HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 03 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
August 3,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, August
3, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman;
Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials present were:
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County
Engineering. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein.
Approval of Minutes — July 20,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of July 20 as amended.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
The Storage Center Major Site Plan Amendment Critical Slope Waiver Request
Proposal to waive critical slope provisions for construction of additional storage facilities (totaling
86,600 square feet) on property zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as presented.
Deferred Item
SP 99-33 N.G.LC. Access Road
Proposal to fill in the flood plain of Herring Branch in association with road construction providing
access to the proposed National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). Property is located on the
eastern side of Route 29 North, approximately'/2 mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River.
Property is described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5C1, and consists of 28.9 acres and is zoned LI, Light
Industry. The property is recommended for Industrial Service in the Piney Mountain Community.
Deferred from the July 27, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, noting that the Board's 1996 vote on ZMA 94-12 for the
Riverheights Associates rezoning from Rural Areas to Light Industrial also resulted in an approved
application plan for a four -lane road which to the NGIC property. He added that Value America has
also applied to take access from the road to their corporate headquarters. Mr. Morrisette said that the
applicant now needs a special use permit to fill in the flood plain in order to build the approved road.
Referencing a map presented, Mr. Morrisette said that there is an existing farm road and an existing
culvert, which needs to be extended to allow for the additional lane for a four -lane highway, and for
a deceleration lane. He noted that the fill will force the stream channel to be relocated. Mr.
Morrisette said that the ARB will review the plan as part of the ZMA 94-12 proffers; in the Critical
Resources plan, the area is defined as wooded and as a major and local important stream valley. He
added that the disturbance will result in a loss of aesthetic resources, and the applicant has proposed
Planning Commission — 8/3/99 73
replanting of the stream buffer to compensate for this. Mr. Morrisette noted that Conditions 6 and 7
V,,,,,,, allow for approval of the proposed mitigation plan by the Water Resources Manager and the ARB.
Mr. Morrisette reported that staff has reviewed the request and found several favorable factors,
including that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Flood Hazard Overlay district of
the zoning ordinance. He noted that prior fill has occurred as a result of the installation of the
existing farm road and improvements to Route 29, and the plan will not cause substantial detriment
to adjacent properties, and the use is consistent with the proffers of ZMA 94-12.
Mr. Morrisette said that the only unfavorable factor to the request as identified by staff is that the
proposed use is inconsistent with the recommendations of the open space and critical resources plan;
although inconsistent, the applicant has proffered mitigation measures to minimize the disturbance.
He concluded that staff recommends approval with conditions.
Mr. Thomas asked if the road would eventually serve residential traffic. Mr. Morrisette said that the
applicant did not want to state that the road would not serve residential traffic because of uncertainty
about what might happen in the future; no residential properties are planned for the rear of the site at
this time.
Mr. Rieley asked if Engineering had looked at the existing culvert's capacity for 100-year
stormwaters. Mr. Brooks responded that the project engineer has submitted a TR basic calculation
that shows it is adequate, and said the Engineering Department will review the capacity as a part of
their approval process. Mr. Rieley asked if additional fill would be anticipated beyond what is on
'114W the farm road to accommodate the new road. Mr. Brooks replied that additional fill would be
required, and while it probably won't change the hydrology significantly, it will affect the structural
integrity of the culvert.
Mr. Rieley commented that it appears from the grading plan that it is not physically necessary to
channelize the stream to the extent shown, and asked Mr. Brooks if Engineering would request that
the channelization and straightening be limited to only that necessary. Mr. Brooks replied that the
channel work is staff s recommendation to the applicant because as the culvert extends to the south it
comes straight into the sharp bend in the channel, and Engineering felt that would be a way for the
water to get out. Mr. Rieley asked about the potential mitigation plans; Mr. Brooks responded that
they have not yet considered what they would include.
The applicant's representative, engineer Tom Muncaster, addressed the Commission and offered to
answer questions. None were asked.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Expressing concern about the staff report statement that the road will not be opened up for
residential traffic "at this time," Mr. Thomas asked if that implied that the road would eventually be
used to access a residential area behind the NGIC property. Mr. Morrisette responded, "I think it
would be safe to say that if any residential development would occur out there... that rezoning would
have to come to you... at that time you could look at the access to the development and make that
decision."
Planning Commission — 8/3/99 74
Mr. Rieley commented, "I think it makes sense to leave a crack in that door."
MOTION: The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved SP 99-33 with
conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA 99-05 Mill Creek Industrial
Request to reduce the area of an approved PUD Planned Unit Development by removal of 6.06 acres
designated for industrial and open space to allow rezoning of 6.06 acres under ZMA 99-06. The
property, described as Tax Map 76M1 Parcel 19 is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on
Avon Street Extended [Route #742] west and adjacent to the National Guard Armory. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional and Industrial Service in Urban
Neighborhood Four.
ZMA 99-06 Mill Creek Industrial
Request to rezone 6.06 acres from PUD Planned Unit Development to R-I Residential to allow
construction of a juvenile detention facility. The property, described as Tax Map 76M1 Parcel 19 is
located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Avon Street Extended [Route #742] west and
adjacent to the National Guard Armory. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Institutional and Industrial Service in Urban Neighborhood Four.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report on both items as they pertain to the same property. He stated
that Zoning determined that two applications are necessary: the first to remove land from an
approved PUD, and the second to remove the property to R-1 Residential.
He explained that the six acres is situated behind the Regional Jail and is directly behind the
Armory; the property is served by a 60-foot easement out to Avon Street. Referencing a map, Mr.
Keeler said that the original Mill Creek PUD has changed substantially over the years, now
including townhouse units, residences, commercial area, etc. "At the time of the rezoning, the
applicant did not control this industrial land; it was the Virginia Real Estate Investment Trust that
owned the property. This land was subsequently acquired by Mill Creek and added to Mill Creek as
Industrial, and then later this portion was changed to Residential which is now the Foxcroft portion
of the PUD."
Mr. Keeler said that the current topographical information indicates that the six -acre parcel is not as
steep as originally anticipated during the original rezoning. He reiterated that the property has
access from Avon Street, and is on the perimeter of the PUD. "For those reasons, there is no internal
access to the PUD .... we feel it can be removed from Mill Creek without adversely affecting any
acreage requirements, open space requirements, or the integrity of the PUD."
Mr. Keeler reported that the R-1 zoning is being requested to be consistent with the jail and armory -
both zoned R-1. He said that the Highway Department has recommended that the access points to
Planning Commission - 8/3/99 75
the jail and armory and the juvenile detention facility be combined into one access, which is
%W currently being worked on.
He concluded that staff recommends for the Planning Commission to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that withdrawal from the six -acre site would not adversely affect the integrity of future
development of the Mill Creek PUD. Mr. Keeler noted that instead of the requirement that the Mill
Creek PUD Industrial Land Trust submit a revised application plan, the Zoning Administrator can
handle that in-house by notations on plans that already exist. He said that the action would not affect
existing zoning conditions or agreements for Mill Creek PUD.
Mr. Keeler added that staff also recommends the rezoning of the parcel to R-1, and recommends that
the Planning Commission find that the use of the site for a juvenile detention facility is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that staff recommends that the Commission recommend to
the Board that the designation of R-1 Residential is consistent with other public uses in the area, and
offers advantages in terms of flexibility regarding economical and environmental efficiencies of
future development.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Keeler to expand on that statement.
Mr. Keeler replied, "The armory is zoned R-1, this property would be zoned R-1, and what's being
looked at now is using part of the armory site along with part of this site for the juvenile detention
facility in this area, and then farther down .... would be a stormwater detention facility .... it would all
be the same zoning, and essentially these property lines could get moved around." He added that it
has to be negotiated with the state.
The applicant, Assistant County Executive Roxanne White, addressed the Commission. Ms. White
reviewed the project history, noting that the process was started in 1995 because of an increasing
number of crimes committed by juveniles, as well as an increase in the intensity of the crimes and
the violent behavior exhibited by the youth in the Staunton facility, where offenders from
Charlottesville and Albemarle are transported and housed. She noted that the increase in offenses
yielded additional trips made by sheriff's deputies, and indicated that the county became concerned
about the increased security risk and cost of the transportation.
Ms. White explained that the state allowed a planning study — completed in 1997 — which
recommended that either a bigger facility be built in Staunton, or that a facility be built in
Charlottesville/Albemarle. She said that in addition to transportation issues, the study considered
the access to services that the youths have — such as social workers and teachers — and the isolation
young offenders had by being housed in Staunton.
Ms. White noted that the Department of Juvenile Justice felt the construction of a local facility was
important, as area offenders comprise almost 45% of the Stanton facility's population. She
continued that the study found that the new facility would need 33 — 57 beds by the year 2000, and
57 — 87 beds by 2015. Ms. White explained that at the time the study was done, a specific site had
not been pinpointed; since the original study, a second site evaluation has been done for feasibility —
which concluded that the site would be acceptable. She noted that the second study report
Planning Commission — 8/3/99 76
recommended some of the property from the armory and also using the one right-of-way as access to
the facility.
Ms. White explained that the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission — formed with officials
from Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna and Greene — now has been granted the status to operate
as a jail authority, and can borrow funds from the state and manage funds. She noted that the
Commission now has their own attorney and financial advisor, and added that the site has been
purchased, and the transfer of the armory property from to the Commission is near completion. Ms.
White said that they are in the process of hiring a firm for the design work, which will be completed
in Spring for construction to begin in the summer of 2000. Eventual opening of the facility is slated
for October 2001.
Ms. White concluded that this is the best site that could be found for the facility, with its close
proximity to the city and services needed for the jail. She said that its location also allows for
possible cost -sharing options for the jail, noting that while it is not permissible to build a juvenile
facility and adult jail together, it is permissible to co -locate them as long as they out of site and
sound from one another. Ms. White added that there may be some cost -savings in sharing laundry
and food facilities, medical and security services.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the facility was a temporary stopover for juveniles, or a permanent housing
for offenders.
Ms. White responded that two types of situations will involve use of the facility: pre-dispositional
11% W (where juveniles stay awaiting hearing and sentencing); and post-dispositional (where youth will
serve shorter sentences at a local facility and continue to work with local agencies). She added that
youth will still be transferred to larger state facilities for longer sentences.
Mr. Finley asked if neighbors to the property had expressed any concerns.
Ms. White responded that she has not heard any concerns, as the site is located right in the middle of
an area where there are not a lot of residences. Mr. Keeler confirmed this, noting on the map nearby
industrial properties; he said that the nearest residence is more than 1400 feet away. He added that
the closest use is Federal Express, and noted the road FedEx uses to access their building.
Ms. White pointed out the big drop that leads into the area. Mr. Nitchmann commented that the hill
will somewhat conceal the facility.
Mr. Rieley asked what would happen if Mosley, Harris, McClintock reconsidered and decided that
the site would not be feasible for the site, or if the state find that there is not enough separation from
the jail to make it an appropriate location. "What would the staffs attitude be toward that R-1
zoning on that property if this use doesn't go through."
Mr. Keeler responded, "If it's not put to this or some other public use that would be akin to it and
appropriate to the other public uses here, and the county doesn't own it and it's zoned R-1, that
would not be an appropriate zone in that location, in my opinion, to have two public uses on one side
and industrial on the other two sides." He added that you would have to be in compliance with the
Planning Commission — 8/3/99 77
Comprehensive Plan to acquire land and also to dispose of it, so there would be other reviews. "I
doubt that it would go on the market as R-1, and if it did, I'd be very much surprised if it stayed R-1
or developed as R-1."
Mr. Rieley wondered if there is a mechanism without an application to have it rezoned, and noted
that the county could apply to have the property rezoned something else and put it back on the
market. "It's a pretty far-fetched contingency, but it does seem a little odd zoning a piece of
property R-1 in order to create something that has nothing to do with R-1."
Mr. Keeler mentioned that the Monticello High School site was rezoned to R-15 because of height
restrictions in the zoning ordinance. "In this particular case, R-1 was chosen... we don't have an
institutional zoning." He suggested that Commissioners might eventually want to discuss the
possibility of such a designation. Mr. Rieley agreed.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of ZMA 99-05, endorsing the
recommended actions and conditions of approval as outlined by staff. The motion passed
unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of ZMA 99-06, endorsing the
recommended actions and conditions of approval as outlined by staff. The motion passed
unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
U C�
Planning Commission — 8/3/99 78