Minutes

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

October 10, 2007


The Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, October 10, 2007, at 8:00 PM in the Council Room of the Vienna Town Hall, 127 Center Street, South, Vienna, Virginia, with Melvin R. McCoy, Jr. Chairman, presiding. The following members were present: Charles “Chuck” Anderson, Emil D. Attanasi, John Brunow, Edward H. Chase, George J. Creed, Laurie A. DiRocco, David W. Miller, and William G. Womack, Jr. Also in attendance and representing the Town Staff were Gregory M. Hembree, Director of Planning and Zoning, Heather Diez, Engineer and Denise Rose Borgatti, Board Clerk.


COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS AND/OR COMMISSIONERS:

Mr. Creed said about seven (7) months ago there was a culmination of a study done by a work group on the Planning Commission and the Transportation Safety Commission (TSC) and was presented to the Town Council in March, 2007 who in turn passed it on to the Director of Public Works for funding, etc. Mr. Creed said he has not heard anything since and would like a status report from Public Works.

Ms. Diez, said Public Works received the priority list for sidewalks saying a couple of sidewalks are ready to go into construction . Ms. Diez said that the Talahi Road, SE ,sidewalk is one of them and they are waiting for utility location and are working with Dominion Electric on that, so it is likely a Springtime construction project. The next one sidewalk project on the priority list are the McHenry Street, SE, sidewalks - Ms. Diez said they have found a fund source for that project which will begin in the next couple of months. Ms. Diez said for the rest of the projects on the priority list , they are currently working on a “Safe Routes to School” grant application to be submitted December, 2007. Ms. Diez said she has been in touch with the PTA at Louise Archer Elementary School and they are currently reviewing the sidewalk list. The Fairfax County Public School District is helping to coordinate the pedestrian traffic in the Vienna neighborhoods to each of the elementary schools that will qualify. Ms. Diez said regarding the remaining sidewalks, they are trying to fit them into the Capital Improvement program and said that it is a multi-year program of trying to fit the sidewalks in. Ms. Diez said that she is doing a cost estimate comparing sidewalk that the Town has recently received bids for.

Ms. Diez said the Talahi Road, SE, construction project is about 300 feet of sidewalk came in at $260,000.00 noting that this amount involves the most extensive amount of work. Ms. Diez said they are trying to accommodate the most cost effective to build as much sidewalk as they can. Mr. Creed asked how is the cost evaluated. Ms. Diez said the cost is per square yard of sidewalk. Ms. Diez said it was about $240.00 dollars per linear foot for Talahi Road, SE, and that is when there is nothing out there; they need retaining walls, put drainage in the street and pave the road. Ms. Diez said on the lower end the price is about $125.00 per linear foot.

Mr. Creed asked Ms. Diez regarding the walk to schools if she has brought in other schools that are being considered in the walk, saying that he attempted to go to the Superintendent of Schools but were unable at that time to find out what the real walk areas were. Ms. Diez said she has been working with the Transportation Safety Coordinator of Fairfax County Public Schools who deal directly with the Principals and Superintendent and will provide pedestrian counts to her based on which portion of the Town goes to which school and also noted that this person has counts for the streets and where the children walk.

Mr. Miller suggested to Ms. Diez that Public Works get a lot of bids because there are a lot of people looking for work right now. Ms. Diez said she understands but said the Town has an ongoing 4-year contract with Sagres Construction and is not sure how that works about advertising a job. Mr. Miller suggested that Public Works figures that out and get it out to bid saying there are savings there.


ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:

Chairman McCoy added to the agenda two (2) items to discuss, Church Street Parking - Item no. 2 and The Maple Avenue Corridor Study- Item No. 3.


ITEM NO. 1:

Recommendation to the Mayor and Town Council on a final plat for the resubdivision of Fairfax County Tax Map Parcel 38-2, ((2)), 24A, located at 201 Charles Street, SE (new addresses to be 305 Locust Street, SE and 201 Charles Street, SE) in the RS-10, Single Family residential zone. Filed by William C. Blackwell, agent for Oak Street Development, owner.

Channing Blackwell was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Blackwell said that nothing has changed from the approved preliminary plat to the proposed final plat and asked for a positive recommendation.

Mr. Miller said he wanted to note for the record that the proposed house height is not going to be “outlandish” in the neighborhood. Mr. Miller said that the Commission has heard complaints from other neighbors during testimony of proposed subdivisions saying that new houses in their neighborhood will look out of scale and thanked Mr. Blackwell for the cross section of the proposed houses provided at the last meeting which he found to be helpful.

Mr. Attanasi said that the staff report says the detention facility will be maintained by the developer and asked if that will pass on to the homeowner. Mr. Blackwell replied yes. Mr. Attanasi asked if the easement is marked on the plat. Mr. Blackwell replied yes and that it was on Sheet 3 of the proposed plans. Mr. Blackwell said the upper left corner depicts the infiltration trench of 8' x 4',there is a box that goes around the infiltration trench and that is where the trench easement is noted. Mr. Attanasi asked if it will be to the Public Works Department to which Mr. Blackwell replied yes. Mr. Attanasi asked how will the homeowner know how to maintain the trench. Mr. Hembree said when a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new house there is information specific to that house about lot coverage or anything such as an easement to maintain on the property. Also Mr. Hembree noted that many perspective homeowners come into the office and ask questions about maintenance requirements, lot coverage, etc. Mr. Attanasi asked if the Developer will show the easement on the purchase easement. Mr. Blackwell said yes. Mr. Attanasi asked why if the homeowner is obligated to maintain the detention facility, why is the homeowner not obligated to maintain the swale. Mr. Blackwell said there is a slope of about 4% from the house to the rear of the property and there is a natural terrain from the adjoining property.

Mr. Attanasi asked Public Works to comment on how they would inspect the trench and also do they have any inspection responsibility on the infiltration trench as it is being developed. Ms. Diez said they will take the grading plan out into the field once it is constructed and check to make sure the grades are according to the grading plan. Ms. Diez said a “walk through” is done before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Mr. Hembree added that the Town has added a fee for as built survey inspections - a $400.00 site review fee and this is to ensure that everything at site meets the plan sheet.

Mr. Creed said he has seen at the Public Works counter several handouts, some from the Town and some from the County and wondered if it would be appropriate to consider putting together handout for inspections of swales and infiltration trenches for what people should look for and who to call if there are questions and thought this should be something to consider. Mr. Hembree said he would, and said that is part and parcel of what they have been looking at in terms of putting documentation together. Mr. Hembree noted that the Planning and Zoning Department has more than fifty (50) hand-out materials.

Ms. DiRocco asked what will happen to the gazebo on the property. Mr. Blackwell said that the neighbors would like to keep it and hopefully it will be on one of the neighboring properties.

Mr. Womack asked regarding the detention facility what kind of maintenance will be required and what kind of schedule is there for that type of responsibility. Mr. Blackwell said typically with the maintenance agreements, this is a system that has gravel to allow the water to go in. The first thing to do would be in the Fall when the leaves come down is to check the facility and clear out any leaves. Over time there will be sediment which will start to build up in the gravel so about every five (5) years the gravel would be removed and the soil above the filter fabric. Mr. Womack asked if the Town goes out every year or every five (5) years and look at the infiltration trench.

Ms. Diez said for this property it will be owner maintained. Generally, these type of facilities are often maintained by the Town and that is a major reason why they are located at the front of the property and the easement is there also. Ms. Diez said there is no set schedule for the ones that the Town currently maintains. Mr. Womack said that in a practical sense the homeowner will not be thinking about maintaining the infiltration trench. Ms. Diez agreed with Mr. Womack but said in that case that would be something the Town would work with the homeowner on. Mr. Womack said that the Town would be working with the homeowner after there is a problem, with a problem being a flood. Mr. Blackwell said that they have built in a safety factor of 2 which provides for a larger storm water capacity. Mr. Blackwell said regarding sedimentation buildup and the maintenance concern expressed by Mr. Womack, he did not foresee any problems with either above normal maintenance. Mr. Womack said that his point is that he has a hard time believing that most homeowners will give the cleaning or maintaining of the infiltration trench any thought. Mr. Womack said if there is an inherent assumption that a developer or owner is going to maintain the infiltration trench, it would behoove the Town to have some way of knowing that is the case - this is not something that gets mentioned at the Planning Commission level nor through the approval process and that noone really thinks about it again until there is a problem and just because there have not been any problems up to this point that does not mean there will not be one in the future. Mr. Womack said it would be a good idea for the Commission to think about some way to ensure that the homeowner will follow through in the long term and as we move forward that may be something to put into the recommendation.

Mr. Creed said that since he has been a Planning Commissioner it has been the policy of this Commission and the Town to lay the onus on the homeowner saying there are only a few trenches that were developed before 2000 and were the requirement of the Town to maintain. Mr. Creed said that he has said before that there should be some type of documentation that tells homeowners how to do this because it is occurring more and more in the Town as new development and re-development is occurring.

Mr. Attanasi said that it may be helpful to have an insert of the cross-section of the swale added to the plans so that it is more clear when going to the Town Council.

Mr. Blackwell thanked the Planning Commission for their input saying it make this plan a better plan.

It was moved to recommend to the Mayor and Town Council approval on a final plat for the resubdivision of Fairfax County Tax Map Parcel 38-2, ((2)), 24A, located at 201 Charles Street, SE (new addresses to be 305 Locust Street, SE and 201 Charles Street, SE) in the RS-10, Single Family residential zone. Filed by William C. Blackwell, agent for Oak Street Development, owner and to include the requested cross section of the swale to be added to the plans.

Motion: Brunow
Second: DiRocco

Discussion:

Mr. Womack said that it should be figured out a way that if the homeowner is responsible for the infiltration trench that there be some way of notifying the homeowner on an annual basis for any future development.

Carried: 8-0-1

Abstain: Anderson


Mr. Chase said that in the last Town newsletter Councilman Lovelace seemed to imply that there is going to be a future Council work session on the issue of people raising up the heights of houses above the normal grade and asked if that has been scheduled. Mr. Hembree replied no. Mr. Hembree said that the Town requires height verification certification and someone from the Town will have to be on site to witness the height verification being performed. Mr. Chase asked Mr. Hembree to inform the Commission if and when there will be a work session and if there are specific proposals to share that with the Commission. Mr. Hembree agreed.

Mr. Chase asked Mr. Hembree how he feels about a limitation on the credit that builders get for pavers. Mr. Hembree said that builder get credit now. Mr. Chase understood but was asking about a lower limit. Mr. Miller said that there should be “zero” credit. Mr. Hembree said he was not sure he would go all the way with that one. Mr. Hembree said that part of using pavers is that they actually do have some type of pervious nature to them, they are more expensive and they do add beauty to the property. Mr. Hembree said that credit for pavers is 20%. Mr. Miller said there is no way to police the type of products that are used for the pavers and it is left up to the discretion of the builder. Mr. Miller asked if “as-builts” are for only subdivisions or for everything. Mr. Hembree said anything brand new. Mr. Hembree said Certificates of Occupancy’s were not required for new construction but they are now. If the footprint increases by 50% or more, or if the total living area increases by 100% (2nd story addition) new Certificates of Occupancy are required and also require inspection.

Mr. Miller asked about the process of putting a garage on a house and than not having a driveway that goes to the garage. Mr. Hembree said he did not recall there was anything like that and asked Mr. Miller to provide him with the address.


ITEM NO. 2:

The Church Street Study.

Mr. Attanasi said that the sub-committee was to specifically review staff recommendations on parking which were to change the parking ratio to require additional spaces for new development, to immediately commission a feasability study for a parking garage and to not enforce the parking time limits. The sub-committee discussed these things and felt that there was some merit to some of the recommendations but felt that the analysis was not sufficiently detailed to take into a fact the “spacial” problems in the area. Mr. Attanasi said that although staff provided “counts of available parking” they did not have any feel for where it was located. The sub-committee made recommendations on how to go about doing a study and looking at ways to get some immediate help for the situation. Mr. Attanasi said they drew up a Church Street Study plan and a transmittal letter giving their opinion regarding recommendation regarding staff recommendations.

Chairman McCoy asked Mr. Attanasi if there have been any major changes since the work session. Mr. Attanasi said that the recommendation from the sub-committee would be sent forward to Council by staff. Mr. Hembree said that informally it has been discussed with the Mayor and will be added as an item at a future Town Council meeting.

Mr. Creed said that he supports the recommendations of the sub-committee, but said that if they are going to be looking at requirements for determining locations of available parking to include a garage, he would like to see them look at doing a comprehensive study of the entire commercial zone. Mr. Creed said he had asked this when he was Chairman of the Planning Commission, because he does not know what “proven walking distance” is of the walking public and thinks that if they are going to be looking at Maple Avenue and Church Street, and doing garages, than should they be considering public/private agreements and where they would they go in the commercial districts. Mr. Attanasi said they are responding to the staff report, they are not making any suggestions but saying that the staff report lacked any kind of special component. Mr. Attanasi said that he agreed with Mr. Creed’s point but said they were addressing just that one issue. Mr. Creed said that his comments are noted for the record for consideration.


It was moved to accept the report of the Church Street Study group and forward it to the Mayor and Town Council.

Motion: Creed
Second: DiRocco
Carried: 9-0


ITEM NO. 3:

The Maple Avenue Corridor Study.

Mr. Miller said that he was not able to attend the last work session meeting of the sub-committee. Mr. Miller said the work product for that meeting was very good which had taken the outline that he had and had come up with and added some nice bullet points. Mr. Miller said that the new draft that came out of that work session, there are a couple of things that troubled him. Mr. Miller said he was purposely was vague in what the recommendations to the Mayor and Town Council were and wanted to keep them simple, and is worried that the new draft goes way beyond what they were asked to do and moves them into an “urban planning” mode. Mr. Miller said that he does not think that was what they were asked to do and wants to make sure that what they do not do is obviate the Mayor and Town Council of their responsibility. Mr. Miller said that when the sub-committee asked the Mayor what it was they were supposed to be looking for, the Mayor said she wanted to know from the sub-committee as “interested citizens” what they thought and that was the purpose of putting in the recommendation to the Mayor and Town Council, ...”the Planning Commission as interested citizens”...

Mr. Creed said that he is more comfortable with the draft dated October 8, 2007, from the sub-committee meeting of last week.

Mr. Attanasi said that the idea of “floating an amendment” would bring out the public to the public hearings and look at the suggestion of preparing an amendment as a way of opening it up to people and that is why he supports the version dated October 8, 2007 which Mr. Chase came up with. Mr. Chase said that one of the reasons they came up with the suggested plan amendments in the draft were that while there are several studies done, such as the Vision Committee, there is no formal document that has a vision, a concept of what they are trying to do and although while the Town Council can move ahead and do what they want to, it seems that as planners - the Planning Commission, there should be on record what they see should be done for the Maple Avenue Corridor. Mr. Chase said that some of the Comprehensive Plans had special study areas included in them that dealt with issues just like this, that laid out a general concept of where they should be, 10, 20 or 30 years down the road. Mr. Attanasi said there is a danger of not doing anything and at a minimum a plan amendment would actually give the parameters of what one would want to see without taking away peoples rights. Mr. Miller said that he agrees with everything in the draft dated October 8, 2007, but, his worry is that the Town Council will accept the draft and send it back to the Planning Commission to create and draft an amendment or ordinance.

Ms. DiRocco said it was suggested in the draft that a professional consulting firm needs to help with the suggestions and that this is an idea and a focus.

Mr. Creed said that he thought the public should really get involved in this cycle and there needs to be input to the Planning Commission as to what people in Vienna would like to see or have it go through the Town Council or a joint meeting, but felt it important to have input from citizens.

Mr. Miller said for the record, he will endorse Commissioner Chase’s recommendations with the proviso that Mr. Hembree is very clear that this is by no means an invitation for the Town Council to create a new Maple Avenue Vision Committee and it has to be the Planning Commission. That is his biggest concern and that is why he kept his suggested draft “bare bones” Mr. Hembree said he will convey the thoughts of the Planning Commission to the Town Council.


It was moved to recommend the Maple Avenue Study group recommendation dated October 8, 2007 and forward it to the Mayor and Town Council, but added “as interested citizens” to the first sentence of the draft after the words Planning Commissioners.

Motion: Creed
Second: DiRocco
Carried: 9-0


It was moved to approve the minutes of September 26, 2007.

Motion: Attanasi
Second: Anderson
Carried: 7-0-2

Abstain: Brunow, DiRocco


It was moved to adjourn at 9:05 PM.

Motion: Attanasi
Second: Anderson
Carried: 9-0


Respectfully Submitted



Denise Rose Borgatti
Board Clerk

Town Government  / Town Services  / Regulations & Ordinances  / Town Information  / Town Departments  / Mailbox