Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 26 88 PC MinutesApril 26, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 26, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms. Norma.Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr, Tom Jenkins; Mr. Peter Stark; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Steve Cresswell, County Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 12, 1988 were approved as submitted. Forest Lakes Phase I, Section 1 Final Plat - Proposal to create 175 single family lots from 118 acres, to be developed in 4 sections with lot sizes ranging from 0.1773 to 1.0782 acres. Lots are to be served by proposed public roads. Zoned R-4, Residential with proffers of 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Property, located off the east side of Rt. 29N, adjacent to the north of Hollymead Lake and extending northward. Tax Map 46, Parcels 29, 29D, and 29E. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Keeler made the following statement regarding condition l(g)--Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans onsite and offsite: "I think we're going to need some flexibility in that regard. Apparently the water and sewer plans were delivered to the Service Authority some time ago and have not been reviewed to date. The applicant has been trying to forward his efforts and, for whatever reason, these plans have not been reviewed, so if it gets to where this applicant has complied with all these other conditions and is prepared to have his plat signed and the Service Authority still hasn't completed their review ... we may, with your consent tonight, need to come up with some other mechanism here, perhaps withholding the building permit. We do feel it is unfair to withhold approval of the final plat when it has not been a matter of lack of industry on the part of the applicant." Mr. Keeler confirmed that there were no problems anticipated in obtaining the Service Authority approval. Though Mr. Keeler felt the conditions.could remain as stated with the staff simply being granted administrative discretion in this matter, Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt it should be "spelled out." It was later determined condition l(g) would be deleted and a new condition.No. 2 would be added as follows: "No building permits will be issued until Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans onsite and offsite." CP67) April 26, 1988 Page 2 The Chairman invited applicant. Ms. Denise Eckridge addressed the Commission. She stated the applicant's engineer was also present to answer questions. She asked that the Commission look favorably upon Mr. Keeler's request for staff discretion in handling the Service Authority approval issue. There beingno public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel stated this seemed to be a fairly well -planned development and moved that the Forest bakes Phase I, Section 1 Final Flat be approved subject .to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calcu- lations; b. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations, to include installation and design of an emergency spillway on the existing dam; c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans.and calculations, and approval of detention facilities which abut future state roads; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Route 29 improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit in accordance with letter of October 8, 1987; e. Issuance of an erosion control permit; f. County Engineering approval of a comprehensive master drainage plan. Drainage plan.is to be revised and kept updated with each phase of development; g. Fire Officer approval; h.. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents, to.include joint driveway maintenance agreements where applicable; i. County Engineering approval of grading plan for Lots No. 31, 32 and 33 in single family "D," to include review of effect on other properties. 2. No building permits will be issued until Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans onsite and offsite. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Old Dominion Day School Expansion Preliminary Plan —Proposal to expand an existing day care center with the location of a 3,784 square foot building on 1.41 acres. The development will be served by 48 parking spaces. Access is proposed from an access road off Georgetown Road. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development (R-15) with SP-87-24 Sharon Jones. Property, located on the south side of Georgetown Road adjacent to the south and west of Westgate Apartments. Tax Map 60Al, Parcel 29 and parts of 27 and 35. Charlottesville Xagisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. 12sol April 26, 1988 Page 3 The applicant, Ms. Sharon Jones, addressed the Commission and read the following statement: "On June 17, 1987, I was granted a Special Use Permit (SP-87-24) for the expansion of Old Dominion Day School. When we sought that permit, we asked for a licensed capacity of 325 children. For clari- fication, license capacity should read 'enrollment capacity'. The difference is that enrollment capacity with parttime children is higher than a licensed capacity of actual daily attendance. The present site could meet enrollment capacity, but not licensed capacity for 325 children. I have contacted the. Virginia State Department of Social Services Licensing Department and have a clarification of Section 5G1. regarding outdoor place space. The section states that 'a minimum of 75 square feet of space per child on the outdoor area AT ANY ONE TIME' is required. The center does not have to provide 75 square feet of playspace per child. "The fenced area fronting Georgetown Road is planned as a grassy crawl area for infants and toddlers. There are not. plans to develop that area as a -regular playground with permanent playground equipment. I am concerned about the fence recommendation. I understand the necessity of building a wood fence facing Georgetown Road. However, to make a solid wood fencing around the entire play area seems like a type of imprisonment of children. It seems much more reasonable to consider a.nice chain link fence which would allow breeze on a summer day. It seems like it would be less liability also than a wood fence which might create splintering of wood that might harm children. Finally, I have followed the citizens' interest in this project and want you to know.that I will strive to keep actively involved in future developments along Georgetown Road. " Mr. Jack Laramore, architect for the applicant, also addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant would prefer to install a chainlink fence with plantings to screen the fence. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cresswell, representing the County Engineer's office, to comment on the drainage issue. Mr. Cresswell explained that the current problem is the result of a very shallow ditch in the area to the South, towards Barracks Road, which causes water to go over Georgetown Road. He stated that "under the Erosion Control Ordinance, any developer is required to make sure that the runoff from a two-year storm does not cause channel erosion and is discharged to an adequate channel, which means it can't overtop its banks .... We picked up on this at site review and asked the applicant's engineer to investigate the capacity of those downstream channels, and Mr. Muncaster, the applicant's engineer, determined thn the channels were not adequate. So, what will have to be done is?a concrete V-ditch and some additional piping be installed or the applicant has the option of detaining down to a two-year storm so that their discharge isn't any worse than what's there now." April 26, 1988 Page 4 Mr. Bowerman stated: "So it's possible that the applicant would elect to do the discharge of the two-year storm which would not exacerbate the problem, but the problem would continue to exist after the development of the site as it exists today." Mr. Cresswell responded: "To some extent. Part of the problem with the runoff is that it comes dorm the existing gravel driveway that is there, gains momentum, and then gets into the street and goes over. With this plan they will be installing a new private road and there will be drop inlets to intercept that runoff prior to its reaching Georgetoi%m Road so it should alleviate a small part of the problem. But there are still drainage problems along Georgetown Road and if the applicant doesn't elect to make those improvements, it would be appropriate to approach the Highway Department to at least go regrade those ditches a little.`.' Mr. Stark asked who was responsible for correcting.the current drainage problems. fir. Cresswell replied that he felt it was the Highway Depart- ment's responsibility since they are responsible for maintaining drainage along state roads. Mr. Stark asked how this could be done. Mr. Cresswell indicated he was unsure but suggested the possibility of the Six -Year Road Plan or the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the Commission could act on this application and could then direct a memo to the Highway Department pointing out the concern about this issue. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Muncaster, the applicant's engineer, to comment on his intentions as to how to address this problem, either onsite or offsite. Mr. Muncaster stated this was the first time he had been made aware of the options open to the applicant. He stated he felt it was unlikely that all drainage from a two-year storm could be handled onsite because a lot of drainage will come from the private road and also from Westgate V. He stated the applicant is "doing ten for the site itself" and "what we'd have to do the two for.is the road and Westgate V as well." He stated he had looked at the problem offsite and felt it was a correctable problem with the installation of a paved ditch, if the Highway Department will allow it. He was unsure of the right-of-way. issue. Mr. Keeler stated that the problem could .not be solved "tonight" because it is unknown what the Highway Department will permit. He suggested that the Commission might. want to approve the application subject to the applicant meeting the requirements of the various ordinances and then staff can meet with the Highway Department. He pointed out that this is a preliminary plat and it might be possible to find an answer to this problem soon. He felt there would be more involved than just paving the ditch. The Chairman invited public co:mnent. April 26, 1988 Page 5 Ms. Gay Johnson Blair addressed the Commission. Her residence is opposite the applicant's property, across Georgetown Road. She expressed concern about runoff onto her property, i.e. the water that overtops Georgetown Road flows onto her property. She also asked that a 6-foot high wooden fence be required for the play area. She also expressed concern that the play area had a southern exposure with very little shade. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman pointed out the two major issues were drainage and the fencing. It was determined that this problem was not currently included in any of the County's programs for spot improvements or any type of improvement. Mr. Bowerman stated the applicant should be responsible for whatever improvements his development requires and he felt the Highway Department should make those improvements for which they are responsible. Mr. Bowerman pointed out there was time before the review of the final plat for this problem to be addressed and resolved. Ms. Diehl asked Ms. Patterson to comment on the fencing issue. Ms. Patterson stated she was not aware of the applicant's desire to change from a wooden fence to a chainlink fence. She stated that because street trees could not be provided (insufficient room) she felt a significant buffer was called for. She stated that screening requirements require that the fencing be opaque. She stated this is a unique situation, i.e. exchanging street trees and shrubs for a fence. Both Ms. Diehl and Mr. Stark stated they preferred that a wooden fence be installed. Ms. Diehl asked if condition 1(i)----Planning staff approval of landscape plan -- included fencing. Ms. Patterson confirmed that it did. Mr. Bowerman asked that the record show that condition l(i) contemplates a wooden fence. Ms. Diehl moved that the 01d Dominion Day School Expansion Preliminary Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and commercial entrance with right and left turn lanes; b. County Engineering approval of access road plans and calculations; c. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; d. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; e. County Engineering approval of retaining wall design; a3's April 26, 1988 Page 6 f. Issuance of an erosion control permit; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; h. Fire Officer approval; i. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; j. Planning staff approval of signage and pavement markings to direct one-way travel. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Final fire Officer approval; b. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement. 3. Compliance with conditions of SP-87-24 Sharon Jones. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. It was noted that the final plat Mould be reviewed by the Commission. ZTA-87-03 - Lot Frontage Amendments -. fir. Keeler led the discussion. He explained that the proposed amendments had failed at the Board level because of a split vote, 3:3. He stated the Board was split on whether or not it was appropriate to permit a reduction of lot frontage on cul-de-sacs in the RA zone. He explained that the entire package of amendments had failed as a result of this one issue. He was seeking guidance from the Commission as to how to proceed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed amendments should be re -submitted to the Board with the following options: (1) That the changes in lot frontage take place in all zones except the RA zone; OR, if that is not acceptable, then (2) All other amendments can still go foward except those dealing with cul-de-sacs. Mobile Homes - Proposed amendment to approval process - 'Mr. Keeler led a discussion related to the possibility of delegating authority to issue special use permits for individual mobile homes to the Board of Zoning Appeals as opposed to the current Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors approval process. Mr. Bowerman indicated he was not in favor of the proposed change because he felt this was a legislative action and should remain that way. Ms. Diehl stated she was not inclined to change the process. April 26, 1988 Page 7 It was determined the Commission was opposed to the proposed change in procedure. Parking Requirements - Commercial Uses Mr. Keeler led a discussion of parking regulations in shopping centers and PD-SC's. Mr. Keeler pointed out that there is presently "nothing explicit in the Zoning Ordinance which limits use of the 'shopping center' parking standard to the PD-SC zone." Therefore, staff was recommending that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to clarify this matter and to provide uniform language in the parking regulations. He asked for a resolution of intent from the Commission to make the necessary amendments. Mr. Keeler briefly described the proposed amendments. Mr. Michel moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to required parking for commercial uses in shopping centers and PDSC's. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. DS