HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 16 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
November 16, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
November 16, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Dennis Rooker;
Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner; Mr.
Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
SDP 99-054 Forest Springs Mobile Home Park Minor Site Plan Amendment — Proposal for
amendment of site plan SDP 95-092 to allow the addition of storage sheds at the Forest Springs
Mobile Home Park located on the east side of Route 606 near the southern end of the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport. The property is described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 56, is zoned R-
15 and is designated for Urban Density in Neighborhood 1 of the Comprehensive Plan.
SDP 99-122 Martin, Bobby D. Sr. & Penny B. Site Plan Waiver — Request for site plan waiver
approval to allow for a third dwelling on 43.142 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property,
described as Tax Map 94 Parcel 22 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the western side
of Union Mills Road [Route 616] approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the Route 250 intersection at the
Fluvanna County line. The site is not located within a designated growth area.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of the site plan waiver.
The motion passed unanimously.
Deferred Items:
ZMA 99-09 Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
Petition by Westminster Canterbury to amend the existing Planned District (ZMA 97-03) to allow
for additional independent professional office buildings along the frontage of Route 250 East. The
site is on a 7.65 acre portion of Westminster Canterbury zoned PRD, Planned Residential
Development, and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A and
55A5, is located on the northern side of Route 250 East, in front of Westminster Canterbury. This
site is located in Urban Area 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, which is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. Deferred from the November 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, noting that the approval date of ZMA 97-03 mentioned in
the staff report was August 27, 1998 not August 27, 1999. He explained that the applicant is
proposing to amend Condition #2 of ZMA 97-03 and substitute it with conditions that would serve
``'tw both the community and the residents of Westminster Canterbury.
Planning Commission— 11/16/99 241
Vftw Mr. Morrisette reported that in 1997, the Commission and the Board approved the application plan
for the rezoning of 28 acres — zoned R-6 and R-10 at the time — and incorporate that into the Planned
Development; this application plan included a special use permit to allow for 15,000 square feet of
professional office use exclusive of Westminster Canterbury. The original plan showed three
buildings, including a main building which would be located into the hillside; it was envisioned that
these uses would house a senior activity center for community residents, and another building to
support Westminster's functions.
Mr. Morrisette explained that the Zoning Department determined that Condition 92 of ZMA 97-03
that the 15,000 square feet structure could be used for non -Westminster uses, but the rest of the plan
had to be used for the sole use of Westminster Canterbury. The applicant is therefore seeking to
alter Condition #2 to allow for these professional office uses, and added that the remaining 75,000
square feet will be linked to the mission of Westminster in some way. Mr. Morrisette noted that the
prior design for the site had a "sea of parking" in front, which the ARB was not fond of, and the new
plan calls for one of the new buildings to screen the parking. He continued by reviewing the options
for linking the buildings to provide a physical connection between them, adding that staff has
recommended a golf cart path and an on -call shuttle service. Mr. Morrisette concluded by stating
staff is recommending approval of the ZMA, but is not recommending approval of the critical slopes
waiver associated with the application because there is not enough information available regarding
the disturbance and mitigation.
Commissioners asked if the applicant could get approval of the critical slopes waiver request without
NNO,, coming before the Commission. Mr. Morrisette responded that if there is no opposition to the site
plan, it could be handled administratively and appear on the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rieley said that the only issue he could foresee in handling the waiver that way was the impact
on some of the cottages.
Mr. Rooker noted that the same issue was raised with the other building. He suggested dealing with
the critical slopes waiver at the site plan review level.
Mr. Finley asked about a proposed ramp in the back.
Mr. Morrisette said that the ARB would probably not support that, and the pathway and on -call
shuttle service would suffice.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why staff was so concerned with interconnection.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission and the Board have been encouraging connectivity in the
Development Areas.
Mr. Thomas asked if Monticello was concerned about the new buildings being the viewshed.
Mr. Morrisette replied that staff and Westminster have worked with Monticello before, and they
have not had any negative comments so far.
Planning Commission — 11/16/99 242
,%W Public comment was invited.
The applicant's representative, Mike Matthews, addressed the Commission. He said that in 1995,
Westminster Canterbury started a master planning process to attempt to meet the demands of the
increasing elderly population. Mr. Matthews said that the success of the 15,000 square foot Martha
Jefferson building and demand for those services has driven the nature of the new development plan.
He stated that the plan has been rearranged to accommodate the concerns of the residents and the
ARB, adding that they have worked to provide the linkage as previously discussed. Mr. Matthews
mentioned that Westminster Canterbury is the only accredited continuing care retirement center in
the area, with services such as independent living, skilled nursing, and specialized health care needs.
He noted that they have sent their plans to Monticello, and no objections have been raised at this
point.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Matthews if he had looked at the possibility of locating two bays of parking
behind the building and one in front.
Mr. Matthews said that the parking is planned to allow for a certain alignment of the buildings,
based on ARB suggestions, and added that the view from 250 (up a hill) and some plantings will
provide some screening from a streetscape level. He stated that they are trying to take advantage of
the grades, also.
Mr. Thomas noted that the front of the first building (the MJH building) is facing Route 250.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of ZMA 99-09 with conditions
as presented by staff.
Mr. Rieley commended the ARB and the applicant on the process. "The improvement from the
previous arrangement to this one is really dramatic....this is a huge move in the right direction."
Mr. Thomas added, "It's much better than a strip mall along there."
Mr. Finley added, "I think residents would be happy with the lower buidling also."
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded denial of a critical slopes waiver associated
with ZMA 99-09, expressing their desire to deal with the waiver at the time of site plan review.
Public Hearing Items
SP 99-34 Free Bridge Auto Sales, Inc.
Request for special use permit to allow Auto Sales and Repair in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2 of
f the Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor storage, display and/or sale of automobiles in the
Planning Commission — 11/16/99 243
Entrance Corridors. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 57B ad Tax Map 78E Parcel A,
part thereof, contains .9957 acres and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at 1400
Richmond Road (Route 250 East), approximately 3600 feet west of State Farm Boulevard. The
property is zoned HC Highway Commercial (pending approval of ZMA 98-08) and EC Entrance
Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in Urban Area
Neighborhood 3.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report, explaining that the request intends to amend an existing
special use permit to increase the area of display parking; the proposal requires a special use permit
because the site is located in an entrance corridor. She stated that the ARB has reviewed the
proposal, and referenced their action letter as included in the staff report. Ms. Pickart noted that the
ARB does not object to the expansion of the display parking subject to conditions; staff recommends
approval of the permit subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Katorah Rowell, representing the applicant, stating that the permit attempts to expand the
display parking and the building; there will be no rental vehicles on -site in the future. He added that
the new site will replace the existing Free Bridge Auto Sales shop, and the new site will include nice
brick fronts and sides, and new landscaping.
Ms. Katie Hobbs addressed the Commission, encouraging Commissioners to be more selective in
what is located in Entrance Corridors.
Mr. Rooker noted that that issue is more of a Zoning issue, as the property is properly zoned for the
proposed use presented. "Hopefully, the plan we see before us will provide for a better looking site
than exists today, and I think that will be the case, based upon what the ARB is requiring there."
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 99-34 as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-60 Scottsville Rescue Squad
Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad requests a special use permit to allow fundraising events in the
existing Scottsville Rescue Squad building. This is an amendment of an existing special use permit
(SP 96-50). This use requires a special use permit in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2.42
of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit
organizations which are not related to, and supportive of the RA, Rural Areas. The site is
approximately 9.738 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This property, described as Tax Map 130 Parcel
7B, is located on Route 6 (Irish Road) at the intersection of Route 6 and Route 737 (Mountain Vista
Road) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This area is not located in a Designated Development
area of the Comprehensive Plan. It is located in Rural Area 4.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, noting that the request was initially approved by the Board of
Supervisors in January with a condition that the permit be re -reviewed within a year to assess the
impact of the fundraising events on area residents. Mr. Wade stated that the police department
y confirmed there were no official reports of problems associated with the events. Staff is
Planning Commission — 11/16/99 244
cm
recommending that the permit now be approved without the condition that the permit be re -
reviewed.
Mr. Rieley mentioned that one concern the Commission had during the initial application process
was rental of the facility to other parties, and asked if that had been monitored by Zoning.
Mr. Wade said that Zoning did not address that sub -rental as a separate issue.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board of Supervisors changed the condition to limit the events to one
event of any kind per week, and there have not been any complaints raised that there have been too
many events held.
Mr. Finley asked about the capacity of the septic field.
Mr. Wade replied that the Health Department approved the capacity, as addressed in Condition #4 in
the staff report; he noted that the septic field expansion has been completed.
Mr. Thomas asked about the condition that fundraising events be held inside the building only.
Mr. Wade said that the parking lot cannot be used for fundraising events.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Kevin Quick, Chairman of the Board of the Scottsville Rescue Squad, confirmed that they have
not had any problems with their events. He mentioned that they are planning additional sub -rental
events, and do not anticipate any problems.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Rescue Squad can operate properly and fundraise sufficiently under the
specifications of the permit.
Mr. Quick responded that anything is an improvement over what was brought before the Planning
Commission last year, and the septic field does provide a limitation as to how many events can be
held. He said that they have had one wedding reception held at the building in addition to the few
events the Squad itself has held.
Mr. Robert Mellow, a Scottsville resident, addressed the Commission, speaking in favor of the
Rescue Squad facility and its fundraising activities. He emphasized that the Squad is a "necessary
and vital part of the community."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of SP 99-60 with
conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Commission— 11/16/99 245
Review of Board of Supervisors meeting of November 10,1999
Mr. Cilimberg presented a report of the November 1 Ot" Board of Supervisors meeting, which
included consideration of the Value America CPA's in the Piney Mountain Development Area. He
noted that the applicant withdrew his request for the site that was completely out of the development
area, and asked that the other site — which lies partially in and partially out of the development area —
be deferred so that he could meet with staff to determine an adjustment of those boundaries to allow
the parcel to lie entirely within the development area. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant for the
Ivy Creek Methodist Church tower requested deferral so that they can establish an alternative
location; the church still wants to work with CFW and possibly locate the tower on church property.
Mr. Rieley asked at what point reconfigurations of the Value America proposals constitute an
entirely new application plan.
Mr. Cilimberg replied, "Basically, the process is starting again." He mentioned that the Airport
Road site requires only a few acres to be rezoned, which doesn't appear to be a problem.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that staff needs to tell the applicant that items to be proffered need to be
submitted in the correct written format.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed his dismay over the loss to the county by not accepting the "offer" of 63
acres of land in exchange for the rezoning outside the development area.
Mr. Rieley suggested that equating a golf course with open space is "absurd" and was not really a
gift to the county.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there was no completed plan submitted for the Value America sites, and
pointed out that the applicant never provided the information that staff had asked for in order to
properly consider the request.
Mr. Thomas said that the golf course idea was just a "vision" and was never put down on paper.
Mr. Cilimberg concluded his report of the Board meeting, noting that they approved the Covenant
School request previously approved by the Commission.
Work Session: 2000/01— 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program
Mr. Cilimberg presented a report on the proposed CIP, noting that applications are made by various
departments and agencies for funding of projects over the next five years; additional projects are
identified that go beyond the five years. He said that the technical committee will review the plan
and make recommendations for funding, explaining that over the five years, the CIP is funded with
$84,000,000. He also mentioned projects listed not fully funded or unfunded, as the CIP ordinarily
funds mandated projects, maintenance projects, and ongoing projects. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized
that the technical committee has identified a shortfall in the available revenue to fund some projects,
and the Board will attempt to fund the greater needs — some of which are the result of growth &
development, some of which are the result of policies.
Planning Commission — 11/16/99 246
Ms. Washington asked about the 53% "school borrowed" funds.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that those funds are obtained through the Virginia Public School Authority,
and must be paid back. He added that the county has been borrowing for a number of years, which
means that there is new borrowing under the current CIP in addition to earlier loans now being
repaid.
Ms. Washington asked how that was shown in the CIP budget as presented.
Ms. Anne Giulotti of the County Executive's office explained that the total debt retired in fiscal year
2000 is $6 million, which is principle -in -debt on previous debt. She stated that the total amount of
indebtedness for school projects is $70 million.
Mr. Finley asked about the debt service to general fund ratio now exceeding 10%.
Ms. Giulotti added that that is a target amount established by the Board of Supervisors several years
ago — a recommended ceiling on debt service as the percent of the general fund; she added that the
recommended current CIP does put the county above that target.
Mr. Rooker noted that the target of $1,000 per capita will also be exceeded.
Noting an increase in the debt ratio, Mr. Finley asked, "Where does it stop?"
*A00 Ms. Giulotti replied, "I think what we're seeing really is the impact of general obligation debt for
general government, and this would assume that that general obligation debt would be approved by
the county voters. Our current debt levels as a result of prior borrowing for schools really have us
near those maximums so that when general government is beginning to consider needing to borrow
money for its long-term needs ... we're having to deal with being very close to those maximums on
debt service and debt per capita."
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the 10% goal was exceeded.
Ms. Giulotti responded that the general government projects the Board has approved in its current
CIP are the courthouse projects —which are mandated, and the public safety facility to house the
police and fire departments, and construction of an urban gym. She said that the county presented
the projects to the Board with an explanation of what they would mean in terms of indebtedness and
relationship to the target maximums; the Board has approved going above the 10% and $1,000
levels.
Mr. Finley asked what was transferred from the operating budget to address debt service.
Ms. Giulotti explained that unexpended funds in the school CIP fund are carried forward for the
school CIP; debt service, which is recurring, is funded through the operating budget. She said there
is a certain amount of the operating budget set aside for debt service, and transferring it just means it
is paid out of the debt service fund. Ms. Giulotti said that the school has the option of taking fund
balances — which are basically savings from prior years — and putting those monies toward CIP or
Planning Commission — 11/16/99 247
operating needs, and they have elected to put a lot of that money toward operating needs. She stated
that any debt service budgeted in excess of the actual payment becomes funds for future debt service
payments.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the $10.8 million borrowed to finance the 03-04 debt requirements.
Ms. Giulotti said that the borrowed money noted in 03-04-05 is general obligation bond debt, which
is being borrowed at the approval of county voters. She emphasized that the money is for the court
project, the public safety facility project, and the urban gym project only.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was money being borrowed to pay off interest on previously borrowed
funds.
Ms. Giulotti confirmed that there was not.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how the interest would be paid.
Ms. Giulotti said that the interest would be paid from the general operating budget, and would
require additional general fund resources — in the form of a tax rate increase or some other method of
raising general fund revenue.
Mr. Rooker asked if the court project was mandated.
Ms. Giulotti responded that if the improvemetns are not done, the judge can order it to be done, and
the cost of the project is still being determined.
Mr. Finley asked if there would be a referendum on borrowing from the VPSA.
Ms. Giulotti responded that through that program, the county is not required to hold a referendum to
access those borrowed revenues, adding that as part of a bond package, school projects might be an
item in the package to possibly reduce interest rates.
Mr. Rooker asked why the county funds other projects when there are not funds available to fund
committed projects.
Ms. Giulotti replied that some of the projects under the "committed projects" heading are "sinking
funds," a pool of funds to be used for ongoing needs — such as fire/rescue stations. She said that
there must be a determination whether or not to fund previous projects in addition to new projects
deemed necessary.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the technical committee is charged with seeing that there is justification for
the monies being requested for each project. "There are some judgement calls being made on that."
He also noted that the committee evaluated some projects in terms of the county's ability to take on
significant increases in the CIP —projects such as revenue -sharing, traffic calming, neighborhood
planning, sidewalks were all requested at significantly higher amounts of money than what has been
previously approved. "Those were examples of projects that the judgement was made that they may
Planning Commission— 11/16/99 248
very well be needed and justifiable under our Comprehensive Plan, but we may just not be able to
140ftw fund them right now....we may need to look at whatever other sources we can find." He mentioned
applying for an enhancement grant under the T-21 program for $800,000 for new sidewalks, which
was not approved.
Mr. Rooker asked about the new library as an out -year project, and wondered if there was a
proposed location.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the library board was still working on the project, but possibly may include a
southern urban area library, additional space at the north urban area, and possibly a facility in
Crozet.
Mr. Nitchmann wondered if a lot of additional library space is necessary, given the advent of the
internet. Other Commissioners mentioned the ongoing need for books, and the use of libraries for
internet access.
Mr. Rooker suggested leasing small spaces around the county, rather than constructing a new
facility.
Mr. Cilimberg said the goal was to make sure what was most cost-effective in the long term.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the county's increased debt ratio, stating that the choice is
to either raise taxes and not borrow, or not do projects. "It seems like a whole change in what's
being going on for the last eight or ten years."
Ms. Giulotti commented, "I think the needs that we're seeing for general government are not only
the product of population growth... [but] also are the product of some policy changes that the Board
has made .... DISC, for example, may have significant capital [needs] associated with it."
Mr. Thomas asked about the fire stations planned.
Ms. Giulotti and Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that there is funding earmarked for a total of three fire
stations, for which the Board will have to make a determination about funding long-term.
Ms. Giulotti said there would be a series of worksessions with the Board through the spring on the
issues that the CIP raises, including public safety needs. She added that the Commission has the
option to hold a public hearing on the CIP, but Mr. Cilimberg said that in previous discussions, they
had decided not to because the Board does.
MOTION: The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the order of priorities
expressed in the CIP report to be passed onto the Board of Supervisors with the notes of the meeting
citing Commissioner concerns.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
Planning Commission— I l/16/99 249
New Business
There was no new business presented.
There being no further business, the meeting adjoumed at 8:10 p.m.
V. Wayn Cilimberg
Secretary
i
Planning Commission — 11/16/99 250