HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 05 1999 PC Minutesom
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 5,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
October 5, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Dennis
Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner;
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering.
Absent: Mr. William Rieley.
Approval of Minutes
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of the vote on the minutes of
August 17t', August 24`h and September 21" until their October 12, 1999 meeting.
Matters not listed on the aeenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
SUB 99-198 Charlotte Shelton Preliminary Plat Private Road — Preliminary Plat with private
road easement.
SDP 99-112 Mill Creek Market & Car Wash Preliminary Site Plan — Request for waivers to
allow one-way circulation (4.12.6.2) and grading on critical slopes (4.2.3.2)
SDP 99-111 Rivanna Commercial Park Preliminary Site Plan — Request for a waiver to allow
grading on critical slopes (4.2.3.2)
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the Consent Agenda as
presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Deferred Items•
CPA 99-01 Ashcroft Phase 6
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, to change the existing land use
designation for property consisting of approximately 20 acres from Rural Area to Neighborhood
Density Residential, and to change the existing land use designation on adjacent property consisting
of approximately 17 acres from Neighborhood Density Residential to Rural Area. The property,
described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 51A, lies within Ashcroft PRD (Planned Residential Development),
in the Rivanna Magisterial District, and is located on the north side of Route 250 East (Richmond
Road), offHansen's Mountain Road (F-179). Deferred from the September 21, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting. Staff requests deferral to October 12, 1999 to allow for proper advertising.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of deferral of CPA 99-01 to
October 12, 1999 per staff s request. The motion passed unanimously.
A1hPmarlP !minty Plannina rnmmiscinn — Or.tnhar i"' 1 A99
14h
em
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 sq. ft. 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. Deferred from the September 21,
1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, giving an overview of the proposal to place a new modular -
style post office in White Hall. He noted that the reasons for the deferral from the September 21 s`
meeting were to allow for comments from the White Hall District Planning Commissioner, and to
allow time for Commission review of a larger, more legible site plan. Mr. Benish reminded
Commissioners that as a public facility, the proposal requires a finding of compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker asked if there had been any negative comments from the public on the proposal.
Mr. Benish replied that adjacent property owners have raised concerns about the impact of on -site
construction, but no other opposition has been documented. He added that both he and Ms. Thomas
have received calls expressing support for the new post office facility.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that at the September 2 1 " meeting, it was implied that the time the post office
could remain in the store had expired. He noted that information given to Commissioners seemed to
indicate that the same person owns the store that presently houses the post office and the land to be
used for the new facility. Mr. Rooker commented that with the same party on both sides of the
transaction, it's a "forced leaving" situation.
Mr. Benish said that another issue raised was consistency with the required post office operation in
terms of the store's desired operation.
Mr. Rooker referenced an e-mail from Mr. Rieley (Attachment "A"), in which he addressed issues
relating to the site plan; he made five recommendations in his e-mail, and Mr. Rooker asked if the
applicant would be able to comment on the suggestions.
Mr. Joseph Jones addressed the Commission. He explained that his family owns the land proposed
for the post office, and his parents own the Garrison's Grocery building, which also currently houses
the post office. Mr. Jones emphasized that the store itself is actually leased to someone else — Mr.
Garrison — who would like the post office out of the store to allow more space for his business. Mr.
Jones said that the post office advertised for sites in the White Hall area, and the vacant lot right
across from the store is an ideal site.
Mr. Jones said that he had reviewed Mr. Rieley's e-mail, and agreed that an earth and berm dam
would be easier to maintain, and the post office would probably go along with that. He said that the
grading concern could be worked out with the contractor who is doing the work. Mr. Jones noted
Alhemnrlo rnnnty Pin nnina rnmmicsinn — Ortnhor 5t' 1909 1 ill
Em
that the light pole is already planned to be moved to another location. He added that the building is a
modular building, but will have a "front porch" style entrance.
Mr. Jones noted that his family owns the old Piedmont Store, behind Garrison's, and has no
objections to the modular post office building. He reported that Ed Hobson, who owns the Piedmont
House, is in favor of the new post office; Ms. Stevenson, who owns the White Hall building, said she
would prefer a more permanent building that is more in keeping with the historical structures in the
area. Mr. Jones added that Ms. Stevenson said she would prefer the modular post office to none at
all.
Mr. Finley said that a Postal Service representative said that the post office had to leave the
Garrison's Store building. Mr. Jones said that Mr. Garrison wants the post office out by the first of
the year.
Mr. Finley asked what was planned for trees and shrubs on site, which staff then pointed out on the
large site map presented. Mr. Jones added that he plans to plant some hardwood trees mixed with
pines between the spring basin east to the property line and south toward the septic field to provide
some additional screening. He noted that this screening would be between the neighbors house and
the postal building.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked if the planting of the trees could be made a condition. Mr. Rooker asked about
the recommendations from Mr. Rieley.
Mr. Benish stated that if the Commission is in general agreement with Mr. Rieley's suggestions,
staff can re -draft them into a feasible fashion, and bring them back as a Consent Agenda item. He
added that it would also allow staff to contact the applicant and post office.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that Mr. Jones is planning to do some things that would satisfy Mr. Rieley's
recommendations anyway. Mr. Loewenstein added that he has had concerns about the degree to
which the proposal meets the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan because of the impact on scenic
and historic resources, but said that implementing the suggestions would help resolve that conflict.
"I would personally hate to see post office service discontinued in that location, if there's a way we
can make it possible without a real negative impact to the community."
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the post office will not build a permanent building there.
Mr. Loewenstein responded that the post office is building quite a few modular -style buildings
around the state, and cost is probably a major factor.
Mr. Benish mentioned that the White Hall Post Office is not a "full -service" post office, but is a box
facility.
Ms. Washington added that the White Hall facility will not have large trucks, and the window
services will have limited hours.
AlhPmarlP Crnmty Plnnnina rnmmiesinn — Or.tnhpr it' 1999 15R
l Mr. Rooker noted that if the White Hall post office is discontinued, the postal service might have to
move service to Crozet. He added that the improvements Mr. Rieley suggested would partially hide
the building and approve the appearance of the site.
cm
Mr. Finley said that Mr. Jones additional improvements would also help the site.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there had been any discussion regarding what would happen if the modular
building began to deteriorate in the future. Commissioners replied that there had not been any
discussion of that, and Mr. Rooker added that there was a presumption that the post office would
reasonably maintain their property.
Mr. Kamptner said, "If the property is developed, they'll have a vested right to continue the use.
This is a use that's allowed as a matter of right."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded that the Commission rind that the
application is in compliance with the Code Section 15.2-2232 based upon the site plan meeting the
conditions outlined in the staff report, and additional conditions in keeping with the
recommendations included in Mr. Rieley's letter. The motion passed in a 5-1 vote, with Mr.
Nitchmann abstaining from the vote because he was not at the original meeting when this item was
discussed.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded a recommendation for deferral of action
on the site plan, to be brought back for vote on the Consent Agenda with inclusion of the points
stipulated by Mr. Rieley's letter and the conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearine Items:.
SUB 99-148 Parkside Village Phase I and H Preliminary Plat
Request for preliminary plat approval to create 48 lots on 18.2 acres. The property is zoned R-6,
Residential. 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 the subdivision plat. She explained that the plat has not
changed substantially since August 10t', except for the addition of the proposed second principal
means of access. Ms. Echols said that the applicant has dropped four lots, and made the land
available for open space to the county, which would allow an extension to Claudius Crozet Park, or
available for open space to the homeowners' association. She added that the previously established
stream buffer would be open space for the homeowners' association, or for the county as an addition
to the park. Ms. Echols explained that the new proposal has 48 single-family lots, and 30% open
space; the double -frontage waiver would be applied to this particular subdivision plat.
She reported that staff received a letter on August 30t" that deals with 10 points that the applicant
and the community brought forward to the county. Ms. Echols said that staff has responded to each
AlhPmnrlP rnnnty Plannino rnmmicsinn — nrtnher Su' 1999 159
M
of the 10 points in the staff report, noting that several are outside the purview of the county, several
are outside the purview of the Planning Commission as it relates to this particular plat, but they are
all issues that the community and the applicant feels are important for review.
Ms. Echols said that staff recommends approval of the subdivision plat with the twelve conditions in
the staff report, most of which are "standard" conditions for all file plats. She added that the
Commission had asked for traffic analysis, and said that Jack Kelsey was available to answer
questions on traffic and roads.
Mr. Finley asked if the building proposed for demolition were not removed, if the road would have
to be shifted.
Ms. Echols recounted the process undertaken since the first plat submittal, which has resulted in the
shifting of the road. She said that with VDOT's approval, it is possible to shift the road again.
Ms. Echols explained that the initial submittal of the plat included an urban cross-section road with a
28-foot section in a 50-foot right of way, with curb & gutter and sidewalks. She said that the
building (an old radio station) was included in the plan as remaining. Ms. Echols reported that
VDOT said they would require that the road would need to be located and sized to accommodate the
adjoining traffic, and expressed concern about the location of old building as it relates to a site plan
being reviewed for the park. VDOT said that in the site plan review for the park, the building would
pose site -distance problems at the intersection. She stated that the applicant then relocated the road
per VDOT's recommendations, resulting in the building's removal.
Ms. Echols said in her discussions with Mr. Kelsey regarding the differences in the two alignments
as it relates to the building, it was determined that further movement of the road would be dependent
on VDOT's approval of the realignment.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were concerns regarding the realignment proposed by VDOT.
Ms. Echols answered that the more angled road had benefits from a traffic -calming standpoint, but
VDOT asked that the curvature change.
Mr. Finley asked when a decision would be made regarding whether the green space would belong
to the park or the homeowners' association.
Ms. Echols responded that that would come during the final plat process.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the ownership of the land would be with the park board, not the county, and
those lands are usually made available based on the demand of the county. "I don't know at what
point the county would actually seek to have the land transferred to the ownership that would be
maintaining and possibly developing any greenway system." He added that that might not be done
before the final plat is done, but the final plat needs to be set with the opportunity for the land to be
made available if and when the county wants it.
A1hPmarip Crointy Phinnino rnmmiccinn — nctnhi r 01 1499 1 Fn
I
Nw.
Mr. Finley asked if there had been any concerns about the right-of-way of the road being near the
park.
Ms. Echols responded that there have not been community concerns, but VDOT was curious as to
why the road abutted the park property. She explained that if the road is moved over, it is difficult to
get a row of houses and set up a system on the other side. Ms. Echols added that VDOT does not
like roads with increased traffic to have more houses on them because they get complaints about the
amount of traffic on the roads with the houses that front on them.
Mr. Rooker said if the road were relocated, it would divide the community.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Echols to review the 10 points raised in the letter signed by the developer and
some area residents.
Mr. Finley asked if there were signatures on the letter.
Ms. Echols replied that staff never received a signed copy of the letter. "It was our understanding
from the way it was presented to us that this is what everyone had agreed to. We know there have
been a lot of discussions in the community... we didn't question the fact that there wasn't a signature
on it. I understand that that has raised some concerns."
Widen Hilltop to 20 feet — Ms. Echols said that the residents on Hilltop Avenue have expressed
concern, and staff has asked VDOT if Hilltop could be widened to only 20 feet instead of 22.
VDOT was firm that the road needed to be widened to 22 feet, and had initially recommended a
greater widening, but staff then shared residents' concerns with VDOT. She emphasized that the
county does not have the ability to change that.
Consider Future Disconnection of Hilltop Street — the residents and applicant have requested that
the County consider eliminating the connection of Hilltop Street to the Parkside Village
development, when a second means of access is provided to the development to the property to the
east. They suggested a majority vote in the area by means of a referendum. Ms. Echols added that
the Board of Supervisors is the only body empowered to make a decision on elimination of a future
road connection; it has generally been their desire to not have those kinds of binds put on a future
board.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Echols to explain why a commitment to disconnection would be contradictory
to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Echols answered that the Plan speaks extensively to the need for
interconnections within the development areas, and is one of the major issues within the Plan.
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Ms. Echols explained that the applicant has made reservations
of land to the adjoining parcel to the east that would be available upon demand by the County for the
connection to the adjoining property.
Mr. Finley noted that if development should occur to the east, and the connection would be opened
up, the 22 foot width on Hilltop would need to be expanded.
A1hPmar1P rnnnty Plannino ("nmmisainn — OrtnhPr ith 1099 161
09
Ms. Echols responded that it would depend on the amount of traffic that would be placed on that
particular road, as a 22-foot road would accommodate up to 1,000 vehicle trips per day.
She added that the old road design had curvature that would have limited the number of vehicle trips
per day on the road at the urban cross-section, and would have limited it to 400 vehicle trips per day.
Relieve Future Burdens on Hilltop Street — Ms. Echols said that the plat shows a different way of
controlling access — a reservation that would make it a county decision to open up a connection to
the adjoining property. She emphasized that the county ordinarily likes to see roads go to the
adjoining property to provide for an opportunity for an interconnection. "We don't like to see all the
traffic on a single road within a neighborhood, and we like to see several interconnections."
Mr. Rooker noted that the applicant has basically deferred his right to make that decision to the
county, and at a future time it would be the county's decision as to whether or not to make that
connection.
Consider Speed Reduction Measures — Ms. Echols reported that VDOT has indicated they will
consider crosswalks near the park entrance, and would possible be amenable to raised crosswalks,
which do more than just crosswalks. She said that VDOT has stated that speed bumps, caution strips
and signage would not likely be available. Ms. Echols noted that the original plan for the
development with the curvature as it was offers traffic -calming by virtue of the lower design speed
and curvature in the road.
Mr. Rooker asked why VDOT objects to signs.
Ms. Echols replied that they are concerned about who puts up the signs and who maintains them, and
are also very cautious about where they put up the signage.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that signs such as "Caution — children at play" is approved by the Board of
Supervisors; the county has criteria they evaluate, and send to the Board — which they normally
approve on their Consent Agenda.
Mr. Loewenstein asked why VDOT is more in favor of raised crosswalks than speed -bumps.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the raised crosswalks do not make cars bump as much as speed -bumps.
Mr. Loewenstein said that VDOT commented that their concern was that speed -bumps create
additional noise as traffic slows and restarts. "If the purpose is to slow the traffic, isn't it going to
have to slow and restart no matter what kind of thing it crosses."
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff agreed.
Leave Existing Road Alignments — Ms. Echols explained that this concern arose from residents
concerns about a previously proposed county road that would have provided a direct connection
form Jarman's Gap Road to Hilltop Street. She emphasized that there are no plans to realign any of
the streets to make a direction connection from Jarman's Gap Road. Ms. Echols noted that there
AlhPmarlP (minty Plannina ('nmmiecinn — Or.tnhe.r 5t' 1999 1617
M
would be a public hearing process about all future road realignments that the citizens would be a part
of if they were to be proposed.
Delay Parkside Village Construction - The applicant has agreed to delay construction until March
2000, but that does not affect whether or not the plat could or would be approved. Ms. Echols
acknowledged that this does extend the time frame, and if the county wanted to purchase the land to
add it to the existing park, they would have to work with the applicant on that.
Eliminate Lots 1-4 — The applicant has eliminated the lots to provide for additional open space that
would relate to the park and to the development, and also provide an open area between the existing
development and Parkside Village.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the park trustees had raised concerns about the elimination of parking for
the festivals, and asked if the land could accommodate the parking.
Ms. Echols responded that if there were any improvements to be made in the common open space, it
would need to be noted on the plat. "It doesn't have the same restrictions that open space within a
planned district has."
Mr. Cilimberg said it would depend on who ends up owning the land, and agreement from the
owners. He noted that his understanding is that the land is also intended to be a green connection
from the park to the greenway system, assuming the land would be in public ownership. Mr.
Cilimberg stated he was unsure from a zoning standpoint whether parking would be an allowed use
in open space.
Mr. Finley said that the building would have to be demolished because the park would cross by there
to access the green space.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant has noted that parts of the property have been used in the past for
park events, and the zoning is not being changed.
Mr. Cilimberg said, "The zoning itself has not [changed], but the status of open space carries with it
certain allowed activities .... I think that's really something that the Zoning Administrator would need
to determine."
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the parking situation would be very temporary.
Ms. Echols said that if the county owned the open space, that would be a public use, and parking
would be allowable as an extension of the park.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the future residents of the neighborhood in the new homes would have
something to say about it, especially if it's under common open space or owned by the county.
Provide Connectivity — The applicant and the residents believe that the county should do what is
necessary to provide for new access to connect Routes 240, Route 250, Brookwood, Parkside and
potential future developments. Ms. Echols noted that this particular plat does not provide for future
Alhvmarle rnnnty Planning f nmmiccinn — or,tnher 5th 1999 16,;
'Wr
built access to the east, and the plat cannot commit the County to a future action to do that; the
Comprehensive Plan does show the connector. The road would require significant investment, and
could be considered for inclusion in the CIP, although it is not currently included.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding TIP funding for the road, Mr. Cilimberg replied that
the area is not within the designated TIP area of the MPO; the county is investigating whether any of
the roads would be eligible for secondary road funding under the state's program. Mr. Cilimberg
added that at one point there was some consideration for the 240/250 connector to be put in the
primary system, but that is now unlikely based on the kind of road it would be.
Commissioners and staff acknowledged that CEP funds are very limited, and agreed that the
secondary road funds may be more likely. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the county gets an
allocation for the secondary system, and has projects identified and prioritized. "If it were an
eligible project then we could prioritize it and get it somewhere in the schedule."
Remove Existing Radio Station Building — Ms. Echols said that staff has discussed whether the
building would be available to area residents, but because of the VDOT issues, it seemed more
advantageous for the applicant to get his road approved, and advantageous for the park to get better
site distance, to have the building removed. She noted that the original plat did show the building
still there, and an application was made to the Board of Zoning Appeals to request a variance, as the
way the road comes in sets up a setback problem. "There's no way you could extend that road into
there and retain that building without getting a variance from the BZA."
Mr. Rooker asked if the residents and the applicant seemed interested in removing the building. Ms.
Echols replied that there are individuals whose names appear on the letter who did not agree with the
removal of the building; also, there is indication that the Park Board is interested in retaining that
building.
Mr. Nitchmann said that the applicant has a right to tear the building down because he owns the
property.
Create a Passive Park — The applicant and residents have indicated that open space in the
development could be dedicated to the county as an extension of he proposed Lickinghole Creek
Nature Trail, and could be used as a link between the Park and the Trail.
Ms. Echols noted that the open space could be made available for a nature trail, and there needs to be
a note on the final plat that says what improvements are planned, and the county should consider
whether or not it should accept this land as proposed by the applicant and the residents. She said that
right now, there is no existing greenway through that particular section, and that greenway is not
shown on the Comprehensive Plan. "It could be extended out to the greenway that is shown on the
Comprehensive Plan getting over to the Lickinghole Creek... to set up a greenway system with a
path system."
Mr. Finley asked about the letter from the applicant, the Supervisor from that district, and nine area
residents, noting that it was not signed.
A1hPm%rlP Cnnnty Planning Cnmmi-Wnn — Or.tnhPr 5u' 194A 164
M
Ms. Echols said that she had received a call from a resident, who stated that they did not support all
points in the letter, and said their name should not have appeared on the letter. She added that there
was a time period during which the letter was being drafted when the applicant was meeting with
residents; also, other people not listed in the letter were commenting on the letter.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that most of the points raised in the letter are not germane to the plat, and
are issues that were included in the staff report for information purposes. "What you have before
you is a plat and issues, but the plat is what you're going to be acting on, not the issues."
Mr. Kelsey addressed the Commission. Mr. Finley asked about the traffic analysis and the connector
roads. Mr. Kelsey said that the Engineering Department has encouraged interconnection as future
development occurs; when the property east of Parkside develops, the county needs to do everything
possible to promote making additional connections elsewhere so that not all the traffic comes down
Hilltop and Tabor Streets.
Mr. Kelsey said that the initial plan for a new road included a much tighter radius, which limits the
volume of traffic to 400 vehicle trips per day, with 190 to be generated from Parkside and 210
available for adjacent development; the volume on Hilltop Drive would be 900-1000, which would
maximize its use. With the other plan alignment, which includes straightening out the roadway, the
new road would handle 1000 vehicle trips per day. "We want to ensure that we can promote
additional conditions when the rest of that property gets developed to the east. If we straighten out
that road, and make an alignment that can handle more traffic, are we then sending out a message
that we tolerate and encourage higher traffic volumes on Hilltop Drive and Tabor Street. That would
put us in... a weaker position to require additional connections when a new development comes in."
He added that that still needs to be worked out with VDOT.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what might happen with VDOT.
Mr. Kelsey said he hopes VDOT would go along with a reduced traffic volume, with a note
specified on the plat that this is the maximum volume the road can handle.
Mr. Nitchmann stated that usually road alignment is resolved before a project is started.
Mr. Kelsey said that once a preliminary plat is approved, road alignment is resolved.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if it is typical to approve preliminary plats with the uncertainty of the road
alignment.
Mr. Kelsey responded, "It makes it a little more difficult, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't
put that as a condition on the plat, and allow us to work that out with the final road design."
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the plat with the straightened road is what's before the Commission.
"What you have is an existing street (Hilltop) that would be increased in size to 22 feet, with a traffic
capacity of 1000 trips per day .... this preliminary plat could be condition such that in the final
platting stage with VDOT, we would work towards curvature on this new section of road that would
not exceed in capacity 1000 trips per day."
AlhPmirla rniinty Plannino Cnmmiesinn — nctnher it` logo 161;
Mr. Rooker said that the issue being discussed is what happened if the property to the east were
14AW developed. "We have roads that are designed for a certain capacity of traffic, but they serve much
more traffic .... I don't want to imply here that this necessarily operates as a limitation on the property
to the east being developed, because it doesn't. Moreover, he might have the right to improve the
right-of-way if it were ever required."
on
Mr. Cilimberg said, "Nothing will be a permanent action that can't be changed by a subsequent
action on a future development."
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "There's nothing that indicates... just because a road has a design
limitation, there aren't going to be more cars on it than that."
Mr. Cilimberg said that there are two ways that is addressed in new developments: alternative
access is provided that doesn't allow the new traffic to get beyond the capacity of other subdivision
streets, or you upgrade those other subdivision streets. "We don't know when the property to the
east develops where that traffic may end up going, because it may have other connections east to
future roads that aren't in place now, and that all has to be evaluated when that next development
comes before us."
Mr. Rooker said that the developer of the east property might have to provide an alternative impact,
or might have to upgrade the roads to meet the capacity, just as this developer is having to do.
Mr. Kelsey said the developer of the east property would have to purchase additional right-of-way in
order to straighten out that curve, which would be under private ownership; at that point in time,
there is no guarantee that the individuals controlling that property would be willing to sell it.
Ms. Echols said the applicant abandoned the original plan for the curved road because VDOT said
they could not do it that way.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the condition would be that the design of the road would be to a
certain maximum; that doesn't ensure that that is the maximum number of trips that would occur.
"You can condition your design; you can't condition future traffic that could be created by future
development."
Mr. Finley asked if that meant the plat under consideration would have to be changed.
Mr. Cilimberg said, "The curvature of that road would have to be changed."
Mr. Finley said, "If we decide to put the note on the plat, [the alignment] is not what it would be on
the final site plan."
Mr. Kelsey said, "It would be a slight change, yes."
Mr. Cilimberg noted, "That's happened before between preliminary and final plats."
AlhamnrlP r nnnty Planninv f .nmmiscinn - of-tnhPr 5t' 199A 166
on
The applicant, Mr. Vito Chetta of Weatherhill Homes, addressed the Commission. Mr. Chetta said
that they have asked for and received a lot of input from County Planning, County Engineering,
VDOT, and area residents.
He said that Weatherhill Homes has continued to meet with Crozet area citizens, including Tom
Loche of DISC, and Walter Perkins. Mr. Chetta said that the letter presented to the Planning
Commission and Planning staff was the result of those meetings, and his company changed some
aspects of their plan to accommodate concerns raised by local residents.
Mr. Rooker asked him if he would like to improve the width of Hilltop as little as possible.
Mr. Chetta responded that they would like to keep the roads as small as possible, but must acquiesce
to VDOT.
Mr. Thomas asked him if the letter was unanimously agreed upon.
Mr. Chetta said that after the meetings, they drafted a letter that included all the points of discussion,
then circulated it to all who attended the meetings. He said that they received two letters from
attendees that stated agreement with the letter, and Mr. Strickland of Weatherhill Homes also
received several phone calls from attendees stating their agreement.
Mr. Chetta added that the neighbor who owns the 47 acres to the east of Parkside is willing to allow
parking on his property for the Park. He added that he would be happy to discuss options with the
Park Board, but has not had that opportunity yet.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Paul Grady, who lives just outside of Crozet, addressed the Commission. He read a prepared
statement (Attachment "B"). He asked that the Commission defer vote on the project, or deny
approval, and suggested that a consultant be hired to do a detailed plan for the Crozet community.
Ms. Tracy Boozer of Hilltop Street addressed the Commission, speaking on behalf of area residents.
She asked that the Commission delay their decision on Parkside Village for two weeks, to allow
adequate time to respond to the staff report presented. "We have considerable and justifiable
concerns for the safety of the children and residents and visitors of and to our neighborhood,
especially when we look at at least a 300% increase in traffic, which will only skyrocket again with
future developing."
Mr. Danny Newton, President of the Crozet Park Board, addressed the Commission. Mr. Newton
said that Mr. Strickland has been very helpful by attending Park Board meetings to provide
information about Parkside Village. He said he shares concern about increased traffic. Mr. Newton
said that Board members have concern with the proposed run paralleling the park, primarily because
of the close proximity to the basketball courts and horseshoe pits, and proposed soccer and little
league baseball fields. He stated that new residents may complain about future lighting at the fields,
and existing lighting at the horseshoe pits. Mr. Newton said that water and sewer connections may
Alhr+.marlr rnnnty Planning rnmmissinn — Ortnher it' 1999 167
be overloaded, He asked the Commissioners to consider deferral of action, to give the Park Board
time to consider the new road placement and possible alternatives.
Mr. Loewenstein asked him if the soccer and little league baseball fields would draw outside traffic.
Mr. Newton said that they would.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Park Board had discussed purchasing the land for the Park.
Mr. Newton said that they discussed it after the purchase, but was not aware it was for sale.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how much time the Park Board would like to further discuss the proposal.
Mr. Newton said a couple of weeks would be helpful.
Ms. Eve Waters of Hilltop Street, Crozet, addressed the Commission. She said that the neighbors
still have lingering concerns about safety, traffic, etc. Ms. Waters said that the meeting which
generated the letter was not an open meeting, and there are no official representatives for area
residents.
Mr. Bill Vascom, an Ednam resident, addressed the Commission. Mr. Vascom said that when
Weatherhill Homes acquired the remaining property in Ednam in 1997, they constructed 18 homes.
He said that initially, Ednam residents expressed concern about the additional homes and how they
would be built. Mr. Vascom said that they have been very pleased with the results, and construction
difficulties have been amicably resolved.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful for staff to clarify exactly what is before the Commission for
action, and which of the issues are pertinent to that consideration. "This is a subdivision as a matter
of right at this point, and what we're doing is looking at the site plan."
Mr. Kamptner said, "You're looking at the plat to determine whether or not it satisfies the
requirements of the subdivision in the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Rooker asked, "Has there been anything identified by staff whereby this plat does not satisfy the
requirements?"
Ms. Echols responded, "No."
Mr. Finley asked about time constraints. Mr. Kamptner and Ms. Echols agreed that the county is
well within all applicable time periods.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be acceptable if there were a two -week deferral.
Mr. Loewenstein said there has been some uncertainty about how many people in the neighborhood
were actually involved in the discussion, and whether or not the 10 points as outlined in the letter
were unanimously agreed upon by those who signed the letter. "I think it also needs to be clear to
AlhPmarle C'niinty Plt+nnino C'nmmiccinn — (lrtnhPr Str' 1999 16R
the residents of the community just what the county's limitations are as to which of these can really
be effectively addressed in a subdivision plan and which can't." He said that the staff report had
``AW gone a long way to making those points clear, and the residents may want some further time to
consider the report. Mr. Loewenstein added, "It's pretty clear already to me at least that some of the
issues raised can't really be considered for the purposes of approval of this subdivision plan."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "We have no legal right to deny this. This individual has met with all the
requirements by law to do this, but I still think that at least the people that live around there should
have the right to feel that they've had their say in it, and maybe there are some things they can come
up... but when so much is controlled by VDOT that we have not control over, and the applicant has
no control over, and the applicant has met all of the qualifications set forth in our zoning
requirements, then our hands are pretty much tied of what goes on here."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of deferral of action on SUB 99-
148 until the Commission's October 19, 1999 meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if that would give everyone enough time.
Ms. Echols said that the applicant is meeting with the Parks Board on October 6 h, and the road
alignment issue may not be finished in one week. She mentioned that the applicant has really bent
over backwards to meet with area residents.
Mr. Rooker noted that the applicant is willing to work toward either proposed road scheme, based
upon what is permitted by VDOT, and what the residents in the area may want. He said that even if
*AW the plan were approved in two weeks and the road alignment was unresolved, the applicant has
already indicated that he is amenable to either road.
on
Commissioners agreed that two weeks was acceptable.
Mr. Loewenstein emphasized the need for a master plan for Crozet growth.
Mr. Thomas commended Mr. Chetta on his work with area residents.
Mr. Rooker said that this is one of the better plans for infill development in recent years.
Mr. Finley stated that he also empathized with area residents and their concerns.
The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
Mr. Loewenstein reported on his representation on the Court Facilities Study Committee, indicating
that he was not always able to attend the committee meetings. Mr. Rooker agreed to serve as an
"alternate" representative from the Planning Commission on the committee.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
AlhPmarlP rnimty Planning Cnmmicsinn — Or,tnhPr ith 1999 169
M
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
V. WayniCilimberg
Secretary
Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 5 h, 1999
170