HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 20 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
July 20, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, July
20, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Director of Community
Development; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner. Absent: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann.
Approval of Minutes — June 29,1999 and July 6,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of June 29 and July 6 as
amended.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — July 14,1999
Mr. Benish presented a review of the Board of Supervisors July 14, 1999 meeting, reporting that the
Board considered four items previously addressed by the Commission: the Rising Sun Baptist
Church expansion (approved); Wachovia Bank [SP 99-19] drive in windows/ATM kiosk (approved);
Free Union Country School [SP 99-20] modification on permit to allow increase in enrollment
(approved). Mr. Benish said that the Board held their first public hearing and second meeting on
Brass Inc. [CPA 97-05], and received comment but took no action on the item. He added that
approximately 35 citizens spoke at the hearing.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
Addition to Buck Mountain Agricultural Forestal District — Proposal to add 13.5 acres to the
Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 17 Parcel 32, is
located to the south of Davis Shop Road, Route 671. The property is designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as Rural Areas District
Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to add 154.638 acres to the Lanark
Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 90 Parcels 12 and 14A, is located to
northwest of Scottsville Road, Route 20 South. The property is designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as Rural Areas District.
Creation of the Nortonsville Local Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to create the
Nortonsville Local Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 8 Parcel 26, is
located northwest of Nortonsville and south of Boonesville Road, Route 810. The parcel comprises
92.575 acres. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as
Rural Areas District.
Creation of the South Garden Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to create the South
Garden Agriculturat/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 109 Parcel 70 and Tax Map
110, Parcels 08, 18, and 18E, is located to the south of Cove Garden Road, Route 633.
Cumulatively, the parcels comprise 1265.13 acres. The property is designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as Rural Areas District.
43
Review of Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to conduct a review of the
Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. The district, which is contained within Tax Maps 97,
98 and 99 and consists of 8 parcels and 1,238.145 acres, is generally located west of Route 29 and
south of Route 697 (Sutherland road) near North Garden. The property is designated as Rural Area
in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as Rural Areas District.
Review of Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to conduct a review of the
Sugar Hollow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. The district, which is contained within Tax
Maps 25, 26, 27, 39 and 40 and consists of 50 parcels and 4871.97, is generally located north and
south of Moormans River. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and
is zoned as Rural Areas District.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 99-22 Dunlora Pond
Request for special use permit to allow activity in the floodplain in accordance with Section
[30.3.5.2.1 ] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for dams, levees and other structures for water
supply and flood control. The property, described as Tax Map 62F Parcel A2 and Tax Map 62F 1
Parcel B and Tax Map 61 Parcel 164A, contains 44.5 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District on the east side of Rio Road in the Dunlora Subdivision. The property is zoned R4,
Residential, and FH, Flood Hazard Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as neighborhood density (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 2. Applicant
requests indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of deferral of SP 99-22. The
motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-35 McDonalds Drive -In
Request for a special use permit to allow a drive-in window at the McDonald"s in Shoppers World
Shopping Center in accordance with Section [25.2.2.4] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for
drive-in windows. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Section 1C, Parcel 12, contains 6.465
acres, and is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Seminole Trail [Route 29] across from
Fashion Square Mall. The property is zoned Planned Shopping Center (PDSC) and Entrance
Corridor Overlay District (EC). The land use is Community Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, explaining that the request is for a permit for a drive -through as
well as a request for a waiver of critical slopes and internal circulation for Shopper's World Major
Site Plan Amendment.
Mr. Wade reported that the existing McDonald's is proposed to be demolished and rebuilt in
approximately the same location; it currently does not have a drive -through window. The proposed
site is located in an intense commercial area, and restaurants and associated drive-throughs are
consistent with other uses in the district. He said that staff recommends approval of the special use
44
permit for the drive -through with conditions listed on page 4 of the staff report with the deletion of
Condition #4, which will be addressed during the site review process. Mr. Wade reported that the
applicant is requesting authorization of the critical slopes waiver for the parking that will be required
for the a retail building and for the internal circulation waiver to allow for a drive -through window at
McDonald's. He noted that the applicant is proposing to construct a new retail building at the
intersection of Route 29 and Dominion Drive, which is being reviewed in the site review process.
Mr. Wade added that the critical slopes that will be disturbed are existing and manmade as a result of
prior grading on the site, noting that staff finds no aesthetic resources in the manmade slopes and
will recommend replacement screening as a condition of the waiver. He concluded that staff
recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver with conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Wade said that the applicant's request for a drive -through window at the McDonald's requires a
one-way circulation waiver; staff finds this to be acceptable and expected accessory to a fast-food
restaurant and recommends approval.
Mr. Rooker asked for the location of the critical slopes. Mr. Wade said that the slopes are located
behind the Whole Foods market, and would be disturbed for additional parking associated with the
proposed new retail building. Mr. Rooker asked if the screening that would be required beside the
10,000 square foot building to protect the neighborhood had been addressed.
Mr. Wade replied, "Where the new building is, there's really no homes there... what's going to be
disturbed is back there .... when they built it probably several years ago, weeds and things have
grown up, and it's provided a pretty good barrier between the community and the shopping center,
and that is going to be disturbed. [Staff] is saying something to replace that to provide that
'+ screening."
IR
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to point out the approximate location of the building on the map. Mr.
Benish noted the proposed location of the new building.
Mr. Rieley asked what the existing slopes are, and what the proposed slopes are in the critical slope
area. Mr. Wade said he was unsure, and suggested that the applicant address that.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing McDonald's, addressed the Commission, and stated that Tom
Muncaster, the project engineer, would need to answer the slope question.
Mr. Muncaster said that the slopes are currently proposed to be 2 to 1.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission, stating that the adjacent property owners should be
concerned about the disturbance of the critical slopes, and encouraged the Commission to regard the
10-foot buffer that was part of the original site plan for Shopper's World. She added that she would
also like to see some of the pine trees remain if a sidewalk is put in along Route 29. Ms. Graves
noted that she was on the Commission when the McDonald's came in, and was partially responsible
for there not being arches put in, adding that she would not like to see arches at the new building
45
either. She concluded that she is glad that the lot is finally going to be developed as originally
intended.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas noted that the buffer was supposed to be 20 feet between the commercial and residential
areas. Staff confirmed that the current ordinance stipulates that the buffer is 20 feet, while
previously 10 feet was acceptable. Mr. Kamptner noted that whatever area was affected by the site
plan would be subject to current ordinances, but said that this particular location — because it is
directly across from a commercial property — would not trigger the need for those buffers.
Mr. Rooker asked about the pine trees being disturbed as Ms. Graves mentioned.
Mr. Wade said that if Condition #4 is retained, the trees would be removed. He noted that there is
heavy pedestrian traffic entering the shopping center, and staff is going to work in the site plan
process to provide some access. Mr. Wade added that staff is not going to require sidewalks on
Dominion Drive, as there are sidewalks on the other side associated with the bank. Mr. Benish
confirmed that there will be sidewalk entering the shopping center from Dominion Drive.
Mr. Thomas asked about the roof beams as stipulated by the ARB. Mr. Wade said that the ARB has
provided extensive comments, and the applicant is working to address the issues. Ms. Mary Loach
from McDonald's Corporation addressed the Commission, stating that a large sign is not allowed,
and indicated that the sign will be low. Ms. Loach said that the building design is "quite stunning."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 99-35 with conditions
proposed by staff, eliminating Condition #4. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP 99-073 Shopper's World Major Site Plan Amendment
Critical slopes waiver and internal circulation waiver.
Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SDP 99-073 for both the critical slopes and
internal circulation waivers with the condition as presented by staff. The motion passed
unanimously.
Work Session
Capital Improvements Program
The Commission held a worksession on the Capital Improvements Program, with discussion
facilitated by Mr. Benish.
Mr. Benish said that the worksession has been generated, in part, by the Commission's discussion of
the CIP six months ago, when staff brought forward the CIP. He said that at that time,
Commissioners expressed an interest in learning more about the CIP process, specifically staff's role
in the applications going into the process. He referenced the handouts regarding the CIP process.
Mr. Benish said that staffs goal is to provide some information regarding potential future public
projects, based on recommendations that are already in the Comprehensive Plan, community
46
facilities plan and other adopted policies, studies or initiatives that have been endorsed by the Board.
He noted that in the information provided to the Commission, there is currently no discussion of
""" schools, which will be addressed later.
Mr. Benish noted that staff would like to give the Commission the opportunity to provide comments
on the very specific projects to be submitted in the next year's CIP, which is also a work in progress.
He asked Commissioners to offer insights regarding a particular project or general themes that need
to be considered as the CIP process continues.
He said that the CIP is cached with the Planning Commission to develop, but in larger communities
there is an appointed committee, with a Planning Commission designee to the committee. Mr.
Benish added that the technical committee is really the "process" that pulls all the applications
together and develops recommendations for the CIP; they do evaluation based on each application's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the community facilities plan documents.
Mr. Benish explained that the CIP has two components: the first year of the plan is a budget
component, which will become part of the county budget and monies will be appropriated based on
the first year; the remaining four years are simply a plan, with the only commitment being an
internal county policy that once it enters the plan, the county will work towards development of that
project — there is no financial commitment at that time. He also noted that the technical committee
reviews school projects in terms of their consistency to provide comments to the Board of
Supervisors and the School Board regarding the types of facilities provided. Mr. Benish explained
that the technical committee does not prioritize school projects, as that is handled directly by the
School Board and Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board of Supervisors was doing that now, or if that was left to the School
Board. Mr. Benish replied that there is a fairly good interactive process between the two Boards,
with a citizen/staff Long Range Planning Committee that works on planning issues and examines
school enrollment and facility needs. That committee recommends redistricting, facility
improvements, etc., and is currently working on initial recommendations for additional schools that
may be needed based on their long-range planning work. Mr. Benish concluded that the School
Board and Board of Supervisors generally work well together, although there is not always
agreement on priorities.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Benish confirmed that the ultimate authority for the
decisions on school facilities, especially regarding funding, lies with the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Benish continued the staff report provides excerpts from the county's financial policies related
to the CIP, and also provided the criteria that the technical team considers in scoring projects in
order to come up with a ranking. He said that when the technical committee does the ranking it
establishes what the priorities are for funding; the Board gives that "pretty good weight."
Mr. Benish stated that planning staff is beginning to take a more in-depth, long-term look at what the
true costs of public facilities are that may be coming on-line in the near future, based on projects
already recommended "in our plan or based on policies or based on standards of development we've
established in our CIP or Comprehensive Plan." He noted that what staff has provided for
47
Commission review is still a work in progress, as there are other projects that need to be included -
school projects, road projects, etc. Mr. Benish said staff is trying to come up with numbers to
determine what the total cost for all of the improvements are, adding that staff has already identified
$16 - $22 million needed for sidewalk improvements.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to recommend a pedestrian path/bike lane along Barracks Road.
"That's an area that has become relatively heavily developed. It is a major bike route. The cars
typically travel 50 to 55 miles an hour on that two-lane curvy road." He mentioned accidents in the
past where bicyclists have been hit, and said that the pedestrian paths should extend "at least to
Inglecrest," and bike lanes should continue "quite a ways."
Mr. Rieley agreed, noting that Barracks is one of the most popular bike routes and has been for a
long time.
Mr. Benish said that the Barracks — Garth Road area to Sugar Hollow is designated in the bicycle
plan as a route, at least to Owensville Road. He added that the bike lane improvements are quite
costly there because of the drainage improvements that are necessary in the rural section roadways;
the impact to the shoulder can be significant. "One of the approaches we're trying to take is on
plant -mix projects when roads get resurfaced, we're trying to work with VDOT to at a minimum
marginally widen the roadways with plant mix projects, and then striping the travelways narrower.
And by doing that, if you don't get a formal trail path, you at least get additional pavement areas
outside the striping of the traveiway that provides at least a visual margin of error and tries to
separate traffic."
Mr. Rooker suggested that there also be some relatively inexpensive "traffic calming strategies" for
that road because people are typically traveling along the road at 50 to 60 miles per hour and faster,
which is part of the problem for pedestrians and bicyclists on that road.
Mr. Rieley commented that perhaps VDOT safety funds could be used for the measures, noting that
VDOT used safety funds for the Rio Road widening. He added that one of the most effective ways
to reduce accidents is a widening and paving of shoulders.
Mr. Benish noted that there is in the Engineering Department's construction plan, a project to extend
sidewalk from Georgetown Road to Huntwood.
Mr. Rooker asked if the mention of sidewalk on Georgetown Road in the staff report is replacing the
existing asphalt path. Mr. Benish said that the project in the CIP is the county's participation in a
VDOT improvement to Georgetown Road; the improvement is intended to be reflective of the
Georgetown Road task force recommendations, which are to maintain the road at two lanes, with
curb and gutter design and sidewalks on both sides if possible, and bike lanes if possible. He added
that the right-of-way is very confined, so there may not be enough room for all improvements. Mr.
Benish said that VDOT is planning to fund the replacement of the existing sidewalk, but under their
policy for sidewalk construction, the county needs to pay'/z of the construction cost for the new
sidewalk on the other side, since one sidewalk is being provided, the one on the other side is not
deemed necessary by VDOT.
48
Mr. Benish noted that there are a couple of initiatives that the county is interested in pursuing, but
1%W may need to take "a more proactive approach" in efforts to get them constructed and also in funding
to make the efforts possible — the Greenways, pedestrian improvements and bikeways. Mr. Benish
added that the "spin-off' of pedestrian improvements will be the need for street lighting of some of
the sidewalks; he noted that the number of requests engineering has received for sidewalks has
increased considerably, related to the fact that there is an increased number of pedestrians. "If we're
going to encourage more sidewalks, there's not only a maintenance issue... but there's probably
going to be various demands for new streetlights."
Mr. Loewenstein commented that he is glad to see sidewalks planned for 20 North from Route 250
to Fontana, and asked if that area is currently scheduled to be lit.
Mr. Benish replied that it is not currently scheduled, but noted that one proposal by the county is to
create a running fund for streetlighting programs to give planning staff flexibility as sidewalks are
created to use funds to get lights installed as well. He added that this would eliminate the need for a
separate CIP request, which would take a minimum of two years to realize the funding.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if that would be done with citizen input.
Mr. Benish explained that there would be a public request that would be submitted if planning agrees
it has merit as a CIP project, and there would be projects that county planning initiates on their own,
such as the Iights on Hydraulic Road. In either case, a public meeting process would take place, as
the county has a policy that there is opportunity for public input on streetlighting. He noted that the
policy was originally established for when an individual requested a streetlight in front of their
property, and the county wanted to make sure that this did not impact an adjacent property and they
knew about the request. Mr. Benish added that the county still follows the same rule for public input
for larger CIP projects, stating that after the project is approved in the CIP, once it's approved by
Virginia Power and VDOT, a public hearing is held.
Mr. Rooker commented that there will probably be "mixed feelings" about installing lighting,
depending on where it is.
Mr. Benish said that the county approaches the streetlighting projects in the CIP as a planning
project; once the money is budgeted, the project is designed and presented to the public for review
and comment.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a policy for the length of time street lights are kept on, noting that
people might feel differently about lighting if it were timed.
Mr. Benish said that one of the negative comments received on the Airport Acres project is that the
lights were always left on. He noted that there is not a county policy, but VDOT has very specific
pollicies, adding that one of the major obstacles to getting pedestrian -oriented streetlights installed is
that VDOT standards apply for lighting roadways. "Once light spills over in the roadways, they
basically want any portion of the road where the lighting spills over... to be fully illuminated. They
don't want shadows on the road." Mr. Benish added that VDOT has relaxed somewhat on that
policy.
Ma
Mr. Rieley asked if there were county -wide standards on lighting, such as luminaires, facing, etc.
Mr. Benish replied that he is not aware of a county policy, but engineering handles the construction
of them; he said that all lights must conform to the lighting ordinance and must be downshielded
while meeting VDOT standards if they fall on public roadways.
Mr. Rieley commented that this is an increasingly important issue which may overlap with ARB
jurisdiction. "When they're done on an ad -hoc basis, they tend to not add up into a flavor in the
community. [It] can be quite nice if it's done well."
Mr. Benish said that there are standards for internal lights in parking lots.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a public hearing slated for the lighting on Hydraulic Road. Mr.
Benish responded that there was a public hearing last fall, and what's being lit is Solomon Court to
the Whitewood Road/Lambswood Road intersection down to Whitewood Village apartments, and
down Commonwealth Drive almost to Eldercare. He added that one project county planning is
recommending is completing the loop from Commonwealth Drive and Greenbrier so that the whole
loop along with the sidewalk project will have streetlighting.
Mr. Rooker asked that the Commission be notified when those items come up for their districts.
Mr. Benish reported that there has been a sidewalk construction program in the plan for several years
now, and planning has requested $50,000 - $100,000. Mr. Rieley asked how much sidewalk that
amount covered; Mr. Benish replied, "Very little." Mr. Benish noted that the county applied for a
"T-21" grant for a major sidewalk connection program, to try to create a network of sidewalk;
however, the funding was not granted. He said that this year, planning decided to reflect the need
and include the true costs for projects in, such as the Route 20 North project, which engineering
estimates at $400,000 from Route 250 to Wilton Farms — primarily due to a large fill area and the
topography of the area.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Carriage Hill apartments site plan requires filling in the section that borders
that property. Mr. Benish replied that across their frontage they are building sidewalks, and there is
a small space to the west where they will connect to an existing sidewalk on Spotneck Road; there
will be a small 200-foot gap towards State Farm that will try to be filled in.
Mr. Rooker suggested that since State Farm has so many walkers, and owns that land, they may
contribute toward the sidewalk's completion. Mr. Benish commented that staff feels pretty
confident that that project will be done as a "fairly reasonable project."
Mr. Benish said there are two proffers from two developments totaling 5 acres for a fire station in
the Hollymead area.
Mr. Rieley asked about the river access improvements, specifically if the acquisition of the five acres
of land is from the same property owner that is contesting the right-of-way. He asked if the
50
acquisition of the five acres was going to settle the right-of-way issue. Mr. Benish said he believed
it would resolve the situation, but added that he would check to make sure.
Mr. Rooker asked if the drainage/erosion project included private property to be improved or
maintained to prevent damage from runoff and stormwater.
Mr. Benish replied that in most cases, they are in private property, and are in some cases related to
drainage issues from public rights -of -way, where clear easements were not established, or where
they were established when appropriate. He added that the project remedies some issues that may
stem from public projects.
Mr. Rooker wondered what the situation would be if it were a VDOT project causing the problems,
and asked if the state has funds to deal with the problem. Mr. Benish said that the state does have
funds allocated for this, and added that county engineering will be modifying the drainage/erosion
project and combining it with another project so it takes a slightly different form. Mr. Benish added
that what may be in the CIP is more of a "running fund" to accommodate drainage problems that
occur.
Mr. Benish noted that one problem what the CIP is that it is being reviewed for the next fiscal year,
but the process was started in the fiscal year before. "The internal policy for the CIP development is
that it's most desirable to anticipate your project and put it in the fifth year out of the CIP for
planning purposes... you have to anticipate six years in advance emergencies... even if you know
about the emergencies tomorrow, this CIP that we're working on now wouldn't allow the money to
be available until next July, so it's very difficult to do short term projects. That's why these funds
allow us to react to a certain issue."
Mr. Rooker commented that it becomes more of a budget item, if it's not something that can be
planned six years out.
Mr. Benish said that the county is trying to take more of a budgetary approach to them within the
CIP, with the CIP being a part of the operational budget, but recognizing that there needs to be
flexibility.
Mr. Rieley asked about the "County Master Drainage Program," and mentioned that in a meeting he
recently attended, a University consultant described an aspect of the drainage recommendations that
the University is entertaining which involves — rather than conventional stormwater management
with holding ponds — dealing with recharging groundwater as a mechanism to lessen the impacts to
drainage systems. "That is an emerging science, and one that has tremendous potential... for our
county from everything from our own county projects to how we administer site plans... I would
love to see us take a harder look at those kinds of innovative ways of dealing with water. Water
quality and water availability are going to be critical issues in the years to come, and one mechanism
for helping to deal with that is to deal responsibly with the water that lands on our rooftops and on
our pavement. I'd like to see us go beyond simply expanding the traditional stormwater
management to see if we can begin to explore some of these other alternatives."
51
Mr. Rooker commented that in places where water supply is a problem, people have cisterns and
drain water from their roofs. "We don't do much here to preserve and save what we have on the
ground, and get it back into the water supply."
Commissioners expressed interest in getting a draft of what the committee has done as the next CIP
is developed with enough time allotted so that the Commission could make comments during the
process. Mr. Rooker noted that the statute presumes a somewhat active role by the Planning
Commission in the CIP process, and said that comments could be made to the committee by form of
a resolution, etc.
Mr. Benish agreed to bring this up with the technical committee, stating that the initial package
could be provided to the Commission. He noted that about midway through the process —
approximately September — the projects become more defined. Commissioners also expressed
interest in having a worksession/meeting with the CIP Committee,
Mr. Benish said that planning staff makes applications and also sits on the committee and tires to
objectively review the applications; he said that staff then has to prioritize projects based on criteria,
which might be a good time for the Commission to see the projects.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
52