HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 21 1999 PC MinutesM
09
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 21,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, August
24, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development;
Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior
Planner; Ms, Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Mr. William Finley, Mr. William Nitchmann.
Approval of Minutes — August 17,1999, August 24,19". and August 31,1999.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of a vote on the minutes of
August 17"' and August 20' until their October 5 h meeting, and unanimously approved the minutes
of August 31, 1999.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — September 1,1999, September 8,1999, and
September 15,1999.
Mr. Benish presented a review of the Board of Supervisors meetings, reporting that the Board
adopted a Resolution of Intent to evaluate a Zoning Text Amendment for Farmers' Markets. The
Board also accepted a withdrawal from the applicant on CPA 97-05 (Brass, Inc.) and took no action
on any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for that project. They also deferred SP 99-36, a
cellular communications tower in Foxfield, and reviewed an appeal of the ARB for the Colonial
Auto Showroom and subsequently granted the appeal. Mr. Benish said that the Board approved SP
9947 (3-D Studio Expansion) with conditions as recommended by the Commission, and also
approved the Emmanuel Episcopal Church with conditions as recommended by staff, and approved
SP 99-49 (Wyndham Farm Bridge) with eight conditions.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Public Hearing Items
CPA 99-01 Ashcroft Phase 6
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for approximately 37 acres adjacent to
Ashcroft PRD, Planned Residential Development, In Neighborhood Three (an existing development
area). The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 51A, is located on the north side of the I-64
frontage road (Hansen's Mountain Road), north of Route 250 East (Richmond Road) in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. Staff requests deferral to October 5, 1999 to allow for re -advertising.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of deferral of CPA 99-01. The motion
passed unanimously.
AlhPmarlP Plannino rnmmiseinn — RPntPmhe.r 21 19AA
145
SP 99-26 Jones Stream Crossins
Request for special use permit to allow a stream crossing of the Moorman's River in accordance
with Section 30.5.5.2(d)6 and 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for stream
crossings in the floodplain. The property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 56, contains 174 acres,
and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Sugar Hollow Road [Route #614]
approximately 1.36 miles east of Sugar Ridge Road [Route 674]. The property is zoned RA, Rural
Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designated this property as Rural Area.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing a low water stream
crossing at his farm on the Moorman's River near White Hall; the crossing consists of a series of
small culverts, covered by a concrete pad with cattle guards on either side, and forms a bridge that it
useful during low to moderate flood conditions. The stream crossing is proposed at the location of
an existing ford, and will extend the number of days the applicant can access his pasture on the far
side of the river by truck. He also plans to access a future house site. Ms. Scala reported that staff
has reviewed the request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and recommends approval with
conditions. She noted that the proposed bridge allows access for agricultural use, and thus supports
the purposes of the RA district.
Ms. Scala said that staff relied heavily on Department of Engineering comments regarding the bridge
design and floodway requirements; Engineering is recommending approval with conditions. She
noted that under scenic stream requirements, the Moorman's River is a Virginia scenic river, and the
Moorman's River Scenic Advisory Committee met on August 16t' and recommended approval of
the proposed stream crossing. As the river is also a county -designated scenic stream, Ms. Scala said
that staff opinion is that the stream has met all seven criteria within that designation. She reported
that while most canoeing on the river occurs below Route 810 on the White Hall side, the proposed
structure would cause an obstruction not otherwise present, it would not cause an obstruction when
the stream is high enough for the canoe to pass over the structure. Ms. Scala mentioned that the
Advisory Committee did not have a problem with that.
Ms. Scala concluded that staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for the stream
crossing with conditions as recommended by the Department of Engineering.
The applicant, Joseph Jones, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked him if the structure has a batter on the sides, or whether it is just straight where the
ends of the pipe come out.
Mr. Jones responded that the structure will be straight in the middle, and will have a batter on the
ends so there is no erosion around the ends. He explained that he has owned the land for over 40
years, and has seen the ebbs and flows of the river over the years. Mr. Jones stated that he is just
trying to improve his access to the property. He mentioned that he spoke with Steven Boller in
Engineering to begin working through all the requirements for the permit.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 99-26 with conditions as
recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Alhi-marle Plannino ('nmmicsinn — RPntPmher')1 1999 146
*ftw SP_99-46St. _Luke's Chapel
Request for special use permit to allow an existing church and new parish hall, in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.35 of the zoning Ordinance which allows for churches in Rural Areas. The property,
described as Tax Map 92 Parcel 46A contains 0.8664 acres, and is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District at 1936 Thomas Jefferson Parkway [Route 53] approximately 2 miles from the
intersection of Thomas Jefferson Parkway and Route 732. The property is zoned Rural Areas. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Ms. Echols reported that the church was originally built in 1892, and had one addition put on
recently which did not require a special use permit because of its size and use. She explained that
the church now proposes an addition to be done to the rear of the building, and will also have to
extend the parking area. Ms. Echols said that the parish hall will also require ARB approval as it lies
in an Entrance Corridor. She mentioned that the existing cemetery is located behind the proposed
new structure. Ms. Echols noted that the Health Department determined that the septic system could
be modified to allow for the addition, and staff does not anticipate any problems with that aspect of
the approval process. She stated that staffs recommendation for approval includes a condition
requiring Health Department approval at the time the building permit is issued for the addition.
Ms. Echols noted that the Engineering Department has recommended changes to the entrance into
the church, and VDOT has indicated that it would be appropriate to move the entrance down as far
south as possible. Ms. Echols said that the Engineering Department does not believe the entrance
needs to be moved, but does feel that it should be widened to 30 feet and that the berm should be
removed. She concluded that staff recommends approval with the conditions presented, and with the
understanding that when the ARB reviews the application, they may have modifications, especially
regarding the visibility of the parking lot and the addition. Ms. Echols noted that the condition (#4)
regarding the length of time in which the church can begin construction should be modified to state:
"The church shall commence construction of the building addition, if at all, within five years after
the issuance of this special use permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by
the permit shall be terminated. All applicable Health Department requirements at the time the
building permit is issued shall be satisfied."
Mr. Thomas asked if VDOT had control over the entrance to the church site. Ms. Echols replied that
no site development plan is required, so staff can receive recommends from VDOT although they are
not required.
Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Echols to confirm that the intent of the addition is not to increase the size of
the congregation, but is just to enhance the programs at the church. Ms. Echols said that is correct.
He noted that the term "berm" is normally used to denote a man-made feature, and said that the hill
in question is a natural landform. Ms. Echols suggested that the applicant address the issue.
The applicant, John Berbrick, representing the church, addressed the Commission. He confirmed for
Mr. Rieley that the berm is natural, not manmade, and is mostly rock. Mr. Berbrick said that there is
a sharp curve where the site distance begins to diminish, and emphasized that at the center of the
curve, there is a natural curb of 2'/Z feet that prevents trucks from swaying off of the road onto the
church property. He said that the request for widening the driveway is unwarranted, and moving the
AlhPmarlP Plannino r nmmiecinn — CPntPmhPr '71 1999 147
existing driveway to the right or lower would probably diminish the site distance. Mr. Berbrick
suggested increasing the driveway width from the current 20 feet to 24 feet. He explained that there
is just one church per week, with one way traffic in and out; there is no activity during the week.
Staff confirmed that VDOT could not impose a requirement for a 30-foot wide driveway, but did
recommend that the driveway be upgraded to commercial standards.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if trees behind the existing building would need to be removed to
accommodate the addition. Mr. Berbrick said that one large, aging maple would need to be
removed; that is the only sizeable tree that would need to be removed. In response to Mr.
Loewenstein's question, Mr. Berbrick said that there have not been plans drawn for the addition yet.
Mr. Berbrick added that the church is very conscious of the architectural treatment of the building,
and if the Board grants approval, the church will step up its building fund campaign so that the
official planning could begin. He stated that the church's congregation is currently 29-33, including
children, and there are typically 7 to 12 cars coming and going from each service.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked if the bean was higher as you travel south on Route 53. Mr. Loewenstein said
that the berm only exists on the small area before the curve.
Mr. Rieley said that the sharp curve requires cars to slow down, and he would be reluctant to impose
a requirement that required re -grading of the historic landscape. He added that he does not feel that
upgrading to a commercial entrance is warranted, and said that he is inclined to leave it up to the
church, as the number of cars is not changing.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed. He added that the natural berm offers some protection from cars and
trucks swaying off of the road. Mr. Loewenstein said that St. Luke's is one of the finest small
ecclesiastical buildings in the community, and noted that church officials there have been extremely
sensitive about the architecture and the history of the structure. He mentioned that they have done
an outstanding job with the addition put on several years ago. He suggested removing conditions #2
and #3.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-046 with conditions
as follows:
1. Church development shall be limited to the building addition and parking areas shown on the
sketch plan dated 9/9/99 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables,
children's play equipment, and walkways. Location of improvements may change as a result of
Architectural Review Board requirements.
2. The church shall commence construction of the building addition, if at all, within five years after
the issuance of this special use permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted
by the permit shall be terminated. All applicable Health Department requirements at the time
the building permit is issued shall be satisfied.
3. The applicant shall complete all preliminary BMP calculations and, if required by the
Engineering Department, provide BMP facilities for the addition and parking lot.
A1hPmnrlP Pin nnina Cnmmicainn — CPntPmhPr ?1 1999 14R
09
05
4. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-53 Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital
Proposal to construct an addition of approximately 620 square feet to the existing veterinary
hospital, on .913 acre zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as a portion of Tax
Map 61K, Section 9, Parcel 1 is located on the southern side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road),'/4 mile
west of Route 29. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is recommended for Urban
Density in Urban Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, noting that SP 96-28 was approved by the Board of
Supervisors in 1996; at that time, the hospital sought to enclose the outdoor dog kennels and expand
the front of the building. The original building and kennels were established in 1953, and the
Board's approval of SP 96-28 to enclose the kennels greatly improved the noise impact to the
neighboring residential area. He said that the conditions imposed at that time will now require an
amendment, as one of them limits the expansion to the site plan approved at that time.
Mr. Morrisette explained that the applicant is seeking to add a 620 square foot addition to the
western side of the building, and to do so must have Condition #2 of the prior special use permit
amended. Also, he added, the applicant needs to get a site plan amendment approved through the
county; county staff is in a position to sign the amendment when the Board grants a permit. Mr.
Morrisette said that the applicant has gone through the Board of Zoning appeals in which the BZA
has granted a relief of a section to allow for a reduction in the amount of required parking. He added
that there is a reduction in the setbacks which allows for a 40-foot setback reduction.
Mr. Morrisette concluded that the Planning Department does not see any conflicts with proposal, as
the use is proposed for an examination, X-ray room, storage; no housing of dogs will take place in
the additional facility. Staff has included a condition to keep with the same type of construction
materials as used in the 1996 addition, which are sound -proof and solid. Mr. Morrisette said that the
Commission needs to grant a waiver in setbacks, as the ordinance requires a 200-foot setback from
residential areas for sound -proof facilities; that was waived when the 1996 permit was granted. He
noted a modification in Condition #2 regarding the square footage and expansion limitations: the
condition should state "Development of the site shall be in accord with the site plan titled `Hydraulic
Road Animal Hospital' dated 7/20/99. The proposed addition identified thereon shall not exceed
620 square feet. Any further expansion of the structures will require an amendment to the special
use permit."
Mr. Rooker asked why there was not a condition prohibiting the housing of animals in the addition.
Mr. Morrisette said that a condition could be added, but he felt that if the same type of materials
were used as the previous addition, it may not matter.
Mr. Rooker said that it should be a condition, especially since a setback waiver is required.
AlhPmarir+ Planning C'nmmicci�n — RPntPmhPr �1 19A9
149
The applicant, Ray Doss, owner of the hospital, addressed the Commission. He said that the
addition would basically house some new diagnostic equipment that cannot function properly where
it is currently housed on site. Mr. Doss said that they do not intend to increase the number of
animals housed in the building. He stated that he had no objection to an additional condition
prohibiting the housing of animals in the new addition.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-53 with the conditions as
modified by staff and the addition of a condition that states "the addition will not house any
animals." The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval for a waiver of normal setback
requirements associated with SP 99-53. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-57 Averett College
Petition to establish a business school of approximately 2,000 square feet within the recently
constructed Greenbriar Office Park on 4.3 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property, described
as a portion of Tax Map 61 W, Section 1, Parcels 1, 2 and 3 is located on the eastern side of the
Whitewood Road/Greenbriar Drive intersection. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District
and is recommended for Neighborhood Density in Urban Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, noting the site plan presented. He said that Averett plans to
locate in the second floor of an existing building, and seeks to occupy 2,000 square feet of the total
46,000 square feet in the office park. Mr. Morrisette said that commercial area is surrounded by
residential properties, and when the site plan was under review, there were many adjacent property
owners who objected to the commercial property. He said that the developer and homeowners
associations worked to establish adequate buffers and screening, and satisfied residents enough so
that they withdrew their request for Commission review.
Mr. Morrisette said that Planning staff does not view the Averett request as intensification of use,
because of the limited size of the school and the hours of operation. He said that staff recommends
approval of the SP, and noted the additional action required for cooperative parking — which allows
for the Commission to reduce required parking primarily because of the different hours for uses in
the building. Mr. Morrisette said that residents have not raised concerns about the additional use.
He proceeded to read the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Rooker asked what the total number of parking spaces around the buildings. Mr. Morrisette said
he was not certain, but a deficit of seven spaces has been identified. Mr. Rooker confirmed that
without the waiver, the use would require seven additional spaces.
Mr. Rieley commented that the fact the parking could be shared was a very positive part of the
application. Mr. Rooker agreed.
AlhPmarl,-Plannina rnmmissinn — RPntPmhPr 21 lA9A 150
,,. The applicant's representative, Lance Van de Caster of Robert Hauser Homes, addressed the
Commission. He said that there were approximately 177 parking spaces on site. He introduced Ms.
Kendall from Averett College. She said that the use would be specifically for academic purposes,
and said that their graduate program is outgrowing Zehmer Hall at U. Va. Ms. Kendall said that she
hopes the building space will serve their long-term needs, and would allow there to be eight groups
of students over the course of four nights. She added that Saturday courses could be added later to
accommodate additional students. Ms. Kendall said that the condition limiting enrollment to 45
students per day would allow enough flexibility to continue the program.
Mr. Morrisette commended Averett College for their work during the SP process, including their
letter sent to nearby property owners describing the plan for the office use.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-057 with conditions as
proposed by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the Code requires that the Commission identify the specific arrangements
that justify cooperative parking.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of the request for cooperative
parking, citing Condition #2. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP 99-101 White Hall Post Office Preliminary Site Plan/2232 Review
Request for preliminary site plan approval for a building to be used as a U.S. Post Office, consisting
of 784 square feet on 1.385 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. As per Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of
Virginia, the proposed use will also be reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
property is described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 33, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District
on Brown's Gap Turnpike [route 810], at the intersection with Sugar Hollow Road [Route 614]. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Ms. Thomas illustrated the location of the site on a map presented, noting that it is directly across
from the existing Post Office site in Garrison's store. She said that the adjacent property owner has
had some concerns about the site plan, but the entrance would be on the side of the parcel furthest
away from the owner.
Ms. Thomas explained that the White Hall Post Office project is before the Commission because it is
a public facility and thus requires a review to ensure it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Also, the item has been called up by an adjacent property owner for a full review, primarily because
of concerns regarding safety of access, suitability of the site for the use, visual impacts to the
adjacent owner and her view of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Ms. Thomas said that staff believes the Post Office use is in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, and its discontinuation in the Rural Area would be undesirable. She mentioned that the closest
Post Office to White Hall, should this one close, would be Crozet, creating more traffic and much
�%w
AlhPmnrlP Plannino rnmmiccinn — CPntPmhe.r ? 1 1999 151
less convenience. Ms. Thomas noted that the project does not introduce a more intensive use since
there is already a Post Office right across the street.
She acknowledged that the modular design of the new Post Office departs from the historic character
of several structures within the White Hall; White Hall is not a historic district, but does have
surveyed structures. Ms. Thomas said that the proposed building is relatively benign because it is
small, and its alignment on the site is less conspicuous than if it were prominently placed close to the
road. She added that the building can be screened, particularly from the vantage point of the
adjacent property owner, and is relatively low.
From a site plan standpoint, Ms. Thomas noted that there is concern about traffic and access because
it is a rather unusual intersection — a three-way intersection. She noted that currently, the traffic
numbers are small enough so that no additional signage or stop signs are warranted, but this should
be tracked carefully once the post office opens. Ms. Thomas said that she received a call from a
White Hall resident who indicated the need for three stop signs there, not just the one existing
coming east from Sugar Hollow. VDOT comments were solicited for comments, and did not feel
that additional signs were needed at this time.
Ms. Thomas stated that stormwater runoff could be handled on site, and the applicant has worked
closer with Steven Boller to work with that issue. Staff has suggested screening behind the building
to offset the visual impact for the adjacent property owner; because of the site easement across the
front of the property, the usual street tree and landscaping requirement cannot be applied to the site.
She said that the representatives from the adjacent family came into the Planning Office, and it was
suggested that additional screening be added to make more of a layered effect to the row of trees
behind the structure. Ms. Thomas mentioned that that type of landscaping might be equivalent to the
kind of landscaping material used if normal landscaping requirements could be imposed.
She reported that there is an approvable septic location, and the Health District has been on site with
the landowner and granted verbal approval for the plan. A well will also be installed. Ms. Thomas
said that the site is small, and there may not be a large number of uses that the site could support.
She mentioned that the planned use is impermanent, as the modular building could be removed in
the future, leaving the site usable for other purposes or restored to its original condition — pasture.
Staff recommends approval with conditions that reflect the Site Review Committee's preliminary
site plan approval.
Mr. Rieley asked if the proposal is found to be in compliance with the [scenic and historic qualities
of the area as required by the] Comprehensive Plan, why it has to be screened. Ms. Thomas
responded that while there may not be an absolute requirement to screen it, the adjacent property
owner's concerns have prompted staff to include the screening in the site development. Ms. Thomas
said that the owner would probably wish to see no structure in her view because she has a very
dramatic view of the mountains.
Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Thomas if it was an option to keep the post office in the same building, as an
area resident has suggested. Ms. Thomas said that staffs understanding is that Garrison's Store
asked the Post Office to leave, because there are certain operating conditions that must be adhered to
be a facility that houses a Post Office.
AlhPmarlP Plannino r..nmmiccinn — gPntamhPr '?1 1999 15l)
Mr. Rooker asked if the property owner wanted to build a house on the Iot instead, if there would be
any restrictions that would prevent them from building a house that had a similar appearance.
Ms. Thomas responded that her understanding is that this site is part of a five -location contract that
the Postal Service has entered into, all of which are modular buildings.
Mr. Rooker clarified that he wanted to ascertain whether the landowner could build a house on the
lot that would look like the modular building presented. Ms. Thomas said she believed that it would
be legal to put a similar structure on site as a home.
Mr. Rieley asked if a building 14-feet wide would meet Code for a residence.
Mr. Kamptner noted that a manufactured home would probably meet the minimum requirements.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there are no restrictions in the county for putting mobile homes on
existing lots.
Mr. Joseph Jones, the son of the couple who owns the 1.4 acre lot planned for the site, addressed the
Commission.
Mr. Brad Gwynn, Project Manager for the Postal Service in the Mid -Atlantic Facilities Office,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Gwynn said that the Postal Service is currently working on eight
modular facilities in Virginia, and distributed photos reflecting the planned design for the structure.
Mr. Jones mentioned that the building will be neutral gray with brown trim, and currently there is a
dilapidated equipment shed on the site, which will be removed.
Mr. Gwynn said that the building would be put in at -grade, not elevated, and would be 56'xl4' with
a concrete slab dock on one end. He noted that there are security concerns that would be addressed
with the new facility, allowing 24-hour access of the box lobby area.
Ms. Washington asked if there would be large trucks accessing the loading dock.
Mr. Gwynn asked Janet Stepp, the White Hall Postmaster, and she stated that there would only be
small trucks.
Ms. Stepp said that the hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and the only vehicle that comes
to deliver the mail is an SUV or a car; the lobby would be open 24 hours, whereas currently the
lobby hours are 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She noted that the current location of the post office presents
more traffic hazards because of the traffic in and around the store. Ms. Stepp said that the proposed
entrance onto 810 provides a better site distance view than the Garrison entrance. Ms. Stepp stated
that the houses in the area are brick homes built in the mid-1960's and there are two single -wide
trailers that are much older and don't have the same character as older homes in the area,
commenting that this additional building will not detract from the area character. She mentioned
that the removal of the existing storage shed would be positive, and the screening would buffer the
AlhamarlP Planning (`.nmmiccinn — CantPmhPr 21 IAA9 151
E9
building from the adjacent owner. Ms. Stepp said that area residents are eager to have their own post
office in White Hall.
Mr. Jones said that they have tried to work with the adjoining neighbor to try and satisfy everyone's
concerns.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said that he agrees with staff that the proposed use is desirable, as community Post
Offices in small communities are important and should be protected. He mentioned that Post Offices
used to be [some of} the most beautiful buildings in the country, and are now usually the ugliest.
"It's a shame." He added that "White Hall deserves better than an on -grade trailer for a Post Office.
I don't think it meets the Comprehensive Plan's objective for protecting the scenic and historic
values of the character of the area." Mr. Rieley mentioned that if Federal Express or UPS proposed
a building like this in a Rural Area, it would be rejected. He said that he was surprised no one from
White Hall is present to object, and felt that the Commissioner representing the White Hall District
should be present. Mr. Rieley added, "I don't know how we can responsibly act on a site plan that
we haven't been able to read yet." He further suggested that the item be deferred until a legible site
plan is presented, and until Mr. Finley is present.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed. He said that the building is "pretty awful" in the abstract, and is
completely inappropriate when placed in an area like White Hall. He concurred with Mr. Rieley that
a legible site plan is needed, and also stated that Mr. Finley should be present for the discussion and
vote.
Commissioners tried to establish how long of a time period would be available for deferral.
Ms. Thomas said that the last VDOT comments were offered on August 24th. Mr. Kamptner said
that the Commission would have 45 days after that to take action.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested a deferral of two weeks, to their October 5' meeting.
Ms. Thomas said that she would enlarge the text so the plan would be more legible.
She agreed to give Commissioners a full-scale site plan.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded deferral of action on SDP 99-101 and
the accompanying site plan until October 5 h, 1999. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
Ms. Washington reported that there would be no meeting on September 28', but there would be a
meeting on October 5th.
AlhPmarlp Plannina C'nmmiceinn — CPntamhPr')1 1999 154
05
Mr. Benish reported that the Rivanna Trails Foundation wanted the Commission to know that there
is a Greenway trail dinner meeting tentatively scheduled for October 28t'. Further notice will be
issued.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
V. Wayne Cili
Secretary
AlhPmnriP Plannina Cnmmiecinn — RPntPmhPr '71 19A9 155