HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 14 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
December 14, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
December 14, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Dennis
Rooker. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Juandiego Wade,
Transportation Planner; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas.
A moment of silence was held in memory of former Commissioner Dave Tice, who recently passed
away. Several Commissioners paid their respects to Mr. Tice. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that a
resolution passed by the Commission and signed by members was provided to the Tice family. Ms.
Katie Hobbs addressed the Commission on behalf of the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of
Women Voters, noting the League's work with Mr. Tice and how much they will miss him.
Other matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — December S, 1999
Mr. Cilimberg presented a report on the Board meeting, noting that all of the following items were
approved as recommended by the Commission: outdoor display at Free Bridge Auto Sales; special
use permit for the reopening of the 250 West Craft Barn; continuation of the special use permit to
allow for events at the Scottsville Rescue Squad, and the special use permit for the Monticello High
School use for AIMR test -grading. Mr. Cilimberg added that a rezoning for Westminster Canterbury
was also approved, which will allow more general office use of the office area in front of the facility,
and provided a new application plan. He noted that the Clover Lawn Village application — which the
Commission had not recommended for approval — was considered; the Board decided that it would
be best to have a plan for the consolidated development of the properties before taking action. The
applicant agreed to defer the application, and the item will come back to the Commission with a
unified plan for all three properties.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Finley were re -appointed as Planning
Commission members; Mr. Finley for four years and Mr. Loewenstein for two.
Consent Agenda
Woodsedge Apartment — Waiver Request
Grayrock, Sections 2, 3 &4 — Critical Slope Waiver Request
SUB 99-260 Church Hill Preliminary Plat — Request for plat approval to create five (5) lots on an
internal public road and an internal private road to serve three (3) of the lots.
SDP 99-101 White Hall Post Office Preliminary Site Plan/2232 Review — Request for
preliminary site plan approval for a building to be used as a U.S. Post Office, consisting of 784
square feet on 1.385 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 276
en
SDP 97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan — Critical Slope Waiver — Proposal
for 2,576 square foot convenience store/gas station on 1.051 acres zoned C-1, Commercial.
At Mr. Rooker's suggestion, Commissioners agreed to remove SDP 97-035 from the agenda for
further discussion.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the remainder of the Consent
Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Regarding SDP 97-035, the Commission requested that the applicant's representative address them.
Mr. Fred Payne, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that the development
of this property has had "everything go wrong with it." He noted that there was a fraudulent
conveyance in the purchase of the property, which was reconciled in court. Mr. Payne emphasized
that the applicant has a "proffered rezoning" which stipulates that a convenience store will be
constructed on the site; the rezoning has a site plan attached to it. He mentioned that there was a
meeting held approximately one year ago, whereby all parties involved — including county
engineering, the county attorney's staff, county planning, and the applicant — met to discuss
problems with the site. Mr. Payne said that problems that were mentioned at that time have now
been addressed by the developer. He noted that the critical slopes issue had been raised in the
1970's by the county engineer, who said then that the critical slopes regulations are "not intended to
prohibit to develop on these critical slopes; they are intended to require sensitive treatment of them."
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Payne if he would be willing to request a deferral to January 11 ', 2000 in
order to allow the Commission to get information directly from the engineering department at that
meeting or before then.
Mr. Payne responded that he did not feel that was fair, because the item has been scheduled on the
Commission's agenda — as known by staff — for quite a while.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Payne if he wanted to ask for deferral or have the Commission vote.
Mr. Kamptner indicated that the Commission could meet the following week — on December 21s` —
to consider the item.
Mr. Cilimberg noted there was no way to calculate the legal time frame for action on the item
because the project was submitted, revised, re -submitted, revised, etc. "It's not a simple application
to figure the time frame on."
Mr. Payne said, "Our position is that we're entitled to this approval, and this Commission does not
have the authority to deny this site plan unless it doesn't comply with the ordinance. We believe it
does comply with the ordinance."
Mr. Finley said, "Well, it's a waiver. You're requesting a waiver because you are in critical slopes,
so that's normal procedure."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 277
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the Commission wants engineering staff present so that they can answer
*#A. questions the Commission has that aren't addressed in the staff report so that findings can be made
under the applicable code section to grant or deny the waiver.
Commissioners agreed that his statement reflected their reason for needing engineering present.
In
Mr. Rooker said, "Based on the preliminary information that I see here — and I certainly was not a
party to every meeting that Mr. Payne had with staff on this -- I would vote against this, because
you're talking about a huge area of critical slopes ... in a very sensitive area, in an area that's
designated in the Comprehensive Plan RA, not commercial — albeit it is presently zoned commercial
— but unless I was significantly convinced that this critical slope waiver was not in some way acting
to the detriment of the county, then I wouldn't support it. And right now I'm not there ... perhaps
with further discussion with the Engineering Department, I can get there."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "I feel for very much the same reasons that this is a questionable waiver at
this point, and I don't have enough information in the staff report to be able to make a finding
otherwise. It's possible that with more information that could change, but right now, based on
what's in front of me, I couldn't vote to support this waiver."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "It didn't have any vegetation on it when the man made it, and our controls
over erosion and so forth weren't near as good and as detailed as they are today. And so a man is
going to change that slope ... it's not a natural slope..." He added that if the critical slope was such a
detriment to the county, the issue would have been raised by engineering before now, but instead
engineering has stated that the work can be completed in a judicious manner that's going to protect
the watershed area.
Mr. Kamptner mentioned, "The critical slope provisions can't be applied — as the ordinance states —
in a way that would effectively prohibit or unreasonable restrict the use of the property." He
emphasized that Commissioners need to take that into account when making their decision, given the
size and the topography of the piece of property.
Mr. Finley asked if there was a pond to receive runoff.
Mr. Payne replied that the runoff control measures are underground. He mentioned that the drains
are directed into a sand filter for purposes of controlling the quality of the water.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if all of the runoff in that direction is going through the sand filter.
Mr. Payne replied that there is a filter placed to catch the runoff from the parking lot, which was
identified as the critical area for runoff.
Mr. Rooker asked if Buddy Edwards designed the runoff control for the property.
Mr. Payne replied, "This is probably his stamp on it. The county probably had as much input as
anybody."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 278
Mr. Cilimberg noted on a map presented where the sand filter would be placed that would receive
the parking lot runoff. "Most of the critical slopes are natural flow down the slope through an area
that is to be re -vegetated, and ultimately through areas that are wooded in the back."
Mr. Rooker asked how close that is to the Georgetown Green property line.
Mr. Cilimberg said he was unsure where the units in Georgetown Green are in relation to the filter.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the replanting that would be done on the newly created slopes.
Mr. Payne said that the applicant has submitted a conservation plan, as required. He noted that there
was a lot of concern expressed by engineering about the stabilization of the slopes. Mr. Payne said
that Kenny Thacker recommended putting a flat area — landing — at the bottom of the slope to allow
an area to treat the water. He said that fast-growing conifers are planned to be placed on the site.
Mr. Rooker asked if the building is entirely in the critical slope area.
Mr. Payne replied, "It essentially has to be ... because ... this is a very small building area because' of
the setbacks and buffers ... we had to redesign this building to make it fit."
Mr. Rooker asked how much earth is being moved on the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not have the exact calculations, but there is grading that will be
occurring all through the site.
Mr. Payne said it is both cut and fill.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Rooker if the gasoline runoff was his primary concern.
Mr. Rooker said that the gasoline runoff and runoff from the site were his primary concerns, given
the site's location in the reservoir watershed.
Mr. Cilimberg said, "These are all things that are engineering department and water resource folks
were looking at during review ... that is — particularly for development that would occur in the
reservoir watershed going to be a primary emphasis for their review." He noted that there have been
several revisions of the application because of things that had not been addressed. "This went
through some phases to get to a point where all of the departments said it was appropriate."
Mr. Payne emphasized, "The fact that this was in the watershed didn't escape anybody's attention,
and the engineering staff was particularly careful for that reason ... they were as careful as I've ever
seen on a project of this size."
Mr. Rieley said, "There's no reason why — on a site like this — where you can catch up with 2 to 1
slopes — that these slopes cannot be made stable. Nevertheless, I've heard enough questions raised
that I am uncomfortable voting in favor of this without being able to address the Engineering
Department directly. So my inclination is to look at this again as soon as we possibly can." He
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 279
E"
added, "I have great sympathy for the merry-go-round that the applicant has found himself on, but
we are faced with making a decision, and we have several members of the Commission that don't
feel that they have adequate information to go on, and I don't feel comfortable voting in favor of a
project under those circumstances."
Mr. Finley said, "Having heard what it's been through, I think in good faith I have to believe that we
are not going to hear much more from engineering than what we've heard. They've looked at this,
they know it's [in the] watershed....I think in good faith I could go ahead and vote for it, believing
that engineering has covered the bases, and will not allow them to have a runoff that's going to
[adversely] affect our reservoir."
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved for approval of deferral of action on SDP 97-035 to December 21,
1999.
Mr. Kamptner noted that if the county is up against a deadline for approval or denial of the site plan,
staff may have to act in the interim. He said that there is a 10-day "kick -in provision" which the
applicant can pursue their rights in court to force an action if the staff holds off; the Commission's
action on the waiver can be made at an appropriate time, as long as there's a site plan.
Mr. Rooker seconded Mr. Rieley's motion.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if there is a time factor that forces staff action, the final site plan will be
subject to a waiver of critical slopes.
The motion for deferral of SDP 97-035 to December 21St passed unanimously.
Mr. Payne noted for the record that they do not intend to waive their rights for the timeliness of the
approval.
Public Hearing Items
ZTA 99-06
Request to amend 5.1.17 Accessory Tourist Lodging to allow for weddings, special events, corporate
meetings and other events. Staff requests indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of indefinite deferral of ZTA
99-06. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-61 Pinnell Custom Leather
Request for special use permit to allow a craft workshop in accordance with Section 10.2.2.36 of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows for gift, craft, and antique shops. The property, described as Tax
Map 40, Parcel 12, contains 7.953 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on the
west side of Whitehall Road (Route 810) approximately one -quarter mile south of the intersection of
Bearwood Road (Route 811). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Area. Applicant requests deferral to January 25, 2000.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 280
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of deferral of SP 99-61 to
January 25, 2000. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-64 Crozet Baptist Church
Request for special use permit to allow Sunday School/educational class use on the first floor at two
residences owned by Crozet Baptist Church in accordance with Section 18.14.2.2.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for churches. The property, described as Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcel
100, and Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcel 82, contains 4.086 acres, and is located in the White Hall
Magisterial District on Saint George Avenue [Route 1202]. The site is located approximately 1000
feet from the intersection of Route 810. The property is zoned R-2, Residential. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, noting that the request is to bring a non -conforming church into
conformity, and allow expansion of the church use for Sunday School/educational classes on the first
floor of two residences owned by the church. The residences are located next to the church and
across the street from the church. The county building inspector has approved the use of the first
floor for the use requested by the applicant, and has established the opinion that the proposed use
would not be of any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Approval is recommended with
conditions noted in the staff report.
Public comment was invited.
�"" The applicant, Dr. Roy Thomas, addressed the Commission, and thanked Mr. Wade for his help with
the application. Mr. Thomas said that the church accepts the recommendation with the stated
conditions.
09
Mr. Rieley asked how the upper floors in the residences are used.
Mr. Thomas said that in the brick parsonage, the upstairs is not used at all; the white frame
parsonage adjacent to the church is currently a missionary residence for those on furlough, and will
continue to be a single-family residence. He indicated that they are asking for the special use permit
now so if in the future the first floor is needed for educational classes, they will not have to reapply.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley commented that the church is located on a "particularly nice street in Crozet," and
expressed his hope that there will be curb, gutter & sidewalks along that section sometime in the
near future.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SP 99-64 with conditions as
presented by staff.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there should be something in the conditions reflecting the use of just the
first floor.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 281
M
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that there should be something in the conditions regarding the limitations.
Mr. Kamptner said that it is good to be as specific as possible in situations where there might be a
question about the use.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann amended his motion to include an additional condition stating "The use
of the residences/parsonages for Sunday School/educational classes shall be permitted only on the
first floor of each residence/parsonage on Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcel 81 & 100." Mr.
Loewenstein seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-65 Pegasus Motorcar
Request for a special use permit to allow an additional exterior display area to accommodate five (5)
vehicles, in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for outdoor
storage, display and/or sales of vehicles in the Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax
Map 78 Parcel 5G, contains 1.264, .06 acres of which would be affected by the special use permit.
The property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at the northeast corner of the intersection
of Richmond Road [Route 250 East] with Stony Point Road [Route 20]. The property is zoned
Highway Commercial (HC) and Entrance Corridor (EC). The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property for Regional Service in Development Area 3. A minor site plan amendment has been
submitted in association with the request.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report, noting that the proposal will create an additional area of
automobile display at the existing Pegasus showroom at the corner of Route 250 and Route 20; the
proposed display area would be situated between the existing building and Route 250 at the
southeast corner of the site. She indicated that the display area would not be paved, and would
accommodate no more than five cars; a special use permit is required because it is outdoor display in
the Entrance Corridor. The ARB has reviewed this request, and recommends approval with
conditions; the applicant has recently submitted a revised plan which meets the conditions of
approval so a Certificate of Appropriateness can now be issued. Staff recommends approval with
conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant's representative, John Gorman of Shearan Architects, addressed the Commission. He
said that they have worked on one problematic issue to the satisfaction of the county, and have
arrived at a mutually acceptable solution.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SP 99-65 as presented by
staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 282
Work Session: Six -Year Secondary Road Plan
Mr. Wade presented the plan, and apologized for the delay in getting the plan to the Commission.
He noted that the projected cost for the Meadowcreek Parkway has increased from $10.2 million to
$16.7 million, and stated that the funding shift has changed the estimated completion dates of several
projects. Mr. Wade mentioned that staff has added the inclusion of the Route 708 overpass into the
plan, as requested by the County School Board. Mr. Wade said that as directed by the Board, staff
has also included an unpaved road policy in the plan.
Mr. Finley commented that the property owners on the opposite side of a dangerous section on
Route 667 which included a right-angle turn next to a rock quarry at 14-15% slope were willing to
give right-of-way. "I cannot understand why they don't carry that road all the way through that extra
mile, as dangerous as it is, as steep as it is. And there is right-of-way available."
Mr. Wade said that the project has been explored for a couple of years, and the information before
the Commission was presented last year. He said that the Board was reluctant to move forward with
it because there were some people who did not want the road paved at all, and decided that if things
develop before the plan is advertised for public hearing, necessary action would be taken.
Mr. Finley commented that over half of the people who oppose the paving already live on paved
roads. "The most dangerous part of the road is the part that's not being paved, and two school buses
go up and down that road every day."
Mr. Rooker asked if the priorities set out in "Attachment B" — which was approved by the Board in
October 1998 — remain exactly the same this year.
Mr. Wade replied that there have been changes in the order of priorities, but there have been no new
projects added except for Route 708 as previously mentioned. He indicated that in case of roads
such as Old Ivy Road (Route 601), where there is uncertainty about what to do, other priorities are
moved ahead. Mr. Wade noted that after receiving new traffic counts on unpaved roads, staff
prioritized plans based on a criteria -based rating system, which also prompted changes in priorities.
Mr. Rooker asked about Georgetown Road improvements.
Mr. Benish responded that there was a citizen task force four or five years ago, which recommended
maintaining the road as a two-lane roadway, with possible considerations of center and right turn -
lanes as necessary. He stated that the improvements will be urban reconstruction with curb & gutter,
sidewalks and bike lanes if the right-of-way permits; most of the roads that intersect Georgetown
have turn lanes now. Mr. Benish confirmed that the paved path would be replaced by a sidewalk
with curb & gutter, and mentioned that the right-of-way available restricted placement of sidewalks
on both sides.
Mr. Wade commented that the project has remained basically the same, but VDOT got a better grip
on the cost estimate, which increased the projected cost by $1 million.
Mr. Benish noted that the road is a possible candidate for T-21 grants, similar to the Rugby Road
projects.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 283
on
Mr. Benish mentioned that Route 601 dropped from priority 9 to 12 because of the county's inability
to figure out what to do with the railroad pass, adding that "because of the delay caused by this
additional cost of the Meadowcreek Parkway, we did not want other projects such as Jarman's Gap
Road, Free State Road project, and the Sunset Avenue improvements to be delayed any longer than
had to be. Since we weren't sure what we were going to do on Ivy Road, it seemed to make sense to
allow those other projects to advance quicker."
Mr. Rooker asked about project appearing higher on the list that have later completion dates than
other projects that appear further down on the list.
Mr. Benish said that the list tries to recognize that regardless of available funds, a project is a high
priority. "As we have opportunities to advance the project through various other mechanisms other
than the six -year plan, we have it appropriately prioritized relative to other projects to justify those
sort of things — public/private partnerships, grants, and things of that nature. But in the meantime, it
does allow us to bank some money into the projects ... [and] allows us to plan for it."
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the increasing projected cost of the Meadowcreek Parkway.
Mr. Benish responded that the cost estimate for Phase 2 has an inflationary factor.
Mr. Wade said that the cost increases at about 4-5% per year, and mentioned that the county has
hired a consultant for the Parkway project, and will be able to provide a more accurate number.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that when the Western Bypass project environmental impact study had been
completed, there was a committee of city/county/university representatives that reached an
agreement for the sequence of projects that would occur to deal with the traffic on Route 29.
Completing improvements that were already planned for the Route 29 area in the CAT study was at
the top of priorities; the second priority was building three interchanges on Route 29 — Hydraulic,
Greenbriar, and Rio Road — which would alleviate some level of service problems at those three
roads. He said that the third priority was building the Meadowcreek Parkway to its full extent from
29 into the City, as the two projects listed in the current six -year plan would do; then, based on how
those project would deal with the 29 traffic, a decision could be made on when to build a Western
Bypass. "That all fell apart after 1990."
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Board has continued to stress the importance of the Meadowcreek
Parkway in dealing with the problems of increasing traffic from north into the City. He said that the
Board asked in the 1990's that the Parkway be put in the primary plan, but VDOT and the
Commonwealth Transportation Board have never approved it as primary. "We've kind of been left
with the secondary plan in the program as the only place to get Meadowcreek Parkway built....based
on the sheer cost of it, that means ... it's going to take a long while before it would be under
construction unless we get it built in some other way."
Mr. Rooker said that the situation is "somewhat political," as the County has repeatedly requested at
the Culpeper hearings that the Parkway be considered a primary project.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999 284
on
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Parkway has had to compete with a whole different set of projects in the
entire Culpeper region.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of recommendation of the
six -year secondary road plan as presented by staff to the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that if there is anything that staff can do regarding the Consent Agenda process
to make it easier for the Commission to make decisions on it. He said that Commissioners had
agreed to let staff know by Monday before the meeting date of any item in question on the Consent
Agenda for the next day's meeting.
Old Business
Mr. Finley and Mr. Cilimberg reported that they had met with the Director of the City Planning
Department, and Chairman of the City Planning Commission. Mr. Finley and Mr. Cilimberg
indicated that they would be meeting again in February, and eventually both Commissions would
meet jointly.
Mr. Rooker asked if anything had been discussed regarding the Sperry Marine property.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Sperry and K-Mart properties had been discussed, but no information
was available on either site.
Mr. Rooker apologized for having the Commission come back the following week for a meeting.
New Business
Commissioners said good-bye to Mr. Nitchmann, as this was his last meeting after eight years of
service on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said it had been a pleasure serving on the Commission, and appreciated all of the
differing viewpoints from fellow Commissioners.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 14, 1999
285