improvements #51. Woodbrook Channel Improvements Necessar' Projects -- Recommended for funding in FY-I991-92 #52. Crozet Drainage Study 53. Highway Revenue Sharing (FY-1991-•92) }• 54. Meadowcreek Parkway (North of Rio Road) 55. Chris Greene Park Beach Shelter 56. Brownsville Elementary School HVAC r/ / October 10, 1989 Page 6 *57. Central Library Interior Paintings 58. Streetlights Rio Road at Pen Park Road 59. Greenwood Community Center Baseball field fencing 60. Beaver Creek Parking Expansion 61. Woodbrook School Repaving 62. Henley School Repaving 63. Red Hill School Repaving 64. Peyton Drive Stormwater betertion Basin Necessary Projects - Recommended for funding in FY-1992-93 #65. North County Branch Library, Permanent Facility 66. Highway Revenue Sharing (FY-1992--93). b7. Four Seasons Stormwater Detention Basin 68. Streetlights, Whitewood%Greenbrier Intersection 69. Streetlights, Rio/Hydraulic Intersection '70. Greenwood Community Center, Building Improvements (Kitchen Renovation) 71. Real Estate Comprehensive Assessment Administrative System 72. Western Albemarle High School Press Box 73. Greer Elementary School Repaving 74. Jouett Middle School Repaving Desirable Projects - Recommended for funding in FY--1993-94 75. Highway Revenue Sharing (-FY-1993-94) 76. Scottsville Community Center Building Improvement '17. Mint Springs Park Maintenance Area Paving 78. Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer' Improvement Deferrable Projects Recommended for funding in FY-1994-95 *79. Ivy Creek Natural .Area Road & Parking lot Resurfacing. #80. Streetlights, Four Seasons Drive at Recreation Area #81. Streetlights, Mountainwood Road >, lG 7 October 10, 1989 Page 7 * J m 'pg Kf ay pM MHz z any 'I S np ,�� 1Kp � — CI K prop �d py R7 R H C m � 3 �pF m ii --0. �F rt+d Sol 6 t7 6 rr w �u � m i� rt g "' m M J a ►i O tl " .4 rt gyp, fP uw F+•f�1 113, ►A ww ~ e— µm�C �►►FYiif w60 1mt �%+tr o �m �N m m G1 M M 0 0 70'M rA. 4a awN ON no rat�t wnpkirar wtY0 mwmrwt5wl�e rpt rnto mR-NOIrrt0trm rr ks� "I" SAnrt 1t u 00 wmno rn w mr►r ° p.on C ms;��++.. wammro aOwn w mwY• irt•0MP-h�wp :J W rOrm00w °•a m PHa m Irrt tIKOa4 HOQ O 600pn wo W 14K H p\ m r 0 W 60.0 � CN-Kahn M'no� w• om� r:]F°• hi w m� ti m rt� m m rr Y m w m m m p W 4 rt a� tr rt w K1V nO 010 mrt rt Y O. wrFgMH nHp. Sd hiYWnki I�OK n17�y yym��7prp�{.. P. m �{��qM�qpp� m Nrrf6F+•mrt w�F Wmp �M�rp OpmFr�0 all �l�y{ µn100 rt00aaF 1 Cr N am"O rtw W pm'�m+�•15'Lyf F- IA'rt 40, K I� w a Y n N �m A� to m d I- np l��• M v o a w I I w o 0, R W11 rwmw rKm rm o n ri.a+t4 w OB D KO ww Y ►•-w•p�11 rt � aa.w p Ma �' W rm 'd H to � rtaki rY pM art (j K.Oop•tp (Ym W m "�mFi OFl� wFt wP pY p n•-+ rrtM Wtrm prtmrt Haan~ oom mmNnwn� wnrwtl �oY �tw1 DKc' w ws±m 1oH dHrowa v7 aroY• o w pmmo' M004 ro� Vwarrmrt I w N 0 m m K rt m n 81 1* art m p £.m0 H nrmNpl to H 0 a w�K Y p•N pa•0 F-pd Ikim na n�1 o awrC'Ymm 1Crt OnmmMmP. Y w mKC mwn �} U I.- r- �m tgoE rarwK000 Yprt i►om a F+C6 MK V.4Q" �F C ry$I W" M r ��yy!+ ��•NPPP�� rtrtY• ar Wm Hw wwrtp WE r•In-M Wrt ki 0 0 b m a E WS4 w n C n gy om y�y� N rt p 1-. mrt O M a p• Cep �N ;1d N v-�myI aH s .. w ��C�P pam to kJp 1'•.7A w:i. Knw W x�q rp rw HNm mN -n0W F-W K amo u,arrr. rta r rrtw � m rp• n m�nort0coH ft ror`- "r.r. -F. me 0 alp �atj"kinrr0 NV so He n a 0Y7w nt'- mw n 0 kYm kim NF-p. Wp0 �r} roki ma nrt trtt Kr-- 0 " Q " �wx �r o not KiK 00 r'trm�a rµtamtrmr0 ��nwi °iMk °•wwm rF Hw tY-0m�ro m iY• �n mwWr m mo 14aKa- rtaF.Id nm 0$ ror�roroalrµt�mw ro rm�rt opoR0a aww�o a�. ft p tr m m wpi aAam rt u. a0 o nm ° a. rt *° C6 Y r ►-• • 10 m . 1G H{p��m armr11 P.HO-0z ao►i to rt�g+sKm v h1 royr F1Y p)1p 11+•�i1OOoI %aom" wKmwPA(frrpb �Op �K[miif�t warwt pr amnF- I- " r.YQ rtt aMO w°e +i p q KN '0HIM W mw 0t7 O mH90,m p0Ct ir O ww 6Q•m wam N wwr t0aCarm rt rt Y & 0 K 0 rt p w" rt rt n w mYy 1-•.M;xQ r rrt• 1d nw K o mI-- a wrFEnm a p.rtw .4wa mrt Hna maa0a p:�'OH.7 op wu, K r r, xm m mm wtrm .W��1mk+ ow H. okia w knirtrow FF-Nary mOmlrt. ta•Iwon:•rwr o a. N aart,— r+rtrtmH M �. Omrt amu. 0 J-O"�g@aj w� °b,.p^jm m FQe .C— :r t kips Fl O Frt•wy 1 p <,�a0 .rygHm(Fp]wrtm Frt-nmEn kio 00l 0a9 1 mo AV.rt nkt� m FtlF'•3E mma nnrkiw nrt07 rt• 3 ooWu. gNOR it rmtwm�n r " m re ftRd aIy�rani Wn m40On irltIa„ �rr-:drY�F+ 1mewF we mmrt mdmm0 w014 o0HH CKw rOhw rOlu' C96014 omnww M YYO <rwt0— 1.. ,wn n:°0 wnlmirat t� awing m rC Cd O N o KOmr m M 1n Y w w N rt.q 0W a• rt 1•• to rnw -- r; mW.C. . rt� P.- .. O p. a NW 0 Y.7m m a O w a m m N tr m tr w w En n rwt V faD �+ ON Mm LAO 8 0 11 rmr p p %l October 10, 1989 Page 8 Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously. County Drainage Projects - Carried over from discussion of Rickey Road Drainage Project reviewed at October 3, 1989 Meeting. Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the following statement be passed on to the Board of Supervisors regarding this issue: Considering the potential for requests of the County to address fairly localized drainage problems resulting from inadequate design, construction or maintenance, such as recently requested by a resident -of Rickey Road, the Planning Commission requests direction from the Board of Supervisors as to whether or not such projects should be funded in the CTP. If to be funded, direction is requested as. to whether they should be addressed on a case -by -case basis or the Engineering Department should undertake a comprehensive needs assessment with projects prioritized and funded either individually or from a miscellaneous CIP line item. The motion passed unanimously. Ednam Section E Preliminary Site Plan and Plat - Proposal to locate 12 resi- dential duplex lots with an average of ..21 acres per lot on 2.49 acres. Located west of 29/250 Bypass on the south side of Rt. 250. Zoned PR.D, Planned Residential Development. Property described as Tax :Zap 59D(2), Parcel 06-1. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. �I . Tarbell presented the staff report.. The report concluded: "Approval of this Site Plan requires a modification of 4.2.3.2 to allow construction on areas of critical slope that may b.e.considered aesthetically significant to.the neighborhood. Staff opinion remains that the through road as originally proposed better meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance than the current proposal and therefore recommends denial of thp_ preliminary site plan." Staff included conditions of approval in the event the Commission chose to approve the proposal. The applicant was represented by Mr. Uaylon gates, mr. Mark Osborne, Ed Cusick, and Mr. Hank Browne. Mr. Osborne addressed issues of design including roads, parking, clustering, critical slopes, etc. He presented photographs of the existing development. He stated that not building in the slope areas would result in a double -loaded parking area" and mid -rise type buildings which would be out of character with the existing development. Mr. Browm.addressed issues of a-rchitectural design, including some artist's renderings of the proposed buildings. Mr. Cusick addressed issues related to the existing homeowners and the neighborhood association.. He stated that the proposed development has been designed so as to serve the existing and future residents of the community in an efficient and desirable manner. He stressed that the homeowners have been involved in the planning process from the beginning. He stressed that all the homeowners were in favor of the proposal. October 10, 1989 Page 9 Mr. Cusick addressed the issue of why the proposed Dryden Lane cannot intersect with Worthington Drive as brought up earlier by Mr. Bowerman. He listed the following reasons: (1) The residents don't want it; (2) Because of line -of -sight requirements, some residents would lose the ability to landscape back yards; (3) Would make it impossible to provide a buffer between this new section and the existing neighborhoods. He noted also that the residents are opposed to a cul-de-sac, and to a tall mid -rise. He stated that all the residents feel the dead ends and common drives are desirable. He stressed it was the developer's intent to work with the residents to improve an already beautiful community. The Chairman determimd that all the persons present (approximately 35) were residents of the Ednam community and were in favor of the proposal. Mr. Cusick explained that 50 of the 60 families in Ednam had been contacted and all were in favor of the proposal. (Of the ten families not contacted, seven were out of town and three could not be found.) Mr. Cusick stressed there were no dissenters. Ms. Kay Barbour, President of the Ednam Community Association Board of Directors,read a statement of support (See Attachment Q . Ms. Betsy Tremain, representing the Ednam Community Association's Architectural Review Committee read a similar statement (See Attachment D). Ms.. Barbour also presented a petition of support signed by 50 of the 60 families in Ednam. Mr. Cusick also presented a letter from Mr. Paul Proffitt, Manager of the Ednam Community Association, which expressed support for the proposal. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. St. John noted that because the plans and sketches presented had been approved by the homeowner's association, the developer was'locked into that privately, aside from what the Commission does." However, he added that "when pictures are presented in order to entice approval of a waiver, it is good practice to ask a developer if they are willing to make it a condition that the development does, in fact, follow the pictures that have been presented, especially if you don't have administrative approval of the final site plan." Mr. Browne responded: "What you see is what we'll build." Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Osborne to elaborate on why the developer feels this is the only plan which will work or why the buildings cannot be moved. (Mr. Bowerman made reference to a recent request from another developer for a waiver to build on critical slopes which had been deferred.) Mr. Osborne explained that this is the only possibility that will provide uniformity of design with the adjacent development and also will allow a focal point in the center. He also stated that the property has an unusual shape and is difficult to work with. Mr. Osborne added that if there is an aesthetic resource it is one that should be controlled by these neighbors and it should be their decision as to whether or not the hillside should be preserved intact. 14 r October 10, 1989 Page 10 Mr. Osborne pointed out that this property is destined for development and if a plan such as is proposed is not allowed, then someone will eventually place high-rises on the property, and that is not in the interests of the adjacent property owners. There was a discussion regarding whether or not a waiver to build on critical slopes had been requested with the other phases of Ednam and what could be expected with the remaining phases. -Mr. Cusick explained that three phases remain, including this one, and of the other two, the "next one" has no critical slope issues at all and whether or not the remaining parcel can be built on cannot be addressed at this time. He also stated he thought some of the development had been built before the critical slopes provisions. (Mr. St. John had suggested this possibility earlier at which time Mr. Keeler noted that the critical slopes provisions had been adopted in 1980. Mr. aowerman.was under the impression that all this development had occurred since that time.) Mr. Cusick also stressed that there was no way to construct this type of unit, which is in keeping with the existing development, without the encroachment on critical slopes. Mr. Michel noted that "it's very rare that a developer comes in with this sort of support already prepared." He indicated he felt he could vote in favor of this proposal, but he did not want the developer to assume that if he allowed the waiver for this phase he would be willing to do so for a future phase. Mr. Stark expressed concern about lots 8, 9 and 10 and the extent of their encroachment on critical slopes. He stated he could accept the others because they are "incidental.." :GIs. Diehl indicated she agreed with Mr. Stark. She added that she had not been convinced that the sites shown for lots 8, 9 and 10 were the only possible locations. She also stated that she found it difficult to accept that there was only one product acceptable in that location. She indicated she respected the co:miunity's input and that while that was important, it was not the ultimate recommendation for a particular plan, rather implementation of County ordinances has a higher priority. She concluded that she had not been convinced that the critical slopes should be waived to the extent being requested. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the preference of the residents was clear, but the Commission is faced with the implementation of the ordinance. He felt there were two unresolved planning issues: (1) Critical slopes, particularly what percentage of the proposed building site is located on critical slopes; and (2) The Engineering Department's continued objections to the deadend street, particularly how does the developer intend to satisfy those concerns. He stated he was reluctant to support the proposal with the "objection so stated.." Mr. Browne (speaking out of order) stated that though he understood the Commission's concern about slopes, history throughout the world has proven that there are sound engineering ways to handle building on critical slopes. He explained that this developer's way of handling the problem is to put the garages beneath the buildings. 16a October 19, 1989 Page 11 He felt one of the.Commission's functions was to rule on issues which cannot be covered in the ordinances. Regarding the through road, he stated that "it simply is not wanted." Regarding the road situation, Mr. Michel noted that the Fire Official had commented that he was satisfied with the proposal. Mr. Rittenhouse invited comments from the Department of Engineering because he thought there might be another issue involved other than that of fire protection. Mr. Moring responded and explained that his department has always been in favor of a cul-de-sac and the disagreement has been with the shape and location of the cul-de-sac. He stated he felt a cul-de-sac would give large trucks (e.g. snow plows, delivery trucks) the necessary maneuvering room which the proposed T-turnaround will not. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the plan was sensitive to the area, shows a lot of thought and a lot of consideration for the community. He added, however, that he needed to separate this request from past and future requests, but, in this case, he felt there was justification for this proposal on this particular site. He concluded that he had no doubt that if developed as proposed, this would be a "pleasing, envir- onmentally sensitive project." Though Mr. stark indicated he had no argument with Mr. Bowerman's comments, he stated he felt this would be a setting "one heck of a precedent" if the Commission did not ask the applicant to attempt to rearrange the footprint of some of the buildings. Mr. Stark moved that Ednam Section E Preliminary site Plan & Plat be denied based on the proposed development on critical slopes. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse noted that his concern about the roadway was simply "that the Department of Engineering had concerns." He felt the issue related to critical slopes was particularly difficult for two reasons: (1) Because of the Commission's recent recommendation for deferral of a request to build on critical slopes on a proposal with similar circumstances. (He noted, however, that he perceived a difference in the two proposals in that in the previous proposal a good evaluation from the Department of Engineering was lacking, which is not the case with this proposal). (2) Because of the question of precedent, which he felt was the central issue. He felt it was important that the Commission be consistent in their handling of such requests and in this regard he pointed out that the Commission has consistently requested comments from the Engineering Department and has relied heavily on those comments. ,/�A -7 October 10, 1989 Page 12 Mr. Bowerman stated he would not support the motion.for denial. He stated: "For the first time I have been convinced by the weight.of the argument that was presented that the public interest is best served in this .case by the development as proposed by the applicant. I have no doubt that in the future I will be asked to approve other waivers like this and I can state, categorically, that most of those will probably be for denial because up to this point there has been no argument that's been made to me to build on this area of critical slopes. But in this particular case, because of the design of the site, I think it does fit the site well; I think it is in the best interests of the community there, in my own opinion, based upon what I've heard here tonight, and I do not think it's against the public interest to do this and I think that part of our job is, from time to time, to make tough decisions and then having enough strength of conviction to say 'no' the next time when we feel that the circumstances are different. I feel this is one of those times." The motion fordenial failed to pass (3:4) with Commissioners Diehl, Stark and Jenkins voting for .denial and Commissioners Bowerman, Michel; Wilkerson; and Rittenhouse voting against denial. The Chairman called for an alternative motion. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Ednam Section E 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: a. Department of Engineering approval of and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of d. Department of Engineering approval of e. Department of Engineering approval of f. Department of Engineering approval of off -site drainage easement plats; grading and drainage plans storrvater detention plans an erosion control permit; grading for individual lots; retaining wall design; all required on -site and g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; h. Staff approval of road maintenance agreements for both travelways. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire official approval of fire flow. 3. Administrative approval of the final site plan and final plat. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Discussion: .16 Y October 10, 1989 Page 13 Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff's concern regarding critical slopes was whether or not there would be a loss of aesthetic resource, and the material submitted by the applicant stated only that "loss of aesthetic resource does not apply." He stressed that staff had not been privy to all the activity that had taken place with the homeowners' association. He stated: "After hearing their comments that in fact they favor this in terms of the aesthetics, we have no problem with that provision. The steep area that we were concerned about is where mature dogwoods are located. You've.heard Mr. Osborne say that they're going to attempt to replant those. You also heard comment that there's going to be sub- stantial landscaping and that these plans would be incorporated in the final. Under 4.2 one of the things that you can do when you modify critical slopes provisions is incorporate specific proposals that a developer makes to overcome the issues of concern. And I don't think it inappropriate for the planning staff's final approval to incorporate all three of those." Mr. Bowerman responded: "I think if the motion for approval is passed, it's clear that those voting in favor of the motion (intend) that what we see before us is what will be built. If there's any deviation in that then it will be a change in the site plan itself." Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, sir.. I just wanted to reiterate for the record that that also included a massive amount of landscaping and attempting to save the existing dogwood trees with the Big Jim Scoop." The applicant confirmed their understanding of, and agreement with, Mr. Keeler's statements. Mr. Keeler added: "Actually, a proposal of that nature is supposed to be submitted to us at the deadline for the revisions so we can evaluate those things and make recommendations." Mr. Bowerman noted thatstaff felt "caught in the middle" for .not having been privy to all the information submitted by the applicant at the hearing. Mr. Stark asked if staff would have recommended approval had they been aware of all the information. Mr. Keeler noted that the concerns related to aestehtic resources had been internal to the development only, because the facility is not visible from the public road, and since the homeowners' association has been satisfied, that concern has been overcome. However, he added: "In the future, if we are not presented with this information we may recommend to you that you not entertain it at the hearing. This is all supposed to get to us by the revision deadline and we are supposed to make a comprehensive analysis of the recommendation." Mr. .Stark asked: "What you're saying is that aesthetically the critical slope is a problem, but engineering -wise, it is not?" Mr. Cilimberg replied: "That,is the comment from the Engineering Department.. It is not an engineering concern." JG9 October 10, 1989 Page 14 The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Diehl and Jenkins casting the dissenting votes. Virginia Department of Forestry -- For Information Only - Proposal for development of State of Virginia Office Complex to include the Department of Forestry and the Division of Mineral Resources: northeast side of Rt. 53/Rt. 20 intersection. Tax Map 77, Parcel 25. Scottsville Magisterial District. The applicant had requested indefinite deferral. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Rittenhouse, that the Virginia Department of Forestry be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10.45 p.m. DS 170