HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 12 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
October 12,1999
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; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein; Mr. William Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms.
Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design
Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -
Chairman.
Approval of Minutes
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of August 17th, August
24th and September 21 st as amended.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
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), off Hansen's Mountain Road (F-179). Deferred from the October 5, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that the applicant came forward with a request to add
the area into the jurisdictional area for water service. Ms. Thomas said that this action is the final
step in amending the Comprehensive Plan, and has already been recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that the switch is appropriate for the reasons outlined in the staff
report, and also because it will protect historic property adjacent to what would be created as Rural
Area.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of CPA 99-01 as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
171
Public Hearing Items
I, SP 99-54 Covenant Upper School
Request for special use permit to allow private school (upper school campus) in accordance with
Section 14.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private schools. The property,
described as Tax Map 90A Parcel 2, contains 25.933 acres, and is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District on Hickory Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Drive (Route #1113). The
property is zoned R-2 Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Density in the Urban Neighborhood Five Development Area.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, noting the location of the proposed site on a displayed map.
She said that there are residences behind the proposed school site, and 5a' Street is close -by, although
buffered by the bank usage; to the southwest is Southwood Mobile Home Park, which currently
generates the only traffic on Hickory Street. Ms. Thomas confirmed that Hickory Street is a private
road, but there is enough width in easement to make it a public road.
She reported that the applicant held a public meeting with neighborhood residents in attendance;
there was a lot of interest in the possibility of public sewer being available. The Rivanna Water &
Sewer Authority had considered extending service to the area at one time, but without an anchor like
the school, it was deemed to be too expensive; those engineering plans will now be considered by
the RWSA at their October 213` meeting. She noted that the RWSA believes service could be
provided either through the Biscuit Run interceptor (permanent), or through a temporary pump
station into a service line which lies to the west and north of the school that serves Wachovia.
Ms. Thomas explained that schools are allowed by special use permit in the zoning district, and said
that staff feels the essential issues related to the school's impact appear to be sewer and traffic. She
mentioned that during preparation of the staff report, the traffic issues were in the developmental
stage, as the applicant was in the process of submitting additional intersection information to VDOT,
who has now responded in writing (Attachment "A" ).
Ms. Thomas concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the school site, noting that the
school's impact would not change the character of the neighborhood in an adverse way, and may
actually provide a buffer to residents from the active nature of the Southwood Mobile Home Park.
She noted the recommended conditions of approval, stating that the applicant has indicated his
willingness to comply with the VDOT requirements.
Mr. Thomas asked about the VDOT recommendation regarding implementation of traffic
management and roadway improvements on Hickory Street. She replied that VDOT holds authority
for the public road system, and private road standards are left up to county engineering.
Mr. Rooker asked why the road would be retained as private, and not upgraded to public road
standards.
Ms. Thomas responded that the applicant is somewhat interested in having the road taken into the
public system, although that was not a formal part of this request.
Mr. Rooker asked how many mobile homes are in the mobile home park served by this road.
17l?
Staff said that there are 200+ mobile homes in the park.
Mr. Finley asked about the 1/2-foot candle spillover from parking. Ms. Thomas stated that the
applicant has not objected to that standard zoning condition.
Mr. Rieley asked about the location of the Southpoint development on the map. Ms. Thomas said
that Southport's primary entrance, including a traffic signal, would be at the Stagecoach intersection,
and there will be a right -in, right -out entrance between the Stagecoach entrance and Old Lynchburg
Road, and a signal at Old Lynchburg Road.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Frank Cox, representing the Covenant School, addressed the Commission. He explained that the
school's lease on the current Mountainwood facility, directly across the street from the proposed
new site, expires in 11/2 years, and it is essential that they be able to establish a replacement facility
between now and then. Mr. Cox said that Covenant plans to vacate the Mountainwood facility, and
bring the 340 lower -school students from that school into the current upper school, at the old
McIntire High School. The McIntire High School would then become the new lower school, with
the new campus accommodating grades 7-12.
Mr. Cox said that the new school will house as many as 550-600 students, and the applicant has
undertaken a traffic study with that volume in mind. Mr. Cox emphasized some of VDOT's
observations of potential traffic impact from the school: under the traffic --loading conditions
imposed by the school, traffic would be removed from the north side of 5 Street toward the current
lower school, and transposing it to the south side, off of Hickory Street. Mr. Cox said the level of
service at the intersections based on normal traffic growth, when the Southpoint development is
factored in, traffic capacities will become "stressed" a bit. He added that Covenant alone will not
generate traffic that warrants a traffic signal, but as Southpoint develops, a traffic signal at the
Stagecoach intersection would be necessary. Mr. Cox noted that once the Stagecoach intersection is
developed with a traffic signal, and when long-term traffic is overlaid to the year 2008-2010, the
level of service will be somewhat lower.
Mr. Cox continued by noting a few points about the school itself, describing the school as having
642 students, represented by over 900 parents, and having 103 faculty members. He said that the
school has a total constituency of approximately 1,700 kids. Mr. Cox said that the property is ideally
suited for a school, noting a concept plan for land use on site. He stated that the school plans to have
no more than two entrances off of Hickory Street, adding that under its present zoning, there could
be 19 or 20 private access points. Mr. Cox noted that adequate on -site parking could be achieved,
while total land use on -site would not exceed 10-15%, with the remainder left in open space.
Mr. Cox mentioned that off -site sewer would have to be reached somehow, and they have been
working with the RWSA for the last several months to find the best solution. He pointed out that the
Biscuit Run tributary might provide a sewer extension, and the sewer might reach a point close to the
southwest corner of the Covenant School property, and also might serve residents of existing nearby
communities, including connection of the private sewer facility that serves Southwood.
1?2
k, Mr. Cox said that the applicant would like to have a line to plug into no later than fall of 2001; one
option is to have a pump station on the property and pump it back up towards Stagecoach Road,
where there's a gravity main put in to serve the Wachovia Operations Center. He said that was
feasible, and the applicant has presented a dollar amount to the RWSA that the school would be
willing to donate towards hooking up the Biscuit Run line.
Mr. Rooker asked how the Service Authority responded to the offer.
Mr. Cox explained that they are going to meet in the near future to discuss the proposition, and their
staff has already indicated that there is adequate capacity whether the pump station or Biscuit Run
line are pursued.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant was obligated to pay for the interceptor construction costs.
Mr. Cox replied that the applicant's first goal was to get a line with adequate capacity by a certain
date for the school; they offered to the Authority to take funds that would be spent on a private pump
station back and offer that as a catalyst to resurrect the Biscuit Run project. Mr. Cox confirmed the
amount as $118,000, including engineering costs, and an additional charge for availability and
service.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the building of the pump to reach the Wachovia Center mail would help any
of the school's surrounding neighbors.
%W Mr. Cox replied that it would only help about ten neighbors to the east of the school, and they would
have to figure out a way to run a gravity line down the front of the Covenant School property on
Hickory; the pump station would be at the lowest point on the Covenant property, almost adjoining
the location of the Southwood park.
on
Regarding Hickory Street being private instead of public, Mr. Cox explained that the existing 50-
foot easement was proffered to the school, and runs 1900 feet along the front. He further indicated
that the owner explained that when the road was constructed, it was offered to VDOT as a public
street, but VDOT rejected its acceptance because not more than three property owners lived on the
street. The owner indicated that he has no plans to move ahead with additional offers to VDOT for
the road until the Biscuit Run property became developed.
Mr. Rooker asked if VDOT considers Southwood a single property owner, despite the fact that there
are 200+ families living there. Mr. Cox answered that that his understanding from the person who
interpreted the rejection notice from VDOT.
Mr. Cox said that when they conducted a traffic analysis, there is very little movement predicted to
be generated by the Covenant School back through to the west along Hickory to 5`h Street. He said
that the applicant's concern is trying to implement some traffic -calming measures, as the strip is
used as a raceway during the day; keeping it as a private street would offer more flexibility. Mr.
Cox said his suggestion to staff and VDOT was to install a 3-way stop at the principal entrance to
the Covenant campus.
174
on
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cox if he had reviewed the letter from Bob Ball of VDOT to Mr. Benish.
Mr. Cox said he had just received a copy, and had not reviewed it. "Our position is that when we
start engineering this thing out, whatever is required is required, and the Covenant School is going to
have to follow your rules." Mr. Cox said that most of the items raised by VDOT are engineering
considerations that will be worked out.
Mr. Cox noted the critical slopes waiver submitted, stating that the only slopes that would be
disturbed would be those in the area of the lower soccer field, which are currently in an area of
second -growth vegetation and on some eroded hillsides.
Mr. Thomas asked what percentage more runoff would be added to Moore's Creek and that area by
the additional paving and buildings.
Mr. Cox responded that the total impervious coverage would not exceed 15% of the site.
Dr. Ron Sykes, the new headmaster at Covenant, addressed the Commission. He said that the school
is operating in the black for the third consecutive year, and noted that 80% of students are from
Albemarle County. Mr. Sykes said that the new campus site would have older residents in
neighboring homes, and students could do their community service — as required by the school — by
helping out in those neighborhoods.
Mr. Jack Taggart, Chairman of the Covenant School's Board, presented a petition supporting the
application for the new school site (Attachment `B"). He said that the school is at a "critical phase,"
as the facility for their 310 K-6 graders is only good through the fall of 2002.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked staff if the SP were approved, if the use then becomes a matter of right which
limits control over the site plan. He asked what could be done to assure that what is built on the site
is on line with what was presented in schematic drawings.
Ms. Thomas replied that the first recommended condition is fairly standard, and states that the
applicant will operate as they said they will; without a current site plan, it becomes a matter of staff
and Commission judgement if the applicant appears to significantly depart from the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there has been standard language used in the past referencing the
schematic or conceptual plan, usually containing the terminology "in general accord with," subject
to the submission of the final site plan and the requirements of the site review committee. He added
that the intent would be to give the basic concept of the layout, and recalled the Catholic School
approval, where the design had to be altered a good deal from the original site plan.
Mr. Rieley said that the location for the school is ideal, but added that a roadway that serves the
school and connects to large neighborhoods on both sides should ultimately be a public road. "I
think we should make it clear that when the next piece of this that comes in place, this should be a
175
en
public road, and my feeling is it should be urban section because of the number of people that live
beyond, and the nature of the development that's going to take place on the other side of 5`" Street,
and the need for pedestrian connections in those places."
Mr. Cilimberg said that Condition #3 speaks to the requirements of the Departments of Engineering
and Public Works, and emphasized that design requirements for the street are public road
requirements, as the road serves many people. He added that there are traffic management
techniques that may not be available if the road is managed by VDOT.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 99-54 with conditions as
set forth by staff, provided the site plan is in substantial accord with what was presented to the
Commission at their October 12'h meeting, especially related to percentage of impervious surface.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of a critical slopes waiver in
association with SP 99-54.
Mr. Rieley commented that while it was helpful for the issue of critical slopes to have been raised
early on in the special use permit process, the slopes should be evaluated based on an actual site plan
and actual impact on the site. "We don't have that yet... and to grant a blanket waiver of anything
that might be done to any critical slopes on this property without a plan to go by I think would be
extremely unwise." He added that this is an important enough project that it should be seen at the
site plan level.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the reference to the schematic plan presented in the approval of the SP
request, and suggested making the approval of this waiver conditioned upon the waiver requirements
being substantially as represented by the applicant. He said that the only critical slopes work the
applicant envisions on the project is in the soccer field area, as represented on the schematic.
Mr. Kamptner said that a scope of the waiver could be defined to the area that was explained by Mr.
Cox.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Rieley if he felt that would be acceptable.
Mr. Rieley said he would, if there could be specifics about where the grading would take place, and
the extent of it. He clarified that it would involve less than'/2 acre adjacent to the roadway.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that in the memo from Engineering, there were some specific numbers given
for projected critical slopes disturbance. He also expressed concern about the five points mentioned
being included as conditions for the waiver request.
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that the letter does set forth the extent of the critical slopes area and
proposed disturbed area.
176
l
Commissioners suggested grading the waiver in accord with the critical slopes grading as
represented in the October 4, 1999 letter from Jeff Thomas, Senior County Engineer, to David
Benish (Attachment "C").
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff would have the administrative ability to review any modifications to
the grading plan, or if the applicant would have to re -address the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would largely be a judgement call made during staff review of the site plan,
and the normal operating procedure would be to put the item on the Consent Agenda anyway.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed that the waiver contingencies would be acceptable.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the critical slopes area described in the letter is broader than just the soccer
field.
Commissioners agreed that the .73 acres of disturbed critical slope areas as mentioned in the letter
was acceptable.
The motion for approval of a critical slopes waiver, including conditions as discussed, passed
unanimously.
SP 99-55 CV201 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church)
Request for special use permit to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay
towers. The property, described as Tax Map 44 Parcel 12H, is the site of the Ivy Creek United
Methodist Church and located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at 674 Woodlands Road (Route
676), approximately '/2 mile east of the intersection of Routes 676 and 660. The property contains
1.6 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas, The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural
Area 1. Staff requests deferral to the October 19, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of deferral of SP 99-55 to
October 19, 1999. The motion passed unanimously.
Regular Items
SUB 99-199 River Creek/Dunlora Phase 4A Preliminary Plat
Request for preliminary plat approval to create 31 lots on 16.62 acres, averaging 1/4 acre per dwelling
unit. The property is zoned R-4, Residential, and is located within the Dunlora Development. The
property, described as Tax Map 62, Parcels 11, 13, and 15, is located within the Rivanna Magisterial
District and is recommended for Neighborhood Density in the Urban Area #2.
Mr. Kamptner removed himself from the discussion, as he resides in the Dunlora Subdivision.
177
Em
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 31-lot
subdivision at the rear of Dunlora to take direct access off of Dunlora Drive. He reported that the
Dunlora Community Association has requested review by the Planning Commission, and the
applicant is requesting approval of a private road. Mr. Morrisette said that the Dunlora Community
Association has submitted a letter (Attachment `°D"), which raises concern about a second principal
means of access for the subdivision; there are approximately 240 lots in Dunlora now, generating a
significant amount of traffic on Dunlora Drive. Residents have a concern about the additional lots
created by this proposal, and the potential for more lots in the future. Residents have raised safety
concerns.
Mr. Morrisette referenced Section 14.5.12(H) of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that when 50
dwelling units are exceeded, the subdivision must have more than one principal means of access;
historically, staff has viewed the intent of this section as a method to ensure adequate access in the
event of an emergency. He noted that this new addition does propose to have a gated emergency
access out to Free State Road, but that would not be a primary second means of access. Mr.
Morrisette emphasized that a second means of access into Dunlora has been a concern for sometime,
and it is difficult to establish a second principal means of access because it would likely go out to
Free State Road, which contains a railroad bride in poor condition; and because of the uncertainty of
the location of a Meadowcreek Parkway intersection planned to be somewhere between Rio Road
and the Rivanna River.
He mentioned that the Dunlora Phase 3A has been resubmitted by the developer, as it will now seek
to expand, and cross over a stream crossing, which differs from what was previously approved by
the Planning Commission. Mr. Morrisette said that that could eventually provide for a second
principal means of access either out to Free State Road or to the Meadowcreek Parkway. He added
that the intent of the subdivision ordinance is satisfied, but due to factors out of the applicant's
control, he cannot construct a principal means of access with this development at this time. Mr.
Morrisette stated that the inclusion of a gated emergency access addresses the Site Review
Committee's continuing safety concern, and staff is recommending approval of the subdivision.
Regarding the private road request, Mr. Morrisette reviewed the five issues related to the private
road request, as outlined in his staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the request on the
basis that there is an approved lot design, there is a reduced environmental impact from the lesser
road design, and there is a limited use of the private road within this development. He noted to
Commissioners that the general issue of long-term maintenance for the private road exists.
Mr. Morrisette concluded by stating that staff is seeking administrative approval to be able to review
the plan and approve it administratively without a private road — all public road design.
Mr. Thomas asked if the owners of the new lots would be responsible for the maintenance of the
new road.
Mr. Morrisette responded that the maintenance would be assumed by the Dunlora Community
Association, but the owners of the lots taking access from the private road would have an increase in
their homeowners' association fees.
IIN
Mr. Rooker asked if staff feels that the ordinance requirement for two accesses is met by the
application.
Mr. Morrisette replied that in his discussions with the Zoning and Planning Departments, it became
evident that the requirement for a second access point was generated because of safety concerns, not
because of convenience. He said that it is staff s opinion is that the need for a second access is for
emergency access.
Noting the letter from the Dunlora Community Association, which references the issue of second
access pertaining to the Hilltop (Parkside) Development in Crozet, Mr. Rooker clarified that the
Hilltop situation is different, because the "second" means of access eventually joins back to the
primary means of access in order to have ingress/egress. In the Dunlora plan, the second access goes
out to an entirely different road.
Mr. Benish mentioned that the county is working to refine plans for the Meadowcreek Parkway
design, to try and pinpoint where the public road system will exist in that area.
Mr. Rieley asked how residents would leave in the event of an emergency, if the second means of
access were gated/locked.
Mr. Morrisette said that all emergency services would have a key for the gate, and the Community
Association could have access to keys as well.
Mr. Benish said that if there were an emergency that generated that need, then the emergency
services would be in control of that situation.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were other communities in the area with gated emergency exits.
Mr. Benish said that there are gated exits between Lake Renovia and Mill Creek; Forest Lakes has
several; Springridge will also have one.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was another access to Glenmore. Mr. Benish responded that the county is
working with that development to create that access.
Mr. Rieley asked if the Commission determined that the amount of traffic generated by the
additional part of the subdivision was "unreasonably high," and decided not to approve this, if there
were a legal basis to do so.
Mr. Benish replied that they probably could not deny this, unless there was a very clear health or
safety issue apparent.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Dunlora itself has a second means of access which goes out to Rio Road,
designed primarily for emergencies.
Public comment was invited.
em
170
The applicant, Mr. Frank Stoner of Robert Hauser homes, addressed the Commission. He noted that
I*A. the plan is by -right, and has the support of the Planning staff, the Engineering Department, and
VDOT. Mr. Stoner said that the development is consistent with the character of the existing Dunlora
neighborhood, with prices of homes in the new section to be $250,000 - $400,000. He mentioned
that the new neighborhood also provides for a pedestrian link from this property back to Dunlora
Drive and to the swim & tennis club.
Mr. Stoner said that homeowners in Dunlora have indicated to him their preference for the secondary
access route into Dunlora to be a gated access. He explained that the projected additional traffic
from the subdivision can be accommodated both at the intersection of Dunlora Drive and the
intersection of Rio Road. Mr. Stoner presented copies of the traffic study performed by Wilbur
Smith & Associates as part of phase 3A; the study evaluates the impact of the new proposed
subdivision on its intersections with Dunlora Drive and Rio Road. The study concludes that
"acceptable levels of service will result at both development entrances if they're comprised simply
of one entering and one exiting lane with stop or yield sign control. The Dunlora Drive/Rio Road
intersection is projected to have acceptable levels of service on both the approaches with the
exception of the peak left turn of westbound traffic on Dunlora Drive and the peak eastbound from
the K-Tech exit." VDOT has determined that traffic signals at this intersection are not warranted as
a result of either the Phase 3A or Phase 4A developments.
Mr. Stoner reported that they have met with neighborhood about the plan, and have gathered input
from neighbors regarding the new development. He stated that the private road in 3A has enhanced
their ability to maintain a wooded buffer along Dunlora Drive, and provides a "more intimate
environment" for the residents of those four lots. Mr. Stoner mentioned that they are prepared to
N%W make significant additional investments in the Dunlora amenities package that will address neighbor
concerns about overcrowding; a task force will be set up shortly to evaluate the options and make
recommendations about what amenities they would like to see.
He said that Robert Hauser Homes is proposing that the road would be a private road, as it is the best
solution from a planning, safety, environmental, and aesthetic perspective. The road will be
maintained by the association through contributions of homeowners who live on the road. Mr.
Stoner stated the private road allowed them to orient the homes on Lots 7, 8 and 9 toward the main
right-of-way, give those houses have rear -access garages, provide a more intimate entrance and
better setback for Lots 10 and 11, allowed them to narrow the pavement from 18 feet to 14 feet, and
provide more buffer along the rear of Lots 7, 8, and 9.
Mr. Rooker asked who would determine what the supplemental fee for maintenance of the private
road would be to those landowners who live on it. Mr. Stoner replied that Robert Hauser Homes
would determine what that fee would be, and noted that it is a very small piece of road.
Ms. Joanne Sedlenick addressed the Commission, raising concerns from are residents as outlined in
a written statement (Attachment ). Her concerns focused around the impact of construction traffic
on Dunlora Drive, and the lack of a secondary access for the new subdivision.
Mr. Rooker said that the Commission does not have the power to impose the conditions requested by
the Dunlora Homeowners Association on a site plan approval for the subdivision. He acknowledged
IRO
001
that there are legitimate concerns about increased traffic and safety, but emphasized that the
Commission does not have the power to impose conditions on the proposal. Mr. Rooker further
noted that VDOT is in control of improvements that might be required on public roads as a result of
the subdivision, and the safety considerations that take place with respect to those roads. "They're
really not within the county's purview."
Mr. Rooker said that the private road request makes sense, and it would provide for a more attractive
part of the subdivision and would provide better opportunity for setbacks and siting of the lots, and
also minimizes the environmental degradation caused by a different road alignment.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed that a private road would be better in this situation, and said that the
agreement made to handle the secondary emergency access makes sense and will benefit the whole
community.
Mr. Thomas empathized with the residents of Dunlora and the surrounding area because of the
uncertainty about the Meadowcreek Parkway. "It's holding up a lot of people's decisions and what
they want to do in that area of the county." He did express his support for the new Dunlora
development and the new private road.
Mr. Morrisette recalled that in the recently approved Phase 3A, the builders are using the emergency
access for construction purposes. He suggested that the developer might do the same for Phase 4A
Mr. Stoner said they are interested in establishing a secondary construction access, but the Free State
Bridge has an 8,000-1b weight limit.
Mr. Morrisette asked if possibly smaller trucks could use the bridge. Mr. Stoner agreed.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SUB 99-199 with
recommended conditions of approval. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the private road request associated
with SUB 99-199 as contained in the application package. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP 99-100 Crozet Convenience Center Outdoor Lighting Waiver Request
Request for a waiver to allow lighting from parking lot luminaires to spillover onto public roads in
excess of/2 foot candle, in accordance with Section 4.17.5(a)I of the Zoning Ordinance, at the
property described as Tax Map 56A1, Parcel 124. The property is located in the White Hall
Magisterial District at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Railroad Avenue [Route 788] with
Crozet Avenue [Route 810] and Route 240. The property occupies 0.73 acres zoned C-1
Commercial and EC Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Community Service in the Community of Crozet.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report, noting that the waiver would allow lighting from parking lot
luminaires to spillover onto public roads in excess of/z foot candle. She described the site as being
located at the intersection of Railroad and Crozet Avenues in Crozet, and the proposal calls for 10
iui
free-standing pole lights in addition to other building and canopy lighting. Ms. Pickart noted the
,, photometric plan, which illustrates that the four lights at the two entrances to the property are the
primary source of the excess spillover, and the applicant's justification for the request is that
pedestrian and traffic safety issues would be reduced by the spillover, and the expected pedestrian
traffic is critical to the site.
Ms. Pickart noted that staff opinion is that the character of light can impact the general welfare of the
community; by light spilling over into the street and causing glare that can impair the vision of
motorists. She added that the contrast created by a brightly -lit site in dark surroundings can also
contribute to poor visibility. Staff opinion is that maintaining the spillover at a level of .5 foot
candles or less minimizes the potential for excess glare and contrast and reduces the potential
dangers. She said that it is understood that well -designed outdoor lighting can be used to improve
visibility, safety and security, but the proposed lighting is not the best way to ensure pedestrian and
motorist safety at the site — site lighting is intended to illuminate the site, and safety issues
corresponding to surrounding areas may be more appropriately addressed by other improvements.
Ms. Pickart continued, explaining that the photometric plan gives lighting levels based on a
maintenance factor, meaning that the initial lighting levels will be brighter than the levels that are
indicated by the numbers on the plan. She explained that the initial lighting levels would be at least
28% brighter, and it takes 6-12 months for the lights to burn in and reach their actual levels,
depending on the types of bulbs used, site conditions, the manufacturer, etc.
Mr. Rooker asked what the spillover would be if the lights proposed by the applicant were used.
,'la` Ms. Pickart replied that the plan shows that the spillover would be a 4-foot spillover instead of the
'/Z- foot spillover required by the ordinance. She added that the overall appearance of the site would
be "extremely bright," and the generally dark surroundings would tend to intensify this impact, and
staff anticipates that the character of the lighting will significantly impact the appearance of the
community, and would set a poor precedent for future commercial development in the area. Ms.
Pickart said that shifting of 3 or 4 of the fixtures would likely resolve the excess spillover, and
recommends that the initial lighting spillover be maintained at'/2-foot candles or less.
M
Mr. Rooker asked if staff's recommendations were consistent with what the ARB recommended.
Ms. Pickart responded that staff s findings are the same as the ARB determinations.
Mr. Finley asked if the spillover was primarily onto Railroad and Crozet Avenues.
Ms. Pickart replied that the spillover occurs primarily at the two entrances to the site, onto Railroad
and Crozet Avenues.
Mr. Finley asked where the pedestrian traffic would be coming from. Ms. Pickart replied that the
applicant did not detail the pedestrian activity in their written information, but might be able to
explain it more verbally.
Mr. Rieley asked if the county lighting ordinance had a maximum built into it, for general lighting.
1$0
on
Ms. Pickart said that there is no real limit for spillover in general areas, providing the lights meet the
shielding requirements.
Mr. Rieley commented that one of the county's only mechanisms for dealing with excess light is to
address it at the perimeter of the site.
Mr. Bill Atwood of Atwood Architects, architects for the developer of the site, addressed the
Commission, noting that Mr. White, owner of Virginia Oil, has put up numerous stations in the area
— 29 North, Pantops, Fontaine, and Barracks Road. Mr. Atwood said that one of Mr. White's initial
architectural review submissions was the model used for future submissions. Mr. Atwood
emphasized that the project is by -right, and they have been working for one year on the proposal.
Mr. Atwood reviewed the history of the project to replace the Exxon Station on site with a Dairy
Queen/Food Store/Gas Station. He noted that like many facilities in Crozet, it is difficult to replace
existing facilities with anything new; the gas dispensers are outside the buildable areas, etc. Mr.
Atwood presented a number of sketches of the proposed site, and explained the general layout of the
site, emphasizing that the planned building fits the site well.
He noted that in the original scheme, pedestrians would be able to access the new site with minimum
exposure to traffic, but because of the Albemarle County requirements for parking, the applicant was
pushed to create more parking for the site than is really necessary.
Mr. Atwood said that they need the lights to maintain safety on the site, especially because the site is
located in a pedestrian environment. He expressed concern that the county lighting ordinance did
not take urban situations into account — with multiple uses and transportation of people across
streets. Mr. Atwood emphasized that the site is dark without street lighting, and said that there is the
potential for an unsafe situation. He noted that the combination of a lot of parking and pedestrians
could be unsafe if the lighting is not sufficient.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Atwood if his real concern was for the safety of the children crossing the
streets or for more marketing ability for the building.
Mr. Atwood responded that they want the lights located where they are primarily to give the foot
candles at the spot where people enter the station, expressing concern that waiting for street lights is
too uncertain. He added that in an urban situation, 2-foot candles on a sidewalk is acceptable, .5 is
in a residential district. "We're very concerned that the ordinance does not take into [account] urban
situations... the standards that we want, common sense tells us that something is wrong." Mr.
Atwood further noted that Mr. White could be in a libelous situation if people cannot see well on his
site.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Atwood if VEPCO — or the servicing power company in Crozet — would
come and install street lights, as they do in city. "All anybody has to do that wants a street light in
front of their house is call up. They may have to pay for a pole, and have to pay for the electric for
the light to burn... " Mr. Nitchmann mentioned that he has three poles around his building because
the current street lights were not sufficient to protect his employees.
1 RI;
on
Mr. Atwood said that those lights may not serve the Crozet site well. "When the kids get off the
sidewalk, and walk across the ocean of pavement — because we're required to have 30 parking
spaces, they're in danger, and we have a lot of light there; and quite frankly, [the lamps] don't light
the building up that much." He expressed concern that the county lighting ordinance provides a
standard of just .5 foot candle spillover, which is often recommended for residential, not
commercial.
Dr. Tom Ianna of the University of Virginia addressed the Commission. He said he had reviewed
the lighting plan, and commented that in general, the lighting is not very well done. Dr. Ianna
expressed concern about the high lighting levels under the canopy. "Ninety -foot candles is
outrageous." Dr. Ianna said that the text Lighting Exterior Environments by Nancy Clanton's
Outdoor Environmental Committee recommends 20-foot candles at the pump aisle. He said that the
proposal would have lighting brighter than the Barracks Road AMOCO, which he measured at 80-
foot candles.
Dr. Ianna said that the safety issue on the Crozet site should be seriously considered, but a bigger
issue is on the property, not the sidewalks; to the right of the building away from the canopy, there is
a really huge dark area that is not lit by the poles at all. He emphasized that there should be
uniformity on any site, with most recommendations on parking areas for 4 to 1 uniformities,
avoiding maximum to minimum ratios greater than 10 or 20 to l; on the lighting plan, the maximum
to minimum is 500+ to 1, which is "just enormous." Dr. Ianna explained that the issue is adaptation
to the eye. "You go and sit under 90-foot candles and then drive out from that, you're not going to
be seeing very well, not to mention that pedestrians who may be walking in that area will be hit by
those high lighting levels and affected by those high lighting levels... and their ability to see will be
compromised as well." Noting the .72 depreciation factor, he also mentioned that the lights would
be initially even brighter, and stressed that the ordinance applies to initial lighting levels.
Mr. Tom Loche of Crozet addressed the Commission. He emphasized that this is an important
building for Crozet, and indicated that he met with Mr. White and Mr. Atwood regarding the
placement of the building and the direction of the lighting. Mr. Loche said that there is no gas
station in Crozet, and asked Commissioners to help work out the problem so the service could be
provided in Crozet.
Mr. Atwood emphasized that the situation is very unusual, because of the large amount of parking,
and the contrast would be even greater if the poles were removed.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Atwood how many parking spaces he felt were needed to serve the
community. Mr. Atwood replied, "Twenty."
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission had the power to waive the minimum parking requirement in
the ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there can be cooperative parking arrangements in a location that is
reasonably close, but the parking requirement itself cannot be fully waived. He further stated that
the parking requirements in the ordinance may be "somewhat antiquated."
1R4
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the county had the legal ability to lower the parking requirements.
Mr. Kamptner said that he ordinance would have to provide for a waiver, and currently does not.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "We need to change that."
Mr. Atwood commended staff on their work to make the project feasible.
Ms. Pickart clarified that staff is not recommending that the pole lights be moved, but is
recommending that they be shifted in location.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked how the Lighting Ordinance could be changed if the ordinance that stipulated
marking minimums could not be.
Ms. Pickart replied that there had been no provision for a lighting waiver until the lighting portion of
the ordinance was changed last August.
Mr. Rieley said, "We're looking at the wrong issue. The parking is the issue, and clearly, Mr.
Atwood is frustrated with that, and I don't blame him. This plan was probably substantially
degraded by having to put in more parking than is necessary to serve the business needs. We just
absolutely have to address that..." Mr. Rieley expressed his eagerness for the DISC Committee
report so that some of the antiquated parts of the ordinance can be addressed.
Mr. Rieley said that while the difference in the level of light between '/Z foot and 2 feet is not that
large, the principle is an extremely important one. "I think we have to back up staff and the ARB on
this... a very small shift for change in distance can have enormous implication for the lighting
level....you literally could move them a few feet and achieve the upper limits required under the
ordinance." Mr. Rieley emphasized that this application "points out dramatically that we need an
upper limit on our levels of illumination; otherwise, we're going to have `Sheetz' type illumination
everywhere, and... I think from a safety perspective, the overlit canopy is a much bigger problem
than the perimeter."
Mr. Loewenstein noted Dr. Ianna's comments that adaptation problems are much worse when the
area of bright light is followed by entrance to an area of much lower light. Mr. Loewenstein
suggested reducing the under -canopy light, and agreed that the difference between the foot candle
lighting of/z or 2 is not enormous, but added, "I think this is an important principle, and I do think
that there are relatively easy ways to address it so that these requirements can be met without undue
hardship."
Mr. Nitchmann asked, "Why didn't the applicant just move the poles two foot and save himself all
this anguish."
Fellow Commissioners agreed.
1R5
En
Mr. Atwood said the reason is that "it puts light where we don't need it, and takes light away from
where we need it." He added that they feel the light needs to be at the entries to the business.
Mr. Finley asked Ms. Pickart if she had received a revised photometric plan from the applicant as
requested. She indicated that she had not.
Mr. Rooker said, "It seems to me that their issue is primarily with the ordinance as it's written, and
I'm not prepared to start rewriting the ordinance tonight. We spent a lot of time on this... we had
numerous hearings, and if there are problems that develop in the ordinance as time goes by, then I
think they need to be dealt with legislatively, not by making an exception every time somebody
comes in and doesn't like the way the ordinance applies to their case."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded denial of SDP 99-100.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern that if the Commission denies this, and the applicant gives up,
then Crozet still has no gas station.
Mr. Rooker said that he did not feel that keeping lighting restrictions within the ordinance would
deter the applicant from building the business. "I don't think it's up to us to design his project for
him, but I think it's up to him to meet the requirements of the ordinance, and if the ordinance needs
to be changed, then I would suggest that a proposal be made to staff by this applicant for a change to
be considered in the ordinance, and would be taken up in due course, just like any other
recommended change to the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Cilimberg said that if the applicant re -orients the light, creating minimal spillover, the item
could be brought back to the Commission on the Consent Agenda for review and possible approval.
Mr. Rooker added that the design of the project is very nice, and will be a credit to the Crozet
community.
Ms. Pickart noted that the applicant is prepared to appeal a denial.
In a 5-1 vote, with Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the motion for denial of SDP 99-100 passed.
Mr. Rooker suggested to staff that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance permitting a waiver to the
parking requirements be considered on a single amendment basis.
A brief recess was taken
Review of the Board of Supervisors meeting
Mr. Cilimberg presented a report of the October 6`h Board of Supervisors meeting. He said that
Airport Road improvements, with four-laning, sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping, was approved
by the Board. The Board also accepted a Historic Preservation Plan and proposed ordinance. The
Board also reviewed the plans for Route 29 North, which incorporate the improvements in the
current zoning plan on the west side of Route 29.
1R6
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the VDOT plan for 29 North includes improvements of the main line
S%01 as an access managed facility — removing access except at intersections, and having primary
intersections at South Forest Lakes, Hollymead, and North Forest Lakes. He mentioned that in the
south end of the western parallel road, Route 29 will be tied in at the South Forest Lakes
intersection, and said that the Board seemed to endorse the general concept of limiting access along
29 north of the South Fork — Rivanna River through Airport Road to the intersections mentioned,
and to not have access from 29 directly into any other properties, including existing access — which
would be removed and put on parallel roads instead. Mr. Cilimberg said that the western parallel
road would be like the "Main Street," and the east side already has some parallel roads in place, and
Forest Lakes would have the road extending past McDonald's extending southward through some
more commercial property and becoming access to the cemetery.
Also, there would be another road coming out off of Hollymead Drive northward to the properties
now fronting 29, and the continuation of that road would go southward to South Forest Lakes
parallel to 29. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the access to developments there would be on the
internal roads, not 29. He added that VDOT has indicated that there would be three intersections,
and no other access points onto 29; the level of service would remain at "C," and Route 29 would be
widened to six lanes through the year 2036.
Mr. Finley asked if the developer would have to pay for the parallel roads. Mr. Cilimberg said that
the roads would be part of the improvement of 29 North, and VDOT is going to build those parallel
roads. He added that the county is working to ensure that the roads are not simply frontage roads,
but are part of the fabric of the development areas.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how VDOT determined where the parallel road (western) would go.
Mr. Cilimberg said they are basing it partially on where the parcels are located, because if access
from 29 is removed, an alternative must be provided. At the north end, it is tying into the
intersection that will be created with the entrance to UREF on Airport Road. "It's a combination of
making sure you're providing access to properties that wouldn't have access to 29, and where
existing roads are at the northern end."
Mr. Rooker asked about the "middle intersection," and asked if the county and VDOT agree on its
placement.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the county suggested that intermediate access between Hollymead and
Forest Lakes North might be advisable, realizing it would not be a cross -over so that people could
get to the parallel road between the two primary intersections, creating more internal circulation.
VDOT indicated that that plan would affect the level of service dramatically, and the county wants
to discuss it further. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the placement is still up for discussion, and the
plans are still preliminary; the Board is going to hold a public hearing after the first of the year
before VDOT holds a public hearing. The Board has acknowledged that the combination of parallel
roads and access -management on Route 29 is necessary.
Regarding the specific CPA up for consideration, Mr. Cilimberg said Commissioners could safely
assume that the parallel road to the west will be there. He noted that one major property owner of
1R7
parcels on the west side of Route 29 is not in agreement with VDOT wants to do in terms of
removing access from 29 to his land. Mr. Cilimberg said there is not a time table for the
construction of the parallel road, but probably construction timelines are a year or more away. He
added that VDOT may approach the project in several phases, where the parallel roads would be
constructed before the main road.
Work Session
CPA 98-03 Hollymead
Request for a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the Community of
Hollymead. The applicant's request is to change the recommended land use for land on the west
side of Route 29 opposite North Forest Lakes form Industrial Service to Regional Service.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, and introduced John Oliver from the Forest Lakes
Community Association, and the applicant — Katorah Rowell.
Ms. Thomas said that in the Commission's July 6t' meeting when the CPA was last considered, there
was emphasis placed in three areas of the plan: the Town Center, the large block of industrial to the
south, and the Airport/Dickerson corner which lies between Deerwood and the mobile home park.
Ms. Thomas noted maps presented, including a Land Use Plan, Planning Staff s interpretation of
what was previously discussed conceptually. She noted that the Town Center would be centered,
and would be designed to arch across Route 29 and connect with what already exists at Forest Lakes.
Ms. Thomas said that between the Town Center and Route 29, the original strip of Regional Service
plus a little more is illustrated; she added that what is not illustrated on the map, but is important to
staff, is a strip on the west side of 29 that would maintain a very substantial vegetative buffer. She
commented that while the larger scale regional service uses are not attractive from an Entrance
Corridor, they are an important part of retail. "Not everything is going to fit in that dense,
pedestrian -friendly downtown area....the larger uses could kind of arch around to the south and back
up to the community center."
She noted that the applicant's intended use is more of a Regional Service use, with the road —
Timberwood Boulevard Extended — curving to the south. Ms. Thomas said the theatre use would be
on the edge of the office/community service quadrant, and wouldn't be at the heart of the Town
Center. Staff believes it would be a good idea to tie the Town Center areas together — the existing
one on the east side of the highway, and the proposed one on the west, so the highway does not
become such a barrier.
Ms. Thomas explained that to the north of Timberwood Boulevard extended is Office Service, and
there are some rezoned parcels within that reflect that designation. She noted that there is a lot more
latitude in the Comprehensive Plan designations, as they are land use concepts, not zoning
designations. To the south, a large portion of industrial remains, and a little bit of urban density has
been built in because major employers may locate in that industrial area, and residences may provide
a way for people to live close to their employers.
She noted that the area between Deerwood and the Mobile Home Park would be nicely tied together
with residential, but the proximity of the airport may prevent that. Ms. Thomas said there is more
1RR
Regional Service now than the original plan had, and it still lies along Route 29 because it is a more
expansive use.
Ms. Thomas commented that the if the industrial uses could occupy parcels more fully, open space
on the lot could be put together in a more usable form, and could be used by employees of
businesses and even the public, instead of the green lawns used in office parks that look nice but do
not offer usable green space.
She added that in the design guidelines, she added some concepts for consideration, including
orienting buildings toward streets with rear parking, adding vegetative buffer along Route 29, Route
649, and Route 606. Ms. Thomas clarified that the orientation of buildings would be towards the
parallel roads, not 29; Timberwood Boulevard Extended would be the northernmost entrance onto
Route 29.
Mr. Rowell noted that part of the proffer on the property would have that road extend down to the
post office facility, although that is not part of VDOT's project.
Staff confirmed that the road is a signalized cross-over/intersection.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the Commission contemplate how the north/south parallel road should be
designed. She mentioned that Mr. Anderson's point during the last meeting on the CPA — that the
subsidiary roads that tie into the main road and create the blocks have as much to do with the user-
friendly aspect of the entire area as any other single feature.
She reported that a summary of landowner meetings is within the staff report — with one meeting
held with a number of smaller owners, and one meeting held with the dominant landowner in the
area, who is not very enthusiastic about the land use plan. Ms. Thomas said that he was very
interested in adding area to the development area, and expanding the growth area boundaries, but
staff explained to him that this particular CPA is to re -designate land use in a more current form.
The landowner was not enthusiastic about the location of the Town Center.
The intern who has assisted with this project, Christie Shields, presented a map of the proposed land
use in the CPA, and current land ownership.
Commissioners expressed an interest in getting a map that shows the current zoning of the land, with
color coding.
Ms. Shields noted that the dominant landowner in the area owns four significant contiguous parcels,
presently zoned Rural Areas and one part as Highway Commercial; multiple heirs own one strip
along Route 29, and there are two other significant landowners in the area. Staff confirmed that the
total acreage being considered is 640 acres, with the dominant landowner owning 400+ acres in 46
parcels.
Mr. Rieley commented that the green strip is understated. Staff agreed, noting that their focus was
on land ownership. Ms. Thomas added that some of the parcels are not very deep, and a really
functional buffer is going to consume much of the useful area.
1R9
140W Mr. Rieley expressed concern that the county is working to try to build an environment that will
support the development for that area in a harmonious way, whereas VDOT is trying to get the
traffic off of Route 29 in the cheapest and easiest way. "If we're serious about this, we need to start
building part of the infrastructure ourselves."
Mr. Finley asked what Route 29 would eventually become.
Mr. Benish replied that VDOT would be six -lanes, not including turn lanes. He said that VDOT will
need to acquire some right-of-way.
Mr. Rieley asked about the rationale behind some of the proposed designations, and wondered if it
made sense to retain hundreds of acres in Industrial Service, when the demand for that use is not
great. "Is there a higher and better use that would make more sense for the county, and possibly
make more sense for the landowner?"
Mr. Benish said that there is less and less opportunity for smaller -scale business that are not office -
park oriented, and staff acknowledges the need for designations that supports this. He said that staff
has discussed the option of Office/Regional Service, such as Peter Jefferson Place. Mr. Benish
emphasized that the important part of the CPA consideration is to encourage mix of uses, not just
placing colors on the map, and also offering flexibility for landowners.
Ms. Thomas noted that the current plan discusses the industrial area to the south as a major
employment center, and said that the area may be a good future location for future non -retail
commercial or industrial, such as Mill Creek, which is virtually built out now.
Mr. Rooker asked if the shape of the land designations is based on existing landowners and their
boundaries.
Mr. Benish replied that the designations are partly the result of the way the areas have previously
been designated. He said that staff also placed proposed designation based on other factors, such as
planning for Town Center placement, and the Board's previous actions that will affect land uses.
Mr. Nitchmann said that it would be better to approach the planning without assigning
colors/designation to properties. He stressed that it has to be made easy for the landowner or the
land planner to satisfy the needs of the market.
Ms. Thomas said that the dominant landowner was hoping to be able to preserve the multiple
entrances to Route 29, but staff emphasized to him that the county does not have control over that.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the Town Center location is so far north.
Ms. Thomas said that Mr. Rowell's project triggered the placement, but staff also felt that the link
with the existing area of Forest Lakes was a compelling reason, and also wanted a compact Town
Center. She added that having a strip of Regional Service along 29 was never a preferred plan
because of traffic problems, and problems with linking of properties.
190
In
Mr. Benish added that the transportation system created by the parallel roads, and the proffer of
Timberwood Boulevard Extended will help create more of a block system around the Town Center.
Mr. Finley asked if design guidelines were discussed in staff s meeting with property owners. Ms.
Thomas replied that staff distributed a brief summary, and the concept of parallel roads was new to
some of the owners. She noted that about 15 property owners were contacted for the meetings.
Mr. Finley asked who would build the Town Center, and who would pay for it.
Mr. Benish replied that the term Town Center describes more of a design concept for the types of
uses to be placed on the area — commercial/office, residential.
Mr. Rooker noted that the applicant who generated the CPA has proposed a use that fits into that.
Mr. Rieley said that he was impressed that issues that have arisen on previous projects and CPAs
were incorporated in the staff report. He expressed an interest in seeing information regarding
density, configuration, appearance, etc. if parcels are developed according to the guidelines being
discussed. "Is it so flexible that it could mean [anything] depending on who walks in the door with a
proposal."
Ms. Thomas said that the applicant is very interested in moving ahead to public hearing, as he has
been working on this for over one year now. She explained that if Commissioners agree that should
be the next step, staff would polish and improve the guidelines presented, depending on what is
recommended. Ms. Thomas noted that in her experience with the county, it has been difficult to
maintain the high density called for in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said that it would make sense to look at the whole area north of the green strip as a
single designation — what is presently labeled as Regional Service/Community Service. He
emphasized that from a planning standpoint, the area should be looked at as a single area.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed, adding that it would be helpful to applicants to have guidelines presented
that apply to whatever the intended development is.
Ms. Thomas asked about the south sub -area designated for industrial use.
Mr. Rieley expressed concern that it might be too much of something that the county already has a
lot of. "I think at the Comprehensive Plan level, we're thinking about what's best for the county,
and I think that's the perspective we should view it from."
Mr. Rooker suggested looking at blocks of land based on the natural features of the land and the
transportation facilities that are planned to go in. He said that he would prefer to be looking at a
smaller section of the general area at one time — specifically the Regional/Community Service area
around and including the applicant's property.
ia1
OR
Mr. Oliver said that residents in his area would like to see more Community Service than Regional
Service.
Mr. Benish asked Commissioners if they would like to consider an entire new designation.
Mr. Rieley and Mr. Rooker agreed that a Town Center designation would be appropriate.
Mr. Rooker said that it did not make sense to him to have a Regional Service designation fronting
along Route 29, and competing with a Town. Center. "We need to look at that property from 29 back
as more of a single block of property, and 1 think we should have a single designation." He
suggested creating a new designation and defining what's appropriate there. Mr. Rooker noted that
the parallel road would be the focus for the developments, turning the orientation inward.
Mr. Nitchmann said that if there is agreement with what the applicant wants to do, the Commission
should go ahead and approve his project and use him as an example within the guidelines.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that it would be more efficient to initially look at the smaller, 150-acre
section as previously mentioned to help focus discussion and eventual decision -making.
The Commission unanimously agreed to hold one more worksession on the item prior to going to
public hearing.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval for staff to draft a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the Commission to grant waivers of the minimum
parking requirement. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
Mr. Rieley mentioned that the City is looking at the K-Mart site for a major expansion of that into a
superstore, and the Sperry site across the street is going to be corning to the county shortly, which is
rolled into the issue of limited access on Route 29. He proposed that the county invite the city to
have another joint work -session to talk about that area of overlapping interest.
Mr. Rooker asked about the status of the Telecommunications Manual, last presented in April. Mr.
Benish said that Mr. Fritz was commenting on the near -final draft, and it should be completed in the
month or two. Mr. Rooker commented that given the size and scope of the book, a person could
finish the manual in a day or two, especially since a consultant is being paid to work on it.
Mr. Benish reported that a Planning Commission designee would be needed for the Eastern Planning
Initiative Advisory Committee, which originated from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Committee with the charge of studying transportation issues related to access in Albemarle and
surrounding counties.
191)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
d.
on
V. Wayne Cili
Secretary
1914