Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000033 Legacy Document 2010-12-03 (2)Minutes from October 10, 2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP- 2007 -01. Four Seasons Learning Center. (Signs #10 &28). PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3 -34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses. SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6 -34 units /acre) in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr and Lakeview Dr. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 29, 2008.) October 8, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. Cilimberg reported that the request is to increase the maximum number of children from 40 to 64 children, and there are neighborhood concerns about the on street parking that creates conflicts with residences, as well as a staff - observed safety concern at the intersection of Lakeview and Four Seasons for their entrance where there is barley enough site distance. VDOT has confirmed that the intersection does meet an acceptable level of service, although County staff has concerns with the site distance. Mr. Cilimberg reported that any addition to the enrollment will increase traffic and generate additional parking needs. On the other hand, there are concerns of current clients that there will be an increase in rates if enrollment numbers do not increase. This facility is providing affordable daycare, which is a community benefit and another matter for the Boards consideration. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission had a hearing on this in June, but did not make a decision because they needed additional traffic information. At the August 19 deferral date, the Commission made the decision to recommend 50 students instead of 64. They felt that number lessened the impact of the growth of the school. There was a stipulation of all staff parking on -site. He reported that staff recommended denial of this request because of concerns related to impact, as it was viewed to be at the tipping point of a proper fit in a residential area. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Commission recommended approval of 50 students with conditions. Staff modified condition number 6 to further reflect their intent to stipulate on -site parking. This condition is intended to relieve the impact of employees parking on the street. Mr. Slutzky asked if there is any strategy to actually enforce this condition. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the strategy is that the employee spaces on -site will have to be designated. He clarified that the conditions limit parking spaces to no more than eight, with signage provided onsite to designate employee spaces. He said this condition will have to be self- enforcing or complaint- driven. Mr. Boyd asked if the County can legally tell people where to park. Mr. Cilimberg said that the street locations are public, but the way staff determines whether a project has adequate parking is to only count the parking spots that are in front of the facility on the public street as meeting their parking requirements. Staff cannot restrict them. Mr. Boyd said the number of parking places is not the issue. He asked if there were sufficient parking places. Mr. Rooker said there are only sufficient parking spots if you count the ones on the street. Mr. Cilimberg said that at this point in time, with 50 students and no more than 8 employees, there are enough parking both on street, a drop off spot on the site, and enough for the all day employees Having 64 students would likely require the school to arrange offsite parking because of employee growth. Mr. Rooker asked if at 50 students, they needed street parking now. Mr. Cilimberg answered "yes ". Mr. Cilimberg added that there are other conditions that are included based on whether there is only an office there, which is another allowable use under the original special use permit. Also, there are conditions that address any use of the property. Mr. Rooker asked if there is any limit on the number of employees that could be there if the building were used as an office. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the maximum number of employees would be ten. Mr. Rooker pointed out that an office space was the original use of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant has nine spaces on -site. Staff's reason for suggesting no more than eight for the employees is that they need to keep a space for drop off of students on -site. Mr. Cilimberg offered to answer additional questions from the Board at this point. Mr. Slutzky said if the applicant was asked to keep their eight employees on site with nine parking spaces, and they happen to have two drop offs at the same time that would force the applicant into a crowding condition. Mr. Cilimberg answered that one of the drop off's could be a parent parking off site and walking the child to the center. At this point, Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant would like to address the Board. The applicant's representative, Mr. John Simpson addressed the Board, stating that the community needs daycare and Four Seasons provides an affordable option for families, with costs at about $40 per month less per child compared to other centers. He explained that the location is right on the corner of Lakeview and Four Seasons Drive, but the balance of the remainder of Four Seasons Drive is relatively high - density mixed use, commercial, office, retail, ACAC, etc. The have provided traffic studies as part of the application. He said he feels there has been an exaggeration about the impact of the traffic. He said one summary said that 24 additional children would generate an additional 120 trips per day. Mr. Rooker said that it was later clarified that whenever somebody arrived, it was counted as two trips. He said that would cause about 4 trips, so the actual number is 96, not the estimated 120 trips per day. Mr. Simpson said that is correct. The second time they were in front of the Planning Commission, the figure was doubled. Because of this, he had his client videotape the peak hours of traffic, and there are no cars backed up at Lakeview Drive and at most there are five cars in the school parking lot at any given time. He does not see this as a traffic problem. He also mentioned that the Charlottesville Day School recently increased their enrollment from 85 to 250, and the traffic study they did for the special use permit predicted an increase of 175 -200 extra vehicles during the peak hours. The staff report for that application indicated that even that level of increased traffic would not generate a measurable impact. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the applicant is asking for an additional 17 trips during the peak hour, and does not understand why that is a concern, especially when you compare this project with the Charlottesville Day School numbers. Mr. Rooker said that he sees the issue as being the traffic on Lakeview Drive, and noted that the Charlottesville Day School has a dedicated entrance, and does not use a residential street. Mr. Simpson said that if the location of the center was interior on the street, that may be a more significant concern, but the reality is that it is right on the corner. He said there could be a possibility that other cars may travel down other parts of Lakeview Drive, but there is really no reason for them to do that. The video showed no one going down Lakeview Drive, there was always parking available in the parking lot, so there would be no reason for them to turn around and go all the way down to the end of the cul- desac. The impact on the residents is negligible. Mr. Simpson said that regarding parking, they need seven staff for 64 students with six parking spots for daycare which is one per 10 children. He reported that there are nine parking spots on -site, with four adjacent to the property. The problem with the parking restrictions that have been proposed by the Planning Commission is that they wanted to compromise with some of the neighbors that do not want the day care to increase in size, so they required all the staff to park on site. There are nine spots on site, and that would obviously reduce the on -site parking that is available for parents to drop off their children. That raises concern, primarily because that will put parents in the position of having to stop on the street and take the children on the street to walk to the facility. Mr. Simpson said that a pick -up and drop -off area on site is required in the County Code for daycare and childcare facilities. That is an important safety concern. He believes that the safety of children should have priority here. A car parked in the street is a car parked in the street, and it should not matter if it is a parent parking there or a staff person parking there. He does have an issue with restricting the parking as proposed. Mr. Simpson expressed concern about condition 2 in the report requiring his client to submit a site plan, noting that the center has already been through a long process with the Planning Department and the Board of Zoning Appeals over the site plan for this property. The site plan was approved in 2000. In 2007, the site was brought into compliance with the way it was currently configured, and no changes have occurred since then. He reiterated that there are no physical changes to the property. His concern with having his client go through the process and submit a site plan under the current regulations is that the County knows that the site plan that has been approved is under the old regulations. For example, the parking spaces that are currently there would not comply with the current regulations. There is nothing to be gained by a new site plan. He concerned that this might be a technique that the Planning Department is using to not allow the increase in children. Mr. Slutzky asked if the parking requirements could be met if they did not comply with the current rules. Mr. Simpson replied that the spaces at the school do not comply with the current ordinance because they are not wide enough. The applicant just told Mr. Simpson that they are in fact in compliance, and he is not sure at this point. His concern is still that the original site plan was approved by the County and that is how the parking is configured now. He does not want to end up in a legal limbo if the plan is compared to what would be in compliance today. Mr. Slutzky said his question was that if they were subjected to the current requirements, would they lose the one parking spot in the back that looks very skinny, and the question is would the applicant lose another from the remaining eight? Mr. Simpson replied he does not think they would lose any, because under the Code he believes they are grandfathered in. Mr. Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, said that the applicant would not lose any parking spaces because it is existing parking from an approved plan. The County is asking the applicant to document that and the increase in students and the increase in parking requirement. He stated that the current parking spaces do meet the size standard, but the one right up against the building crosses the back -up area. For that reason, a plan like that would probably not be approved today. Mr. Boyd asked why County staff is asking for a new site plan. He does not understand that. Mr. Higgins explained that the County Code says that changing or expanding a use that generates additional parking requirements facilitates the need for a new site plan. Mr. Higgins said that staff suggested that the applicant provide an as -built plan. The as -built plan builds in waivers by the agent of anything that is not applicable, which would be virtually everything physical. County staff is looking for an accurate, as -built site plan that documents the number of students and spaces, and indicates the spaces on the street that are counted. Mr. Slutzky said he is still grappling with scale in the neighborhood. If this item were coming to the Board today for the first time, he wanted to know if they would have adequate parking under the new requirement. To him, it sounds like that with the one spot lost, it would be adequate. Mr. Higgins also pointed out that this set up is a loop system, there is a two driveway access. Mr. Boyd said that he does understand why a new site plan is needed when all they are doing is adding students. It seems like a technicality. Mr. Higgins replied that the Code allows the County to waive a site plan or elements of a site plan, but does require a site plan if parking requirements are increased. In this case, the new student and staff numbers would create a need. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the additional parking is off site, and the configuration on site is not being changed at all. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the plan of record does not reflect the number of students being requested here, and that is one of the things being submitted in a new as -built plan. Ms. Thomas said that the numbers seem to be related to the action the Board takes tonight. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the number on any resubmitted as -built site plan would reflect the Boards action tonight. Mr. Higgins explained that what the applicant would do would be shown on an as -built plan, which is essentially the same thing as a site plan. The as -built is in fact more accurate than a site plan. A site plan is a representation of what is there, and is not an accurate drawing. Staff would simply like to document everything on the as -built survey. This is not the same as creating an entire new document. Mr. Tucker added that the survey, which is in the Board's packet, would essentially just need to be updated. Mr. Higgins mentioned that the applicant could make addition to that drawing that would comply with the site plan requirements of the ordinance, minus the things that would be waved that are not applicable due to the lack of physical construction that would take place on the site. Staff would like a clear, accurate, up to -date, and correct, document so that it can be enforced. Mr. Simpson said that should not be a problem for the applicant. Mr. Simpson said they have an objection to condition 3, which limits the enrollment to 50 students. The applicant also does not agree with condition 6, which requires employees to park on site. That condition dovetails into part of condition 7 which requires parking to be designated or signage for employees on the property. The other conditions are acceptable. Mr. Boyd said that earlier, Mr. Simpson mentioned that there were state standards the applicant had to adhere too as far as a certain number of teachers depending on the number of children. Mr. Simpson clarified that that number is seven. Mr. Simpson explained that there are state daycare licensing requirements for the number of employees needed for the number of students. The state licensing authorities have said that the facility can accommodate 79 children. Ms. Thomas asked how many employees there are today. Mr. Simpson answered that there are five per shift. Ms. Thomas said that she observed for some time there, and noticed there were six cars parked there. She assumed there were five staff people plus the director. At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing for comments. Ms. Lauren Root addressed the Board, stating that she is the Director of Four Seasons Learning Center and a Pre -K teacher. Ms. Root said that the need for childcare has increased in the area, as there are not enough centers in the area to accommodate recent growth. She presented a list of people who had called in the last few months who had asked to be placed on a waiting list, and the list does not include callers who need daycare immediately. Ms. Root stated that the center offers quality, affordable childcare in a clean, nurturing environment conducive to learning. She said that the present owners have upgraded the building and modified the classrooms; it is acceptable for 79 children but they are not asking for that. Ms. Root pointed out that in 10 years of operation, no accidents have occurred inside the building or the parking lot. She said that neighbors park in front of the school instead of in their own driveway. Ms. Martha Wood addressed the Board, stating that she lives at 264 Lakeview Drive. She said she has no doubt that the learning center offers fine quality daycare and there is a need for it in the community, but this has to do with increasing the size of enrollment and the traffic associated with expansion. Ms. Wood said that a parent yesterday parked in front of the no parking sign on Four Season Drive to walk his child into the center, and asked the Board to deny the special use permit as staff recommends. Ms. Jan Sprinkle addressed the Board, stating that she is a 21 -year resident of Lakeview Drive. She said that when the school started there were 32 children and it fit the neighborhood well, with no problems. Since the current management took over, she said, they have more than doubled the size of the building and the site has been in construction for seven years — having to rebuild an addition to comply with the site plan. Ms. Sprinkle reported that the State's Social Services website shows many violations that the school has been cited for — both County and State regulations. There is no guarantee that the school will comply with any restrictions the Board imposes. She said that the center has been hard on the neighborhood. She said that she appreciates the need for additional daycare, but this residential area is not the place for an expanded center. Ms. Sprinkle said that a special use permit should be an exception granted in an area that can accommodate it, and asked the Board to deny the application. Ms. Linda Terry of 261 Lakeview Drive addressed the Board. She said that she supports the previous speakers and asked the Board to deny this permit. Ms. Geraldine Robinson of 263 Lakeview Drive addressed the Board, stating that her home is right across the street from the learning center — every car makes a turn in front of her house. She said that if she wanted to sell her house, it would be valued less because of the constant turnaround in front of her property. Mr. Rafael Columba addressed the Board, emphasizing the need for affordable childcare in the area. He also said that the Board has all the facts and the law stipulates how many students are permitted at the school. There being no other comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Simpson readdressed the Board, stating that visiting the site makes a huge difference, as the school has little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He said that the traffic issue has been exaggerated, and that is why he provided the video tape. Mr. Simpson stated that if the enrollment cannot be increased, prices will have to go up. Mr. Rooker commented that the school probably charges what the market will bear. Mr. Simpson noted that the school is about 20 percent less expensive than similar centers. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Slutzky said that this is difficult for him to consider, as the need for affordable daycare is significant, and the school does an excellent job. However, he visited the site and it is dangerous to try to pull out of Lakeview Drive because of the line of site. He stated that given that, and the concerns expressed by neighbors, he cannot support this application. Mr. Boyd agreed that this is a difficult decision, but there is an undeniable need for daycare in the community. He said that he has received a number of letters from parents, and he would be willing to allow 64 students at the school. Mr. Boyd stated that he did not observe a lot of traffic in the video provided by the applicant. Mr. Dorrier commented that he knows this area and knows that traffic is a serious issue, adding that keeping the cap at 40 students is necessary. Ms. Thomas said that Lakeview Drive is a tight urban cul -de -sac, and the school at its current size is the right fit for the neighborhood. Mr. Rooker stated that he jogs by here every week, and there is a difference between a place that fronts on Four Seasons Drive and a place that fronts on Lakeview. He commented that staff got it right when they said that a larger daycare enrollment would create a use that is out of scale with this part of the Four Seasons development. At this time, Mr. Slutzky moved to deny SP- 2007 -001 Four Seasons Learning Center. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: Mr. Boyd. ABSENT: Ms. Mallek.