HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 06 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 6,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 6,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Other
officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior
Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Nitchmann.
A quorum was established with 4 of 7 members present.
Approval of Minutes — March 23,1999.
The minutes of March 23, 1999 were unanimously approved as amended.
Unscheduled Items
The Chairman solicited unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Consent Agenda — SDP 99-013 Pinnace Place Preliminary Site Plan — Residential Buffer Grading
and Joint Access Waiver Requests.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda.
Public Hearing Items
Withdrawal from Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District — Proposal to withdraw 84.003
acres from the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 55,
parcels 12B, 16, 16B, and 20A, is located on the north side of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (route 250West)
just west of the I-64 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is designated Rural
Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned rural Areas.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the property proposed to be withdrawn is half wooded
and half in pasture; it is enrolled in the Land Use Program. Ms. Scala said that during a recent review of
the Yellow Mountain District, the applicant could have withdrawn by -right, but missed the deadline by
one day (in January). The applicant then requested a by -right withdrawal due to the recent death of his
father, but the property was in the name of a family corporation, not held by an individual as the county
ordinance requires.
Ms. Scala said the method remaining to the applicant is thus the formal procedure — two public hearings
and presentation before the Advisory Committee; the committee met on March 15"', and recommended
allowing the withdrawal providing the father had part ownership in the parcels through the corporation.
Ms. Scala explained that staff has reviewed the application under the withdrawal criteria and determined
that the death of the applicant's father is a "change of circumstance," and although the property is owned
by a corporation, the death is a change that warrants consideration similar to that envisioned in the state
law upon the death of a sole owner.
Staff feels that approval of this request would set a precedent to allow future withdrawals under similar
conditions; however, because many family farms are owned by family corporations for estate planning
141;
reasons, this situation may indicate a need to change the state code and county ordinance. Ms. Scala
concluded that staff agrees with the advisory, and therefore approves of the request. In response to Mr.
Rooker's question regarding the size of the district, Ms. Scala replied that it is currently 681 acres in 16
parcels, including the four parcels to be withdrawn.
Ms. Scala added that the center farm withdrew several years ago, leaving outlying parcels; also, there
has been an interest expressed by other landowners in adding to the district. "It's in transition,
definitely."
The applicant, Mr. Scott Peyton, addressed the Commission, explaining his intent to withdraw the
parcels. He said his father (Bradley Peyton) was president of Brasco-Bay Corporation, which owns the
property and is comprised solely of the Peyton family. Mr. Peyton explained that the death of his father
was the sole reason why he failed to comply with the voluntary withdrawal date in January; he applied
the day after the stipulated voluntary withdrawal date.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the withdrawal. The motion passed
unanimously.
Addition to Yellow Mountain A/F District - Proposal to add 43.770 acres in two parcels to the
Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 71, parcels 64 and
64A, is located on the north side of Plank Road (State Route 692) near Batesville, in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned
Rural Areas.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report, explaining that the property is located in the Greenwood/Yancey
Mill vicinity, and said the land is enrolled in the Land Use Tax program, with 21.5 acres used for
agricultural, and 20 acres used for forestry. She said that staff recommends aTproval of the addition; the
Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval at their March 15 meeting. Ms. Scala added
that the area is shown as important farmlands and forests in the Open Space Plan.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the addition. The motion passed
unanimously.
Addition to Moorman's River A/F District — Proposal to add 110.442 acres in two parcels to the
Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 41, parcel 9E, is
located on the west side of Browns Gap Turnpike (State Route 680) near White Hall, in the White Hall
Magisterial District; and property described as Tax Map 43, Parcel 44, is located on the west side of
Free Union Road (State Route 601) near Owensville, in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The
property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned Rural Areas.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the Moorman's River District is one of the largest in the
county, containing 10,621 acres in 213 parcels; the proposed addition contains 110 acres in two parcels.
She said that these properties are enrolled in the Land Use Tax program — 16 acres under agriculture and
69 acres in forestry; both properties lie in the South Fork/Rivanna River watershed and the Browns Gap
property also lies within the Beaver Creek Reservoir watershed. Ms. Scala concluded that staff
recommends approval of the addition; the Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of
the addition.
146
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the addition. The motion passed
I% ww unanimously.
Addition to Carter's Bridge A/F District — Proposal to add 117.69 acres in five parcels to the Carter's
Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 112, Parcels 19E, 19F, 19G, 19H,
and 19I, is located on the east side of Frys Path (State Route 627) near Carter's Bridge in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned
Rural Areas.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report, explaining that the Carter's Bridge District contains 9,046 acres in
51 parcels; the proposed addition contains 117 acres in five parcels. She noted the tax map presented,
showing the parcels as basically in one family — adjacent to the existing district, and said that all the
property is enrolled in the Land Use Tax program under forestry. The Open Space plan shows the area
to have important farmlands and forests, and lies within the Hardware River watershed. Ms. Scala
concluded that staff recommends approval of the addition; the Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval of the addition.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the addition. The motion passed
unanimously.
SP 99-05 St. John Baptist Church (Sign #93) — Request for special use permit to allow an addition to
the existing church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for
church building and adjunct cemetery. The property, described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 78, contains 3.0
acres, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on St. john Road, Route 640, approximately 0.5
miles from the intersection of Gordonsville Road, Route 231. The property is zoned Rural Areas (RA),
and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report, highlighting a sketch of the property as it exists now, with the
proposed addition shown. She noted Phase I and Phase II proposed additions, and handed out an
addendum to the staff report (Attachment "A"). Ms. Scala explained that the applicant proposes a two -
phased plan to add on to an existing historic church: (1) constructing a 516 sq. ft. rear addition without a
bathroom, and to enlarge the dining hall and pastor's study for the existing congregation and (2)
constructing additions on either side of the sanctuary, which would accommodate a larger congregation
and would require additional site improvements. Ms. Scala noted that the only planning and zoning
history on the property is a recent variance for front setback (the church exists 25 feet from the state
road).
Ms. Scala explained that the addition of the dining hall would not bring any additional traffic to the site;
it currently seats 32, and the addition will add 48 seats for 80 total. The existing congregation is 100
persons, with 75-80 regular attendees at the twice monthly Sunday service. Ms. Scala emphasized said
while the addition to the dining hall will not change the character of the district, the future addition to
the sanctuary will effect the character of the district by "substantially altering the appearance of a
contributing historic church." She added that a preliminary review by the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources indicates that an expansion that dramatically changes the traditional form of the
church and covers material such as original windows would cause the building to lose its contributing
status.
147
Ms. Scala reported that staff has met with church representatives to discuss options to reduce the impact
of the proposed future additions. Regarding the site, she stated that county engineering finds the
entrances adequate for the existing use, but recommends upgrading the entrances and the parking when
the sanctuary is enlarged and the congregation is increased. Ms. Scala concluded that staff opinion is
that the proposed Phase I addition will add to the convenience of the existing congregation, although
entrance and parking improvements could be required under the Special Use Permit, it is more
appropriate and in -keeping with other similar approvals to require such improvements based on
intensification of use. She added that staff opinion is that the SP should be amended and a site plan
required when the applicant is ready to proceed with addition to the sanctuary.
Ms. Scala said "it is unfortunate that the historic value of the church would be compromised by a future
addition; however, it is preferable that the historic church be saved and used, rather than abandoned for a
new structure." She further noted that her addendum reflected proposed conditions in the event the
Commission chose to approve both phases and reiterated that staff is not recommending approval of
both phases at this time as the site plan pertaining to Phase II has not been completed.
Ms. Scala added that several issues need to be resolved before it can be approved: the parking area must
be expanded to accommodate the existing and proposed assembly areas [when the applicant increases
the assembly area, staff feels the site plan improvements should be initiated]; the highway department is
recommending that the entrances be improved to commercial standards, including widening to 30 feet,
paving from the road to the right-of-way line, and meeting site distance requirements [engineering has
not recommended any change at this time]; the septic system would have to be updated to accommodate
the increased congregation, and it is not known if there is a sufficient area where it is located now; the
time limit for the Phase II improvements should be addressed in the conditions of approval [special use
permits are normally valid for 18 months, and a structure that is allowed by special use permit must be
commenced within two years from the date of permit.]
She concluded that staff believes the request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Special Use Permits. She added that staff recommends approval
of the Special Use Permit for the Phase I addition to the dining hall with conditions; staff opinion is that
a site plan is not required at this time. If an addition is proposed in the future which increased the
intensity of use, then the special use permit must be amended and a site plan waiver required. Ms. Scala
said staff recommends revised conditions as noted in her staff report, elaborating on the separate
conditions for Phase I and Phase II approvals.
Ms. Scala emphasized that a "cleaner way to handle" the two phases would be to require the applicant to
come back after settling all of the issues, and have Commissioners approve the phases separately.
Mr. Finely asked if there was room to enlarge the drainfield. Ms. Scala replied that the entire site is
large enough, but everything is now near the front of the site (and the road), and staff has not addressed
this yet. He asked if Commissioners were to approve both phases, if any work could begin until the
questions were resolved. Ms. Scala said if the first conditions were met, the applicant could start Phase
I; the Health Department has indicated that the current septic facilities can adequately accommodate the
exiting congregation as long as there are not several major events in the same day. She added that the
applicant is eager to get started with Phase I, and said she feels "a little uncomfortable" approving
something (Phase II) without knowing how it will work.
Mr. Rooker agreed, and wondered if the conditions pertaining to Phase II might adequately address
those concerns. Ms. Scala said that the conditions could probably be met, but might require a different
part of the site being used. Mr. Rooker said that the applicant, under staff conditions, would have to
14R
solve the problems and issues prior to commencing work. Ms. Scala said, "You would be approving a
Special Use Permit, so you wouldn't get a second chance at it... " She added that parking location, etc.
could be addressed under the site plan review, but would not be able to be readdressed at the Special Use
Permit level.
Mr. Rieley said, "What concerns me about approving these two with conditions is that it short-circuits
the public process. We wouldn't have another public hearing, so if somebody had concerns about the
architectural expression and what it's doing to the historic neighborhood — we'd never hear that. That
would just... be the design planner's decision unilaterally, and I worry about that a little bit. I think there
are enough decisions here — relative to circulation, relative to architectural design on a historic building
and so forth — I would have difficulty closing my eyes and saying, `OK, we don't have to see it again.
He added that if the $85.00 permit fee is the only issue, that "doesn't seem to equate relative to the
process of the public hearing."
Mr. Thomas asked if this might set a precedent by approving future construction without knowing some
of the variables. Mr. Benish replied that approval has been made in certain situations, but usually there
is a better feel for some of the outstanding questions, adding, "with this one, we're a little bit less certain
about some of those things... we have a little bit less information than we typically would when we do
this sort of phasing." Mr. Benish added that there would not be an uncharacteristic precedent set.
Mr. Rooker confirmed that the advertising that has gone out to the public on the permit has included
both phases, as the application was for both phases. "If they were going to participate, I would think
that they would respond now."
Mr. Finley noted, "There are some locations in question, and the Health Department and so forth. They
are not done, and not ready, so there's no opportunity for the public to really know what might
eventually happen."
Ms. Scala commented that the projected build -out of Phase II is five years away, and conditions might
change in the area. She noted that normally, a Special Use Permit requires commencement of
construction within two years.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Commission will have an opportunity to review the application again during
the site plan review. Ms. Scala commented "you couldn't tell them not to do the addition, but you could
look at all the site improvements." Mr. Rooker further noted that the building design would be reviewed
by the design planner, which would deal with the historic significance of the building. He asked what
the significance is if the building would no longer be a contributing factor in the historic district.
Ms. Scala replied that the structure is one of the earlier African -American churches established in
Albemarle (c. 1890), and was part of a settlement there including a school house and Odd -Fellows hall.
"I just hate to lose any contributing structure in the district. I think they all contribute to the character of
it... one by one, it really makes a huge impact. Whenever possible, I would say let's do everything we
can to protect them." Ms. Scala added that she would rather have the church expanded than abandoned
or torn down for a new structure.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Commission has the power to deny Phase II and deny the addition, but
does not have the power to prevent the applicant from giving up the use of the church and/or tearing it
down. Ms. Scala agreed, adding, "We have no ordinance in place to protect the demolition of historic
structures."
149
The applicant, Keith Hawkins, addressed the Commission. He stated that when the church members
first proposed adding onto the church, they considered expanding out in front near the entrance;
however, staff encouraged them to keep the historical appearance of the church by leaving the front
alone and widening the sides. Mr. Hawkins said that church members agreed to abide by the
suggestions and keep as much of the historical look as possible. He added, "We still could accomplish
what we are trying to do by keeping the front appearance of the church... we've been working with
[staff] on that."
Mr. Hawkins stated that the upgraded parking requirements — including 9x18' parking spaces and 24'
aisles — are difficult in a rural area church. He asked if some type of "grandfather clause" might apply
because "we're limited in parking, and if we had to — we cleared off two acres of land in the back of our
church — if that's one of the biggest hold-ups as far as getting approval, we could use that." He added
that that land is used now for cemetery use. Mr. Hawkins presented a sketch of the parking lot and
illustrated the current parking arrangement. He mentioned that their Easter sunrise service brought 43
cars into the parking lot, and requested that the Commission be "a little lenient" on the parking
requirements, which request 39 additional spaces.
Mr. Hawkins expressed concern about the old driveway having to be upgraded to commercial standards,
stating that the church would comply if mandatory. He added that the second entrance, which was just
added in 1998, was approved by the state. Mr. Hawkins said, "If by chance we would have to upgrade
both driveways up to commercial standards, we've got room on the left side going into the church that
we could actually add parking to that area if we must upgrade both entrances up to commercial
standards." He said that the second entrance was approved so that they could have adequate access to
the cemetery; county staff suggested that if the church used the area to get to the back of the church and
not for parking, the driveway could remain residential and would not need to be paved as a commercial
driveway. Mr. Hawkins said church officials are simply trying to make adequate access on the left side
of the church so that cemetery access is improved. Regarding the original entrance, Mr. Hawkins
mentioned that county officials told him that all church entrances should meet the same standards, and
stated that officials should have expressed that last year when the second driveway was approved.
Mr. Hawkins added that the adjacent property owner, Mr. James Gardner, died two weeks ago, and
some trees on his property would need to be removed to obtain adequate site distance. Mr. Hawkins
indicated that he didn't feel it would be appropriate to ask the family to cut down the trees at this time.
Mr. Rieley asked when the church plans to begin construction on expansion of the sanctuary. Mr.
Hawkins said that the Phase I dining area construction would begin in May if approved; Phase II would
begin in two years or so.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding the size of the congregation, Mr. Hawkins said that the
church is going through a youth movement, where young people are coming into the church. "We can
just see growth within the next two or three years, and we are just trying to accommodate some of that
growth."
Mr. Finley asked what type of siding would be put on the new structure. Mr. Hawkins said the church is
going to match what they have now — white vinyl siding with a gray tin roof.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said that since the church does not have an "immediate need" for Phase II and there are a
number of outstanding issues that would not be addressed with conditions as well as they could be in a
Pin
full plan, and in light of the fact that Phase H might be what causes the property to lose its contributing
status to the historic district, he would prefer to look at Phase I.
Mr. Rieley agreed, adding that if the Commission deals with Phase II separately at a later date, with
more information, they might be able to work with the applicant on concerns now expressed in
conditions — such as the commercial entrance. "I don't think we have enough information here tonight
to make that judgement. I [also] think it's ... in the applicant's best interest ... to do this one step at a
time."
Ms. Scala said a site plan would not be required for Phase I under the ordinance, and no waivers would
be required; Phase II would require a site plan or site plan waiver.
Mr. Thomas commented that the congregation wants to put the addition on to help fulfill their "vision"
for the church. "If you don't have the facility, you can't bring the people in..." He added that his
inclination is to act on the first phase now, not the second phase. Mr. Thomas further expressed concern
about what the entrances can accommodate.
Mr. Rooker stated that the parking requirements may well be excessive, but the Commission does not
have enough information now to make that decision. "I think at a later time if we get a more detailed
plan, we might be able to waive what the ordinance might typically require in the way of the number of
parking spaces and the size of those spaces." He asked staff how to deal with the phases in a legal and
procedural context.
Mr. Kamptner said that although the plans came in under one application, there are "two distinct
subparts," and suggested that the Commission could recommend approval of Phase I and deferral of
Phase II, which would allow the second phase to come in when the background work is completed. He
added that there wouldn't be a need for an additional fee because it is still part of the original
application. Mr. Kamptner noted that the Board would have one year to act on the application, and it
would be up to the applicant as to when they want to come forward with the additional information; the
site plan that's required with Phase II would be part of the same application.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP 99-05/Phase I with staff s recommended conditions,
and moved for indefinite deferral of SP 99-05/Phase II of the construction. Mr. Rooker seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kamptner emphasized that the indefinite deferral is
under the church's control; whenever the Phase II and site plan information is ready, they can come
forward. Mr. Kamptner said the Board will direct that Phase II come back to the Commission for review
and recommendation.
SDP 99-025 St. John Baptist Church Site Plan Waiver Request — The Commission deferred action
on SDP 99-025 as part of the deferral of SP 99-05, Phase II.
SP 99-02 SprinaridSe Stream Crossing — Request to allow a road to cross a stream in accordance with
Section 30.3.5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fill in the floodplain and stream crossings.
The property, described as Tax Map 46133 Parcel A2, contains 0.17 acres where the crossing occurs, and
is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Timberwood Parkway (Route 1720) approximately 0.1
miles from the Hollymead Lake Dam. The property is zoned R4. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this property as Neighborhood Density in the Community of Hollymead with a density of 3-6 dwelling
units per acre.
14"W Ms. Echols presented the staff report, indicating that the development lies between the two Forest Lakes
developments on the other side of the road that has two parts separated by a dam. Ms. Echols reminded
151
En
Commissioners that the principle concern of the nearby residents was access. She noted that the
proposed stream crossing would support a "V" connection, and referenced a map previously distributed
which illustrates the connection — an alternative to the road over the dam to provide for two points for
ingress and egress to the subdivision. Ms. Echols that a great deal of contiguous open space is owned by
the community association, and one small area within would be impacted by the stream crossing.
Ms. Echols reminded Commissioners that they had recommended approval of the Springridge rezoning
project as well as the first stream crossing and modification to Forest Lakes South. She added that the
Commission had strongly endorsed the "V" connection concept instead of the road over the dam; the
proposed stream crossing is the second stream crossing, which would facilitate that connection. The
stream crossing is required for the "V" connection. Ms. Echols mentioned that the vote required from
the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association to convey the land for a north -only access was not
successful; staff was aware when they received the application that the special use permit would support
the "V" connection and a single access from the north - which is no longer a viable option. She added
that engineering has reviewed the request and concluded that the crossing is comparable to the previous
stream crossing; the stream and valley in the area are not as large as the stream and valley considered for
the first stream crossing, and there are no signs of wetlands here.
Ms. Echols mentioned that floodplain disturbance is significantly less with this crossing than with the
other one; there will be some backwater flooding which could potentially affect the playfield, walking
trails, and basketball court area. The amount of flooding would depend on the design the crossing uses;
engineering would like for the final design to have as minimal impact on the recreation area as possible.
She emphasized that the Forest Lakes Community Association must be satisfied about the impacts, as
they ultimately might not convey the land for the "V" crossing. Ms. Echols stated that this request must
be weighed in terms of disadvantages of environmental impacts of having two crossings and the
advantages gained by having two public points of ingress and egress.
She summarized that staff believes the interconnections of the neighborhoods in this configuration are of
significant enough importance to warrant the two crossings; as a result, staff originally recommended
approval of the special use permit with four conditions. The applicant and engineering have suggested
that the first condition be removed, and staff added language to the last condition to draw attention to the
importance of the recreational areas; she noted that the Community Association is going to have to be
satisfied with what happens to the recreational areas in the final design before they would convey the
land to make the connection happen.
Ms. Echols concluded that staff recommends approval with conditions: (1) Engineering Department
approval of an erosion control plan; (2) Engineering Department receipt of proof -of -compliance with
state and federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams; and (3) Engineering
Department of culvert crossing plans and hydrologic and hydraulic computations demonstrating no
increase in 100 year flood levels. This will include determination of impacts of backwater at the
crossing, particularly in the recreational areas.
Mr. Brooks addressed the Commission, referencing a sketch he created that illustrates the average width
of the stream channel as measured. He noted that the stream is impounded several hundred feet
upstream, adding, "It's a very developed stream." Mr. Rieley asked what the 10 and 100-year storm
effects would be. Mr. Brooks said engineering has a fairly reasonable idea of what they would be,
because the water goes through a 36"-diameter pipe under the recreational area. He stated that the pipe
will take the 10 year storm, but not the 100 year.
15)
Mr. Don Franco of the Kessler Group stated that the pipe should take the 100-year, as the pipe was built
under county approval. He emphasized that there are four dams in series, and the waterflow is fairly
tenuated, adding that his design would probably extend the 36"-pipe.
Mr. Finley asked if the top of the culvert would be above the 100-year flood level. Mr. Brooks
responded that one of the entrances to the development would have to be. Mr. Franco said that the 100-
year flood is backwater from Powell Creek.
Mr. Franco addressed the Commission, noting that the developers began negotiating in November with
the Forest Lakes Homeowner's Association, and ended up negotiating for an entrance solely from the
north. That proposal went to the Association in March for vote, where the proposal to trade common
area to the developer for the access failed by a 73% - 27% vote. Mr. Franco noted that removing the
developer's votes, which were cast in favor of the proposal, the percentage was 66% in favor of the land
trade to provide a north -only access. He added that if the Board passes the proposal, the "V" connection
is still included as an option, but doesn't seem very viable because of the economics of a longer road.
"Regardless of whether the SP is passed or not, there still becomes the issue of gaining the land or using
the land from the association to make this connection."
Mr. Finley asked if the information on the design and analysis was available to homeowners prior to the
vote. Mr. Franco replied that they developed an extensive design of a north -only access, ensuring that
there was a specific area to place the proposed road; however, what the developer had to estimate was
what the road was going to do the inside of the development. He added that the north -only proposal
caused the shifting of the recreational area originally proposed.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Charles Bowden of Forest Lakes addressed the Commission, stating that he was among the minority
that voted against releasing the property. He emphasized that there are a significant number of
homeowners who object to the northern approach and prefer the dam road to connect Forest Lakes North
and South to relieve traffic, etc.
Ms. Echols said that the alternative that was written into the proffers was included such that the
applicant would aggressively pursue the acquisition of the property for the "V" connection with the
homeowners.
Mr. Thomas asked if the property does not transfer to the developer, how the connection would be put
through. Mr. Franco answered that the original proposal was written with the access coming south to
the dam through a property owned by the developer; the applicant also proffered to build the road over
the dam, and that was accepted by the Commission. He said that as one of the options to reduce the
amount of traffic going between the two communities, there would be a northern leg of the "V" instead
of going over the dam; if it can't be obtained, then the proposal that was voted on last time — the road
over the dam and the southern connection — would be the one to go forward to the Board next month.
The proffers remain intact.
Mr. Karl Bowden, a Forest Lakes property owner adjacent to the Springridge property, addressed the
Commission. He recommended that the Commission not approve a "V" connection of any kind, and
that there not be any disturbance of the athletic/recreational area in the Forest Lakes land. He stated that
many area children use the area for soccer, etc., and would be unhappy if it were disturbed. Mr. Bowden
concluded that he would prefer the road go across the dam.
i5Z
Mr, Steve Runkle of the Kessler Group addressed the Commission and recounted what had happened
since the last Commission consideration of the access. He said the Board insisted that they meet, and
when they did, the Board stated it would be better to have a single point of connection from the north,
and that is what was negotiated — there would be no connection attempted between Forest Lakes North
and Hollymead. Mr. Runkle said that this permit exists because the proffer is still there, and remains
just in the event somehow the "V" connection materializes. He emphasized that things that would "have
to happen" in order to allow the "V" connection to occur — the Association would again have to vote at a
75% approval rate to provide the property for the northern half of the "W. Mr. Runkle added that the
"V" is also a long shot because it is $300,000 more expensive, and concluded that the permit is here
solely to accommodate the proffer that exists as a function of previous Commission action.
No further public comment was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Benish said, "This decision isn't gong to dictated or be the final approval for a `V' connection; it's
just the approval that's necessary to allow its possibility."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-02 with conditions as amended
by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-04 Montessori Community School (Sign #87) — Request allow of a private school expansion in
accordance with Section 32.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 78,
Parcels 12A and 12AI, contains 6.53 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on
Richmond Road (Route 250 East) approximately 1/3 miles from the intersection of Route 20 North and
Richmond Road. The zoning for the property is CO — Commercial Office and the Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 — Pantops.
,,. Ms. Echols presented the staff report, correcting the date when the item will be presented to the Board of
Supervisors. She reported that the school has been in existence at the Pantops location since 1991, and
now has 120 students in pre-K to 6`h grade, and wants to expand to 300 students in 12 grades. Ms.
Echols noted that the permit is requested to provide for nine additional modular classrooms, a multi-
purpose building and office, and 25 additional parking spaces. She said the site plan is currently under
review by staff, and ARB review will also be required for anything that is visible from the Entrance
Corridor.
Ms. Echols noted that nearby parcels include significant commercial activity, and staff feels the
proposed use is very compatible with these. She mentioned that the entrance is proposed to be realigned
and a traffic signal is planned for the intersection with the construction of the new DMV building across
Route 250. The school is on public water and a septic system, and plans to connect to sewer with
improvements for the first phase. Ms. Echols said there is a retaining wall proposed next to a 20-foot
undisturbed buffer on the eastern side of the property, which is required for commercial developments
that adjoin residentially -zoned land. Zoning has asked that a conservation plan be submitted with the
preliminary site development plan to ensure that the wall can be put in without disturbing the buffer.
Staff has also recommended that a path or sidewalk be constructed from the school to the intersection of
Rolkin Court and Route 250; staff is mainly concerned that there be pedestrian access from the school to
the intersection. Ms. Echols concluded that staff recommends approval of the permit with conditions as
recommended in the staff report.
In response to Mr. Thomas' question about connecting to the sewer line, Ms. Marcia Joseph —
representing Montessori — said that there is a manhole near Aunt Sarah's, and the plan is to take the line
across those properties from Aunt Sarah's to Montessori. The plans have been preliminarily approved
li4
by the service authority, and there are preliminary written agreements with the two doctors who own the
properties.
Mr. Rooker asked if the entire site is subject to ARB approval. Ms. Echols replied that the
- improvements that are visible from the Entrance Corridor — such as the modular units in the front -
would be subject to ARB approval, but the units to the rear would not be reviewed.
Ms. Joseph addressed the Commission, reporting that Montessori's initial intent was to construct a large
building to house the additional students, but that doesn't work with the school's philosophy. She
explained that within each of the proposed modulars, there are several different ages within each class.
Ms. Joseph emphasized that a small-scale campus instead of a large building is more in -keeping with the
Montessori technique. She clarified that the school would now go up to middle school, not high school.
Ms. Joseph explained that the school is looking to eliminate the need for the retaining wall and the
accompanying conservation plan along the 20-foot buffer. While stating agreement that there be
pedestrian access on campus, Ms. Joseph asked that the recommended pedestrian access to Route 250 be
eliminated because a pathway down would invite children to walk down to the highway. She added that
the school does not want to encourage people to walk up to the campus. She further stated that the
pathway would require a handicap access with an 8% slope and 5-foot landing that is level every thirty
feet.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Joseph to describe the modular units' appearance. She replied that several
parents researched some units in Texas, and presented photos which illustrated wooden modulars in
natural colors with pitched roofs. Mr. Rooker asked if the school would go before the ARB before the
phases would begin. Ms. Joseph said that the school would begin with the three modular units in back,
because of expenses related to those units — such as the water line, sewer, and parking. She added that
when it comes time to go before the ARB, the office would not be a modular unit, but a building
designed to be compatible with the existing buildings.
Mr. Rooker asked staff if the proposal would go before the ARB prior to the school proceeding with the
phases. Ms. Echols said that Phase I (the rear modulars) would not be held up because it is not visible
from the Entrance Corridor, and added that the applicant is going to be pursuing a phased site plan to do
one phase at a time. Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would be willing to incorporate the photos
representing the proposed appearance of the modulars as a condition. Ms. Joseph agreed.
Mr. Rieley asked if the ARB has any leverage if the permit is approved and the ARB later determines
that modular wooden units between the existing building and Route 250 are inappropriate. Ms. Echols
pointed out that the last condition is written so that the ARB's hands are not tied on the modular units,
adding that there are modular units that can be done in keeping with the design guidelines. Mr. Rieley
asked if the ARB has the authority to modify the conceptual plan that the Commission approves if they
disagree with it. Mr. Kamptner replied that the ARB can look at configuration, orientation and location
as part of their review, and what the Commission considers is not so specific as to tie the ARB's hands.
Ms. Echols said that the first condition staff recommended speaks to retaining the relationships that are
shown on the conceptual plan, and told Commissioners that they could strike the first condition if they
feel the relationships are not that important.
Mr. Rooker suggested language in the first condition that would allow the ARB to retain authority in
dealing with the aesthetics of the site.
15i
Mr. Kamptner said the ARB review applies to the whole lot, but the buildings that are not visible
historically have not subject to the review.
Commissioners agreed that language in the conditions be included to address the appearance of
buildings not subject to ARB review.
Mr. Rieley and Mr. Rooker stated that the pedestrian access down to Route 250 need not be provided in
the conditions. Ms. Echols noted that the condition originated from the plan for the Charlottesville
Catholic School and staff felt it was important to be consistent and equitable in their recommendations
for pedestrian access. Commissioners agreed that the topography of the Montessori site and the
destination of the sidewalk make this a special situation. Mr. Rooker added that the Catholic School
includes older children.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-04 with staff conditions as
modified: replacement of Condition #1 to now state "modular units that are not subject to ARB
approval will be substantially consistent in color and design with the modular units shown in photos
presented by the applicant to the Commission and made a part of the record"; elimination of Condition
#3; modification of Condition # 5 to state "a conservation plan will be provided with the preliminary site
plan to show how the undisturbed buffer between the residentially zoned properties and the school will
be retained, if required by construction of a retaining wall." The motion passed unanimously.
New Business
Commissioners enjoyed the new chairs.
Mr. Thomas announced that he would be attending the Charlottesville City Planning Commission
meeting as a spectator on April 14"'.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Piedmont Environmental Council is holding a meeting on area water
quality issues on Tuesday, April 20t' at 7:00 p.m., which will conflict with the scheduled Planning
Commission meeting. He asked staff to contact PEC to see about rescheduling the meeting, so Planning
Commission members could attend; he also asked staff to send a letter to area organizations that hold
meetings on issues pertinent to area land use and encourage them to hold meetings at a time when
conflicts with local public meetings (Planning Commission, Supervisors, etc.) will not arise.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
vvvi %,Lcu.y
M
15F