HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 23 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 23,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 23,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning & Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas,
Senior Planner. Absent: Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Jared Loewenstein.
A quorum was established with 4 of 7 members present. Ms. Washington arrived during the meeting,
making 5 members present.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the March 17t' Board of Supervisors meeting. He stated that the
Board approved establishment of the Cooper Industries' central sewage and well system as required by
the county code for private central systems in the county, based on recommendations from the
engineering department. The Board heard the U.S. Cellular/Goodlow Mountain request, and deferred
that request for 60 days in order to receive some additional information and conduct additional analysis;
Mr. Cilimberg said that after the Planning Commission meeting and before the Board meeting, some
additional information became available in terms of the tower height for the lattice structure — it was
determined to be a 60' height restored plus an additional pole height. He said that the Vintage Market
canopy and expansion request was approved with conditions; the Snow's Business Park Special Use
permit was also approved with one condition; the Brown's Market canopy request was approved subject
to conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Blue Ride Community Church request near Lake Saponi request
was approved with conditions; the International Center for Jefferson Studies was approved with
conditions. Also, the Panorama Ag/Forestal District was approved and the ordinance was adopted for
that district's addition.
Other Items Not Listed on the Agenda — Public comment was invited; none was offered.
Consent Agenda SDP 99 011 Peter Jefferson Place H & III Preliminary Site Plan
Proposal to construct two office buildings which require building on critical slopes [4.2.3.2], parking
cross slope grade in excess of 2% [4.12.6.3b], curvilinear parking [4.12.6.5c], one-way circulation
[4.12.6.2], and a reduction in required loading spaces [4.12.7.2]. Property, described as Tax Map 78,
Parcel 31, is located on the eastern side of Peter Jefferson Parkway, approximately 2,400 feet south of
Route 250 East.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion
passed unanimously.
Public Hearing
SP 98-60 Triton/Bever (Sign #60)
Triton Communications is personal wireless service provider. The applicant proposes to construct a
195-foot monopole as part of their system network. Construction of the monopole requires a special use
permit in accord with the provisions of Section 27.2.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed site is
on Tax Map 78, Parcel 49E, which is zoned LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. The site consists of 2.4 acres located in the Hunters Hall Industrial Subdivision between Route
ln4
250 (Richmond Road) and I-64. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not
located within a designated development area of the Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the February
2, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Applicant requests indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded deferral of SP 98-60. The motion passed
unanimously.
ZMA 98-24 Grayrock North (Sign 466,67,681
Petition to amend a portion (21 acres) of an approved PRD Planned Residential Development to reduce
development potential from 70 townhouse units to 27 single-family detached dwellings. Property,
described as Tax Map 55, parcels 65 (part) & 65A (part) is located in the White Hall Magisterial District
on Route 684 west and adjacent to Orchard Acres subdivision. This property is situated in the Crozet
Community in the Comprehensive Plan and recommended for Neighborhood Residential (3-6
dwellings/acre). Applicant requests indefinite deferral
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Rieley seconded indefinite deferral of ZMA 98-24. The motion
passed unanimously.
SP 99-01 The Import Car Store (Sign #77)
Request to establish an automobile dealership within a designated Entrance Corridor [30.6.3.2] located
on 9.73 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property described as Tax
Map 45B 1, Section 06, Parcel 1B, is located on the eastern side of Route 29 North [Seminole Trail], in a
portion of the former Federal Express building. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is
recommended for Community Service Use in Urban Neighborhood 2.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, stating that the property is the abandoned Federal Express
building on the east side of Route 29 just before the South Fork of the Rivanna River. He said the
applicant is proposing to establish a small auto dealership and referenced the site plan displayed,
indicating that the store would only occupy a small portion of the 46,000 square foot building. Mr.
Morrisette stated that the reason the item is before the Commission is in accord with Entrance Corridor
Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 30.6.3.2, which states that the applicant must obtain a
Special Use Permit to allow for outdoor storage and display of automobiles along an Entrance Corridor.
He reported that staff has not identified any major conflicts with the proposal, and reviewed items that
are favorable to the request as outlined in his staff report; he said the only unfavorable factor is that the
use is inconsistent with the guidelines for community service designations in the Comprehensive Plan.
Currently, the Comprehensive Plan is designated for Community Service and doesn't allow for
automobile dealerships, although they are allowed by -right in the Highway Commercial zone; the
special use requirement is under the Entrance Corridor regulations in the ordinance. Mr. Morrisette
noted that auto dealerships are located throughout this district, some of which are designated
Community Service areas, and no major conflict has been identified with the existing by -right
dealerships. He concluded that staff supports the application and recommends approval with conditions
as outlined in his report, noting the ARB conditions attached to his report. Mr. Morrisette added that the
Carrsbrook Homeowner's Association has provided input regarding the application; their concerns are
reflected in Condition #4.
Mr. Rieley asked if the 15 proposed parking spaces are existing pavement. Mr. Morrisette confirmed
that they are.
The applicant, George Seymour, addressed the Commission. Public comment was invited; none was
offered.
110
Mr. Thomas asked if any additional buffer would have to be added. Mr. Morrisette responded that while
staff is looking at the potential impact of the dealership, it provides less of an impact than the Fed Ex
building did; he said the applicant has indicated the business will only stay open until 7:00 p.m.
Therefore, staff did not require any additional screening beyond what's already required with the
original site plan.
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded SP 99-01 with conditions as recommended
by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-71 Stony Mountain Fibers (Sign #45)
Request for special use permit to allow sheep farming with retail sales in accordance with Section
[10.2.2.31] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Home Occupation, Class B. The property,
described as Tax Map 63 Parcel 41 A; contains 4.766 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District on Hammocks Gap Road (route #612) approximately 0.9 miles from the intersection of
Hammocks Gap Road and Stony Point Road (Route 20). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report in Ms. Scala's absence, stating that this proposal involves using
an existing building as studio space for natural fiber processing, classes in spinning and weaving and
related retail sales for a property that is currently a sheep farm and residence/barn. The applicant has
outlined in their proposal what they will be doing on their property; staffs opinion is that the home
occupation will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the use
will take place in a building that is visually compatible with a rural setting; traffic to the site, while it
will increase, is not expected to increase significantly except for 3 weekend open -house events
throughout the year. He stated that the use supports an appropriate rural activity and contributes to the
character of the area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed class would add about 20 additional trips per week; the open -house
would add 10-20 trips per hour, three weekends per year. While this is additional traffic, staff feels this
is not excessive compared to a typical residential use. Mr. Cilimberg stated the existing driveway
should be widened to a commercial standard, or at a minimum to allow two cars to pass at the entrance
location. He said that the Ag/Forestal District's Advisory Committee unanimously recommended that
this is consistent with the district and recommends the use be approved through the special use permit
application. Staff has also recommended approval with the four conditions as outlined in Ms. Scala's
report.
The applicant, Barbara Gentry, owner of Stony Mountain Fibers, addressed the Commission. In
response to Mr. Finley's question, Ms. Gentry answered that there are 26 sheep on their farm at present
on four acres, adding that many are for sale. She said her sheep are Cormo, a cross between Lincoln and
Merino, with very soft wool. Mr. Nitchmann asked if she planned to do any dyeing of the wool. Ms.
Gentry responded that she will do some dyeing, using only natural products such as walnut, osage
orange, etc., which are all biodegradable. Ms. Gentry said she would also sell a spinning wheel to a
student on occasion.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of SP 98-71 with conditions as
recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
111
ZMA 98-26 Woodbrook Crossing Executive Suites (Sign #46)
Request to rezone .204 acres from R-6, Residential to C-1, Commercial to allow professional office
usage. The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 90, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District
between Woodburn Road (Route 659) and Berkmar Drive (Route 1403), adjacent to the intersection of
Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Transitional in Neighborhood One.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report in the applicant's absence, noting that the proposal includes a
rezoning and request for waivers to allow grading on critical slopes and buffer disturbance. She
explained that the site originally was very small, and the applicant secured an option on a 50-foot strip
from the adjacent residential parcel, which would be added to the smaller parcel to allow it to be big
enough to accommodate an office building and the required parking. Ms. Thomas indicated that the
proffers presented are intended to match those that were offered on the dominant (larger) parcel. She
referenced the executive summary addressing the request to grade on critical slopes and the possibility
that the parking lot may disturb the buffer between this property and the adjacent residential property in
forming the curb.
In response to Mr. Thomas' question about disturbing the buffer, Ms. Thomas explained that the area is
somewhat wooded, with the property adjacent to the parcel recently vacated as residential.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of ZMA 98-26 with the
proffers included.
Vftw SDP 99-014 Woodbrook Crossing Executive Offices Preliminary Site Plan Critical Slope/Grading
within the Buffer Request
Request in conjunction with a preliminary site plan application for professional offices, for a waiver to
allow grading on critical slopes within the buffer.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded SDP 99-014. The motion passed
unanimously.
SDP 98-166 Pounding Brook Golf Club Preliminary Site Plan
Request for preliminary site plan approval to construct an 18-hole public golf course, with associated
clubhouse and driving range, on a total of 319 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as
Tax Map 73, Parcel 27G is located on the southern side of State Route 637 (Dick Woods Road), across
from the Ivy Landfill Handling Center. This property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District and is not located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Cilimberg prefaced the discussion of SDP 98-166 by explaining that a recent article in the
newspaper incorrectly described the item under consideration. He said that as this use has already been
approved by the Board (with conditions as a special use permit); the issue before the Commission is the
site plan which will allow the development of the use, and the site plan has to be approved in accordance
with the site plan provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of the Special Use Permit).
This permit (SDP 98-166) is a ministerial decision, and would only go to the Board if someone were to
request that they review it.
Mr. Fritz said that after the preparation of the staff report, the applicant presented some information
which satisfies the condition that arose from the engineering department's concern about water quality;
staff is no longer recommending denial based on that provision. He stated that the project was before
112
the Commission once before as a Special Use Permit; in the approval of the permit, a condition that
states "Planning Commission approval in conjunction with site plan review of minimum setbacks,
landscapes, and earth -and -buffers and similar improvements designed to address visual and noise
impacts of the golf course on, and to respect the livability and historical significance of buildings on Tax
Map 73, Parcel 27." Mr. Fritz referenced the plan displayed, which highlighted all of the water features,
all of the holes in the golf courses and fairways, the trees that are to remain, the parking area, the
clubhouse and other buildings proposed, the driving range, and Tax Map 73, Parcel 27 (the Helvin
property).
Mr. Fritz continued that the site plan was submitted to and reviewed by the Site Review Committee, and
noted that the applicant made the revisions requested, which address the technical issues of the plan. He
said that the plan does not, in staffs opinion, satisfy the conditions of the special use permit due to the
impacts on the Helvin property. He further commented that his report provides information on the
distance of various golf course facility features from the Helvin property line and house. Mr. Fritz
added that it is not uncommon in golf course developments for residential construction to occur in close
proximity to the fairways; staff analysis of local golf facilities confirmed this. However, in some
instances, individuals choose to live near the active areas within these developments. In this case, the
development on the Helvin property predates the golf course, and there was a special use permit
condition which specifically relates to development of the course in proximity to the Helvin property.
Mr. Fritz explained that the parking area proposed is more than 500 feet from the clubhouse; the
ordinance requires only 55 parking spaces for the proposed use, but he applicant is providing 152
spaces. He stated that this number is due to the applicant's understanding of golf course design; the
applicant has stated that the number required by the ordinance is less than what is typically needed for a
course of this size based on observation of other courses. Mr. Fritz mentioned that part of the
application includes a request for modification to allow activity on critical slopes; he said that the
isolated areas of critical slopes were identified during the review of the Special Use Permit, when it was
noted that a modification would be required. He added that no activity on this development takes place
above the 900-foot contour, a condition of the permit and a reflection of the Mountain Resource Area as
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fritz said that the Open Space Plan also notes the location of
large systems of critical slopes; in the plan, the slopes are shown only above the 900-foot contour.
He said that the Engineering Department has reviewed the request for activity on critical slopes and staff
concurs with their findings, and therefore supports a modification on critical slopes, assuming approval
of the site plan. Mr. Fritz added that there is a modification request for parking to be located more than
500 feet from the entrance of the clubhouse; with the exception of nine parking spaces, all parking is
more than 900 feet from the clubhouse. He noted that the applicant is proposing a temporary clubhouse
in the parking area, and most of the parking would comply with the temporary clubhouse location; once
that was abandoned it would no longer comply. Mr. Fritz said that none of the required parking is
located more than 500 feet from the driving range. The applicant has provided a drop-off area near the
clubhouse that includes an area for the dropping off of golf clubs. Mr. Fritz noted that the current
parking standards for golf courses were developed many years ago, and staff is unable to identify any
special study or analysis that was performed in order to determine the appropriate parking standard.
Mr. Fritz stated that information from the applicant tends to indicate that more parking than required by
the ordinance may be appropriate for the proposed use. Staff noted this is a recreational activity
involving hundreds of acres, therefore distance is not a major issue in terms of providing for
convenience of development, which is one of the review criteria for modification of parking location.
However, the location of the parking more than 500 feet from the clubhouse does contribute to the
impact on the Helvin property. Staff has determined that the parking as well as other uses are in a
location which does not comply with the conditions of the special use permit for this property; staff
113
opinion is that the inconsistency of the parking location with the conditions of the special use permit
overcomes the other findings from staff regarding the distance of the parking area from the clubhouse
and therefore, staff is unable to support the modification to allow parking more than 500 feet from the
proposed use.
Mr. Fritz summarized that staff believes the proposed plan is inconsistent with the conditions of the
special use permit and therefore approval would be in violation of the ordinance. He added staff is not
supporting the modification request to allow parking beyond the 500 feet because it contributes to the
aforementioned finding; however, should the Planning Commission choose to approve the site plan,
staff does not find the parking more than 500 feet from the clubhouse is "inconsistent with the
convenience of the development" due to the nature of it — an outdoor recreational activity. Mr. Fritz said
that staff is also recommending approval of the modification to allow activity on critical slopes should
the site plan be approved. He further noted that in this application, staff has not provided any potential
conditions of approval because due to the nature of their basis for recommending denial, it would be
appropriate to listen to the comments of the Planning Commission if they choose to recommend
approval, then defer action, and let staff bring back conditions of approval.
Mr. Finley asked about the problem with the parking being over 500 feet from the clubhouse. Mr. Fritz
explained that the location of the parking and the activity of the parking itself is a potential impact to the
Helvin property inconsistent with the special use permit, specifically people moving back and forth
between the clubhouse, the tee area, and the parking area. He noted that people would be coming in,
dropping off, and going back out, creating an increase in traffic by people having to drive the path twice,
and mentioned that the layout of the cart path is in fairly close proximity to the Helvin property. "All of
those factors together lead to some impacts.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff had contacted any other golf courses about their parking requirements.
Mr. Fritz responded that they considered the information that the applicant provided, and looked at some
golf course facilities in the county which have more parking than the minimum ordinance requirement.
He said that they didn't poll any courses outside the community, adding, "We're not taking issue with
the fact it may be appropriate to provide more parking than our ordinance requires as a minimum. It's
really the impacts and the location of the parking that we're questioning, not the total volume of
parking..."
In response to Mr. Finley's question about relocating the parking, Mr. Fritz replied that if the parking
was located elsewhere and it were more than 500 feet from the clubhouse, staff might not recommend
denial. "Again, it's not the distance from the clubhouse that we're finding inconsistent .... we were able
to find successfully that the ordinance would not be violated by granting a waiver due to the distance. It
was more the location of it — more than 500 feet — and what that did in terms of an overall impact and
relationship with the special use permit condition. An alternative location that was more than 500 feet
may be acceptable."
Mr. Fritz added that he agrees with the applicant that the parking should be more than 55 spaces, but
questioned whether it was necessary to have 100, 150 or 200. "I don't have enough comfort to say that.
Again, it's not really the total number of parking we have an issue with. If they were to reduce the
parking by some number, it would depend on the layout of that reduction and what the layout of the new
development would be as to whether or not it would still have an impact on the Helvin property." Mr.
Fritz said that it is the visual impact of having the parking area as opposed to a fairway in view of the
Helvin property, adding that one thing staff kept in mind during the review process was how the
character of the area was being changed. "A parking area of this size is simply not something you
would normally anticipate in a rural area."
114
Mr. Thomas asked for clarification of the term "livability." Mr. Fritz responded that in reviewing the
comments of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, staff developed this concept regarding
the activities that would be conducted that are not rural in character, and how they potentially impact the
property — sound from vehicles, people at the clubhouse, activities at the clubhouse, activities and sound
with the driving range, volume of traffic in a particular area — and how they relates to a rural climate.
Staff considered how those things are offset from the Helvin property and how they are mitigated given
the short distance between the Helvin property and the proposed activities. Mr. Fritz added that the
applicant has provided a landscape berm which will help to reduce the impact of the drop-off area and,
to some extent, the clubhouse.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what the total by -right development possibilities are. Mr. Finley stated there were
19 development rights.
The applicants' spokesperson, Mark Watson, a golf course architect, addressed the Commission. He
introduced Brian Smith, a civil engineer and golf course architect who collaborated on the project, and
the Fosters — the applicants.
Mr. Watson reviewed the history of the site plan process, stating that their initial submittal was on
December 28`"; staff returned comments on January 1 lth and immediately began to work to address
concerns with the initial submittal. Mr. Watson said after a week or so, it became apparent that it would
take longer than planned to address the issues, and asked to defer the review for a month.
Mr. Watson noted the master plan for the project, explaining that the course would be an 18-hole public
golf venue with a range. There would be no lights or PA systems as the special use permit conditions
require. He said the public aspect of the course has been recently discussed in a Darden study, which
found that Charlottesville and Albemarle County "have a dire need for public golf." He said that most
courses in the area are private, and there is an every -growing area population including many retirees
who golf. Mr. Watson stated that they estimate there will be 30,000 rounds per year at the course when
it's in full operation. He referenced a handout given to Commissioners that explained the primary
mission of the golf course other than providing golf — including ecological considerations — and said that
two issues have been added since the handout was made: a Par 3 course is proposed to be integrated
into the 18-hole regulation course as well, so that beginners can play and the course will be in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He added that it will be one of the first courses in
the U.S. to have that designation.
Noting the 13 conditions put on their special use permit, Mr. Watson said that Condition #13 requiring
development of an environmental resources plan actually includes the first seven conditions. He said
that Condition # 11 "seems to be the sticking point for approval on this project" — to respect the Helvin's
property as much as possible by providing minimum setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers and
similar improvements designed to address visual and noise impacts on the golf course, and to respect the
livability and historical significance of buildings on the Helvin property. Mr. Watson said they feel as
though they have met these conditions, stating that the setbacks they have provided are far beyond the
minimums for rural setbacks. He added that the nearest structure to the Helvin property is 340 feet away
— the existing cart shed. Mr. Watson mentioned the waivers on critical slopes and parking.
Mr. Watson said that they have met Condition #11 dealing with visual and noise impacts of golf courses,
outlining what they have done to attempt to satisfy the condition and "keep Mr. Helvin as comfortable as
possible with his property." He said they have delayed the construction of a permanent clubhouse for 3
years beyond the opening of the golf course. Mr. Watson said they want to create a very native -looking
landscape, trying to use the natural and native species, and are also trying to mirror the cultural
landscape of the area. He reported that they have moved the cart shed, which was originally in the
115
"cone of vision" to the southwest from the Helvin's property to an area outside the "cone of vision."
Mr. Watson explained that they have set up a temporary trailer so that the clubhouse facilities could all
be accommodated within the parking area. He added that additional berm has been added on the
southwest (golf course) side of the project which he said has been "heavily planted with historically
accurate material." Mr. Watson commented that the plant materials that will be planted around the
Helvin's property will be in keeping with the age of the structure.
He said that they also made sure they set back all hard surfaces as far back as possible without
subverting the slopes, and have offered to pave the Helvin's driveway and re -grade the area adjacent to
the driveway to ensure that the flooding that has been occurring across that driveway will be alleviated,
and to make his entrance "more comfortable and safer." Mr. Watson said they have removed 10 of the
originally proposed parking spaces that were closest to the Helvin property so they could add additional
vegetative buffer, adding that they are proposing that the area adjacent to the northeast of his property be
lowered 5 feet so that the driving range use will be below his site lines. Referencing the plan displayed,
Mr. Watson said, "It shows that all of the improvements that we have come up with to address the issues
regarding visual and noise impacts has gotten all of the parking, the driving range, and the entry road out
of site line from the Helvin property." He mentioned they are actually using the Helvin property as a
berm so noise impacts will be mitigated from the driving range and the site line from the entry road has
been lowered so that Mr. Helvin will be able to look directly over the road.
Mr. Watson concluded that the major issue that seems to be a problem is the difficulty "persuading
everyone that we've done enough to attempt to figure out how to move these three offending uses: the
driving range, the parking lot, and the proposed permanent clubhouse somewhere else on site." He said
that golf course needs to "lay gently on this land and it needs to flow," and one problem is that the area
adjacent to the Helvin's property (where the driving range and parking lot are presently located) is a
"dead zone" for golf because it is "too constrained from a topographical and hydrological standpoint."
%W
He added, "We've been constrained by VDOT on where we're supposed to actually enter this site, and
also from a spatial standpoint, it doesn't provide an area where you can get a golf hole to connect to
another golf hole." He stated that if they were to try and remove the driving range and parking area
from that location and were not able to put a golf hole back in, "basically the site is too constrained for
us to build a golf course. We have no choice at this point as to what we can do." Mr. Watson
commented that the proposed parking lot "is one of the best located parking lots I've ever seen on a site.
It steps directly into the bank, [and] is virtually invisible from the Helvin property. He said that they
made sure the retaining walls on the terraces are high enough and the plant materials are dense enough
to shield the lot. "There isn't another area on that site where it would be as aesthetically pleasing."
Mr. Watson concluded by saying the livability issue is very nebulous. "I believe that we have done
everything we can to make the Helvins as comfortable as possible with this project."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Chip Vassey, an Ivy resident, addressed the Commission, stating that he feels Albemarle County
needs this facility greatly because Meadowcreek (City) and the University golf courses are the only
public sites available. "This man is willing to foot the bill for it — unless you all are willing to pay for
it .... are we just talking about a parking lot here?"
Mr. Nitchmann interjected, "No, you're talking about the property rights of the individuals called the
Helvins and their ability to live [peacefully]. We already know that it's going to be a golf course ... the
matter is where are you going to place these things on this piece of property."
116
Mr. Vassey said, "What I just heard from the architect is he says he's gone to great extent to make as
much changes as possible, and unless this configuration is approved by you all, this may not be a golf
course."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "That's one golf course designer's opinion. So we're going to have to weigh a lot
of things here. We're not disputing the fact that this is going to be a golf course."
Mr. Vassey concluded, "I understand the homeowner's concerns. It seems to me the architect and the
people proposing this facility are willing to work with you if that means further changes. Please give
them a chance to do that. We need a facility like this in Albemarle County for the community and the
size of community that we have."
W. Jimmy Helvin addressed the Commission. "Basically our concerns are the same as we've stated
before in the letter that I wrote. It seems like the focal point of the activity — the business end of the golf
course — is around our property. Our concern is all the activity connected with that." He added that he
believes Mr. Watson and his associates have tried very hard to examine all possible options, but "with
almost 400 acres, it looks like some of those activities could be moved such that all the impact wouldn't
have to be located in one area."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Helvin how long he has lived there. Mr. Helvin replied 30 years. Mr.
Nitchmann asked if he had walked the property, and asked if there are other places (flat area) on the
property where the driving range or clubhouse could be put. Mr. Helvin responded that with the first
revision, he discussed this possibility with Mr. Watson, and from a common sense point of view, "it
seems to me they could go up the road [to the west] and put some of those functions up that way, which
would be... up to the right of our property where the road goes up." But Mr. Helvin acknowledged that
W. Watson had stated there are a lot of problems with the lake and getting enough distance between
holes. He added, "I understand that, but it seems there could be some other ways to do this.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if he had reviewed the drawings presented at the meeting. Mr. Helvin said that he
had, and although the siteline drawings show that it would be less of a visual impact, his concern is "all
the activities going on." He added that he has to drive right by the parking lot to get to his house, and
the traffic en route to the clubhouse — once it is put in — and the driving range, are all concerns. Mr.
Helvin said, "What one person feels comfortable with, another may not. We've been very very
fortunate for many many years to just live out in the sticks in a rural area... it's just all the activity, that's
all, focused there. If it was spread out more, it would be different."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if it would be more of an intrusion if they built 19 homes [through development
rights] around there. Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Helvin would rather have 19 houses on the property or
have the golf course as it's currently configured. Mr. Helvin said he would rather have neither, but a
golf course would be better than a lot of subdivisions, but said "I didn't realize that everything
connected with the operations of the golf course was going to be all around the house."
Mr. David Booth from Ivy addressed the Commission, stating that he knows both the developer and Mr.
Helvin, and wants to support both. He said when he learned of the public golf course to be created, he
liked the idea, but also understands Mr. Helvin's concerns. Mr. Booth mentioned that he played at the
old Blue Ride Golf Course near the Rock Store, and had a friend whose house was right in the middle of
the golf course. Mr. Booth said that house had fairways that came right up to the yard, which had very
little buffer, adding that it was not something that seemed to be an interference with the home, and the
clubhouse of that course was about 300 feet away from his friends home. He added that he feels the
proposed golf course would be a great asset to everyone in the community, and from his standpoint as a
civil engineer, it sounds as though the site lines are correct, and possibly Mr. Helvin wouldn't have as
117
much difficulty as first appearance might lead one to believe. Mr. Booth concluded that the biggest
impact to Mr. Helvin might be during construction, and encouraged "phasing" of the construction.
Mr. Barry Doffmeyer of Earlysville addressed the Commission, and related Mr. Helvin's situation to his
own experience in Earlysville, when he was surrounded by Earlysville Forest, which is now 150 homes
on 400 acres. Mr. Doffmeyer said a golf course would be wonderful, and added that he was bothered by
the nebulous term "livability." He stated that the architect has taken every example possible to make
this a wonderful opportunity for the public, and said there would also have a very positive impact on Mr.
Helvin's land. "Suddenly, he's got golf course property." Mr. Doffmeyer added, "what we do today,
tomorrow, the next day, 20 years from now, we may be blocked by the vegetation that naturally grows,
and hopefully what they plant." He said that he is bothered by the cost to the community to add all of
these burdens to the developer on the fact that "one person thinks this is going to impact him
negatively." Mr. Doffmeyer factored that if every person that played brought their own vehicle, the
course would average 82 trips per day, and more than likely people would ride together, and if the
parking lot is designed correctly, Mr. Helvin will not be able to notice the cars. He added that right now,
Mr. Helvin is "dealing with a dump across the street." Mr. Doffmeyer concluded that the architect has
made every effort to locate parking lots, etc. adequately on the site.
Mr. Bill Atwood, a clubhouse architect, addressed the Commission. He said after walking the property,
he concluded that if homes were placed there in a subdivision, most of the houses would "trickle down
towards Mr. Helvin's house." Mr. Atwood said that the advantage of putting this golf course in this
neighborhood which "arguably has been abused over the last 20 years" needs to be weighed in
determining livability. He stated that the course as it is presently laid out is "appropriate in its impact on
everyone." Mr. Atwood said that Mr. Helvin will appreciate where the parking lot is located because it
is between him and the street. "Golf is a quiet use. Ask the folks in Farmington, Glenmore. It's a safe
use." He also indicated he is troubled by the term livability, and expressed concern that there was a
commitment made in the special use permit process, and this argument is "taking us from that course."
Mr. Atwood asked the Commission to "weigh the impact on this community versus the impact on one
man."
Mr. Finley interjected, "Yeah, there was a contract made, but part of it was to review and approve the
site plan once it met the conditions. So that's what we're trying to do tonight."
Mr. Donnie Foster, who owns the property for the golf course site, addressed the Commission stating,
"This piece of property is not as large as people think it is. We're only using about 260 acres of this
piece of property. Sixty -some acres of this piece of property is being given to the Conservation Society
because it is totally unusable for us above the 900-foot mark. We ran 13 routing plans for this golf
course to try to get this 18 holes of golf on this piece of property." Mr. Foster added, "If this plan does
not pass the way it is, this golf course as far as I'm concerned — the clubhouse, the cart shed, the parking
— it cannot be moved anywhere else. I have walked this property for days and hours and days and hours
and have been through with the architect, with the engineer, and pretty much what we've come up with
here I feel is the best plan that we can possibly come up with."
Mr. Foster added that he would like to work with the Helvins in any way possible to try to solve the
problem solved and would try to improve anything they are not happy with.
Mr. Ed Strange of Ivy addressed the Commission, stating he fully supports personal property rights, and
supports the Helvins in their right to reasonable, peaceful enjoyment of their property. Mr. Strange said
the golf course would be a plus for the community and the neighborhood, adding that it would be an
improvement over a subdivision/development. He encouraged all the parties involved to "reach a
reasonable solution for the benefit of all."
118
Mr. Watson re -addressed the Commission. He said that the driving range, parking lot and clubhouse
logistically need to be grouped together given the nature of their uses. Mr. Watson said even if they
could be moved to a separate location, and golf holes could be adjacent to the Helvin property, "one of
the major issues... is that noise impact from mowers on fairways occurs about an hour to an hour and a
half prior to the time the first car shows up in the parking lot." He added that locating a fairway there
could mean golf balls traveling into the Helvin's property. Mr. Watson said if things are moved around,
they could "lose the entire area adjacent to the northeast and northwest borders of the Helvin property."
Mr. Watson concluded, "I think we have done everything humanly possible to meet the conditions:
historical significance, livability, noise, and visual impact. I don't think we can do what is impossible.
We don't get anywhere be having a disgruntled, angry or disappointed homeowner within the context of
the overall golf facility. It would negatively impact us both from a social perception as well as a
physical perception. All we're asking is to show you what we can do." Mr. Watson added that Mr.
Helvin has been wonderful throughout the entire process, and he looks forward to working with him.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said he thinks the site is a "terrific place for a golf course," and added it is a "positive
addition to a community that desperately needs one." He said that the overall approach taken by the
designers and the developer is "a very laudable one" with its ecological considerations and the fact it is a
public golf course. Mr. Rieley said that he believes Mr. Watson and his associates have made an earnest
attempt to meet the conditions of the special use permit, adding that for all of the reasons stated, he
voted in favor of the special use permit. However, he added, "I still have the same concerns [at the site
plan level] that I had when it came before us at the special use permit level, and it's one of the reasons
we put the conditions that we did... and that is that, at that time, the property was completely surrounded
by the most intensive use on the golf course. It looked a lot like at the time the intended clubhouse was
in fact, the Helvin's house... and it's still right in the middle."
Mr. Rieley continued that while Mr. Watson said the clubhouse, parking lot, and driving range need to
be close together the site plan indicates they are not close together, "they're separated by the Helvin's
house — it's the hub of the spoke, and that hasn't changed, and that's the part of this that really continues
to trouble me. And so I agree with staff." Mr. Rieley commended staff on the staff report, adding, "I do
think this is still inconsistent with the conditions of the special use permit, and more than that it strikes
me as fundamentally unfair to the Helvins." He concluded, "I think that we can have a good golf course
here, and I think that it is possible to rearrange things in a way that acknowledges the fact that the
Helvin are continuing... to reside on this property. So I support the golf course, but I can't support the
site plan."
Mr. Thomas said that his understanding of the site plan indicates the applicant has met all of the
conditions. He stated, "I feel this golf course and Mr. Helvin can coexist without any real change to the
livability in that area." Mr. Thomas said the parties involved can collaboratively work together to make
this site plan work.
Ms. Washington said she has visited the property and understands the Helvin's point of view, and agrees
with Mr. Thomas that there is a way that both the Helvins and the golf course can coexist. "I can't
imagine how the topography of the land is, and being across the street from the landfill, how many other
uses you can use this property for. I supported [the special use permit] then and I have plans to support
it now."
Mr. Nitchmann said there are a lot of positives, but still some drawbacks also, stating that no one
questions that there is a need in the community for another golf course. "I think that the developer and
ice;
the owner of the property are doing everything they can to be environmentally sensitive... if we're really
talking about trying to save rural land in the county, than there's no better way in my mind to save it
than by having 200 and some acres put into a golf course with no houses on it. I think that there's been
a lot of work that's been done to increase the buffer areas." Mr. Nitchmann added that he does not feel,
based on the drawings presented, that there is a great visual impact — especially over the long-term. He
said that the golf course provides a positive opportunity for area youth to get involved with a sport that
"will help them become better citizens." Mr. Nitchmann noted that the course would also be a great
asset in providing an outdoor experience for physically disabled citizens.
Mr. Nitchmann concluded that if there have been many, many approaches in laying the site out, "I don't
know where else we can take this. I hate to not be a supporter of one individual's property rights, but in
this case it appears to me that the greater good is going to be served for the whole community by the
development of this into a golf course. I'm going to support the site plan."
Mr. Kamptner asked if the supplementary drawings are incorporated into the preliminary site plan. Mr.
Fritz said they could be a condition of approval, and said it would be best that conditions of approval not
be written tonight because staff will need to develop those. Mr. Cilimberg said if there is a sense of
approving the site plan, the Commission could defer action until the conditions were developed.
Mr. Finley asked what would happen if the site plan were not approved. Mr. Cilimberg replied it would
be denied on whatever basis the Commission cited, and the applicant would have the opportunity to
bring it back before the Commission or appeal to the Board. Mr. Finley asked Mr. Fritz if he felt that
given what the applicant presented at the meeting, Condition #11 was still not met. Mr. Fritz responded
that he would want to study the site lines more intensely, but the drawings do indicate that some of the
impacts from the parking area, etc. may not be that great, directly from the Helvin house itself, not from
any other part of the property.
Mr. Rieley interjected, "And it's only in those areas in which the sections were taken."
Mr. Fritz said that everywhere on the site lines where it shows proposed evergreens, berms, etc., is
accurately reflected on the site plan which has already been reviewed.
Mr. Finley commented that during his initial review of the site plan, he was unaware of the intended
"low" placement of the parking lot, and that there would be a buffer. He indicated that his concern
about the parking lot problems was lessened by that information, but he still had concerns about the
clubhouse location. Mr. Finley asked Mr. Fritz if there was another possible place for the clubhouse.
Mr. Fritz responded, "Sure there's another feasible place, but is there another location that works in
terms of the design of the facility and the grades, and with how much earthwork and of what design of a
clubhouse — that's a harder question. You can engineer anything — you just keep moving dirt." Mr.
Fritz said that the site plan shows a temporary clubhouse, which the applicant notes is intended to
minimize the amount of activity going on during the initial construction phase, and secondly, to allow
time for vegetation to mature before the permanent clubhouse is developed — approximately 41/2 years
to completion.
Mr. Rieley asked what the time limit is on the action on the item. Mr. Kamptner responded that the
Commission needs to act within 60 days of the request submittal.
Commissioners discussed the possibility of deferring the item to give Mr. Fritz a chance to form
conditions, and to give the applicant and Mr. Helvin time for further discussions.
120
Mr. Fritz commented, "If you're talking about relocation of any particular facility or any particular item
on the site and you know how that should occur [such as tree size, location, etc.] those are fairly easy
conditions for us to do." Mr. Fritz added that those types of things could be made into conditions fairly
quickly.
�tirr
Mr. Fritz said that they "are way beyond the 60 day period" because of the delay after the site plan
meeting and the resubmission and modifications from the Site Review Committee. Mr. Fritz said they
could develop conditions of approval within two weeks that cover the standard conditions of approval
and also address the letter and the spirit of information submitted. Mr. Finley stated that the proposal
should also be reevaluated to some degree with the new information provided. Mr. Fritz said that staff
could see how the new information affects their initial recommendations, and also develop conditions.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded deferral of SDP 98-166 so that staff
could review the site plan and develop conditions. However, the applicant could not be at the April 6`h
meeting, and April 131h was determined to be a holiday. Commissioners proposed that the item be
reconsidered on April 20a'. Ms. Washington withdrew her motion.
The Commission unanimously agreed to defer action on SDP 98-166 until their April 201h meeting. In
the meantime, staff will work on establishing conditions which reflect the Commission's concerns
regarding the SDP, primarily the proximity of the proposed parking lot, clubhouse, and driving range to
the adjacent landowner (Helvin) and the activity/possible disturbance these will generate. The
Commission also indicated that the deferral might allow additional time for the applicant and the
landowner to work together to resolve the placement issues.
Worksession•
'�AW CPA 98-03 Post Office Land Trust: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the Community of
Hollymead. The applicant's request is to change the recommended land use for land on the west side of
Route 29 opposite North Forest Lakes from Industrial Service to Regional Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, explaining that this CPA was filed to amend the Plan for a relatively
small area, whereby staff recommended that a larger area be reviewed. He said the original request was
to change the designation for a 30-acre parcel from Office Service to Regional Service. Mr. Fritz said
staff recommended instead that because of road improvements, the airport, mobile home park, etc., that
the entire area be looked at. Mr. Fritz said that his map shows the location of proposed roads currently
under study, proposed by applicants or VDOT, highlighting a road perpendicular to Route 29 that was
discussed during the review of the mobile home park that would potentially connect the mobile home
park and Route 606 to Route 29. He continued that possible alternative locations for the access to
UREF have been discussed. Mr. Benish mentioned that the parallel road to the west is under
consideration not only in concept, but is referenced in a slightly different configuration in the county's
six -year road plan.
Mr. Fritz said that recently there was a sewer line installed to which Deerwood connected that provides
service to the airport, which does create opportunities for sewer in the area which didn't previously
exist. He added that the area is largely undeveloped at the intersection of Route 29 and Airport Road.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the purpose of the western road is to take traffic off of 29. Mr. Fritz replied yes,
especially to take traffic off of 29 that is using that particular area. He added that residents of that area
could use the parallel road without having to use 29, and the UREF development would be able to cross
649 and come down into the area without having to travel up and down 649. Mr. Fritz said there is
some activity the Research Park that allows limited support/commercial. Staff is considering an
121
increased regional service area, and even the possibility of some neighborhood service in the area to
provide support for UREF and the surrounding area.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was room on both sides of the road proposed so that stores or offices
1%W1 would be on both sides of the road. Mr. Fritz answered that a large retail center could be accommodated
in the middle with access coming off of either 29 or the parallel road in a conventional design. He
added that there is currently a proffer that limits the number of entrances within a stretch the designated
area to three. Mr. Fritz noted the depth of the Regional Service Area south of the river, which is much
deeper than the northern area. "It's very easy that you could have a development that uses up all the
land between 29 and Berkmar — as you get farther to the north where that road curls back, you've got
some depth in there."
Mr. Fritz reported they have not yet notified the property owners within the area, because staff wanted to
meet with the Commission and gather concerns and direction of the review. Mr. Benish stated that there
was already a public hearing on a small portion of the property, which led to this plan being drawn.
"What drove the request for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was a rezoning application which was
necessary to allow for a cinema to be located here, and they need to rezone the land. In order for it to
proceed with any support from staff, it would have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Right now,
it's shown as office service, so this wouldn't comply."
Mr. Fritz continued that staff is encouraging the concept of bringing structures closer to the road,
sidewalks along both sides of the road, a unified plan of development or a design standard in the
development. "We have multiple properties in the area, so getting a unified plan of development for
anything larger than just this piece... is highly unlikely." Mr. Fritz said Regional Service is the highest
intensity commercial use available.
iftow Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the Transitional designation would be more flexible for the developer.
Mr. Fritz agreed that Transitional provides the greatest variety of potential uses, but Mr. Benish said
Transitional is oriented to more neighborhood -scale development, adding that consistent zonings with
Regional Service actually allow for residential by special permit. Mr. Benish added that Regional
Service does allow for mixed -use development, and Mr. Fritz said it would provide the highest
commercial use and the secondary use of multi -family.
Mr. Nitchmann emphasized that a developer looking at the property would want the easiest way to
provide a mix of uses, and would not want to have to get rezonings, special use permits, etc.
"Depending on what the attitude is of the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors at the time
— that's a pretty big if." He added, "If we have an opportunity to look at something where some really
solid planning can go into, I'm all for this. I think if we'd had a side road off of 29 twenty-five years
ago, you wouldn't have 29 spreading all the way up to where it is today..."
Mr. Fritz said that one of the concepts staff is encouraging is the design standard approach, where the
transition on the other side of the road is considered in relation to what is on the opposite side of the
road. "You may want a more intense Transitional district — whatever the zoning goes in — over here if
there is a regional type use. If there's a neighborhood type use in this Regional Service area, maybe it
affects this Transitional area to be a lower Transitional area. To show it as Transitional gives you that
flexibility — it's not as intense a commercial district as Regional Service is by any stretch of the
imagination, but it does allow office, some commercial and residential."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "With so much land that's still open here, even though it's in a number of parcels,
it may take 10 years for one developer to get his hands on most of it, but if it's worthwhile, and he sees
the ability to develop something good — like a Forest Lakes — and put more in .... and we give them the
122
freedom to do that, it's more likely to occur. If you put these little hooks in there, then one who's going
to put his money on the line to develop something, he's going to look at all those hooks and say `what
can stop me from doing this."'
*.. Mr. Fritz explained that some things in that area, such as the mobile home park and Deerwood, are fixed
as Residential Areas; staff is looking at the possibility of a designation in the area that would allow for
development to occur without adversely impacting the residential developments, but also not overly
restricting. "We think the Transitional District is the best one to do that because it could go Residential
near the residential areas, or even office could be compatible with it..."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "Where that road is placed I think is very critical to how that property would be
developed. The more flexibility we have on the depth on each side of the road would lend itself to more
long-term mixed use on both sides of the road — not have a narrow strip on this side of the road, and a
real big deep strip on this side of the road."
Mr. Benish addressed the issue of the parallel road, which is proposed by the Charlottesville Area
Transportation study to be less fixed than the VDOT proposal for alignment. He explained that he
VDOT proposed parallel road is based on the overall concept for Route 29 North; their intention for
widening Route 29, while not official, makes it a limited access road, with no direct access from any
properties to Route 29 in this area. VDOT proposes only three crossovers: one at Hollymead, one at
North Forest Lakes, and one at Airport Road.
He added, "Their purpose for this road is literally to provide access to all these properties that fall along
this road. The concept that we see under either form is much like Berkmar Drive with 29; we see it as a
road that augments local traffic movement. The reason this road is located where it is is because if
VDOT builds this road — and they indicate that it's a given — they move forward with this concept, the
first step in this widening of Route 29 would actually be to build these parallel roads." Mr. Benish said,
"They would build those first, and they would become the access points for these properties, and that
sort of fixes the location of that road, and does make it in some spots kind of narrow because some of
those existing properties are real small. There may be some negotiations with those property owners if
VDOT acquires the right-of-way..." Mr. Benish concluded, "If this road moves forward as a VDOT
project, we lose a little bit of our control over where that exact location is — we're trying to work with
them on that."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "This looks like a great idea to really do some futuristic planning here. Why
doesn't the county just pay for the road and not leave it up to a bunch of guys in Richmond that really
have no sensitivity to our area whatsoever of where this road is going to go. They don't know really
what's best for our community. Why can't we put our money where our mouth is in a lot of this
situations that are going on around the county where the roads are?"
Mr. Benish said, "I don't disagree with you, but it's going to be quite a few millions of dollars to build
these parallel roads."
Mr. Nitchmann said the Planning Commission need to look at this with an eye toward the future, and
have a little bit of control over the placement of roads and intersections.
Mr. Benish said, "VDOT — although they have not set a construction time -frame for this point on
widening — it was supposed to be underway now and completed in 2003 or 2004. Once they settle on
the bypass issue and where the interchange comes in, which will impact some of the design of this road
and 29, they're going to proceed with right-of-way acquisition when they want to move forward with
123
that concept quickly. Whether we could beat them to the punch and get the money in time to build it is
probably not realistic."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "Why are we wasting our time now to try and think of how to develop this if we
don't really know where the road is going to go?"
Mr. Benish replied, "It's part of our process as input into VDOT — I don't think we need to give up
either ... I think what we're trying to move forward with — and your comments are important comments
to be making — I think we can work towards evaluating the site and provide comments to VDOT that we
are looking at how these land uses are going to change and [let them know] that's going to affect how
you need to locate and negotiate with property owners on acquiring this right-of-way. I think it's an
important step in the process, but I just want to let you know the timing of it and the concept for why
this road — the way Bill has drawn it — is pretty much based on the VDOT concept; if you look at the
CAT study concept, the road goes right down the center."
Mr. Nitchmann commented, "Well, that would be my place to put it. Closer to where it's more equal on
both sides."
Mr. Benish said the road that Bill has drawn is a modification of a CAT Study road.
Mr. Rieley asked how the DISC findings might fit into broader issues like this proposal. "It seems to me
there all part of the same thing."
Mr. Benish agreed. "We see the DISC work being complete about summertime in terms of their
recommendations to the Board. We assume that the Board will accept that study and refer it to this
Commission — that's the normal process for a planning -related document like that. The deliberations
would then be in staff s hands to provide you with comments as to how to proceed with it. I'm not sure
how we would go at that, but from my involvement I think there could be some short-term
recommendations that we could make to start implementing components of it .... I think by the
summertime, we would at least have a concept of what DISC talks about in terms of mixed -use
development, development patterns for neighborhoods .... but this is out in front of the DISC process to
some extent in that regards. One of the major recommendations of DISC is to do neighborhood plans
for all of our development areas — and let neighborhood plans be sort of the focus that provides the
identity and recommendations for the character of the development for that area. It's really picking up
on the studies that we've done in Crozet in Neighborhood 3 but in a lot more detail, but it's going to take
years to get to the point of getting those done. The Hollymead plan is the one that we've targeted as the
highest priority, but it's going to take a year to two years to develop a plan like that, particularly the first
one."
Mr. Nitchmann asked how long the road in question would be.
Mr. Benish replied it would be approximately two miles, and staff assumes that it will ultimately be four
lanes — if VDOT builds it, they will build two lanes; they will expect that the county redevelopment
review obtain the additional lands based on the impact of new land uses. Mr. Benish said, "What we
have been trying to push is that they build these as neighborhood -style streets — with curb & gutter, with
sidewalk — and for both roads, but particularly the ones in the east that go through some of these
neighborhoods and go on with some of them and acquire the full right-of-way they feel they need which
would be four lanes. Ultimately, the road to the west they would see as a four -lane roadway. Others
may stay as two lanes, but they are on the east side."
Mr. Finley asked if Route 29 would have an additional lane.
124
Mr. Benish replied that it would become a six -lane total road, three in each direction with three
signalized crossings, but VDOT has indicated that that is only a first phase, and they have two plans that
they are working on for grade -separated interchanges at the crossovers. "We have some concerns about
the design of those interchanges, and are trying to get them to look at some different alternatives and
interstate -type interchanges."
Mr. Benish said the plan right now for 29 North in the county — which has been in the six -year primary
plan for a number of years — is improvements up to airport road, with a transition out to the airport and
the project ending there. He added that in Greene County there is a traffic management study underway
primarily through the Ruckersville area which is considering the entire length of that county. "We
would assume that the logical process going on in VDOT is that there looking at this section of Airport
Road up to [Greene].... There are no plans in any documents you see for actual widening north of
Airport Road .... the concept that they propose here [Albemarle] is the concept that they would expect to
see out up to Greene County... it would be this limited -access concept roadway with only selected
interchanges..."
Mr. Nitchmann said Greene would be wise to start looking at parallel roads and make their commercial
area deeper now so they won't end up like Albemarle.
Mr. Benish commented that the work going on now in Greene with VDOT was at the request of the
county Board members.
Mr. Nitchmann mentioned a shopping center on West Broad Street near the Clean Machine Car Wash
which is placed so that the fagade of the shopping center appears to be the front of the building, but all
the parking is behind it, so when you drive by it you see the fagade, but cannot see the cars — which are
located behind the center.
Mr. Fritz said that staff has talked to the applicant for this proposal in an attempt to try to achieve that
same concept, and suggested that offices be located in front of the cinema to use parking during the
daytime, and the cinema use the parking in the evening so you're not double -building the parking. He
added that it does place the parking behind the building. Ms. Thomas said they said to the applicant,
"With so much parking for a 20-plex theatre, what else can you bring to the table that can use that
parking, because it's almost an obscene amount of parking."
Ms. Washington commented that in New York, multi-plex theatres are designed so that there is cinema
use in the evening, and office use during the day. "I just don't see that Charlottesville, Virginia in all its
glory is ready for a 20-plex on that corridor — even projecting 10 years."
Mr. Nitchmann said to staff, "I like your ideas —just don't let them put a big sea of parking there."
Mr. Benish said it is most important to get some recommendations for standards of design and "that's
where DISC comes into play." He added, "We can set the stage for what we expect in terms of
participation in those rezoning and special use permits now — that does have to be dovetailed with what
the county agrees with, and implements as part of that DISC process .... it is a balance ... we want to make
sure that we are encouraging development, we just want to encourage it the correct way."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I think the key word to the whole situation to me is flexibility. As flexible as the
county can possibly be with designating — and maybe it's not Transitional, maybe it's not Regional,
maybe it's a whole new word — that leaves it up to where a person that has the ideas and the money to
back the ideas up can come in there and look at it and say, `these are the design standards that we know
125
the county wants, this is the vision that the county has for this particular area, we can do this without
having to worry... "' He added, "Nobody wants to put a lot of money into anything before they come
before us, because they don't know whether or not it's going to pass - you've heard it over and over
again... It needs to be very, very flexible... "
Mr. Nitchmann also commented that the county needs to be leading VDOT, not the other way around,
including involving local representatives.
Mr. Benish stated that staff works at it "as best we can from a technical level, but some decisions are
made [elsewhere]." He added that staff will attempt "every avenue that's available to try to get these
projects to meet the intent of the county's concept for land -use development... our contacts are most
directly with the designers — our equivalents at VDOT. They're receptive and work with us as best they
can, but they're under their own direction as a state planning agency to provide a regional level of
service... I can't tell you the exact numbers for these projects because they haven't given us cost
estimates — but it's got to be astronomical."
Mr. Nitchmann said it may be helpful for staff to get comments from some of the area developers. Mr.
Benish said two major developers own a significant portion of the area in question, and for future
meetings regarding the CPA would be notified.
The Commission instructed staff to move forward with the CPA and schedule another worksession,
expressing an interest in obtaining information from VDOT regarding plans for the proposed roadways,
the placement of roads in and around this site and providing additional information on boundaries for the
recommended land uses, areas and development potentials.
Mr. Benish stated that staff would provide the Commission with copies of the DISC Committee status
report, which includes their tentative goals and objectives.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
V. Wayne li )Jrg
Secretary
1176