HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 10 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
August 10, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, August
10, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman;
Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. William Rieley; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Transportation
Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineering.
Approval of Minutes — July 27,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of July 27 as amended.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting
Mr. Keeler presented a review of the August 4t' Board of Supervisors meeting, noting that the Board
considered 13 items on their Consent Agenda, most of which were adoptions of resolutions for
further action in the future, adoptions of proclamations, and approvals of funding requests. He noted
that a public hearing was set to amend the jurisdictional areas for the Albemarle County Service
Authority to take in the newly rezoned section of Ashcroft. Mr. Keeler said the Board discussed
water supply planning, and made a request to the Rivanna staff and consultants to group the public -
suggested alternatives in viable/less viable categories.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 99-47 3D Studio Expansion
Request for special use permit to allow the construction of a sound stage studio and two employees
in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for home occupation.
The property, described as Tax Map 21 Parcel 31, contains 23.46 acres, and is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District on Burnley Station Road [Route 641] approximately 3/4 miles from Route 29.
The property is zoned Rural Areas [RA]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as rural
in Rural Area 2.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, explaining that the application is for home occupation for video
production; the applicant is requesting to have two employees that would come to the site, and
requesting expansion for his existing garage/studio. He noted that the site is located on Burley
Station Road on Route 641 on a 23-acre parcel; all of the video production is held inside the
proposed studio area. No special external lighting or amplification will be required, and the
applicant is expecting approximately one delivery every two weeks for the studio.
Mr. Wade reported that there would be no actors coming to the site, just puppeteers for
educational videos. He noted that staff has only received one call concerning the application,
and the conditions address all concerns except for signage; the caller was concerned about
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 79
M
the possibility of a displayed sign, but the applicant indicated he is not planning to have
external signs.
Mr. Rieley asked about the VDOT recommendation for the site distance to be improved to
commercial entrance standards, and noted that in the recommended action, the condition for
approval says "improve existing site distance to the east," and "improve to meet private
standards." He asked Mr. Wade to clarify which standards would need to be met.
Mr. Wade responded that there is a mound to the east that the applicant has agreed to cut
back; the entrance is very narrow and VDOT wanted that to be improved, initially indicating
it needed to be improved to a private entrance. However, Mr. Wade said that the entrance
itself would not need to meet commercial standards, but the site distance requirements would
need to be met; he said the improvements will allow site distance to be increased a lot further
down the road also.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the condition addressing operating hours references "normal"
operating hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and suggested that those
described as the hours of operation without the word "normal."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the applicants agreed to forgo signage, if it would be appropnate to
add such a condition. Mr. Wade and fellow Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Keeler noted that the conditions are mis-numbered, and adding that condition would
make seven total conditions.
Mr. Thomas asked how many personnel would be in the puppeteer group.
Mr. Wade replied that there would be only two employees, who would probably be working
the puppets and video cameras.
Noting that the applicant is currently operating a studio on -site, Mr. Rooker asked if he has a
Class A home -occupation permit.
Mr. Wade responded that the applicant currently does not have a permit, and is currently out
of compliance.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that if a person is out of compliance, it would be helpful to note that
in the staff report.
Mr. Wade said that he was not certain if the applicant needed a Class A, as his current work
may not constitute a full-time job on -site.
The applicant, Richard Drumm, addressed the Commission, noting that he was not aware that
his business required him to obtain a Class A permit.
Planning Commission — August 10,1999 80
Mr. Wade distributed some sketches of what the property looks like now, and what it will
look like when the studio is complete (Attachment "A").
Mr. Drumm corrected the staff report, noting that the studio work should be described as
"industrial videos," not "institutional videos," and the report should say "manipulate the
puppets," not "manipulate the puppeteers."
Mr. Rieley said that the materials the Commission was provided did not include a site plan
illustrating where the house and studio would be located relative to the boundaries of the
property, and asked the applicant to point out where they are.
Mr. Rooker asked how close the nearest residence was located to Mr. Drumm's property.
Mr. Wade said that across the street, there are homes being built, and to the east there is a
large grove of woods providing a barrier; to the west towards Route 29 there is one residence
visible —a big family parcel. He noted that the site is visible from Route 641, and behind the
parcel is the remaining 23 acres, and described the house as being close to the road.
Using a USGS map, Mr. Drumm illustrated for Commissioners exactly where his house and
studio are located, noting the property's boundaries.
Mr. Rooker asked about the neighbor's call concerning the application. Mr. Wade said that
the caller didn't indicate major concern, but wanted more information about the plan. The
caller expressed some concern about signage and potential noise from the studio.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Fred Lewin, 5147 Sandy Branch Road, addressed the Commission. He said that on
Route 641, cars and trucks can be heard because of the "huge acoustics" of the situation. Mr.
Lewin asked if a sound meter could be placed outside the studio to measure decibel output,
and suggested if the sound exceeded a certain decibel level, the studio be shut down.
Mr. Rooker referenced the noise ordinance, explaining to Mr. Lewin that if the applicant
violated the noise ordinance, he would be cited for a zoning violation.
Mr. Lewin emphasized that the sound decibel may be objectionable and still not violate the
ordinance, and asked if there could be some means to control the sound decibel from the
sound studio.
Mr. Wade said that given its nature, the applicant's work would probably not generate a lot
of loud noise.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the county code, outside of the zoning ordinance, has a separate
noise ordinance that deals with more transitory noise sources, citing a standard of noise
"rising to the level of annoying noise," which is enforced by the police department and
prosecuted as a crime.
14%.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 81
Em
Mr. Lewin asked if the decibel level could be lowered if he does not like the noise level.
Mr. Nitchmann responded, "I don't think we can do that, because we would end up with
trying to comply with 50,000 different people in the county .... that's why we've developed
over a number of years, this noise level standard that we have. It just didn't come overnight;
we worked on it for a number of years to try and make it equitable for everyone in the
community."
Mr. Lewin emphasized that this is a "unique situation," where sound carries. He added that
he is also concerned about possible signage and bright lights.
Mr. Finley said, "If you have a problem, you can call, and they'll bring their [sound] meters
out there and check it out under the existing ordinance."
Mr. Wade noted that the way the permit is written, the applicant would be allowed to have
regular security lights, but no bright lights will be allowed. Also, Mr. Wade emphasized that
the applicant's work would be done inside, as the home occupation permit limits the work to
be performed inside the 2400 studio square foot area. If the applicant wants to do anything
outside of that space, he will have to modify the application. Mr. Wade added that staff
would be ready to respond if the parameters of the permit are violated, but there are no
further measures available to monitor on -site activity.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein clarified that the word "normal" was removed from Condition #2, and a
condition was added to prohibit signage.
Mr. Rooker suggested changing Condition #1, removing "who are not" and replacing it with
"except for."
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 99-47 3D with
conditions modified as follows:
1. Not more than two employees except for family members who reside on site;
2. The hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday;
3. The home occupation shall be limited to the proposed 2,242 square feet studio area;
4. Improve existing driveway sight distance to the east and improve the entrance to meet private
standards;
5. Use shall comply with the following provisions of section 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance;
6. Signage will not be permitted.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 82
Mr. Rooker noted that he had recently opposed a Class B application because he is opposed
I%W to allowing relatively large-scale business activity in active neighborhoods where the houses
are relatively close together, especially where there is substantial opposition from the
neighbors in that neighborhood. Mr. Rooker emphasized that this application is different
because the site is a 23-acre parcel in a rural area, and there is not substantial opposition from
the surrounding property owners.
Mr. Rieley clarified that there are five remaining subdivision rights on this property, which is
located in a rapidly developing area. "We could indeed have houses that are closer to this,
eventually. Nevertheless, this [would then be] within the pre-existing use in that condition,
and people would come into it with that in mind."
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the lighting ordinance would apply to any lighting that exceeded
the limit, and full cut-off lighting would be required. "I don't think you're going to have a
situation where you're going to have bright lights emanating from this property."
Mr. Thomas said there would only be two employees allowed under the Class B permit,
regardless of whether there were houses built closer to the property or not.
0
The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 99-48 Emmanuel Episcopal Church
Request for special use permit to allow the old manse to be used as Sunday School rooms and offices
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 70, Parcel 13, contains 11.619 acres, and is
located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap Turnpike [Route #2501
approximately 14 miles from Charlottesville near the intersection with Route 691. The property is
zoned Rural Areas (RA). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as rural in Rural Area 3.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, explaining that the request is for use of an existing manse as
offices and classrooms, which would bring a non -conforming church and cemetery into compliance,
thus allowing expansion of the church use. He said that the manse would be used for church offices
and Sunday School classrooms; the applicant is not planning to make any substantial changes to the
external part of the manse. Mr. Wade noted that the expansion is necessary for the existing demand
in the church, and staff recommends approval with conditions as noted in the staff report.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if language could be added to specify what the Health Department is being
asked to approve mentioned in Condition #3. Mr. Wade agreed to add the language, adding that the
Health Department will be travelling to the site soon to make sure the septic field can handle the
existing use.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Wade to make it clear that the church comply with VDOT requirements, but
not necessarily with recommendations — such as installing a commercial entrance. He suggested
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 83
09
rewording Condition #2 to state "compliance with VDOT requirements for entrance width and
radii."
Mr. Finley asked if there was a site plan involved with the application. Mr. Wade responded that
there was not a site plan required for the current application, but one has been developed for future
plans.
The applicant's representative, Paul Gaertner, employee of the architectural firm working on the
church expansion, addressed the Commission and offered to answer questions.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked about Condition # 1, which stipulates there should be no day care center on the site
without a separate permit. He asked if there could be a church school on the site without an
additional permit.
Mr. Kamptner said that a church school is identified as a separate use under the zoning ordinance,
which would require a separate special use permit.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding the words "or school" to the prohibition of the day care center.
Mr. Keeler cautioned that the purpose of the special use permit is to obtain a building permit for the
manse to allow moving the Sunday School from the church into the manse; therefore, if a condition
which states "no school" may in effect prohibit Sunday School.
Mr. Wade noted that the condition prohibiting day care centers is something staff has begun to put
on church expansion applications because a lot of them have day care centers. He said that there
could be language added to prohibit regular school.
Mr. Kamptner said that the use for regular school would fall under the private school application,
and would require a separate special use permit.
Mr. Rooker asked if the language addressing "no school" would be needed for this application.
Mr. Kamptner responded that an argument could always be made that it is an accessory use, and to
air on the side of caution, that language could be added here.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 9948 with conditions,
and Condition # 1 modified as follows:
1. There shall be no day care center or school on site without separate special use permit.
All other conditions remain as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 84
SP 99-49 Winndom Farm Bridge
V*W Request for special use permit to allow for construction of a bridge over Jumping Branch [a tributary
of the Rivanna Reservoir], in accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 19B, contains 35 acres, and is located in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District of Woodlands Road [Route 676] approximately 2 miles west of Hydraulic Road.
The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is not located within a designated growth area.
lm
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, noting that the bridge is already built. He corrected the
staff report statement that there was no violation officially cited to read "a violation was issued by
the Department of Building Codes and Zoning Services, and therefore the applicant is seeking
approval of the unauthorized bridge." Mr. Morrisette said he still has not received a copy of the
violation letter, but noted that the citation was very recent. He added that the applicant has met the
deadline specified to file for a special use permit.
Mr. Morrisette said that the bridge raises out of the floodplain, and has a wooden deck with concrete
abutments and a steel beam supporting it. He added that there was a farm road that crossed the
stream and met the other side where the stable is; the applicant uses the stable access quite
frequently, and built the bridge to avoid crossing directly in the stream. Mr. Morrisette noted that
the county feels the bridge raises the traffic out of the stream, causing no stream bank erosion and
sedimentation. He said that the Engineering Department deemed the bridge's affect on the
floodplain as "minimal," if any, and any additional flooding that could occur would be on the
applicant's own property because that is the lower end of the fjord.
He concluded that staff is recommending approval, noting conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morrisette said that the bridge is used for agricultural purposes, and no residential traffic will be
using the bridge, although it is possible that this bridge does allow for connection to Garth Road. He
said that in order to prevent residential traffic from going through, there is a gate at the stables; he
has included a condition that the gate remain closed.
Mr. Rooker asked about the "recreational lodge under construction." Mr. Morrisette said that the
applicant indicated that the log cabin lodge is being built just for their children's campouts, etc. Mr.
Rooker asked if the lodge would be served by the part of the drive that accesses Route 676. Mr.
Morrisette said that the bridge would be used just to access the stables by vehicles or horses.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were subdivision rights on the property that the applicant owns that is
below the bridge that is served by the bridge. "Is it potentially possible that the bridge could be used
as a private road for serving the subdivision of the lower parcel?"
Mr. Morrisette said that the applicant does have development rights on the parcels, which are fairly
large. He noted that the applicant could do a by -right division just because of the sheer size of the
parcels. Mr. Morrisette reported that the applicant indicated he does not want to have additional
residential structures on the farm, and have purchased adjacent farm properties. He emphasized that
the only way he addressed limiting the bridge's use was by gating the entrance by the stable, and
requiring that it be closed. Mr. Morrisette said that a contact for the Barracks Stud Farm indicated
they were content with it being gated, and the Zoning Department would review the situation and
issue a violation if the road were being used for residential traffic.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 85
09
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant's property goes out to Garth Road. Mr. Morrisette said that it did
not, but Barracks Stud Farm is adjacent to Garth and is not the applicant's property.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that the bridge crosses within the applicant's property. He surmised that if
there were flooding, it might affect more than just the applicant's property. Mr. Morrisette that the
other properties are higher in elevation, and explained that the area is in need of an updated FEMA
map, which the Engineering Department has required before they actually sign off on the project.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant is required to provide the information that FEMA would use in
revising the map. Mr. Morrisette said the applicant would be responsible for this information. Mr.
Finley asked if the bridge is presently above the 100-year flood in the FEMA map. Mr. Morrisette
said that the engineer believes the bridge is above the floodplain, and any flooding would probably
go around it. He said that the bridge has not been there very long.
Mr. Finley asked what initiated the review. Mr. Morrisette explained that the county 911 staff was
checking houses for emergency service, and mentioned the bridge to zoning.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the staff report statement that the proposed road would not "at this
time" serve any residential traffic, and asked him to clarify that statement. Mr. Morrisette suggested
that the statement should just be deleted out of the report.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to have a condition that the road across the bridge would not serve as
a primary access for any residence. Fellow Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant had any rights to build another house on the other side of the
bridge. Mr. Morrisette said there appear to be critical slopes there. Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr.
Rooker's proposed additional conditional language intended to address neighbors using the road, or
the applicant using it for future residences. Mr. Rooker replied that he condition should address
both, and said that once a private road runs through, it might be convenient for the neighboring
property to use the access.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant would want to build, if he would have to come back for a new
special use permit. Mr. Morrisette said it would depend how many residences were on that parcel,
and right now there is no residence on the small individual parcel. Mr. Finley asked if he wanted to
build on the other side of the stream, if he would have to come back for a special use permit. Mr.
Morrisette said that the building codes department would hopefully check the special use permit to
look for a condition for that crossing at the time of building permit application.
Mr. Loewenstein said that the existing Condition #7 says the gate is to prevent residential traffic, and
does not say that that traffic would be limited just to the owners. Mr. Morrisette said that the
Commission may want to consider having a gate by the bridge.
Mr. Keeler said, "Wouldn't everything be addressed by a condition which states `this bridge shall
not provide access to Route 676 for residential traffic.' Anything built on the south side of the
bridge that wanted to get to 676 would be prohibited by that condition."
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 86
Cn
cm
Commissioners agreed. Mr. Rooker noted that the applicant could seek to amend the condition if
any additional residence was intended to be served by the bridge.
Mr. Rieley asked if the bridge dimensions were available. Mr. Morrisette said that Engineering did
not provide that information. Mr. Rieley wondered if the computations might suggest that the bridge
would be inadequate, and asked how that would be handled. Mr. Morrisette said that staff would
find a way to mitigate the plan either by having more cut on the bank, and the conditions to the
special use permit would have to be altered. Mr. Rooker emphasized that Condition 41 addresses the
bridge's contingency on Engineering's findings. Mr. Morrisette acknowledged that if the
computations deem the bridge to be inadequate, the Zoning Department could make the applicant
tear it down. Mr. Morrisette said he would speak with zoning officials and find a date that is
reasonable for the Engineering conditions to be met prior to the item going before the Board.
The applicant's representative, Peter Eades, addressed the Commission. He said that a surveying
firm — Buddy Edwards — has determined that the bridge is 11/Z feet above the floodplain, and also
determined that the bridge was built to withstand 45 tons. Mr. Eades said that the area that the
owner would use via the bridge is used for a vineyard and for horses. He said that the road would
not be used for residential traffic, adding that the applicant does not want residential traffic to come
through and cross the bridge.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 99-49 with conditions,
and Condition #7 modified as follows:
1. In an effort to prevent any residential traffic from using the bridge, the gate located on the
southern side of the stream, near the stables, shall be closed at all times. Bridge shall not serve
as access for residential development to Route 676.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 99-133 — Quail Hollow Preliminary Plat
Request for preliminary plat approval to create 5 lots on 15.1 acres with a private road. The property
is zoned RA Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 43, Parcel 23E, is located in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Garth Road [Route #614] approximately 0.2 miles east of the
intersection of Garth Road and Owensville Road (Route 676). The Comprehensive Plan designates
this property as Rural Area.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting the plat included in Commission packets. She said that
the request is for a rural subdivision of five lots on a 15.10 acre tract near Owensville on Garth Road
[Route 676]. Ms. Echols explained that this is a proposed subdivision with use of a private road,
which is what has generated the Commission review; additionally, the new private road in the center
of the parcel would create some double -frontage lots.
Mr. Rooker asked what Walnut Side Lane serves. Referencing a map presented, Ms. Echols
indicated that the road serves several parcels, although it appears just to be a driveway. Mr. Rooker
Planning Commission - August 10, 1999 87
asked why the road is not a designated private road. Ms. Echols responded that she is not sure that
,;,o the road has private road approval, and said that the road may have pre -dated the existing
subdivision ordinance. She added that staff and the adjoining property owners did extensive search
on the status of the road, and whether the property owner had the right to improve it. Ms. Echols
reported that there are some rights that would exist on a right-of-way, but the front part of Walnut
Side Lane would require that the adjoining property owners all agree to the upgrading of the
pavement at this particular location. The other users of the road have indicated they would not be
giving that permission, forcing the applicant to put a new road in the center; VDOT has given their
approval for site distance on either side of the driveway. Ms. Echols said that staff could not find a
way to further reduce the impacts of a private road inside the development by recommending they
use the other access.
09
Mr. Loewenstein asked if VDOT had expressed concern about the proximity of the two entrances
onto Garth Road. Ms. Echols responded that VDOT was concerned, and recommended that the
access be taken from Walnut Side Lane.
Mr. Finley asked if Lot 5 would exit to the private road. Ms. Echols responded that all the lots
would be served by the internal road. She said that currently there are at least five residents served
by Walnut Side Lane, and any additional traffic onto it requires it to be upgraded. The property
owners who are served by Walnut Side Lane said they would not give permission for the upgrading.
Mr. Finley asked if the restrictions on the other lots also state that no upgrading can be done without
property -owner permission. Ms. Echols noted that the applicant has agreed to include the small
"sliver" of property shown as a part of Lot 5. She confirmed that Walnut Side Lane would not have
an access onto Walnut Side Lane
Ms. Echols explained that the purpose of the additional screening would be to give the yard area to
Lot 5 and Lot 4, and Lot 2. She described the area as densely vegetated, but noted that the trees are
mostly deciduous. Ms. Echols noted that when access is taken from the private road, Lot 5 and Lot 2
become double -frontage lots; staff is recommending that additional screening be provided between
the house site and the roadways on Lot 5 and Lot 2.
She added that the Engineering Department has added that the significant degradation issue has been
met, and the private road would significantly decrease the amount of grading that would have to
occur over a public road; Engineering has recommended approval of the private road. She
concluded that staff is recommending approval of the subdivision, with conditions as outlined in the
staff report. Ms. Echols also suggested adding a condition that the plats state that access for all lots
in the subdivision will be provided from the new private road.
The applicant, Kelly Strickland of Weatherhill Homes, addressed the Commission, and added that
the parcel is heavily forested. He said that they have worked hard to preserve the trees in the
plotting of the new road. Mr. David Collins, the project engineer, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked for the computation of difference between the 14 and 18 foot cross -sections given.
Mr. Collins said he did not have that information with him, and said he did not remember the exact
numbers for the earthwork. Mr. Strickland said he has spoken with local residents, who supported a
private road with less pavement width. Mr. Collins provided information from Jack Kelsey of
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 88
County Engineering, which indicated that the private road grading would involve 690 cubic yards of
cut and fill; the total for the public road is 905 yards.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Ethan Miller, resident of Tax Map 43, Parcel 18D — a 56-acre parcel adjoining Mr. Strickland's
parcel to the east, addressed the Commission. Mr. Miller said that Ms. Echols had been very
responsive to residents' concerns. He said that the most difficult issue pertaining to the proposal is
the access to Garth Road, as it is a treacherous section with a 55 mile -per -hour speed limit. Mr.
Miller emphasized that the speed limit needs to be lowered to 35 or 40 miles -per -hour, and
suggested recommending to the Board of Supervisors that a moratorium be placed on any additional
entrances to Garth Road until VDOT studies this and takes action. He added that the landscaping
requirements seem sufficient, but expressed concern that a future owner may cut the trees down.
Mr. Miller continued that the applicant plans to dump the drainage from the private road onto the
neighbor across the way, with no requirement for an easement. He asked the Commission to require
the applicant to obtain the necessary easements for drainage of a private road, or dispose of the
runoff on -site.
Mr. Bernard Webb, owner of Parcel #6, said he is the owner of the property that will receive the
drainage from the proposed subdivision. Mr. Webb said there is a potential for clearing trees for
future landscaping, and expressed concern that the new proposed driveway for the property is
directly across from his own, causing a somewhat hazardous four-way intersection.
Ir w Mr. Gordon Carter, owner of Parcel #23, the southern boundary of the subdivision, addressed
the Commission. Mr. Carter expressed concern about the screening on Walnut Side Lane,
noting that currently, along Lot #5, there are very deep, beautiful woods that provide
effective screening, but the trees are not evergreens. He added that in order to preserve the
character of Walnut Side Lane, residents would like to see fairly generous buffer of trees
along Lot #5, 50 to 75 feet along the length of the road. Mr. Carter emphasized that along
the border of Lots 2 and 3 also, there is an existing, fairly mature stand of woods which he
would like to have retained.
cm
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Carter how large his own property is. Mr. Carter responded that his
land is 23 acres, which could be used for all family residences or subdivided. Mr. Carter
noted that the property was his grandfather's, and said that the only plan for his land thus far
was to build his parents retirement house. Mr. Carter added that his family wants to preserve
the land as it is now. Mr. Rooker asked if there was on requirement on his property that
required him from buffering it from the adjacent property. Mr. Carter said there was not.
Mr. Rooker also confirmed with the speaker that there is nothing on his property from
clearing it to the detriment of the adjacent property.
Mr. Rieley asked if access to his property was via Walnut Side Lane. Mr. Carter confirmed
that it is the only access.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 89
The applicant, Kelly Strickland, re -addressed the Commission. Mr. Strickland stated that if
14OW the subdivision preliminary plan were approved with an entrance on Garth Road, they would
be willing to reconsider the issue of using Walnut Side Lane.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any restriction from building a public road.
09
Mr. Strickland indicated that there was not a restriction, as they fall within the 30%
degradation scope.
Mr. Rooker noted that the matter is before the Commission because of the public/private road
aspect, and stated that if private road were not approved, the applicant could return as a
matter of right and develop the parcel off of a more detrimental public road.
Ms. Washington asked Ms. Echols to confirm that the residents who access the road from
Walnut Side Lane do not want to upgrade it to a public road, and are not willing to grant that
easement. Ms. Echols confirmed that this is the case, noting that if the access were granted,
that would eliminate the additional driveway entrance along Garth Road. Ms. Echols said
that it was originally planned to gain access via Walnut Side Lane, but the applicant could
not gain permission to do so.
Mr. Miller, a previous speaker, told Commissioners that a public road could not be built. He
explained that he understands from County Engineering that there would have to be drainage
easements dedicated to public use; but in a private road, that is not required by Engineering.
Mr. Miller emphasized that there is no indication yet that the applicant would have the
necessary drainage easements.
Mr. David Collins re -addressed the Commission, stating that a public road would not be
denied because there is a drainage easement across the front of Lot 5 that would be relatively
parallel to Garth Road that picks up the drainage from Mr. Miller's property and Garth Road,
and the existing drainage from the front of Lot 5, carries it into an existing pipe that goes
under Garth Road. Mr. Collins said that what would be done with a private road would be
less impervious road than a public area just because it would be less width, noting that only
the forward portion of Lot 5 would go toward Garth Road and necessitate the easement.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, addressed the Commission. He emphasized that the
ordinance provides means by which provisions are made for adequate drainage, from
ensuring proper stormwater management is provided to ensuring that channels are available
to carry water. Mr. Kelsey said that there are two provisions applicable to dealing with
drainage easements: VDOT subdivision standards, which require all public roads to ensure
that drainage easements are provided to natural streams and water courses; and the county
subdivision ordinance that requires that easements be extended to natural streams. He added
that if there are drainage improvements required off -site in order to properly convey the
runoff, the county would require them of the property owner.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any difference between the requirement for a public or private
road. Mr. Kelsey answered that with a private road, the ordinance stipulates that drainage
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 90
easements are provided to county standards, which in the absence of any other standards that
b,,,rW is a VDOT standard. Mr. Kelsey noted that in a private road, County Engineering is only
looking to the property line, unless drainage improvements were required off -site. Mr.
Kelsey said that if it is a public road, the highway department would make sure that drainage
easements provide an adequate natural stream or water course, which is not set as a local
standard.
09
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant could build a public road and meet the drainage
requirements without requiring easements on someone else's property. Mr. Kelsey
responded that Engineering did not find anything in their review that indicated the applicant
would not meet the requirements.
Mr. Rieley asked if the water quality ordinance would require bio-retention basins for the
two locations for culverts beyond the major drainage easement right along Garth Road. Mr.
Kelsey replied that is "very possible," and the applicant would be responsible for doing
calculations that show movement efficiency. Mr. Kelsey noted that in rural subdivisions
with private roads and large lots, the impervious area is so small, the BMP requirement
would be minimal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said that the relationship of the proposed road to Garth Road is the most
unfortunate part of the proposal, as the configuration of lots is beyond Commission control.
He added that the new water quality ordinance will deal with the additional concentrated
runoff and water quality issues, noting that the neighbors who spoke made excellent points
regarding tree cutting, making provisions for drainage on the perimeter. "It's so clear that
the best thing for everybody is if Walnut Side Lane for the first 100 feet or so provide the
access for this property."
Mr. Rieley stated that the most encouraging note was a letter of opposition which expressed a
hope that a compromise resolution would be worked out. "It seems to me that we are in an
untenable position establishing a 75-foot buffer of deciduous trees, which is probably what it
would take to have any significant affect, or imposing drainage measures already beyond
what are already in our excellent ordinance... I don't think the Board has the legal authority
to impose a moratorium on building until something is done that's beyond our control, which
is changing the speed limit on Garth Road....the central issue here is one that ought to be
negotiated privately between the surrounding neighbors and the developer, and I certainly
hope for everybody's sake that they'll do that." Mr. Rieley added that this seems to be a
reason that the private road issue was put in the ordinance: it will significantly diminish the
impact, mainly because of the cross-section. "I feel obliged to support this, with the fervent
hope that these folks will get together and work out a way of making an access where it
makes sense for everybody."
Mr. Thomas agreed, stating that he liked the neighbors' suggestions to limit tree clearing, and
added that the existing ordinances will sufficiently address the drainage problems. He added
that the buffers will be almost impossible to do because it will take almost two acres off of
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 91
the developable parcel. Mr. Thomas added that he could support the proposal, and stated he
1*01 would like to see additional language in the conditions that would require additional
screening.
en
Ms. Echols stated that she understood adjoining property owners to want a condition that the
applicant would not clear along Walnut Side Lane and would keep the existing trees in their
current configuration as a buffer, which is more than what the subdivision ordinance would
require.
Mr. Kamptner said that the Commission could impose a condition on tree -cutting related to
the private road, which would limit the cutting of trees along the road itself. He confirmed
that that would be internal.
Mr. Keeler said that the screening provisions in the Zoning Ordinance allow maintenance of
existing vegetation or replacement of it within 15 feet of the property line. He noted that the
operation provision in the Subdivision Ordinance is the double -frontage lots, which would
not address Mr. Carter's concern about the southern boundary of Lots 2, 3 and 4. "I'm
unable to find any provision in either the Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance that allows
buffering or screening of like uses. Our Comprehensive Plan speaks to buffering of
dissimilar uses. The provisions in the Zoning Ordinance... talk about screening of
objectionable uses, and list out about nine things, none of which are dwellings.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission, then, did not have the power to impose that kind of
condition.
Mr. Keeler said that the applicant could agree to include whatever restrictions he chooses in
the homeowner's agreements, and once a 15-foot buffer is imposed, it's incumbent to be
maintained. He added that it should be referred to in the deed that it should not be cut.
Mr. Rooker cited a past discussion about private wells in subdivisions, and recalled the
language that was going to be put onto plats notifying people that the property would not be
served by public water. He said, "In light of the current water condition in the county, I think
it's important that we get on with providing that kind of legend on plats .... I can easily see us
getting into a situation where we've got wells all over the county, and people are running out
of water, and they're looking to the county to solve their water problems. It certainly is
helpful if people are notified up front that water is going to be their concern if they develop
on a piece of property that is served by wells only." Mr. Rooker emphasized that it is
important to have this type of legend put onto the plat, especially before this subdivision goes
to the Board.
Mr. Kamptner said that the county can identify additional plat requirements by amending the
section that establishes the contents of the final plat. He noted that this subdivision does not
go directly to the board, but the final plat will come before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked that it be done.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 92
Other Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Finley asked if Condition H was sufficient.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Kamptner and Mr. Keeler have indicated that there is not
much more that can be stipulated beyond the Condition.
Mr. Kamptner said that the Commission could identify what type of landscaping is required.
Ms. Echols noted that staff's recommendation was for the additional vegetative screening
would be evergreen trees, between the house site and the right-of-way to supplement the
existing vegetation. She said that the existing trees form a good screen, but are deciduous.
Mr. Loewenstein mentioned that as H is currently written, there is nothing explicit that
landscaping means planting of any kind. He suggested that the condition be reworded to be
more specific.
Mr. Rooker suggested including language that states eventual approval of a landscaping plan
by the Department of Planning.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SUB 99-133 with
conditions, modifying Condition #lh as follows:
l .h. Provision for landscaping of lot along Walnut Side Lane. Planting of evergreen trees between
Lot 5 and Lot 2. Landscaping Plan will be approved by the Department of Planning.
The motion included a waiver for double -frontage lots.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Nitchmann left the meeting, and was not present for discussion and vote on SUB 99-148.
SUB 99-148 Parkside Village Phase 1 & 2 Preliminary Plat
Request for preliminary plat approval to create lots 52 on 18.2 acres. The property is zoned R-6
Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcels 57A and 57A1, is located in the White
Hall Magisterial District on Hilltop Street [Route #691 ] approximately 0.21 miles from the
intersection of Hilltop and High Street [Route 1204]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Industrial Service and Transitional in the Crozet Community.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting that staff has received many phone calls from residents
of the area regarding the proposal. Also, Ms. Echols pointed out that several community meetings
have been held on the topic, and mentioned a letter from the Claudius Crozet Community Park Board
(Attachment `B"). She explained that Parkside Village is a single-family residential subdivision on
18 acres at the end of Hilltop Street; the proposal is for 52 single-family lots for single-family
detached houses. Ms. Echols said the zoning on the property is R-6, so this is a by -right
development.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 93
n
She reported that the subdivision itself is slightly unusual compared to what is normally seen in the
development areas. The roads are proposed as an urban cross-section with curb, gutter and
sidewalks, and street trees are planned to be provided. There will be an alley and a smaller street
which will act as an alley, although it is a public street. She said that staff is recommending that the
landscaping component be waived for the double -frontage lots.
Ms. Echols continued that there is a stream buffer required for the development because it all drains
into Lickinghole Creek; the stream buffer is preserved and ends up being 25% open space in the
development. She noted that a number of issues have been raised by adjoining property owners:
The parcel has a sole means of access from Hilltop Street — the street would be extended into the
development, and the road network would come off of Hilltop Street. She said the existing road is 16
— 19 feet wide, and VDOT is requiring that it be widened to at least 22 feet, preferably 36 feet. The
developer has agreed to do the widening to 22 feet within the existing 40-foot right of way. Ms.
Echols said this has caused concerns among the Hilltop residents for the loss of area that has the feel
of the "front yard" that they currently have.
She reported that residents also have concerns about the additional traffic on the street. Ms. Echols
pointed out that the Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that there be a second point of access when over
50 lots are created. She explained that the development provides connections to adjoining properties:
the extension of Hilltop will go to the edge of the property; the road on the left-hand side will almost
go to the edge of the property if the county wanted that to be a connection in the future; a connection
is made to the park, and is proposed as an emergency access — not a primary access; additional access
could be provided at different places in the future. Ms. Echols emphasized that the second point of
ingress/egress requirement has been met, according to the way subdivisions have been approved in
the county.
Ms. Echols continued that staff feels that the Commission should waive the requirement for
landscaping on the double -frontage lots, noting that this is an unusual situation because the "short
street" between the longer street and the stream buffer will act as an alley, as it will provide rear
access to the lots that abut it. She added that the front access for the lots on the left-hand side of the
short street will be along the other road, whereas the lots on the right-hand side will face the stream
buffer. Ms. Echols noted that the applicant is proposing to retain a buffer next to the railroad track.
She explained that there are nine conditions recommended for the final plat, but there are no
conditions recommended for the preliminary plat.
Mr. Rooker said that he understood that all of the proposed road improvements to serve the parcel
would take place within the VDOT right-of-way on Hilltop, and everything else is internal to the
subdivision. Ms. Echols confirmed this.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how many vehicle trips per day would be generated by the proposal. Ms.
Echols responded that the standard number staff uses is 10 trips per house, which is really five round
trips, adding 520 trips per day.
Mr. Finley asked how far in the future the connector roads crossing Lickinghole Creek would be.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 94
Referencing the map presented, Ms. Echols replied that the Comprehensive Plan shows a Route
I NNW 240/250 connector, with the 240/250 connector at Western Ridge extended to Quarry Farm, then
Hilltop would be extended through several properties to connect to that road. She estimated that two
or three additional properties would need to be developed in order to set up the road system to get the
240/250connector put in place, but noted that the Board would also have the leeway to make the
connections sooner.
on
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Ms. Echols confirmed that in staff's estimation, the
requirements for the by -right subdivision have been met. Mr. Finley asked if the double -frontage
requirement is the only one that hasn't been met. Ms. Echols said yes, and pointed out that that
affects only four lots. She emphasized that there are no other public roads — other than Hilltop, that
serve this particular property, and the road networks that have been looked at in Crozet yielded the
240/250 connector proposal. Ms. Echols stated that everything from the proposed development, as
well as Hilltop, feeds onto Tabor Street onto 240.
Mr. Rooker noted the Claudius Crozet Park Board letter that addresses the suggestion that an entrance
be made from the new development into the park. He asked if that was Hilltop being referenced, or if
a private part of the park was being entered.
Ms. Echols replied that the development is not proposing to enter into and exit the park, adding that
the road from the park would adjoin Hilltop. She said that there is another site plan under review by
the county for park improvements; VDOT has stated that there needs to be a commercial entrance at
the juncture of Hilltop and the park. "That connection is not proposed to be used for this particular
development." She added that the access would be used for emergency egress only.
Mr. Rieley said, "That access is what's allowing you to `check off on the box' that says you have to
have multiple areas of entrance."
Ms. Echols agreed. "That is one of them, yes, because they happen to abut each other there
anywhere."
Mr. Keeler said that the county fire & safety division said they will go through the park for
emergency access, either to existing houses on Hilltop, or to this development.
Ms. Echols stressed that there is a roadway in the park, which belongs to the park.
Mr. Keeler said, "I'm fairly confident that in the case of an emergency the fire/safety division has the
authority to go through there now, without this development."
Ms. Echols noted that that roadway is also where people drive when there are park events, so it can be
used as a thoroughfare and then get back out.
Mr. Rooker asked about the statement in the letter that says there would not be enough parking for
festivals if the proposed development was approved. He asked if that implied that festival -goers were
parking on the land now.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 95
M
Ms. Echols said that she understands that to be the case.
Mr. Finley asked if there would be any buffer required between the park and the development.
Ms. Echols said that the residential uses adjacent to the park are viewed as compatible uses.
Mr. Rieley asked if the Commission would be within their rights to reject the subdivision if they did
not agree with the assessment that there is more than one access provided to the property.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the ordinance does require that there be more than one principle means of
access from an existing public street, and said that looking at the plat, he sees two and possibly three
means of possible access from Hilltop.
Mr. Rooker asked him if that means even without the emergency access, the subdivision meets the
requirements.
Mr. Kamptner said that — from the map — it appears that the top cul-de-sac serves 12 lots, the
alleyway serves 12 lots, and the main road serves 40. He confirmed that there need to be multiple
points of access reaching an existing street.
Mr. Rieley said that it seems that if all roads pass through one point, that should be considered one
point of access. He said that a case could be made that there are not multiple points of access.
Mr. Kamptner asked staff to clarify if the points of Hilltop shown on the map are in existence, or just
planned.
Ms. Echols said that the road exists up to the property line. She indicated that if the conclusion made
by the Commission, the applicant could reduce the number of lots to less than 50 and meet the
requirement otherwise.
The applicant, Vito Cheta, President of Weatherhill Homes, addressed the Commission. He reported
that the property is zoned R-6, allowing 108 units; they are planning to build 52. He said that the
Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the zoning. Mr. Cheta said that the development has "the
elements of a traditional town," with each house having a deep, 9-foot porch and each is separated by
20 feet. He emphasized that there are curbs, gutters, street trees, sidewalks, and the houses are
encouraged to be close to the road. Mr. Cheta said that the greenbelt that runs through the property is
part of a large network, and is prepared to dedicate the open space on the property to the county. He
added that the small piece on the bottom right could be dedicated to the park if that was needed for
better access.
Mr. Cheta reported that no vinyl will be used in the homes, just woods and solid materials. He noted
that the houses would form an attractive, nice community, each with large windows, tall ceilings, a
basement; the price range for homes would be $175,000 to $275,000. Mr. Cheta said that the project
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is in a growth area. He said that the Crozet
Community Plan recommends additional sidewalks, which could tie in with the sidewalks planned for
the development. Mr. Cheta said he would like to work with the community.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999
M
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Ian Henry of 5771 Hilltop Street, Crozet, spoke on behalf of Eve Waters of Crozet, and read her
letter aloud. The letter expressed concern about the increase in traffic the development would bring,
and the lack of good access to the parcel. Ms. Waters' letter stated that any road -widening of Hilltop
Street would make the neighborhood unlivable and unsafe. She said the proposed plan is dangerous
to surrounding streets and the Claudius Crozet Park, already strained by the county's population
swell. Ms. Waters' letter encouraged Commissioners to make the county protect the needs and rights
of all citizens.
Mr. Henry said he is not opposed to the development itself, but expressed his own concern about the
increase in traffic on Hilltop and Tabor Streets. He acknowledged that the estimated 520 vehicle trips
per day generated by the development would result in the widening of Hilltop, thus taking some
private land to do the widening. Mr. Henry stated his support for the village -like atmosphere planned
for the site, but stressed that it should not be at the expense of the existing village on Hilltop Street,
Mr. Mark Gerstatenbauer of Tabor Street addressed the Commission, emphasizing that there is only
one access to the development, as there is only one access to the entire neighborhood system. He
reported that there are currently not any plans for additional accesses, as the land abutting the
proposed development is private, and the owner does not want to sell. Mr. Gerstatenbauer then
presented overhead slides that showed Hilltop Street, which he says is currently 16 feet wide, and
highlighted the losses that would occur if the street is widened. He expressed great concern about the
safety of children in the area who walk and play on the street. Mr. Gerstatenbauer said he believes
the development would be an asset to the neighborhood, but not with only one entrance. "There are
other places they could get an entrance, but they haven't got it now."
Mr. Glenn Gibson of 5786 Hilltop Street, addressed the Commission, stating he has lived there for 47
years. Mr. Gibson said he lives, works and buys in Crozet, whereas many other residents in the new
Crozet Communities use the town as a bedroom community to Charlottesville. He said that has
caused a lot of small stores and businesses in the area to close, and encouraged Commissioners to
find a "different direction" in planning. Mr. Gibson reported that the residents of the Hilltop area
were not given adequate notice of the planned development, as the public posting was on Route 240
East, not in the neighborhood. He said that there are currently 166 homes, 73 mobile homes, a public
park, a public swimming pool, and a church with only one access route. Mr. Gibson cautioned that
there is already a safety hazard because of the sole access, especially for medical and emergency
response services. He pointed out that the county and VDOT recognize the danger, as a meeting was
held in 1989 to discuss the issues with the public; at that time, a decision was made to upgrade Tabor
Street. Mr. Gibson expressed concern that the improvements to Tabor were "the first step towards a
plan for a throughway from Jarman's Gap to Tabor Street to Hilltop Street to Crozet." He stressed
that upgrading Hilltop would only damage residents' property, and would make some unlivable. Mr.
Gibson encouraged the county to purchase the Parkside Village property for an addition to Claudius
Crozet Park, which is "already too small for the area."
Ms. Tracy Boozer of 5768 Hilltop Street addressed the Commission, addressed the Commission and
asked how long it would take to build all the small pieces of road to make a larger access road. Ms.
Planning Commission —August 10, 1999 97
rm
Boozer said that the proposed development and the others that will follow will bring a serious,
possibly dangerous increase in traffic, and the widening of Hilltop would cause residents to lose
valuable land. She emphasized that Hilltop and Tabor are the only accesses out of the new
development, and the overflow of traffic would ultimately affect Crozet Avenue and 240, and the
roads are not currently built to sustain this amount of traffic. "We simply do not have the
infrastructure within Crozet to support such roads." Ms. Boozer encouraged the county to add the
land to the Claudius Crozet Park, as the park area will need to be expanded to accommodate all of the
families in the new developments. She said that if this cannot occur, then the county and Weatherhill
Homes should look at making alternate routes out of the developments, to allow Hilltop and Tabor to
remain as they are and preserve the community. Ms. Boozer presented a letter from Virginia W.
Sandridge, another area resident (Attachment "C").
Mr. Will Owen of Tabor Street addressed the Commission. He said that while VDOT uses the term
"cost to recover" when referring to payments to residents whose property is taken by the process of
imminent domain, there is no recovery that comes after property is defaced and rearranged, devalued.
Mr. Owen said that the estimate cost to recover for his property when Tabor Street was to be widened
was $28, 757, and a representative from VDOT told them that there property would "not be re-
saleable if the project was carried out as planned." The project eventually was scaled back, but the
property was irreversibly damaged. He cautioned that Hilltop residents face an even worse
desecration to their property if the proposed development is approved as planned, as the street will
have to be widened to include extra pavement and drainage. The residents will lose privacy hedges,
trees, driveways, and substantial portions of their yards. "What has taken years to grow into a well -
landscaped street will be torn away in a matter of a few minutes."
Ms. Carol Owen of Tabor Street read a letter from Mr. Goldy Baber, who lives next to the property
that was purchased for the Parkside development. Mr. Baber's letter expressed concern about the
large numbers of pedestrians in the area, noting that the new traffic generated from the development
would make it unsafe. He stressed the need for a special entrance for the Parkside Development, as
the street is considered a family street, not one for housing development traffic. Mr. Baber said that it
was unfair that the purchase of the property took place without adequate notification to area residents.
He added that the 0' of July parade, carnival and fireworks would be greatly jeopardized if the road is
used for a lot of through -traffic. "You're taking away a lot of our [social life] and fun for the
children."
Ms. Joanne Perkins, a 31-year resident of Crozet and member of the Claudius Crozet Park Board
addressed the Commission. She asked members of the audience who are concerned about the project
to stand up, which they did. Ms. Perkins said that the Park is by covenant never to be sold, and will
forever remain a park, adding that she does not think the covenant will allow emergency use from a
subdivision through the park. She referenced the "eight points" from the Claudius Crozet Park Board
(Attachment `B") as to why they do not approve of the development, with safety as a major issue.
Ms. Perkins stated she is also representing the Crozet Community Association, which represents the
community at -large, which was incorporated in 1985. She said that the Association's mission is to
keep Crozet a safe place to live and work.
Mr. Finley asked if the Park was interested in buying the parcel now slated for development.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 98
Ms. Perkins said, "If you take away our auxiliary parking — which we had the previous landowner's
%NW permission for... our festivals are in the top 50 and top 100 in the country in arts & crafts... without
the festival, we would not be able to exist. You take away our parking, you take away our
festival... this brand new pool, we'll have to close it down... the livelihood of the park is the festival."
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Perkins if there had been any effort to purchase the land from the landowner.
Ms. Perkins said that the Park Board wanted to buy it, but did not have the resources. She added that
the festival income, which can be $60,000, goes into the management of the Park and pool. "We
really don't have the money."
Miss Shauna Gibson addressed the Commission, stating that what this builder is doing to the
community is not smart. Miss Gibson said that taking away land to widen the street will take away
driveways for some residents, including her grandparents.
Mr. Charles Baber, a Hilltop Street resident representing the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, read
a letter written with the support of the Department. Mr. Baber said that the park plays a vital role in
the community and the fire department's support. He further stated that the proposed development
raises serious safety concerns, especially related to access for fire equipment. The letter asked the
Board of Supervisors to consider purchasing the parcel for addition to the Crozet Community Park for
the county, as it is the only remaining land available for park expansion.
Mr. Louis Valente of 5639 Hilltop Street addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the
safety of children in the area if the street is widened to gain access to the development. Mr. Valente
said that the proposed development does not take into consideration the impacts it will have on
existing residents.
Mr. Jack Valente of 5639 Hilltop Street addressed the Commission, and said he has lived on Hilltop
for the last year. Mr. Valente said he walks to work in Crozet, and is never concerned because traffic
along Hilltop is minimal. He added that when he drives, he usually goes 15 mph because there are a
lot of kids in the street, and expressed concern that raising the speed limit might endanger them.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Valente if he used the park. Mr. Valente said he goes to the park almost every
day. He said that the festivals mean a lot to his family.
Ms. Margaret Maupin, a 30-year resident of the county, addressed the Commission, stating that she
visits Crozet frequently. "There are fewer and fewer quaint, established neighborhoods in our county,
and I would like for us to have the vision to realize that we need to maintain those." She
acknowledged that Crozet is a growth area, but emphasized that an access road needs to be found that
won't disturb the quaint Hilltop neighborhood. Ms. Maupin suggested that the county acquire rights
to develop an appropriate access road; the road could also serve the park better than the current road
does, could preserve the old neighborhoods, and provide more appropriate, safe access to new
developments.
Mr. Carroll Combs, a 55-year Crozet resident, addressed the Commission. He said that Hilltop is a
unique street. Mr. Combs said that Crozet residents would not oppose the development if a road
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 99
could be gained from the east side, primarily for safety reasons. "Don't destroy... one street, one
�#ftw community, for a new community that looks beautiful... nobody is opposed to the development; the
only thing that they oppose is their street being destroyed, their way -of -life being destroyed. There is
only one way in. Hilltop dumps into Tabor... it's a [life and death] issue." He mentioned that a large
storm in 1996 caused the road to be blocked for two days, and the community took chainsaws in to
unlock the road. Mr. Combs appealed to Commissioners to consider the neighbors who have been
there for many, many years.
05
Ms. Sarah Catherine Owen, a 22-year resident of 5757 Tabor Street, addressed the Commission. She
encouraged Commissioners to visit Hilltop Street and observe the nature of community first-hand.
Ms. Owen said that residents are not against change and are not against the development, but are
asking that the proposal be "put on hold" until an adequate infrastructure including new streets is
built to support it. "Our government should protect the rights of all its citizens, and insist that the
building of a new development not cause a destruction of an existing one."
Mr. Mark James addressed the Commission, stating he lived on Hilltop Street for 21 years. He said
he is not against the development, but strongly feels there should be a separate entrance for it, largely
because of safety issues. Mr. James said that once Hilltop is widened, other residents of the area will
use the street as a short-cut. He urged the developer to take the funds assigned to widening Hilltop
and put the bridge in to connect to 250. Mr. James said that every development in Crozet has
separate entrances in and out; the new development would be an exception if it used Hilltop. He
asked Commissioners to judge the existing residents as fairly as the prospective new residents.
Ms. Lee Wold, who lives on the corner of Hilltop and High, addressed the Commission. She agreed
with other speakers that the concern is not so much for the development, but for the lack of adequate
access to it. Ms. Wold said that every morning when she watches the road where her daughter
catches the school bus, there is already a steady stream of traffic coming down High Street from the
development behind the park. She also recalled the blizzard of 1996, which caused two large trees to
block Tabor Street and part of High Street for two days. Ms. Wold said the access discussed through
the park still comes out to High Street and eventually to Tabor. "There is no other way of getting out
of this whole area.
Mr. Eric Strucko, a Free Union resident, Co-chair of DISC, Vice -Chair of the Housing Committee,
and Board of Supervisors Candidate, addressed the Commission, stating that his remarks are his own,
and do not represent any other entities. Mr. Strucko suggested sending the Parkside Village proposal
back to the planning staff for further review and work. He said that the Crozet community is not
prepared with the necessary infrastructure needed for additional vehicle trips, and additional students
added to already crowded schools; he emphasized that there is only one entrance. Mr. Strucko
appealed for a citizen -oriented master planning process initiated by the Crozet Community
Association in consultation with the planning department. He said that a significant segment of the
Crozet public has called for a master planning exercise, which would outline in explicit detail the type
of development wanted, the location of neighborhoods and open space, and the needed infrastructure
for well -planned, intelligent and controlled growth.
Mr. Tom Loche, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission. He said he had recently reviewed the
Neighborhood Model Plan written for DISC, which describes seven different types of consultant-
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 100
recommended neighborhood road networks; the major component of each road network was
**W connectivity. Mr. Loche said after carefully reviewing each type recommended, not one describes a
neighborhood road network that relies on only one entrance, and concluded that Parkside Village plan
does not comply with the road network recommendations of the DISC Committee. He added that he
contacted the school division to inquire about how many seats are available at Crozet Elementary,
and was informed that there were 39 seats. Mr. Loche expressed concern that the construction of
over 300 homes in Grey Rock, Wayland's Grant, and this new subdivision would cause this school to
be overburdened. He said that the Parkside application does not comply with the recommendation of
the Crozet Community Plan which calls for all children in the Crozet Growth Area to attend Crozet
Elementary. Mr. Loche said the plan and project ask for entirely too much from one neighborhood
and one street. He recommended that the Planning Commission ask the county to allocate additional
funds and increase the scope of the master planning project to include the entire area adjacent to
Hilltop Street that's available for development; the master plan could then be designed to include the
road grid that would relieve Hilltop. Mr. Loche asked the applicant to consider deferring the request
until such a master plan is complete.
Ms. Pam Sutton of Tabor Street addressed the Commission, emphasizing that there is only one road
in and out of the project. She encouraged the developer to build a road, stating that there is a road
between ConAgra and Acme that would provide that access.
Ms. Ann O'Neil of Hilltop Street addressed the Commission, expressing concerns about traffic that
would be added by the new development. She encouraged the developers to find another access to
the parcel.
141W The applicant, Kelly Strickland of Weatherhill Homes, addressed the Commission. Mr. Strickland
said that in 1990, he purchased a home on the corner of Crozet Avenue and Tabor Street, renovated it
while he was living there, and sold it last summer. Mr. Strickland said he became involved with the
Crozet community and got to know several residents who spoke at this meeting. He said he wanted
to be a part of the process that developed Crozet, and attended the Crozet Community "Neighbors
Design Neighborhoods" Study Group that took place in 1998, which the county sponsored. Mr.
Strickland said that Mr. Cheta's ideas for Weatherhill Homes fit in with what the community group
found as desirable for Crozet. He added that the development ties into the Comprehensive Plan and
the DISC findings.
En
Mr. Strickland said that VDOT has already indicated the roads are acceptable, and the only issue the
Commission needs to consider is the double -frontage on four lots. He commented, "We'll have to
move some mailboxes. I didn't see any trees. We need to extend two feet on each side." Mr.
Strickland said the new development would allow residents to walk to downtown Crozet, in keeping
with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested having sidewalks put in to
continue to allow pedestrian traffic along Hilltop into the Parkside Village development.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked staff when Hilltop would be widened if the development were approved.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 101
Mr. Keeler replied that the developer would have to make the improvement before the final plat were
made, or he would have to bond that improvement. Mr. Keeler confirmed that Tabor had already
been improved.
Mr. Rooker asked if the widening of Hilltop would have to be completed before lots were sold in the
subdivision.
Mr. Keeler replied no.
Mr. Keeler said, "VDOT is going to require the improvement to Hilltop, not the county.... VDOT
may say `you improve Hilltop before we even issue you an entrance permit."' He confirmed that the
timing is purely up to VDOT.
Mr. Rooker asked what the Crozet Community Study says about this particular area, and asked who
was involved in the Crozet Community Study and where it currently stands.
Ms. Echols replied that the Crozet Community Study was developed with county staff and many
residents of the area, some of whom are in the audience. She said that the study does not address this
area specifically, but the aspects of the plan have to do with pedestrian access to the downtown area;
most of the study dealt with the overall development scheme for the community, including
transportation networks and specifically focused on revitalizing downtown.
Mr. Rooker asked if the study addressed transportation facilities serving this area of Crozet.
I%W Ms. Echols stated that she did not believe it addresses this particular parcel, and did not know if there
was a specific mention of Hilltop. She noted that Park Street was widened to accommodate projected
traffic, and Hilltop was specifically not widened to route park traffic along Park Street.
EM
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the last traffic studies were done on the area 10 years ago.
Mr. Bob Ball of VDOT addressed the Commission. He reported that the Iast formal traffic study was
conducted in 1989, which resulted in the widening of Tabor Street.
Mr. Rooker asked if that study generated any recommendations for Hilltop. Mr. Ball said he was not
aware of any recommendations for Hilltop.
Mr. Rooker asked how the widening of Hilltop would impact adjacent landowners, as the developers'
account of how it would affect the street differ from what residents have expressed.
Mr. Ball said that VDOT is requiring 22-foot cross sections, and the width is currently 16 feet, which
would remove 2 to 3 feet of lawns from each side of the road. Mr. Ball said there is no drainage
ditch on either side, so that would also be required in addition to the road itself.
Mr. Rooker asked if VDOT would be amenable to traffic -calming measures on the road, such as
brick -imprinted crosswalks, stop signs, lowering of speed limit, etc.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 102
En
Mr. Ball responded that VDOT is hesitant to place unneeded stop signs because of legal liability. He
said that traffic -calming procedures could be followed.
Mr. Rooker stated, "This is a prime example of where such measures might be exceptionally
important to the community," and asked that if the development is ultimately approved, planning staff
work directly with VDOT to ensure that they get done. "We're dealing with a subdivision as a matter
of right, and I think ultimately, regardless of what our opinion may be... probably there's going to be
a development on that property. It's properly zoned, and the developer — if he hasn't met all the
requirements — can probably make a few small changes in the development, and there would be no
way that anyone could legally stop him." Mr. Rooker added that the main concern of residents seems
to be how this is going to affect their daily lives, in terms of how they use the road. "I think it's
extremely important that we protect them as much as we can, and I think the traffic -calming measures
may be one of the key things in accomplishing that."
Mr. Keeler said that traffic -calming measures have been implemented for new development, but for
an existing road, there may be different criteria that apply. He added that at ConAgra, VDOT
installed some rumble strips. "I just don't know if the process for existing roads is any different from
reviewing new road plans."
Mr. Rooker noted that this may be a more permissive circumstance since the existing road is about to
be upgraded and changed.
Ms. Echols commented that staff is working with VDOT on the Springridge Development in trying to
see if there are some traffic -calming measures that can be built into that particular development. She
said that although nothing final has been decided yet, it is a similar situation to Parkside Village —
with existing roads and a new development. "I don't know about VDOT's receptivity in the long run
to the whole thing."
Mr. Finley asked how long it would take to get the 53 houses in. Mr. Cheta responded 3 or 4 years.
Mr. Finley commented that the houses would probably be in before the connector roads were built.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were any other parcels of property behind this property that could
technically also access via Hilltop by building a small extender into their parcels. "Might we end up
with a chain of properties all being developed that feed into this somewhat substandard road
situation?"
Referencing a map presented, Ms. Echols noted what the ultimate road network is proposed to be.
She added that there is one more property just to the east of the Parkside parcel that could tie in. Ms.
Echols agreed that another development could occur, adjacent to the Parkside parcel that could
connect into that before there were the properties in to develop the system.
Mr. Rooker asked about that adjacent parcel. Ms. Echols said the parcel has the same zoning and
allowed density as the Parkside parcel. Mr. Rooker noted that both properties would then exit onto
Hilltop. Ms. Echols agreed, and indicated that David Benish was more prepared to answer those
questions. Mr. Rooker commented that the adjacent parcel is 50% larger than the Parkside land,
which could yield 160 development rights.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 103
In
Mr. Loewenstein asked if that were to happen, if the upgrades suggested for Hilltop be sufficient.
"Would we again be looking at additional impacts to the street?"
Ms. Echols replied that staff has not yet assessed that.
Mr. Keeler commented that Mr. Benish was prepared to speak to various alternatives that the county
has looked at over the years. Mr. Keeler noted Mr. Ball's mention of the 1989 study that considered
four alternatives, one that would have continued an existing road through an existing right-of-way
and provided a seconded connection to Route 240. "We have looked at making additional access out
to 240 from this general area .... we probably still have all those alternatives and we can take a look at
them again."
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see the alternatives looked at, and learn more about them before
voting on the Parkside item.
Mr. Loewenstein said he would also like to see a new set of traffic figures for the existing street.
"We're dealing with very, very out-of-date information on traffic, and I think that when something
like this comes to us — since traffic is one of the major considerations — I think we need an accurate
assessment of the current situation and not an assessment from 10 years ago. It seems clear from
what's been said this evening that probably those projections are not accurate any longer, and I think
it's very difficult for us to work without that information."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Rooker that traffic -calming measures need to be investigated, but
added "traffic calming may slow cars down, but it's not going to take away their numbers." He
added that more information about the current volume, and more about the alternative roads is
needed. "I'm not really comfortable trying to make a decision in the absence of that information. I
think it's critical, and I think these people deserve it." He said he would like to see traffic figures on
both Hilltop and Tabor.
Ms. Washington noted that the only way this item can be deferred is if the applicant requests deferral.
Mr. Kamptner said that it has been 45 days since VDOT commented on the project, and therefore
some action would be required soon. He added that the Commission could approve or deny the plat;
if denial were given, then the Commission would need to specify the provisions of the ordinance that
it is not in compliance with. Mr. Kamptner noted that the two reasons that surfaced in discussion
were: the lack of a second adequate access; and double -frontage lots. He added that the requirements
for granting a double -frontage lots are that the arrangement is essential to provide separation of
residential development from streets, or to overcome topographical problems. "If you make a finding
that either of those situations don't exist, you can deny the plat on that basis."
Ms. Washington stated that if the Commission finds there is only one principal point of access, that
should be sufficient grounds for denial.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 104
cm
Mr. Kamptner said that one reason is enough; to comply with that standard, the applicant needs to
propose a development that either has at least 20 or more principal means of access, or come in with a
development that has fewer than 50 lots.
Mr. Rooker clarified that a practical judgement could be made that the subdivision is not served by
two points of access, adding that the development would suffer from deficient emergency service
based upon the current access situation. He noted that if it were denied on that basis, the applicant
could drop three lots from the development, and the subdivision would be approved as a matter of
right.
Mr. Kamptner agreed, stating that the applicant is entitled to approval if he satisfies the minimum
requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Finley said that the park would probably not grant the emergency exit, and asked if they could be
forced to do so.
Mr. Kamptner said that because the land is privately owned, the owners do not have to grant the
access. He added that he was unsure whether "emergency access" meets the definition of a "principal
means of access."
Mr. Rieley said that those access points lead somewhere else. He added that the Commission's realm
of authority is very narrow — dealing with the access points and the double -frontage lots — and the
issues involved are very large. He stated that the Commission has a responsibility to deny on the
basis of access; the larger issue of how this will unfold will require the county to take a hard look at
the possibilities of park expansion and acquisition of or participation in additional access to the
property.
"It is a by -right development, and they are not required to go out and buy an additional access
somewhere else. So, if it's going to happen, the county is going to have to participate in that... I
wouldn't be surprised if there's not a way in which some expansion of Claudius Crozet Park and
some additional access could be acquired at the same time." He said that it would make a lot of
sense, especially if it were done with the cooperation of the developer, who has produced a plan that
has done "many of the exact kinds of things that we have asked developers to do."
Mr. Rieley commented on the positive aspects of the development — the location, the proximity to
downtown Crozet, the appearance of the houses and the plan, the frontage, sidewalks, tree lawns, etc.
He further expressed dismay in having to oppose a plan with tree lawns, sidewalks, tree lawns, and
"all of the kinds of things we've been trying to get." Mr. Rieley emphasized that "the fundamental
difficulty, of course, is that this is handsome in it pieces, [but] is essentially one more big cul-de-sac
punctuated with three smaller cul-de-sacs. The issue of the inner -connectivity is absolutely critical."
He concluded that he thinks it is unfair for the Hilltop community to provide the doorway for 50
houses, or more.
Mr. Loewenstein said that if the Crozet Master Plan needs to be looked at, the county should consider
it; he encouraged the residents of Crozet to tell the county how the plan might be expanded and help
the county work with the community to make it possible. "Clearly, the original boundaries of that
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 105
on
plan need to be extended....I think it's very admirable but it needs to be extended because there is a
lot going on [outside] the area that was originally identified for study, and I think it needs to be
included in this, so that we can look at the entire picture when we have something like this before us."
Mr. Rieley agreed. He said that the county needs to help the park stay as big as it currently is, if not
expand, and also look at ways to help provide access to a property that is a by -right development. He
encouraged the Board to look favorably on that, and encouraged the applicant to be cooperative in
that effort.
Mr. Rooker asked if the developer would be amenable to requesting deferral for three or four weeks
so that additional information could be obtained.
Mr. Finley wondered if that would be sufficient time to obtain traffic information.
Mr. Kelsey said that a formal traffic study of the area would not be done in house, but would be
conducted by a consultant.
Mr. Rooker asked about using the Menu TP model.
Mr. Keeler said that Menu TP is not site -specific, and is not sensitive enough to apply to a specific
development.
Ms. Washington suggested that the applicant request indefinite deferral.
Mr. Keeler said that Tabor Street figures could be furnished, but there could not be enough
information gathered in that time period to address the road network in the area.
Ms. Washington commented that the entire community likes the development, but does not like the
amount of traffic that would be generated on Hilltop Street. She sympathized with residents who
faced having part of their yard removed. "We're not being kid -conscious. We need to recognize that
that is a park, a lot of kids do use it. I have a big problem with the safety issue for those children.
I've seen traffic -calming measures and they are not working." She further expressed surprise that Mr.
Strickland, who lived in Crozet, participated in a plan to develop the area, and came up with a plan
without adequate access.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how long it would take to get updated traffic figures on the existing streets.
Mr. Keeler said that staff could take undeveloped properties, assume maximum development, and add
it to 1989 figures. "1 do not believe in this area, since 1989, there's been any significant
development. Any increase in traffic there is probably attributable to the park. There haven't been
that many houses built there since that period of time."
Mr. Ball said he was unsure how long it would take.
Mr. Finley asked how that information would change the way Commissioners vote.
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 106
Mr. Rooker noted that they were also asking for information about the connector to Route 240, which
Mr. Benish has. Commissioners agreed that that is a missing piece of information.
Ms. Washington asked for information on what kind of impact it would have on the school systems.
Ms. Echols mentioned that while many parents don't like the idea, kids might be redistricted from
Crozet to Brownsville. She said that staff could provide information on the schools' capacities, and
the relationship of these developments to that.
Mr. Thomas stated that he agrees with fellow Commissioners. He said that the county needs to get
involved to work on the connector roads; the park is going to be without parking, which generates a
problem; the county needs to get involved with a master plan for the Crozet area to help plan the
connector roads so Hilltop won't bear the brunt of all the traffic.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that if there is to be a deferral, it needs to be with the consent of the applicant
because the time is nearing when the Commission is required by ordinance to take action.
MOTION: In the absence of the applicant requesting deferral, Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein
seconded a recommendation for denial of SUB 99-148 because it does not comply with 14-512H
which requires more than one principal means of access to the development.
Mr. Kamptner noted that in order to comply with 14-512H, the applicant needs to reduce the number
of dwelling units to below 50. Mr. Rooker commented that the applicant could amend the plat and
re -file; in between now and then, staff would have time to get the requested information for the
Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the plat could come back so that there is no Planning Commission review
required, unless specifically requested.
Ms. Echols commented that the applicant has several options: they could bring it back; they could
appeal the decision on denial to the Board; they could appeal the decision to the Circuit Court; they
could re -plat.
Mr. Rieley suggested that the motion be amended to include a statement that the Commission
encourages the Board to look at the possibilities of park expansion and additional access, and also
encourage the developer to participate in a Comprehensive look at this, which "could conceivably be
beneficial to everyone." He added, "I'm concerned that we deny, he trims a couple lots off, and
that's the end of it. I think [there is an] opportunity here for everybody and what's at stake here... is
too great to see that happen."
Mr. Rooker agreed. "We're looking at a situation where we've got a very good subdivision plan
before us, but we're being asked, in effect, to harm one good community at the expense of another."
Mr. Rieley restated the amendment, which requests that the Board of Supervisors look at the
possibilities for park expansion and additional access to this property, and encourage the developer to
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999 107
M
participate in that process, so that "we can arrive at something that is mutually beneficial to
everyone." The Planning Commission requested that, if resubmitted, the plat come back for review.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
Commissioners agreed that while there is a reason for denial of the plat, the separate issue of double -
frontage lots should be considered separately.
MOTION: Mr. Riley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the waiver for double frontage lots
as shown on a plan substantially similar to what was presented, including a waiver of the landscaping
requirement.
The motion passed in a 5-1 vote, with Ms. Washington dissenting.
Mr. Keeler clarified that staff would work with VDOT to obtain current traffic counts in the area;
obtain the 1989 traffic study to look at alternate means of access in the area. He said that the issue of
a detailed study of an expanded area for downtown Crozet is not within the realm of staff s authority;
and the Board of Supervisors would have to authorize funding for a consultant to do such a study.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that while it was not a part of the motion on SUB 99-148, he believes there is
a need to expand the Crozet Community study area, and however that has to be accomplished, it
should be "fast -tracked to the degree that is possible." He further appealed to the county to accept
and encourage input from the Crozet community to make that possible.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
The Commission appointed Mr. Loewenstein to a Court Study Committee for Albemarle County and
the City of Charlottesville. Also, Mr. Finley mentioned that the Chairman of the Greene County
Planning Commission is proposing to have a joint meeting. Mr. Finley will work with the Chairman
and staff to secure a date/time/place.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
V. Wayne
Planning Commission — August 10, 1999
108