Minutes

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

October 25, 2007


The Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, October 25, 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 and David W. Miller. Absent was 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. Attanasi wanted to disclose that his wife works for Fairfax County Public School system.
Chairman McCoy also disclosed that his wife is a Principal in the Fairfax County Public Schools system.

Mr. Miller asked, for the record, if the Town could look into the possibility to close the two (2) outside lanes of Maple Avenue, Eastbound and Westbound lanes as a matter of safety an hour before the Halloween Parade starts, saying that people line up early along the sidewalks for the parade and this would make it safe for everyone.

Ms. DiRocco said that an e-mail was received from Councilwoman Cole regarding stormwater management systems and she has not had a chance to review the whole packet, but said that she was surprised that there is a $1,500.00 per year maintenance fee for such stormwater management systems, and may be something the Planning Commission may want to consider when looking at new plans..

Mr. Miller wanted to commend the Town, saying he lives on one of the feeder streets where the Halloween Parade feeds into Maple Avenue. Mr. Miller said that Parks and Recreation employees had mentioned to him that participants of the Parade may knock on his door to use his restroom and said that he (Mr. Miller) thought it might be a good idea if the Town provided “port-a-jons” for the participants of the parade and is happy to say that they were “port-a-jons” on Berry Street, SE .


ITEM NO. 1:

Recommendation to the Mayor and Town Council on a revised site plan in the PR-Park and Recreational zone, as specified in 18-126.10 in the Vienna Town Code, as associated with the construction of additions to and the renovation of Vienna Elementary School, 128 Canter Street, South. Filed by John Souser, PE, Adtek Engineers, agent for Fairfax County Public Schools and the Mayor and Town Council for the Town of Vienna, owners. (Deferred from the regular meeting of September 26, 2007.)

And

ITEM NO. 2:

Recommendation to the Mayor and Town Council on a revised site plan and a number of site plan modifications including those associated with lot coverage, temporary building placement, entrance width, parking and loading space requirements, all in conjunction with the construction of additions to and the renovation of Vienna Elementary School, 128 Center Street, South in the RM-2, Multi-Family, Low Density and C-2, General Commercial zones. Filed by John Souser, PE, Adtek Engineers, agent for Fairfax County Public Schools, and the Mayor and Town Council for the Town of Vienna, owners. (Deferred from the regular meeting of September 26, 2007.)

And

ITEM NO. 3:

Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals on a conditional use permit for the continued use, the construction of additions and the renovation of the Vienna Elementary School, 128 Center Street, South in the RM-2, Multi-Family, Low Density, PR-Park and Recreational and C-2, General Commercial zones. Filed by John Souser, PE, Adtek Engineers, agent for Fairfax County Public Schools and the Mayor and Town Council for the Town of Vienna, owners. (Deferred from the regular meeting of September 26, 2007.)

Mr. Hembree submitted his staff report along with his staff report for September 26, 2007 to be a part of the record.

John McGranahan, Attorney with Fairfax County Public Schools, was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. McGranahan said that he would first like to talk about, what he anticipated might be the issue that raised a question in everyone’s mind which is lot coverage. Mr. McGranahan (referring to a site plan) pointed out where Vienna Elementary School is located, said it is separated by a “paper” street, which is the Locust Street right-of-way and than there is Waters and Caffi Fields. The school system owns both the Vienna Elementary School (VES) property and all of Waters and Caffi Fields. There is a memorandum of understanding that was worked out with the Town Council and the Town Attorney that puts control and use with the Town of Vienna, which has been the case for a long time. Mr. McGranahan said the Town has the use of it, but technically it is owned by Fairfax County Public Schools, so when the good news came that there was going to be a bricks and mortar addition to the VES , it was looked at existing lot coverage on just that site which is 44%. Mr. McGranahan said the first thought he had was, what if the Town vacated Locust Street and if they did by law half of it would go to Waters and Caffi’s Field and half of it would go to VES, the School Board would own it all and the lot coverage would go down to 22% which would satisfy the ordinance. Mr. McGranahan said that Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) raised that idea but said that the Town Council and Town Attorney said they would like to hold onto the Locust Street right-of-way. Mr. McGranahan said that the Town Council did agree to allow the Locust Street right-of-way to be included in the site plan for the School Board’s property and the limit of the site plan would cover the entire site and with permission it would include the Town’s right-of-way, which is being used for parking and would continue to be used for parking with the redesigned school. Mr. McGranahan said that when you do that the lot coverage is 22% on the entire site, the fields will remain fields and meets the Code requirement for being under 25%. Mr. McGranahan thought this was a solution that worked from the School’s perspective and the Town Attorney and the Town Council thought it worked and that is how they got to the lot coverage that is before the Planning Commission tonight. If the Planning Commission does not do that there is no way to do the addition and meet the lot coverage requirement for just the VES site.

Mr. McGranahan spoke to the issue of parking. Mr. McGranahan said he understood that the Commission wanted to see graphically what the parking situation is currently and what is being proposed. There is currently no separate bus drop-off or parent-drop off. One of the benefits of the proposal is to separate bus drop-off from parent drop-off. Currently the site is very constrained; there are narrow aisles. The goal of the school system and staff was to take a non-conforming situation and make some improvement. Eleven (11) parking spaces will be added. The site plan modification is because the travel aisles are being kept at 23', but to do that the spaces are all 9' x 18'. Mr. McGranahan spoke to the loading space requirements and the request for a site plan modification, saying that VES does not need seven (7) loading spaces thus they are requesting one (1) loading space only. Mr. McGranahan also talked about the site plan modification requests for entrance width at the street line saying it does not meet the requirement of 25 - 35 feet at the property line thus the request for the site plan modification. Mr. McGranahan said that the placement of temporary “quad classroom buildings” does not meet the side yard setback and that is why they are requesting a site plan modification for them. Mr. McGranahan said there are a number of very unique characteristics to this site which justify the request for the site plan modifications.

Ms. DiRocco noted the applicant is adding about 15,000 square feet of space and asked what the expected enrollment increase would be. Mr. McGranahan said they are not expecting an increase in enrollment.

Leslie Suger, BerryRio Architects, said the changes anticipated for the school are that the ½ day Kindergarten will go to a full day Kindergarten. Ms. Suger said that enrollment is not going to increase anytime in the forseeable future. Ms. DiRocco asked what is considered forseeable future - would it be five (5) years or ten (10) years. Ms. Suger said enrollment projections are typically every five (5) years. Ms. DiRocco wanted to know if there would be additional students and parents at the site, noting that eleven (11) parking spaces are going to be added and wanted to know if additional students and parents will be added and where the additional spaces will be taken up and hence they may still be short of parking spaces. Ms. Suger said that she believes that there will no new programs. It was noted that the enrollment for VES is about 400 students.

Mr. Creed asked if has been funded to change to full-day Kindergarten. It was stated that in some schools there already was full-day Kindergarten. Mr. Creed asked when it would go full-day at VES. It was said that construction was done which is anticipated for 2010. Mr. Creed said it was mentioned about having separate drop-off for parents and school buses and asked if there would be adequate bus parking in the new turnaround. Mr. McGranahan said all buses currently are parked on the site at night and that with the new proposed plan eight (8) bus parking spaces will be added.

Mr. Attanasi said that nothing about the plan itself bothers him but there is one thing that troubles him very much. Mr. Attanasi said that it is the issue of the calculation of the lot coverage and that issue in his opinion is that there are two (2) parcels with the same owner, separated by another parcel with a different owner. Mr. Attanasi said in his view combining those parcels would set a precedent. There are private schools in the Town that had lot coverage in excess of 50%; to ask for simply a waiver on lot coverage and stormwater detention; it would have been much cleaner in his view to do that. Mr. McGranahan said they did consider that and the issue with that was with the stormwater management - if you do not take advantage of the open space at the fields than if you got the wavier there would be an outfall issue thus not being able to meet the Town Code requirements. Mr. Attanasi said that by combining those two there are issues raised by the lot coverage calculation.

Mr. Attanasi asked how the lot coverage calculation was made. Mr. McGranahan said what the Planning Commission would be approving is one site plan for the entire property, so therefore if the school system wanted to come in and do something different with the ballfields there would be one site plan for the whole property that binds the whole property and would be looked at as a unit. Mr. McGranahan pointed out as an example the Tysons Corner Galleria Mall saying that those buildings are on individual parcels but have one (1) site plan for the whole site so the building as a whole meets the Fairfax County zoning ordinance but if you looked at any individual parcel it would not. Mr. McGranahan said that the benefit or the protection the jurisdiction gets is having the one (1) site plan. Mr. McGranahan said that the Town is not setting a precedent that people can point to other properties and say they want to take credit for that open space behind us, we own it and if the Town said VES cannot include our right-of -way than VES would not be before the Planning Commission this evening asking for the site plan approval. Mr. Attanasi said the additional thing that troubles him is that they are taking the fields as completely for impervious surface. Mr. Attanasi said there is artificial turf that has a drainage system underneath it and none of this is characterized in the site plan that was submitted for approval.

Mr. Hembree read Section 18-15 (f) and Section 18-126.4 (e) of the Town Code which talks about lot coverage. Mr. Attanasi said his issue is how are they counting the turf covered area in the lot coverage. Mr. Hembree said he considered what is not open space to count toward lot coverage and again read from the Town Code regarding this issue and explained how the determination was made regarding lot coverage for this site. Mr. McGranahan said the turf field is pervious saying the water goes down and than there is a system for conveying the water. Mr. Attanasi said his point is that he does not see any detail of where the water is going. Mr. Attanasi said that the Town should probably have had a public hearing on when the improvement (artificial turf field) was made. Mr. Hembree said that FCPS gave permission for that application. Mr. Hembree said the determination was made that the Town did not need to amend the existing conditional use permit to change the structure of the playing field itself.

Mr. Chase said that he supports Mr. Attanasi’s concerns and said that he is not quite sure what the Town and the County are trying to achieve by the consolidation since this is already zoned as a Park which has excessive restrictions on its’ use. Mr. Chase said that he cannot see the logic or the legality of combining two (2) parcels even with the same owner that are distinct and separate tax map parcels and say we want to do something good and are going to combine them for this purpose. Mr. Chase agreed with Mr. Attanasi’s comments that noone has calculated the extra runoff from the ballfields and where that is going and what it is doing to the Town’s capacity to accept water and said there is a lot going on that needs full disclosure.

Mr. Creed said he is not hung up on combining the parcels, but is concerned about the full disclosure of what they have on the parcels and thinks that everything needs to be brought to the “surface” saying that from the last meeting he has become aware that a lot of things have been done over the years that have not been brought forth. Mr. Creed said after the drainage system was put in underneath the field, that pervious surface is now somewhat less than it was before and asked what is current and what impact does it have on the entire plan - this is a concern of his.

Mr. McGranahan said that his understanding from staff and the Town Attorney is the benefit of combining the parcels is that if you do not, than you cannot do the bricks and mortar addition to the school. Mr. Chase said you could by getting a variance for lot coverage. Mr. Hembree said that it is a site plan modification not a variance. Mr. McGranahan said FCPS began with applying for a site plan modification but was told by staff that if they get that they would have to meet the stormwater management requirement but they (VES) could not so, they would like to get a waiver of the stormwater management requirement and staff said okay but that they would have to demonstrate that there is adequate outfall for just the school site and they cannot do that. Mr. Chase said that they could legally combine the parcels. Mr. McGranahan said they would love to do that if the Town would let them, but said that the Town wants to keep the “paper street”. Mr. McGranahan said that if they could vacate Locust Street, SE, the problem would be solved; there would be a 12-acre site that meets all of the Town requirements. Mr. Chase if there were any engineering solutions to the stormwater problem and asked Public Works to opine whether there was a solution.

John Souser, Engineer, Adtek Engineers, said that in his looking at it because of a couple of things, the water all drains to the rear of the site and is a very shallow situation in that you cannot put much underground to get it to outfall. If you try to do something as far as infiltrating into the ground because the whole area in the back is normally very wet; it is a high water table and they could not see how they could anything as far as infiltration which ruled out any kind of stormwater management that he could see. Mr. Chase asked if Public Works was in agreement with that.

Ms. Diez said that Public Works recognize that point that the applicant makes for on-site stormwater management. Ms. Diez said that Public Works evaluated the site as 22% lot coverage which does not require further analysis of the stormwater runoff. Ms. Diez said if Public Works is asked to analyze it based on a higher percentage lot coverage they will require stormwater management. At that point the applicant will have to design something for the site and than request a waiver to not build it. Ms. Diez said if the applicant is granted to not build the facility, they have to demonstrate adequate outfall downstream which would require the applicant to improve the facilities downstream.

Mr. Anderson said that he also has reservations and in his looking at the definitions, a “lot” is a precise legal definition of a particular piece of property saying lot coverage is defined as a lot not as a site. And in addition in looking at “lot area”, it says, ... no alley , public way, public land or area proposed for future street purposes shall be included within the area of a lot. Mr. Anderson said he is concerned about the precedential nature of essentially combining two (2) parcels plus a public piece of land to calculate lot coverage.

Mr. Hembree said that there had been an exchange of e-mails with himself, Mr. Attanasi and the Town Attorney regarding this application over the past few days. Mr. Hembree said that in the e-mail exchange the Town Attorney said, “these determinations were not made in a vacuum nor were they made over the course of a couple weeks” Mr. Hembree said that this has been a series of months and he commented in his staff report about the complexity of this issue. Mr. Hembree said it is in fact the existence of a paper street that makes it a complex issue. Mr. Hembree said that in his twenty (20) years with the Town, during that time frame he has not seen the Town of Vienna do much in the way of vacating public streets. Mr. Hembree said there are only two (2) that comes to mind, a chunk of AyrHill Avenue, NE, between Park Street, NE and Mill Street, NE and a triangle part of Oblique Street, NW. Mr. Hembree said that the Town Attorney said that be allowing the ballfields to use the Locust Street, SE, right-of-way for “eons” and the consent for the ingress/egress, which was a part and parcel agreement by the Mayor and Town Council, where they have actively joined in this application, it is the legal opinion of the Town Attorney that a consolidated site has been created for development purposes and if further development occurs on this site, the Town would have to carefully consider the total impact. Further the Town Attorney said he did not see those athletic fields going anywhere anytime soon. This was in response to a series of e-mails Mr. Attanasi had with Mr. Hembree. Mr. Hembree read what he wrote to Mr. Attanasi explaining his position in support of this application. (E-mails on file).

Mr. McGranahan spoke to the issue of setting a precedent which has been expressed as a concern of the Commission. Mr. McGranahan said if the they go the route some of the Commissioners are saying there would be no way to make this constrained site meet the adequate outfall requirement on its’ own - you would basically be shifting the burden of the ballfield site and the right-of-way onto this site to improve the outfall downstream. Mr. McGranahan said they are not exceeding the lot coverage if it is looked at as a whole.

Mr. Creed said that if this application was considered as one (1) site the school system would be responsible for enhancing the downstream flow and asked where that would have to be done. Mr. Hembree said that it goes into Difficult Run past the Northside Property Yard and Northside Park. Mr. Creed asked what would have to be done to enhance the flow in that downstream area. Ms. Diez said she would have to see the plans for the downstream locations, either culverts or whatever is going to take up the increased flow.

Mr. Chase asked if the applicant got a waiver nothing would have to be done. Ms. Diez said that if the applicant gets a waiver, it would be to not build the stormwater detention on their property, but they still have to correct downstream. Mr. Creed asked what the issue is downstream. Mr. Souser said without doing a drainage study he would not know, but typically with other cases in the County one would have to end up making channel improvements.

Mr. Miller said that the school which has been there for 135 years, so for 135 years the outflow of the school has been flowing into what is ultimately Difficult Run. Mr. Miller said what is being discussed is not going to change the outflow and it does not meet Code. Mr. Hembree said if you consider that one piece that is correct.

Mr. McGranahan said that he heard earlier several people say why not just get a site plan modification and what he read into that, is that the Commission does want a brick and mortar school and would approve a site plan modification. So if the Planning Commission would approve a site plan modification for lot coverage, in effect that is what they would be doing by approving the site plan, but it would be a modification which makes the issue of precedent comes up. Mr. McGranahan said that there is a physical stormwater flow issue that has been mentioned but said that noone seems to have a problem with it physically forgetting the lot lines and the precedent issue. Mr. Hembree said that when talking about “dropping” the lot lines, all but two of the site plan modification requests go away, the only remainder would be the loading space request and the dimensions of the parking spaces.

Mr. Anderson said that the fact of the matter is that these are separate lots and the zoning regulations require that area coverage be based on lots and asked if there is any way that a variance could be granted to the extent that the whole site be considered a lot for purposes of lot coverage in this instance. Mr. Hembree said the language would have to be site plan modification, saying that a variance deals with the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and brings in the consideration of the Cochran case. Mr. McGranahan said that actually in Fairfax County, that is what they do. If you asked Fairfax County what is the lot that the Tysons Galleria sits on they would say the lot is the entire acreage even though there are parcels within it because there is different ownership. Mr. McGranahan said what Mr. Anderson is suggesting is helpful saying that he has a zoning determination in Fairfax County from the early 1970's that says when you file a site plan on a given area that will be the lot for purposes of that site plan and thinks that is what we are saying here for this application.

Mr. Miller said that would be an issue in the Town with regard to redevelopment of some of the lots, saying they want to watch. Mr. Miller said he can think of a couple of instances where someone may come in and buy ten (10) houses and than declare them to be one (1) lot and than decide to do a stormwater management plan for that one (1) lot and the twenty (20) new lots that comprise that one (1) lot will not pass the Town’s stormwater management plan but the one (1) lot will.

Mr. Anderson said that he thinks that if this were legally possible you could define it in such a way or set it up in such a way that it is limited to the unique characteristics of this area. Mr. Anderson said what he does worry about is if the Town supports this application where they have changed the definition from a lot to a site than someone else is going to come in and want to do the same. He said that he is worried about a court coming in saying that when the Town wanted to deviate from its’ definition of “lot” and when they did not want to they would go back to the old. Mr. Anderson said that he is trying to find a formula that can protect the Town legally.

Ms. DiRocco said that if they do the variance will the applicant still have to do the study for downstream capacity and is there anyway to give a variance to that. Ms. Diez said she did not know if you could get a variance for further downstream. Ms. Diez said it is not acceptable for the applicant to say they cannot build it on their site. The applicant would have to design a facility and submit it to Public Works to review on-site and than show it to Public Works and than say why it would not work. Mr. Hembree read Section 18-256; Modification of Requirements and Section 18-257; Procedure for Requesting Modification to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Creed referring to a letter from Adtek Engineers which talks about lot coverage in the RM-2 zone, which says existing lot coverage is 44% and the proposed lot coverage is 55%, asked if for the existing lot coverage of 44% if there is something in writing that allows the 44%. Mr. Hembree said yes since there is an approved site plan from 1986. Mr. Creed said he would like to see something on paper that said there was an approval for 44% lot coverage and than look at the requested 11% which would bring it to the proposed lot coverage of 55%.

Chairman McCoy said a lot of time and effort have gone into this project and said he personally is not hung up with the process, he understands the complexities of it but he believes they are on solid footing from the standpoint that the Town has worked out an agreement, a memorandum of understanding with the County and the school system and that the applicant has worked diligently with the staff, saying that staff and the school have responded to the concerns expressed at the last meeting.

Mr. Miller said that he did not think that anyone can foresee what may happen in the future enough to know that short of either granting waivers for the existing sites or the County buying the street, to him anything else seems to be a “workaround” as noted by Mr. Chase and is troubled that is what the Town has done in an effort to keep the “paper street”.

There was noone present to speak either for or against the application.

Mr. McGranahan asked if the Commission would be comfortable with approving the site plan with a further recommendation that the street be vacated so that the parcels are contiguous.
Mr. Chase said that he did not know that doing that would get them around the fact that it is two (2) separate parcels.

Mr. Attanasi said he would not support a recommendation for vacating the street.

Mr. Chase asked if they are going to close the public hearing.

Ms. DiRocco said that her concern is that the applicant has put a lot of time and effort into this and asked if the public hearing can be continued to the meeting in November. Mr. Hembree said if the Planning Commission wants to do that they need to continue the meeting to November 14, 2007.


It was moved to close the public hearing.

Motion: Brunow
Second: Creed
Carried: 8-0

Absent: Womack



It was asked what the Planning Commission wanted to do at this time.

Mr. Creed asked what the options to the Commission are.

It was said that a vote up or down could be taken on the three (3) items.


It was moved to recommend to the Mayor and Town Council on site plan revisions in the PR-Park and Recreational zone, as specified in !8-126.10 in the Vienna Town and associated with the construction of additions to and the renovation of Vienna Elementary School, 128 Center Street, South. Filed by John Souser, PE, Adtek Engineers, agent for Fairfax County Public Schools and the Mayor and Town Council for the Town of Vienna, owners.

Motion: Creed
Second: Brunow

Discussion:

Mr. Chase said that on full disclosure he said his daughter went to VES many years ago and has a special place in his heart for the school and supports the applicants efforts to renovate and expand the school. Mr. Chase said his only concerns with the application as previously mentioned deals with the question of lot coverage and the stormwater drainage. Mr. Chase said he is going to vote yes for Item No. 1 and No. 3 and will probably abstain for the site plan modification since it does not include lot coverage or stormwater drainage but did not want to vote no because it might be too strong of a protest, but cannot bring himself to vote for something that he thinks is not fully detailed concerning what is going on with this application.

Carried: 8-0

Absent: Womack


Mr. Miller asked if it would be possible to consider Item No. 3 before Item No. 2.

Mr. Attanasi said Item No. 3 has to do with the BZA. Mr. Attanasi said that the Planning Commission had asked the applicant for a list of hours of operations and other uses at the school to which was not provided. And therefore, the Planning Commission would need to talk about those uses so they are covering what is being done at VES and is on the record.

Ms. DiRocco asked if the conditional use permit was just for VES or the ballfields or both. Mr. Hembree replied it would be for everything. Ms. DiRocco asked if it would matter to go out of order because they have to revise the site to than give the conditional use permit for the entire site. Mr. Creed said a conditional use permit was just done for the ballfields for lighting and asked if that would have to get rolled in with this conditional use permit. Mr. Hembree said technically yes, but that was a brand new replacement conditional use permit, but said if the Planning Commission wants to pull that in with the new proposed conditional use permit they should do so. Mr. Creed asked what other things are out there. Mr. Hembree said it is just the ballfields and the lights and the hours of operation for use of the fields.


It was decided to continue on with Item No. 2.


Mr. Attanasi said he will be abstaining from Item No. 2 for the same reason that Mr. Chase indicated; he thinks that as the Director of Planning and Zoning has made a finding that these can be considered as two (2) lots without any consideration - it is a unique situation that is good, but has reservations about not having all the detail on all of the information on the drainage.

Mr. Anderson said he will also abstain from Item No. 2 for the reasons he expressed earlier. Mr. Anderson said that he really does want to see this application go through but is concerned about the fact that they are “fuzzing” up legal definitions here to get it done and for that reason he will be abstaining.

Mr. Miller said he will also be abstaining from voting on Item No. 2.

Mr. Creed asked what would they need to do to make this whole so they can vote it in the affirmative and make it happen. Mr. Hembree said they need to make a motion for approval, refer to the site plan with a date on it and indicate the site plan modifications from reference in the staff report which would be incorporated into that motion for approval and move forward from there.

Mr. Miller said that adjoining all of the parcels is a wonderful “work-a-round”, but at the same time is a “work-a-round”, so what he would like to see is as it is presented altogether. Mr. Miller said he would also like to see presented to the Planning Commission the request for stormwater management and the request for lot coverage, so they can address the issue as separate and than acknowledge that they were put together.



It was moved to recommend to the Mayor and Town Council on a revised site plan and a number of site plan modifications including those associated with lot coverage, temporary building placement, entrance width, parking and loading space requirements, all in conjunction with the construction of additions to and the renovation of Vienna Elementary School, 128 Center Street, South in the RM-2, Multi Family, Low Density and C-2, General Commercial zones. Filed by John Souser, PE, Adtek Engineers, agent for Fairfax County Public Schools and the Mayor and Town Council for the Town of Vienna, owners.

Motion: Brunow

There was no second.


Mr. Creed said with the site plan modifications, is Mr. Brunow saying that we want to ask them to give us the water retention and waivers and those types of things to be included in this to send forward to the Mayor and Town Council. Mr. Creed asked Mr. Hembree how would the Commission handle that. Mr. Hembree said he would like to hear from Mr. Brunow.

Mr. Brunow said he is trying to “get this off the dime”, that is the reason for the motion. Mr. Brunow said, in his mind, that the Council is asking the Planning Commission to do work that they have already “muddied the water” with in how they have handled the piece of property over there and their reluctance to vacate the street and the suggestion to recommend to them vacation of the street would have made wonderful sense. Mr. Brunow said once again they are in the situation where they are asking us to sort and probe through things so that there is some consistency how we handle things within the community. Mr. Brunow said his motion was to have to either vote or have one that has been placed in the minutes for the record.

Chairman McCoy noticed that Mr. Brunow stopped short in his motion. Mr. Brunow said that was the reason why. Chairman McCoy asked Mr. Brunow if he did not want to include, “with lot coverage, temporary building placement, entrance width, parking and loading space requirements”. Mr. Brunow said that five (5) points that are on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report would need to be included in a motion of that type.

Mr. Hembree said it would be a motion for revised site plan modifications which are numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 from the staff report, based on a site plan that was filed and dated October 19, 2007.

Mr. Creed said he would second the motion as discussed above.

Discussion:

Ms. DiRocco said her concern is not with the lot coverage going from 44% to 55%, but is the stormwater management in the sense of what is being added and what is being done. Ms. DiRocco said that she wants to see this application pass and go through and not hold up VES being revised, but feels that they have not looked into that. For that reason she will not be voting for the motion.

Chairman McCoy recalled that the total CFS with the proposed renovation - the difference was going to be 2 CFS more and asked if that was enough to impact the overall outflow.

Ms. Diez said as requested in the last meeting by the Planning Commission, they asked the applicant to show pre-development flow and post-development flow and that table has been added on sheet 2 of the proposed plans. Ms. Diez said the difference of the 2 CFS would have to be detained and that is what Public Works would have to see the design for.

Mr. Souser said relevant to the overall flow the 2 CFS is a small amount. Mr. Souser said his understanding in talking with Public Works is that detention would have to be provided for the difference of 55% lot coverage and the allowable 25% lot coverage which is quite a bit.

Mr. Creed said if they already approved 44% lot coverage than why are they not doing a difference between 44% lot coverage and 55% lot coverage, which is 11% lot coverage. Mr. Creed said why is it back down to 25% lot coverage.

Ms. Diez said that once you exceed the 25% lot coverage you are required to accommodate the difference between the 25% lot coverage and the 55% lot coverage. Mr. Creed asked what is being done now to accommodate the difference between 44% lot coverage 25% lot coverage. Ms. Diez said once a modification to the site is done you go back to what the Code requirement of 25% lot coverage is. Mr. Creed asked where we are at in capturing the difference between 44% lot coverage and 55% lot coverage and what the cost estimate would be. Ms. Diez said that would be for the applicant to say what their existing system of pipes accommodates and whatever is left that they still have to accommodate. Ms. Diez said they have to accommodate that entire capacity.

Mr. Creed asked the school how much are what are they doing to retain the difference of the approved 44% lot coverage which is over the allowed 25% lot coverage. Mr. Souser replied nothing. Mr. Souser said there is no existing stormwater management on the site.

Ms. DiRocco said listening to all of the comments she is going to abstain from the vote.

Discussion ensued regarding how to move forward on the motion.

Mr. Miller did want to say that the County has done an exceptional job at putting the plans together saying they pursued several different methods. Mr. Miller said he would like to see the Town look at what stormwater management would be on the site. Mr. Miller said it is hard to waive something when there is no information on that matter.

Mr. Creed said his concern is if the Planning Commission sends forward a motion that has many abstentions and one (1) or two (2) positive votes to Town Council what will the Town Council do with it. Mr. Creed said that Town Council may send it back to the Planning Commission or if Council does act on the motion forwarded they will have to do some of the staff work they are expecting the Planning Commission to do and that is asking the applicant to give the detail for lot coverage and stormwater management. Mr. Creed said from his standpoint what the Commission is sending forward to Council is incomplete staff work.

Mr. Brunow asked Mr. Creed if he wants to withdraw his second and he will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Creed withdrew his second to the motion.

Mr. Brunow withdrew the motion.


Mr. Chase said there is no way to perfect the motion with the information that they have, but they do not know that the Council will agree with their concerns about this so he personally would like to have seen Mr. Brunow to have kept his motion and send it forward and have the Chairman’s memorandum explain where the Planning Commission is and what they would have done with additional information from the applicant and the Council could decide what they want to do. Mr. Chase said he is inclined to send a motion forward.

Mr. Brunow said the Planning Commission’s job is to sort through and help the Town Council find solutions and he does not think they would be doing that with that particular type of activity.

Mr. Chase said if the applicant does not wish to change their application he does not know if there is a mechanism to do what they would like to have done.

Mr. Miller asked the Chairman if they could put the burden of the stormwater management not on the applicant but on the Town. Chairman McCoy asked how so; what did Mr. Miller have in mind. Mr. Miller said the applicant has said they are not going to change and it seems to him like they would be stuck with something they are not comfortable voting on so the only other “work-a-round” is that the Town do the work of the applicant to answer the questions presented by the Commission.

Mr. Creed said he in part agrees with Mr. Miller, but thinks that the Town, because they own the paper street; it is incumbent on both the Town Public Works and the school to put together a solution.

Mr. Miller said that the school did have a plan in that they would buy the street, combine the parcels and than there would be no problem, but the Town did not want that. Mr. Miller said that it seems to him that it is incumbent upon the Town to answer the Commissions questions because the applicant did come up with a solution.

Mr. Creed asked what Public Works comments were on this. Ms. Diez said they have analyzed it, they have looked at the 22% lot coverage; if the Planning Commission asked Public Works to evaluate it based on 55% lot coverage they can do that, and at that point they will require that the applicant show stormwater detention which would be the next step. Mr. Creed said that it would require detention off Town land too. Ms. Diez said the next step would be Public Works saying that it needs to be on-site and than the applicant would come back to the Town. Mr. Creed said Public Works needs to take care of the water that is on Locust Street, SE, (paper street) because that is part of the sheetflow that is going back there.

Mr. Hembree said that the Town has joined in with the applicant, as mentioned earlier by Mr. McGranahan. The Town of Vienna is an active participant in this proposal, which is why they went with the combination routine in the first place. But if the Planning Commissioners have significant objections, the next step would be the Town would have to work with the applicant as one of the owners of the parcel to come up with what would be a potential solution to the problem.

Mr. Miller said he would like to see the Town as an applicant propose the stormwater management control for the site.


It was moved to recommend to the Mayor and Town Council disapproval of site plan modifications for the Vienna Elementary site due to concerns about lot coverage and stormwater management.

Motion: Chase
Second: Brunow

Discussion:

Mr. Miller asked if they could add in the discussion portion that the Planning Commission would be in favor of granting stormwater management exception and lot coverage exception if they were so presented. Mr. Miller asked if they could make that a part of the minutes.

Mr. Hembree said if the Planning Commission wanted to do that they might include as part of the justification for the disapproval that the Planning Commission would be willing to entertain a lot coverage site plan modification for the RM-2 zone and stormwater management waiver if the Commission had all the facts that they feel comfortable with. Mr. Miller agreed with that proposed statement.

Mr. Creed said the on this motion he will be voting no because he cannot see sending this to the Mayor and Town Council and have them going back to the applicant and ask for stormwater management waivers and lot coverage, etc. Mr. Creed said they would be better served if the Planning Commission does that and have the applicant come back to the Commission on November 14, 2007. Mr. Creed said he wanted a feel from the applicant on how they feel.

Mr. McGranahan said that they would be inclined to go forward to the Town Council and have this discussion with them because they have been partnering with staff and the Town Attorney. Mr. McGranahan said that he did appreciate all of the time the Planning Commission has spent on this. This would allow them to go to the Town Council next month. Mr. McGranahan said that he will commit to the Town Council that he will have further discussion with the Town to see what can be done to answer the factual question about the stormwater management.

Mr. Creed thanked Mr. McGranahan for his presentation and said that he is in favor of a brick and mortar addition to VES.

Carried: 7-1

Voting Nay: Creed
Absent: Womack


Chairman McCoy asked if it was practical to go forward with Item No. 3 in view of the discussions this evening regarding this application.

Mr. Attanasi said he would go forward with Item No. 3, because conceptually the plan, whatever happens with the drainage, the plan will stay constant.

Ms. DiRocco asked if having the hours of operation and the uses for VES before considering the conditional use request for VES. Mr. McGranahan said he wished he had been at the last meeting so they could have a list of conditions. Mr. McGranahan suggested that they incorporate all of current conditions for Waters and Caffi Field in the recommendation for the conditional use permit. Mr. McGranahan said regarding VES he would offer that it be conditioned on the same use and whatever standard limitation that is put on schools in the Town of Vienna since they don’t have the hours of operation but that it would be for the other school in Town who have conditional use permits. Mr. Attanasi said that the school has a SACC program which probably begins at 6:30 AM to likely 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM and there are also evening activities.


It was moved to defer Item No. 3 to November 14, 2007.

Motion: Creed
Second: Anderson
Carried: 8-0

Absent: Womack





It was moved to approve the minutes of October 10, 2007 with corrections.

Motion: Chase
Second: Miller
Carried: 8-0

Absent: Womack

It was moved to adjourn at 10:08 PM.

Motion: Attanasi
Second: Chase
Carried: 8-0
Absent: Womack


Respectfully Submitted



Denise Rose Borgatti
Board Clerk

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