HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 04 88 PC MinutesOctober 4, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 4, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms.
Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John
Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; and Mr. George St. John,
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of September 20, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
ZMA-88-10 J.W. Sieg & Company - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 3+ acres from LI, Light Industrial to C-1,
Commercial for a commercial neighborhood center. Property described as Tax
Map 59, Parcels 23C, 23D, and 23F is located on the north side of Rt. 250W,
approximately 1/2 mile west of intersection with Ednam Drive. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. Deferred from September 6, 1988 Planning Commission
meeting.
The applicant had requested deferral to November 1, 1988.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that ZMA-88-10 for J.W. Sieg be deferred
to November 1, 1988. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-88-72 Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority - Request in accordance with Section
30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit
to allow for the construction of an urban water transmission main across the
floodplain of Moores Creek and Biscuit Run and various tributaries.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Shoup and Mr. Potter, who offered no
additional comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-88-72 for Rivanna. Water and Sewer Authority be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering Review and approval in accordance with the require-
ments of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance including
but not limited to:
a) Approval of stream crossing, valving and encasement details;
b) Issuance of an erosion control permit.
87
October 4, 1988
Page 2
2. Approval of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies including the
Virginia State Water Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia
State Department of Health.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously,
The matter was to be heard by the Board October 19, 1988.
SP-88-74 Crozet Church of God - Request in accordance with Section 14.2.2(7)
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit for a day
care center on 2.17 acres zoned R-2,.Residential. Property, described as Tax
Ma.p 56A1, Parcel 01-1.2 is located.on the north side of St. George Avenue
(Rt. 1202) about.1,000 feet east of Buck Mountain Road (Rt. 789) in Crozet.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Reeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. .
(Note: Mr. Bowerman noted for the record that though he served as a member of
the Board of Directors for the YMCA, which also offers day care, he did not feel
that position would influence his decision on either of the day care
applications.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Brown, Pastor of the Crozet Church
of God. He offered no additional comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-88-74 for the Crozet Church of God be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and regulations of
the Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a maximum enrollment of
35 children.
2. Virginia Department of Transportation approval .of upgrading entrance in
accordance with comments of May 8, 1985.
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non -transferable.
Ms. Diehl seconded the notion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board October 19, 1988.
ZMA-88-14 Tim Michel - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately 2 acres from VR to Cl. Property,
described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 84A, is located on the north side of St. Rt. 250
approximately 5001 west of its intersection with St. Rt. 678 at Ivy. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to the
applicant's proffer.
�w
October 4, 1988
Page 3
There was a brief discussion about the applicant's proffer and the uses which
were permitted in the C-1 zone. Mr. Pullen added that the applicant had
also proffered to "take access to the newly constructed road and then have
his access located approximately 125 feet from the intersection of 250 if
the grade on the entrance is acceptable."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roudabush. In response to Mr. Stark's
question, he explained that the purpose of including the "strip to the rear"
in the rezoning was because the Zoning Ordinance requires a buffer zone
between commercial usage and residential usage, and this strip would act
as a buffer. He pointed out that the property could never support a large amount
of commercial use due to required highway setbacks and area requirements
for septic tank and well usage. Mr. Roudabush stated there was no known
use for the property at this time though interest has been expressed by
banks and doctors' offices.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Max Mayo, an adjacent property owner, played a taped presentation. Mr.
Mayo was opposed to the application because it was out of character with the
rural setting of the area and because of increased traffic on Rt. 250 which
would result from this rezoning.
There being no further public comment, the matter was -placed before the
Commission.
In answer to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Pullen confirmed that this property
is designated for commercial use in the current Comprehensive Plan and has
been so designated since 1982.
Regarding the issue of the realignment of the Rt. 678, Mr. Jenkins asked
what would happen to the old road after the new road is constructed. Mr.
Pullen responded that it would probably be cul-de-saced at the end
adjacent to Rt. 250. Mr. Horne stated he did not think a firm decision
had been made as to the future plansfor the existing road, though he felt
it was clearly the intent that it would not remain open as a through road.
The Chairman allowed additional questions from Mr. Alexander Larter, a
member of the public. Mr. Larter was also interested in the plans for
the existing road.. Mr. Bowerman explained that this was not the proper
forum for discussing the realignment of Rt. 678. He explained that it
was relevant to this application only because the applicant was dedicating a
certain part of his property to the new alignment. Mr. Bowerman suggested
that Mr. Larter leave a self-addressed envelope with the Planning Department
who would then see that he was contacted when discussions about this project
are scheduled to take place. Mr. Horne added that the new road is
pertinent to this application because the applicant has proffered to take
access from that new road rather than Rt. 250 and because the applicant
is donating some of his land for the alignment of the road. Mr. Larter
expressed a concern about additional traffic that will be the result of
the rezoning. There was a brief discussion about exactly how much more
traffic would be possible. Though Mr. Keeler pointed out that the
character of the individual uses would determine the traffic, he
�9
October 4, 1988
Page 4
estimated that a high traffic generator (e.g. a convenience store) could
generate 1,000 trips per day and a low traffic generator could result in
200 to 300 trips per day.
Mr, Bowerman attempted to separate the two issues under discussion, i.e.
the realignment of Rt. 678 and the rezoning application. He stated that
the road plans for Rt. 678 were completely independent of this development.
Mr. borne assured Mr. Larter that the design for the new alignment would
be able to accommodate whatever the new volume of traffic might be.
The Chairman again closed the public hearing.
Referring to the applicant's proffer, Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Pullen if staff
felt the uses which remained unuld be appropriate in the Village of Ivy.
Mr. Pullen responded affirmatively.
In response to Ir. Stark's question, Mr. Pullen once again stated that the
plat which dedicated this property (he pointed out the property to which
he was referring) to public use was recorded in 1982. Mr. Pullen pointed
out a couple of other areas which were included with this dedication.
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-88-14 for Tim Michel be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the applicant's proffer.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the notion.
Mr. Stark noted that he was in favor of approval because this property has
been designated for commercial useage since 1982, thus the public has had
ample time to make any concerns known.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 19, 1988.
SP-88-75 Kiddie Kollege - Request -in accordance with Section 14.2.2(7) of the
Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow* for the
operation of a day care home for up to 9 children from newborn to five.
Property, described as Tax Map 61M-01-1 is located on the west side of
Dominion Drive, about 500 feet west of Rt. 29. Zoned R-2 Residential.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The staff .did not make a recommendation
as to denial or approval of the request. They did, however, provide conditions
of approval in the event the Commission chose to approve the application.
Mr. Keeler noted that condition No. 2.should have referred to Section 5.1.6
of the Zoning.Ordinance (not 5.1.5). He also added condition No. 7 as
follows: "Staff approval of four off-street parking spaces."
The staff report concluded:
":assuming that. the increase of 1 child in enrollment is acceptable, the
issue to be addressed in staff opinion is the appropriateness of the
October 4, 1988
Page 5
proposed mode of operation within the single-family dwelling. Among other
positive findings that the Board of Supervisors must make to issue a special
use permit are that the use(s) will not change the character of the
district in which it is located and that the use(s) will be in harmony
with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance."
Regarding the issue of home occupations, Mr. Bowerman recalled a recent
petition for a home occupation which the.Commission had approved but
the Board had denied. (Note: The application referred to by Mr. Bowerman
had been made -for a computer software business where the applicant did not
own the residenoeinvolved, though he did reside there.) Mr. Bowerman asked
if the Board's decision had been based partly on the fact that the applicant
was not the owner of the residence. Mr. Horne replied that he did not feel
that was the primary reason for the Board's denial of the application,
but rather that the proposal was a violation of the private deed covenants
of the subdivision and "they felt it was unfair for the County to place
the current residents of the subdivision in a position of having to take
legal action to enforce their own deed covenants."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr.. Ron Wiley, attorney. He represented
Dr. Donald Richardson, owner of the property; Ms. Yvonne White, primary
operator of the day care facility; and Ms. Barbara Peters, co-operator of
the facility and resident of the upstairs portion of the dwelling. He
pointed out that the situation is slightly different than when the
application was originally filed in that the upstairs is now rented and
the tenant is actively involved in the operation of the day care facility.
He stated that he did not feel the facility would be a detriment to
adjoining properties which include Shoppers World Shopping Center and
the Pizza Inn. He felt that the use was compatible with surrounding
uses and pointed out that the dwelling has the appearance of a
normal residential property. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance
provides that R-2 is a transitional district. He also felt the facility
would promote the public health and welfare of the community by
offering a much -needed service. Regarding condition No. 6 [Not fewer than 2
employees shall be present at all times during operation of day care center.],
he stated that the number.of care givers would be governed by the state
regulations and he did not feel that should be a function of the special
permit. He did not think there would be a traffic problem because the
children arrive and depart at different times. Mr. Wiley confirmed the
day care facility is currently in operation with four children. He further
explained that no special permit is required for five or fewer children.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question,'Mr. Keeler explained that a
day care operation is permitted as a home occupation but that is not the
case in this application because the owner of the residence does not
reside there and has no part in the operation of the day care facility.
Mr. Wiley stated he felt the Ordinance did not require that a home
ocupation be operated by the owner -resident of the property. He added
that because the upstairs tenant (Ms. Peters) will be operating the
facility he felt it should be considered a homeoccupation. Mr. Keeler
noted that this was a determination to be made by the Zoning Administrator.
4?1
October 4, 1988
Page 6
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following residents of the Berkeley Subdivision expressed their
opposition to the application: Mr. Thomas Sour, Mr. George Stovall, fir. Donald
Short and tits. Joan Graves. They felt the use would be a commercial encroachment
on a residential neighborhood. They stressed that the operator of the
facility is not the owner of the property and therefore not a "neighbor" who
would be interested in the welfare of the neighborhood.
Ms. Barbara Peters, the resident of the dwelling and co-operator of the
day care operation; spoke in favor of the application. She stated there
was a possibility that she might wish to purchase the dwelling at a.future
time.
Mr. Wiley again addressed the Commission and addressed some of the issues
brought up by members of the public. He explained that the facility would
operate standard workday hours and not "all shifts" as had been stated in
the newspaper advertisement. He also felt that swing sets and a fenced
back yard were consistent with a residential neighborhood.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
in response to Mr. Stark's.question, Mr. Keeler stated the Commission had
the authority to set the hours of operation for the facility..
Mr. Rittenhouse stated the central issue was the establishment of a
commercial use in a residential neighborhood.. He indicated he "found the
residents' objections persuasive." He felt this was different than a
home occupation because it would be a business owned by a non-resident:
and would be operated and advertised in a "commercial vein." He stated
he could not support the .request.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the application. She stated that
if this were a "new" permit by an applicant who was not the resident -owner --operator
of the facility she would still have a difficulty with it.
Mr. Stark felt thatthe fact that the resident of the duelling would be
assisting in the operation was not of importance because that person
was not the owner of the property. He stated he could not support the
application.
Mr. Wilkerson felt the residents of the subdivision were mainly concerned
about the fact that a "neighbor" who owri2d the residence would not be
living in the dwelling. He stated he could not support the proposal.
tik. j+lk3sm moved that SP-88-75 for Kiddie Kollege be recommended to the Board
of supervisors for denial based on the belief that this use would change the
character of the residential neighborhood and because this particular situation
is different than what was contemplated in the ordinance.
'_gym. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 19, 1988.
40
October 4, 1988
Page 7
The Commission asked staff to study the issue of the day-care use with the
possibility that it be "tied down" better.
The meeting recessed from 9:25 to 9:30.
ZMA-88-15 AND SP-88-79 Medi lex - Request to rezone 4.0 acres zoned R-2 to
CO, Commercial Office and to amend the special use permit to expand by 60
beds. The applicant also requests..a modification of regulations (Section 4.2.25)
to allow construction on critical slopes. Property is located on the east side
of Route 780 (Old Lynchburg Road), across from Sherwood Manor and Country Green.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr..Keeler gave the staff reports. Regarding ZMA-88-15 the staff report
concluded: "Regardless of the outcome of the accompanying special use permit
petition (SP-88-•79) staff recommends approval of this rezoning petition to
satisfy an existing need." Mr. Keeler confirmed that approval of the
rezoning would in no way impact the Commission's decision on the special permit.
Mr. Keeler added that the applicant currently needs more parking area and
that is the purpose of the rezoning request.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were comments in either staff report addressing
relevance to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler stated staff viewed this
as an expansion of an existing use and the comments referred to by Mr.
Bowerman had been made in the staff report for the original rezoning.
It was determined that without the approval of this rezoning, the applicant
would not be able to accomplish what was proposed in the special permit
because there would not be adequate space.
Regarding the special permit, staff did not .make a recommendation for
denial or approval. If the Commission chose to approve the permit, staff
recommended amended conditions of approval (amended from the original special
permit, SP-87-38). The staff report.concluded:
"In summary, the proposed addition would meet the 100-foot
building setback; however, most of the buffer area would be
disturbed. While the applicant has submitted a Concept Plan which
shows maintenance of some existing vegetative buffering, the grading plan
does not appear to allow for this maintenance. The staff is assuming
that there will be significant loss of the existing buffer during
construction. The trees can be replaced but will not be as effective as
the existing vegetation for some period of time. Should the Commission
permit construction on 25% slopes, staff would require that the 100-foot
buffer area be replanted with screening trees to be located a maximum
of 15 feet on centers throughout all. disturbed areas."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Fred Landis represented the applicant. He introduced the following
persons who were also representatives of the applicant: Mr. John Manning;
Mr. Kevin Mailey; Mr. Charles Hooker; Mr. Dan Anderson; and Mr. Pat Ford.
93
October 4, 1988
Page 8
�1r. Landis' comments included the following:
--The rezoning is being requested for increased parking area and to make
the new property the same designation as the current property. He
stated it would be used as accessory parking for the existing facility.
--The special permit is being requested in order to allow for expansion
of the existing facility which is in accordance with a Certificate of
Need that has been issued by the Department of Health.
--He explained that the applicant was requesting preliminary site plan approval.
--The two main issues of the site plan are: (1) Location of, the building
in an area of greater than 25% slopes; and (2) Complications caused by the
relocation of State Rt. 780.
--The applicant is unaware of any objections from surrounding property
owners.
)fr. John Manning, Director of Project Management for Mediplex, explained
the design requirements for the facility. He explained that additional
space was needed for separate group areas and for a pool. He indicated
much thought had gone into the proposed plan and it was felt this was
the best solution given the need to conform to the road design changes.
Mr. Pat Ford, a planner for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
In answer to Ms. Diehl's previous question, he explained that there were
slopes in the parking area that -were greater than 25%. He stated that
the net effect of the landscape plan would be "of a less erosive nature in
that area." He stated some bushes, in combination with a retaining wall.,
were being proposed.. He explained that the building "was being built on
the hill rather than being excavated into the side of the hill." He
felt the current parking lot design would "accommodate any alignment
the Highway Department would come up with for Rt. 780."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Ford why the building could not have been placed
further back from the setback and out of the vegetated area. Mr. Manning
responded and explained that the problem is with the slope, and if the
building were moved back further there would be no windows. He added that
the building could not be located where the parking is proposed because it
would not help the parking problem since parking could not be located
where the building is sited.
Mr. Horne asked fir. Ford: "On your colored rendition, are you comfortable
with being able to achieve the necessary grading to be able to install
this facility and maintain these green vegetated areas that you show?"
Mr. Ford responded: "Yes." Mr. Horne also asked Mr. Ford what he had
meant by his statement that new.proposed planning would reduce the
erosive characteristics that exist. Mr. Ford explained that he meant
the erosive characteristics would be reduced from what existing conditions
are. He added that all new vegetation will be planted on the slopes.
There being no public comment,the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question .about parking, it was determined there
currently exist 30 spaces and the proposal is to add 195 additional spaces,
more than what is required by the Ordinance.
IN
October 4, 1988
Page 9
It was determined the applicant needed twice the existing parking (2 x 30) to
accommodate the existing use. Mr. Keeler added that required parking for
the facility is 74 spaces, and the applicant is proposing 196.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the staff report had stated there were two options:
(1) To build here; or (2) To acquire more land and "essentially segregate the
facility unless they had a long corridor from the remainder of the complex."
There was a brief discussion as to the County Engineer's position. Mr.
Bowerman felt the County Engineer saw no public -benefit to be derived and
also felt there would be detrimental effect on the buffer area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff felt this could be landscaped so as to improve
what currently exists. Mr.. Bowerman stated he was "looking for a return to
what we have there now visually."
Mr. Manning stated the applicant would have no objections to agreeing to
some specific landscaping requirements.
There was some discussion about landscaping requirements. Mr. Horne
stated: "In terms of returning the area to equivalent visual screening
to what is there now, I think to do that we would probably have to require
more than what is shown on that plan and you should assume it will be
five to ten years before that can effectively be back in place.... Probably,
it is going to be very difficult for quite some time, to totally screen that
building." Mr. Bowerman stated he felt staff would probably be uncomfortable
going beyond the requirements of the current Landscape Ordinance without
some direction from the Commission.
Mr. Horne asked for guidance from the Commission as to the Commission's
general intent in regard to landscaping. Mr. Bowerman stated the two
main concerns to be addressed were: (1) The erosive character of the area;
and (2) Vegetative screening from Old Lynchburg Road. Mr. Horne stated
the Commission needed to resolve what the property "should be returned to."
He stated that the written application of the applicant had not stated clearly
that that would be done, though there had been some verbal reassurances
made at this meeting. Mr.Horne pointed out that the original intent of
the buffering and screening was the result of very significant public concern.
He felt it was valid for the Commission to weigh whether that concern was
as significant now. Mr. Bowerman stated the concern would be significant
if the buffering disappeared.
Ms. Diehl noted that the buffering was built into the original application and
the public is expecting it to be honored.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the major problem was placing almost an entire building
in an area of 25% slope, particularly because the acquisition of the additional land
would allow for another location. Regarding the proposed parking area, she
stressed she had a "real problem justifying 155 spaces for 60 additional beds."
She felt there was plenty of room to relocate the building and still have
adequate parking area.
9d"
October 4, 1988 Page 10
Mr. Stark stated he understood it was the applicant's desire to keep the same
roofline and at the same time provide windows on all three floors.
Regarding Ms. Diehl's belief that .the building could be relocated out of
critical slope areas. Mx. Landis explained that it was "critical to
have this building where it interacts with the existing buildings."
Ms. Diehl still felt there were options which had not been explored.
M-r. Charley Hooker, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated the attempt is being made to centralize functions within the
facility which maximize patient care. He explained that the current parking
lot is overburdened, with parking overflowing into an adjacent field.
Mr. Hooker confirmed that approximately twice as much parking is currently
needed for what currently exists.
Yeas been iven
Mr. Wilkerson asked the applicant if any thoughtl/as to wh t will happen if
future expansion is needed. The applicant replied that he did not think
there were plans for any further expansion. Mr. Manning stated that
even though some of the beds could be eliminated, the expansion was still
needed.to maximize the health care of the facility.
Ms. Diehl summarized what was being asked of the Commission: (1) To rezone
4 acres to CO; (2) To eliminate conditions, or refute conditions, that were
put on the original site plan for the existing parcel; (3) To modify the
Ordinance to allow for the placement of an entire building in critical slope
area. She pointed out that just because an applicant has a niece of land,
that does not mean that the land is appropriate to use.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would be thebenefit to the community of allowing
this expansion.. He stated it seemed to him that the facility no longer
served just this community.He noted that the marketing community for the
facility now encompasses the entire Last Coast. Mr. Bowerman stated he
was searching for a justification, but "up 'til now I haven't found any."
A representative for the applicant.explained that there is a State need for
this facility and a Certificate of Public Need had been issued to the
applicant.
The Chairman asked for comment from the Sherwood ?Manor Homeowners' Association.
:sir. Bill McDermott, President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners' Association,
stated there had been no response from the residents. He stated the
only concern is that the buffering be continued.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Homeowners' Association had been made aware that visual
screening..would be removed during the process of construction. Mr. McDermott
replied, "No, but the final screening would be there at the end of the
construction." Mr. Landis added that the applicant rude a very great effort
to contact the local people and there did not appear to be any objection.
Ms. Diehl stated for the record that : "Placing the building over here is
not necessarily what I want; placing it in a 25% slope area is what I do not
want." T
96
October 4, 1988 page 11
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was having a problem with the application of the
Zoning Ordinance. He quoted: "No such structure shall be located on 25% or
greater slopes." He stated the Commission was being asked by the -applicant to
waive that "based on verbal assurances that it will be all right." He
stated that if a special permit were to be granted on that type of assurance,
then "we might as well forget about the application of this paragraph in the
Zoning Ordinance." He stated he was not convinced that the project could not
be done technically, but to be able to support it heneeded to be "really
convinced technically that measures are being taken and have those measures
outlined." He feared the possibility of setting a precedent. He felt he
needed to see a "more severe backup" than was present in the current report.
He asked "what special conditions are taking place here that can convince
us to (waive the Ordinance)?"
Mr. Stark addressed the applicant and asked if the matter were deferred could
the applicant come back with a convincing argument. Mr. Manning asked if the
request was for the applicant to propose some kind of guarantee.
Mr. Bowerman interjected that the Commission could not "bargain" with the
applicant as to what the Commission's final action might be.
Mr. Landis stated the applicant would like the opportunity to present the
Commission with technical specifications.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt there was concern beyond Mr. Rittenhouse's
stated concerns. He felt Mr. Rittenhouse was not doubting that the Engineering
Department could make the determination as to the technical feasibility
of the project, but in order to approve this, there needed to be a rationale
for building on 25% slopes. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that locating a
building almost entirely in 25% slopes was inconsistent with the Ordinance.
He stated the ordinance had been developed to protect the environment
of the community and to "not come up with these questions constantly because
we thought it was in the public interest to stay off these 25% or greater
slopes, recognizing that there are sound engineering principles for
getting involved there." He pointed out that the Board of Supervisors has
determined that it is not in the public interest to build in 25% slope areas.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Landis that there was provision for waiving
this part of the ordinance, and the Commission has on occasion approved
such a waiver. He noted however that this case is different because the
building is so large and is proposed to be located entirely in 25% slopes.
Mr. Horne stated it was up to the applicant as to whether or not to request
a deferral.
Mr. Manning seemed unclear as to Mr. Rittenhouse's concerns. Mr. Bowerman
asked Mr. Rittenhouse to clarify his comments.
Mr. Rittenhouse replied: '"My major concern is literally the application of the
Ordinance. As far as the landscaping or the planning, I think that that could
be guaranteed -mechanically. But my real problem is that our Ordinance, in
talking about critical slopes, is non -conditional. It doesn't say 'You can
do it here. as .long as you do this.' It doesn't provide conditions that
overtly allow you to do it in some instances. It just says 'You can't do it.'
My concern is that I think it is a dangerous precedent to say 'O.K., we'll
let you do it here based on verbal assurances that it will be all right.'
If we do that, I think we are just negating the Ordinance. Then, to allow
9y
October 4, 1988 Page 12
it on that basis every applicant will say 'O.K., it's going to be all right.'
What I'm not saying .is that technically it can't be done without increasing
erosion. I think that's a question that's separate From the Ordinance.
If I were to be persuaded to vote Yes in light of what the Ordinance says,
it would be incumbent upon the applicant to provide some real hardcore
evidence of why it needs to be done and then the specific measures on how
it would be done as a minimum. Otherwise, we have no basis, in my mind,
for simply forgetting about the Ordinance."
M.x. Landis indicated the applicant had been somewhat confused about Mr.
Rittenhouse's comments. ;fir. Landis stated the applicant would be glad to
provide the type of information referred toby fir. Rittenhouse if the
Commission so desired.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if there was any possibility of relocating
the building on the site, including the rezoned area. fir. Manning replied
that this would probably result in "less of a building" and no pool. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the applicant wished to re -design the site plan or to
go forward.
The applicant requested a brief recess to discuss the issue.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that he shared Mr. Bowerman's concern for
demonstrated need, and other concerns about landscaping and lack of
comment from adjoining property owners. . .
The applicant returned to the meeting. �lr. Landis stated that it was
clear, based on the Commission's reaction, that the application must
reconsider the relocation of .the building. However, he felt this was a
site plan: matter and should not be related to the rezoning request.
Mr. Horne attempted to interpret the applicant's position: "So as I
understand fro:, that, youwould request action on the zoning, action
on the special permit, but not granting the modification and not granting
the preliminary site plan approval because those are site design issues."
Mr. Landis responded: "That's correct." Mr. Horne added: "Therefore
you would be approving an expansion at an unspecified location and design
and when.and if they cane back with the site plan, you may or may not have
a request for a modification. If you do then you deal with the request
for the modification at that time and may or may not choose to grant it."
Mr. St..John asked if the question was whether the subject of the special
use permit could be located on the piece of land in question. He added
that the granting.of a special use permit gives the applicant a vested right
to that use. He continued: "If then he shows that only one particular
location is it feasible to exercise that vested right, he's got a strong
legal leg up toward this site plan."
Mr. Wilkerson asked: "But isn't he requesting the rezoning for a parking
lot?" 'Mr. St. John responded: "No. He's requesting the rezoning and
approval for the special use permit."
Ms. Diehl added: "The special use permit states that the parcel consists
of 10-something acres which includes the four that they are anticipating
as rezoned. Would .that change the status?"
9101,
October 4, 1988
Page 13
Mr. St. John replied: "What I'm saying is if you grant somebody a special use
permit for anything and he later comes in with a site plan that you don't
like, but he can show that that's the only location that will feasibly
implement this permit that you've already granted him, he has a legal leg
up toward approval of that site plan." .
Mr. Landis stated: "I don't want to get the Commission in a box. We have
heard what the Commission has said tonight and it is our expectation to go
back and redo the site plan to locate the new facility approximately as
discussed by Ms. Diehl, the concept being to get it -off the 25% slope and
locate it where we can. If you feel uncomfortable with the special use
permit, it is ,not important thatwe have that tonight anyway because until
we get an approved site plan we can't start construction. I do feel it
is appropriate for you to go ahead with the rezoning because we need that
parking now for the existing facility and under the Ordinance you are supposed
to have the same zoning for your accessory parking."'.
Mr. Bowerman called for a motion on the rezoning request.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that ZMA-88-15 for Mediplex be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Chairman called for a motion on the special permit.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-88-79 for Mediplex be indefinitely deferred
at the request of the applicant. (The applicant confirmed deferral was
requested.)
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Manning stated: "It's our present intent to basically erase the building
where it is in the 25% slope and attach the new building to the front parking
lot,somehow or other, of the first building as you drive up on the left
and we will be reducing some of the parking. Other than that, we expect
that the building, grading and all that will remain the same."
Mr. Manning confirmed that it was understood that the Commission was making
no guarantee that the special permit would be approved.
Miscellaneous
It was determined the November 8 meeting would be cancelled.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15.
/ John Horne,
ds r
99
cretary